Presuppositionalism Defended...

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:27 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Kant thinks you’re an egomaniacal *ussycat for still not replying:

Ichthus77 wrote:
So, guys, Christianity says at the base of everything lies not a what but a who.. Is that the knower who we are?
— dakat

He is the Unknown Knower, but Christ has shown him to us in a way we can understand (if we accept). He knows us on a certain level (made in his image) but to go to a further level (become…truly be…the Neighbor) requires our participation. It is impossible to do this on our own - that’s why he demonstrated eternal love on the cross (he always knew…it’s the point). He took our ignorance and lies and gave us his perfection. We don’t become him - we are just treated as him. Apart from him we know nothing (essentially, nothing of real love).


It would be like unscrambling eggs. For starters you would have to define all your terms. And where outside of your fantasy does all that occur? And how do you know that?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:37 pm

Every last bit of it is biblical, I just paraphrased. I can do book chapter verse for every part of it after I’m done with my homework this weekend, if that’s even something that you would follow up on.

How I personally know it is an entirely different matter. That part I can’t share with you, because it’s something that I went through.

The part I can share with you I actually started learning before the thing(s) that I went through, but not enough for it to stick into my heart knowledge. Once I had the heart knowledge, I learned even more of the shareable stuff. But not enough to make me perfect & never mess up again… I’m a stubborn, obstinate, hard-headed sheep. If you know theosis, you know enough to get better sources for the shareable stuff.

Be skeptical. But doubt your doubts, too.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:50 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Every last bit of it is biblical, I just paraphrased. I can do book chapter verse for every part of it after I’m done with my homework this weekend, if that’s even something that you would follow up on.

How I personally know it is an entirely different matter. That part I can’t share with you, because it’s something that I went through.

The part I can share with you I actually started learning before the thing(s) that I went through, but not enough for it to stick into my heart knowledge. Once I had the heart knowledge, I learned even more of the shareable stuff. But not enough to make me perfect & never mess up again… I’m a stubborn, obstinate, hard-headed sheep. If you know theosis, you know enough to get better sources for the shareable stuff.

Be skeptical. But doubt your doubts, too.


"Biblical" is an instance of the problem of multiplicity not it's solution. Do you know how many Christian denominations there are? 30,000+? And they can each be taken to represent a different interpretation of the Bible. And within any one of them there are mutiple holders of differing interpretations of their own. They have fought literal wars with each other. In fact there are Christians on either side of the Russia/Ukraine war right now. Both sides with their Bibles. So what do you think you're saying in your shareable stuff that gets over, under or around that?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:25 pm

Multiplicity is diversity. All the denominations are in agreement on the essentials.

I don’t claim to speak for all of them. If that is your requirement, good luck.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:27 pm

I cannot speak to any war between any state, as I’m not privy to what goes on behind closed-session doors.

God knows.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:32 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Multiplicity is diversity. All the denominations are in agreement on the essentials.

I don’t claim to speak for all of them. If that is your requirement, good luck.


That proposition depends on what the essentials are. You find Christians disagreeing about everything. There are plenty who hold that if you’re not in their group you’re damned. And those same people will claim God loves people. And, like you, they all claim they are “biblical”.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:55 pm

And? Let God sort out the quibblers.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 23, 2022 8:17 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:And? Let God sort out the quibblers.


Deference to a strict but merciful all wise and just Father?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Mad Man P » Sat Apr 23, 2022 8:27 pm

felix dakat wrote:How do you know that one celled organisms aren't conscious?


I find the topic of consciousness quite interesting, so I don't mind the detour... but unfortunately your question is about epistemology and I can only reiterate what I've already said... explanatory power is trivial, predictive power is everything. We can interpret the world however we like, maybe everything is conscious, maybe it's just me... but what value do either perspective offer me? What utility do they have? Can I more accurately predict things by assuming either one? This is why falsifiability is a must in science... If your hypothesis doesn't make predictions and therefore can't be shown to be false it's effectively pointless speculation and necessarily offers zero practical utility.

