[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

1. I believe I have previously conceded the postmodern idea, which you apparently espouse, that at every epistomology's heart is a "final vocabulary" which cannot be defended, but rather assumed.

Then all your arguments against Christianity rest on an irrational foundation, thus rendering them not rationally defensible.

Originally Posted by Qingu

2. Science is not logic.

Agreed. Your point? My only point was that you can’t use any scientific arguments, or actually, any arguments at all that depend on evidence in the exterior universe, to assail Christianity since the inductive principle and causality are not rationally justifiable in your worldview.

Originally Posted by Qingu

'Nary have I said anything like "Christianity isn't true because of the theory of evolution!" on this thread. I have deliberately avoided using scientific theories as logical counterevidence to Christianity in this thread and if I have I apologize.

Look at the first sentence in your first post. This debate has indeed been about science, at least in some capacity, from the very beginning, because of your use of “scientific” arguments against Christianity in other threads, with which I took issue.

Originally Posted by Qingu

3. I can use logic to disarm Christianity (as you use logic to try and disarm empiricism, perhaps successfully), because, as I have shewn, we both must presuppose the use of logic in order to even argue about this.

Yours, however, is an irrational assumption, according to your own worldview. Mine is not. Your worldview is internally contradictory, and cannot rationally account for logic. Mine is not contradictory and it can rationally account for logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You got into trouble when you said that your initial presupposition is that Christianity is true, and that also this presupposition was logical. If you do not, as I do, presuppose logic before you presuppose Christianity, then your belief in Christianity is logically irrelevant and you have no basis to defend it in argument.

This assumes your conclusion of autonomy and of there being logic outside of God, which is exactly what Christianity denies. Since Christianity teaches that God is the Ultimate Determiner of rationality, it is not at all irrational to assume Him, within the Christian worldview. However, it is still irrational within your own worldview for you to rationally justify the universality of logic. That is, given my worldview, it is rational for me to presuppose God, and thus have laws of logic; given your worldview it is not rational for you to presuppose logic. Thus, only my worldview can rationally account for there being laws of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The number of times you have asked this is probably approaching the hundreds. Induction is a guideline, we use it out of assumption, just as you assume Christianity to be true.

Here’s the difference: According to my own worldview, my ultimate presupposition is rational; according to your own worldview, yours is not. So, in the very nature of the case, of the two of us, only I can rationally justify my ultimate presupposition.

Originally Posted by Qingu

They are entirely different kinds of presuppositions, as I have explained. Mine is agnostic, yours is totalitarian. That is to say, my presuppositions are stipulations to be worked within, yours are ultimate, circular claims.

You are absolutely right in saying my presupposition is totalitarian. Christianity is most definitely an authoritarian belief system, and we, as humans, are never allowed to question God’s Word. But make no mistake—both of our claims are absolutely circular. Yours keeps appealing back to your own autonomous human reason; mine keeps appealing back to God. You say you must “work it out within,” but that really just means you ultimately define it. And as we’ve seen, you are ultimately completely unsuccessful in rationally justifying your ultimate presupposition according to your own belief system (i.e., your beliefs are contradictory). I can rationally justify mine according to Christianity; you cannot justify yours according to atheistic empiricism.

Originally Posted by Qingu

No, because my chain of presuppositions does not loop around in on itself as yours does.

It obviously does. It loops back at your reason—you ultimately get to decide what’s reasonable, etc. Mine loops back at God—He ultimately decides what’s reasonable.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Rather, my chain sets consecutive boundaries to work within.

1. In a world where logic is true,
2. In a world where we can observe truth through our senses and brain

Now, these are both consecutive presuppositions we both must make in order to be arguing here, otherwise you could not argue Christianity as a rational presupposition without #1, and you could not physically read and process the information in the Scriptures you claim are true without #2.

My ultimate presupposition (which justifies logic), however, is rationally justifiable within my own worldview. Yours is not justifiable in yours, as Hume demonstrated. Thus only my worldview can rationally justify the idea that there are laws of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

So basically, while empiricism may not logicall be "justified" in the manner you are calling for, it is not logically unsound. Christianity is.

Assumes laws of logic, which you have yet to rationally justify.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You need to show that it is not irrational to assume God.

It is only irrational to assume God if one presupposes that Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, presupposing God is the most rational thing possible, since God defines rationality. But since your worldview is unable to rationally justify laws of logic at all, you cannot make the charge that it is irrational to assume God, since you have no basis for applying rationality to anything. Only if one presupposes Christianity can one rationally justify using logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

In order to show this, you must FIRST assume logic to be true.

My ultimate presupposition is the truth of Christianity; this provides the rational basis for believing in logic. This presupposition is absolutely rational within the Christian worldview. However, the presupposition that there are laws of logic is not rational within your worldview. Therefore, you cannot rationally justify using logic and I can.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Correct, but it is not circular

It’s obviously circular. Anytime one argues over contrary ultimate standards for epistemology one must argue in a circular manner, since if one appeals to something beyond that final standard, one will be refuted by one’s own argument. Your final standard is you, and you keep coming back to your own autonomous use of logic circularly.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is simply nonsense. You have in no way supported this claim without resorting to your presupposed dogma.

Because that’s the only way to support anything whatsoever rationally.

You have in no way supported the implicit claim that you have the right to rationalize on your own apart from God, yet you must resort to this, your own dogma, every time you argue against me.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Again, see assumption #2 that we both make -- your mind must be your standard or else you could not read and interpret your precious Bible

Once again you are assuming your own worldview of autonomy and attempting to apply it to my beliefs. You assume that we must build up from ourselves, but this is exactly what Christianity denies. I can read The Scriptures because God made me in such a way that I am able to do so.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I have shewn the Christian presupposition is by no means necessary, since any other monotheistic religious presupposition will achieve the same end as your presupposition's end.

Assumes that there are such things as other monotheistic religions, which depends on empirical evidence that relies on scientific principles that have yet to be justified by your worldview, and assumes logic, the universality of which has yet to be justified by your worldview.

[Qingu]

Then all your arguments against Christianity rest on an irrational foundation, thus rendering them not rationally defensible.

They rest on the same foundation you make your arguments for Christianity -- that logic is true, and that we can observe true things. The meta-level of argument is the same for both of us.

My only point was that you can’t use any scientific arguments, or actually, any arguments at all that depend on evidence in the exterior universe, to assail Christianity since the inductive principle and causality are not rationally justifiable in your worldview.

This is getting off topic. But if I am correct in arguing that, under the same assumptions (logic and observation), empiricism does not contradict itself and Christianity does, then this means we can use scientific arguments to assail Christianity, since Christianity's claim to truth is broken and Science's isn't.

Look at the first sentence in your first post. This debate has indeed been about science, at least in some capacity, from the very beginning, because of your use of “scientific” arguments against Christianity in other threads, with which I took issue.

Of course it's about science. I started the thread to show that science is not dependant on a Christian assumption as you claimed, and to show that Science stands above Christianity metaphysically. I do not believe any of my arguments against Christianity or for Science have assumed my conclusion; rather I have argued using the same initial assumptions you make before assuming Christianity.

Yours, however, is an irrational assumption, according to your own worldview. Mine is not. Your worldview is internally contradictory, and cannot rationally account for logic. Mine is not contradictory and it can rationally account for logic.

Actually, it's the other way around, as I effectively showed. You simply are claiming the opposite of what I proved and give no reason for doing so.

This assumes your conclusion of autonomy and of there being logic outside of God, which is exactly what Christianity denies.

Autonomy is implied with presuppotion #2, that we can observe truth. If we have no power as individuals then our individual brains have no logical basis for claiming to know anything true, and thus I can't assume Empiricism and you can't even read your Bible.

If you do not wish to assume autonomy, then you cannot assume you can even read or understand the Bible, which means you cannot even presuppose Christianity to be true in the first place, so your argument falls apart either way.

Since Christianity teaches that God is the Ultimate Determiner of rationality, it is not at all irrational to assume Him, within the Christian worldview.

Wrong, in fact, it is the opposite. Your reasoning is circular and hence it invalidates itself.

However, it is still irrational within your own worldview for you to rationally justify the universality of logic.

Exactly, that is why my worldview does not try to justify logic, but rather sticks to its initial sequence of assumptions without looping back and invalidating the whole thing.

That is, given my worldview, it is rational for me to presuppose God, and thus have laws of logic; given your worldview it is not rational for you to presuppose logic. Thus, only my worldview can rationally account for there being laws of logic.

I will spell it out for you.

Travis' CHRISTIANITY
1. Assumes logic (otherwise assumption #3 of Christianity illogical)
2. Assumes observation of truth (otherwise can't read the Bible)
3. Assumes that Bible is innerrant, thusly assuming existence of God (also assumes Calvinistic interpretation and several other things, but let's not get too complicated).
4. Assumes #1 is false. Assumes God created logic, therefore assumes we cannot assume logic.

Your worldview is not rational. Rather, it is fundamentally irrational; it is a self-defeating sequence of assumptions; it devours itself.

Qingu's EMPIRICISM
1. Assumes logic (otherwise assumption #3 of Empiricism illogical)
2. Assumes observation of truth (otherwise can't collect data)
3. Assumes use of induction to form theories which coordinate facts and instruct beliefs.

Mine is an open-ended sequence of assumptions. #3 cannot be used to invalidate #1 or #2. A theory can only approach the limit of observation of logic and observation, it can never transcend them or my argument would be circular and therefore fundamentally irrational.

It is not rational to assume logic. That is everyone's final vocabulary, an inescapable circularity. However, within logic, none of my other assumptions are illogical. Yours all are.

Here’s the difference: According to my own worldview, my ultimate presupposition is rational; according to your own worldview, yours is not.

Wrong. Your worldview presupposes an entity that transcends logic, which in turn causes everything leading up to that worldview and including it to not depend on logic -- to become illogical. A circular presupposition is illogical, not logical.

But make no mistake—both of our claims are absolutely circular.

If this were the case then we would both be wrong. Empiricism is not circular, however (see above)

Yours keeps appealing back to your own autonomous human reason; mine keeps appealing back to God.

A priori starts out with autonomous human reason, i.e. logic. (This is exactly why your "proof" of Christianity is not transcendental as you claimed.)

I have no problem with appealing back to logic. I see no other viable alternative that would let us know anything (although I could be wrong).

You say you must “work it out within,” but that really just means you ultimately define it.

I don't see how this follows at all. In fact, I don't even know what you mean by this.

And as we’ve seen, you are ultimately completely unsuccessful in rationally justifying your ultimate presupposition according to your own belief system (i.e., your beliefs are contradictory).

My beliefs are not contradictory. Contradictory means that you hold two beliefs which cannot both be true. Some of my beliefs are unsupported (or perhaps unsupportable) but that is different from contradictory.

Your beliefs, on the other hand, are contradictory -- that is, your belief structure demands that your first assumption, logic, is both primary and consequential at the same time. This is a logical contradiction, i.e. specifically a circular argument.

I can rationally justify mine according to Christianity; you cannot justify yours according to atheistic empiricism.

Well, just saying so over and over again for however many posts now isn't going to convince anyone.

It obviously does. It loops back at your reason—you ultimately get to decide what’s reasonable, etc. Mine loops back at God—He ultimately decides what’s reasonable.

I assume the rules of logic. Logic decides what is reasonable. You assume God, and assume that he transcends logic, which means ends up meaning nothing in your argument is reasonable.

It is only irrational to assume God if one presupposes that Christianity is false.

This is a fallacy. Not presupposing anything is different from presupposing something is true or false.

Rather, I have metaphysically proved that Christianity is false, because if it were true, we could not rely on logic and hence "true" would have no meaning, we would have no logical basis for saying we "rationally justify" logic because rationality itself would be subject to the whims of a nonrational God.

If Christianity is true, presupposing God is the most rational thing possible, since God defines rationality.

Sweet zombie Jesuses! Are you using induction? Not that it matters, because you're still wrong (see above), but still! Wow, next thing you know Travis will be proving evolution!

It’s obviously circular. Anytime one argues over contrary ultimate standards for epistemology one must argue in a circular manner, since if one appeals to something beyond that final standard, one will be refuted by one’s own argument. Your final standard is you, and you keep coming back to your own autonomous use of logic circularly.

You can avoid circularity by treating a presupposition as a stipulation -- a contingency -- rather than an ultimate claim. This is something useful that Christians can learn.

Because that’s (resorting on one's own presupposed dogma to justify his arguments) the only way to support anything whatsoever rationally.

This is quite a claim, that the only way to support anything rationally is by making circular arguments -- i.e. making irrational arguments. For the record you have accused me of having no rational basis to make arguments for the majority of this thread (unsuccessfully). And here you are saying the only way to support anything is with irrational arguments. I am just going to assume that you are lying with the above statement because there is no way you can believe this and believe half of the things you've claimed on here -- that would be a contradiction.

You have in no way supported the implicit claim that you have the right to rationalize on your own apart from God, yet you must resort to this, your own dogma, every time you argue against me.

The right to rationalize is implicit in both of our Presupposition #1s, that we can use logic. If we do not have the right to use logic, then you cannot claim your presupposition of Christianity is logical.

Also, I make no presuppositions about the existence or nonexistence of God so therefore I am not resorting to any dogma that claims "apart from God."

I can read The Scriptures because God made me in such a way that I am able to do so.

That is circular, and hence, false. Without the Scriptures you would not believe God to exist, so therefore you cannot a priori know that God made you with the ability to read the Bible.

[Qingu]

On a side note, do you think we should make closing arguments soon? (I just read the moderator's rules). Reviewing it now, I think our discussion is fast approaching a metaphysical impasse.

Not right away necessarily, but at your discretion.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

They rest on the same foundation you make your arguments for Christianity -- that logic is true, and that we can observe true things.

My Christianity, and my belief in logic are founded on the presupposition of God.

Originally Posted by Qingu

But if I am correct in arguing that, under the same assumptions (logic and observation), empiricism does not contradict itself and Christianity does.

You’d have to justify your application of logic before you could do that.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I do not believe any of my arguments against Christianity or for Science have assumed my conclusion; rather I have argued using the same initial assumptions you make before assuming Christianity.

God is the primary presupposition of Christianity. The only reason we can justify logic is because of Him, and the reason our presupposing of Him is not irrational is because He defines rationality.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Actually, it's the other way around, as I effectively showed.

Not only have you not shown it, you haven’t even addressed this argument. Your own worldview claims that it is impossible for you to know that there are laws of logic. You’ve never answered Hume’s skepticism.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Autonomy is implied with presuppotion #2, that we can observe truth.

I rationally justify the idea that I can observe truth because of the teachings of Christianity, which is founded on my ultimate presupposition—God.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Wrong, in fact, it is the opposite. Your reasoning is circular and hence it invalidates itself.

Merely saying “wrong” is not a refutation. You’ve yet to really interact with the argument.

