Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TheGreatInfidel · 04-22-2003, 11:29 AM

A friend of mine presented the following essay as a sort of a transcental argument for god's existence. I don't know what to make out of it. It just seems like preaching to the choir. But I thought I'd share with you guys, to see what's your take on it.
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm

Theli · 04-22-2003, 12:17 PM

I haven't read through the entire text yet, but I thought I'd argue this claim. (taken from the site you linked to)

Quote:

6. Universality of Logic. The autonomous man cannot account for the universality of logic. All reasoning and argumentation assume that logic is universal. That is, they assume that it applies to all objects in all places and at all times. But, this last assumption is unjustified. In fact, no argument for logic can be offered, for to formulate an argument for logic, you must assume the validity of logic.

This assumes that every claim must be proven by a prior claim to be validated. But if we use this line of thinking we must conclude that logic can be independent of nature. However this is not true. Logic cannot be validated as it is neither true or false, truth and falsehood are results in logic.
The efficiency of logic can only be validated through usage, and is easy to prove.
I'm not sure what he meant by "universality", so I may have mistaken his claim.

Quote:

If you and I agree on the same criterion for determining truth, you can challenge my mistaken ideas by holding me to that standard. But, if we utilize different standards, such that different things count as evidence for you than for me, then you could hardly offer me an argument that I would find persuasive. This is why advocates of different world-views rarely converse with one another. It simply is not productive. They not only disagree on some conclusion, they disagree on how conclusions should be arrived at. This is why we generally converse and debate with those who share the same underlying dogma as ourselves.

I have found that you can actually falsify a claim by someone using a different standard of determining truth. By both pointing out that the other person does use the same criteria as myself on other issues (presenting everyday or parody examples), and examining the efficiency of his standard.
Ofcourse, noone can convince a parrot that the earth moves around the sun, no matter how elaborate your logic is.

dublczek · 04-22-2003, 12:21 PM

"Wittgenstein claims that in any genuine language, there must be a distinction between the incorrect and incorrect uses of that language, and that in the case of the supposed private language, no such distinction can be drawn." P82

Is that a typo?

TheGreatInfidel · 04-22-2003, 12:42 PM

See that there are shortcoming to whatever epistemic theory, I don't dispute. What I dispute is the grand entrance the bible makes. It all narrows down to "X makes sense because the bible says so".

If you ask me, it's just another example of theists finding gaps, and stuffing their god in it.

Theli · 04-22-2003, 02:25 PM

I think the greatest difference between the "logical standard" and various religious standards of truth, is that the logical standard is not based on a single assumption, while the religious ones are.
And the only reason the new standards like (what the bible says is true, or god is the truth) were established was that the believer found the conclutions from the other standard disagreeable.

theophilus · 04-22-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli
I haven't read through the entire text yet, but I thought I'd argue this claim. (taken from the site you linked to)

This assumes that every claim must be proven by a prior claim to be validated. But if we use this line of thinking we must conclude that logic can be independent of nature. However this is not true. Logic cannot be validated as it is neither true or false, truth and falsehood are results in logic.
The efficiency of logic can only be validated through usage, and is easy to prove.
I'm not sure what he meant by "universality", so I may have mistaken his claim.

I have found that you can actually falsify a claim by someone using a different standard of determining truth. By both pointing out that the other person does use the same criteria as myself on other issues (presenting everyday or parody examples), and examining the efficiency of his standard.
Ofcourse, noone can convince a parrot that the earth moves around the sun, no matter how elaborate your logic is.

You might want to reread and rethink the arguments because your responses are completely off the point.

The argument is this: you cannot "account for" the universality (its presence and "law" like quality throughout human culture) of logic from a naturalistic/materialistic worldview.

If you argue that logic is merely "conventional," then why can't I adopt another convention (criteria) by which I am right and you are wrong, i.e., void the law of contradiction.

Silent Dave · 04-22-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
You might want to reread and rethink the arguments because your responses are completely off the point.

The argument is this: you cannot "account for" the universality (its presence and "law" like quality throughout human culture) of logic from a naturalistic/materialistic worldview.

Sure I can: Nature did it.

Just as simple as God did it, and more parsiminous.

Dave

HRG · 04-23-2003, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
You might want to reread and rethink the arguments because your responses are completely off the point.

