Instigator / Pro
4
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#1667

Abortion should be legal

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
1

After 5 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

SkepticalOne
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Description

PGA (Peter) and I will take on the abortion debate. Neither of us will be arguing an absolute position and understand there must be room for nuance. Peter allows abortion when the mother's life is threatened by pregnancy. I accept Roe V Wade has laid out reasonable limits on abortion. I anticipate our main point of contention will be, not in the fringe, but, where abortion is most common. Ie. Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. I will argue this should be legal, and Peter will argue against it. Each debater will have their own burden to meet.

There will be no new arguments in the final round - only rebuttal and closing.

-->
@Barney

I am afraid it's way simpler haha

We have a new team member that finds the best content and publishes it in the social networks :)

-->
@DebateArt.com

I assumed it was automatically generated by some type of formula (possibly tied to how many comments this debate had), and posted to Facebook. How did it actually get made?

-->
@Barney

I am not sure I follow, what do you mean? What formula? ^_^

-->
@DebateArt.com

Not the biggest deal, but the formula used to generate the following could use a little refinement: https://www.facebook.com/debateartcom/posts/2612517185666023

-->
@PGA2.0

I don't know if that is chosen by person or automated program. I lean toward the latter given the awful misquote attributed to me and the number of comments on this debate.

-->
@SkepticalOne

I wonder how that happened, SkepticalOne? (^8

-->
@Barney
@PGA2.0

Awesome! We made it to social media, Peter! 😁

Although - they need to quote me correctly!

-->
@SkepticalOne

Not sure what part of this whole thing generated this: https://www.facebook.com/debateartcom/posts/2612517185666023

-->
@PGA2.0

"I stated a biblical truth"

You stated a theological view based on the opinions presented in the Bible. There is no objective way to verify this claim.

"I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity"

You claim your belief as the basis of your epistemology, but in actuality you generally borrow from an epistemological view which does not require a god. I doubt you're closing your eyes when crossing a road or driving your car - that's because your senses inform you of the world around you - not gods.

Where your belief does come into play you get the wrong answers ...evolution, for instance. Granted these could be just your personal failings and a 'divine epistimology' is a true, but it's clear you have difficulty differentiating between divine knowledge and personal ignorance. Furthermore, you damage your claims of god as the basis of knowledge when you attribute your ignorance to 'His' knowledge.

That being said, I fully admit my own ignorance and try to correct it as I find it. However, my ignorance doesn't substantiate your claim anymore than your ignorance proves whatever epistemological view I might advocate.

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely."

I stated a biblical truth. I believed you knew that teaching. It was not something I made up out of the blue. This is the teaching of Scripture, that there is a foundation that is right and true and noble, per the Bible, but,

Psalm 11:3
If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?

If you destroy or attempt to destroy this foundation then what will you use to replace it? Please answer this question.

Matthew 7:24[ The Two Foundations ] “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Jesus taught two foundations, one solid and reliable, the other built on sinking sand.

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

Matthew 21:42Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

The cornerstone was the first stone laid and a key to the structure of the building.

Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

There is a time when no greater authority can be appealed to, thus when you appeal to authority is your authority circular too? "Science proves science." "Logic proves logic." Is that circular? In the case of God, a Being who knows all things, how could there be a greater authority of appeal? Eventually, all things point to God as the Originator or Creator of them.

What is your foundation of epistemology? Is it yourself, perhaps, or science, or reason (whose)?

Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."

Jesus is the foundation of epistemology per such biblical statements as John 14:6; John 16:30; John 21:17; or Colossians 2:3. Whether you choose to accept this is another matter. You know the Bible says those things. I do not see fit to explain to you something you already understand. It is not only me saying that He is the foundation of our understanding. It is not just one biblical author who spoke of such things, and many such authors said they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection.

1 John 1-3 (NASB)
Introduction, The Incarnate Word
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have SEEN with our eyes, what we have LOOKED AT and TOUCHED with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have SEEN and HEARD we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

There are only a few possibilities for origins:
1. Creation.
2. Chance happenstance.
3. Eternal existence.
4. Illusion.

Perhaps you can think of more (name them), but which makes sense to you? That brings me back to a statement I make often. I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity.

-->
@Alec

I would think comprehensive sex ed would be our first priority.

"The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections and diseases. Only 38 of America’s 50 states have sex education laws, and 30 of those curricula promote the ideal of abstinence until marriage. Only eight include all components of a comprehensive sex education."

https://scholars.org/contribution/why-sex-education-united-states-needs-update-and-how-do-it

-->
@PGA2.0

You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely.

