Thursday, May 24, 2012

Presuppositionalism’s Finest?

Below is my transcription of two excerpts from Fundamentally Flawed’s Episode 47: Hezekiah Ahaz, Round Two.

In the first excerpt, beginning around 16:25 and running to about 18:46, we have about two minutes and 20 seconds of show hosts Jim Gardner and Alex Botten doing their level best to help Nide (aka “Hezekiah Ahaz”) literally come to his senses about reality. As you can see, Nide has thrown up an impenetrable wall of faith blocking out the light of reason such that he can’t be sure of anything other than that he simply wants to start with his presumption that his god is real. In Christianity, such devotion to faith is considered a virtue. Observe what it does to the human mind:
Nide: [excited] “G-… You… Jim, you just told me you were no fr… How do you know you’re real, Jim, you can’t even, you can’t even account for your own existence!” 
Alex: [calmly] “Okay, well, let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question, Hezekiah.” 
Nide: “Okay.”  
Alex: “Can you hear somebody called Jim speaking to you?” 
Nide: “Yeah.”  
Alex: “Okay, are you real?”  
Nide: [pause] “Ummmmmm… yeah…. but…” 
Alex: “Do you trust your senses?” 
Nide: [pause] “I do.” 
Alex: “Do you trust that Jim is real?” 
Nide: [pause] “Ummm… that’s what I’m trying to establish.” 
[Alex and Nide talking over each other] 
Alex: “Just let me finish. You’ve admitted that you can hear somebody called Jim speaking. You’ve admitted that you accept that your senses are giving you correct information. So, you’ve got two alternatives: either Jim is real, or you’re imagining him.” 
Nide: “And and and and that’s… [nervous giggling] and that’s the whole…” 
Jim: “Which is more likely to be true based on the empirically valid evidence for my existence? Which is more likely to be true, that you are imagining this entire conversation, or that I really am sitting here up in this conversation…” 
[Jim and Nide talking over each other] 
Nide: “I just take it for… I just take it for granted. I don’t have… I h… I don’t have any evidence that you’re real, Jim. I just take it for granted.” 
Jim: “So that’s twice now that you’ve admitted that your entire worldview is based on something which is taken for granted, and yet you are the one which…" 
Nide: [flustered] “But we’ve been saying that the whole time!” 
[Jim and Nide talking over each other] 
Jim: “Is that what you’re saying?” 
Nide: [drowning in his own flustered words] 
Jim: “If you took more time to listen to the reply, then you might be able to provide more coherent answers.” 
Nide: “Okay, go ahead.” 
Jim: “Are you essentially saying that you’re entire worldview is based upon a presumption?” 
Nide: “We’ve [nervous giggling] When have… when I… When have I ever denied that? When have I ever denied that?” 
Jim: “So therefore you’ve finally admitted that the very next valid question to ask, is can you give an example of when that is a bad way of viewing the world, and when a much better way of viewing the world is to make objectively valid observations?” 
Nide: “But en… that’s when problems arise because we all… we all assume things, and then we go from there. So you’re… you’re… Whatever you start with, you assume it too.” 
Jim: “When you present evidence for things, they’re no longer assumptions, they’re empirical observations.” 
[Jim and Nide talking over each other] 
Nide: “You could be imagining the evidence. And how is it that you’re not? That’s the whole point.” 
[deafening silence] 
Nide: “See… So, it… it… it… We’re at…” 
Alex: “You see, this is the thing. The reason why we’re going quiet there is not because it’s a good question, it’s because it’s actually incomprehensible practically." 
Nide: [limp and defeated] “Okay, if you say so.”
It’s quite amazing to me that this fellow Nide really carries on as if he had no empirical evidence that Jim exists, especially when he just got done admitting that he could hear a fellow called Jim speaking to him. Apparently Nide does not understand that any evidence of which we have awareness by means of any of the sense modalities, is empirical evidence. Or, he simply denies, on a pick-and-choose basis, what empirical evidence he will accept, and what empirical evidence he won’t accept, given the expedience of his apologetic aims. For Nide, the possibility that he is simply imagining the entire conversation is a possibility that he cannot wipe off the table, because he has no defeater for it. And he has no defeater for it precisely because he’s abandoned reason in preference for faith.

