tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post8383266512982351342..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Can a *Worldview* “Provide” the “Preconditions of Intelligibility”? - Part IIBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76745830512334412822017-10-31T00:28:34.246-04:002017-10-31T00:28:34.246-04:00A second issue the author seems to have in the art...A second issue the author seems to have in the article is that he assumes us presuppositionals would not accept his so called "more accurate" definition of intelligibility. The proposed definition does not rise any issue with the validity of the presuppositional defense for the Christian worldview. I still propose that any other worldview is unable to RATIONALLY ACCOUNT FOR intelligibility without being ARBITRARY. We all accept it exists, however, a Christian worldview is able to reason how and even why.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02916444308722097489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-53537368451330007182012-03-20T13:21:20.319-04:002012-03-20T13:21:20.319-04:00If my analysis of definition for the word intellig...If my analysis of definition for the word intelligibility as meaning <i>inclination or fitness for having the sense or characteristic of general information</i>, then the precondition for intelligibility would have to be existence concurrent with identity. Because information could only be gleaned from an existing object, thus fitness for having the characteristic of general information would be an immanent and perhaps even axiomatic feature of an object. <br /><br />That this is so can be seen from Adam Reed's essay, "The Ontology of Information, and Hard Atheism" at the old rebirthofreason site<br /> http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Reed/The_Ontology_of_Information,_and_Hard_Atheism.shtml<br /><br />Reed explains: <a rel="nofollow">In 1948, just about the time Ayn Rand began to realize that she would need to write down an explicit philosophical system, Claude Shannon discovered, and published in the Bell System Technical Journal, a procedure for measuring information. Ayn Rand's eventual link between metaphysics and epistemology hinges on measurement: existence is identity, and the identity of an existent consists of the measurements of its attributes. If information can be measured, then it has measurements; it has identity; it is an existent, as real as existents composed of energy and matter. Identification is knowledge; with Shannon's discovery of methods to measure it, information became a category of what can be identified and known.<br /><br />One property persistently observed of information is that it never exists without a material substrate of energy or matter. The same melody might exist as sound waves or as radio waves or as electrical currents; as grooves in a phonograph record or as magnetic domains on tape or as laser holes in plastic; as ink on paper or silver chloride on film or as nerve impulses in the brain—but no one ever found information without some kind of matter or energy carrying it. Not that people haven't looked. Using matter to store information across time is expensive, and so is using energy to send information from place to place. Finding ways to do it with less has kept a large fraction of the world's scientists and inventors busy for the last half century, and nothing was as big a prize as finding a way to store or transmit information without any matter or energy at all. If no way to store or communicate information without mattergy was ever found, it was not for lack of trying. If those five decades have taught information scientists anything, it is that information exists but does not exist independently. To get information across space or time, energy or matter are unconditionally indispensable. Information cannot exist without matter or energy for it to exist by means of.</a><br /><br />Since information can only exist as an encoding of material or energy particles acting as substrate, then any ensemble of particles such as an atom, would automatically feature an inclination or fitness for having the sense or characteristic of general information. <br /><br />Does this make sense? Can one of the rational readers find a way to dispute or disprove my definition?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77052403191018532162012-03-19T15:28:28.958-04:002012-03-19T15:28:28.958-04:00Hello friends: It’s a nice day and I hope all are ...Hello friends: It’s a nice day and I hope all are well.<br /><br />To define intelligibility, start with the root meaning and then apply meanings of suffixes.<br /><br />Root: intel – a) information in general or b) military application of knowledge about an enemy. The current context is more appropriate to (a), information in general.<br /><br />Suffix 1) lig – from the old Norse ligr and cognate with English “ly” and used to form an adjective from a noun and meaning having the sense of like or characteristic of what is denoted by the noun<br /><br />Suffix 2) ibility – an alternative form of suffix –ability, meaning: inclination or fitness for a specified function or condition.<br /><br />The root “intel” is a noun. Application of suffix –lig renders the word into an adjective that means having the sense or characteristic of general information.<br /><br /> Applying the -ibility suffix restores the word to the noun category and renders a composite meaning of inclination or fitness for having the sense or characteristic of general information.<br /><br />As a noun it refers to an object. The meaning of inclination or fitness for having the sense or characteristic of general information then refers to an object as trait of some other thing. Proper use of intelligibility would be in discussion of specific data related to and perceived from an object as opposed to vague or ambiguous or equivocal guesses or uninformed speculations about a fantasy or mythological being. <br /><br />The standard definitions of the word stem and suffixes is completely at odds with the words use in apologetics by presuppositionalist Christians.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12444890606491723722012-03-18T12:33:12.709-04:002012-03-18T12:33:12.709-04:00Trinity writes: It's called the circle of Fait...Trinity writes: It's called the circle of Faith: http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/dialogue"<br /><br />Yes, folks, step right up to Trinity's blog! <br /><br />See for yourselves what happens to a mind that subscribes to the empty and incoherent slogan "the substance of things hoped for" and the "evidence of things not seen"!<br /><br />Feel the palm on your face as he attempts to account for certainty by invoking this woeful, Storybook slogan! <br /><br />Dare to look at the mind of the man who attempts to make the arbitrary come true! <br /><br />Watch in amazement as he imagines in a vicious circle while engaging in a futile battle for the imaginary!<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39472523694049116232012-03-18T10:57:11.642-04:002012-03-18T10:57:11.642-04:00Dawson,
It's called the circle of Faith:
htt...Dawson,<br /><br />It's called the circle of Faith:<br /><br />http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/dialogueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73026461246848125562012-03-18T10:45:38.355-04:002012-03-18T10:45:38.355-04:00After all, if intelligibility has preconditions, a...<b>After all, if intelligibility has preconditions, and those preconditions are thought to be some set of beliefs, it would be an embarrassing misnomer to say that this set of beliefs is also intelligible, for they would have to have been formed in the absence of the necessary preconditions for intelligibility.</b> <br /><br />This is why I like to read your posts. My mind needs to be refreshed by a logical argument cutting through the nonsense.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42579739721569144302012-03-18T01:43:57.366-04:002012-03-18T01:43:57.366-04:00Dawson,
Well, I did a search on the Google using ...Dawson,<br /><br />Well, I did a search on the Google using various search terms with Bahnsen and Van Til's name attached, and I was unable to locate anything indicating that they ever defined for us the Christian definition of ‘intelligibility.’ <br /><br />But perhaps, like the claims they make about their god, it's there, but I'm just suppressing my knowledge of the definition. All I have to do is believe and have faith, then I will understand because the definition will be written on my heart. Or something.<br /><br />Looking forward to Part III.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.com