I don't see how you have exclusive rights to an assumption. If you manage to convince anyone of this, you should license it to them.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Look at what was done by Jesus' teaching and the apostles teaching. You'll always have devils and antichrists but.....The church at Corinth didn't have the Word of God, and they certainly were not taught heresy by Paul. Jesus plainly said the mysteries were not for all at that time lest they believe, but that the mysteries were for the disciples. Beyond that, yes, he rebuked the disciples. After 3 years of drilling it into them, can you blame him? Even then they still didn't get it and needed Paul to come along much later and explain it all.

TULIP is the 5 Points of Calvinism, deeply rooted in Reformed Theology and 98%+ the 'church'.

Ignoring the strange idea that the church at Corinth didn't have the word of God (what else did Paul teach them), can I please just confirm that you are saying that the actions of believers as a result of some doctrine determine that doctrine's truth, rather than the propositional content of the doctrine itself? You seem to have agreed that this is the case, and also with my reductio ad absurdum that this entails the falsehood of Scripture, but I'm sure you can't really believe this, so I am confused as to what your position actually is.

As for TULIP, I know what it is—it is the "0.5 point TULIP" which confuses me. Do you mean you believe half a point? Or half of TULIP? Neither seems to make sense, since one cannot half belief a doctrine, or belief two and a half doctrines.

Uniformity is not an assumption in the Christian worldview; it is a fact justified by deduction from the first principle of that worldview (that the Bible is the word of God). In a scientific worldview, on the other hand, there is no first principle which justifies uniformity; thus it is assumed without warrant.

Funny. That's exactly what the atheists are saying these days. You quote Timothy ch. 2, they quote Dawkins ch. 1.

SigmaX

Or Reality ch. and verse.

I honestly don't see that much difference in assuming a statement is true, or assuming a peice of paper on which the statement is written, contains only true statements.

I'm not sure you see that you are still assuming the same total weight in assumuptions... one heavy assumption or several lighter ones.

The deduction is pretty thin, and itself requires some additional assumption (for example the ones I mentioned earlier).

Science has no justification for its beliefs; the Christian has the self-justifying word of God. The scientist has only subjective perceptions and beliefs; the Christian has the objective revealed knowledge of God.

That is the difference.

You're entirely backwards.

Science is eminently justified in its beliefs because science is based upon evidence and backed up with experiments. The formula for the gravity of a planet has been backed up with evidence that g=-9.807 m/s^2.

Religion is entirely based upon a subjective leap of faith (or indoctrination by authority) that one particular set of revelations is correct and all others are wrong (save where they happen to agree).

Redefining terms to mean the opposite of what they have always meant is not a productive method of argument. It only fools the weak-minded. Perhaps this is your target market, eh?

"Reality? You can't handle reality!"
That is my first misquote today.

Here you have shown that you misunderstand both science and religion, as well as faith.
Science is not eminent in anything, neither is it justified, if it presupposes to be objective. (here's a nice essay on the difference between "objective" and "subjective" Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction ) The scientific method is "formulation of hypothesis (guessing) and testing." Origins can not be tested since no one can be there to observe them, therefore we are only left with hypothesis in the scientific method when we talk about origins.
Religion, on the other hand, has a written record which claims to come from an observer, whether you personally choose to accept it or not. That makes it more objective, metaphysically speaking, than science.
Faith, as defined by those who have it, is "the certainty of what we hope for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

Science is about many more things than simply the "origin" question; which can be tested anyway- if one could indeed create life out of non-living substances in the lab in conditions that are likely to exist in nature (ie: an ocean rich in carbon being struck by lightning or some such) it would demonstrate the feasibility of abiogenesis.
Science does test plenty of other things- gravity being a good example.

So you resort to calling hearsay objective?
Also, I'd like to see some factual basis for your choosing the so-called observation of the author of Genesis over the so-called observation of the author of the Bhagdavad-gita.

Neither science nor religion is objective/subjective at all. They're just disciplines. People are objective or not. Most people are not very objective when they talk about either science or religion, but they may be objective about either.

You quoted yourself and said it was me. Please fix this.

The doctrine will overwhelmingly determine the witness. A good tree will overwhelmingly yield good fruit.


I only believe half of the P in TULIP -Perseverance of the saints

I believe Jesus will not lose any that are his. All that are his will either persevere or God will take them out so that their spirit may be saved. Perseverance of the saints starts off on the wrong foot assuming only some are called.

I don't think you know what you're saying. What evidence do you have which justifies the belief in the uniformity of nature? More to the point, what evidence do you have that your evidence is evidence? What evidence do you have that your idea of evidence is correct? And what evidence would justify that evidence?

What terms did I redefine?

People cannot be objective by definition, since they are subjective creatures. The only possible source of objectivity would be a universal and transcendent knowledge-giver (as opposed to knowledge-receiver).

Self-justification is a seductive idea ... but on closer inspection it is merely circular reasoning. X is true ... because of ... X?

If you don't have any assumptions, you need to start looking for circles in your reasoning.

Circular reasoning does not necessitate error. Deduction is circular in the same way that the Bible's self-justification is. The issue you have is not really with the fact that the Bible says it is the word of God, but with the fact that there is no external (ie, non-biblical or extra-biblical) way of justifying this premise. In other words, you are saying that, if one adopts your worldview, the Bible cannot be proved to be the word of God. But since your worldview denies the biblical God in any case, it makes no sense to be objecting in such a way in the first place. Furthermore, since your worldview does not make knowlege possible, because it is built on subjective perceptions rather than objective revelation, and since it cannot justify any of its basic presuppositions, you are in a far worse position as far as circular reasoning goes than I am. My first principle is that the Bible is the word of God—a first principle without which it would be impossible for me to claim knowledge of any kind. Given this epistemic situation, it is by no means an irrational or unreasonable assumption to believe that the Bible is the word of God—on the contrary, since the Bible is necessary to make knowledge possible, it is not an assumption at all, but merely a complex axiom. It is no less sensible and necessary to believe it than it is to believe "I exist" or "P ~(~P)".

Yes. God is the objective knowledge-giver; there is nothing higher than him to justify a proposition, and any proposition given by him is justified by definition. What justification do you claim, on the other hand, for the principle of uniformity?

Your position is so blatantly irrational it's ridiculous. You fly in the face of all reason and logic. To use such words to describe your argument is an insult to reason.

No, your position is so blatantly irrational it's ridiculous. You fly in the face of all reason and logic. To use such words to describe your argument is an insult to God.

Notice that I have given reasoning (albeit briefly) which supports the above assertion. You have not; neither have you engaged with the reasoning I have given. The sort of outburst you just posted is common enough from atheists, but it's still disappointing.

Let's review:

In order to be considered objective, knowledge ultimately has to have a referent in reality. Science, per se, is a hierarchy of knowledge built on (ultimately) empirical reality. Scientific theories and hypotheses ultimately must stand up to the tests of empirical observation. This is the essence of the scientific method.

OTOH, faith does not have the necessity of referents in reality. In fact, faith is often required despite antithetical referents in reality. Faith is ultimately a personal, subjective decision to believe without regard to evidence.

Ultimately, "revealed knowledge" cannot be considered objective, or else it would not require revelation. Therefore, your definitions are necessarily ass-backwards.

Ref: Objectivity [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

I reject the premise, and the burden of proof rests on you. Are you up to the challenge?