Steven Carr

Inert matter and natural laws *do* know stuff. To say otherwise is to deny what we can see with our eyes - that human beings (if that is what you mean by inert matter) know things.

We know things. Not with complete certainty , of course (and presuppers like to claim that atheists don't even 'know' 1+1 = 2), but we know things.

We have brought in something capable of knowing - us. Homo sapiens. To say that the universe is not capable of making moral judgements is to deny that we are part of the universe. This is why I regard presuppers as deluded. They deny reality.

Of course, if you deny that Homo sapiens can know things if they are made out of 'inert matter', adding the presupposition 'God exists' does not change anything. Homo sapiens would still be made out of the same stuff.

If you then say, but Homo sapiens are made out of spiritual stuff, you then have to explain how 'spiritual stuff' can know things. After all if you claim inert matter cannot know something because it is just a lump of inert matter obeying laws, then I will turn around and claim that spiritual stuff is just a lump of spiritual stuff obeying spiritual laws.

How can a lump of ectoplasm know anything? Give me the mechanism. Explain how a ghost can know anything about reality.

Jack the Bodiless

Some common fallacious arguments used by various presuppositionalists (ref. II Library, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#conditional" target="_blank">Logic & Fallacies</a>:

Affirmation of the Consequent: "If the Biblical God exists, the Universe would be ordered. The Universe is ordered, therefore the Biblical God exists".

Argumentum Ad Hominem: "Atheists can't think properly because they are in rebellion against God".

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam: "I don't know of any other worldview which can justify logic and morality, therefore Christianity is true because of the Impossibility of the Contrary".

Argumentum Ad Nauseam: repeating the same garbage over and over again in the hope that this will win the argument. "Atheists cannot account for..."

Audiatur et Altera Pars: Failure to state all assumptions. For instance, defining the basis of a worldview as "the Biblical God" without stating the assumption that the reader's senses are accurate about the Bible's existence, that it hasn't been tampered with, that it's being read correctly, that it's being interpreted correctly, and that it's the "Word of God".

Bifurcation: "If metaphysical naturalism is flawed, then Christianity is true".

Circulus in Demonstrando: "The Biblical God is the sole basis of logic and reason, rejection of the Biblical God invalidates logic and reason, therefore arguments against the Biblical God cannot be logically justified, therefore the Biblical God is the sole basis of logic and reason".

Fallacy of Presupposition: "How can atheists account for the existence of absolute moral norms?".

Fallacy of Composition: "This Biblical verse defines a specific moral standard, therefore the Bible defines coherent moral standards".

Converse accident / Hasty generalization: "According to the Bible, people should not be punished for the sins of their parents".

Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion: "In metaphysical naturalism, there are no absolute moral norms independent of human values, therefore no basis or justification for any moral stance".

The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy: Any Christian who does not accept presuppositionalism, Biblical inerrancy etc is not a "True Christian". Anyone who accepts, even in principle, that a Universe without God MIGHT be possible is not a "True Christian". Any former Christian who subsequently loses his/her faith could not have been a "True Christian". This one crops up so often that I think it should be renamed the "No True Christian" fallacy.

Non causa pro causa: "God is responsible for...".

Petitio principii / Begging the question: "The Bible is the word of God. The word of God cannot be doubted, and the Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore the Bible must be true". Presuppositionalists argue that this is OK: they are wrong.

The slippery slope argument: "If you don't believe in an absolute moral code, you can do anything you like".

Straw man: "Atheists believe that the Universe is nothing more than matter in motion. Morals aren't material, therefore atheism is false".

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle: "I have faith in the Bible. Don't you have faith in the reliability of your senses and reason, even though you can't prove they're reliable?".

Not one listed, but: Fallacy of Mere Assertion. Examples include "transcendental circular arguments are OK" (sez who?), "all worldviews are ultimately circular" (metaphysical naturalism is not), "God is necessary in all possible worlds" (why?) and so forth. Basically a false or unsupported premise.

Also, Double Standards: "You guys must explain WHY a godless Universe should be ordered and regular. Why is God orderly? He just is". Also, "I have arbitrarily decided to believe that the primitive myths and superstitions of this tribe of Bronze-Age goat-herders is correct. I'm better than you because I have an absolute, non-arbitrary standard".

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]</p>

Vorkosigan

But no presupper argues in such a way. They argue that no knowledge is posslbe if atheism is true. Wether they can pull it off is up to them.

But Plump, this is wrong on two counts. First, presuppers don't "argue" in any sense anyone would recognize as an argument. Instead, they simply assert over and over again. Kris has not shown that "atheism" cannot account for knowledge. He has simply asserted it.

Assuming for the nonce that what Kris meant by "atheism" was actually metaphysical naturalism, we can account for knowledge. Or at least, we feel pretty confident that evolution and culture account for human knowing.

