Koyaanisqatsi

PART TWO

And my apologies for the "grating" remark previous. I meant that it was causing me frustration.

No, it would take the same quality of evidence. A claim must be supported by some sort of verifiable evidence for it to be of any worth (i.e., Gas is two dollars, or The Olympics are not currently being held at Salt Lake City, Utah). In the two scenarios you presented, verifying whether or not gasoline is two dollars or the Olympics are not currently being held somewhere requires relatively little evidence to support those claims, true, but it is the quality of the evidence that is evaluated in order to arrive at the truth state and thus the claims can be rather easily demonstrated "true" or "false."

But the standard for evaluating the claims remains intact for any claim just as the standard for evaluating the evidence remains intact for any claim. A claim is made and the evidence is presented. The evidence is evaluated according to simple (however rigorous) methods of falsification/verification.

For anyone to claim, "No, you cannot use those methods to evaluate this claim," had better be able to provide an extremely compelling argument, which you have not done (and, I would argue, cannot do), for it is abundantly clear that inherent in your claim is question begging; a fallacious position that renders your claim invalid and, essentially, worthless.

And there we go again with the equivocation. "Gas is two dollars" is not a belief one can evaluate in order to either affirm or reject. It is a statement of fact. You may personally deny that fact, but it does not alter the fact.

So, now that all of that clutter has been cleared away, we are left with your straw man, which is the attempt to state, "Evaluating christianity's truth claim requires a different method of evaluation," which is, so far, false, i.e., you have presented no compelling reason to evaluate the christian truth claim in any other method than is normally applied to evaluating any truth claim.

More straw. When it comes to the method of evaluating a truth claim, there are no qualitatively different approaches. Either the evidence supports the claim, or it does not.

In the christian truth claim, the evidence does not support the factual existence of god or the requirement of a god-like creature who mandates "knowledge" in order for "knowledge" to exist.

If the question is, "How do humans posses the ability to 'know?'"(i.e., gather information and make a reasoned evaluation of that information to establish a truth claim), then we're talking about an entirely different question, but that doesn't alter or require a different method of arriving at the supporting contentions "truth" claims in regard to that question.

For example, if the christian claims that the answer to that question is, "Humans posses the ability to know because a god-like creature granted that ability by existential fiat," then I'm sure you will agree we would then have to require that christian to provide his or her compelling evidence to support the factual existence of such a creature in order for the answer given by the christian to be properly evaluated for its "truth state," yes?

What you seem to be arguing is, "No, we would not have to require the christian to provide his or her compelling evidence to support the factual existence of such a creature; we need only assume this creature exists," which is false if we are attempting to establish the "truth state" of the answer to the question.

Christian: "Knowledge is god dependent."
Intelligent freethinker: "What is your evidence for such a claim."
Christian: "I don't need to provide evidence for such a claim; you need to come up with a different method than requiring evidence to evaluate my claim."

That is patently incorrect, which means that the christian, in formal debate, is not allowed to fiat such a condition. They can (and do) attempt it, but the attempt will always and forever fail due to its unsupportable fallacy.

Well, colloquially, perhaps, that's true, but not in syllogism; the formal rules of a "proof" in Logic.

Again, I urge you to consider the terms you are using very carefully. A presupposition in a syllogism is not "what you will accept as fact," in the sense that it is just open to your own subjective desires or whims, which is how you seem to be applying that term.

I find it endlessly ironic that theists, who always claim that there exists no objectivity without a god-like creature somehow (magically) mandating its existence, are the first ones to immediately cry out against objectivity being applied to the question of whether or not their beliefs are "true," which is what it appears you are doing here.

In essence, it appears your straw man is to proclaim that subjective feelings or beliefs are the entire standard necessary to evaluate the comparatively objective truth claim of christianity, which is a fallacy. To make any kind of truth claim in a formal debate is to necessarily assume a standard of objective evaluation.

