tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post112775048644213760..comments2023-06-21T09:43:02.721-04:00Comments on Out of respect...: Don't Presuppose My Supposition...DUBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04395913387532403508noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127986857859083892005-09-29T05:40:00.000-04:002005-09-29T05:40:00.000-04:00But the Bible may be inconsequential in proving a ...But the Bible may be inconsequential in proving a god. Maybe even in proving the christian variety.<BR/><BR/>Assuming God's status the ultimate creator and final authority (sounds like an action flick - "Steven Segal stars in <I>Final Authority</I>") the Bible would still merely be a creation. Granted, a darnded important one, but still not nearly as authoritative as the Author. In this light, relying on just scripture to find god would be rather blasphemous.<BR/><BR/>According to Christian belief, Noah and Abraham and such believed without the Bible. Of course, there was much more personal interaction back then. And much less psychotherapy and Lithium.<BR/><BR/>Again, I'm tired: Forgive me.DUBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04395913387532403508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127986196184032222005-09-29T05:29:00.000-04:002005-09-29T05:29:00.000-04:00CT: "What I meant is that one would have to deny i...CT: <I>"What I meant is that one would have to deny it as final."</I><BR/><BR/>Point taken. I may not agree, but you have clarified.<BR/><BR/>We're getting into that whole gray area that makes me dislike being logical. "Proof" is really such an allusive thing.<BR/><BR/>I think that a god could be proven in the sense that satisfies us materialists and empiricists and positivists. All we ask for "proof" of anything is enough evidence. If said god was indeed the creator of all things, then ultimately proving god through evidence found in its creation would indeed be proving god by appealing <I>to</I> god. By extension. Am I making sense?<BR/><BR/>What am I saying anymore?DUBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04395913387532403508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127947117613345102005-09-28T18:38:00.000-04:002005-09-28T18:38:00.000-04:00DUB,You can call me Tanooki or Brian (yes, my name...DUB,<BR/><BR/>You can call me Tanooki or Brian (yes, my name isn't Joe. Yes, I know that doesn't make sense). :PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127919751216598032005-09-28T11:02:00.000-04:002005-09-28T11:02:00.000-04:00I said: "If you prove your final authority by appe...I said: "If you prove your final authority by appealing to something other than it, then you deny your final authority."<BR/><BR/>Dub said: "I don't agree. How would ultimately PROVING something be also DENYING it?"<BR/><BR/>What I meant is that one would have to deny it as <I>final</I>.<BR/><BR/>dub said: "IF, there is indeed a 'final authority,' is it impossible to prove such a thing without appealing to it?"<BR/><BR/>No. Perhaps not explicitly, but one's final authority is always assumed in his reasoning. That's why I argue for God's existence from the impossibility of the contrary.dookoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05010786752855353263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127886112129648112005-09-28T01:41:00.000-04:002005-09-28T01:41:00.000-04:00CT:I will read your post ASAP. I have no issue at ...CT:<BR/><BR/>I will read your post ASAP. I have no issue at all with sharing our thoughts on this, and possibly other matters. My email is dubtla at yahoodotcom.<BR/><BR/>I concede that the idea of a human being completely neutral is, ultimately, approaching impossiblity.<BR/><BR/>I do see that you didn't say "bias" per se, and you did use the term "neutral", but, as I'm sure we can both agree, if one is not neutral, one is biased.<BR/><BR/><I>"If you prove your final authority by appealing to your final authority, then you're reasoning in a circle."</I><BR/><BR/>True. But if there is such a thing as a "final authority", although you'd be commiting a fallacy, your argument would nonetheless be true. IF, there is indeed a "final authority". Is it impossible to "prove such a thing without appealing to it?<BR/><BR/><I>"If you prove your final authority by appealing to something other than it, then you deny your final authority."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't agree. How would ultimately PROVING something be allso DENYING it?<BR/><BR/><I>"If you have no final authority, then you can't know anything for certain"</I><BR/><BR/>We're <I>really</I> going to have to define this <I>final authority</I>. I hate infinite regression, lol. I am not a big fan of continuously stripping something down ad infinitum. It is my major qualm with most all debates.<BR/><BR/>tanooki joe (TJ or Joe?):<BR/>I have yet to fully comprehend this whole "postmodernism". It is so debated as to what it even is.<BR/><BR/>bahnsen:<BR/>Thank you for commenting, I have a good amount of respect for your work. That being said, I will be also reading your post, ASAP.DUBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04395913387532403508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127829440221210162005-09-27T09:57:00.000-04:002005-09-27T09:57:00.000-04:00CT: "As for the whole impossibility of the contrar...CT: "As for the whole impossibility of the contrary thing, I'd be happy to interact with you on that."<BR/><BR/>Dub and Mad Dog, you might be interested in what I have written in regard to the presuppositionalist claims about "the impossibility of the contrary" in my blog <A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-contrary-to-christianity-truly.html" REL="nofollow">Is the Contrary to Christianity Truly Impossible?</A> Perhaps you'll agree with me that this matter has been put to eternal rest.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127788479005926192005-09-26T22:34:00.000-04:002005-09-26T22:34:00.000-04:00Presuppostionalism ends up sounding alot like post...Presuppostionalism ends up sounding alot like postmodernism, in many ways.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127785717480405302005-09-26T21:48:00.000-04:002005-09-26T21:48:00.000-04:00DUB said: "The 'everyone is biased so we are too' ...DUB said: "The 'everyone is biased so we are too' goes with the logical fallacy of 'Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right.'"<BR/><BR/>But DUB, no one is "neutral" (which was the term I used, or tried to use) with respect to their final epistemological standard/authority. If you prove your final authority by appealing to your final authority, then you're reasoning in a circle. If you prove your final authority by appealing to something other than it, then you deny your final authority. If you have no final authority, then you can't know anything for certain, or, you end up with the problem of infinite regression (and you still can't know anything for certain.)dookoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05010786752855353263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127785106970529062005-09-26T21:38:00.000-04:002005-09-26T21:38:00.000-04:00"(I could not find a direct link)"I know what you ..."(I could not find a direct link)"<BR/><BR/>I know what you mean. It's hard to find. The direct link is that little "#" sign at the bottom.<BR/><BR/>I reponded to some of the comments made in reaction to that post with another post. And reading your post here, I believe I dealt with some of the things you said.<BR/><BR/>As for the whole impossibility of the contrary thing, I'd be happy to interact with you on that. We don't really even need to debate, just to share thoughts.<BR/><BR/>Have a good one!dookoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05010786752855353263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127765745330738682005-09-26T16:15:00.000-04:002005-09-26T16:15:00.000-04:00Thank you.I'm very relieved at point 1.You are DEA...Thank you.<BR/><BR/>I'm very relieved at point 1.<BR/><BR/>You are DEAD ON with point 2.<BR/><BR/>The "everyone is biased so we are too" goes with the logical fallacy of "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right.DUBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04395913387532403508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15737868.post-1127763859843259042005-09-26T15:44:00.000-04:002005-09-26T15:44:00.000-04:00Heh. I followed the post before this one over fro...Heh. I followed the post before this one over from the comments section at the Evangelical Atheist's blog... and I thought I was going to drop by and explain a little bit about presuppostionalism.... but it looks like you've got it.<BR/><BR/>I'll just add a few bits before heading away... more for myself than because I think I'm adding anything you don't know.<BR/><BR/>1. Presuppositionalism is not terribly popular. Not every is analytical enough, thorough enough... whatever enough to need anything like this. And it's complicated enough that you basically don't bother with it if you don't feel the need.<BR/><BR/>2. It isn't about practicality or convincing others... it's about self-justification. This fits with predestination and total depravity and such: there are no non-believers (so the story goes) just haters of God who won't listen.<BR/><BR/>3. The key bit with presupp is that everyone is biased... that there are no blank slates; neutrality is not possible. This is what CT is going on about (at I AM's blog at least; I have not yet had a chance to go to the APT blog you link to here) : saying that you can't talk about burden of proof without a common ground on epistemology. <BR/><BR/>Oh well. I am not trying to argue these points; I'm merely attempting to explain them as well as I can.<BR/><BR/>Also it is my plan to catch up as it were and go check the APT post and see what that changes.<BR/><BR/>Also this reminds me that I need to change my Blogger display name to mountmccabe since that's what I've been using elsewhere. I don't know if that'll change this retroactively or not.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, good post.mountmccabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234380904124410812noreply@blogger.com