Frame and Logic

Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by natewood3, Mar 1, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    The irony - stop it! your killing me! :D
     
  2. Ron

    Ron Puritan Board Freshman

    Civbert,

    Something tells me that I should address the person that wrote that nonsense rather than you. In any case, rather than my defending modus ponens, seeing you don't accept its validity for sound argumentation, just deal with the linear argument that I used to prove that all Christians enter into glory.

    In your follow up post to my interaction with yours you stated:
    Is that so? Is it universally true that all A is B? If A and B don't stand for something, then it is false that all A is B since A and B are different symbols! However, if it is true that all A is B, then it's because you have substituted something in your mind for both propositions, A and B, which brings us back to my post to you. Do you accept my proof that all Christians enter into glory? If so, on what basis? If on its internal consistency only, then truth is not a necessary condition for sound reasoning, which allows it to be proved that all dogs are humans.

    Again, you are simply showing that you don't have even the most fragile grasp of these matters. You're not going to be able to Google your way out of this.


    Ron
     
  3. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    A follow up on the Walton article: his argument can be reduced to this - since tautological arguments are formally valid, isn't it fair for me to use them?

    Response. In fact, it is "fair" to use them because you have obeyed the letter of the laws of formal logic, and rules of deduction. A implies A is the law of identity.

    However, Walton admits also that circular arguments are less then convincing. Does that make them invalid? No. Does that make them sound - questionable (as he admits). But the question is not simply formal validity and true premises, it's a question of proof. As I showed with the tautological use of the Modes Pollens and Modes Tollens forms, even when the argument is formally correct and the premises are true, the conclusion is not a proof when the internal implication is assumed.

    His examples are faulty to start with, and Mill is an evidentialist. The formal circular examples can be written A < B and B < A. This is also a definition. And definitions are tautologies. We accept them for the sake of argument, not because they are necessarily the best definitions we can formulate, or can be correctly used in other context. And if we use Mills epistemology, we are either using induction (by making out general premises a function of our particulars), or we are simply affirming tautologies like Modes Pollens. Nothing in this will result in a sound proof.

    In the end, Walton's article does not have any weight on arguments that claim to prove God or worldviews. At that level or argumentation, I think even Walton would say that circular arguments are highly questionable.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]
     
  4. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    Abuse ad hominem. The rest is a waste of time since you still have not addressed my points. Show how the form of question begging I gave is not question begging when substituting in true premises.
     
  5. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    More on Walton.

    He gives a series of statements and uses them the develop a "circular" set of arguments:
    I notice something right away. One can not show the propositions can be used to imply each other based on their terms. All of the statements have the major term "team" except for J. Also, there is a shift in the time frame evident in going from "is" to "will". The cause and effect can not be deduced validly, and the proposition J is inductive. In fact, almost all of the diagram constructed depend on evidential arguments to come to inductive conclusions. It wrought with the logical fallacy of "asserting the consequence".

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]

    Walton goes on to justify the process used to "prove" the theory of evolution.

    Much of his argument depend on assert the validity of induction. But inductive conclusions are never necessary. Since necessary conclusions are the only means we have to produce correct logical proofs, then the whole paper's implication for Vantillian's circular arguments for the existence of God is to make God's existence only "possible". And I know Van Til hated that idea (he accused Clark of having the same fault).

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]
     
  6. Don

    Don Puritan Board Freshman

    Civbert,


    It's been my intention for the past week or so to not engage your posts anymore except to point out an obvious misrepresentation occasionally. I think you will be a Scripturalist come hell or high water and you have not shown yourself to be familiar with the works of those whom you are critiquing, as the circularity issue has been addressed time and again. My point to ref the Walton article was to show that not all circularity is vicious. Anyway, for the relevance to Van Til, both Frame and Bahnsen have addressed this in their works, it's addressed in the VT Lists, and it's addressed here. you have shown yourself to be familiar with none of these, yet you continually critique positions you have *not studied*.

    Don

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
     
  7. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    Ouch Don! I was only working down the list of references you gave me. Just because I shot down the Walton reference as totally destructive to Van Til's goal to objective truth, doesn't mean each of you reference will similar go down in flames. Give me a chance.

    And you keep saying this has been "dealt with". Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Since no one has stepped up to the plate and presented a non-fallacious TAG argument, or dealt with the circular problem, I need to go looking for it myself. If I find the answer, I'll let you know. In the mean time, in the immortal words of Queen - "Another one bites the dust!"

    Now where was I... I remember, I was reading the Wikipedia article on the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. I figure it's a pretty good bet that the Wiki article will present the good formulation of the TAG.... So far it looks like it's going down with the rest of em.

    P.S. Thanks for the link to Van Til FEM. I will read it with care.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]
     
  8. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    wikipedia is not the best source. the article is okay, but not the strongest. Its not intended to be.
     
  9. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    But it comes with links to proponents of TAG so all hope endures.

    Which do you think will be most fruitful? what about (pdf follows)Alvin Plantinga's "Naturalism Defeated"
     
  10. Don

    Don Puritan Board Freshman

    Civbert,

    I didn't mean that to be rude and if it came across that way, I apologize. I'm just pointing out that you have been consistently misrepresenting people in order to prove your point (cf the other threads).

    I'm definitely not asking you to take my word for anything. I said what I did because this is a basic and common objection to Van Tillian presuppositionalism and it would seem that if you were familiar with VT in the least, you'd already know about this objection and these resources as well. Paul Manata has discussed this on his blog and on this board. If you end up not being convinced, that's fine so long as you are fair and not misrepresenting your opponent's position.

    Instead of going to the Plantinga article, I would go to James Anderson's article referenced in another thread that compares him with VT. Notice that I said that his argument was a TA 'of sorts'.

    Don

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
     
  11. JohnV

    JohnV Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Thanks for the link, Don.
     
  12. Ron

    Ron Puritan Board Freshman

    Civbert,

    Wonderful! You allow for me to prove that all Christians will enter glory by use of a linear argument, which you believe does not beg the question due to its non-circular form. Now let me prove, using the same "œapproved" form of argumentation, that which Sean asked me to prove in a non-circular way, "œthat the Bible alone is the Word of God."

    p1. The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice
    p2. Man´s only true rule for faith and practice is the word of God
    C: The Bible alone is the word of God

    And again:


    p1.The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication
    p2.The necessary precondition for predication is the word of God
    C: The Bible alone is the word of God


    The arguments employ the exact formulation that you find acceptable in order to avoid "œbegging the question." The arguments make use of true premises, so in conjunction with this acceptable formulation, the conclusion for both arguments must be true. Being a proof-form that you accept, the conclusion was indeed proven by your standards of validity. The conclusion that was proven was Sean´s axiom, which he said couldn´t be proven without circularity.

    You can stare at the proofs all you want. You can private message Sean all you want. It won´t help. The true contention was never that I was implying the conclusion in the premises, for by using your preferred formulation I have arrived at a conclusion that you thought was not provable by a linear deductive argument. Consequently, the issue at hand has always been man´s ultimate authority for true premises.

    Ron
     
  13. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    Well I don't want to do that and I'd appreciate if anyone who see me doing that please tell me the moment it happens. It's one thing to disagree with a persons positions, or even to show how their arguments fail. But if I misrepresent their position in order to defeat it, then I've done nothing. So please let me know where (what post) and when and how I've done that so I can correct it. And if anyone has any suggestions for a better formal of TAG then I'm aware of, I'd be glad to know it.
     
  14. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    And begging the question means what? Either hiding your conclusion in your premise, or having a premise that demands just as much justification as your conclusion.

    I didn't stare, I read it once and the answer is obvious.

    How do you know the first P1? Isn't it as much as a stretch as you conclusion? Don't you know P1 based on the conclusion you are trying to prove? Yes indeed. Which is why it begs the question. You can not just assume the crossing the logical t-s and dotting logical i-s will make your argument a proof.

    You know P1, because Scripture is your axiom (which entails that God exists). You can't uses Scripture in a proof for the existence of God or as a proof of Scipture. It's great for an argument, Scripture testifies for itself, but that's not a proof it true. I wouldn't hand you a book with the word's this book is true, and say it proves it's true.

    As for the second P1, this has no basis whatsoever. Notice though how obvious the question begging is when you take it out of the convoluted form of a Modes Pollen.

    You'd have been more honest in your question begging if you had used the formulation I gave you on "question begging". It's clearly the same you used in these arguments, even if you weren't explicit with the presumptions you used.

    If you can give me a logical argument for accepting: "The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" or "The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication" without assuming the Bible alone is the Word of God (which won't help in the second case), then I will concede. But the best you can do is give me evidences and conclusions that support the question begging claims made.


    "The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" is a conclusion based on accepting (by faith) that the Bible alone is the Word of God.

    "The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication" is simply impossible to justify, even by assuming the existence of God (which again would be begging the question). The argument for the contrary fails, and so does the positive argument. This question begging assumption is the key to the TAG argument (as far as I know the argument - except it substitutes "God" or "Christianity" for "Bible") and it's so blatantly impossible to justify that the question begging is an insult to any rational mind who hears this argument.

    It's so bad an argument that many defenders of TAG now have sunk so low as to trying to justify their circularity and question begging. (Yes I'm reading the VT stuff and others and that's what it amounts to and I'm still looking for a valid excuse for using bad logic, and I've yet to hear one).

    So please somebody help me out. How can anyone justify question begging and circularity. Or just circularity because the question begging is simply dishonest. You can give an honest circular argument, not a problem ( A implies A is the Law of Identity). I just can't justify calling a circular argument a proof of the conclusion it is presuming.

    (One additional note on TAG. I wouldn't nearly object so much if they took out one word, and didn't call it a proof of God but a defense of Christianity. The world is "only". "Only Christianity provides the preconditions for intelligibility". I can prove that statement without "only", it can be justified - but the "only" makes the whole argument impossibly flawed.)

    (P.S. The last PM I sent Sean was to welcome and encourage his corrections of my positions or let me know when I am in disagreement with Clark (Sean's better read on Clark than I am). It's OK to disagree with Clark - as long as I'm aware of it. ;))

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]
     
  15. Ron

    Ron Puritan Board Freshman

    I know it by God´s revelation.

    Again, this is laughable. You demanded that I use a linear argument and I obliged. I employed your preferred form of argument and used premises that are true in order to prove what you said was not provable. Your issue is not with the soundness of the argument but the source of my true premises!

    I put forth the following argument and you had no problem:

    All Christians are in Christ
    All in Christ will enter glory
    All Christians will enter glory

    In fact you said: "œNothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave..."

    You gladly accepted the above argument yet the premises came from Scripture!

    Then I put forth the following two arguments:

    p1. The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice
    p2. Man´s only true rule for faith and practice is the word of God
    C: The Bible alone is the word of God

    And again:

    p1.The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication
    p2.The necessary precondition for predication is the word of God
    C: The Bible alone is the word of God

    In response to these you stated:

    Well Civbert, you gladly accepted my argument that concluded that all Christians will enter into glory, yet I used Scripture for my premises! You´re simply being inconsistent and arbitrary. You allow me to use Scripture for some premises but not others.

    Civbert, my argument is linear and no premise assumes that the Bible alone is the word of God! I relate the Bible to the necessary precondition for predication and man´s only true rule for faith and practice. I used the form of argument that you demanded. What you are now demanding is that I not use true premises! Civbert, you´re simply in over your head. You´re a skeptic because you don´t understand even the rudimentary issues of the day. I suggest reading John Frame´s books, which I reference below.

    Best of providence,

    Ron

    ------------

    For those who have been following along,

    I´m bowing out of these discussions. I have put forth formal arguments that have valid forms and true premises, which conclude God's existence, etc. I was accused of "begging the question" with certain types of syllogism, even though the arguments I presented were sound. I was constrained by some only to use "linear" arguments and I obliged. In doing so I was able to conclude axioms that some said were not provable "“ using a form of argument that they said was permissible to them.

    Frankly, if these opponents understood basic logic, they would have appreciated that the issue was never that I was using one sort of deductive argument as opposed to another. A cursory reading of John Frame´s "œAnalyses of Van Til" would bring this light; I believe JF addresses this matter in a section entitled "œspiral" arguments. He also touches on it in DKG. In any case, the issue is whether the form of the argument is valid and the premises true. Note well that a formal argument only supplies talking points with the unbeliever. No apologist worth his salt would put forth a formal argument and then just leave it there. The apologist is to perform an internal critique of the opposing worldview, assuming for argument's sake the unbeliever´s presuppositions and then show how these pre-commitments do not comport with the overall practice of the unbeliever. For instance, one might show that the naturalist´s presupposition of "œall that exists is matter in motion" does not comport with his daily use of universal, abstract entities that are invariant in nature, such as the laws of logic. After reducing the opposing worldview to absurdity by showing its inconsistencies and arbitrariness, the apologist does well to explain how the Christian worldview supplies the preconditions for reality, knowledge and ethics. Now we don´t know our worldview is the only true worldview that can make sense of "œmen and things" by inductive inference, which is to say by refuting x-amount of atheistic worldviews. We know that our worldview is the only one that can make sense of the world because God has told us this in his word. Accordingly, it´s not a mere conceptual scheme (an arbitrary axiom) we are presupposing and putting forth as the necessary precondition for intelligible experience, but a revealed, ontological scheme that is true, not merely posited, whose author is God. Notwithstanding, even though we know by revelation that our worldview is true, we can easily formulate what we know to be true into sound arguments, which is what I set out do demonstrate. Again, we don´t come to know God by these arguments but nonetheless our knowledge of God is indeed rational and can, therefore, be formalized so that it might be scrutinized. In sum, as Dr. Bahnsen said, "œthe proof of God´s existence is child´s play." The issue is not proving what is true; that´s a cinch. The issue is that the atheist will not submit to obviously true premises that are revealed by God himself. Accordingly, all we can do is refute those worldviews that come our way; show that our worldview offers the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience, and then offer Christ as he is presented in the gospel, the very goal of apologetics. The sole point of this thread, as far as I was concerned, was to show that the Christian position is not a blind leap of faith but a rational knowledge of the truth that lends itself to formal argumentation, though we don´t come to embrace that which we know by such argumentation. Notwithstanding, we have a very rational defense of the faith available to us, which is in shorthand: "œThe proof of God´s existence is that without him we could not prove anything."

    I believe that Sean and Civbert are committed Calvinists and soldiers of the cross. Although the theory of knowledge is very important, we have much more in common in the Lord than what we've been discussing these past several days. For this I am grateful.

    Grace and Peace,

    Ron
     
  16. Don

    Don Puritan Board Freshman

    Well, it looks like Aquascum has responded to Anthony...

    Link
     
  17. Magma2

    Magma2 Puritan Board Sophomore

    Anthony, you are exactly right and a good measure of the correctness of your position is the amount of abusive and personal attacks Ron has hurled your way. in my opinion his repeated personal slurs are a sign of his own desperation and impotence. I´m frankly amazed that the moderators have allow him to continue in this manner, but I'm glad they did.

    Maybe if Ron actually understood Clark´s position he´d be in a better position to refute it, since he seems to think himself Clark's superior. Unlike Ron, Clark was never satisfied with just begging the question, which seems to be Van Tilian's strong suit and is the heart of their apologetic method. Also, if one could prove the Scriptures alone are man´s only true rule for faith and practice, then WCF 1:5 should be scrapped - or at least rewritten with the last clause excised. I guess Ron thinks himself Westminster´s superior too? :lol:
     
  18. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    Yes, because your were not trying to prove Scripture! :banghead: It's okay to assert Scripture, it's a fallacy to try to prove it is necessary. It's not begging the question because your conclusion is not "Scripture is true".

    But not too prove Scripture. That fallacy occurs when you use the assumption of Scripture to prove Scripture.

    Not arbitrary because in one case you were assuming God's Word to prove God's Word. In the other you were merely assuming God's Word which is fine.

    Then you can't justify your premise. "The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" is unjustifiable aside of assuming God's Word is true. And since this is a premise to prove God's Word, it is a circular question begging argument.

    The first case is unjustifiable, the second is circular. You actuallu used the question begging form I demanded and it proves my point.

    No, I've always demanded true premises. True premises won't save a circular or question begging argument that claims to be a proof. If you lower the criteria for proof, then you can not reject other worldviews from proving themselves and disproving Christianity just by assuming themselves to be the only possible worldview.

    Abuse ad hominem. False accusation. I'm a Scripturalist, not a skeptic.

    Appeal to authority.

    Certain types of premises (circular) and premises that require justification but are impossible to justify. The Modes Tollen and Modes Pollen argument forms just make them less obvious. They can fool some of the people some of the time....

    If you want to allow circular question begging arguments are sound, go ahead. Islam can do the same. You can't stop them.

    Still one was still circular - the premise was hidden, which makes it question begging too.

    No, one used presumed the axiom of Scripture to prove Scripture. The other used a totally unjustifiable (question begging) premise.

    Abuse ad hominem and non-sequitur. Need I add - bad "basic" logic?

    Appeal to authority. But I've read the short version of "œAnalysis of Van Til" and Frame says Van Til never bothered to prove his unjustified premise. But these appeals to authority just show that no one here seems up to the job. Which makes me wonder if the "experts" did any better.

    No, I showed they could be both and still not prove anything. Hide a circular argument in Modus Pollen and it seems to be both formally valid and sound. But the circularity remains and the conclusion is not proven.

    No need, you've already "proved" that only Christianity can be true. The rest is academic. However, the suggestion is good and it's what I've said all along - that internal critique are required to defeat other worldviews (especially atheistic ones). Just make sure your own "commitments" don't dictate the outcome. Don't say "you couldn't know the Quran is true because God revealed Scripture to me." That's the kind of question begging that will make your apologetics a joke.

    Bad idea. I've show that the laws of logic are transcendental to worldviews. And the rest are only fixed if we assume a some sort of immutable divine being. The atheist would merely reject this out of hand by saying "so there are not fixed laws except for logic, and logic is transcendental to worldviews so that doesn't matter". Bad arguments do not make for good apologetics.

    That works for everything but "reality" since that's too abstract a concept to prove. We can't prove what is real. What is we *think* is real is a direct function of our worldview. God's love is real, because the Scripture tells us. Don't expect the naturalist to jump to accept that argument even if it is true. It assumes our worldview. But "knowledge" and "ethics" are legitimate targets. No atheistic worldview can account for moral laws (but some consistent ones will say they don't exist anyway), and knowledge for the atheist amounts to skepticism. Well, some skeptics are proud to take the label. We'll have to show how meaningless life is with skepticism. Then they may return with, "then life is meaningless". You see, sometimes showing how bad a worldview is only amounts to the holder of the worldview conceding "that's life, take it or leave it."

    That's true. We don't know our worldview is the true worldview by any argumentation - we believe our worldview (else we wouldn't have the worldview we do have).

    -- sigh --- begs the question. We can only show our worldview is the best at providing the desiderata of worldviews.

    Still begs the question. Assumes only Christianity can explain logic, but logic can not be explained without assuming it is true, with or without God. So you can not justify the "intelligible experience" condition. Either life's experiences are intelligible, or they are not. If they are, Christianity is the best means we have for explaining them - not the only possible means. And if they are not intelligible, then we couldn't say, could we?

    Big time question begging. What we know follows from our worldview axioms, we can not justify knowing the worldview itself is true by sound arguments. The argument requires prior knowledge, and nothing is logically prior to the worldview axioms.

    Amen!

    He was wrong too. ;) Appeal to authority.

    Assertion. Begs the question. It's not possible to prove truth with circular arguments.

    Begs the question. It's only obviously true if your worldview dictates it is obvious. Obviousness has little bearing on arguments unless you are dealing with a person who already has your worldview. When you are arguing for worldviews themselves, then the premises must be valid in both worldviews. And since that's not going to happen, there's not point in using premises that are "obvious" only in your worldview.

    Amen!

    Begs the question. Assertion. No justification offered.

    :amen:

    :amen:

    Unjustified assertion. :banghead:

    :amen:Amen and amen Brother Ron. Although our disagreements are important, our agreement in the Gospel trumps all. :sing:

    I wish the arguments of TAG were not fallacious, I really do. But so far it's been nothing short of a complete failure. That's not Ron's fault, it is inherent in the argument itself. I hope that I've persuaded some not to present fallacious arguments in defense of Christianity. They will be taken apart, chewed up, and spite out. They are no aid in the defense, only a hindrance. It appeals to our desire to have autonomous validation of our worldview - it seductive and fools many who want it to believe it. Those wonderful debates between Bahnsen and atheists make it seem undefeatable. But a great debater can never make the argument valid. If I win a chess game by making an illegal more near the end or the game, not getting caught does not make my win any less a shame - even if I didn't realize my move was invalid. The win should go to my opponent.

    I'll tell you how it goes. Your playing the game of you life, and then you see the winning move, move your knight to f5 and you fork the king and queen! winning the queen and eventually the game. So you take it! Several moves latter and your opponent concedes the game. You win!! Except that's not going to happen. Your opponent points out that your knight was on d3, not e3! The move was illegal and you are forced to take back the move. ... That's how TAG seduces. It appears to win the game, when in fact, it is a illegal move. We're just blinded by the idea of victory.

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]
     
  19. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    It's not a bad response, he has improved his original position, and corrected some of mine. Got it yesterday. Now I've got to find the thread the started it and post it there. I also got a response from Vincent Cheung which was informative too.
     
  20. Ron

    Ron Puritan Board Freshman

    Don,

    Do you have this sort of thing in mind? I suggested to Civbert that he learn a few basics about circular reasoning from John Frame. In fact I stated: "I suggest reading John Frame´s books, which I reference below." To which he replied "Appeal to Authority."

    Now a fallcious appeal to authority would look something like: "John Frame said X-and-so, therefore, it's true." Of course that is not what I communicated; in fact not even close. I merely communicated to Civbert that he simply needs to learn a little more, since as you noted to Civbert: "you have not shown yourself to be familiar with the works of those whom you are critiquing, as the circularity issue has been addressed time and again..."

    I'm curious why he is so often wrong in this respect of accusing people of fallacies when none are being committed. Maybe, as you say, he is committed to Scripturalism at all cost. Or maybe, as you say, he is simply not familiar with the works of those he thinks he disagrees with. Maybe, however, it is because these matters are simply beyond his grasp. In any case, to confuse a mere suggestion to read Frame with a fallacious appeal to authority is just another indicator that either Civbert is not willing to represent other people's views truthfully or he simply lacks the necessary acumen to do so.

    Blessings,

    Ron
     
  21. Don

    Don Puritan Board Freshman

    Hi Ron,

    I don't want this to turn into a debate as I am still 'working' on my position but here's where I stand:

    I don't think that referencing different works is necessarily an appeal to authority. I do think Anthony (and myself) would benefit from reading (or rereading) these works.

    Having said that, I do think Anthony is 'partly' correct when it comes to question begging. I disagree with him in that a TA qua TA begs the question (as he would be implicating more philosophers of a basic mistake than I think he would intend), which is where he seemed to be going at first. What Anthony needs to do is differentiate between the *claims* that are made by different types of Van Tillians. If the arguments that are supposed to support a specific claim are lacking, then I would say that he is correct (he briefly mentioned this in a previous post). So I think it would come down to the claims that one is attempting to prove through TAG and whether the subarguments can support those claims, as I have mentioned elsewhere.

    Don

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
     
  22. Ron

    Ron Puritan Board Freshman

    Don,

    Yes, he is partly correct. The part he doesn´t get is that all sound proofs presuppose true ultimate authorities necessarily. Consequently, all respective, discrete arguments in some sense "œbeg" their presuppositions, whether they are arbitrary or revealed presuppositions. This is simply a limitation of language, for we can only prove one thing at a time. HOWEVER, this does not mean that a separate discrete argument cannot be constructed to prove starting points of other arguments, even in a linear fashion. It may not be useful to do so but it certainly isn´t fallacious. The reason such reasoning is not fallacious is that if we were to assume axioms that are not provable by actual true premises then all axioms would become equally valid and true(!), which would allow one to prove that all dogs are humans. When I illustrated that very point in the thread it went right over Civbert´s head "“ evident by his response.

    At the end of the day, Civbert is left with no deductive proof that can "œrise to the level of knowledge," though Sean thinks otherwise. The reason this must be so is because the certainty of what is allegedly deduced would be based upon an axiom not subject to logical discourse. Consequently, all that would be allegedly known through deduction would sink to the level of something not logical. Now Civbert might argue, (or I should say assert for he rarely argues), that he knows that his axiom is true; but how does he know this? Knowledge presupposes that he first exists, yet his existence is not a revealed proposition from Scripture. Moreover, how does Civbert know that it is fallacious to prove ultimate truth claims as I have done? Is this assertion of his contained within his axiom? His worldview is riddled with such arbitrariness and inconsistencies.

    That Civbert would be implicating more philosophers than he thought might afford him reason to pause but it certainly doesn´t make him wrong.

    I don´t think Anthony needs to deal with all the various Van Tillians out there. He need only deal with the flavor of the day, which this past week was me!

    I realize you don´t wish to debate me, nor I you. If you have any thoughts, shoot me a pm.

    Ron
     
  23. Don

    Don Puritan Board Freshman

    Hi Ron,

    That Civbert would be implicating more philosophers than he thought might afford him reason to pause but it certainly doesn´t make him wrong.
    [/quote]

    Correct and that's what I meant - that it should cause him to pause. I wanted him to study it on his own, which is why i referenced the people I did earlier.

    I don't think we are too terribly far apart as I agree with much of what you said. Maybe we could discuss things at a future time.

    Don

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
     
  24. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    Correct and that's what I meant - that it should cause him to pause. I wanted him to study it on his own, which is why i referenced the people I did earlier.

    I don't think we are too terribly far apart as I agree with much of what you said. Maybe we could discuss things at a future time.

    Don

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don] [/quote]

    I'm implicating some of the greats! Aquinas for one. Any philosopher who proposed to prove the existence of God. Descartes? Who else?

    The appeal to authority comment was just to point out that a PhD does not make someone right. It common to point to the experts to support our positions. But it's a logical fallacy for good reason: even when you are not claiming to prove your arguments with appeals to authority, using them as support is just a questionable. Better if you can make you case, then add the authorities for additional information or details. Maybe the "expert" gave you bad advice. PhD's are well know for doing that. :)
     
  25. Don

    Don Puritan Board Freshman


    I really don't know how many times this has to be said, Anthony. No one is appealing to authority to prove our points, not Ron or me. They were referenced because of your habit of not studying a position before critiquing it. Why should people have to rehash the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over? Why not reference you to some philosophers who have already discussed this, so you could at least take into account what others have to say first since you are obviously not familiar with those you are critiquing? How is that fallacious?

    Don

    [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
     
  26. Ron

    Ron Puritan Board Freshman

    I'm implicating some of the greats! Aquinas for one. Any philosopher who proposed to prove the existence of God. Descartes? Who else?

    The appeal to authority comment was just to point out that a PhD does not make someone right. It common to point to the experts to support our positions. But it's a logical fallacy for good reason: even when you are not claiming to prove your arguments with appeals to authority, using them as support is just a questionable. Better if you can make you case, then add the authorities for additional information or details. Maybe the "expert" gave you bad advice. PhD's are well know for doing that. :) [/quote]

    It's that sort of imprecision that indicates that Civbert either can't or won't think critically. Was anyone trying to bolster an argument by suggesting that Frame's books be read? No, again. I was merely pointing Civbert to a place where he might learn the A, B, C's of logic. Even this he is either seemingly unable or unwilling to grasp.

    Ron
     
  27. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    Yes, and although your not trying to "prove" a point with that last post, I'll still call it an abuse ad hominem.

    Will the fallacies never stop?!?!? :eek:
     
  28. Ron

    Ron Puritan Board Freshman

    The dullness continues... It would be a fallacious attack at the man if I said you are wrong ipso facto because you are often obtuse. However, I was not finding your argument wrong because you are unwilling or unable to think critically. Your arguments are wrong on their own merit, apart from your ability or lack thereof. I simply observed that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to think critically.

    Ron
     
  29. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    :eek: A simple observation. Good excuse! :pilgrim:

    Yes, that's what we tell people to excuse abuse ad hominems. Let's insult people and when they object say "That's not an insult, I was just making an observation." Here, I can prove it, if it were an abuse ad hominem, I would have said "this proves my argument". But since I didn't say that (and I crossed my fingers) then it's technically not an abuse ad hominem. :judge:

    Except this is a debate and the arguments are the only thing that count. Insults are are dishonest, the intent is to avoid dealing with the arguments, and to discredit your opponent in the eyes of other: Don, do you see how ignorant Ron is? Ron, when did you stop beating your wife? This is just an observation Ron, but your logic is really bad. You see, there's a reason for insulting your opponent, and it isn't because you feel like your arguments stand on their own.

    :tombstone: You should have quite when you said you where going too, but you had to come back for another spanking. Bad boy Ron. Bad boy!
     
  30. Civbert

    Civbert Puritan Board Junior

    Simply asserting I have a "habit of not studying a position before critiquing it" or "you are obviously not familiar with those you are critiquing" (emphasis added) is fallacious - these are insults with no bearing on my arguments. I am critiquing what has been posted in this thread. If the TAG arguments in this tread are not up to snuff as you seem to imply, then someone should give a better argument for TAG. I appreciate the references, but I'm not terribly impressed by well-the-reason-you-can-shoot-down-TAG-is-because-you're-not-familiar-with-the-experts-on-TAG defense. Apparently familiarity with the "experts" has not helped any TAGs proponents.

    Otherwise, thanks again for the references, and good day.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page