Speaking of Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism, apparently all the atheists have is bare assertions of things against evidential points.
Notice how the atheists are asserting themselves as the judge and placing God on trial? Please repent of that extremely dangerous worldview.
Also notice, in their summation, how the atheists at the end appeal to God by allowing of suffering all the while denying His existence? "How can you allow these children to suffer" at the very same time saying "We want to be the only ones here" in other words, not only a contradiction but worse, it is they who allow the suffering of the children because they want God removed from here. They cannot offer any comfort to those dying children at all either. What are they going to say? Tough luck? Too bad? That’s the way it goes?
They made a huge mistake by saying "its immoral". If something is "immoral", then there has to be a absolute STANDARD for that observation to be evaluated against. So if immoral exists, as claimed by the atheists, then you are forced to acknowledge that the ABSOLUTE STANDARD to judge others exists also. So, once again, they are using our, Christians, worldview to evaluate what they believe otherwise their views are reduced to absurdity. The same goes for an "illogical" claim.
This is an appropriate setting for this debate because the atheists certainly get schooled here. Now, as fun as it is to poke at each other at times here, this is the single most important subject for anyone, anywhere, on this planet. That is why we spend the time here. As Sye so humbly said at the beginning, we don't want to win debates, we don't want you to go to hell that you are choosing to go to over the God that you know exists.
Sye said "Salvation is not just for the next life (Atheist) - Not only did Christ's death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW."
Amen.
Well done Pastor Dustin Segers and Sye TenBruggencate.
Notice that the more harangued Dan's feeling, the more often he mentions Sye's name? It's as if he thinks annoying his detractors will hide what's really going on here...
ReplyDeleteNope, nope and nope, Dan.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone points out that the Christian god seems to allow needless suffering despite supposedly being all-good and all-powerful, that's not acknowledging your god's existence - it's pointing out the gigantic incongruity of assuming such an omnimax being given the state of the world as we observe it.
When we contend that something is immoral, we do so on the basis of its observed and experienced effects on sentient beings such as ourselves. No absolute standard is necessary, just attunement to our fellows and a capacity for empathy - do you have one of those, Dan?
And no, neither you nor Sye nor any presuppositionalist can accurately claim to be 'humble' or 'honest'. You come across as arrogant and disingenuous, blind to evidence and immune to reason.
How do I suppose all this? Because I don't suppress my senses or my intellect by assuming there's a giant cosmic magic man standing behind it all. If there were, such a being would be detectable without presupposition.
And I'm still waiting for your justification for making the leap from 'human reason is evidence for human reason' to 'human reason is evidence for a god'...
Kissing Sye's ass again Dan, lame.
ReplyDeleteQuick question, are you omniscient?
Dan, there are a few loose ends to tie up before I get to the meat of this particular discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you continually ask people, including myself, to 'account for' human reasoning and the validity thereof. This is quite easy to do, in biological terms at least. It's a highly evolved feedback loop between the brain and the world outside, via our sensory receptors. But I rather suspect it's pointless to expand upon this, since it appears from some of your previous posts that you are an evolution-denier.
Let us say instead that it can be taken as axiomatic - one might even say self-evident - that we are conscious beings, and that our perceptions correspond to an external reality. It follows from this that our reasoning ability is the process by which our conscious minds process and make sense of external information. Your god, if he exists as anything other than a figment of human imagination, is part of this external reality and subject to our perception. Of this, more later.
Also, I won't ask you to explain how your conclusion that the Bible is true on the basis of claims made in the Bible is not, as you would have it, viciously circular, firstly since it's almost certain that you won't explain, secondly because you know it is, and anyone who reads this blog can see that it is.
You also previously disputed my claim that neither I nor other atheists posting to your blog claimed it as axiomatic that your god doesn't exist. I maintain that this is quite true. We make no assumptions at all about your god, other than the assumptions we make about any possible phenomena; to wit, if your god exists and has interacted with the physical universe, he would be detectable by means of sensory experience, empirical investigation and rational inquiry. My take on your position is that the only reason you could have for presupposing your god's existence is that you are trying to avoid confronting the fact that your god has thus far never been consistently and unambiguously detected by any of these means.
Now for the cream. What would you say, Dan, if I were to suggest to you that holding your god to be axiomatic in the same way one might hold logic and reason to be axiomatic is actually a tacit admission that your god is in the same class of thing - ie: a cognitive construct, not an entity existing independently of conscious minds? I must thank Dawson Bethrick at Incinerating Presuppositionalism (www.bahnsenburner.blogspot.com - loving that url, by the way) for this argument. What a corker, eh?
But allow me to anticipate your response, Dan. You'll say something like, "You have to presuppose my god in order to account for cognitive constructs". Go ahead and prove me wrong here, if you can.
However, let's break this down. If you're tacitly admitting your god to be a cognitive construct, then your predicted response becomes, "You have to presuppose cognitive constructs in order to account for cognitive constructs" - which, if you think about it, is kind of like the same thing Pvblivs and and others, including recently myself, have been saying for some time now, so it would appear from this that we are actually in agreement on this subject.
Who'd've thunk it?
Oops. Sorry - that should be: Incinerating Presuppositionalism
ReplyDeleteMy laptop and or browser have been playing up lately, so I drafted this post in Notepad before submitting it, just to be on the safe side - and got the url wrong, as it happens.
Dan, there are loose ends to tie up before I get to the meat of this discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you continually ask people, to 'account for' human reasoning and its validity. This is quite easy, in biological terms at least. It's a highly evolved feedback loop between the brain and the world outside, via our sensory receptors. But I suspect it's pointless to expand on this, since it appears that you are an evolution-denier.
Let's say instead that it can be taken as axiomatic, even self-evident, that we are conscious beings and that our perceptions correspond to an external reality. It follows that our reasoning ability is the process by which our conscious minds make sense of external information. Your god, if he exists as anything other than a figment of human imagination, is part of this external reality and subject to our perception. Of this, more later.
Also, I won't ask you to explain how your conclusion that the Bible is true on the basis of claims made in the Bible is not, as you would say, viciously circular, first since it's almost certain that you won't explain, second because you know it is, and anyone who reads this blog can see that it is.
You also previously disputed my claim that neither I nor other atheists posting to your blog claimed it as axiomatic that your god doesn't exist. I maintain this is true. We make no assumptions about your god, other than those we make about any possible phenomena; to wit, if your god exists and has interacted with the physical universe, he would be detectable by means of sensory experience, empirical investigation and rational inquiry. My take on your position is that the only reason you have for presupposing your god's existence is that you're trying to avoid confronting the fact that your god has thus far never been consistently, unambiguously detected by any of these means.
Now for the cream. What would you say if I were to suggest that holding your god to be axiomatic in the same way one might hold logic and reason to be axiomatic is actually a tacit admission that your god is in the same class of thing - ie: a cognitive construct, not an entity existing independently of conscious minds? Thanks to Dawson Bethrick at Incinerating Presuppositionalism for this argument. What a corker, eh?
