Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-27-2002, 02:50 AM | #231 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 2,406
|
Note to moderators: Couldn't we collect all the immediate rebuttals of presuppositionalism in a FAQ ?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kent Symanzik (in part): [QB]Hi Synaesthesia, You seem to be saying here that I must be omniscient before I can make a presupposition. I don't understand your reason for this. Can you elaborate? What I do know is that if I do not presuppose the Christian God then I cannot rationally know anything. [quote] How do you know that without making some presupposition ? You cannot judge a system which makes different presuppositions from "within" your own system; that's like applying the rules of soccer to (American) football and claiming a foul when someone is carrying the ball. Of course, if you presuppose the Christian God you cannot rationally know anything either - as long as you require the same standard for your knowledge as you require for the knowledge in an atheist system. This is for the simple reason that he may lie to you when he says that he never lies. In contrast, the reality of non-theism (aka "Nature" or "The Universe") may be highly complicated, but, lacking volition, cannot actively deceive you. BTW, the "laws of logic" are tautologies in the sense that they are inherent in the semantics of our language. They don't need a transcedental origin. An exact analogy would be the "law" that a bishop never moves to a square of a different color, or that the ace of trumps always takes a trick. Those "laws" are inherent in the rules for chess and bridge; they don't need a transcedental origin either. Regards, HRG. "All theorems of logic state the same: to wit, nothing" (L. Wittgenstein) |
08-27-2002, 08:15 AM | #232 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi Jobar, thanks for the welcome.
Quote:
Quote:
Until that is accomplished we are forced to presuppose that God exists to make sense of suffering in order to use suffering as an argument against his existence. Quote:
Kent |
|||
08-27-2002, 08:29 AM | #233 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi acronos,
I think I understand where you are coming from. Quote:
From my perspective, the difficulty is that we do live in a world with universals. And I know where these universals are established, namely God. So what happens is that atheists can say "What's the problem? The universe as far as we know is uniform. It works and I have my atheist worldview." But my point is that if your worldview was actually true it wouldn't work. I hope I am being clear. I just want to let you know what I'm thinking. Kent |
|
08-27-2002, 10:55 AM | #234 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
|
Hi Kent,
Quote:
Quote:
[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: acronos ]</p> |
||
08-27-2002, 11:08 AM | #235 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
|
Quote:
Even though I don’t have to explain it, most atheists, I think, would say that the sensation of suffering evolved because there was an evolutionary advantage in motivating creatures to avoid suffering. Pleasure and pain motivate people. Pleasure motivates people towards behaviors that support survival and propagation. Pain motivates people to avoid things that are detrimental to survival. Suffering is what happens when you experience pain. |
|
08-27-2002, 11:20 AM | #236 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 216
|
Quote:
|
|
08-27-2002, 04:00 PM | #237 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi acronos,
Quote:
In short, I'm trying to explain that you have a knowledge problem. You are free to presuppose the universe but you have no way of knowing all of what the universe is. Quote:
I have thought about this as well. I have wondered, just as I presuppose the Christian God why can't an atheist presuppose the universe, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc. But, I think this is problematic because I do not see how all of these things fit in an atheistic worldview. Where do we get uniformity from the randomness of the universe. And what are the laws of logic? I do not know of any atheistic worldviews that have a foundation to support abstract universals. Another problem I have with presupposing these things is that you are simply presupposing the very things that our worldviews need to justify. The laws of logic are not a foundation but rather require a foundation. In other words, instead of presupposing something to be a source of your knowledge you are presupposing the knowledge itself. I hope I haven't muddied things up too much. I'm just trying to lay all my thoughts out at once. Kent |
||
08-27-2002, 04:36 PM | #238 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi acronos,
Quote:
Quote:
My argument basically is that atheists must rely on terms that are unjustified in atheistic worldviews to explain phenomena like, suffering, pleasure, survival, and death. It's been a pleasure having this dialogue with you. Kent |
||
08-27-2002, 04:40 PM | #239 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi acronos,
Quote:
Quote:
I admit that it was an unclear statement. Kent |
||
08-27-2002, 04:47 PM | #240 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 137
|
Hi HRG,
Quote:
It would be the same if you were able to ask Protagoras what authority told him that man is the measure of all things. No other authority, of course. Ultimate authorities by definition must be self-authorizing. Kent |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|