Jack the Bodiless

Yes, they tend to recite "the impossibility of the contrary" as a mantra. But, unless they can demonstrate that any worldview other than their own is truly impossible (which they obviously cannot do), it's just dogma.
Evolution isn't perfect. It's quite possible to have an "evolved human empathy" that isn't universally applied (due to a cultural tradition that slaves are exempt, or simple selfish pragmatism which says that slaves are handy to have). Evolution is, however, sufficient to explain why a "moral sense" actually exists at all.
I'm denying his claim that "nature cannot account for ethics". I see no reason to assume that what we call "metaphysics" is actually supernatural. This is a theistic assertion.

Jack the Bodiless

Another issue that keeps cropping up is "justification".

If I claim that pressing a button on this box will cause yonder mountain to explode, I can "justify" my claim by indicating the wires leading to explosive charges in the mountain.

But TAGians employ a totally alien definition of "justify". They are so accustomed to dealing with fellow theists, who unquestioningly accept that the Universe is a manifestation of the Will of God, that they believe everything needs to be anchored in the will of a divine being. Justification is God's rubber stamp: "this is approved by God, therefore it is so".

The notion that citing inanimate, nonsentient phenomena can "justify" something is apparently incomprehensible. Apparently I need to explain WHY the wires and explosives will work: not HOW in the physical sense (an electrical current heating a detonator etc), but WHO DECREED that this process would work. Who authorized it? Who said "let it be so"?

It's a completely alien way of thinking, apparently stemming from indoctrination and a total surrender of will to the hirearchy. There must always be a boss-man, a superior officer, who makes everything happen. Without somebody in charge, there is nothingness.

Plump-DJ

Exactly. Ever watched that debate with Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen. I thought debate wise he (Mr Stein, who let's face it was up against a philosopher) did quite badly in that "great debate". (which you can watch online i believe)

That was my first introduction to TAG. The impossiblity of the oppisite is what Mr Bahnsen had said. I still never figured out why the oppisite was *impossible*!

Well i am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt in saying that they might be able to pull it off. But as that old saying goes "The first man to present his case is persuasive until the other man steps up." I'd need to see a TAGer vs a NON-TAGer in action and then i could judge for myself. Now that would be an interesting fight.

Agreed. But what i was saying was that you get reduced to saying "*I think* slavery is wrong." Not slavery *is* wrong. There is no basis for my second statement if my morals are just conventional. I mean it's the old "Do objective moral values exist?" thing all over again. If they do.. then God does seem like a good place to put them, at least initially. And i think even JL Mackie said that -- it makes God's existence more likely.

Again i agree. But i don't think it was a mere assertion by him. I think he's trying to show that through a Reductio-Ad-Absurdio of naturalism. If he did that, you'd be left with supernaturalism or nhilism as your metaphysical base.

daemon

Okay, for reference, I've been entertaining myself in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000273" target="_blank">this thread</a> with our newest presupper, DaveJes-some-number-or-other, and I have a question that he hasn't bothered to answer, so this seems like a good thread to ask it in. He has asserted--repeatedly, and without bothering to give a reason why--that epistemology is separate from logic, and as such logical fallacy does not apply to epistemological arguments. In other words, circular arguments are valid, not fallacious, for epistemological arguments. This seems mind-bogglingly wrong to me; is this the case? If so, by what methodology does one determine the validity of an epistemological argument?

daemon

You can find one such argument <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>, in which Michael Martin presents his TANG, or the Transcendental Argument for the Non Existence of God. Further references--including some back and forth critiques--of parts of TAG can be found <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

TheDiddleyMan

Plump, there are a few sources you can go to to see a TAGer versus a non-TAGer.

First of all, here:

<a href="http://www.modernreformation.org/pub/mr/mr98/1998.02.MarApr/mr9802.round.conversation.html" target="_blank">Apologetics Roundtable</a>

This is from Modern Reformation magazine. It is a roundtable between three top apologists (include the great R.C. Sproul...well, he is considered great among Christians). Also, go to this issue here:

<a href="http://www.modernreformation.org/pub/mr/mr98/mr9801.toc.html" target="_blank">Apologetics</a>

Where an author presents a defense of each apologetic view, including presuppositionalism.
You may wish to seek out the book "Five Views on Apologetics" which has five authors defending their apologetical viewpoints, and then the other four responding.

Finally, you should seek out the "Great Debate" between R.C. Sproul (a Classical apologist) and Greg Bahnsen, a presuppositionalist. They debate which apologetic method is most proper. (BTW, Sproul critiques presuppositionalism in his book Classical Apologetics, written w/John Gerstner.)

Anywho, hope this helps!

Kevin

Jack the Bodiless

He is wrong.

A circular argument is fallacious in any context. Normal folks don't base their worldview on circular arguments, but on axioms: initial assumptions. There is nothing circular about an axiom.

The most basic axiom is that our senses and reason are reliable. TAGians frequently argue (falsely) that we must confirm the reliability of perception and reason by the use of perception and reason: actually, we use our perception and reason because we have no alternative. If they weren't reliable, we'd still have to use them! The fact that our perceptions ARE generally reliable (or so our reason tells us) is kinda handy, though.

It could be argued that because an axiom is a necessary assumption, and that we use our reason to determine what is "necessary" and what is not, that is circular. However, not all axioms are equally "necessary": the reliability axiom is the prime axiom required for mental function. Other assumptions are judged by it.

Similarly, evolution provides justification for WHY our perception and reason are reliable: for millions of years, every single one of our ancestors was a winner in a game where success depends on perception and reason. Again, however, the fact that we can justify WHY our senses and reason are reliable isn't the reason we actually rely on them.

From the assumed reliability of perception and reason, we move forward: "I'll just assume this works, and luckily it seems OK so far". We then observe that the Universe is stable and predictable, and provides an adequate foundation for knowledge. As TAGians must use the same assumptions even to read their Bibles, they are lying to themselves when they assert that the Biblical God is the ultimate foundation of their worldview. They, like us, rely upon the assumed veracity of empiricism and Biblically-autonomous reasoning for all knowledge. This would be true even if they claim that God beams information into their heads: they must perceive the information and reason that it came from God, and not the dodgy mushrooms on last night's pizza.

daemon

This is what I expected--and what I was hoping to lead him to understand.
I was hoping to eventually lead into this.

I'd be interested to read some related philosophical works; do you have any recommendations? My grasp of philosophical terminology is, at times, terribly weak... I haven't really had the opportunity to read too much.

David Gould

My presupp argument:

1.) It is possible for humans to know the truth.

2.) It is also possible for humans to know that they know the truth.

3.) However, any formal system of truth determination is incomplete - there will be true statements that are impossible to verify within the formal system.

4.) Thus, in order for both 1 and 2 to be true a self-verifying system must exist.

5.) Such a self-verifying system must be supernatural as no natural system can be self verifying.

6.) Such a self-verifying system must have been revealed to humans in order for 1 and 2 to be true.

7.) Such a revelation must have been a claim of self-verification ("I am the truth" being an example).

8.) If there were only one such claim, it must be a true one because otherwise 1 and 2 are false.

9.) At one point in human history, there was only one such claim - the first time such a claim was made.

10.) Thus, the first such claim made must have been the true one.

11.) The claim for the Christian God was the first such claim.

12.) Thus, the Christian God must be the self-verifying supernatural system.


Of course, all you need do to collapse the whole thing is reject premise 1 and 2 and the whole thing falls over.

To reject the Christian God, all that needs to be done is reject 11.

I think the rest flows on, though. What do others think?

Vorkosigan

I think the rest flows on, though. What do others think?

David:

Most of these points are unrelated, and some are downright nonsequitors.

1.) It is possible for humans to know the truth.

2.) It is also possible for humans to know that they know the truth.

1 & 2 are agreed.


3.) However, any formal system of truth determination is incomplete - there will be true statements that are impossible to verify within the formal system.

Here you start to go off the rails. Knowing a formal logical systems is not the same as knowing the world out there. Is the world a formal logic system?

4.) Thus, in order for both 1 and 2 to be true a self-verifying system must exist.

This is of course a statement that you have nowhere proved, and which one its face is incorrect.

5.) Such a self-verifying system must be supernatural as no natural system can be self verifying.

You veer between terms. Is a "natural system" the same as a "formal logic system" you discussed above? How did "natural system" get introduced into the picture?

6.) Such a self-verifying system must have been revealed to humans in order for 1 and 2 to be true.

Also incorrect. It may well be that whatever gods are out there, they are hidden from us. In which case, 1 & 2 would be true for the reasons atheists like me think they are true.

7.) Such a revelation must have been a claim of self-verification ("I am the truth" being an example).

Why would a simple claim mean anything? Proof is necessary!

8.) If there were only one such claim, it must be a true one because otherwise 1 and 2 are false.

This does not follow at all.

9.) At one point in human history, there was only one such claim - the first time such a claim was made.[/b]

Right. In the Veddas, in India, much older than Christianity.

10.) Thus, the first such claim made must have been the true one.

Not true. In fact, the true self-verifying system may be unknown, and we humans muddle along just fine without it.

11.) The claim for the Christian God was the first such claim.

False, I can think of many such claims prior to that.

12.) Thus, the Christian God must be the self-verifying supernatural system.

If it exists....

Of course, all you need do to collapse the whole thing is reject premise 1 and 2 and the whole thing falls over.

Or any of your other premises.

To reject the Christian God, all that needs to be done is reject 11.

Or any other premise.

In any case, what are you doing? I thought pre-suppositionalism did not require proofs of any kind.

Vorkosigan