March 5, 2009

Foreordination and Human Responsibility

This is one of Dr. Greg Bahnsen's lectures for us. Pass the popcorn, this should be good.


I will remain hopeful you will listen to all of this lecture, but if it's too long go to the 60 minute mark and listen from there.

28 comments:

  1. And who is this supposed supernatural entity, "God" that the dead one refers to?

    He can argue until he shits golden mini-bricks all these high faluting metaphysical, abstract, theoretical and abstruse quasi- philosophies, yet he never once is able to establish the veracity of his first assumption which renders the balance of the argument null and void.

    As is shown by you, Dan, there are plenty of people that like to come around here and argue ad finitum philosophical inferrences, but at the end of the day, all you have is a philosophy. That philosophy is the TAG and as a proof for the logical necessity of God, the TAG fails.

    Suppose I say that there is an indigo colored Preying Mantis that lives in the closet in my den and he is the giver of all truth and blah, blah, blah, blah......"Hold it!" you will ask, I need some evidence for this Mantis dude.

    I could use the TAG to justify my claim.

    We are dealing with a presuppositional belief system here with no evidential credence.

    The TAG is not even covered in standard texts in the philosophy of religion.

    Take G. E. Moore's "Principia Ethica," where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention, but it still remains a "contention."

    Philosophy "proves" nothing, ever.

    The fundamentalist worldview is based on a belief system and not an evidential system.

    A belief is not an idea that the mind posesses, a belief is an idea that posesses the mind.

    Now, what happens in arguments presented here by Dan and his God, Sye, is that some hapless non-theist will conditionally concede to the TAG. What we then find, and have seen here, is that the arguments from that point forward are limitless and basically incoherent to even the astute observer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've had discussions with Sye before. He wants atheists to "justify" logic and morality but refuses to answer any questions at all about the claims of his religion--he even refuses to answer why logic needs to be "justified" in the first place.

    I've asked him again and again questions like: "Since you claim your religion is the source of all logic, can you provide the logical steps you went thru to decide that you're actually going to fly like a bird one fine day when Jesus comes back?" He becomes very evasive when you ask him questions like that.

    I just can't imagine why. Can you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I sure can: Sye doesn't demand of himself the same things he demands of other people. To do so is to reveal the impotency of his world-view when it comes to perceiving and understanding the natural world.

    Sye gets no respect from me, and neither do you, Dan. You can't account for the validity of your perception (please prove me wrong), yet go on to parrot semantic nonsense as if it somehow supports your faith.

    Theism that requires its adherents to engage in dishonesty to validate its tenets is morally bankrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Incidentally, I find part 1 to be insufferably pedantic. Using logic to "prove" or justify the existence and characteristics of something that is (as he's been described) fundamentally illogical is mental masturbation.

    Wank away if you want, Dan, but it's clear as to what's going on.

    Come back to us when you've got something more than "I believe I'm right" to say.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Froggie,

    s is shown by you, Dan, there are plenty of people that like to come around here and argue ad finitum philosophical inferrences, but at the end of the day, all you have is a philosophy.

    That is all you believe we have? TAG is it? You are skipping over quite a bit. I have salvation and God's revealed truths. God has revealed many things to us (Which, if you haven’t gathered, includes me – and you for that matter) i.e. That He exists, that murder is bad, that love is good, that we were created in His image, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that He controls the universe. etc. etc.

    Philosophy "proves" nothing, ever. Especially an incorrect one but God proves everything, always.

    So tell us Froggie, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?

    What we then find, and have seen here, is that the arguments from that point forward are limitless and basically incoherent to even the astute observer.

    The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. Proof requires logic. One must be able to account for the laws of logic, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know that?’ You have not accounted for the laws of logic, and are therefore unable to prove anything.

    ReplyDelete
  6. An account for the laws of logic that doesn't require God (courtesy of Darrin Rasberry)

    Now, to explain how the laws of logic will occur in the future, it needs to briefly be stated how I account for the laws of logic in the first place. To begin with, I always insist on defining my terms; let's start with what the laws of logic are.

    Truth =def. Epistemological correspondence with metaphysical reality.



    Laws of Logic =def.
    (1)p^T = p, p v F = p. (Identity, roughly equivalent to "that which is, is; that which is not, is not")
    (2)not(p v not-p) = T (Non-Contradiction, roughly equivalent to "That which is cannot both be and not-be")
    (3)p v not-p = T (Excluded Middle, roughly equivalent to "Either something is or is not")
    (4)p^q=q^p; p v q=q v p(Commutativity, "whether both p is and/or q is means the same as whether q is and/or p is")
    (5)p ^(q^r)= (p^q)^r; (pvq)vr=pv(qvr) (Associativity; "the order of and-consideration and or-consideration in the evaluation of existence in a particular given state of constituents is irrelevant")
    (6)p^(qvr)=(p^q)v(p^r); pv(q^r)=(pvq)^(pvr) (Distributivity; to consider the existence of q or r first and evaluate its truth with the existence of p means exactly to first evaluate both the truth of p and q's existence taken together, p and r's existence taken together, and then consider whether either of those evaluations are true; the second statement is stated likewise)

    axiom =def. The presuppositional foundation of all knowledge, or, a proposition which must be used in any denial of its veracity.

    A(Axiom) 1. The laws of logic are epistemologically valid axiomatically (Note: this is not a circular proof, for I am using the laws of logic to prove the *axiomatic nature of the laws of logic*).

    Proof. Let X be a proof against the axiomatic, foundational nature of the laws of logic. But all proofs presuppose these laws in their truth-evaluation (even if they do not use all such axiomatic components) since all proofs reach a true or false conclusion based on truth-table evaluation, which operates upon such laws. Therefore, any proof against these laws uses these laws implicitly, proving their axiomatic nature epistemologically QED.

    Corollary 1. The Laws of Logic apply to the future epistemologically.

    Proof. The definition does not contain particular statements of time-dependence, making them tenseless and applicable epistemologically at any particular past- or future- time state. QED.

    Note this DOES NOT MEAN that Metaphysics will behave as the Laws of Logic state they will, in the future. To prove that Metaphysics will follow Cor.1. correspondingly, we must study the account (notice I did not say "my account") for the Laws of Logic.

    Please note that a use of the Laws of Logic is not circular in this case, for, one must not confuse (as similar to above) *the* laws of logic with an *account* for the laws of logic.

    More definitions.

    Existence =def. "that which is."

    Identity =def. "a set of constituents"

    Existent =def. "an identity in existence"

    Consciousness =def. "the process of identification of existence."

    Sense Perception =def. "The immediate contents of consciousness."

    Self "I" =def. (Logically precedent) consciousness.

    Notice also that these definitions do not (yet) provide for a separable reality, or the existence of more than one object; nor do they imply that reality exists independently of the mind (i.e. solipsism). We will deal with each of these problems in turn.

    A (Axiom) 2. (My) Sense-perception exists.

    Proof. If I were to offer a disproof, I perceive the disproof. QED.

    Axiom A3. I exist.

    Proof. Any proof I were to offer would contradict A2, since it presupposes consciousness by definition. But A2 is axiomatic. Therefore, consciousness, meaning I, exist. QED

    Cor. Solipsism is false.

    Proof. My consciousness is not included in my sense perceptions. Therefore an independent entity apart from sense perception exists, refuting solipsism absolutely.

    Axiom A4. Something exists.

    Proof. Any disproof would deny A2, for A2 demonstrates that the contents of my consciousness exist, therefore they possess at least one identity p, namely p =def. the identity "exists." QED.

    The correspondence theory of truth is well-defined, since we have a nonempty set of metaphysical quality; since we have a nonempty set of metaphysical quality, then, the first three laws of logic are accounted for from metaphysics as such:

    My sense perceptions are --> Identity.
    My sense perceptions are or are not --> Excluded Middle.
    My sense perceptions cannot be and not be at the same time --> Non-Contradiction.

    The other three laws of logic require more than one existent to base in metaphysics and thus be accounted for (and these three can have an even stronger basis!).

    Axiom A5. A (limited) existent other than the basic identity "existence of sense perceptions" exists in my sense perception. I.e. Particulars exist.

    Proof. Any disproof would lead to nonseparable identity, i.e. only one identity is. But my TV is black and my chair is not, as given by my sense perceptions. But this is a contradiction.

    Since more than one particular (entity) exists, the other laws of logic are meaningful and can be similarly tied to existence. We have an account of the laws of logic.

    For matters of interest,

    causation =def. the action of identity of one entity upon another identity.

    Axiom A6. The set of causal relation is nonempty.

    Proof. Suppose not. But the proof thereof is developed and presented and due to change my mind, a cause from the interaction of those identities. Therefore the set of causal relation is nonempty.

    Axiom A7. The contents of consciousness are an exact and valid representation of an external reality independent of consciousness.

    Proof. Any disproof would necessarily, given the previous axioms, presuppose that consciousness causes sense perception. But consciousness cannot cause sense perception without precedent content - implying external reality, i.e. as it does in dreams and/or conditions of psychosis such as hearing voices or the "brain in the jar" scenario. This is because consciousness must create each continuous state ex nihilo, i.e. out of nothing, which implies at the very least that consciousness is omnipotent. But if consciousness is omnipotent, than the created can be controlled by thought, which it cannot. QED.

    So, let's review. In short, we have that:

    -The epistemological laws of logic are a tenselessly valid foundation for thought.

    -Such laws of logic have a logically precedent foundation in realty as an objective absolute.

    -This reality exists as an objective absolute, and is reported to us by the senses (even if it is such a report which implies "your senses are being wrecked by insanity or LSD", which are conditions *in reality*) as an objective absolute.

    -You exist and are conscious as an objective absolute.


    And now it's back to you Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan, you wrote...
    "I have salvation and God's revealed truths... i.e. That He exists"

    Please demonstrate that God reveals truths to you. Why not ask Him something only I and an omniscient deity would know?

    ReplyDelete
  8.      "Proof requires logic."
        True.
         "One must be able to account for the laws of logic."
         False.
         Anyone who calls for an accounting of anything not in dispute is being intellectually dishonest in any debate. So the infinite regress results from the dishonesty of the presupper. I don't account for logic; you don't account for logic; and your god doesn't account for logic. We just assume logic (although your god probably exists only in your mind.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kaitlyn,

    Please demonstrate that God reveals truths to you.

    I,we, have many times over. God has revealed many things to us (Which, if you haven’t gathered, includes me – and you for that matter) i.e. That He exists, that murder is bad, that love is good, that we were created in His image, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that He controls the universe. etc. etc.


    Sorry this should of gone here: (getting mixed up)


    Pvblivs,

    We just assume logic

    So you use it without knowing why it's even there. You assume it has always been there. A tool that you cannot account for. Great we are through then, God exists.

    Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility for man's experience and reasoning. If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Truthseeker just said:

    "TAG asks the question how could you have laws of logic at all from an atheist worldview. Now I don't deny that some have given answers, I just think that within the Christian worldview they are not only accounted for but make the most sense, or comport with the reality we claim exist."

    Amen and well said.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan:

         "So you use it without knowing why it's even there. You assume it has always been there. A tool that you cannot account for. Great we are through then, God exists."
         Unless you are now saying that logic (a description of reasoning that is in no way a sentient being) is your god, then you are engaging in a non sequitur.
         "Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility for man's experience and reasoning. If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything."
         You keep saying it. But it is just not true. If christianity is false (and I think it is) then there is still a concept of true and false, there is still logic.
         "'Please demonstrate that God reveals truths to you.'
         "I,we, have many times over. God has revealed many things to us (Which, if you haven’t gathered, includes me – and you for that matter) i.e. That He exists, that murder is bad, that love is good, that we were created in His image, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that He controls the universe. etc. etc."
         I believe she said "demonstrate," not "reassert." So, please show that they are revelations, rather than just listing things you believe to be revelations. Most of your "revelations" are in dispute as to whether they are even true. (There is a general agreement that murder is bad and love is good.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan, you're saying God reveals things to you. I'm asking you to prove it.

