Page 1 of 24 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 240

Thread: When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    156
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    26

    When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

    Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?

  2. #2
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,301
    Amen (Given)
    1953
    Amen (Received)
    5467
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet View Post
    Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?
    I think every truth claim ends on one of the horns of the Munchausen Trilemma:

    The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
    The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
    The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

    None of these are rationally acceptable but I think it is all we have. I lead towards the axiomatic position.

    Here is another view of the problem:

    An infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but is not practically feasible and does not, therefore, provide a certain foundation.

    A logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either.

    A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  3. #3
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    234
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I think every truth claim ends on one of the horns of the Munchausen Trilemma:
    I've never been convinced by this. It may apply to discursive claims, but not non-discursive ones. Not all knowledge is inferential, thank goodness. And if the axiomatic option relies on stuff I'm just asserting, that sounds epistemically annoying, haha. Discursively, I like an aspect pressed by revelational epistemologists that (per a soft foundationalism perhaps) it's not an axiom at the fundament of my epistemic structure, but a person (or, more precisely, a trinity of persons). But I digress.

    A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
    [/I]
    It depends on why it's broken, maybe. As long as there's a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging reason why it's broken, you're good to go. In that case, PSR wouldn't be arbitrarily suspended.
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

  4. #4
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,301
    Amen (Given)
    1953
    Amen (Received)
    5467
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    I've never been convinced by this. It may apply to discursive claims, but not non-discursive ones. Not all knowledge is inferential, thank goodness. And if the axiomatic option relies on stuff I'm just asserting, that sounds epistemically annoying, haha. Discursively, I like an aspect pressed by revelational epistemologists that (per a soft foundationalism perhaps) it's not an axiom at the fundament of my epistemic structure, but a person (or, more precisely, a trinity of persons). But I digress.



    It depends on why it's broken, maybe. As long as there's a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging reason why it's broken, you're good to go. In that case, PSR wouldn't be arbitrarily suspended.
    Hey Matt, long time no see. If I understood what you just said I could respond.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  5. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  6. #5
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    234
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Hey Matt, long time no see. If I understood what you just said I could respond.
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

  7. #6
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,301
    Amen (Given)
    1953
    Amen (Received)
    5467
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  8. #7
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,301
    Amen (Given)
    1953
    Amen (Received)
    5467
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    It depends on why it's broken, maybe. As long as there's a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging reason why it's broken, you're good to go. In that case, PSR wouldn't be arbitrarily suspended.

    Can you give an example of a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging stop (in English)?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  9. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  10. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    156
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I think every truth claim ends on one of the horns of the Munchausen Trilemma:

    The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
    The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
    The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

    None of these are rationally acceptable but I think it is all we have. I lead towards the axiomatic position.

    Here is another view of the problem:

    An infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but is not practically feasible and does not, therefore, provide a certain foundation.

    A logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either.

    A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
    What do you think of these propositions? Would they require either a circular, regressive, or axiomatic argument to prove them?
    1. Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
    2. I am feeling pain.

    What do you think of statements where if one denies them, then one contradicts himself? For example, suppose someone makes the statement, "I exist." If he denies it, wouldn't he be contradicting himself? One would have to exist in order for him to deny it.

    Is the Munchausen Trilemma stating all of the possible options? What do you think of the idea where a proposition is proven true by the fact that if one denies the proposition, then one contradicts himself?

    Norman Geisler in his book, Christian Apologetics, teaches that undeniability is a test of truth. Something is true if it cannot be denied. What do you think of this?
    Last edited by Hornet; 01-02-2020 at 12:30 PM.

  11. #9
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,301
    Amen (Given)
    1953
    Amen (Received)
    5467
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet View Post
    What do you think of these propositions? Would they require either a circular, regressive, or axiomatic argument to prove them?
    1. Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
    2. I am feeling pain.
    With the first, I think, we would have to assume that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (axiomatic). The second would be circular. How could you logically demonstrate that you are actually feeling pain to anyone but yourself with out begging the question?

    What do you think of statements where if one denies them, then one contradicts himself? For example, suppose someone makes the statement, "I exist." If he denies it, wouldn't he be contradicting himself? One would have to exist in order for him to deny it.
    Even if that is valid, that is where it ends. You could not logically move to anything else - for instance that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality (the Matrix thing).

    Is the Munchausen Trilemma stating all of the possible options? What do you think of the idea where a proposition is proven true by the fact that if one denies the proposition, then one contradicts himself?

    Norman Geisler in his book, Christian Apologetics, teaches that undeniability is a test of truth. Something is true if it cannot be denied. What do you think of this?
    Again, wouldn't both require that we assume that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (axiomatic)?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  12. #10
    tWebber mattbballman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    234
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Can you give an example of a non-arbitrary, non-question-begging stop (in English)?
    Sure! I was responding to this:

    A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
    Maybe it depends on what 'principally feasible' means. I took it to mean 'feasible' based on 'principle'. The only kind of feasible break from searching, based on principle, which would be a random suspension of PSR, would be an irrational or arational suspension, depending on whether the randomness of the suspension violated rational norms or was such that it was without any norms at all.

    Examples of these kinds of violations or these kinds of breaks would be any kind of fallacy or form of unjustified reasoning or any kind of metaphysically incomplete explanation. Fallacies are obvious enough: they violate rational norms. But perhaps you might flout epistemic norms in toto: perhaps you're a postmodernist. Norms are phallic hangovers of a bygone logocentrism, an idiotic sublimation bubbling up into a European, colonial mindset that invented truth as a power-structure to subjugate other ideologies, etc., etc., and on and on. In this case, you have an instance of flouting epistemic norms, of it being such that you don't have any norms at all. IF the norms were real, this definitely would be an example of a random suspension of PSR.

    Okay, when I refered to a break that would be non-arbitrary or non-question-begging, what I was trying to say was that you could have a feasible break, based on principle, that would NOT be a random suspension of PSR in the ways I just specified. That is, it wouldn't involve fallacies, instances of unjustified reasoning, being such as to flout all epistemic norms, or being such that it is a metaphysically incomplete explanation (or being such as to include commitments with incompatible entailments). If it isn't any of these things, there doesn't seem to me to be any possibility of randomly suspensing PSR, even if you "break searching at a certain point".
    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

Posting Permissions

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