Adrian Selby

The way I look at this situation is in systems philosophy terms, namely, that you and he have coextensive conceptual models through which you filter experience. He seems to be saying his is internally coherent, and empiricism isn't. The key would be in the metaphysical bases for the models. You could take the pragmatic view that the models, as he suggests, have different presumptions, and its not valid to lay the charge of circularity any more at him than the empiricist, nevertheless, you could suggest that usefulness of a scientifically led empirical model of the world has given the species more of what it needs to progress than the Bible has.

Or you could pay close attention to the phrase 'formally valid deduction' and argue about whether a formally valid deduction is a fair or true one, and get him to concede that a valid deduction isn't necessarily a true one. Also, what counts as a valid deduction. If he can deduce something from the Bible, on what grounds is his deduction valid, if what is deduced is not explicitly in the Bible, which he states would be considered inerrant, yet is not stating that deductions made from it could in fact be errant. There is much leeway in a philosophical debate about the use of concepts here to bury his surety.

So the Greek have a word for something in Aramaic/Hebrew (forgive my ignorance) that we derive a word for, and that all derivations are without deviation?

I am not sure whether he espouses the conceptual model because of its features or because of its root, that God exists, what is the basis for him taking this root, metaphysically, is it merely that it offers lots of answers to tough questions, if so, is he explicit in what a non theistic model lacks, because there's more than empiricism to non theistic models of reality.

Jayjay

I think presuppositional apologetics are based on a two-step process: 1) shielding the biblical worldview from criticism, and 2) misrepresenting naturalism/empiricism to include some of the key presuppositions of the biblical theist worldview, and then knocking it down by pointing the artificial contradictions that arise. The key presuppositions that the apologist will want you to accept is that there has to be grounds for ontology, epistemology, morals, etc. and that those can't for some reason be taken as presuppositions.

I would accept the presuppositional framework, but stress the invalidity of the theist's critique. If he claims there's something your presuppositions lack, I would point out that I can accept those things as presuppositions themselves (even in cases where I would disagree that there's anything missing from my worldview). And then, when all other things are shown to be equal, I'd point out that non-theist presuppositions are more elegant because they can be expressed in a relatively concise and unambiguous form as opposed to the 66 books of the Bible.

(But I'm not much of a philosophizer, mind you...)

Santas little helper

Perhaps I'm being stupid but I think that little of what he says has any meaning.

What does he mean by "invalid" and why is circular reasoning invalid ?
Circular reasoning is useless but not invalid.Saying "A implies A" is perfectly correct.
Of course it doesn't allow you to conclude that A is true.

He talks about "formally valid deduction" and "laws of logic".Which logic in particular ?
( I imagine he will respond classical logic since this is also what science uses but it would
be useful to see how much he can pin down his technical terms )

What does he mean "breaks no laws of logic" ? Does he mean you cannot derive a contradiction ? If that's
what he means then how does he know it ?

Does "illogical" have the same meaning as "formally invalid" ?

Tau said:
This is actually a good question because that guy claims
Since , presumably , using a computer is knowable, perhaps he cares to explain how he deduced it from the Bible.

Perhaps Jesus was only exhibiting the basic reliability of the senses on that particular occasion rather than
on every occasion.

To conclude I doubt that this guy understands much about logic.He just picked up some terms along the way
and uses them in an incoherent manner.

NonHomogenized

Welcome to the pool of posters, prof!

Now, let's see what your "friend" has to say:

Where does he get the basis for the Bible being the word of god, and not, say, the koran, or <insert religious text of choice here>?

That's right, it says so in the bible. So, the bible is the word of god because it says so, and the bible is inerrant because it is the word of god. This is what we call "circular reasoning".

As a side note, it's interesting how it's only books which claim divine authorship which people claim are written by deities. I've never seen anyone say "I get it! 'I, Robot' is the word of god! It's all a metaphor, you see...". Hmmm. Makes me wonder...

