Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 281

Thread: Underlying Presuppositions

  1. #21
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    37,668
    Amen (Given)
    3427
    Amen (Received)
    17976
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    My OP was intended, if it was not clear, to focus on the bedrock assumptions of our worldviews; the ones that we do not derive from reasoning on even more base assumptions.
    Yet your list in the OP was a list of things that were derived from reasoning.


    1. The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
      How do you know without studying math and testing it?
    2. The universe is intelligible - it operates according to principles that can be codified and understood.
      You just were born knowing this?

    3. I have the ability to use my five senses to (imperfectly) collect information about the reality of the universe.
      OK. Given.
    4. I have the (imperfect) capacity to reason and process that information to arrive at conclusions.
      Given.
    5. Because my sensing and reasoning is imperfect, I should check my reasoning against that of others as much and as often as possible. That will help me to find flaws in my reasoning.
      How did you come to this conclusion? You first had to test it by seeing if you were wrong in something you thought.



    So how is that different from believing in God as a presupposition?

    A presupposition is just a position you hold going into an argument. It says nothing about whether you came to that presupposition through logic and reason or not. In other words, if Seer comes to a debate with the presupposition that God exists, that doesn't mean it is irrational or that he did not study diligently to come to that conclusion and once he did make it a presupposition in his world view.

  2. #22
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,410
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    What do you mean Carp? Where is your evidence that the laws of logic are universal, immutable and eternal?
    Since that is on my list of "assumptions," by definition this is one of the baselines for which I cannot offer a proof. It is a fundamental principle I take as true a priori.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Your particular experience - you do know that you can not argue from the particular to the universal? And in essence you are working backwards - from your experience of applying logic to the laws of logic being universal.
    So I see it this way: there is nothing in our brains that is not there as a function of a) experience, or b) reasoning on that experience. We experience our universe from the moment we become capable of reasoning, and eventually recognize basic principles: the law of identity, the law of non contradiction. We may not be able to formulate an expression of these realities until we are more mature, but even a child will recognize the conflict of claiming that a thing is and isn't simultaenously and in the same way at the same time. Even a child recognizes the general principle of identity. I cannot prove to you that these principles are universal and eternal and absolute - that is what makes them "foundational" for me. I accept them as true without proof, and the rest of my worldview builds on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Give me evidence that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality... And I'm not sure what I'm locked into since I was agnostic for the first 37 years of my life.
    As I said, Seer - this is a foundational belief of my worldview, ergo, I cannot provide you with evidence or a proof. That is why it is "foundational." I accept it as true on it's face. If you and I do not agree that our senses provide us with a reasonable (but imperfect) view of reality, then we have no basis for discussion.

    Likewise, if you see "god is" as such a foundational concept (true without the need for evidence) and I do not, then we likewise do not have a basis for discussion. For you - this is a foundational truth on which other truths may build. Evidence is irrelevant. For me it is a conclusion, on which other truths may build. For me to accept "god is" or "god isn't" requires evidence. For you, if it is truly a foundational principle, it does not.

    Unless I am misunderstanding you.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  3. #23
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,410
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Yet your list in the OP was a list of things that were derived from reasoning.


    1. The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
      How do you know without studying math and testing it?
    2. The universe is intelligible - it operates according to principles that can be codified and understood.
      You just were born knowing this?

    3. I have the ability to use my five senses to (imperfectly) collect information about the reality of the universe.
      OK. Given.
    4. I have the (imperfect) capacity to reason and process that information to arrive at conclusions.
      Given.
    5. Because my sensing and reasoning is imperfect, I should check my reasoning against that of others as much and as often as possible. That will help me to find flaws in my reasoning.
      How did you come to this conclusion? You first had to test it by seeing if you were wrong in something you thought.



    So how is that different from believing in God as a presupposition?