Allow me to anticipate your response. You'll say something like, "You have to presuppose my god in order to account for cognitive constructs".
However, if you're tacitly admitting your god to be a cognitive construct, your predicted response becomes, "You have to presuppose cognitive constructs in order to account for cognitive constructs" - which is kind of like the same thing Pvblivs and and others (including myself, recently) have been saying anyway, so it would appear from this that we are actually in agreement.
Who'd've thunk it?
I don't get it. One minute my post appears, the next minute it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteWeird.
Dan, there are loose ends to tie up before I get to the meat of this discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you continually ask people, to 'account for' human reasoning and its validity. This is quite easy, in biological terms at least. It's a highly evolved feedback loop between the brain and the world outside, via our sensory receptors. But I suspect it's pointless to expand on this, since it appears that you are an evolution-denier.
Let's say instead that it can be taken as axiomatic, even self-evident, that we are conscious beings and that our perceptions correspond to an external reality. It follows that our reasoning ability is the process by which our conscious minds make sense of external information. Your god, if he exists as anything other than a figment of human imagination, is part of this external reality and subject to our perception. Of this, more later.
Also, I won't ask you to explain how your conclusion that the Bible is true on the basis of claims made in the Bible is not, as you would say, viciously circular, first since it's almost certain that you won't explain, second because you know it is, and anyone who reads this blog can see that it is.
You also previously disputed my claim that neither I nor other atheists posting to your blog claimed it as axiomatic that your god doesn't exist. I maintain this is true. We make no assumptions about your god, other than those we make about any possible phenomena; to wit, if your god exists and has interacted with the physical universe, he would be detectable by means of sensory experience, empirical investigation and rational inquiry. My take on your position is that the only reason you have for presupposing your god's existence is that you're trying to avoid confronting the fact that your god has thus far never been consistently, unambiguously detected by any of these means.
Now for the cream. What would you say if I were to suggest that holding your god to be axiomatic in the same way one might hold logic and reason to be axiomatic is actually a tacit admission that your god is in the same class of thing - ie: a cognitive construct, not an entity existing independently of conscious minds? Thanks to Dawson Bethrick at Incinerating Presuppositionalism for this argument. What a corker, eh?
ReplyDeleteAllow me to anticipate your response. You'll say something like, "You have to presuppose my god in order to account for cognitive constructs".
However, if you're tacitly admitting your god to be a cognitive construct, your predicted response becomes, "You have to presuppose cognitive constructs in order to account for cognitive constructs" - which is kind of like the same thing Pvblivs and and others (including myself, recently) have been saying anyway, so it would appear from this that we are actually in agreement.
Who'd've thunk it?
Dan, there are loose ends to tie up before I get to the meat of this discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you continually ask people, to 'account for' human reasoning and its validity. This is quite easy, in biological terms at least. It's a highly evolved feedback loop between the brain and the world outside, via our sensory receptors. But I suspect it's pointless to expand on this, since it appears that you are an evolution-denier.
Let's say instead that it can be taken as axiomatic, even self-evident, that we are conscious beings and that our perceptions correspond to an external reality. It follows that our reasoning ability is the process by which our conscious minds make sense of external information. Your god, if he exists as anything other than a figment of human imagination, is part of this external reality and subject to our perception. Of this, more later.
Also, I won't ask you to explain how your conclusion that the Bible is true on the basis of claims made in the Bible is not, as you would say, viciously circular, first since it's almost certain that you won't explain, second because you know it is, and anyone who reads this blog can see that it is.
You also previously disputed my claim that neither I nor other atheists posting to your blog claimed it as axiomatic that your god doesn't exist. I maintain this is true. We make no assumptions about your god, other than those we make about any possible phenomena; to wit, if your god exists and has interacted with the physical universe, he would be detectable by means of sensory experience, empirical investigation and rational inquiry. My take on your position is that the only reason you have for presupposing your god's existence is that you're trying to avoid confronting the fact that your god has thus far never been consistently, unambiguously detected by any of these means.
Hmmm...I think I finally get where you're coming from with the 'viciously circular' thing - I noted a reference to drawing conclusions from the same 'plane' as the proposition one is trying to establish, so this at least makes your definition of vicious circularity a little clearer.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't actually help your case, though, since you have yet to define (and probably can't define) what it means to exist on a different 'plane' to what we as conscious human beings inhabit and can detect.
In any case, if your god exists as he is said to do in the Bible (which text you have claimed, somehow, to know is infallible and self-proving) then he has indeed interacted with this plane - what we might call the physical or material plane - and ought to have left detectable traces, if he exists.
Futhermore, if he is omnipotent, which is one of the claims made about him, he ought to be able to leave unambiguously detectable traces of his existence, on any 'plane' he chooses. Where are these?
This understanding of 'vicious circularity' also doesn't help your claim that the Bible is proof that the Bible is true, since the Bible is an object that exists on the temporal plane. You would need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible was divinely inspired - which, based on the posts of yours I've read, I'm convinced you can't do - in order to validate such a claim.
IRT "vicious circularity", I've always been a bit confused as to why Dan uses the term pejoratively. Like you noted, DD, Dan believes the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true, and so we see "vicious circularity" embedded in Christian Theology. If they don't view this as a problem, then clearly, circularity is a thing to be embraced.
ReplyDeleteIt seems awfully hypocritical of Dan to claim it's acceptable for one epistemology but not another.
Of course, he wallows in hypocrisy, so I can't say this surprises me...
Hmmm...I think I finally get where you're coming from with the 'Viciously circular' thing - I noted a reference to arguing in the same 'plane' as the proposition one is trying to establish, so this at least makes your definition of viscious circularity a little clearer.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't actually help your case, though, since you have yet to define (and probably can't define) what it means to exist on a different 'plane' to what we as conscious human beings inhabit and can detect. In any case, if your god exists as he is said to do in the Bible (which text you have claimed as infallible and self-proving) then he has interacted with this plane - what we might call the physical or material plane - and ought to have left detectable traces, if he exists. Futhermore, if he is omnipotent, which is one of the claims made about him, he ought to be able to leave unambiguously detectable traces of his existence, on any plane he chooses.
It also, just by the bye, doesn't help your claim that the Bible is proof that the Bible is true, since the Bible is an object that exists on the temporal plane. You would need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible was divinely inspired - which, based on the posts of yours I've read, I'm convinced you can't do - in order to validate such a claim.
Well, gosh darn it to heck! When I make a long post, it fails, until I offer it in segments; when I make a short post, it appears twice. I throw up my hands in confusion...
