Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Presuppositional apologetics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Presuppositional apologetics

    What's your view on presuppositional apologetics? Is it a legitimate argument? A proper way of thinking? Here is the apparent argument for it on this webpage:

    http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/..._the_Word.html

  • #2
    There is not merely one presuppositional apologetic. All apologetical views are presuppostional in some way. All of them. The difficulty, if any, is identifying the oppositions presuppositions.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      There is not merely one presuppositional apologetic. All apologetical views are presuppostional in some way. All of them. The difficulty, if any, is identifying the oppositions presuppositions.
      I'm still not convinced of this, as we discover things by experience. Why can't we also discover by introspection what it is that allows us to reason?

      If you say 'You're assuming the external world is real, that the laws of physics are consistent and that you're capable of reasoning' Then each of these are still things I've learned.

      That the external world is real, isn't an assumption God built into us, we know babies are figuring out slowly and that their mother isn't a part of them. We find this out. Logic and its usefulness was discovered, and was formalised by Greeks such as Aristotle.

      Looking through scholastic metaphysics (especially thomism) I haven't really come across any brute facts. If you know any please let me know.

      I don't like Van Tillian & Bahnsen styled presuppositional apologetics, which is fairly confused about 'golden circular logic', mixed in with a street apologetics method that succeeds mostly in baffling people (which is percieved as a success), and a genuine transcendetal argument for God, only really lacking one for Christianity (at this point they typically stop arguing and start to claim that its all a work of the Holy Spirit).

      Its especially bad when supporters of this school argues that any other approach is sinful.

      I have a respect for Plantinga's Reformed Epistemogy which is leagues better. Ultimately I disagree with it, especially his rejection of final causes, which is ultimately what makes presuppositionalism seem attractive.

      Philosophers need to turn the clocks back four hundred years and admit that Descartes was wrong.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        I'm still not convinced of this, as we discover things by experience. Why can't we also discover by introspection what it is that allows us to reason?
        Your presuppositional argument is only things that are learned and discovered allows for reason. Existence, relying on experience and reason are presuppostions in of themselves. Rejection of other presuppositions supposed not rooted in experiance or being reasoned, does not do away with your own presuppositions here.
        If you say 'You're assuming the external world is real, that the laws of physics are consistent and that you're capable of reasoning' Then each of these are still things I've learned.
        All presuppositions are learned. You cannot presume what you do not know. The question then becomes where does one's presuppositions come from? They are at some level learned and reasoned.
        That the external world is real, isn't an assumption God built into us, we know babies are figuring out slowly and that their mother isn't a part of them. We find this out. Logic and its usefulness was discovered, and was formalized by Greeks such as Aristotle.
        Presuppositions are still made. Most people do not even realize what presuppositions they are making.
        Looking through scholastic metaphysics (especially thomism) I haven't really come across any brute facts. If you know any please let me know.
        So you suppose there are no self evident truths? Do you suppose existence does not really exist? Self evident truths and supposed truths are at the heart of presuppositions.
        I don't like Van Tillian & Bahnsen styled presuppositional apologetics, which is fairly confused about 'golden circular logic', mixed in with a street apologetics method that succeeds mostly in baffling people (which is percieved as a success), and a genuine transcendetal argument for God, only really lacking one for Christianity (at this point they typically stop arguing and start to claim that its all a work of the Holy Spirit).
        Give an example.
        Its especially bad when supporters of this school argues that any other approach is sinful.
        I don't, and I am not reformed in my theology. Though I share some things and beliefs in common. A presuppositional approach.
        I have a respect for Plantinga's Reformed Epistemogy which is leagues better. Ultimately I disagree with it, especially his rejection of final causes, which is ultimately what makes presuppositionalism seem attractive.
        Please explain what you mean.
        Philosophers need to turn the clocks back four hundred years and admit that Descartes was wrong.
        Give an example.
        Last edited by 37818; 10-30-2014, 08:08 PM.
        . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Your presuppositional argument is only things that are learned and discovered allows for reason.
          Interesting postulate, if its true then I'm claiming this based on nothing else, and I'm basing everything else on it. Yet what evidence do you have that this is true? Or did you just decide as a presupposition?

