As I promised, I’m back. Didn’t you know that I am a man of my word? I had to cut my last message short because it was, er, getting rather long, and I needed to take a quick break, you know what I mean. Anyway, I wanted to respond to the last portion of BKNewton’s thoughtful post, so here goes...

Notice that BK does not answer the question "What is the means by which man is able to gather knowledge and information according to the Bible??" What I had expected to see in the responses to my questions were biblical citations, one after another, demonstrating exactly what the Bible says about its offered means of acquiring knowledge. I know what the Bible says about this, there are many passages that address this question, but I see NO CITATIONS WHATSOEVER in BK’s response to my question. Why is that? Did he not understand what I expected in responses? I thought I made myself crystal clear that I was interested in what the Bible had to say for itself. All of these little pesky questions which I ask, such as the one at the top of this post, all come under a larger concern: CAN THE BIBLE STAND ON ITS OWN AS OFFERING A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF EPISTEMOLOGY?

By ‘complete’ I expect one to understand that the Christians should NOT borrow from other philosophies, such as Aristotelian theories of knowledge which predate Christianity by several hundred years, but should adhere strictly and consistently to what the Bible has to offer as a means of acquiring and gaining knowledge.

In the Bible this ‘means of knowledge’ is called FAITH, however to this date I have not seen any elaborate defense of faith as a means of knowledge from the Christians of this forum; I have only seen attacks against reason - which attempt to use reason (vis-a-vis Howard’s penchant for citing atheists with fallacies - which in itself has proven to be laughable at best!) against reason. Then we get this line, Newton’s thread, that "What I have said all along is that I reject empiricism as a theory of knowledge, i.e., as the final authority for all truth." Truth, if your remember from recent posts, is, according to BK, defined as: "God created everything, including all the facts of the created order. Therefore, from a Christian standpoint, a proposition is said to be true if it corresponds to the mind of God." This definition, however, as I have shown in two previous posts, is completely flawed, and useless to the man of reason. However, BK, and all other Christians who subscribe to this ‘definition’ of ‘truth’ are invited to use it as consistently and as integrally as they possibly can, to the degree that they feel it is fit for man’s use in determining the truth of claims. We’ve seen as far as they’ve gotten so far, however, and their accomplishment to date includes all sorts of violations of reality.

BKNewton may here be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept, if measured against some of his earlier statements. This fallacy, as first identified by Ayn Rand, is "the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends," (L. Peikoff, "Philosophical Detection", footnote, Philosophy: Who Needs It, pg. 26).

Let me explain: In defense of the ‘eighth commandment’ (see Exodus, chapter 20), BK refers to the concept of identity ("A is A"). The axiom of identity is derived from the axiom of existence, the widest concept, one that many Christians in this forum have had a lot of trouble with, and understandably so, for the axiom existence exists permits no gods. However, here is BK, who in a post earlier this month stated that the axiom existence exists is "void of substance upon examination". Now he ‘borrows’ the concept of identity (A is A) in order to bolster his religion. This is exactly why I have asked if the Christian can explain if and how the Bible offers a complete system of epistemology. If the Christian attempts to use reason in order to defend his religion, then he is committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. Ultimately, that concept is: EXISTENCE EXISTS.

Watch this:

This statement canNOT be an ultimate presupposition, for it posits - along with several other notions - ‘god’, which presupposes that a ‘god’ exists, which presupposes (albeit implicitly) that existence exists. In other words, this assertion is not irreducible, and therefore it cannot be said to serve as an axiom upon which all knowledge ultimately rests. The Christian is notorious for rejecting the axiom existence exists as the starting point, for this would entirely negate his religion. The religionist cannot reconcile the fact that existence exists independent from consciousness, for that would render his ‘god’ - a form of consciousness - a mere myth (which it is).

Observe some more:

Stop right there. This statement canNOT be an 'ultimate axiom' (by ‘ultimate axiom’, I mean an axiom before which there could be no other axiom or prior concepts). Why? This axiom does not identify existence as the ultimate starting point, however it posits a form of existence (‘god’) as the starting place. There are other concepts here that are not irreducible, such as 'shall' (future indicative), 'worship' (which presupposes active agents and moral philosophy; moral philosophy cannot be a primary) and 'serve' (which presupposes purpose, choice, values, goals, etc.). This is another example of the fallacy of the stolen concept. It is ludicrous and laughable. You're groping, and it's quite obvious.

Finally there is a direct citation to the Bible, which is one of the last books of the Bible of all places, Hebrews. And for once we have a direct reference to the epistemology that the Bible offers, FAITH. However, this statement also presupposes that existence exists, and thus commits the same fallacy as the statements above. Shame on you, Howard!!

Actually, I make no such presupposition. I do not presuppose any personality as ‘authority of truth’. In fact, the only thing at the base of all my ‘presuppositions’ is the fact of existence. I don’t presuppose anything before existence, for that would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. There is no concept before 'existence'. It is the widest concept, and it applies axiomatically to any ‘thing’ one wants to posit as existing. It is an inherently necessary condition. Nothing ‘exists’ without existence. 'Existence' cannot be 'explained' by anything 'prior to existence'; to be sure, there is no 'prior to existence'. Keep working on it, Howard. If you're honest with yourself, you just might see someday.

What else did Howard say in response to my question number 1)?

Such a study would be impossible without at least the implicit recognition of the axiom existence exists. However, you seem to overlook this fact in all your ‘axioms’. Tsk tsk.

Then, as if he had never understood what he read in the question [#1) above], Howard offers the following:

I wanted??? I never asked for verses that "prove that God is actively involved in the world". Not once did I ever make such a request. Where did you get this? Are you feeling OK? Perhaps you have a temperature. What I asked for were verses from the Bible that define axiom (the concept, bonehead!!), and what are these concepts the Bible offers? My question was about epistemology as offered by the Bible, NOT about God’s activity here on earth.

Besides, Bible verses don’t prove anything, other than the fact that they are in the Bible. It is up to YOU to prove that the verses in the Bible are true. Don’t give me this line of hokum!! Your habit of building straw men in your arguments is so automatic that you are not even aware of it, are you?

Back to BKNewton and his folly:

Now here is another instance of the classic STRAW MAN method of Christian ‘argumentation’. You’ll be hard pressed EVER to find any instance of me claiming that existence is some kind of ‘cosmic accident’. These are BK’s words, NOT MINE. I have never argued for an accidental universe, or a chance universe, nor can any such inference be divined from the statements I have made in any of my posts. If this is the line of your thinking, you are entirely in error, BK, and I ask you to explain yourself. This particular device you employ I call insertiam verbum intra osculum altris, or INSERTING WORDS INTO THE MOUTH OF ANOTHER. It is part and parcel with setting up straw man arguments, as you have done here. There is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WHATSOEVER. BK, you should be ashamed of yourself for sure!

What do I call a "meadow covered with multi-colored flowers with a back drop of scenic mountains"? I call it the metaphysically given as opposed to the man-made. That is all. Can I as an atheist enjoy its ‘splendor’? Of course I can, and you should know this. Do I ascribe supernatural causes to its existence? Not if existence exists I don’t. Existence exists. Therefore, the notion ‘god’ is naturally out the window for me.

I have only one thing to say to this statement: CHECK YOUR PREMISES.

May you get what you deserve, and nothing more,

Tindrbox

$$

_________________________________