The Transcendental Argument for God

7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Avajs said:
A dictionary definition of evidence is good to start with "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
Click to expand...
The funny thing about saying that evidence is fact is that by doing so you advertise that whenever you claim something is evidence, you are claiming it is fact. So, when you say "X is fact!" and someone says to you, "What 'evidence' do you have to support your claim that X is fact?" then, when you respond to them by saying, "W is evidence that X is fact," you are thereby adding to your first claim (viz., that X is fact) another claim (viz., that W is fact). So now, in addition to having saddled yourself under the problem of trying to support your claim that X is fact, you have also saddled yourself and that first problem under which you saddled yourself, under another problem: the problem of trying to support your claim that W is fact. What do you do, then? Do you then say, "V is evidence that W is fact," and then say "U is evidence that V is fact," and so on?
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Avajs said:
Are you suggesting you personally clarify the independent basis by which facts are established?
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that I came up with the means of clarifying such things, I am suggesting that there is one, and only one, way to do so.

Go ahead, give it a guess! I promise that if you don't get it on your next post then I'll let you off the hook here and we can proceed on from there.

Avajs said:
Do you accept the fact of plate tectonics?
Click to expand...
LOL! Plate tectonics isn't even presented as a fact by most of those who hold to it as a theory! It is clear that there was, at some point in the past, one large land mass. You can see on a globe how well the continents fit together. I can remember noticing that when I was in second grade! That's how obvious it is. Plate tectonics, however, isn't about whether "Pangea" ever existed but about HOW continental drift happens. Put simply, there is no known mechanism for plate tectonics. The theory is based (largely) on the assumption that convection currents in the mantle drive the movement of plates. These currents have never been directly observed, only inferred. In other words, the presumed existence of convection currents is an ad hoc rescue device used to arbitrarily provide a mechanism for the theory. That is the opposite of science. In fact, it is precisely what atheists claim God to be!

This sort of thing is rampant throughout modern "science", by the way. Evolution, cosmology (i.e. the Big Bang Theory), astronomy, geology, and especially the "soft sciences" such as archeology, paleontology, psychology are filled to the brim with ad hoc rescue devices to the point that the prevailing theories in these fields (and others) are completely unfalsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are sort of tied in the race to see which major theory can have the most holes in it and still survive in the mind's professional scientists.

Avajs said:
If so, how did you determine the underlying facts that support that theory?
Click to expand...
So I want to be clear here. I don't mind mentioning some specific field of inquiry for use as an example of a contested issue and I don't mind making some cursory observations concerning it, as I just did above, but let's not side track the discussion by launching into a discussion that is focused on that specific example.

In answer to your question, I'd say that I determine the veracity and pertinence of underlying facts (regarding any particular issue) the same way you do, except that, unlike you, I do it in a manner that is not self-contradictory and that doesn't tacitly undermines my entire worldview.

So, once again, give it a guess what it is you think I'm driving at here and if you don't get it. Then I'll just make the point and move on.
 
Last edited:
A

Avajs

Active member
Clete said:
I am not suggesting that I came up with the means of clarifying such things, I am suggesting that there is one, and only one, way to do so.

Go ahead, give it a guess! I promise that if you don't get it on your next post then I'll let you off the hook here and we can proceed on from there.


LOL! Plate tectonics isn't even presented as a fact by most of those who hold to it as a theory! It is clear that there was, at some point in the past, one large land mass. You can see on a globe how well the continents fit together. I can remember noticing that when I was in second grade! That's how obvious it is. Plate tectonics, however, isn't about whether "Pangea" ever existed but about HOW continental drift happens. Put simply, there is no known mechanism for plate tectonics. The theory is based (largely) on the assumption that convection currents in the mantle drive the movement of plates. These currents have never been directly observed, only inferred. In other words, the presumed existence of convection currents is an ad hoc rescue device used to arbitrarily provide a mechanism for the theory. That is the opposite of science. In fact, it is precisely what atheists claim God to be!

This sort of thing is rampant throughout modern "science", by the way. Evolution, cosmology (i.e. the Big Bang Theory), astronomy, geology, and especially the "soft sciences" such as archeology, paleontology, psychology are filled to the brim with ad hoc rescue devices to the point that the prevailing theories in these fields (and others) are completely unfalsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are sort of tied in the race to see which major theory can have the most holes in it and still survive in the mind's professional scientists.


So I want to be clear here. I don't mind mentioning some specific field of inquiry for use as an example of a contested issue and I don't mind making some cursory observations concerning it, as I just did above, but let's not side track the discussion by launching into a discussion that is focused on that specific example.

In answer to your question, I'd say that I determine the veracity and pertinence of underlying facts (regarding any particular issue) the same way you do, except that, unlike you, I do it in a manner that is not self-contradictory and that doesn't tacitly undermines my entire worldview.

So, once again, give it a guess what it is you think I'm driving at here and if you don't get it. Then I'll just make the point and move on.
Click to expand...
just make the
point
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Avajs said:
just make the
point
Click to expand...
Sheesh. How boring.

It's logic! Plain reason!

Logic is the solitary means by which the chaos of raw data is distilled into coherent meaning. It is by the rigorous application of reason that we sift truth from mere noise, transforming abstract symbols into meaning, comprehension and communication. In a world where words without structure and every wild-eyed lunatic presents stupidity as fact, logic remains the sole beacon guiding us from confusion to clarity, from conjecture to fact, from premise to conclusion and from ignorance and superstition to knowledge and understanding.

There is NO OTHER MEANS by which your mind works. Reason is the scaffolding upon which the mind structures all knowledge. It is the only framework through which thought can be structured where meaning is the result. Every argument, including one that purports to challenge this truth, must rely on logical principles to form its critique. Any attempt to refute logic openly employs it, thus affirming logic's irrefragable nature and fundamental role as the exclusive engine of our cognition.

So then, given this bit of apparent common ground, it seems to me that the atheist's worldview is predicated on the notion that nothing is to be merely believed; that ALL truth claims must be established by means of logic and reason. Would you agree with that? If not, I insist that you explain how it could be otherwise.
 
Last edited:
A

Avajs

Active member
Clete said:
Sheesh. How boring.

It's logic! Plain reason!

Logic is the solitary means by which the chaos of raw data is distilled into coherent meaning. It is by the rigorous application of reason that we sift truth from mere noise, transforming abstract symbols into meaning, comprehension and communication. In a world where words without structure and every wild-eyed lunatic presents stupidity as fact, logic remains the sole beacon guiding us from confusion to clarity, from conjecture to fact, from premise to conclusion and from ignorance and superstition to knowledge and understanding.

There is NO OTHER MEANS by which your mind works. Reason is the scaffolding upon which the mind structures all knowledge. It is the only framework through which thought can be structured where meaning is the result. Every argument, including one that purports to challenge this truth, must rely on logical principles to form its critique. Any attempt to refute logic openly employs it, thus affirming logic's irrefragable nature and fundamental role as the exclusive engine of our cognition.

So then, given this bit of apparent common ground, it seems to me that the atheist's worldview is predicated on the notion that nothing is to be merely believed; that ALL truth claims must be established by means of logic and reason. Would you agree with that? If not, I insist that you explain how it could be otherwise.
Click to expand...
If logic is the only way our mind works and the only framework through which thought can be structured where meaning is the result then all truth claims must be established by means of logic and reason no matter your world view, correct?
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Avajs said:
If logic is the only way our mind works and the only framework through which thought can be structured where meaning is the result then all truth claims must be established by means of logic and reason no matter your world view, correct?
Click to expand...
Not in the way you mean it. I'll explain shortly.

Just to be clear before moving on, was this your endorsement of the idea that all truth claims must be established by means of logic and reason? It's not a trick question or anything. That is what atheists typically believe. I just don't want to assume anything. It leads to a lot of wasted time where we have to go back and actually establish things that were wrongly assumed.
 
A

Avajs

Active member
Clete said:
Not in the way you mean it. I'll explain shortly.

Just to be clear before moving on, was this your endorsement of the idea that all truth claims must be established by means of logic and reason? It's not a trick question or anything. That is what atheists typically believe. I just don't want to assume anything. It leads to a lot of wasted time where we have to go back and actually establish things that were wrongly assumed.
Click to expand...
Sure. is it what you believe as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top