Both of our arguments are ultimately circular; it is impossible for me, arguing as a Christian, to not keep coming back to God, and it is impossible for you, as a rebellious sinner, to not keep going back to yourself—what you believe to be rational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Exactly, that is why my worldview does not try to justify logic, but rather sticks to its initial sequence of assumptions without looping back and invalidating the whole thing.

This is an admission of irrationality, and a concession of the debate. I’ve asserted that you cannot rationally justify logic; you agree and say you don’t try to do so. End of debate, because your entire argument against Christianity is founded on the idea that there are universal laws of logic; if this is irrationally assumed, your entire argument is rendered irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I will spell it out for you.

Travis' CHRISTIANITY
1. Assumes logic (otherwise assumption #3 of Christianity illogical)
2. Assumes observation of truth (otherwise can't read the Bible)
3. Assumes that Bible is innerrant, thusly assuming existence of God (also assumes Calvinistic interpretation and several other things, but let's not get too complicated).
4. Assumes #1 is false. Assumes God created logic, therefore assumes we cannot assume logic.

Your worldview is not rational. Rather, it is fundamentally irrational; it is a self-defeating sequence of assumptions; it devours itself.

Qingu's EMPIRICISM
1. Assumes logic (otherwise assumption #3 of Empiricism illogical)
2. Assumes observation of truth (otherwise can't collect data)
3. Assumes use of induction to form theories which coordinate facts and instruct beliefs.

You’ve misrepresented Christianity. I presuppose God and The Christian Scriptures, and it is from these things which I can rationally justify everything else. These are my ultimate presuppositions—not logic—and they rationally justify my belief in logic. And according to my worldview, my ultimate presuppositions are quite rational, since God defines rationality. So my worldview—at least according to itself—can justify the use of logic. Your worldview—even according to itself—cannot!

Originally Posted by Qingu

It is not rational to assume logic.

Indeed, and thus all your attacks on Christianity are irrational, since they you do just that in order to have a foundation for them. My ultimate assumption is not irrational, however, since God defines rationality. Only if one presupposes God and believe that He determines logic, one rationally defends the idea of there being laws of logic within one’s own worldview.

Originally Posted by Qingu

That is everyone's final vocabulary, an inescapable circularity. However, within logic, none of my other assumptions are illogical. Yours all are.

Within logic it is indeed illogical for you to assume that there are laws of logic that are universal and invariant, since there is no logical reason to think that such is the case.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Wrong. Your worldview presupposes an entity that transcends logic, which in turn causes everything leading up to that worldview and including it to not depend on logic -- to become illogical.

Only if you assume that my ultimate presupposition is irrational, which begs the question, because if the Christian God exists He does indeed define logic, and thus presupposing Him wouldn’t be irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

A circular presupposition is illogical, not logical.

All ultimate presuppositions are circular; yours as well as mine. You’ve never defended the idea that you can use logic apart from God; you’ve never defended your presupposition of autonomy. Rather, it is defended by you in a circular manner; you keep coming back to your own reason to justify using your own reason.

Originally Posted by Qingu

A priori starts out with autonomous human reason, i.e. logic. (This is exactly why your "proof" of Christianity is not transcendental as you claimed.)

If God defines rationality, as I presuppose, it wouldn’t be illogical to assume Him. So in my worldview, my presupposition of Him is absolutely logical. Your presupposition of logic’s universality, in your worldview, is not rationally justified.

Originally Posted by Qingu

My beliefs are not contradictory. Contradictory means that you hold two beliefs which cannot both be true. Some of my beliefs are unsupported (or perhaps unsupportable) but that is different from contradictory.

Your beliefs are in contradiction with your actions, since you cannot rationally justify the idea that logic is universal and applicable, but you rely on this in order to prove anything. Your belief in the universality of logic is unsupported, unsupportable, and irrational, and therefore all your attacks on Christianity are likewise irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Your beliefs, on the other hand, are contradictory -- that is, your belief structure demands that your first assumption, logic, is both primary and consequential at the same time.

Logic is not my primary presupposition. The belief in logic is derived from an assumption of the Christian God who makes logic possible.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Well, just saying so over and over again for however many posts now isn't going to convince anyone.

You’ve yet to answer this argument, so I will certainly continue to repeat it.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I assume the rules of logic. Logic decides what is reasonable. You assume God, and assume that he transcends logic, which means ends up meaning nothing in your argument is reasonable.

He defines and establishes logic, which means that presupposing Him is not illogical.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Not presupposing anything is different from presupposing something is true or false.

You presuppose that Christianity is false by presupposing your own autonomy—the idea that your rationality can be utilized properly apart from His revelation, since Christianity teaches that it cannot be utilized properly apart from His revelation.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Rather, I have metaphysically proved that Christianity is false, because if it were true, we could not rely on logic

You can’t rationally rely on logic according to your own worldview! Thus empiricism is proved false. I can rationally rely on logic according to my worldview.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You can avoid circularity by treating a presupposition as a stipulation -- a contingency -- rather than an ultimate claim. This is something useful that Christians can learn.

You haven’t avoided circularity at all, since you presuppose the idea that you can utilize logic properly apart from God, and this relies on the idea that Christianity is false. You keep appealing back to your own reason circularly.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is quite a claim, that the only way to support anything rationally is by making circular arguments -- i.e. making irrational arguments.

It’s obvious that when two people argue over final and ultimate authorities that their arguments must be circular (must keep appealing to those ultimate authorities), lest they refute themselves by going to something beyond those authorities and thus proving them to not be the final authorities.

Originally Posted by Qingu

For the record you have accused me of having no rational basis to make arguments for the majority of this thread (unsuccessfully).

Unsuccessfully!? You’ve been reduced to utter skepticism or irrationality regarding science and the applicability of logic!

Originally Posted by Qingu

And here you are saying the only way to support anything is with irrational arguments.

For you, yes, because you can’t rationally justify the idea that there are laws of logic that are universally applicable, and yet all of your arguments depend on this very assumption. Circularity is not irrational when one is arguing for an ultimate authority—it is necessary to avoid self-refutation. We’re both circular, but my worldview allows for a rational justification of the idea that there are laws of logic; yours does not. Therefore, empiricism loses to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The right to rationalize is implicit in both of our Presupposition #1s

It’s implicit in mine because God gives us the right to rationalize, provided we stay in subjection to His word. It’s just assumed irrationally in your worldview.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If we do not have the right to use logic, then you cannot claim your presupposition of Christianity is logical.

God defines rationality, and therefore my presupposition of Christianity is quite obviously rational according to Christianity. Your presupposition of the universality of logic is not rationally justifiable according to your own worldview—empiricism. Therefore, only my worldview is coherent in claiming the ability to use logic and rationally justify doing so.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Also, I make no presuppositions about the existence or nonexistence of God so therefore I am not resorting to any dogma that claims "apart from God."

The idea that you can rationalize without obeying His word in so doing absolutely presupposes His nonexistence, since if He did exist, according to the claims of Christianity (which would then be true), you wouldn’t be able to do so.

Originally Posted by Qingu

That is circular, and hence, false.

Surely you aren’t going to actually suggest the philosophically absurd idea that if something is circular it is false. Even in simple arguments that aren’t about final authorities, circularity, while seen as poor argumentation, still doesn’t necessarily entail falsity. This is honestly one of most ridiculous things you’ve said in this thread thus far. Both of our arguments are ultimately circular; it is impossible for me, arguing as a Christian, to not keep coming back to God, and it is impossible for you, as a rebellious sinner, to not keep going back to yourself—what you believe to be rational. And neither of us can justify these primary presuppositions (mine of God being the final authority and you of yourself being the final authority) without presupposing the other to be false.

Circularity is absolutely necessary when arguing for ultimate authorities, in the very nature of the case, as noted previously.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Without the Scriptures you would not believe God to exist, so therefore you cannot a priori know that God made you with the ability to read the Bible.

Again you assume autonomy—the idea that we can build up justification from ourselves without relying on God, while this is exactly what Christianity denies.

[Travis]

The problem—the reason we’re going in circles here—is because you are failing to see this for what it is: a conflict between worldviews. The battle between empiricism and Christianity is a battle between two conflicting and mutually exclusive, comprehensive worldviews, both of which will ultimately defend their core presuppositions in a circular manner. My ultimate presupposition—what I believe to be the ultimate standard—is God, and I will continue to go back to his authority. Your ultimate presupposition is your own ability to reason in an autonomous fashion, and you will always go back to your own epistemic authority. Both ultimate authorities are defended in a circular manner, and must be by the very nature of the case, lest one refutes oneself by appealing to something else as an authority above his final authority. The question, therefore, is, which of these worldviews can account for the human experience, and, in particular, which can account for science, logic, etc. I’ve shown that within the Christian worldview—which, yes, is authoritarian and not autonomous—my presuppositions are absolutely rational. Obviously, if God exists and Christianity is true (and, therefore, God defines rationality), it is not irrational to assume God as one’s primary presupposition—a presupposition that renders use of logic possible. For empiricism, on the other hand, the belief in the universality of logic is not rationally justifiable, whether it is presuppositional or not (as I demonstrated previously, by showing that even if you held it to be presuppositional and transcendentally necessary, you will still have to irrationally assume it in order to believe that it is transcendentally necessary). That is, belief in laws of logic is justified within my own worldview, according to an internal critique. But this belief is not justified within your own worldview, according to an entirely internal critique (as Hume has demonstrated, and upon which I elaborated). Therefore, of empiricism and Christianity, only Christianity can account for science and the universality of logic. Thus, the worldview of Christianity wins in the debate.

[Qingu]

You have by no means won the debate, Mr.

Your justification for Christianity -- the way you would supposedly win the debate -- is that it is the ONLY way that we can justify logic.

This is not true, watch:

I assume Mooglechuff the Magical Pink Pluffster created the universe and logic.

Oh no! What's wrong with this assumption? It's illogical! It's arbitrary!

Okay, then, let me fix that for you:
I assume Mooglechuff the Magical Pink Pluffster created the universe and logic and that believing in him is the ONLY way that we can justify logic.

Hello! That doesn't make sense to me, because I assume God created logic and that the only way that we can justify logic is by beliving in God!

Well, I assume you can't even be arguing with me, since to do so would suggest autonomy from the will of the Great and Omniscient Magical Pink Pluffster whose existence transcends your assumptions!

I assume my God transcends autonomy!

I assume an even bigger ultimate assumption!

And so on. See, your only defense against me is broadening your pre-logical assumption of God, so it grows bigger and bigger and you make more pre-logical assumptions; the problem with pre-logical assumptions is that they are IRRATIONAL assumptions since they draw a circle around themselves! Circularity IS irrational because ANY argument, even contradictory ones, can rely on circularity to so-called "justify" themselves, and by the laws of logic, two contradictory things cannot be true at once! This is not rocket science, Mr., this is just the laws of logic that you are supposedly justifying with Christianity! But apparently by justifying them you are also changing them into something completely different ... tell me, since logic is differnet in your worldview and circular reasoning is not illogical, can you even read the words that I'm writing? I mean, since true can = false now, how do you know that the previous sentence didn't just just read "Pie cat Hitler sombrero foreshortened thricefold shakti maya, Julius Caesar!" I mean, since nothing is true for certain since circular logic is not illogical, then how do you even know anything?

Now, let's try this thought experiment with an empiricist....

Hello! I am an empiricist. I assume logic is logical and that I can observe true things; this makes sense to me because I see no possible or useful alternative than these two assumptions.

But that's circular reasoning! You suck!

I know. I have no logical reason to believe in logic, and I have no observable reason to believe I can observe true things ... I guess everything else I assume only holds true if those two presuppositions turn out to be true.

That seems logical. But! How do you know that logic is logical!

I don't. I'm a skeptic. I don't the ultimate claim that logic is logical, I pose it as a stipulation to the rest of my knowledge.

Ah. So how do you know that your'e a skeptic!

Because that is the definition of skeptic, i.e. skeptic = skeptic, and I presupposed logic. As long as I operate within the borders of my initial assumption of logic, this is a true statement and makes sense.

Ah. Good point. Hey, I believe that this Yahweh deity created logic and therefore I have a justification for logic and you don't!

Okay, how do you justify your belief that Yahweh created logic?

Because he did, and I believe it!

So can't I just say I believe logic rationally justifies itself?

No, because Yahweh made it. An idea can't logically justify itself.

So your belief in Yahweh cannot justify itself?

No, because Yahweh is the only idea that can justify himself.

Funny that, I just talked to a guy who thought the Magical Pink Pluffster was the only idea that can justify itself.

That is impossible, because Yahweh is the only idea that can possibly lead to any other idea!

Hmm, it seems to me that instead of circularly presupposing logic like I did, you are just circularly presupposing a God that justifies logic, then circularly presupposing something that justifies God (God need not justify himself), then circularly presupposing something that justifies that statement by claiming that God is the ONLY thing that can justify himself... can't you just go on forever doing this?

You bet, mister empiricist! But hey, I'm not a one-trick pony, i have other methods! Watch:

if you ask for logical justification for one of my claims, I claim that you are presupposing that I am arguing from autonomy when in fact I am arguing by not assuming autonomy, but rather by assuming God.

So arguing from autonomy means you have to logically justify your claims, and arguing from God means you don't?

Apparently.

So is this just an admission that you can't logically justify your beliefs, which means you lose the argument by your own standards??

No, I win, because I believe in something that justifies logic for which I have an infinite regression of justifications. I win because I can argue forever and nobody can stop me!

Wouldn't skepticism be easier since it makes no ultimate claims, only stipulations within stipulations?

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's ultimate truth!

It never claimed to be ... hey! Isn't the stupid straw man effigy argument the one that's supposed to be in italics and the smart one supposed to be the regular text?

Shut yo' mouth.

So you see (back to normal mode now), that's why circular reasoning is irrational. You use circular reasoning to prove anything! ... God, logic, magical pink pluffsters, some toothpaste ... all you have to do is invent an idea to justify logic, then make an infinite series of unjustified justifications for it (or simply by using a result of the circular assumption as its own justification, more classic circuity). It doesn't "prove" anything is ultimate truth, simply because it CAN prove anything is ultimate truth, and not more than one thing can be proved to be ultimate truth. That would be a contradiction -- illogical, irrational.

The way to AVOID circular reasoning is to make stipulations, not ultimate world claims. In other words, be a skeptic, and be logical (under the stipulation that logic is logical, of course!) That is its whole appeal. Instead of struggling to provide more and more illogical justifications, each one justifying the last one, for a final vocabulary assumption, it simply admits that it's first cause assumption is an assumption, a stipulation, and that if it is not true, what follows from it can't be true either.

The problem—the reason we’re going in circles here—is because you are failing to see this for what it is: a conflict between worldviews.

If you ask me, the reason we're going in circles here is because you're going in circles and I'm running around behind you telling you that you're actually going nowhere.

Conceding that I cannot logically justify logic is not a concession of the debate (I conceded this a long time ago, anyway, when I said "logic is logical"). Rather, it is, or appears to be, the reality of the situation for both of us: you cannot logically justify logic either, since you "justify" it by the circular belief in a God who justifies logic, and as I have shown, circular beliefs are illogical and justifies nothing. Logic, by its very nature, seems to preclude ultimate claims made about itself. The only alternative is skepticism. This is why Christianity is illogical, while empiricism is neither logical nor illogical. You claim to have won, but you have in fact lost. The snake that eats itself no longer exists.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I assume Mooglechuff the Magical Pink Pluffster created the universe and logic.

Oh no! What's wrong with this assumption? It's illogical! It's arbitrary!

Okay, then, let me fix that for you:
I assume Mooglechuff the Magical Pink Pluffster created the universe and logic and that believing in him is the ONLY way that we can justify logic.

But it’s not. Christianity does.

You’re trying to take the focus off of what’s really in question here—empiricism versus Christianity. You don’t want to actually step up and defend your own worldview, so you’ll make up other ones and try to employ them against me. I don’t blame you, of course, since I would probably do the same if I espoused a worldview as utterly impotent as atheistic empiricism. You’ve completely ignored the fact that my worldview—according to an internal critique—can justify the use of logic; yours, according to an internal critique, cannot. End of debate.

Originally Posted by Qingu

So you see (back to normal mode now), that's why circular reasoning is irrational.

Then you should stop with your circular defense of your own autonomy. Try to stop defending the idea that you can reason apart from God’s revelation in Scripture without reasoning apart from God’s revelation in Scripture. But that’s impossible; it would be a concession of the debate. Why? Because that would contradict what you believe to be the ultimate authority. Likewise, I will continue to defend God by appealing back to Him. We’re both being quite circular, as anyone will be when defending ultimate epistemological authorities. The difference is that my worldview can account for logic, while yours is reduced to skepticism according to itself!

Originally Posted by Qingu

You use circular reasoning to prove anything!

I disagree. You can’t use it to prove empiricism, as this debate has shown. You’ve defended your own autonomy in a totally circular manner and still failed miserably in rationally justifying your use of logic.

Again, as for circularity, you are being the most circular of all. Defend the idea that you can reason apart from God’s revelation in Scripture without reasoning apart from God’s revelation in Scripture. You've thus far been defending it in a circular manner, by reasoning apart from His revelation in Scripture.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The way to AVOID circular reasoning is to make stipulations, not ultimate world claims. In other words, be a skeptic, and be logical (under the stipulation that logic is logical, of course!)

Believing that logic is invariant and universal is not logical, however; therefore you are reduced to skepticism as to the applicability of logic, and you cannot continue to be rational and employ it.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If you ask me, the reason we're going in circles here is because you're going in circles and I'm running around behind you telling you that you're actually going nowhere.

You’re defending the idea that you can reason autonomously—apart from God’s revelation—in a manner that’s absolutely as circular as the way I’m defending the idea that God is the final authority. Actually, you’re probably being even more circular. I challenge the idea that you can do so, and you do so in order to prove that you can do so. Utter circularity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Conceding that I cannot logically justify logic is not a concession of the debate (I conceded this a long time ago, anyway, when I said "logic is logical").

Which failed to address the question at hand. How do you know there are laws of logic that are invariant and universal? There’s nothing logical about that for you, the empiricist, since it doesn’t logically follow from your sensory experience.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Rather, it is, or appears to be, the reality of the situation for both of us: you cannot logically justify logic either, since you "justify" it by the circular belief in a God who justifies logic, and as I have shown, circular beliefs are illogical and justifies nothing.

You haven’t shown at all that circular beliefs are necessarily wrong. I’ve addressed this numerous times in this thread. We are both defending our ultimate presuppositions as to what is the ultimate standard in circular manners. I’m defending the idea that God is the ultimate standard by appealing back to Him; you’re defending your idea that you can judge autonomously, apart from Christian revelation, by appealing back to your own reason. You’re being just a circular as I am. Circularity is a must when arguing over final authorities. To do otherwise is to refute oneself. So sure, we've both been circular. The difference is that my worldview can withstand an internal critique and account for logic; yours can't.

Therefore, if you wish to continue to debate, stop borrowing from my worldview by employing logic. Your worldview doesn't account for it, so you have no justification for utilizing it. Any time you do your subsequent arguments will be rendered irrational.

[Qingu]

You are mistaking "internal critique" for "making up a bunch of reasons why my argument is true, each one justifying the last, an infinite series."

As I have clearly shown, and as you apparently have completely ignored, this is not any sort of "justification" for your worldview, it is a neverending stream of nonsense and illogical conjecture.

As I have clearly shown, any attempt to "justify logic," like Christianity, inevitably falls back upon this stream of illogical conjectures, circular reasoning, and is therefore illogical, unnecessary, and extraneous because it amounts to the exact same thing as the skeptical empiricist's "illogical" assumption of logic, without any more justification.

You’re trying to take the focus off of what’s really in question here—empiricism versus Christianity.

Good point. Since neither of our "worldviews" can justify logic, and empiricism is not circular and Christianity is, then empiricism wins, easy. Also, we put a man on the moon, cure diseases and feed the hungry. You reduced the world to ignorant poverty for 1,000 years and spread AIDS and overpopulate the world with your literalistic interpretation of the Bible. We have heretofore only been talking about metaphysical/logical perspectives (which often veers off course), as if that were the only way to prove an idea is better than another, but this discussion could have just as easily veered into the moral merits of either doctrines ... maybe another time.

You don’t want to actually step up and defend your own worldview, so you’ll make up other ones and try to employ them against me.

You claimed your worldview was the only possible worldview. I easily showed this was not the case. I fail to see how the above sentence in any way saves your argument, or why I necessarily need to defend my worldview to show yours as false by its own claims.

I don’t blame you, of course, since I would probably do the same if I espoused a worldview as utterly impotent as atheistic empiricism.

Science is impotent? Nuclear bombs? I'd like to see a Calvinist invent one of those.

You assume skepticism is impotent as part of your circular worldview, when in reality -- in terms of the mathematics of logic -- skepticism is simply the absence of an ultimate claim, it is a method to adjust logical enquiry into stipulations -- into sets within sets within sets.

You’ve completely ignored the fact that my worldview—according to an internal critique—can justify the use of logic; yours, according to an internal critique, cannot. End of debate.

It cannot justify its use of logic, it merely pushes back its circular faux-justification from logic into logic's creator, God. When I asked you to justify God, you either go in a circle or make up an unjustified justification for God, ad naseum. This is not an internal critique, this is false circular reasoning, as I have shown, and as any logician will tell you.

Then you should stop with your circular defense of your own autonomy. Try to stop defending the idea that you can reason apart from God’s revelation in Scripture without reasoning apart from God’s revelation in Scripture. But that’s impossible; it would be a concession of the debate. Why? Because that would contradict what you believe to be the ultimate authority.

I have stipulated the ultimate presupposition to be logic, which is reasoning apart from God's revelation in scripture since in assuming logic I have not yet assumed either the existence or nonexistence of God! This is NOT circular, you are simply CALLING it circular without showing WHY it is circular.

Likewise, I will continue to defend God by appealing back to Him. We’re both being quite circular, as anyone will be when defending ultimate epistemological authorities. The difference is that my worldview can account for logic, while yours is reduced to skepticism according to itself!

You seem to think that embracing skepticism means losing this debate. If skepticism is clearly logical and Christianity is clearly illogical, as I have shown and as you have utterly failed to address, then doesn't that mean I win the debate?

I disagree. You can’t use it to prove empiricism, as this debate has shown.

Of course I can use it to "prove" empiricism! Watch:

Empiricism is true!
Why?
Because empiricism is the only way to rationally justify anything! Without empiricism we know nothing about the world! Glory to SCIENCE!
But that's circular! You need to justify induction being the only way that leads to knowledge!
By asking me that you presume autonomy from induction, you presume that induction ISN'T the only way that leads to knowledge!
But that's just a cop-out! You aren't justifying anything with that statement, and it's still circular!
I know, this is a stupid argument, hence the italics.

Notice the similarities....

You’ve defended your own autonomy in a totally circular manner and still failed miserably in rationally justifying your use of logic.

An assumption of logic implies autonomy. Your desire me to prove autonomy is actually a desire to prove that I can use logic, which is the same thing you have been asking this whole debate. Again and again I have responded by saying this is my initial assumption, a stipulation. If I can't use autonomy then I don't know anything.

Of course, the only way to prove that I don't have autonomy is to result to circular reasoning and believe in God, an illogical proof. Honestly, it sounds like you totally made up this counterargument out of the blue ... do apologists actually use this? I believe you don't have authority to use logic, therefore you can't and I can ignore anything you say against Christianity?

My argument against Christianity is essentially this:

If Christianity is true, then logic is true. But if logic is true, then Christianity is false, since it is shown to be circular.

This is simply using logic to disprove your argument -- call it "reasoning autonomously," or whatever. Your argument is still illogical, whether an empiricist points this out or a Christian.

Again, as for circularity, you are being the most circular of all. Defend the idea that you can reason apart from God’s revelation in Scripture without reasoning apart from God’s revelation in Scripture.

If his revelation in Scripture is LOGIC, then I am reasoning LOGICALLY and showing that his revelation is NOT LOGICAL. Within his revelation or without his revelation, the whole edifice still comes crashing down.

It doesn't matter where we start out. I can start with assuming logic and show that it's illogical to assume Christianity. I can start with assuming God created logic, and using logic to show that it's illogical to assume Christianity. Et cetera, et cetera. Hence the death of the circular argument -- the only way for your assuming Christianity to be true is if LOGIC DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

Believing that logic is invariant and universal is not logical, however; therefore you are reduced to skepticism as to the applicability of logic, and you cannot continue to be rational and employ it.

Oh no! Skepticism! I can't know that logic is true! I can't know that my eyes and ears are deceiving me! What a horrible world! I might as well just kill myself, or pretend that God exists and circular logic is true and make an ultimate claim to make myself feel better!

Is this why you converted to Christianity? Because skepticism keeps you up at night?

I am perfectly comfortable with saying Within the sphere of logic, these things are true. If logic is shown to be irrational, then my whole worldview comes crashing down ... but logic is the ultimate circular claim, since you can't logically show logic to be illogical without resorting to an illogical first claim. This is why I am a skeptic -- all universal claims (Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, neoconservatism) -- are illogical.

Which failed to address the question at hand. How do you know there are laws of logic that are invariant and universal? There’s nothing logical about that for you, the empiricist, since it doesn’t logically follow from your sensory experience.

Nope. Empiricism operates within the stipulation of logic. Sets within sets. I'll draw it out for you.

{ LOGIC { OBSERVATION {EMPIRICISM} OBSERVATION } LOGIC }

Beyond logic, who knows? You can't know anything outside Logic without being circular, so you logically can't know. Just like you can't observably know anything outside the set of Observation, and you can't Empirically know anything outside the set of Empiricism.

It is your job to show how you can logically know or prove Christianity. If you cannot, then Christianity is ILLOGICAL because it is circular and destroys all of its subsets if it is true:

{ JESUS { LOGIC { .......... } LOGIC } JESUS }

The problem is, without Logic, there is no definition of "truth," so you can't prove Jesus is true! If you are operating outside the bounds of logic, then you are making ILLOGICAL assumptions which CANNOT be logically justified. Outside the bounds of logic is ultimate Chaos, since anything can be true and false at the same time without logic.

If you worship something outside the bounds of logic, you are worshipping my mistress Tiamat, the goddess of chaos and discord, who is both true and false at once.

You haven’t shown at all that circular beliefs are necessarily wrong.

They may somehow work outside the bounds of logic where something can be true and false at the same time, but then you can't ever justify a circular claim, hence they are LOGICALLY untrue.

I’ve addressed this numerous times in this thread. We are both defending our ultimate presuppositions as to what is the ultimate standard in circular manners.

If I even have an ultimate presupposition, and not a stipulation, it is Logic. Empiricism lies within the bounds of logic -- it is not illogical, only a stipulation. Yours lies without the bounds of logic -- it is illogical.

You cannot show that logic is not necessarily logical.

I’m defending the idea that God is the ultimate standard by appealing back to Him; you’re defending your idea that you can judge autonomously, apart from Christian revelation, by appealing back to your own reason.

I appeal back to logic, which has no justification; you appeal back to God, which is ILLOGICAL. I win.

You’re being just a circular as I am. Circularity is a must when arguing over final authorities. To do otherwise is to refute oneself. So sure, we've both been circular.

Avoid circularity by making stipulations and not ultimate claims -- skepticism.

Therefore, if you wish to continue to debate, stop borrowing from my worldview by employing logic. Your worldview doesn't account for it, so you have no justification for utilizing it. Any time you do your subsequent arguments will be rendered irrational.

Tell me. If logic is not the final arbiter in this debate, then how does one even conceivably "win" this debate?

You are essentially claiming the final arbiter is not logic, but God. This is stupid for several reasons. First, it assumes your conclusion. Second, you have admitted you can't justify God without appealing to circular logic -- illogical. Third, the fact that you are debating with me implies that you clearly think logic is the final arbiter in this debate, otherwise you would just be saying "Glory to God!" over and over again instead of attempting to rationally support your points.

I have shewn that Christianity is an illogical, circular assumption. You have admitted this. But then you try to worm your way out by essentially claiming that I can't prove anything is illogical, so therefore nothing is if I am arguing?

If you want to continue this discussion, I think we first need to agree on terms. You have demanded that I logically justify my arguments, and yet you then claim that logic is not the final arbiter in this discussion. In fact, you have claimed that the only way to prove logic is by using illogical circular reasoning, which would make illogical circular reasoning the final arbiter in this discussion.

So which is it: logic, or circular reasoning?

If you can't decide, I suggest we make closing statements.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

You are mistaking "internal critique" for "making up a bunch of reasons why my argument is true, each one justifying the last, an infinite series."

Once again you’ve ignored the internal critique of empiricism, which proves that the empiricist is reduced to utter skepticism regarding the applicability of logic and the possibility of science.

Originally Posted by Qingu

As I have clearly shown, and as you apparently have completely ignored, this is not any sort of "justification" for your worldview, it is a neverending stream of nonsense and illogical conjecture.

Illogical? According to your worldview, this isn’t a problem, since logic cannot empirically be shown to be invariant and universal. Only within my worldview can one rationally justify the application of laws of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

As I have clearly shown, any attempt to "justify logic," like Christianity, inevitably falls back upon this stream of illogical conjectures, circular reasoning, and is therefore illogical, unnecessary, and extraneous because it amounts to the exact same thing as the skeptical empiricist's "illogical" assumption of logic, without any more justification.

If you can’t rationally justify using logic (reason), then I fail to see on what basis you are going to attempt to bring a charge against Christianity in a rational manner. Your arguments are all illogical since they depend upon an initial irrational assumption of the universality of logic. And yes, I’ve made no attempt to disguise the fact that I defend Christianity in a circular manner. Likewise, you defend your ability to reason autonomously in a circular manner (since you could never justify reasoning autonomously without reasoning autonomously). The difference between our worldviews, which are both defended in a circular manner, is that my worldview can, within itself, rationally account for one’s ability to utilize logic and science, and yours cannot.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Good point. Since neither of our "worldviews" can justify logic […]

Christianity does justify one’s use of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

and empiricism is not circular […]

It obviously is, since you cannot rationally defend the idea that you can reason properly in an autonomous manner without reasoning autonomously. The idea that one can reason autonomously presupposes the falsity of Christianity, since Christianity teaches that no one can reason properly in an autonomous manner, and therefore, if Christianity is true, no one can reason autonomously. So ultimately, since your arguments for your ability to reason autonomously depend on your autonomous reasoning, you are circular. And since your attacks against Christianity invoke this alleged ability to reason autonomously, which Scripture teaches is impossible, your ultimate argument against Christianity is, “Christianity is false; therefore Christianity is false,” since only if Christianity were false could you have your premise that you could reason autonomously. You are ultimately begging the question; you are reasoning in a circular manner.

Originally Posted by Qingu

We have heretofore only been talking about metaphysical/logical perspectives (which often veers off course), as if that were the only way to prove an idea is better than another, but this discussion could have just as easily veered into the moral merits of either doctrines ... maybe another time.

Going into a discussion of moral merits would have been just as devastating for you since you said, “I'll freely admit I have no moral theory, only personal morals.” In the area of morality, you can only give your personal opinions, which I am free to ignore.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You claimed your worldview was the only possible worldview. I easily showed this was not the case.

(A) No you didn’t. You postulated what you think could have showed such, and I chose to ignore such arguments, since your worldview (which is what we are discussing) cannot account for there being norms of reasoning (i.e., laws of logic) in the first place.

(B) You have not defended your worldview, which is what you were supposed to be doing (see the title of the thread). I’ve reduced your worldview to utter skepticism from an internal critique (thanks to David Hume).

Originally Posted by Qingu

Science is impotent?

Empiricism is impotent, as you’ve been so kind to demonstrate by your utter inability to justify scientific reasoning or your use of logic. Science relies on Christian principles to be intelligible.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You assume skepticism is impotent as part of your circular worldview

If you wish to espouse skepticism, you must admit that all your arguments against Christianity are irrational, since empirical skepticism (see Hume) denies that there is a rational foundation for science or logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

skepticism is simply the absence of an ultimate claim

You’re contradicting yourself at every turn. Empiricism (which is what you are supposed to be defending in this debate) does make ultimate epistemic claims, as I cited from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, and the Skeptic’s Dictionary; namely, that all knowledge is limited to experience. This is easily refuted, as I pointed out above (without ever receiving an answer), by the clear fact that the very statement “all knowledge is limited to experience” itself is not based on experience. Empiricism’s claim—the very thing that makes empiricism empiricism—is self-refuting!

Originally Posted by Qingu

It cannot justify its use of logic, it merely pushes back its circular faux-justification from logic into logic's creator, God. When I asked you to justify God, you either go in a circle or make up an unjustified justification for God, ad naseum.

When I ask you to justify the idea that you can reason autonomously, you merely reason autonomously, thus being circular, which is unavoidable since we are debating ultimate epistemological authorities. The question isn’t one of circularity, since in the nature of the case—a debate on the ultimate authorities of knowledge—circularity is unavoidable. The question is, which worldview can make sense of the world—of rationality, science, morality, etc. Yours cannot according to it’s own claims.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is not an internal critique, this is false circular reasoning, as I have shown, and as any logician will tell you.

It is an internal critique to say that within the Christian worldview, logic makes sense, and assuming God is not irrational since God defines rationality. You’re still wanting to apply your own worldview, which presupposes Christianity’s falsity, to mine, even though your worldview cannot rationally account for using logic at all.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I have stipulated the ultimate presupposition to be logic, which is reasoning apart from God's revelation in scripture since in assuming logic I have not yet assumed either the existence or nonexistence of God! This is NOT circular, you are simply CALLING it circular without showing WHY it is circular.

I’ve explained why you are reasoning circularly:

“…[Y]ou cannot rationally defend the idea that you can reason properly in an autonomous manner without reasoning autonomously. The idea that one can reason autonomously presupposes the falsity of Christianity, since Christianity teaches that no one can reason properly in an autonomous manner, and therefore, if Christianity is true, no one can reason autonomously. So ultimately, since your arguments for your ability to reason autonomously depend on your autonomous reasoning, you are circular. And since your attacks against Christianity invoke this alleged ability to reason autonomously, which Scripture teaches is impossible, your ultimate argument against Christianity is, “Christianity is false; therefore Christianity is false,” since only if Christianity were false could you have your premise that you could reason autonomously. You are ultimately begging the question; you are reasoning in a circular manner.”

You are being illogical, as well as circular, as I’ve shown before. The idea that logic is invariant an universal is not rationally justifiable within your worldview; not even if you presuppose it, since, in order to presuppose it, you would have to first know it as a necessity, which can only first be assumed irrationally.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You seem to think that embracing skepticism means losing this debate.

It obviously means losing the debate, since, if you take up skepticism, you lose the ability to appeal to logic or empirical evidence without being irrational. And since debate is rational interchange, being admittedly irrational would constitute a concession of a debate.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If skepticism is clearly logical and Christianity is clearly illogical

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If skepticism is what you wish to espouse, then you lose the ability to assail Christianity as being “illogical” since skepticism entails the denial of the ability to rationally apply logic to anything—to believe that logic is invariant and universal.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Of course I can use it to "prove" empiricism! Watch:

Empiricism is true!
Why?
Because empiricism is the only way to rationally justify anything! Without empiricism we know nothing about the world!

But with empiricism, you cannot rationally justify science or logic, and this according to empiricism itself! (See Hume’s problem of induction and my elaboration.)

Originally Posted by Qingu

An assumption of logic implies autonomy.

Indeed. An assumption of God from which one can derive the justification for logic, on the other hand, does not.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Your desire me to prove autonomy is actually a desire to prove that I can use logic, which is the same thing you have been asking this whole debate.

Exactly. And you’ve yet to give a rational answer.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Again and again I have responded by saying this is my initial assumption, a stipulation.

Precisely! This is an initial assumption which is irrational, and therefore, any arguments that use this as a basis will be likewise irrational. That’s why you can’t, as an empiricist, use science or logic to assail Christianity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If I can't use autonomy then I don't know anything.

If you use autonomy you cannot know anything, as I’ve demonstrated by reducing empiricism to skepticism regarding science and logic. By assuming autonomous reasoning you’ve begged the question of this entire debate, since that assumption depends upon the unspoken premise that Christianity is false.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Of course, the only way to prove that I don't have autonomy is to result to circular reasoning and believe in God, an illogical proof.

And the only way to prove that you do is to use it, which is also circular. So we are both circular, and the difference is that my worldview can account for logic and rationally justify it while yours cannot.

Originally Posted by Qingu

My argument against Christianity is essentially this:

If Christianity is true, then logic is true. But if logic is true, then Christianity is false, since it is shown to be circular.

The circularity argument will not avail you, since you have been shown to be just as circular as the Christian in defending your ultimate assumptions.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is simply using logic to disprove your argument -- call it "reasoning autonomously," or whatever.

Then you’re being circular.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Your argument is still illogical, whether an empiricist points this out or a Christian.

Assumes the universality of logic, which your worldview has not and cannot rationally prove.

Originally Posted by Qingu

It doesn't matter where we start out. I can start with assuming logic and show that it's illogical to assume Christianity.

No you can’t, since you can’t believe that logic is universal without making an irrational assumption, which would render your argument that Christianity is illogical illogical itself.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I can start with assuming God created logic, and using logic to show that it's illogical to assume Christianity.

That’s impossible, since if the only basis for logic is Christianity, it clearly can’t be the case that one could ever make the charge that Christianity is itself illogical. If you must assume something as a premise to conclude that it is false, all you’ve done is contradict yourself.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Oh no! Skepticism! I can't know that logic is true! I can't know that my eyes and ears are deceiving me! What a horrible world! I might as well just kill myself, or pretend that God exists and circular logic is true and make an ultimate claim to make myself feel better!

Is this why you converted to Christianity? Because skepticism keeps you up at night?

Oh no! Christianity! I can’t do whatever I want when I want and ignore the obvious truth of God’s existence. I might actually have moral obligations! I might as well just kill myself, or pretend God doesn’t exist and make all sort of irrational assumptions and just ignore them in debates to make myself feel better!

Is this why you are an atheist/empiricist, professed (yet self-contradictory) skeptic? Because Christianity keeps you up at night?

Originally Posted by Qingu

I am perfectly comfortable with saying Within the sphere of logic, these things are true.

Fine. But the problem is that you cannot rationally justify the idea that logic has a sphere, other than merely on paper using symbols, and that they can apply to anything within this world, including Christianity. Thus you could never mount a rational argument against Christianity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is why I am a skeptic -- all universal claims (Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, neoconservatism) -- are illogical.

Then the universal claim that “all universal claims are illogical” is illogical.

Once again you wander blindly into self contradiction.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Beyond logic, who knows?

Exactly. And since empiricism makes it impossible to rationally justify the idea that anything is within logic (i.e., it can’t show that there are laws of logic which are universal and invariant), your ultimate answer to any question in this world is “who knows?” Therefore you could never make a rational attack against Christianity since, “who knows?”

Originally Posted by Qingu

It is your job to show how you can logically know or prove Christianity.

The proof of Christianity is in the fact that you—as one who denies Christianity—cannot rationally justify reasoning at all.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The problem is, without Logic, there is no definition of "truth,"

(A) Assumes your conclusion that Christianity is false, since Christianity teaches that God is the ultimate determiner of truth and falsity.

(B) Then since you’ve proved yourself incapable of rationally defending the idea of logic being universal, invariant, and applicable to the world, you will have to concede that there is no truth—none whatsoever—for you cannot rationally justify using logic to determine truth or falsity on anything in the world.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If I even have an ultimate presupposition, and not a stipulation, it is Logic. Empiricism lies within the bounds of logic -- it is not illogical, only a stipulation. Yours lies without the bounds of logic -- it is illogical.

Your worldview cannot account for anything being within the bounds of logic. Thus you can never apply logic to anything. You can never make a logical argument without being irrational.

I, on the other hand, can, since God defines logic itself. He is ultimately and supremely logical.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You cannot show that logic is not necessarily logical.

How many times have I addressed this now? Maybe five times explicitly? I am not arguing that logic is not logical; I am arguing that your idea that logic can be applied to anything—that there are laws of logic that are universal and invariant—is irrational according to empiricism (your own worldview) and I have absolutely proved that in this thread by issuing the challenge to you and watching you blunder and contradict yourself over and over, and by refuting your arguments.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I appeal back to logic, which has no justification; you appeal back to God, which is ILLOGICAL. I win.

You cannot establish that God is illogical without assuming your conclusion that He does not determine logic. Nor can you assert that anything is illogical without yourself being illogical, since you can’t logically defend the idea that logic is universal and invariant.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Avoid circularity by making stipulations and not ultimate claims -- skepticism.

I’ve already provided citations of empiricism making ultimate claims, and I have also demonstrated that you make an ultimate claim (implicitly) that you can reason autonomously, which cannot be defended without resorting to circularity. And given empiricism’s ultimate claims, it is self-contradictory, and it makes it impossible for anyone to rationally account for using logic, which means no empiricist could ever make a rational argument, since it would be irrational for him to assume that logic could be used.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Tell me. If logic is not the final arbiter in this debate, then how does one even conceivably "win" this debate?

Well you lose automatically by having a worldview that undermines the use of rationality, given that debate is, itself, to be rational interchange. It’s only possible for debate to provide one with truth if your worldview is false.

The final arbiter in this debate is God who defines human rationality.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You are essentially claiming the final arbiter is not logic, but God. This is stupid for several reasons. First, it assumes your conclusion. Second, you have admitted you can't justify God without appealing to circular logic -- illogical.

You both assume your conclusion and reason circularly, since you assume that you can reason autonomously, which assumes that Christianity is false in a debate in which you are supposed to be demonstrating that Christianity is false. Furthermore, assuming that you can reason autonomously cannot be rationally justified without resorting to autonomous reasoning and thus being circular.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Third, the fact that you are debating with me implies that you clearly think logic is the final arbiter in this debate

On what basis? I believe that God defines rationality and gives it to us as a tool. The fact that I’m refuting you in no way implies that I think logic is independent of God.

Originally Posted by Qingu

otherwise you would just be saying "Glory to God!" over and over again instead of attempting to rationally support your points.

Which is basically what you have been doing, instead substituting “glory to Qingu,” in irrationally assuming that you can reason autonomously and not being able to defend that assumption in a manner that is not circular.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I have shewn that Christianity is an illogical, circular assumption. You have admitted this.

Now you’ve turned from being irrational to outright lying, since I’ve never admitted that it was illogical. But I suppose I could expect as much for someone who has admitted that no moral norms exist.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If you want to continue this discussion, I think we first need to agree on terms. You have demanded that I logically justify my arguments, and yet you then claim that logic is not the final arbiter in this discussion.

Practically speaking, logic is the final arbiter in debate (i.e., rational interchange), but the only reason logic rationally be shown to be authoritative at all is if the Christian worldview is true. God is the final judge of truth and falsity, and He created logic for human use. Our logic must always be confined to certain limits, however—the limits of His revelation in Scripture.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If you can't decide, I suggest we make closing statements.

I think the suggestion of closing statements is a good one, as we are merely repeating ourselves at this point, due to your refusal to rationally justify your worldview.

[Qingu]

Before we close, I'd like to address the "rules" which you stipulated:

Practically speaking, logic is the final arbiter in debate (i.e., rational interchange), but the only reason logic rationally be shown to be authoritative at all is if the Christian worldview is true. God is the final judge of truth and falsity, and He created logic for human use. Our logic must always be confined to certain limits, however—the limits of His revelation in Scripture.

That is not an answer to the question, that is an assumption that you have won this debate, which you have not.

I asked what was the final arbiter deciding who wins this debate: logic or circular logic.

I started this debate by arguing that, assuming logic, it is illogical to believe in Christianity and that empiricism makes more sense because it stipulates its claims rather than resorting to circular logic, like Christianity does. This is in accordance with my interpretation of the debate rules, which state that debates on this forum must be made "using logical convention" -- i.e. an assumption of logic being true.

Then you claimed that I needed to "rationally justify logic" in order to use logic against Christianity. I initially balked at this, since I had assumed (as I believe was perfectly reasonable), that logic is presupposed in debate and needs no justification.

So I conceded skepticism (skepticism is necessary for empiricism, as I said in the first post, this is nothing new) as to how logic is justified rationally. I then asked how you would rationally justify logic.

Your answer, essentially, was that God justified logic.

I then showed that this argument was entirely circular, and hence illogical, since circular logic inevitably leads to contradictions when it is used to justify ultimate claims.

You then claimed that the only way to justify ultimate claims is to use circular logic, implying that circular logic transcends ordinary logic.

So I ask again -- how does one win this debate? By using logic, or by using circular logic? Please answer the question.