Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Mr Jack]

I'm sorry, MeTalking, but I'm not seeing your point? Are you claiming that large scale structure proves god, or that large scale uniformity proves god? In either case, why would that follow?

 

[Metalking]

Perfection

Perfection

I'm sorry, MeTalking, but I'm not seeing your point? Are you claiming that large scale structure proves god, or that large scale uniformity proves god? In either case, why would that follow?

The vast discoveries in our micro-verse and the endless vastness of space all point to the clues of perfect design which would leap to the thought of a perfect designer.The point being it could also be the perfect conclusion.

 

[Jukia]

The vast discoveries in our micro-verse and the endless vastness of space all point to the clues of perfect design which would leap to the thought of a perfect designer.The point being it could also be the perfect conclusion.

"Perfect Design"? Ask New Orleans.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Jukia,

I stumbled upon your comments in another thread wherein you wrote:

I read bits and pieces of [Battle Royale IX] as it was going along. Printed it out, reread Hilston's 2nd post and threw it all away. His debating style is more in the nature of a 10 year olds "Its my football and I am going home".

I'm curious to know what gave you that impression. I was perfectly willing to let Stratnerd play with the football, but I made it clear that in everything he presumed to do, whether to invoke reason or science or any tool of learning, he was robbing from the Biblical/Creationist worldview in order to do it. Funny thing is, if the Biblical worldview is true, this is exactly what we would logically surmise to be the case. It's not MY method of argument that you don't like, but the Biblical method of argument. And if the Bible is true when it says, "Reverence for the Lord is the beginning of knowledge," then of course you should expect a Bible believer to take the approach that I did. It's an awful shame that most Christian/Creationist apologists do not employ Biblical argumentation.

[Hilston's] basic premise was not science but theology.

Is your basic premise science? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that your basic premise is as much a faith commitment as mine. Show me that I'm wrong about that.

Jim

 

[Hilston]

The Gap of the Gaps ...

The Gap of the Gaps ...

Hi SUTG,

All of this could be true, but it all depends on the whether the following proposition is true:

"God is necessary for logic."

... and the other conclusions you have drawn depend on the truths of statements such as "God is necessary for induction", etc.

SUTG, it appears to me that you currently believing, by blind irrational faith, that some explanation for the source and origin of logic and induction will eventually emerge so that you can continue to religiously reject your Creator.

If I remember correctly, the aether was the medium through light propogated. If the light and heat from the sun didn't reach the earth, we would all find ourselves in an icy tomb. So, in the very act of living, we affirm the existence of the aether. We can argue against it, but we are depending on it to deliver the heat from the sun that keeps us alive while we are arguing. Our very arguing proves the existence of the aether.

Interesting analogy, albeit flawed. You could make such an argument for the aether. You could make such an argument for invisible light-propagating pixies. All of them fall short because it is not the vehicle of light or heat that corresponds to God's existence, but rather the very source of light and heat. So call the sun "Sol" or "God" or "Betty" or "That Big Bright Ball of Burning Pixies," and you're still faced with the affirmation of the sun's existence by the very act of living. This now corresponds nicely with the air-breathing analogy and the existence of God. And you (all) do something quite similiar to calling the sun "Betty" when you call your Unknown God the FSM or the IPU, etc.

Of course, the verity of the declarations above depends on whether or not there is an aether needed to carry the heat from the sun.

But you're not denying the existence of the sun itself, are you?

But the paragraph above is not an argument for the existence of the aether any more than Hilston's argument is an argument for the existence of the Christian God.

Incorrect. See above.

Also not that the 'aether of the gaps' argument need not apply.

All variants of the "need-not-apply" cliche need not apply.

"He bit the usherette's leg in the dark; Excitable boy, they all said ..."
Jim

 

[Jukia]

Hi Jukia,

I stumbled upon your comments in another thread wherein you wrote:

I'm curious to know what gave you that impression. I was perfectly willing to let Stratnerd play with the football, but I made it clear that in everything he presumed to do, whether to invoke reason or science or any tool of learning, he was robbing from the Biblical/Creationist worldview in order to do it. Funny thing is, if the Biblical worldview is true, this is exactly what we would logically surmise to be the case. It's not MY method of argument that you don't like, but the Biblical method of argument. And if the Bible is true when it says, "Reverence for the Lord is the beginning of knowledge," then of course you should expect a Bible believer to take the approach that I did. It's an awful shame that most Christian/Creationist apologists do not employ Biblical argumentation.

Is your basic premise science? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that your basic premise is as much a faith commitment as mine. Show me that I'm wrong about that.

Jim

Sorry, I just can't really be bothered writing a response of any substance because I beleive your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical. If I made an argument like you have in court the judge would likely say, "Thank you counselor, I have heard enough." and then rule in my opponent's favor.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Sorry, I just can't really be bothered writing a response of any substance

You're not telling us anything we don't already know.

because I beleive your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical.

Then why do you keep posting in all the creation/evolution threads?

 

[Jukia]

You're not telling us anything we don't already know.



Then why do you keep posting in all the creation/evolution threads?

Ah, OEJ, the king of the short answers.

I keep posting in creation/evolution threads because I like to see some actual science rather than the pseudo science creationists are so fond of.
And it is fun.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Ah, OEJ, the king of the short answers.

I don't like to waste a lot of time talking. I'd rather get to the point.

I keep posting in creation/evolution threads because I like to see some actual science rather than the pseudo science creationists are so fond of.

Couldn't you do that without posting?

And it is fun.

I see.

 

[Jukia]

Couldn't you do that without posting?



.

No, isn't that the point of posting? Suggesting that real science be looked at and not nonsense science.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, isn't that the point of posting? Suggesting that real science be looked at and not nonsense science.

I would suggest the same thing. Looking at the real science convinced me to reject evolution.

 

[Jukia]

I would suggest the same thing. Looking at the real science convinced me to reject evolution.

Then, in my opinion, you either did not look hard enough or understand what you were looking at.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Then, in my opinion, you either did not look hard enough or understand what you were looking at.

I could say the same thing about you.

 

[Jukia]

I could say the same thing about you.

Well, yeah you probably could. I have a big problem however in that despite what you seem to think, the story of evolution, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, etc. all seems to hang together pretty well. To believe in young earth special creation (if I am wrong about your belief please correct me) simply does not fit with 99% of the evidence.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Well, yeah you probably could. I have a big problem however in that despite what you seem to think, the story of evolution, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, etc. all seems to hang together pretty well.

To you, maybe.

To believe in young earth special creation (if I am wrong about your belief please correct me) simply does not fit with 99% of the evidence.

Not only does a young Earth special creation fit the evidence, it also explains many things that evolution can't. That was one of the clinchers for me.

 

[aharvey]

There is no outline for a meta-argument. A meta-argument, of necessity, must stand above such formulations.

Since all logical arguments are, of necessity, reducible to such formulations, your “meta-argument” is, of necessity, illogical. As I’ve asked before, what are we to make of such illogical proofs? Since when is “begging the question” (i.e., using logic to provide the logical basis for using logic) worse than “oxymoronic” (i.e., illogical logic)?

The existence of God is proven in that, without Him, you cannot prove anything. The statement is not subject to such formulations as above.

That’s an arbitrary but fortunate claim, because the statement itself is completely illogical! Again, you need to read up on what “proof” means, especially if you’re tossing around other terms borrowed from formal logic.

One of m_d's "proofs" was "1. God does not exist. If this is true, then the predication itself should be unintelligible.

Why is that?

This takes us back to your earlier assertion that “all proofs are statements.” First, that’s incorrect. Few if any non-trivial proofs are statements. They are sequential series of statements that proceed in an explicitly logical order. That’s why I keep asking for your chain of reasoning. Interesting that after much dancing around you are now taking the position that you don’t need to provide the logical basis for your proof claims.

Second, although you did observe that your statement did not mean that all statements are proofs, you never bothered to explain what it was that makes a given statement a proof, much less why your individual statements qualify as proofs.

Mighty_duck's second statement was: 2. The non-existence of God is a neccessary precondition for Logic, induction, etc. For this to be true, magic would have to be real. No rational person believes that magic is real, and nothing in human experience warrants the belief in real magic. Therefore, m_d's statement is proven false.

Too bad you’ve tripped yourself up in your use of the term magic. To my surprise, you explicitly chose the “intentional attempt to produce illusions” concept of magic (call it MagicFake) rather than the “mysterious, seemingly inexplicable, supernatural power” concept of magic (call it MagicMaybe). [The fundamental difference between the two is that MagicFake is known to be false, it is impossible for something known to be false to be true, or for to know as true something one knows to be false; MagicMaybe, in contrast, is explicitly ambiguous regarding its true nature: it may be supernatural, it may not be, but in either case there is no intent to deceive implied.] However, your arguments effortlessly but unacceptably flipflop between the two: “For this to be true, magic would have to be real [False for MagicFake, true for MagicMaybe ]. No rational person believes that magic is real [True for MagicFake, false for MagicMaybe ]” Your proof falls apart because each step uses a different magic concept, but what applies to MagicFake does not logically apply to MagicMaybe in your arguments.

If that were true, then I would be secretly believing magic were real, alongside mighty_duck, and undermining all the workings of logic and science and rendering human experience unintelligible.

Yeah, but then you’d be just like everyone else. How’s that different from what you’re claiming, other than the details of those secret beliefs?

Originally Posted by Hilston:

I merely quoted Chilli's research. If it's unclear to you, don't blame me.

According to Chilli's definition, "Begging the question is a circular reasoning fallacy in which a circular argument is used within one Syllogism." For all of the charges of circularity, no one has been able to demonstrate question-begging in the biblical argument. There's been a lot of whining and moaning about it, but it doesn't exist. It's a collective delusion, reinforced by each other's emotion-laden complaints, fueled by the frustration of not being able to say anything compelling or coherent against it. Question-begging will not be found to exist in the biblical argument.​

But now we know that the reason for that is because, of necessity, there is no logical argument in the first place, don’t we? Logical fallacies can only exist in logical arguments, right? But I wonder if we could still find a bit of question-begging here. Your first argument A above: My claim C (actually, insert whichever one you want) is, of necessity, exempt from requiring logical justification. Justification for A (not for C!): …

You can know if you're able to detect a circular argument within one syllogism (according to Chilli's excerpted definition).

Hey, Jim, do you even know what a syllogism is? It’s a specifically structured logical argument, with a major premise, a minor premise, and a logical conclusion drawn from them. Here’s an example of a single syllogism (you’re gonna love this!):

All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Let me break it down for you:

Major premise: All men are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates was a man
Logical conclusion: Socrates was mortal.

Relevance will become apparent in just a minute...

Try to answer this question without question begging: "How do you know logic is trustworthy?" Feel free to re-phrase the question more precisely if you wish.

"There is no outline for a meta-argument. A meta-argument, of necessity, must stand above such formulations. The trustworthiness of logic is proven in that, without logic, you cannot prove anything. The statement is not subject to such formulations as above." (Perhaps we should remind our viewing audience that a "meta-argument" is merely an argument about argumentation itself)

Originally Posted by mighty_duck

Please give an example of Circular reasoning that is not fallacious, and why it is not.

[Hilston's example:] All men are mortal; Socrates was a man; Socrates was mortal.

Um, Jim, this is not circular reasoning (There is no way to logically conclude that all men are mortal from the other two statements, nor that Socrates was a man from the other two statements). And if it were, then by your own comments above you’ve just given us an example of question-begging!

By the way, you may be puzzled by the statements in parentheses above; that's where I explain the logical basis for my claim that your example is not one of circular reasoning. That's because I recognize that my claim, though logical, does not represent the chain of logic itself behind the claim. And even the parenthetical statement is not the complete chain; each statement could be expanded (e.g., all men might be mortal, and Socrates might be mortal, but if other organisms are also mortal, then without additional information Socrates could easily be one of those other organisms, thus disproving that logical arrangement). I hope this will help you see the difference between a statement of a proof claim and the actual demonstration of said claim, more so you can understand our frustration at your posts than out of an expectation that you will start to demonstrate your claims. As you've made clear, you believe your meta-arguments are exempt from the messy requirements you impose on everyone else's meta-arguments. I do wonder if you could justify that without begging the question?...​

 

[Jukia]

To you, maybe.



Not only does a young Earth special creation fit the evidence, it also explains many things that evolution can't. That was one of the clinchers for me.

OK, I have no response other than the George Smiley quote.

 

[Hilston]

"Real" vs. "nonsense" ... according to whom?

"Real" vs. "nonsense" ... according to whom?

Hi Jukia,

You write:

Sorry, I just can't really be bothered writing a response of any substance because I beleive your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical. If I made an argument like you have in court the judge would likely say, "Thank you counselor, I have heard enough." and then rule in my opponent's favor.

It is ironic that you choose to answer in this way, making reference to the court and its judge. Paul, in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, writes:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly perceived, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became empty in their reasonings, and their foolish mind was denigrated.​

The phrase "without excuse" is the English rendering of the Greek word anapologetous, which means "without a reasoned defense," and connotes the setting of a court of law. Ironically, this is speaking about you, Jukia, who just made reference to a court of law. By suppressing the truth of God, despite His manifestation of Himself within and around you, you still choose not to acknowledge Him and to glorify Him, and thereby become empty in your reasoning and are left without a defense that would stand up in God's court.

... your basic premise is flawed and nonsensical.

If you're going to make a charge like this and refuse to back it up with arguments to support, then stop pretending to care about rational discourse, stop pretending to have any kind of foundation or justification for your claims, stop pretending to know Thing One about what is or isn't cogent "in court." In the very real court of the universe, governed by the Judge of All, you have presumed to climb up on the Judge's lap, to use the reasoning skills and perceptual faculties that He has given you, and to spit in His face. All I've done is given you is the Biblical argument. Your complaint is not with me, but with God, and as such, if you choose to continue to reject the Biblical Worldview and the Creator who is back of it, this very issue will eventually be seen as much, much more than a mere academic matter for you. You will be reminded of every case in which you were confronted with the reality that science makes no sense apart from your Creator; you will be shown that you are guilty of the same sin as Adam, namely, the desire for autonomy, to be your own god.

... isn't that the point of posting? Suggesting that real science be looked at and not nonsense science.

What, in your view, is "real science"? Can you justify your definition of science? The tools you use to evaluate the "real" science from the "nonsense" science? If you have no sensible basis for your science and the tools by which you presume to assess "real" vs. "nonsense", isn't it you who are then guilty positing a "nonsense" science?

"And the worms ate into his brain."
Jim

 

[SUTG]

But you're not denying the existence of the sun itself, are you?

You're not affirming the existence of the aether itself, are you?

It doesn't matter - sun, aether, or microbrew. How is arguing against the aether while depending on it any different than arguing against the air while depending on it, arguing against the christian god while depending on him, or arguing against a homunculus while being controlled by him?

If you can show me that I depend on the aether, it will be true that I am proving the existence of the aether while arguing against it. If you can show me I depend on the existence of air for survival, it will be true that I am proving the existence of air while arguing against it. If you can show me that I am being controlled by a homunculus, it will be true that I am proving the existence of the homunculus even while I argue against it.

And, finally, if you can show that induction depends on the existence of the christian god, it will be true that I am proving his existence while arguing against him.

Formally,

If induction works, god exists
Induction works
therefore, God exists

If we're alive, the aether sustains us
We're alive
therefore, the aether sustains us

If Hilston continues to induct, it shows he is controlled by a homunculus
Hilston continues to induct
therefore, Hilston is controlled by a homunculus

How is the first argument different from the other two? Only in that you consider the major premise to be true?

If you want to say that God is ultimate, and presupposed, then good for you. Just note that the christian god is not unique in this regard, despite your declarations to the contrary. There are no requirements for being presupposed as ultimate. Anything will do. Once it is presupposed as ultimate, it is off limits to attacks from the rational flank.

SUTG, it appears to me that you currently believing, by blind irrational faith, that some explanation for the source and origin of logic and induction will eventually emerge so that you can continue to religiously reject your Creator.

Once again, I am only rejecting my creator if in fact I do have a creator and he is the justification for my use of induction.

True, I dont have a solution to the problem of induction. Serveal philosophers have attempted solutions, with varying degrees of success. I'm sure you are familiar with some of this work. If not, I refer you to David Stove, Karl Popper, J.S. Mill, etc. None of these 'solutions' has bee particularly convincing, but the least convincing of all is that of the christian presuppositionalists such as Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius van Til. Their solution to the problem is simply stating "God solves the problem of induction" and leaving it at that. How is the problem of induction even affected by such a statement? We're still not justified in using induction! Tomorrow, it is logically possible for the sun to cross the sky from west to east, even though in the past it has always moved from east to west. How does the christian god's justification have any bearing on this?

It is as if the presuppositionalists think that Hume knew of the problem of induction, and he also knew that "only the christian god can justify induction" but he couldn't put the two together so he sat around scratching his head all day. I think it is a safe bet to suspect that Hume would not agree with the proposition "only the christian god can justify induction", even if were repeated over and over again. Can you flesh out that statement? I think that that is the only thing anyone here is interested in anymore. :cheers:

 

[mighty_duck]

Jim,

You claim your famous two presuppositions are both necessary. What I will show here is that they are actual superfluous. This ties in to things aharvey and chili said recently.

You claim that God provides a justification for our use of logic. But the second you mention justification, you acknowledge that you have already accepted the verity of logic. Logic can't be accepted rationally - IE logically. Logic must be accepted non-rationally, by presupposition or by "faith", before you can even begin to consider things rationally. Thus asking why logic is true is an irrelevant question, since we ALL presuppose the verity of logic. Even a Christian presuppositionalist.

You may claim that you don't need to presuppose logic, you can derive it from your other presuppositions. But to logically derive anything, you must first be sure that your method of deriving things is valid. So without presupposing logic, please show why the following is wrong:
P1 If God exists, then He ensures the verity of Logic.
P2 God exists.
C Logic is FALSE.

If at any point in time you remove your presupposition of the verity of logic, you are stuck in irrationality. So in fact, without presupposing logic, nothing can be proved.

Same goes for Induction/UoN. Without presupposing induction, you wouldn't be able to be sure that any of "premise", "God", "exists" etc. still mean what they meant when you began the sentence. You can't prove induction without first presupposing the verity of induction. So in fact, without presupposing induction, nothing can be proved.

Same goes for the semi-reliability of our senses (the world is mostly as we perceive it). There is no way to escape the brain-in-a-vat conundrum without presupposing our senses give a semi-reliable true perceptions. Even if we presuppose God and the Bible, it could apply to the person monitoring our little vats, but our perceptions do not represent reality. If it helps, imagine us putting other people in vats, and having a supercomputer simulate their lives. The people in the vats may make TAG non-arguments as well, how would they know they are wrong?

Same goes for the semi-reliability of our memory. This ties in with UoN, and can also be treated as another perception. You are stuck presupposing your memory is semi-reliable, since you have no way of verifying it. Even with God. We could all have been poofed here 5 minutes ago with our memories in tact. Or our vat technician could have inserted memories in there.

So what we are finally left with are the same presuppositions most sane humans naturally accept. You don't like the term self-evident (even though it applies very well here ), then how about the term "undeniable". If we demand rationality, then these are necessary presuppositions. To add to them a presupposition of an unverifiable entity, just to "justify" their verity, is superfluous. We already accept their verity non-rationally, and there is no need for further justification. This further justification doesn't really justify them, if we drop my presuppositions, we roll back in to irrationality.

The tricky thing about your non-argument, is that you define your presuppositions as necessary (by definition). This is question-begging, and if we choose to remove your presuppositions and their so called necessity, we are left in a perfectly valid logical system. As long as our presuppositions hold true that is, but this was never challenged at any time in your posts.