RobertLW

Burden of proof again? Good grief. I would have to disagree. My argument was my belief in response to a specific question and any indictment of said argument would carry the burden of proof.




If the ontological materialist offers his first principle as arbitrary with no insistence on the validity of his first principle then he cannot refer to it lest he be circular. In other words, when pressed on the reality of empirical methodology used to justify the reality of his conclusion that the grass is wet, he cannot state "that only that which can be studied by empirical methodology can be said to be real". He cannot be said to believe anything to be real lest he be circular. In any case, if it is arbitrary it can be dismissed as arbitrary, unproven therefore invalid and unsound.




In any case, no matter what order you put the action of practicing the syntax of your statement it would be circular. Whether you check to see if your reasoning is circular using reason to decide what is unwarranted assumptions or your reason to decide what is unwarranted assumptions in order to check your reason for circularity, it is circular. If you want to test a particular set of rules, then you must use those rules to test them because if you do not they can never be proven to be valid. If whatever rules you wish to prove valid, whether they be English syntax or the scientific method, can never be validated using those rules, then all rules are arbitrary thereby invalid and as such, there really is no rules. If you want to prove syntax (the rules governing the way things are arranged in relation to each other) to prove practice (the activity of actually arranging things within the rules of syntax) valid, then you must practice using the rules of syntax, if you do not then as you stated they are arbitrary, unproven and can be dismissed as invalid.




In addition to distinguishing the relationship between syntax and practice we should also distinguish the relationships between action to inaction and valid to invalid. Any action, however slight, to validate a set of rules or validate practice using syntax, is action nonetheless and I am not going to play your game of "simple" action vs. complex action. First, we should define ultimate authority (first principle). Our ultimate authority (first principle) is the standard by which we determine truth. In simple terms, we say yes or no to the truth of any given problem using our ultimate authority (first principle) as the interpreting agent of our standard of truth which is our ultimate authority (first principle) which is unavoidable if one wants to keep his/her arguments from being arbitrary. If syntax is the rule and practice is the action of application of said rule, then our syntax must be validated using our practice and our practice validated using our syntax. Otherwise, as you have stated, it is arbitrary. If we do not validate syntax and it is arbitrary we are using invalidated syntax and any practice using invalidated syntax is arbitrary and therefore invalid. As such, your statement "In other words the arrangement of this sentence is governed by English syntax; however that syntax did not determine what I would actually write in practice." may be true but if you do not follow syntax in the construction of your sentence then the sentence is shown to be invalid. In reality, your argument of banning circularity would invalidate the scientific method. The only way to validate scientific method is by the scientific method which I have no problem with, I generally loathe to be arbitrary. If you are going to argue with me using an arbitrary ultimate authority, I will dismiss your ultimate authority (first principle) as arbitrary, unproven therefore unsound and invalid and an invalid ultimate authority (first principle) is no ultimate authority at all. Furthermore, any argument you present can be shown to be interpreted using an invalid standard of truth therefore any argument you present is invalid, the evidence you present is tainted by an invalid standard of truth. Within the context of ultimate authority (first principle), I see no problem with using reason to validate reason, empirical data to validate empirical data, the scientific method to validate scientific method and the Word of God to validate the Word of God. I do not offer special pleading to any ultimate authority, I allow all to be what they will be and self-authenticate as they all must self-authenticate. I will not abandon validation/justification to avoid circularity, I would rather my beliefs be valid/justified rather than arbitrary, unproven, unsound and invalid. I can see your problem though, if you validate your ultimate authority circularly, then mine can also be validated circularly and that poses a major problem for your objection to my use of the Word of God as my ultimate authority. Yet at the same time it is self defeating for you to abandon validity in favor of critique because I can show your critique to be inherently flawed simply by showing your ultimate authority to be arbitrary which you have made very easy by admitting such.

Robert

RobertLW

Inspiration (Biblical definition), prophetic authority, apostolic authority, cannot contradict previous canon





Gospel meaning "good news". Not gospel meaning writings not yet written.





There are many instances where the Word of God was spoken and not recorded. For example, private meetings between Jesus and the Apostles etc... What God chooses to preserve lies within His purview. It also does not detract from the Word of God that we have if all were not preserved.





(Heb. 6:13) (Heb. 6:18) (I Cor. 1:20-25) (I Cor. 2:13-14) (II Cor. 1:18) (John 5:38-39) (II Peter 1:21) (Matt. 7:28-29) (Deut. 13:1-5) (I John 4:1) (Acts 17:11) (I John 4:2-3) (Gal. 1:9)






You are welcome. I prefer to not to label morality as purely intuitive. Certain aspects of morality I believe to be intuitive, i.e. it is wrong to kill babies, (to use bgic's example) but most aspects of morality are taught by the Word of God. These moral teachings are then passed on to us as children by our parents, notwithstanding our theological position.






I believe it to be immoral. (i.e. Matt. 5:32)


Robert

RobertLW

Refer to my previous posts. I have been clear that I accept scribal errors (and scribal errors alone) in the copies that we have today. What I am saying that the copy of the Bible we have today is inerrant in its truth and message and I hold that the autographs are wholly inerrant.



