Presuppositionalism: Solving a Headache With A Lobotomy

Posted on May 16, 2011. Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Religion, Science, TAG-Pressupposational Theology |

Could the argument from incredulity get any more objectively silly? If you answered “No.” to this question, you and I need to talk.

See, you have been living in a world where theists are only marginally insane, you have not been introduced to the fruits of having to create a plasticine reality to justify a confused mythology,  you have never heard of presuppositional apologetics, let’s call it presup., for short.

Don’t worry.  I’m here to help.  Get that pot of coffee brewing, take a load off.  You are about to visit the fringes of sanity; if you come out the other side intact, then I’ve done what I set out to do.  Presup remains a tricky argument to counter because it is packed with loaded questions, misplaced definitions, bait and switch, and technical jargon.  It stands on your ignorance, and it falls on close inspection.

What the F#@% Are Presuppositionalists Even Talking About?

Yeah, I know.  Some troll just came into a good thread conversation and dropped a steaming pile of nonsense on your lap.  I bet it went something like this:

You: Can you believe some people believe the earth is only 6000 years old? SRSLY!

Your Friend:  Dude! I so know what you’re talking about!  YEC’s…..for the LOL’s, right?

S#!+ For Brains: Excuse me, my good fellows.  How do you know the earth isn’t 6000 years old?

Y: OMFG! SRSLY? It’s called evidence, homey!  Have you heard of it?

YF: Totally.  Case closed. Sucks to be you!  I know because the evidence says so.

SFB: No. You see, you don’t know.  You don’t know anything.  You cannot have knowledge of anything in your worldview.  If you do, it is surely circular!  In order for anything to make sense, you need to presuppose the existence of God.  You are a theist and don’t know it!

Y:  WTF.  That s#!+ makes no sense.  You are ridiculous.

YF: What the F#@% does that even mean?  Of course I know S#!+, like, I so know you are a douchebag.

SFB: Ahh! Can you prove that you know anything?

This is where it starts.  You just got served with a steaming pile of presup nonsense.  This is the “knowledge” variation.  There is also the “morality” variation, the “existence” variation, and the list goes on.  First, I guess we should dispense with the definitions.  In this post, I’m just using the first two.  The third definition for Moral Presup will be the subject of it’s own post, though I have argued against it in the past.

Argument From Incredulity:  The assertion that a premise is true or false based on insufficient knowledge, willful ignorance, or misunderstanding of probability.

An argument from incredulity was the good old standby of theologians for years.  Eventually though, people started figuring out that we could use the tools of reason to answer those nagging questions in our universe.  Below is a cursory list of incredulous assertions (theistic and otherwise), followed by their reasoned explanations:

  • The earth is suspended on a firmament→ Yeah. Turns out the earth is held in space as a result of it’s gravitational relationship to the sun.  Who knew?
  • The moon is a source of light→ Again. Seems logical, but turns out it is just a giant reflector of the large gaseous sphere we call the sun
  • Illness is caused by evil spirits→Really?  People thought that? Yep.  And unless you define “evil spirit” as being a microscopic organism, you are probably wrong.
  • Humans sperm is a humunculus→ That’s right.  Turns out your sperm is just a boring nucleus of chromosomes that require a diploid bond to take any real form.  Sorry to burst your bubble.  Thankfully, this allows us to sidestep the uncomfortable conversation with our girlfriends about whether sperm is the dietary equivalent of “Soylent Green”.
  • Rainbows are God’s “shout out” to the LGBT community→No matter how cool that sounds (and I still want to believe it), turns out light refracts off of water molecules in the atmosphere.  Science ruins all the fun.

So science seems to have ruined everything.  Slowly and methodically, it seems that superstition gets squeezed out of the world we live in.

How does one manage to “win back” our world for hocus pocus, superstition, and anthropomorphic Godheads?  Enter Presuppositionalism.  This takes the old argument from incredulity:

We don’t know how this happens→.·. God

and changes it to this:

We can’t know how anything happens without God→.·. God

Bam! That will learn ya.

So,

Presuppositionalism:  God is the source of knowledge, reason, and logic. Claiming otherwise is circular reasoning, because you need to use logic and reason to verify logic and reason.  There must therefor be something that transcends logic and reason.  That something is……wait for it…….wait…for…it……GOD! Boo Ya.  If we claim to know anything, we first must presuppose the existence of God.  Whether we deny it or not.

The Moral Presup Argument:  There can be no objective morality without something that makes things objectively good or objectively bad.  Guess what that something is?  No. Really, Guess….Without G-O-D, actions are just a matter of preference.  If God doesn’t exist, people can’t say there is anything wrong with murdering people, or molesting children.  If you don’t think child molestation is the bee’s knees, you instantly presuppose God.

Yeah, I know, that sounds absolutely retarded.  And it is.  But, and this is a big but, how do you show that it is, in point of fact, retarded?  Well, let’s just rejoin your conversation from earlier…..

You:  How do I prove I know anything?  Well I use reason to test what I know against evidence.

S#!+ For Brains:  How do you know that your reason is reasonable?  If you test logic and reason with logic and reason, then you create a viscous circle.  You need to account for reason in a non circular way, and that requires God.

Your Friend:  That is Ten Drumsticks short of an Ice Cream Truck! WTF?

SFB:  So you can’t account for reason then?  Thanks for coming out, Jesus loves you, your going to Hell, and God Bless!

Holy mother of an imaginary zombie superhero!  What just happened?

Well, I’ll tell you.  Here is your logical chain:

  1. Humans possess logic and reason
  2. In order to prove this, we need to use logic and reason
  3. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy
  4. Therefor we must presuppose something without logic or reason in order to account for logic or reason
  5. That something is God, and by God I mean the God of the Bible, YHWH, God of Abraham, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

So the presuppositional argument is that we cannot reason God’s existence, there is no rational proof for God; we must accept the entire premise on faith in order to avoid “circular reasoning”.  They can’t explain why we must presuppose any God, or that God in particular, just that we have to presuppose something, and then they insist that there is only one possibility to presuppose.

You see, in order to reason which supposition we ought to presuppose in order to avoid our circular reasoning, we would also have to use logic and reason.  So really, you can’t just assume a Christian God, because if you assumed Him, then you would have to deny that the Bible is evidence of God’s existence.  If you claimed the bible is proof of His existence, you would have to use logic or reason, and that would be off limits- else you yourself commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.  Essentially what I am saying is that Presuppositionalists commit circular reasoning every single day.  They just think that by adding an extra step, that you won’t catch on.

The Parable of Presuppositional Logic

Imagine that a chair stands on the ground in front of you.  Your legs are tired, you wish to rest.  You go to sit down, when someone interjects:

You can’t sit on that chair,” the man says, “it will surely fall to pieces under your weight!”

“It looks perfectly sturdy,” you say,”it appears to be made of oak, with four sturdy legs.

You think that now” says the man, “but I know chairs, and this one is no good.  If you allow me, I will fix it so that you may sit.”

Very well.”

Then the man pulls out a cushion.  He plopps it down on the chair.  “There!” he says, “Now it is perfectly safe.

What are you talking about?“, you say, dumbfounded.  “All you did was put a cushion on it.  That makes it no more safe, or sturdy.

Maybe.  Maybe not.”  says the man.  “Yet if you really think about it, I surely made it more comfortable.

Thus ends the parable of presupposition. Presup can’t change the nature of anything.  It doesn’t add structure to anything.  It just takes something that works perfectly well and makes your use of it less of a pain in the ass.  You feel like you are sitting on a cloud, and so long as you don’t look down, you can keep imagining it was so.

Does The Cushion Make The Chair More Sturdy?

So where does this leave us?  What did we learn today?  Hopefully we all agree now that presuppositionalism is just bait and switch.  It is adding a step for no good reason. You still disagree?

Tell me then.  What is the difference between these two propositions:

Athiest Reasoning

  1. Humans have reason and logic
  2. Reason and logic are the culmination of activities in our brain as a means to interpret, interact, and express the reality in which we exist
  3. the source of reason and logic, then, is in our brain, but dependent on the input of reality
  4. If I wish to prove reason and logic, I must appeal to the source of reason and logic.  This is circular reasoning, but not viciously circular.

Presuppositionalist Reasoning

  1. Humans have reason and logic
  2. The source of reason and logic is God, as is the source of reality.
  3. If I wish to prove reason and logic, I merely need to appeal to God.
  4. If God is the source of reason and logic, then I must appeal to the source of reason and logic to prove reason and logic.
  5. I also must appeal to reason and logic to prove that the source of reason and logic exists.  Oh, and appeal to reason and logic to argue that the bible was authored by the source of reason and logic.  This is not at all viciously circular, or begging the question.

So they have made the chair more comfortable by changing the definitions and assuming their premise by fiat.  So long as you focus on the cushion and not the chair, you can keep believing you don’t need four legs and solid ground.  The chair is more comfortable because it hides your need to examine what lies beneath.

Welcome to presuppositionalism.

To end this post, I will pull two quotes from the previous post that started this discussion.  I think that Jason basically sums up this whole post in a single comment:

Dan The Atheist Debunker:You cannot use a term “suppose” three time only to conclude an “actual” afterwords. Your logic and critical thinking skills are certainly lacking. Please try again. Thanks for the smile though. I will cherish it.

