Originally posted by Ron
Civbert,
Rather than firing off snippet-responses out of fear, why not first try to internalize the magnitude of what you've just been presented.
Ron
The irony - stop it! your killing me!
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.
Originally posted by Ron
Civbert,
Rather than firing off snippet-responses out of fear, why not first try to internalize the magnitude of what you've just been presented.
Ron
"The original argument is a valid proof. P1 and P2 are true premises."
Originally posted by Ron
Something tells me that I should address the person that wrote that nonsense rather than you. ...
from http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers%20in%20pdf/85circarg.pdf
To- grasp the structure of the argument, we begin
with the following atomic propositions.
O = Our team is the outstanding team in the conference.
P = Our team has the best players.
C = Our team has the best coach.
W = Our team will continue to win games.
T = Our team will win the conference title.
J = The players have a justifiable confidence in their
ability to win.
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.
Originally posted by Don
Civbert,
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.
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]
Originally posted by Draught Horse
wikipedia is not the best source. the article is okay, but not the strongest. Its not intended to be.
Originally posted by Don
John,
Here is the link to the VT Lists. It is still open to be read and fully searchable. There are many good posts there.
Isn't it important to discuss these things all over again, though? Isn't the idea to develop our thinking off each other?
No doubt it is important.![]()
Don
[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Don]
Originally posted by Civbert
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?
It doesn't. Nothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave...
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.Originally posted by Don
Civbert,
I'm just pointing out that you have been consistently misrepresenting people in order to prove your point (cf the other threads).
...
Don
[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
Originally posted by Ron
Originally posted by Civbert
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?
It doesn't. Nothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave...
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
How do you know the first P1?
Don't you know P1 based on the conclusion you are trying to prove? Yes indeed.
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.
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.
(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.)
Yes, because your were not trying to prove Scripture!Originally posted by Ron
Originally posted by Civbert
How do you know the first P1?
I know it by God´s revelation.
Originally posted by Civbert
Don't you know P1 based on the conclusion you are trying to prove? Yes indeed.
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!
But not too prove Scripture. That fallacy occurs when you use the assumption of Scripture to prove Scripture.Originally posted by Ron
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:
Originally posted by Civbert
You know P1, because Scripture is your axiom (which entails that God exists).
Well Civbert, you gladly accepted my argument that concluded that all Christians will enter into glory, yet I used Scripture for my premises! ...
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.Originally posted by Ron
... You´re simply being inconsistent and arbitrary. You allow me to use Scripture for some premises but not others.
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.Originally posted by Ron
Originally posted by Civbert
You can't uses Scripture in a proof for the existence of God or as a proof of Scripture.
Civbert, my argument is linear and no premise assumes that the Bible alone is the word of God!....
The first case is unjustifiable, the second is circular. You actuallu used the question begging form I demanded and it proves my point.Originally posted by Ron
...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.
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.Originally posted by Ron
...What you are now demanding is that I not use true premises!
Abuse ad hominem. False accusation. I'm a Scripturalist, not a skeptic.Originally posted by Ron
... Civbert, you´re simply in over your head. You´re a skeptic because you don´t understand even the rudimentary issues of the day.
Appeal to authority.Originally posted by Ron
I suggest reading John Frame´s books, which I reference below.
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....Originally posted by Ron
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,...
If you want to allow circular question begging arguments are sound, go ahead. Islam can do the same. You can't stop them.Originally posted by Ron
...even though the arguments I presented were sound.
Still one was still circular - the premise was hidden, which makes it question begging too.Originally posted by Ron
I was constrained by some only to use "linear" arguments and I obliged....
No, one used presumed the axiom of Scripture to prove Scripture. The other used a totally unjustifiable (question begging) premise.Originally posted by Ron
...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.
Abuse ad hominem and non-sequitur. Need I add - bad "basic" logic?Originally posted by Ron
...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.
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.Originally posted by Ron
... 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.
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.Originally posted by Ron
In any case, the issue is whether the form of the argument is valid and the premises true...
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.Originally posted by Ron
... 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.
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.Originally posted by Ron
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....
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."Originally posted by Ron
... 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.
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).Originally posted by Ron
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....
-- sigh --- begs the question. We can only show our worldview is the best at providing the desiderata of worldviews.Originally posted by Ron
.... 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. ...
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?Originally posted by Ron
... 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. ...
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.Originally posted by Ron
... 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. ...
Amen!Originally posted by Ron
... 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. ...
He was wrong too.Originally posted by Ron
... In sum, as Dr. Bahnsen said, "œthe proof of God´s existence is child´s play." ...
Assertion. Begs the question. It's not possible to prove truth with circular arguments.Originally posted by Ron
... The issue is not proving what is true; that´s a cinch. ...
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.Originally posted by Ron
... The issue is that the atheist will not submit to obviously true premises that are revealed by God himself.
Amen!Originally posted by Ron
... Accordingly, all we can do is refute those worldviews that come our way; ...
Begs the question. Assertion. No justification offered.Originally posted by Ron
....show that our worldview offers the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience,
Originally posted by Ron
...and then offer Christ as he is presented in the gospel, ...
Originally posted by Ron
... 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.
Unjustified assertion.Originally posted by Ron
... 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." ...
Originally posted by Ron
... 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
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.
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.
Originally posted by Ron
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.
Originally posted by Don
Hi Ron,
Originally posted by Ron
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.
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'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.![]()
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by Don
Hi Ron,
Originally posted by Ron
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.
That Civbert would be implicating more philosophers than he thought might afford him reason to pause but it certainly doesn´t make him wrong.
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]
Originally posted by Ron
Originally posted by Civbert
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.![]()
It's that sort of imprecision that indicates that Civbert either can't or won't think critically. ...Ron
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?!?!?
Originally posted by Ron
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?!?!?
... I simply observed that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to think critically.
Ron
Originally posted by Don
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