That instrumentalism also applies to how we define things in the first place... Consciousness is the thing I experience, that first person qualia... I can suppose you have a similar "experience" that we agree to call consciousness and I can test that to see if it will allow me to predict how you might behave in general or how you might report your experiences, and for the most part it's proving itself to be a useful supposition. That's how I "know" you're conscious... I might do the same for a dog, but whatever it experiences is quite different... I can only predict its behavior by imagining it's subjective life very dimly so I'm only kinda sure it's conscious. When we get to a single celled organism however, whatever (if anything) it "experiences" is nothing like what you and I initially decided to call consciousness.

Now we can expand that word to include whatever it may be that a single celled organism experiences, if anything at all, but that would have an interesting consequence: We've actually created an entirely artificial single celled organism capable of reproduction... so we're right back to having proven that matter is all it took, so now you gotta speculate if atoms are conscious, but they are made up of electrons neutrons and protons, and so they must be too... at some point you just run out of matter and end up concluding everything is conscious... and we've already covered my problem with vacuous ideas.

Consciousness is surprising. Why does it exist? What does it do? Does it have an evolutionary function for survival? If it is a mere secondary biproduct of a necessary neural computational process then our centered experience of conscious agency is an absurdity and an illusion.


Yes it's true, we have only a faint idea of how the human brain works and I'm excited for us to discover more about it... but it is not at all difficult to imagine countless ways in which it is useful from a design perspective.
If I want to train an AI to get good at chess I'll have it play different iterations of itself, entirely internally in it's own "minds eye", you and I will just hear the fan blasting on max trying to cool the CPU that's nearly on fire.. but the AI is playing a full game of imaginary chess with itself every few seconds and making adjustments... I'd call that qualia and I'd say it has utility... so can't say I'll be shocked if we learn nature did something similar with brains.

And speaking of absurdity, Shotgun's proposition that "if intelligibility then Reformed Theology" strikes me as approaching absurdity. Isn't that theology necessarily a subset of the history of all human thought without which it cannot be understood?. In that context there are myriad ways Christianity can be formulated. That's what theologians do. The probablity that Calvin's or Van Til's [or any finite human being's]way of formulating reality is the ultimate one is infintesimally small. Yet it is the lens through which they view the world.


To be fair to Shotgun, I don't think he's arguing for a specific unerring interpretation of christianity being true, but that the metaphysics of the christian narrative are true. That is to say there is a benevolent creator god who made the world and mankind in his own image, where the blueprints of reality are very much by design comprehensible to human minds. But I should really let him speak for himself.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 23, 2022 8:56 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:And? Let God sort out the quibblers.


Deference to a strict but merciful all wise and just Father?


If you would like to suss out essentials from peripherals without resorting to ad hominems, perhaps take one at a time per new thread. Can’t guarantee I will have time for all of them.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:58 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:And? Let God sort out the quibblers.


Deference to a strict but merciful all wise and just Father?


If you would like to suss out essentials from peripherals without resorting to ad hominems, perhaps take one at a time per new thread. Can’t guarantee I will have time for all of them.


The empircists began the process of showing that essentials were a mind-dependent structures and Kant finished the process. So what's new as far as essentials go?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
felix dakat wrote:How do you know that one celled organisms aren't conscious?


I find the topic of consciousness quite interesting, so I don't mind the detour... but unfortunately your question is about epistemology and I can only reiterate what I've already said... explanatory power is trivial, predictive power is everything. We can interpret the world however we like, maybe everything is conscious, maybe it's just me... but what value do either perspective offer me? What utility do they have? Can I more accurately predict things by assuming either one? This is why falsifiability is a must in science... If your hypothesis doesn't make predictions and therefore can't be shown to be false it's effectively pointless speculation and necessarily offers zero practical utility.

That instrumentalism also applies to how we define things in the first place... Consciousness is the thing I experience, that first person qualia... I can suppose you have a similar "experience" that we agree to call consciousness and I can test that to see if it will allow me to predict how you might behave in general or how you might report your experiences, and for the most part it's proving itself to be a useful supposition. That's how I "know" you're conscious... I might do the same for a dog, but whatever it experiences is quite different... I can only predict its behavior by imagining it's subjective life very dimly so I'm only kinda sure it's conscious. When we get to a single celled organism however, whatever (if anything) it "experiences" is nothing like what you and I initially decided to call consciousness.

Now we can expand that word to include whatever it may be that a single celled organism experiences, if anything at all, but that would have an interesting consequence: We've actually created an entirely artificial single celled organism capable of reproduction... so we're right back to having proven that matter is all it took, so now you gotta speculate if atoms are conscious, but they are made up of electrons neutrons and protons, and so they must be too... at some point you just run out of matter and end up concluding everything is conscious... and we've already covered my problem with vacuous ideas.

Consciousness is surprising. Why does it exist? What does it do? Does it have an evolutionary function for survival? If it is a mere secondary biproduct of a necessary neural computational process then our centered experience of conscious agency is an absurdity and an illusion.


Yes it's true, we have only a faint idea of how the human brain works and I'm excited for us to discover more about it... but it is not at all difficult to imagine countless ways in which it is useful from a design perspective.
If I want to train an AI to get good at chess I'll have it play different iterations of itself, entirely internally in it's own "minds eye", you and I will just hear the fan blasting on max trying to cool the CPU that's nearly on fire.. but the AI is playing a full game of imaginary chess with itself every few seconds and making adjustments... I'd call that qualia and I'd say it has utility... so can't say I'll be shocked if we learn nature did something similar with brains.

And speaking of absurdity, Shotgun's proposition that "if intelligibility then Reformed Theology" strikes me as approaching absurdity. Isn't that theology necessarily a subset of the history of all human thought without which it cannot be understood?. In that context there are myriad ways Christianity can be formulated. That's what theologians do. The probablity that Calvin's or Van Til's [or any finite human being's]way of formulating reality is the ultimate one is infintesimally small. Yet it is the lens through which they view the world.


To be fair to Shotgun, I don't think he's arguing for a specific unerring interpretation of christianity being true, but that the metaphysics of the christian narrative are true. That is to say there is a benevolent creator god who made the world and mankind in his own image, where the blueprints of reality are very much by design comprehensible to human minds. But I should really let him speak for himself.


Intelligibility is an immediate and spontaneous conscious ability so I don't look at discussing it as a detour. If Shotgun's proposition is that Christianity follows from intelligibility then what does he make of the fact that some people, billions of them as a matter of fact are not spontaneeously Christian? I think I know what his answer will be but I would prefer that he give it himself.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:21 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:If you would like to suss out essentials from peripherals without resorting to ad hominems, perhaps take one at a time per new thread. Can’t guarantee I will have time for all of them.


The empircists began the process of showing that essentials were a mind-dependent structures and Kant finished the process. So what's new as far as essentials go?


Take it back to Descartes’ cogito, to the I AM (ontological argument), and forget all the other brainiac junk & just use good arguments & evidence free of logical fallacies (cumulative case, not presup).
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:11 am

Ichthus77 wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:If you would like to suss out essentials from peripherals without resorting to ad hominems, perhaps take one at a time per new thread. Can’t guarantee I will have time for all of them.


The empircists began the process of showing that essentials were a mind-dependent structures and Kant finished the process. So what's new as far as essentials go?


Take it back to Descartes’ cogito, to the I AM (ontological argument), and forget all the other brainiac junk & just use good arguments & evidence free of logical fallacies (cumulative case, not presup).


What are you talking about? You mention essentials. I ask you what you mean. You refer to Descartes cogito as if you were answering my question.

You refer to something I said as "brainiac junk". I don't know what you're referring to or why you think it's junk.

You imply that something I said was fallacious but you don't say what. You contrast cumulative case with presuppositionalism but you don't say what you think they are or how they differ.

By referring to essences and then referring to Descartes do you mean the essence of mind is self-conscious thinking; the essence of matter is extension in three dimensions, God is a third, infinite substance, whose essence is necessary existence and God unites minds with bodies to create a fourth, compound substance, human beings? Cuz that in a nutshell is what I understand Descartes said about essences.

He did say that I think therefore I am was a clear and distinct idea. But then he reinstated objective reality on the basis that God was not a deceiver. The existence of the good God followed from the ontological argument which has been subsequently been defeated by Kant, Russell etc. And his objective world is ungrounded phenomenologically or God as it's guarantor by modern science per se.

So, what are you saying? And what does it have to do with Shotgun's proposition that Christianity follows from intelligibility which is what we are talking about on this thread?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Apr 24, 2022 1:01 am

Ah. A misunderstanding based on equivocation/semantics. Essentials… What I’m referring to, versus peripherals… are the essential doctrines of the Christian faith upon which all the denominations agree. And when it comes to Descartes, a better word to use than essentials in this case is preliminaries.

Most people know we are not living in a matrix or false reality so they don’t need to do all that preliminary crap that I called brainiac junk. it is enough for them to know that all out skepticism is goofy considering an awareness we’ve made mistakes in belief would be impossible if we didn’t trust the knowledge showing it to be a mistake. Basic stuff like that.

I love the brainiac stuff. But it’s a different thread.

I linked twice in this thread to an overview of the main approaches in apologetics… presup & cumulative case being just two.

I didn’t accuse you of any fallacy. I was speaking generally.

____
Descartes … essences … phenomenology … different thread(s) … as is the ontological argument - in all its forms.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sun Apr 24, 2022 1:51 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Ah. A misunderstanding based on equivocation/semantics. Essentials… What I’m referring to, versus peripherals… are the essential doctrines of the Christian faith upon which all the denominations agree. And when it comes to Descartes, a better word to use than essentials in this case is preliminaries.

Most people know we are not living in a matrix or false reality so they don’t need to do all that preliminary crap that I called brainiac junk. it is enough for them to know that all out skepticism is goofy considering an awareness we’ve made mistakes in belief would be impossible if we didn’t trust the knowledge showing it to be a mistake. Basic stuff like that.

I love the brainiac stuff. But it’s a different thread.

I linked twice in this thread to an overview of the main approaches in apologetics… presup & cumulative case being just two.

I didn’t accuse you of any fallacy. I was speaking generally.

____
Descartes … essences … phenomenology … different thread(s) … as is the ontological argument - in all its forms.


Then to be clear you must state what you think are Christianity's essentials since people who claim to be Christians don't agree.

Most people know we are not living in a matrix or false reality so they don’t need to do all that preliminary crap that I called brainiac junk.


Do they indeed! "Most people." "Know" How do you know what most people know? What do you and they know? Could it be that beneath the cutesieness and philosophical pretensions you are a naive realist? That might explain why you couldn't begin to comprehend and dismissed Kant as if his thought were inferior to what you and most people "know".

On top of your objectivism you have your Christian "essentials". Please tell us what they are. Don't keep us in suspense.

Since when did you begin to worry about what a thread was about and hesitate to talk about irrelevant matters that should be reserved for "different threads? That hasn't stopped you in the past.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 24, 2022 2:21 am

The whole thing can be resolved by the cogito's underlying simplicity, that simplicity being most cogent

That is refer to the word/ Word as implicit in some variance .

That is the spatial temporal variance between the words as a phenomenal structural effects or their effectors; the basic meta de-differentiated structural mappings of them , reduced to cohesion/coherence with them..

That is, the're a-priori manifestations that only express them selves as/through coincidences.

The variances are expressed through the sine wave. The expressions are tonal returns to the original keys that must regain tonal balance.


It is a tautology on a two dimensional matrix, but develops a 'loophole ' through a multi dimensional expansion. The diagram comes to life, and perceptive tool are evolved through this need to experience the phenoms.


Where does that need arise from? From the visualization of the most adept imagination.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13243
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Apr 24, 2022 2:41 am

Where did I dismiss the entirety of Kant’s thought? Nowhere.

Some tangents are important enough to stop the presses. Others are brief. Still others require their own thread.

So. I’ll leave you to play with your food.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sun Apr 24, 2022 6:27 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Where did I dismiss the entirety of Kant’s thought? Nowhere.

Some tangents are important enough to stop the presses. Others are brief. Still others require their own thread.

So. I’ll leave you to play with your food.