    A presupposition is just a position you hold going into an argument. It says nothing about whether you came to that presupposition through logic and reason or not. In other words, if Seer comes to a debate with the presupposition that God exists, that doesn't mean it is irrational or that he did not study diligently to come to that conclusion and once he did make it a presupposition in his world view.
    I didn't say that these things were not learned, or based on experience. A baby cannot formulate these things, and doesn't even know that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same way and the same place. I said that these things are not "reasoned to" by an appeal to evidence and the construction of a proof. The law of identity may take time for me to formulate, but it is true apriori. The mathematical law of identity may take me time to learn to formulate and express, but it is true a priori. You cannot build a proof to show it is true. If you think you can, then I would like to see that proof. Likewise, I cannot prove to you that my senses provide me with a reasonable (if imperfect) perception of reality. I cannot prove to you that the universe is intelligible.

    As for belief in god, I did not suggest that someone cannot have this as a base assumption that is not subject to evidence/proof. What I believe I said was that I do not, which makes discussion impossible between me and someone who sees this premises/belief as a "fundamental" assumption. If belief in a god is a baseline assumption, then it is being accepted without recourse to more fundamental assumptions. It is considered "a priori" true.

    Look, I think of assumptions as falling into two groups: those that are derived from other assumptions, and those that are not. My OP attempted to list those things that, for me, were in the latter class. For me, belief in god is in the former class. So someone can challenge my statement "god is not" by asking me to outline the base assumptions and my reasoning process to get to that conclusion, and pointing out either where an assumption was incorrect, or the reasoning was flawed. But if someone places "god is" in the latter class, then it is baseline - which means it is considered a priori true and not subject to reasoning on more base assumptions - it IS a base assumption.

    So the most I can say to this person is, "I don't agree that's a base assumption." We have no further basis for discussion because this person believes "god is" is a fundamental on which other things build. It is not subject to contradiction. That person cannot even conceive of "god is not" as true any more than I can conceive "1 is not equal to 1" as true.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  4. #24
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,664
    Amen (Given)
    6213
    Amen (Received)
    5994
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    A presupposition is just a position you hold going into an argument. It says nothing about whether you came to that presupposition through logic and reason or not. In other words, if Seer comes to a debate with the presupposition that God exists, that doesn't mean it is irrational or that he did not study diligently to come to that conclusion and once he did make it a presupposition in his world view.
    As far as I can tell, typically when people are referring to presuppositional belief in God's existence, they actually do mean a belief that wasn't arrived at. So, for instance, Alvin Plantinga argues that some people may have a properly basic belief that God exists that does not rely on deductive reasoning. He further argues that this sort of belief may be rational, warranted and justified. This would be a presuppositional view of God. I think Plantinga's work on this subject is fascinating, and agree with WL Craig that it's a great counter to evidentialism. However, I think it has limited application in evangelism if your purpose is to get others to believe in the God you believe in. Furthermore, those who practice presuppositional apologetics typically avoid Classical apologetics (and don't seem to know Plantinga), and act as though all they need to do is throw Bible verses at a skeptic, and that somehow, through some sort of arcane mysticism, the skeptic will read the right combination of words, and something will just click in their head; Will make them want to accept the Holy Spirit. In my experience, that almost never ever happens in real life unless the individual in question already accepts some of evangelist's presuppositions. There's a few people on this forum who use this tact all the time, and it backfires on them just about every time.

  5. Amen Sparko amen'd this post.
  6. #25
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,306
    Amen (Given)
    997
    Amen (Received)
    3933
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    As far as I can tell, typically when people are referring to presuppositional belief in God's existence, they actually do mean a belief that wasn't arrived at. So, for instance, Alvin Plantinga argues that some people may have a properly basic belief that God exists that does not rely on deductive reasoning. He further argues that this sort of belief may be rational, warranted and justified. This would be a presuppositional view of God. I think Plantinga's work on this subject is fascinating, and agree with WL Craig that it's a great counter to evidentialism. However, I think it has limited application in evangelism if your purpose is to get others to believe in the God you believe in. Furthermore, those who practice presuppositional apologetics typically avoid Classical apologetics (and don't seem to know Plantinga), and act as though all they need to do is throw Bible verses at a skeptic, and that somehow, through some sort of arcane mysticism, the skeptic will read the right combination of words, and something will just click in their head; Will make them want to accept the Holy Spirit. In my experience, that almost never ever happens in real life unless the individual in question already accepts some of evangelist's presuppositions. There's a few people on this forum who use this tact all the time, and it backfires on them just about every time.
    Adrift, what is better than the word of God? Did Christ ever use apologetics? Paul? In the sense that we use it? I'm not saying it is wrong to do so, but to what effect?
    “The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” D.H. Lawrence

