Can we trust what God says?

[shunyadragon]

The fact is, you do assume (pardon the pun) that your assumption is perfectly correct. How exactly could you falsify your assumption with falling into a circular argument?

'Perfectly Correct' has connotations of 'absolute knowledge, which I do not think Doug Shaver ever even hinted that he claimed. We are debating on the fallible human level, which precludes any such claims for any of us. Such accusations smack of logical fallacies, can you guess which ones

Can Mr. Black or you make such claims such as, ah . . . being 'perfectly correct'?

Interesting line of reasoning, 'you do not know that you are 'perfectly correct,' therefore your argument does not have any 'ontic base' so to speak, or other legitamate foundation in logic.

[shunyadragon]

You say so. No argument can prove itself, and your convenient redefinition of circularity won't change that.

agreed

[seer]

Do you also stay alert for indications that the assumption is unwarranted, and revise it to accommodate those indications? Or do you treat this assumption as infallible?

The fact is, you do assume (pardon the pun) that your assumption is perfectly correct. How exactly could you falsify your assumption without falling into a circular argument?

[Doug Shaver]

So we just assume that the Bible is the Word of God.

Do you also stay alert for indications that the assumption is unwarranted, and revise it to accommodate those indications? Or do you treat this assumption as infallible?

[seer]

Under normal circumstances, I just assume it, and try to stay alert for indications that I've gotten into a situation where the assumption is unwarranted.

So we just assume that the Bible is the Word of God.

[Doug Shaver]

So how do you know that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality?

Under normal circumstances, I just assume it, and try to stay alert for indications that I've gotten into a situation where the assumption is unwarranted.

[seer]

You say so. No argument can prove itself, and your convenient redefinition of circularity won't change that.

So how do you know that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality? Would not any argument that you appealed to require a circular argument, as a matter a fact a virtuously circular argument? And you would accept that - correct?

[Doug Shaver]

A viciously circular argument merely assumes the preconditions of intelligibility, with no ontic base to ground them, nor an epistemology to make that base known. A virtuously circular argument would provide both, thus providing the criteria for proving everything, including itself.

You say so. No argument can prove itself, and your convenient redefinition of circularity won't change that.

[JimL]

All reasoning is either circular at base, or arbitrary, or else it engages in infinite regress, which means it could never get off the ground. There are two types of circularity: vicious and virtuous. A viciously circular argument merely assumes the preconditions of intelligibility, with no ontic base to ground them, nor an epistemology to make that base known. A virtuously circular argument would provide both, thus providing the criteria for proving everything, including itself. If you disagree, then please provide a line of reasoning that's neither circular, nor arbitrary, and doesn't engage in infinite regress.



1.) What constitutes "justification"?
2.) How could you possibly know that in your worldview?



I utilize a transcendental argument, the nature of which you still don't seem to understand, as we'll see below.



The kind of proof necessary for proving a given thing depends upon the metaphysical nature of the thing in question. Since God is the highest authority (Hebrews 6:13, Ephesians 1:21), and all knowledge is in Christ, and those who reject a philosophy of life that's rooted in Him in favor of a philosophy of life that's rooted in the "elementary principles of the world" (Colossians 2:3,8), and since God is not to be put on trial (Deuteronomy 6:16, Luke 4:12), God cannot be proven directly, as such an endeavor would assume that God is not what He claims to be. Thus such an approach would beg the question and, if it proves anything, it would be a deity that's not revealed in the Bible. Thus the transcendental argument invoked in the Bible is only proper method of "proof" for the Christian God. It's proven by the impossibility of the contrary: the total inability to justify any knowledge claim, to any degree of certainty, on any subject at all, apart from the logical starting point that the TA proposes (in this case the logical starting point is the biblical worldview). So when I use such argument and you ignore it, and simply say "prove it" you've mistaken the transcendental argument (an argument which points out the necessity of a certain principle---which both parties do not agree on---and without which no theorem can be reasoned to at all) for a deductive argument (which starts with commonly accepted principles, and builds up toward a theorem). If you're gonna be intellectually honest, then please deal with the argument I'm using and stop fishing for an argument you're more comfortable with.

Since you don't know all things, and you've denied Revelation from God, who does know all things, how can you be sure that none of the many facts "out there" that are as of yet unknown to man, will refute anything or everything you claim to know?

Any response that ignores this key problem in epistemology begs the question against both my argument and my worldview.

I don't know all things, and neither do i deny a reference frame as the source of all knowledge, and that source, in my opinion is the universe that bore me, not God. From your point of view, God is the source of all knowledge, but being that your notion of God could and does lie, you could never be sure if anything that you believe to know is true. If your God tells you that 2+2=5 then as far as you're concerned there would be 5 eyes between us.

