Can we trust what God says?

[Doug Shaver]

But you can only justify that by circular reasoning.

It's an assumption, not an inference. I don't try to justify it with reasoning, circular or otherwise. Every one of us believes some things that we cannot prove. We do not all assume the same things, but none of us can begin to reason about anything without making some assumptions.

[seer]

It's an assumption, not an inference. I don't try to justify it with reasoning, circular or otherwise. Every one of us believes some things that we cannot prove. We do not all assume the same things, but none of us can begin to reason about anything without making some assumptions.

So why is starting out with the assumption that the bible if the word of God circular?

[Mr. Black]

Both seer and you have failed to present a coherent argument for 'a standard of absolute certainty (and here I speak of epistemic certainty' other then 'I believe it so.'

Fallacy of begging the question. I covered this in the other thread.

Still waiting . . .

Telling your opponent---after he's drawn his sword---that you're "still waiting" for him to draw his sword is not rational. I've presented the proof through the transcendental argument I employ, and rather than refute said argument you've ignored it and merely asserted that it's unsound. If it's unsound you should have no problem refuting it. But if you can't refute, on what basis do you assert that it's unsound?

[Mr. Black]

I am as fallible as you are. How sure do I need to be?

I replied to you in the other thread. I appreciate your time.

[Mr. Black]

Good point. Only Christians can know what dry skin, hats, and cotton candy really are.

Correction: only the Christian worldview provides a rational foundation for knowing anything at all. Non-Christians can know lots of things, but only because the biblical worldview is true, and they secretly suppress their knowledge of God.

[Mr. Black]

No, I'm saying that knowledge is nothing more than information and that the information is itself what you would call the ontic ground or prerequisites of intelligibility, not to mention of life itself. That the ontic ground, or prerequisites of intelligibility as you call it, need come from a living personal mind is your assertion which you have yet to justify with a logical argument.

I've given a rational argument. It's a transcendental argument which argues that if one does not make the biblical worldview logically primary in their thinking, then they cannot justify any knowledge claim they make. You can arbitrarily dismiss it all you want, but can you logically refute it? That involves demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from the God that's revealed in the Bible. So let's look at your proposed justification.
You appeal to "information". This begs the question. Before you can go about perceiving and understanding any alleged information in the external world (or even yourself), you must first have a rational basis for asserting that...
(1) reality is actually orderly & intelligible, instead of chaotic, and that the information you supposedly perceive is real, and not illusion, which means you must provide a rational basis for assuming your senses are reliable before your appeals to information is justified.
(2) You must have a rational basis for assuming that your cognitive faculties, by which you reason about the information you come across are reliable, so that you can be sure that your reasoning is valid, let alone sound.
(3) You must provide a rational basis for assuming that your memories about your past perceptions of information are reliable, and not fabricated.
(4) You must provide a rational basis for asserting that the external world in which you claim to live is truly uniform---that all of it acts in a law-like fashion, and that it will continue to do so in the future.
(5) You also must explain where this information came from and how you know it will never change, or, if you wish to assert that it's eternal and unchanging, you need to justify this claim and demonstrate how you know that.
What are your bases for these assumptions on which your argument hinges? Please note that any reply that appeals to information that's found in the external world begs the question, as it would assume the very assumptions on which are argument hinges, and which you've been asked to justify.

So are you saying that your God is not the source of all knowledge? Or that your God doesn't lie?

You asserted that "my concepyion of God" allows for Him to lie. That's false.

Btw, it was Paul not God that tells you God does not lie. I realize you tend to believe God communicated this to Paul, but you didn't get it from God.

That makes no sense. That's like saying that if the King sends a message to another kingdom, then since the message was delivered by the messenger, it therefore wasn't sent by the King. Rank non-sequitur.

Its pretty safe to say that the universe, which is not a mind, is the direct source and creator of the human body and mind, not to mention the source of all human knowledge,...

