tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post5257108893891514354..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Jason Petersen's Abysmal Ignorance of ConceptsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-9206085895387270042014-10-20T12:42:43.535-04:002014-10-20T12:42:43.535-04:00Thank you Dawson. I've this week off work so h...Thank you Dawson. I've this week off work so have time to catch up.<br /><br />:) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23714255581099299882014-10-20T06:20:03.030-04:002014-10-20T06:20:03.030-04:00Hi Dawson,
I found you interaction with Mr Bradfo...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />I found you interaction with Mr Bradford very entertaining. I have previously interacted with Mr Bradford on the BTWN fb-site. However, when I pointed out that he was begging the question with his "account" for induction he blocked me.<br />Anyway, please take a look at the follow png-file. Both comments are from Mr Bradford: one is from the BTWN fb-group, the other from the Answers of Hope-post your previously linked blog-post interacts with. (I hope the link works): http://goo.gl/GmrM2Il_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-59735648464383055482014-10-20T06:07:14.959-04:002014-10-20T06:07:14.959-04:00Hi Dawson,
This post might be of some interest fo...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />This post might be of some interest for the current debate against Mr Petersen: http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.se/2014/02/the-futility-of-apologetic-appeal-to.html<br /><br />The link to Mr Bradford's fb-discussion goes to Mr Petersen's web-site "Answers for Hope". The discussion seems to involve the whole BTWN-crew: Petersen, Bradford, Pearson etc.<br /><br />regards, Johanl_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-56692042149062990192014-10-19T21:13:14.194-04:002014-10-19T21:13:14.194-04:00«By the way, where is Jason? I notice he's not...«By the way, where is Jason? I notice he's not posting over here very much. Maybe a gerbil got his keyboard?»<br /><br />Maybe he's noticed that his imbecility does not go so easily unchecked here. Maybe he has finally understood that he has to actually understand what he's writing about or face ridicule <i>en masse</i>.<br /><br />Hum. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-53353915582998854332014-10-19T09:30:39.639-04:002014-10-19T09:30:39.639-04:00«Indeed, this would only mean that there is absolu...«Indeed, this would only mean that there is absolutely no need to "account for" logic. Since there's no alternative to logic on this view, it's here with us no matter what world we live in.»<br /><br />I couldn't have said it better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-22870880571602173782014-10-19T09:17:41.678-04:002014-10-19T09:17:41.678-04:00Jason Petersen: «There is no possible world in whi...Jason Petersen: «There is no possible world in which the laws of logic do not exist.»<br /><br />Something he learned in a dream, no doubt.<br /><br />Photo: "Therefore no gods are necessary for laws of logic to exist."<br /><br />Works for me. Indeed, this would only mean that there is absolutely no need to "account for" logic. Since there's no alternative to logic on this view, it's here with us no matter what world we live in. <br /><br />Photo: "Thanks for admitting that your position is mere hot air Jason!"<br /><br />Yes, I agree. A gesture of gratitude is in order. Jason, I present you with my blog.<br /><br />As they say, read 'em and weep.<br /><br />By the way, where is Jason? I notice he's not posting over here very much. Maybe a gerbil got his keyboard?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-49142405468481101092014-10-19T08:57:50.829-04:002014-10-19T08:57:50.829-04:00«There is no possible world in which the laws of l...«There is no possible world in which the laws of logic do not exist.»<br /><br />Therefore no gods are necessary for laws of logic to exist. Thanks for admitting that your position is mere hot air Jason!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36555419061708047782014-10-18T22:35:03.937-04:002014-10-18T22:35:03.937-04:00Hi Ydemoc,
Thanks for posting all this! Wow, what...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />Thanks for posting all this! Wow, what a feast! Again, it's like fishing in a barrel. It just doesn't seem fair. For example, consider the following:<br /><br />Petersen writes: “However, inductive reasoning does not deal with absolutes. It only deals in probability.”<br /><br />Petersen appears to be oblivious to the fact that these statements themselves are inductive in nature – since they are intended to apply to <i>all instances</i> of inductive generalization, and thus constitute assessments which are universal in nature. But then Petersen’s statements would have to apply to themselves, which would make them only “probably true,” not true without exception. Thus his own assessment of induction demands the possibility that what he himself says about induction is not true.<br /><br />Big "D'oh!"<br /><br /><br />My understanding of induction has grown immensely over the years, thanks to the objective theory of concepts. So I'm always delighted when the topic of discussion with presuppositionalists moves to induction. They're always making self-undermining statements like this.<br /><br />I'll check in later with more feedback, when I get some time.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20374245526887030882014-10-18T20:51:12.262-04:002014-10-18T20:51:12.262-04:00thinking doesn’t correspond with reality. Evolutio...thinking doesn’t correspond with reality. Evolution definitely works.”<br /><br />Such a notion would entail that there would have to some possible world where survival value and truth are identical. But this would violate the law of identity, thus, the statement you made is falsified and can not be true in any possible world. There is no possible world in which the laws of logic do not exist.<br /><br />So far we can derive the following argument:<br /><br />P1: A worldview that violates the laws of logic can’t be true in any possible world.<br /><br />P2: Atheism violates the laws of logic.<br /><br />P3: If atheism violates the laws of logic it can’t be true in any possible world.<br /><br />P4: If atheism can’t be true in any possible world it can’t be true in the actual world either.<br /><br />P5: Therefore, atheism is false in the actual world.<br /><br />Conclusion: Atheism is false.<br /><br />-----------------<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42602358513523889802014-10-18T20:50:27.266-04:002014-10-18T20:50:27.266-04:00
