TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(25-01-2015 05:14 AM)gofish! Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 09:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  In the thread Why do Atheists Become Atheists, I had presented an argument for the non existence of God and Stevil took issue with it, saying that it seemed like atheist apologetics. I assumed he meant the argument of presuppositional opologetics or TAG , the transcendental argument for God. On the surface it does, so his objection was not unfounded on that level.

On further examination though, the two are not at all similar. It has come to my attention that there is a great deal of confusion about the issue of metaphysical primacy so I thought I would take the time to write this post.

It is completely understandable that many struggle with these concepts. It's not a mark against anyone. These issues are simply taken for granted by 99.99 percent of thinkers. There's a very good reason for that. We all learn these things implicitly at a very early age, long before we have the words to state the principles explicitly. We learn them early and then when we are older and start to philosophize we have forgotten all about them. Very few thinkers ever even consider the need to go back and state these earliest concepts explicitly, and that's very unfortunate. That has led to many errors in thinking which could have been avoided easily if these first principles were known consciously and explicitly.

Very briefly, for those who have never heard of this issue, I'll explain metaphysical primacy.

The issue of metaphysical primacy has to do specifically with the relationship between a consciousness (subject) and its objects (the things it perceives/ reality). Do the objects of consciousness conform to the subject or are they what they are and do what they do independent of the conscious activity which perceives them. The principle is a corollary of three axiomatic concepts and is itself an axiomatic concept. The three concepts are "existence", "consciousness" and "identity". The principle is that whatever exists does so independently of anyone's conscious activity. It means that consciousness is the faculty which perceives reality and not the faculty which creates reality. The identities of every object obtain apart from anyone's conscious wishes or desires. This is the conceptual root of the concept "objective". Being an axiomatic concept, the POE is not inferred from any antecedent premises but is directly observable. It is validated by sense perception and does not need to be proved. Indeed, what could the concepts "proof" or "truth" or "fact" possibly mean in a universe where the objects of consciousness did conform to the subject. The shortest way to say it is "wishing doesn't make it so". The epistemological corollary to the POE is that in order to gain knowledge of reality, one must look outward at reality. Therefore any arbitrary claims that have no connection to percepts cannot be considered knowledge or evidence.

The antithesis of the POE is the principle of the primacy of consciousness. This is the subjective orientation of the subject/ object relationship. This is the view of metaphysical primacy which is affirmed by Christianity and any belief that a conscious god created everything in the universe, maintains everything and can alter the state of affairs at will by conscious activity. On this view, the objects of consciousness conform to the subject of consciousness and do not obtain independently of conscious activity. Wishing does make it so.

With the above in mind, here is the argument from primacy in summary.

1. If the objects of consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness, then existence has metaphysical primacy in the relationship between consciousness and reality.

2 If existence has metaphysical primacy then the universe was not created by a God.

3. The objects or consciousness do not conform to the subject of consciousness.

Therefor, existence has primacy and the universe was not created by a God by an act of conscious will.

Now lets compare this with TAG. The transcendental argument for God comes in different variations but all of them propose that God is a necessary precondition for the existence of logic, knowledge and intelligibility. This is not really an argument but a bald assertion. They combine this bald assertion with the cheap debate tactic of the gish gallop. They claim that only the Christian world view can "account for" the laws of logic and intelligibility. They hit the non-believer with a bunch of questions about how they can account for these things without God. They are counting on the non-believer to have no answer for these questions and to concede just to stop the barrage. So this question begging argument relies on the ignorance of its opponents. At its base, it is an argument from ignorance. That's two fallacies so far.

Now the argument from primacy does not make any arbitrary claims. It relies on perceptually self evident facts of reality. It does not beg the question or rely on the ignorance of its opponents.

Implicit in TAG is that God is the starting point of knowledge. It treats God as an irreducible primary. But the concept "God" is not conceptually irreducible. It rests or antecedent concepts which are more fundamental than God so God is not a starting point. In fact the concept "God" fails on every criteria of a proper starting point of knowledge. It is not undeniably true. I can deny it without contradicting any facts of reality. It is not perceptually self evident, it is not fundamental and it is not axiomatic. This is a fatal flaw.

What is the real starting point? According to the Christian world view, God is a disembodied consciousness that created everything in existence distinct from itself, maintains everything in existence and can alter the state of affairs or the identity of existents with an act of conscious will. This is the primacy of consciousness metaphysics explicitly affirmed.

While God is not conceptually irreducible, the concept "consciousness" is and since the Christian world view claims that this consciousness created everything distinct from itself then we finally have the true starting point of the Christian world view. This logically reduces to a consciousness without any means, content or objects. This amounts to an assertion of consciousness without existence which not only commits the fallacy of pure self-reference but also the fallacy of the stolen concept. It is self contradictory. This argument is a real fallacyapalooza. The argument begins with literally nothing. It attempts to use logic to prove a contradiction.

Contrast this with the argument from primacy. The primacy of existence is not an irreducible primary either. It is a corollary of the three concepts I mentioned earlier in my description. These are "existence", "consciousness" and "identity". These are irreducible primaries and the most fundamental of these is "existence" which is a one word concept that subsumes everything that exists, has existed and will exist including anything we don't know about that exists. Absolutely everything is included under this concept as I inform it and as the argument from primacy informs it. If a God existed it would be included in the referents of "existence"

TAG has as its starting point non-existence while the the argument from primacy has as its starting point existence. Does "existence" meet the criteria of a proper starting point? It certainly does. It is undeniably true. One would have to exist in order to deny it. It is fundamental. Indeed there could be no concept more fundamental. It is conceptually irreducible. It rests on no antecedent concepts, for what could come before existence except something that doesn't exist. Is it directly observable? It is. Is it axiomatic? Yes it is. It would have to be true even to disagree with it. By disagreeing with it you would have to acknowledge that it existed and the objector would also have to first exist.

There is a lot more to say but I've already got a huge wall of text here. Hopefully this will explain the argument from primacy and show that there is no comparison between it and TAG. My schedule is extremely busy right now so if I don't respond back right away that is why. I will reply as I can but I only have about 20 minutes a day that I can devote to this.

I'll have to consider this further on the face it, this seems interesting (a) from a psychological point if view and (b) potentially as a tool for arguing with theists. Definitely interesting.

That said, on (b) a swift and curt "fuck off and only come back with uncontravertible evidence" is more efficient, in my experience.

There are a lot of ways to refute theism, but how long has it been since you have seen a totally new argument. The theist will have no canned answer to this argument. He'll be taken off guard. I know for a fact that I have shaken some people's faith right to the core with this argument, after I explained the concepts to them.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
27-01-2015, 10:35 AM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(25-01-2015 04:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But how can any of that apply beyond the limited and contingent conditions of the observable universe as we understand it?

One can trivially conclude that were the universe explicitly created it was not done from within itself. And so what?

One can not conclude this. One can not infer anything from an arbitrary claim. How can a concept that can only be imagined be valid. A concept is like a file folder in the mind. It the case of the concept "outside of existence" is an empty file folder. It has no objective contents. It is not an integration of perceptual data and can not be traced to any. There are no facts to check or observe. It is cognitively nothing. This is a perfect example of an arbitrary claim. The arbitrary can not be considered evidence in logic. If any logical argument can be defeated by an arbitrary claim that someone just pull out of his ass then logic is useless.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
27-01-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(26-01-2015 03:46 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-01-2015 10:00 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  ClydeLee,

An axiomatic concept is outside the realm of proof. It is implicit in the concept of "proof". That is the real test of whether a concept is axiomatic. Take the concept "existence". If nothing exists there is nothing to prove and no one to prove it to. That's what is meant by implicit in any proof.

The question I had here wasn't how a concept of axiomatic nature is known as implicit... it's how does the idea of perception create something being known axiomatically? To me that is far from an automatic assumption that can be simply accepted without proof. It sounds like to me it is giving trust to our perception to be reliable and not thinking we could be entirely deluded in what we perceive at all costs. It's not something I would accept with just perception, to think that our perception is accurate and not eternally in a state of delusion.

Answer is that the validity of the senses is also axiomatic. Since our senses are our only means of perceiving reality they are necessarily valid. If they are not valid then we have no means of awareness. If the things we perceive do not exist then we are not conscious. Remember consciousness is the faculty which perceives that which exists. Any investigation into the validity of the senses must necessarily rely on the senses.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
27-01-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
dear True :
I thank you for this thread!

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2015, 11:28 AM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 11:16 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  dear True :
I thank you for this thread!

Thank you! I appreciate your comments. I knew that you all would put me through my paces, which helps me to clarify my own thinking.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
27-01-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 10:35 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  One can not infer anything from an arbitrary claim. How can a concept that can only be imagined be valid.
Who knows if it can only be imagined, who knows if it's valid, who knows if it's invalid.
If we can't validated it then we can't refute it, we can only state that the claim isn't sufficiently formulated to warrant consideration (a.k.a. allow for validation)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 12:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-01-2015 10:35 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  One can not infer anything from an arbitrary claim. How can a concept that can only be imagined be valid.
Who knows if it can only be imagined, who knows if it's valid, who knows if it's invalid.
If we can't validated it then we can't refute it, we can only state that the claim isn't sufficiently formulated to warrant consideration (a.k.a. allow for validation)

Maybe address what he said instead of challenging?
There's a LOT to what he's offered but you have to read it.
I know you have a point to make, Stevil. And I respect that. But if you lay your agenda down a min you can see. what True has posited.

good stuff

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 12:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-01-2015 10:35 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  One can not infer anything from an arbitrary claim. How can a concept that can only be imagined be valid.
Who knows if it can only be imagined, who knows if it's valid, who knows if it's invalid.
If we can't validated it then we can't refute it, we can only state that the claim isn't sufficiently formulated to warrant consideration (a.k.a. allow for validation)

It all depends on your theory of knowledge. If you are operating on an objective theory then then that means a commitment to the POE . That is what objectivity means, the recognition that the objects of consciousness do no conform to the subject and that knowledge of reality is only gained from looking at reality. Then a valid concept is an integration of perceptual data or an integration of concepts that were derived from perceptual data. Logic is a process of tracing the steps back to the directly observable. Arbitrary claims are premised on the POC. They can not be traced back to the perceptual level and that's why they can't be validated. They also can't be claimed as knowledge.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
27-01-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 01:57 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It all depends on your theory of knowledge.
I don't get as excited as you do regarding POE vs POC. I don't see this dichotomy. I don't see who is proposing POC (perhaps it's a strawman, IDK)
I don't see "consciousness" as a fundamental object but instead an abstract concept which has been observed to be fulfilled as an emergent property of organic brains made of natural matter and energy. Scientifically there is no known consciousness force but instead there are the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear).
So with that in mind I'm not sure the value in arguing POE vs POC.
My theory of knowledge (epistemology) is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to deciding if something (unsupported by evidence, data or information) exists or not. If there is no evidence then there is no knowledge (from my perspective), perhaps an intelligence on another planet has discovered the knowledge but since I am unaware of the knowledge, then from my perspective there is no knowledge. This means that I am lacking the knowledge (regardless of whether that knowledge exists or not).
This thread is not just about POE vs POC, it's also about how that relates to knowledge of whether gods exist or not.
Correct me if I have misunderstood you:
One of your inferred arguments is that a god cannot be only a consciousness floating around in non existence. Because you claim that a consciousness requires the existence of at least one external object in order to have something to be conscious of. Even if this were true (assuming that a consciousness can't be merely self aware), whose to say that there aren't other consciousness objects (given your metaphysical argument we are assuming here that consciousness is an object) also floating around in non existence. We could call these other objects gods, angels, demons, fairies, or whatever other supernatural mythical entities imagined or even not yet imagined. This would fulfill the alledged requirement of a consciousness requiring external objects.
Another of your arguments is that an object that is only a consciousness (no underlying physical structure) cannot interact with physical reality (other than merely observe). We then need to delve into the argument of "Ghost in the machine" or "Free will" with regards to our understanding of human consciousness. How does a human consciousness make decisions? How does it decide to move right or left? How does the human consciousness control the human body? Gravity would have the human body flop on the ground and remain there in a state of rest. I am comfortable accepting that the human consciousness is a "conscious observer" to the degree that it is merely an abstract representation of the complex inner workings of the physical brain. That it is a complex arrangement of atoms, electrons, energy, chemical reactions etc all constrained by the four forces of nature. This is determinism.
But, our intuition, our perspective of our own consciousness is not from the level of atoms and electrons. We have no awareness of what is actually physically happening when we make decisions. Intuitively we think we have a consciousness which we think is in control of our physical body, intuitively we think we have the free will to be able to choose freely whether to go left or go right. Given our intuitive experiences we think that our consciousness is constrained with regards to only being able to manipulate our physical body and not being able to manipulate objects that are not connected to our nervous system. (This is a clue as to whether our consciousness has primacy over physical existence, if it does have primacy over our body why does it not have primacy over other physical objects?)
I'm not entirely sure what believers believe. Believers come in all sorts of flavours, so we run into much trouble assuming what they believe. Perhaps some believers, believe in a soul (whether that is a consciousness object or a soul object that has a consciousness property?). Perhaps they believe that a god fused that soul with their body and hence gave the soul primacy over that particular body. Of course this belief claim comes with no testable or falsifiable criteria so we cannot scientifically validate this claim.
But making an assertion that consciousness does not have primacy over existence means that you are now in direct conflict with the above soul belief claim. Can we prove that this POE assertion is true? I don't think so. Can we prove that the soul belief claim is false? No, the claim isn't sufficiently formulated as to be verifiable.

(27-01-2015 01:57 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If you are operating on an objective theory then then that means a commitment to the POE . That is what objectivity means, the recognition that the objects of consciousness do no conform to the subject and that knowledge of reality is only gained from looking at reality.
I disagree with this claim.
Objectivity means that an observation can be made consistently regardless of who the observer is.
For example, I can observe that Person A moved to the left. Another observer also observes that Person A moved to the left. It doesn't matter who the observer is, we all observe that Person A moves left. This is an objective fact.
Did Person A move due to the fundamental forces or because their own consciousness had primacy over their own body?
The answer is irrelevant with regards to our objective observation that Person A moved to the left.
(27-01-2015 01:57 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Arbitrary claims are premised on the POC. They can not be traced back to the perceptual level and that's why they can't be validated. They also can't be claimed as knowledge.
Sure, arbitrary claims (claims without supporting evidence and without testable and falsifiable criteria) cannot be verified or validated. I agree that I would not identify this claim as knowledge because my epistemology requires supporting evidence. There are other people who have a different epistemology than myself though, I can't speak for them with regards to what is or isn't knowledge.
However, this is all somewhat beside the point.
Just because you and I wouldn't identify an unsupported claim as knowledge, that doesn't mean that the claim has been falsified. In my opinion an unsupported claim providing no testible and falsifiable criteria in an insufficient claim. When I say insufficient I mean that it is insufficient for consideration. The claim may or not be true, but with no way to assess that, I would hold a possition of lack of belief and would insist that the claimant come back with a sufficiently formulated claim before I will consider it.
But we side track here.
The OP was that we have POE rather than POC and that this proves gods don't exist.
I don't consider consciousness to be an object, I don't consider that the human consciousness has primacy over the human body so I disbelieve in POC.
I don't consider that we have sufficient evidence against souls so I don't recognise that the existence of souls, and hence the POC, has been falsified.
I don't consider that "gods" have been sufficiently defined in a way that is testable and verifiable. So I lack belief in the claim and insist that the claimants work harder to provide a sufficiently formulated claim.
I don't see how the POE falsifies the god claims (which are untestable and unfalsifiable). I think you are assuming that the god claims have been sufficiently formulated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: TAG vs. the Argument From Primacy
(27-01-2015 04:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-01-2015 01:57 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It all depends on your theory of knowledge.
I don't get as excited as you do regarding POE vs POC. I don't see this dichotomy. I don't see who is proposing POC (perhaps it's a strawman, IDK)
I don't see "consciousness" as a fundamental object but instead an abstract concept which has been observed to be fulfilled as an emergent property of organic brains made of natural matter and energy. Scientifically there is no known consciousness force but instead there are the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear).
So with that in mind I'm not sure the value in arguing POE vs POC.
My theory of knowledge (epistemology) is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to deciding if something (unsupported by evidence, data or information) exists or not. If there is no evidence then there is no knowledge (from my perspective), perhaps an intelligence on another planet has discovered the knowledge but since I am unaware of the knowledge, then from my perspective there is no knowledge. This means that I am lacking the knowledge (regardless of whether that knowledge exists or not).
This thread is not just about POE vs POC, it's also about how that relates to knowledge of whether gods exist or not.
Correct me if I have misunderstood you:
One of your inferred arguments is that a god cannot be only a consciousness floating around in non existence. Because you claim that a consciousness requires the existence of at least one external object in order to have something to be conscious of. Even if this were true (assuming that a consciousness can't be merely self aware), whose to say that there aren't other consciousness objects (given your metaphysical argument we are assuming here that consciousness is an object) also floating around in non existence. We could call these other objects gods, angels, demons, fairies, or whatever other supernatural mythical entities imagined or even not yet imagined. This would fulfill the alledged requirement of a consciousness requiring external objects.
Another of your arguments is that an object that is only a consciousness (no underlying physical structure) cannot interact with physical reality (other than merely observe). We then need to delve into the argument of "Ghost in the machine" or "Free will" with regards to our understanding of human consciousness. How does a human consciousness make decisions? How does it decide to move right or left? How does the human consciousness control the human body? Gravity would have the human body flop on the ground and remain there in a state of rest. I am comfortable accepting that the human consciousness is a "conscious observer" to the degree that it is merely an abstract representation of the complex inner workings of the physical brain. That it is a complex arrangement of atoms, electrons, energy, chemical reactions etc all constrained by the four forces of nature. This is determinism.
But, our intuition, our perspective of our own consciousness is not from the level of atoms and electrons. We have no awareness of what is actually physically happening when we make decisions. Intuitively we think we have a consciousness which we think is in control of our physical body, intuitively we think we have the free will to be able to choose freely whether to go left or go right. Given our intuitive experiences we think that our consciousness is constrained with regards to only being able to manipulate our physical body and not being able to manipulate objects that are not connected to our nervous system. (This is a clue as to whether our consciousness has primacy over physical existence, if it does have primacy over our body why does it not have primacy over other physical objects?)
I'm not entirely sure what believers believe. Believers come in all sorts of flavours, so we run into much trouble assuming what they believe. Perhaps some believers, believe in a soul (whether that is a consciousness object or a soul object that has a consciousness property?). Perhaps they believe that a god fused that soul with their body and hence gave the soul primacy over that particular body. Of course this belief claim comes with no testable or falsifiable criteria so we cannot scientifically validate this claim.
But making an assertion that consciousness does not have primacy over existence means that you are now in direct conflict with the above soul belief claim. Can we prove that this POE assertion is true? I don't think so. Can we prove that the soul belief claim is false? No, the claim isn't sufficiently formulated as to be verifiable.

