Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Refuting the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Part II. Setting your axioms.

The first thing the presuppositionalist will do is question how do you know anything with out some absolute standard of logic, such as God. They will in fact wait patiently to refer to something as proven and then leap in, with how do you know? They will say the concept of proof depends on God and yadda yadda. Since this is a stupid question on their part it is tempting to dismiss it as a stupid question and try to explain your evidence. This is a mistake, they will continue to repeat how do you know? indefinitely unless challenged on it. Note that they will still continue to repeat it if challenged, but you can then point out how stupid they are. The best response is to pretend they have asked a serious but simple question and then answer it succinctly. This is my response. It is not original to me in any sense. These are well established axioms but they are effective. These particular axioms are my variation of a set I read on the Skeptical Studies blog. They are largely a simpler paraphrase of those. The presupp won't accept them of course. Their missionary philosophy prevents them from allowing any common ground with atheists. However you will now be able to respond to their "how do you know?" by refering back to these axioms.

Step 1. Perception exists. If I were presented evidence otherwise, I would have to perceive the evidence thereby proving the existence of perception.

Step 2. Consciousness exists, perception requires consciousness therefore consciousness not existing would contradict step 1. However since step 1. is axiomatic consciousness must exist. Also since perception and consciousness are established as discrete entities, solipsism is false because an entity apart from perception is proven to exist.

Step 3. Something exists, proof otherwise would contradict step 2 because step 2 shows that consciousness exists.

Step 4. Multiple things exist, Any disproof would lead to nonseparable identity, i.e. only one identity is. But my TV is black and my chair is not, as given by my sense perceptions. But this is a contradiction. Therefore multiple things must exist. Additionally as it has been established that perception and consciousness are distinct entities, this is further proof that multiple identities exist.

Step 5. Causation exists any proof otherwise would be the result of evidence causing a change in my consciousness, thereby proving causation exists.

Step 6. What our consciousness is aware of through perception is an exact representation of external reality. If this were false it would require that consciousness create perception which is not possible due to Step 1. and 2.

Steps 5 and 6 establish the validity of logic and perception respectively. Having established causation it is therefore possible for though and argumentation to exist. Since logic describes thought and argumentation logic can exist. Step 1 establishes perception as existing, step 6 establishes it as accurate. None of these steps require logic in order to exist, they are self evident. Logic is used to describe them but they are not established through argumentation, they are axiomatic.

It will then be possible to answer most of the presuppos arguments by simply referring to Steps 1-6. They will of course ignore these even if they understand them but will be completely unable to refute them. This will put them on the defensive. Their position can not be established defensively so you can pretty much hold them there forever. However doing so does not refute their position it only prevents them from establishing it, I will continue at a later time with an argument towards refuting their position.

I highly reccomend reading the original article at Skeptical Studies it is far more complete and accurate than these. I have dumbed these down for the benefit of the average TAG advocate. If you wish to get more complex and accurate, the debate at Skeptical Studies is an escellent resource.

6 comments:

rhiggs said...

Ryk,

It will then be possible to answer most of the presuppos arguments by simply referring to Steps 1-6.

Although your six steps are well presented and may well stop a presupper in his/her tracks, I fear they will have an easy avenue to evade addressing them...

Presuppers don't generally respond to long multi-step posts like yours. They will just pick up on one sentence and try to make you forget that they haven't addressed the rest.

Is it possible to summarise all six steps in a few sentences, thus making a short coherent response to the 'how do you know' presuppers?

Difficult I know, but you could be the person to do it. I liked your summary of Darrin's stuff as his can get quite difficult to read.

Cheers,

Rhiggs

Ryk said...

How I employed these was to respond to the question "How do you know that logic is a valid way to find an answer?" with "See step 5" When asked "How do you know your perception is accurate?" I would respond "see step 6". This worked for a while, then he started in with "did you use logic to determine steps 1-6?" I responded "No they are established axiomatically logic is not necessary to establish them." This is true, logic is used to present them but the axioms are self evident.

This drove him totally batshit insane, and led to my leaving the discussion. He started ranting about how if logic doesn't apply everything I say means the opposite and I don't know anything, and I proved his case for him. Total mental shut down. I hope it is just because this particular presupp is an idiot, but this could be a real problem with this mode of argument. Driving them nuts is fun but it pretty much ends a discussion.

I will work on a single phrase or two that would be useful. I would like to have something like that as well.

Thanks for the feedback.

Rick Warden said...

Interesting how you see the need for the "validity" of logic but don't describe anywhere the origin of this concept:

"Steps 5 and 6 establish the validity of logic and perception respectively."

Logic presupposes that truth a validity exist. And logic is required for you to make your first premise. A true premise and a valid form are required for any real philosophical proposition.

Your unqualified and ultimate appeal to validity seem to offer good support for God's existence.

Also, quantum mechanics has shown you cannot philosophically objectify the physical world because everything is interconnected at a subatomic level.

This implies there is an underlying spiritual identity if such a thing as identity must concretely and philosophically exist.

You are welcome to visit my blog to try and refute this:

Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality

Have a Metaphysical Christmas!

Rick

Rick Warden said...

Interesting how you see the need for the "validity" of logic but don't describe anywhere the origin of this concept:

"Steps 5 and 6 establish the validity of logic and perception respectively."

Logic presupposes that truth a validity exist. And logic is required for you to make your first premise. A true premise and a valid form are required for any real philosophical proposition.

Your unqualified and ultimate appeal to validity seem to offer good support for God's existence.

Also, quantum mechanics has shown you cannot philosophically objectify the physical world because everything is interconnected at a subatomic level.

This implies there is an underlying spiritual identity if such a thing as identity must concretely and philosophically exist.

You are welcome to visit my blog to try and refute this:

Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality

Have a Metaphysical Christmas!

Rick

Rick Warden said...

Interesting how you see the need for the "validity" of logic but don't describe anywhere the origin of this concept:

"Steps 5 and 6 establish the validity of logic and perception respectively."

Logic presupposes that truth a validity exist. And logic is required for you to make your first premise. A true premise and a valid form are required for any real philosophical proposition.

Your unqualified and ultimate appeal to validity seem to offer good support for God's existence.

Also, quantum mechanics has shown you cannot philosophically objectify the physical world because everything is interconnected at a subatomic level.

This implies there is an underlying spiritual identity if such a thing as identity must concretely and philosophically exist.

You are welcome to visit my blog to try and refute this:

Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality

Have a Metaphysical Christmas!

Rick

Rick Warden said...

Interesting how you see the need for the "validity" of logic but don't describe anywhere the origin of this concept:

"Steps 5 and 6 establish the validity of logic and perception respectively."

Logic presupposes that truth a validity exist. And logic is required for you to make your first premise. A true premise and a valid form are required for any real philosophical proposition.

Your unqualified and ultimate appeal to validity seem to offer good support for God's existence.

Also, quantum mechanics has shown you cannot philosophically objectify the physical world because everything is interconnected at a subatomic level.

This implies there is an underlying spiritual identity if such a thing as identity must concretely and philosophically exist.

You are welcome to visit my blog to try and refute this:

Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality

Have a Metaphysical Christmas!

Rick