However, the Christian’s basis for reasoning is d...<br />However, the Christian’s basis for reasoning is deductive, not inductive. Our presupposition is that God exists. From there we can deduce multiple conclusions such as discernible truth, axiological values, metaphysical truths, etc. <br /><br />You then of course may attempt to ask “Are things right because God says so or are things right without God saying so?”<br /><br />The answer is in James 3:15. All good things come from God. Discernment, laws of logic, truth, and knowledge all come from God. They are all a part of his nature and we would expect such truths to reflect through his Creation.<br /><br />“All attempts to deny logic result in the stolen concept fallacy, too. How do you know that your God is true?”<br /><br />We know God is real due to the impossibility of the contrary. [NOTE: I cannot say for certain if this particular slogan was in Jason Peterson’s original blog entry. The reason for this is that when I was attempting to craft a reply in a working draft, I was inserting my own comments. However, it seems likely that it can be attributed to Peterson.]<br /><br /><br />P1: Without God, knowledge is not possible.<br /><br />P2: Kowledge is possible.<br /><br />Conclusion: Therefore, it is not the case that God does not exist.<br /><br />In order to falsify the first premise you would have to build a foundation for epistemology which is consistent and not self contradictory. An inductive basis for reasoning does not allow for absolutes, when you make absolute statements such as “There is no God” or “I can have knowledge without God” you are merely falsifying your foundation for epistemology and thus falsifying the atheist worldview.<br /><br />There is nothing that we have stated that commits the stolen concept fallacy. <br /><br />“Also, truth and fitness are directly proportional with each other because, species have no chance of surviving, if their <br /><br />(continued)Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-48938310706187512702014-10-18T20:33:56.695-04:002014-10-18T20:33:56.695-04:00”I already answered, truth is merely correspondenc...”I already answered, truth is merely correspondence with reality and logic is thinking in accordance with that reality based upon self-evident truths such as existence, identity and consciousness.”<br /><br />The way you define truth and reality like a conclusion rather than a presupposition. In order to determine what truth is by your definition you should be able to validate that it corresponds reality. But then how would one go about deciphering reality and then arrive at ultimate truth from an inductive basis? Atheists only have one option for building a foundation for epistemology and that in inductive reasoning. However, inductive reasoning does not deal with absolutes. It only deals in probability. But if things are only known by probability then you end up with an infinite regress of uncertainty.<br /><br />You then make 3 axioms:<br /><br />1. Existence<br /><br />2. Identity<br /><br />3. Consciousness<br /><br />However, existence itself has no epistemological benefit, for there are things that exist that have no knowledge. For instance, rocks. The philosopher Aristotle once said “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”<br /><br />You then list identity. This can refer to identity in mathematics and logic, or you could mean it in a different context. I’ll leave it up to you to define which context in which you wish to utilize this term. <br /><br />You then appeal to consciousness, but consciousness provides no foundation for epistemology for other assumptions beyond consciousness must be made. <br /><br />Unfortunately, there is a bigger issue than the fact that your axioms don’t provide any epistemological benefit. If your basis for discerning truth is inductive you can’t have any sort of epistemic certainty. You are only left with probability. If this is the case, then by relying on axioms you are contradicting your own worldview.(Again.) Thus, your foundation for epistemology is self contradictory.<br /><br />(continued)<br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20621974398095735142014-10-18T20:27:44.316-04:002014-10-18T20:27:44.316-04:00Dawson,
Here is what I found in my files from Jas...Dawson,<br /><br />Here is what I found in my files from Jason Peterson, as it was originally posted, I believe, over on Answers for Hope.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------<br /><br />A Very Brief Critique on An Objection to Presuppositional Apologetics<br />June 5, 2013 By Jason Petersen <br /><br />There is a gentleman that lives fairly close to me that is writing a book on how to refute presuppositional apologetics. Coincidentally, I am writing a book that falsifies atheism on the basis of self contradictory epistemology, axiological values, anthropological, teleological and metaphysical truths. He was arguing with someone on Facebook and I decided to jump in.<br />C.s. McKinney I already answered, truth is merely correspondence with reality and logic is thinking in accordance with that reality based upon self-evident truths such as existence, identity and consciousness. All attempts to deny logic result in the stolen concept fallacy, too. How do you know that your God is true? Also, truth and fitness are directly proportional with each other because, species have no chance of surviving, if their thinking doesn’t correspond with reality. Evolution definitely works.<br />23 hours ago · Like<br /><br /><br />Jason Petersen C.S Mckinney,<br /><br />If you are writing a book I think you have some more contemplating to do before publishing it. There are multiple “how to debate a presuppositionalist” sites out there. Every single method that I have seen atheists use I have seen fail. There are some atheists that would agree with me, such as this one:<br /><br />http://answersforhope.com/how-to-debate-a-presuppositional-apologist/<br /><br />If any atheist should write a book on presuppositional apologetics, it should be this guy. He is closer to realizing the dilemma atheists are in than you are.(No offense.)<br /><br />Now, on to some of the things you said:<br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2414339921284127242014-10-18T16:32:39.513-04:002014-10-18T16:32:39.513-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23037303735550955902014-10-18T16:32:35.529-04:002014-10-18T16:32:35.529-04:00The link didn't work for me, but going to Face...The link didn't work for me, but going to Facebook and looking for answers for hope worked. It's all there. This idiocy and other idiocy previously written by Petersen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66220554126939755112014-10-18T05:09:45.299-04:002014-10-18T05:09:45.299-04:00Hi Dawson,
This is the html to Mr Petersen's ...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />This is the html to Mr Petersen's Answers for Hope fb-page. This is were I found the quote (posted as a status update 15 october): https://www.facebook.com/pages/Answers-for-Hope/<br /><br />Thank you very much for another great post!<br /><br />regards,<br />Johanl_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.com