          Existence, relying on experience and reason are presuppostions in of themselves.
          This is a confusing sentence, I assume you mean 'The belief that other things exists is a presupposition' Even then its false because even a Descartian skeptic would have to believe that there are experiences, since that's what he's experiencing. This is not a presupposition, since in fact you observe this naturally simple by being.

          I'm not sure exactly what you mean else with it. Do you mean that 'That relying on reason and experience you can learn about the world'? I'd disagree that even this is a presupposition. Since you're making the claim that it is, its up to you to argue that it is.

          So you suppose there are no self evident truths?
          If anything is 'evident' in anyway then there's grounds for believing it. Open your eyes and you'll see being and non-being, the difference between them, and instantly you have the laws of logic. If something is self-evident, we typically mean its so obvious there's no reason to explain why we believe it. It can also be taken to mean that something isn't learned, but simple already exists as a belief and is known to be true, but for no other reason and without any explanation.

          I reject this notion of brute facts. I'm neither a rationalist who believes that all truth can be reached by pure deduction and introspection, or an empiricist who collapses all rationality into experience and sensation. However from the existence of what I experience I discover (deduce) the truths about the world. I'm not sure there's room for presuppositions in that view.

          Do you suppose existence does not really exist?
          The difference between being and non-being is the most fundamental experience.

          Give an example(bad fruits of Van Till apologetics)
          Look up Sye Ten Bruggencate.

          He's also a good example of how Van Tillian epistemology can be subject to serious errors. Simple, the truth of the Bible is taken as a given, the biblical worldview is the presupposition to start from. However what interpretation do we apply? Why if we're regenerated Christian (as I guess most reformed Christians see themselves), then God most have given us this new insight... any deviation from it is sin. They tend to argue like this. So whatever interpretation along whatever denomination they originate from (if they don't simple consider Van Till's commentaries infallible), well be accepted by them as 'the true' reading.

          This is not a good approach to exegesis, but I can't see it as anything other than a logical outcome of Van Till apologetics, and I'm not sure what other presuppositionalists could tell them to change their minds if their views are internally consistent.

          I don't, and I am not reformed in my theology.
          I didn't think you were, in fact I pointed out at least two different schools, one marked by Van Till and Bahnsen, and another by Alvin Plantinga, sure there are more, but those are the two I know.

          Please explain what you mean. (why Plantinga is awesome)
          Contra Van Till I get the feeling of reading a real philosopher. Plus Plantinga is far better at writing, Van Till was (at the admission of many of his admirers) unnecessarily obtuse and convoluted. Plantinga has spearheaded getting Christianity back into the philosophy departments, along with a resurgence of interest in Aristotelian metaphysics (which he has no part in). In terms of achievement, clarity and truthiness I think Plantinga wins.

          Give an example(of why Descartes was wrong)
          Ultimate when you reject that causes are oriented towards the production of certain effects, a match is oriented towards being struck and lit, sexual organs towards reproduction, etc... you not only get problems with explaining why causes produce only a range of effects, which leads to the causality problem which Van Till harps on a lot (and not entirely without reason) and that Hume had so much anxiety about, you end up unable to explain anything.

          I think its just a mistake and its confusing us from the truth.

          Comment


          • #6
            I feel like presuppositional apologetics isn't much different from other apologetics. They both involve poking holes in enemy belief systems. It's just that instead of poking holes in the scientific evidence for evolution or whatever, the presuppositionalist pokes philosophical holes instead.
            Last edited by Obsidian; 10-31-2014, 04:37 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              Interesting postulate, if its true then I'm claiming this based on nothing else, and I'm basing everything else on it. Yet what evidence do you have that this is true? Or did you just decide as a presupposition?
              Fine. Make an argument without any premises (presuppositions).


              This is a confusing sentence, I assume you mean 'The belief that other things exists is a presupposition' Even then its false because even a Descartian skeptic would have to believe that there are experiences, since that's what he's experiencing. This is not a presupposition, since in fact you observe this naturally simple by being.
              So to observe has no presuppositions?
              I'm not sure exactly what you mean else with it. Do you mean that 'That relying on reason and experience you can learn about the world'? I'd disagree that even this is a presupposition. Since you're making the claim that it is, its up to you to argue that it is.
              So you do not presuppose reason or the usage of experience?


              If anything is 'evident' in anyway then there's grounds for believing it. Open your eyes and you'll see being and non-being, the difference between them, and instantly you have the laws of logic. If something is self-evident, we typically mean its so obvious there's no reason to explain why we believe it. It can also be taken to mean that something isn't learned, but simple already exists as a belief and is known to be true, but for no other reason and without any explanation.
              Beliefs need truth, or one believes in a falsehood.
              I reject this notion of brute facts. I'm neither a rationalist who believes that all truth can be reached by pure deduction and introspection, or an empiricist who collapses all rationality into experience and sensation. However from the existence of what I experience I discover (deduce) the truths about the world. I'm not sure there's room for presuppositions in that view.
              Do you not presuppose that there is truth?

              The difference between being and non-being is the most fundamental experience.
              You suppose?


              Look up Sye Ten Bruggencate.
              His argument for God is absurd. I'd rather be an atheist. But I can't be an atheist since as a Christian I know God (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20).
              He's also a good example of how Van Tillian epistemology can be subject to serious errors. Simple, the truth of the Bible is taken as a given, the biblical worldview is the presupposition to start from. However what interpretation do we apply? Why if we're regenerated Christian (as I guess most reformed Christians see themselves), then God most have given us this new insight... any deviation from it is sin. They tend to argue like this. So whatever interpretation along whatever denomination they originate from (if they don't simple consider Van Till's commentaries infallible), well be accepted by them as 'the true' reading.

              This is not a good approach to exegesis, but I can't see it as anything other than a logical outcome of Van Till apologetics, and I'm not sure what other presuppositionalists could tell them to change their minds if their views are internally consistent.
              You have made your point. I think.



              I didn't think you were, in fact I pointed out at least two different schools, one marked by Van Till and Bahnsen, and another by Alvin Plantinga, sure there are more, but those are the two I know.
              I was trying to understand my own apologetic approach. The best I can tell it is presuppositional. I believe truth is absolute/immutable and is to be the only valid basis of faith, and truth only becomes knowledge when said truth is believed.


              Contra Van Till I get the feeling of reading a real philosopher. Plus Plantinga is far better at writing, Van Till was (at the admission of many of his admirers) unnecessarily obtuse and convoluted. Plantinga has spearheaded getting Christianity back into the philosophy departments, along with a resurgence of interest in Aristotelian metaphysics (which he has no part in). In terms of achievement, clarity and truthiness I think Plantinga wins.
              The little that I have read and understood by Van Til, I have agreed with him. The first thing I ever read by him though, I needed a dictionary to understand all that he was arguing (his INTRODUCTION to The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B. B. Warfield).

              Ultimate when you reject that causes are oriented towards the production of certain effects, a match is oriented towards being struck and lit, sexual organs towards reproduction, etc... you not only get problems with explaining why causes produce only a range of effects, which leads to the causality problem which Van Till harps on a lot (and not entirely without reason) and that Hume had so much anxiety about, you end up unable to explain anything.
              Please give one specific example of what you mean.
              I think its just a mistake and its confusing us from the truth.
              Again, please give one specific example.
              Last edited by 37818; 11-02-2014, 11:38 PM.
              . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                I feel like presuppositional apologetics isn't much different from other apologetics. They both involve poking holes in enemy belief systems. It's just that instead of poking holes in the scientific evidence for evolution or whatever, the presuppositionalist pokes philosophical holes instead.
                It is my understanding the purpose of apologetics is to provide an answer for why I as a believer believes what I do (1 Peter 3:15). To provide an opportunity to present the gospel.
                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Fine. Make an argument without any premises (presuppositions).
                  Logical fallacy, loaded question: A premise is not necessarily a presupposition.

                  So to observe has no presuppositions?
                  I'm not even sure what this sentence means. Do you mean "To have sensations, or experiences, requires presuppositions?" then the sentence is false, because to have any experiences its necessary merely to have sensations, of any sort.

                  So you do not presuppose reason or the usage of experience?
                  Its up to you to demonstrate that I do.

                  Beliefs need truth, or one believes in a falsehood.
                  Do you not presuppose that there is truth?
                  No, I don't have to. Definition of truth: A sentence is true if and only if it in fact refers to what is real. That is to whatever has being. Hence as soon as you understand the difference between being and non-being, you already understand how the words truth, falsehood and the semantics of logic pertains to the world.

                  You suppose?
                  No.

                  The little that I have read and understood by Van Til, I have agreed with him. The first thing I ever read by him though, I needed a dictionary to understand all that he was arguing (his INTRODUCTION to The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B. B. Warfield).
                  The little I have read of Van Till makes me think he could have condensed all his writings down into a tenth of the space he used without loss of substance, and with a great gain of clarity. Unfortunately I also get the feeling that he was unable to do so. I guess you get a nice ego boost feeling of achievement when you finally 'get him', or his arguments. But that's true for all obtuse philosophy, I've learned this feeling can be very deceptive.

                  Please give one specific example of what you mean.
                  Again, please give one specific example.
                  You do realise that you don't have to respond to everything I write right? I've mostly responded to the requests you gave me, which is most of your post. Its not in general a good idea though to take a post, chop it into a quote around every self-contained sentence and then respond to each quote in turn.

                  That being said okay.

                  Here's a notion of what it means to be a cause that becomes highly problematic: A cause is an abstract relationship whereby one knows that event A gives rise to event B. Sounds simple enough, Newtons laws can be formulated as an abstract mathematical relationship, and by it we know how a collission of two elastic spheres will change their velocities and directions.

                  The big problem comes when you want to argue that this mathematical relationship will hold true in the future. This becomes, much to the 'nausia' of philosophers such as Descartes and Hume (and hasn't any satisfying modern solution) impossible to demonstrate. In fact you can argue not merely that it can't be demonstrated, but that no natural reasons can be given at all for supposing it. The abstract relationship can have all sorts of forms, there's no particular reason why if I throw rock it doesn't suddenly turn into a banana, or why a pumpkin goes on to remain a pumpkin the next day. Typical naturalistic philosophies have big problems dealing with ultra-mundane facts like that.

                  However if the scholastic notion of final causality was kept, then it would be fairly simple to explain. In such a worldview, things in turn with their material cause, formal cause and with the efficient cause, have something that's called the final cause. This can be identified with the purpose of something (though scholastics distinguish between created objects and artifacts), however what it means is that a given object has a range of effects its aimed towards producing, which is what it tends toward. This goes on to show why the efficient cause only makes actual its potentials that ends up falling in the range of those effects.

                  So it then becomes the matter of simple finding the final causes of things, when you have a reasonable grasp of that its obvious why you won't suddenly get completely off the hook different results in the future.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    Logical fallacy, loaded question: A premise is not necessarily a presupposition.
                    How is the request, "Make an argument without any premises (presuppositions)." a loaded question? or a logical fallacy? Note your argument, "not necessarily." Well give an argument with a premise that is not in any way a presupposition. Now that is not what I had requested. But please make your point by doing it.


                    I'm not even sure what this sentence means. Do you mean "To have sensations, or experiences, requires presuppositions?" then the sentence is false, because to have any experiences its necessary merely to have sensations, of any sort.
                    No. Presuming results based on observation regardless of method. Make your case to presume results through observation that is not do to a presupposition in any way.


                    Its up to you to demonstrate that I do.
                    So are you arguing that you do not presuppose that you do not presuppose? (This is a loaded question.)


                    No, I don't have to. Definition of truth: A sentence is true if and only if it in fact refers to what is real. That is to whatever has being. Hence as soon as you understand the difference between being and non-being, you already understand how the words truth, falsehood and the semantics of logic pertains to the world.
                    Nonsense, "I don't have to. Definition of truth: A sentence is true if and only if it in fact refers to what is real."
                    Nonsense, "I don't have to. Definition of zonkol: A sentence is zonkol if and only if it in fact refers to what is real."


                    No.
                    That leads me to conclude, that is because you do not understand your own presuppositions.


                    The little I have read of Van Till makes me think he could have condensed all his writings down into a tenth of the space he used without loss of substance, and with a great gain of clarity. Unfortunately I also get the feeling that he was unable to do so. I guess you get a nice ego boost feeling of achievement when you finally 'get him', or his arguments. But that's true for all obtuse philosophy, I've learned this feeling can be very deceptive.
                    Many have a problem with his holding firmly to the trinity explanation of God being three Persons and then another place stating God is a Person. I'm not aware that he clarified this understanding except that he did hold this. My approach to this, that God is three Persons. And that God is the Person the Father. Both statements are true. It is also understood while the three Persons are the one God, they are not the same Persons, they are three. And God is one LORD, not three. Yet all three Persons are that one LORD. And the LORD does not have parts. He is ONE.


                    You do realize that you don't have to respond to everything I write right?
                    Of course.
                    Last edited by 37818; 11-03-2014, 01:35 AM.
                    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      How is the request, "Make an argument without any premises (presuppositions)." a loaded question? or a logical fallacy? Note your argument, "not necessarily." Well give an argument with a premise that is not in any way a presupposition. Now that is not what I had requested. But please make your point by doing it.
                      Your request was a kind of a question. I couldn't possible answer it, since with that parenthesis you implied that you considered all premises presuppositions. So the only possibility was to give you an argument without premises. However that is an absurd view. Otherwise its trivial, "Premise: I have a pencil. Conclusion: Therefore it is false, that I do not have a pencil." I think you didn't really mean to write what you did, and you meant more that I should make an argument that doesn't include any hidden presuppositions.

                      I know what you'll be going for so let me outline a defense.

                      Since the difference between being and non-being is experienced, then defining a word truth that captures this difference and using it is no problem. Hence we derive the law of negation (Not having non-being, means having being), and the law of excluded middle (you cannot have being and non-being at the same time). Both are simple experiences we have and use every day. You need just show the mere possibility of a counterexample (an example of something that has being and non-being at the same time), from what we already see. Since this is impossible, I'm forced to conclude with certainty that the laws of logic are completely valid, since they're ultimately based on this difference.

                      No. Presuming results based on observation regardless of method. Make your case to presume results through observation that is not do to a presupposition in any way.
                      I'm not being facetious, but I really don't know what you mean with 'presuming results'? I'm not aware that this is what I'm doing, at least not in general, depending on what you're meaning with it.

                      So are you arguing that you do not presuppose that you do not presuppose? (This is a loaded question.)
                      And an ugly double negation. I'm just taking you're being funny right now.

                      Nonsense, "I don't have to. Definition of truth: A sentence is true if and only if it in fact refers to what is real."
                      Nonsense, "I don't have to. Definition of zonkol: A sentence is zonkol if and only if it in fact refers to what is real."
                      Good, you've now imbued the word zonkol with all the meanings of the word truth. We can now use zonkol and truth interchangeably. What do you intend to demonstrate with that?
                      Last edited by Leonhard; 11-03-2014, 05:16 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        Good, you've now imbued the word zonkol with all the meanings of the word truth. We can now use zonkol and truth interchangeably. What do you intend to demonstrate with that?
                        Not sure I understand perfectly that you have posted something that is perfectly logical. Here's an example: "Tinker Bell is NOT a fairy." If "fairy" DOES refer to something that is real, that still leaves the truth value of the example indeterminable. Suppose now "Tinker Bell" is the name of a dog. What say ye?
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          Your request was a kind of a question. I couldn't possible answer it, since with that parenthesis you implied that you considered all premises presuppositions. So the only possibility was to give you an argument without premises. However that is an absurd view. Otherwise its trivial, "Premise: I have a pencil. Conclusion: Therefore it is false, that I do not have a pencil." I think you didn't really mean to write what you did, and you meant more that I should make an argument that doesn't include any hidden presuppositions.

                          I know what you'll be going for so let me outline a defense.

                          Since the difference between being and non-being is experienced, then defining a word truth that captures this difference and using it is no problem. Hence we derive the law of negation (Not having non-being, means having being), and the law of excluded middle (you cannot have being and non-being at the same time). Both are simple experiences we have and use every day. You need just show the mere possibility of a counterexample (an example of something that has being and non-being at the same time), from what we already see. Since this is impossible, I'm forced to conclude with certainty that the laws of logic are completely valid, since they're ultimately based on this difference.



                          I'm not being facetious, but I really don't know what you mean with 'presuming results'? I'm not aware that this is what I'm doing, at least not in general, depending on what you're meaning with it.



                          And an ugly double negation. I'm just taking you're being funny right now.



                          Good, you've now imbued the word zonkol with all the meanings of the word truth. We can now use zonkol and truth interchangeably. What do you intend to demonstrate with that?
                          It appears we are not, or at least at this juncture, I'm not finding a resolution to our difference in seeing or understanding, what or what is not presuppositions. I personally find, without using the term "presupposition" very difficult to identify the presupposition of others where there are disagreements. Let me say this, simply where two people disagree, there are reasons for the disagreement. There is not much that I can do, when I do not understand the opposing argument(s). I can only change my own view, which can be very hard to do, only if I can understand where I am wrong, and the other view is in contrast true. There is that word again.
                          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post




                            No, I don't have to. Definition of truth: A sentence is true if and only if it in fact refers to what is real. That is to whatever has being. Hence as soon as you understand the difference between being and non-being, you already understand how the words truth, falsehood and the semantics of logic pertains to the world.
                            This is my problem. I reading what I thought I read, I misread what you clearly wrote. I misread, "No, I don't have to. Definition of truth: . . ." As if you wrote (which you did not) No, I don't have to, [not as a period which it was, and read it as if, have to define, give a] Definition of truth: . . . I took it you did not have a definition for truth, and then proceeded to say, ". . . A sentence is true if and only if it in fact refers to what is real."

                            . . . Definition of truth: A sentence is true if and only if it in fact refers to what is real. That is to whatever has being. Hence as soon as you understand the difference between being and non-being, you already understand how the words truth, falsehood and the semantics of logic pertains to the world.
                            I agree with this. This is embarrassing to me. But I misread what you wrote. Pure and simple.

                            But you did respond to,
                            Do you not presuppose that there is truth?
                            No, I don't have to. Definition of truth: . . .
                            Last edited by 37818; 11-04-2014, 01:41 PM.
                            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My eyes are bleeding now. Thanks, guys.
                              "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seer, 10-21-2020, 12:37 PM
                              2 responses
                              40 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Faber, 10-13-2020, 03:13 PM
                              4 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Faber
                              by Faber
                               
                              Started by Christian3, 10-09-2020, 08:37 AM
                              33 responses
                              194 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Andius
                              by Andius
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 10-07-2020, 08:10 PM
                              6 responses
                              36 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mossrose  
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-26-2020, 07:50 PM
                              0 responses
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Working...
                              X