(27-01-2015 01:57 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If you are operating on an objective theory then then that means a commitment to the POE . That is what objectivity means, the recognition that the objects of consciousness do no conform to the subject and that knowledge of reality is only gained from looking at reality.
I disagree with this claim.
Objectivity means that an observation can be made consistently regardless of who the observer is.
For example, I can observe that Person A moved to the left. Another observer also observes that Person A moved to the left. It doesn't matter who the observer is, we all observe that Person A moves left. This is an objective fact.
Did Person A move due to the fundamental forces or because their own consciousness had primacy over their own body?
The answer is irrelevant with regards to our objective observation that Person A moved to the left.
(27-01-2015 01:57 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Arbitrary claims are premised on the POC. They can not be traced back to the perceptual level and that's why they can't be validated. They also can't be claimed as knowledge.
Sure, arbitrary claims (claims without supporting evidence and without testable and falsifiable criteria) cannot be verified or validated. I agree that I would not identify this claim as knowledge because my epistemology requires supporting evidence. There are other people who have a different epistemology than myself though, I can't speak for them with regards to what is or isn't knowledge.
However, this is all somewhat beside the point.
Just because you and I wouldn't identify an unsupported claim as knowledge, that doesn't mean that the claim has been falsified. In my opinion an unsupported claim providing no testible and falsifiable criteria in an insufficient claim. When I say insufficient I mean that it is insufficient for consideration. The claim may or not be true, but with no way to assess that, I would hold a possition of lack of belief and would insist that the claimant come back with a sufficiently formulated claim before I will consider it.
But we side track here.
The OP was that we have POE rather than POC and that this proves gods don't exist.
I don't consider consciousness to be an object, I don't consider that the human consciousness has primacy over the human body so I disbelieve in POC.
I don't consider that we have sufficient evidence against souls so I don't recognise that the existence of souls, and hence the POC, has been falsified.
I don't consider that "gods" have been sufficiently defined in a way that is testable and verifiable. So I lack belief in the claim and insist that the claimants work harder to provide a sufficiently formulated claim.
I don't see how the POE falsifies the god claims (which are untestable and unfalsifiable). I think you are assuming that the god claims have been sufficiently formulated.

Who claims that consciousness has primacy? Christians, Muslims and Jews. I don't know about the Hindus. I've never studied that religion. Mathew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. This is clear unambiguous proof that the Bible affirms a POC universe. Then there is water turning into wine, people walking on water, the dead being raised by faith, and the whole Genesis account. It is not arguable.

As for asking for proof of the POE, I've tried to explain that it is a precondition of any proof. Maybe this will make it concrete for you. When you ask someone to prove a claim, what are you asking in essence? You are saying, Scotsman, just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it true. You must prove it. After all facts are facts whether you believe in them or not. Haven't we all heard that the great thing about the truth is it is true whether you believe it or not. If you are using the concepts of truth and proof and denying that existence is primary you are committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. This fallacy involves using a higher level concept while denying its genetic root. If reality is not enough to convince you then there is nothing else I can add.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: