presupposition

[bricklayer]

All reasoning appears to be presupposition extrapolated.
Even sound reasoning is just presupposition extrapolated logically,
even God's reasoning.
If God has no sequence of ideas, all of His ideas are presuppositions.
If God is necessary, and therefore knows all He knows necessarily,
all His ideas are presuppositions.

One cannot deny presuppositional reasoning without employing presuppositional reasoning.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Counterexample: God knows directly that he is in such a mental state (eg bliss). Such knowledge, even in humans, is thought to be incorrigible and direct, and there is no room for presupposition, as one in not supposing anything about a future state of affairs, but rather accessing a present one.

 

[bricklayer]

If God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

This leaves no one to occupy the esteemed objective position.

To know a thing objectively is to know it as it is.
God does not need a thing to be to know it.
He knows it quite apart from its being.
He knows it necessarily.

We know what we know contingently.
To be intellectually honest, we must concede that,
nothing is ever really proven to us.
It's just that all the other ideas we've considered have been des-proven
and what remains is what we're left to believe.
Thus the "scientific method".
Our perspective is hardly objective.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

This leaves no one to occupy the esteemed objective position.

To know a thing objectively is to know it as it is.
God does not need a thing to be to know it.
He knows it quite apart from its being.
He knows it necessarily.

From God is the necessary being, to God knows things necessarily. How?

We know what we know contingently.
To be intellectually honest, we must concede that,

Ok, what we know, we might not know. Hence, we are fallible. When we know, necessarily, it is a fact that we know, but we do not know necessarily, for we might not have known.

nothing is ever really proven to us.

In the absolute sense, maybe not.

It's just that all the other ideas we've considered have been des-proven
and what remains is what we're left to believe.
Thus the "scientific method".

I think that the scientific method is more than disbelieving what has been proven to be false, and believing all else. Falsification might be an aspect of science, but not all of it.

Our perspective is hardly objective.

I think your conclusion is "because our knowledge is contingent, it cannot be objective". However I think that the missing premise, if it is "all contingent knowledge is subjective (or not objective)", is false.

 

[tucker58]

All reasoning appears to be presupposition extrapolated.
Even sound reasoning is just presupposition extrapolated logically,
even God's reasoning.
If God has no sequence of ideas, all of His ideas are presuppositions.
If God is necessary, and therefore knows all He knows necessarily,
all His ideas are presuppositions.

One cannot deny presuppositional reasoning without employing presuppositional reasoning.

Bricklayer, yours is an interesting approach to things .

love,

tuck

 

[tucker58]

From God is the necessary being, to God knows things necessarily. How?
Ok, what we know, we might not know. Hence, we are fallible. When we know, necessarily, it is a fact that we know, but we do not know necessarily, for we might not have known. In the absolute sense, maybe not.I think that the scientific method is more than disbelieving what has been proven to be false, and believing all else. Falsification might be an aspect of science, but not all of it.

I think your conclusion is "because our knowledge is contingent, it cannot be objective". However I think that the missing premise, if it is "all contingent knowledge is subjective (or not objective)", is false.

I agree with you mostly Growingsmaller. But he does have a point .

What Bricklayer is doing here is presenting a valid argument to the Atheist reality.

For the last two thousand years of humankind experience, God has never been proven real, except in the lives of those individuals that have successfully invoked God in a personal sense.

This makes every thing "subjective".

love,

tuck

 

[GQ Chris]

What is, what is?

 

[bricklayer]

It follows that as a necessary being, God is all He is necessarily.
He exists necessarily, knows necessarily, emotes necessarily.
God's knowledge is not the effect of created thing's existence, ever.
He is the un-caused cause.

To know a thing as it is, to know it objectively, one must appreciate its context.
This renders us less than objective.

To consider man objective, seems to lift man above what he actually is.
To consider God objective, seems to bring God down from what He actually is.

I am left to believe that God is necessary, and everything else is contingent.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For the last two thousand years of humankind experience, God has never been proven real, except in the lives of those individuals that have successfully invoked God in a personal sense.

This makes every thing "subjective".

love,

tuck

Everything is "subjective". Well, maybe if you put the term in scare quotes, implying you don't really mean to speak normal English. What you actually mean, though, I am not sure. Possibly, we have moved from a bad argument to no argument at all.

 

[bricklayer]

God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

Or, as Sartre might have put it, everything is contingent, and there is no God.
So, convince me that God is necessary.

 

[bricklayer]

Matter does not appear to exist necessarily.
Material existence begs an efficeint cause.

The belief systems of this world seem to be based on material necessity and independent trials.
I do not believe in either.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Matter does not appear to exist necessarily.

But it might, if appearances can be deceptive. And even if it were not necessary, that does not mean that something must be.

Material existence begs an efficeint cause.

And so does God? What brought God into being?

The belief systems of this world seem to be based on material necessity and independent trials.
I do not believe in either.

Ok, you have your beliefs, but be aware thet believing something does not guarantee it's truth, all the more so if you are not an authority in the field. And I am not sure if speculative metaphysics is a field where there can even be much of an authority at all, even if you are talented and study for a long time. It is probably one of the fields where the phrase "The more I learn, the less I know" is in some sense deeply true.

 

[bricklayer]

In a very real sense, nothing is really ever proven to me.
It's just that all the other ideas that I've considered have been des-proven.
What remains is what I'm left to believe.

To be intellectually honest, I should be careful to say that I am "left to believe" this or that.
Because I did not come to believe what I am left to believe by proof-postive means,
I should be careful to not couch it in proof-positive terms.

 

[tucker58]

It follows that as a necessary being, God is all He is necessarily.
He exists necessarily, knows necessarily, emotes necessarily.
God's knowledge is not the effect of created thing's existence, ever.
He is the un-caused cause.

To know a thing as it is, to know it objectively, one must appreciate its context.
This renders us less than objective.

To consider man objective, seems to lift man above what he actually is.
To consider God objective, seems to bring God down from what He actually is.

I am left to believe that God is necessary, and everything else is contingent.

Welcome to the mystic reality !

So just for fun Bricklayer, how did you come to the conclusion that God "is necessary?" I don't believe that I have ever seen someone take that approach before. And it is an interesting approach.

I have never thought of God as being necessary, I have always just thought of God as, "Thank you for being there!"

Love,

tuck

 

[Chesterton]

What's the difference between "supposition" and "presupposition"?

 

[Gracchus]

What's the difference between "supposition" and "presupposition"?

A supposition is an unsupported, or weakly supported, opinion, a product of the imagination. A presuppositon is an unsupported opinion that you form before you have any reason to form an opinion. For instance: After you read the Bible you might suppose it to be the "Word of God"(tm). Or you might presuppose it to be the "Word of God"(tm) before you read it.

 

[bricklayer]

Having considered existence, identity, actuality, non-contradiction and exclusion; necessity semmed the logical thing to consider.
It was some time after that, I came to believe in a necessary person, an efficient cause.
I am left to believe that the God of the bible fits the bill.

 

[tucker58]

Having considered existence, identity, actuality, non-contradiction and exclusion; necessity semmed the logical thing to consider.
It was some time after that, I came to believe in a necessary person, an efficient cause.
I am left to believe that the God of the bible fits the bill.

That is interesting. I went through that line of logic also but my conclusion was a bit different, "If nothing else, I believe in God because I think the concept of God is a good idea." It was either that or "I am God." And I do not want to be God I do not think so!

love,

tuck

 

[bricklayer]

I am left to believe that God is either absolutely sovereign or absolutely not.
Few people consider the implications of a sovereign God,
even those who would say that they believe that God is sovereign.

Most of those who say that they believe in a sovereign God also believe the God is subject to: human-free-will, chance.
They believe that a sovereign God has a sequence of ideas and emotions.

In essence, very few truely believe in a sovereign God.

It may do well, at this point, to remember:
sovereign = necessary
subject = contingent