In the very last few minutes of the podcast, Alex and Jim pulled out the “Ghost that Never Lies” parody of the Christian god in order to demonstrate the circularity of the presuppositionalist apologetic. The result was literally a show-stopping touchdown which would send any self-respecting presuppositionalist (if there are any) recoiling in chronic embarrassment. Beginning at marker 14:22, we have the following exchange:
Nide: “And how is it that you’re not imagining this ghost?” 
Jim and Alex: “Because the Ghost that Never Lies revealed it to me such that I can be certain of it.” 
Nide: "And how do you know that you’re not imagining that?" 
Jim and Alex: “Because the Ghost that Never Lies revealed it to me such that I can be certain of it.” 
Nide: “But now you’re reasoning in a circle. [giggling] Now you’re reasoning in a circle.” 
Jim and Alex: [rejoicing] “Exactly! Yay! We have a goal!” 
Nide: “But see, but, but, look…”
Is Nide the new Greg Bahnsen? Does this represent the state of the art in presuppositional apologetics? Nide certainly does not convince either of the FF hosts that he’s in possession of all his faculties, let alone proving the existence of his god or the truth of the Christian worldview. Far from it. But we must keep in mind that even presuppositional apologists admit that their “arguments” are not intended to persuade non-believers; they maintain that only supernatural force can make a person accept the alleged “truth” of their religious beliefs. So their “truths” are “known” by means of force (which grants moral validity to the initiation of the use of force), not by means of reason (and theists say that reason and faith are compatible!).

We must remember that presuppositional apologetics is primarily geared toward securing the believer within the fold, toward keeping him ever bamboozled, toward ever deepening the canyon which separates him from rational individuals (i.e., people who accept reason as their only means of knowledge, their only judge of values and their only guide to action).

At any rate, the entire podcast is fascinating to listen to, not so much from a philosophical standpoint (since the issues that come up are so basic, and Nide has desperate difficulties in even grasping them), but from a psychological angle as we observe a mind stubbornly defying reason with virtually every breath. We watch in action a man under the influence of presuppositionalism.

Also, on Alex Botten's blog, there’s been some interesting reactions and discussion about Nide’s performance in the podcast. Several who frequent my blog are already aware of this and in fact have contributed to the discussion. Others may find it of interest as well.

by Dawson Bethrick

445 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 445 of 445
what to do? said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phlegon of Tralles said...

"Robert: $ye is not interested in your evidence. In fact, he is not interested in evidence at all, unless he is the one supplying and it was his idea to do so. He justifies this by pretending that no-one else but him and his unmerry band can "interpret" said evidence."

He should be though, since it highlights another inconsistency in presuppositionalism. They argue that their religion can ground the UoN, which is what makes science coherent (or whatever). So, presumably, they trust the results of science.

But many are YEC. How can this be?

Well, they will say that anything that conflicts with Christianity is obviously false.

The problem is that the scientific method must be wrong in some way, since through using it we arrive at positions at odds with YEC.

So if the presupper cannot give a means to fix the scientific method, then how can he trust any of it?

Simply saying 'it's not consistent with Christianity' is not a means of fixing the method - that doesn't show where in the process the method broke down.

At this point presuppers tend to talk about other things when I ask them....

The old 'I don't want to get into science' bit...

Unknown said...

@Photosynthesis @Justin @Ydemoc check the posts at facebook group dedicated to $ye B.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/392063290826802/

Unknown said...

@Phlegon At this point presuppers tend to talk about other things when I ask them....

The old 'I don't want to get into science' bit...


Evasion, ducking, dodging, selective amnesia, distortion, red herring, strawman, petitio principii are the stock in trade of any bullshit mountebank would be demagogue.

The way to deal with it is to hold their feet to the fire and keep on hammering on that which they do not want to discuss.

Anonymous said...

Phegon,

He should be though, since it highlights another inconsistency in presuppositionalism. They argue that their religion can ground the UoN, which is what makes science coherent (or whatever). So, presumably, they trust the results of science.

You are assuming that he cares about such little tiny details about his purported worldview being utterly stupid, but he does not. He does not care that presuppositionalism is incredibly stupid either. He has a method, and he will stick to it. This is not about truth for him, this is about "winning" arguments. This is about twisting as far as necessary to pretend that he wins. Assuming that $ye is interested in honest debate, or in converting anybody is the main mistake people make when talking to this jack ass. He knows perfectly well that presuppositionalism is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit. But he does not care one bit.

Anonymous said...

Justin,

Has anyone else taken notice of the growing spat between Chris Blot and our Hez over at choosing Hats and on Hezekiah's blog?

Well, of course this is bound to happen. Hezek reveals all too easily the nature of the trickery. he says it openly. He is that stupid, and he still thinks that the bullshit is valid. ALl while stating the tricks verbatim. Of course Chris has to disown the guy. "No, no, no, Hezek's bullshit is not the same as my bullshit." Clearly, the bullshit is the same. But the "experts" don't revel the tricks by mentioning how they are about to use them, they reveal the tricks when they use them.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

$ye erased his comments and ran away from the reddit thing. As he ran away, his ass looked exactly like Hezek's.

Unknown said...

Hello Photo: Where does that $ye mother-fraker live? Does he have a church? Are there a bunch of morons who give that piece of shit money?

Anonymous said...

