Home      Debate Page   Previous    Next

Dialog on the Existence of God - by G. Brady Lenardos and Agnostic Australian

Round 7

From Agnostic Australian 06/05/05

Hello Brady.

Brady wrote: You say they have the same form and because of that they have the same fallacies. But, to date you have not listed any formal fallacies. All your of the fallacies you have alleged are informal fallacies. And some of these you have recanted: "I have read that paper. It is true that you show the claim of special pleading is false."

Your arguments use imprecise definitions and implicit assumptions. These informal arguments have informal fallacies because the underlying formal arguments with precise definitions and explicit assumptions have formal fallacies of propositional logic. Your cosmological and transcendent arguments are isomorphic at this underlying level. Which specific informal fallacies you commit in each informal argument depends on the particular sleight-of-hand you use to cover the formal fallacies in the underlying formal argument.

The reports of my recanting are greatly exaggerated, as you misquote what I really wrote: It is true that you show the claim of special pleading is false... by begging the question instead. That is, you exchanged one fallacy for another; the argument is invalid, whether for special pleading or for begging the question.

Brady wrote: So, what formal fallacy does the transcendental argument commit?

The conclusion does not follow from the premises that we agree to admit. Thus, to "prove" your case, you import further premises, tacitly and without agreement, via informal fallacies. Besides this, the transcendental argument affirms the consequent: you claim that knowledge is possible within a theistic worldview, you assert that knowledge is indeed possible, and from this you conclude invalidly that all non theistic worldviews are false. This formal fallacy is the cornerstone of your argument.

Brady wrote: I simply point out the in the theistic cosmology God provides the jumpstart need to get to an epistemology. The theistic cosmology says that God intended to create a world meant to be known and creature meant to know it. This provides the basis for the terms we spoke of earlier; i.e. I exist, the world around me exists and I can know the relation between the two.

Okay. I shall unravel this a bit. You decide, before any other consideration, to know. You then seek to assert whatever axioms you consider appropriate to gain knowledge. Hence, define the meta-axiom of knowledge (MK) that a set of axioms be asserted that are sufficient to know. This meta-axiom sets the agenda. By itself, this meta-axiom does not specify which set of axioms to assert. Thus, it shall be necessary to assess proposed sets of axioms before deciding which of these to assert. You suggested the law of non-contradiction as the selection criterion. By itself, the law of non-contradiction is ineffective; to have any selective power it requires the rules of deductive inference. Define the meta-axiom of logic (ML) that deductive inferences and the law of non-contradiction be used to select a set of axioms and deductions from these to be asserted. Define the worldview set as the deductive closure of the selected axioms.

A skeptic might assert the meta-axiom set {ML} and the worldview set {}. The law of non-contradiction is not violated. An agnostic Foundationalist might assert the meta-axiom set {MK, ML} and the worldview set {PC}. The proposition of correspondence is selected with the justification that MK is not satisfied otherwise. The law of non-contradiction is not violated.

A theistic Presuppositionalist might assert the meta-axiom set {MK, ML} and the worldview set {PC, PG}. The proposition of "god" is selected as a mythological "explanation" for the proposition of correspondence. The proposition of "god" is not merely "an entity of uncertain attributes exists", because this, taken by itself, does not imply anything. To "explain" why observations correspond to reality, you must add a premise that "god" makes it so. To "explain" why reality seems orderly, you must add another premise that "god" makes it so. To "explain" why logic may be applied to observations validly, you must add yet another premise that "god" makes it so. The proposition of "god" is the conjunction of all such premises. Each non theistic assumption that you say is explained by "god" you have simply subsumed into the definition of "god" and taken it as given.

Now, this does not prove that this "god" is genocidal, personal and theistic any more than it proves that this "god" is a quarter-pounder with cheese. That you call this a proof of a genocidal, personal, theistic "god" is equivocation. On the other hand, if you assume without justification that "god" is genocidal, personal and theistic then you have two problems to address:

The first problem with these irrelevant premises is that they may lead to a contradiction that you would not have otherwise. Take, for instance, in the book of Titus, supposedly inspired by your "god", it is written: a Cretan [...] spoke the truth when he said, "Cretans are always liars, wicked beasts, and lazy gluttons."

