Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 577 (553313)
04-02-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 11:39 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 77 of 577 (553440)
04-03-2010 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by sac51495
04-02-2010 11:39 PM


I
quote:
I should have made a clarification when asking for an explanation for the laws of logic. I should point out that the laws of logic should not be invoked in support of the laws of logic. Also, how did we come to the conclusion that language is logical? We must have reasoned in order to do this, which, I would hold, is circular reasoning. If you derive the laws of logic from language, then where did language come from?
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:
Let me make some futile attempt to explain something about the character of God. I would first point out that in my belief, I am an utterly depraved human being, and that my trying to help you understand God is really not the best way of doing things. The best way for you to understand God is to read the Bible (and I would highly suggest that you do so) and then you can be to some degree enlightened.
I have read the Bible. And I was enlightened to the point of rejecting even liberal Christianity.
quote:
Now I will make my futile attempt. God is an eternal being "in whom all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). All things are derived from God (including the laws of logic) because it is the very character of God. Once again, realize this is my futile attempt at explaining a God that is infinitely more holy than me, so my attempted explanations do not do Him justice. Continuing, because ALL things consist in God (this also includes natural law) we cannot use natural law to describe God, just like we cannot determine exactly what a potter is like based on one clay vessel he made.
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:
So I believe that we must have a god to account for the laws of logic, because a god is the only thing that can be invoked to make sense of these things. We cannot use the laws of logic to describe where they came from. We must then resort to God, because he "has made all things".
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:
This explanation may not satisfy you, but I would implore you to read the the very words of God Himself if you would like to understand better.
By which you mean words that men tell me are the words of God. But why should I place such trust in men ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 11:39 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by sac51495, posted 04-11-2010 11:41 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 78 of 577 (553442)
04-03-2010 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by sac51495
04-03-2010 12:25 AM


quote:
By abstract entities I mean things that are non-material. God in that sense, is an abstract entity.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:25 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:18 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 92 of 577 (553489)
04-03-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by sac51495
04-03-2010 12:18 PM


quote:
Since I presume you know what I meant by abstract entities, I will continue to use this term, and if it confuses you, then just simply try to understand what I originally meant, and do not become to picky about terminology.
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:
Yes, I got that term from Greg Bahnsen, but my arguments are not simply copies of what he said, but are merely based on the basic, presuppositionalist argument that you must believe in a god to know anything.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:18 PM sac51495 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 116 of 577 (554993)
04-11-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by sac51495
04-11-2010 11:41 AM


Re: I
quote:
How can a person begin to form a concept, when they do not even know what a concept is? They do not know ANYTHING. How then, would anyone, ever, in the history of the world, come to a conclusion, because in your worldview, at some point, someone had to begin to understand the concepts of logic.
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:
In my universe however, all understanding and knowledge comes from God. God passed it down to Adam and Eve, and they passed it on to their descendants and so on.
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:
But you also ask, "how can understanding and knowledge be contained within God?". You also say that "I can just as well say that logic etc. is contained within the universe". Firstly, the universe is material, it is not a being. God is a being, He is not material.
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:
If a potter makes a clay vessel, we cannot use that vessel to describe what the potter is like. Likewise, we cannot use reasoning (which can be fallacious itself) to describe God, since God created it himself. We can, of course, try to determine what a potter’s tastes and preferences are by observing their creation. In just the same way, we can attempt to reason in order to understand God, but we can never fully understand the Creator perfectly by means of the creation.
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:
You asked, could things be completely different? My answer would be that in your universe, things certainly could be different, so why aren't they?
Well you are completely wrong about my universe. And you are wrong about it being an answer, too. It's an evasion.
quote:
So what do I think logic is? Firstly, I believe that we are created in the image of God. Becuase of this, we have the ability to think and reason in a manner like to that which God can. Reasoning is an ability given to us by God. The "laws" of logic, are simply the rules given to us by God that we adhere to in order to make sense of things. If we did not use these rules, nothing would make sense. So God has made us to understand these rules, so that we would be able to think correctly.
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:
I have observed you say a number of times that you do not derive logic from anything.
In the sense that we do not deduce the laws of logic, that is true. We cannot, because that would be circular.
quote:
You say that we observe for example mathematics, language, and other such things, outline the consistencies, and there we have our laws of logic.
No, I do not say any such thing. What I say is that logic is the formalisation of features of language.
quote:
Do you think that geometry was invented by the Greeks via observing geometric figures, outlining the consistencies, and that they then somehow came up with a pile of theorems? No. Geometry begins with certain postulates, e.g., "two points determine a unique straight line". This cannot be proven systematically, for the simple reason that to prove something, you must have a reason for your statement. If in a geometry proof, you need to draw a line, you must have a reason for doing so. This reason would be the aforementioned postulate. You cannot say something is true because of consistency, because there is no "consistency postulate" in geometry (but even if you had one, note that it would be a postulate). The point being this: you say that you have no presuppositions, but geometry says that all things must have a starting assumption. If you say that you have no presuppositions, then you deny geometry, which begins with certain postulates itself.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by sac51495, posted 04-11-2010 11:41 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by sac51495, posted 04-12-2010 7:33 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 122 of 577 (555115)
04-12-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by sac51495
04-12-2010 7:33 AM


Re: I
quote:
If all things in geometry were observed as you say, how did Euclid observe that a=a? Sounds a little arbitrary to me.
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:
We obviously cannot observe that a=a, neither can we prove it.
Since we obviously can observe that a thing is equal to itself, I have to wonder what you think you are talking about.
quote:
I believe that logical thinking and the ability to make sense of the world around us has been ingrained in us by a Supreme Being, without which there is no source for us to get a basis for logic, or a concept of logic, or a concept itself.
That's your personal opinion. It is NOT a necessary presupposition, so it is of no use to presuppositionalist argumentation.
quote:
Did the postulates of mathematics evolve like you say everything else did?
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:
I believe that to make any sense of this world, something must be eternal; whether it be matter or a Godhead, something must be eternal. But the perpetuation of matter is an impossibility, so that leaves only one choice: an eternal Godhead.
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 make the point once more: a=a cannot be observed to be true
To reply, a = a is self-evident, so I have no idea why you think that it cannot be observed to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by sac51495, posted 04-12-2010 7:33 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2010 8:43 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 577 (555117)
04-12-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by sac51495
04-12-2010 8:11 AM


Re: Simple starting points
RAZD is not an atheist, so your question to him is mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by sac51495, posted 04-12-2010 8:11 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2010 8:48 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 138 of 577 (555361)
04-13-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by sac51495
04-13-2010 8:43 AM


Re: I
quote:
Before I go into responding to your post, we need to take a few steps back and see why we are unable to understand the opposing person's arguments. You apparently cannot understand my arguments, and this is my fault, as I did not clear some things up earlier.
Oh, I understand your arguments perfectly well. I'm not sure that you understand presuppositionalism, though
quote:
The first thing you must understand is that I do not believe that God handed down directly to Adam and Eve everything there was to know about mathematics and science and other such things.
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:
So what I am saying is that God gave to us the ability to reason and make sense of the world around us, and my question to an atheist would be, from where did we get the ability to reason if there is no god to give us this ability?
And I would answer that we evolved the basic capability and developed various formalisations as tools to help us to use that capability.
quote:
And I made a mistake by using the term "observe/unobservable" in regards to a=a. Perhaps I should have said something more along the lines of this: we cannot reason to come to the conclusion that a=a, so we must therefore accept this to be true. No one that I know of has concluded that 1=2, 2=3 etc.
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:
So if anyone can adhere (if they want) to different laws of logic, and they can use these laws to make certain conclusions about what they see, then why has no one yet come to the conclusion that 1=2, and 2=3 (maybe you did not specifically say that some one can use different laws of logic, but if you haven't yet said that, why couldn't someone try using different laws of logic?)?
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:
This denotes that a=a is a universal truth, and is not subjective to the varying laws of logic of different ethnic groups. This does not mean that every single person in the world has this picture (a=a) in their mind. That's just the way the Greeks wrote it down (for instance), but ultimately, no one would say, e.g., that one person is equivalent to two people.
If you think that this is a problem for me then you don't understand my arguments.
quote:
Here's a random question. If you say that it is best for things to be proven via the scientific method, then the that raises the question: was the scientific method proven correct via the scientific method?
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:
And in conclusion, I need to ask a very important question to clear up some more misconceptions between us. Are you neutral in your beliefs, or were you at any point completely neutral in your worldview (pertaining particularly to the question, is there a god?)?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2010 8:43 AM sac51495 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 182 of 577 (556487)
04-20-2010 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by sac51495
04-19-2010 9:10 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
quote:
Indeed, I am reasoning with you using logic. I have not said that no one can use logic, but I have merely pointed out the impossibility of an atheist using logic, which they must of course use if I am to be able to communicate with them.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 9:10 PM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2010 6:28 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 196 of 577 (557110)
04-22-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by sac51495
04-22-2010 5:23 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
quote:
And when I say you can't use logic, what I mean is this: if you were to strictly follow your worldview, you would be unable to account for the laws of logic and would thus have no reason for relying on them.
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:
I hold that when you use logic and reasoning, and follow particular morals, that you are borrowing from my worldview, which explains our ability to reason, and also why there is good and evil. I do not understand where good and evil could come from if there is no supernatural being.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by sac51495, posted 04-22-2010 5:23 PM sac51495 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 204 of 577 (557288)
04-24-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2010 8:05 AM


Re: Iew
quote:
I have noticed that you have a tendency to use the phrase "your worldview" when what you actually mean is "the imaginary worldview of the imaginary people who live in sac51495's head".
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2010 8:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 577 (560068)
05-13-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by sac51495
05-12-2010 10:33 PM


quote:
Let me give you some clarification on what I believe. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."(Romans 1:18-23).
Note the part that says "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen" [emphasis added].
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:
So no, I do not take God as being axiomatic.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 10:33 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 2:49 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 271 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 12:00 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 252 of 577 (560074)
05-13-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2010 2:49 AM


Re: Presuppositionalism
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").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2010 2:49 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 277 of 577 (562548)
05-30-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by sac51495
05-30-2010 12:24 PM


quote:
You - as most everyone else on this forum - are placing knowing (epistemology) above reality (metaphysics). There is a reason I asked the questions in the order that I did; because metaphysics necessarily comes before epistemology.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 12:24 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by sac51495, posted 06-04-2010 11:14 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 282 of 577 (562555)
05-30-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by sac51495
05-30-2010 12:00 PM


quote:
It seems that when you say I am taking God as axiomatic, you say it means that I have no good reason whatsoever for believing in God.
It doesn't automatically mean that, but in fact is true.
quote:
This does not mean, however, that it is an arbitrary, unfounded presupposition. One of my most basic reasons for believing it, is because of the impossibility of the opposite.
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:
Since when does my worldview undermine evidence
Where did I say that it did ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 12:00 PM sac51495 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024