Friday, October 21, 2011

Dusman on Circularity on Dusman Part I



A blogger named Dusman from the Grace in the Triad blog recently posted on his blog a response to a question I posted in the comments sectionon his blog; “how do you know that presupposing the god of the bible is a good way to have knowledge”. Dusman is a reformed Christian and has a preference for using the presuppositional method of apologetics. In his world view (WV) it is the “biblical” way of doing apologetics so it’s important to understand where he is coming from when reading his responses. Basically the focus of his argument supporting his WV and against all other WVs is based on epistemology. He believes the only way one can justify knowing anything is by presupposing the god of the bible and that any other WV is unable to provide a solid foundation of knowledge. From what I can tell Dusman likes to employ the TAG argument which is the transcendental argument for the existence of God; specifically the god of the bible. There is also a moral component to the TAG however I do not intent to cover any of that here and will try to stay focused on the topic at hand.

Dusmans’ "short" response to my question was;“the proof that God exists is that without Him you can't prove anything”. My initial response is that this is an argument ad consequentiam or an argument to consequences. Dusman of course disagrees with me as he thinks it is a logical consequence of the proposition. He stated the following in protest:

“This isn't an argument to undesirable consequences; though the consequences of denying such should be undesirable for the rational person.  When an argument is about a certain proposition, it is reasonable to assess the truth-value of any logical consequences of it. Logical consequences should not be confused with causal consequences, and truth or falsity should not be confused with goodness or badness.  Since God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of reality, then it follows that one couldn't prove anything, much less His existence without first assuming His existence since His existence is the very thing needed for the concept of proof in the first place.  Thus, the proposition itself (i.e., the existence of God) is in question, not the logical relation of the proposition to the intelligibility of reality or the issue of whether the consequences are desirable or not. “

While his protest is expected, it should be obvious why it is missing the point. I had stated earlier to Dusman that I could just as easily take his statement and turn it back on him; “the proof that God does NOT exist is that if he did you could not prove anything”. We can see that the argument by itself is meaningless and is in fact an appeal to consequences since it provides nothing to support its self relies solely on the outcome. I do agree with Dusman that there is nothing illogical about the proposition, however just because it is logical does not mean it is valid. I would liken it to another similar proposition:

“The proof that pot roast exists is that without pot roast we could not have dinner.”

Notice the form is the same here, however instead of presupposing God to justify having knowledge; we are presupposing pot roast in order to justify having dinner. The problem is, it is a meaningless proposition and only an appeal to consequences until we are able to show that the only thing in the fridge is in fact pot roast and then we need not presuppose it anyway.

Dusman goes on to talk about circular reasoning and how it is unavoidable:

“Everybody reasons in a circle and doing so isn't always fallacious.  There are two things we need to discuss about circular reasoning: It is (1) absolutely unavoidable and (2) not necessarily fallacious. Circular reasoning is unavoidable to some degree when proving one's ultimate standard. An ultimate standard cannot be proved from anything else, otherwise it wouldn't be ultimate. Therefore, if it is to be proved, it must use itself as its own standard of judgment by which any decision is made.”

Also:

“Second, all circles aren't necessarily fallacious. Begging the question is often considered a fallacy because it is usually arbitrary. But it can be non-arbitrary if it goes beyond a simple circle (i.e., the Bible is true because it says so) and uses additional information to support its conclusion. If the ultimate authority is first assumed and you find out later you have good reasons for it because without it you cannot make sense out of anything, then its perfectly legitimate to reason in a circle.”

While it may be true that circular reasoning is sometimes unavoidable, if we take a closer look we can see where Dusman misses his own point. He states that if he first assumes his ultimate authority (GOB) and later finds out that without his assumption he cannot make sense out of anything then he has good reason for his assumption. It’s clear though that the reason he gives for claiming that without out his assumption he cannot make sense out of anything is because that is a part of his original assumption of the GOB. Dusman is really just assuming the GOB is the way to make sense out of anything and then claiming that he has good reason for assuming the GOB because of his assumption that without the GOB he cannot make sense out of anything. If this does not fit the category of arbitrary I don’t know what would.

