Of course there is. I have written lots on this, and so have many other people. I already linked you to one of my articles why animal death before the Fall would be contrary to God’s nature: https://creation.com/animal-cruelty
Why not? What is it within your “worldview” that makes it impossible for accurate beliefs about reality to be more likely to promote survival than inaccurate beliefs? Let me guess, that’s just another assumption you make?
True, I don’t, except my own existence. Neither do you. Having absolute certainty in your knowledge is impossible. The difference between us is that I understand that, and you just assume it’s not impossible, assume that there’s a God, assume that this God can make you certain about it, and then assume you already have it because God did give it to you.
The only thing you have that I do not is just more assumptions. It’s ridiculous.
What do you mean by “bridge”? The Bible says that light can have no fellowship with darkness, nor truth with error. Maybe you could clarify your intent?
You just proved my point.
And that’s the problem. So many theists want certainty and definitive answers when no such answer exists and they think positing God gives them that definitive answer. I mean how do you know you’re reading scripture and not The Very Hungry Caterpillar? You don’t have any certain knowledge of anything either.
I already explained that to you. Within my worldview, my ability to know truth is designed by the same God that designed the cosmos we live in–a God incapable of mistakes or errors and able to ensure his purposes are accomplished.
But that was my point. We agree! Your worldview only allows for probabilities and conjectures, not knowledge.
Like Descartes, you are still not being skeptical enough. Cogito Ergo Sum already presupposes the validity of logic itself. If logic is an illusion to help us survive, then you cannot even be certain that you really exist. Perhaps, like Elon Musk has speculated, our whole universe is just a simulation.. Or maybe it’s all just an incoherent dream being had by no one. Without God to uphold a consistent logic throughout creation, the belief in universal laws of logic becomes just one more unjustified ‘brute fact’ you must presuppose.
I’m fine with this. Living my life by probabilities has worked out well for me.
You just ignored my question and attempted to score rhetorical points-- the very thing you were just speaking out against. It looks like you aren’t here for ‘bridge-building’ either.
Thank you for clarifying your point.
I think you should stick with the Vegetarian scenario.
Your fixation on no death contradicts millions of sedimentary layers, filled with dead things… all older than 6000 years… in fact MOSTLY older than 6000 years.
You are on the wrong side of the Biblical historical discussion … and it will be a lot like when generations from now your great great grandkids will say:
“Yes, he was America’s version of a flat-earther. Loved his family, but was blinkered when it came to understanding God’s natural world.”
How do you know this? Scripture? Remember it could be The Very Hungry Caterpillar
This is really what it’s all about. The Bible says what it says. You are disbelieving on the basis of assumptions about sediments. The reality is that those layers were put there by the Flood, not by gradual processes. Case in point.
Logic is a brute fact. And that is agreed upon by most scholars. Both theist and non-theist alike. Please explain to me how the law of noncontradiction could not exist.
And your belief that there is a God that “uphold[s] a consistent logic throughout creation”*, is somehow not an unjustified “brute fact” you must presuppose?
*Whatever that even means, it seems to be treating logic as if it was a physical force like a gravitational field. There is no end to the madness of incoherence your posts contain. I have nothing more to say that I have not already. I’m satisifed I have exposed to anyone who isn’t already a presuppositionalist the utter intellectual poverty that it is based on. Thank you again, @PDPrice, for having made that so unusually easy.
I presuppose one thing only: The Bible is true. Based on that one presupposition, I can live my life consistently and the world makes sense. As CS Lewis stated, Christianity is the light by which we see everything else.
You, on the other hand, have a laundry list of disconnected presuppositions. Logic. Sense perception. Human reasoning. Uniformity of nature. Each one unjustified by any of the others.
So yes, we both must use presuppositions. But mine starts with one thing (The Bible is true), and all these others flow elegantly from that one. I’ll take the more elegant solution (via Ockham’s Razor). God is the one answer that makes sense of all the world’s questions.
Well if human reasoning is reliable all those others would seem to fall in line. So I guess the only presupposition I make is human reasoning is reliable
I’m using my reasoning to determine logic is a brute fact, that our sense perception is reliable and while the uniformity of nature may be be evidence favoring Theism, there are many other facts about nature that favor naturalism
I also feel like this is another thing you’re only going to have a superficial understanding of. I recommend Sober’s book on it
That is not the case. We could have a perfectly good “Reasoning machine”, but machines are only as effective as the input they receive. Garbage in, garbage out. We could have a good brain capable of reasoning, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t getting garbage from the universe. Each one of those presuppositions is disconnected from the others. They only find their unification in God.
A brain capable of reasoning would be able to distinguish between reliable information and garbage
You’re presupposing we get reliable information at all. If all we get is unreliable information, there’s nothing to distinguish. You aren’t appreciating that each of these presuppositions is required for knowledge, and each one is independent of the others.