tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post879771003586722005..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Can proof be proved?Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-5365852102663634002011-06-12T09:38:28.362-04:002011-06-12T09:38:28.362-04:00> The problem with the presuppositionalists, as...> The problem with the presuppositionalists, as I see it, is that they construe all reasoning as deductive reasoning--the sort of reason whose conclusions are only as strong as the premises. But even modern philosophers are not chained down to deductive or demonstrative reason--after all, Kant has his antinomatical dialectic. Not all forms of reasoning need assume the truth of their premises.<Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-71460791338084250972011-06-10T15:19:25.055-04:002011-06-10T15:19:25.055-04:00Lee,
The purpose of reasoning is important to get...Lee,<br /><br />The purpose of reasoning is important to get to the truth of a matter. (It's good to remember that truth is a manifold concept, referring to experiences, sentences, mathematical formulas, an attribute of God, and so on.)<br /><br />And no sort of reasoning operates contrary to logic. But, again, it's important to remember that logic is also a manifold concept: it refers toThomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-17931652242985469272011-06-10T14:56:08.998-04:002011-06-10T14:56:08.998-04:00Thomas,
I have a couple of questions, if you have...Thomas,<br /><br />I have a couple of questions, if you have time and inclination, that might help me understand your position...<br /><br />1. Is the purpose of reasoning to establish truth?<br /><br />2. Is there any type of reasoning that, ultimately, is able to completely shuck the chains of logic?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56609773043335028362011-06-10T13:44:23.826-04:002011-06-10T13:44:23.826-04:00Two things should be noted in addition. For Aristo...Two things should be noted in addition. For Aristotle, "demonstration" is a technical term that does not cover every kind of argument that might establish something as true. Science A may presume principle X but be unable to prove it, but science B may be able to prove that principle. (Aquinas uses the example of arithmetic and musical theory: musical theory presupposes arithmetical Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-66385661501917898242011-06-04T22:09:09.833-04:002011-06-04T22:09:09.833-04:00> But to call it a "first principle"?...> But to call it a "first principle"? No -- not if God created it; that would make *God* the first principle.<br /><br />I should have added: If God did not exist, there is no "first principle," but just the misleading braying of our instincts. Heidegger would not have been wrong to denounce logic as an "invention of schoolteachers, not of philosophers."Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-32816025458703079982011-06-04T21:32:16.470-04:002011-06-04T21:32:16.470-04:00I ought to know better than to go toe to toe with ...I ought to know better than to go toe to toe with Martin on matters of philosophy. However, I'm probably the most sympathetic of regular posters on this blog to the presuppositionalists, so here goes...<br /><br />I don't think Van Til's position can be so easily dismissed. Coming into any discussion, or so it seems to me, we are always "begging the question" at some pointLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-13020059911940576102011-06-01T18:50:34.825-04:002011-06-01T18:50:34.825-04:00While we have some fundamental disagreements about...While we have some fundamental disagreements about whether or not someone's 'intuition' is any reasonable basis for making absolute claims about things, for example the existence of logic or, by extension, God, I do have to sincerely say that I rather like the way you disassemble the AiG presuppositionalist claims here.<br /><br />I hope we will see more such criticism of sloppy Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.com