Then you'll have no problem answering the above questions. ;)

...since there is no evidence to the contrary,...

I hope you're not saying that, because there's "no evidence" against your claim, that therefore it's true. That would be the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

...and the universe certainly doesn't lie.

How true. It neither lies nor tells the truth, as it's impersonal. Any claim that it "tells" us things would be the fallacy of reification.

You can assert that a mind is necessary as an ontic ground or as a prerequisite of human intelligibility until the cows come home, but there is no reason to accept that conclusion based on your assertion that there is no other possible explanation.

I wouldn't expect you to---and haven't asked you to. I've explained several times now that it's proven, not by my assertion, but by the impossibility of the contrary: rejecting it reduces one to absurdity. That's a transcendental argument. I've asked you to refute my argument---which involves your demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from God. You've attempted to do this above (which I appreciate), but you still do not seem to understand the nature and function of TAs. Your criticisms apply to deductive arguments, which utilize commonly accepted principles and build up to a theorem, and not to transcendental arguments, which point out the necessity of a certain principle (or set of principles)---which is not commonly accepted---and without which no theorem can be reasoned to at all. This sort of argument is proven via reductio.

[Mr. Black]

So why is starting out with the assumption that the bible if the word of God circular?

It's circular because it appeals to the Bible (or rather, the worldview that's articulated in the Bible) to support the claim that the biblical worldview is true. The difference, though, (which they seem to not get) is that when a transcendental argument (like the one I've been using) is employed it's all about starting point principles. So it's not about arbitrary temporal assumptions which are never justified, but rather logical starting point (something that the person takes to be logically primary in their thinking) which does justify those assumptions, as it would explain why we started that way, and how we can (and do) know (and always have known) that those starting points are true. Everyone, no matter their worldview, starts with some propositions they take to be "givens" (the preconditions of intelligibility: laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolute, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc). The question now is, which worldview can justify our starting in that way, and thus make human experience intelligible? Such a worldview would have to provide an ontic base to ground the preconditions, and an epistemology which makes that base known. In the Christian worldview, God is the ontic base, and His revelation of Himself (both general in nature, and special in Scripture) is the epistemology which makes Him known by everyone on earth (Romans 1:18-22).
So, all reasoning is (1) virtuously circular at base, which means sound reasoning will be based on the true worldview, which provides the requisite ontic base and corresponding epistemology, or else it will be (2) viciously circular with appeals to an assertion that cannot provide the ontic base and epistemology, or else it will be (3) completely arbitrary, based upon nothing (not even a circular claim), or else it will (4) fall into infinite regress, in which case no assertion, belief, or action can ever be justified.

[shunyadragon]

Fallacy of begging the question. I covered this in the other thread.

Yes, your correct, your argument represents Begging the Question.

telling your opponent---after he's drawn his sword---that you're "still waiting" for him to draw his sword is not rational. I've presented the proof through the transcendental argument I employ, and rather than refute said argument you've ignored it and merely asserted that it's unsound. If it's unsound you should have no problem refuting it. But if you can't refute, on what basis do you assert that it's unsound?

I see only the anecdote of a 'sword' drawn. Your Transcendental argument extends no further then 'I believe the is a say it is so,' which does not represent any sort of consensus of even Christian belief. I need more of an argument from you then this to be anything more then begging the question.

[shunyadragon]

It's circular because it appeals to the Bible (or rather, the worldview that's articulated in the Bible) to support the claim that the biblical worldview is true. The difference, though, (which they seem to not get) is that when a transcendental argument (like the one I've been using) is employed it's all about starting point principles. So it's not about arbitrary temporal assumptions which are never justified, but rather logical starting point (something that the person takes to be logically primary in their thinking) which does justify those assumptions, as it would explain why we started that way, and how we can (and do) know (and always have known) that those starting points are true. Everyone, no matter their worldview, starts with some propositions they take to be "givens" (the preconditions of intelligibility: laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolute, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc). The question now is, which worldview can justify our starting in that way, and thus make human experience intelligible? Such a worldview would have to provide an ontic base to ground the preconditions, and an epistemology which makes that base known. In the Christian worldview, God is the ontic base, and His revelation of Himself (both general in nature, and special in Scripture) is the epistemology which makes Him known by everyone on earth (Romans 1:18-22).

