FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Non Abrahamic Religions & Philosophies
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-16-2004, 07:36 AM   #191
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ON, Canada
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool
1. This is quite ambiguous. How does knowledge lead to knowledge of God? How does knowledge of God lead to knowledge? You are confused.
No, BGiC, I am not confused. Your inability to follow my argument does not mean that I am confused. That is, to use your favourite term, a non sequiter.

Quote:
I'll try to illuminate:
2. Our position in modus ponens:
P1. If God exists then knowledge obtains.
P2. Knowledge obtains.
C3. God exists.
3. Our position, expressed colloquially, is simply this: God, therefore knowledge (e.g. it is absolutely, unchangingly, eternally, and authoritatively true that 2 + 2 = 4 ... in every possible world -- just like God, necessarily). No God, no knowledge.
Give me a break. You cannot seriously believe that is an adequate proof for the existence of God or the dependence of human knowledge upon God?

You have not demonstrated that P1 is the only condition under which P2 would valid. See, you have done a sleight of hand in C3. In P1 you stated that the existence of God means that knowledge obtains; you have not stated that the fact that knowledge obtains entails the existence of God. In short you have demonstrated that the inverse of P1 would be correct. It is possible that knowledge can obtain without the existence of God. Therefore you actually do not have any warrant to make your C3. In short the simple fact that a particular effect is apparent does not necessarily prove a particular cause of said effect unless one can demonstrate that this is the only possible cause for said effect - which you have not done.

Your argument rests upon that unspoken minor. A more adequate argument would be:
P1. The existence of God is a possible condition under which knowledge obtains.
P2. Knowledge obtains.
C3. Therefore it is possible that God exists.

And, no, I am not confused. No, I have not argued a non sequiter. No, I have not misunderstood what you said. I have directly critiqued your P1, P2 and C3. Deal with that or ignore my post.
jbernier is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 10:38 AM   #192
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post time to back it up

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
No, BGiC, I am not confused. Your inability to follow my argument does not mean that I am confused. That is, to use your favourite term, a non sequiter [1].

Give me a break [2]. You cannot seriously believe that is an adequate proof for the existence of God or the dependence of human knowledge upon God [3]?

In short the simple fact that a particular effect is apparent does not necessarily prove a particular cause of said effect unless one can demonstrate that this is the only possible cause for said effect - which you have not done [4].

Your argument rests upon that unspoken minor. A more adequate argument would be:
P1. The existence of God is a possible condition under which knowledge obtains.
P2. Knowledge obtains.
C3. Therefore it is possible that God exists [5].
1. I see. If, as you say, your 'chicken-and-egg' problem is indeed unambigous reasoning then you can surely demonstrate this fact. To that end, I challenge you to line it up formally for inspection. I'll even help again.
2. OK. But let's keep it to 15 minutes this time.
3. Oh, but I do.
4. Granted. I actually caught that sloppy mistake after I could no longer edit. So, in the interest of utmost accuracy, I make the following modification to what we'll call A1:
P1. Iff God exists then does knowledge obtain.
P2. Knowledge obtains.
C3. God exists.
Now that P1 is a biconditional proposition, we no longer fallaciously affirm the consequent and only the antecedent 'God exists' is the necessary and sufficient grounds (or precondition or justification) for the verity of the consequent 'knowledge obtains'. Since we effectively retain modus ponens, the conclusion follows necessarily and so the argument is valid. I take it from your posturing that you will want to contend that P1 is unsound, however. I'll comment on that in a subsequent post.
5. Sure, I could do that if I only wanted to argue God as merely possible. But I am saying more than that; I am saying that God is the inescapable premise, so to speak. Typically expressed, TAG is really more of a meta-argument. More to come.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 12:00 PM   #193
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ON, Canada
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool
1. I see. If, as you say, your 'chicken-and-egg' problem is indeed unambigous reasoning then you can surely demonstrate this fact. To that end, I challenge you to line it up formally for inspection. I'll even help again.
Fine. I'll play this game, for now. One more "You're confused" and I'm going to walk off the court.

