Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

As a group, many of us love to read. The reading group meets here.

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby zilch » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:07 am

agrammatos wrote:cheers from chilly Connecticut, mein freund. [I don't speak German (I know Vienna is in Austria and not Germany)

Not to worry. I still retain vestiges of the English I learned growing up in California for over thirty years.

Making up an internally consistent and coherent worldview may be more difficult than most would imagine. Take for example, materialistic naturalism which is internally incoherent since its various parts don't comport well with themselves and is thus both incoherent and irrational.

I had a feeling this would come up in some form or other. Let's cut to the chase: do you mean Hume's Problem of Induction?

The world, is the evidence that requires evaluation. You're going to have to judge the world (or the evidence) by some standard [of judgment]. That is going to be your worldview. Otherwise, if I understand you correctly (and perhaps I don't - wouldn't be the first or the last time I've misunderstood someone), it seems to me that you are saying that you are going to be using the evidence to evaluate the evidence. That would be a form of circular reasoning, would it not?

Evidence, in the form of perceptions, is the basis of all reasoning. Reasoning is secondary. At some point, you run out of reasoning. If you want to call that "circular", be my guest; but it's the way it is.

No scientist, forensic or otherwise, evaluates a piece of evidence by that evidence. Rather, the evidence is evaluated based upon some other principles.

And those "other principles" are based upon observation of the way things are: in other words, upon perceptions.

many thanks for interacting with me. Auf Wiedersehen.

No thanks necessary. I love a good agon. If you're ever out this way, or near SF in the summer, drop me a line, and lunch is on me.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:30 pm

zilch wrote:Let's cut to the chase: do you mean Hume's Problem of Induction?


No. However, that is something open to discussion as well.

Evidence, in the form of perceptions, is the basis of all reasoning. Reasoning is secondary. At some point, you run out of reasoning.


I disagree. Evidence is what the reasoning is applied to. It is not the basis of reasoning.

Yes, we all will run out of reasoning when we reach our ultimate presuppositions. If they were based upon anything, then they would not be our ultimate presuppositions, but rather what they are based upon would be our ultimate presupps. We can't have an endless regress.

And those "other principles" are based upon observation of the way things are: in other words, upon perceptions.


Sometimes, yes,i agree. I don't think this is always the case. Sometimes they are just assumed to be true. For example, many atheists, assume that there are objective moral values, laws of logic, or the uniformity of nature (now, we can talk about Hume's problem of induction). However, if they hold to a worldview of materialistic naturalism, then they have no foundation in their worldview for any of those three.

If you're ever out this way, or near SF in the summer, drop me a line, and lunch is on me.


I would enjoy that. Maybe we can hunt Mr. Comfort down sometime if you're further south near LA and we can get our picture taken with him. However, if you post it, some might think that you are fraternizing with the enemy! :)

agrammatos out
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby zilch » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:24 am

agrammatos, you posted (my commentary bold):

zilch wrote:Let's cut to the chase: do you mean Hume's Problem of Induction?

No. However, that is something open to discussion as well.

Being open to discussion is the beginning of peace. Salaam.

Evidence, in the form of perceptions, is the basis of all reasoning. Reasoning is secondary. At some point, you run out of reasoning.

I disagree. Evidence is what the reasoning is applied to. It is not the basis of reasoning.

Well, of course you disagree, because you are not taking the evolutionary view. The basis of reasoning is intelligent life. Of course you can't draw a hard and fast line here- it's a continuum backwards from the reasoning of humans, through chimps, dogs, fish, amoeba, viruses, prions, to rocks, which can probably safely be regarded as nonreasoners. And evidence, in the form of sensory perceptions, is obviously necessary for reason: what's there to reason about, if there's no data?


Yes, we all will run out of reasoning when we reach our ultimate presuppositions. If they were based upon anything, then they would not be our ultimate presuppositions, but rather what they are based upon would be our ultimate presupps. We can't have an endless regress.

Why can't we have an endless regress? At some point in the beginning of everything, or the nonbeginning of everything (including God of course) stuff must happen, or just be there, in some way that defies our imaginations and intelligence. It might well be that an "endless regress" is just the name we put on something we cannot conceive of.


And those "other principles" are based upon observation of the way things are: in other words, upon perceptions.

Sometimes, yes,i agree. I don't think this is always the case. Sometimes they are just assumed to be true. For example, many atheists, assume that there are objective moral values, laws of logic, or the uniformity of nature (now, we can talk about Hume's problem of induction). However, if they hold to a worldview of materialistic naturalism, then they have no foundation in their worldview for any of those three.

I don't assume there are objective moral values. The laws of logic seem to work pretty well in our Universe, until we get to beginnings. And the uniformity of Nature also seems to work pretty well as a prediction. And no, we naturalists have no "foundation" for our worldview, in the sense of being able to ground it somewhere outside our observations. You don't either- you claim you do, in the form of an undetectable God who grants you surety, but that's just a claim.

If you're ever out this way, or near SF in the summer, drop me a line, and lunch is on me.

I would enjoy that. Maybe we can hunt Mr. Comfort down sometime if you're further south near LA and we can get our picture taken with him. However, if you post it, some might think that you are fraternizing with the enemy! :)

agrammatos out

Sure, I'd have my picture taken with Ray. I'd even give him a hug, if he's up to a real one, and not just one of his sissy side-hugs. I'll let you know how my schedule is.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:27 am

Z, Shalom a'lekem, b/c, generally speaking, it takes more words and time to reply to a statement, let me just reply to a few of your points in as few words as possible (we both have other lives).

zilch wrote:Why can't we have an endless regress? "


I've shortened you quote above, to be more general in nature b/c it also addresses the aspect of endless regress that we had an exchange on elsewhere. We would never be here having this conversation if there were an endless regress of time, or causation. An endless regress is impossible b/c it is impossible to traverse the infinite. For example, ignoring physical limitations of progressively smaller steps, it is impossible to reach the other side of a room by taking successive steps where each step is covers one-half of the remaining distance to cross.

The laws of logic seem to work pretty well in our Universe, until we get to beginnings.


Considering the three first principles:
Does this mean that the singularity was not a singularity [law of identity].
Does this mean that there could be a singularity [to go "bang"] and not a singularity at the same time and in the same sense? [law of non-contradiction]
Does this mean that there was something other than a singularity or not a singularity, i.e. a third option? [law of the excluded middle]

Please feel free to substitute above another noun for singularity, e.g., nothing, something, beginning, multi-verse, etc.

You don't either- you claim you do, in the form of an undetectable God who grants you surety, but that's just a claim.


Absolutely it is a claim (often, in this context, termed a presupposition). However, materialistic naturalists have similar claims too, viz. that there is nothing but matter in motion, i.e., the spiritual doesn't exist. They have no positive evidence for this, but only the claim to a lack of evidence. Science doesn't and can't concern itself with this area (as most, but not all non-theists know [and probably fewer Christians]). We are now getting out of the realm of physics and entering the realm of meta-physics. Hence my appeal to philosophical argument both here and elsewhere we participated in (Z, we still need to explore your choice, made elsewhere, of #2).

Z, I missed checking this area for a while (had forgotten that I posted anything there). If you feel like replying, would you mind replying in the Thread in the other area entitled "A Conversation with Aggie". Many thanks, Sir.
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby Chris » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:55 am

agrammatos wrote:Considering the three first principles:
Does this mean that the singularity was not a singularity [law of identity].
Does this mean that there could be a singularity [to go "bang"] and not a singularity at the same time and in the same sense? [law of non-contradiction]
Does this mean that there was something other than a singularity or not a singularity, i.e. a third option? [law of the excluded middle]

Please feel free to substitute above another noun for singularity, e.g., nothing, something, beginning, multi-verse, etc.

You don't either- you claim you do, in the form of an undetectable God who grants you surety, but that's just a claim.


Absolutely it is a claim (often, in this context, termed a presupposition). However, materialistic naturalists have similar claims too, viz. that there is nothing but matter in motion, i.e., the spiritual doesn't exist. They have no positive evidence for this, but only the claim to a lack of evidence. Science doesn't and can't concern itself with this area (as most, but not all non-theists know [and probably fewer Christians]). We are now getting out of the realm of physics and entering the realm of meta-physics. Hence my appeal to philosophical argument both here and elsewhere we participated in (Z, we still need to explore your choice, made elsewhere, of #2).

