|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4719 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Underlying Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I smell Van Tillian presuppositionalism. True, natural laws are missing from the list of the usual suspects, but the refusal to accept even the possiiblity of a neutral position is all too typical.
Let me start by pointing out that atheism is not a worldview. At most it is a belief, and by some definitions it need not even be that. It is a feature of a worldview, not a worldview in itself. The laws of logic are easily explained without invoking a God. They are simply semantic rules, formalisations of basic concepts embedded in language, that enhance our ability to reason. By applying these stricter rules to our statements we can tease out the details implicit in them. Explaining why we would possibly need a God for logic to apply is a rather more difficult task. So, perhaps sac54195 can explain why he believes that is true and how his worldview accounts for logic.(I am hoping that - unlike every other presuppositionalist I have debated with - he will not evade that issue).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You will note that I did not attempt to derive the laws of logic from anything prior. I simply explained how and why they worked. The explanation is based on actual observations of logic in use and comparison to natural language. Who, for instance, can deny that the use of "and" in logic is similar to the every day use ? If you think that this involves logic in a circular way, how does it, and how could it be avoided ?
quote:I have read the Bible. And I was enlightened to the point of rejecting even liberal Christianity. quote: So far, this is simple assertion. But in what way is logic a part of God's character ? And why should it be ? Is it just complete chance that God has a character that somehow includes logic ? Could things be completely different ? And really, I could just as easily have asserted that logic happened to be a basic part of the universe, and done no worse than you. But my explanation is better than that, and explains what logic actually is (something that you have not explicitly done).
quote: I submit to you that I have already made an explanation that makes more sense than yours, and explains more. You only objection is dubious and if your explanation amounts to more than logic just happening to be true you will run into a real circularity.
quote: By which you mean words that men tell me are the words of God. But why should I place such trust in men ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then you are abusing the terminology. God, as you believe in him is a concrete entity, not abstract. I suggest using non-material or, better, non-physical instead. (I am afraid that it is common for presuppositionalist to misuse this terminology. Accepting Cornelius Van Til or Greg Bahnsen as "supreme authorities" is not an adequate substitute for actual understanding).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The problem is that the laws of logic really ARE abstract entities. And abstract entities are very different from hypothetical non-physical concrete entities. And you really, really, need to respect the differences. You see the problem is less whether I know what I mean, but whether YOU know what you are talking about. Which is why you should attempt to get the terminology correct so that you know whether you are talking about something that is really an abstract entity or about something that you believe to be a concrete entity.
quote: Which is really the "argument" that if you don't accept Greg Bahnsen's version of Christianity you can't know anything - because Greg Bahnsen says so. It's pretty obviously nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Of course it is a gradual development. You must know that logic was only formalised by the ancient Greeks. But concepts come with conscious thought, well before anyone thinks of a name for them. Your question "How can a person begin to form a concept, when they do not even know what a concept is? "is an obvious example of putting the cart before the horse. The formation of a concept does not require knowledge of what a concept is - we all form concepts before we have that understanding. And how could we possibly know what a concept is until we can conceptualise the idea of a "concept" ? So we have concepts. We learn to communicate, and communicate better and better with the development of language. And as part of that language we develope useful concepts like "and" and "or" and "if". And by formalising these we end up with logic.
quote: Your universe then is largely imaginary. Adam and Eve are a myth. Logic was formalised in pagan Greece, not passed down in your scriptures.
quote: For these to be relevant you need to explain your view of logic. Something that presuppositionalists seem strangely reluctant to do given that it is essential to their argument.
quote: I note that this does absolutely nothing to support your position. Indeed it seems to be an admission of a weakness in your position. Because in your view the whole basis of knowledge requires reasoning about God.
quote: Well you are completely wrong about my universe. And you are wrong about it being an answer, too. It's an evasion.
quote: So in fact, the only way God comes into it is - somehow - letting us know these rules. The rules themselves aren't dependent on God at all, and if we came up with them ourselves they would still work. So clearly God isn't necessary. In effect you are largely conceding my view as to the nature of logic here, the only point you are reserving is how we came by logic - yet even there my view is better supported.
quote: In the sense that we do not deduce the laws of logic, that is true. We cannot, because that would be circular.
quote: No, I do not say any such thing. What I say is that logic is the formalisation of features of language.
quote: And yet you are wrong. Euclid formalised geometry, but geometry did not start with formalisations. Geometry started with observations, with real world problems. The formalisation was intended to represent the real world as it was observed, it was not simply an abstract formal system. Geometry, then, is an example of the power of formalisation to create mental tools. Which is exactly what I claim that logic is - a mental tool created by formalisation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I have no idea what you are talking about. A = A is not one of the axioms nor the postulates of Euclidean geometry. Are you thinking of the Law of Identity ? And can you explain why the idea that a thing is equal to itself could possibly be considered arbitrary ?
quote: Since we obviously can observe that a thing is equal to itself, I have to wonder what you think you are talking about.
quote: That's your personal opinion. It is NOT a necessary presupposition, so it is of no use to presuppositionalist argumentation.
quote: Again, I don't know what you are talking about here. Are you really suggesting that Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica was handed to them by God ? If not, then how can you deny the human effort that has gone into producing mathematics ?
quote: Again that is simply your opinion. And in respect of the fact that we can make sense of a good deal without even considering the question it obviously does not indicate that we must presuppose God to have knowledge.
quote: To reply, a = a is self-evident, so I have no idea why you think that it cannot be observed to be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
RAZD is not an atheist, so your question to him is mistaken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Oh, I understand your arguments perfectly well. I'm not sure that you understand presuppositionalism, though
quote: The point is that when I point out formalisations that have been developed in ancient Greece or even in modern times you keep bringing out Adam and Eve. Even if they existed, they would be irrelevant.
quote: And I would answer that we evolved the basic capability and developed various formalisations as tools to help us to use that capability.
quote: But how does that help you ? It seems to be self-evident that a thing is equal to itself. There seems to be no sensible way of denying it.
quote: Now there is that lack of comprehension again. While it is true that there are other logics, I have in no way suggested that any valid logic can lead to false conclusions, without using false premises.
quote: If you think that this is a problem for me then you don't understand my arguments.
quote: Assuming you are referring to the natural universe and not mathematics then it could be shown that the scientific method is better than the alternatives by the scientific method. And I think it would take a perverse attitude to suggest that anything else is better by any reasonable standard. We could argue that the failure of Rationalism left empirically-based methods the only viable way of finding out about the natural world, for instance.
quote: Originally I believed that there was a God - the Bible did a lot to undermine that notion. I do not consider myself biased in rejecting the idea now. But I know that the presuppositionalist claim is that to simply not assume that God exists - taking no position at all - is bias. You may think that that is silly - I do - but presuppositionalism is a very silly belief system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Obviously you have forgotten everything I have said. There is no impossibility of an atheist using logic. The truth and validity of logic do not depend on the existence of a God in any way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You know that isn't true. I've already offered an account of the laws of logic that you haven't been able to shoot down.
quote: And you're wrong there, too. And in fact there is no convincing explanation for "good and evil" that even requires a God. But there are certainly explanations of how we have morality that fit within a naturalistic paradigm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, he means "Your worldview as decreed by the Supreme Authority, Greg Bahnsen". which in HIS worldview dictates that it must be true - and if you happen to disagree, then - again in his worldview - you must be mistaken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You do realise that this utterly contradicts the presuppositionalist stance you have been taking up to now ? And that presuppositionalists have to believe it ? Truly the presuppositionalist worldview is incoherent and thus false. Indeed, if you really believed it then you wouldn't be bothering with the presuppositionalist arguments - you'd just be pointing out all the clear and obvious evidence that God exists. The reason why you don't do that is that you know that it ISN'T true.
quote: Yet you are using presuppositionalist arguments, based on a worldview that says that God MUST be taken as axiomatic., that there can be no evidence that establishes the existence of God. Think about it. How can you reconcile the belief that there is clear and obvious evidence that definitively establishes the existence of God with the presuppositionnalist belief that there can be no such evidence and the fact that there is no such evidence ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think that you are the one that is mistaken. Presuppositionalism STARTS from the assumption that God must be presupposed, that evidence-based arguments cannot establish the existence of God. Yes, they also believe Romans 1:18-23 (Greg Bahnsen infamously arguing that there were no atheists based on it) but they have to pretend that it doesn't quite mean what it says (asserting that we can't see the evidence because we are "blinded by sin").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Which means that your "reality" has no basis in reality. Because to give it a basis in reality would require an epistemology. If it is necessary to make some assumptions before producing an epistemology then they should be as few and as minimal as possible. This much is obvious to anyone who cares about attempting to produce a reliable epistemology. What you want is to place assumptions - not reality - before knowing. Something that no rational person should do without a very real need.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It doesn't automatically mean that, but in fact is true.
quote: The fact that you must close your mind to the possibility that God might not exist simply illustrates the fact that that it IS an arbitrary, unfounded, assumption.
quote: Where did I say that it did ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024