ReplyDeleteIn reality, all of us here understand that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThe thing to take note of is that Dan claims logic stems from God's nature, and thus, our very act of trying to reason our way through a problem demonstrates the existence of Dan's Got. However, if logical fallacy is embedded in Christian doctrine, then one of the following must be true:
1) claiming the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true is illogical (re. circular) and therefore blasphemous.
2) God is not the source of logic.
Dan will never reconcile this conundrum because to do so is admit that his world view is corrupt. At the very least, it would reveal that Dan himself is arrogant and cares less for Truth than he does shutting up his critics.
Incidentally, I keep reading the title of this thread but I cant figure out what Dan's trying to say...
ReplyDeleteIf a standard is absolute (and there might exist an absolute standard which our human standards only approximate) then it cannot be based on anything else. Any standard that might come from your god (whose existence is in dispute) would necessarily be relative.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your argument contains a known falsehood. To say that something is immoral requires that there be a standard against which it is measured. It does not require that the standard be "absolute" in any sense. If someone says that an object is one and a half meters long, he is generally referring to the standard of the measuring stick that he used. But that is not absolute because that measuring stick was based on other measuring sticks and ultimately the "standard meter" defined to be the distance between two markings on a platinum bar. And even that is man-made. (Normally I think in feet and inches, but I can't trace that standard back.)
"This is an appropriate setting for this debate because the atheists certainly get schooled here."
Hasn't happened yet. Instead, you just declare yourself the winner and refuse to deal with people. Is is a biblical strategy? Perhaps. But that only shows that the bible is dishonest.
Whateverman:
ReplyDeleteDan probably meant "presupposing their reasoning's validity."
I thought it might have been "Presupposing they're reasoning validly", but your version is probably the correct one...
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, Dan seems to use "presuppose" synonymously with "assume".
Christian Assumptionism has an appropriate ring to it...
Wem and Pvb,
ReplyDeleteI agree I had a problem with the title also and couldn't resolve it last night before posting it. But, after a good night sleep, and these conversations, helped me along to think more clearly...thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePhotosynthesis,
ReplyDelete>>Oh the hypocrisy. Sye himself has admitted that presuppo*s#%$*ionalism is circular.
He never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is. Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.
By the way, see here for an excellent dismantling of Sye's 'proof of god' website. This guy really seems to know his stuff.
ReplyDeleteYes, and everyone knows a circular argument is just fine but a viciously circular argument is a fallacy...
ReplyDeleteI couldn't make this stuff up if I tried
Dan wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if it sat on his face a wiggled...
ReplyDeleteReal intellectual honesty would force a presuppositional apologist to admit deities can make believers certain of the truth of a false thing.
And if you take the time to read all the way through BahnsenBurner's demolition of Sye's god-proof, be sure to read the comments - Sye's evasions are entertainingly pathetic...
ReplyDelete"Pathetic" is right. He didn't even attempt to answer Dawson's critique.
ReplyDeleteYou know what keeps me up at night? trying to figure out how self-righteous people like Sye and Dan can hold up their perceived standard of morality as the ideal and yet spend so much time being dishonest. I wonder at the stuff that goes through their heads: do they understand what they're doing and simply don't care? Or are they truly ignorant?
I don't like the idea that people will lie to me, directly, to my face and pretend that it's the truth, and I like it even less when it happens in the middle of discussions about truth and justice and the meaning of life. If such people are readily willing to lie in easy (yet important) conversation, what else are they capable of?
Part of me thinks they simply lack the ability or desire to understand themselves.
Wem,
ReplyDelete>>Yes, and everyone knows a circular argument is just fine but a viciously circular argument is a fallacy...
Logical people know this. "Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premises of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound."
"This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premise, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. A viciously circular argument is one with a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself, and such arguments can never advance our knowledge. "
Wem,
ReplyDelete>>Dan wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if it sat on his face a wiggled...
Spiffy comments is a defense mechanism in wiggling out of a meaningful conversation...
>>Real intellectual honesty would force a presuppositional apologist to admit deities can make believers certain of the truth of a false thing.
So then its NOT possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
Wem,
ReplyDelete>>I don't like the idea that people will lie to me, directly, to my face and pretend that it's the truth, and I like it even less when it happens in the middle of discussions about truth and justice and the meaning of life.
With a standard of logic which does not comport with your worldview.
And still, he wont address the critique...
ReplyDeleteWem,
ReplyDelete>>And still, he wont address the critique...
You're right. I was stalling since I haven't even read it. After the store tonight I will try to read it.
Whateverman, you wrote,
ReplyDeleteYou know what keeps me up at night? trying to figure out how self-righteous people like Sye and Dan can hold up their perceived standard of morality as the ideal and yet spend so much time being dishonest. I wonder at the stuff that goes through their heads: do they understand what they're doing and simply don't care? Or are they truly ignorant?
The impression I get is that for at least some of the fundy apologists out there, the problem is that they are so utterly convinced, somehow, of the importance of their worldview that they feel it is essential for others to share it.
If they really believe, with all that is in them, that those who don't share their worldview are going to burn in a hell of their god's making for all eternity, I can see how it's possible for them to weigh their tactics in the balance and think that they are quite justified in employing dishonest rhetoric and bamboozling semantic twists and turns in order to badger people into adopting their religious beliefs and practices.
I think they're somewhat less justified in thinking that these tactics will actually work for anyone who has a modicum of intelligence and critical thinking ability, but that's probably not the majority of their target market.
And I'm convinced, at this stage - though as a Pragmatist, I hold that all knowledge is tentative - that neither Dan nor Sye will ever be forthcoming about how they could actually demonstrate that their god exists as anything other than an imaginary construct.
Some questions for you, Dan:
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean to you to know something? What is knowledge, according to your worldview, and what is your theory of how knowledge is constructed? Do you rely on your god to implant knowledge in your mind, or does it require active participation on your part?
What do you understand truth to be? When you speak of truth, do you mean linguistic truth, empirical truth, experiential truth, or do you suppose that there is some higher realm of truth that is not tied to conscious beings and their interaction with the world, that is in fact independent of the material universe?
My understanding of knowledge is that it results from the accumulation and synthesis of information gained through sensory experience and rational inquiry. Truth pertains to that state of affairs in which our cognitive and linguistic constructs correspond to that which is observed to be or experienced as real.
Furthermore, I understand knowledge and truth to be rather more fluid than most religionists seem to do, in that they are subject to revision in the light of new information or better synthesis of existing information.
For this worldview to have any meaning at all, I have to assume, or take as axiomatic, that there is an actual material world of which I am a part, but which does not depend merely upon my consciousness for its existence. I also have to assume that my mind is capable of constructing an accurate picture of that world, at least enough such that my mental constructs will allow me to interact effectively with it.
There is no part of this process of knowledge construction, as far as I can tell, for which your god is a necessary precondition; indeed, as I have contended before, if your god exists as you believe him to, he is part of the external reality that is not dependent upon my consciousness, but which is possible to sense and about which I can build a store of knowledge.