You seem to be attempting to declare that such an assumption of objectivity is the wrong method to evaluate the truth claim of christianity (or theism, for that matter), which necessarily means that no evaluation of any kind can be made, only acceptance, i.e., "God exists because I say he exists."

That is an invalid method of establishing the truth state of such a claim in regard to syllogism and logic that, further, cannot be reconciled by simply proclaiming, "Well, that's just the way it has to be."

That is merely obstinacy and renders the truth claim effectively null and void as far as anyone else is concerned. For the one personally making the declaration, it's fine and have a happy life in your own personal convictions. Step up to the plate of syllogism and the formal process of evaluation and verification, however, and necessarily subject your claim to a higher standard.

Not "superior;" just higher, more advanced in the public arena of consensus and debate.

No one is forcing anyone to step up to that plate, by the way, so if anyone does, those are the rules they must abide by or take their ball and go home.

No, I don't feel you are asking that at all as my posts readily demonstrate. I think you are attempting to state, "In order for anyone to evaluate the truth claim of christianity, one must just assume it is true an nothing else," which is, obviously, absurd.

We here have evaluated such a claim countless times and the overwhelming conclusion is that christianity is not a valid truth claim; that knowledge need not be dependent on fictional creatures that we both agree do not exist; and that (to the agnostics) any further claims in this regard require more compelling evidence in order to establish a "truth state" of any further claims.

Due process has already been established and applied for both the atheist and the agnostic, which is why the further burden of proof will always remain on the individual making any further positive claims.

What you seem to be implying is that due process has not been established and applied; that agnostics and atheists has simply, childishly proclaimed fictional creatures don't exist, which is not true and not a valid argument to make.

Especially when they are misconstrued in regard to colloquial meaning as opposed to formal application.

Correct, since the definition you are using is not applicable in the manner you are using it.

Again, I urge a reconsideration of the terms you are using and their correct application to the topic. Perhaps the word "presumption" would fit better; the notion that agnostics (and atheists) are presuming a negative prior to evaluating the evidence?

This is not correct, of course, when applied and deconstructed, but it would certainly better crystallize your contention, IMO.

Agreed. Again, I suggest you reconsider your use and application of terminology prior to continuing with your contention.

No, I am not and herein lays the problem, methinks. The claim in question is, "Knowledge is god dependent." Prior to anything further, this claim above all others in this regard, must be established as "true" in order for you to make any further claims based upon that initial, ultimate claim.

To state "just accept it as true for the purposes of argumentation," is one of those further claims that cannot be either reconciled or granted if the goal is to establish the truth state of the claim.

Yes, for the purposes of what would amount to mere mental masturbation, I certainly could grant your presupposition, but it would only be a temporary acceptance for the sake of the argument, which would then be demonstrated to be invalid upon inferring any conclusions.

This is the crux of your straw man; the attempt to avoid or otherwise dismiss this basic and intrinsic block right out of the gate by falsely claiming it to be an a priori presumption or prejudice on the part of the agnostic or atheist.

It simply is not valid for you to say, "Assume my major premise is true in order to evaluate whether or not my major premise is true, so that we can then establish the truth state of my major premise based solely upon the assumption that it is true," in any practical sense, beyond circuitous mental masturbation.

Again, it seems as if you are implying that we have not already assumed this major premise is true for the purposes of argument and then concluded it to be invalid through the due process of syllogism and argumentation. These boards are literally flooded with such due process that has demonstrated over and over and over again (through due process) that the claim "Knowledge is god dependent" is a false and/or invalid claim.

That's where we are all today, especially the agnostic. The due process has been established and the conclusions demonstrated, thus the agnostic awaits better, more compelling evidence to support any further claim on this matter, hence their neutrality.

Perhaps another problem here lies in the fact that there is a misunderstanding as to what becomes of a major premise that has already been demonstrated ad nauseum to be invalid or incorrect? Since the major premise, "Knowledge is god dependent" has been so demonstrated, the continued use of it as a major premise is no longer, currently, valid, which may be the result of the confusion you seem to be having over the difference between presupposing (or better, presuming) it to be invalid and that fact that it has been demonstrated already to be invalid.

It is a common cry of the cult member to state, "You all just presume that it's not true," which, ironically, is not true. This is what is called "denial."

No, we cannot. Until you can establish legitimate reasons as to why knowledge is god dependent that contradict all previous demonstration to the contrary, then there can be no "later" to get into.

I have and it does not.

Physician, heal thyself.

Since that is the only positive claim in contention here, what then are you doing, other than stuffing your straw man?

We stand on the firmest ground possible (quite literally), but thank you for your concern. It is not, however, warranted.

You are (or will be) claiming that knowledge is necessarily god dependent; a claim that further necessitates a priori application of that assumption as a basis for proving the contention. That is circutious question begging and therefore, not valid.

For proof, I ask you to now provide the alternate method we are supposed to employ in evaluating the christian truth claim as succinctly and directly as you are able.

No one needs any further explanation, analogy or otherwise illustrative setup for your contention.

What is the alternate method you propose we implement when evaluating the christian truth claim?

(edited for lysdexia and addendum - Koy)

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

Seakayaker is trying to do two things.

The first is to prove that he has the "moral right" to hold his own presuppositions.

In this endeavor, I will have to grant him victory--since there is indeed no "neutral" basis to call his presuppositions "worse than" our own, he has the moral right to hold whatever presuppositions he chooses, however disconnected from experience. At best we can say that our presuppositions differ from his own.

The second is to prove this his presuppositions are somehow "better than" all alternative presuppostions. Since, as he asserts, neutrality is indeed impossible, there is no basis for supporting this comparison.

It should be noted that it is not an necessary condition to hold nontheist presuppositions that one have a "reason" to hold those presuppositions--the only consequence is the adoption of metaphysical choice. I am happy to grant SeaKayaker his moral choice to hold any presuppositionalist system he chooses (however disconnected it may seem from experience and common sense), noting only that his presuppositions differ from mine and also that, given that he probably drives with his eyes open, he does not really have as strong a commitment as he indicates to supernaturally revealed knowledge over ordinary perception.

Koyaanisqatsi

Hot diggity damn! If you are who I think you are, welcome back long lost brother!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Malaclypse the Younger

Of course I am, and thank you.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Ender

*applause* Wunderbar! Excelisor! I assume the trek into the Himalayas went over well?

~WiGGiN~

bgponder

Malaclypse!!

I too have missed you, and consider that with you returned, and Ender and Koy thus assembled, my philosophical self-education may yet be complete. How in the hell does that member number change???

Sincerely, Peace and fresh hot cornbread, Barry

bd-from-kg

Malaclypse the Younger:

Welcome back!

Your post raises (anew) some interesting questions.

This doesn’t seem quite right, or at any rate if it is what he means it’s pointless. Since his “knowledge” of morality is derived from the God whose existence he presupposes, in saying that he has a moral right to his presuppositions he is (on this interpretation) saying that his own presuppositions imply that he has a moral right to those presuppositions. This is trivially true, but basically meaningless. My presuppositions imply that he does not have a moral right to hold these presuppositions. By SeaKayaker’s own argument, my conclusion is just as valid as his, since there is no “neutral” standpoint (NS) from which to evaluate competing presuppositions.

But this doesn’t seem quite right either. SeaKayaker does have a basis for supporting this comparison, namely his own presuppositions. If it is true, as he claims, that there is no NS, this is the only kind of basis which is possible in principle, so one can hardly criticize him for failing to evaluate other worldviews from an NS.

It seems to me to be closer to the mark to say that SeaKayaker’s first claim is that it is rational (or at least not irrational) to adopt his presuppositions, and that his second claim is that it is irrational to adopt any alternative presuppositions. Now if “rational” has no “objective” meaning - if its meaning is defined by one’s presuppositions - these claims are subject to the same kind of analysis as before. For example, it is presumably “rational” as rationality is defined by his presuppositions to adopt his presuppositions, but it is irrational to do so as rationality is defined by mine.

Indeed, if “rationality” has no “objective” meaning, but is defined by one’s presuppositions, it would seem that nothing very meaningful can be said about either of SeaKayaker’s claims. According to his worldview both of them are true, according to mine both are false, according to yours the first is true but the second false. And there is no NS from which to say “objectively” which of these three statements is correct.

If (as I believe) it is indeed your position that rationality has no “objective” meaning, it would seem to be a reasonable inference that you agree with this. Is this correct?

Malaclypse the Younger

bd-from-kg

Thanks. Hopefully this will inaugurate a new chapter in our own relationship as well.


This is my own opinion, but it's frankly difficult to determine what point SeaKayaker is intending to make.

To be more precise, perhaps I should have used the word "meta-moral" or just enclosed "moral" in scare quotes, since, as you correctly note, one's philosophical moral determinations follow from one's metaphysical assumptions.

The point is that SeaKayaker is implicitly assuming there is an NS (e.g. the definition of logical consistency) from which one can evaluate competing metaphysical systems. The incoherence of this implicit assumption renders his arguments unpersuasive.

Or at least this is my opinion; as I said, it is difficult to determine. As yet, however, I am unable to make any sense at all of his statements without reading this assumption into his remarks.

There is a difference between a system of thought having objective meaning, and holding that system to be objectively true. Rationality does indeed have objective meaning: It is the explicitly defined system of thought (as you yourself have described earlier) which is commonly labelled "rationality". Similarly "The US Constitution" has objective meaning (it a specific, objectively determinable text.

However since rationality (or any other metaphysical system) embeds a definition (or multiple definitions) of "truth", it is impossible to determine if any specific metaphysical system is itself true without implicitly and arbitrarily imposing a meta-metaphysical system to define the criterion of metaphysical truth.

Naturally, I am arbitrarily priviling a meta-metaphysical system to define "objective meaning"s here, but since I am talking to you, I am trying to pick a system that at least you and I find mutually agreeable, at least superficially.

This seems to be the case.

It is instructive to note that, on very deep examination, there is some linguistic "tail-chasing" going on, since we are using the same language to construct metaphysical systems and construct meta-metaphysical systems to describe those metaphysical systems, ad infinitum. This is certainly a philosophyically disturbing observation.

However, it is my (obviously metaphorical) understanding of SeaKayaker's position that he is claiming that his system is "superior" because the tail-chasing proceeds clockwise instead of widdershins.

jpbrooks

Welcome back, Malaclypse. You guys are on the "opposing side" of this topic from me, but it's still good to have you and bd-from-kg together again, hopefully on better terms.

I'm not a (strict) presuppositionalist and don't claim to understand the presuppositionalists' stance in its entirety anyway. So I'm not really in a position to speak for presuppositionalists. However, if I am not mistaken, the presuppositionalist (e.g., Bahnsen) holds that while there is no "neutral" standpoint between believers and non believers, there is "common ground" between them that is interpreted in various ways that are determined by one's "worldview".
The presuppositionalist would (then) probably object that logic is an aspect of that "common ground", but is not "neutral" even though it can be appealed to by those who hold different "worldviews".

Furthermore, the presuppositionalist might also object that if atheism and agnosticism are not held to be "worldviews" themselves, they cannot supplant one. Thus, for example, even if atheism can establish that "God" does not exist, the presuppositionalist could always argue that all of the various possible interpretations of God have not been refuted, and one of those alternative interpretations could still be true. (Of course, it would then be incumbent upon the presuppositionalist to produce the proposed alternative interpretation.)

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Hello everyone,

Sorry about the long delay, but I have now completed the school year (as of today am officially a high school senior). If anyone is interested in continuing this discussion, I can start making some long-overdue replies. Is there interest in continuing the discussion if I do so?

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker