tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post6755724706669892610..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: Scripturalism and Self-Knowledge RevisitedRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger188125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-78622154070303377382015-02-16T13:45:14.689-05:002015-02-16T13:45:14.689-05:00Definitions can't be false, that makes no sens...Definitions can't be false, that makes no sense. Words can bear more than one or a specific vs. broader meaning, it's simply a matter or which is being used in a particular context.<br /><br />"ad populum fallacy"<br /><br />I'm not saying you or I are right or wrong based on what other people think. But as this conversation is going nowhere, the only point to it now would be for the sake of others. <br /><br />It's as absurd for a skeptic to claim he knows nothing as it is for a skeptic [regarding his own regeneration] to claim he doesn't know whether he's regenerate. The simple follow-up point is that neither absurdity actually implies the skeptic knows anything or that he is a regenerate, only that his claiming he doesn't know such would rather presuppose the opposite being true. Your attempts to pigeon-hole me into a different interpretation have been addressed generously by this point.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-65149931455790929082015-02-16T13:05:19.941-05:002015-02-16T13:05:19.941-05:00"You're equivocating on my use of knowled..."You're equivocating on my use of knowledge vs. Clark's. Mine is much more specifically defined."<br /><br />Your definition is false. Augustine's isn't.<br /><br />"People can read for themselves and decide who has the better of this argument"<br /><br />ad populum fallacy<br /><br />"but I'm over attempting to convince you."<br /><br />Convince me of what? Of what your argument logically implies? Seriously?<br /><br />One last time: in your argument the self-defeat comes precisely at the absurdity of you (or anyone) not knowing anything hence the premise that you (or anyone) is both (not unregenerate and claiming to not know that one is regenerate) is absurd/false.<br />Look at it another way - It's also an indirect proof:<br />let's say you want to prove that you (or anyone) is either not regenerate or knows that they are regenerate (but not both since that makes no sense) - thus you construct an argument which takes the negation of that as the antecedent and derive a conclusion from it that is absurd thus proving your thesis by an indirect proof - reductio.<br />That's the logical outcome of your argument. You have shown that is absurd/impossible to be both (not unregenerate and claiming to not know that one is regenerate) thus proving your thesis that one is either not regenerate or one knows he is regenerate (not both). <br />But that itself is absurd since in fact one can be (and at least one is) regenerate and not know it (as per Sean) etc...<br /><br />Thx<br />(Shakes dust off sandals....)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-90384601405958558322015-02-11T23:05:38.194-05:002015-02-11T23:05:38.194-05:00You're equivocating on my use of knowledge vs....You're equivocating on my use of knowledge vs. Clark's. Mine is much more specifically defined.<br /><br />People can read for themselves and decide who has the better of this argument, but I'm over attempting to convince you.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-84630892704889826152015-02-11T20:35:08.546-05:002015-02-11T20:35:08.546-05:00But there is an upside to the collapse of your dee...But there is an upside to the collapse of your deeper conditions: it turns out that everyone can know something.. And that is in line with Augustine who, as Clark in Thales to Dewey wrote, asserted that knowledge was impossible to miss. And that included the heathen too - that section is very instructive. Augustine even laid out how self-knowledge can be had easily enough even by the heathen (but thankfully it has nothing to do with absurd arguments). <br />ThxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-44470380836693293102015-02-11T10:09:24.039-05:002015-02-11T10:09:24.039-05:00Unfortunately your reply is not a serious rejoinde...Unfortunately your reply is not a serious rejoinder to the exposure of the self-defeating absurdity in your argumentation shown repeatedly thru various iterations you've put forward. <br />It follows that you have not shown self-knowledge (of regeneration) to even be possible - let alone a condition of knowing anything. The best you've done -so far - is to show us how *not* to argue for it.<br /><br />- ThxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-90104279332680421132015-02-06T16:53:41.862-05:002015-02-06T16:53:41.862-05:00I've done so repeatedly, which leads me to thi...I've done so repeatedly, which leads me to think you must be fixated on this for a different reason.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-7261952445186883372015-02-05T19:59:07.400-05:002015-02-05T19:59:07.400-05:00I repeat,
