Serving size: 2.0 oz., drained ...
Serving size: 2.0 oz., drained ...
Combined reply to:
- mighty_duck
- Balder
- mighty_duck
- Alethia
mighty_duck
Hi mighty_duck,
Thanks for the re-post. That saved me some time.
mighty_duck said:
Since you have an aversion to using the word axiom, I will use the word presupposition more, even though it is much longer and harder to type.
To be clear. The word itself is fine. But not unlike the word "atheist," I don't think it has any reality or application in the real world. It is nothing like a presupposition, however. They are completely different, unrelated terms. You defined axiom as:
ax·i·om: 3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
I don't believe there is any such thing that exists in reality, except as a concept that has no real correspondence in reality. If I ask you to prove something and you refuse, claiming something is "axiomatic," then you're not being rational and you shouldn't be wasting people's time debating them.
mighty_duck said:
I will make a distinction of using axiom as a presupposition (per Bahnsen's definiton) that is accepted without further need for proof or justification.
This is incorrect. You cannot use axiom in place of presupposition. You can't even modify your definition of axiom to fit presupposition unless you do violence to semantics entirely. Presuppositions
do need to be proven. Presuppositions
do need to be justified. The definition I offered earlier was:
"... the elementary assumptions in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. ... not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Persuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundation perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision. [Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 2n.4]
mighty_duck said:
1. The verity of a presupposition.
2. The ability of a presupposition to explain other things.
What we are trying to determine, first and foremost is #1. Your presuppositions aren't yet proven, but you will happily throw it in the atheist's face that his presuppositions aren't proven, and is therefore irrational.
My presupposition (God's existence) is indeed proven. The fact that you're not persuaded by the proof does not mean that it hasn't been proven. Lots of people go through life being unpersuaded by rational proofs. Every time the non-Theist use arithmetic, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the use of arithmetic. Every time the non-Theist forms a coherent sentence, the logic of which he cannot justify, he proves the existence of God, Who alone justifies the ability of the mind to comprehend language and syntax. Then, despite being confronted with fact that no other worldview or conception of God can justify the logic of arithmetic or grammar, the non-Theist has nothing cogent to say, but nevertheless continues to use grammar and logic in his attempt to deny the existence of God.
mighty_duck said:
Since the purpose of this dialog is to determine which one of our presuppositions is justified, using the conclusion that yours are already justified is circular. If you win us over, and we concede that your presuppositions are justified, then you can use that fact to further your case.
I'm not sure how you're missing this, m_d. My presupposition of God's existence is justified by the fact that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. Logic would not exist. Sentences would not exist. Mathematics, science, morality, human values, none of it would have existence. For you to believe that they could exist in a Godless, mindless, purposeless universe is an appeal to magic.
mighty_duck said:
This is why your claims that we are all really pretending to be creationists are met with ridicule.
This is nothing new. It is expected. The Bible gives plenty of examples of this sort of ridicule. But the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. Why does the Bible say that? Because the very sentence: "There is no God," and the very process of discursive thought, prove His existence.
mighty_duck said:
If you manage to prove your case, then you can use your conclusion.
Again, the case is proven, whether or not you're persuaded.
mighty_duck said:
#2 is less interesting, since even if it is true, we still don't know if #1 is true. If your premises are wrong, you can reach wrong conclusions even by using valid and rational means.
It is not rational to accept wrong premises. Coming to a wrong conclusion always involves an error in reason, whether it is via a fallacious premise, or an erroneous chain of logic.
mighty_duck said:
You complain that my worldview is irrational because it can't answer "why" Logic is correct , or why nature is uniform.
Not only "why," but how, in a Godless, purposeless, mindless universe, can you even begin to explain the use of logic and mathematics.
mighty_duck said:
Not knowing why something exists, in no way precludes us from knowing that it IS true.
I agree with you.
mighty_duck said:
What you are asking is for exhaustive knowledge, when you willingly admit you don't have that yourself.
Right, but we all have access to Someone who does. But most refuse to acknowledge that Source.
mighty_duck said:
I will claim that your worldview is equally irrational, because it can't account for "how" God did or does anything! How about why are God's morals what they are? Why couldn't they be totally different? Why is God logical?
There are rational answers to all of your questions. I can account for how God did and does what He did and does. You can read it for yourself. You can read about the how and why of God's moral and why they wouldn't be totally different. You can see for yourself why God is logical. Or I can just tell you. Your statements here are false, and anyone reading this should be made aware of that.
mighty_duck said:
You also refuse to answer "why" God exists, since you claim that question itself is irrational. This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God.
Think about this for a second. Use your imagination. Imagine God does exist. Just pretend for the sake of discussion. Consider it a hypothetical. Nevermind for the moment that everything I'm asking you to do is further proving to you of His actual existence. But for now, just humor me. God exists. We have His documented Word called the Bible. No one in the Bible asks God where He came from or why He exists. And God doesn't offer that information. Which is fitting to the personalities and writers of the Bible, since God claims to be transcendent and infinite (and such a Being could not have a "source" or "reason" for existence). Given all that, granting it as true for the sake of argument, does the fact that
you find it unacceptable matter one whit? Does your dissatisfaction have anything to do with what is true? If God granted you an interview, do you actually think you would have rational grounds to say to Him: I find it unacceptable that You, the infinite and transcendent God cannot tell me why You exist.
mighty_duck said:
This is unacceptable, as per my worldview the universe functions just fine without a God.
How do you know your universe functions just fine without a God?
mighty_duck said:
You will need to account for God before you blankly assume your worldview is rational.
What to you would be a sufficient explanation for why God exists?
mighty_duck said:
I could draw a parallel, if I define that Logic is eternal and transcendent and necessary as part of the nature of the universe. Asking why it exists, according to you, is just as irrational in that case.
It's not a parallel. While it is true that logic is transcendental in character and has a necessity about it, logic is not personal; it is not volitional, it cannot justify itself. Similarly, the universe is not personal and not volitional and cannot sustain itself. God is personal and volitional. He has the creative power that brought the universe into existence. He has the sustaining power that keeps creation from obliterating.
Balder
Hi Balder,
Balder said:
I do not agree that concepts should be considered supernatural or extrasensory. They are "beyond" our usual Wenstern classification system of five senses, but that is not the only sensory classification system mankind has devised. Buddhist tradition speaks of mind as a sense as well, perceiving mental objects rather physical objects.
If we expanded the definition of "sensory" to include the mind, do you agree that we'd still need to distinguish between tactile/concrete sensing and conceptual/abstract sensing?
Balder said:
Of course, what we perceive and conceive are very complexly interrelated, so "mind" is involved in the perception of external physical objects as well as "internal" objects such as ideas, images, concepts.
I agree.
Balder said:
To say "no one has tasted a summation" is as meaningful as saying "no one has ever heard the color red."
I agree, but you've missed the meaning I intended, and I blame myself for allowing that ambiguity. I wrote:
No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held a 2 or smelled a 4 or felt addition or tasted a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses.
I should have written:
No one has experienced 2+2=4. No one has held, tasted, smelled, heard or seen a 2 or a 4. No one has or felt, tasted, smelled, heard or seen addition. No one has held, tasted, smelled, heard or seen a summation. These are not things perceived by the senses.
Balder said:
Not being able to hear red no more disqualifies it as a "natural" sense object than not being able to taste a concept.
Not being able to feel, taste, smell, hear or see a concept disqualifies it from being natural. Concepts are extranatural, abstract, universal, conceptual.
mighty_duck
Hi m_d,
mighty_duck said:
The only thing missing from that is how you justify your belief in the existence of God.
It's not missing. It's a different argument.
mighty_duck said:
If God did not exist, then all of your deductions are false
Of course. If God does not exist, there's no such thing as deduction. There would not only be no general principles from which to deduce particular truth claims, the discursive procedure of thought would not be impossible, thoughts would not be possible, minds would not be possible, brains would not be possible.
Alethia
Hi Alethia,
Thanks for your post and suggestions.
Hilston previously wrote:
There was unequivocal affirmation in [Stratnerd's] statement: "If you define supernatural as being beyond the five senses then sure, I do - mathematics."
Alethia said:
No. You are very clearly misunderstanding his point. This appears to be obvious to everyone but you. Do you see the IF at the beginning of the sentence? That is a conditional. Stratnerd was clearly NOT making an affirmation that the natural is limited to those things detectable by the five senses.
He is if I defined supernatural as being beyond the five senses, which is exactly what I did. If A, then B. Given A, therefore B.
Alethia said:
It should be obvious to anyone that things like electricity, magnetism, x-rays, all sorts of nuclear forces, would be considered by most people to be "natural", yet they are not directly detectable by the five senses.
Each of these are detectable by the five senses by the use of instruments, and that makes them natural. Compare that the Law of Contradiction. No has experienced this law. It is conceptual, extra-natural in character.
Alethia said:
To limit the natural to the five sentences would be absurd.
I would be happy to consider an alternate definition. What do you suggest?
Alethia said:
Quite frankly, Mr. Hilston, if you can't see that, you are having a serious problem in comprehension.
I welcome your assistance in helping me to improve my comprehension.
Alethia said:
You need to take a very deep breath, a very big step back, and spend some time thinking here before you continue to misuse that statement, as your misuse of it makes a great deal of your posts meaningless.
For example?
Thank you all for your remarks and contributions.
Chunkiest national brand,
Jim
