Given recent posts here at TSZ challenging the validity of presuppositions and self-evident truths I thought the following list might be worthy of debate.
Presuppositions of Science
1. The existence of a theory-independent, external world
2. The orderly nature of the external world
3. The knowability of the external world
4. The existence of truth
5. The laws of logic
6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment
7. The adequacy of language to describe the world
8. The existence of values used in science
9. The uniformity of nature and induction
10. The existence of numbers
When critics object to the Logos as a presupposition and offer instead 10 other presuppositions, Ockham’s Razor flies out the window.
I think I have sorted that out.
According to fifth’s conceptions, knowledge is J-FT-B. That is justified fifth-true belief, where “fifth-true” is his own version of “true” that depends on his presuppositions.
So, unsurprisingly, you and fifth are talking past one another.
And … loving it.
Be vaguer, if you possibly can.
So we have no reason to have confidence in your “truth” at all, since it’s your presupposition and your supposed revelation. I can see that you might have hold of some empirical truth, but this is entirely separate from your meaningless claims to know “truth.”
A useless claim regarding truth?
Why bother?
Well, whatever. You certainly have no meaningful claim to even that for your “truth.”
Of course it doesn’t help. It just repeats the meaningless claims that you seem unable to think past.
Glen Davidson
FMM:
OK.
– I gather that “Logos is truth and the Logos exists necessarily” is a tenet of Christianity. As such, it is subsumed by your presupposition, “Christianity is true.” “Truth exists because the Logos is truth and the Logos exists necessarily” is a component of your original presupposition.
– Similarly, I take it that “revelation counts as evidence” is a tenet of Christianity. Therefore “revelation counts as evidence” is also subsumed by your presupposition that Christianity is true. It would therefore be circular to cite revelation generally, or any particular revelation, as evidence that Christianity is true.
– It follows that “Real truth actually exists” and that you have access to it through Christianity is also something you presuppose.
You call that “real truth,” but I prefer “p-truth” (presupposed truth). That which is claimed to be “real truth” is actually presupposed as a starting point.
You’re looking for something like “p-truth” in my world view. But I don’t presuppose access to anything analogous to what you call “real truth” and don’t see the value of such a claim to “real truth,” because that which you claimed to be real truth has actually only been presupposed.
Mung,
Please let NewMung take control of the keyboard for a moment and provide an example of a double standard on my part. I think everyone should be prepared to support or retract the claims they make. Religious claims don’t get special treatment. Where’s the double standard?
fifthmonarchyman,
Yes, it is a claim. Your arguments depend on it, but you are desperate to evade the burden of proof. You may be sincere in your belief that it is not a claim, but that doesn’t make you correct.
If you want to treat that statement as a hypothetical, “If Christianity were true then . . .”, that would be a different situation. You are claiming that Christianity is, in fact, true. To support that claim, you need to start by demonstrating the existence of the Christian god. Good luck with that.
Again, if you would simply admit that you hold your beliefs based on faith, not objective, empirical evidence, that would be an honest position. Continuing to refuse to support what is very clearly a positive claim and refusing to recognize it as such is not.
Until you provide an operational definition for this god thing you keep talking about and some objective, empirical evidence for its existence, you’re literally talking nonsense.
fifthmonarchyman,
You are reifying truth.
What does it even mean for “truth” to exist? People can make statements that correspond closely enough to reality to merit being categorized as true. That can happen without any gods being involved.
I’m beginning to realize that Fifth is a wizard.
In the Harry Potter sense. Words are not just something we say or wright. they are magical incantations. Speaking the Word causes things to happen. God is Dumbledore.
Now you are getting warmer
Well you are close. You are forgetting the crucial point that truth is not only presupposed it is revealed.
The Logos became flesh.
However I do understand that you find no value in this stuff. That is exactly the response I expect
quote:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:14)
end quote:
everything does not have to be about you.
I do find it valuable to be able to say I know stuff thank you very much.
peace
Are they true statements or just statements you treat as true?
What criteria did you use to determine that standard?
peace
peace
That is part of what I mean.
Doctors and medicine don’t actually heal anyone
They interact with sick people based on knowledge that God in his grace has revealed sometimes God uses that interaction as a catalyst for healing to take place and sometimes he doesn’t.
Other times people get better in spite of the doctors and the medicine
God is sovereign. It’s God that does the healing. Sometimes he uses doctors and medicine.
