ARTICLE: There Is No Truth by Greg Koukl

[Tyrhonius]

You say that intuition is the base of logic, but that is an "intuitive" conclusion, which as it happens, can only be expressed in logical form. Being such, it becomes circular to suggest that it is intuitively true that intuition is prior to logic. You can't use your intuition to prove the priority of intuition. It might even be true, but how could you really know that when all coherent conceptual thought is conducted logically. Again, intuition might stand behind logic, but you can't assert it in a way that doesn't beg the question. If you want to prove the truth that intuition is prior to logic, then you will need recourse to something that is independent of both intuition and logic to serve as a criterion. Unfortunately, us humans are not afforded the luxury of such mental resources (and even if we were those resources would also require justification by even higher level resources, and so on ad infinitum).

[Little Shepherd]

You say that intuition is the base of logic, but that is an "intuitive" conclusion, which as it happens, can only be expressed in logical form. Being such, it becomes circular to suggest that it is intuitively true that intuition is prior to logic. You can't use your intuition to prove the priority of intuition.

No. Just no. I didn't say anything that could have given you that impression. Comments like the above make me wonder if you actually bothered to read what I wrote.

It might even be true, but how could you really know that when all coherent conceptual thought is conducted logically. Again, intuition might stand behind logic, but you can't assert it in a way that doesn't beg the question.

I challenge you to prove this.

If you want to prove the truth that intuition is prior to logic, then you will need recourse to something that is independent of both intuition and logic to serve as a criterion.

Why?

Unfortunately, us humans are not afforded the luxury of such mental resources (and even if we were those resources would also require justification by even higher level resources, and so on ad infinitum).

I disagree completely, but then I hold some things to be self-evident and not in need of proving(such as the law of noncontradiction and basic numerical and mathematical principles). If an infinite regress was actually necessary to prove anything, then we could never know anything for sure. Pardon me if I find that notion absurd.

[seer]

Calvinism, Intuition and Occasionalism:

The idea that we can not know anything based on intuition, induction, empiricism etc.... That all our thoughts (true or false) are presented to the mind by God using the occasion of our senses. This is coming from the Calvinist camp. I believe that the germ of this idea started with Gordon Clark, and I'm finding more and more Calvinist running with the concept...

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2006/12...-god-we-trust/


http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/12/on...empirical.html