Hi Robert,
From what I read in his profile the first time I crossed words with this ass-hole, $ye used to live somewhere close to Toronto, and he used to have church, bible "study," meetings. I do not know if the is still there. Since he is now allied to Eric Hovind, he might have moved. Apparently, from what he has said somewhere, he quit his job to get full-time into bullshitting his "method" around churches and such. Meaning he now lives out of bullshitting. He was at that reason rally with Hovind "interviewing" atheists. So who knows where he lives today. Thus, yes, there are morons giving this piece of shit their money.

Whateverman said...

Robert Bumbalough asked: Nide what do your parents and/or siblings think of your involvement in such a ridiculous cult?

Nide responded: I don't talk to demons.

Estrangement from his family would possibly explain much of Hezekiah's behavior...

Justin Hall said...

well everyone it appears that Hezekiah Ahaz, has called it quits. His blog is offline

Unknown said...

Hello Justin: I speculate that Nide couldn't accept Bolt's criticism. He probably didn't give a shit about anything we've wrote, but if he did, then maybe he's quitting the whole god thing. If so, he'll be better off.

Best and Good.

Whateverman said...

If so, he'll be better off.

So will we. So will anyone looking for serious Christian apologismn.

So will the internet.

Ydemoc said...

Hi everyone,

Yep. Hezekiah seems to be taking a break. Perhaps he will resurrect his blog in the near future, maybe under a completely different moniker.

Hopefully, if he reemerges, he does so with an online conviviality that matches what he exhibited on the podcasts. And let us also hope that he brings a little more to the table as far as substance goes.

Ydemoc

Phlegon of Tralles said...

I don't think he's going to be an atheist any time soon - but it is my hope that he's going to put some serious time into studying these issues before he comes back.

Unknown said...

Paul Baird of Patient and Persistent blog has scheduled a discussion, tonight 6/13/12, with Chris Bolt. I think I will occur on Paul's blog at

http://patientandpersistent.blogspot.co.uk/

Paul lives on London and is in the UK's GMT timezone.

facebook discussion group relative to $ye Bruggencate ~ http://www.facebook.com/groups/392063290826802/

Unknown said...

Paul mentioned the discussion was to proceed at 7 tonight. If by 7 he meant his time, 7 GMT, would be 2 pm eastern.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Hey everyone,

That's a most curious turn of events, Nide shutting down his blog. You may recall how, last November, Blogger accidentally bumped my blog offline for a day or two. But perhaps that hasn't happened in Nide's case. I take it that no one has seen hide nor hair of Nide otherwise, e.g., in blog comboxes?

For what it's worth, we may have a new loon. A guy running around under the moniker "Belteshazzar7" left a comment on my blog Omnipotence and Sovereignty in the Cartoon Universe (which I posted back in 2005!). I'm not sure what this guy's goal was since any "yes" in response to the questions I ask in that blog confirm my analysis. And here he's offering some "yeses" to my questions (though he does, in a rather clumsy manner, attempt to qualify his responses). He also tells us that angels are biological organisms. Curious, I never knew that!

It's amazing what you might "learn" from these Christian loons who are too ashamed to publish their statements under their real names.


Sorry I haven't been active lately, I'm buried under a mountain of work! My time is in very short supply right now.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

This is so funny!

You wrote: "For what it's worth, we may have a new loon. A guy running around under the moniker "Belteshazzar7" left a comment on my blog."

Here's what happened: Yesterday, I'm over on Debunking Christianity. I check the "Show Comments" on the main page, and I see that some individual named "Belteshazzar" has commented on one of John Loftus' blog entries.

So I click on the button, and it takes me to this thread:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/12/was-jesus-god-incarnate.html

It too is a really old blog entry.

There I find not only "Belteshazzar's" posted comment(s), but also one of your older comments as well! See here: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/12/was-jesus-god-incarnate.html#comment-95665558

Anyway, I start interacting with "Belteshazzar." In the process, I quoted you -- with proper citation, of course -- from an interaction you had with "Tim" on April 16, 2005.

I also suggested to "Belteshazzar" that he check out your blog and read your stuff. Apparently he did!

So perhaps you have me to thank for yet another Hezekiah in our midst.

Yikes!

Hope all is well!

Ydemoc

Whateverman said...

So perhaps you have me to thank for yet another Hezekiah in our midst.

Bastard!

Justin Hall said...

Oh brother, not another one:(

Ydemoc said...

Whateverman,

I wrote: "So perhaps you have me to thank for yet another Hezekiah in our midst."

You wrote: "Bastard!"

Ha! I know, right!?

Ydemoc

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Hello Ydemoc, Justin, Whateverman, Dawson, and "Belteshazzar."

Its another fine day serving well to live life to the fullest in accordance with rational values, for this is our only life. When its gone, its eternal oblivion for us all. As there are no gods or magics or supernatures, all we have is our lives and each other. Therefore celebrate; have fun; live a life worthy of your own self.