You said: "Actually, it is not the concept of God that makes human knowing possible, it is God Himself. Though this distinction may seem unimportant to you at this point in our talk."

I responded (in different words as I am rephrasing to better facilitate your understanding): Does God make human knowing possible or does our individual knowledge of the universe lead to the concept of God (note that I am using "knowledge" in the way that social historians tend to use knowledge: As the ways in which we conceptually arrange "facts" about the world). In short is God an ontological entites that provides knowledge or is God an epistemological construct that results from our experiences of the world?

Quote:
2. OK. But let's keep it to 15 minutes this time.
?

Quote:
4. Granted. I actually caught that sloppy mistake after I could no longer edit. So, in the interest of utmost accuracy, I make the following modification to what we'll call A1:
P1. Iff God exists then does knowledge obtain.
P2. Knowledge obtains.
C3. God exists.
This does not solve the problem. You still have not established that God's existence is the only condition in which knowledge obtains. In short, you have argued:
If A is then B is
B is
Therefore A is

However, this does not track as you nowhere establish "If B is then A is." You continue to assume the inverse of P1 where the inverse is not necessarily a valid extension of P1.


Quote:
I take it from your posturing that you will want to contend that P1 is unsound, however. I'll comment on that in a subsequent post.
Actually, I was not going to argue that. I have (and have again) argued that P1 does not say what you want it to say: That the existence of God is the only condition under which knowledge obtains. In and of itself it could be quite sound. It hardly matters as it not really the problem with your argumentation; the problem is the unwarranted leaps you are making between P2 and C3. Your conclusion makes a claim that is not the logical consequence of P1 and P2.

Quote:
5. Sure, I could do that if I only wanted to argue God as merely possible. But I am saying more than that; I am saying that God is the inescapable premise, so to speak.
Yes, you are saying that. But saying it does not make it the case in reality.
jbernier is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 12:24 PM   #194
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post you still need to put some dirt underneath these claims

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
Fine. I'll play this game, for now. One more "You're confused" and I'm going to walk off the court [1].

You said: "Actually, it is not the concept of God that makes human knowing possible, it is God Himself. Though this distinction may seem unimportant to you at this point in our talk." [2]

I responded (in different words as I am rephrasing to better facilitate your understanding): Does God make human knowing possible or does our individual knowledge of the universe lead to the concept of God (note that I am using "knowledge" in the way that social historians tend to use knowledge: As the ways in which we conceptually arrange "facts" about the world). In short is God an ontological entites that provides knowledge or is God an epistemological construct that results from our experiences of the world [3]?

?

This does not solve the problem [4]. You still have not established that God's existence is the only condition in which knowledge obtains [5]. In short, you have argued:
If A is then B is
B is
Therefore A is [6]

However, this does not track as you nowhere establish "If B is then A is." You continue to assume the inverse of P1 where the inverse is not necessarily a valid extension of P1 [7].

Actually, I was not going to argue that. I have (and have again) argued that P1 does not say what you want it to say: That the existence of God is the only condition under which knowledge obtains [8]. In and of itself it could be quite sound. It hardly matters as it not really the problem with your argumentation; the problem is the unwarranted leaps you are making between P2 and C3. Your conclusion makes a claim that is not the logical consequence of P1 and P2 [9].

Yes, you are saying that. But saying it does not make it the case in reality.
1. You are free to 'walk off the court' whenever you like.
2. Granted.
3. As I've said before and say now it is God's actual ontological existence that makes human knowing possible. I eagerly anticipate your inference from this.
4. Incorrect. The problem with the prior formulation of A1 was that P2 fallaciously affirmed the consequent of P1 thereby invalidating the conclusion C3 of A1. The mistake to which I referred was one of validity, not soundness. I was tempted to say that you are confused again here but then you'd just 'walk off the court' so I'll refrain for charity's sake.

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

5. Incorrect. I have done just that here. You opted not to respond, for whatever reason.
6. Incorrect. I have modified my argument so as to be validating thusly:
P1. Iff A is then B is
P2. B is
C3. Therefore A is
7. Incorrect. See 5.
8. Excellent. So you say that something other than God grounds absolute knowledge? Do tell.
9. If C3 is a non sequitur from P1 and P2 then not only can you allege it as such but you can also demonstrate it as such.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 01:26 PM   #195
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
Does God make human knowing possible or does our individual knowledge of the universe lead to the concept of God (note that I am using "knowledge" in the way that social historians tend to use knowledge: As the ways in which we conceptually arrange "facts" about the world). In short is God an ontological entites that provides knowledge or is God an epistemological construct that results from our experiences of the world?
yeah, this is what I was trying to say with the chicken/egg argument. You just did it better.

Now, let me ask the question without P's and C's.

(And this may be in the field of anthropology, so if I am wrong, please correct it.)

Is it true that a variety of cultures came up with their individual concept of god(s) using the knowledge they had?

Assyrians had gods. Babylonians had gods. Egyptians had gods. Romans, Greeks, Norseman. Even Aztecs, Native Americans, Indians, etc.

(As an aside, I have heard many a missionary brag about having to create a word for "god" as the wild natives had no such word or concept. Don't know what that means.)

So (I would say) we see that knowledge results in a concept of god. In point of fact a great VARIETY of gods, that contradict each other.

But BGic would say that all of these persons (despite their intuition) were wrong about the concept of god. The Jews were close, but only the chrisitans got it right.

I would also agree with BGic's contention that if there was a god/creator, it would be the author of knowledge.

So I have two practical propositions: knowledge creating a concept of god, and a god creating knowledge, BOTH of which seem equally feasible.

Therefore, the question of which came first, god or knowledge, as I see it, does not propel us any further.

Neither "proves" or "disproves" god. We are now living in the 21st Century with both knowledge and concept of god(s) with no practical way, simply by arguing "there is knowledge" or "there is god(s)" to say which came first.
blt to go is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 01:26 PM   #196
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ON, Canada
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool
4. Incorrect. The problem with the prior formulation of A1 was that P2 fallaciously affirmed the consequent of P1 thereby invalidating the conclusion C3 of A1.
That was not the only problem with your original argumentation. Nonetheless.1

Quote:
5. Incorrect. I have done just that here. You opted not to respond, for whatever reason.
I opted not to respond because there was nothing of substance to which I could respond. In that post you assert that God is the only thing in which one can ground knowledge; however you do not establish that to be the case. There is a difference between asserting and establishing something.

Quote:
6. Incorrect. I have modified my argument so as to be validating thusly:
P1. Iff A is then B is
P2. B is
C3. Therefore A is
Is that not exactly the summation I gave above? Since it is I am not at all sure what you are saying is incorrect since I said exactly what you say here.

Either way, there is still a non sequiter here. That the existence of A necessitates the existence of B does not necessarily mean that the existence of B necessitates the existence of A. Thus using the existence of B to support the existence of A is unwarranted based upon your argumentation.

Quote:
8. Excellent. So you say that something other than God grounds absolute knowledge? Do tell.
I do not have to. You are the one who is making the positive argument that only God grounds absolute knowledge. Thus it is you who must prove that statement to be correct, not I who must disprove it. You must show why God and only God can ground absolute knowledge.

Either way, you are playing bait and switch here. Up until now you have been talking about "knowledge" in the generic; suddenly you are talking about "absolute knowledge." These are not necessarily the same category or entity. We have been talking about grounding knowledge, not grounding absolute knowledge and that is what I will continue to talk about. And, yes, there are numerous ways to ground knowledge: Empiricism, for one; logical argumentation, for another.

By the way, if God is the only means by which one can ground "absolute knowledge" then one cannot absolutely prove this to be the case through logical
argumentation as you are attempting to do as this argumentation would not be grounded in God. Careful that you do not hoist yourself on your own petard here.

Quote:
9. If C3 is a non sequitur from P1 and P2 then not only can you allege it as such but you can also demonstrate it as such.1
I have, several times.
jbernier is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 02:46 PM   #197
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,997
Default

Moderator note

I don't know if it's because the weekend is approaching and people are getting tired, but some of the comments on this last page are gettin a little snippy. This has been a good discussion so far and overall it's been conducted with a high level of civility - let's aim to keep it that way.
reprise is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 04:12 PM   #198
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
This much is correct: No epistemology can "self-authenticate" because that would be circular. However...

You seem to have a stigma against circular arguments. I understand why, logic tells us not to use them. However, because all argumentation at the ultimate level is in fact circular we should not have the same fear of the circular. We need to discuss these issues because if we don't we are left without true knowledge.

You need 3 things to have true knowledge. 1) You must have a true fact. 2) You must believe it to be true and 3) you must have justification for that fact. It is this justification that I am trying to distinguish. Without the justification, it cannot be said that we have true knowledge.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
Whoa. Hang on a moment here. Methinks I detect some sleight of hand. What you are essentially doing is arbitrarily stating that one category (scientific method as impersonal philosophical construct) cannot "self-authenticate" whereas the other category (God as personal entity)can. Problems:

1) You are comparing different types of things. What is the warrant for doing so?

Of course I have warrant for doing so, they both are claimed as ultimate authorities. I am not comparing different types of things. I am comparing ultimate authorities.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
2) You are assigning potential properties to one of these types (the potential to self-authenticate) and not granting it to the other. Again, what is the warrant for doing so?

The "Being" assigns this property to Himself (Exod 3:14, Heb 6:13, Jer 49:13, Jer 51:14, Isa 45:23), and the "Idea" can't even exist without that "Beings" mind. Is that warrant enough?




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
3) Can we properly think of a methodology as an "authority"? It is not. Of course you can say that it has no authority because, really, methods are not authorities. What you are essentially doing is stacking the deck by demanding that we compare God and scientific method on the level of authority - you are stacking the deck because the scientific method, as method, cannot be an authority. If we move to the level of epistemology -how can we know what we know - the field gets leveled out a bit because we are not pigeon-holed into thinking about "authority."

I agree that the scientific method is no authority. However, some people do use the scientific method as their authority. I am not stacking the deck. I am comparing the ultimate authorities that people use and it is through no fault of my own that the scientific method falls short as an authority.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
No - I refuse to claim that I can validate my first principles without referring to either my first principles or other principles logically prior to my first principles. In other words at some point one must say "Here I stand." I not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing - I am simply saying that it is the nature of knowledge.

"Here I stand." Huh? Well, if your confused I can inform you that it's not a very good thing to ultimately justify your epistemological basis by saying, "here I stand. It's called "blind faith". Christians are ridiculed for making that statement, but because you happen to be on the atheist side you feel you can get away with it. What is your warrant for criticizing Christians for saying "the Bible says so" when you say, "Well, here I stand"? What if I said "The Bible is inerrant, Here I stand!"? Would you consider this debate over? Maybe I should, that way we could then turn our attention to "more important" questions like "Do fish drink water?"




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
And, no, this does not mean that opinions are arbitrary. I can give you very well-reasoned explanations for most of my opinions. Nonetheless, they are all rooted in first principles that are ultimately untestable without reference to principles which are logically prior to those first principles being tested.

Hence them being arbitrary. Don't mince words; just admit it. You are just trusting in an epistemological basis for knowledge that you cannot be sure of and so everything you believe and say is the fruit of that confusion, hence your opinion is arbitrary. You tell me that you are not arbitrary because you can give me "very well reasoned explanations" but you can't tell me why you can trust your reason other than "Here I stand". This is why I am no longer an atheist, because everything within the atheist worldview is ultimately reduced to absurdity. The atheist can only say, "here I stand" or "it is just that way". Only the Christian worldview can answer the question "why is your reason trustworthy" but because you do not like the answer, you refuse to even consider the validity of it. You seem to prefer to offer me your arbitrary opinion and then say, well "here I stand" as if the statement "here I stand" is justified.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
How is your "ultimate presupposition" self-authenticating? You keep saying this over and over again but I have yet to see a convincing argument to defend the position. Points: 1) The "Bible" nowhere claims that the "Bible" is inerrant or the ultimate authority;

Are you saying by this that the books of the Bible do not claim God to be omniscient? Are you saying by this that nowhere does the Bible say that God is perfect? Are you saying by this that the books of the Bible do not claim to be Gods word? Are you saying by this that nowhere does the Bible say that Gods word is not the truth? Logical deduction equals inerrancy.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
2) This, of course, is due to the fact that the "Bible" did not exist until centuries after the "Bible" was written, thus such a claim would have been impossible at the time that the "Bible" was written;

So your saying that the "Bible" did not exist at the time it was written? You may want to rethink that last statement. How can something come into being "centuries" after it was created? The "Bible" as you say, existed when it was written; it was compiled centuries later after people like Marcion tried to deny the authentic books of the "Bible". It is precisely because of heretics like Marcion that the Church compiled the books of the "Bible" into the format that we have today.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
3) Thus, even if a particular passage in the "Bible" makes comments about scriptures such comments cannot be applied to the "Bible" as we now have it since the "Bible" as we now have it did not then exist. Quite simply your claims that the "Bible" self-authenticates itself are incorrect.

Refer to above.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
No. You said that all worldviews are ultimately circular.

They are. You just deny it. As soon as you approach the realm of justification (or ultimates) you suddenly see that its circular and you say "oops! I didn't mean to go there!" You have a choice to either deal with it as it is or "get out of the pool."

As long as you don't ask the question, "How do I know my epistemology is correct?" you will have no problems and you can go on saying "its just that way!" or "here I stand". But that will never make for good debate and it will always keep you at the level of unjustified knowledge, or in other words no true knowledge at all. I, on the other hand, will deal with the circularity in worldviews knowing that just because they are circular does not mean that they are wrong. They are only wrong if they cannot justify themselves. So once again I say that the Christian worldview is the only justified worldview.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
Yes, it does: It challenges the very notion that one can "prove" an "ultimate authority" (note that proving and justifying are not necessarily the same thing, btw).

Neither you nor I (or anyone else) can justify an ultimate authority. One can neither prove nor disprove an ultimate authority, one can only recognize whether the ultimate authority is justified or unjustified. The ultimate authority must justify itself.




Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernier
That is so much sophistry. You can define "canon" however the heck you want (and all you are doing here is quibbling over the definition; you are not saying anything substantive) but you come down to an incontrovertible historical fact: There was no standardized list of New Testament texts until at the very least the fourth century and there is still no fully standardized list of Old Testament texts.

I assume you mean you have no standardized list, in which case I concede, your right in that you don't have a standardized list. I, on the other hand, do have a standardized list in both the New Testament and Old Testament texts. Again, your objection to the chronology of canonization is ambiguous. Do you doubt the validity of the canon because of the chronology of canonization? Are you saying that the church fathers got it wrong because they standardized the text in the 4th century vs. the 3rd century or 2nd century or 1st century? I am unsure as why the century of the standardization of the Biblical writings is such a problem. Again, I will restate my question; when would have been a good time, for you I mean, for the church fathers to have standardized the texts they already had? The historical fact you ignore is that the church had the Biblical texts in their possession in the first century. One of the rules of canonization is that the text had to be in use and accepted by the church. The "Bible" must have existed in order for that rule to be in place. The church fathers had to take a very serious look at the texts and standardize them because of heretics like Marcion. I don't see what difference it makes if that particular controversy had occurred in the 4th century or the 1st century or even the 19th century. Furthermore, I have been clear that I am reformed in my faith. I therefore do not accept the Roman Catholic Bible with the apocrypha. The mere fact that the Catholic Church accepts the apocrypha in order to justify some of their beliefs does not mean that the Protestant Church has no standardized Bible. Nor does it mean that I am changing the definition of the word “canon�. It means “measuring rod� and I use it in that sense.


Robert
RobertLW is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 04:44 PM   #199
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
No, I know (and it should be clear to everyone) that you have never stated that when you use the word "assume" you mean it to be absolute fact.?

What I was pointing out, that while you never state that, it is, in fact, how you apply it, you treat it as fact.
I treat my assumptions as assumptions that have not been disproved. Don't you? Who among us would treat their assumptions as false? Of course I treat my assumptions as facts, that was an assumption is something that is taken "to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof;" (see your definitions below). So now am I supposed to treat them as false according to you? You treat your assumption that your senses are reliable to be a fact. You treat your assumption that tomorrow gravity will still be in effect as a fact. But both are just assumptions that are not verifiable. So am I not allowed to treat my assumptions as facts until proven false? In other words you don't want me to treat my assumptions as assumptions, you want me to treat them as false. I am disinclined to acquiesce to your critique at this time.




Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
Assumptions, presumptions and presuppositions are all (by definition) subject to change upon presentation of proof. What I have seen here is that
What do you mean by proof? What proof has been offered? My ultimate authority cannot be proven empirically, it can only be proven rationally. It can be justified. This is why I sometimes say proven/justified. I know that the words do not necessarily mean the same thing but because I am speaking philosophically from reason, proof means justification.

What you are attempting to hammer me with, I will go ahead and address. I explained defeasible and non-defeasible presuppositions. Yes, they are all subject to change upon presentation of proof. Did I not admit to changing my presuppositions previously upon presentation and evaluation of proof/justification? When I argued the difference between defeasible and non-defeasible presuppositions you responded with the following:




Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
(See, I keep seeing your argument like the tale of why a lawyer never calls the mother of the accused as a witness in the criminal trial. The question/answer (although not compeletly accurate) goes like this:

Q: Why do you think your son did not do the crime?
A: Because I know my son, and there is no way he could have committed the crime.

Q: But what about his confession to the police?
A: Since I Know that there is no way that my son could ever do this crime, the confession must be false, and the police must have beat it out of him.

Q: But what about the eyewitnesses?
A: Since I know there is no way that my son committed this crime, they must have been wrong.

Q: Don't you care about how the eyewitnesses viewed the scene, how far away they were, the lighting?
A: No, it is not like there was videotape.

Q: Funny you should say that, here IS the videotape which alleges your son committed the crime.
A: Since I know there is no way my son committed the crime, that tape must be false. Why, my 12-year old put my face on Dolly Parton's body and Damn, if it didn't look real. If they can do that, anything can be shown.

Q: What about the fingerprints on the weapon?
A: I know that there is no way that my son could do this, so the weapon must be planted.
Here you provide a wonderful story with not one, but two examples of non-defeasible presuppositions. Let's examine both cases. Case one; we have the mother who refuses to believe her son guilty because her presuppostion is her basis for interpreting his guilt. She will not change her presupposition for any reason hence it being non-defeasible. It can be said that her presupposition, in this case, is "my son cannot be guilty of any crime". We both agree her presupposition is unjustified. She has no rational basis for her presuppositions; it can be reduced to absurdity as you have shown. She is obviously self-delusional. Case two; we have the police officer that is looking at the empirical data. It can be said that his presupposition for the basis of interpreting the woman's sons' guilt is the empirical data. He will not change that presupposition for any reason hence it being non-defeasible. You and I both know that his presupposition is justified, he has a rational and justifiable basis for his presupposition. If we examine and compare both cases, we can come to the following conclusions.

Case one; the woman is self-delusional. She will hold to her presupposition regardless of the rational or empirical data. Moreover, her presupposition is not justified. She knows her son to be innocent but it can be said that she does not have true knowledge. (On the surface level, not the ultimate level) This is a self-induced condition.

Case two; the police officer is not self-delusional. He holds to his presupposition and it is rationally justified. He can examine the evidence and come to his conclusions and he is justified in doing so. It can be said that he does have true knowledge. (On the surface level, not the ultimate level)

Non-defeasible presuppositions are not a problem when they are justified. How do we apply this example of surface presuppositions to ultimate presuppositions? This is how I evaluate my epistemological basis for knowledge. Is my ultimate presupposition justified? Yes, it is. As I previously argued, and jbernier agreed, we cannot justify our ultimate presuppositions without them being self-authenticating or circular. My ultimate presupposition is the only one that can be self-authenticating; therefore it is the only one that can be justified. It is from this argument that it can be said that atheists are self-delusional. They hold to ultimate presuppositions that can ultimately be reduced to absurdity and it cannot be said they hold true knowledge.




Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
1) you do not know the proof(s) presented and
Quite the contrary. I do know what proof has been presented. All the proof presented to me has been evidentiary in nature. Have I not been clear that I do not argue in evidentiary terms with skeptics? Have I not been clear as why I do not do so? You and I share no common ground with the methods and rules with which we interpret evidence. Therefore we will never agree with our interpretations of the evidence. The way to understand each other lies within justification of our methods and rules of interpreting the evidence. Furthermore, do not make the mistake of assuming I do not know the "proof" presented simply because I disagree with your conclusions.




Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
2) you would freely acknowledge to reject the proof upon presentation. (your "circular" logic)
No idea what you are trying to say here. What proof has been presented to the contrary of my argument? You really seem to be saying that because I reject the skeptic's "proof", I am incorrect and the only way for me to be correct is to accept the skeptic's "proof". Really, when you make this type of statement, it betrays your true feeling that you are your own ultimate authority (autonomous) and I should take any proof you offer at face value because you are your own ultimate standard of truth. This is absurd and I will not do so.




Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
(By the by, as I am clearly confused as to both your and BGic's use of what I thought were common terms, I looked up the words "assume" and "presume" in dictionary.com. lo and behold, among the definitions was the following:

Assume v 1: take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof; "I assume his train was late" [syn: presume, take for granted]

Presume v : take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof; "I assume his train was late" [syn: assume, take for granted].

I will try and use presume when referencing your statements in the future.)
Well, these are not the only definitions of those two words but in either case I don't really care which one you pick because assume, presume, suppose, presuppose can all be interchanged, they are more or less synonyms. I just like presuming better than I do assuming. (My attempt at humor)




Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
Tell me, RobertLW, don't you deny Allah, Vishnu, Baal, Ra, Odin, Zeus, the Great Spirit, Krishna, etc....? Are you "denying" these gods so you can retain your (christian) autonomy? Because you do not want to submit and give up your (christian) autonomy? In order that you can enjoy the sin of chess? or the sin of medicine? or the sin of blood transfusion? or whatever constitutes "sin" in any of the other religions?
You could not seriously ask me these questions if you had actually read my arguments. I deny all other gods that cannot fully justify true knowledge. I do not reject them because I "selected" Christianity and wish to retain some kind of false autonomy. I reject them because they are false. As a reformed Christian, I have NO autonomy. I recognize I have no autonomy and freely admit such. I submit to God because I MUST.




Quote:
Originally Posted by blt to go
Can't improve on this:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen Roberts)
Again, I will say there is no such thing as atheists. He simply denies God in order to retain his autonomy. Mr. Roberts cannot be said to have true knowledge. He also has no idea why I reject all other proposed gods which is why his statement is structured this way. If Mr. Roberts actually understood why I reject all other proposed gods he would have no choice but to choose either the Christian God or nihilism.


Robert
RobertLW is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 04:54 PM   #200
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Post from the top

I thought I already explained this but I guess I'll do it again. Iff means 'if and only if', jbernier; it is significantly distinct from just 'if' which makes for conditional propositions. Iff is what remakes P1 as a biconditional proposition and what remedies the prior argument-invalidating fallacy. Apparently there is still a lot of confusion so let's take it from the top.

A1:
P1. Iff God exists then knowledge obtains.
P2. Knowledge obtains.
C3. God exists.

Now, before I proceed, are there any questions? I don't want to have to turn the boat around again. By the by, I've yet to see a formulation of the self-styled chicken-and-egg argument. If it can't be formulated then I have no reason to believe it unambiguous and so is of no consequence to me.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.