[Qingu]

A certain Travis has repeatedly argued that one cannot scientifically prove Christianity to be false, because science itself is dependant on Christianity.

This is sophistry, and nonsense.

Science, the term, as we use it really refers to the philosophy of empiricism. Empiricism is simply the idea that our ideas should follow from our observations.

In an empirical framework, every idea -- every theory, law, whatever -- is inherently falsifiable. This is because we can always observe more evidence. An example is Newtonian physics. In the Principia Mathematica, Newton compiled a revolutionary theory of how the universe works. His theory -- initially met with a lot of skepticism -- was eventually embraced. Why? Because it worked. It successfully predicted the motions of the stars and planets and the movements of small bodies on earth, elegantly and precisely. Almost all modern science is derived from Newtonian physics, and they are still used to this day.

However, in the early 1900s, Einstein proved that Newton's theory was wrong. Newton's laws did not account for a peculiarity of the motion of light. Light always travels at a set speed independent from the speed of its observer. Without getting into it too much, I'll just say that this observation really screws over Newtonian physics. Newton's laws didn't work all the time. Einstein proposed the special theory of relativity (and later, the general theory of relativity) which now fully explain the workings of gravitation and incorporate our observation about the strange speed of light.

Now, I want to stress how amazing this is. Most people think of physical laws as immutable. Newton's LAWS of motion, many non-scientists might assume, are unbreakable. In fact, they are breakable and have always been breakable in an empiricist framework. People used them for 300 years because they worked better than any other laws on the market. When we observed the speed of light, Newton's laws were falsified. We had to revise them in line with our observations. And even Einstein's laws aren't perfect. They don't explain quantum mechanics; they are irreconcilable with them. All of modern physics, when you get down to it, is probably false.

Why do we use physics then? Because even the false laws work. An empirical law -- a scientific theory, really -- is in the nitty gritty a way to qualify diverse observations. Newton observed the elliptical motions of the planets and the force of gravity on bodies on earth. His laws combined these observations into a common framework which applies to both of them. It didn't work because it was true -- it worked because it was accurate and elegant, more accurate and elegant than the natural philosophical theories which preceeded it. Einstein's theory, similarly, was -more- accurate and elegant than Newton's. Empiricism embraces certain theories, like relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution (gasp!) not because they are ideologically True with a capital T, but rather because they are the best theories currently available with which we can elegantly group together the observations we collect, and more importantly, predict future observations.

Empiricism is practical. Evolution effectively predicts the spread of diseases and genetic mutations among all forms of life. Modern physics can predict eclipses thousands of years from now. Thanks to chemistry and quantum mechanics, we have computers and television.

Empiricism has only to contend with its own validity. In order for empiricism to work, the inner logic of empiricism -- that observations can be compiled, categorized, and predicted in an orderly universe, and that everything is falsifiable -- needs to be true. You can say that claiming empiricism is true is itself an assumption, dependant on naturalism and the universe existing in the first place. However, doing so does not grasp the subtleties of empiricism. We believe in Science -- empiricism -- like we believe in Newton's laws. We do it because it works and it's accurate. If we ever observe that the universe is NOT orderly, or that things CANNOT be categorized, then empiricism would self-destruct. But we have not made those observations yet. Empiricism may not be the perfect epistomology, but it is currently the best we have.

Empiricism is an epistomology; it is a way of knowing. In this way, it contrasts with Christianity. Christianity is not dependant on observations, but rather on Scripture. Christianity cannot be falsified, because to believe in Christianity means believing Scriptures CANNOT be falsified, that they are absolutely true. Christianity is not an approximate truth, like empirical theories -- it is an absolute truth, one that cannot be improved upon. We approximate Christianity's truth by successfully or unsuccessfully interpreting the Scriptures. If an observation seems to contradict something stated in the Scriptures, that observation needs to be explained in in a way that reconciles it with the Christian framework.

Speaking more broadly, the last paragraph can refer to any religion that takes its Scriptures literally, for example, Southern Baptists, most Muslims, certain Hindus and Jains, and ancient Judaism. All of these religions claim their Scriptures are innerent and that all truth is derived from those Scriptures. Only one Scripture can be true, however; and yet there is no way of telling which Scripture is true based on this "religious epistomology" because the first step of a religious epistomology is believing your Scripture, whatever it is, is absolutely true. A Calvinist can point out inconsistencies in the Quran, and a Muslim can point out inconsistencies in the Bible. But if both the Calvinists and the Muslim believe their Scriptures firstly to be innerent, then there cannot be inconsistencies. They can't all be true, and yet it is impossible to tell, by using a religious epistomology, which one is true and which ones are false.

More importantly, religious epistomology has constently lost to empirical epistomology. Science can predict eclipses in the future to the precise second. Religion only offers vague eschatologies at unknown dates. Science can cure disease; religion can only tell stories of its heroes curing diseases thousands of years ago. Science can destroy the world at a whim with a few nuclear weapons. Religion can tell stories about God destroying the world. Science is more powerful, more accurate, and more helpful to the physical well-being of humanity than religion. Empiricism is powerful almost beyond containment, and has led to the exponential evolution of technology in the past two hundred years. Religion has only served to stagnate technological progress; all such progress has been possible because empiricists have wrestled away from the accusations of heresy and the isolationism and doctrines of religion.

All that is to say: empiricism cannot be dismissed as dependant, secondary, consequential, to some religious worldview. When an empiricist says he does not believe in Christianity, a Christian cannot put up the bulwark of infallibility and claim that God created rationality and hope to win the argument. In an empiricist framework, ideas can crumble as easily as sandcastles. When we say the Bible cannot be taken literally because our observations show that the earth appears to be billions of years old, a Christian cannot say that God made it to appear that way, and it's only 6,000 years old. Unless the Christian provides empirical counterevidence, his sandcastle will crumble. "But you assume that Christianity is false!" he might say. But he would be wrong. An empiricist sees Christianity's claim of truth as any other claim of truth -- Newtonian physics, a geocentric model of the universe, a theory of four elements. He grants it the tenuous possibility of being true, but when no observations exist which SUPPORT that truth claim, it is eroded.

If the Christian can provide no observational evidence for his claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, for his claim that all species of life were created as they exist today, or for his claim that there was a flood about 5,000 years ago that encompassed the whole world, then he loses to empiricism, just as any other theory of "truth" loses to more accurate theories of truth.

The Christian can make First Cause arguments all he likes, and he can insist that, in his own Christian epistomology, Christianity remains true. The problem comes when he tries to prove Science as false. You can disprove evolution and Einsteinian physics easily with empiricism. All you have to do is gather evidence which contradicts it -- enough evidence and the theory will be swept away.

But Science is cumulative. It is not merely one assumption of truth. It is the gathered data of millions of people over hundreds of years. When Einstein proved Newton wrong, he proposed a theory that worked almost exactly the same as Newton's. For almost all practical purposes, Newtonian and Einsteinian physics work the same. Our theory of evolution is the result of hundreds of years of taxonomy microbiology, genetics and chemistry. If you want to overturn evolution, you not only need to provide an observation that directly contradicts all those other observations throughout history, but you also need to think of a framework to replace evolution which accounts for all the things evolution ALREADY explains. (Creationism fails miserably on both accounts in an empiricist framework).

In Science, a theory is only as strong as the observations that support it and the phenomena it successfully predicts.

Why, then, do Christians claim that Creationism is a SCIENTIFIC theory? When exposed to the rigors of empiricism, Christianity crumbles into dust.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

A certain Travis has repeatedly argued that one cannot scientifically prove Christianity to be false, because science itself is dependant on Christianity.

Since this is directed at me (and doesn’t belong in the theology forum anyway) I’ve moved it to the Restricted Participation Debates forum. Only you and I can post in this thread.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Science, the term, as we use it really refers to the philosophy of empiricism. Empiricism is simply the idea that our ideas should follow from our observations.

In philosophy, empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses, either directly or something that can be logically inferred from what was experienced directly.

Empiricism has many notable problems, however, and since you’ve entitled this thread “Empiricism vs. Christianity” it seems as though these problems are quite relevant to our discussion.

One of these problems is this: Empiricism claims that all knowledge is gained via the senses. However, it can then be asked, is the doctrine of empiricism itself derived from the senses? If the answer is “yes,” then one firstly begs the question, and secondly is ready to be proved false, since there is nothing in experience that can logically necessitate that all knowledge must come by the senses. Regardless of whether we derive immense amounts of knowledge from our senses, it would be an obvious non-sequitur to say that because of that we know that all knowledge is gained through observation. If the answer is “no, empiricism is not derived from the senses, but rather through some other means,” then the claim is obviously self-refuting—all knowledge wouldn’t be gained from sensory experience if the knowledge of empiricism’s truth was gained through some other means. Empiricism is rationally indefensible; it doesn’t matter which path you try to take in answering the question of whether empiricism is derived from the senses—either way is a rational dead-end.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Empiricism is practical.

(A) It is not, however, rationally justifiable. Therefore you are being irrational by saying we ought to use it.

(B) This does not address the problem of induction as stated by Hume. Telling me that it’s worked in the past or is working in the present begs the question as to how you know it will work in the future. The idea that we can use the inductive principle is, as Hume demonstrated, an irrational assumption on your part.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Modern physics can predict eclipses thousands of years from now.

Assumes the validity of the inductive principle, the utilization of which you have yet to rationally justify.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You can say that claiming empiricism is true is itself an assumption, dependant on naturalism and the universe existing in the first place. However, doing so does not grasp the subtleties of empiricism. We believe in Science -- empiricism -- like we believe in Newton's laws. We do it because it works and it's accurate. If we ever observe that the universe is NOT orderly, or that things CANNOT be categorized, then empiricism would self-destruct.

But don’t you see, that as Hume’s problem of induction showed, it is irrational for you to believe that the future will be like the past. Sure, you believe it, but it is irrational for you to do so. It demonstrates quite a problem for your worldview, that what we all know very well to work is utterly irrational according to your beliefs.

Only within the Christian worldview can one rationally justify using scientific laws. You can continue to use them, but you will always be irrational when you do so. Likewise you will be irrational when you try to use any rationality at all, such as the laws of logic, since immaterial universals are not compatible with the atheistic worldview.

Originally Posted by Qingu

But we have not made those observations yet. Empiricism may not be the perfect epistomology, but it is currently the best we have.

Not true. Empiricism is self-refuting and question begging in its attempts at a rational defense of itself, as pointed out previously. Furthermore, empiricism cannot account for immaterial universal laws. Thus you cannot rationally defend the idea of there being any laws of logic, science, or morality. Thus, any time you make a logical inference or expect someone else to follow elementary laws of logic, you will be irrational in so doing. Any time you attempt to use the inductive principle in science to predict future events (even as small as the idea that if you drop an apple it will fall to the ground), you will be irrational. Any time you try to make a moral judgment, or condemn anything as being “wrong” you will be irrational. Your worldview does not make sense of the human experience at all; rather it undermines all reasoning whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Qingu

More importantly, religious epistomology has constently lost to empirical epistomology.

You’re displaying a radical ignorance of the history of Western philosophy if you think empiricist epistemologies have beaten anything. Hume ran empiricism into the ground a long time ago, proving that with such a worldview one cannot use the inductive principle, thus rendering science utterly irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Science can predict eclipses in the future to the precise second. […] Science can cure disease […] Science can destroy the world at a whim with a few nuclear weapons.

Assumes the inductive principle, which empiricism causes to be irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

All that is to say: empiricism cannot be dismissed as dependant, secondary, consequential, to some religious worldview.

It can, however, be proved to be a theory that undermines rationality entirely. This was proved hundreds of years ago by Hume. Apparently someone forgot to send you the memo.

Originally Posted by Qingu

In an empiricist framework, ideas can crumble as easily as sandcastles.

With empiricism virtually all ideas are irrational from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If the Christian can provide no observational evidence for his claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, for his claim that all species of life were created as they exist today, or for his claim that there was a flood about 5,000 years ago that encompassed the whole world, then he loses to empiricism, just as any other theory of "truth" loses to more accurate theories of truth.

Empiricism can’t even account for there being “truth” or “falsity,” since immaterial laws of logic are not observable.

Originally Posted by Qingu

All you have to do is gather evidence which contradicts it -- enough evidence and the theory will be swept away.

Assumes empiricism, which has already been shown to be irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If you want to overturn evolution, you not only need to provide an observation […]

Assumes empiricism, which has already been shown to be irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

When exposed to the rigors of empiricism, Christianity crumbles into dust.

When exposed to the rigors of empiricism, logic and rationality crumble into dust. So if you’re going to use empiricism as your epistemology, it is self-contradictory for you to try to utilize logic.

[Qingu]

Ah, the flustered apologist -- seems so much to me like a mariner desperately plugging the rotted holes in a sinking slave-galley. Let it sink, dear Travis; 'twas never sea-worthy to begin with. But on with the argument....

PARRY:

Empiricism claims that all knowledge is gained via the senses. However, it can then be asked, is the doctrine of empiricism itself derived from the senses? If the answer is “yes,” then one firstly begs the question, and secondly is ready to be proved false, since there is nothing in experience that can logically necessitate that all knowledge must come by the senses.

That is not what empiricism claims. I don't think you understand the concept of empiricism; and I wonder if you read my post closely. Empiricism makes no ultimate claims. It makes no claims to ALL knowledge. It sets its limits by definition to what is observable. There is nothing all-encompassing about empiricism itself. You are mistaking the definition of empiricism -- knowledge via primacy of observations -- with my argument that empiricism IS in fact the best epistomology. Empiricism does not itself CLAIM to be the best, most all-encompassing epistomology; it is really just a method.

You have a postmodern panache for reducing ideas to circularity, but I'm afraid empiricism is well-shielded from being reduced to a "final vocabulary," since it is less of an ideology and more of a method. Empiricism's lack of ideology is its entire strength, and it is what makes it so powerful and irrefutable. Christians like you are fond of assigning an ideology to empiricism which you then proceed to label as circular and derivative; but empiricism already understands ideology as secondary anyway.

So no. A method does not beg its own question. When I weigh a chunk of rock the act of weighing it is not circular in itself, nor is the act of cataloguing the weights of different rocks, graphing them and determining their average weights and tendencies for different kinds of rocks. The ideologies empiricism fosters derive FROM this data -- for example, different ages of sediment based on their densities yields an idea about the age of the earth*. But then these ideologies are completely tenuous; empiricism makes no claim to their infallibility, as you seem to think it does. If empiricism does not claim to have all the answers, then why does it need an a priori justification for providing an ultimate truth, a truth which is never claims to provide?

About Hume. You seem fond of invoking him, which is odd, considering he was most likely a closet atheist and, in contrast to what you claim about the history of philosophy, his philosophy was most notable for its destruction of Aquinas-style Christian philosophy (read his writing about religion, "On Miracles" and the like). Hume was the philosopher at the fulcrum of the waxing of empiricism and the waning of Christian philosophy. So be careful when you invoke him as if you agree with everything he says.

Now, I haven't read his argument against induction. However, empiricism -- again, I have to stress -- does not make ultimate claims. Empiricism knows that an observation today may not be the same tomorrow. However, it functions despite of this because induction works MOST of the time. Agnosticism is built in to empiricism. Weather reports are quite accurate; comets are predicted to the minute; genetic mutation is predicted to the protein strand; and I don't even know what's up with quantum mechanic predictions, but apparently they are quite amazing. If induction stops working -- if we can't predict tomorrow based on what happens today -- then certainly empiricism will be dealt a mighty blow. However, it does work, and it works more than well enough to use. Embracing it only means an empiricist has to live with the miniscule doubt in his mind that the universe MIGHT not be static. But then, you don't tread warily on your carpet because you are worried it might at any moment turn carnivorous and try to eat your feet. Nor do you feel safe walking on your carpet because you trust in God to keep it the same over time. You walk on it because the chances of it turning carnivorous are so small that it's not worth even worrying about.

This is an age-old quandry of how we understand "belief" and "knowledge." Christians claim they believe in God without any shadow of doubt, while agnostics claim that every belief -- even the most mundane and obvious -- is necessarily plagued with a lingering fear of falsity. And yet we function most of the time without even worrying about whatever doubts we may or may not have. Hume, in "destroying rationality and induction" really just came out as an agnostic. So wouldn't empiricism therefore be in line with Hume's worries about induction? If we can never be completely sure of something, shouldn't we try to be as sure of it as we can possibly be with concrete observations? To answer your question, yes, I got Hume's memo -- it said "don't believe in Christian philosophy and universal truths anymore. They're nonsense, and here's why...."

Empiricism can’t even account for there being “truth” or “falsity,” since immaterial laws of logic are not observable.

Again, this would not bother the true-blooded empiricist. Truth and falsehood are completely mutable in empiricism; they are derived from our observations. Nothing is ever always true. And while things are often "proven" false, occasionally a scientist can resurrect a false idea, supply it with fresh evidence and deem it not false, a successful theory, more true than other theories available (string theory may prove to be such an example).

Please try to understand empiricism better before you critique it on its own terms.

RIPOSTE:

You have talked a lot about rationality and assumptions. These words are your ammunition against empiricism. And yet, from what you have told me, you appear to reject the idea of rationality and you have admitted that you have assumed the Christian Bible to be innerrant truth.

It is no wonder that you feel so secure about your Christianity. An epistomology that is independent from any system of logic and based on a central assumption that cannot be disproved is strong indeed. Your Christianity presupposes a divine author of a diverse group of stories, poems, letters and apocalypses, and more importantly, defines that author as a supernatural being capable of altering reality in an infinite amount of ways with no need to explain or justify his actions to humans. Such a universe can only be understood through the assumed truth -- the Scriptures which you assume to be innerrant -- and all other observations we make are inconsequential, since they may be no more than illusions perpetrated by this mysterious God.

You are clearly aware that this is a circular argument, and yet you also seem to revel in its paradoxical security.

I've argued with religious people enough to know that you can't easily knock someone out of their cozy little religious box. Rather, what I am interested in is: why did you make that first assumption in the first place?

Why did you assume the Bible is innerrant?

No text in the Bible claims to be innerrant. Few of the texts even have identifiable authors. And, if you read the Bible without assuming it is innerrant (as you must have done BEFORE you made the assumption, at least I am hoping...) you would conclude that it is filled with far more contradictions and confusing elements than other books with similar religious valences, such as the Quran.

You seemed hesitant to talk about other religions, but it is important to discuss. The Quran is a pain in the ass to read, but (I'm speaking as an outsider to both Islam and Chrisitanity, remember) it is a brilliant religious text. It is exceptionally coherent. It rarely appears to contradict itself -- at one point it says Satan (Iblis) is an angel, and then at another point it calls him a genie. A hole, for sure; but a hole that any Muslim apologist can easily plug. Compared to the gaping holes in the Bible -- how Judas dies, the Flood, dual creation myths, faith vs. works, whether or not the Mosaic laws are still in effect (to name only a few; see the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy for more) -- the Quran is remarkably coherent and homogenous. It only has two major styles -- Mohammad's short fiery exhortations and his longer stories and lawmaking passages -- compared with the panoply of different genres, writing styles, names of the deity and historical periods in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. And the Quran actually says in its own pages that it is inspired by Allah.

My question is -- why did you assume the Christian Scriptures are true, and not the Muslim scriptures?

Since the assumption that the Bible is innerrant truth is the keystone of your whole epistomology, I want to understand how it was not an arbitrary assumption to make. Because if the keystone of your epistomology is arbitrary, then your epistomology is consequentially no better than any other religious literalist's epistomology.

We all make assumptions. But, despite what you earlier have said, not all assumptions are equal. If I drop a quarter I assume it will hit the floor. This is a nice empiricist assumption, but it is always true on the observable earth and unless or until the laws of gravity deteriorate it will always be true. If I assumed the opposite -- that the quarter would stay afloat in the air -- it would be a bad assumption. The quarter drops to the floor. Of course, you could then qualify your bad assumption by saying that the quarter actually never touches the floor even though it appears to drop, because the atoms of the quarter and the atoms of the floor are separated by a space equal to the electromagnetic repulsive force of their electrons. But then everyone would laugh at you because you would be straining the observed evidence to fit your assumption.

You assume that the Bible is innerrant truth. This is a bad assumption. Like the person who assumed the quarter would float, you have strained this assumption and the evidence against it almost to snapping. Our observations tell us that the sun and all the other stars were not created after the earth, as the Bible seems to claim. But you, ever the wily apologist, will say that our observations are what deceive us, and that your God created the sun to look older than it actually is for no explicable reason. Reading Matthew and reading Acts shows that Judas dies in what appear to be two completely different ways -- in Matthew he throws his silver at the feet of the Pharisees, storms off and hangs himself in shame, and in Acts he uses the silver to buy a field and trips headlong and splits his stomach open. The wily apologist says that this is not a contradiction at all -- one Christian told me that he believed that the priests bought a plot of land in Judas' name, and Judas hung himself on that very field, the rope snapped, and he fell headlong on the field and killed himself that way.

You may well be able to go through life shielded from these observations which potentially cut into the innerrency of the Bible by simply assuming that, despite these observations, the Bible is innerrant anyway. You might be able to make-believe your way through all sorts of discussions about evolution and the age of the universe by pretending--for that is what you are doing, pretending--that the Bible is absolutely true and that all other observations must somehow coalesce into your assumed truth, and it is only a matter of stitching together the gaps and holes and reinterpreting secular observations in a religious light.

You have criticized empiricism, calling it empty and impossible to justify rationally. But the strength of empiricism is its lack of an assumed ultimate truth. It depends on agnosticism to function -- but agnosticism is itself a non-assumption. Now, you can try to stitch together the holes in your Christian ship to your hearts content with apology and steadfast faith and pretend they don't exist--they still remain, and it does not change the observable fact that your boat is sinking. My ship may not be perfect, but at least I'm aware of the holes. And my ship sails far better than yours. Drown in your ignorance and call it wisdom.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

That is not what empiricism claims. I don't think you understand the concept of empiricism; and I wonder if you read my post closely. Empiricism makes no ultimate claims.

From the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:

“The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.”

From the Skeptic's Dictionary (an atheistic empiricist website):

“Empiricism is a theory which holds that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience.”

Originally Posted by Qingu

You are mistaking the definition of empiricism -- knowledge via primacy of observations -- with my argument that empiricism IS in fact the best epistomology.

Well then you still have a problem, don’t you? How do you answer Hume’s skepticism? How do you rationally justify the idea of causality? How do you rationally justify use of the inductive principle? How do you know that there exist immaterial and universal laws (laws of logic)? How can you make moral judgments? All these things Hume proved to be irrational from an atheistic empiricist perspective.

Originally Posted by Qingu

But then these ideologies are completely tenuous; empiricism makes no claim to their infallibility, as you seem to think it does. If empiricism does not claim to have all the answers, then why does it need an a priori justification for providing an ultimate truth, a truth which is never claims to provide?

Empiricism needs to rationally justify using science, logic, morality—any reasoning at all, for the obvious reason that if it cannot then the empiricist has no rational basis for using science, or logic in order to argue against Christianity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

About Hume. You seem fond of invoking him, which is odd, considering he was most likely a closet atheist and, in contrast to what you claim about the history of philosophy, his philosophy was most notable for its destruction of Aquinas-style Christian philosophy (read his writing about religion, "On Miracles" and the like). Hume was the philosopher at the fulcrum of the waxing of empiricism and the waning of Christian philosophy. So be careful when you invoke him as if you agree with everything he says.

Hume was no closet atheist; he was a public one. He’s actually the originator of the formal argument against God from the problem of evil. I have indeed read his anti-Christian, anti-miracle writings. These are easy to refute, since according to what Hume said about science—causality and the inductive principle—he had no basis from which to argue against miracles, since he undermined the rational basis of accounting for laws (from the atheistic empiricist worldview). And since his empiricist epistemology (A) cannot account for immaterial universals (which cannot be observed), and (B) disallows all moral reasoning (he stated this outright), his problem of evil can’t even get off the ground (since he can’t prove evil to exist without presupposing Christianity). So yes, Hume was an atheist—this is why I am using him! He was an atheist and an empiricist as you are. He argued from your own worldview and proved that within that worldview the idea of causality is not rational, the inductive principle is not rational, immaterial universals are not rational, and moral reasoning is not rational. Thus, when you try to attack Christianity from science (which relies on causality and the inductive principle), you stand on nothing; you have no rational basis for doing so; it’s irrational for you to do so.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Now, I haven't read his argument against induction.

Perhaps you should do so (see An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, section IV). Or better yet, just give me the justification for your using the inductive principle. Science relies on induction and you have argued against Christianity on the basis of modern science. So support the use of the inductive principle, lest your attack be irrational. Also, all of your arguments utilize logic, and you expect me to follow laws of logic as well, lest I be “refuted.” So provide the rational justification for believing in immaterial universal laws, like the laws of logic, lest your attacks be irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

However, empiricism -- again, I have to stress -- does not make ultimate claims.

You have claimed Christianity to be false. That’s an objective, ultimate claim, unless you’re going to tell me that by that you really mean, “Christianity is false to Qingu.” The question is, how does your worldview—empiricism—allow for any objective knowledge whatsoever, since neither the use of causality nor induction nor logic nor morality, etc., is rationally justified.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Empiricism knows that an observation today may not be the same tomorrow. However, it functions despite of this because induction works MOST of the time.

As Hume pointed out, appeals to past or present sensory experience or to probability, as you just made, cannot rationally justify the use of the inductive principle (i.e., cannot rationally justify assuming that nature is uniform and will continue to be) since probability itself presupposes uniformity in nature. So your usage of the inductive principle (and thus science) is still completely irrational. Thus your assault on Christianity is, at base, irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is an age-old quandry of how we understand "belief" and "knowledge." Christians claim they believe in God without any shadow of doubt, while agnostics claim that every belief -- even the most mundane and obvious -- is necessarily plagued with a lingering fear of falsity.

Falsity? On what basis do you believe that something can be false? Your worldview cannot rationally justify the use of logic, which would be necessary even to show the falsity an outright contradiction such as “a & ~a,” nor can it justify the use of science (causality and the inductive principle), which would be necessary to make any argument from evidence in the world.

Originally Posted by Qingu

And yet we function most of the time without even worrying about whatever doubts we may or may not have.

This is demonstrative of arbitrariness, inconsistency, and irrationalism; it’s hardly a rational justification.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Hume, in "destroying rationality and induction" really just came out as an agnostic.

By believing anything at all he proved himself to be, according to his own writings, irrational and inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Qingu

So wouldn't empiricism therefore be in line with Hume's worries about induction? If we can never be completely sure of something, shouldn't we try to be as sure of it as we can possibly be with concrete observations?

You’re missing the point. With empiricism, concrete observations can’t prove anything. Brute facts are mute facts. Without showing interrelation between the two by causality, one cannot draw any inferences from the empirical world. Without the inductive principle, one cannot use those inferences (which cannot be derived anyway) to pertain to anything unobserved (e.g., the unrecorded past, the unseen present, anything in the future).

Originally Posted by Qingu

To answer your question, yes, I got Hume's memo -- it said "don't believe in Christian philosophy and universal truths anymore. They're nonsense, and here's why...."

You don’t believe in universal truths? Then stop trying to use scientific and logical arguments against Christianity, for each of them rely upon universals—science upon universal and invariant laws of nature, and logic on universal and invariant laws of logic. If you deny the universality of either then you have no justification for trying to apply them to Christianity in order to formulate a critique; I can just say “these laws don’t apply to this area” and you’ll have no rebuttal.

And actually Hume’s “memo,” An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, taught us that there is no rational basis for science, not just religion.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Truth and falsehood are completely mutable in empiricism; they are derived from our observations.

Not without the use of causality and the inductive principle they’re not, and you’ve yet to justify the use of either.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Nothing is ever always true.

Is the statement “nothing is ever always true” always true?

Originally Posted by Qingu

Why did you assume the Bible is innerrant?

The impossibility of the contrary. The Bible is God’s word—it must be in order for human beings to make sense of science, logic, morality—all human reasoning. This is demonstrated by the utter impotence of your worldview to make sense of any of these things, and the fact that the Christian worldview does.

Originally Posted by Qingu

No text in the Bible claims to be innerrant.

1. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)
2. God is omniscient (Psalms 139:8; Jeremiah 23:23-24; Colossians 1:16-17)
3. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)
_________________________________________
4. Therefore the Bible is inerrant.

Originally Posted by Qingu

And, if you read the Bible without assuming it is innerrant (as you must have done BEFORE you made the assumption, at least I am hoping...) you would conclude that it is filled with far more contradictions and confusing elements than other books with similar religious valences, such as the Quran.

Contradiction? According to your worldview there is no such thing since you cannot justify the use of logical laws.

Originally Posted by Qingu

My question is -- why did you assume the Christian Scriptures are true, and not the Muslim scriptures?

(A) This is a debate between, as the title of the thread evidences, empiricism and Christianity. Therefore you, as the empiricist, need to provide a basis for human reasoning; otherwise you have no argument against my argument for Christianity even if Islam’s existence and claims refuted my argument (which it doesn’t), since without doing so you have no rational basis for using logic at all. That would preclude any such argument from Islam.

(B) Despite the fact that you haven’t provided justification for utilizing logical laws, and thus I do not need to address your argument from Islam, I’ll indulge you nevertheless and at least offer a cursory glance at why I don’t believe in Islam.

The Qur'an tells us that Moses, David, and Jesus were prophets from God and that a prophet cannot lie, and since the Qur'an (the alleged new revelation) contradicts the Pentateuch (previously given revelation by the “prophet Moses”), Islam is refuted according to its own teachings (Deut. 13:1-5). Moreover, Muslim theologians teach that, according to the Qur'an (e.g., 42:11;19:65; 16:74), Allah is so transcendent that human languages cannot describe him, in which case the Qur'an isn’t what it claims to be. Furthermore, Islam teaches that Allah is holy and just, and yet there is no doctrine of redemption—no penal substitute for sin—which means that Allah must clear the guilty by allowing people into heaven. This in contradiction of the words of Moses, who Islam teaches to be a prophet (and teaches that prophets cannot lie), that God will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18). Islam falls according to its own teachings and presuppositions.

I will not, however, address anything further on this issue until you justify your use of logical arguments, without which you couldn’t even make your argument from Islam. This (that is, B, above) I have done not for the debate, for it is not necessary that I do so, but because I want you to personally understand that the choice of Christianity over Islam is a rational one.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Since the assumption that the Bible is innerrant truth is the keystone of your whole epistomology, I want to understand how it was not an arbitrary assumption to make.

