jbernier

Admittedly the Biblical notion of revelation does presuppose that God is a subject who makes Godself known rather than being an object which can be known through human activity. Nonetheless, I am not certain that we can clearly distinguish the "concept of God" from "God" in discussions such as these. Back to chicken and egg: Does God reveal Godself to give us a conception of what God is or do our conceptions of God lead to the idea that God has revealed himself. Does knowledge lead to our conceptions of God (whether or not they reference a real entity) or do our conceptions of God (or Godself's self-revelatory activity) lead to knowledge?

This becomes a problematic statement if we take into account Judaism or Islam. For instance, the Jewish canon is contained within the Christian canon; thus if the Christian canon does not see God as a "created, contingent being" then neither can the Jewish canon. Likewise the Quran does not see God as created or contingent. Quite simply your argument by process of elimination does not stand up to an empirical test.

RobertLW

What you say here is true, assuming you meant to say that scientists do not use findings to validate the scientific method. This is why I am distinguishing between justified and unjustified. Using the scientific method to prove the scientific method is not justified because the scientific method is not self-authenticating. It's use as an ultimate authority is not justified. This is the same as reason and empirical data. They cannot be self-authenticating because they are not personal. There is only one justified ultimate authority because only one ultimate authority can be self-authenticating. I do not complain because the competing worldviews are circular, they must be if they are to be justified. My complaint is that they are unjustified as worldviews. How does a thing or rule justify itself? It must be a personal being that has the power of being within itself. Only a personal God can be self-authenticating





I stated that all ultimate authorities are circular. In light of your argument I will amend that to all valid/justified ultimate authorities are circular. It is only logically problematic if you insist on avoiding circularity in favor of caprice. As you stated, the only way to prove your assumptions is circularly and if you will not prove your assumptions then you are arbitrary. Again, I will keep my opinion justified/valid rather than arbitrary therefore circularity is no problem for me.





At best you can only give your arbitrary opinion as your explanation because you refuse to validate your presumption and it can be said that you have no true knowledge of what you speak. Example: If you have a broken watch that says exactly 3:30 and I ask you what time it is at exactly 3:30, I can grant you correct knowledge. It cannot be said that you have true knowledge.





Circularity is only a problem when the "first principle" is not self-authenticating. My ultimate presupposition is self-authenticating and therefore not a problem.





Why did you show me "examples of non-circular reasoning that involved first principles"? I never said you cannot use first principles to reason non-circularly. My point was you cannot prove your first principle without being circular. What you have shown me has nothing to do with proving/justifying an ultimate authority. I am saying that you cannot show me an ultimate authority that does not use itself to prove itself. What you have shown me are examples of arbitrary reasoning that involved first principles thereby offering me your arbitrary opinion. Offering me your arbitrary opinion is a very far cry from refuting my argument. We both agree that the only way to validate/justify a "first principle" is by being circular and lack of validating a "first principle" is arbitrary. Therefore my argument is valid and your argument is arbitrary. The very definition of the word arbitrary as applicable to our discussion is:

A. Based on preference, bias, prejudice, or convenience rather than on reason or fact
B. Existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as an unreasonable act of individual will without regard for facts or applicable law

Using your own argument, I have shown your argument to be based on a preference, bias, prejudice and/or convenience rather than on reason or fact. I would use that as the very definition of invalid. You have conceded that the only way to validate a "first principle" is circularly. You have pointed out that my "first principle" is circular yet you have not shown me how it is not self-authenticating. Therefore I will hold that my ultimate authority is justified and yours, whatever that may be, is arbitrary.





No clue as to what your point is. I use language to convey a particular set of ideas and/or thoughts but I do not see how I am hopelessly marred in language. I do not see how believing in anything outside of language is extraordinarily difficult by using language to convey anything outside of language. Maybe you would care to explain how doctrine of revelation is next to impossible to sustain by using language to convey the doctrine of revelation.





Re-read what you wrote. You used the term "simple check" and I used your term "simple" in distinguishing action from inaction in response.





The selection of the first principle is only arbitrary if one denies the first principle that is imposed on him by the first principle one denies. Specifically, the God of the Bible.





What can I really say to this statement? Well, thanks for your arbitrary opinion. I do not appeal to inerrancy. Inerrancy logically follows my presuppositions.





Sounds "Romish" to me. Unless you are Catholic (and/or certain protestant denominations), the fathers of the church has nothing to do with the selection of the books of the canon. Since I am reformed in my theology, I do not accept "apostolic succession" The canon is rooted in apostolic authority in the sense that the overarching rule by with the fathers were guided (canon) was apostolic authority. Once again, the fathers did not "select" the books, they discovered the books using the canon (rule).

Robert

RobertLW

I may have been a little unclear when I wrote, "They applied the rules of the canon found in Scripture (in the NT and OT) that were set forth by the Word of God", so please allow me to clarify. I was meaning to say that the canon was not selected by the church fathers, the canon was found within scripture. When I said the rules, I meant that the rules are there in principle. I.E. Christ teaches that if one does not accept his Word, one does not accept the Fathers Word. And if one does not accept the Apostles word, one does not accept Christ's word. He explicitly gave the apostles His authority. Therefore scripture makes one of the rules apostolic authority. I was not meaning to say that the rules are laid out as such...i.e. rule 1, rule 2, rule 3....etc....





Absolute misstatement of my argument. I have been arguing from the very beginning my presumptions. I believe my presuppositions to be justified therefore sound, therefore my conclusions are justified. I have not been speaking in terms of absolute fact, I have been speaking in terms of justifying my beliefs. I have never forwarded one of my arguments as absolute fact. I have also been clear that I do not perceive the errors that others perceive because I interpret the text in light of a differing ultimate authority.





Absolutely false. Nowhere have I argued that the word assume means, "absolute, uncontroverted, unchangeable, undeniable fact." Point in fact, I rarely use the word assume in my arguments, I prefer to use presume, it is a more accurate description of my position. We started to have a discussion on defeasible vs. non-defeasible presuppositions (which is where I am assuming you obtained the badly distorted definition you just assigned to me) but you refuse to continue that discussion. Again, I invite you to continue that discussion as it may clear up my position. The point of my posting here is to refute erroneous arguments.





I am tempted to give you my first wife's phone number. She could describe me as I was better than anyone. She would provide a very descriptive and detailed diatribe on what a complete, godless, unholy bastard I used to be. Would certainly substantiate my "claim" at any rate. You are correct in that I do understand very well why an unbeliever would look to those issues and not presume "God wrote it." I don't read the Bible and presume that "God wrote it", I presume the verity of the authors. I feel I have been pretty clear on that specific point. From a non-belief standpoint I do understand the conditions under which a non-believer reads and interprets the text. (Been there, done that) I have addressed those issues on several occasions and those issues leads one to absurdity. Refer to BGICs quote below.




Because I wish to preserve true knowledge, I am a Christian and an inerrantist.





I believe it to be the only way to logically and practically argue inerrancy. It would not be very logical or practical for me to argue inerrancy from an arbitrary standpoint. At any rate, it is the method by which I came to my conclusions therefore I will argue that way.





Where do you get your conclusions? I do not believe I have said anything that even remotely resembles your conclusion. I changed ultimate authorities therefore I interpret the alleged "errors" in a different way than you do. My brain was not switched off, I simply interpret the alleged "errors" differently than I used to. For example, you may read Matthew and Acts and see a contradictory account of the means of Judas's death. I do not see a contradictory account of the means of Judas's death because I now understand the context in which both were written. Therefore, I can accept a very reasonable harmonization of the text. An unbeliever cannot accept the same harmonization I do because he is interpreting the text under a different "set of rules". It is pointless for me to argue specific text on evidential grounds with a non-believer because we do not share any evidential ground by which to interpret the evidence. I therefore prefer to examine the validity of the "rules" under which we interpret the evidence. As a former atheist, I have come to two conclusions. First, the atheistic worldviews destroy true knowledge. My brain was switched "on" for once and everything became much clearer. As an atheist, it could not be said that I had true knowledge, my basis for knowledge was not justified. My brain was switched "on", I recognized this and changed my worldview. Second, there is no such thing as a true atheist. I guess you can call me a-atheist. Atheists simply deny the God that they know to exist because they want to remain autonomous, they do not truly believe that God does not exist. I believe this to be the very purpose of this forum. To provide a forum in order to destroy God so they can retain their autonomy in order to enjoy sin. They do not want to submit and give up their autonomy, life without rules. As I pointed out in my debate with Vinnie, why else try to destroy that which you "know does not exist"? Why try to prove a book false when you "know it to be fiction"?

Robert

RobertLW

BGic, Your last posts were excellent. I thank you for the very good description of my approach and am relieved that at least one person understands what I am talking about.