As if you were in a position to dismiss Kant at all. Incidentally, how many years before Descartes did Moses discover the "Cogito" and who from?
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:48 pm

Do your homework, son. What does the record say?
Attachments
490819F1-663F-4B3C-A609-A9EACF422598.jpeg
490819F1-663F-4B3C-A609-A9EACF422598.jpeg (106.09 KiB) Viewed 224 times
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6017
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Bob » Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:30 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Do your homework, son. What does the record say?

Or perhaps the whole story of Israel and Moses is a rewriting of the story of the Hyskos, or an appropriation of parts of the story. It is known that groups of Canaanite peoples settled in the Nile Delta beginning at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and may have split from the crumbling and unstable Egyptian rule sometime during the Thirteenth Dynasty forming a Hyskos rule.

Many details of the Hyskos rule, such as the actual extent of their empire and even the names and order of their kings, remain uncertain. But apparently the Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs, as well as many Egyptian customs.

The Hyksos didn’t control all of Egypt in their time. Instead, they coexisted with the sixteenth and seventeenth dynasties, which were based in Thebes. The wars between the Hyksos and the pharaohs of the late seventeenth dynasty finally culminated in the defeat of the Hyksos by Ahmose I, who founded the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
When you are out of touch with reality you will easily embrace a delusion, and equally put in doubt the most basic elements of existence. If this reminds you of the mindset of the present day materialist science and philosophy establishments, as well as of the loudest voices in the socio-political debate, we should not be particularly surprised, since they show all the signs of attending with the left hemisphere alone. I live in the hope that that may soon change: for without a change we are lost.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (S.562). Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:28 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Do your homework, son. What does the record say?


Pedant
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:32 am

Bob wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:Do your homework, son. What does the record say?

Or perhaps the whole story of Israel and Moses is a rewriting of the story of the Hyskos, or an appropriation of parts of the story. It is known that groups of Canaanite peoples settled in the Nile Delta beginning at the end of the Twelfth Dynasty and may have split from the crumbling and unstable Egyptian rule sometime during the Thirteenth Dynasty forming a Hyskos rule.

Many details of the Hyskos rule, such as the actual extent of their empire and even the names and order of their kings, remain uncertain. But apparently the Hyksos practiced many Levantine or Canaanite customs, as well as many Egyptian customs.

The Hyksos didn’t control all of Egypt in their time. Instead, they coexisted with the sixteenth and seventeenth dynasties, which were based in Thebes. The wars between the Hyksos and the pharaohs of the late seventeenth dynasty finally culminated in the defeat of the Hyksos by Ahmose I, who founded the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt.


For the purpose of my question it doesn’t matter if Moses actually existed.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby shotgun » Tue May 10, 2022 2:29 am

shotgun wrote:Presup doesn't operate the same way the other traditional arguments for God. The Cosmological, Ontological, Teleological, etc. Those arguments, if the premises are true, would force someone to accept the conclusion. Presup, however, when we see it laid out in a simple argument (like the one I've provided) obviously cannot force someone to accept the conclusion. Instead, our strategy is to have discussions with people about premise 1. If someone thinks it's false, they may be accepting that intelligibility can be possible even if Christianity is false. And that's what presuppers want to consider.


Understood... like I said before, I do believe evolution makes a decent account of how intelligibility might arise.

But hypothetically, what then is your strategy if someone were to admit ignorance as to how intelligibility arose?
I can't imagine making an appeal to ignorance to conclude christianity is true... so I'm curious.


Mad Man P,

A few points...

I'm not asking for an account of how intelligibility arose. That's too big a demand to make of anyone. Rather, presups are looking for a non-Christian philosophical story that broadly accounts for intelligibility per se. How can it be, for example, that in a hypothetical universe where only material objects exist, mental objects can also exist? The one seems to preclude the other.

On the second re: someone admitting ignorance.

If someone decides to take no position on any worldview or philosophy, preferring instead to simply live their lives without reflection on these issues, then that would successfully de-fang presuppositional arguments. However, it would also remove the person from any debates about these issues to begin with. They can't launch criticisms against Christian theology if they've decided - in principle - not to take any position on the relevant matters.
User avatar
shotgun
Thinker
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: NC

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Mad Man P » Tue May 10, 2022 12:06 pm

Double Post
Last edited by Mad Man P on Tue May 10, 2022 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users