Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

The presupposition is my conclusion?

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 6:52:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In relation the God's existence. In few words, is it true that ones conclusion is ones presupposition when it comes to God's existence?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 8:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 6:52:53 PM, GodSands wrote:
In relation the God's existence. In few words, is it true that ones conclusion is ones presupposition when it comes to God's existence?

I'm not sure what you mean. But this is only the case if a Theist begs the question (e.g. if they say God exists because the Bible/Qu'ran/other holy book says He does). However, there are many logical arguments for the existence of God that doesn't presuppose He exists.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 1:34:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are zero logical argument that says he does. They are an abuse of logic. They all contain sophisms. That is they are not logical at all.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 1:35:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 6:52:53 PM, GodSands wrote:
In relation the God's existence. In few words, is it true that ones conclusion is ones presupposition when it comes to God's existence?

The Fool: you are confusing the definition of God with the reality of God. We can create any definition we want. but that doesn't mean that it reflexs any reality.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 2:01:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When you conclude that your conclusion about an opinion is based a presupposition of that opinion, that very conclusion is based on the same presupposition. Or perhaps that isn't true at all and I just wanted to write that sentence for it's aesthetic purposes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 1:35:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/5/2012 6:52:53 PM, GodSands wrote:
In relation the God's existence. In few words, is it true that ones conclusion is ones presupposition when it comes to God's existence?

The Fool: you are confusing the definition of God with the reality of God. We can create any definition we want. but that doesn't mean that it reflexs any reality.

Does anyone start an argument without a presupposition? That answer is simple, when logically thought out it is easy to see that the answer is a cool, crisp no. First off an argument is based from an opposing view or belief, I wouldn't have an argument against something if there was nothing to argue against. For example, gravity causes things to fall. When it comes to God, we can't observe Him, nor can we experience the absence of Him, so we naturally presuppose whether He exists or not based from conclusions that can be observed. As of instead, when it comes to knowing of observable things, we conclude something as actual and then presuppose them to be true. Your view on God is based strongly on what you presuppose to be true.

Anyone understand the points I've made?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 7:55:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 1:34:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
There are zero logical argument that says he does. They are an abuse of logic. They all contain sophisms. That is they are not logical at all.

The logical incoherence of this paragraph is staggering.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 6:09:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 7:55:05 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/6/2012 1:34:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
There are zero logical argument that says he does. They are an abuse of logic. They all contain sophisms. That is they are not logical at all.

The logical incoherence of this paragraph is staggering.

I've learned not to respond to the Fool. You will be must less frustrated if you don't try to figure out what she is saying. As for the OP, I would claim that you would have to presuppose a truth to be epistemically able to seek factual bases (or a premised argument) for that truth. Now, that doesn't mean that you have to use that presupposition as a premise and thus beg the question, but you do presuppose your conclusion in constructing the argument if that's what you are asking. So are you presupposing the conclusion? Yes. Is it a logical fallacy? Only if you also make that presupposition a premise.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 6:12:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 7:47:36 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/6/2012 1:35:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/5/2012 6:52:53 PM, GodSands wrote:
In relation the God's existence. In few words, is it true that ones conclusion is ones presupposition when it comes to God's existence?

The Fool: you are confusing the definition of God with the reality of God. We can create any definition we want. but that doesn't mean that it reflexs any reality.

Does anyone start an argument without a presupposition? That answer is simple, when logically thought out it is easy to see that the answer is a cool, crisp no. First off an argument is based from an opposing view or belief, I wouldn't have an argument against something if there was nothing to argue against. For example, gravity causes things to fall. When it comes to God, we can't observe Him, nor can we experience the absence of Him, so we naturally presuppose whether He exists or not based from conclusions that can be observed. As of instead, when it comes to knowing of observable things, we conclude something as actual and then presuppose them to be true. Your view on God is based strongly on what you presuppose to be true.

Anyone understand the points I've made?

It's not a presupposition, but a predicate, to be precise. Premises can be justified, or based on pre-existing values, or simply made up (making the predicate a presupposition, as you've rigtly pointed out), but not all arguments are circular, i.e. based on the idea that God already exists. However, a fair many do, and have been criticised for doing so.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 7:51:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/9/2012 7:47:36 PM, GodSands wrote:
Does anyone start an argument without a presupposition? That answer is simple, when logically thought out it is easy to see that the answer is a cool, crisp no. First off an argument is based from an opposing view or belief, I wouldn't have an argument against something if there was nothing to argue against. For example, gravity causes things to fall. When it comes to God, we can't observe Him, nor can we experience the absence of Him, so we naturally presuppose whether He exists or not based from conclusions that can be observed. As of instead, when it comes to knowing of observable things, we conclude something as actual and then presuppose them to be true. Your view on God is based strongly on what you presuppose to be true.

Anyone understand the points I've made?

I think you are making a mistake that presuppositionalist apologists make, as Gary Habermas says:

"Here Frame commits the informal logical fallacy of false analogy. He argues that rationalists must accept reason as an ultimate starting point. But these are not analogous bases. While the rationalist uses reason and the empiricist uses sense exerience as tools from which to construct their systems, Frame assumes both the tool of special revelation and the system of scripture, from which he develops his Christian theism. In other words, he assumes the reality of God's existence, his personal interaction with humans, plus a specific product: Scripture. Does Frame not realize that, in the name of everyone needing a presuppoistion, he has imported an entire worldview when the others have only asked for tools?

Five Views on Apologetics, Gary Habermas, pg 242"
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 10:23:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/10/2012 6:09:02 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 4/9/2012 7:55:05 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/6/2012 1:34:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
There are zero logical argument that says he does. They are an abuse of logic. They all contain sophisms. That is they are not logical at all.

The logical incoherence of this paragraph is staggering.

I've learned not to respond to the Fool.

Me too, yet, in this case, he is perfectly clear and on point.