Can you explain to us how metaphysical naturalism fails to account for knowledge?

Great list, Jack. I am speechless. We really need a post-of-the-month here!

Vorkosigan

Kyle Smyth

Ditto on the post Jack, can you do one with cows on a t-shirt?

Bill Snedden

Jack! Kudos on a great list! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

As a fellow veteran (Apologetics Cross, triple fallen angel clusters) of these "transcendental tugs-o-war", I salute you!

Bill

Plump-DJ

Vork..

Well i'm just going have to disagree with your first point there.

Presuppes *do* make arguemnts. I've seen it myself. For example. If I want to show or at least try to that the Atheistic cosmology does not account for knowledge i'm going to have to make some arguments. And presuppesrs do just that -- They state that the atheist cannot give an account of knowledge because of X,Y,Z. So i do think they make arguments.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Presuppes *do* make arguemnts. I've seen it myself. For example. If I want to show or at least try to that the Atheistic cosmology does not account for knowledge i'm going to have to make some arguments. And presuppesrs do just that -- They state that the atheist cannot give an account of knowledge because of X,Y,Z. So i do think they make arguments.


Well, Kris sure hasn't. And will you quit saying "atheistic." An atheist can be a Buddhist, a Confucian, a pantheist, a skeptic, a metaphysical naturalist, and many other things besides. There is no "atheist cosmology." Atheists are just people who lack a belief in god. Our cosmologies come from other sources.

Can you make the argument about metaphysical naturalism not accounting for knowledge?
Vorkosigan

Plump-DJ

Steven Carr wrote..

Ok i think from your response you may have missed what i was really trying to get to. So i shall take that as my own inability to clairfy my points sufficently.

We can either say we have knowledge or say we don't have knowledge. In either case we are claiming to have knowledge. Even the vague claim that "I don't know if I know anything," is a knowledge claim. Here the person must admit that he knows that he may not know anything. So it is impossible to get away from knowledge. knowledge is existentially undeniable.

Of course knowledge is part of the natural world and we are part of that world. The problem is not that knowledge is part of the natural world, but how is it possible for there to be knowledge at all without a theistic cosmology? (so the presupper argues) You see, for the theist, knowledge is part of the natural world because the natural world was *designed* to be known and we were designed to know. The parts fit together, because they were made that way. In the atheist cosmology there is no reason for anything to work the way it does.

Upon getting to this point you might think "Well yah so what?" however we need to think of the epistemic problems that the skepticism of David Hume, Kant and Co have brought up over the years.

Synaesthesia

In the theist cosmology, there is no reason per se that the God who exists, is structured the way he is. That's just the way God is. Therefore, the universe that is a result of him, is only that way... just because.

The problem with which the presuppositionalists challenge the atheist remains fundamentally unresolved.

What is necessary to see is that in any framework, 'why' is eventually no longer a question we can ask. We need to reformulate the question, not just give up and assume that it is answered within the great unknowable.

We can yet eludicate the structure of the universe, find out what it means to come from something, what kind of conditions exist when concepts like time and space break down and study the limits of the universe. We may never reach 'the bottom' of our story, but we can die with a deeper hole.

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Plump-DJ:
[QB]
Of course knowledge is part of the natural world and we are part of that world. The problem is not that knowledge is part of the natural world, but how is it possible for there to be knowledge at all without a theistic cosmology? (so the presupper argues) You see, for the theist, knowledge is part of the natural world because the natural world was *designed* to be known and we were designed to know. The parts fit together, because they were made that way.[/b]

I see. Things are, because....that's the way the are.

That's not an argument. We still need evidence of "Design." Further, you are missing a fundamental piece of your argument: you don't know what the Designer was like, so you can't make any claims about how or why things were Designed. For all you know, the Designer was really interested in cool shapes of galaxies, and your existence here is simple accident, just like us evolutionists are claiming.

In the atheist cosmology there is no reason for anything to work the way it does.

Plump:

THERE IS NO "ATHEIST COSMOLOGY." Atheists can be of many, many different beliefs. In my Buddhist wife's atheist cosmology, things are because...that's the way they are. I know Buddhists who fall on both sides of the ID/evolution argument. In the cosmology of an atheist pantheist I know, things are because the Cosmic Consciousness made them that way. Ok? There are many different kinds of atheism. Which one are you attacking here?

Upon getting to this point you might think "Well yah so what?" however we need to think of the epistemic problems that the skepticism of David Hume, Kant and Co have brought up over the years.

Mostly solved by evolutionary psychology. I put up a booklist for Kris a while back. Why don't you visit your library and get a copy of The Symbolic Species or The Adapted Mind.

Vorkosigan