Cross Examiner

Robert and I are not talking about (and have not been talking about) whether God or knowledge comes first (temporal, causal, ontological, logical or any other form of priority). We have been talking about what could possibly explain the existence of knowledge. These are two different subjects.

Regards,
BGic

jbernier

Can one really consider questions about "what could possibly explain the existence of knowledge" without considering causation? Indeed, it is really a causal question, is it not? And if one is talking about causation than is it not inevitable that one must consider priority? These are not really different subjects but different approaches to the same question.

If you argue that the existence of knowledge proves the existence of God it is quite proper to ask how we can know about the existence of God apart from knowledge - which is precisely what blt to go and have been doing.

blt to go

So.... you "presuppose" inerrancy from the fact that knowledge is simply impossible otherwise.

You "presuppose" the God of the bible, as the only possible explanation of knowledge.

1) Since the bible describes the god that is the possible explanation of knowledge, it must be inerrant.

2) God must be the only possible explanation of knowledge because of the description in the bible.

Am I the only one that sees the circle here?*

*to RobertLW's credit he has always maintained this is a completely circular argument.

Cross Examiner

1. God's knowing and acting (i.e. the grounds of knowledge, logic, ethics etc.) are co-eternal with His being and so cannot be caused by His being. TAG is not about causality.
2. To be more accurate, we contend that the existence of knowledge presupposes God's existence since knowledge under any other precondition would be impossible otherwise. If one dissents then one need only provide a counter-example (i.e. another precondition under which knowledge would obtain) in order to vindicate one's dissension. Analogously, if I say that all cats are black you need only provide a counter-example of a non-black cat in order to defeat my claim. That is, it is not my burden to show you all cats and it is not my burden to show you every other worldview. If you think you got a winner, bring it up to the podium for inspection.
3. This question simply misunderstands what the presuppositionalist is saying and so is not germane.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

1. Not quite. If one's presuppositions do not provide for the existence of knowledge, and knowledge exists, then one's presuppositions ultimately reduce to absurdity. Only the presupposition of the existence of the absolute, immaterial, authoritative and universal God of Biblical Christianity grounds absolute, immaterial, authoritative, universal knowledge -- like the laws of logic for example. Disagree? Think something else grounds logic? Great. Please provide a counter-example for inspection.
2. Not quite. God's existence, as described in the Bible, is the only presupposition that accounts for the existence of knowledge. All others will inevitably reduce to subjectivism and nihilism.
3. Not quite. Since only the Bible reveals the only possible Ground of knowledge (i.e. God) only the Bible can be called the Word of God -- and all that that entails.
4. This is close enough for now. The first three are bigger fish to be fried.

Please note that this approach is not called presuppositionalism because the Christian worldview presupposes; all worldviews presuppose their core tenants. Rather, this approach is called presuppositionalism because it carries out a worldview's presuppositions to it's logical ends as a means of internal critique (i.e. reductio ad absurdum).

Regards,
BGic

jbernier

I see a tree. Knowledge of that tree comes from a combination of my senses (I see it) and semantics (I define what I see as a "tree", with a certain set of properties, etc.). There you go. God is not a necessary part of that knowledge.

It is germane because it is a logical consequence of your argument. You claim that all knowledge is grounded in God. However we know about God. Thus the question becomes "How can we have knowledge about God apart from knowledge?" as the existence of God must logically precede the existence of knowledge in your argument (whether or not God "caused" it is semantic wordplay; no matter what, in your argument, he is the source of knowledge). Or to put it otherwise humans know about God; that is the most we can say about the relationship between knowledge and God with any certainty. How do we know that that knowledge is due to God's being or is not simply a product of those little organs in our skulls? You still are evading that question and no amount of sophistry will get around it.

jbernier

Why not the the Allah of the Koran? Or the YHWH of Judaism? Etc.? Even if one was to grant that one needs to posit a transcendant divinity in order to explain the existence of knowledge you still have to explain why it must be your conception of God that is the only valid one.

Why? Why would belief in Allah lead to subjectivism and nihilism? I mean, let us be honest for a moment: There is nothing "subjective" about classical Islamic theology; indeed, there is probably less "subjectivity" than one finds in any form of Christianity.

Only if we accept your previous, dubious, assertions.

How can we fry them when you are obviously not presenting your argument in full? You have left out crucial pieces of reasoning and/or evidence in the above argument - for instance, how do you reach the conclusion that "Biblical Christianity" offers the only grounds for explaining knowledge, to the exclusion of all other theistic systems?

So you develop something that is internally consistent? So what? That simply proves that your argument is feasible, not that it is correct. We still need to locate your model in the real world and see if it fits. You can make as many abstract and esoteric assertions as you want but, at the end of the day, does the argument make sense in the real world? And I will say this: When it comes to inerrancy it simply does not. No amount of argumentation will get around the simple fact that different passages say different things about the same event, that many passages are flat out contradicted by extant archaeological evidence, etc.

jbernier

Yes. I do admire RobertLW for his ability to be honestly illogical.

blt to go

Since TAG is touched upon, I will reply (as briefly as I can) and return to our regular discussion.

I see TAG as demonstrating that a God is a possible explanation for knowledge, but nothing more. TAG is as useful, and can be argued as efficiently, for the existence of Allah, YHWH, the Mormon God, the Jehovah’s Witness God, Vishnu, Ra, the Great Spirit, Aztec Gods, Babylonian Gods, Roman, Greek and Assyrian Gods, etc. (point made by jbernier. I just added more gods.)

I see nothing that leapfrogs the uniqueness of having knowledge to the uniqueness of christianity as compared to any other god or religion. Christianity may have OTHER unique or special features (requiring a blood sacrifice, atonement for all sins, written word of god, etc.) but simply the fact of “knowledge exists� is not one of them. In fact, that may be the least unique feature of ALL, as one of the reasons gods were invented by man was to EXPLAIN phenomenon, or as a basis for the knowledge of the event occurring.

Worse, TAG simply presupposes the god of the Bible, states it can be the only basis of knowledge, and then, after making that statement, only that statement, and nothing but that statement, claims the burden has now shifted to the other person to prove any other basis of knowledge.

One may as well state, “The god of the Bible exists. Now, it is your job to prove that ALL OTHER gods do not exist, OR, in the alternative, prove that One of the other gods exist.� In other words, a theist arguing that another theist must prove their god, when theist number one does not have to.

Your cat analogy, BGic, exemplifies this problem nicely.

You state: “All cats are black.�
All I need to do, to disprove your statement is show you one cat that is not black, right?

So I show you a giraffe that is yellow and brown.
You would state, “That is not a cat.�

I show you a Dalmatian that is white and black.
You would state, “That is not a cat.�

See, the one thing about your analogy is that we all agree on what a “cat� is!

I would analogize TAG as the statement, “All extra-terrestrial Life Forms (ELF) are Light green.�
All you need to do, to disprove this statement, is to show one ELF that is not light green, right? But neither one of us has a picture, or a live ELF to prove or disprove the statement! We don’t even know what an ELF looks like!

No, I am not requiring a picture of God. I am stating that while we, as humans, agree on a “cat� and the colors thereof, we certainly do NOT agree on the concept of “god� or what god provided any basis for knowledge.

So the statement that “God provides Knowledge. Prove otherwise.� is flawed in that I will show you Allah, and you will state, “That is not God.� Just like I show you a Dalmatian, and you would state “that is not a cat.�

Enough of TAG, on to presuppositionalism. I guess all I can say, BGic and RobertLW, if it works for you then so be it. I just cannot get my brain to work that way. There are two reasons for that.

1) In real life I work with “assumptions, presumptions and presuppositions� all day, every day. I have seen these presuppositions change, mold, modify, be substantiated and be discarded. I have seen presumptions that have maintained veracity throughout the proofs, and presumptions that have been discarded with the first whiff of evidence. I have seen assumptions that started out as solid, apparently were destroyed, and then eventually re-substantiated.

My ACS (Acquired Cynicism Syndrome) now looks to presuppositions as a great starting point, but that must be subject to change, and WILLING to change, based upon the evidence and proofs presented. (Hence my statement of RobertLW as defining “presumption� as irrefutable fact. I do not see this “presumption� as subject to change, or willing to change.)

If the presupposition is SO strong that it would take the same degree of proof to change it, as it would for an atheist to become a theist, is it still a presupposition? I.e., in order for you, BGic to believe in Allah, it would take his appearing with 100 Million angry Muslims at your door, is this not the same degree of proof an atheist would require of your god?

2) I recognize within myself that certain presuppositions are ingrained from my environment, and that I lose objectivity. Therefore, I carefully guard against presuming something, solely because I want to, and try, with the best of my ability, to become as objective as possible. (Recognizing the impossibility of being objective about one’s self.)

As you have pointed out, BGic, I was raised the all-American Baptist kid. (on a farm, no less!) I recognize that simply being raised as such has created motivations, intuitions, “gut-feelings,� whatever you want to call it, to the point that I cannot be objective about myself, and have a tendency to be subjective about my own beliefs.

For example, family is important to me. If my brothers or sisters need help, I feel I have an obligation to provide it. I have friends that feel “family� is just another word for “friends you can’t shake off no matter how hard you try.� I do not understand that. I also understand, though, that my “not understanding� is due to my up-bringing, and does not make my position on the subject either right or wrong.

To bring it back to the beginning, I was raised on inerrancy. I have a tendency (as argued with Sven eons ago) to presume inerrancy first, and then review the proofs. I (personally) feel that presupposing inerrancy is a good starting point. BUT, once objectively reviewed, inerrancy fails. As well-stated:
Worse, I was raised on the concept of “canon� in that the books of the bible (but NOT the apocrypha) were the only acceptable books for christianity. Once that subjectivity was removed, and it become obvious that there were numerous OTHER books written, which CLEARLY conflict with scripture, and were eliminated BECAUSE they conflicted, this makes inerrancy even a less tenable position.

I was informed that part of the “uniqueness� of the bible was that numerous different authors from differing back-grounds, who were the only ones to write on this particular subject, amazingly enough all agreed! What I was NOT told, was that there were dozens, if not more, different books on the subject that were not included. I was NOT told there was an “editor� that was deliberately picking and choosing which books and authors would be included and which were not. This makes the “uniqueness� of global agreement less exciting.

When I ask the opposing side four questions, and they only answer two, I am most curious as to the two questions they did not answer. I am becoming most curious as to the books that were NOT included and why.

Further, the few books included have been modified, edited, changed and tweaked. Certainly one of the logical possibilities is for conformity. This, again, makes inerrancy less of a grandiose adventure, and more a deliberate scheme.

And finally, even with the elimination of troublesome books, the editing, etc., we are left with passages that, as previously stated, certain appear to the naked eye as contradictions. That’s the best we can come up with?

Yes, you can presuppose the god of the bible. And based upon such a presupposition, you can rely on inerrancy. I just can’t do it.

Dean Anderson

Moderator note:

Discussions about TAG are known for being long, involved, and completely taking over the thread that starts them.

If you wish to debate the finer points of TAG, could people please start a new thread about the subject (preferably in EOG, which is the best place for such a subject).

This thread is supposed to be about Innerancy, and it would be nice if it could stay about Innerancy...