That is what I mean
peace
It’s not all about you
peace
RB:
The problem with that is that the reality of revelation is a tenet of Christianity – hence is presupposed when you presuppose that “Christianity is true.” Saying that “truth is not only presupposed it is revealed” therefore adds nothing beyond the original presupposition of truth.
What criteria did you use to make the determination that an operational definition and objective, empirical evidence are necessary to not be talking nonsense and do you have an operational definition and objective empirical evidence for it (the criteria)?
peace
no you are incorrect.
Revelation makes it personal and actual to me as apposed to presuppositional.
The added bit is my actual personal knowledge of the truth. God reveals it in such a way that I know it and I know that I know it.
Not just presuppose but know.
quote:
of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.
(Col 1:25-26)
and
to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
(Col 2:2b-3)
end quote:
etc etc
peace
Of course not, it’s all about you.
For people who care about truth, it is largely about communicable ideas. For you, truth is about nothing other than your imagined superiority, and very real sanctimony.
Glen Davidson
Again I’m just stating my presuppositions in response to (endless) questions. I would much rather be discussing science here. I find the divergence down this rabbit trail to be beyond boring.
The fact that you don’t like what I have to say of find it to be not valuable is all the more reason to move on to more interesting stuff.
Can we call the horse dead? What do you say?
Do you know if truth even exists in your worldview?
How do you know?
peace
Maybe if you quit calling your prejudices “truth.”
Of course I do.
You don’t, or at least you don’t know via your presumptions.
I’ve said, you’ve ignored it, so that’s done.
Glen Davidson
I agree truth is about communicable ideas. God communicates his thoughts to us through revelation. That is how we can know the truth.
The problem is your worldview shuts off the only reliable means of truth communication and expects to compensate by cultivating horizontal communication.
With horizontal communication you simply compound your own ignorance with the ignorance of your neighbor. If God has not revealed truth to him your neighbor does not have anymore access to truth than you do.
We all know what happens when the blind lead the blind
peace
It’s possible I missed it in all the commotion. If so I apologize. care to give the highlights again please
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I made the criteria very clear in what I wrote. If a statement asserts something that corresponds to what we observe, that statement can be provisionally accepted as true.
I note that you cut the question of what it would mean for “truth” to exist outside of this kind of context.
…knowledge that God in his grace has revealed…
I thought you said that God had to execute a miracle whenever there is new revelation. There have been tens of thousands of medically relevant findings published every year. What were the accompanying miracles?
Why is God doling out this knowledge in such a piecemeal fashion? We could save a lot of money if he would cough it all up now.
And why did God wait until so recently to start revealing all this good stuff? At least some of those victims of the Black Death in the 14th century could have been healed.
God is not good.
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s a clear claim about reality. Support it.
There’s another. Support it.
You can start by providing some objective, empirical evidence that any gods exist.
fifthmonarchyman,
Logic. If you don’t have an operational definition, there is no way to determine if any observation could be of the entity you are positing. There is no way to distinguish it from anything else.
With an operational definition in hand, objective, empirical evidence is necessary to demonstrate the existence of that which you have defined. Without it, your assertions can be dismissed based on the same amount of evidence, namely none. See Hitchen’s Razor for more details.
This frankly stupid question has been answered repeatedly for you. Look up “category error.”
fifthmonarchyman,
You misspelled “unsubstantiated claims” again.
fifthmonarchyman,
There’s another claim. Prove it.
Pedant:
new medical findings are not new revelation just improved understanding of revelation we already have.
What objective empirical evidence do you have to support the validity of your criteria?
Again it’s my presupposition that all knowelege is the result of revelation. It’s not a claim it’s a presupposition. I know this bothers you you will have to get over it. It is what happens when you have contradictory worldviews
I’ll try to type slowly so you will get it
I presuppose that God exists.
You don’t use evidence to justify presuppositions you use presuppositions to evaluate evidence
peace
I’m sorry but simply repeating the claim that it is a category error is not the same as providing objective empirical evidence for your claim.
You claim that objective empirical evidence will support a claim.
prove it with objective empirical evidence or withdraw the claim
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m done. I can no longer maintain the presumption that you are posting in good faith. Whether you are deliberately dishonest or powerfully self-deluded, the resulting behavior is the same.
The fact is that you are making claims about reality and refusing to support them. There is no value in interacting with someone so lacking in intellectual integrity.
Being dishonest is not a worldview.