Z, I missed checking this area for a while (had forgotten that I posted anything there). If you feel like replying, would you mind replying in the Thread in the other area entitled "A Conversation with Aggie". Many thanks, Sir.


I'm not Zilch but might I reply.
The Principle of non-contradiction must be held tentatively. Why? Because paradox's violate it. So it is generally true but not universally the case.

Now when we get to the case of a singularity we are speaking of a state where - like at the quantum level - aristotelian logic ceases to apply. It is merely a case of aristotelian logic not being universally applicable.
If perchance I have offended, think but this, and all is mended, that you have but slumbered here, while a vision did appear. A Midsummer Night's Dream
User avatar
Chris
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:02 am
Location: Victoria, Australia

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby zilch » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:57 pm

Chris- yep. At some point logic breaks down. It's simpler to have it break down before God than after Him, and it explains the facts just as well or better, and it's simpler. Sounds better to me.

edit: oh, and:

You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby agrammatos » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:10 am

Chris wrote:...The Principle of non-contradiction must be held tentatively. Why? Because paradox's violate it. So it is generally true but not universally the case.

Now when we get to the case of a singularity we are speaking of a state where - like at the quantum level - aristotelian logic ceases to apply....


Chris, please give me a paradox that you believe violates the LNC. Also, please elaborate on your point regarding the quantum level. I don't see why Aristotelian logic doesn't apply when speaking of the singularity.
soli Deo gloria
User avatar
agrammatos
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby Tilia » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:13 pm

agrammatos wrote:Chris, please give me a paradox that you believe violates the LNC. Also, please elaborate on your point regarding the quantum level. I don't see why Aristotelian logic doesn't apply when speaking of the singularity.


Photons
Skäms inte för att du är människa, var stolt!
Inne i dig öppnar sig valv bakom valv oändligt
Du blir aldrig färdig, och det är som det skall. Tomas Tranströmer


Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. Martin Luther
User avatar
Tilia
 
Posts: 2012
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:22 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby Chris » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:40 pm

agrammatos wrote:
Chris wrote:...The Principle of non-contradiction must be held tentatively. Why? Because paradox's violate it. So it is generally true but not universally the case.

Now when we get to the case of a singularity we are speaking of a state where - like at the quantum level - aristotelian logic ceases to apply....


Chris, please give me a paradox that you believe violates the LNC. Also, please elaborate on your point regarding the quantum level. I don't see why Aristotelian logic doesn't apply when speaking of the singularity.


Ok. Tilia handled your second question I'll handle the one concerning paradoxes.

This one's from Eubulides:
"What I am now saying is a lie".

If the above sentence is true then it is false. But if it's false then it's true. So is it true or false?

Here's another. The Sorites Paradox.
Let's say we have a small heap of sand. Now I take away one grain. Has it stopped being a heap? Of course not you reply. Then I take away another and another. At some point it must stop being a heap but then I can reply so the difference between a heap and not a heap is one grain of sand? But a grain isn't a heap is it?

Here's a modern one.
A barber states: "I'm a proud citizen of Seville & I'm the man who shaves all and only those men in Seville who don't shave themselves". But hold on.
If he shaves himself then it follows from what he said above that he doesn't shave himself since he shaves all and only those who don't shave themselves. But if he doesn't shave himself then he does since he shaves only those men who don't shave themselves. So does the barber shave all and only those men who don't shave themselves or doesn't he?

Confusing isn't it?
Last edited by Chris on Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
If perchance I have offended, think but this, and all is mended, that you have but slumbered here, while a vision did appear. A Midsummer Night's Dream
User avatar
Chris
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:02 am
Location: Victoria, Australia

Re: Bart Ehrman's New Book | "Forged"

Postby zilch » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:55 pm

Chris- yep. It's important to note that there's nothing physically impossible about the barber who doesn't shave himself- it's just that words are capable of coming up with stuff that doesn't make sense. But the world is first, words are secondary and merely descriptive, not pre- or proscriptive of reality.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

PreviousNext

Return to The SMRT Bibliophile Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron