tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post6184270208987319190..comments2024-02-26T02:54:12.743-05:00Comments on How to Paint Your Panda: Presuppositional Apologetics And Self-Validating Logic: How Do You Know Your Reasoning is Valid? (Dad's Work)Alexis Delanoirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-9740110683109938202014-10-18T14:31:22.138-04:002014-10-18T14:31:22.138-04:00The problem with that defense would be that it goe...The problem with that defense would be that it goes from being reductio ad absurdum to a normal positive claim. I know what I just said may need some explaining:<br /><br />The presuppositional apologetic argument is not to directly prove that we need God to have knowledge, but to prove that we can't have knowledge WITHOUT God; from that, it would follow if we can't have knowledge without God, we can only have knowledge with God. This is how they get you: they force you to defend your position in order to prove their own.<br /><br />However, if you were to conclude that both you (the atheist) and they (the Christian presupp) could both come to the same conclusion, and they suggested "it's because God is revealing it to you, you just don't know it," then they are not sticking to the reductio ad absurdum -- they have now transferred the burden of proof onto themselves to validate that claim. They can't.<br /><br />C0nc0rdance did illustrate it, but unfortunately people like Sye and Hovind can't comprehend that saying "it's true because God is revealing it to me" is their own cognitive bias. Then you ask "how do you know?" and they say "because God." How do they know that it's God? They don't, but you can't break them out of that cultural barrier. I still believe that the method I suggested (but is which, by no means, a method of my own invention) is the preferable one to use.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-76976783528647856462014-10-18T10:58:52.848-04:002014-10-18T10:58:52.848-04:00Yes but if my may (for lack of a better term) play...Yes but if my may (for lack of a better term) play "devil's advocate," that would just lead them back to either A) Yes, but we both could not have come to that conclusion without god helping us. The position he takes is that God constantly maitains the nature of logic and reasoning and in a model without, we cannot be certian that the nature of logic and reasoning will be the same in the next 5 secs (which you debunked using your Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate analogy. If they want to continue trying to debunk a model of reality without god(s), b) While it's true that both of you concluded that "this is Coca Cola" can you be certain that the logical process aiding YOU (annoying) in coming to that conclusion and therefore forming the consensus, is sound? He does this constantly throughout the video but I think conc0rdance's first argument is quite a brilliant way to look at the flaw in Sye's position. He argues that Sye's position is contingent on a subjective worldview because it requires the mind of God to will things the way they are. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235992875015431408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-77803252079397394772014-10-18T00:30:09.054-04:002014-10-18T00:30:09.054-04:00Someone else on YouTube recommended a way of deali...Someone else on YouTube recommended a way of dealing with their tactics: when they ask you "are you certain about that," ask them "what do you think?"<br /><br />"Are you certain that's Coca Cola?"<br />"I don't know, what do you think?"<br /><br />If they say yes it is, and you agree, then you've both come to the same conclusion, but one didn't require God.<br /><br />If he says no, he loses credibility.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-30143608595799410192014-10-17T12:25:56.403-04:002014-10-17T12:25:56.403-04:00I enjoy how you have utterly destroyed this little...I enjoy how you have utterly destroyed this little argument I've seen pop up in many discussions on the subject of the existence of god or gods. I'd love to see you debate people like Sye or Hovind and watch their reactions. I'd call vid a win for the non-theists opposing Sye, but you can hear their frustration as he constantly takes them around in circles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T06j5SApekkAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235992875015431408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-2932970540586822582014-07-08T17:01:55.320-04:002014-07-08T17:01:55.320-04:00I think this was well thought out and incredible f...I think this was well thought out and incredible for the mind to read, but there is a very easy way to point out the flaw in Sye Ten's argument. His conclusion, that God exists, comes from the presupposition that God exists. He readily admits to that, and from there, you can discuss why your position is much more tenable than his.<br /><br />For example, he may argue that your presupposition that the universe exists is circular, because you use that to conclude that the universe exists and what you observe in it is real. We don't, though. We assume the universe exists in what could be seen as one gigantic, universal reductio ad absurdam. "Assuming the universe exists, we can conclude that ..." This is unlike Sye Ten's position because he admits to presupposing that God exists in order to conclude, in fact, that God exists. He is asserting as fact that which cannot be known, while you admit to making a logical assumption.Whimsical Ascentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-54391014843495928512014-05-10T15:58:35.535-04:002014-05-10T15:58:35.535-04:00"Cats are Blue = God exists
&
Cats are Bl..."Cats are Blue = God exists<br />&<br />Cats are Blue = God does not exist<br />Good Job."<br /><br />Yes, because it shows that if we were to accept that kind of "reasoning," the the law of non-contradiction would be violated; or, if we were to accept that kind of "reasoning," then I could still say I'm correct.<br /><br />"The alternative, circular reasoning.<br />Good job."<br /><br />No. Now you're just being stubborn.<br /><br />"Can you tell us if there is an objective standard for your alleged thought 'laws' or are these merely the (circular) electrical constructs of great apes?"<br /><br />First of all, no need to put laws in quotations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought<br /><br />Second of all, once again, they're not circular.<br /><br />And lastly, we can show its objectivity and universal application via reductio ad absurdiam. As shown above, we physically cannot operate under models which contradict the laws of thought -- and even if we could, those models would still show that I'm correct because they do not adhere to the law of non-contradiction.<br /><br />If this didn't answer your question, then excuse me, but your comment was incredibly vague and malformed, much like the premise of this entire argument is.<br /><br />http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-11-07/mofoyh4au3.gifAlexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-6387533621609560502014-05-10T15:15:16.644-04:002014-05-10T15:15:16.644-04:00"Let's assume we don't need evidence ..."Let's assume we don't need evidence to conclude (A) from (B). Then I can conclude any (A) from any (B)." <br /><br />Cats are Blue = God exists<br />&<br />Cats are Blue = God does not exist<br />Good Job.<br /><br />The alternative, circular reasoning.<br />Good job.<br /><br />Can you tell us if there is an objective standard for your alleged thought "laws" or are these merely the (circular) electrical constructs of great apes? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-52552294713543465412014-05-05T18:24:33.819-04:002014-05-05T18:24:33.819-04:00I'll just assume you're talking about the ...I'll just assume you're talking about the god of the bible, which is attributed with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. There are many gods of the bible, actually, depending on the interpretation, but in order to be deserving of the title "god," he should and must have these attributes, or at least omnipotence. If he doesn't, why call him a god?<br /><br />Can this god create an anvil that even he cannot lift? If not, then he's not omnipotent. If so, then he's still not omnipotent.<br /><br />Can this god conceive of a math problem that even he cannot solve? If not, he is not omnipotent. If so, then he is not omniscient.<br /><br />Can this god cease his presence for the duration of a single nanosecond in time, and a single square inch in space? If not, then he's not omnipotent. If so, then he's not omnipresent for that moment.<br /><br />The attributes are incompatible, and even if we were to attribute only omnipotence to this god, it would still be self-destructive. That being said, I can say that the "God" you believe in cannot exist.<br /><br />I think you've gone through the script now, so I'm going to end this particular discussion.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-9028640967809613162014-05-05T18:07:45.170-04:002014-05-05T18:07:45.170-04:00Fine, let's cut to the chase then. Is it impos...Fine, let's cut to the chase then. Is it impossible for God to exist?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-46293708451653533212014-05-05T17:52:04.128-04:002014-05-05T17:52:04.128-04:00If I said "I could be wrong about everything ...If I said "I could be wrong about everything I know," then I would have to be able to say "I know that I could be wrong about everything I know." In which case, I would indefinitely know something, and could never be wrong about it; therefore, I cannot be wrong about absolutely everything I know. If I said "I'm not sure," then I would have to know that I'm not sure. Let's try this again: it's a circular question.<br /><br />Once again, by the very definition of "knowledge," we cannot be wrong about something we know, otherwise we wouldn't have known it in the first place. We could be mistaken to think we know it, but we would never have really known it.<br /><br />Do you have a question for me which isn't circular, redundant, or contradictory in nature?Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-9857178898004341202014-05-05T17:32:13.976-04:002014-05-05T17:32:13.976-04:00Could you be wrong about everything you know?Could you be wrong about everything you know?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-16564855384496796382014-05-05T17:23:15.378-04:002014-05-05T17:23:15.378-04:00Yes.
Reductio ad Absurdiam:
I am not absolutely ...Yes.<br /><br />Reductio ad Absurdiam:<br /><br />I am not absolutely certain about anything; therefore, I can be absolutely certain that I am not absolutely certain about anything.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />I am not absolutely certain that I am not absolutely certain about anything; therefore, there exists the possibility that I can be absolutely certain about something, since I'm not absolutely certain that I can't be.<br /><br />It's another circular question. By the very concept, I have to be able to be absolutely certain about something.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-43530695836083316472014-05-05T17:13:51.586-04:002014-05-05T17:13:51.586-04:00Okay, then I'll ask a different question. Can ...Okay, then I'll ask a different question. Can you be absolutely certain about anything?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-51553566864641355872014-05-05T17:04:40.402-04:002014-05-05T17:04:40.402-04:00Define "certainty" now.
For any word th...Define "certainty" now.<br /><br />For any word that you come up with, I am going to ask you to define it. No matter how you define it, it is going to be using the knowledge you have available, which only exists within the confines of a presupposed universe. <br /><br />In order to ask the question using words, you have to implement the words' definitions. The words' definitions are created by humans. Humans' definitions are created from our knowledge. Our knowledge comes from our observations. Our observations are of reality, and by extension the universe; therefore, we have to assume that the universe exists, and that reality exists.<br /><br />Now in response to all of this, if you ask "can you be certain of that?" then you are going to get the same answer, and you are going to send us into a circle.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-76766244672459553732014-05-05T16:51:09.078-04:002014-05-05T16:51:09.078-04:00Can you be certain of that?Can you be certain of that?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-72924818898804040912014-05-05T16:41:19.808-04:002014-05-05T16:41:19.808-04:00Your definition came from Webster. That understand...Your definition came from Webster. That understanding of "real" is dependent on the existence of the universe, and by extension Webster. Webster can only be real if we assume the universe is real.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-1972130899744912482014-05-05T16:27:56.814-04:002014-05-05T16:27:56.814-04:00real:
actually existing or happening : not imagin...real:<br /><br />actually existing or happening : not imaginary<br /><br />How do you know the universe is real?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-27834783346886882152014-05-05T16:19:22.733-04:002014-05-05T16:19:22.733-04:00No hedging. You asked the question, you define the...No hedging. You asked the question, you define the terms which are required to understand your question.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-74829697653705121622014-05-05T16:11:10.629-04:002014-05-05T16:11:10.629-04:00What do you define as real?What do you define as real?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-64058205847701946122014-05-05T15:57:26.068-04:002014-05-05T15:57:26.068-04:00Define "real."Define "real."Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-1979644646377306052014-05-05T15:26:02.775-04:002014-05-05T15:26:02.775-04:00Do you know the universe is real?Do you know the universe is real?Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-61442739719002615072014-05-05T01:19:09.103-04:002014-05-05T01:19:09.103-04:00I almost just closed my laptop and crawled into be...I almost just closed my laptop and crawled into bed with a glass of wine, but I forgot to check my college email and came back on; i.e., I was lucky to see your comment, and I'm glad I did. It was sweet and refreshing after what just took place.<br /><br />Hahaha, thank you Nick. If you do, let me know how that turns out. If you don't, I won't hold it against you.<br /><br />Now, this was sufficient enough to calm my nerves, so I'll just go to bed instead. Goodnight, and I'm glad you appreciated my post. :)Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-26468294403692181342014-05-05T01:09:47.632-04:002014-05-05T01:09:47.632-04:00Seems like it's not your night concerning idio...Seems like it's not your night concerning idiotic people arguing relentlessly with you. I followed everything you were saying Lex, and I'm deeply sorry you had to go through this trouble.<br /><br />On that note, however, can I nominate you for "Most Critical Thinker of the Year?"Nick T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03852077855794584107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-52302587120429365992014-05-05T00:57:34.746-04:002014-05-05T00:57:34.746-04:00...
You're asking me if I can be absolutely c......<br /><br />You're asking me if I can be absolutely certain that there are no other possibilities besides (Random Fact) or (Not Random Fact). This has reduced to mere childishness. You're done here.Alexis Delanoirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09507261330011665079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1401164853017483440.post-86777582790478920232014-05-05T00:50:48.958-04:002014-05-05T00:50:48.958-04:00Can you be absolutely certain of that?Can you be absolutely certain of that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com