That is completely understandable. frustration is the inevitable result of incompatible worldviews colliding.
quote:
What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
(2Co 6:15)
end quote:
Maybe in the future we will be able to discuss topics that don’t brush up so closely to the irreconcilable edges of our different perspectives on the universe.
peace
You dog fifth about his claim that Christianity is true and remain silent about keiths’ claim that Christianity is false. keiths gets a pass for his claims. That’s a double-standard.
Not that there’s anything objectively morally wrong about having a double-standard mind you. The accusations that fifth is doing something morally objectionable. Wrong even. Those “oughts” and “ought nots” that you keep insisting on. Are you just expressing your emotions?
Are you a moral realist, and if so what sort of moral realist are you?
You can bring water to the dead horse but you still can’t make it drink?
See Pedant. God is Good.
ETA: And miracles do happen.
Mung,
That’s because I’ve supported my claim and fifth hasn’t supported his, OldMung.
fifth:
The problem isn’t incompatible worldviews, fifth. It’s your profound disregard for the truth.
Which explains why, given repeated exhortations for you to produce the goods, you failed to do so. Not even a link.
Yes, we know exactly how this works.
But what we have here is another typical keiths deflection.
First, Patrick was being called out for not requiring you to defend the claim you made that Christianity is false. Maybe he just already knew that, so your claim didn’t require you to substantiate it.
Second, just what sort of moral realist are you? Or are you just emoting again?
The lack of certainty about this is just killing me.
Ah, well, you are an expert in those ain’t ya.
And once again, why does God sometimes heal any condition you could name and not amputees?
If God “sometimes” healed amputees we’d know about it.
IT NEVER HAPPENS. It does not *sometimes* happen. No amputee has ever been healed by God or otherwise.
Why is your God limited in this particular way Fifth? Can’t it heal amputees? The evidence certainly seems to say as much. Create a universe, but can’t poof up a new hand?
Yet “Animal, Rope or Gate” is in the bible yet you don’t know the truth about it. Picky god you’ve got.
If FMM claims he isn’t claiming, then is it self-evident that he isn’t claiming?
Except that keiths concludes that Christianity is very likely false because of the evidence, whereas FMM assumes that Christianity is absolutely true.
FMM’s sin is not ethical, but intellectual; he’s assuming that Christianity is true, which is fine in and of itself — but then he should leave the rest of us alone, and refrain from endorsing public policies that are only intelligible in light of his own private “worldview”.
There are many kinds of norms besides moral norms, and one need not be a realist about norms in order for them to be rationally compelling — if one has an alternative account of that rational compulsion.
For me, it’s an undeniable fact about human life that our lives — especially our lives inextricably entangled with those of other people — are normatively structured. Our lives are “fraught with ought”, as Sellars put it. Asking about whether we should be realists about any of those norms — moral norms or otherwise — seems like a useless question.
Wow, KN believes in ‘intellectual sin’. What would a basic analysis of KN’s philosophistry reveal about his own ‘intellectual sins’?
“Sellars/Selloutism made me do it!”
How do you tell the difference between quackery, faith healing, and experimental medicine?
Mung,
I never saw keiths make that claim. If he did, he should support it. Fortunately we have you here to catch those comments that might otherwise fall through the cracks.
No, I am not a moral realist as I understand that term (that moral values are objective and exist independently of humans). I’m also not a philosopher, so there could be nuances to that view of which I am unaware.
It’s not that God is limited in any way it’s just he has no reason to be your personal servant and perform tricks for you. Rebels demanding that the Logos perform tricks is nothing new.
quote:
and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.
(Mat 27:40-42)
end quote:
peace
Why, Is there any law that says that I must refrain from voting my conscience just because you don’t share my convictions?
That is quite a racket you have there. You are free to impose your will on me based on nothing but your own best guess as to what is truth but demand I shut up about what has been revealed as actual truth.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I don’t think you are expected to shut up. It’s when people dress their opinions up as ‘actual truth’ that others start to object.
Is that how you see it? How convenient. So a child that has lost it’s arms and legs has zero chance of a miraculous healing because I suggest that if God really was handing out healing he seems to missed amputees?
You failed to answer my question about “does god heal”. Also convenient.
Yes, because I’m sure that limbless child would perceive it as a “trick”.
The trouble with having the answer to everything, Fifth, is you have the answer to nothing?
Why does God not heal amputees? Because apparently I asked about it and that makes it a “trick”.
So, fifth, once more:
Do you believe people are healed by the power of the holy spirit today?
Have blind people been cured?
Have cripples walked?
Has cancer been removed?
Have any amputees regrown limbs?
My prediction is you will either say Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No.
Or you will have to say No, No, No, No, No.