Question for presups...

[cvanwey]

The answer involves Holy Scripture, since it involves authority, it involves Sola Scriptura what it is and what it is not. It also involves differences between general revelation and special revelation.

This reply is vague, undescriptive, and really addressing nothing. Let me reiterate....

When someone states God speaks to them, how might one know if God is speaking to them, verses them conjuring up thoughts from their own subconscious, (not actually from God)? Meaning, if one only possesses one's brain to distinguish any and all thoughts, how might one conclude and separate the correct conclusion?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This reply is vague, undescriptive, and really addressing nothing. Let me reiterate....

When someone states God speaks to them, how might one know if God is speaking to them, verses them conjuring up thoughts from their own subconscious, (not actually from God)? Meaning, if one only possesses one's brain to distinguish any and all thoughts, how might one conclude and separate the correct conclusion?

That's simply a wrong assumption that one only possesses one's brain to distinguish any an all thoughts. For one thing, it completely diminishes love and feelings down to mental processes, as though men were like machines like the one in my current avatar, except even the machines in my avatar convey emotions and have human like personality and traits which combined with their "brains" carry out behavior accordingly.

 

[cvanwey]

That's simply a wrong assumption that one only possesses one's brain to distinguish any an all thoughts. For one thing, it completely diminishes love and feelings down to mental processes, as though men were like machines like the one in my current avatar, except even the machines in my avatar convey emotions and have human like personality and traits which combined with their "brains" carry out behavior accordingly.

Patently false. Please demonstrate how any emotion, feelings, thoughts, or actions are carried out without the direct use of a brain?

Example... Give someone a frontal lobe lobotomy and then observe if such a being is still able to process emotional expression, problem solving, memory, language, judgment, and sexual behaviors? Without such a lobe in the brain, such expected tasks no longer exist for such an individual.

Furthermore, you are presenting a fallacy. I never mentioned anything about the 'meaning' of anything. You are changing the subject.

I asked a very specific question, in which you made no attempt to answer; in direct relation to the 'presup' topic....

When a human claims to receive a response from God, how might one know they are actually receiving a response from God? Is any and every claim, when mentioning 'it came from God', actually from God? Or, is there a way to determine which expressed claims are false, and not from God, but instead self manifested thought processes?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Patently false. Please demonstrate how any emotion, feelings, thoughts, or actions are carried out without the direct use of a brain?

False, such was not my argument, quite the contrary in fact. My argument was that more than just the brain is involved in thoughts. In fact, I would turn around and ask you how those aforementioned are not involved in thought processes, which was the point.

Furthermore, you are presenting a fallacy. I never mentioned anything about the 'meaning' of anything. You are changing the subject.

Yes you did, to distinguish one thought from another assumes a [contrary? complimentary?] meaning of both thoughts.

I asked a very specific question, in which you made no attempt to answer; in direct relation to the 'presup' topic....

I have in fact answered, but this will likely conclude reponse from me to you, because frankly I do not enjoy your tone nor tactics, you want debate and not discussion, so as to declare yourself winner, even when it's not the case. I'm not here to win any debate, I could care less about all that, I'd sooner loose a million debates and rather be an instrument piece in leading one soul closer to Christ.

When a human claims to receive a response from God, how might one know they are actually receiving a response from God? Is any and every claim, when mentioning 'it came from God', actually from God? Or, is there a way to determine which expressed claims are false, and not from God, but instead self manifested thought processes?

One knows when one's heart, mind, and soul are so effected by God the Holy Spirit that there entire world is turned upside down, when they have been raised from spiritual death to spiritual life by God and behold all things become as new, when the will in bondage is set free, the hardened heart made soft and responsive, the mind at peace and set on new desires which previously did not exist. When a person has experienced this miraculous work of regeneration, the work of God alone, a person knows beyond a shadow of doubt and cannot deny it. As for any and every claim, I have already responded, the answer is Sacred Scripture. Beyond this, I do not care to go off on a rabbit trail explaining why other so called scriptures are not part of Christian canon or not accepted nor compatible with Christian faith. Bye Cya round.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since you're arguing for truth, might I ask what truth is outside of your personal existence?

Not sure what you mean, really. In Euclidean geometry, the Pythagorean Theorem was true before I was born, and it will be true after I'm dead.

Do you not think the Descartes problem applies to your worldview?

You will have to elaborate what you mean by the Descartes problem. If you mean, 'how can I be sure I'm not just being deceived by demons, or not a brain in a vat?' I suppose I'm not, but as a pragmatic process I have discovered that the sensory data presented to me adds up to a consistent world.