Robert

jbernier

This much is correct: No epistemology can "self-authenticate" because that would be circular. However...

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?
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?
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."

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.

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.

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; 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; 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.

No. You said that all worldviews are ultimately circular.

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).

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.

blt to go

RobertLW - thank you for the response.

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.

Assumptions, presumptions and presuppositions are all (by definition) subject to change upon presentation of proof. What I have seen here is that

1) you do not know the proof(s) presented and
2) you would freely acknowledge to reject the proof upon presentation. (your "circular" logic)

(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.)

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?

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)

Cross Examiner

1. This is quite ambiguous. How does knowledge lead to knowledge of God? How does knowledge of God lead to knowledge? You are confused. 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. No knowledge, therefore nihilism. But nihilism is absurd, therefore God again. Circular? Absolutely. Problem? No. As RobertLW says, core presuppositions from which one interprets experience are either arbitrary or circular (only in a certain sense though). I agree with him that this sort of circularity is certainly preferable to arbitrariness. Furthermore, I agree with him that that circularity which does not reduce to absurdity is certainly preferable to that which does (e.g. materialism). Since only an absolute God can ground absolute knowledge, which certainly exists, only that means which reveals said absolute God can be said to be God's Word. Only the Bible reveals said God, therefore only the Bible is the Word of God. Ergo, one is quite reasonable to hold that the Bible is true in what it says.
4. You are apparently very confused again. We do not say that God is contingent. We say the exact opposite.
5. What does it matter that the Qur'an does not depict Allah as a contingent being? It does depict him as capricious, among other problems -- do you not yet understand what this entails with respect to Allah's eligibility as the ground of knowledge?
6. The impossibility of the contrary (to God as ground of knowledge) does not depend upon some 'empirical test' that you might make up. This is philosophy and theology, jb. Hey, I thought you said you were done talking to me -- what gives? Moving on.

I could hardly agree more. The skeptic must either foolishly deny absolute knowledge (e.g. genocide is always wrong, 2 + 2 = 4, bachelors are unmarried males etc.) or arbitrarily affirm it as existent yet ungrounded (or unjustified, as you say). In my experience, the skeptic usually puts on the faith-brakes (ironically enough) before running headlong into nihilism (which, though unlivable and intellectually absurd, would at least be internally consistent of him) but only after bypassing Christian theism -- conveniently enough for his sense of autonomy. Arbitrary? You bet. Though I did recently have an infidel actually try to deny positive knowledge while affirming the existence of negative knowledge via Popperian absolute falsifiability. Of course he did not deal with the problem of how we can determine that 'no, that proposition P is absolutely untrue' (i.e. negative knowledge) when, according to his system, absolute truth (i.e. positive knowledge) does not exist ... negative knowledge is known by what it is not but if what it is not does not itself exist or is unknowable then we've got ourselves a conundrum. If you were a bettin' man, do you think this problem was addressed by the skeptic or do you think instead we only heard ...

<cue cricket noises>

Thanks and you're welcome. You are arguing and explaining very well but don't forget the fact that this is the Internet Infidels discussion board -- and all the lovely things that that entails. No one is here on accident.

There is no such commonality between us at all. Because knowledge exists, I disbelieve every deity (e.g. Zeus, Allah etc.) whose actuality would not ground the existence of knowledge.

Regards,
BGic

jess

</lurk>
ok, I find this insulting. I find it very insulting. I do not have a CHOICE in being what I am. I do not choose to not believe. I would give anything I have for a loving, all powerful god to exist. I would give everything I had for that. I, personally, want to believe in something.

To tell me I 'simply deny' because I want to 'enjoy sin' is stupid. Exactly what 'sin' am I enjoying? What rules am I breaking?

Your statement is inane, childish, and insulting. I want to believe in a good, loving, god. I truly believe he does not exist. Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me.

<lurk>

trendkill

My guess, they're afraid of change. The logical thing to do would be to listen to the prophets or the spirit, assuming that God actually exists and communicates. But they can't, because prophets all say different things and whatever they say, they require change. So rather than believe in prophets or revelation, they just declare them all finished and create a circular belief system based on what they have already come to believe with the unguaranteed justification of their sense experiences and thoughts; a dead book, a settled canon. They prefer to believe in a dead God, because the alternatives, "no God" or "a living God that might actually speak and upset one of their prejudices or preconceptions, or the foundation of their peace of mind, etc.", scare them too much.