The second problem with these irrelevant premises is that they are arbitrary, within the limits of the law of non-contradiction. That is, the proposition of "god" is but one of many possible mythological "explanations" for the proposition of correspondence. Consider the proposition of the invisible pink unicorn (PU) that there exists an invisible pink unicorn who will soon trample "god" believers under her hooves; until that time she allows all people to perceive reality that they may reject "god" of their own free will.

If you substitute "invisible pink unicorn" for "god" in your transcendent argument would you still believe it? Taking this substitution to your own words yields: every argument is an argument for the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. Do you believe this? Another substitution gives: the invisible pink unicorn provides the jumpstart need[ed] to get to an epistemology. Do you believe this?

All these mythological "explanations" are epistemologically equivalent: any "support" for any one of these is also "support" for all the others. Thus, to be consistent with your selection criteria, if you accept one of these you must accept them all. Since there are contradictions between these mythological "explanations", the law of non-contradiction is violated. As Stephen Roberts said: When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

For these reasons, it is sensible to eliminate candidate worldview sets with irrelevant premises. Define the meta-axiom of minimality (MM) that where a worldview set and any superset of it are sufficient to know, that the superset not be asserted. A non theistic Foundationalist might assert the meta-axiom set {MK, ML, MM} and the worldview set {PC}. The law of non-contradiction is not violated. A theistic Presuppositionalist must assert the meta-axiom ~MM and then succumb to contradiction.

Brady wrote: Perhaps you would like to attack the premise that Knowledge exists?

No, I would not. Perhaps you would like to stop using straw man arguments?

Brady wrote: You say that a non-theist might assert correspondence without asserting God. In fact most do. But the assertion does not make it true, nor does it provide the needed elements that allow one to get to correspondence. Bold assertion is just that, bold assertion. Let the non-theist show how he gets from the elements of his cosmology to knowledge. Simply saying it is so, doesn’t cut it.

Ah, how the pot calls the kettle black! You find fault with non theists who assert the worldview set {PC} yet you also do exactly this but under the pretext that you are "explaining" the proposition of correspondence. You conflate the definition of "god" with premises that amount to the proposition of correspondence. You assert the proposition of "god" as a necessary truth and deny that you have simply asserted the proposition of correspondence under a different name. You then take the opportunity to shoehorn into the definition of "god" irrelevant attributes without justification. By this equivocation you then claim that you have proved a genocidal, theistic "god". You make all the assumptions that non theists might make, and more, and yet you find fault with them for making "bold assertions". Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye?

Brady wrote: I have only and consistently used the term God to describe an Original Being that intentionally created a world meant to be known and creatures meant to know it; show where I have used it any other way. The details on the personal traits of God are really meaningless here.

Exactly! The personal traits of "god" are not demonstrated by the "proofs of god" that use a restricted definition of "god". That you call these "proofs of god" and then say that you have only ever used the term to describe an "Original Being [...]" is equivocation. If instead you called each proof a "proof of an entity of uncertain attributes beyond those demonstrated by this proof" it would not be an equivocation, but the proofs may still be invalid for special pleading or for begging the question.

Brady wrote: The basic fact is, it is not a "first justification argument;" it is the "atheist has no possible justification argument."

No, it is a first justification argument: you demand a justification for any non theistic assumptions, you make all the same assumptions, and more, and then you deny that your assumptions need justification. You are claiming that your unfounded beliefs are the justification for all knowledge. You then contradict this when you feign having discovered the "truth" of theism by an evenhanded assessment of all possible worldviews using the law of non-contradiction as the selection criterion.