Dusman continues down the path of trying to justify his circular reasoning:

“In fact, any true ultimate authority must use itself as part of its own proof. Again, some degree of circular reasoning is involved, but it cannot be a simple "vicious" circle. It must be non-arbitrary. Consider logic: 
1 - If there were no laws of logic, we couldn't make an argument.
2 - We can make an argument.
3 - Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
 
This argument is perfectly sound yet it is subtly circular.  It's what is known as a modus tollens syllogism (i.e., denying the consequent) and in this "proof", we have assumed that there are laws of logic. Modus tollens is a law of inference in logic, and we have used it as part of the proof that there are laws of logic. In this case we had no other choice; in order to get anywhere in any argument we must presuppose that there are laws of logic.”

Here he has given us a simple syllogism trying to make his case, however; we can see he has pulled a bait and switch. Now he is trying to equate his argument that without the GOB we could not make sense of anything to without logic we couldn’t make an argument. These two are just not even close and he has now given us a false analogy.

He continues on:

“However, this example argument doesn't merely assume what its trying to prove; it imports additional information to support its conclusion. What makes this circular argument a powerful one is that to deny it would be to assume it, thus any potential rebuttal would be self-defeating. A great way to show that a particular presupposition must be true is to show that one would have to assume that the presupposition is true even to argue against it in the first place. “

It is not clear what “additional information” he is referring to here as I see none in the syllogism provided.  He then goes from claiming “additional information” to claiming it is circular and that to deny it would be to assume it. Of course I think he has missed that it really isn’t even circular since the first proposition is meaningless. If we look closely we can see that “laws of logic” assume “logic” and “argument[s]” also assumes logic, so the first premise is essentially; if there were no logic, we couldn’t use logic. This is obviously absurd.

Dusman goes on to reaffirm to us his “ultimate standard” of the GOB and attempt to show how any attempted refutation of it must assume it. Once again he is back with the “the proof that God exists is that without Him you can't prove anything” argument.

“The Christian's ultimate standard is like this; any attempt to refute the Bible must assume things about the world that could only be true if the Bible were true in order to get started. The Bible not only provides the criteria for itself, but it does so for all other facts, hence, the reasoning isn't viciously circular. It gives us a foundation (the Biblical God) for rational reasoning (including laws of logic), science, morality, reliability of our senses and memory, and so on.”

After some additional pleading of his position Dusman goes on to seal the deal:

“As with the argument for laws of logic, any attempted rebuttal would be self-refuting, because it would have to use things (laws of logic, the charge to be consistent, etc.) that presuppose a universe that can only exist if Christian theism is true. Thus, we are not merely arguing "The Bible must be the word of God because it says so". Rather, we are saying, "The Bible must be the word of God not only because it says it is, but if you reject this claim you are reduced to absurdity."”




We are now back to the bait and switch and here is where Dusman tries to bring it all together in hopes that we don’t see what is really going on (I think David Blaine would be impressed; is he still around?). As I have already pointed out, equating GOB and logic just doesn’t add up. Sure, one cannot deny logic without assuming it, however we can deny the GOB without assuming it and Dusman has yet to prove otherwise. So far, he has only been able to assert that we must assume the GOB and given us circular argument after circular argument along with some bait and switch to try to make his case. I hope he can do better than this in future posts.



In conclusion I hope to have made it clear how the argument Dusman has put forth not only doesn’t meet Dusmans’ own requirements for a non-fallacious argument but still leaves the original question unanswered. I have shown how the justification put forth for presupposing the GOB does not meet the standard of non-arbitrary circularity put forth by Dusman as well as demonstrating how it has no meaningful content. Dusmans’ position amounts to nothing more than; one must presuppose the GOB because presupposing the GOB says you cannot know anything unless you presuppose the GOB.






58 comments:

  1. Do more reading you don't understand TAG.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter, if you have an actual critique please feel free to post it. Also, I mentioned TAG only in the first paragraph when trying to give some insight into Dusman, The rest of the post did not cover TAG but only specifically Dusmans' response. It does not appear that you made it past the first paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JC - Your counters appear reasonable. I look forward to Dustin's response when he returns.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter, you're wrong, JC has pretty much nailed this. I am amused at the way that presuppers ALWAYS claim that any refutation of their argument has only 'worked' because the person arguing against it 'understand' the TAG.

    Anyway, good work JC. In my opinion the TAG is employed two ways - with fellow believers who already accept the conclusion, as a way of shoring up their faith with a false patina of 'logic', - and as a smoke screen to prevent discussion with non-believers ever reaching a point where they can start providing material evidence that the Bible is wrong about science, or archaeology, or evolution etc.

    I'd be interested if there has ever been a single non-believer converted by the TAG - I'm willing to bet there hasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JC,

    You said,

    "“The proof that pot roast exists is that without pot roast we could not have dinner.”

    It is true that you can claim anything as the transcendental criteria for the intelligibility of reality. However, whether or not pot roast provides said criteria is another matter.

    The challenge isn't just to arbitrarily throw out some transcendental criteria to reduce my position to absurdity, but to show given your own naturalistic lights, how pot roast as its traditionally understood can provide the philosophical cash value needed to account for logic, induction, knowledge, epistemic normativity, etc. Of course, if you redefine pot roast as ontologically spirit, eternal, Triune, omniscient, omnipotent, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth, then you'd be on to something. But then it wouldn't be pot roast anymore; it would be Christianity going by another name.

    "He states that if he first assumes his ultimate authority (GOB) and later finds out that without his assumption he cannot make sense out of anything then he has good reason for his assumption. It’s clear though that the reason he gives for claiming that without out his assumption he cannot make sense out of anything is because that is a part of his original assumption of the GOB. Dusman is really just assuming the GOB is the way to make sense out of anything and then claiming that he has good reason for assuming the GOB because of his assumption that without the GOB he cannot make sense out of anything. If this does not fit the category of arbitrary I don’t know what would."

    The above simply isn't true. JC conveniently left out the two examples that I gave. I didn't just assert that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of reality, but I then went on to give two brief examples of this from the ontology of logic (which is a metaphysical, not an epistemological argument) and epistemic normativity (which is an epistemological and ethical argument combined). I refer readers to my blog to see if I merely arbitrarily asserted God without offering substantiation for my premises: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2011/10/do-christians-reason-in-circle.html

    JC goes on to say,

    "Here he has given us a simple syllogism trying to make his case, however; we can see he has pulled a bait and switch. Now he is trying to equate his argument that without the GOB we could not make sense of anything to without logic we couldn’t make an argument. These two are just not even close and he has now given us a false analogy."

    Any reader of my blog article will see that I wasn't making a false analogy nor attempting a bait and switch, but simply showing that some things have to be assumed as part of their own proof. This is recognized by all secular philosophers. The existence of logic, other minds, the external world, ethical beliefs, aesthetic judgments, the senses, and science itself all rely on themselves to prove themselves to one extent or another.

    Also, I didn't just assert the above, I went on to give two brief examples of how not assuming God results in an inability to account for the very things you use to critique the existence of God.

    As Peter has noted, our friend JC doesn't understand what TAG is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How do you account for the fact that the greeks and other civilizations have been able to make use of logic and evidence without belief in your god? How would you deal with an Islamic who tries this reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  7. JC- nice work.

    Reynold- any presupper worth his salt will tell you that non-Christians are borrowing from the Christian worldview to say that two plus two equals four, and that non-Christians have no way of being sure of it, or of anything else for that matter. Not much point in arguing with them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dusman,

    If you could, please reference specifically the "examples" I conveniently left out so it's clear what exactly you are referring to.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dusman,

    I think you miss the point of the pot roast argument and you may want to read that section again. No where did I say pot roast could account for logic, knowledge or anything else other than dinner. I can only assume you misread the post or you are creating a straw-man. If anything maybe its the transcendental argument for pot roast (TAPR). Of course it is absurd as it is meant to show how absurd TAG is.

    Also, please note that I did include a link to your blog post in the very first paragraph so I would not need to quote everything you said. I am also working on part II to address last half of your post as I think its a slightly different argument.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reynold,

    "How do you account for the fact that the greeks and other civilizations have been able to make use of logic and evidence without belief in your god?"

    That isn't my argument.

    "How would you deal with an Islamic who tries this reasoning?"

    Simple, (1) The God is Islam is internally incoherent and impersonal, thus it cannot ground these things, (2) Allah is said to be so transcendent that we can't know anything of him in human language, but that proposition is self-refuting, (3) point out that if the Qur'an is true then its false since it affirms the truthfulness of the Bible, which contradicts its own propositions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "
    Simple, (1) The God is Islam is internally incoherent and impersonal, thus it cannot ground these things, (2) Allah is said to be so transcendent that we can't know anything of him in human language, but that proposition is self-refuting, (3) point out that if the Qur'an is true then its false since it affirms the truthfulness of the Bible, which contradicts its own propositions."

    Only someone who was as far gone into this presup nonsense would think the above was in any way reasonable. Basically you've said 'Islam is gibberish because it makes claims that can't be true if my gibberish religion is true, and my gibberish is the TRUE gibberish'.....at no point have you given any reason to believe in your god.

    Dustin, answer me this - why should I believe in ANY gods?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dusman said...

    Reynold,

    "How do you account for the fact that the greeks and other civilizations have been able to make use of logic and evidence without belief in your god?"

    That isn't my argument.
    Oh? Aren't you the one saying that your god is necessary for science and logic in the first place? I was just pointing out that others have done so without your god.

    "How would you deal with an Islamic who tries this reasoning?"
    Simple, (1) The God is Islam is internally incoherent and impersonal, thus it cannot ground these things,...
    "Internally incoherent"? Ever hear of biblical problems? But of course, apologetics exists to explain those away...same as in Islam...

    Incoherence with things like the trinity itself (ex. When Jesus was baptized there was a voice FROM HEAVEN saying that he [God] was proud of his son [Jesus], thus showing that they are in two different places, and Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane where he said that he wanted god's will, not his own, thus showing that even their desires were not always lined up.)

    (2) Allah is said to be so transcendent that we can't know anything of him in human language, but that proposition is self-refuting,
    Doesn't the bible say the same thing about your god, about how his ways are so much higher than our ways?

    (3) point out that if the Qur'an is true then its false since it affirms the truthfulness of the Bible, which contradicts its own propositions.
    See biblical contradictions and inconsistencies.


    For more fun, check out some problems with christ. If christ can't even qualify for Messiahship, how can he be the "basis" for logic, science and reason?

    ReplyDelete
  13. JC,

    "I think you miss the point of the pot roast argument and you may want to read that section again. No where did I say pot roast could account for logic, knowledge or anything else other than dinner."

    That's the problem and I already addressed it.

    "Of course it is absurd as it is meant to show how absurd TAG is."

    Show the absurdity, don't just assert it. As already noted, by arbitrarily assuming anything as a transcendental (like a pot roast) does nothing to answer my claims since pot roasts don't provide what's needed to make sense out reality unless it is the God of Scripture going by another name. By the way, if you want to refute Biblical apologetics, I'll tell you how to do it in three words: give up truth.

    It is not my responsibility to spoon-feed my own brief arguments back to you when I've already laid them out in the article you linked to after answering your claim that I was being arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Alex,

    "Only someone who was as far gone into this presup nonsense would think the above was in any way reasonable."

    Do you have any arguments forthcoming or only more atheistic raging? I'll answer your question when you can defend your atheistic reasoning by first giving up your atheistic reasoning. As said elsewhere, I won't hold my breath. Repent (Luke 13:3).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reynold,

    "Aren't you the one saying that your god is necessary for science and logic in the first place? I was just pointing out that others have done so without your god."

    Thanks for pointing this out, but I've been interacting online now since 1995 and have had these types of conversations both in person and online a few thousand times since then. Thus, I'm aware of this assertion and again, its not my argument. You're confusing the existence of God with the belief in said God as the necessary precondition for science, logic, morality, etc. I affirm the former and deny the latter.

    "Internally incoherent"? Ever hear of biblical problems? But of course, apologetics exists to explain those away...same as in Islam..."

    On atheism, what's wrong with being incoherent? By the way, you're giving up your atheism to argue for your atheism.

    "Incoherence with things like the trinity itself (ex. When Jesus was baptized there was a voice FROM HEAVEN saying that he [God] was proud of his son [Jesus], thus showing that they are in two different places . . ."

    And how does this supposedly show a contradiction?

    ". . . and Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane where he said that he wanted god's will, not his own, thus showing that even their desires were not always lined up.)"

    And how does this undermines the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

    "For more fun, check out some problems with christ. If christ can't even qualify for Messiahship, how can he be the "basis" for logic, science and reason?"

    The above list is a joke. Most of these are easy to answer off the cuff. The fact that you would post such a list and the fact that you haven't taken the time to understand well enough the very worldview you're critiquing is evidence that you really aren't interested in serious dialogue but only in ranting. If I've seen one of you I've seen a thousand. Thus, goodbye (2 Tim. 2:23).

    ReplyDelete
  16. You're confusing the existence of God with the belief in said God as the necessary precondition for science, logic, morality, etc. I affirm the former and deny the latter.
    So, can you show how the EXISTENCE of your god is the necessary precondition for science, morality, etc?

    Especially when your own god on his own whim contravenes ("adds to", what a laugh!) the laws of nature? If what we see and experience around us can be temporarily changed on a whim, how are we to tell just how anything works? Miracles act as an avoidance to scientific discovery, NOT as a help to them.

    For instance, miracles help people like YEC's avoid the conclusions one would otherwise get from plain observations of the universe around us. Example.

    The YEC's shown there have to invoke miraculous intervention by your god in order to avoid the otherwise obvious conclusion that radioisotopes would otherwise give about the age of the earth.

    Miracles make scientific endeavors useless because it gives theists an escape clause any time reality contradicts doctrine, so no matter what the results of experiment and observation are, the theist can invoke the "god of the gaps" and still hold on to their beliefs no matter what.


    Can you explain how this being is the necessary precondition for morality when he orders the killing of babies in the OT, yet his followers claim to value the lives of babies and protest abortion? To put it this way: How can he be responsible for our consciences when our own consciences rail at those who would kill children (like through abortion), yet he himself does that?

    "Internally incoherent"? Ever hear of biblical problems? But of course, apologetics exists to explain those away...same as in Islam..."
    On atheism, what's wrong with being incoherent? By the way, you're giving up your atheism to argue for your atheism.
    Wow, that's stupid. Say what now? Can you explain that last bit of word salad to me? Just HOW have I given up atheism to argue for atheism?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do the rules of logic exist independent of god or not? You have to show that they do not. Bible verses to that effect would be nice, hopefully you do a better job of it than Dan did.

    It would help your case if you could show that your god was not bound by the laws of logic like the rest of us are..otherwise, he's as much beholden to them as we are, and is not their creator, but their servant.

    The greeks were the ones who as far as we know were the ones who first formalized the rules of logic. The bible isn't. The best that Dan did is point out that some verses can be used as examples of some of those laws, BUT: the writers never gave any clue that they knew that they were forumulating general laws.

    You presuppers claim that since the laws of logic etc. are "immaterial" that that means that your immaterial god made them. Are you saying that those immaterial rules were somehow "created"? How does one "create" an immaterial object?

    One can think them up, or imagine them, but that doesn't mean that they were "made", now does it? Did the laws of logic not exist until your god made them?

    Same problem with the claim that your god is necessary for morality, really. Does god do something because it's moral? Then the moral exists outside of his existence and your god is not necessary for it. Is something moral because your god does it? Then it's all subjective and morality is nothing but the whims of your god. And inconsistent whims, too. Remember the baby killing problem.

    This problem exists with the laws of logic as well.

    Here's something to chew over: Theists like to claim that god made "time". Impossible, since there had to have been a period before which time was created. Then, later, time was created. BUT: Time had to have passed in the first place in order for there to BE a "later" in the first place.

    "Incoherence with things like the trinity itself (ex. When Jesus was baptized there was a voice FROM HEAVEN saying that he [God] was proud of his son [Jesus], thus showing that they are in two different places . . ."
    And how does this supposedly show a contradiction?
    Let's see: Two different beings in two different places, referring to each other in the third person? So long as one doesn't go running around claiming that those beings are one and the same, there is no contradiction...

    Do you claim that? Whoops. Looks like you do, below.


    ". . . and Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane where he said that he wanted god's will, not his own, thus showing that even their desires were not always lined up.)"
    And how does this undermines the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?
    The doctrine itself, no. The logical law of contradiction? Yes. Remember, in Gethsemene, Jesus implied that he and his "father" don't always have the same desires!

    Think: How can one have different desires than oneself?? Jesus and his father are two different beings.
    The above list is a joke. Most of these are easy to answer off the cuff. The fact that you would post such a list and the fact that you haven't taken the time to understand well enough the very worldview you're critiquing is evidence that you really aren't interested in serious dialogue but only in ranting. If I've seen one of you I've seen a thousand. Thus, goodbye (2 Tim. 2:23).
    Nice...claim that every objection is "easy to answer off the cuff" and then walk off, without answering any of them.

    Just like your compatriot Sye TenB, when pressed, you take off. Typical.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I'll answer your question when you can defend your atheistic reasoning by first giving up your atheistic reasoning. As said elsewhere, I won't hold my breath. Repent (Luke 13:3)"

    Ah, you're becoming more and more like Sye with each passing day! Seems you've learned the 'dodge' technique perfectly!

    Answer the question - why should I believe in ANY gods? In fact, let's go further - without resorting to your circular nonsense, tell me what evidence you have that gods can exist, and that your version of your god is the 'right' one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dusman,
    “Show the absurdity, don't just assert it. As already noted, by arbitrarily assuming anything as a transcendental (like a pot roast) does nothing to answer my claims since pot roasts don't provide what's needed to make sense out reality unless it is the God of Scripture going by another name. By the way, if you want to refute Biblical apologetics, I'll tell you how to do it in three words: give up truth. “

    You seem to want to cling to your MOCKAGODAFARIANISM straw-man argument even though it has nothing to do with my post. I never arbitrarily assumed anything nor did I put forth pot roast as a replacement for your God. I merely gave an analogous proposition that shows where your argument fails. If you had read the post you would have seen how clear I was about the analogy. Here it is again with the key words highlighted so there is no confusion.

    “I would liken it to another similar proposition:

    “The proof that pot roast exists is that without pot roast we could not have dinner.”

    Notice the form is the same here, however instead of presupposing God to justify having knowledge; we are presupposing pot roast in order to justify having dinner. The problem is, it is a meaningless proposition and only an appeal to consequences until we are able to show that the only thing in the fridge is in fact pot roast and then we need not presuppose it anyway.”

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey,. that's pretty good. Mind if I use that?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not sure why Dustin was having so much trouble with the pot roast analogy, it's very clear.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Reynold,

    "Just like your compatriot Sye TenB, when pressed, you take off. Typical."

    If you want to debate one-on-one, then set it up on an atheist show and I'll come on and debate you on the topic of the existence of God at my earliest convenience (I'm out of town Tues-Saturday this week).

    JC,

    The fact that this is the same form is irrelevant, the same form of arguments that are used to prove the existence of God are also used to prove the existence of wet grass.

    If you can demonstrate that pot roast is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of reality (which is the ultimate question at hand), then go for it. Until then, you're attempted reductio has failed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Reynold, I'll happily host a debate between you and Dustin if you want to do that. Dustin is, unlike Sye, actually quite reasonable one on one (note, I would not recommend anyone bother debating Sye, unless you want to hear the phrase 'how do you know that?' repeated until it becomes an abstract noise utterly devoid of meaning)

    Dustin

    "If you can demonstrate that pot roast is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of reality (which is the ultimate question at hand), then go for it. Until then, you're attempted reductio has failed."

    Are you deliberately missing the point that JC was making? Or are you just incapable of seeing it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dusman,

    I'm not sure why you insist on wanting me to demonstrate that "pot roast is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of reality". It would do you good to look up what an analogy is so you will be less confused.

    The "question at hand" is the circularity of your position which is thoroughly exposed in my post and which your only attempt at critique was to suggest I said something I did not and to say I just don't understand TAG.

    I will gladly take you up on a debate if Reynold is not available.



    Reynold,

    Feel free too use any content you like.

    ReplyDelete
  25. JC, my offer to host stands for you as well.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gentlemen,

    Friday, 11-4-2011 is good for me to go on the show. Thanks Alex for being willing to host.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hmmm...how do we arrange that? I prefer written as I can do it from home in my spare time, and I can post in my shorts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If I go on a show, how would we do it? I work on alternating days and nights...for instance I work on the 26th to the 29th day shift and then my next shift runs from the third to the sixth on the nights of next month.

    Don't ask...I've applied for a straight Mon to Fri day shift at the place where I work!

    If I can just phone in for the debate on the show, as I assume I can, I'll have to know several days in advance so I can look at my schedule. I'd rather do this when I don't have work the next day.


    Thing is, I've just noticed: Why can't Dusman just answer our questions HERE? In print?

    ReplyDelete
  29. For now, I can say that on the 30th of Oct to the 2nd of November I'm free. The next that I'll be free is on the seventh to the tenth of Nov. Though I'd rather do it on the ninth instead of the tenth as I work on the eleventh.

    If any of those days are good for you Dusman and Alex, let me know. If not, I'll just have to look at my work schedule and keep you guys informed.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow...debating with this Dusman guy is going to be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  31. People can Skype in. I'm available through to the 18th of November, apart from the 10th of November (when I'll be playing a show).

    I'll record the audio, act as host, but mostly let the debate go on uninterrupted. Once they're finished I'll put the unedited audio up on the Fundamentally Flawed Podcast iTunes feed, so that anyone who wants to can have it - usually the mp3 will be on the website (www.fundamentally-flawed.com) within an hour of finishing, and is usually on iTunes the next day. We tend to stipulate that others can use the audio if they want, but that they must not edit it in any way, must give correct attribution, and must not use it commercially.

    Is that acceptable?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'll have to get a Skype account first, and a microphone. I'll do that on my next set of days off, which will be around the 30th or 31st. Then I'll test it out.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Reynold, if you have a laptop it might already have a mic built in

    ReplyDelete
  34. Not my laptop; it's about 5 years old and no mics.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm good for Tuesday, 11-1-11 from 2-3 p.m. EST. Alex, I agree re: the audio use stipulations.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sounds good...I assume the free Skype account will let me do this with my computer. I should be good to go...I'll buy my stuff on the 30th and test them out.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Reynold,

    Skype is great for stuff like this. The only thing I'd recommend is that if you have dogs that might bark (like I do) or a potentially noisy environment get a mike or headset with a mute function. I look forward to interacting with you!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have no dogs. Unfortunately, it seems that I'll have to have the time changed. I finally got that job transfer that I mentioned a few posts ago.

    As of this coming Monday, I work from 7 AM to 3:30 PM Mountain Time. (I live in Alberta).

    If it's possible to move the debate time up by a few hours (to like maybe four thirty or five PM MT) on that day, no problem.

    If that's not possible, then I can say that for every Saturday and Sunday in the foreseeable future I'll be free all day.

    Sorry about this last minute change, but I'm not going to pass this up..the new position pays slightly more than my current one.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm good to record at any time that suits people

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sweet. By the way, I'm starting to see why you're getting annoyed with Sye. He's a habit of focussing only on what he wants to, and ignoring everything else.

    No wonder Dan likes him so much.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Sounds like you guys have it covered. If for some reason Reynold and Dusman cant work out the time, I can be available or maybe Dusman and I can go at it another day.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'd love to hear JC and Reynold have a go each - I think each person brings something new to the discussion. I'll just host, and leave Dustin and Reynold/JC fight it out. Do you want to have a time limit? Last time Jim and I debated Dustin it ended up running to two and a half hours, so I could act as a time keeper for you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Sweet. By the way, I'm starting to see why you're getting annoyed with Sye. He's a habit of focussing only on what he wants to, and ignoring everything else.

    No wonder Dan likes him so much."

    That's his 'thing' - in my last debate with him he kept asking me questions over and over, even though I'd answered them. It seems that he needs to stick to his script and can't improvise if the discussion goes off piste.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I like to call it the "but daddy why?" argument like when you tell a child something and they just keep going "but daddy why?". Their whole world view is based on big daddy in the sky saying "because I said so!".

    Sye wants to play word games and just keep asking "but how do you know that?". He asks for you to give a reason for reason (which is a nonsensical question) and then when you do he goes ahha!! you just used reason to justify reason. It's pretty bad when one must use word games to try to justify their world view.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yep, that's pretty much what he did to me though he had to ignore most of what I actually said to do it...I thought he'd just argue, not disregard.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Reynold, can you email me (alexbotten at gmail dot com)?

    Need to work out a time when I can host your debate as I'm away next weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Something for you to think about - http://pousto.blogspot.com/2011/11/rancid-pot-roast.html

    ReplyDelete
  49. I have thought about it, and you can see my reply here while it waits for approval on C.L. Bolt's page:

    =============================
    What Alex is trying to say is that there is no actual evidence that God exists at all, but no covenantal apologist accepts this claim.
    Duh, it would kind of put a kink in their JOB, wouldn't it?

    Rather, the evidence for the existence of God is abundant and plain.
    And the Muslim will say the same about his god, etc. etc.

    And the non-believer will point out evidence against such claims. Please note that these are only evidences against the existence of your god...I'm not going to waste a bunch of time dealing with others since you already don't believe in the of any other relgion.


    Alex just chooses to reject said evidence, not because he is an intellectually apt fellow, but because of his sin.
    Ho hum. Same old bull.
    Fundamentalists will often denigrate atheists on the grounds that they "hate God." This, however, makes no sense. Atheists do not deny the existence of the Christian God because they "hate God" or simply "want to live in sin", because atheists simply do not believe in any of these things. Thus hating god(s) makes as much sense as someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus blaming him for not bringing them any Christmas presents. In line with the varied specific beliefs of atheists in the world, some may actually wish a god did exist (but can't reconcile this with what they observe, such as the problem of evil), some would very much dislike the god portrayed in the Bible and don't believe such a thing could exist, some simply do not care, and many will fall somewhere in between these definitions.

    Well, you've covered the motives of atheists well enough: How about those who worship other gods like Allah, etc who also demand so-called "moral behaviour"?

    Those people believe in accountability to a higher being as well, just not YOUR "higher being".

    Perhaps it's because of their cultures, the unintelligibility of the "evidence" for each various deity?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well, it seems that Bolt made a post about me: I'm so honored as well as not surprised that he bungs it up:

    So, my reply below:
    --------------------
    Long story short: In your post you were attacking the motives of atheists like Alex for not believing. I was refuting that. That was pretty much the point of my post; dealing with that accusation. Not the podcast, but that shot you took at Alex.

    I pointed out that we have actual evidence for not believing, and I pointed out that there are other religions who also believe in "morals", etc, who do not worship your god; all to point out that "sin" is NOT the reason that people like Alex (and I) are atheists.

    Not that it sank in at all:
    Well, you've covered the motives of atheists well enough: How about those who worship other gods like Allah, etc who also demand so-called "moral behaviour"?
    They're likewise motivated by sin.
    See? Right over your head. Other religions have morals and rules, in other words: moral accountability and ways to become right in their gods eyes. In other words, those religions are also against "sin".

    Would you care to explain just what "sin" is motivating those people to worship different gods? Naming "idolotry" can't count since the bible counts that as a sin in and of itself.

    That's a no-brainer if you've ever bothered to read and understand the Bible.
    Read it three times.

    By the way, this is irrelevant, hence your comment was deleted.
    Wrong. All that I said was to make the point that I made above: Non-believers (both atheists and non-xians) are nonbelievers because of evidence, and other factors, and not necessarily "sin" as your holy book says.

    Think Bolt...what holy book would EVER say anything GOOD about any non-believer?

    ReplyDelete
  51. To summarize: I defended Alex from your charge of loving sin and you call it preaching for atheism.

    I guess in your view any non-theist who dares to correct your bullshit is a "fundamentalist athiest"?

    What wold a NON-fundamentalist atheist be in your view?


    A Christian could know the thought processes of an atheist better than does the atheist if the omniscient being who created that atheist told the Christian about those thought processes
    The same book that says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds? The same book that fails at archeology? (See the book: "The Bible Unearthed")

    Why don't you test that indirect telepathy you just claimed? I understand that the James Randi Foundation has a standing million dollar award for anyone who can prove anything like this.

    Go on...take the test. You'll be rich, and you will prove the existence of your god.

    You won't though, I can predict that!



    "Duh," this is not my "JOB,...
    Uh, did I ever say that YOU were a "conventional apologist"? You criticize me for not paying attention to the podcast, but you can't even be bothered to figure out what I'm saying?

    And some would very much dislike the god portrayed in the Bible

    Please see the article I linked, which Bolt was too cowardly to include to see the context!

    Oh, you mean they hate the God portrayed in the Bible, contrary to what you already said?
    Context please. Let me help. "some" and "Would very much dislike". How be if I just quote a large part of the paragraph that you mangled?

    In line with the varied specific beliefs of atheists in the world, some may actually wish a god did exist (but can't reconcile this with what they observe, such as the problem of evil), some would very much dislike the god portrayed in the Bible and don't believe such a thing could exist, some simply do not care, and many will fall somewhere in between these definitions.

    That is totally different from what you just tried to assert above.

    Also, you assert again, in your last comment on this post that all atheists hate god and love sin.

    For the actual context and full account of what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Whoops. The post where Bolt goes bonkers on me.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This is...amusing...to say the least. You can post your comments over at my site. I really do not have the time to track down and follow a cross-blog discussion like this one.

    It looks like you were planning a debate with Dusman. I will leave you to that for now. I will +1 you for being willing to debate. That's more than a lot of your fellow atheists can say. :)

    ReplyDelete
  54. After reading that arrogant bit of preaching that you just left on Alex's blog, where you claim you answered his arguments but don't show it, then decide to cut him off? Forget it. You people don't give a damn about evidence or reason.

    I'll let Dawson deal with you.

    I've just stored my stuff here so that people can see the actual context of my posts.

    As for debates: You may want to look up some that PZ Myers had.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I will note, however, that you have not decided to undergo the test that shows that this "god" of yours tells you what's in atheists minds as you claim he does. I guess Randi's money is still safe.

    Well, there's another test from the bible itself, in Mark I believe, that may be easier for you to take.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment as much as you like. All views are welcome but don’t be surprised if others do not agree with you and comment back. Please keep it cordial.