Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 07-24-2003, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
You're begging the question; probability statements about the futurte are meaningless unless you know that the future will be like the past

Well, yes, that assumption is implicit, and quite obviously so. I don't see that it affects my point at all.

Philosoft · 07-24-2003, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
There you go again.
Here is a perfectly logical, deductive argument for the existence of God:
1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
2. Something exists
3. Therefore, God exists.

Okay. Is it reasonable to accept the truth of premise 1?

Quote:

More to the point, Transcendental argument, i.e., God and his revelation are the necessary presupposition of any knowledge, is a perfectly logical argument.

Except that it's not perfectly sound.

Quote:

and just how would you go about doing that without assuming that God is not the necessary standard for all truth claims?

I would deny that God is the "necessary standard for all truth claims," as I have every single time you have erroneously advanced this truism as if it were axiomatic.

Philosoft · 07-24-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
The US Court system is based on the assumption (derived from a Christian world-view) that what people perceive is a reflection of reality.

I find it truly remarkable that the notion of perception as a reflection of reality is derivable from a "Christian world-view." We're dealing with a God who can act without acting, who can cause some effect without causing it. This is almost laughable, theo.

Quote:

Because people are known to be faulty in their perceptions, multiple wittnesses are required to "prove" a charge.

Where is this requirement codified? In the US justice system, all that's "required" is that a group of people think a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:

BTW, that's why no one should ever be executed based solely on "circumstantial" evidence.

I don't understand this. Circumstantial evidence is far more accurate than testimony, primarily because it is fundamentally unbiased. It's really almost a failure that the US courts put so much stock in testimony.

theophilus · 07-24-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft

I find it truly remarkable that the notion of perception as a reflection of reality is derivable from a "Christian world-view." We're dealing with a God who can act without acting, who can cause some effect without causing it. This is almost laughable, theo.[/b]

I don't know why that should be so; I have been making just that argument all over this board for quite some time. I won't restate the argument here, I'll just point out that empiricism, as a test for truth, is commonly acknowledged to be a failure.
Christianity, since it is based on revelation, establishes the reliability (though not perfection) of sensory experience.
You're welcome to disprove that, although no one has accepted the challenge so far.
I don't know what god you're talking about; it certainly isn't the God of revelation, so your objection is pointless.

Where is this requirement codified? In the US justice system, all that's "required" is that a group of people think a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks, I guess I missed that. I don't know that it is codified anywhere. However, implicit in the concept of "reasonable doubt" is the idea that there must be more than the unsubstantiated testimony of one accusser.

I don't understand this. Circumstantial evidence is far more accurate than testimony, primarily because it is fundamentally unbiased. It's really almost a failure that the US courts put so much stock in testimony.

Circumstantial evidence must be interpreted. It may appear conclusive, but there is always the possibility that has been misinterpreted.

theophilus · 07-24-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
[BOkay. Is it reasonable to accept the truth of premise 1?/b]

That's a different question. I simply offered this as an example of a "reasonable" argument for theism and, yes, it is reasonable to accept it. Arguments can be made whether you accept them or not and that is the test of "reasonableness."

Except that it's not perfectly sound.

Well, that's a point to be demonstrated, not merely asserted.

I would deny that God is the "necessary standard for all truth claims," as I have every single time you have erroneously advanced this truism as if it were axiomatic.

I know that you "deny" that; you simply haven't demostrated (either by refutation or demonstration of a plausible alternative) that it is not true. I'm not demanding complete explanation, but at least a comprehensive statement would be a starting place.

And, no, I haven't simply "advanced this, etc." It is axiomatic, as are all other epistemoligical presuppositions.

theophilus · 07-24-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Well, yes, that assumption is implicit, and quite obviously so. I don't see that it affects my point at all.

I understand it is implicit but that does not justify it.

What is your justification for believing that the future will be like the past?

Philosoft · 07-25-2003, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
What is your justification for believing that the future will be like the past?

Because the present is like the past. And the recent past was like the not-so recent past. Ad nauseam.

Philosoft · 07-25-2003, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
I don't know why that should be so; I have been making just that argument all over this board for quite some time. I won't restate the argument here, I'll just point out that empiricism, as a test for truth, is commonly acknowledged to be a failure.

Perhaps that's because you keep inventing things empiricism wasn't intended to do. "Test for truth"? What is that supposed to mean?

Quote:

Christianity, since it is based on revelation, establishes the reliability (though not perfection) of sensory experience.

Only if God reliably reveals true things. And, because you must assume this, you are begging the question.

Quote:

You're welcome to disprove that, although no one has accepted the challenge so far.

Keep telling yourself that.

Quote:

I don't know what god you're talking about; it certainly isn't the God of revelation, so your objection is pointless.

If all you know is revealed information, God could make the world and himself seem like whatever he wanted. Thus you must presuppose that revelation is reliable, that God is benevolent.

Quote:

Thanks, I guess I missed that. I don't know that it is codified anywhere.

It isn't.

Quote:

However, implicit in the concept of "reasonable doubt" is the idea that there must be more than the unsubstantiated testimony of one accusser.

I suppose.

Quote:

Circumstantial evidence must be interpreted. It may appear conclusive, but there is always the possibility that has been misinterpreted.

Which has been shown to be far smaller than the possibility that eyewitnesses are wrong about major details.

Philosoft · 07-25-2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
I know that you "deny" that; you simply haven't demostrated (either by refutation or demonstration of a plausible alternative) that it is not true. I'm not demanding complete explanation, but at least a comprehensive statement would be a starting place.

Oh, come on, theo. You act like you've never played this game before. I am under no obligation to prove the falsity of your non-axiom.

Quote:

And, no, I haven't simply "advanced this, etc." It is axiomatic, as are all other epistemoligical presuppositions.

It's only axiomatic if the absence of the proposition (or its opposite) would lead to a contradiction. There is no contradiction if God does not exist, thus you do not have a legitimate axiom.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.