I do not deny the "tons of scientific evidence", I evaluate that evidence using my ultimate authority which is different than yours, therefore we come to different conclusions.

Robert

Rational BAC

Why assume innerancy?

Why not assume errancy? The Bible is most obviously errant. Even a 10 year old can find errancy within.

So what? Does that diminish Christianity in any way?

I think not. What we try to understand from the Bible is like looking through a glass darkly. The message is there -------obscured in many ways by innacurate reporting, -----but it is there.

Seek and you will find.

jbernier

It is true that he cannot use his findings to substantiate his first principles. However, if he does not do so (as the vast majority of practicing scientists I know do not) then it is not circular. The fact that one is referencing one's first principles is not circular as long as they remain first principles.

I would argue that it would be unsound but not necessarily invalid. All worldviews have to start somewhere and they start with first principles. What that means is that all worldviews suffer the same logical problematic - that somewhere in the mixture assumptions are being made that cannot be fully substantiated by empirical or logical analysis. That is not the same as circularity.

For instance:
1) I believe that the best explanations for all phenomena are materialist.
2) I see a phenomena.
3) Given my materialist assumption I explain it through materialist methodology.

There is nothing circular there. Only if one adds:
4) Therefore my explanation (3) proves my first principle (1) would one have circularity. However, you are correct: It is a house of cards in that, if one can disprove (1) it all falls down. However, again, the problem is not that it is circular.

You still have not proven this. I have shown you examples of non-circular reasoning that involved first principles, thereby refuting your argument. You can only continue to assert this argument if you can now give a satisfactory counter-argument (to something which, I might add, was nothing more than bald assertion in the first place).

You want to play the 'all language/logic/reasoning is circular because it relies upon language/logic/reasoning' game? Fine. Let us do that. Of course, if one is going to play this game one must also recognize that it makes believe in anything outside of language extraordinarily difficult (as one would be so hopelessly marred in language in one's efforts to understand the world that one could never know if one is referencing a real world outside of language). It quite simply makes a doctrine of revelation next to impossible to sustain.
Uhmmm...where have I played that game? I have not even used those terms as I recall.

Hmmmm...is that not exactly what I have been saying? Although one must add that the selection of first principle itself is arbitrary by definition.

Fine sentiment - except that you do precisely that - it is exactly what an appeal to inerrancy is.

jbernier

But is not the canon rooted in apostolic authority as it was the fathers of the church exercising their authority through apostolic succession that selected the books of the canon?

blt to go

Sorry, RobertLW, I see my question was not clear. My fault. I know the rules of canon as commonly stated by the fundamental church. (By the by, your list was not complete, but that is beside the point.)

I had just not seen anyone claim that the "rules of canon" were specifically in the bible itself. THAT was my actual question--"What are the rules of canon, as laid out in the bible?" (And how, pray tell, how do you get Esther in? Using either set?)

RobertLW, your position has now become clear to me. Finally, a simple statement answering this initial question.

"Why assume inerrancy?"
RoberLW: There is no assumption. It is an absolute fact that the bible is written by God. It is an absolute fact that God cannot make errors. Therefore, any perceived errors are the fault of the person reading it, since it cannot have an error.


So, ummm, what's the point of posting here? You use the word "assume." You mean the words, "it is an absolute, uncontroverted, unchangeable, undeniable fact."

You claim to be a former errantist. You claim to understand the logical, historical and other issues associated with inerrancy. You, therefore, of all people, should understand why an errantist would look to those issues, and not "assume" god wrote it. Why, then, would you argue inerrancy from a logical, practical standpoint?

I once asked you how you changed from errancy to inerrancy. I now see what it was. It was not learning Greek and/or Hebrew. It was not learning syntax, and possible mis-interpretations. It was not harmonization of scripture with scripture. It was not study of the manuscripts, new archeological finds, new scientific theories, or any new discovery whatsoever.

It was becoming "saved," and turning a switch in your brain to "off" when it comes to any of these errors. Since god wrote it, and your brain sees errors, your brain must be wrong and turn the switch to "off."

