Open call for Presups

[Tinker Grey]

Seriously, if you want to take on a presuppositionalist, casting doubt upon the possibility of knowledge is the last thing you want to do. It just proves their case.

Not really. As I understand it, they claim knowledge is possible but that it is possible only because "God".

I, OTOH, wonder why I should entertain the idea that knowledge entails certainty and why absolute certainty is important. I act on my experience. When I gain new experience, I gain new options.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The "laws of logic" are descriptive, and are "transcendent" to the extent that any description would be. Descriptions are useless without an observer.

How can the laws be descriptive and transcendent? How are the LOL (adopting Athee's abreviation) which are conceptual and not of on the physical level be observed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you know this?

If something exists, it doesn't exist as something else. A tree is not a rock or vice versa, and whether we were here or not it would be the same. Now if you could provide a hypothetical universe where a tree is a rock at the same time in the same way I would be interested to hear about that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you suggesting that non-existent things, us in this hypothetical, could know things? How could we know if we didn't exist anything about the rules of the universe? That rocks don't turn into trees is an observation about this universe--where we exist.

True, if we didn't exist, we would not be here to 'know' anything or observe anything and would not use the LOL. Why do we exist, why do we have laws of thought that we use a priori to reason? Something called our universe exists and just so happens to be set up with laws and order that mankind does have the comprehension to understand. Mankind has the ability due to these laws to comprehend and discover the universe. In your view, how do you explain it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That was'nt a hypothetical, just a rejection of that premise claim. I can confirm that If A doesn't exist it doesn't have any properties, which includes knowledge. That conclusion is derived a priori, as I can't observe something that does not exist. It must actually exist first, for me to observe it.

Not only does it necessitate existence but to observe it we must be able to provide an absolute to its identity...using the LOL.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The "Laws of Logic" are a product of a mind, it's a descriptive tool we use to define what we observe. If there were were no minds, then there is no 'description,' ergo, rendering any notions of "transcendence" as meaningless.

What do you mean exactly by saying the LOL are a 'product' of the mind? It might be meaningless to us, but it would still exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not really. As I understand it, they claim knowledge is possible but that it is possible only because "God".

I, OTOH, wonder why I should entertain the idea that knowledge entails certainty and why absolute certainty is important. I act on my experience. When I gain new experience, I gain new options.

I am not sure if you are claiming that the LOL are not absolute and why would absolutely certainty be important?

 

[HitchSlap]

If something exists, it doesn't exist as something else. A tree is not a rock or vice versa, and whether we were here or not it would be the same. Now if you could provide a hypothetical universe where a tree is a rock at the same time in the same way I would be interested to hear about that.

Right, like knowing the sun will rise tomorrow. I get it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, like knowing the sun will rise tomorrow. I get it.

How do we know the sun will rise tomorrow?

 

[HitchSlap]

What do you mean exactly by saying the LOL are a 'product' of the mind? It might be meaningless to us, but it would still exist.

The laws of logic are what humans use to describe a rock is not a tree. Without humans, these observations would not exist, ergo, there is nothing to transcend. If these laws are "transcendent," as you claim, then perhaps you can tell us what color they are, and what they smell like.

 

[HitchSlap]

How do we know the sun will rise tomorrow?

I don't know. How?

 

[HitchSlap]

No, not really. This is precisely what presuppositional apologetics is about. If you cannot offer some justification for the belief that rocks don't change into trees when we're not looking at them, then the presuppositionalist wins.

Saying that we cannot know that rocks don't change into trees doesn't help your case, it's just doubling down on irrationalism. Can you offer a reason why we might think that rocks do not actually turn into trees when there is no observer watching?

Seriously, if you want to take on a presuppositionalist, casting doubt upon the possibility of knowledge is the last thing you want to do. It just proves their case.

Absolutely not, as having intellectual honesty about how we can know things, is at the heart of 'presuppositionalsim.' Just claiming for something to be so, without proper justification, is hallmark of 'presuppositionalism.' As $ye Ten famously claims, 'god has revealed things to us in such a way that we can know they're true.' How does he know this? Because god has revealed things to us in such a way...

 

[Oncedeceived]

The laws of logic are what humans use to describe a rock is not a tree. Without humans, these observations would not exist, ergo, there is nothing to transcend. If these laws are "transcendent," as you claim, then perhaps you can tell us what color they are, and what they smell like.

How do humans know how to determine a rock is not a tree? How do we know that a rock will not be a tree tomorrow?
Transcendent means not of the material world, why would they have a color or smell? Do your thoughts smell, are thoughts colored?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Absolutely not, as having intellectual honesty about how we can know things, is at the heart of 'presuppositionalsim.' Just claiming for something to be so, without proper justification, is hallmark of 'presuppositionalism.' As $ye Ten famously claims, 'god has revealed things to us in such a way that we can know they're true.' How does he know this? Because god has revealed things to us in such a way...

Are you claiming you have no presuppositions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know. How?

That is the question I addressed to you.

 

[Sanoy]

The laws of logic are what humans use to describe a rock is not a tree. Without humans, these observations would not exist, ergo, there is nothing to transcend. If these laws are "transcendent," as you claim, then perhaps you can tell us what color they are, and what they smell like.

Semantic language is what we use to describe or refer to things, logic would be liken to the grammar. Logic is the reason that a semantic proposition can be called true or valid. Semantics codify the meaning, logic codifys the validity. So a true proposition (logical conclusion) is not merely a description, it is a description that is true or valid. There must be a validity to a description for it to obtain as the truth. A description might unknowingly refer to the truth without validity, like a guess, but without validity we cannot obtain it as the truth and that is what logic provides.

 

[Silmarien]

Not really. As I understand it, they claim knowledge is possible but that it is possible only because "God".

I, OTOH, wonder why I should entertain the idea that knowledge entails certainty and why absolute certainty is important. I act on my experience. When I gain new experience, I gain new options.

This is the first time the concept of "absolute certainty" has been brought up in the thread at all, so I would also wonder why it is relevant to the discussion.

If the presuppositionalist claim is that knowledge is impossible at all except in a biblical framework, then again, saying that we cannot really know anything is not really helpful to you. You do need to provide justification for why you think what we consider knowledge is reliable at all.

Absolutely not, as having intellectual honesty about how we can know things, is at the heart of 'presuppositionalsim.' Just claiming for something to be so, without proper justification, is hallmark of 'presuppositionalism.' As $ye Ten famously claims, 'god has revealed things to us in such a way that we can know they're true.' How does he know this? Because god has revealed things to us in such a way...

I do not know anything about Sye Ten aside from the name, and I am not particularly interested in learning more. If I were of a Reformed inclination and wanted to look into genuine presuppositionalism, I would go back to Cornelius Van Til instead, so you probably should do so as well before writing up caricatures. I actually do think presuppositionalism is deeply problematic, but if you can't do anything more than strawman the approach instead of actually responding to its challenge, I would say you lose the debate by forfeit.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You do need to provide justification for why you think what we consider knowledge is reliable at all.

Experience

 

[Oncedeceived]

Experience

Is there knowledge that does not come from experience?

 

[HitchSlap]

Have a taste of Sye:

"The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything!

Truth, knowledge, and logic are all necessary to prove anything, and you assumed and admitted to all of them by reaching this proof.


While you may try to account for truth, knowledge and logic without God, the rest of the site will expose your inability to do so and the Christian’s justification for them with God.

While this proof is a valid “transcendental” proof (i.e. one that deals in necessary preconditions), no one needs this proof. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God’s existence and those who suppress the truth of God’s existence. The options of ‘seeking’ God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that those who deny Him are “without excuse” for suppressing what He has already revealed to them."