This roughly true, but inadequate for an argument only founded in the circular argument of 'what you believe,' and not adequate to argue against those who believe differently

So, all reasoning is (1) virtuously circular at base, which means sound reasoning will be based on the true worldview, which provides the requisite ontic base and corresponding epistemology, or else it will be (2) viciously circular with appeals to an assertion that cannot provide the ontic base and epistemology, or else it will be (3) completely arbitrary, based upon nothing (not even a circular claim), or else it will (4) fall into infinite regress, in which case no assertion, belief, or action can ever be justified.

The only basis you have for the assertion that your worldview is the true worldview is 'I believe it is.' I am still waiting for something more substantial then that. There are probably 10,000 different worldviews that claim the 'one true worldview' based on ' I believe it so.' What else is there for your Transcendental argument. Even though you repeatedly question "How do you know?' you have failed to demonstrate any reason we cannot simply justify the uniformity and continuity of our physical world by the Law of non-contradiction, except by Begging the Question, and Arguing from Ignorance.

Seer got it right when he concluded red is always red regardless if your blind.

[JimL]

I've given a rational argument. It's a transcendental argument which argues that if one does not make the biblical worldview logically primary in their thinking, then they cannot justify any knowledge claim they make. You can arbitrarily dismiss it all you want, but can you logically refute it? That involves demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from the God that's revealed in the Bible. So let's look at your proposed justification.

No, since it is your assertion, then it is you who have to demonstrate that an evolved mind, i.e. a functioning brain, capable of comprehending the world of which it is a part, is not possible apart from a God, in particular your God. To assert such to be impossible is not a demonstration.

You appeal to "information". This begs the question. Before you can go about perceiving and understanding any alleged information in the external world (or even yourself), you must first have a rational basis for asserting that...
(1) reality is actually orderly & intelligible, instead of chaotic, and that the information you supposedly perceive is real, and not illusion, which means you must provide a rational basis for assuming your senses are reliable before your appeals to information is justified.
(2) You must have a rational basis for assuming that your cognitive faculties, by which you reason about the information you come across are reliable, so that you can be sure that your reasoning is valid, let alone sound.
(3) You must provide a rational basis for assuming that your memories about your past perceptions of information are reliable, and not fabricated.
(4) You must provide a rational basis for asserting that the external world in which you claim to live is truly uniform---that all of it acts in a law-like fashion, and that it will continue to do so in the future.
(5) You also must explain where this information came from and how you know it will never change, or, if you wish to assert that it's eternal and unchanging, you need to justify this claim and demonstrate how you know that.
What are your bases for these assumptions on which your argument hinges? Please note that any reply that appeals to information that's found in the external world begs the question, as it would assume the very assumptions on which are argument hinges, and which you've been asked to justify.

I've done this already, human minds are shaped by and so comport with the very reality of which they are a part. Whether a God is the source of that reality, or that reality is itself eternal makes no difference as to how it is percieved by the evolved minds within it. Perhaps God created a simulation and you, your mind, as well as all you percieve, is naught but an illusion. We are all in the same boat as far as that goes brother, accept that there is no evidence for your assertion of a supernatural source of mind, or ontic ground of intelligibility. There is only evidence of the natural world.

You asserted that "my concepyion of God" allows for Him to lie. That's false.

So much for "your conception" of God. The Bible is the word of your God, and the Bible does lie. You see, you are blinded to the lies in the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those tales, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your premise that the bible is the word of God.

That makes no sense. That's like saying that if the King sends a message to another kingdom, then since the message was delivered by the messenger, it therefore wasn't sent by the King. Rank non-sequitur.

The problem is that the messenger could be a liar or deluded or have alterior motives. Again you are unable to even concieve of that possibility since you've already accepted the messanger and the messages, whatever they be, as true.

Then you'll have no problem answering the above questions. ;)

Done.

I hope you're not saying that, because there's "no evidence" against your claim, that therefore it's true. That would be the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

No, actually that is what your argument, like all arguments for God is claiming.

How true. It neither lies nor tells the truth, as it's impersonal. Any claim that it "tells" us things would be the fallacy of reification.

Very true, but though it doesn't speak with words it isn't false to our senses which unlike the concept of God we have direct access to.

I wouldn't expect you to---and haven't asked you to. I've explained several times now that it's proven, not by my assertion, but by the impossibility of the contrary: rejecting it reduces one to absurdity. That's a transcendental argument. I've asked you to refute my argument---which involves your demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from God. You've attempted to do this above (which I appreciate), but you still do not seem to understand the nature and function of TAs. Your criticisms apply to deductive arguments, which utilize commonly accepted principles and build up to a theorem, and not to transcendental arguments, which point out the necessity of a certain principle (or set of principles)---which is not commonly accepted---and without which no theorem can be reasoned to at all. This sort of argument is proven via reductio.

You've yet to prove your assertion of the impossibility of the contrary. You want me to prove that knowledge is possible apart from God, but other than asserting that to be an absurdity, you've yet to prove it is not possible. Apparently you think that your transcendental argument, which btw is nothing but an unfounded assertion as far as i can see, proves your case, but it is not convincing to me. It is true that in nature the cause is in the effect and vice versa but the mind is not itself a thing which has existence, it is descriptive of how the material brain has naturally evolved to function in the material world that created it. So prove to me that a supernatural mind is necessary for a material brain to evolve with the capacity to comprehend the world that created it.

[Doug Shaver]

So why is starting out with the assumption that the bible if the word of God circular?

It's not, if you admit that that's what you're doing. Few believers do admit it. What we skeptics nearly always hear is "The Bible must be the word of God because ______."

[Mr. Black]

Your Transcendental argument extends no further then 'I believe the is a say it is so,'

Straw man again. That is not my argument at all.

This roughly true, but inadequate for an argument only founded in the circular argument of 'what you believe,' and not adequate to argue against those who believe differently

You're not even replying against the argument I'm using now. Please be honest, bud. If all you're gonna do is twist everything I say and misrepresent the argument I've given in order to easily dismiss said misrepresentation, then why are you even here?

The only basis you have for the assertion that your worldview is the true worldview is 'I believe it is.'

The only basis you have for saying that that's my view is, "I believe that that's what Mr. Black said."
See? Two people can play these stupid little games of yours. Now, are you gonna be rational and deal with the argument I've presented, which involves demonstrating that knowledge----on anything at all (including your above claims about what my argument "amounts to") is possible apart from God, or will you insist on acting like a child?
What's it gonna be, shuny? Are you gonna justify your claims, and stop caricaturing my argument, or shall I move on to someone who actually wants to be rational and is not afraid of attempting to refute the transcendental argument?

[Mr. Black]

No, since it is your assertion, then it is you who have to demonstrate that an evolved mind, i.e. a functioning brain, capable of comprehending the world of which it is a part, is not possible apart from a God, in particular your God.

Straw man fallacy again. For the love of intellectual honesty, Jim, would you please read up on transcendental arguments? The demands you are making involves the assumption of deductive standards of argumentation, not transcendental standards of argumentation. The transcendental argument I'm using is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Thus the demonstration comes via reductio, and is an indirect proof.

I've done this already, human minds are shaped by and so comport with the very reality of which they are a part.

This is not an answer to my question (though I appreciate the effort). How is epistemic certainty possible in your worldview? Your above answer assumed the very things I just asked you to justify (preconditions of intelligibility), instead of providing an ontic base to ground them, and an epistemology which makes that base known.

Whether a God is the source of that reality, or that reality is itself eternal makes no difference as to how it is percieved by the evolved minds within it. Perhaps God created a simulation and you, your mind, as well as all you percieve, is naught but an illusion. We are all in the same boat as far as that goes

Setting aside the fact that this assumes (rather than proves that God either cannot or has not granted epistemic certainty to His creatures, by saying, "We are all in the same boat as far as that goes", are you saying that you don't know for sure that all you perceive is real and not illusion?

accept that there is no evidence for your assertion of a supernatural source of mind, or ontic ground of intelligibility. There is only evidence of the natural world.

The notion of "evidence" assumes the preconditions of intelligibility I outlined in my last reply. You need to provide a basis for this. Your attempt above was inadequate.
We can start with logic. Does the law of non-contradiction apply everywhere? Can it change? Does it change? How do you know?

So much for "your conception" of God. The Bible is the word of your God, and the Bible does lie.

False. The Bible is God's Word and God can't lie. Mere men certainly do though, especially when railing against their Holy Creator. ;)
But you do bring up an interesting point. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were right in your above claim. What would be wrong with lying in your worldview? In my worldview, lying goes against God's nature, and since He created everything outside of Himself, including the universe and everything therein, He has the right to make the rules and punish those who break His rules. So Christians have a reason to denounce lying as objectively wrong, and to praise honesty.
But if your view of reality were true, why shouldn't people lie in order to convince their opponents to join them? On what basis do you condemn dishonesty and call upon others to be intellectually honest?

You see, you are blinded to the lies in the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those tales, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your premise that the bible is the word of God.

You see, you are blinded to the lies that are launched against the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those lies you tell, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your assumption that the bible is not the word of God.

The problem is that the messenger could be a liar or deluded or have alterior motives. Again you are unable to even concieve of that possibility since you've already accepted the messanger and the messages, whatever they be, as true.

The unspoken assumption in your reply here can be elucidated by answering one simple question. Given Titus 1:2, and Romans 1:18-32, if my worldview is true, Jim, is it possible that God could lie, or that man doesn't know God?

Done.

Not done. You've provided no ontic base or corresponding epistemology which makes that base known in your worldview, whereas I have from mine.

No, actually that is what your argument, like all arguments for God is claiming.

That's another straw man. Do you not believe in taking the time to understand your opponent's argument?

Very true,

What is "truth" in your worldview, Jim? Definition, please, not examples.

...but though it doesn't speak with words

It doesn't "speak" at all, because it's not personal. People speak, after filtering the evidence which they encounter in the universe, through the basic assumptions in their worldview.

...it isn't false to our senses

If it's all illusion, then yes, it's false to our senses.

...which unlike the concept of God we have direct access to.

Begging the question. If my worldview is true, then yes, all men have direct access to, and in fact have received direct revelation from God, and continue to do so every second of everyday (Romans 1:18-22).

You've yet to prove your assertion of the impossibility of the contrary.

Let's how if you've been paying attention, Jim. How are transcendental arguments proven?

You want me to prove that knowledge is possible apart from God, but other than asserting that to be an absurdity,

That's a transcendental argument you just ducked....again.

you've yet to prove it is not possible.

You still don't understand the concept of a transcendental argument it seems. I've explained the difference between deductive and transcendental arguments to you more once now. And each time you've ignored that crucial distinction and launched an objection that assumed deductive standards of reasoning on my part, thus subtly miscasting my TA as a DA.

[shunyadragon]

I've given a rational argument. It's a transcendental argument which argues that if one does not make the biblical worldview logically primary in their thinking, then they cannot justify any knowledge claim they make.

This is not an argument it is presuppositional statement of belief in Van Til's tradition. One does not argue for the existence of God nor the justification of belief.

[JimL]

Straw man fallacy again. For the love of intellectual honesty, Jim, would you please read up on transcendental arguments? The demands you are making involves the assumption of deductive standards of argumentation, not transcendental standards of argumentation. The transcendental argument I'm using is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Thus the demonstration comes via reductio, and is an indirect proof.

Unfortunately Mr. Black your transcendental argument proves nothing of the kind. Because you say that there is no contrary possibility does not make it so. Your argument assumes that the mind is a thing in itself and therefore its existence is dependent upon a like cause. But a mind is not a thing in itself, the mind is descriptive of the functioning, or cognitive abilities, of an evolved material brain.

This is not an answer to my question (though I appreciate the effort). How is epistemic certainty possible in your worldview? Your above answer assumed the very things I just asked you to justify (preconditions of intelligibility), instead of providing an ontic base to ground them, and an epistemology which makes that base known.

I don't need to justify from my perspective any (pre-conditions of intelligibility), by which you mean a pre-existent mind, until you prove your assertion of its necessity. Your transcendental argument doesn't do this, it merely asserts it.

Setting aside the fact that this assumes (rather than proves that God either cannot or has not granted epistemic certainty to His creatures, by saying, "We are all in the same boat as far as that goes", are you saying that you don't know for sure that all you perceive is real and not illusion?

Define what you mean here by "real" and "illusion".

The notion of "evidence" assumes the preconditions of intelligibility I outlined in my last reply. You need to provide a basis for this. Your attempt above was inadequate.
We can start with logic. Does the law of non-contradiction apply everywhere? Can it change? Does it change? How do you know?

No, the notion of evidence assumes intelligence,or cognitive abilities, not pre-conditions of intelligibility.

False. The Bible is God's Word and God can't lie. Mere men certainly do though, especially when railing against their Holy Creator. ;)

The all powerful God can not do that which his creations can do. Interesting. Besides the bible is replete with falsehoods.

But you do bring up an interesting point. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were right in your above claim. What would be wrong with lying in your worldview? In my worldview, lying goes against God's nature, and since He created everything outside of Himself, including the universe and everything therein, He has the right to make the rules and punish those who break His rules. So Christians have a reason to denounce lying as objectively wrong, and to praise honesty.
But if your view of reality were true, why shouldn't people lie in order to convince their opponents to join them? On what basis do you condemn dishonesty and call upon others to be intellectually honest?

If lying is against Gods nature, which is why he doesn't lie, then why, since unlike that of God, it is our nature to lie, shouldn't we lie? Aren't we just following our nature by lying just as is God by not lying? Fact is we all lie Mr. Black, including yourself.

You see, you are blinded to the lies that are launched against the Bible, because even in the absurdity of those lies you tell, you have no choice but to accept them as true based on your assumption that the bible is not the word of God.

No, you assume the bible to be the word of God because, no matter the fool things it asserts, you were told it is the word of God, I assume it is not the word of God because I read and decide for myself.

The unspoken assumption in your reply here can be elucidated by answering one simple question. Given Titus 1:2, and Romans 1:18-32, if my worldview is true, Jim, is it possible that God could lie, or that man doesn't know God?

Well if it is impossible for God to lie, then he would not be all powerful or have free will, so that seems a bit of a contradiction. But to answer your question, no, it is not possible for God to lie according to your world view, or that man doesn't know God, because if not your world view would be wrong.

Not done. You've provided no ontic base or corresponding epistemology which makes that base known in your worldview, whereas I have from mine.

As above, you are assuming the necessity of an ontic ground, I do not, therefore I need not provide one.

That's another straw man. Do you not believe in taking the time to understand your opponent's argument?

I understand it just fine.

What is "truth" in your worldview, Jim? Definition, please, not examples.

2+2=4.

It doesn't "speak" at all, because it's not personal. People speak, after filtering the evidence which they encounter in the universe, through the basic assumptions in their worldview.

Has nothing to do with their world view, thats your assertion. We filter the evidence through our brains, not through assumptions of our world view.
Sorry no more time, i'll have to get back to the remainder of your post later.