Cross Examiner

1. I do not believe my comment was inappropriate.
2. Then you are mistaken; jbernier said I change what I say and 'change the goalposts' on him which, conjunctively, is a rather plain insinuation that I am knowingly inconsistent so as to be evasive. Since my demonstration of the falsity of his claim was met by 'whatever', I thought it appropriate to give jbernier an example of an ethical response.
3. In case I was unclear, I list intuition as 'reason number one', as you say, according to ontological priority -- not according to epistemological importance.
4. Right. I made an ontological and functional distinction between the sensus divinatus and the 'gut feelings' of an all-American Baptist kid.
5. I dispute construing your 'gut feelings' that communism is wrong as the same thing as the intuitional knowledge of the immorality of baby-torture on the basis that the former is known a posteriori while the latter is known a priori. In case this is confusing, I am basically saying that innate knowledge and knowledge that comes about after experiencing the world are two different things. Now, you may wish to contend that the immorality of baby-torture is not known innately but please understand that this is a separate issue from the aforementioned.
6. I simply do not see what your allegation that God really wanted Abraham to violate his moral intuition has to do with the sensus divinatus as an epistemological factor for belief in Biblical inerrancy.
7. In addition to moral intuition, I briefly compared the sensus divinatus to the 'numinous awareness' expounded upon by Lewis in the Problem of Pain, the intuitional understanding of natural theology (i.e. aesthetic, telos etc.) and Kantian synthetic a posteriori judgments. Do I understand you correctly in that you now say that you are looking for additional analogies?
8. I do not think this is what jbernier was arguing but, even so, what does the alleged difficulty of distinguishing a priori moral knowledge from a posteriori moral knowledge have to do with anything?
9. OK. But what is the relevance of this particular opinion?
10. OK. I'll try to make this as simple as I know how by way of our chosen examples. Your 'gut feeling' that communism is bad plainly comes from your idiosyncratic experiences of the world; this is a posteriori knowledge (if it is indeed knowledge at all). Conversely, the moral intuition that baby-torture is wrong is universal, innate knowledge. Said otherwise, you know innately that you ought not use others (particularly the helpless) as objects for your own amusement while you learned after entering the world and experiencing it idiosyncratically, subjectively that communism is bad.
11. Actually, the Bible says this (cf. Romans 1).
12. This is point-in-fact that the sensus divinatus exists and was the point I was making by appealing to the fact that man is religious the world-over. That the communist Chinese and Soviet governments suppresses/suppressed religious expression, respectively, is immaterial to this fact.
13. Some knowledge is learned and some is innate (JS Mill can take a long walk off a short pier, were that now possible ). To use your example, the Russian predilection for vodka is learned while indigenous religiosity is innate.
14. My apologetical approach here at IIDB started evidentialistic [sic], grew Thomistic/rationalistic and is most recently foundationalistic -- but the more transcendentalist/Van Tillian thought I read the more convinced I become that these aforementioned approaches assume more common ground between believer and unbeliever than there is in fact. To that end, I concur with RobertLW's presuppositional approach and so my more-to-the-point answer to Sven's question is that I also presuppose the Bible's inerrancy from the fact that knowledge is simply impossible otherwise -- yet knowledge exists and is accessible as surely as my intuitional notion that baby-torture is wrong is accurate. Hmm. Perhaps the other approaches will be applicable at another time.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

To which BGic responded:Ah, but BGic continues with:Which demonstrates the relevance of that particular opinion.

I'll try my simple analogy. We now have both chickens and eggs. Without a chicken, one cannot get an egg. Without an egg, one cannot have a chicken. Thus the age-old problem of which came first? (Even a creationist would most likely concede that it would be possible for god to create either an egg, a chicken or both.)

But since neither you nor I were there, and we now have both, how can I tell which was first? Both propositions have the same pluses and minuses.

I see the same problem with knowledge and god. (and TAG) Granted, I am a simple man, with simple thoughts, and could certainly do with more reading in the area. (Too many books, not enough time....)

We now have both knowledge and a concept of god. Without knowledge, (it may be argued) one cannot get a concept of god. Without a concept of god (you would argue) one cannot have knowledge. Unfortunately, now having both, it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine which came first.

I see TAG, and "presupposing" one or the other as failed as the chicken and egg problem. Does not really advance either proposition, as both have equal support and equal faults.

Plus, this "god-sense" nor TAG does not limit it to the god of the bible. Perhaps the Koran is inerrant. Or the Book of Mormon, or a variety of other choices.

Cross Examiner

1. So you are saying that whether knowledge or God came first is a 'problem' like whether the chicken or the egg came first is a problem? Are you indeed asking me whether God or knowledge comes first?
2. 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.
3. Are you now saying here that it is difficult to determine whether the concept of God or knowledge comes first?
4. Uh, OK.
5. Now I really have no idea what you are talking about.
6. TAG and the sensus divinatus are not the same thing. I have never maintained that the sensus divinatus inexorably leads all to belief in Biblical inerrancy. And the fact that some believe in Qur'anic inerrancy does not militate against the existence of the sensus divinatus.
7. This is where TAG comes in. Since knowledge like 2 + 2 = 4 is itself absolute, unchanging, eternal and authoritative, so too must be that in which it is grounded. Only the God of the Bible is even potentially the absolute, unchanging, eternal and authoritative Ground of knowledge and so, by the impossibility of the contrary, the Bible is the Word of God. And so each proposition entailed by this is also true. In case you missed that, I am saying that Allah as described in the Qur'an is not absolute, unchanging, eternal and authoritative. He is, for example, notoriously capricious and so is not absolute. Likewise, the god of the Book of Mormon is not absolute, unchanging, eternal and authoritative -- since he is a created, contingent being he is not eternal. And so on and so forth for each non-Biblical worldview. Only Christianity grounds knowledge. And since knowledge certainly exists, well ... you do the math this time.

Regards,
BGic