The argument is this: you cannot "account for" the universality (its presence and "law" like quality throughout human culture) of logic from a naturalistic/materialistic worldview.

If you argue that logic is merely "conventional," then why can't I adopt another convention (criteria) by which I am right and you are wrong, i.e., void the law of contradiction.

But then you would use a different semantics for "and" and "not" - in effect, you would speak a different language, but you would not "void" the law of non-contradiction. As soon as you keep to the ordinary semantics of and and not (defined by truth tables), the laws of logic emerge automatically.

Of course, those laws do not deal with reality, but with our statements about reality. Thus it is not surprising that they emerge from the semantics of our language.

Regards,
HRG.

Tercel · 04-24-2003, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheGreatInfidel
A friend of mine presented the following essay as a sort of a transcental argument for god's existence. I don't know what to make out of it. It just seems like preaching to the choir. But I thought I'd share with you guys, to see what's your take on it.
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm

Wow, I'm impressed... :notworthy

I don't normally agree with presuppositionalist arguments, but this guy makes a good case!

The only complaint I would make is that the author confuses the "existence of God" with "the truth of Christianity". His argument merely (!) shows we should assume the existence of God, not that Christianity is true.

Dr. Retard · 04-24-2003, 05:12 AM

I skimmed/read it, and I know only a bit about epistemology, but...

There are two duties that the TAGer has to discharge:
(1) Show how nontheistic (non-Christian) theories of knowledge fail.
(2) Show how theistic (Christian) theories of knowledge succeed.

As for (1), this is more 'book report' than argument. "Here are some nontheistic (non-Christian) theories of knowledge throughout history. Here are some criticisms. Here are some long-standing problems. ... Therefore, they all fail." Say what? And what's more, he doesn't address any contemporary epistemology ("many contemporary philosophers such as Nietzsche, Quine and Rorty and others have become skeptics as to the possibility of objective truth" is just a knee-slapper. Nietzsche is long-dead, Quine is dead, and Quine's theories of knowledge still command a lot of respect among science-loving, "objective truth" types -- he doesn't deserve the guilt by association.)

As for (2), oops, it's missing. I have no idea how theism or Christianity are supposed to succeed where the heathens fail.

04-22-2003, 11:29 AM	#1
TheGreatInfidel Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 183	Transcendental Argument A friend of mine presented the following essay as a sort of a transcental argument for god's existence. I don't know what to make out of it. It just seems like preaching to the choir. But I thought I'd share with you guys, to see what's your take on it. http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2003, 12:21 PM	#3
dublczek Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco Posts: 132	"Wittgenstein claims that in any genuine language, there must be a distinction between the incorrect and incorrect uses of that language, and that in the case of the supposed private language, no such distinction can be drawn." P82 Is that a typo?

04-22-2003, 12:42 PM	#4
TheGreatInfidel Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 183	See that there are shortcoming to whatever epistemic theory, I don't dispute. What I dispute is the grand entrance the bible makes. It all narrows down to "X makes sense because the bible says so". If you ask me, it's just another example of theists finding gaps, and stuffing their god in it.

04-22-2003, 02:25 PM	#5
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	I think the greatest difference between the "logical standard" and various religious standards of truth, is that the logical standard is not based on a single assumption, while the religious ones are. And the only reason the new standards like (what the bible says is true, or god is the truth) were established was that the believer found the conclutions from the other standard disagreeable.

04-24-2003, 05:12 AM	#10
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	I skimmed/read it, and I know only a bit about epistemology, but... There are two duties that the TAGer has to discharge: (1) Show how nontheistic (non-Christian) theories of knowledge fail. (2) Show how theistic (Christian) theories of knowledge succeed. As for (1), this is more 'book report' than argument. "Here are some nontheistic (non-Christian) theories of knowledge throughout history. Here are some criticisms. Here are some long-standing problems. ... Therefore, they all fail." Say what? And what's more, he doesn't address any contemporary epistemology ("many contemporary philosophers such as Nietzsche, Quine and Rorty and others have become skeptics as to the possibility of objective truth" is just a knee-slapper. Nietzsche is long-dead, Quine is dead, and Quine's theories of knowledge still command a lot of respect among science-loving, "objective truth" types -- he doesn't deserve the guilt by association.) As for (2), oops, it's missing. I have no idea how theism or Christianity are supposed to succeed where the heathens fail.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.