    Can you give an undeniable demonstration of God revealing knowledge to you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan,
    "So tell us Froggie, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?"

    I fully anticipated that this would be your response, grasshopper, and in effect you are saying that:
    "I have no logical response to your observations, so I will feed this BS once again."

    Nice try lil buddy!

    I just adressed that!

    You are so predictable!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan,

    Your metaphisical gymnastics are so totally amusing! You are my pet fundamentalist!

    You are my favorite case study in delusion and cognitive dissonance.

    You can try to use the presupper bullshit till the cows come home but you are defeated and totally debusted by your lack of evidence.

    I can use your same argument to defend my preying mantis example.

    I see that in the sidebar you have chosen links to include those that encourage "beating" children. I am using the exact term their; no hyperbole.

    You are in serious trouble by promoting that practice.

    Your kids are very young yet, but I guarantee that you will see this snap back at you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan,
    At what age do you dicontinue beating your kids?

    Just answer me that one question.

    People that beat their kids are merely demonstating their lack of parenting skills.

    I am ashamed of you as a parent. You show those innocent eyes of a child in your masthead and yet you would inflict phisical harm on them. If I would ever catch you at it I would prosecute you to the full extent of the law.

    How wuould you like to be beaten when you make a mistake?

    You are one fucked up motherfucker.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan,
    You are the one that chose the term Foreordination as the title to this post.

    So, if one is foreordained, it makes no matter if they go to public school or are homeschooled by your own defintion.

    Foreordination is merely an arrogant and selfish excuse to try to justify that your irrational views are correct.
    If your kids do not follow your myopic views then you need to dismiss them as infidels and works of the devil.

    Good luck with that , asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I know most of you will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:45 of part 7.

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan said: Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility for man's experience and reasoning. If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything.

    I think what you mean is that Christianity could potentially provide an explanation for these things if it were true. The same could be said about Islam or Judaism or any other number of theistic "worldviews." The fact that any one of them could potentially provide an explanation for these things should show you that your argument fails. I am sure you will not recognize that though.

    ReplyDelete
  19.      Your version of presuppositional apologetics has inspired me to do a blog post about it. You might find it interesting, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  20. " If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything."

    Dan, Please seek help.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Froggie- when Dan said:
    "If Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything."

    He really meant:
    "Since Christianity is true, then if Christianity were not true, Atheists could not prove or understand anything."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Did you read the USA today article where the atheists constructed a monument of worship to Darwin?
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-02-10-darwin-secular_N.htm
    It literally reads "Praise Darwin".

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, MFT, we all read it, since you also posted it at WRSmrt. Do I really have to tell you that no one worships Darwin?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I checked out Sye's blog. It's empty too--just like his apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bart, you said:

    "The fact that any one of them could potentially provide an explanation for these things should show you that your argument fails. I am sure you will not recognize that though."

    That is simply not true. It's conjecture on your part. It comes down to this... All non-Christian worldviews fall on their own merits using the same type of critical assesment.

    You are more likely to see the reduction of the naturalistic worldview to absurdity because it goes down with less discussion. The debate ends at the point where the naturalist/atheist cannot adaquately account for their own thought process and rationality - within their own worldview.

    (And maybe that proves something to some, maybe nothing to others, but the reality of the claim is undenyable.)

    You are not likely going to get the one-off answer you seek for all other religions though because every worldview really has to be assessed on its own merits.

    However, because you don't believe any of those other worldviews it doesn't make sense to spend any time arguing with you against them.

    If you have recently converted however, present your case and I'm sure someone would happily answer your newly found worldview.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>