  7. #26
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    37,668
    Amen (Given)
    3427
    Amen (Received)
    17976
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Adrift, what is better than the word of God? Did Christ ever use apologetics? Paul? In the sense that we use it? I'm not saying it is wrong to do so, but to what effect?
    Yeah but Jesus was already talking to believers in God.

  8. Amen Adrift, Leonhard amen'd this post.
  9. #27
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,306
    Amen (Given)
    997
    Amen (Received)
    3933
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Since that is on my list of "assumptions," by definition this is one of the baselines for which I cannot offer a proof. It is a fundamental principle I take as true a priori.

    So I see it this way: there is nothing in our brains that is not there as a function of a) experience, or b) reasoning on that experience. We experience our universe from the moment we become capable of reasoning, and eventually recognize basic principles: the law of identity, the law of non contradiction. We may not be able to formulate an expression of these realities until we are more mature, but even a child will recognize the conflict of claiming that a thing is and isn't simultaenously and in the same way at the same time. Even a child recognizes the general principle of identity. I cannot prove to you that these principles are universal and eternal and absolute - that is what makes them "foundational" for me. I accept them as true without proof, and the rest of my worldview builds on that.
    Right and my belief that the Bible is the Word of God is a fundamental principle that I take as true - a priori...


    As I said, Seer - this is a foundational belief of my worldview, ergo, I cannot provide you with evidence or a proof. That is why it is "foundational." I accept it as true on it's face. If you and I do not agree that our senses provide us with a reasonable (but imperfect) view of reality, then we have no basis for discussion.
    Good, then you can understand my foundational belief (though you may not agree with it)... Unless you are suggesting that you get to have a priori beliefs but I don't.

    For you - this is a foundational truth on which other truths may build. Evidence is irrelevant. For me it is a conclusion, on which other truths may build. For me to accept "god is" or "god isn't" requires evidence. For you, if it is truly a foundational principle, it does not.
    I think I made that clear in our last discussion, that was why I kept refusing to abandon my worldview and adopt yours.
    “The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” D.H. Lawrence

  10. #28
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,306
    Amen (Given)
    997
    Amen (Received)
    3933
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Yeah but Jesus was already talking to believers in God.
    How about Paul? I mean what can be more powerful than the word of God for converting the soul?
    “The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” D.H. Lawrence

  11. #29
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,664
    Amen (Given)
    6213
    Amen (Received)
    5994
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Yeah but Jesus was already talking to believers in God.
    Right. Paul, too, is often discussing issues with believers who are familiar with the Gospel, but he does use some apologetics. For instance, at Mars Hill he appeals to the unknown god. Or in Romans 1 he talks about God's eternal power and divine nature being clearly seen through his creation.

  12. #30
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,306
    Amen (Given)
    997
    Amen (Received)
    3933
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Right. Paul, too, is often discussing issues with believers who are familiar with the Gospel, but he does use some apologetics. For instance, at Mars Hill he appeals to the unknown god. Or in Romans 1 he talks about God's eternal power and divine nature being clearly seen through his creation.
    Yes and in Acts Paul just declares who this God is, he does not use apologetics to demonstrate God, and yes in Romans he makes the case that all men intuitively already know God, but that they suppress that knowledge. But I will ask you Adrift - what can be more powerful than the word of God for converting the soul?
    “The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” D.H. Lawrence

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •