tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764520774911673117.post2668098493102896390..comments2023-04-28T03:35:27.837-07:00Comments on Random Theology: Presuppositions, Epistemology, and AtheismR. Dozierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05886710825410814697noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764520774911673117.post-27226791384234629072017-07-11T17:27:57.180-07:002017-07-11T17:27:57.180-07:00We KNOW our senses can be fooled. That's why w...We KNOW our senses can be fooled. That's why we use logic, skepticism, experamentation and The Scientific Method to compensate for that. We have a lot of technology SPECIFICALLY designed to fool our senses. By saying "our god tells me that our senses are 100% relyable" you're basically denying the existance of TVs. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630047639388608058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764520774911673117.post-67450765889407681782013-06-30T19:10:18.705-07:002013-06-30T19:10:18.705-07:00But to answer your question, he tried to fallaciou...But to answer your question, he tried to fallaciously ground each by the other. That is to say sense perception is shown to be reliable by induction, and the latter is grounded by the former. He tried to make, what John Frame calls, a broad circle of justification but in the end, he was left in a fallaciously narrow circle.R. Dozierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05886710825410814697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764520774911673117.post-40649875702173706102013-06-30T19:04:54.979-07:002013-06-30T19:04:54.979-07:00Great points!
The atheist ends up in the irration...Great points!<br /><br />The atheist ends up in the irrational position of either skepticism and/or fideism. And this was the case with the atheist I was debating named James Stillwell (who goes by the name Open air atheist). In our discussion he ended up merely asserting both the reliability of sense perception and induction without justification; and he then deemed his position necessarily rational and worthy of appraisal. R. Dozierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05886710825410814697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764520774911673117.post-1333905879978409482013-06-24T11:35:21.271-07:002013-06-24T11:35:21.271-07:00I would add two more points:
1.) Presupposing th...I would add two more points:<br /><br />1.) Presupposing the reliability of their five senses is not the same as justifying them as a basis for knowledge.<br /><br />2.) Presupposing the reliability of their five senses cannot justify induction.<br /><br />So, which way does this atheist wish to go? Does he want to presuppose the reliability of their five senses, or does he want to appeal to induction? (or does he want to refute Hume?) How does he justify either?Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com