Christianity is a revealed religion, where God has condescended to man, revealing Himself to men throughout history, preserving in writing accounts of His interactions with men.

No, people produce these written accounts.

Jesus Christ knocked him off his horse and blinded him

Nothing of the sort has been revealed to me, so I judge all these accounts of Christ and Krishna and Camazotz much the same. With skepticism.

your position would seem to assume that ultimately life is not meaningful.

I said no such thing. I merely reacted to your implication that gods are required to provide meaning for your life. And that that was in some way an argument in favor of the existence of such beings.

 

[cvanwey]

False, such was not my argument, quite the contrary in fact. My argument was that more than just the brain is involved in thoughts. In fact, I would turn around and ask you how those aforementioned are not involved in thought processes, which was the point.

Then regardless, you are still patently false. As stated prior, remove the portion of the brain which controls such functionality, and you then remove the ability to produce or perform such functionality. Remove the brain, and no thoughts, no emotions, no functionality exists. It all stems from the brain.

Yes you did, to distinguish one thought from another assumes a [contrary? complimentary?] meaning of both thoughts.

Please address my response directly above.

Also, you stated the following from post #42 "For one thing, it completely diminishes love and feelings down to mental processes, as though men were like machines like the one in my current avatar, except even the machines in my avatar convey emotions and have human like personality and traits which combined with their "brains" carry out behavior accordingly."

MY POINT, was that when thoughts enter the brain, how is one to distinguish a thought provided by God, verses not from God? Your above answer did/does not address such a question, in any capacity.

I have in fact answered, but this will likely conclude reponse from me to you, because frankly I do not enjoy your tone nor tactics, you want debate and not discussion, so as to declare yourself winner, even when it's not the case. I'm not here to win any debate, I could care less about all that, I'd sooner loose a million debates and rather be an instrument piece in leading one soul closer to Christ.

You actually made absolutely no attempt to answer my repeated main point and question. So I will then state the question again...

When a person claims to receive a response from God, how might one 'know' the contact was actually from God, and not instead manifested from their own brain processes?

The reason for my apparent 'snarkiness' has to do with the fact you are directly avoiding my question/observation. So if you wish not to address it, then yes, by all means, please move elsewhere.

One knows when one's heart, mind, and soul are so effected by God the Holy Spirit that there entire world is turned upside down, when they have been raised from spiritual death to spiritual life by God and behold all things become as new, when the will in bondage is set free, the hardened heart made soft and responsive, the mind at peace and set on new desires which previously did not exist. When a person has experienced this miraculous work of regeneration, the work of God alone, a person knows beyond a shadow of doubt and cannot deny it. As for any and every claim, I have already responded, the answer is Sacred Scripture. Beyond this, I do not care to go off on a rabbit trail explaining why other so called scriptures are not part of Christian canon or not accepted nor compatible with Christian faith. Bye Cya round.

Such anecdotal conclusions are also expressed from the very religions you reject. So I will pose the question again (which will most likely be rhetorical, as you do not care to engage in the actual topic)...

How might a presuppositional theist conclude the contact was from their specific God, when other individuals, whom use the exact same tools (i.e. 'one's heart, mind, and soul are so effected by God the Holy Spirit that there entire world is turned upside down'), to conclude contact from God are claiming to receive such contact from an opposing God?.?.?.?

Maybe someone else can answer, since you will not

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since you're arguing for truth, might I ask what truth is outside of your personal existence? Do you not think the Descartes problem applies to your worldview? In my worldview, Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. There is a sense in which He embodies truth, He exists outside of my person, yet communicates, reveals Himself to me. So there is a sense in which God is objective truth, and being made in His image, having a point of contact with truth outside of self. Otherwise there is no point of contact with objective truth, that is truth outside of self interpretation. Christianity is a revealed religion, where God has condescended to man, revealing Himself to men throughout history, preserving in writing accounts of His interactions with men.

Although you have a point, the problem with it is simply this, take the account of Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee of Pharisees, he believed in God, and thought he was serving Him, he was not searching for meaning or searching for reasons to believe in Christ, quite the contrary, he thought he had it and would do a service for Judaism to rid the Jewish world of Christianity, but Jesus Christ knocked him off his horse and blinded him, Christ revealed Himself to Saul/Paul, and the rest is as they say history.

One other thought, giving life meaning as a reason is kind of a non sequitur, because all of our lives have meaning in the final analysis of things, and your position would seem to assume that ultimately life is not meaningful. And there are many reasons to believe, chiefly because of the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration instantanously convinces a person, but like I said earlier about regeneration...

Apologetic Warrior, would you mind if I just jump into this discussion for a moment?

Even though you and I as Christians can, in various ways, presuppose some 'extra' truths of revelation that we perceive we're receiving and by which we then further 'connect' our own personal thoughts to the world so as to see the truth of Christ in the world, we still need to fully recognize that countless others around us who are presently not Christian are trying to tell us that they don't feel that they are being sent extra info from the great beyond, especially when prayer is involved. And I think that this is the central gripe of most who feel that they can't take the Bible and/or Christianity seriously.

So, I think that we Christians need to be just a little more sensitive to the fact that when people say they "don't see it," they really don't see any substantive manifestation of Christian truth (or answers to their own prayers) and they are wondering how it is that we still believe. Too often, we Christians talk to people with the expectation that when we open our mouths and relate what we think is Christian truth, they then 'should' be able to get it, and if they don't, then we somehow have the right to jump to the conclusion that they're just rebelling.

Personally, I'm not convinced that those who don't see the relevance of the Christian faith are all just wanting to rebel, and I think it would be better and more effective, and more in line with the epistemology and ethical directives of Jesus, for us to take a more empathic route with others and not simply insinuate that the blame lies at their own cognitive doors simply because they're "really in rebellion" or because they refuse to consider certain presups.

In other words, I think that a position of Philosophical Hermeneutics is better than, even if still similar in some moderate respects, to the position of Reformed types of Presuppositionalism.

 

[zippy2006]

So I ran into this in a conversation earlier today. My conversation partner was a presupositional apologist and was arguing that because I have to rely on potentially flawed senses and cognition, that I can't claim to know the things I think I know.

While i think i can tell a reasonable story about evolutionary reliablism in this instance I chose to point out my other worry about this line of argument.

It seems to me that this move applies equally for the theist. He argued that God could instil that knowledge in him such that he could know for certain and I asked him if he came to that conclusion using reason or the evidence of his senses. When he feels a piece of knowledge is from God how does he verify this, does the process include reason or senses? You see what I'm getting at.

So the question to any presups out there is simply, what am I missing? How is it that your knowledge claims are unassailable? How do you hold any of them without at any point using reason, senses or experience? This seems obviously impossible on the face of it and I am worried that I missed his point.

Help a heathen out?

I find Presuppositionalism to be incredibly weak for many of the reasons you've already pointed out.

On the other hand, the Presuppositionalist is essentially arguing for a miraculous infusion of knowledge directly from God to the exclusion of natural knowledge. That's stupid, but it's not incoherent. For example, you've pointed out the problem of verifying the authenticity of such revealed knowledge. I assume a Presuppositionalist would just say, "God imparts knowledge of authenticity at the same time he imparts the primary knowledge." That answer is within the realm of logical possibility.

(Whoops! It looks like I might be distracting the derailers. )

 

[redleghunter]

I find Presuppositionalism to be incredibly weak for many of the reasons you've already pointed out.

On the other hand, the Presuppositionalist is essentially arguing for a miraculous infusion of knowledge directly from God to the exclusion of natural knowledge. That's stupid, but it's not incoherent. For example, you've pointed out the problem of verifying the authenticity of such revealed knowledge. I assume a Presuppositionalist would just say, "God imparts knowledge of authenticity at the same time he imparts the primary knowledge." That answer is within the realm of logical possibility.

(Whoops! It looks like I might be distracting the derailers. )

Was St Paul a Presuppositionalist? Don't really know, but he pulled few punches.

Ephesians 2: NASB
1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So I ran into this in a conversation earlier today. My conversation partner was a presupositional apologist and was arguing that because I have to rely on potentially flawed senses and cognition, that I can't claim to know the things I think I know.

While i think i can tell a reasonable story about evolutionary reliablism in this instance I chose to point out my other worry about this line of argument.

It seems to me that this move applies equally for the theist. He argued that God could instil that knowledge in him such that he could know for certain and I asked him if he came to that conclusion using reason or the evidence of his senses. When he feels a piece of knowledge is from God how does he verify this, does the process include reason or senses? You see what I'm getting at.

So the question to any presups out there is simply, what am I missing? How is it that your knowledge claims are unassailable? How do you hold any of them without at any point using reason, senses or experience? This seems obviously impossible on the face of it and I am worried that I missed his point.

Help a heathen out?

Doesn't look like you need much help. You've got the long and short of it.

Presuppositional apologists are an amusing bunch. They bring up valid philosophical challenges that concern everyone......then propose to 'remedy' those issues by invoking a 'god' character, which of course, does nothing whatsoever to actually address any any issue of epistemology. Then they go so far as to assert that everyone must 'borrow' from their worldview in order to partake of their imaginary epistemological certainty.

To which I say, my worldview is just fine, thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree with my fellow Christians, that the Christian worldview is the foundation from which logic rests. All posts in this thread rely on logic, which without, nothing written here would be discernible, let alone be true or not. All in this conversation must rely upon the very principles of logic to present our views/positions. We all must "think" our positions are objectively based on some objective truth or they are mere subjective opinion, which means there really is no truth to be found in any of the views/positions. We base our worldviews on what we determine with our principles of logic to be. We use laws of logic, we base our beliefs on logic. The laws of logic, the process of that logic are objectively true and do not depend on us to be true. It is required then to hold a view consistent with this reality. Logic is consistent within the Christian worldview, and other worldviews are rather inconsistent with that reality.

 

[Athée]

I agree with my fellow Christians, that the Christian worldview is the foundation from which logic rests. All posts in this thread rely on logic, which without, nothing written here would be discernible, let alone be true or not. All in this conversation must rely upon the very principles of logic to present our views/positions. We all must "think" our positions are objectively based on some objective truth or they are mere subjective opinion, which means there really is no truth to be found in any of the views/positions. We base our worldviews on what we determine with our principles of logic to be. We use laws of logic, we base our beliefs on logic. The laws of logic, the process of that logic are objectively true and do not depend on us to be true. It is required then to hold a view consistent with this reality. Logic is consistent within the Christian worldview, and other worldviews are rather inconsistent with that reality.

Hey great to hear from you again
I'm not sure about your claim of inconsistency here. I treat the laws of logic as a brute fact, you want to treat them as being based in God, who you consider to be a necessary being/brute fact. Apart from not seeing any reason to think that the laws of logic are contingent in this way, it seems to me that we both have a story that explains why the world is as it is and that the next step is to look for evidence to support or reject those narratives.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hey great to hear from you again
I'm not sure about your claim of inconsistency here. I treat the laws of logic as a brute fact, you want to treat them as being based in God, who you consider to be a necessary being/brute fact. Apart from not seeing any reason to think that the laws of logic are contingent in this way, it seems to me that we both have a story that explains why the world is as it is and that the next step is to look for evidence to support or reject those narratives.

Have you ever tasted the laws of logic? Touched a law of logic? Smelled a law of logic? Taken a picture of a law of logic? Listened to a law of logic make a sound? The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, conceptual, and to attempt to prove them is to engage in circular reasoning, using logic to prove logic. However, they are necessary, and as you say "brute fact", but what is a brute fact in a world where interpretation of the world through the senses is subjective? How can anything be a brute fact, or objectively true, that is true apart from subjective interpretation in a worldview which does not assume an eternal Creator of other minds?

 

[Athée]

Have you ever tasted the laws of logic? Touched a law of logic? Smelled a law of logic? Taken a picture of a law of logic? Listened to a law of logic make a sound? The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, conceptual, and to attempt to prove them is to engage in circular reasoning, using logic to prove logic. However, they are necessary, and as you say "brute fact", but what is a brute fact in a world where interpretation of the world through the senses is subjective? How can anything be a brute fact, or objectively true, that is true apart from subjective interpretation in a worldview which does not assume an eternal Creator of other minds?

I'm not claiming to be able to prove that they are brute facts, it's an assumption at the base of my worldview that logic works. I can demonstrate examples of logic working and cant seem to come up with counterfactuals but that still isn't proof.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Have you ever tasted the laws of logic? Touched a law of logic? Smelled a law of logic? Taken a picture of a law of logic? Listened to a law of logic make a sound?

That's because logic is a method that human beings, having the ability to engage in abstract thought, use to deal with a natural reality in a way that avoids conceptual contradictions.

The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, conceptual, and to attempt to prove them is to engage in circular reasoning, using logic to prove logic.

I agree that one doesn't use logic to prove logic, however, one may form an understanding of just what logic is and why it works.

However, they are necessary, and as you say "brute fact", but what is a brute fact in a world where interpretation of the world through the senses is subjective?

There is no reason to think that using senses to understand the world cannot yield facts. Senses are precisely what you need to gain the window on the world necessary to identify facts.

How can anything be a brute fact, or objectively true, that is true apart from subjective interpretation in a worldview which does not assume an eternal Creator of other minds?

It's easier than you think. The reason that a claim about reality may be true or false depends simply on reality being what it is and not something that it is not. IOWs, reality can't contradict itself. A dog simply cannot be a cat at the same time and in the same respect. It is only the mind that can make an error of that sort, and that's why we need logic. The method of logic allows one to eliminate contradictions in one's thought in one's effort to identify aspects of reality. Subjectivity does not imply that reality can just be anything that one can imagine, and doesn't mean that one is cognitively cut off from reality, unless of course you shut your eyes and refuse recognize reality for what it is.

So, there is no need to "assume an eternal Creator" because all that is required for logic to have epistemological weight is that something exists and that "you can't have your cake and eat it too".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That's because logic is a method that human beings, having the ability to engage in abstract thought, use to deal with a natural reality in a way that avoids conceptual contradictions.

I agree that one doesn't use logic to prove logic, however, one may form an understanding of just what logic is and why it works.

There is no reason to think that using senses to understand the world cannot yield facts. Senses are precisely what you need to gain the window on the world necessary to identify facts.

It's easier than you think. The reason that a claim about reality may be true or false depends simply on reality being what it is and not something that it is not. IOWs, reality can't contradict itself. A dog simply cannot be a cat at the same time and in the same respect. It is only the mind that can make an error of that sort, and that's why we need logic. The method of logic allows one to eliminate contradictions in one's thought in one's effort to identify aspects of reality. Subjectivity does not imply that reality can just be anything that one can imagine, and doesn't mean that one is cognitively cut off from reality, unless of course you shut your eyes and refuse recognize reality for what it is.

So, there is no need to "assume an eternal Creator" because all that is required for logic to have epistemological weight is that something exists and that "you can't have your cake and eat it too".

It is speculated through calculations by Scientists that eventually life on earth will cease to exist. On your view, when humans cease to exist, conceptual reality such as laws of logic likewise cease to exist, because in your view, they are but a "method", mere human conventions. The laws of logic apply to other areas, like the laws of physics which I cannot foresee changing assuming the extinction of human beings to perceive them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey great to hear from you again

Thanks

I'm not sure about your claim of inconsistency here. I treat the laws of logic as a brute fact, you want to treat them as being based in God, who you consider to be a necessary being/brute fact. Apart from not seeing any reason to think that the laws of logic are contingent in this way, it seems to me that we both have a story that explains why the world is as it is and that the next step is to look for evidence to support or reject those narratives.

You consider logic to be a brute fact, in doing so, how do you explain the existence of logic? Meaning, where does this logic come into being according to your worldview?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's because logic is a method that human beings, having the ability to engage in abstract thought, use to deal with a natural reality in a way that avoids conceptual contradictions.



I agree that one doesn't use logic to prove logic, however, one may form an understanding of just what logic is and why it works.



There is no reason to think that using senses to understand the world cannot yield facts. Senses are precisely what you need to gain the window on the world necessary to identify facts.



It's easier than you think. The reason that a claim about reality may be true or false depends simply on reality being what it is and not something that it is not. IOWs, reality can't contradict itself. A dog simply cannot be a cat at the same time and in the same respect. It is only the mind that can make an error of that sort, and that's why we need logic. The method of logic allows one to eliminate contradictions in one's thought in one's effort to identify aspects of reality. Subjectivity does not imply that reality can just be anything that one can imagine, and doesn't mean that one is cognitively cut off from reality, unless of course you shut your eyes and refuse recognize reality for what it is.

So, there is no need to "assume an eternal Creator" because all that is required for logic to have epistemological weight is that something exists and that "you can't have your cake and eat it too".


eudaimonia,

Mark

It is necessary for logic to exist prior to one using it.

 

[cvanwey]

Thanks

You consider logic to be a brute fact, in doing so, how do you explain the existence of logic? Meaning, where does this logic come into being according to your worldview?

No straw man intended, and not necessary directed at you specifically. However, I must say it....

"If the person asked does not have, or cannot currently answer such a specific question, does the answer then default to Yahweh specifically?"

 

[Oncedeceived]

No straw man intended, and not necessary directed at you specifically. However, I must say it....

"If the person asked does not have, or cannot currently answer such a specific question, does the answer then default to Yahweh specifically?"

Good question. When we are defending our worldview, we wish it be consistent within itself or to be coherent within that belief system; thus, while someone countering the Christian worldview with an alternate worldview one would hope that they have a reasonable accounting of such a necessary element for defending their viewpoint. "I don't know" while perhaps being an honest statement, does nothing to address this reality and the necessary explanation in any worldview being considered."