please show how it is possible for a reg...I repeat,<br />please show how it is possible for a regenerate to know he is regenerate without resorting to absurd arguments. <br /><br />aside<br />do you deny knowing<br />P1: Either your argument is absurd or not Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-59872146559806846422015-02-04T21:48:01.030-05:002015-02-04T21:48:01.030-05:00Was that a yes?Was that a yes?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-74965644929917744452015-02-04T21:46:16.399-05:002015-02-04T21:46:16.399-05:00We both know your arguments are absurd. Is that k...We both know your arguments are absurd. Is that knowledge "revealed"? If not, then perhaps it's time for a better philosophy?<br />ThxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-91076390740183243862015-02-04T01:05:52.462-05:002015-02-04T01:05:52.462-05:00So you think it is possible to know anything apart...So you think it is possible to know anything apart from knowing what God has revealed?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-18376978207561913632015-02-03T21:03:32.451-05:002015-02-03T21:03:32.451-05:00Unfortunately you've done exactly what I asked...Unfortunately you've done exactly what I asked you not to do in light of the failure of your arguments- you've created a new argument:<br /><br />If you don't know you've heard his voice then you don't know anything<br /><br />but the conclusion is self-defeating absurdity, so thus, you know you've heard his voice.<br /><br />you've made not knowing you've heard his voice impossible. And that's absurd.<br /><br />So, please show how it is possible for a regenerate to know he is regenerate without resorting to absurd arguments. ThxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-43866478101792515072015-02-03T00:51:01.849-05:002015-02-03T00:51:01.849-05:00All that text and still nothing new. Heh.
I didn&...All that text and still nothing new. Heh.<br /><br />I didn't say Sean can know he is regenerate. In principle, though, it is possible for a regenerate to know he is regenerate. That's the point. If it were not possible, then one couldn't know he's heard God's voice, which is the only means by which we know anything.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-25317330996176318192015-02-02T21:51:13.067-05:002015-02-02T21:51:13.067-05:00OK maybe getting a new argument is not the issue....OK maybe getting a new argument is not the issue.<br /><br />Let's go over one more time:<br />if A then B, not B (absurd) therefore not A.<br /><br />In the case of Sean, it would follow that he is not both (regenerate and one who does not know he is) - but that is patently false (assuming etc..). So maybe drop the approach altogether.<br /><br />Maybe what you ought do is explain how the state of being both (regenerate and not knowing that you are) is not only undesirable but not the only state one can be in - yes it is a state one can be in - but there's a better one. So explain how Sean can know that he is regenerate - but, please, not through arguments that are absurd. <br />I mean, really if your just stand back and look at it, the argument says that a *regenerate* cannot know anything unless he knows that he is regenerate - you even denied that in an exchange previously (Nov 28 2013 1:51am) and in that exchange you said he can know it -<br /><br />leaving aside fallacious arguments please explain exactly how Sean can know he is regenerate - I'd be very interested to hear that.<br />ThxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-48867689868537376832015-02-02T01:42:42.984-05:002015-02-02T01:42:42.984-05:00oh my...so the latest argument is
If you are both...oh my...so the latest argument is<br /><br />If you are both (regenerate and do not claim to be regenerate) then you cannot know anything.<br /><br />You do realize it's not well thought out - research shows that the Sean fellow in your post indeed makes that claim - it's obviously a very strong opinion with him. I think he claims he does not know it - so let's amend:<br /><br />If you are both (regenerate and claim not to know that you are regenerate) then you cannot know anything.<br /><br />We could stop and make the reductio here - but I don't think this is quite right either - claims can be false, so<br /><br />If you are (regenerate and do not know you are and claim not to know you are) then you cannot know anything.<br /><br />Ahh too many terms - just drop the "claim" thing since now it really doesn't matter, thus:<br /><br />If you are (regenerate and do not know you are) then you cannot know anything.<br /><br />Apply the reductio to the conjunction - the denial of a conjunction is the disjunction of its' terms separately denied.<br />So either you are not regenerate or you know you are regenerate (but not both since that makes no sense)<br />But this is absurd since in Sean's case the latter is false, thus leaving the conclusion that he is unregenerate - which is absurd if he actually is regenerate. And let us assume that is a truth. It follows that your conjunction leads to an absurd false conclusion. That is to say your conjunction itself is absurd. <br /><br />Get a new argument please!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-63752446912866810142015-01-31T18:59:34.926-05:002015-01-31T18:59:34.926-05:00The logical outcome of my argument is that one who...The logical outcome of my argument is that one who is not unregenerate and/or does not claim to be regenerate cannot know anything, and that their having to admit such in accordance with this argument is self-defeating. You're again just repeating yourself.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-54488459242234057872015-01-31T15:52:02.282-05:002015-01-31T15:52:02.282-05:00I did not say you are at cross purposes with yours...I did not say you are at cross purposes with yourself. <br /><br />However, the logical outcome of your argument is obvious: not only is unregeneracy impossible (your original argument),<br />but now (your new argument) inconsistency and the lack of self-knowledge are impossible too.<br /><br />And as I said before on a deeper level, it turns out that your argument is itself a reductio of your core definition which conditions knowledge on regeneracy. That and whatever that comes from must be jettisoned. Until you do that you will always have this absurdity looking you squarely in the face, even if you choose not to regard it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-7829248398044907422015-01-31T14:46:08.883-05:002015-01-31T14:46:08.883-05:00It's the same argument I made before, only it&...It's the same argument I made before, only it's put into a syllogism.<br /><br />"...that leaves the premise I argue is reduced to absurdity." <br /><br />You consistently miss this part of my post and then for some reason act as if I am at cross purposes with myself.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-34532299324966530712015-01-30T23:31:53.549-05:002015-01-30T23:31:53.549-05:00oh my...another new argument -
"P1: If you ...oh my...another new argument - <br /><br />"P1: If you are one whose axiom entails inconsistency then you cannot know anything. <br />P2: One's denying self-knowledge (specifically regarding one's own regeneracy) leads to axiomatic inconsistency.<br />C: The one who denies self-knowledge (specifically regarding one's own regeneracy) doesn't know anything."<br /><br />However, <br />"You don’t know anything.. <br />Since the argument is valid yet the conclusion is self-defeating (link), that leaves the premise I argue is reduced to absurdity."<br />thus you are not one whose axioms entail inconsistency, and thus,<br />you are not one who denies self-knowledge (specifically regarding one's own regeneracy).<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-71104933207364087382015-01-29T22:30:40.778-05:002015-01-29T22:30:40.778-05:00"thus you are not one whose axioms entail inc..."thus you are not one whose axioms entail inconsistency."<br /><br />No:<br /><br />P1: If you are one whose axiom entails inconsistency then you cannot know anything. <br />P2: One's denying self-knowledge (specifically regarding one's own regeneracy) leads to axiomatic inconsistency.<br />C: The one who denies self-knowledge (specifically regarding one's own regeneracy) doesn't know anything.<br /><br />"False. Your original argument hinges on the premise that one is or may be unregenerate - which is most certainly not the same thing as "doesn't claim to be regenerate"."<br /><br />//The point in it being in the second person is to show the unregenerate he is himself being inconsistent.//<br /><br />How has it been 3 months and you still don't get it? If you keep making this mistake I will just ignore your comments.<br /><br />"Weird. I point out your fallacious argument and rather than improve you interject something neither one of us has said...strange indeed sir."<br /><br />If you think regenerates aren't fundamentally inconsistent, there was no fallacy in my argument. So I assumed you thought the opposite. Otherwise, you're just wasting space.<br /><br />"It's absurd that you cannot tell the difference between the consequent of your original argument which states that you cannot know anything - and claiming such."<br /><br />It's absurd you're still whining about this after 3 months of my having clarified what the argument means.<br /><br />"is this:<br /><br />If you are unregenerate then you cannot know anything<br /><br />the same as<br /><br />If you don't claim to be regenerate then you claim to not know anything."<br /><br />No. Nevertheless, only God's sheep hear His voice. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-52292965383333661172015-01-29T19:54:32.378-05:002015-01-29T19:54:32.378-05:00"One whose axiom entails inconsistency cannot..."One whose axiom entails inconsistency cannot know anything." <br /><br />This is a new argument altogether. But, it's not quite up to snuff with your original - so let me hold *your* hand:<br /><br />If you are one whose axiom entails inconsistency then you cannot know anything. <br />However, <br />"You don’t know anything.. <br />Since the argument is valid yet the conclusion is self-defeating (link), that leaves the premise I argue is reduced to absurdity."<br />thus you are not one whose axioms entail inconsistency.<br /><br />"My original argument hinges on the premise the person in question doesn’t claim to be regenerate"<br /><br />False. Your original argument hinges on the premise that one is or may be unregenerate - which is most certainly not the same thing as "doesn't claim to be regenerate".<br /><br />"If regenerates and unregenerates are both fundamentally inconsistent"<br /><br />Weird. I point out your fallacious argument and rather than improve you interject something neither one of us has said...strange indeed sir.<br /><br />"It’s absurd for one to claim he doesn’t know anything"<br /><br />It's absurd that you cannot tell the difference between the consequent of your original argument which states that you cannot know anything - and claiming such. Since your original argument has nothing about anyone claiming anything, I am under no obligation to deal with such a red herring.<br /><br />Finally, let's make your current interpretation and see - <br />is this:<br /><br />If you are unregenerate then you cannot know anything<br /><br />the same as<br /><br />If you don't claim to be regenerate then you claim to not know anything.<br /><br />AND if you add in the reductio -well you ought by now know what the conclusion is: it's false that "you don't claim to be regenerate".<br />etc.... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-22256676184283830342015-01-29T05:31:55.335-05:002015-01-29T05:31:55.335-05:00“Changing your argument midstream is not a clarifi...“Changing your argument midstream is not a clarification. You also dropped the reductio in the new version - not a very promising clarification.”<br /><br />One whose axiom entails inconsistency cannot know anything. I didn’t drop the reductio, I just didn’t realize I needed to hand-hold you through everything.<br /><br />“First, your original argument does not hinge on a conversion. Your argument hinges on a reductio - the premise is not rejected due to a change in belief but precisely because the consequent is absurd - conversion is not a reductio.”<br /><br />My original argument hinges on the premise the person in question doesn’t claim to be regenerate and so doesn’t claim to be converted. You’re right, the argument itself doesn’t hinge on conversion; once again, the <i>resolution</i> of the problem the argument creates for the claimant does. I didn’t address this in the OP, but why should I have? It doesn’t affect the points I make.<br /><br />“Second - you argue invalidly: <br />if unregenerate then inconsistent,<br />so become regenerate therefore not inconsistent<br />If A then B, not A therefore not B -fallacy of denying the antecedent.”<br /><br />If regenerates and unregenerates are both fundamentally inconsistent, knowledge is impossible… in which case this argument is unknowable. Congrats, you’ve reductio’d yourself.<br /><br />“Again you argue invalidly:<br />If unregenerate then you don't know anything, but if regenerate then you have self-knowledge. Same fallacy as before.”<br /><br />Same reductio and hand-holding as before.<br /><br />“The problem is the logical outcome not of anyone's position or claim, but of your argument which is a reductio afterall - <br />if unregenerate then you don't know anything but that is absurd ergo you are not unregenerate.”<br /><br />Non sequitur. It’s absurd for one to claim he doesn’t know anything, but that is only because his claim implies he knows something. A third party can still consistently state he doesn’t know anything. You have yet to address this.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-52100645190469151772015-01-28T21:59:52.607-05:002015-01-28T21:59:52.607-05:00"How is it a new argument when I clarified it..."How is it a new argument when I clarified it was what I meant in the post back in November?"<br /><br />Because that's not your argument from November which is<br /><br />if you are unregenerate then you don't know anything,etc...<br /><br />*not*<br /><br />if you are unregenerate then you are inconsistent.<br /><br />Changing your argument midstream is not a clarification. You also dropped the reductio in the new version - not a very promising clarification.<br /><br />"No, the argument implies no such thing. It means they're being inconsistent. To resolve that inconsistency they have to actually become and admit to being regenerate. You do see that the inconsistency isn't resolved unless this happens... right? But then they don't know actually anything until and unless this happens."<br /><br />This is ridiculous on (at least) two counts:<br />First, your original argument does not hinge on a conversion. Your argument hinges on a reductio - the premise is not rejected due to a change in belief but precisely because the consequent is absurd - conversion is not a reductio.<br />Second - you argue invalidly: <br />if unregenerate then inconsistent,<br />so become regenerate therefore not inconsistent<br />If A then B, not A therefore not B -fallacy of denying the antecedent.<br /><br />"That is what we can say to them is the logical outcome of their position. They must acknowledge themselves to be regenerates, which is an acceptance of self-knowledge, which is what was denied as knowable in the first place. "<br /><br />Again you argue invalidly:<br />If unregenerate then you don't know anything, but if regenerate then you have self-knowledge. Same fallacy as before.<br />The problem is the logical outcome not of anyone's position or claim, but of your argument which is a reductio afterall - <br />if unregenerate then you don't know anything but that is absurd ergo you are not unregenerate.<br />The upshot, as I said before, is that your argument -the logical outcome - makes unregeneracy impossible - thanks to the reductio.<br /><br />"But thanks for unwittingly showing my "*original*" argument and clarification to be sound, yet again."<br /><br />You pat yourself on the back way too cheaply sir. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-45144939052541170262015-01-27T02:22:27.613-05:002015-01-27T02:22:27.613-05:00How is it a new argument when I clarified it was w...How is it a new argument when I clarified it was what I meant in the post back in November?<br /><br />"but being inconsistent is self-defeating absurdity ergo you are not unregenerate."<br /><br />No, the argument implies no such thing. It means they're being inconsistent. To <i>resolve</i> that inconsistency they have to actually become and admit to being regenerate. You do see that the inconsistency <i>isn't resolved</i> unless this happens... right? But then they don't know actually anything until and unless this happens.<br /><br />"the conclusion is self-defeating(absurdity)"<br />that's what makes a reductio so nice - the conclusion is absurd so the premise is rejected as absurd as well."<br /><br />That is what we can say to them is the logical outcome of their position. They must acknowledge themselves to be regenerates, which is an acceptance of self-knowledge, which is what was denied as knowable in the first place. But just because they <i>should</i> acknowledge this doesn't mean they do, rather like how the fact I've repeatedly shown you should accept this argument doesn't mean you have.<br /><br />But thanks for unwittingly showing my "*original*" argument and clarification to be sound, yet again. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-21651697944997221772015-01-25T22:07:57.734-05:002015-01-25T22:07:57.734-05:00oh so a new argument?
If you are unregenerate the...oh so a new argument?<br /><br />If you are unregenerate then you are inconsistent<br /><br />but being inconsistent is self-defeating absurdity ergo you are not unregenerate.<br /><br />not only is that *not* your original argument - but it actually does not help your case one iota. The key that you continue to miss is the form of your own argument - for example, quote,<br />"the conclusion is self-defeating(absurdity)"<br />that's what makes a reductio so nice - the conclusion is absurd so the premise is rejected as absurd as well. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-31489060058962447592015-01-23T00:10:21.987-05:002015-01-23T00:10:21.987-05:00We've been over this. I already have pointed o...We've been over this. I already have pointed out twice now that "The point in it being in the second person is to show the unregenerate he is himself being inconsistent." That's what I meant when I said the conclusion is self-defeating. I have tried to make that clearer throughout these comments, but you still don't get it or don't want to get it.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.com