tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post8550242595523846349..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Is the Christian God's Existence "Self-Evident"?Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-61841921974980785052010-07-31T22:14:46.325-04:002010-07-31T22:14:46.325-04:00@Dawson Bethrick
Can you take a look at the follo...@Dawson Bethrick<br /><br />Can you take a look at the following argument, and tell me if you think it is strong evidence for the existence of God. If not, why do you think it fails:<br /><br />1] Given the fine-tuning evidence, the existence of a life-permitting universe is very unlikely under a naturalistic single-universe hypothesis. <br /><br />2] Given the fine-tuning evidence, a life-permitting universe is not unlikely under a theistic hypothesis.<br /> <br />3] The theistic hypothesis was advocated prior to the fine-tuning evidence [therefore it cannot be ad hoc]. <br /><br />4] Therefore, by the Likelihood Principle, a life-permitting universe strongly supports theism over any naturalistic single-universe hypothesis.The Secular Walkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342572056569966450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-24260395704120651962010-07-28T12:03:55.875-04:002010-07-28T12:03:55.875-04:00Hi Tim,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I have Scia...Hi Tim,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. Yes, I have Sciabbara’s book, but it’s been a while since I’ve read it. I marvel at this work as it contains a mountain of research.<br /><br />I tend to think of the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness as the initial point where the perceptual and the conceptual levels of cognition meet. Taking the axiom of identity as its fundamental point of departure, logic as a system of integrated principles is essentially the formal mechanics of connecting one set of concepts to another set of concepts which are related by one or more relevant common denominators. It is through the application of logic that we move from that which is perceptually self-evident to that which is not perceptually self-evident, and that process is called inference, whether deductive or inductive. The important point to keep in mind when interacting with presuppositionalists is the fact that logic is <i>conceptual</i> in nature, as I explain in a post devoted to this issue which I published last year <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-logic-presuppose-christian-god_04.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. This is a major stumblingblock for the presuppositionalist apologetic.<br /><br />In the present case, where Christian apologists want to say that their god’s existence is “self-evident,” they are essentially saying that they have *direct awareness* of their god. I frankly do not know how else to interpret such a statement, though they typically do not put it these terms (exacting qualifiers such as “direct awareness” invite too many obvious problems for Christian apologetics, so they are typically avoided). My question for them, then, is: by *what means* do they claim to have awareness of their god? Christians are continually reminding us that their god is invisible, incorporeal, non-physical, immaterial, supernatural, beyond the reach of our senses, etc. So clearly they cannot have awareness of their god by means of <i>sense perception</i>, by which we have direct awareness of mountains, driveways, fence posts, trees, automobiles, babies and other persons. At this point it is incumbent upon the theist making the claim that he has direct awareness of his god, to explain how we can reliably distinguish between <br /><br />(a) the means by which he claims to have this awareness, and <br /><br />(b) his own imagination as the means of interfacing with what he calls “God.” <br /><br />Typically apologists will have already attempted an array of evasions before allowing the discussion to get to this point, but if it does get to this point, they typically check out of the discussion and aren’t heard from again on the matter. It’s like pulling the cork from his popgun – it disarms him in a most decisive manner.<br /><br />Try it sometime – you’ll find that it works like a charm.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-64373123080681118382010-07-27T09:52:21.491-04:002010-07-27T09:52:21.491-04:00In this sense, logic is self-evident (at least its...<i>In this sense, logic is self-evident (at least its fundamental principle of identity) in the same sense that consciousness is self-evident.</i><br /><br />You have probably read Sciabarra's book "The Russian Radical" where he explains Rand's view on Ontology and Logic.<br /><br /><i>...the Law of Contradiction has... a twofold epistemological character: it is at once an experiential inductive principle and an intuitive first principle.</i><br /><br />Logic, for Rand, was a union of the rational and empirical. Logic seems to be valid methods known intuitively. In addition, one also experiences these because contradictions in reality do not exist - Identity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69093286916855632272010-07-26T14:17:27.149-04:002010-07-26T14:17:27.149-04:00Hello Anonymous Chris,
It's not clear what yo...Hello Anonymous Chris,<br /><br />It's not clear what you're saying here. Perhaps you might want to explain yourself. <br /><br />Are you suggesting that the very fact that Agreus' statement to the effect that *he* (Agreus) "would have no problem with the theist stating God is self-evident" is sufficient justification for Zao's claim that "God is self-evident"? If so, that seems miserably weak - indeed, mere sitcom material. If the Christian god did not have a problem with Saddam Hussein butchering tens of thousands of Kurds, would that be "sufficient justification" for Saddam's murderous pogroms in your mind? <br /><br />Your sitcom-based sense of justification is quite perplexing. Perhaps you could explain.<br /><br />By the way, you're not the same Chris who lives at 1835 73rd Ave NE, Medina, WA 98039, are you?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-87120748624959740232010-07-26T13:36:36.004-04:002010-07-26T13:36:36.004-04:00Missing that Agreus wrote, “I would have no proble...Missing that Agreus wrote, “I would have no problem with the theist stating God is self-evident..." just prior to Zao's stating such is the sort of lack of awareness I would expect to see on sitcoms - or this blog. ;p<br /><br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-3315519554967538442010-07-25T14:41:03.349-04:002010-07-25T14:41:03.349-04:00Zao Thanatoo accusing Agreus of Ipse Dixit and the...Zao Thanatoo accusing Agreus of Ipse Dixit and then committing it himself in the next exchange is the sort of lack of awareness one only expects to see on sitcoms.Yog Sothothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02104602393018428099noreply@blogger.com