Jason:“You cannot use a term “suppose” three time only to conclude an “actual” afterwords.”

Says the guy whose entire argument boils down to “Suppose the Bible is true. Therefore, God actually exists.”

Presuppositionalism:  The best way to avoid begging the question is to start by begging the question.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

78 Responses to “Presuppositionalism: Solving a Headache With A Lobotomy”

RSS Feed for Misplaced Grace Comments RSS Feed

Georgy Porgy,

I don’t have time to counter everything you’ve said so I will focus on just the last, pointing to me.

>>I think that Jason basically sums up this whole post in a single comment:

Is assuming Jason sums it up just because Jason backs your claims, question begging itself? I digress.

Its not “Suppose the Bible is true” at all. Its the Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, and externally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. It is also the claim of the Christian that God reveals the truth of His Word to us directly such that we can be certain of it. Apples to oranges. Keep trying. You need to get off Jason’s jock for more clarity.

Correction:

You need to get off Jason’s jock for more clarity. :7)

Also,
Inserting an emoticon only changes an insult into a passive aggressive insult.
I’m not sure why that makes it better…. :P

George,

>>Inserting an emoticon only changes an insult into a passive aggressive insult.

Whatever! Your blog, your rules. How do you post something, or portray something, that is obvious a light-hearted dig or tease? You do often take things sooo seriously that is meant as a joke. I certainly don’t want you panties in a bind, like last time. I just wanted to avoid that fiasco.

Is assuming Jason sums it up just because Jason backs your claims, question begging itself? I digress.

Well Dan, I wouldn’t really call someone summing up the spirit of my post “question begging” if I’m iterating the fact that their comment sums up my post. I think you misunderstand what “begging the question” means. If his comments contradicted my position, it would be false of me to use the phrase “I think that Jason basically sums up this whole post”, so in order for my statement to make any logical sense, by rights his comment would have to back my claims. Your fallaciously using fallacies to create the impression of a fallacy. Wow!

I have said to you before Dan, the truth of a claim is not evident by the strength with which you believe it. If you think the bible is true, you need to prove that. If you think denial of the bible leads to absurdity, you need to prove it. You can’t just assert it and call it evidence. I know, for a theist, that is impossible to understand. Just let that steep in that empty little head of yours, eventually you might figure out how evidence works. :7)

Oh and then apparently you both agree and admit with me that “You cannot use a term “suppose” three time only to conclude an “actual” afterwords.”

So his point, and now yours, was mute. Thanks for admitting that his entire point was fallacious.

He said, “Suppose there is a God. Suppose also that he wanted people to defend him, and that’s why he loaded up a Bible-worth of inherent self-contradictions that require study and apologetics. Suppose also that by merely asserting repeatedly, without defending, that you’re disappointing this god.

Since we’re into presuppositions, I guess that means you’re actually going to hell.” (emphasis mine)

To my response would be, so you agree with me then. Thanks for admitting my WIN. Point D.A.N.

Wow!
Just….wow.
He was using suppositions to highlight your idiocy, and he did just that. Neither one of us believes that three “supposes” make an “actual”, he was mocking you. I know that this has slipped by you in the past as well.
We do agree with you that suppositions don’t create facts, I don’t know why you thought otherwise. I also agree with you if you think the sky is blue. I agree with you if you think we live on the third planet from the sun. Agreeing with you on the obvious doesn’t make you right about the absurd. Get over yourself.

Oh,
and the correct phrase is:

So his point, and now yours, was mute moot.

At first I left it alone because it wasn’t the most ignorant part of the comment. Then I thought “This guy homeschools his kids, I don’t want them to be ignorant and stupid”
So you are welcome! I did it for the children…:P

I know. I saw the mute/moot/ point after posted. I cannot delete or edit these posts so I just left it. I figured you would understand the point. Thanks for the correction though.

Since we’re into presuppositions

Since we’re into presuppositions

Since we’re into presuppositions

Georgy Porgy,

OK lets get serious a bit. I wish to examine your reasoning a tad.

>>Premiss 3. the source of reason and logic, then, is in our brain, but dependent on the input of reality

So then it isn’t the brain that is the source. If it were, why is it dependent on reality? If the brain merely is describing reality then the brain is NOT the source of said reality. Its like saying the source of gravity is the brain. Which is, of course, absurd.

This is why we ask the very important question:

Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before human minds created the law of non-contradiction? If not, why not?

So you have YET to identify the SOURCE of logic.

So already your premiss 4 is still unsubstantiated. Care to try?

BTW, remember Jason said that the universe can and cannot exist at the same time in the same way without the brain. He denied logic basically. He actually said “Could the universe both exist and not exist simultaneously? It’s counterintuitive but yes, it could — because it is.”

That is why I said thanks for saying it can’t. Because by denying logic, includes denying the law of non-contradiction. If the law of non-contradiction does not necessarily apply, then by denying logic, you’re actually affirming logic, since contradictions are allowed. He did not catch that point I was making though.

Also, In your analogy about the chair and cushion, you’re mistaken entirely. The oak itself is God, not the cushion. Logic does not exist without God. You cannot even have a chair without the oak (God) to build on. Your whole analogy is fallacious. Look up “Fallacies of Misdirection” or “Misidentification of cause” for more. Please try again.

OK back to more pressing issues, educating my children on fallacious people like you when they grow up. :7)

Dan,
I’ll try to explain in an analogy where I come by premise 3, since you have once again failed to grasp a very simple concept……

Я пробовал думать о лучшем способе объяснить это Вам, и я думаю, что это – это. Вы понимаете этот параграф? Вы вероятно не понимаете. Я спрашиваю Вас теперь, Вы можете признать, что эти слова имеют ценность прежде, чем Вы понимаете их на вашем собственном языке? логика и причина существуют прежде, чем мы находим их таким же образом, что этот параграф имеет значение прежде, чем Вы понимаете русский язык. Если Вы понимаете русский язык, то Вы поймете эти слова. Если Вы не понимаете русский язык, эти слова все еще означают кое-что. логика и причина имеют ценность, даже когда нет никаких людей, которые существуют, чтобы выразить логику и причину. Логика и причина, так же, как язык – человеческое выражение. Оба – выражения действительности, все же не материальными.
Вы спросили меня, если логика и причина – там без мозга чтобы видеть это? Я теперь спрашиваю Вас, эти слова, которые я написал, они имеют какое-нибудь значение к любому прежде, чем Вы читаете слова на английском языке?

I hope that helps to explain my position. I think this might be the only way to illustrate it to you…….

As to my analogy with the chair, if you wish to make your deity the chair or the ground, you don’t get to just assert it. You need to prove it. You haven’t done that. You just claim that we are using circular reasoning. You can’t and won’t prove that you don’t do the same. Presup is not fixing the circular nature of proving logic, it is just putting lipstick on the pig and calling it Angelina Jolie.
No matter how much you, Bahnsen, Van Til, or Tenbruggencate like to think you can avoid making logic and reason circular by making an illogical and unreasonable assumption, it will not make it so. The force of your convictions is not proof of their verity.

Georgy,

>>Do you understand this paragraph? You probably do not understand.

Yes I understand…Russian. The word soup you called an “explanation” was lacking to put it nicely. You have YET to address the point.

Please give a counter for my point. I said, If the brain merely is describing reality then the brain is NOT the source of said reality. Here let me address your point in another way, in plain English.

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

>>As to my analogy with the chair, if you wish to make your deity the chair or the ground, you don’t get to just assert it. You need to prove it.

DUDE!!!! . It was YOU who barely asserted that God was merely the cushion I was MERELY correcting your failed analogy.

>>No matter how much you…like to think you can avoid making logic and reason circular by making an illogical and unreasonable assumption, it will not make it so.

Wow, that Ironic meter is exploding at this point.

Dan,
First off, I’m glad you can use a Russian to English translator. That was not the point of the exercise, but since it made you re-phrase your question, I suppose it did it’s job.

You did not EVER say that if the brain is merely describing reality then the brain is not the source of said reality. You were previously using the word logic interchangeably with what you now concede was meant to mean reality. NOW I can answer your question, because NOW you are not talking nonsense.
I agree with you that the brain is not the source of REALITY, only the source of logic, one of the tools that it uses to interpret incoming stimuli. I’m glad you have finally learned to draw the line between logic and reality, and perhaps now we might be able to have a substantive discussion.
To answer your re-phrased question, I appeal to the source of reason and logic, which I believe to be a process in my brain, and which you believe to be an imaginary sky faerie, to process that since nothing of which I am aware or which I can reasonably imagine is both A and “not-A”, that this holds true as a rule for all observable phenomena. If in the future I found this rule to be insufficient, I’m quite thankful that I have the faculties to refine it. So I appeal to the “source of reason and logic” in the same way you do, only you anthropomorphize your “source” and in doing so add a superfluous step.

I was MERELY correcting your failed analogy

You can’t correct anything by baldly asserting things without evidence. Until you make your case you are just being absurdly contrarian. You won’t make your case because you don’t have a case. All you have is misconceptions and misrepresentations that you hope might place doubt in my worldview. You offer nothing but relegating knowledge to faith. Which you haven’t proved, only asserted.

Where did I say “without the brain?” And what do YOU mean by that? Are you implying that the universe both can and cannot exist without an intelligent force?