I also contend that if one doesn't presuppose the existence of a reality independent of consciousness, one's worldview collapses into solipsism, which as far as I am concerned is the same as absurdity, since it provides no means of accounting for the majority of sensory experience, and leads to conclusions that do not work in practice.
You, on the other hand, claim that it is necessary to assume your god in order to avoid the slide into absurdity, but thus far you have consistently failed to demonstrate how or why this should be so.
It seems to me that until you can offer working definitions of truth and knowledge according to your worldview, and can demonstrate exactly how your god is a necessary precondition for these things to be possible, this central claim of presuppositionalism is nothing more than a bare form of words that doesn't actually correspond to any material or experiential reality, and therefore can have no possible meaning.
DormantDragon,
ReplyDelete>>And I'm convinced, at this stage - though as a Pragmatist, I hold that all knowledge is tentative - that neither Dan nor Sye will ever be forthcoming about how they could actually demonstrate that their god exists as anything other than an imaginary construct.
Pragmatism fails in that one needs to know the proper function of a thing before one can determine if it works or not, the very thing that pragmatism cannot give you.
Dormantdragon,
ReplyDelete>>What does it mean to you to know something?
To have justified true belief.
Sye used: "If I asked you what time it was and you looked at your watch at 3 o'clock and it said "3 o'clock" it would be true that it was 3 o'clock. If however you later discovered that your watch happened to stop at exactly 3 o'clock 3 days ago, then you would have had true belief, but it would not have been knowledge, as it was not justified."
>>What do you understand truth to be?
Universal and undeniable facts.
>>My understanding of knowledge is that it results from the accumulation and synthesis of information gained through sensory experience and rational inquiry.
Great. How do you know this? Do you use your reasoning to determine that your reasoning is valid? The title of this post labels that.
>>Truth pertains to that state of affairs in which our cognitive and linguistic constructs correspond to that which is observed to be or experienced as real.
How do you know your reasoning is valid? Can something be true if no one is there to observe it or experience it as real? For example, Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before human minds? If not, why not? If so, would that make truth universal? If not, why not?
>>I also have to assume that my mind is capable of constructing an accurate picture of that world, at least enough such that my mental constructs will allow me to interact effectively with it.
You assume, but are not certain? Do your use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? You could be wrong that your mind is capable of constructing an accurate picture of this world?
>>I also contend that if one doesn't presuppose the existence of a reality independent of consciousness, one's worldview collapses into solipsism, which as far as I am concerned is the same as absurdity, since it provides no means of accounting for the majority of sensory experience, and leads to conclusions that do not work in practice.
Mmmmhmm, but you are not certain?
>>You, on the other hand, claim that it is necessary to assume your god in order to avoid the slide into absurdity, but thus far you have consistently failed to demonstrate how or why this should be so.
Are you certain that I failed to demonstrate how or why this should be so? If so, how are you certain? With regard to logic, I agree that there are laws of logic, please tell me how your adopted worldview accounts for those laws, how you know they are valid, how you know they are universal, and on what basis you expect them to hold 2 seconds from now?
>>this central claim of presuppositionalism is nothing more than a bare form of words that doesn't actually correspond to any material or experiential reality, and therefore can have no possible meaning.
But, of course, you are not certain of that? You do understand by saying "therefore can have no possible meaning." is a knowledge claim and uses a standard. A standard of logic which does not comport with your worldview. How can you know ANYTHING to be absolutely true?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDan, you wrote,
ReplyDeletePragmatism fails in that one needs to know the proper function of a thing before one can determine if it works or not, the very thing that pragmatism cannot give you.
Your criticism fails because you assume that things have a 'proper' function that is independent of their use or their effectiveness in practice, but have not demonstrated how this is so.
How do you know your reasoning is valid? Can something be true if no one is there to observe it or experience it as real?
ReplyDeleteNo, because 'truth' describes the relationship of a cognitive construct to an independent reality. There can be reality without consciousness to observe it, but there can be no truth, by this definition.
For example, Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before human minds? If not, why not? If so, would that make truth universal? If not, why not?
These questions are largely meaningless in light of my given description of truth. The truth value of rules of logic, such as the law of identity, is directly related to the correspondence of such conceptual rules to a reality that is independent of consciousness. How could a concept be true before it has been formulated?
Your criticism fails because you assume that things have a 'proper' function that is independent of their use or their effectiveness in practice, but have not demonstrated how this is so.
ReplyDeleteYou know, this probably would have occurred to me on its own, but it didn't. Very nicely debunked.
Me: Your criticism fails because you assume that things have a 'proper' function that is independent of their use or their effectiveness in practice, but have not demonstrated how this is so.
ReplyDeleteWhateverman: You know, this probably would have occurred to me on its own, but it didn't. Very nicely debunked.
Thanks, Whateverman. I'd seen Dan post a similar comment regarding pragmatism on a previous thread, but it was only today that this flaw in the criticism became apparent to me. Maybe I'm getting better at this philosophy thing after all :)
Can I just ask what is up with all the bickering back and forth? I mean, do you guys not realize that you can bring up points without being snarky or downright rude? Childish banter does not make you seem intelligent nor does it make your points seem more valid.
ReplyDeleteJust saying-
Spend a little time here, Craftivist, and you'll see what's really goin' on...
ReplyDeleteDan gave up the pretense of discussing anything a long time ago.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDeleteIntellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain.
No.
You cannot make that claim because
1) The source of the revelation may not be the Christian God, but another God or indeed your Satan
2) The source of the revelation may be mental derrangement caused by disease, injury or drugs.
Unless and until you can rule those causes out then you have no claim to certainty, and yes I can be certain about that.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYour points don't hold.
1. If you claim that it isn't God then you are claiming that an omniscient, omnipotent being could NOT reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Which itself, is illogical because the terms omniscient and omnipotent that God is, denotes that ability. Its intellectually dishonest. God did reveal Himself, and a claim otherwise is simply denial. Much like your claim here.
2. Is attempting to poison the well, the fallacious claim deserves no response.
>>Unless and until you can rule those causes out then you have no claim to certainty, and yes I can be certain about that.
Done, and I do claim that with certainty. Besides, like Sye said, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
Dan, you cannot expect to get away with
ReplyDelete1. If you claim that it isn't God then you are claiming that an omniscient, omnipotent being could NOT reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Which itself, is illogical because the terms omniscient and omnipotent that God is, denotes that ability. Its intellectually dishonest. God did reveal Himself, and a claim otherwise is simply denial. Much like your claim here.
All you have is an assertion - "God did reveal Himself, and a claim otherwise is simply denial."
You cannot be certain that the "God" that revealed himself was the God that you claim it to be and you cannot be certain that the revelation itself was not a mental derrangement.
It's a tough one for you Presupps to accept but everyone else can see where your whole line of argument falls over.