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "I am not questioning Christianity specifically, but merely asking about an epistemological claim. Lashng out at me doesn't make your assertions true."

I have explained what my epistemology is based upon. I have explained it from a philosophical and logical perspective. I could have taken other aspects of proof but I based it upon your Post 207 query and charge.

Can't we just skyrocket funds to planned parenthood so they make better contraception and therefore eliminate abortions pretty much entirely?

-->
@PGA2.0

I am not questioning Christianity specifically, but merely asking about an epistemological claim. Lashng out at me doesn't make your assertions true.

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "This tangent can be summarized as such:
Person A: How do you logically support belief X [Christianity]?
Person B [a Christian] attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief [Christianity] by questioning person A [an atheist/agnostic] on assumed belief Y [atheism]. Additionally, Person B [a Christain] suggests a book [the Bible], [1] which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.
[2] Even if Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate belief Y [atheism/agnosticism], it does not follow belief X [Christianity] of person B [a Christian] is substantiated. [3] Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. [4] Finally, the summary above is overly generous. [5] PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, [6] but *his interpretation* of the Bible. [7] PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, [8] but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.

Please remember where this tangent came from. SKONE said,

Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."

[1] Again, I questioned Person A [an atheist] on his ultimate authority and on the consistency of such said authority in regards to the surety and necessity of knowing. I questioned how his relativism and subjectivism is the necessary standard in understanding epistemology in such areas as origins of the universe, life from non-life, morality, and existence. I'm trying to get to the basics of his claims about my beliefs and his own as to which is more reasonable - the core or foundational starting points to there coherency and correspondency. S I L E N C E
[2] If Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate his own belief is reasonable nor can he prove Person B's [the Christian] beliefs are not why should his charges be taken seriously? I have given reasons for my belief system as to knowledge is reasonable from where I start and what is NECESSARY, yet SKONE has not.
[3] The either-or fallacy/false dilemma. The "claim" comes from those who do not believe what the Bible states as an ultimate authority from which there is no greater. Thus, it becomes a test of belief systems as to reason and verification of authority and to what is necessary to know. Two contrary authorities are not both right. Are we created or are we here by chance happenstance? Which is more reasonable? The biblical evidence comes from both the internal and external consistency of what is stated that can be related to human history to a large extent but it drives way deeper in answering the question of why are we here and how did we get here? It also comes from a revelation of necessary Being of which neither SKONE nor myself are. From basic questions, worldviews are framed. Thus, the basics are what we need to examine as to the logic and sense in such belief systems.
[4] You framed it.
[5] SKONE said, "PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views" but from the Christian standpoint I am created in the image and likeness of God and I am using what he has given me (reason and logic) to understand His creation. My point has been that neither of us is neutral in our belief system and yet from Person A's [the atheist/agnostic] starting points, his foundational beliefs, how can he make sense of any of this in his subjectivity of origins, morality, life from non-life, and existence? He is trying to convince the reader that his position is "better" and more "reliable" to believe than my framework to which I scoff. Let us peel away the veneer to see what lies beneath the surface. Does SKONE's belief system have what is necessary for knowledge, or is he using my Christian framework?
[6] Regarding interpretation, I have asked SKONE if a language has meaning in context? If not, then how can we understand anything? If so, then there is a correct interpretation. If SKONE wishes to question me on my interpretation I have given him some verses that support my position regarding knowledge. I have also questions his starting points or foundations as to validity. Do his core presuppositions have what is necessary?
[7] Most definitely.
[8] They get to the heart of the issue. SKONE is asking me to validate how I can know Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I have explained the biblical REVELATION has what is necessary to know. I have also said that SKONE does not have what is necessary. Why should I believe his personal opinion or where he derives it from unless he can show it is necessary for truth and knowledge. S I L E N C E

-->
@PGA2.0

This tangent can be summarized as such:

Person A: How do you logically support belief X?

Person B attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief by questioning person A on assumed belief Y. Additionally, Person B suggests a book, which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.

Even if Person A cannot substantiate belief Y, it does not follow belief X of person B is substantiated. Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. Finally, the summary above is overly generous. PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, but *his interpretation* of the Bible. PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Furthermore, you said you do not want to go down my rabbit holes (which I view as a simple dismissal of my points without a warrant). This still begs the question of if your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-encompassing and you can't point to any that meets this criterion that has been revealed to humanity, again, why should I have faith in your belief system as anything other than the blind leading the blind?

Again, you have not shown me why your worldview is consistent with the preconditions for knowledge. If you do not have a comprehensive knowledge of how all things are connected and holds together how can you have any certainty of the origins of the universe, life, morality, existence? Again, my worldview has the necessary preconditions - God, your does not.