My question: What of the role of Commensurability in cognating abstractions from which to form concepts of God? Can the notion of the Christian God be commensurable? If not, then no valid abstraction from alleged perceptions of God can be derived. Consequently then, no valid concept of God can be formed as concept formation requires valid abstraction.

What saith "Belteshazzar?" How can diverse and unverifiable allegations of perceptions of the Christian God by differing Christians be commensurable? Or are claims of God only floating abstractions with no basal referent in reality?

Unknown said...

Hi Robert.
Your English is a little strange today. Is it not your native language?
Try avoiding unusual words and change them for more common ones where-ever possible. It would help with comprehension for people like me.

Unknown said...

Rose: my good friend, hello. Nice to see your comment. I appreciate you and the point you made. Indeed, I must strive for clarity and focus. These are wooly issues fraught with many veins which if mined lead to digression and parenthetical argument.

Abrahamic religion lacks epistemology and concept theory, yet some Christians, Muslims, and theistic Jews claim their God actually exists and is not only coherent but defined. Others take refuge in more reasonable redoubts wherein they celebrate mystery, enigma, ineffable incomprehensibility. Presuppositional appologists aren't in the later group. To take the wind out of these later's sails, it is sufficient to show their
God cannot be defined and is thus non-cognitive.

Definitions depend upon concepts by listing the most essential attributes of an existent's concept. Concept formation has necessary dependency upon deriving abstraction.

Abstraction in concept formation means "a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute from the entities possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.)." ~ ITOE, p10 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abstraction_(process_of).html

The isolating of certain attributes from entities possessing them occurs by measurement omission in the sense that that a measurement can exist in any quantity in the concept, but no quantity is specified. In other words, to establish a concept, a measurement standard is stipulated but not used. Stipulating the standard helps define the concept, not any specific use of the standard. In order to omit specific measurements from an ensemble of existents, they must have specific measurable characteristics in common.

Enter commenusrability. If there is a measurable standard by which a common denominating characteristic (CDC) can be identified across members of an ensemble, then specific occurrences of CDC can be omitted from inclusion in a generalizing mental grasping to formation of a set. The idea of the CDC sans specific instances identifying a grouping derives the abstraction. Commensurability is the key factor therein.

Christians of the reformed epistemology variety depend upon the notion of Sensus Divinitatis (SD) to inform their confidence in presuppositional and Calvinistic doctrines and existence of their God. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that SD has no referent in reality, (except brain states identical to those experienced by non-Abrahamic mystics), from which abstraction via commensurability can be accomplished. Lacking valid abstractions, there cannot be any valid concept or definition of God or validation of presuppositional apologetics and Calvinism (PAC).

The lack of valid concept of God from SD is fatal to PAC christianity, so I think.

Best Wishes and Regards to You and Yours.

Whateverman said...

I'd like to echo Rosemary's sentiments, and add specifics:

What do you mean by "comensurable"? I know what commensurate means, but sentences like the one below are very ambiguous:

"Can the notion of the Christian God be commensurable?"

Unknown said...

Hello Whateverman. Thank you for your comment and question. I will get a better definition posted tonight.

I've got a job to do today, so I've got to do it well.

Best and Good

RB

Unknown said...

Hello Whateverman and friends. Ayn Rand's answer to what is commensurability is found in ITOE pages 12-15. I have scanned these pages to ocr and now post them here for your reading pleasure.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 12-15

“...child's mind isolates two or more tables from other objects, by focusing on their distinctive characteristic: their shape. He observes that their shapes vary, but have one characteristic in common: a flat, level surface and support(s). He forms the concept "table" by retaining that characteristic and omitting all particular measurements, not only the measurements of the shape, but of all the other characteristics of tables (many of which he is not aware of at the time).

An adult definition of "table" would be:"A man-made object consisting of a flat, level surface and support(s), intended to support other, smaller objects." Observe what is specified and what is omitted in this definition: the distinctive characteristic of the shape is specified and retained; the particular geometrical measurements of the shape (whether the surface is square, round, oblong or triangular, etc., the number and shape of supports, etc.) are omitted; the measurements of size or weight are omitted; the fact that it is a material object is specified, but the material of which it is made is omitted, thus omitting the measurements that differentiate one material from another; etc. Observe, however, that the utilitarian requirements of the table set certain limits on the omitted measurements, in the form of "no larger than and no smaller than" required by its purpose. This rules out a ten-foot tall or a two-inch tall table (though the latter may be sub-classified as a toy or a miniature table) and it rules out unsuitable materials, such as non-solids.

Bear firmly in mind that the term "measurements omitted" does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that measurements exist, but are not specified. That measurements must exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity.