I have tried to find in your writing a detailed account of your epistemology but I see only repeated assertions that all non theistic worldviews are false, incoherent, inconsistent and meaningless. You try to make hay from the irrelevant tautology that skeptics who assume nothing can infer nothing. You propose instead, without proof, theism as the answer to every philosophical problem. Therefore, I ask you, given the proposition "there exists an entity named god", and without any further assumptions, either about this "god" or otherwise, how do you infer:

(1) your own existence;

(2) the rules of deductive inference;

(3) the proposition of correspondence;

(4) the solution to the problem of causation;

(5) the solution to the problem of induction; and

(6) the distinction between animate and inanimate.

In the pantheon of all possible "gods" there are "gods" who deceive, "gods" who created the world six thousand years ago, "gods" who interfere with causation, "gods" who change the laws of nature, "gods" who command genocide, and on it goes...

If you admit the need for further assumptions then why do you find fault with non theists who do likewise? It should be obvious from this exercise that theistic "certainty" is no certainty at all; you're just peddling snake oil.

The remainder of your contribution makes these same assertions over and over again: that only theists may make assumptions and that any non theistic assumptions are "unjustified".

If you have nothing better to offer then I consider this discussion concluded.

kind regards,

Agnostic Australian

 

From Brady 6/13/05

Hi AA,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I had some business to take care of out of town and was too busy for any personal time except eating, sleeping and and a couple of minutes here and there.

AA wrote: Your arguments use imprecise definitions and implicit assumptions. These informal arguments have informal fallacies because the underlying formal arguments with precise definitions and explicit assumptions have formal fallacies of propositional logic. Your cosmological and transcendent arguments are isomorphic at this underlying level. Which specific informal fallacies you commit in each informal argument depends on the particular sleight-of-hand you use to cover the formal fallacies in the underlying formal argument.

I’ll tell you what, let’s make this easy and we will stick to just the transcendental argument. Now please present and explain exactly where and which fallacies you think are being committed.

Brady wrote: So, what formal fallacy does the transcendental argument commit?

AA wrote: The conclusion does not follow from the premises that we agree to admit. Thus, to "prove" your case, you import further premises, tacitly and without agreement, via informal fallacies. Besides this, the transcendental argument affirms the consequent: you claim that knowledge is possible within a theistic worldview, you assert that knowledge is indeed possible, and from this you conclude invalidly that all non theistic worldviews are false. This formal fallacy is the cornerstone of your argument.

There is only one problem with your comments; they don’t refer to my argument. First, I have never affirmed the consequent. Let’s review my conditional syllogism that I gave in my last post:

If the atheist cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge.     {Conditional statement}

Knowledge exists [i.e. ~ (no knowledge)]                 {the impossibility of the contrary}

Therefore, the atheist cosmology is false.                                          {Modus Tolens}

You will notice that the consequent was negated, not confirmed. The conclusion follows necessarily. This is a formally valid argument. There can be no question about that. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true.

Next, you put forth a false argument. I never said because theism has the elements for a consistent and coherent epistemology that all others are false. You need to go back and reread the past posts. I did say that there is no atheistic cosmology that has the needed elements to get to knowledge. Of course if this is true, then so is the condition statement above. But, this should be easy for you to defeat! Simply show the elements and how you get to knowledge from an atheistic cosmology. Actually, if you would have done this back at the beginning of our discussion it would have been over. However, up until this point, no matter how many times I have asked you to do this, you don’t seem inclined to destroy my argument. You just keep coming up with erroneous fallacies and straw men arguments, as you have in your above comments.

I think we can agree that Negationism gets us nowhere. With that set aside, you are left with Naturism. So, here are your elements: matter and energy, time and space and motion according to the laws of physics. Go for it.

Brady wrote in a past post: You say that a non-theist might assert correspondence without asserting God. In fact most do. But the assertion does not make it true, nor does it provide the needed elements that allow one to get to correspondence. Bold assertion is just that, bold assertion. Let the non-theist show how he gets from the elements of his cosmology to knowledge. Simply saying it is so, doesn’t cut it.