Regarding morality, I have questioned your preconditions for morality in our first debate on abortion and I never saw your defence as plausible. I questioned your morality in regard to the law in this debate and I again never saw your defence as plausible but contradictory once again. It did not even meet the criterion of being self-evidently true. You argued for all humanity being equal then undermined the very concept of equality by not treating every human equally.

-->
@SkepticalOne

I would like to follow up on one of your statements to do with epistemology. Here it is:

SKONE: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."

I find it ironic that you suggest God is not (and I speak of the Christian God).

What is your basis for knowledge? How can it be an absolute certainty?

What is the necessary precondition for your reasoning? Is it an omniscient being who has revealed themself? If not it is inconsistent. It begs the question of how it can be known to be the actual case if not. So point to this being. I question your subjective mind as the criteria for knowledge just as I question other subjective, relative human beings as the foundation for certainty of knowledge. I reason that your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-knowing, thus, it misses the mark. So, please explain why I can trust it? Mine, on the other hand, has what is necessary. Thus, it is internally consistent as the precondition for knowledge.

IOW's, I want to know why your authority is justifiable if it is not the absolute authority for reason and knowledge?

-->
@SkepticalOne

ME: "The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (e.g. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings, are created in His image and likeness; thus, we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."

SKONE: "So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective."

I base my interpretation on many simply stated passages of Scripture. Would you like to dispute that, or are you merely saying that there is no correct interpretation of Scripture or no objective understanding of any sentence (i.e., words in context have no meaning)?

Regarding authority and reason, where does your ultimate authority derive from; for example, the standard in which truth is measured? There is no neutrality here. What standard do you commit to?

Now, what if the Bible (stated as God's word) is my ultimate authority? Why is your secular or religious authority "better?"

Is 'reason' your ultimate authority (circular and subjective - "My reason is that reason is necessary for understanding.")? Is it science (circular - "I believe in science because science gives sufficient reason for the truth.")?

SKONE: "And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (i.e. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'."

And you bet I'll question you along the lines in which you are examining me.

All can observe and examine the Bible. It claims knowledge of God is evident in it, but men suppress the truth of it.

KNOWLEDGE about God comes from it.

Romans 1:18-22
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPPRESS the TRUTH in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is KNOWN ABOUT God is EVIDENT WITHIN THEM; for God made it EVIDENT TO THEM. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became FUTILE IN THEIR SPECULATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Because of the unbeliever's suppression and rejection of God's knowledge the Word becomes foolish to them.

1 Corinthians 2:11-14 (NASB)
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

ULTIMATE AUTHORITY is derived through our relationship with Jesus Christ.

Matthew 28:18 (NASB)
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ALL authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Colossians 2:3b-4
resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

SKONE: "I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?"

You side-stepped engaging with my questions very nicely!

-->
@PGA2.0

"The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."

So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective.

And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (ie. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'.

I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?

-->
@SkepticalOne

The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Sorry, I missed this last part, but it is already answered.

YOU: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."

The necessary basis for true knowledge is God. That is because, as I stated, He has the criterion of omniscience, eternality, and immutability - the final reference point and measure. Can we discover that knowledge without His written revelation? When we think His thoughts after Him - yes.

-->
@SkepticalOne

YOU: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities." (Post 218)
ME: "Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?
First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?" (Post 219)
YOU: "I'm not running down the rabbit holes, buddy. Either you can back the assertion I questioned, or you cant. You're dodging the question." (Post 222)

I am willing to demonstrate why the biblical God makes sense if you are willing to discuss these gods or god in relation to the biblical God as to the reasonableness of the different positions? Give me a couple of what you consider the most reasonable scenarios. How do they fit into the eight questions of Post 222? Better yet, give me some detail of your own position so I can contrast it with the biblical position.

SKONE: "I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question."

You've asserted (just like I have to the contrary) there are more options but IF the Bible is true (and I state it that way because of your doubts) it states something exclusively - the biblical God is the one and only true God. Now, if you believe Jesus (the Trinity) is not the true God but there are many gods then list your god or gods so we can compare and contrast our beliefs. In this way, I can demonstrate to you why my belief is reasonable in comparison to your belief. That is the best I can do other than to state that knowledge or true justified belief would require a revelation from an ultimate, omniscient, unchanging Being since we are not that being.

If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "We're not on the same street! 😂"

That is for sure. (^8

YOU: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling." (Post 207)
YOU: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation?" (Post 208)
ME: "The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?" (Response to Post 207)
"A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point." (NINE listed - Post 209 in response to Post 208)
ME: "The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?" (Post 210)
YOU: "I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead..." (Post 212)
ME: "Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved." (Post 213)
YOU: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?" (Post 214)
ME: "See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance." (Post 215)
YOU: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an EMPIRICIST, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view." (Post 216)
ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?
An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical...
As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past." (Post 217)

-->
@PGA2.0

We're not on the same street! 😂

I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question.

If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Two-way street.

-->
@PGA2.0

I'm not running down the rabbit holes, buddy. Either you can back the assertion I questioned, or you cant. You're dodging the question.

-->
@SkepticalOne

ME: "A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."

SKONE: "No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies."

No reason to apologize. The Apostle Peter said to be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks the disciple to give account. I understand you are testing or challenging my truth claims to which I in turn challenge you to prove the possibility of the contrary in making sense of a truth claim without first presupposing God. To do so you will have to get specific about your own belief system of thought to its sensibility.

ME: "The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."

SKONE: "Another assertion."

Yes, but I am willing to demonstrate it. How have you challenged it? A comment box does not give much space needed to do so. I am stating again what I believe and if necessary I am willing to justify my CLAIMS if challenged.

I do not see the challenge accepted by you in explaining Post 209 or elsewhere. We are trying to make sense of existence and in the case of abortion why the pro-choice argument is morally "right."

-->
@SkepticalOne

ME: "An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."

SKONE: "I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation."

You are contradicting the definition of empiricism and confuse it with rationalism. Here it is:

Definition of empiricism
1a: a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory
b: quackery, charlatanry
2a: the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences
b: a tenet arrived at empirically
3: a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism#other-words

2 and 3 apply here, especially 3.

"All knowledge originates in experience."

That is, the senses - seeing, touching, tasting, hearing, and smell.

"Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience)."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html

"Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”"
https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism

How do you empirically verify things like the laws of logic through empiricism, since you state you are an empiricist?

POST 216: "I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated." Demonstrate the laws of logic empirically.

-->
@SkepticalOne

ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"

SKONE: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities."

Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?

So, let's get specific. I'll borrow from some Bahnsen presuppositionalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1PwuvDGuY&list=PLFCE0E452DB4851A4).

First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?

-->
@PGA2.0

"Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"

False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities.

"An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."

I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation.

"A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."

No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies.

"The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."

Another assertion.

"As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past."

It's ok to say you can't show god is the basis of knowledge, but it is your belief. (that seems to be the case). You don't need to explain your entire belief system - that's not what was asked.

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response."

A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be.

SKONE: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated."

Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?

An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical.

SKONE: "2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view."

The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe. A materialistic one does not. Just look into the core presuppositions of both and try to make sense of materialism. A position devoid of God that espouses abortion and woman's rights falls nicely into such a category, IMO. It borrows from relativism in foistering its ideas on the gullible, IMHO. (^8

As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past.

-->
@PGA2.0

I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response.
1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view.

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.
Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands."

ME: "I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"

SKONE: "No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question."

You assigned a 'bald assertion' to me in the following, so I showed you it can be framed either way, with my view or the contrary position.
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct?"

You said it was a bald assertion. (your statement)

Thus, I explained to you why I thought the assertion was reasonable from a philosophical standpoint. I did not touch on historical or archaeological evidence but I did on the aspects of scientism, explaining that these models of origins such as evolution and the universe are rife with problems.

Since you never delved into these issues further but continued with your own assertions there was no need to continue along these previously stated lines of reasoning and investigation. Your worldview is just as guilty. You continue to pass the buck to me neglecting the flaws of your own position. When you ask a question or make a statement I try to answer them to the best of my ability.

SKONE: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?"

See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance.

-->
@PGA2.0

Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.

Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands.

"I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"

No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question. Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?
By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set."

You are confusing two different senses in which the word or sentence is understood. I have noticed this occurrence before on this forum.

"Abortion SHOULD be legal" is expressing an obligation or MORAL ought to do something, under the penalty of the law, a moral imperative. Should in the sense you are using it in those three examples is in the form of a question, a query on whether to do something or not to do it. It is not an explicit statement when used the one way but most definitely is the other way. (Try again)

***

PGA: "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion."

SKONE: "I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer."

I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you if you want to frame something this way. Either Jesus is the foundation for epistemology (i.e., God) or He is not. It can't be both and either way you want to state it falls into this fallacious trap. Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved.

I can assert 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. As it happens, one of those two assertions would be true to what is the case.

-->
@PGA2.0

PGA: Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion.

I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer.

-->
@PGA2.0

Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?

By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set.

-->
@SkepticalOne

These things do not tie directly into the topic at hand, but indirectly they are relevant because of your word/term "should." "Should" is tied to morality and morality is tied to personal beings. The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?"

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."

It works both ways. The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?

Your view of things is very sketchy.

A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point. Materialism does not because of its starting points. Thus, belief in Jesus is reasonable on the extreme unlikelihood or impossibility of the contrary. Here are just a few of materialism starting points off the top of my head:
1) It has no reason or logic because it is not mindful.
2) It does not have a basis for morality since there is no final or fixed reference point.
3) It cannot explain consciousness. Somehow conscious is derived from the non-conscious.
4) There is no 'why' involved.
5) It has no agency or intentionality. There is no reason for the uniformity of nature. Uniformity somehow is derived from chance happenstance. Thus, it does not make sense. How does something that lacks intent (mindfulness) sustain anything constantly?
6) The worldview presupposes all these things witnessed are possible from mindless matter (while using consciousness and mindfulness in their comprehension).
7) The explanation for evolution, as with origins of the universe, is by mindful beings in the present interpreting things from the past. Thus, to an extent, we have to imagine that the conditions in the past are similar or the same as the conditions in the past, and the present is the key to the past.
8) There is no reason anything exists. It just is.
9) Such a worldview has no hope.

So, you are welcome to it but I will say no thanks, I think it is foolish to base existence on such beliefs.

SKONE: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation? ..Or is that not what you're saying?
Instigator"

Without belief in God, we live in a state of relativism and subjectivity. Our minds are finite and limited in what we can know and how we know it regarding purpose, meaning, and value, as well as the certainty of origins, even though there are lots of clues. Without God, we cannot make sense of these things from such a materialistic and impersonal basis. A belief in God has what is necessary to know what is certain. The Bible claims to be a revelation from and of God. Jesus claimed to be God and did what God did. The Scriptures have many reasonable proofs that confirm what is said is true. Thus, belief in Jesus is a reasonable and rational belief. It has what is necessary for rationality and logic. Materialism does not.

-->
@PGA2.0

Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation? ..Or is that not what you're saying?

-->
@PGA2.0

Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling.

-->
@SkepticalOne

SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."

PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."

SKONE: "Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me."

It does go back to your starting presuppositions, where and how things originate. When you build on the wrong foundation your data gets skewed. An error here and there can magnify the complexity and error of thought. While you and I are very capable of thinking true things, when one builds their worldview on a rotten foundation then error compiles upon error and the whole thing is in danger of collapsing. Such is the case when the foundation gets shaken, as Jesus taught in Matthew 7:24-29. Once it collapses you can check the rubble and analyze its inadequate materials, sometimes things you don't notice while the structure still stands and you are living in it. At other times you know the material is not good but you cut costs and invest in weaker materials that cause the fateful collapse.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+7%3A24-29&version=NASB;NIV;ESV

-->
@PGA2.0

SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."

PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."

Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me.

-->
@SkepticalOne

ME: "My belief can be demonstrated."

SKONE: "You[r] beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism."

Some aspects of the Bible are literal, others are figurative, others speak of the spiritual realm; some speak of this world and others speak of the world to come. Our world is physical in nature. The heavenly realm is a spiritual realm. The two realms are not the same, but I can rely on God's word in understand there is a difference.

***

ME: "Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea."

SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."

Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies.

-->
@PGA2.0

"Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea."

I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it.

-->
@PGA2.0

"My belief can be demonstrated."

You beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea.

-->
@SkepticalOne

ME: "The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?"

SKONE: "I don't intend to mock you, Peter. I consider us to be friends. Although, I cannot control what the audience says or does. If you'd rather not debate this subject, I understand."

***

No, it is not a question of whether I will debate. I will. It is a question of minds already are made up and so that bias is brought into the debate, any debate unless you are playing devil's advocate. Even then, I doubt the position is fairly argued or judged. There is no neutrality, which Jesus made very clear. He said to His disciples that they were either for Him or against Him. Jesus said that either you build your worldview on God - the solid rock - or your build it on the sand.

SKONE: "It seems you are irritated by close-mindedness in those who accept evolution while admitting your own close-mindedness to anything beyond your beliefs. Shouldn't you be open to changing your views if you expect your interlocutors to do the same?"

We are all limited in our knowledge of things, apart from God - a necessary being for knowing the truth of origins, of which you include macroevolution. We only see in part. What irritates me is that you think your belief, apart from God, is true yet mine is the one scoffed at. I have challenged you to demonstrate this as the case, not just believed to be so. I have argued many times with many people that they can't with certainty. I have also argued that God is necessary for certainty in such things. Without Him, we are in a sea of relativism with no ultimate purpose or meaning.