Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not really. As I understand it, they claim knowledge is possible but that it is possible only because "God".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.
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?The "laws of logic" are descriptive, and are "transcendent" to the extent that any description would be. Descriptions are useless without an observer.
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.How do you know this?
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?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.
Not only does it necessitate existence but to observe it we must be able to provide an absolute to its identity...using the LOL.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.
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 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.
I am not sure if you are claiming that the LOL are not absolute and why would absolutely certainty be important?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.
Right, like knowing the sun will rise tomorrow. I get it.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.
How do we know the sun will rise tomorrow?Right, like knowing the sun will rise tomorrow. I get it.
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.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.
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...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.
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?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.
Are you claiming you have no presuppositions?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...
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.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.
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.
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...
ExperienceYou do need to provide justification for why you think what we consider knowledge is reliable at all.
Is there knowledge that does not come from experience?Experience
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?