Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Lots of people today think the supernatural exists. This is not conformation something is correct, it shows a severe lack in critical thinking and gullability, as you have shown in your post.

Where did I say it confirms anything? I was merely pointing out that if atheists want to use that absurd canard, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” they should be careful because atheism by definition is the extraordinary claim since a majority of people believe in the supernatural.

Well, in all honesty I would say that the uniformity of nature is presupposed since it cannot be legitimately justified by induction nor deduction. Induction is discounted because any reference to it would make the argument viciously circular and a deductive argument for it would have to rely on axiomatic assumptions relating directly to the point in question.

Good so far…

That being said, I would hold that the uniformity of nature is a result of natural laws controlling all interactions between particles at various scales. It follows from this that nature, being a result of a limited number of these laws which control particle interactions would behave uniformly in a manner predictable by these laws. Of course, this conjecture, developed via the scientific method relies initially on the assumption of uniformity but the theory is well corroborated by the sum of current knowledge.

However, natural laws don’t control or cause anything; they are merely descriptions of the uniformity we observe. Your position is the same as saying the coast line on a map controls what the coast looks like on the ground. If nature behaved differently tomorrow we’d revise the laws of nature just like if the shape of the coast changes we revise the map.

Since induction, as used in the scientific method does not claim to discover truths or absolutes it would not necessarily be invalidated by some non-uniformity of nature.

I disagree here too, if the laws of nature were changing all the time it would be impossible to make any future predictions since the very notion of probability assumes some degree of uniformity.

I would hold, as did Hume that given its usefulness in life we would always be pragmatically justified in using it if and until it proved otherwise.

Well if you believe in the God of scripture you don’t have to hold to such a weak position, the “problem of induction” is a non-problem for the believer.

There are also arguments proposed by Karl Popper et al., who argue that in fact science does not uses induction but a system of conjecture, criticism and refutation to arrive at knowledge in the form of well-corroborated theories.

Well Popper believed that you could gain no real knowledge from science at all, a position that very few atheists would hold to today.

These are my thoughts, if they can be called that, based on what I have read and studied thus far. All that being said my final point is that inductions strength is not its ability to be clearly justified or validated but its ability to correct itself and generally promote true knowledge.

I think you are trying to prove a point that we both already agree upon. I support the principle of induction just as much as you do; it just violates the principle of sufficient reason to not be able to give account for your assumptions. Namely, in an atheistic universe why would we even assume the there will continue to be uniformity in nature? Induction does not make any sense in a purely naturalistic universe.

Now Statler, You will, of course deny or disagree with some, if not all of what I have said. Could I ask you to explain how your worldview justifies the uniformity of nature? Assuming you will have to reference scripture can you provide the exact passages which mention this?

I only disagreed with some of it Sam. In the Christian worldview it is believed that God upholds His creation in a consistent and predictable manner. We derive this from many areas of scripture but one of the best is Genesis 8:22 where God tells us that until the end of the age he will conduct His governing in a predictable manner.

It's funny, I don't even see how the TAG classifies as a deductive argument, its form (indirect, transcendental) is more a re-hashing of both inductive and deductive techniques. I believe even some of its proponents recognise that it "[The TAG] presupposes a whole system of definitions and sub-arguments" (John Frame)

Well we can disagree on whether it is a sound deductive argument, but it’s form (If A is possible, then B. A is possible therefore B.) is a valid deductive format. Arguing for “A” because of the impossibility of “not A” is also a deductive form of argumentation used in the TAG.

That's a pretty fatuous attempt a 'refuting' an epistemology Statler. Put simply, Empiricism claims that knowledge derives from sensory experience. That claim is an abstraction of the method used by empiricists to arrive at knowledge and is thus justified by their sensory experience of said method.

It was not a failed attempt at all. If all knowledge is a derivative of sensory perception then you cannot ‘know’ that all knowledge is derived from sensory perception since that claim cannot be perceived by your senses. It would be like someone saying, “I can only tell lies.” If that claim is true it is false if it is false it is false therefore it is false. Empiricism also has a huge problem dealing with generalizations and cause and effect. If knowledge is only gained by sensory perception then knowledge can only be made up of particulars and no generalizations (induction and probabilities) can be used. This is why you’d be hard pressed to find a pure empiricist today; the epistemology died a couple hundred years ago.

Take care,

SW

---

The great myth of the problem of induction..lol. Someone will alert me when satellites fall from the sky yes?

Only you would be so arrogant as to think you have the answer to a problem that no secular philosopher has been able to resolve in the last 5000 years.