MY point was, this universe is, potentially, conceivably, not the only universe that exists simultaneously. Read up on M-Theory. If it’s right, it completely eliminates the need for a god to explain why life exists. It eliminates the fine-tuning argument in one fell and parsimonious swoop.

The source of logic itself, is the human brain. That thing that you CALL logic, that thing that transcends reality and encompasses all the rules of this universe, may be unique to this universe in a foam of every potential universe and every potential set of rules. Our creation of logic does not account for these rules, they attempt to correct our natural inability to grasp some of those rules and make our thought processes more accurately comport with reality itself.

If you want to keep playing these games, you need to define the terms you’re using, because nobody else in this discussion calls “logic” “the rules of this universe”, nor do they call “god” “a transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, deity that created this universe and inspired the Bible as his historical text”. That last, because you’re PRESUPPOSING it. You’re supposing it first, then developing “actuals” from that presupposition.

You know, like in the joke I made that completely flew over your dense skull.

Jason,

>>Are you implying that the universe both can and cannot exist without an intelligent force?

DUDE!!!! You too?

The question was to you because you say the BRAIN is the SOURCE of logic. SO then I asked,

Could the universe have both existed, and not existed at the same time and in the same way before human minds created the law of non-contradiction? If not, why not?

>>MY point was, this universe is, potentially, conceivably, not the only universe that exists simultaneously.

Ignoratio elenchi Whether there is another universe is irrelevant. SO then you don’t UNDERSTAND the question, logic, and the law of non-contradiction (or all of the above) or you’re avoiding the question entirely in a fallacious rebuttal. I don’t mind hand holding, I have many kids. The point you are missing is that the law of non-contradiction states that something CANNOT be both “A” and “NOT A” at the same time, in the same way. The law states that a car in the driveway CANNOT be there and not there at the same time in the same way. My question was merely used to expose your failed logic.

>>The source of logic itself, is the human brain.”

Wrong. Your point of brain being the source of logic falls apart when the law stands outside of the brain.

I will ask you the same question,

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way? This should not be a hard question if the brain is the SOURCE of logic.

Dan,
Here’s where you get to explain your premise. Please explain how “logic” is interchangeable with “reality”. You keep conflating the two, so I have to believe that you have good reason to do so.

This is exactly where presup fails. It depends on twisting definitions in order to forward its ends. Here is your chance to redeem at least this one aspect of a failed argument. Have at it….

This “law of non-contradictions” thing is disingenuous — this universe cannot have both A and Not-A in the same place at the same time, but that’s not what we’re talking about at all. The times you’ve used it are to try to illustrate that “logic” (by your definition, meaning “reality’s rules”) doesn’t exist, and therefore it does. It’s a tortured bit of circular reasoning and it depends entirely on someone not understanding that it is well possible for more than one “universe” to exist simultaneously.

So too is every fallacy you claim we are making disingenuous. These fallacies are in fact informal fallacies, and we’re not even making them. You have to significantly twist George’s words to make the misdirection or misidentification of cause fit. Really, what you have is an example of analogies not being exact and perfect. Because they’re not — analogies are by definition imperfect abstractions to try to help simpletons like yourself understand difficult topics.

And by the way, before you accuse me of the ad hominem fallacy, I didn’t say “you’re wrong because you’re a simpleton”. I just added an insult into my explanation as to why you’re wrong.

Learn to fallacy.

Jason,

>>This “law of non-contradictions” thing is disingenuous — this universe cannot have both A and Not-A in the same place at the same time, but that’s not what we’re talking about at all.

How do you KNOW what I was talking about when I asked the question? But its good to see you are on board.

>>It’s a tortured bit of circular reasoning and it depends entirely on someone not understanding that it is well possible for more than one “universe” to exist simultaneously.

Man overboard!!! And you’re lost again. Forget the universe (that is confusing you) and use your car, its simpler. What observation has led you to believe that “car” CANNOT BE both “car” and “not car” at the same time and in the same way?

>>These fallacies are in fact informal fallacies, and we’re not even making them.

Because you claim so? No the evidence shows a different picture. I am sure you enjoy ignoring evidence, you’re an Atheist after all, but the evidence is still there that your argumentation is fallacious. I was even kind enought to list and point out each fallacy that you’re violating at the time. You can only deny the truth.

>>You have to significantly twist George’s words to make the misdirection or misidentification of cause fit.

Again, without backing this up with an example you’re barely asserting this point and can be ignored. EVIDENCE please. Back up your claims.

>>And by the way, before you accuse me of the ad hominem fallacy,

I didn’t

>>I didn’t say “you’re wrong because you’re a simpleton”.

Intentional fallacy? >.>Learn to fallacy.

Said the expert.

No. Wrong. And dumb.

How do you KNOW what I was talking about when I asked the question?

I said that’s not what we, meaning George and I, were talking about. Not “that’s not what you’re talking about”.

I know perfectly well that you’re trying to say that the existence of a set of rules by which this universe works, transcends the logic that humans have invented to attempt to mimic it. You’re saying “logic” is the actual transcendent ruleset by which this universe plays. You’re saying that because there’s sense and order to this universe, that there must be a rulemaker, ergo a deity (and through some leap that completely eludes me, therefore Yahweh).

I’M saying, the rules of this universe are unique to this universe, and it’s well possible there are other universes elsewhere (I’ve said this several times now) that exist by different rules, wherein the logic that we’ve created to mimic these rules DO NOT HOLD. I’m saying there are possibly other universes elsewhere that COMPLETELY OBVIATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS, AND THEREFORE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

My car is both in my driveway, and not in my neighbor’s driveway. This universe is both here, and not where some other universe is.

Again, read up on M-Theory.

Ignoratio elenchi describes perfectly your attempt at shoehorning God into the existence of a ruleset that you do not, by any measure, know is the only one possible. Just because this universe cannot both be here and not-here simultaneously, does not mean anything I’ve said is invalid.

You’re making the fallacies fallacy. Or, in other words, tu quoque.

Jason ,

>>I’m saying there are possibly other universes elsewhere that COMPLETELY OBVIATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS, AND THEREFORE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

ONCE AGAIN you’re saying that a mere possibility of something means ABSOLUTELY. Look, mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions. RIGHT? So, since you failed, please try again.

Also, if what you say IS indeed the case, assertions are adequate justification, then you have NO PROBLEM with the assertion that GOD DID IT, since you wish NOT to be accused of a Relativist Fallacy.

Again, thanks for the smiles.

>>Ignoratio elenchi describes perfectly your attempt at shoehorning God into the existence of a ruleset that you do not, by any measure, know is the only one possible.

You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I do too. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

ONCE AGAIN you’re saying that the mere possibility that God did it all, means it must de facto be the ONLY EXPLANATION AND ALL OTHER EXPLANATIONS MUST BE THROWN OUT. Yeah, I said I could accept “god did it” — which I have NEVER DENIED. As an agnostic atheist I am in fact open to evidence for a deity but no deities presented by humankind have ever met any reasonable standard! Especially not your circular and tortured logic (circular logic is a logical fallacy!) and debased use of the existence of logic and logical fallacies (fallacies being ways in which humans tend to fail to comport with reality in their thought processes) to prove some kind of deity to create logic (despite the possibility that other universes in other states exist).

You’re making the equivocation fallacy when you say “logic” but mean “the rules of the universe” as though they were one and the same thing.

You’re making the false dichotomy fallacy by suggesting the only two possibilities are God-did-it, or reality-wouldn’t-have-rules (ergo logic would fail). You’ve made the appeal to probability, by saying that the “God-did-it” possibility is PROBABLE, and therefore TRUE. (And you haven’t proved its probability!)

M Theory is another possibility. And it’s not the only third-plus possibility other than the two that you’ve suggested. I’m not saying M Theory is absolutely true. I’m saying its possibility means one must not throw out or otherwise discount its validity based only on the anti-logical assumption that by presuming God one proves God. That’s the fallacy of necessity, assuming that the “God exists” clause in your logic has way more importance than it actually does.

And I’m saying I’m about done with you, because you’re saying the same thing over and over again. Argumentum ad nauseum. I’ll re-engage with you when you provide positive evidence for YOUR existence, much less GOD’S. I was trying to have a civil discussion. I’m done with civility now because you’ve shown me, nor George, exactly none of it yourself. At this point, I’m certain I could replace you with a shell script and a text file full of presuppositional nonsense. (This text file would include some Youtube videos and macros of pictures of lemmings.)

And since you’re asking for evidence of what I’ve asserted, perhaps you’d like to provide evidence FOR your god? Rather than saying “I’ve presupposed God because the Bible happens to fit nicely with the things that the Bible says about God. And also there’s a universe, which the Bible says there should be.”

And you still have not shown to me why your book’s description of the creation of this world is any better than the Silmarillion’s description of the creation of this world. Or the Norse’s. Or the Greeks’. Or anyone else’s.

Jason,

>>And since you’re asking for evidence of what I’ve asserted, perhaps you’d like to provide evidence FOR your god?

Have, many times.

>>Rather than saying “I’ve presupposed God because the Bible happens to fit nicely with the things that the Bible says about God. And also there’s a universe, which the Bible says there should be.”

