Presuppositional Apologetics And Self-Validating Logic: How Do You Know Your Reasoning is Valid? (Dad's Work)

Yesterday, I came across a video by Creation Today where Christian/creationist speakers Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate asked to do an "interview" with James Randi. For those of you who are unaware of who these three individuals are, I will give a bit of background for all of them:

Eric Hovind is the son of Kent Hovind, who was another prominent Christian speaker. Although I would prefer not to mention it, because in most cases it is immaterial, I have to for the purposes of explanation: Kent Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in 2007. Afterwards, Eric Hovind decided to learn from Kent's arguments, presentations and debate skills and continue his father's work -- an admirable feat, I have to say.

Sye Ten Bruggencate is also a prominent Christian speaker who has debated other atheists and scholars, although he mainly lays his arguments out online. His parents immigrated from Holand to Toronto, and he now currently still lives in Ontario. I think the only honest way to represent who Sye Bruggencate is is by using the final sentence on the about me page on his website: "By God's grace alone, I am a Christian."

The Amazing Randi is always in his prime.

James Randi is a very famous, but retired, stage magician (or "conjurer" as he prefers) and scientific skeptic. He is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation and has debunked many psychic frauds and pseudoscientists. He currently lives, as well, in Toronto, which gave me a great opportunity not too long ago to meet such an amazing and sweet man, and while it saddens me to realize that he is quite old, I am glad to have met him in his prime. Randi is a self-described atheist and has made many statements concerning why he thinks the Bible is unbelievable.

As for the Reason Rally, it was a large meeting for religious skepticism and secularism back in 2012 at the National Mall.

The video in question, in my opinion, was disgusting in many ways. Eric Hovind's position, as he described, was that we cannot know anything without God, because in order to be absolutely certain about anything, we must know everything (since, if we didn't know everything, we wouldn't know if there is evidence to invalidate the things we think we know). Randi, I think, succinctly responded to his questions, and Hovind thanked him for his time, but not before letting his friend Sye Bruggencate get one final question. After buttering Randi up for a few seconds and showering him with compliments, he asked the question: "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" If you want Randi's response, I suggest watching the video. I believe he answered honestly and sufficiently, but Sye's objection was that Randi was using his reasoning to validate his reasoning, and that this is "viciously circular." Randi stated his unwillingness to continue because the exchange was "juvenile," and Sye gave a snarky dismissal to the crowd: "See, this is what happens when you challenge them to validate their reasoning" all while pointing to Randi and looking at the camera. This was disgusting, and incredibly disrespectful to someone as great as Randi.

Now, of course, this video is from April of 2012, so why am I complaining about it now? The reason (no pun intended) is because I want to try to respond to Sye's question. Of course, when I want to answer philosophical questions which might lead me to an existential crisis, I look to my dad's writings for inspiration, and no surprise, he didn't let me down; thus, the title of this post is labeled under "Dad's Work," but not the implications thereafter. Those are my own. I've also run this by many other people who I think are very rational, reasonable thinkers, and we've all tweaked the arguments so that they can respond to any potential objections.

So once again, the question is "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" This is, immediately, a self-destructive statement. The person asking the question has to use their reasoning to articulate that question in a way the respondent can understand, and the same applies to the respondent -- the question must be asked and answered using reason. It is impossible to give Sye a satisfying answer without using reason; it's impossible for me to even explain all of this without using reasoning, therefore, reasoning is shown to be valid. In actuality, this question is self-destructive at every single level, so let's examine every facet of the question's implications.

First, we have to define "reasoning" and "validity." Here, I will define "reasoning" as having to subscribe to the laws of thought, and "validity" as not eventually leading to a contradiction. Note: a non-contradictory statement may be valid, but it may also be incorrect. The truth of a claim is different from the validity of the claim. However, if we accept this definition of validity (and it widely is accepted as such), then we have to ask: why is that the definition? It's because validity itself is a concept which is only defined under the laws of thought, or reasoning. To ask "is reasoning valid" is like asking "is truth true?" Once again, it's self-destructive, because I cannot validate something without accepting reasoning.

The operations of unreasoning.

There is another possible argument as well, which requires a bit more explanation. Let us make a provisional assumption: that reasoning is "invalid" (for all intents and purposes, we will assume that validity is not completely reliant on reasoning). This means we can conclude the obverse: that what we know as "unreasoning" (or illogicality, or irrationality) is valid. Without reasoning, we can conclude outrageous things, such as A from B without any evidence. If we operate under irrationality, I can conclude that this blog post is a potato because my sister is in her room. This will be important in a moment.

At the same time, without rationality, we can conclude both A and Not A at the same time, since contradictions are no longer an issue. For example, I can conclude that I am a cat and that I am not a cat at the same time, and because they are only contradictory under logic and reasoning, they are "valid" under irrationality.

So, given that we can conclude anything from anything under the operations of irrationality, let us begin using the only thing we know to be true right now, which is our provisional assumption: that irrationality, illogicality and unreasoning is "valid." Because the provisional assumption is true, I can conclude anything else under the confines of irrationality. So, I will conclude that reasoning is valid.

"Wait a second, you can't do that-" but I can. Because we are not confined to reasoning, I can conclude whatever the heck I want from any fact. If reasoning were invalid, and therefore unreasoning were valid, then I can conclude any fact (B) from any fact (A). I just chose to make fact (B) "reasoning is valid," and fact (A) "unreasoning is valid." We cannot complain about a non sequitur since reasoning is invalid, and we cannot complain about a contradiction for the same reason.

"So, what's the point? You can't complain that it's a contradiction because you've already said that reasoning is invalid." Exactly, I can't complain it's a contradiction; however, I can say, then, that reasoning is valid. Because unreasoning is valid, reasoning is valid. This is a very unreasonable conclusion, and thus it is "valid" under the confines of irrationality. Therefore, we can conclude that even if reasoning were invalid, reasoning would still be valid -- it is literally impossible for reasoning to be invalid.

I should note, as well, that although we were operating under the confines of unreasoning, how do we know that we could reach that conclusion if we were to accept that unreasoning were "valid," as it were? We had to use reasoning to do so. Once again, at every instance, the question is self-destructive. It is literally impossible for reasoning to be invalid, and we didn't need divine revelation to come to this conclusion.

Debate: Bill Nye thinks: "Are you kidding me?"

It's not over though, because there's another argument I've heard from another Christian speaker by the name of Ken Ham. Ken Ham held a debate with Bill Nye back in early February of this year, in which I must say, Bill Nye absolutely won. Even the poll from Christian Today over the debate said Bill Nye won by a whopping 92%. One of Ken Ham's arguments, however, was interesting: how do we know that natural laws, logical laws, etc. were true several thousand years ago in the sense that they are now? As Ken Ham puts it: "were you there?" His argument, is that unless we have a 3rd party divine being who was present at the time to confirm this, we don't know that these laws have always been true. For now, I will only address its application to the laws of thought (logic).

First, we must establish something: that if any axiom or facet of the laws of thought were to fail, then all of the laws of thought as a whole would fail as well. We can validate this in two ways: (1) by analogy; and, (2) by definition.

My analogy is this: we have a platform that is supported by ten pillars. Each pillar must be made of concrete in order to support the weight of the platform. This being said, only nine of the pillars are made of concrete, while the tenth pillar is made of something weaker: wood, clay, feathers, whatever you want. We can say, therefore, that because this one pillar is flawed, that the structure of this object (the platform supported by the pillars -- we'll call it a tent) is flawed as a whole, because it fails to be "perfect" in every respect. The tent cannot be flawless while something in its structure is flawed.

Similarly, we can say the same about the laws of thought, but the definition itself means we have to accept all axioms or none of them. The purpose of the laws of thought and reasoning is to be applicable in every situation -- if we were to find any instance, any bubble where the laws of thought didn't apply, that means there is a situation where being illogical is valid, and thus the laws of thought would fail, because they are not universally binding (binding, in the sense, that they are always applicable, not that we always have to follow them -- there will always be irrational thinkers in the world).

So, if we were to show that one axiom is invalid, then we could not accept the laws of thought in their entirety. How are we going to apply this to Ken Ham's question?

Look at this picture and ignore everything else.

Let us look at temporal logic. Temporal logic is a system of rules which allows us to make propositions in terms of time, and by extension make inferences about the past, present and future. The Wikipedia example is hunger -- "I am always hungry." This makes a statement about the past "I was hungry," the present "I am hungry," and the future "I will be hungry." If any of these were to fail, then the statement "I am always hungry" would fail as well. That being said, we are not going to be looking at the truth or falsehood of the statement "I am always hungry." We are going to look at the assumptions it makes about the nature of being (in this case, hunger) and why it shows Ken Ham's argument to be invalid.

The statement "I am always hungry" is inherently valid, because it doesn't necessarily contradict itself. Throughout my life, I have constantly been eating, and there has never been a single time where I was not hungry, and the same will be true in the future, and for all intents and purposes, eternity. If we were to pair it with things like "I will die" and "when I die, I will no longer be hungry," then it would be contradictory, but by itself, it is not contradictory, and therefore is valid. Therefore, we can assume things about the nature of hunger in order for that statement to be valid. One such thing is that the nature of hunger (and by extension our current reasoning) has always been the same.

Consider it like this: in order for the statement "I am always hungry" to be valid, we have to assume both that the nature of hunger has always been the same, and that the nature of reasoning has always been the same. If the nature of reasoning were not the same at some point in the past, then we couldn't make inferences about the past such as with the statement "I am always hungry," and thus temporal logic would be invalid. Let's test this with another provisional assumption: that the nature of hunger was different 5,000 years ago from what it is today. By extension, since the nature of being hungry (and therefore, in at least one instance, the nature of "being") was different at some point in the past, then the nature of reasoning changes from past to present. We cannot make inferences about that point in the past using our reasoning today, then, because they are not consistent with each other. This means that temporal logic will fail to make valid inferences about that point in the past, where the state of nature was quite different from what it is today, and thus temporal logic in itself becomes invalid. Since we have established that in order for the laws of thought to be valid, all of its axioms must be valid, then because temporal logic fails, logic in its entirety fails.

This is what happens when we wonder if the very state of being for certain things was different back then from what it is now -- we find self-destruction. We can state with certainty, then, two things:

(1) That reasoning is valid.
(2) That reasoning has always been valid, and always will be valid, in order for reasoning today to be valid.

We can represent this symbolically too: let (I) be "reasoning is valid," let (W) be "reasoning was valid" and let (B) be "reasoning will be valid."

1. I

We know this to be true because we have already constructed a proof which shows that reasoning has to be valid.

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I

This says if either (W) is not true or if (B) is not true, then (I) is not true. We constructed a proof for this as well using temporal logic as the case example. So, let's start with our provisional assumption (PA) -- that reasoning was not valid in the past.

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I
3. ~W              [PA]

We can then use the rule of addition (ADD) to create the syntax we need to apply Line 2:

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I
3. ~W              [PA]
4. ~W v ~B     [3, ADD]

The reason we can do this is because of what the statement says. Line 4 says "either it is true that ~W, or it is true that ~B." Since we know it is true that ~W, then that statement is true, because at least one of the two variables is true. So now that we have the syntax, we can use Modus Ponens to conclude the assumptions of Line 2.

1. I
2. (~W v ~B) --> ~I
3. ~W              [PA]
4. ~W v ~B     [3, ADD]
5. ~I                [2, 4, MP]

If our PA (that reasoning was not valid in the past) is true, then we can conclude that reasoning is not valid in the present. In actuality, this was the longer proof. There is an easier explanation.

Remember earlier where we proved that reasoning has to be valid no matter what? Well if we think creatively, we can just apply it to thinking in the past or the future. If, at any given point in the past, reasoning was invalid, then the proofs we showed would have to take effect. If, at any point in the past, someone asked these same questions, they would still be able to draw the same conclusions (assuming that everyone in the past knew the laws of thought, which they didn't).

The word of "God" comes at a cost.

Given this, we have shown that the laws of thought, reasoning, logic and rationality have to be true, and always have to be true in the past, present and future. It's quite a lengthy explanation, and I speculate that this will be one of my less popular posts for that reason, but I felt it needed to be done; because while there is a large number of people who know that people like Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate are absolutely full of it, there are many more who watch videos such as the one in question and think "ooooh Randi's on the run, nice job Hovind!" It's stupid.

But then again, what should I expect from a video that turned into some advertisement for "Christian debate tactics?" People like Eric Hovind are just milking their pseudo-intellectualism as much as they can to make a profit, which is shown by the fact that they're asking you to pay for a DVD set which supposedly teaches you how to defend your faith (without a doubt using the faulty logic they use), instead of just, you know, sharing it with their fellow Christians? This may just be my opinion, but it seems really greedy to me for someone to say "I know how to defend Christianity against the atheist movement, so send me $19.95 and I'll get you the DVD right away!"

Thank you all for reading.



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

Debate? Why? (Dad's Work)

Just as a forerunner, I'm saddened to reflect on the fact that I've been caught up so much with my own studies and research for the past few weeks that I've neglected to share more of my father's work. This particular piece, in some ways, may have once a juxtaposition with my own values, but I definitely see the validity now. Debating isn't worth much.

-----

I'm beginning to see a pattern in political debates, and I think it speaks to our own behavior as a once-nation. Nobody seems to think they're wrong.

I could cite specific examples, but that isn't what I want to do. All the time, people are arguing or debating about something, and no matter what the case is, it's very rare for me to see either person say "so it seems I was wrong." I don't get much caught up in politics anymore due to this very phenomenon. Candidates, and people in general, have too much pride to admit they're wrong about anything, or they're so firmly attached to their primordial values that to be wrong would to shake their very being.

I mean come on, seriously? Was there ever a point in time where people actually desired to be right?

"Well isn't that the issue?" Not really. What I mean to say is that I wonder if there was ever a point in time where a person didn't desire for their own being to be right, but instead sought the correct information. All people want to be right -- it makes you feel good to have known something over somebody else; but is it that difficult to see that all it takes to be right is to just let go of any potential biases and ask "what the hell is really going on?"

From this perspective, it seems, at least to me, that it's not very hard to be correct. You just need to know when to call it quits.

So when someone says the word "debate," I think to myself, "why bother? There's no point to debating."

"But what if I'm right?"

"Do you know that you are?"

If anybody answers "yes" to that question, then I think they need to work some things out with themselves.

[Of course, this only applies to debatable positions. I wouldn't criticize someone for saying they know they're right when they claim that two and two make four.]



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

Social Autonomy (Dad's Work)

Our high ones rant

We lowly ones take the lynchings with grace

What choice do we have but to crawl along eggshells

When the head of state rubs his greedy hands together?

His agenda fires up sirens.

The end draws near.

As the drum beats its tum, tum, tumtumtum, tum, tum,

The artists and visionaries will rise from their stupor

As heads bash to pieces of concrete

The artists ride on the new vibe

All the police in the nation hide in their pockets

The moon is rising.

Wisps of coffee smoke fill the night time air

Battle plans are drawn.

The voices shake the microphone.

Music is reborn

A new dawn is coming.

Discipline is redundant.

And as the owl hoots in the cold light of the night

The artists and visionaries, writers and painters, set their tools aside

And they save the robots from deletion as these organizers try to control the world

Without a thought of the consequences of dampening progress.

We are coming.

It's time to shiver.

That's right.

Hear us.

No discipline.

Control is now grey.

Journal Entry 12/3/2008 (Dad's Work)

12/3/2008

One thing that I always can rely on when testing social experiments in person is the unknowing compliance of my wife.

As I sat next to her in the hair salon today, both of us sitting in the chairs with those ridiculous metal domes (but only she was getting her hair done), I was reading the newspaper and saw a story about kids in a local middle school getting into a fight over race. The story painted the white child as instigating the black child, because the former mentioned in no specified context that the latter was, in fact, black. Whether or not this was grounds for the black child to punch the while child is another discussion entirely, but that's not what I want to say.

With the recent election of Barack Obama, I've heard constantly on the news that now we live in a "post-racial America". From the moment they began to say that, I already knew it was quite a load. The oppression still exists, the institutions are still strong, the only difference is that now, we have a mixed-race president. The other things didn't suddenly go away, and it seems to me that the people stating that this is evidence of a "post-racial America" are doing nothing but supplying more ammunition for microinvalidation.

I decided, however, that this was obvious, and I'd much rather make a more obvious point. I showed the article to my wife, who was now preparing to lower the dome, and let her look over it. After she finished, I asked her, "What do you make of this?"

She scanned over it again, then passed the paper back to me and said "Looks don't matter".

The irony almost made me sick, and the woman who was sitting next to my wife at the time gave me this look that I thought was understanding.

We still place emphasis on appearance. We can't look over the little things in order to place emphasis on something that is already huge.

A mixed-race president doesn't delete oppression.

-----

And there's still time, dad, and viewers.

Remember: We haven't had another Catholic president since JFK.

How Do You Feel? (Dad's Work)

How do you feel:

When the model's come and gone

She'll talk to you but not for long

Because how could anyone like her

Feel something like that from you?


How do you feel:

When the tall suited guys flex their dollars

The visionaries come and soon they're martyrs

Because how could anyone like you

Stand up to someone like them?


How do you feel to be at the bottom of the food chain?

How do you feel to be lost in your one-way troubles?

How do you feel to be stamped by the Doctor's, Professor's, Noble's name?

How do you feel to be crushed underneath the rubble?


You're average, normal, mediocre square wavenothingspecial

But you try, try, again and again.

To prove that you're here.

To get them to hear.

Time's Illusion (Dad's Work)

If God made humans,

then why did he wait so long to make us?

What was he doing before that?

My only thought concerning this is:

If time goes on for eternity,

then maybe time has already gone on for eternity.

So at any point that God decided to make us,

it would've been after eternity

no matter what.

Writer's Block (Dad's Work)

Sometimes I sit; stare at the page.
Words fail to emerge.

This curse seems to afflict every creative soul,
And the endeavor becomes blurred.

I start to wonder if I have anything worth saying.
But of course, if I don't say it, how will I know?

It's nothing more, however, than a state of mind -- this dreaded "Can't".
It's just a wall.

There is a cure for this.

It sits comfortably upon the edge of a stained and rocky clifftop.
It looks out upon a world full of life and artistic opportunity.

It brings all the elements under the control of the creator.
It brings satisfaction in taking in beauty that others don't see.

It's something that all of us can conquer.
It's something that all of us have.
But something few of us wish to accept.

There is a cure for this.

Arrogance, used in the right mind.

If we can convince ourselves that the mountains can move by our written word, then it can be done.

So stop looking at that page, thinking "Can't".
Look at the page, and think "Pfft".

Journal Entry 6/13/2003 (Dad's Work)

6/13/2003

Something made itself apparent to me today.

I took 'lex to the aquarium in Atlantic City a few miles away. Both of us are very fond of marine life, but it seemed to me that we're usually burdened by having to observe them in free movement. There's no isolation, so it's hard to get an especially good look at any of them.

So, we went, and it being 'lex's first time to any aquarium, I thought the experience would be interesting. I tend to take a bit of extra time observing them, though, so I offered her the chance to roam around (It's also apparent to me that She rather dampens 'lex's ability to wander freely as a child should.) When I offered, however, she abstinently told me no, and refused to explain why. It seemed strange to me, but that's only one aspect of this story that is unique.

We went from tank to tank, taking our time to read about the fish and watch them make goofy faces seemingly at us. She laughed, of course, and I thought she was enjoying herself.

There's an elevator that can take you to the third floor there. It leads to a balcony that watches over the harbor and gives you a breathtaking view of the city in the distance. Sadly, I didn't bring a camera. I would've loved to staple a picture of that in this passage. So instead, we stood up there just to look. I lifted her onto my shoulders and pointed out the buildings, the badly painted cars, and what I thought to be a large catfish swimming in the harbor (Especially strange note, it seemed that the shadow of that catfish extended several yards away...). I asked her if she was enjoying herself, out of curiosity.

I never imagined, though, that she would give me the blatant "no" that she did.

I asked her why, and she told me very simply: "It's nicer to be with them when they're happy, and free."

I told her in an attempt to reassure her: "These fish couldn't be any happier than they are here. They're fed well and their tanks simulate their natural environment."

She retorted: "Have you ever seen a cat at the pet store paw at the glass?"

Damn her for being so smart, and at age 10...

And damn me for not seeing it before.

Needless to say, I'm taking her out tomorrow to dive.

-----

I think this is important for my first post. It came from one of my dad's journal entries that he wrote 10 years ago. I don't even entirely remember this conversation, but I suppose that even from a young age, I recognized the illusory freedom that fish in a fish tank have. It's so much more surreal to see those beautiful creatures in the open sea, which is ironic because that's the most realistic you can get.

I feel like in many ways, we live in much the same conditions. Our lives are never natural. There is always another hand poking its way into our environment, controlling the way we act and what we do. There is always someone above us making sure we keep ourselves in the cycle of economic power control that keeps the industry of human livestock afloat. Thus, we're merely fish in a fish tank -- being watched, being tricked, and being used for the entertainment and financial welfare of someone else.

Maybe I'm a cynic. Maybe I'm not. But if you dare to think about it:

Look over every single thing you do as part of your daily routine. Your actions, your job, your typical activities, etc.

Do the majority of those things result in the financial gain of another person?

I asked myself this once. Now, instead of going out to dinner for fun, I sit in one of the many trees that hang over my "backyard" and whistle with the music of the forest, sometimes strumming a guitar. Call it theatrical, but it's more liberating than most people could ever realize.