Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you saying a conclusion based on an axiom is not a proof? Hmmm. Sounds familiar.
For everything you think is knowledge is based on some sort of axiom.
You just tried to hide your axioms in a circular argument.
You know you can not prove this, so it must be an axiom.
Scripturalism"¦ It is not circular, it does not beg the question.
Originally posted by Civbert
Ron,
How do you know?
Oh no, Sean, I understand what you´re trying to say all to well. My point is that your so called theorems are not conclusive for they are based upon axioms that are either arbitrary or inferred.
Please decide which faulty foundation your deductive arguments are built upon, arbitrariness or inductive usefulness.
Ron Stated: "œ"¦ are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified?
NOTE how Sean doesn´t answer:
Sean Replies: Arbitrary in what sense? As for the "œinductive principle," you´ve already affirmed that it cannot justify anything, so this is not a point of difference between us. As you said per the question begging of TAG above; "œthe inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof." Amen brother Ron!
Ron States: Your axiom is arbitrary because within your worldview, you neither know it to be true nor can you prove it to be true.
Given your worldview, you simply would like it to be true.
Just admit that your axiom is arbitrary, wishful thinking. In fact, admit that you don´t know that Jesus died for you. Admit that your slavish adherence to what you believe to be Clarkianism undermines your knowledge of God´s existence. In fact, you don´t even know that you exist given your worldview! Your autonomous reasoning sadly undermines the confidence you could otherwise have in Christ.
Quote:
So I´ll ask again, if you think you can demonstrate, as in prove, the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, please provide your proof now.
The Bible is the only word of God, or we cannot justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes. We can justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes; therefore the Bible is the word of God. Sean, each premise is true and the form is valid, therefore, the argument is sound. You say the argument begs the question, but the conclusion is always implied in the premise in first order predicate logic, is it not? Accordingly, your issue seems to be with what logic and proof entail.
Ron Asked: What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entities that are invariant in nature?
Sean Replies: Would you care to name such an entity? If you mean God, then I would refer you to WCF Chapter II. But I thought God was a concrete entity, not an abstraction? How about sin then? Is that good or is it too not an "abstract entity"?
Ron States: We´re not talking about "œabstractions" Sean; we´re talking about "œabstract entities," i.e., things that are not material in nature, that are invariant and universal, like the laws of logic. I'll wait for you to catch up. :bigsmile:
Quote:
I am skeptical about anything not found in Scripture or deduced there from, but that hardly makes me a skeptic.
What do you know with certainty Sean? You don´t think that you know you´re saved. What do you know for sure, Sean?
Quote:
I'm not skeptical at all about any number of propositions from all men are sinners to salvation is by belief alone in Jesus Christ.
Are you a man, Sean?
Do you have saving faith, Sean?
Moreover, you say you´re not skeptical about propositions found in Scripture, well do you know them to be true, or are you just not "œskeptical" about them?
Prove how you know your axiom Sean.
Oh that´s right, you don´t know it to be true. O.K., tell me why you believe it to be true other than on inductive grounds such as it seems to make sense of things.
Again, certainty has nothing to do with epistemology, certainly not mine ;-
I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
Originally posted by JohnV
I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
If you don't mind, Don, explicate away. I'm interested.
Sean States: So I´ll ask again, if you think you can demonstrate, as in prove, the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, please provide your proof now.
Ron Replied: The Bible is the only word of God, or we cannot justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes. We can justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes; therefore the Bible is the word of God. Sean, each premise is true and the form is valid, therefore, the argument is sound. You say the argument begs the question, but the conclusion is always implied in the premise in first order predicate logic, is it not? Accordingly, your issue seems to be with what logic and proof entail.
Sean States: The argument certainly begs the question, is circular and is nonsensical. Replace bible with the Koran and you´ll see what I mean
Ron States: Are you a man, Sean?
Sean Replies: I think so.
Yes, I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.
Originally posted by Ron
...
Show me a deductive argument that´s not circular in any sense, or doesn´t beg the question by presupposing its ultimate authority. While you´re at it, prove to me that you know anything, like you exist. ..
Ron
Originally posted by Don
Anthony,
In all honesty, I think you would benefit much by studying epistemic circularity vs vicious circularity. Douglas Walton has a good article that was posted here a while back. William Alston and most other epistemologists discuss epistemic circularity. This is one of the oldest critiques of TAs which has been dealt with over and over.
It would also be beneficial to read contemporary literature on transcendental arguments - from davidson, strawson, brueckner, stroud, et al. Professional philosophers have been using them in their attempts to defeat skepticism for a while now. Having said that, I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
Don
[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Don]
Originally posted by Ron
If we replaced "œBible" with "œKoran" the major premise becomes false....
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by JohnV
I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
If you don't mind, Don, explicate away. I'm interested.
I'll take a crack at it, although I have a different view than Don on it (we talked it over lunch a few times): arguing transcendentally is a valid way, and Van Tillians are correct to argue that way, but does their particular conclusion follow? That's the debate.
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by Ron
If we replaced "œBible" with "œKoran" the major premise becomes false....
Why? How do you know?
Originally posted by JohnV
I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
If you don't mind, Don, explicate away. I'm interested.
Thanks for the info Don,
It could be I'm not arguing against the best formulation of the TAG - all I'm familiar with is the Bahnsen/ Van Til version of TAG.
I'll look up the references. If there is a better statement of TAG then has been given in the thread, I'm all ears.
I'm sure TAG has come under this criticism many times - though at this point I'd have to say that's because it's fundamentally unsound. Whether this criticism has been "dealt with", I'll just say I remain skeptical about that.
Originally posted by Don
It's not that you are unfamiliar with the formulation (though some would say that you have not understood it because you have left out different modal terms etc), but with the different types of circularity that are involved in argumentation and epistemology. Not all circularity is of the fallacious sort. This is what Dr. Walton points out in his article. In a way, it's analogous to claiming that different cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of composition, which is not necessarily the case. ...Don
The answer to the retorical question is - no, that is not an example of a circular argument. He seems to see that in the next statement where he accounts for this by saying that maybe this is a case of a feed back loop. As an engineer, and any computer programmer, is familiar with feedback loops. However, feedback loops are not analogous to circular arguments. I haven't read the rest of the article, but so far it's off to a bad start.WHEN asked why the economy in a certain
state is in a slump, an economist replies: "A
lot of people are leaving the state. Things are very
poor in the building industry, for example, because
there is no need for new housing." Next question:
"Why are people leaving the state?" The
economist's answer: "Well, the state of the economy
is poor. People just don't seem to be able to
get jobs, with the economy being so slow at the
moment."' This sequence of questions and answers
has taken us in a circle: the economy is depressed
because people are leaving, and people are leaving
because the economy is depressed. Isn't this just
the sort of argument that might be cited in a logic
text as an instance of petitio principii, the fallacy
of arguing in a circle? If so, it seems that the
economist's argument must be fallacious.
Isn't it important to discuss these things all over again, though? Isn't the idea to develop our thinking off each other?
Perhaps what Hull is suggesting is something
like the following sort of process. First, a hypothesis
is formulated on the basis of some initial
evidence. As new evidence comes in, the hypothesis
is clarified and refined. However, once stated
more clearly and precisely, the hypothesis points
to new evidence that has thereby become "relevant"
or "significant." This new evidence improves the
hypothesis once again.
If we replaced "œBible" with "œKoran" the major premise becomes false, the conclusion unreliable and the argument unsound. Consequently, Sean, you´ve shot just another misguided arrow, for by the laws of logic, my proof had a valid form and incorporated true premises. Moreover, you affirm my premises!
Quote:
Ron States: Are you a man, Sean?
Sean Replies: I think so.
So you don´t "œknow" whether you´re a man. So it´s possible that you´re a woman?
uote:
Yes, I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.
Interesting. You say you can know the propositions of Scripture, yet your worldview doesn´t allow you to know that you exist. Yet your existence is a necessary condition for your knowledge of anything. Consequently, if it´s possible that you don´t exist, then it´s possible that you don´t know the propositions of Scripture that you say you know.
I can prove all A is C without first assuming A is C.
P1: All A is B
P2: All B is C
C3: All A is C
Notice that "A is C" is not found in the premises. And you can not prove my premises from my conclusion, and I did not presume A is C, I proved it from my premises.
"All' men are mortal, Socrates is a man; therefore
Socrates is mortal" it looks like the conclusion is
part of, or an instance of, the major premiss. Consequently,
since the major premiss must depend
evidentially on the conclusion, Mill reasoned, the
deductive argument must be circular .
Originally posted by Ron
I can prove all A is C without first assuming A is C.
P1: All A is B
P2: All B is C
C3: All A is C
Notice that "A is C" is not found in the premises. And you can not prove my premises from my conclusion, and I did not presume A is C, I proved it from my premises.
The confusion is subtle indeed but it is confusion just the same. When we replace A, B and C with actual propositions, things should become a bit more obvious. I am grateful that you gave me something substantial to interact with.
All dogs are cats
All cats are humans
All dogs are humans
Is the above proof valid? Yes. Is it sound? No "“ because the premises are false. Consequently, more than a valid form is necessary for a proof to be sound. For a valid argument to be sound it must include true premises. Now let´s pump true premises into the same form.
Originally posted by Ron
All Christians are in Christ
All in Christ will enter glory
All Christians will enter glory
Is this argument, which takes the same valid form, sound? Yes. Why do you suppose that the symbolic formulation does not appear to "œbeg the question" whereas the same argument form using Christian premises does beg the question in your estimation?
You really just don´t get it do you Ron? The Bible is the Word of God is what you need to prove, yet you use it as your major premise. Amazing.
Originally posted by Ron
You really just don´t get it do you Ron? The Bible is the Word of God is what you need to prove, yet you use it as your major premise. Amazing.
You keep saying this Sean, as if saying it a lot makes it become a valid retort. Are modus ponens and modus tollens fallacious forms of argumentation?