SeaKayaker

Daetheron,

Sorry for the long delay in my reply. I just handed in one paper on the function of penicillin and one on Cicero’s view of salvation and morality in De Re Republica (which I also presented as a speech) today. In other words, I have been busy getting these together.

I did not mean to leave this issue so long, but this is not what I mean by absolute authority. When I talk about your absolute authority, I am talking about that authority you do not question. This is the authority by which you judge other authorities. Everyone has an absolute authority, whether it is logic, empirical observation, the Bible, or something else. I think that I am using the typical definition for absolute authority, but if it is often used in a different way, I would like to hear its normal meaning.

SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

HRGruemm,

I would like to point out that I do not claim that science has discovered any scientific laws. I am defining scientific laws as the underlying universal laws that form the basis for our scientific theories. I have defined this term already in this discussion (at least once), so if you disagree with my way of doing so maybe we should discuss it specifically.
Although I have not noticed many people making the distinction that I am trying to draw between scientific theories and scientific laws, as I was reading George Smith’s Atheism: The Case against God this evening, I saw that he made a very similar distinction. He uses slightly different terminology, but he differentiates between what I call scientific theories and scientific laws, saying that, “while the particular scientific laws will change as man’s knowledge increases, the principle of natural law itself is a constant; it persists as a corollary of existence (p. 40). To emphasize the fact that universal laws of science must exist independently of our theories and to prevent equivocation of confusion in my arguments, I am using the two separate terms scientific theory and scientific law. For these reasons, I think that we would all benefit from consistently differentiating between theory and law for the sake of this discussion, and unless someone has a better way to make the distinction, I will continue to refer to scientific theories and scientific laws as separate entities.

From where did this default behavior come (why is it the default)? Why does it remain the default behavior?

And I could disagree with your definition of “and” and say that “A and B” means “if A then B” or “~A or B,” or so on. I could have defined “and” using the same method that you did, and now your absolute law is invalid. However, I do not even claim that this is necessarily an absolute law for the Christian (although it may well be). Instead, I claim that there exists an underlying universal that this rule reflects. In as much as this rule reflects that universal law, it will be accurate. If there is no independent and underlying law upon which your rule is based, even if no one challenges your definition of “and,” it would not necessarily have to be true (see my reference to Smith earlier in the post).

SeaKayaker

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: SeaKayaker ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Bgponder,

Thanks for your comments.

To tell you the truth, I have not gotten the chance to go through “My Credo” in great detail, but I have taken long enough to reply to you, so I will say that for the time being I generally agree with VanTil. I am trying to look into his views a little more, though, before I commit myself more (most of what I have studied of the transcendental argument has come from VanTil’s students, especially Bahnsen, not VanTil himself), but I so far find myself generally agreeing with him.

SeaKayaker

bgponder

Seakayaker:
I apologize if the terseness of my last post offended you.

I must confess that my emotions got the better of me when I read Van Til's position, since to me it seems so arrogant. I guess I was trying to read something more into the
term "presuppositionalism", since it garners so much attention. How has the view shown that it is the non-Christian who does not see the world clearly, by simply taking as authority that which the non-Christian rejects? And, I might add, by a limited (Calvinist)interpretation of that authority?


To continue the thread:

You said--
You have claimed the existence of these universals several times, and have gone on to assert that without them the "laws" of science, logic, etc., which you have rightly termed theories, would be invalid. You have not demonstrated these things, nor are they a priori. What is this Y such that if ~Y, then X=~X?

Your language in the above post ("independent") suggests that you are positing some transcendent codification of attributesof existence.

Why is this not simply the fallacy of reification? How can the attributes of a thing exist separately from that thing?

Peace and Cornbread, Barry

HRG

Some points about your post .....

It did not "come from" at all. It simply is.

As I said: because there are no supernatural beings around which could change it, it stays constant.

&lt;snip&gt;
No, it isn't. In this case you would simply be speaking a different language. Perhaps Outer Ruritanians say "and" when English speaking people say "or"; this does not change the universality of A & B =&gt; A and A =&gt; A v B.

And this underlying universal states exactly what ?