A child is not and does not have to be aware of all these complexities when he forms the concept "table." He forms it by differentiating tables from all other objects in the context of his knowledge. As his knowledge grows, the definitions of his concepts grow in complexity. (We shall discuss this when we discuss definitions.) But the principle and pattern of concept-formation remain the same.

The first words a child learns are words denoting visual objects, and he retains his first concepts visually. Observe that the visual form he gives them is reduced to those essentials which distinguish the particular kind of entities from all others—for instance, the universal type of a child's drawing of man in the form of an oval for the torso, a circle for the head, four sticks for extremities, etc. Such drawings are a visual record of the process of abstraction and concept-formation in a mind's transition from the perceptual level to the full vocabulary of the conceptual level.

There is evidence to suppose that written language originated in the form of drawings—as the pictographic writing of the Oriental peoples seems to indicate. With the growth of man's knowledge and of his power of abstraction, a pictorial representation of concepts could no longer be adequate to his conceptual range, and was replaced by a fully symbolic code.

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.

end [1]

Unknown said...

part 2

The element of similarity is crucially involved in the formation of every concept; similarity, in this context, is the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.

Observe the multiple role of measurements in the process of concept-formation, in both of its two essential parts: differentiation and integration. Concepts cannot be formed at random. All concepts are formed by first differentiating two or more existents from other existents. All conceptual differentiations are made in terms of commensurable characteristics (i.e., characteristics possessing a common unit of measurement). No concept could be formed, for instance, by attempting to distinguish long objects from green objects. Incommensurable characteristics cannot be integrated into one unit.

Tables, for instance, are first differentiated from chairs, beds and other objects by means of the characteristic of shape, which is an attribute possessed by all the objects involved. Then, their particular kind of shape is set as the distinguishing characteristic of tables—i.e., a certain category of geometrical measurements of shape is specified. Then, within that category, the particular measurements of individual table-shapes are omitted.

Please note the fact that a given shape represents a certain category or set of geometrical measurements. Shape is an attribute; differences of shape—whether cubes, spheres, cones or any complex combinations—are a matter of differing measurements; any shape can be reduced to or expressed by a set of figures in terms of linear measurement. When, in the process of concept-formation, man observes that shape is a commensurable characteristic of certain objects, he does not have to measure all the shapes involved nor even to know how to measure them; he merely has to observe the element of similarity.

Similarity is grasped perceptually; in observing it, man is not and does not have to be aware of the fact that it involves a matter of measurement. It is the task of philosophy and of science to identify that fact.

As to the actual process of measuring shapes, a vast part of higher mathematics, from geometry on up, is devoted to the task of discovering methods by which various shapes can be measured—complex methods which consist of reducing the problem to the terms of a simple, primitive method, the only one available to man in this field: linear measurement. (Integral calculus, used to measure the area of circles, is just one example.)
In this respect, concept-formation and applied mathematics have a similar task, just as philosophical epistemology and theoretical mathematics have a similar goal: the goal and task of bringing the universe within the range of man's knowledge—by identifying relationships to perceptual data.

end [2]

Unknown said...

part 3

Another example of implicit measurement can be seen in the process of forming concepts of colors. Man forms such concepts by observing that the various shades of blue aresimilar, as against the shades of red, and thus differentiating the range of blue from the range of red, of yellow, etc. Centuries passed before science discovered the unit by which colors could actually be measured: the wavelengths of light—a discovery that supported, in terms of mathematical proof, the differentiations that men were and are making in terms of visual similarities. (Any questions about "borderline cases" will be answered later.)

A commensurable characteristic (such as shape in the case of tables, or hue in the case of colors) is an essential element in the process of concept-formation. I shall designate it as the "Conceptual Common Denominator" and define it as "The characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."

The distinguishing characteristic(s) of a concept represents a specified category of measurements within the "Conceptual Common Denominator" involved.

New concepts can be formed by integrating earlier-formed concepts into wider categories, or by subdividing them into narrower categories (a process which we shall discuss later). But all concepts are ultimately reducible to their base in perceptual entities, which are the base (the given) of man's cognitive development.
The first concepts man forms are concepts of entities—since entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities.)

In the process of forming concepts of entities, a child's mind has to focus on a distinguishing characteristic—i.e., on an attribute—in order to isolate one group of entities from all others. He is, therefore, aware of attributes while forming his first concepts, but he is aware of them perceptually, not conceptually. It is only after he has grasped a number of concepts of entities that he can advance to the stage of abstracting attributes from entities and . forming separate concepts of attributes. The same is true of concepts of...”

end of Ayn Rand quote from ITOE

Unknown said...

Hello Whateverman and friends. Ayn Rand's answer to what is commensurability is found in ITOE pages 12-15. I have scanned these pages to ocr and now post them here for your reading pleasure.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 12-15

“...child's mind isolates two or more tables from other objects, by focusing on their distinctive characteristic: their shape. He observes that their shapes vary, but have one characteristic in common: a flat, level surface and support(s). He forms the concept "table" by retaining that characteristic and omitting all particular measurements, not only the measurements of the shape, but of all the other characteristics of tables (many of which he is not aware of at the time).

An adult definition of "table" would be:"A man-made object consisting of a flat, level surface and support(s), intended to support other, smaller objects." Observe what is specified and what is omitted in this definition: the distinctive characteristic of the shape is specified and retained; the particular geometrical measurements of the shape (whether the surface is square, round, oblong or triangular, etc., the number and shape of supports, etc.) are omitted; the measurements of size or weight are omitted; the fact that it is a material object is specified, but the material of which it is made is omitted, thus omitting the measurements that differentiate one material from another; etc. Observe, however, that the utilitarian requirements of the table set certain limits on the omitted measurements, in the form of "no larger than and no smaller than" required by its purpose. This rules out a ten-foot tall or a two-inch tall table (though the latter may be sub-classified as a toy or a miniature table) and it rules out unsuitable materials, such as non-solids.

Bear firmly in mind that the term "measurements omitted" does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that measurements exist, but are not specified. That measurements must exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity.

A child is not and does not have to be aware of all these complexities when he forms the concept "table." He forms it by differentiating tables from all other objects in the context of his knowledge. As his knowledge grows, the definitions of his concepts grow in complexity. (We shall discuss this when we discuss definitions.) But the principle and pattern of concept-formation remain the same.

The first words a child learns are words denoting visual objects, and he retains his first concepts visually. Observe that the visual form he gives them is reduced to those essentials which distinguish the particular kind of entities from all others—for instance, the universal type of a child's drawing of man in the form of an oval for the torso, a circle for the head, four sticks for extremities, etc. Such drawings are a visual record of the process of abstraction and concept-formation in a mind's transition from the perceptual level to the full vocabulary of the conceptual level.

There is evidence to suppose that written language originated in the form of drawings—as the pictographic writing of the Oriental peoples seems to indicate. With the growth of man's knowledge and of his power of abstraction, a pictorial representation of concepts could no longer be adequate to his conceptual range, and was replaced by a fully symbolic code.

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.

end part 1 (I mistakenly lost post no.1; here is a replacement.)

Unknown said...

I think commensurability is that state of affairs where commensurable characteristic(s) are identifiable in two or more existents such that they can be differentiated into an ensemble and from which those characteristics can be cognitively grasped and integrated by measurement omission into an abstraction that is in turn used to inform a concept.

Because

A commensurable characteristic ... is an essential element in the process of concept-formation. I shall designate it as the "Conceptual Common Denominator" and define it as "The characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it."

then Christians cannot claim their experience of Sensus Divinitatis as a basis of a concept. SD is alleged to be an incomprehensible divine miracle; as such, the christian's SD experience cannot have explanatory power or be parsimonious with realty. Therefore, SD cannot obtain to commensurability because commensurable characteristics cannot be identified and subjected to measurement omission because the SD divine miracle lacks explanatory power and parsimony. Claims of SD are then only floating abstractions.


This is only a rough first draft of an argument. To make this work it need be ironed out and correctly nuanced.

What do you think? Does this line of reasoning have merit?

Unknown said...

Dawson,
I enjoy reading your blog to hear the other side. Now I did not read all the comments but this post is a little unsettling to me. First, no offense to Nide, but if you are going to critique PA, stick with the more professionally trained, not that I am one, but the short section you quoted is not a good example of PA. Second, maybe because I did not listen to the context, I don't even see the point of the discussion. PA's can trust their senses because their worldview gives them reasons to trust them. Our minds correlate with reality because our minds were created that way. If we have evolved as a result of chance we have no certainty of correlation. Also your inserted interpretation of Nide being flustered or nervous or limp is not helpful. No Nide is not the new Bahnsen. Please choose better examples to smackdown otherwise you look bad.

Unknown said...

Hello Aaron Nygren: Presuppositionalism only has one argument; i.e.:, features of human cognition presuppose the Christian God. A corollary thereunto, albeit distorted by Nide, is that without YHWH/Jehovah-Jesus-Sophia certainty of any kind is impossible. Nide is a moron. The discussions with him were for amusement. If your interested in serious refutations and answering of PA nonsense, check out Dawson's answers to Seger parts I-IVb.

AN > PA's can trust their senses because their worldview gives them reasons to trust them.

You misunderstand what presuppositionalism is all about. TAG asserts humans cannot trust their cognition unless they presuppose the Christian world view based, as it is, on primacy of consciousness metaphysics. TAG asserts that unless one believes Christian fairy tales, thought, reasoning, perception, concept formation are futile and only lead to mistake, error, and fallacy.

AN > If we have evolved as a result of chance we have no certainty of correlation.

You also misunderstand evolution theory. Natural selection, sexual selection, lateral gene transfer, mutagensis, and epigenomics do not happen by chance. The mechanisms of evolution happen by deterministic casualty except in instances governed by volitional will. Lower species lacking faculties of volition are determined by the law of identity, A=A, applied to actions. The Sunday school bromide regarding chance vs creation you have swallowed along with the rest of Christianity's mythology is false.

Regarding certainty, you better check your Calvinism. John wrote:

God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.

No Calvinist christian can have certainty they are saved. The same capricious God Calvin believed in is also the God of presuppositionalism. Consequently no PA guy or gal can have certainty about anything.

Times up gotta go. Best wishes.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Aaron wrote: “I enjoy reading your blog to hear the other side.”

Welcome to my blog, Aaron, I hope you stick around. We’d love some more input from the other side as well.

Aaron: “Now I did not read all the comments but this post is a little unsettling to me.”

In fact, it was meant to be unsettling to anyone who has any sympathies for presuppositionalism.

Aaron: “First, no offense to Nide, but if you are going to critique PA, stick with the more professionally trained,”

Do you mean like Cornelius Van Til (see here, here and here for examples)?

Or Greg Bahnsen (see here, here, and here, for instance)?

How about John Frame (see here and here)?

There’s also James Anderson (see here and here for starters).

Or how about Peter Pike (see here, here and here)?

[Continued…]

Bahnsen Burner said...

There’s also Sye Ten Bruggencate (see here and here), Dustin Segers (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here), Paul Manata (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), Chris Bolt (too many to list!), and many more.

Yes, I’ve interacted with the heavyweights many times, Aaron. If you enjoy reading my blog, perhaps you’ve read only very little if you think your complaint applies.

[Continued…]

Bahnsen Burner said...

Aaron: “Second, maybe because I did not listen to the context, I don't even see the point of the discussion.”

Then open your eyes. Read the discussion again.

Aaron: “PA's can trust their senses because their worldview gives them reasons to trust them.”

Robert has already presented some interesting points on this matter in his response to you. I would point out, in addition to what Robert has stated, that the position which you describe here will only lead to the fallacy of the stolen concept (see this blog entry to learn what this fallacy is). So it’s a dead-end.

Aaron: “Our minds correlate with reality because our minds were created that way.”

By “created that way” you mean that a supernatural being created them this way by an act of will. There is no objective evidence for this position. Even worse, it is a position which one must imagine; it is not a conclusion drawn from facts which we discover in the world.

Aaron: “If we have evolved as a result of chance we have no certainty of correlation.”

This is a conclusion that you would need to defend with an argument, and you’d also have to take it up with those who believe that evolution is really only a result of “chance” (see this blog entry to start your homework).

Aaron: “Also your inserted interpretation of Nide being flustered or nervous or limp is not helpful.”

Prompts of this nature are common when transcribing an audio excerpt; they indicate to readers who have not heard the audio recording being transcribed, what is happening non-verbally. So in this way, yes, they are helpful.

Aaron: “No Nide is not the new Bahnsen.”

That’s good for PA.

Aaron: “Please choose better examples to smackdown otherwise you look bad.”

Can you suggest any that I haven’t already examined?

Regards,
Dawson

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Aaron,

Hezek was a prime example of why presuppositionalism has such a following. You have to be such an idiot to buy into the many fallacies in it. The "pros" either understand half of it, or know all too well that this is snake-oil salesmanship at its best. The followers, those applauding at the sides, have either no idea, or half understand the part where they "dismantle" by ignoring the arguments against any possibility for a god, let alone the Christian one, to be a source of any coherence, while not understanding that such evasion does not solve the problem with Christian incoherence.

Presuppositionalism relies on the stupidity of the Christian masses to be convinced and ignore the hypocrisy of the "argument." Quite happy to "show" the "absurdities" of other "worldviews," quite willing to ignore its own absurdities in exchange for the avoidance in a "how do you know" question which does not solve the problem in the Christian worldview. Only tries to ignore the problem by trying to show a "problem" with the claimant, rather than with the argument. A classic fallacy. So, Hezek helps by showing with clarity the trickery. He openly admits to the tricks therein. Thus, the exercise was worth it, and will be worth it any time a less trained hypocritologist shows up.

Do you notice that "how do you know" is avoidance tactic at all? If not, then you are as much an imbecile as Hezek.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Aaron wrote: “No Nide is not the new Bahnsen.”

I wanted to make another point on this matter. I entirely agree that Nide is/was not the best apologist out there. Of course he wasn’t. The title of my blog entry, “Presuppositionalism’s Finest?”, was intended to be as gently provocative as it is baldly ironic. I certainly don’t think Nide was much of an apologist at all, though in some ways he was more consistent with his worldview than some who are more prominent in the field (consider what photosynthesis has stated above).

What I’m concerned is being missed here, is the fact that Nide did (I’m guessing) his best to participate and engage non-believers who are openly critical of Christianity in general and presuppositionalism in particular. Many, many internet apologists are fully aware of my blog, and a few have attempted to engage me, with varying degrees of stamina. However, they’ve all flown the coop, many after only a handful of interactions (if that). By contrast, Nide, in all his characteristic, self-inflicted idiocy, made an effort to stay in the fight, even though he quickly ran out of ammunition in the first set of volleys way back when. If he were truly serious, with all his “How do you know?” questions and “I just take it for granted” dodges, then referring to him as an “idiot” is not unjustified. If he were not serious, he denigrated his own character to the Nth degree by playing the fool. Either way, he was a laughingstock like never before, all in the name of “Greg Bahnsen’s Home Boy,” which is how he referred to himself on his blog and in his blog avatar. And now he’s closed up his shop and has fled the scene entirely. Good riddance I says.

The question is: why aren’t other, “more worthy” apologists trying to interact with my criticisms, either here on my blog, or elsewhere? Truly, to paraphrase Isaiah 55:11, my refutations do not return to me void: the deafening silence observed among all those who claim to be “always ready” to answer for the “hope” they claim to have in their religious worldview, tells us pretty much all we need to know. Meanwhile, those same apologists busy themselves with easy-pickin’s and, more and more, internal disputes. Are the “professionally trained” apologists simply being wise as serpents, knowing where they should not tread?

Regards,
Dawson

Unknown said...

Hello Aaron Nygren: I hope you are well today. It would be interesting if you could defend Dr. Greg Bahnsen's claim that deductive logic presupposes the Christian God. Can you demonstrate that since the form of a valid deductive argument necessitates that if its premises are true then its conclusion is also true that only the Christian God can be responsible for causing that concept to obtain?

Unknown said...

Gentlemen, thanks for responding to my comment. I in no way claim to be professionally trained as an PA. Apologetics and philosophy are a hobby of mine as I study systematic theology. I am not sure I can keep up with responding to all three of you but I will try when I am one man, with a big family and one on the way so my time is limited. I will read through some of links you posted above. Dawson, from the links you posted above I see that you have critiqued Frame, Bahnsen, Anderson, etc. Have any of them responded? I told Dr. Frame about your blog. He said he just did not have the time to respond to everything going on out there. Maybe it would be beneficial to set up a live debate between you and Frame, Anderson or Oliphint. Thanks again for your helpful comments.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Aaron: “I in no way claim to be professionally trained as an PA.”

I don’t see this as a limiting factor, Aaron. Why would someone need to be “professionally trained” to present and/or evaluate arguments critically? This is something one can learn to do without any professional training. If you have arguments, I am certainly open to examining them.

Aaron: “I am not sure I can keep up with responding to all three of you but I will try when I am one man, with a big family and one on the way so my time is limited.”

We are in similar boats, Aaron. I’m excruciatingly busy. But I’ll do my best to give you a fair hearing when I can.

Aaron: “I will read through some of links you posted above.”

Please do. If you have any questions, comments, reactions, please feel free to post them somewhere on my blog, I will see them.

Aaron: “Dawson, from the links you posted above I see that you have critiqued Frame, Bahnsen, Anderson, etc. Have any of them responded?”

Well, Bahnsen certainly hasn’t. He died in 1995 I believe. So we shan’t be hearing from him unless he undergoes resurrection or has the power to communicate from the grave. Frame has never posted a response, either on my blog, or elsewhere to my knowledge. Anderson has interacted in the past, but I responded to him (here). When asked about it, Anderson made some comments on his blog about my critique of his argument, but I have responded to them as well (see here) and he has not interacted any further. That was several months ago.

Aaron: “I told Dr. Frame about your blog.”

Thank you for doing this, Aaron. I really do appreciate that.

Aaron: “He said he just did not have the time to respond to everything going on out there.”

No, of course not.

Aaron: “Maybe it would be beneficial to set up a live debate between you and Frame, Anderson or Oliphint.”

Debate what specifically? And for what purpose? Debates have been proposed to me before, but I have to say I really don’t see the point. I do not think a debate is a good way to get to the truth, which is all I’m concerned with. A discussion would be welcome, but a debate per se seems rather pointless to me. I’ve examined many debates between theists and non-theists, and in the end, the theist always and without exception leaves me with no alternative but to imagine the god he claims he’s proven to exist. So I have to say that as a non-theist, I am not impressed, and were I a theist, I would be extremely concerned by this. Perhaps that’s one reason why I’m not a theist.

Regards,
Dawson

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 445 of 445   Newer› Newest»