Paul,
ReplyDelete>>All you have is an assertion - "God did reveal Himself, and a claim otherwise is simply denial."
Not so. I have evidence and rational thought that says otherwise, but all you have is your assertion "that it may not be the Christian God, but another God or indeed your Satan"
>>You cannot be certain that the "God" that revealed himself was the God that you claim it to be and you cannot be certain that the revelation itself was not a mental derrangement.
P1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as my mental capacities.
P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination that I was right about my mental reliability.
P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine that I am mentally sound.
C. Therefore I am mentally sound.
QED
You also know I am mentally sound because you make determinations for yourself as to my mental capacity from our conversations. You know this especially since many times I have intellectually dwarfed you in our conversations. :7) In that, if I did have mental derangement that would say much about your own mental capacity since someone that was mentally deranged intellectually dwarfed you.
You know this especially since at time I recognized and admitted when I was wrong about something and sought to rectify it. Something mentally deranged don't do.
>>It's a tough one for you Presupps to accept but everyone else can see where your whole line of argument falls over.
Well this is not true I certainly am fully capable of accepting anything reasonable, but as to the argument falling over, its just not true. Even if it were, so what? This certainly is not a popularity contest. I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. Truth hurts, I understand.
I certainly am fully capable of accepting anything reasonable
ReplyDeleteObjection, your Honor. Facts not in evidence!
Wem,
ReplyDeleteFunny but "there is no God" is certainly not reasonable. Its absurd.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDeleteP1: If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as my mental capacities.
P2: God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, memory and reasoning such that I can make the determination that I was right about my mental reliability.
P3. I used the senses memory and reasoning which have been validated through God’s revelation to determine that I am mentally sound.
C. Therefore I am mentally sound.
QED
Well, you would say EXACTLY the same thing if the revelation did not come from the Christian God or you were mentally derranged at the time.
It's like saying "I do not have a drink problem therefore I'm not an alcoholic"
The challenge is to recognise that you might be wrong.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDeleteWell this is not true I certainly am fully capable of accepting anything reasonable, but as to the argument falling over, its just not true. Even if it were, so what? This certainly is not a popularity contest. I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. Truth hurts, I understand.
Deep inside you Dan there's a reasonable individual trying to get out.
You can still be a Christian too.
Paul Baird said: "Unless and until you can rule those causes out then you have no claim to certainty, and yes I can be certain about that."
ReplyDeleteHow?
Someone's looking for attention.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matter, Sye? Getting tired of your hand?
Sye wrote
ReplyDeletePaul Baird said: "Unless and until you can rule those causes out then you have no claim to certainty, and yes I can be certain about that."
How?
Because I've identified other causes for the revelation, which would produce the same sense of certainty.
Sorry, but this is really basic stuff and if you're going to use this line of argument in our next debate then you will look very stupid.
"Because I've identified other causes for the revelation, which would produce the same sense of certainty."
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about a sense of certainty, I'm talking about actual philosophical certainty. How are you absolutely certain that God could not give us knowledge which is absolutely certain? For that matter how are you absolutely certain that your reasoning about this, or anything is valid? From whence does your certainty come?
"Sorry, but this is really basic stuff and if you're going to use this line of argument in our next debate then you will look very stupid."
I can't wait :-)
Sye wrote:
ReplyDeleteHow are you absolutely certain that God could not give us knowledge which is absolutely certain?
I am certain because I have detailed several other causes for your revelation, and to use your own methodology,the disjunctive syllogism,you have to PROVE A,B,C and D are incorrect in order for E - your Christian God, to be true.
You haven't and what is more, you can't.
All you can do is assert, assert, assert.
Well, Paul, I think it's possible for a deity to give us knowledge we can be certain of. The real question is whether certainty is a guarantee of veracity.
ReplyDeleteUnless the one experiencing the certainty is omniscient, the answer is No.
Sye's certainty isn't reliable.
As if that was ever in question...
Paul said: "I am certain because I have detailed several other causes for your revelation, and to use your own methodology,the disjunctive syllogism,you have to PROVE A,B,C and D are incorrect in order for E - your Christian God, to be true.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't and what is more, you can't.
All you can do is assert, assert, assert."
Okay, so let me see if I got this right, I can't have philosophical certainty, but you can (and do), is that really what you are **ahem** asserting?
I hope Justin has a free weekend soon ;-)
WEM said: "Sye's certainty isn't reliable."
ReplyDeleteErm are you certain? :-)
Sye wrote:
ReplyDeleteOkay, so let me see if I got this right, I can't have philosophical certainty, but you can (and do), is that really what you are **ahem** asserting?
Sye, are you really this obtuse ?
You state - effect A only has cause B therefore I can claim certainty.
I state - effect A does not only have cause B, it can also have causes C, D, E and F, therefore you cannot claim certainty.
In the absence of any proof from you that causes C, D, E and F can be eliminated then I can be certain (by default) that you cannot be certain.
Sorry, but this is really, really simple stuff.
Paul said: "In the absence of any proof from you that causes C, D, E and F can be eliminated then I can be certain (by default) that you cannot be certain."
ReplyDeleteSo, you are philosophically certain that I can't be philosophically certain? Really Paul? I mean really? You might want to bone up on that argument before we hit the aiwaves again.
Sye wrote:
ReplyDeleteSo, you are philosophically certain that I can't be philosophically certain? Really Paul? I mean really? You might want to bone up on that argument before we hit the aiwaves again.
Yes Sye, really.
For the final time let me spell it out for you...
You state you are certain X = Y, only and exclusively.
I have shown X can also equal A, B, C and D.
Therefore you you cannot be certain that X = Y, and I can be certain about your uncertainty.
You need to appeciate the nature of uncertainty.
If you can find another venue for a further debate instead of waiting for Premier Christian Radio then please go ahead and arrange it.
I'm getting rather fed up with the endless waiting and waiting.
Paul said: "I have shown X can also equal A, B, C and D."
ReplyDeletePaul HOW are you certain that X can also equal A, B, C and D?
"Therefore you you cannot be certain that X = Y, and I can be certain about your uncertainty."
Paul HOW can you be certain that the laws of logic and your reasoning about them (or anything) are valid?
"If you can find another venue for a further debate instead of waiting for Premier Christian Radio then please go ahead and arrange it."
Paul, I really think you've cracked. Can you not see what a(nother) rout it will be if you bring that argument? Has your reputation not been damaged enough?
Where in the Bible does it say "Go forth and be a douche-bag for Jesus", Sye?
ReplyDeleteYou've got no path to certainty, and this has been shown to you repeatedly. Rather than address it, you evade evade evade.
WEM (incredibly) said (again): "You've got no path to certainty"
ReplyDeleteErm, are you certain?
This would be funny if it was not so sad.
Why do you even bother, Sye? The only people who take your arguments seriously have already sipped the koolaid...