But, wait, he's going to address my point:

But why are we presupposing this. When I presuppose empiricism, it's because other people tried it, and it works every time. In fact, it's resulted in things like this computer I'm typing on right now. Now there's results.

When our friend presupposes the bible to be true, why does he do so?

Who taught this fellow logic? There are more than two logical fallacies. Here's a nice site about them: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...ndex_alpha.htm

Regardless, he glosses over the true problem. "The bible is the word of god" is not a presupposition. It does not come from nowhere, or, as mentioned in my side note, we would see people claiming things like "The Bill of Rights is the word of god!", or even "M*A*S*H is the word of god". While it is possible that some people do say things of this sort, I think we can reasonably exclude those with severe mental problems as being reliable examples for this discussion.
Rather, the presupposition that the bible is the word of god, much as the writer doesn't seem to want to admit it, either came from the bible itself, or someone telling the author so (in which case it was either god, or someone who got it from one of the above.) Regardless, it becomes an appeal to authority, and, without presupposing said argument for the purposes of evaluating it, it is not an appeal to a valid authority (and, if you do evaluate arguments like that, I can quite easily prove that I own, and can sell to you, the brooklyn bridge, if you'll only presuppose that I own the brooklyn bridge, and can sell it to you.

Wait, hold the presses, I want to see this proof of the falsity and illogic inherent in Empiricism. Of course, then my lights will go out, my house will collapse, my computer will stop working, my clothing will fall apart, my car won't run, and I won't have a job, but, such is the price of truth, ne?

Desireable != true

Oh, and that's a blind assertion that Empiricism cannot have these things, and another that these things are necessarily desireable and useful.

<head explodes>

Wait, wait, wait. Empiricism cannot have a working epistemology?!? Let me check my dictionary for "Empiricism":
1.The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

That is a hypothesis, not a theory. It is far from deserving of the title "theory".
And, um, where did this "god of the bible" come from?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

If you subscribe to "might makes right" as a moral premise, yes.

and in 2 Corinthians 5: 7, it says that we live by faith, not by sight. I'm sure I could find other passages in which it says things are more important than evidence. In fact, what about Exodus 17:7, and Deuteronomy 6:16 (And he called the place Massah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"; Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah)? It explicitly states that testing things is bad.

To use the proper terminology, it is an invalid argument (contains faulty reasoning), and is therefore illogical.

Here's a test to see if all presuppositions are really equal. Let's suppose that I presuppose that he's full of shit. Let's also suppose that he presupposes that he isn't. Are these equal? If yes, then my presupposition that he's full of shit is just as valid as his presupposition that the bible is the word of god (and his presupposition that god exists), and I shouldn't believe him, by his logic.

If the presuppositions are not equal, then his premise that his presupposition is equal to whatever he claims your presupposition is, is invalid, and my presupposition that he's full of shit looks all the more sound

In summation, it is a meaningless argument:
"If the bible is the word of god, then the bible is true"
yes, and if pigs have wings, we carry umbrellas.
If I "presuppose" that pigs have wings, I can prove that we all carry umbrellas whenever we are outdoors. That doesn't make it sound, or valid.

I can assume I exist. This is a valid premise.
If what I percieve through my senses is unrelated to reality, then reality does not matter to me. This is valid logic.
Therefore, I should act as if my senses were at least partially reliable. Okay, now we're getting somewhere, right?

Wait, we've just established that the senses are a source of knowledge. That's what empiricism says. It simply states that there is no other source of knowledge. Well, once I've established that my senses should be treated as at least somewhat reliable, any further distinction of what parts are reliable, or not, is arbitrary. I haven't established that there's a source of knowledge to tell me which parts of my senses, if any, are inaccurate. So, I'll presume they are, if not completely reliable, they are nearly so.

See? You can't "presuppose" the bible; without senses, you cannot know that there is a bible to begin with. His whole argument is an attempt to ignore the need to establish that the bible is the word of god. He's trying to claim that it's as basic as sensation, which it obviously cannot be.

This isn't an argument. It's a clever sidestepping of the issue.