You put that in quote as I have said this. Did I? Any evidence for this, again, or is this once again a bare assertion is justification?

I say,

While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God’s collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.

In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can’t know things for certain.

>>And you still have not shown to me why your book’s description of the creation of this world is any better than the Silmarillion’s description of the creation of this world. Or the Norse’s.

“Now all I have to do is convince you that Noah actually built an ark and brought in the animals two by two and lived over 900 years, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, that Daniel was really in the lions’ den, that Moses really did divide the Red Sea, and that Adam and Eve ran around naked…and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?” (tinyurl.com/Manintellect)

No, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, ‘convincing’ is out of my hands.

No, your job is to show any corroborating evidence for any of these fantastical stories. You’ve done none of that. You can’t provide corroborating evidence for anything in the Bible except that there is a universe, and that there is a logic to this universe, forgetting that you don’t know for sure if this is the only state the universe could ever be in. I’m stuck with the absurd worldview that this universe is mechanistic, but that absurd worldview is backed by every shred of physical evidence the universe has ever presented. You’re stuck with the absurd worldview that some guy made it all and told some goat herders in pre-scientific times about it in some divine revelation. Oh, and also all those fantastical stories.

As I said above, I’m done with this conversation. I just wanted to make sure people that read the conversation linearly know that this reply came chronologically before the one I just posted upthread.

S#!+ For Brains – that’s not how you spell Sye Tenbruggencate.

Have you read Eric Hovinds review of my debate with Sye ?

http://patientandpersistant.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-hovind.html
http://www.drdino.com/proof-vs-persuasion/#comments

Nice post. Thanks.

Jason (ans silent George),

>> Yeah, I said I could accept “god did it” — which I have NEVER DENIED. As an agnostic atheist I am in fact open to evidence for a deity but no deities presented by humankind have ever met any reasonable standard!

Why don’t you admit that point is just not true? Its not an appeal to popularity but, literally, hundreds of billions of some very smart people over the ages believe it to have met those “reasonable standards” that you claim to require. All delusional?

No, for you, there can be no evidence at all! Like Dr. Bahnsen said “In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man’s naturalism, or atheism.”

Its not the evidence that is the problem, its your worldview and presuppositions about reality. A little hope and trust goes a long way. If you are trying to seek God then allow me to get out of the way and allow that to happen. At this point, I do not see that at all. You MUST approach God on His terms. Broken and contrite heart is some evidence of your sincerity and admittance you’re a criminal in His court. (Psalm 51:17)

>>You’re making the equivocation fallacy when you say “logic” but mean “the rules of the universe” as though they were one and the same thing.

Its your claim!!! I MERELY am asking you a question that you both REFUSE to answer. Are asking questions fallacious?

Once again, what observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

This should not be THAT HARD for both of you if logic is a human construct. Concede if you cannot. And a NON ANSWER in any rules of debates is a LOSE.

>>And I’m saying I’m about done with you, because you’re saying the same thing over and over again.

Run from the question!!!!! RUN!!!!!

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

Oh for FUCKS SAKE. Cowing a person into returning to the battlefield just because they’re irritated with you is a sign that you don’t have an argument — you just have a beef. You think you have me cold on a question that I’ve already answered. And especially when you claim that you can’t provide me evidence because I wouldn’t accept it.

THIS UNIVERSE has the rule that something cannot be both A and Not-A, at least in discrete, macroscopic terms. I have observed this. I have not observed or understood the quantum level of reality, but I suspect that something can both be A and Not-A simultaneously there — because discrete amounts of quantum particles can flip in and out of existence, and all matter is made out of those fundamental quantum particles.

Regardless that THIS UNIVERSE cannot have A and Not-A exist simultaneously in the same way, that does not mean anything except that this universe works mechanistically, with discrete fundamental particles that interact with one another but cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

What observation led you to believe that the explanation given by the Bible was the best of the hundreds of thousands of possible explanations for reality posited by humankind, each of which dealing with the specifics of reality in their own unique ways?

Where did you get your “hundreds of billions” number, where 2.1 billion “Christians” exist today, the vast majority of whom (let’s say 99% of whom) you would call heretics deserving of hell?

Why is your god so omnipotent as to create the universe, so impotent as to be incapable of providing physical evidence for his existence, and so malevolent as to deem it necessary to create such a twisted universe solely to test humans and see whether or not they’d believe without said evidence? And why would your god condemn me to hell eternally as punishment for demanding evidence, when it’s within his power to provide me with exactly the evidence that I would require if he were truly omniscient?

If your god is incapable of knowing what I need to convert me, then he is not omniscient. If he is capable of knowing but not of providing, then he is not omnipotent. If he knows and can provide, but is unwilling, knowing the consequence will be eternal torture, then he is evil and I wouldn’t worship him under any circumstances anyway.

If he is able to do anything, and wants to provide, but thinks that this evidence is a bunch of twisted-up logic and a fundamental misunderstanding of fallacies as spouted by one of the biggest, most self-assured and sanctimonious assholes I’ve ever had the displeasure of meeting virtually or otherwise, then he is wrong, and therefore not worth praising for eternity anyway. And if God intentionally made all the physical evidence to point toward a mechanistic worldview such as the scientific method has discovered, then he is a liar, and not worth praising for eternity anyway.

Either God can provide physical evidence, or you don’t have any evidence whatsoever that actually rises to the level of evidence BECAUSE GOD DOESN’T EXIST.

Now that I’m ending my part of this conversation for real, I’m sure you’ll come back with some picayune detail that you say I haven’t answered thoroughly, to claim that you’ve “won”. No, I suspect you never win debates — you simply annoy everyone until they leave.

Dan,
Your comment is loaded with such fantastic levels of wrong.

Its not an appeal to popularity but, literally, hundreds of billions of some very smart people over the ages believe it to have met those “reasonable standards” that you claim to require. All delusional?

The only person who is CLEARLY delusional is the person who believes that “literally, hundreds of billions of some very smart people” ever existed on this planet. I implore you to prove this assertion. There are roughly 6 billion people alive today. Our population has grown steadily over the last few centuries, and we have figures for this time period. We also have what I believe to be relatively accurate approximations of global human populations from before we had the means to do headcounts. Where are you getting a figure of “literally, hundreds of billions”? Because I believe that is off by an exponent or two. You really make an awful lot of mistakes for someone who claims to be forwarding the truth.

Dr. Bahnsen obviously had a flair for ironic projection. That quote is a doozy.

You do not get to decide what evidence is sufficient, or that “no amount of evidence” could change our minds. I’d like to see you make a case that we accept SIMILAR propositions to the Christian God based on LESS OR EQUAL evidence then you can offer to us for your God. I’m sure you have examples, and I’m sure they are absolutely dissimilar and more strongly evidenced. I’m also sure that you will insist that you are still right.
I’ve answered your question in a previous comment. I’m sure you will continue to ask the question until you can get the answer that Sye told you was the only possible answer for an atheist. Better still, I imagine you will argue against a position that bears no resemblance to my answer, because you are incapable of thinking “off-script”.

At the end of the day Dan, you came here telling me what an expert debater you were, and how you “win” every debate with us sad little atheists. All I see is a masturbator , not a master debater. :7)
You do not win arguments, you just make your position so unreasonable that people give up trying to coax a reasonable argument from you. As I have said before, you are a prideful, boastful, decidedly un-Christian Christian. You admit as much every time you open your mouth. I’m enjoying repeatedly making you look stupid, so I’ll play along for now, but driving Jason away with your stupidity is strike one. He tried to have a reasonable discussion with you. If you insist on driving away reasonable commenters, expect your leash to tighten fast.

George,

>>I implore you to prove this assertion.

Well. I can’t. I was thinking 6,000 years plus millions a year dying. It was merely a guess. What do you have to complain about though? Is it not YOU who believes, because of evolution, that mankind was around for 50,000 to 100,000 years? If so then their certainly is hundreds of billions deceased.

Again, it was a mere guess. Moving on.

>>At the end of the day Dan, you came here telling me what an expert debater you were, and how you “win” every debate with us sad little atheists.

If you WILL NOT address the question at hand then you will lose this discussion. Just honestly try to address it. Here it is again,

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

If you do not answer the you are forcing me to win the argument. Scared?

>>If you insist on driving away reasonable commenters, expect your leash to tighten fast.

Sure I will stop…just answer the simple question.

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

I forgot to make one more point.

>>At the end of the day Dan, you came here telling me what an expert debater you were, and how you “win” every debate with us sad little atheists.

Can you back this claim with some evidence? I certainly don’t remember stating this AT ALL EVER, TO ANYONE. If you cannot back it up please retract or all I see is a …

To those to whom the gospel message is uncomfortable, it is received quite differently. When Jesus preached in His hometown at first they were amazed at His Words, but by the end of His sermon they tried to throw Him off a cliff (Luke 4: 14-30)

The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord.

Dan,
I’m glad you concede that logic fails you from time to time. Just to clear this up, even under an evolutionary worldview the estimates of world population would only amount to 106 billion people. So your gross number is just barely correct. Of those, how many do you suppose must have believed in God, given that almost half of those that ever lived died in infancy. I’ll grant you that you are closer than I assumed with no research, but I still think you are way off.

Moving on…..

You damn well know that I answered your question. I answered it at 11:53 pm on May. 17th, so stop being a dork and get on with your shell game…I’m listening. :7)

George,

You’re right George I completely missed that one. OK so you attempted to address it. Great.

So this is your response:

>>I appeal to the source of reason and logic, which I believe to be a process in my brain, and which you believe to be an imaginary sky faerie, to process that since nothing of which I am aware or which I can reasonably imagine is both A and “not-A”, that this holds true as a rule for all observable phenomena.

Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past ‘success’ of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.

Sye and I discussed this very thing. Just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T). I don’t have to go any further than that as it exposes the nonsense of saying that the law of non-contradiction is based on observation. You see, if you could justify the validity of your senses and reasoning (which you can’t), all you could hope to say is “It was the case in my extremely limited scope of experience that a thing WAS NOT both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same way,” but on what basis do you apply that to that which has not been observed, or to that which has not yet been observed? If the laws of logic are simply descriptions they become contingent to that which was described and lose their universality. Also you have exactly zero basis for applying past observations to unobserved events. For example, I could ask on what basis you assume that the universe WILL NOT both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way 2 seconds from now, since no one has observed the future?

It is obvious that you apply logic to future events, but what is your basis for doing so if logic is merely a description of past events? Do you wake up in the morning and assume that logic has changed? Of course not, so what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used to in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?

Does logic necessarily apply to our conversation, if so why? If logic is not absolute (and you have no way of justifying that it is), you cannot say that it necessarily applies to our conversation. Why do observations of past events necessarily apply to our conversation?

Wow,
That is an almost verbatim rehash of Sye’s argument, and it sounds just as silly coming from you as it does from him. Let me boil it down for you.
Do you appeal to your source of reason( God) when you reason about reason, Dan? Because that is viciously circular. It really doesn’t matter if you give it a new name, a pretty dress, a bunch of extra jobs, or a penchant for genocide, if God is the source of reason and logic then you can’t appeal to Him to reason about reason and logic. You say you don’t reason it, you presuppose it. Well I presuppose that billions of years of evolution has created a brain wired for logic. So there you go. How can I then claim to appeal to those facts without creating a circle of logic? How can you claim to have any logical reason to believe in God? How can you appeal to any evidence ever for God if that would require using reason and logic to evidence the source of reason and logic? Do you see what I mean yet? You have a really big hill to climb to prove that any conception of reason and logic is not in some way circular. Have at ‘er.

As other atheists have shown Sye before, the example you use interchanges two different conceptions of the future. I have lived through many past futures, and this gives me a working toolkit to make reasonable predictions about my future futures. You are correct though. The rapture could in fact happen this Sunday, and this would throw my reason and logic for a loop. I would have to fundamentally change my entire worldview if that happened, and would happily do so. Yet you insist on referring to the future that never happens, and this future is of no consequence to me, since I will never experience it.

My logic has absolutely no effect on reality, so whether or not I observe non-contradiction has no bearing on whether or not something can exist as both A and “not-A”, and the fabric of the universe and my worldview need not change if I had information that something exists that is self-contradictory. My world would still go on, just as when I realized that child murders happen and yet I still let my children out of my sight. The exception does not negate the rule. Taking the time to fathom things which are by measures so improbable as to approach zero would be to abuse the very logic you claim I presuppose. What this all boils down to is this: I can account for reason and logic in a way that is no more circular than any alternative you can offer, and even if I could not, it would not result in any change to reality because the universe doesn’t bend to my logic.

I would say that even though your response completely abuses logic, to the degree that you do use logic it applies to this conversation. I would say that reality transcends this conversation, so if you answered this post by saying “banana hermit doodle click” was your answer, reality would still exist to make you look like a blubbering fool, regardless of whether you felt I needed to accept your answer. Logic does not create reality, it merely interprets it. If logic were absolute, then you would be able to make something non-contradictory by merely observing it, even if it was by its nature contradictory. If every animal is not a mammal, I can still necessarily assert that a dog is a mammal. What exactly is your point here?

“Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.”

Yes, too bad your presupposition of god gets in the way of asserting that atheists presuppose non-existence…

If you really want the answer to your “A and not A” question, just read this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

Sorry to say, but it doesn’t bode well for your side of the argument.

zqtx,

>>Sorry to say, but it doesn’t bode well for your side of the argument.

Only because you presuppose the validity of his argument because he presupposes no God. *snicker

What is apparent is Atheists Epistemological Lacking. :7)

Nope, sorry, that ain’t gonna work either.

Your argument is based on asserting a presupposition on George’s behalf which just isn’t there. He doesn’t have any presupposition. You’re projecting it. *snicker

What is apparent is http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism

Now that I’ve had a few days away from this nonsense, I’m pleased to see that so much of the arguments I was attempting to make (without benefit of any formal logic training or ability to articulate) map directly to the Michael Martin counterargument. The crux of the entire argument is whether the rules of logic as developed by humans comport with reality, and whether that reality is separate and distinct from those rules of logic. I say yes to both questions. Dan says no, does not attempt to prove either except to claim we’re making logical fallacies, then sums it all up by claiming that logic itself is created by God, not humans. He does not prove that it’s the Christian god specifically, so the argument could be equally made (and equally fallacious, meaning as poorly comported with reality) for, say, Thor, as shown downthread.

Because logic was developed over long periods of refinement to ensure that it correlated exceedingly well with reality, we can use that logic on things we can’t directly observe, assuming that this logic is in good comportment with reality in at least our corner of the universe. As I’ve said before, we don’t know that our logic will hold elsewhere in this universe, nor do we know that our logic would hold in other universes where there were more or less dimensions or if reality existed in non-Euclidean space, for instance.

Because we can envision these rules being different, and because there’s actually some hard evidence coming out showing there’s more than one universe, we cannot assume a priori that there’s anything special, unique, or designed, about this one. No more can we assume that the Earth is completely and specially designed for life, should we ever discover another Earth-like planet (and we keep finding excellent candidates — of the planets we’ve found, none are exactly like Earth, but a significant proportion are rocky planets in the Cinderella zone of their stars to have liquid surface water. NASA believes fully sixty percent of stars host a rocky planet of this sort. That’s a shit-ton of chances for abiogenesis to occur. Given that we’re on such a planet, we could be living in a Star Trek universe, rather than a Christian one.

I concur, Jason. Back a few years ago when I was having this argument with Sye Tenb over at Ray Comfort’s Home for the Wayward Christian Sycophant, this is essentially where the conversation ended.

I got sick and tired of Sye trying to assert that logic (especially the Law of Contradiction – sound familiar?) was not a human construct designed to help humans understand the properties of the universe, but rather was some kind of magical property of the universe itself. Sye was getting frustrated because I kept on bringing up the history of philosophy and science to explain how various societies have spent huge amounts of time, effort, and resources to develop rules for examining reality, instead of accepting by Sye’s fiat that logic and the scientific method were created by YHWH.

It all seems very familiar, for some strange reason.

They’re both biting off the Greg Bahnsen school. I strongly suspect they all feed ultimately off Bahnsen and his mentor Van Til. Not an original thought among them.

I must say that I am more than a little disappointed. I started several months ago with Peter arguing over presuppositional moral apologetics. As it turns out, it ended with a post titled “Clarification Needed” over at his blog, because my response was never countered. I guess my clarification must have satisfied his issue, because he seems by virtue of silence to agree with my argument. All I have gotten since is a ridiculous “You’re wrong because my God says you are wrong” comment from someone who believes debate only entails saying “Nah-uh” to everything I say.
Then I go to all the trouble of making a TAG post for Dan, who comes in with an argument full of “sound and fury”, and pisses off after I give him lots of questions to answer about how his worldview offers anything better. It really is disappointing, I think we were getting somewhere. Maybe where we were getting was not to Dan’s liking. That doesn’t bode well for his presuppositional worldview.
It’s really too bad. In the last few days I have managed to come up with a few more questions, one which Jason knows about, that I think pose some serious issues for the TAG. I actually think I can prove on more than one front that TAG is a heresy, and decidedly un-Christian. Though I imagine I’ll likely just receive a steaming pile of cognitive dissonance in the form of apologetics to patch the life boat.
Oh, well. I’ll save those gems for follow up posts, and maybe even a bigger project I’m hoping for…..
Presuppositionalists at least know when to fold. You have to give them that.

Jason,

>>and because there’s actually some hard evidence coming out showing there’s more than one universe,

Just…wow. Is science ALWAYS right? If not, how do YOU KNOW its right now? Let me guess. Because it fits YOUR presuppositions? Again I will say mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions. Why not come back to THIS universe and address the points. Unless that is ALL you have to go on. Is it?

>>. Given that we’re on such a planet, we could be living in a Star Trek universe, rather than a Christian one.

Nevertheless, Jason. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? And around we go. Wheeeeee

One thing that I’ve noticed, and it sounds like George might also be thinking along the same lines (I’m thinking of George’s comment that presuppositionalism might be heretical to most Christians), is that presup attempts to argue that logic is a creation of God, but there are a couple of reasons this is actually a very bad argument.
First, the reason that humans had to develop tools like logic (and science, mathematics, etc) is because the human brain is poorly designed for actually teasing out the truth about its environment. We had to figure out ways to get past the cognitive biases built into the human mind in order to better model the reality that our species has found itself in.
Stating that God created logic is essentially admitting that God knew that he had created humans with minds incapable of actually deciphering the universe He had created for them. This sounds like an untenable position for most Christians, and doesn’t really support the idea that “without God, there can be no logic”.
Secondly, the Bible talks about a number of cases where God actively meddled with human understanding, by performing miracles or through direct mind control, and so any appeal to the Bible as evidence that YHWH is the author of logic can be rebuffed. How could we possibly trust logic when the supposed creator of the rules of the universe is able to repeatedly break those rules on a whim, and has even specifically stated that he’ll sow confusion amongst humans if he so pleases?
On top of that, the Bible contains no verses that serve as the basis for any logical or scientific method. Like Mr. Deity showed us, the Bible is full of (questionable) BBQ recipies, but is painfully silent on subjects such as reason, logic, democracy, and science.

The problem with that view Sinned, is that Dan wants us to conflate reality and logic. But you make some excellent points.
I have two entirely different reasons for thinking Presuppositionalism is heretical if applied to a Christian theological test. My observation also leads to a very ironic outcome for anyone who supports presuppositionalism. I don’t want to give it up just yet, because Dan is having enough trouble with the information we have provided so far, and I don’t want to make things any more complicated for him then they are already.
I will say that it does not bode well that Dan has already disavowed inductive reasoning, calling it a fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, so this ought to make his job a little more difficult then it has to be. I mean, to completely disavow yourself of a pillar of reason in order to claim that our worldview is incompatible with reason does seem counter-intuitive. I really look forward to where he is going with that particular observation.
If you want, I’ll give you a preview by e-mail, but I’m expecting Dan will get frustrated eventually and bring out his “Secret Weapon”, and by doing so admit that our argument was too much for him.

Dammit, real life has been interfering and I haven’t had a chance to jump into the fray on this post.
On my lunch break I’ll have a look through the comments to see how thoroughly eviscerated Dan’s weak apologetics have been. Watching his arguments twitch after a good thrashing might be amusing.
Mostly, I’m just making a token comment in order to subscribe to follow-up comments.

…..and not at all trolling Dan in the process.

George, I am offended. I do not “troll”, I “incite”!

Troll.

You can’t call me a troll unless you presuppose the existence of Thor!

I concede to your rock hard logic.
You really “hammered” my whole worldview to pieces.
I tip my hat to you…..

George,

>>Then I go to all the trouble of making a TAG post for Dan, who comes in with an argument full of “sound and fury”, and pisses off after I give him lots of questions to answer about how his worldview offers anything better.

FALSE! You have yet to address my points that I have made. That is the issue

Here are the points that you are dodging (with your responses):

Just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T). I don’t have to go any further than that as it exposes the nonsense of saying that the law of non-contradiction is based on observation.

To which you responded: >>Do you appeal to your source of reason( God) when you reason about reason, Dan? Because that is viciously circular. It really doesn’t matter if you give it a new name, a pretty dress, a bunch of extra jobs, or a penchant for genocide, if God is the source of reason and logic then you can’t appeal to Him to reason about reason and logic.

You see, if you could justify the validity of your senses and reasoning (which you can’t), all you could hope to say is “It was the case in my extremely limited scope of experience that a thing WAS NOT both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same way,” but on what basis do you apply that to that which has not been observed, or to that which has not yet been observed?

To which you responded: >>How can I then claim to appeal to those facts without creating a circle of logic?

For example, I could ask on what basis you assume that the universe WILL NOT both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way 2 seconds from now, since no one has observed the future?

To which you responded: >>How can you claim to have any logical reason to believe in God? How can you appeal to any evidence ever for God if that would require using reason and logic to evidence the source of reason and logic?

It is obvious that you apply logic to future events, but what is your basis for doing so if logic is merely a description of past events?

Do you wake up in the morning and assume that logic has changed? Of course not, so what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used to in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?

To which you responded: >>As other atheists have shown Sye before, the example you use interchanges two different conceptions of the future. I have lived through many past futures, and this gives me a working toolkit to make reasonable predictions about my future futures. You are correct though. The rapture could in fact happen this Sunday, and this would throw my reason and logic for a loop.

Does logic necessarily apply to our conversation, if so why?

To which you responded: >>My logic has absolutely no effect on reality, so whether or not I observe non-contradiction has no bearing on whether or not something can exist as both A and “not-A”, and the fabric of the universe and my worldview need not change if I had information that something exists that is self-contradictory.

If logic is not absolute (and you have no way of justifying that it is), you cannot say that it necessarily applies to our conversation. Why do observations of past events necessarily apply to our conversation?

To which you responded: >>I can account for reason and logic in a way that is no more circular than any alternative you can offer, and even if I could not, it would not result in any change to reality because the universe doesn’t bend to my logic.

Your final baseless and bare assertion without addressing the point I have made is this:

>> Logic does not create reality, it merely interprets it.

There we go folks. Its completely illogical to come to this conclusion with the questions that I posed that MUST BE fleshed out BEFORE such a claim can be made.

Thankfully Scripture has answers for people like you to: ”Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Titus 3:10 (I’ll let you read verse 11 on your own.)

*redone for clarity

George,

>>Then I go to all the trouble of making a TAG post for Dan, who comes in with an argument full of “sound and fury”, and pisses off after I give him lots of questions to answer about how his worldview offers anything better.

FALSE! You have yet to address my points that I have made. That is the issue

Here are the points that you are dodging (with your responses):

Me: Just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T). I don’t have to go any further than that as it exposes the nonsense of saying that the law of non-contradiction is based on observation.

To which you responded: >>Do you appeal to your source of reason( God) when you reason about reason, Dan? Because that is viciously circular. It really doesn’t matter if you give it a new name, a pretty dress, a bunch of extra jobs, or a penchant for genocide, if God is the source of reason and logic then you can’t appeal to Him to reason about reason and logic.

Me: You see, if you could justify the validity of your senses and reasoning (which you can’t), all you could hope to say is “It was the case in my extremely limited scope of experience that a thing WAS NOT both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same way,” but on what basis do you apply that to that which has not been observed, or to that which has not yet been observed?

To which you responded: >>How can I then claim to appeal to those facts without creating a circle of logic?

Me: For example, I could ask on what basis you assume that the universe WILL NOT both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way 2 seconds from now, since no one has observed the future?

To which you responded: >>How can you claim to have any logical reason to believe in God? How can you appeal to any evidence ever for God if that would require using reason and logic to evidence the source of reason and logic?

Me: It is obvious that you apply logic to future events, but what is your basis for doing so if logic is merely a description of past events? Do you wake up in the morning and assume that logic has changed? Of course not, so what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used to in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?

To which you responded: >>As other atheists have shown Sye before, the example you use interchanges two different conceptions of the future. I have lived through many past futures, and this gives me a working toolkit to make reasonable predictions about my future futures. You are correct though. The rapture could in fact happen this Sunday, and this would throw my reason and logic for a loop.

Me: Does logic necessarily apply to our conversation, if so why?

To which you responded: >>My logic has absolutely no effect on reality, so whether or not I observe non-contradiction has no bearing on whether or not something can exist as both A and “not-A”, and the fabric of the universe and my worldview need not change if I had information that something exists that is self-contradictory.

Me: If logic is not absolute (and you have no way of justifying that it is), you cannot say that it necessarily applies to our conversation. Why do observations of past events necessarily apply to our conversation?

To which you responded: >>I can account for reason and logic in a way that is no more circular than any alternative you can offer, and even if I could not, it would not result in any change to reality because the universe doesn’t bend to my logic.

Your final baseless and bare assertion without addressing the point I have made is this:

>> Logic does not create reality, it merely interprets it.

There we go folks. Its completely illogical to come to this conclusion with the questions that I posed that MUST BE fleshed out BEFORE such a claim can be made.

Thankfully Scripture has answers for people like you to: ”Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Titus 3:10 (I’ll let you read verse 11 on your own.)

Wow Dan,
I knew you were getting lost, but I diddn’t think it was that bad. Try to keep up now….
Just because you don’t like my answers doesn’t make them bad answers. It just means I’ve done my homework, and I won’t be letting you play the game by arbitrary rules that you set and I follow.
You are entering “evidence”, and I am shouting “objection”. You don’t get to argue against my worldview without offering something better, and you certainly don’t get to present a near identical one with shuffled definitions and call it your own.
I’ll answer your questions directly when you prove to me that the question is a valid one. Right now, you are accusing me of circular reasoning all the while depending on your own circular reasoning. I don’t need to answer your question, because it is not a valid question. If you have some system that eliminates the circular nature of verifying reason then you need to present it, and be willing to defend it against scrutiny.
If you have some way of validating inductive reasoning then explain it. Until then my answers suffice quite nicely.

All this is to say that presup is hollow, it doesn’t answer the questions, it just exists to try and frustrate and stump atheists. I’m not frustrated Dan, and I’m not stumped.

I gave you challenges, and you won’t touch them. You won’t because presup is not really about your worldview, it is about trying to confuse mine. I’ve studied Sye, and you and Bahnson, and I found the one thing you all have in common. You won’t actually talk about your alternative other than to assert that it works. You and I both know it doesn’t.

Listen, it’s the middle of a long weekend here in Canada, and I have better things to do than deal with your ridiculous projection. I love how you accuse me of dodging the questions when your whole game relies on dodging the questions. I’ll get to you this week. Maybe Tuesday.
In the meantime, you can go back to Sye and tell him he’ll have to do better than what he told you to parrot here. I have said many times, I know the parlour trick, and I won’t play by your arbitrary rules.

You know, this isn’t the first time you have thrown good old Titus 3:10 around. It always seems to pop up when you get caught on the defensive. I doubt I’ll “be done” with you, but here it to hoping…
Bring your “A” game next time….dork! ;)

Georgy porgy,

You originally claimed,

>>the source of reason and logic, then, is in our brain, but dependent on the input of reality.

I asked,

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

You defensively counter with,

>>I’ll answer your questions directly when you prove to me that the question is a valid one.

So we all now know, with certainty, that you’re lost or combative since you cannot reason through it. We see that…

Just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T). I don’t have to go any further than that as it exposes the nonsense of saying that the law of non-contradiction is based on observation.

To which you triumphantly say,

>>I have said many times, I know the parlour trick, and I won’t play by your arbitrary rules.

Wow! What a master debater you are! This much I have learned from our conversations. That ‘prideful’ is certainly observable. Have fun.

Shhhh, we understand.

Oh, Dan,
Really?
Now your just discounting the very answers I gave you earlier.

What observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?

I answered that question. You just don’t like the answer, so now you are attributing other things I have said as replacement answers. Really? You can do better. You are not bringing your “A” Game.
You accepted my answer, whether you agree with it or not, because you acknowledged it.
Here is is again:
I appeal to the source of reason and logic, which I believe to be a process in my brain, and which you believe to be an imaginary sky faerie, to process that since nothing of which I am aware or which I can reasonably imagine is both A and “not-A”, that this holds true as a rule for all observable phenomena. If in the future I found this rule to be insufficient, I’m quite thankful that I have the faculties to refine it. So I appeal to the “source of reason and logic” in the same way you do, only you anthropomorphize your “source” and in doing so add a superfluous step.

So you know that I answered it, you just decided to take back your prior acceptance of my answer. Why is that? Did you figure it out yet?

As to your next step, to claim that logical laws are unbreakable, you might want to reconsider that tack. Logical laws are based on our observation of reality, and as such are only universal to the degree that our observable reality remains constant. If reality changes in such a way as to make logic contradict with it, then logic is wrong, not reality. You can argue this point if you wish, but be careful. You may want to carefully parse your words, because you are moving into dangerous territory…

Please….have at ‘er.

Georgy,

>> If in the future I found this rule to be insufficient, I’m quite thankful that I have the faculties to refine it.

and

>> If reality changes in such a way as to make logic contradict with it, then logic is wrong, not reality.

Look up argumentum ad ignorantiam (its the entire BASE of your argument) Therefore if your entire argument is fallacious it does NOT have to be accepted as a VALID argument. Hence the ignoring.

>> You can argue this point if you wish, but be careful.

I don’t need to, your explanation for trusting your senses/perception is committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

I can’t resist.

The argumentum ad ignorantium is when you say “something is not proved/disproved conclusively, therefore the opposite is true”. Your argument is that George does not have an adequate explanation for logic, therefore God is the only explanation plausible. How exactly does George’s argument fit in any way, shape or form?

Or do you simply not understand (e.g., are ignorant of) the argumentum ad ignorantium argument?

I stand by my accusation earlier — you are a simpleton.

Argumentum ad ignorantium:

“This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”-The Demon-Haunted World: (Chapter 12 – The Fine Art of Baloney Detection.)

Misplaced that Grace indeed.

I don’t need to, your explanation for trusting your senses/perception is committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

No, Dan. I’m committing no fallacy here, and if you think I am then you need to expose it with argument, not just state it by fiat.
You won’t argue against my position because you know what happens when you do. You make the noose to hang you with. So instead, you grasp at straws trying to wave off my words as fallacies without even showing how they are remotely fallacious, so you can dodge another question.
You’re getting desperate Dan, maybe it’s time to just cut your losses and move along…
I won’t blame you for knowing when you are beat.

George,

>>You’re getting desperate Dan, maybe it’s time to just cut your losses and move along…I won’t blame you for knowing when you are beat.

You need to follow your own words: “if you think I am then you need to expose it with argument, not just state it by fiat.” *snicker

George,

>>No, Dan. I’m committing no fallacy here

You need to follow your own words: “you need to expose it with argument, not just state it by fiat.” *snicker

Dan,
I’ll kill two birds with one stone here.

>>You’re getting desperate Dan, maybe it’s time to just cut your losses and move along…I won’t blame you for knowing when you are beat.
You need to follow your own words: “if you think I am then you need to expose it with argument, not just state it by fiat.” *snicker

You are not arguing for your position any longer but instead trying to dodge any accountability for your words, this appears to be a tacit admission that you have nothing left to argue.
If someone wishes to forward a position they ought to be willing to back up their own statements. See? That is an argument where I exposed your inability to properly forward your position.This covers your first issue. Could it get worse for you? Could you then take a statement you made and castigate me for not disproving something you never proved? Could you then, effectively argue that you don’t need to argue?


>>No, Dan. I’m committing no fallacy here

You need to follow your own words: “you need to expose it with argument, not just state it by fiat.” *snicker

Why, yes. Yes you could. Bravo, Dan. You sure showed me!
*snicker

Nice try, Danny – try looking in the mirror instead.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

From Introduction to Logic:

IV. Non-fallacious uses of the ad ignorantiam: in science, the law courts, and some specific other situations, one must, for practical reasons, assume that something is false unless it is proved true and vice-versa. E.g., “the assumption of innocence until proved guilty” is a practical, not a logical, process. Obviously, someone can be legally innocent, but actually guilty of a crime.
In many instances, if a decision must be made and we cannot prove something in spite of serious attempts to do so, then we presuppose as a pragmatic consideration, without deductive proof, that whatever that something is, is probably the case.

At one time scientists concluded that DNA would not crystallize because after extensive testing, there was no proof that it would. This conclusion is not fallacious even though now it is known that DNA will crystallize.

There is no fallacy in the following passage:

“Today we can be confident that a sample of uranium 238, no matter what its origin, will gradually change into lead, and that this transmutation will occur at a rate such that half of the uranium atoms will have become lead in 4.5 billion years. There is no reason to believe that the nature of rate of this process was any different in the very remote past, when the universe was new.” Schramm, Scientific American (January, 1974), 67.

George’s definition of logic, if anything even remotely resembling the argumentum ad ignorantium, fits this. I still do not believe he is arguing from ignorance at all, but rather from what confidence reason has in the past correlated his beliefs with reality.

Here’s how this discussion seems to have unfolded:

Dan: Without believing God created humans, it’s impossible to explain how people can explain anything

Jason/George: Humans have brains and senses that have evolved over millenia to allow humans to obtain data about their surroundings in order to make decisions to ensure their survival. Over thousands of years of comparing human decision-making processes to gathered information, we have discovered that the human mind is imperfect, and that it uses cognitive processes and shortcuts that fail to correctly align up to the data that has been collected about the universe around us.
Therefore, humans have created methods of examining and interpreting fact (such as logic, the scientific method, mathematics, etc), continually honing them to ensure that those methods present the best opportunities to come to accurate descriptions of our environment.

Dan: I have this old religious text that says God created everything. Tides come in, tides go out – you can’t explain that, so therefore your argument is fallacious!

Jason/George: Okay, you didn’t rebut any of our argument. Do you at least have any evidence for that?

Dan: Evolution is false, because the Bible says so, and God created your precious logic as well! Also, without God’s approval, you’re not allowed to use your brains to explain how the human brain works, so please stop using the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Failure to accept my bald assersions means I win by the two most beautiful words in the English language: “de fault”!

Jason/George: What the hell? We have an entire body of evidence showing that humans have evolved, and a long history of the development of logic to prove that the Bible was pretty much completely unrelated to the advancement of schools of thought related to logic and science.

Dan: See, you’re using your brains again. You can’t do that without the Love Of Jesus in your heart. If you believed in the Bible you would understand why you are interpreting all that “evidence” incorrectly, and then you’d know that Jesus loves you. See? Logic!

Jason/George: That’s not the definition of logic. Here’s a more thorough description of it.

Dan: It’s not a complete definition because it doesn’t credit God with creating logic.

Jason/George: Can’t you offer any actual evidence for your claims?

Dan: Why should I bother with evidence when you didn’t answer my earlier question!

Jason/George: Yes, we did. Where’s your evidence supporting your point of view?

Dan: You used logic to answer my earlier question – you can’t do that!

Jason/George: Are you insane?

Dan: I win by de fault! De! Fault! De! Fault!

Jason/George: Why the fuck are we bothering with this idiot?

Dan really is in the minor leagues in trying to advance this line of argument. I can only admire the patience of you guys trying to engage him.

George,

*sigh OK, I will admit that I stopped taking you seriously the moment you said that the source of logic is the brain. You have yet to identify who’s brain, btw. At that point it was just trying to get you to understand reality, but I knew it was a futile endeavor. To get into the entire argument would take loads of time and effort for things that I wish not to dedicate at this time, although I love a good philosophical discussion as much as the next guy. I just have limited time for things, that is all. Don’t get me wrong its a very important subject and maybe God will help me free up the time to dedicate a post to this. Do you have six children? Do you home school? If not, then God certainly freed up time for you to flesh these things out. He feels you need that time. God has filled my plate with “different” things then merely philosophical discussions with resistant people. What has been revealed is that this point is our sticking point, (the source of logic is the brain). So yes, I have my work cut out for me if I tackle it , I just might have time to post about it exhaustively but for now, let me say this:

To say that source of all logic is the brain, begs the question of who’s brain? You see, in a sense-data environment, like you’re worldview claim of the brain, things are merely subjective. If we saw a table we would be both arguing the color size and shape of it because of our perspective. You would be screaming that its oval from your angle and I would be saying that its a circle since I am above it. We would exhaust our words discussing the color because of the way the light is shining on it (subjective). You would call it dark brown and I would be calling it light brown, etc. Same with time you could say the day is very very long and I would say, since I took a nap, it flew by very fast. Its all perspectives and subjectiveness. To say that logic originates only in the brain is nonsense! Sure, you could assume that since I had my eyes closed and was sleeping that time did not exist at all, or sped up to accommodate, or direct, the feeling of shortness. You could assume that cat that you were looking at suddenly leaped to another point of the room instantly since you looked away for a moment. But is that itself reasonable? You are claiming a sense-data ONLY world. But that alone is unscientific and illogical. My newest post touches on this a bit, although indirectly. There are things OUTSIDE of the senses (sense-data) that helps us understand our environment. Intuition and instincts to just name a few, as well as other things.

Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past ‘success’ of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular.

Did you use logic to have the brain come up with logic? Does everyone, individually, manufacture logic to use it? Is logic universal to you? If so, how do you account for universal things? What observations of reality points to logic? Your position (the source of logic is the brain) opens up too many questions that need to be fleshed out before we can move on. This forum is too cumbersome, and time consuming, to do such a thing. If we were facing each other at a BBQ it would be much easier to point out your flawed logic, about logic. I have too many questions that you NEED to answer to move on. Your refusal to answer such questions places the discussion in a stale moment and stalls the entire point I wish to direct the conversation to. You wish not to allow my position to continue? Fine stop addressing these question, as you have. If you wish to point out my inability to discuss and my failures to be able to reason, etc. Be my guest. You’re only fooling yourself. Thanks for proving the Bible true once again. If you wish to address some of these points please do so. If you wish to tell all of your buddies that I “have nothing left to argue” then you have that option. If it helps you through the days you have here, then fine. You have my blessings to live a lie if you so choose. God gave us the free will to do so. Just know that you are living a lie by doing so. As you are fully aware my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, ‘convincing’ is out of my hands.

Dan,

It is truly amazing how you babble on and on without addressing a single thing. Why this whole tangent on the source of logic? Aren’t you simply asserting that this logic comes from god and that’s your truth?

Just once, can’t you defend your beliefs with something better than “It has been revealed to me that god is the source of truth” or “The bible tells me so” and give us some evidence to support your belief?

We know what delusional things you believe, we were just hoping for a better explanation as to why.

Here’s the tl;dr of Dan’s new comment, for those of us who have been following the thread:

George,
*sigh. I admit that I’m not interested in defending my position. Here is a laundry list of excuses why I’m not going to answer you, including that I have six kids even though you have four and a pregnant wife, and including that I homeschool them which tacitly assumes that you have no job. I’m too busy to answer your questions George, but not to busy to try and change the subject and deflect my unwillingness to answer your questions by typing a 500+ word diatribe about you needing to answer questions I never asked before.
You need to answer these new questions before I will answer the ones that you asked several comments ago, because I figure that if I keep asking questions, you will eventually get exasperated and give up the argument. This strategy works wonders for my four year old, so I’m convinced it might work for me. Now I’m going to use the excuse that you refuse to answer questions that I never posed before. Oh yes, and you’re proving my God right because He said that people would disagree with the bible, so that you either agree with the bible or your actions agree with the bible. God I love logic!

Dan,
I’ll answer your NEW and NOVEL questions and address your comments tonight or tomorrow. I do have a life, though I make an effort to properly address people nonetheless. I have a busy life too. I doubt that my ability to answer your questions will result in you returning the favor though. I expect it will just give you fodder to move the conversation back to my beliefs so you can avoid talking about yours. As I have stated before, this is the whole base of the presuppositional argument. The whole of its popularity rests in its ability to confuse rather than enlighten. I’ll make a whole new post for my responses. This thread is getting way too long.
If you feel like showing some balls, maybe you might try tackling some of the mountain of questions you have deflected thus far……

Right, I forgot about this part of my exchange with Sye Tenb, where he tried to argue that logic is something that exists outside of the human mind. That ideas have some magical property that means they are greater than the brains that create and hold them. To the presuppositionalist, ideas are more than mere patterns that exist in the electrical impulses of the human brain, they are instead a part of Truth, and thus had to have been created by God.
How ideas are supposed to exist without humans to think them, Sye was never able to offer any evidence for.

While we wait for George’s promise of “I’ll answer your NEW and NOVEL questions and address your comments tonight or tomorrow.”

Sinned34 et al,

This might be a new post soon but the thrust of the point is this. Saying the law of contradiction (LOC) is a law of thought is erroneous.

“This belief is a subsequent result of psychological reflection, which presupposes the belief in the law of contradiction (LOC). ~Bertrand Russel, The problem of Philosophy, Pg.65

As Russel pointed out. Its a belief of things, its about things, not merely about thoughts.

Where you all are confusing things is although belief in the LOC is a thought, the LOC itself is not a thought, but a fact concerning the things in the world. George might have admitted this much, but that would be a huge step forward…so I doubt it. :7)

How can you test this?

If the LOC were not true but we were compelled to think it true, that would not save the LOC from being false. It stands OUTSIDE of thoughts. It shows that the law is not a law of thought.

We MUST admit that the relation is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but DOES NOT CREATE.

Hope that helps.

[...] to an otherwise ongoing “conversation” (and I use that term loosely) going on over at George’s place. The crux of the discussion is that we, as atheists, do not appeal to some transcendental force to [...]

As I say in this post, Dan: how does the existence of the law of non-contradiction in this universe make any sort of difference at all? How does the existence of an objective reality, one that follows rules and operates mechanistically, mean that it must de facto be authored by a divine creature who created it all to some greater plan (which plan, as codified in the book you refer to repeatedly as the ultimate authority on reality, must needs differ from what all the evidence available tells us about how the universe has played out)?

And again, I ask, as I has been asked severally in this thread: How does your presupposition of logic as divinely authored by your god Yahweh work only for Yahweh, and not for any other god imaginable?

How do you get from “there’s a reality here” to “the story in the Bible must be true, despite the equally plausible stories proffered in the holy books of every other religion in the world”? Is it because you only read the Bible, and none of those only ones? Because then you’re a product of the one and only religion you were exposed to, and not a truth-seeker in any way, shape or form.

Jason,

>>How does the existence of an objective reality, one that follows rules and operates mechanistically, mean that it must de facto be authored by a divine creature who created it all to some greater plan (which plan, as codified in the book you refer to repeatedly as the ultimate authority on reality, must needs differ from what all the evidence available tells us about how the universe has played out)?

As I said, we MUST admit that the relation is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but DOES NOT CREATE. Just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T). How can you account for prescriptiveness? In a Christian worldview we have a foundation for unchangeable, repeatable, universal reason because it flows directly from the nature of God. You do not. You cannot account for that AT ALL as all you have is randomness, matter and motion. That is it for your worldview. You cannot account for any laws whatsoever.

>>How does your presupposition of logic as divinely authored by your god Yahweh work only for Yahweh, and not for any other god imaginable?

Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them? The answer to that will help you understand the solution to your question better.

>>How do you get from “there’s a reality here” to “the story in the Bible must be true, despite the equally plausible stories proffered in the holy books of every other religion in the world”?

See above question.

>>Is it because you only read the Bible, and none of those only ones?

Nope, actually some of the other religions points to the Creator of the universe also as the source. Mormons, Muslims, and Opera just to name a few. I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. False religions are on the wrong side. Not everyone can be right. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term “Justification.” They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation. Research for yourself.

Most religions like Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Muslims are all false religions. God says that there is nothing that we can do to earn our way to heaven and that is what all these religions are about, that if you follow the 5 pillars or confess your sins to a man or if you say hail to Mary, fast, meditate and do good works enough that it will get you to heaven. Nothing can be further from the truth.

>>Because then you’re a product of the one and only religion you were exposed to, and not a truth-seeker in any way, shape or form.

Erm…you do understand I was raised an Atheist don’t you? Just because you were raised Muslim does not mean you are one or must be one. Need evidence? There are Christians in every nation including China, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia. Fallacy of False Assumptions, Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Please try again.

Are you sure you are a free thinker?

[...] Dan’s last comment, where he dutifully dodged answering any questions about his worldview, proves this point: I have too many questions that you NEED to answer to move on. Your refusal to answer such questions places the discussion in a stale moment and stalls the entire point I wish to direct the conversation to. [...]

[...] have been having a presuppositional debate discussion talking to  with Dan for the past two weeks or so, where he has continued to take the only tack that a [...]


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 367 other followers

%d bloggers like this: