tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post7592580994797280326..comments2023-09-02T07:14:49.753-04:00Comments on Atheism And The City: Presuppositionalism, AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-62654882133595299142013-10-03T20:56:04.968-04:002013-10-03T20:56:04.968-04:00I've read a bit of Dawson's blog. Not sure...I've read a bit of Dawson's blog. Not sure I buy objectivism, and the primacy of consciousness vs primacy of existence argument seems a little too simple (so I don't buy it), but it's interesting.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-42760399921155931722013-10-03T19:54:29.655-04:002013-10-03T19:54:29.655-04:00I had been debating him for weeks on and off, and ...I had been debating him for weeks on and off, and a few other atheists were too, so we wore him out, apparently. Check out this site of an atheist who's specialty is presuppositionalism and he links to a long debate he had with Hodge. <br /><br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/09/my-august-comments-to-bc-hodge.html<br /><br />Feel free to bug Hodge from time to time and challenge him. He deserves it. Usually he responds very quickly and gives you a thorough response. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-6735126349652986152013-10-03T18:31:53.994-04:002013-10-03T18:31:53.994-04:00He does seem to be fun, if a little sensitive :-)He does seem to be fun, if a little sensitive :-)Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-65709059014168442882013-10-03T18:15:19.350-04:002013-10-03T18:15:19.350-04:00The hypothetical a priori naturalist is a caricatu...The hypothetical a priori naturalist is a caricature of the way almost all naturalists operate. But to Hodge, every naturalist is an a priori naturalist. He can't see it any other possible way.<br /><br />I've debated him on and off for a year on issues like morality and secularism and it always comes down to semantics. He always redefines terms in his way so that they can make his Christian worldview more plausible. He's a skilled artful dodger. But I like debating him because he's challenging, much more so than your average creationist. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-74794188118502571882013-10-03T16:45:01.928-04:002013-10-03T16:45:01.928-04:00That's the thing, naturalism should not be ass...<b>That's the thing, naturalism should not be asserted a priori, it should be concluded a posteriori. </b><br />I'd say that whatever your metaphysical/ontological position, anything which could possibly be rationally denied should be up for revision - whether it be supernaturalism vs naturalism, solipsism vs other minds, idealism vs realism, and on and on.<br /><br /><b>So there's certainly ways naturalism could be demolished.</b><br />There's ways <i>your</i> naturalism could be demolished. Our hypothetical a priori naturalist could simply claim that Jesus is utilising some advanced technology or understanding of reality in order to perform his miracles.<br /><br /><b>Getting that through to Hodge is impossible.</b><br />Hodge seems unable to see that his approach to metaphysics/ontology is not the only way.<br />It also seems that he is certain of the truth of Christianity, so the fact that you do not accept this truth indicates to him that your assuming Christianity cannot be true from the outset.<br /><br />He also seems pretty touchy - I suggested that perhaps he didn't understand the arguments you and Photo are making on that thread, and he interpreted that as going for the kill.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-91137110249501440762013-10-03T16:35:10.205-04:002013-10-03T16:35:10.205-04:00That's the thing, naturalism should not be ass...That's the thing, naturalism should not be asserted a priori, it should be concluded a posteriori. If Jesus came back and conducted a series of miracles that violated every known law of physics in front of a panel of the world's expert scientists, that would certainly shatter naturalism. So there's certainly ways naturalism could be demolished. Getting that through to Hodge is impossible. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-92085621660502165222013-10-03T15:22:37.439-04:002013-10-03T15:22:37.439-04:00Naturalism asserted a priori, could not be falsifi...Naturalism asserted a priori, could not be falsified in the same way Hodge's Christian Theism cannot be falsified - if something you and I thought of as supernatural was verified, then the a priori naturalist would either expand his natural ontology to include the new phenomena, or state that the verification was not successful.<br /><br />Hodge seems unable to see that one can actually start out without asserting either supernaturalism or naturalism, and arrive a a conclusion. He seems to think that you need to start with such an expansive claim as a part of your ontology, and are never able to rationally adjust it - that is exactly what he is doing, and he assumes you are doing the same.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-6730794939329767072013-10-02T22:04:28.530-04:002013-10-02T22:04:28.530-04:00Naturalism could be falsified within its own epist...Naturalism could be falsified within its own epistemic framework. In principle, the supernatural could be verified as it interacts with the natural world, and naturalism could be shattered.<br /><br />Hodge just assumes that concluding your worldview using evidence presupposes naturalism. But nothing about using logic and empiricism presupposes naturalism. There's no logically necessary reason why revelation couldn't be verifiable via other epistemologies. Hodge just assumes this, as per his personal views within his personal Christian metaphysic. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-17836962212646343142013-10-02T20:06:33.983-04:002013-10-02T20:06:33.983-04:00Ah, home schooling, the pièce de résistance of ind...Ah, home schooling, the pièce de résistance of indoctrination.Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07339125862340793733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-88032220804719644312013-10-02T20:00:20.080-04:002013-10-02T20:00:20.080-04:00If naturalism is adopted a priori, as B.C. adopts ...If naturalism is adopted a priori, as B.C. adopts Christian theism, then is would not be falsifiable within it's epistemic framework - much as B.C.'s own claims are not subject to falsification within his set of beliefs.<br /><br />However, B.C. seems to think that Naturalism can only and must be adopted in this fashion, and so feels justified in accusing you of the same excesses he is guilty of (he also thinks that this is the correct way to be a Christian).<br /><br />Unfortunately, Naturalism can (and should) be a provisional position, arrived at after investigation. B.C. denies that this is possible without already assuming your position (he does it so you must too).<br /><br />Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-72141769406092062792013-10-02T19:46:07.487-04:002013-10-02T19:46:07.487-04:00That's pretty much it. But there's no equi...That's pretty much it. But there's no equivalent to what he's doing and to what he's accusing me of doing. He presupposes a metaphysic that precludes even the <i>possibility</i> that he's wrong. Whereas he accuses me of presupposing naturalism, but naturalism could be falsified within its own epistemic framework. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-74711720218534404592013-10-02T19:33:19.439-04:002013-10-02T19:33:19.439-04:00Greatest answer in the debate:
Hodge: The Bible i...Greatest answer in the debate:<br /><br />Hodge: The Bible is true. Anything that conflicts with what it conveys as true is a delusion.<br /><br />Me: Make sure you turn that into a bumper sticker so everyone can know you were home schooled.<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-22040385816833884152013-10-02T15:55:03.945-04:002013-10-02T15:55:03.945-04:00When you have no good arguments for the existence ...When you have no good arguments for the existence of your god, presuppose. Then claim everyone else does the same thing. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-2269041926756739032013-10-02T14:44:19.140-04:002013-10-02T14:44:19.140-04:00I don't think you're being very effective ...I don't think you're being very effective by arguing evidence with him, since he doesn't base his starting point on any evidence.<br /><br />I think he is grossly mistaken, but since he has started out with a fairly complex, non-evidence based belief as absolutely true, any evidence you might bring up will be taken as either supportive of his position, or as nothing more than misunderstanding or falsehood (which I think he's tried to explain a couple of times on that thread).Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.com