AA responded: Ah, how the pot calls the kettle black! You find fault with non theists who assert the worldview set {PC} yet you also do exactly this but under the pretext that you are "explaining" the proposition of correspondence. You conflate the definition of "god" with premises that amount to the proposition of correspondence.

You seem to think that I am the one who made up the elements of these cosmologies. They both were there hundreds of years before Christ was born. The elements for the theistic cosmology come from the first chapters of Genesis. The elements from naturism come from pre-Socratic atheistic philosophers and are refine through the ages and affirmed by atheist philosophers today. These are not something new for our debate. As Manion pointed out in his paper, atheists have all but given up on epistemology. As Rorty says, “Truth is whatever my colleagues let me get away with.” Why is it that atheistic philosophers have come to conclusions like that? Perhaps, it is because they see what you fail to see (i.e. that the atheistic cosmology offers no hope of getting to knowledge).

So, yes I do find fault with a worldview that just assert correspondence, when their cosmology denies it. You see, it is not just a matter of me not having found the secret formula or combination of naturistic elements that will finally get you to knowledge from an atheistic cosmology; it is that the cosmology denies their existence. Let me give our readers an illustration. Suppose you had a person who enjoys ice tea. This person drinks ice tea everyday. Upon closely examining his cosmology, he finds that his cosmology denies the existence of water! He knows he is drinking ice tea, yet if his cosmology is true, then ice tea does not exist. If ice tea does exist, then he knows his cosmology is false. So what does he do? He asserts that water does exist as part of his world view. Does this solve his problem? No. He still has a cosmology that denies water exists, but now he also has to affirm his assertion that water does exist. He has no way get from his cosmology to his assert or from his cosmology to the ice tea. He must just sit with his contradiction and pretend it is not there; just as you are doing. You can’t show how the elements of your cosmology get you to correspondence or how your cosmology gets you to knowledge. But it is even worst, if your cosmology is true, there can be no knowledge. Why because the elements of your cosmology don’t allow for it.

If all there is, is matter in motion, then all there is, is matter in motion. Where does this magic bean called correspondence come from? Where does life come from? Is what you mean by life nothing more than more complex matter in motion? Is what you mean by knowledge just further complex matter in motion? Do the particles bouncing around in your head have a will of their own? If not, where did your will come from? Are your thoughts anything more than the necessary expression of bouncing atoms that could do no other than bounce in the way they are doing; meaning you could do no other than think the thought you are thinking? If not, where did that magic bean come from? It has to be something other that matter in motion, right? But your cosmology says all there is, is matter in motion and nothing else. Show me how you can get to animate or sentient out of matter in motion and nothing else.

Brady wrote in a previous post: I have only and consistently used the term God to describe an Original Being that intentionally created a world meant to be known and creatures meant to know it; show where I have used it any other way. The details on the personal traits of God are really meaningless here.

AA responded: Exactly! The personal traits of "god" are not demonstrated by the "proofs of god" that use a restricted definition of "god". That you call these "proofs of god" and then say that you have only ever used the term to describe an "Original Being [...]" is equivocation. If instead you called each proof a "proof of an entity of uncertain attributes beyond those demonstrated by this proof" it would not be an equivocation, but the proofs may still be invalid for special pleading or for begging the question.

Apparently, you have missed the argument. I have not inserted the traits of God into the theistic cosmology, they are already there. I have only pointed out two things:

1)     That the cosmology asserted by atheists throughout history does not have the elements to get to knowledge. You have failed to show that it does.

2)     That the cosmology depicted in the first chapters of Genesis does have the elements to get to knowledge. Something you have failed to refute.

Now my argument has only dealt with the first. The second item is something I pointed out at you request. Since, we are trying to make things easier in this post, for the moment, let’s also forget about the second item as we did with the cosmological argument. Now we can make everything real simple. Is it or is it not true that given the elements of the atheistic cosmology that knowledge is impossible? If you say it is not true, then show from the elements of the cosmology how you get to knowledge.

After we get through with this we can go on to the next point.

 

 

Home      Debate Page   Previous    Next