ReplyDeleteI think you like the attention. Kind of twisted, seeing that it's almost universally negative (and that includes Christian criticism).
Were you abused as a child? Are you suicidal?
WEM said: "Why do you even bother, Sye?"
ReplyDeleteIn the hopes that people like you after scouring the internet for Christian blogs to spam, might some day repent and turn to seek the Truth.
So, annoy and pester and engage is specious argument in the hopes of getting me to believe what you believe?
ReplyDeleteYou can't be serious. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're not.
You've previously claimed that you don't want to convert people. You've also claimed that your brand of presupposition is intended to stop conversation rather than defend Christianity.
Given both of these, I think you should re-evaluate your answer above and be honest with yourself. If you don't want to tell me *why* you do it, that's your business.
WEM said: "You've previously claimed that you don't want to convert people."
ReplyDeleteNever said that I don't want to convert people. You must twist this to vilify me. Fact is people do not, and cannot convert people.
"You've also claimed that your brand of presupposition is intended to stop conversation rather than defend Christianity."
Again, another convenient twist. I have never said that it is the intent of presuppositionalism to stop conversation, that's merely a common effect.
"Given both of these, I think you should re-evaluate your answer"
No need.
Sye wrote alot of stuff so I'm responding in two separate posts
ReplyDeletePaul HOW are you certain that X can also equal A, B, C and D?
Easy.
X could be A - a non Christian God. Non-Christian faiths exist, therefore positing that a non-Christian God is the source of your revelation is valid. Disprove that.
X could be B - Satan. In your own Bible Satan has many deitical powers, therefore positing that Satan is the source of your revelation is valid. Disprove that.
X could be C - Mental derrangement caused by disease, injury, or drugs (including alcohol). There are many, many cases of such derrangements recorded. Indeed, how would explain Joseph Smiths revelation ?
X could be D - a non-exclusive revelation. Your revelation could be true, but so could everyone elses. That is to say, you would not have the required exclusivity that you need in order to be able to prove that all non-Christian revelations are false and yours is true.
Sye wrote:
ReplyDeletePaul HOW can you be certain that the laws of logic and your reasoning about them (or anything) are valid?
I've responded to this in depth and at length on the Premier Christian Radio forums. The fact that you do not accept those responses does not invalidate them or require that I restate them on demand. You know where they are - go read them again.
Sye wrote:
ReplyDeletePaul, I really think you've cracked. Can you not see what a(nother) rout it will be if you bring that argument? Has your reputation not been damaged enough?
In which case why don't you hurry up and sort out a suitable venue for this 'rout' ? I'm ready Sye, or are you protesting too much ?
Your accusation is a common defence mechanism. Under pressure you've asked several of your opponents whether they are mad, on drugs, or drunk, so I'm honoured that you've been reduced to making a similar observation about me.
It shows the shallowness of your worldview.
It's not a denial of god, but a lack of belief or being convinced. If you cannot understand that many of us find your arguments unconvincing, and must resort to conspiracies suggesting that we deny your god just because, then you have the mentality of a child stomping his feet during an argument.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same with morality. We don't need an absolute standard to judge morality. None exists, even if god existed there would be no absolute moral standard. You are confusing an appeal to authority for such a standard. All your moral views are appeals to an authority which in all probability never existed, so it really comes down to an appeal to tradition. You are pleading with us to adhere to a tradition where men and women follow the culture of a very ancient belief system.
That is why we can judge your god. Your reference is archaic and morality has changed in society very much since then. We hold your god accountable to our present morality as a means of judging your religion. That's also why your morality is seen as primitive, and no one is threatened by it, except in the case of those who commit acts of violence because of it.
Christopher,
ReplyDelete>>It's not a denial of god, but a lack of belief or being convinced. If you cannot understand that many of us find your arguments unconvincing, and must resort to conspiracies suggesting that we deny your god just because, then you have the mentality of a child stomping his feet during an argument.
Even an Atheist friend of mine said, "In actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no god. (Personally, I prefer Webster's myself, but dictionary.com is easier to link to.) Simply put, some people want to broaden the category of atheism so as to make the category to which people want to refer in such discussions too cumbersome to specify. If, for some reason, one wishes to identify himself only as not a theist, the term non-theist will suffice. But the term is not often used, as the category is useless to discussion. And that is why I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest. "
There is a HOST of reasons why you have faith in a religion, called Atheism. You certainly cannot claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, because there is. But because you deny the evidence, its what makes you follow a dogma called atheism.
>> We don't need an absolute standard to judge morality.
Is it absolutely true that we don't need an absolute standard to judge morality? If so how? If not, you have no argument.
>>We hold your god accountable to our present morality as a means of judging your religion. That's also why your morality is seen as primitive, and no one is threatened by it, except in the case of those who commit acts of violence because of it.
You made a valid point there. Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judges chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.
Dan
ReplyDeleteYou made a valid point there. Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
Substitute any other deity's name there instead of "god" and you'll see how stupid his reasoning is. It's just a way to shut down the demands for evidence of the existence of something while blindly assuming that his god exists.
You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judges chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.
Right...a "judge" who orders genocide, and I'm the criminal?
Where's the so-called moral perfection this being is supposed to have?
Again, you're just shutting down any investigation.
@dormantdragon - you said: "But I rather suspect it's pointless to expand upon this, since it appears from some of your previous posts that you are an evolution-denier."
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that we need to put on a naturalistic worldview to see the truth of the evidence thorugh your eyes and with your presuppositions? We already get that. Would you put on the Christian worldview for a bit and reevaluate all the evidence?
Anyway, I would really like you to expand. Really. I would also like to know more about the sensory reliability of your conscious processes, the consistency of your critical decision skills. It might help us better understand if you would also address freewill vs. well, no freewill (in other words being controlled by those chemical and electrical processes going on in the "loop").
I find it hard to believe Paul Baird is claiming someone else's world view is shallow!!
ReplyDeleteROTFL is a proper response.
PB, you really need to clean up your patheitic act of attempting to rebut theism using your er ... "logic"(?) all while denying the existence of logic.
There is no world view as shallow as atheism. Nothing else comes close.
You miss the point entirely Gary.
ReplyDeleteThe premise of Christian Presuppositional Apologetics is that it is founded on exclusive Christian Revelational Epistemology.
My exercise showed that that was fallacious by demonstrating that it was not possible for one Theistic Revelational Epistemology to disprove another Theistic Revelational Epistemology in which case the Christian Presuppositional Apologetic worldview has no more validity, because it's claim to exclusivity is false, than any other worldview, particularly another Theistic worldview that is also based on a Revelational Epistemology.
I'm sorry that you weren't able to understand that.
I don't need to be a Theist to be able to demonstrate that point.
Perhaps you should relisten to the broadcast with that nugget of knowledge in mind.
Atheists claim atheism is mere lack of belief, which would of course make it no real world view at all.
ReplyDeleteSo, atheism is not lack of belief.
Eternal universe theories can't work.
Multiverse theories are untestable and mere wishful thinking.
So "nothing creating everything" is all that remains for them.
Amazingly enough they really do believe that "nothing" is all powerful!
How's that for "scientific" beliefs?!
Atheists are the worst logicians on the planet -probably on every other planet as well.
They deny the existence of logical absolutes yet attempt to use logical absolutes to debunk deism and theism!
Real bright that.
Oops, sorry I forgot, they don't use logical absolutes, only relative logic. Whatever that is. Duh!
Well, actually that just means nothing but more than bad old self-refuting relativism.
This would make great comedy in a court of law:
Lawyer: "Your honor, my client cannot be guilty even though the prosecution has irrefutable proof"
Judge: "Say what? Why?"
Lawyer: "Yes your honor. Everything is relative and no absolutes exist, either moral or logical. Thus no absolute certainty exists that my client is guilty. Indeed, guilt is a relative word and depends on whether the law is itself relative. Um, this is common atheism yer honor which I'm sure you approve of! Therefore, there is a relative, reasonable doubt and my client must be viewed as innocent."
Judge: "Get the hell out of my court you lame brained twit! This is real life, not some philo class for idiots. ... Guilty as charged!"
HINT: To deny the law of non-contradiction is absolute one has to assume that it is.
Otherwise no proof is possible for anything. Doh!
Atheist here are all still wearing their precious blinders trying to "keep safe" from the simple truth. They are terrified that there may be something after death that's waiting for them.
And that because their consciences condemn them.
They feel secure believing there is no god (and they are his prophets) and are terrified that you may actually be right.
Otherwise, why are they here?
Certainly not to correct you of your "error" since "error" doesn't really exist either, seeing that all is relative and they cant be absolutely sure you're wrong!
ROTFL!
Sorry I just can't help laughing at these poor misguided, ill reasoning souls! If only it wasn't so serious!
Gary, nice bit of dodging there ;-)
ReplyDelete"HINT: To deny the law of non-contradiction is absolute one has to assume that it is.
Otherwise no proof is possible for anything. Doh!"
Would you like to actually look up para-consistent logic at all ?
"2.2 Dialetheias (True Contradictions)
Despite the fact that dialetheism and paraconsistency needs to be distinguished, dialetheism can be a motivation for paraconsistent logic. If there are true contradictions (dialetheias), i.e., there are sentences, A, such that both A and ¬A are true, then some inferences of the form {A , ¬A} ⊨ B must fail. For only true, and not arbitrary, conclusions follow validly from true premises. Hence logic has to be paraconsistent. One candidate for a dialetheia is the liar paradox. Consider the sentence: ‘This sentence is not true’. There are two options: either the sentence is true or it is not. Suppose it is true. Then what it says is the case. Hence the sentence is not true. Suppose, on the other hand, it is not true. This is what it says. Hence the sentence is true. In either case it is both true and not true. (See the entry on dialetheism in this encyclopedia for further details.)"
There are people laughing Gary, just not with you.
Paul, are you really willing to stand firm on the assertion that the sentence - “This sentence is not true.” - proves that the law of non-contradiction can’t have an absolute nature?
ReplyDeleteSeems like you now wish to borrow some from the "eastern view" of logic used to justify the rational of Hinduism, Buddhism, and the like. (I suspect you don't really hold any comprehensive set of beliefs along any of those traditions, but am fine with setting that aside for the moment until you can respond and clarify that point.)
When the Hindu argues that the there are no distinctions in his worldview he is by necessity making a distinction.
In the same way, it seems that you have reasoned that the sentence is both ‘true’ and ‘not true’. Yet, to even reason about this very sentence in the way you have you must first to hold to the validity of true vs. false - you therefore concede that there are such universal qualities as "true" and "false".
In other words, the problem with your reasoning in this case is that in order to assert that a sentence can be both true and false you must presuppose the very concept of truth and falsehood that you are trying to deny by making such a claim. Yes?
I’d like to remind you that before you even presupposed truth and falsehood to deny truth and falsehood you’ve already presupposed the validity of your own rationality and thinking – as Sye has pointed out to you a number of times. If I remember correctly your explanation for rationality came down to "I reason, therefore I reason". See the title of this blog post for further information. Therefore until we establish this foundation how can we allow for any other assessment of your rational or logic and trust that it is valid? Are you willing to grant us an foundational exception to your worldview to begin building our case? If so I have a specific one in mind… :)
Aside from the contradiction in your own reasoning, you still haven’t made the argument for the validity and for use of "dialetheias," let alone in terms of the "para-consistency" application you are asserting here. There are entirely other reasonable and logical perspectives that can account for the ‘liar's paradox’. We won’t have to look too hard to find rational alternatives to explain this sentence. Alternatives that don’t require we fit this special sentence into the hypothetical ‘box’ with which you have chosen here to make your case. Not the least of which is the fact that language is not perfect and allows for inconsistencies in its usage. We can say or write all kinds of inconsistent and contradictory things. We see both "believers" and "unbelievers" doing it all the time (sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally). Would you use the fact that people are inconsistent and contradictory in their communication to prove that those very inconsistencies and contradictions are all simultaneously valid truths?
And yes, unbelievers are probably laughing at Gary. For two reasons: 1) he is misrepresenting the Christian God by continually responding to others in a rather condescending way (sorry Gary, had to bring it to your attention), and 2) because at core of his arguments you will find some valid biblical truth - and the unredeemed mind of an unbeleiver is inherently hostile to the truths of the Christian God.
@ Christianatheism
ReplyDelete"Paul, are you really willing to stand firm on the assertion that the sentence - “This sentence is not true.” - proves that the law of non-contradiction can’t have an absolute nature?"
You need to define the term 'absolute' - it seems to be applied in all sorts of ways.
My point is not that I support para-consistant logic, I don't know enough about the subject to pass judgement, however I can see that the subject exists, which then begs the question as to how one can hold that the laws of logic are absolute in the stark terms that Presuppositionalists require.
"In the same way, it seems that you have reasoned that the sentence is both ‘true’ and ‘not true’."
No, I haven't, but I am pointing out that someone else has. So perhaps your observations and criticisms should be directed there.
The best way to consider the matter is that I'm using the concept of para-consitant logic as an expert witness to deny the proposition that the laws of logic are absolute.
"I’d like to remind you that before you even presupposed truth and falsehood to deny truth and falsehood you’ve already presupposed the validity of your own rationality and thinking – as Sye has pointed out to you a number of times. If I remember correctly your explanation for rationality came down to "I reason, therefore I reason". See the title of this blog post for further information. Therefore until we establish this foundation how can we allow for any other assessment of your rational or logic and trust that it is valid? Are you willing to grant us an foundational exception to your worldview to begin building our case? If so I have a specific one in mind… :)"
We didn't get into this in the Second Debate and my lack of preparation in the First Debate was telling.
However, given that you're going to propose one particular source, how would you dismiss all other similar sources ?
You see if you too are going to rely on revelational epistemology then how do you dismiss the non-Christians revelational Epistemology ?
Sye couldn't do it. I don't you can either, in which case your worldview has no more justification than mine.
"the unredeemed mind of an unbeleiver is inherently hostile to the truths of the Christian God."
I think that's plain old paranoia, it's not just the Christian God we're hostile towards. :-)
@ Christianatheism
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to why your Blogger profile is set to private considering how well read you appear to be.
You're not someones sock puppet are you ?
You are saying in so many words that you countered Gary with an argument that you have not thought out, and wouldn't necessary support, let alone defend, yourself. Correct?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that your argument valid simply because it is put forth?
Does your expert-witness stand to win the case? Jury?
I will have to let Sye answer for himself whether or not he couldn't offer a theism comparison or was simply not willing to do it.
If Sye really has a correct understanding of the bible and the van tillian approach to presuppositional apologetics he can.
I suspect he has a correct understanding which also brings to bear that he shouldn't. Not with you.
Why should Sye (or anyone) now bring forth (to you) a presuppositional comparison between Christianity and some other arbitrarily selected theistic worldview that you don't accept to begin with? Simply to continue in arbitrary reasoning with you?
Suggesting my worldivew has no more justification than yours without such a theistic comparison have been offered to you does seem to be falaciously begging the question though doesn't it?
You said: "I'm curious as to why your Blogger profile is set to private considering how well read you appear to be."
ReplyDeleteIs that a question?
I'm not sure how well read one has to be in order to apply valid criteria for assessing a truth claim.
But hang in there and I am sure I will start sounding, well the opposite of well read LOL :)
You said: "You're not someones sock puppet are you ?"
No. Well, if by 'someone' you would include Jesus I think we would have to argue the inferences that come with the phrase "sock puppet". :)
Pardon the extra post, I think it is both fair and proper to state the following, disagree if you will...
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me you have missed the most obvious route(s) to obtaining a thorough answer to your question (and apparent hangup) about the effectiveness against a proper presuppositional approach in handling theistic comparisons.
I may be wrong but I get the sense you are a man who wants to know the truth, whatever that truth is, and wherever it leads. Please don't use the unproved presupposition that the God of the bible does not exist as an excuse to stop searching for truth...
@ Christianatheism:
ReplyDeleteWell, nice to have what appears to be a theist with some expertise to exchange views with for a change.
Ok, lets take the use of para-consistant logic as a possible if not probable rebuttal to the assertion that the prescriptive application of the absolute laws of logic - which is where I'm going with this.
For me to accept that the laws of logic are absolute (and I view the word absolute as meaning invariant, eternal, universal, without condition or exception) then I am going to look for possible exceptions to the definitions ie to disprove such an absolute one only needs one example of a case that does not fit). I will then want to see 'proof' or at least a good line of argument that would show that this possible exception is not valid.
So, help yourself to that one.
Consider it similar to encountering a bloody crime scene with a dead victim and someone standing over the body with a bloody knife - can we really assume (a) the victim was murdered (b) the murder weapon was the knife (c) the person standing next to the body committed the murder.
That's the level of questioning that I'm putting forward - how can we sure that the laws of logic are indeed absolute (and prescriptive) when here's this para-consistant logic that would suggest otherwise.
It would be like finding a gun at the murder scene. I do not have to prove that it was the murder weapon in order to prove that we cannot be absolutely sure that the victim was murdered with the knife.
Hope that helps.
"You are saying in so many words that you countered Gary with an argument that you have not thought out, and wouldn't necessary support, let alone defend, yourself. Correct?"
Yes, that's pretty much how Stephen Law responded to Sye (except the thought out bit) when Sye asked for his account of Logic, Stephen provided three with the rider that he didn't necessarily believe any of them.
"I suspect he has a correct understanding which also brings to bear that he shouldn't. Not with you."
Aha, a mystery, I like msyteries. Have you thought about writing enigmatic short stories ?
"Why should Sye (or anyone) now bring forth (to you) a presuppositional comparison between Christianity and some other arbitrarily selected theistic worldview that you don't accept to begin with? Simply to continue in arbitrary reasoning with you?"
Because if he does not then the Christian Presupposition fails.
In order for it to succeed then only the Christian Presupposition can be true. Noone else can have their worldview supported by a Revelational Epistemology.
Unfortunately for the line of argument, many do.
Consider someone like David Icke - how would you use Christian PA against his worldview which is based on his own revelation from God ?
If you're ever likely to do that in a public arean then let me know, I'll buy a ticket, and I'll be impartial - I won't care who wins.
"Suggesting my worldivew has no more justification than yours without such a theistic comparison have been offered to you does seem to be falaciously begging the question though doesn't it?"
See above and perhaps explain why you think it's begging the question.
@ Christianatheist
ReplyDeletecontinued...
"You said: "I'm curious as to why your Blogger profile is set to private considering how well read you appear to be."
Is that a question?"
It's an observation, but no matter, it will add to the contuing air of mystery about your posts; a hidden identity and unspoken truths.
I always post under my own name - boring but transparent.
"No. Well, if by 'someone' you would include Jesus I think we would have to argue the inferences that come with the phrase "sock puppet". :)"
You could be Jesus using a sock puppet pseudonym ? Wow. The plot thickens.
I'd have been impressed with less. Mind you it would start to explain a few things.
"It seems to me you have missed the most obvious route(s) to obtaining a thorough answer to your question (and apparent hangup) about the effectiveness against a proper presuppositional approach in handling theistic comparisons.
I may be wrong but I get the sense you are a man who wants to know the truth, whatever that truth is, and wherever it leads. Please don't use the unproved presupposition that the God of the bible does not exist as an excuse to stop searching for truth..."
Ditto, but I'm being impartial about my possible findings, are you ?
It's been a pleasure exchanging posts with you.
christiantheism,
ReplyDelete>>In the same way, it seems that you have reasoned that the sentence is both ‘true’ and ‘not true’. Yet, to even reason about this very sentence in the way you have you must first to hold to the validity of true vs. false - you therefore concede that there are such universal qualities as "true" and "false".
>>In other words, the problem with your reasoning in this case is that in order to assert that a sentence can be both true and false you must presuppose the very concept of truth and falsehood that you are trying to deny by making such a claim. Yes?
I am slapping my head and scolding myself as to why I didn't think of that. Just wow! Great point.
ie. it's a great point when it can be used to reject arguments that annoy me.
ReplyDeleteGreat world view you've got there...
Dan, you didn't write it because you left your A game at home. :-p
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for christiantheist to respond but I guess it's still early over there.