Origin of Articles

[Mister Agenda]

You have left out all of the pre-conditions of intelligibilty.
Remember though I am the only one who has given a rational and logical justification for laws of logic.

Keep telling yourself that. Repetition is all you have going for this assertion.

I don't infer that the Bible is true, but rather it proves itself.

Then why be a presupp, a position based on assuming that what you should be trying to prove is true, is true?

[Zen Badger]

No, I have one standard for this sort of stuff. If what we're told by "secular" scientists (as opposed to what, religious scientists?) accords with reality and leads to something that works, then I accept it into my world as something real.

Its secular science because of the assumption that science equals naturalism which seems to be the lie you've bought into. You could answer alot of your own questions by reading my thread here.

This is the exact reasoning process that refutes itself.
example: "if empiricists tell me so, then I empirically accept it as reality."
Also how does a theory like the big bang "lead to something that works"???

If science produces evidence for it's claims then I'll accept it.

If religion produces evidence for it's claims I'll accept it.

Guess who's winning so far.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

the nature of God (universal, immaterial, invariant)

And this is how we know you're a phony Christian who probably uses his Bible as a display piece. You've clearly never actually picked it up and read it for yourself.

The Lord is immaterial? The entire OT makes it clear he has a physical body.

The Lord walks about, playing hide-and-seek with Adam and Eve:

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden

The Lord eats lunch with Abraham

Gen 18:1-5 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

Yahweh wrestles with Jacob (and is a good sport when he loses)

Gen 32:24-30 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Yahweh speaks "face to face" with Moses without the need of a bush

Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

And Yahweh moons Moses, showing off his great ass

Ex 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

And Yahweh, not the least bit modest, whips out his massive cock to impress Ezekiel (The Lord IS a man)

Ez 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

and "invariant"? Seriously?

Yahweh regrets creating humans

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

and then regrets flooding them, and subsequently alters the nature of how light interacts with water so as to remember not to do it again:

Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

You can't repent and still claim to never change.

Dumb ass phony Christian!

[elunico13]

There are two things to remember about circular reasoning when it comes to an ultimate standard.
It's unavoidable and it's not necessarily fallacious. There has to be some degree of circular reasoning when proving an ultimate standard because an ultimate standard can't be proved FROM anything else, otherwise it wouldn't be ULTIMATE. So if it's going to be proved then it must use itself as the criterion. An argument can't go on forever. If it did it wouldn't prove anything. Plus we cannot know an infinite amount of things, so our chains of reasoning have to be finite. Everyone must have an ultimate standard whether you realize it or not.

Not all circles are fallacious. When begging the question it's not actually invalid but can be considered a fallacy if it is arbitrary.
The question is whether or not your ultimate standard is self attesting or self refutting.

Is empiricism self attesting?
Is it able to prove itself by it's own standard?
No.
If all knowledge is gained by observation then we could never know that empiricism is true.

Materialism?
No.
We could never prove that materialism is true by its own standard, because we need laws of logic to prove anything and they are immaterial. Is there anyone that disagrees with me still?. Immaterial laws of logic cannot exist in a metrialistic universe.

So the question is not which worldview uses circular reasoning because they all do. But which worldview is actually able to do it successfully.

[DeistPaladin]

There are two things to remember about circular reasoning when it comes to an ultimate standard.
It's unavoidable and it's not necessarily fallacious. There has to be some degree of circular reasoning when proving an ultimate standard because an ultimate standard can't be proved FROM anything else, otherwise it wouldn't be ULTIMATE. So if it's going to be proved then it must use itself as the criterion. An argument can't go on forever. If it did it wouldn't prove anything. Plus we cannot know an infinite amount of things, so our chains of reasoning have to be finite. Everyone must have an ultimate standard whether you realize it or not.

This is where personal preference becomes the ultimate objective and logic is the means to that end. I learned this in Consumer Behavior class in business school.

In one case study in that class, consumers were asked a survey about their buying behaviors and why they made the decisions they did. Eventually, if the survey goes on long enough, the consumer arrives at "it just is" which is their consumer objective.

Here's an example of how the survey might go:

"Why did you buy that brand of toothpaste?"
"Because it has tartar control"
"Why is that important?"
"Because I want to reduce tartar buildup on my teeth"
"Why is that important?"
"Because the more tartar there is, the harder it is to keep my teeth clean"
"Why is that important?"
"Because if I can't keep my teeth clean, I may lose them."
"Why do you want to avoid that?"
"Because if I lose my teeth, I won't be able to eat what I want and need to."
"Why is that important?"
"Because if I can't eat what I want and need to, my quality of life and health will be impaired"
"Why is that important?"
"Because my quality of life and health are important to me?"
"Why is that important?"
"It just is" (CONSUMER OBJECTIVE IDENTIFIED!)

In this manner, all questions of "why" ultimately lead to your objectives in life. Why is longer life preferable to a shorter one? Why is happiness preferable to sorrow? Why is love preferable to loneliness? There is no logical answer to any of these questions. They are personal preferences, what we want out of life. They require no logical justification any more than my preference for Mozart over the sound of balloons being rubbed together.

Is empiricism self attesting?
Is it able to prove itself by it's own standard?
No.
If all knowledge is gained by observation then we could never know that empiricism is true.

It gets us the desired results, suiting our needs as consumers.

Materialism?
No.
We could never prove that materialism is true by its own standard, because we need laws of logic to prove anything and they are immaterial. Is there anyone that disagrees with me still?. Immaterial laws of logic cannot exist in a metrialistic universe.

For the 234756th time, "laws" of logic are not things. They are observations of what works. They conform to reality instead of being forces that shape reality. Your problem is you keep putting the cart before the horse and excitedly proclaiming "see, see, Jesus!" when it doesn't work.

So the question is not which worldview uses circular reasoning because they all do. But which worldview is actually able to do it successfully.

What is your criteria for "success" (or your consumer objective)? Why is "It-Just-Is" or "We-Don't-Know" inferior to "God-Did-It".

By my observation, all three promote our understanding evenly (which is to say, none of them explain anything).

[Epimethean]

"There are two things to remember about circular reasoning when it comes to an ultimate standard. It's unavoidable and it's not necessarily fallacious."

LOL! The infamous Waldorf defense!

[elunico13]

In this manner, all questions of "why" ultimately lead to your objectives in life. Why is longer life preferable to a shorter one? Why is happiness preferable to sorrow? Why is love preferable to loneliness? There is no logical answer to any of these questions. They are personal preferences, what we want out of life. They require no logical justification any more than my preference for Mozart over the sound of balloons being rubbed together.

I see you have confused aesthetics and dignity with laws of logic.

What is your criteria for "success" (or your consumer objective)? Why is "It-Just-Is" or "We-Don't-Know" inferior to "God-Did-It".

By my observation, all three promote our understanding evenly (which is to say, none of them explain anything).

You are a very clever atheist.
The only way to avoid answering any question using logic is to say things like "it just is" or say no logical reason has to be given for my questions. That way there is no obligation to reason rationally. Very clever.

It is true that chemical reactions over millions of years don't have to be rational.

Thanks for your post.

[DeistPaladin]

I see you have confused aesthetics and dignity with laws of logic.

I was patiently trying to explain to you why you can prefer science and reason without logically justifying their use.

You are a very clever atheist.

I'm not an atheist but I appreciate that you think I'm "clever".

The only way to avoid answering any question using logic is to say things like "it just is" or say no logical reason has to be given for my questions. That way there is no obligation to reason rationally. Very clever.

I haven't avoided it. I've given you the same answer over and over. These "laws of logic" are not magical forces that shape our universe. They're observations of how the universe works. But you already know that because you edited out that part of my post in your response.

It is true that chemical reactions over millions of years don't have to be rational.

You've proven that point abundantly throughout this thread.

We all have the Gift of Reason. Some people apparently choose not to use it. Your consumer objective is clearly to feel justified in using your magic-worldview rather than know what is true. Hence you've purchased the presuppositionalist product.

Thanks for your post.

Your welcome.

Any time you like, you can answer my questions contained in that post.

I won't hold my breath.

[Angrboda]

I will actually defend him or her here a moment. I'm not certain, but I am inclined to agree that all arguments, ultimately, are circular. This is still a speculative area in epistemology, so nothing is certain. But even accepting circularity in definition of truth, you must have some criterion to separate more desirable explanations from less desirable explanations, and in circular theories of truth, aka coherentism, that measuring stick is consistency, also known as coherence. The problem is not that the presuppositionalist's truths and logic isn't consistent and coherent — it is, or at least it is plausible that it can be made so (though significant reinterpretation of the text may be required). I don't think the problem lies in the presuppositionalist attempting to rest a coherent and consistent system on top of theistic axioms. It's not clear, but it's plausible that the rationalist and materialist is doing the same thing. However, where I think the presuppositionalist errs is in not accounting for ALL the axioms in his system. The axioms in the God part of his or her system aren't all that he is working with, and there are both uncounted axioms, as well as axioms that overlap with secular, humanist axioms: things like, being unfair is wrong, hurting people is bad, or I live in a world of things; these are just toy examples to give the flavor. And just as Euclid generated the world of plane geometry from five axioms, and later geometers discovered other geometries by changing one or more of those axioms, you must be careful of all the axioms you accept, and the worldview that results. A presuppositionalist is like a non-Euclidian geometer who has altered his axioms concerning parallel lines, in order to generate some consistent set of truths, but is still silently using the negated axioms, secretly, when it suits his argument, or clears away a difficulty. The problem is not the circularity of the presuppositionalist's logic, necessarily, nor the chosen axioms, except in the sense that his "choosing" highlights a subset of his axioms, not the whole; I suspect, if they were properly enumerated, the presuppositionalist and the rationalist would find enormous overlap, and, I suspect, only a small fraction of axioms differing. However, when all the axioms of the presuppositionalist are accounted for, I think the result is that her system throws a spanner — because in her turning a blind eye to the rationalist axioms he shares, he has blinded himself to relevant inconsistencies.

Anyway, I should shut up now, seeing as I'd more or less declared I wouldn't speak again. But I'm mouthy, and an epistemologist just can't leave well enough alone. You may disagree with my views on circularity: it's far from a settled issue in the field. The presuppositionalist may deny holding additional axioms, or that they're inconsistent; I'm not going to debate that point, as a credible analysis might take months or years, so I'll simply grant the presuppositionalist his faith in his system, while being skeptical of it myself. I don't think either issue can be settled here. Atheists and anti-theists have greeted presuppositionalism with annoyance and chagrin. I confess to finding the polemic grating and frustrating (and I suspect there are better defenders of the position than this person, though he or she does keep you going). Will presuppositionalism "shake down" properly, and reveal a robust defense? I don't know. I strongly doubt it, but then presuppositionalism is highly reminiscent of ontological arguments for the existence of God, such as Anselm's; skeptics know there's something wrong with the argument, but it's another thing to try and put your finger on just what that wrong thing in fact is. (And also reminiscent, ontological arguments don't change minds; skeptics remain skeptic, and believers become even more ardent believers.) And we're still debating Anselm, centuries later.

Anyway, my two cents worth. I'll try to stay out of the way, but I'm not promising anything. Keeping my mouth shut is not a skill that I have completely mastered.

[elunico13]

If science produces evidence for it's claims then I'll accept it.

If religion produces evidence for it's claims I'll accept it.

I disagree with both.

Question everything!

---

I will actually defend him or her here a moment. I'm not certain, but I am inclined to agree that all arguments, ultimately, are circular. This is still a speculative area in epistemology, so nothing is certain. But even accepting circularity in definition of truth, you must have some criterion to separate more desirable explanations from less desirable explanations, and in circular theories of truth, aka coherentism, that measuring stick is consistency, also known as coherence. The problem is not that the presuppositionalist's truths and logic isn't consistent and coherent — it is, or at least it is plausible that it can be made so (though significant reinterpretation of the text may be required). I don't think the problem lies in the presuppositionalist attempting to rest a coherent and consistent system on top of theistic axioms. It's not clear, but it's plausible that the rationalist and materialist is doing the same thing. However, where I think the presuppositionalist errs is in not accounting for ALL the axioms in his system. The axioms in the God part of his or her system aren't all that he is working with, and there are both uncounted axioms, as well as axioms that overlap with secular, humanist axioms: things like, being unfair is wrong, hurting people is bad, or I live in a world of things; these are just toy examples to give the flavor. And just as Euclid generated the world of plane geometry from five axioms, and later geometers discovered other geometries by changing one or more of those axioms, you must be careful of all the axioms you accept, and the worldview that results. A presuppositionalist is like a non-Euclidian geometer who has altered his axioms concerning parallel lines, in order to generate some consistent set of truths, but is still silently using the negated axioms, secretly, when it suits his argument, or clears away a difficulty. The problem is not the circularity of the presuppositionalist's logic, necessarily, nor the chosen axioms, except in the sense that his "choosing" highlights a subset of his axioms, not the whole; I suspect, if they were properly enumerated, the presuppositionalist and the rationalist would find enormous overlap, and, I suspect, only a small fraction of axioms differing. However, when all the axioms of the presuppositionalist are accounted for, I think the result is that her system throws a spanner — because in her turning a blind eye to the rationalist axioms he shares, he has blinded himself to relevant inconsistencies.

Anyway, I should shut up now, seeing as I'd more or less declared I wouldn't speak again. But I'm mouthy, and an epistemologist just can't leave well enough alone. You may disagree with my views on circularity: it's far from a settled issue in the field. The presuppositionalist may deny holding additional axioms, or that they're inconsistent; I'm not going to debate that point, as a credible analysis might take months or years, so I'll simply grant the presuppositionalist his faith in his system, while being skeptical of it myself. I don't think either issue can be settled here. Atheists and anti-theists have greeted presuppositionalism with annoyance and chagrin. I confess to finding the polemic grating and frustrating (and I suspect there are better defenders of the position than this person, though he or she does keep you going). Will presuppositionalism "shake down" properly, and reveal a robust defense? I don't know. I strongly doubt it, but then presuppositionalism is highly reminiscent of ontological arguments for the existence of God, such as Anselm's; skeptics know there's something wrong with the argument, but it's another thing to try and put your finger on just what that wrong thing in fact is. (And also reminiscent, ontological arguments don't change minds; skeptics remain skeptic, and believers become even more ardent believers.) And we're still debating Anselm, centuries later.

Anyway, my two cents worth. I'll try to stay out of the way, but I'm not promising anything. Keeping my mouth shut is not a skill that I have completely mastered.

Well I'm glad you came back. Do you have any suggested reading or websites on epistemology?

BTW thanks for the pic! Wish I had a shirt like that.

---

Where's my miracle?

How would a miracle have to be performed for you to believe it by your standard?