[quote]
In as much as this rule reflects that universal law, it will be accurate.
If there is no independent and underlying law upon which your rule is based, even if no one challenges your definition of “and,” it would not necessarily have to be true (see my reference to Smith earlier in the post).
[quote]

It is necessarily true because of the definition of "and"/"und"/"et"/"i"/"kai" etc., just as the famous "Bachelors are unmarried" is true because of the definition of "bachelor".

Regards,
HRG.

bgponder

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
Hey Y'all,
Where can I learn about these logic symbols?

Thanks, P&C Barry

SeaKayaker

Barry,

I do not know of any good references on the web, so here are some of notes from my logic class. A word of caution, though: the UBB format does not display all of the symbols correctly (namely the biconditional and horseshoe), so I will be improvising on those symbols.

The common symbols (logical operators) are • (and), v (or), &gt; (if…then), = (if and only if), and ~ (not). To really define them, though, truth tables are necessary. I will basically write out the truth tables in sentence form since I do not think that the charts will post well.

· In order for the statement p • q (lowercase letters stand for generic statements, uppercase ones for particular propositions) to be true, both p and q must be true.
· In order for p v q to be true, at least one of the statements must be true (they can both be true).
· In order for p &gt; q (read "if p then q") to be true, if p is true, q must be true, but if p is not true, q can be either true or false (therefore, the only way this can be false is if p is true and q is not – if your condition happens but the result does not follow).
· In order for p = q to be true, if p is true, then q must be true and if p is false, then q must be false.
· The ~ is used to negate a proposition ("not p" is the same as ~p).

There is a symbol for therefore, three dots arranged in a triangle, but I could not post it or think of any similar symbol to use for it, so I will probably write out “therefore” should the need arise.

As a note, the real symbol for &gt; is actually more rounded, like a sideways horseshoe, and the real symbol for = actually has a third line, but the bulletin board does not recognize these symbols. Unless someone has another suggestion, I will probably use the symbols the way I have posted them here in my posts.

If anyone sees any errors or omissions, please tell me.

So, have I cleared this up at all or have I completely confused you? If you find this interesting, there are a whole set of rules to allow you to change between symbols for use in writing formal proofs and truth tables that you may enjoy. Formal logical proofs are very similar (at least as far as the thought process) to formal geometric proofs.

SeaKayaker

bgponder

Seak'er: &lt;play on word Seeker&gt;
Thanks, that was yummy. I remembered the therefore from geometry, some...ye gads, some
twenty-eight years ago. I have copied this stuff into my infidels.org folder.

How about we get back to them durned ol' presup arguments, now?

Peace and Cornbread, Barry

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Bgponder,

I am glad that you found my post helpful (I am glad that you remembered the therefore symbol from geometry – I realize that my description of it was very vague).
As for resuming our discussion, I will try to write a post dealing with the issue of whether or not universal laws are even necessary for logic and science (within a day or two – I have been busy lately). However, just to make sure that I am not wasting my time, do you think that they are necessary (an open question to all on the forum)?

P.S. Thanks to everyone who has posted on this board for actually being willing to discuss this issue without just resorting to name-calling as I have seen on other presuppositionalists forums here.

SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

Bgponder,

Thanks for your explanation of your earlier post on “My Credo.” I can certainly see how the transcendental argument can seem arrogant. However, if it is true, Christians should still use it. People often find the truth offensive, but that does not mean that they do not need to hear it. The way I like to look at it, if I present something and a person finds the truth itself offensive, that is his fault, not mine. However, if a person finds my presentation offensive, that is my fault and something I need to correct. Especially with the transcendental argument, it is important for the Christian to show humility. I believe that VanTil wrote “My Credo” to another apologist who did not use the presuppositionalist approach, not to an unbeliever. This could lead him to adopt a slightly different tone from that one which he would use with a unbeliever. He uses a subtle presentation of the transcendental argument in <a href="http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html" target="_blank">"Why I Believe in God,"</a> written to the unbeliever. From everything I have heard of VanTil, he was bold in apologetics, but also humble and kind. I think that this comes across in “Why I Believe in God,” and so if you are unfamiliar with this work of his, it may give you a different perspective on him.

SeaKayaker

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: SeaKayaker ]</p>