[whag]

Let's not forget pain, disease, suffering, murder, rape, war, domestic violence, theft, pedophilia, child abuse, apostasy, God's creatures thumbing their noses at their Holy and just Creator, etc.

So you really actually dry skin was introduced by human beings?

[Mr. Black]

Fairness isn't an issue,

Such is the mantra of the intellectually dishonest.

and I'm not interested in your answer because I already know it.

Then you wasted your energy and my time.

Adam ushered in lightning storms and dandruff.

Let's not forget pain, disease, suffering, murder, rape, war, domestic violence, theft, pedophilia, child abuse, apostasy, God's creatures thumbing their noses at their Holy and just Creator, etc.
But how can you know any of that in terms of your worldview? On what basis do you make the above claim?

it's boring.

This is irrelevant to it's truth status.

I thought I'd be able to have fun ripping open your teleology,

1.) What does it mean to have "fun"?
2.) How can you know that in terms of your worldview?

but you're too intent on playing bad philosopher

Asking you to stop ignoring key problems in epistemology---thereby begging the question against my worldview and my argument---and instead to justify the knowledge claims and assumptions on which your arguments hinge isn't "bad philosophy". It's a perfectly reasonable request.

that I'll never get to teleology with you.

What basis do you have for discussing teleology with me if you insist on operating from a worldview that can't even give an explanation as to (1) what teleology is, and (2) how you can know it?

Our relationship will never work.

It can definitely work, but you're not willing to cooperate and be rational.

[Mr. Black]

Your argument is circular Mr. Black.

All reasoning is either circular at base, or arbitrary, or else it engages in infinite regress, which means it could never get off the ground. There are two types of circularity: vicious and virtuous. A viciously circular argument merely assumes the preconditions of intelligibility, with no ontic base to ground them, nor an epistemology to make that base known. A virtuously circular argument would provide both, thus providing the criteria for proving everything, including itself. If you disagree, then please provide a line of reasoning that's neither circular, nor arbitrary, and doesn't engage in infinite regress.

and without justification.

1.) What constitutes "justification"?
2.) How could you possibly know that in your worldview?

You assert the impossibility of human knowledge unless a God is the ontic ground, or precondition of human intelligibility.

I utilize a transcendental argument, the nature of which you still don't seem to understand, as we'll see below.

Now prove it.

The kind of proof necessary for proving a given thing depends upon the metaphysical nature of the thing in question. Since God is the highest authority (Hebrews 6:13, Ephesians 1:21), and all knowledge is in Christ, and those who reject a philosophy of life that's rooted in Him in favor of a philosophy of life that's rooted in the "elementary principles of the world" (Colossians 2:3,8), and since God is not to be put on trial (Deuteronomy 6:16, Luke 4:12), God cannot be proven directly, as such an endeavor would assume that God is not what He claims to be. Thus such an approach would beg the question and, if it proves anything, it would be a deity that's not revealed in the Bible. Thus the transcendental argument invoked in the Bible is only proper method of "proof" for the Christian God. It's proven by the impossibility of the contrary: the total inability to justify any knowledge claim, to any degree of certainty, on any subject at all, apart from the logical starting point that the TA proposes (in this case the logical starting point is the biblical worldview). So when I use such argument and you ignore it, and simply say "prove it" you've mistaken the transcendental argument (an argument which points out the necessity of a certain principle---which both parties do not agree on---and without which no theorem can be reasoned to at all) for a deductive argument (which starts with commonly accepted principles, and builds up toward a theorem). If you're gonna be intellectually honest, then please deal with the argument I'm using and stop fishing for an argument you're more comfortable with.

Since you don't know all things, and you've denied Revelation from God, who does know all things, how can you be sure that none of the many facts "out there" that are as of yet unknown to man, will refute anything or everything you claim to know?

Any response that ignores this key problem in epistemology begs the question against both my argument and my worldview.

[whag]

No problem in principle. That is, if you have a rational foundation for the asking of any question, let alone that question, then I'd be happy to answer. But if you're going to ignore my challenge, beg the question against both my worldview and my argument, and then demand "answers" from me? No.
Why should I grant you rational ground to which you have no legitimate claim?

And if your worldview is rational, then providing---from within your worldview---a rational foundation for asking that simple question will be a simple matter. I will answer your recent question once you provide an answer to the question I've been asking you this whole time. Sound fair?

Fairness isn't an issue, and I'm not interested in your answer because I already know it. Adam ushered in lightning storms and dandruff. I get it. I've heard the whole spiel before, and it's boring.

I thought I'd be able to have fun ripping open your teleology, but you're too intent on playing bad philosopher that I'll never get to teleology with you. Our relationship will never work.

[JimL]

Just what I thought. Straw man fallacy. When a presupper says he "presupposes" the biblical worldview, we mean we hold it to be logically primary. That is not even close to being the same thing as an arbitrary temporal assumption.



Straw man again. The types of conclusions that one draws from the evidence (and even what counts as evidence in the first place) are determined by the foundational presuppositions of his or her worldview. Ergo simple appeals to "evidence" cannot and will not settle the debate, as with each presentation of "evidence" the proponent is merely expressing (not arguing for) their worldview. The only way to settle the debate is to do a worldview comparison.




A couple points here.
1.) It's proven by the impossibility of the contrary: without Him you can't prove anything.
2.) Regardless of whether or not you think your opponent has proved his or her view, you do bear the responsibility of the burden of proof for your own claims. Demanding proof from others of their claims while exempting yourself from the same responsibility is simply special pleading.




This only pushes the question one step back. Why should I believe this claim you just made?


You already know God, yet suppress that truth by mean of unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22).



Yes, you do. Only irrational people think this way. Minds that abhor truth refuse to justify the claims they make, and/or the assumptions upon which their arguments hinge.



I have already explained the problem with this answer, more than once now. My question to you was, how can you know that your senses, memory & cognitive faculties---all of which you reply upon in order to know what you've just claimed----are reliable, and your response assumed the reliability of just those very things. That would be like you asking, "How do you know the Bible is true?" and I reply, "Because the Bible is the Word of God, and God wouldn't lie." You have begged the question, sir.




How do you know this?





So child molestation is sometimes right on your view, then? Keep in mind I'm not asking if you like it or not. I'm asking you if it's sometimes right. Would it not follow from your claim that "moral values are not absolute"?



1.) What "evidence" might that be?
2.) How can you be sure that the sensory organs with which you've perceived said "'evidence" are reliable?




Everyone is (including you), even if they can't self-reflect on it until a few years later.





I've explained it already. Immediate knowledge is knowledge that is had immediately, like when your mother, who raised you, walks into the room, you don't look at her and reason that, judging according to the way she dresses, how tall she is, how thin she is, etc, that she's very probably your mother. You immediately recognize her as your mother. Similarly, God has created man in such a way that we immediately recognize His signature everywhere in the created order, without the use of discursive reasoning.




Yes, you certainly are. We're about to see how below...



Such a naive comment betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding the nature of transcendental arguments. If it's not inductive or deductive, the unfamiliar, in their gross ignorance, assert that it's not an argument. But it is. It's an argument from the impossibility of the contrary, and this type of argument has been used by philosophers for quite some time.
So no, Jimmy, claiming that a transcendental argument is "not an argument" does not make it a non-argument, nor does it make it go away. The argument is that any/all facts of reality and/or operational features of the mind presuppose the biblical worldview (require it to be the actual state of affairs in advance). You may wish to assert that it's a bad transcendental argument (in which case you need to show that knowledge is possible apart from God), but ignoring it and running from it won't do any good.



1.) Straw man fallacy. What I know of the world is revealed to me by God through the world.
2.) How do you know the world is real and not illusion?



Right. Now, as I just indicated above, the question is how you can know for sure that your senses, with which you perceive the world, are reliable, so that you can know that what you call "the world" is something objective outside of yourself, and not an illusion in your mind.



No, I'm arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God knowledge---on any issue at all---would not be possible. That's a transcendental argument.



Straw man again. That's not my argument at all. See above.

And since you're still shy regarding my challenge, I pose it again.
Since you don't know all things, and you've denied Revelation from God, who does know all things, how can you be sure that none of the many facts "out there" that are as of yet unknown to man, will refute anything or everything you claim to know?

Any response that ignores this key problem in epistemology begs the question against both my argument and my worldview.

[P.S. A rational person takes the time to understand the argument his or her opponent is using, so please do some reading on transcendental arguments.]

Your argument is circular Mr. Black. and without justification. You assert the impossibility of human knowledge unless a God is the ontic ground, or precondition of human intelligibility. Now prove it. Make the case rather than the assertion. You will say no, I don't have to support my assertions, it is you who are obligated to refute them. Nope! I don't need to refute assertions, at least not until you give some justification for them.

[Mr. Black]

If you had "no problem" answering the questions, you'd have answered it by now.

No problem in principle. That is, if you have a rational foundation for the asking of any question, let alone that question, then I'd be happy to answer. But if you're going to ignore my challenge, beg the question against both my worldview and my argument, and then demand "answers" from me? No.
Why should I grant you rational ground to which you have no legitimate claim?

It's a very simple question:

And if your worldview is rational, then providing---from within your worldview---a rational foundation for asking that simple question will be a simple matter. I will answer your recent question once you provide an answer to the question I've been asking you this whole time. Sound fair?