It’s not an arbitrary assumption because I can provide justification: Without presupposing The Christian Scriptures as being God’s infallible word, one cannot rationally justify science, logic, or moral judgments, as you’ve demonstrated in this discussion thus far. My presuppositions make sense of science and logic; yours, on the other hand, do not. Christianity (my presupposition) is proved transcendentally by the impossibility of the contrary—if Christianity is not true then science, logic, morality, etc., are all irrational. Christian presuppositions are the transcendental necessities for all reasoning whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Qingu

We all make assumptions. But, despite what you earlier have said, not all assumptions are equal. If I drop a quarter I assume it will hit the floor. This is a nice empiricist assumption, but it is always true on the observable earth and unless or until the laws of gravity deteriorate it will always be true. If I assumed the opposite -- that the quarter would stay afloat in the air -- it would be a bad assumption.

Since your worldview cannot justify use of the inductive principle (assuming the future will be like the past), both possible answers to the question of whether a quarter will fall or float (future tense) are equally rational (or irrational). Indeed, without the use of induction it would be irrational to assume that since quarters have always fallen, or that since gravity has always worked, the quarter will fall when I drop it.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Our observations tell us that the sun and all the other stars were not created after the earth, as the Bible seems to claim.

Utilizes scientific reasoning which, according to your worldview, is not rationally justified.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Reading Matthew and reading Acts shows that Judas dies in what appear to be two completely different ways – […]

Utilizes laws of logic (the law of non-contradiction), which, according to your worldview, is not rationally justified.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You have criticized empiricism, calling it empty and impossible to justify rationally. But the strength of empiricism is its lack of an assumed ultimate truth.

Empiricism’s assuming of basic truths (e.g., causality, the inductive principle, universal laws of logic) was the only thing that kept Locke, Berekely and the other pre-Humean empiricists from utter skepticism as to the rationality of science, logic, etc. Once Hume reasoned more consistently and proved that in fact there was no rational basis for believing in causality, induction, or immaterial universals, empiricism’s lack of assuming truths became that which rendered it entirely senseless. If you don’t believe that there are laws of logic that are universal and invariant, then you have no rational basis for using logical arguments against Christianity. And if you do believe there are such, you will have to justify such a belief, because one cannot empirically observe an immaterial universal law. If you don’t believe that there are laws of science that are universal and invariant, then you have no rational basis for using scientific arguments against Christianity’s claims of miracles. And if you do believe there are such, you will need to rationally justify such a belief, because one cannot empirically observe all of nature in the present, all of nature in the past, or any nature in the future in order to know from experience that nature was, is, or will continue to be uniform.

Originally Posted by Qingu

My ship may not be perfect, but at least I'm aware of the holes.

Apparently not. If you were, you would cease using logical and scientific arguments.

Originally Posted by Qingu

And my ship sails far better than yours.

This assumes that you can use value reasoning in order to determine “better,” which Hume outright stated (and proved) that empiricism disallows.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Drown in your ignorance and call it wisdom.

You cannot justify causality, induction, use of logic, moral judgments, or quite frankly use any reasoning at all, according to your own worldview. You cannot tell me rationally why a quarter, when dropped, will fall to the ground (since you can’t justify induction and uniformity of nature). And I’m called the ignorant one?

[Qingu]

You claim that the only way logic is true is if Christianity is true.

That is false. False false false. Saying it over and over again does not make it true. I can think of several other IFs that would make logic true just as easily:

If a group of deities created a static universe.
If Allah created a static universe.
If the universe is by definition static and uncreated.
If the universe is static for some presently unknowable reason.

There is no real evidence for or against any of those presuppositions. You presuppose that Christianity is true and therefore all of the other presuppositions are false. Empiricism makes no presupposition. Its truth is self-validating because it consists of the strength of its collected observations rather than a dogmatic presupposition.

Well then you still have a problem, don’t you? How do you answer Hume’s skepticism?

Skepticism is inevitable. We believe our observations and we believe ideas that seem the most likely based on those observations.

How do you rationally justify the idea of causality? How do you rationally justify use of the inductive principle?

We observe them to work. Therefore, in empiricism, we use them.

How do you know that there exist immaterial and universal laws (laws of logic)? How can you make moral judgments?

We don't. Our laws are the best possible culled from our observations. Empiricism makes no moral claims but I suppose it could be extended into the moral realm, where "moral" would be some mixture of utilitarianism and individuality, but please let's not get into morality right now.

All these things Hume proved to be irrational from an atheistic empiricist perspective.

No, you are pretending he proved them false when you in fact do not understand skepticism/agnosticism, or for that matter, empiricism.

Empiricism needs to rationally justify using science, logic, morality—any reasoning at all, for the obvious reason that if it cannot then the empiricist has no rational basis for using science, or logic in order to argue against Christianity.

What do you mean by rational basis? Are you seriously suggesting that if a person drops a quarter a million times he has no rational basis for believing it will fall to the ground the 1,000,001st time? You tautologically assume that rationality is defined as assuming a Christian worldview and dually assuming that worldview is itself rational.

So yes, Hume was an atheist—this is why I am using him! He was an atheist and an empiricist as you are. He argued from your own worldview and proved that within that worldview the idea of causality is not rational, the inductive principle is not rational, immaterial universals are not rational, and moral reasoning is not rational.

He showed they are not necessarily rational, and yet they still can be used. Driving his argument beyond its logical conclusion as you have done does not count as understanding his argument.

Thus, when you try to attack Christianity from science (which relies on causality and the inductive principle), you stand on nothing; you have no rational basis for doing so; it’s irrational for you to do so.

If our observations of the physical world are nothing, then I marvel at the fact that you're not a gnostic duelist.

Science relies on induction and you have argued against Christianity on the basis of modern science. So support the use of the inductive principle, lest your attack be irrational.

I have, repeatedly. The inductive principle works. It can be used for the same reason that Newton's laws can be used to predict 99.9% of universal phenomenon. Hume did not prove it was false, he proved it was not -necessarily- true, just as all physical laws are not necessarily true. Claiming they are completely false and worthless is the basest form of stupidity.

I have to go. Please don't respond until I get back and finish.

[Travis]

I know you asked me to wait until you returned and posted again until I made my reply, but I see no sense in letting you waste your time and formulate more arguments when your latest post still reveals that you haven’t adequately answered my fundamental argument. If you have more to say, I'll address it.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If a group of deities created a static universe.
If Allah created a static universe.

I’ve already addressed Islam and the argument from other religions. These arguments themselves presuppose universal laws of logic, and therefore, until you actually do justify the idea that there are universal laws of logic you cannot utilize such arguments that say “this might do the trick”; you would have to actually do the trick first in order to use that argument.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If the universe is by definition static and uncreated.
If the universe is static for some presently unknowable reason.

You can justify the belief in uniformity in nature and induction “if the universe is static”? That’s a tautology, and it begs the question since I’m asking you to rationally justify your belief in a universe that is static (i.e., a universe in which one could know it was rational to believe that the future will be like the past). You might as well have said, “I can rationally justify believing in the uniformity of nature and the inductive principle if I can rationally justify believing in the uniformity of nature and the inductive principle.”

Originally Posted by Qingu

Empiricism makes no presupposition. Its truth is self-validating because it consists of the strength of its collected observations rather than a dogmatic presupposition.

Except that, using empiricism, your “collected observations” can tell you nothing rational, since it renders causation, induction, and logic irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Skepticism is inevitable.

Then on what basis do you dogmatically hold to the laws of logic so that you’ll try to “disprove” Christianity by showing a “contradiction?” On what basis do you dogmatically hold to the idea that there are universal and invariant laws of nature, so that you’ll argue against miracles? As you say, skepticism is inevitable; why not just doubt logic or science instead? Your choice between the two is preferential and arbitrary. (And no, you cannot appeal to probability since probability presupposes uniformity in nature which you would be employing probability to support.)

Originally Posted by Qingu

We observe them to work. Therefore, in empiricism, we use them.

Begs the question.

“If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.” —David Hume in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding

Originally Posted by Qingu

We don't. Our laws are the best possible culled from our observations. Empiricism makes no moral claims but I suppose it could be extended into the moral realm, where "moral" would be some mixture of utilitarianism and individuality, but please let's not get into morality right now.

Somehow I doubt you’d say the same thing if someone raped and killed your mother. I realize you don’t want to get into morality, but the fact is that the lack of justification for moral theory is just another problem for your worldview; as Hume outright stated, it’s impossible for the empiricist to reason morally. Your theory of epistemology cannot allow you to know that Hitler’s slaughter of millions was actually wrong (not merely unpleasant, etc).

Originally Posted by Qingu

No, you are pretending he proved them false when you in fact do not understand skepticism/agnosticism, or for that matter, empiricism.

The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, as well as an atheistic website, backed my definition over yours. Not to mention David Hume—the most renown of all empiricists in the history of philosophy—agrees with my definition of empiricism.

And this isn’t really relevant anyhow, since you’ve still failed to adequately answer the fundamental question, one which is necessary to even attempt to get any of your arguments off the ground: How do you account for science and logic?

Originally Posted by Qingu

What do you mean by rational basis? Are you seriously suggesting that if a person drops a quarter a million times he has no rational basis for believing it will fall to the ground the 1,000,001st time?

If empiricism is true, a man who drops a quarter a million times, watching it fall, has no rational basis for believing it will fall to the ground on the 1,000,001st time, yes. Why? Because believing in the uniformity of nature and the inductive principle (i.e., a static universe) has no rational basis, and the belief in that static universe is necessary for reasoning that the quarter will fall as it has in the past.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You tautologically assume that rationality is defined as assuming a Christian worldview and dually assuming that worldview is itself rational.

(A) This argument relies on logic, and it is therefore self-contradictory for you to use it since you cannot rationally account for there being universal laws of logic.

(B) Since the Christian worldview is the only worldview in which rationality itself is rationally justifiable, yes, it is rational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

He showed they are not necessarily rational, and yet they still can be used. Driving his argument beyond its logical conclusion as you have done does not count as understanding his argument.

He argued that they are not rationally justifiable at all. For someone who hasn’t even read Hume, I find it interesting that you are telling me what he said.

“When a child has felt the sensation of pain from touching the flame of a candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near any candle; but will expect a similar effect from a cause which is similar in its sensible qualities and appearance. If you assert, therefore, that the understanding of the child is led into this conclusion by any process of argument or ratiocination, I may justly require you to produce that argument… it is not reasoning which engages us to suppose the past resembling the future, and to expect similar effects from causes which are, to appearance, similar. This is the proposition which I intended to enforce in the present section.” —David Hume in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (emphasis added)

Originally Posted by Qingu

If our observations of the physical world are nothing, then I marvel at the fact that you're not a gnostic duelist.

When did I ever argue that observations of the physical world are nothing? I argued that they amount to nothing but irrationality for you, given your epistemology. Thus you would not use such arguments to assail Christianity or anything else for that matter, were you consistent in your reasoning. As it is, however, you are not, for you make irrational assumptions regarding the nature of the universe in order to attack Christianity; thus your arguments fail for being irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I have, repeatedly. The inductive principle works.

I’ve asked how you know the future will be like the past/present (i.e., how you justify induction). To say “it has worked” or “it works” is to beg the question, as Hume also pointed out:

“If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.” —David Hume in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding

Originally Posted by Qingu

It can be used for the same reason that Newton's laws can be used to predict 99.9% of universal phenomenon.

Probability begs the question since it presupposes uniformity of nature.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Hume did not prove it was false, he proved it was not -necessarily- true, just as all physical laws are not necessarily true. Claiming they are completely false and worthless is the basest form of stupidity.

I’m not claiming it is false and worthless, nor did I claim that Hume proved it false; I’m claiming that Hume proved one cannot rationally justify it. Hence, when you try to utilize them to attack Christianity, your arguments are irrational and thus fail.

[Qingu]

Falsity? On what basis do you believe that something can be false?

When the sum total of evidence does not corroborate it.

Your worldview cannot rationally justify the use of logic, which would be necessary even to show the falsity an outright contradiction such as “a & ~a,” nor can it justify the use of science (causality and the inductive principle), which would be necessary to make any argument from evidence in the world.

No worldview justifies logic. Logic is presupposed in all worldviews, unless you presuppose logic is created, and not a tool. Logic is analogous to truth. "You can't logically justify logic!" This is a stupid argument.

You don’t believe in universal truths? Then stop trying to use scientific and logical arguments against Christianity, for each of them rely upon universals—science upon universal and invariant laws of nature, and logic on universal and invariant laws of logic. If you deny the universality of either then you have no justification for trying to apply them to Christianity in order to formulate a critique; I can just say “these laws don’t apply to this area” and you’ll have no rebuttal.

The agnostic response to this, and to your following comments, is "I don't know if there are universal truths or not." If there are universal truths, we have not yet discovered them (assuming something as universally true, such as you do with Christianity, does not mean it is). If there are not universal truths, then Christianity is not universally true anyway. I fail to see how your conclusion follows from my statement.

Is the statement “nothing is ever always true” always true?

Ah. Touche. I'll give you that one. This was a dumb thing to say on my part. The obvious objectivist answer -- but then objectivism has its own problems. Let's save this discussion for later. In any case, see above for clarification.

The impossibility of the contrary. The Bible is God’s word—it must be in order for human beings to make sense of science, logic, morality—all human reasoning.

You assume the Bible is God's word and that is necessary for those things. So do Muslims. Islam is a possible contrary. You are wrong.

This is demonstrated by the utter impotence of your worldview to make sense of any of these things, and the fact that the Christian worldview does.

Science's assumption of the logicalness of logic is its impotence? You are making no sense. Logic is logical. That is what logic is. The Christian worldview does not explain why logic is logical, which is a definition; it merely tacks on a "because the Christian God invented logic" to the definition "logic is logical," and pretends this extraneous phrase is part of the original definition. Similarly with "the universe is static" -- you tack on "because God made it" -- this does not mean it's an explanation, and the fact that it is a brazen assumption on your part, as you have admitted, makes it incredibly impotent.

1. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)
2. God is omniscient (Psalms 139:8; Jeremiah 23:23-24; Colossians 1:16-17)
3. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)
_________________________________________
4. Therefore the Bible is inerrant.

God's breath is vague. Similar phrases are used to describe warriors channeling God to win battles, and they end up losing. Channeling God or being breathed upon by God does not mean you channel his perfectness. Also, even granting your argument, who decides which Scriptures are Scriptures? What about the apocrypha and other Jesus gospels? No Scripture claims to be "scripture" anyway, so overall this is a vapid argument.

Contradiction? According to your worldview there is no such thing since you cannot justify the use of logical laws.

This is the "riposte" part, I'm attacking you on your terms. You can't appeal to the unwon conclusion of your own argument against my argument in supporting your argument. You do this several times and I will ignore them all.

I’ll indulge you nevertheless and at least offer a cursory glance at why I don’t believe in Islam.

The Qur'an tells us that Moses, David, and Jesus were prophets from God and that a prophet cannot lie, and since the Qur'an (the alleged new revelation) contradicts the Pentateuch (previously given revelation by the “prophet Moses”), Islam is refuted according to its own teachings (Deut. 13:1-5).

This is no reason to disbelieve Islam, only a misunderstanding of what the Quran claims about the Biblical texts. Moses, David and Jesus did not lie -- rather the corrupt scribes who wrote the innaccurate Bibles about them did. This is why Jesus is quoted as saying "I never said that I was the Son of God" in the Quran -- the Quran is clearly intended as a clarification of innaccurate previous texts. Innerrant prophet does not = innerrant text about prophet (unless it's the Quran, of course).

Moreover, Muslim theologians teach that, according to the Qur'an (e.g., 42:11;19:65; 16:74), Allah is so transcendent that human languages cannot describe him, in which case the Qur'an isn’t what it claims to be.

A Muslim apologist would argue that the Quran does not describe Allah but merely qualities of Allah -- his mercy, power, etc.

Furthermore, Islam teaches that Allah is holy and just, and yet there is no doctrine of redemption—no penal substitute for sin—which means that Allah must clear the guilty by allowing people into heaven. This in contradiction of the words of Moses, who Islam teaches to be a prophet (and teaches that prophets cannot lie), that God will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18). Islam falls according to its own teachings and presuppositions.

Again you are quoting Bible passages as if the Quran even thinks of them as worth considering next to itself, which it doesn't. Also, Allah is by definition holy and just and anything he does is automatically holy and just -- he is the arbiter of such things, just like your Yahweh; this apology works just as well in Islam as it does in Christianity.

[/quote]I will not, however, address anything further on this issue until you justify your use of logical arguments, without which you couldn’t even make your argument from Islam. This (that is, B, above) I have done not for the debate, for it is not necessary that I do so, but because I want you to personally understand that the choice of Christianity over Islam is a rational one.[/quote]

Logic is by definition logical. I can use logical arguments. It is necessary that you show impossibility of contrary religious worldviews because that is your whole defense of your claim to Christian truth. Don't weasel your way out of this.

Since your worldview cannot justify use of the inductive principle (assuming the future will be like the past), both possible answers to the question of whether a quarter will fall or float (future tense) are equally rational (or irrational). Indeed, without the use of induction it would be irrational to assume that since quarters have always fallen, or that since gravity has always worked, the quarter will fall when I drop it.

You understand rationality as an absolute; something is either wholly rational or not rational in the slightest. I understand it as a gradient -- things can be more rational than others, they can approach infinite rationality but perhaps can never approach it, "rational" as a word is therefore practically applicable.

Utilizes scientific reasoning which, according to your worldview, is not rationally justified.

This refrain of yours not only assumed the conclusion of your argument against empiricism but also strictly defines "rational" beyond common philosophical parlance, so whatev.

This assumes that you can use value reasoning in order to determine “better,” which Hume outright stated (and proved) that empiricism disallows.

Assuming logic to be logical, 2 is greater than 1; if a prediction predicts something more times than a competing prediction, that prediction is more "accurate" than the other -- since predictions are supposed to be accurate, then the more accurate prediction is the better prediction. Value reasoning is called math.

You cannot justify causality, induction, use of logic, moral judgments, or quite frankly use any reasoning at all, according to your own worldview. You cannot tell me rationally why a quarter, when dropped, will fall to the ground (since you can’t justify induction and uniformity of nature). And I’m called the ignorant one?

[/quote]

All your answers are "because God made it," which, unless you successfully show why it is the one and only necessarry assumption, is an ignorant assumption, and is not a justification. So yes, while you are clearly a brilliant and well-read person, in this case, I am arguing you are ignorant because you are blinded by your unfalsifiable assumption. Avast, matey! Avast!

Now give me a minute to respond to your second response, if you please.

[Qingu]

I’ve already addressed Islam and the argument from other religions. These arguments themselves presuppose universal laws of logic, and therefore, until you actually do justify the idea that there are universal laws of logic you cannot utilize such arguments that say “this might do the trick”; you would have to actually do the trick first in order to use that argument.

This is a curious trick you are fond of using. I can't use logic until I explain why I can use logic. And I can't explain why I can use logic unless I agree with your your assumption of Christianity being true.

Sorry, no. I can because I do, how's that? This paragraph is not a defense, it is a circular claim of nothing.

You can justify the belief in uniformity in nature and induction “if the universe is static”? That’s a tautology, and it begs the question since I’m asking you to rationally justify your belief in a universe that is static (i.e., a universe in which one could know it was rational to believe that the future will be like the past). You might as well have said, “I can rationally justify believing in the uniformity of nature and the inductive principle if I can rationally justify believing in the uniformity of nature and the inductive principle.”

No, it would be like saying "I believe the universe is static because it is." Besides, these were ifs, not assertions or claims. I said "If A is true than B (your argument) isn't." Your response is, "If A is true than A is a tautology." Nonsense, and fails to address the weakness of your claim that B is the only possible truth that makes sense.

Then on what basis do you dogmatically hold to the laws of logic so that you’ll try to “disprove” Christianity by showing a “contradiction?”

The amount of times you make this argument troubles me. What doublethink do you practice where logic is not logical unless you can show by a primary assumption that it is logical? Do not use this argument again unless you demonstrate why it is not utter sophistic poppycock.

On what basis do you dogmatically hold to the idea that there are universal and invariant laws of nature, so that you’ll argue against miracles?

Oh, there are plenty of other reasons to argue against Miracles, as Hume mostly succcessfully showed in his essay called "On Miracles." One reason is that many cultures claim miracle stories, but they all can't be true. Another reason is the unreliability of the texts which claim miracles happen. A personal reason of mine is that miracles are never recorded in any text except the one that claims they happen, and those texts were not written by direct observers of said miracles. Oh wait, I'm sorry, am I using too much logic here?

As you say, skepticism is inevitable; why not just doubt logic or science instead?

I don't doubt logic because by definition you can't. I do doubt science. I don't believe in string theory. I have qualms about evolution, quantum mechanics and relativity. I have doubts that science is able to explain everything in the universe.

But I trust science a lot more than a bunch of letters and stories people wrote thousands of years ago.

Your choice between the two is preferential and arbitrary.

If that is a preferntial and arbitrary choice, what isn't?

(And no, you cannot appeal to probability since probability presupposes uniformity in nature which you would be employing probability to support.)

I do believe in logic which in turn validates probability, yes. Doublethink. Stop it. Logic is logical, get over it.

“If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.” —David Hume in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding

I disagree with Mr. Hume. It can't prove it conclusively and necessarily but it can give a huge body of evidence which supports such a conclusion, and makes such a conclusion more preferential to an alternative conclusion. I think Hume was taking his agnostic argument too far with this line.

Somehow I doubt you’d say the same thing if someone raped and killed your mother. I realize you don’t want to get into morality, but the fact is that the lack of justification for moral theory is just another problem for your worldview; as Hume outright stated, it’s impossible for the empiricist to reason morally. Your theory of epistemology cannot allow you to know that Hitler’s slaughter of millions was actually wrong (not merely unpleasant, etc).

I'll freely admit I have no moral theory, only personal morals. And I don't want to get into a discussion about morality with a Christian who believes the Bible is true because then we will have to talk about how a God who slaughters millions of innocent lives and unborn babies and orders his chosen to raze cities to the ground and commit mass genocide is by definition good. These discussions make me physically angry; so let's at least try to save it for another thread.

you’ve still failed to adequately answer the fundamental question, one which is necessary to even attempt to get any of your arguments off the ground: How do you account for science and logic?.

Logic is logical. Science works better than any other epistomology

If empiricism is true, a man who drops a quarter a million times, watching it fall, has no rational basis for believing it will fall to the ground on the 1,000,001st time, yes. Why? Because believing in the uniformity of nature and the inductive principle (i.e., a static universe) has no rational basis, and the belief in that static universe is necessary for reasoning that the quarter will fall as it has in the past.

Here we again get into our differences of the word "rational" Mine is a practical understanding, yours is an utterly strained and circular.

Your definition, as I understand it, is: You cannot be rational unless you explain why there is rationality. You can explain rationality by NONRATIONALLY assuming Christianity to be true. So the snake eats its own tail.

He argued that they are not rationally justifiable at all. For someone who hasn’t even read Hume, I find it interesting that you are telling me what he said.

Ouch! Okay, you got me. I only skimmed the text you cited. However, I did at one point read most or all of his writings on religion.

Nevertheless, if the argument's bad, who cares? It's not like Hume is my atheist poster-boy or anything.

it is not reasoning which engages us to suppose the past resembling the future, and to expect similar effects from causes which are, to appearance, similar. This is the proposition which I intended to enforce in the present section.” —David Hume in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (emphasis added)

If not reasoning, then what? Observation? The past does resemble the present; in the past, the present was the future. We have observed through our whole history that the past resembles the future.

You may get into trouble when you assume the past has always resembled the future. However, at present, there is no reason NOT to assume this because we've not observed contrary evidence -- and there is evidence that DOES support making that assumption. Assuming the past and future are dissimilar gets us nowhere and there is no reason to assume it, so why not assume the contrary as a correct theory?

When did I ever argue that observations of the physical world are nothing? I argued that they amount to nothing but irrationality for you, given your epistemology.

Right. Because of my agnostic epistomology nothin I observe amounts to any sort of sense. In fact, I might as well close my eyes, plug my ears and burn off all my skin because I would learn just as much about the world that way as I do now. Quite an accusation.

I’m not claiming it is false and worthless, nor did I claim that Hume proved it false; I’m claiming that Hume proved one cannot rationally justify it.

In general, Travis-logic seems to dictate that you cannot rationally justify anything except Christianity. And you do this by non-rationally assuming Christianity to be true as a primer for proving rationality itself. Neither you nor Hume have proved anything on this matter; you both have simply stretched the definition of rationality beyond any semblance of meaning or purpose.

Your Christianity is the fake solution to a fake problem -- you assume that nothing makes sense or is rational in and of itself, so you assume that Christianity is the only thing to remedy this supposed problem. Ridiculous. But circular, and therefore, unnassailable for anyone caught in the loop.

[Qingu]

Upon re-reading my earlier, prematurely posted post (the one where I said I have to go at the end), I realize I forgot to delete the first few paragraphs; I was planning on editing them later. I'm only saying this because in that text I had mistakingly admitted logic needed proving, and it doesn't. Sorry about the inconcistency, and may the Sea of Chaos wash away the apostasy of the Christian infidels.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

When the sum total of evidence does not corroborate it.

Without rational justification for causality, the inductive principle, and logic, all you have are brute facts--unrelated particulars that can tell you nothing of the physical world. Thus all evidence, for the empiricist, is meaningless and can never show anything to be true or false.

Originally Posted by Qingu

No worldview justifies logic.

If you believe no worldview justifies logic, then you must admit that yours does not; then your arguments from logic are irrational and hence your attack on Christianity is irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

"You can't logically justify logic!" This is a stupid argument.

If you cannot rationally justify believing in laws of logic that are universal and invariant, then your attempt to apply them to Christianity is an irrational one. You have no rational argument against Christianity unless you can rationally justify the universality of laws of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The agnostic response to this, and to your following comments, is "I don't know if there are universal truths or not."

Then stop acting as though you do by attempting to apply the law of contradiction to Scripture, or scientific laws to miracles.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You assume the Bible is God's word and that is necessary for those things. So do Muslims. Islam is a possible contrary. You are wrong.

I’ve already addressed this. In order for Islam to pose a problem for my “impossibility of the contrary” argument two things must be the case: (1) Islam must be able to hold up under scrutiny with its own presuppositions. I propose that it cannot, but I refuse to debate this with you because (2) in order for you to make an argument that utilizes logic you must first show how your worldview allows for such, since you’re the one making the argument. To put it simply, Islam doesn’t pose a problem for my “impossibility of the contrary” argument, even if it is a possible contrary, unless the logical law of contradiction is already assumed. But this is exactly what your worldview has failed to do—justify laws of logic. Therefore, you may not use this argument without begging the question.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Science's assumption of the logicalness of logic is its impotence?

No, its assumption of the universality and immutability of logic—the assumption that there are laws of logic—is its downfall, since such an assumption is not itself rational. That means that when one uses logic and applies it to things, one is being irrational, because there is no rational justification for the idea that there are laws of logic that can be applied universally.

Originally Posted by Qingu

God's breath is vague. Similar phrases are used to describe warriors channeling God to win battles, and they end up losing. Channeling God or being breathed upon by God does not mean you channel his perfectness. Also, even granting your argument, who decides which Scriptures are Scriptures?

God, since He wrote them. He providentially guides history so that His Church may be prepared for every good work, so it makes perfect sense within the Christian worldview to believe that our canon of Scripture is correct. To try to argue otherwise is to assume a non-Christian worldview; that is, assume your conclusion.

Originally Posted by Qingu

What about the apocrypha and other Jesus gospels? No Scripture claims to be "scripture" anyway, so overall this is a vapid argument.

You don’t have the ability to judge an argument to be “vapid” or anything else since you have yet to justify the idea that there are laws of logic that can be applied universally.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is the "riposte" part, I'm attacking you on your terms. You can't appeal to the unwon conclusion of your own argument against my argument in supporting your argument.

My argument is that you cannot justify laws of logic or science. Therefore, when you use these arguments that reply on them, I most certainly can keep appealing back to the fact that you can’t justify them. If I didn’t do so I would be conceding the debate. So don’t tell me that I must relinquish my argument (concede the debate) in order to debate. That, once again, just assume your conclusion.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You do this several times and I will ignore them all.

Fine. If you wish to be irrational and not address my fundamental argument, that’s your decision. But my question would be, why are you even bothering to debate at all if this is going to be your tactic?

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is no reason to disbelieve Islam

This entire argument from Islam assumes the universality of logical laws, which you have yet to rationally justify.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Logic is by definition logical.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my argument. I’m not saying logic is illogical. I’m saying that the idea that there are laws of logic that can be applied universally is not rationally justifiable in the empiricist’s worldview. So the idea that you can apply logic is, for you, an empiricist, illogical. You must first rationally justify the idea that logic is universal and invariant before you utilize it against Christianity. The same goes for the scientific principles of causation and induction.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I can use logical arguments.

Asserting as much is not to answer my argument. You’ve still yet to justify doing so. I’ve said, “You can’t rationally justify using logical arguments,” so to say “I can use logical arguments” is obviously to beg the question.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You understand rationality as an absolute; something is either wholly rational or not rational in the slightest.

You’re still misunderstanding the argument. I’m arguing that you cannot justify the application, or the universality of reason, not that reason itself may be irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I understand it as a gradient -- things can be more rational than others, they can approach infinite rationality but perhaps can never approach it, "rational" as a word is therefore practically applicable.

Logic professors would be going nuts, were they reading this. Unless you can show and rationally justify some sort of “rational scale” I’m going to have to assume that it’s just a convenient way of telling me your opinion—what you think is better. This is not a forum for autobiography; it’s a forum for rational interchange—debate.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This refrain of yours not only assumed the conclusion of your argument against empiricism but also strictly defines "rational" beyond common philosophical parlance, so whatev.

My saying that you haven’t justified the use (i.e., the universality or applicability) of logic or science in no way assumes my conclusion. I’ve been asking for justification and your attempts have failed, even according to other empiricists!

Originally Posted by Qingu

Assuming logic to be logical, 2 is greater than 1; if a prediction predicts something more times than a competing prediction, that prediction is more "accurate" than the other -- since predictions are supposed to be accurate, then the more accurate prediction is the better prediction.

This begs the question since it appeals to sensory experience, and you’ve still yet to justify appeals to evidence (science), because you can justify neither causality nor the inductive principle.

Originally Posted by Qingu

All your answers are "because God made it," which, unless you successfully show why it is the one and only necessarry assumption, is an ignorant assumption, and is not a justification.

Unless your worldview (atheistic empiricism) can account for logic, you cannot make such an argument. So until you do, this argument will be irrational and self-refuting.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is a curious trick you are fond of using. I can't use logic until I explain why I can use logic.

Correct. You, as an empiricist, cannot use logic until you rationally justify the idea that logic is universal and invariant for the empiricist.

Originally Posted by Qingu

And I can't explain why I can use logic unless I agree with your your assumption of Christianity being true.

Exactly. You can’t justify using logic unless you presuppose Christianity. This is what proves Christianity to be true and empiricism to be false.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Sorry, no. I can because I do, how's that?

Arbitrary and irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

No, it would be like saying "I believe the universe is static because it is."

Which is arbitrary and question begging, since you can’t demonstrate that it is so.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Besides, these were ifs, not assertions or claims. I said "If A is true than B (your argument) isn't." Your response is, "If A is true than A is a tautology."

No, I asked you to rationally justify your belief in A, thus making your use science possible, and you said “if A is true…”, which assumes what you were asked to prove.

Originally Posted by Qingu

The amount of times you make this argument troubles me.

Well until you actually answer it, I can’t be expected to give up making it.

Originally Posted by Qingu

What doublethink do you practice where logic is not logical unless you can show by a primary assumption that it is logical?

Unless logic can be rationally shown to be universal and invariant and thus applicable to Christianity it cannot be rationally used to assail Christianity. That should be obvious.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Oh, there are plenty of other reasons to argue against Miracles, as Hume mostly succcessfully showed in his essay called "On Miracles."

Hume contradicted himself by arguing against miracles, because the entire argument against miracles is that they violate invariant scientific laws. But he disproved the rationality of believing in scientific laws! Therefore, any argument against miracles from scientific laws is irrational, according to Hume. So he was irrational in arguing against miracles on the basis of scientific laws, and so are you.

Originally Posted by Qingu

One reason is that many cultures claim miracle stories, but they all can't be true.

This would only be relevant if Christianity claimed that other miracle claims were true. It doesn’t, however, so it’s not relevant that others make the claim.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Another reason is the unreliability of the texts which claim miracles happen.

Assumes that appeals to evidences in the empirical universe are reliable, which you have yet to rationally justify.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Oh wait, I'm sorry, am I using too much logic here?

Any logic utilized by you is irrational since you have yet to rationally justify the universality and applicability of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I don't doubt logic because by definition you can't.

One can most certainly doubt the universality and applicability of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

But I trust science a lot more than a bunch of letters and stories people wrote thousands of years ago.

You have no rational basis for doing so.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I do believe in logic which in turn validates probability, yes. Doublethink. Stop it. Logic is logical, get over it.

It is not rational to believe that there are universals, or that anything can be generalized and applied to other things, as Hume showed. If you disagree, answer his skepticism.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I disagree with Mr. Hume.

Then answer him.

Originally Posted by Qingu

It can't prove it conclusively and necessarily but it can give a huge body of evidence […]

Begs the question.

“If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.” —David Hume in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'll freely admit I have no moral theory, only personal morals. And I don't want to get into a discussion about morality with a Christian who believes the Bible is true because then we will have to talk about how a God who slaughters millions of innocent lives and unborn babies and orders his chosen to raze cities to the ground and commit mass genocide is by definition good. These discussions make me physically angry; so let's at least try to save it for another thread.

The fact that something makes you angry is no rational argument against it, and unless you can provide a moral theory, and justify its universality, you could never use the problem of evil since you couldn’t prove the existence of evil without presupposing my worldview and contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Logic is logical.

Believing that it is universal in its application, however, is not rational for the empiricist.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Science works better than any other epistomology

Begs the question since knowing what works “better” relies on appeals to sensory experience, which relies on causation, induction, and logical laws.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Here we again get into our differences of the word "rational" Mine is a practical understanding, yours is an utterly strained and circular.

Without rationally justifying the belief in the universality and invariance of scientific laws (justifying belief in causation and use of the inductive principle), you cannot believe it to be irrational to think a quarter will float when dropped.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Your definition, as I understand it, is: You cannot be rational unless you explain why there is rationality.

No, I’m saying that you cannot apply rationality (logic) to anything unless you can first show its applicability, which depends on the inductive principle. But the inductive principle itself is not rationally justifiable for the empiricist.

Originally Posted by Qingu

You can explain rationality by NONRATIONALLY assuming Christianity to be true. So the snake eats its own tail.

I do not irrationally assume Christianity to be true. Assuming that Christianity is true is the only way to believe in rationality. Thus Christianity is transcendentally proved; it is the only rational position.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Ouch! Okay, you got me. I only skimmed the text you cited. However, I did at one point read most or all of his writings on religion.

I understand how you made such a mistake. Hume uses these principles he argues against and the rationality of which he disproves in Enquiry in his works on religion, and I know that’s confusing. It just shows his inconsistency, and the inconsistency of any empiricist who tries to use such arguments against Christianity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Nevertheless, if the argument's bad, who cares? It's not like Hume is my atheist poster-boy or anything.

Granted. I am not arguing from Hume for his authority, but rather I am using his argument and asking you to answer it. Give a rational justification for believing in the inductive principle; give a rational justification for believing in causation; give a rational justification for believing that there are laws of logic that are universal and invariant—give rational justification for these things without begging the question. You must do this before you can utilize arguments that rely on such, lest you be irrational in making them.

Originally Posted by Qingu

If not reasoning, then what? Observation? The past does resemble the present; in the past, the present was the future. We have observed through our whole history that the past resembles the future.

But that begs the question, since the problem is how we know that the future will resemble the past—how is believing that rationally justifiable. To say it has been that way in the past is just to beg the question.

Originally Posted by Qingu

However, at present, there is no reason NOT to assume this because we've not observed contrary evidence -- and there is evidence that DOES support making that assumption.

That begs the question, though.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Assuming the past and future are dissimilar gets us nowhere and there is no reason to assume it, so why not assume the contrary as a correct theory?

Because, as Hume demonstrated, there is no rational justification for an empiricist to assume as much. That means that such an assumption will be irrational, which will in turn mean that any arguments made from such an assumption (arguments that utilize science or logic) will be irrational. The point is, you cannot make a rational argument against Christianity because your worldview makes the application of science and reason irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Right. Because of my agnostic epistomology nothin I observe amounts to any sort of sense. In fact, I might as well close my eyes, plug my ears and burn off all my skin because I would learn just as much about the world that way as I do now. Quite an accusation.

According to the empiricist’s worldview, however, that’s exactly right. That’s why empiricism is nonsense, and one must presuppose Christianity in order to rationally justify living in a rational manner.

Originally Posted by Qingu

In general, Travis-logic seems to dictate that you cannot rationally justify anything except Christianity.

Logic itself dictates as much, since you can’t rationally justify the application of logic without assuming Christianity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

And you do this by non-rationally assuming Christianity to be true as a primer for proving rationality itself.

That’s where you’re misunderstanding, though. Christianity is not an irrational assumption since it’s the only way to rationally justify using science and logic in the first place.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Neither you nor Hume have proved anything on this matter; you both have simply stretched the definition of rationality beyond any semblance of meaning or purpose.

Again, though, you’re confusing the idea of the definition of rationality with its applicability in the empiricist worldview.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Your Christianity is the fake solution to a fake problem […]

It’s not at all a fake problem to say that it’s not rational for the empiricist to apply logic and use science, since the empiricist worldview makes it impossible to rationally justify the idea that there are universal laws of logic that can be applied, and that science is rational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

[…] you assume that Christianity is the only thing to remedy this supposed problem.

I haven’t assumed this; I’ve demonstrated it by asking you to remedy the problem in a rational manner, and seeing that you are unable to do so.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Ridiculous. But circular, and therefore, unnassailable for anyone caught in the loop.

Well it’s most certainly unassailable for the empiricist since the empiricist can neither account for the universality of logical laws, nor the rationality of science. The way to assail my argument would be to rationally justify your believe in causation, induction, and laws of logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'm only saying this because in that text I had mistakingly admitted logic needed proving, and it doesn't.

Your application of logic needs rational justification, lest you be irrational in all your arguments that apply it.

[Qingu]

I won't bother with a point-by-point counter to this post because all you say is that I must rationally justify the use of logic before I can argue with you.

I must say this is frustrating and cheap metaphysics. Basically, since you assume that (a) logic is not rational or logical (you use these words interchangably) in and of itself, (b) I need "logically justify logic" in order to argue with you and (c) the only way to do this is to assume your own Christian worldview and lose my own argument -- by this, you have, instead of responding to my argument, merely put your fingers in your ears and said "La la la I can't hear you la la la."

However, I suppose I should deconstruct it so I don't look like a jerk.

1. You claim that we cannot rationally justify logic (and/or use of logic) on its own.
2. You claim that the only way to rationally justify logic is to assume Christianity.
3. You claim that to assume Christianity is not arbitrary, but logical as it is a "necessary" assumption. You use logic to defend your "initial" assumption Christianity.

The obvious problem is that without logic a presupposition of Christianity would inevitably be arbitrary and illogical. Since you are claiming you suppose Christianity before you suppose logic to be logical, this means that there is no logical reason to suppose Christianity.

You must either:
(a) Agree with me that logic is simply defined as logical, its use is natural, and therefore no assumption about anything, Christianity or otherwise, is needed to justify it, or
(b) Admit that your belief Christianity is illogical and therefore arbitrary and unnecessary.

The problem with the Oroborus is that it's eating itself.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I must say this is frustrating and cheap metaphysics. Basically, since you assume that (a) logic is not rational or logical

Apparently you didn’t even read the previous post. This is a misrepresentation of my argument, and I’ve stated so on several occasions:
___________________________________________

Originally Posted by Previously, I

One can most certainly doubt the universality and applicability of logic.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

I’m arguing that you cannot justify the application, or the universality of reason, not that reason itself may be irrational.

___________________________________________

Originally Posted by Qingu

(b) I need "logically justify logic" in order to argue with you

Again, this is not what I’ve argued. I’ve argued that you need to rationally justify the universality and applicability of logic. That is, you need to give rational justification for your use of the inductive principle, upon which your entire argument against Christianity ultimately stands, for if you cannot do so, then your entire argument against Christianity will thus be founded on an irrational assumption and be irrational.

Originally Posted by Qingu

(c) the only way to do this is to assume your own Christian worldview and lose my own argument -- by this, you have, instead of responding to my argument, merely put your fingers in your ears and said "La la la I can't hear you la la la."

No, by doing this I’ve asked you to justify your use of the inductive principle (science, logic, etc), and I’ve refuted your attempts, then pointing out that unless you presuppose Christianity you can never offer such justification. I’ve addressed your attempts at justification, usually pointing out that they merely beg the question (and using Hume to point it out for me).

Originally Posted by Qingu

1. You claim that we cannot rationally justify logic (and/or use of logic) on its own.
2. You claim that the only way to rationally justify logic is to assume Christianity.
3. You claim that to assume Christianity is not arbitrary, but logical as it is a "necessary" assumption. You use logic to defend your "initial" assumption Christianity.

The obvious problem is that without logic a presupposition of Christianity would inevitably be arbitrary and illogical. Since you are claiming you suppose Christianity before you suppose logic to be logical, this means that there is no logical reason to suppose Christianity.

Here you make a fundamental misunderstanding, by basically presupposing your own worldview again. You’re assuming that I must give an autonomous answer—one from myself—while autonomy is exactly what Christianity denies. The difference is you attempt to start with yourself, and can thus never justify induction or the universality of law of logic; we Christians start with what we have been given by The One who created all and knows all, and thus we can. My presuppositions can be defended transcendentally; yours cannot.

[Qingu]

Again, this is not what I’ve argued. I’ve argued that you need to rationally justify the universality and applicability of logic.

Fine. I presuppose humans can use logic. All my arguments do not hold true in a universe where logic is useless. This does not bother me because such a universe would not concern any of us in this one.

No, by doing this I’ve asked you to justify your use of the inductive principle (science, logic, etc), and I’ve refuted your attempts, then pointing out that unless you presuppose Christianity you can never offer such justification.

Empiricism derives generalized laws by using induction. These laws are then tested on other data to see if they hold. These laws, however, are not truths, since they are falsifiable and are often later refined with new data. Induction thus is a way to link together disparate data. It does not need to be rationally justified, since it is secondary to the data. Induction does not lead to truths, rather it provides an artificial but often very helpful framework for us to catalogue our observed truths. Since induction does not claim to work logically it does not need to be logically justified.

Your problem is that you are equating induction with empiricism.

Here you make a fundamental misunderstanding, by basically presupposing your own worldview again.

So far I've presupposed nothing except logic being logical and usable. If it makes you happy I'll throw in a presupposition that we can observe true things, i.e. data.

You’re assuming that I must give an autonomous answer—one from myself—while autonomy is exactly what Christianity denies.

What in the name of Tiamat does this even mean? That I'm not arguing with an individual Travis, but rather the God who controls him? Are you seriously claiming via Calvanism that you had no choice but to presuppose Christianity?

The difference is you attempt to start with yourself, and can thus never justify induction or the universality of law of logic; we Christians start with what we have been given by The One who created all and knows all, and thus we can.

Nevertheless your argument has just become "I believe the God I presume exists forced me to presume he exists, therefore he exists." This is like saying "Santa Claus made me believe in him, therefore Santa Claus must exist." You have to prove the latter to show the former. This is not a defense, it is a nonsense statement.

My presuppositions can be defended transcendentally; yours cannot.

No, Travis. This is not an a priori defense. Transcendental means independent of experience, not independent of logic. All you have done is blindly assume that your assumption must be true and labelled this circular set of assumptions with a adverb you apparently do not know the meaning of.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Fine. I presuppose humans can use logic.

Then you have an irrational assumption at the base of your beliefs that renders all your attacks on Christianity irrational. You concede the debate.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Induction does not lead to truths, rather it provides an artificial but often very helpful framework for us to catalogue our observed truths.

Since you’ve just admitted that “induction does not lead to truths” you cannot, being consistent with that statement, utilize scientific arguments against Christianity. I’ll just say “but science doesn’t lead to truths.” Your claim that it is helpful, as noted previously, begs the question.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Your problem is that you are equating induction with empiricism.

I’m in no way equating induction with empiricism. I’m asking you to rationally justify your use of induction from an empiricist worldview.

Originally Posted by Qingu

So far I've presupposed nothing except logic being logical and usable. If it makes you happy I'll throw in a presupposition that we can observe true things, i.e. data.

If you make the argument that you presuppose logic, induction, etc., (I suppose as a way to mimic my presupposing of God), you are refuted by your own admission, since, as I proved previously, “all knowledge is sensory,” according to empiricism, and you couldn’t assume the transcendental necessarily of induction and logic in order to rationally justify them unless you first knew their necessity from experience, which is impossible unless that necessity is first assumed irrationally, as Hume demonstrated. So you’re still stuck with an irrational assumption that renders all your subsequent attacks on Christianity irrational.

This cannot be turned around on the Christian, however, without assuming autonomy—the idea that an adequate epistemology can be built up from the human mind—which is exactly what Christianity denies. We must start with God in justifying our epistemology; and with Him as the Absolute Determiner of rationality, it is not irrational to assume Him. However, it is not rational, as Hume showed, to assume the inductive principle, the universality of logic, etc. Only if one presupposes God and holds Him to be the One who absolutely determines all things, including rationality, can one rationally justify using induction and logic.

Originally Posted by Qingu

What in the name of Tiamat does this even mean?

See above. Since your worldview leaves the human mind as the ultimate standard and “court of appeal”—because of your pretended autonomy—you are bound to give an answer from yourself, from your own reason. The Christian denies autonomy and relies on God; this is why we can justify logic and induction while you cannot.

Originally Posted by Qingu

This is not a defense, it is a nonsense statement.

Assumes criteria of sense, which have yet to be rationally justified.

Originally Posted by Qingu

No, Travis. This is not an a priori defense. Transcendental means independent of experience, not independent of logic. All you have done is blindly assume that your assumption must be true and labelled this circular set of assumptions with a adverb you apparently do not know the meaning of.

“…the aim of transcendental arguments is to establish the conditions necessary for experience, or experience of a certain kind, in general; and, at their most controversial, to establish conclusions about nature and the existence of the external world, or other minds, derived from paying attention to what has to be the case for there to be experience, or for experience to be as it is.” (Anthony Grayling, “Transcendental Arguments” in A Companion to Epistemology, p507.)

My argument for the truth of Christianity is a transcendental one. I’m establishing a conclusion that Christianity is true “by paying attention to what has to be the case for there to be experience, or for experience to be as it is.” For there to be causality, induction, laws of logic, etc., Christianity must be true, as I’ve demonstrated, and as you’ve demonstrated by your lack of ability to justify these things from your own worldview.

[Qingu]

Since you’ve just admitted that “induction does not lead to truths” you cannot, being consistent with that statement, utilize scientific arguments against Christianity. I’ll just say “but science doesn’t lead to truths.” Your claim that it is helpful, as noted previously, begs the question.

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. I have admitted and spelled out what empiricism's assumptions are.

2. Science is not logic. '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. (I believe I can use scientific arguments to disarm Christianity since, as I am arguing in this thread, science is a better and more logicalepistomology than Christianity, however, we are talking metaphysics and to use science against in this thread would be assuming my argument to be true.)

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. 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.

I’m in no way equating induction with empiricism. I’m asking you to rationally justify your use of induction from an empiricist worldview.

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. Induction is not "justified" by empiricism, it is rather "part" of the empiricist method, an element. Science makes observations. It groups those observations. It posits a theory, using induction, based on those observations. It then tests that theory with later observations via experiment and by this it hammers out the flaws in the theory. Can a theory ever be perfect? I don't think so. Is induction a claim to truth? No, it is a method by which aids the scientist in coalescing his observed truths.

I repeat, possibly for the hundreth time as well -- I do not need to rationally justify induction since it is an assumption and a tool.

If you make the argument that you presuppose logic, induction, etc., (I suppose as a way to mimic my presupposing of God)

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 refuted by your own admission, since, as I proved previously, “all knowledge is sensory,” according to empiricism, and you couldn’t assume the transcendental necessarily of induction and logic in order to rationally justify them unless you first knew their necessity from experience, which is impossible unless that necessity is first assumed irrationally, as Hume demonstrated.

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

Onwards:
3. I assume empiricism. I.e. By #2 we can gather observed truths. With this step I assume that we can use induction to create theories which group together our observed truths, and by testing these theories against more observed truths, we can make them useful approximations of a total set of truths.

Notice nothing in #3 loops back and contradicts #2 or #1.

Not so with your assumption #3:
3a. I assume the Christian Scriptures are true and that my assumed God created logic and transcends #1 and #2.

This loops back and contradicts #1, since your God can unmake logic, and #2, since if your observations are not always true you have no reason to believe the Bible you are reading is actually not a in fact a steaming bowl of delicious gumbo. Also, the fact that there are these loops in your presupposition of Christianity means that your presupposition is not logical or rational, but rather based on some other mechanism we have not yet talked about.

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

This cannot be turned around on the Christian, however, without assuming autonomy—the idea that an adequate epistemology can be built up from the human mind—which is exactly what Christianity denies.

Here comes the part where you argue you are not in fact using the laws of logic illustrated above but are just making stuff up.

We must start with God in justifying our epistemology; and with Him as the Absolute Determiner of rationality, it is not irrational to assume Him.

You need to show that it is not irrational to assume God. In order to show this, you must FIRST assume logic to be true.

However, it is not rational, as Hume showed, to assume the inductive principle, the universality of logic, etc.

Correct, but it is not circular, as the Christian assumption is. Therefore yours is completely logically invalid, mine simply might be invalid.

Only if one presupposes God and holds Him to be the One who absolutely determines all things, including rationality, can one rationally justify using induction and logic.

This is simply nonsense. You have in no way supported this claim without resorting to your presupposed dogma. You do not grasp that when an idea closes in around itself, it does not mean it is logically true, but rather the exact opposite of true, false.

Since your worldview leaves the human mind as the ultimate standard and “court of appeal”—because of your pretended autonomy—you are bound to give an answer from yourself, from your own reason. The Christian denies autonomy and relies on God; this is why we can justify logic and induction while you cannot.

This is also nonsense; I would say it is more nonsensical than your last statement, but then you do not believe in gradients.... 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 -- so that is one reason this is a nonsense argument. Another reason is that you appear to be claiming that you are not personally (autonomously) arguing with me, but rather are channeling the transcendental logic of your presupposed deity. So either (a) your deity is doing an incredibly lousy job of arguing logically through the Travis-vessel for a supposedly perfect deity, or (b) you are just making this up, likely as a last resort, since you are backed up against a brick wall and impaled on the rusty blade of your own faulty logic.

My argument for the truth of Christianity is a transcendental one. I’m establishing a conclusion that Christianity is true “by paying attention to what has to be the case for there to be experience, or for experience to be as it is.”

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. I have also shewn, sir, that to claim Christianity "must be the case" means you have presupposed logic before you have presupposed Christianity. Sir, your argument is 'ndoubtably shimsham.