ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

A trilemma transition

Contemplations on the Tree of Woe contemplates the implications of what appears to be a Münchhausen Trilemma transitory period playing out in modern society:

The so-called Münchhausen Trilemma is actually Agrippa’s Trilemma, attributed to Agrippa the Skeptic of the Pyrrhonist school of 4th Century BC. Agrippa’s Trilemma phrases the attack a bit differently:

  • Circularity: The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.
  • Progress ad infinitum: The truth asserted rests on truths themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity. 
  • Assumption: The truth is based on an unsupported assumption.

However it is phrased, the Trilemma presents a choice of “three equally unsatisfying options.” Or so it is claimed. Is that the case? Perhaps one of the three options is not “equally unsatisfying” and there are good reasons for adopting one of these three. But before we delve into that, let’s first explain why it matters. It seems a strange thing, after all, to dwell on an unsolved 2,500 year old philosophical dilemma. Why should we care?

Human beings are rational animals; each of us is endowed with our own sense organs and our own mind. By our sense organs we receive precepts about the world, from which we form concepts about what we have perceived. What we perceive and conceive is unique to each of us; no one else has access to the qualia of our senses or the thoughts of our mind. Our consciousness is independent of others.

Human beings are also social animals, who by nature flourish only in society with others of our kind. To exist in society, human beings must cooperate, which requires establishing and asserting their needs and wants, and consensually exchanging value for value with others of their kind. When humans cannot or do not cooperate, they struggle instead, using force or fraud to extract value from others nonconsensually. In both cases, our existence is dependent on others, either as creators, traders, looters, or moochers.

The juxtaposition of our independent rationality and dependent existence creates the necessity for agreement on what can be justified as true. Man in solitude doesn’t need to know or care what others think is true. Man in society must know and care what others think is true: The very concept of exchanging value without fraud presupposes the existence of not-fraud, which is to say, truth.

When human society is simple, the justification necessary to establish truth is equally simple, and typically based on foundationalism relying on sense perception. “Is it rain out?” “Hand feel wet. Yes.” As the complexity of human society increases, the justification necessary to establish truth also becomes more complex. More and more matters arise over which each independent consciousness might disagree. “Does Theodore rightfully own Breckenridge manor?” is no simple question.

As a result, every society of sufficient complexity has created institutions such as courts of laws, trials by jury, assemblies of law, boards of peer review, and other tools to decide what is true. Each such institution fundamentally works the same way: The individual consciousness, with its ability to reason, is embedded within a group of other individuals, and a method used to force the group to come to an agreement (often by deliberation and voting, as in a jury or parliament, but sometimes randomly, esoterically, or even violently).

Over time these institutions, in the process of defining what is true, build a great scaffolding - law, custom, tradition, craft, and practice - that collectively form its culture. But always it remains that what is true about complex matters is reliant on a core set of propositions which are deemed foundational and outside the scope of deliberation. (In the words of America’s founders: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”)

That is, the culture of every society has historically arisen from a series of agreements made out of necessity to permit cooperation to accept certain propositions as justified, with these agreements developing over time in a hierarchy as society becomes more complex, with all ultimately justified by reference to propositions held by that society as foundational.

But Münchhausen’s Trilemma holds that foundationalism is merely one of three “equally unsatisfying” resolutions to the impossibility of proving any truth. And if there is no possibility of proving any truth, it would seem there is no possibility of justifying the culture of any society as good, beautiful, or right. Worse, those who would argue against our society’s way of life do not even have to grapple with its truth-claims at all: They can simply develop another culture, based on another set of propositions that are self-consistent with themselves, and dismiss our own as irrelevant, unfounded, and wrong.

Read the whole thing there. Because what we tend to regard as a culture war is just as much a philosophical war as it is a spiritual war. The reason American society is showing cracks is that its philosophical foundations have been under assault for nearly 120 years.

Labels: ,

72 Comments:

Blogger Jose Miguel October 28, 2020 10:09 AM  

Very true! Though I think the way on Christian philosophy as a whole had been going on for at least 800 years.

Love of Wisdom, love of Christ is true philosophy, with God's revelation of Himself as the starting point. Everything else ends up collapsing at some point.

Blogger Krymneth October 28, 2020 10:11 AM  

This is one of the things I've been philosophically pondering lately in the context of Christianity, because I think it can offer an answer to this question. The answer is, as always, God, because in addition to being the Unmoved Mover, I think he is also, quite profoundly, the Self-Proving Fact. Not a title normally associated with him, I know, but I think a true one.

I do not know that God's reality rests on either of these things, but for both Circularity and Progress ad infinitum, both of them can be "solved" if the infinities involved are themselves real. If God's existence rests on an infinite series of propositions, but that infinite series of propositions is true and real, well, no problem. If his existince is circular, but that circularity is infinite, it isn't actually a problem.

Again let me say that I don't know these are relevant to the real God, or even if that concept has any real referent, lest I blaspheme accidentally; I'm just observing that this would work in the infinite case in a way that no finite case can work, and if the Infinite Case allows us access to His Truth and all our lower-case truth can be grounded in it, we have hope of discovering Truth even in our finite state.

Only from a finite perspective, where we lack access to any ability to vet an infinite regression argument, and all our circular arguments are finite and as a result logically collapse to nothing, is this a problem.

I know that if I sent this exact message to myself 20 years ago, I would have found it a bit trite; how convenient that God is always the answer to everything. However, I think there really is a profound element of truth here.

Blogger Stilicho October 28, 2020 10:15 AM  

The trilemma underscores the need for agreement as to any axioms that support a culture. Without such agreement, there will be conflict and, if it is a foundational axiom that is the basis of disagreement, the conflict will be violent.

It also underscores the need for an external morality, an externally imposed standard of the good, the beautiful, and the true. Otherwise we are merely arguing preferences which always devolves to "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" .

Blogger Up from the pond October 28, 2020 10:25 AM  

"The reason American society is showing cracks is that its philosophical foundations have been under assault for nearly 120 years."

Related: (((Soros))) monkeys are looting and burning down American cities again; reports of several murders, police vehicles torched, National Guard being ordered to stand down in Philly, SJW officials announcing all this is "peaceful protest," etc.

Philosophically telling is GOP Inc.'s reaction. Mitt Romney, for one, is a fan girl of Antifa. After all they fight fascism, doncha know, and surely we don't want another Mussolini? The rest of the GOP elites seem to agree with him. Certainly the "Washington Consensus" is that capitalism can triumph only if laws and whites are eliminated.

I harp on how The Ayn Rand Institute was a major source or resource of this evil over the past 30 years. Search "ARI Jason Hill" to see the end of that road. Also "ARI Cato" and ariwatch.com. But the response I get from Americans is "Dur, Ayn Rand? Oh yeah, she wrote those sexy novels and stood for freedom, right?" It's not like I'm Diogenes, but good lord, MPAI.

Blogger megabar October 28, 2020 10:27 AM  

The US left and right hold different assumptions about the nature of man. These are mostly intractable to argument or proof, at least when the degree of disagreement rises to current levels.

If, as this article says, every society must base its systems on some unprovable core assumptions, then it makes sense for the US to form separate societies, with the minimum requirement being a restriction on immigration between them.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 28, 2020 10:43 AM  

But Münchhausen’s Trilemma holds that foundationalism is merely one of three “equally unsatisfying” resolutions to the impossibility of proving any truth.
No God, no truth.

Blogger ODG October 28, 2020 10:50 AM  

Excellent, and frightening.
I've just read the first chapter (page?) and I'm hooked.
War is inevitable, even (especially?) in Christian nations. The World is going to attack Truth and try to eliminate it. The only question is whether Christians should fight back? (Not a question for me, since I've already decided to fight.)

Blogger braq October 28, 2020 11:12 AM  

Many years ago when I first read about the threat presented by postmodernism, I thought it was overblown nonsense - the pseudo-intellectual yammerings of nihilists and effete ivory-tower communists.

Subsequent events have proven just how wrong I was. This piece is a very interesting take on the black hole at the center of the postmodernists' anti-civilizational, anti-human narrative.

Blogger rumpole5 October 28, 2020 11:12 AM  

Or, maybe some cracks because some of the philosophical foundations are contrary to functional reality. A case in point would be the pernicious notion that "all men are created equal".

Blogger DoubleB October 28, 2020 11:13 AM  

To know anything, you must believe something. Skeptics and postmodernists fall into insanity after discovering this truth. As Christians it should comfort us that everything is ultimately based on faith. Everything is assumption, circular, or ad infinitum, but are your assumptions and faith-based arguments grounded in the good, the beautiful, and the true?

Blogger CM October 28, 2020 11:14 AM  

The reason American society is showing cracks is that its philosophical foundations have been under assault for nearly 120 years.

When debating about marriage, this became confoundingly clear to me. There were arguments that simply could not be made because I was operating on premises that our culture has long since demolished without even thinking twice about it.

There's nothing binding us anymore.

Individualism and capitalism are built on similar shaky principles and assumptions. It isn't that all of the premises are questionable, but it doesn't take much for a foundation to shift the entire structure. But collectively, we see no value in questioning and debating underlying premises.

I think technological advances have something to do with that. These disciplines were developed by men with nothing better to do during the winter months than to contemplate how many angels can fit on a pinhead.

Blogger 7916 October 28, 2020 11:26 AM  

Hence why the removal of blasphemy laws and the rise of free speech act as water to sandstone as the means to undermine foundationalism. The establishment of the foundational truths in the Constitution shored up those underpinnings, but its weakness was that it assumed culture/people would remain a constant.

Blogger Tiberius the Platonist October 28, 2020 11:34 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ahnaf Ibn Qais October 28, 2020 11:37 AM  

Interesting takes.

When we did History of Epistemology, the Agrippan Trilemma was only briefly touched upon, probably because it was (and still is) viewed only as cursorily important to the development of Epistemology proper in the West. A similar attitude is taken in general with regard to the Original Skeptics (be it Sextus Empiricus or others); I have personally seen this at the Grad and Undergrad level.

This take on it by the author, where he extends it from the individual to the wider social structure, is an interesting one. The issue of course is whether or not this latter entity (“society” or whatever it is one wants to call it) is supervenient and fractally similar enough to the individual, such that you can extend the Trilemma to it in this manner.

Blogger OvergrownHobbit October 28, 2020 11:41 AM  

They can simply develop another culture, based on another set of propositions that are self-consistent with themselves, and dismiss our own as irrelevant, unfounded, and wrong.

Then why don't they go and so so? The virtue of the sheep is in the wool it makes not how well it grazes the pasture.

Surely the abject failure of the culture that results is proof that whatever they've reasoned out is false.

Blogger Pathfinderlight October 28, 2020 11:41 AM  

It shocks me how Americans nearly uniformly purport to not care about the morality of their neighbors, as if we've all been taught it's not okay to hold others to a moral standard.

That's not traditional for us. We used to have blasphemy laws. We used to be able to discriminate based on moral factors. Shunning used to mean something.

Leftists still do all this, of course. It's how societies enforce rules without resorting to persecution. The primary tools available to any functioning culture have been stripped away from us.

It's time for us to rebuild our culture from the ground up to resist the evil that surrounds us.

Blogger Tallen October 28, 2020 11:41 AM  

"There is no objective truth" is the logical proof that truth exists. If the statement is true it is self-defeating. There's a gap between the fact of truth and what else is true and self-supporting, and another gap on how to determine what is true but doesn't stand as true by itself. Logically, this reduces regressive arguments to dogmatic or false, which isn't to say dogmatic arguments can't be false either but that a dogmatic argument is a valid method for proving truth. Are circular arguments similarly reduced to dogmatic or false? I'm inclined to think so.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 28, 2020 11:54 AM  

Circularity sounds like an attempt to explain a foundation and avoid being called dogmatic.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 28, 2020 11:55 AM  

megabar wrote:The US left and right hold different assumptions about the nature of man.
They hold different assumptions about God, and that's the intractable difference.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 28, 2020 11:55 AM  

"But Münchhausen’s Trilemma holds that foundationalism is merely one of three “equally unsatisfying” resolutions to the impossibility of proving any truth. And if there is no possibility of proving any truth, it would seem there is no possibility of justifying the culture of any society as good, beautiful, or right."

The error in that branch of the trilemma is that it necessarily assumes there are no witnesses, or the witnesses are necessarily entirely unreliable beyond a certain point. You have to assume that all histories are eventually false. The trilemma is therefore an artifact of already being in an auto-referential frame: "I don't know what of history is true, so there is no proof". Whether you know it or not has no bearing on the presence or absence of truth in the world.

For the circular branch of the trilemma, it is inaccurate to label the leftist as being circular -- they are dishonestly foundational. This is the reason that it must always be year zero for them. Even fairly shortsighted histories show them to be self-referentially bullshit, so they must construct new foundation (bald assertions) every five minutes, as they are exposed in their lies. Amusingly their circularities, rather than having limitless continuity, must be discarded for new ones constantly.

However this is not to say that the other branches are without utility... anything that lacks self-consistency is obviously untrue, so circularity is useful, not for evidence, but for plain disproof when it is violated. One cannot pull oneself up by the bootstraps, it will only end in obeying gravity, and therefore is circularity proper only as subset to foundation.

The infinite branch is not possible to grasp. Perhaps it is useful, perhaps not, but as humans we can't do much with it, therefore it is mocked as a tool that cannot be shown to have utility. The closest we can come to it is to say that it probably supports foundationalism at some point -- by the law of action and reaction, an unmoved mover must be infinite by comparison to what it places in motion.

Therfore Agrippa's Trilemma is not properly a trilemma, but rather a dissected hierarchy that the thinker has not realized he should reassemble. Infinity > Foundation > Circularity.

"These salutary circumstances changed with the rise of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was the first effort in history to establish a society whose foundational assertions were openly admitted and rationally defended as such. It was a noble effort and much that was good and beautiful came of it."

Lies entirely. It was not the first, or even close. It was a purely self serving effort and only evil has come of it, regardless of how it preens itself.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 28, 2020 11:58 AM  

TL;DR: The fraud "Enlightenment" asks, "Did God really say...", and there it is, is the assumption that foundationalism is without foundation. The trilemma only happens after you insert false foundations.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 28, 2020 11:58 AM  

rumpole5 wrote:Or, maybe some cracks because some of the philosophical foundations are contrary to functional reality. A case in point would be the pernicious notion that "all men are created equal".
As recently as the 1930s, American schools taught that phrase meant that we rejected hereditary aristocracy and the divine right of kings. They definitely did not teach that men were equal to women, nor that blacks were equal to whites, nor that Americans were equal to Japs.

The modern interpretation of that phrase is modern indeed.

Blogger Crush Limbraw October 28, 2020 12:01 PM  

I think this fits - most recently my main argument as to the reality of God is reality itself - from empirical (historical) evidence from our 'lying' eyes.
Last week I archived a series of articles in DaLimbraw Library, which led me to post a 'connect DaDots' summary with a coincidental discovery in my reorganization of my personal book library.
Everything old is new again - or is it the other way around?
https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2020/10/everything-old-is-new-again-or-is-it.html?m=0 - takes some reading, but for those with eyes to see, it's plain as day!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 28, 2020 12:02 PM  

"Individualism and capitalism"

Read as selfishness and greed. Those who worship the wrong gods end up in bad places.

Blogger Scuzzaman October 28, 2020 12:22 PM  

Worse, those who would argue against our society’s way of life do not even have to grapple with its truth-claims at all: They can simply develop another culture, based on another set of propositions that are self-consistent with themselves, and dismiss our own as irrelevant, unfounded, and wrong.

This is exactly what our enemies have done / are doing.

But what angers me is that they can't do this in their own land but have to insist that everyone adopts their new culture based on their other set of propositions.

Historically, nations have served as the iterations of these philosophico-religious cultural experiments and it has been very visibly obvious which ones people prefer to live in. The floods of "refugees" demonstrates that this preference is not the result of parochial bias but is a universal truth, perhaps not proven in the technical sense but attested to by all nonetheless.

Blogger Hristomir Ivanov October 28, 2020 12:25 PM  

The Trilemma is actually unsolvable if you use the bare reason for its solving.

It is God's Revelation that made you sure about the foundations of the World and human nature, the Truth. With pure logic, stripped from God's Revelation, you would end up as a Soros man.

Well, I am an agnostic. I think of myself as a person in transformation - towards getting God's Revelation, not becoming an Soros animal.

Blogger xevious2030 October 28, 2020 12:38 PM  

It boils down to the I Am (Pre-Dreamer). Anything other than that is acceptance or rejection of what is not. Of what is beyond a point, of what is beyond being. Even thought is beyond the I Am. Time is beyond the I Am. Orders beyond being are all supposition, and no truth can be proven beyond being. Beyond existence is an act of belief. This does not mean the truth does not exist, and that it does not affect, but that it is unknowable as fact beyond the origin. This supersedes the trilemma.

The rejection of the origin (free will) is the basis for constructing a separate reality in perception, with the difference between Coherentist and Fundamentalist being the peculiarities of the narrative particular to their subcategory. While it is not so said, the Coherentist also holds “certain fundamental axioms which are asserted rather than proved” as a basis for the possibility of narrative. The difference is the degree of parsing of the scholar to recognize the previous of the current, to a commonality of method (self-reinforcement to a beginning). For either of these to move forward, there is the acceptance of the axiom of reality beyond I Am and of shared experience.

So long as foundationalism retains the understanding of belief, it remains strong. When Foundationalism exchanges understanding of belief for supposition of concreteness, there is the possibility of chipping away, and it is weakened. Which is why it is being sold the absoluteness of the natural world, rather than dashing the notion to pieces by the exposition of the requirement of belief. Dashing the Factcheckers as frauds. There are no facts, there are assumptions which are accepted as workable. Intolerance is the key, not logic. “Open mindedness” is a tool of conquest.

This is war, not consideration. Conquest, not exploration. Rhetoric, not dialectic. You pick a side, and you fight, because.

Blogger 7916 October 28, 2020 12:46 PM  

@22

They did indeed assume the definitions. Assumption of definitions is just another avenue of attack. This is why the 16 Points are effective because they structurally define their terms, with liberal use of both "is" and "is not". If the Constitution had been written with such a care for securing the blessings of liberty to its posterity, the Framers would have defined "posterity" and we would be living in an alternate future. Keep this in mind if you are around and involved in the rebuilding after the 2030's.

Blogger Chill Penguin October 28, 2020 1:03 PM  

* Hobbes was a neoconservative describing why the induhvidual should appear to respect the monarchy
* Kant was the gaytheist from the transition from the appearance of respecting Christianity
* Socrates said there are trainers for horses but no one knows how to find a trainer for a son
* academics, and people who respect them, are tl;dr
* the fact that other people commit blasphemy doesn't matter as much as funding heretics, through taxation and through paying large amounts of money to send your children to their colleges
> 7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
> 14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 28, 2020 1:37 PM  

I just spoke with a foreign accent at the polling place and got royal treatment.

Blogger Chill Penguin October 28, 2020 1:45 PM  

> For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

coherentist, foundationalist, dogmatic? Stephen concluded his coherentist history of Israel in Acts 7 with "Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.", arguing that they should have held to it as if foundationally, but throughout the Old Testament God makes the coherentist argument of giving people signs when He tells them to do something special for Him.
> 8And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day? 9And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? 10And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. 11And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

> 5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Blogger Servant October 28, 2020 1:50 PM  

Only 120 years? The very basis of the constitution is the sovereignty of man. They paid lip service to God while declaring in legal document that basically, as a whole, man will have the right of it. Demonstrably false, also, incredibly contrary to the truth proclaimed in the bible.

The first challenge to the sandy foundation of the constitution was when the majority decided the best way to pay off the revolutionary war debt, debt incurred by wealthy free masons without the consensus of the people, was to tax the minority. Don't need to worry about a few rural farmer's votes.

The farmers worst crime was actually believing the lying rhetoric, and trying to use it in their own protest against the government doing what the government does. In a few words, tax the unthreatening.

The whole fucking thing was a lie.

Blogger stevo October 28, 2020 2:14 PM  

Damn that's some hard thinking. It seems like without some kind of faith assumption, anything could be true or false.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd October 28, 2020 2:44 PM  

stevo wrote:. It seems like without some kind of faith assumption, anything could be true or false.
The only way to have Truth is to have someone who can impose his reality on all of us, and only God can actually do that. Jack wants to be God, but he's not qualified.
Know God, know Truth.
No God, no truth.

Blogger John Regan October 28, 2020 3:25 PM  

I think it's not so much one of the three "truth-criteria". Post modernism really doesn't have a truth concept. It's bottom line nature is just to oppose the Christian religion and western civilization. Everything post-modernism says, thinks and does can be made sense of on that basis. It seems to pursue its goal as if by instinct, or perhaps more likely by supernatural influence.

Blogger J Melcher October 28, 2020 3:26 PM  

"They can simply develop another culture, based on another set of propositions that are self-consistent with themselves, and dismiss our own as irrelevant, unfounded, and wrong."

They can NOT develop another culture if the propositions are not consistent with each other.

Innate Gender is mutable but innate race is not? One race has original sin but another does not? The power structure is inherently corrupt; we must delegate more power to the power structure. Power corrupts; the pure of heart must seize power. "2+2=5" is a racially biased concept. Schools aren't fairly giving all races equal instruction in STEM.

A chaotic set of counter-axioms to the current working set is no foundation for constructive change.

Blogger Dan Karelian October 28, 2020 3:52 PM  

Circularity is not unfounded, it is self-founded IF it accounts for the paradigm as a whole.

Foundationalism, ironically amounts to completely unfounded assertions at it's axioms, which is how the skeptics have dismantled Western Theology and presuppositions.
Hume is simply taking the peripatetic axiom to a more consistent conclusion than Aquinas cares to do. He doesn't get very far after but he is more consistent.

It is important to note that a Coherentist paradigm can only be coherent if it can give a (logically) tautological account to the absolute truth categories that it relies upon to make assertions.
The post-modernists have not done that. They have typically made lesser assertions of circular nature without considering the meta-level ingredients that remain unjustified in their beliefs. Thus the post-modernists amount to incoherent Coherentists.

The article also makes a good point in how irreconcilable theologies lead to civilizational divides that have then been superseded by supposedly peaceful solutions outside of Theology. The solutions, as they have progressed in time and become more consistent with their unfounded axioms, have clearly led Western civilization into Sodom and Gomorrah. The more the West has washed away Theology, the more degenerate is it's own peril.

Chris Langan's work is very useful to understand as to why for paradigm level questions, closure is necessarily required and thus circularity in the form of self-containment.
If someone is naïve enough to believe that foundationalism is sufficient enough to salvage Western thought, then I highly recommend that you read the CTMU by Langan (+190 IQ) before taking issue with that.

http://ctmu.net/

Blogger xevious2030 October 28, 2020 4:03 PM  

"is no foundation for constructive change"

Tool, not foundation, for change, constructive or not. A method, not a finished product, at least not uniformly up and down.

The one phrase they fear the most, "The Sleeper has awakened."

Blogger Scuzzaman October 28, 2020 4:04 PM  

"Damn it, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!"

"My beliefs do not require them to."

The thing about enemies, and I don't mean the fake opposition parties involved in political flimflammery in parliaments the world over, I mean people who want to kill you, is that they do require you to believe what they believe. Or die.

The religio-philosophical truce, if it ever existed, is over.

I was always amused at the "God is on our side" people, not because every side says that, but because it is completely backwards.

I am on God's side. What can Man do to me?

Blogger tublecane October 28, 2020 6:19 PM  

@Tallen- That’s the logical aspect. But people who put forth the notion that “there is no objective truth” I find are not in their own minds making a claim of logic. They are rather declaring emotion.

Recently I dipped my toes into an online “community” dedicated to appreciating art from an objective standpoint. They are beset on all sides by enemies. All of whom have their own (non)reasons for shouting “Nazi” at people for merely attempting objectivity. Though no one claims far as I know to hear the Voice of God in any subject.

It all boils down to the feeling (yes, feeeeling) that when one claims something is objectively true they’re denying the “lived experience” (popular phrase these days) of those who disagree. It makes them feel bad to think they might be wrong.

More to the point: it makes them *afraid* they’re wrong.

Blogger tublecane October 28, 2020 7:09 PM  

@John Regan- Modernism likewise is largely a program for inverting Western Civilization. Taking what it stands for piece by piece and replacing it with the flipside.

Though part of it is motivated to get at the roots and re-establish foundations, that is obviously a losing endeavor. Because whoever heard of men recreating civilization consciously like that?

Post-modernism, a movement that doesn’t even deserve its own name in my opinion, does much the same. Except it’s stupider and blunter, so it just blows up everything that came before and/or makes up its own nonsense.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 28, 2020 8:21 PM  

@Chill Penguin

God is a foundationalist and the what you provided makes the point ... God is. God's name is I AM. All else proceeds from it.
God is self-existent. God's creatures existence is contingent.
God's authority is inherent. God's creatures authority is delegated.

Blogger Beloved October 28, 2020 8:22 PM  

This is all so tiresome.

I've met our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in person. He's not hiding. You just have to approach Him the way He wants you to.

"2 Corinthians 5:6-7

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)"

Terry A Davis of TempleOS infamy walked by faith and I try to. Granted he walked his way onto train tracks and died for it. Such is the fate of God's prophets.

Terry predicting the Las Vegas shooting minutes before it happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8M6eHNWF4U

Blogger Mast Abeam October 28, 2020 8:34 PM  

Hi Vox, I read this post of yours ( and the whole of it), at lunch. Since then its been competing narratives, fundamental assertions, and endless turtles of truth in every interaction.

Funny, sad, and true.

Blogger Beloved October 28, 2020 8:45 PM  

If you want to meet our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in person, try going where he told us we could find Him in our lifetimes. Hint: It's not in a church or on a bus.

You won't recognize him unles he wants you to, or you've studied the scriptures well enough to "walk by faith".

But, in any case, most everyone reading this could take a ten mile walk (or less) and become a volunteer at one of his frequent hang outs.

Blogger xevious2030 October 28, 2020 10:36 PM  

“Funny, sad, and true.”

Will take your internet word for it, because it’s Wednesday.

Blogger Canadian Warlord October 28, 2020 10:41 PM  

Post modernism is just pre-modernism.

What else can it be? Modern or not-modern.

Blogger Restitutor Orbis October 29, 2020 1:08 AM  

@Dan Karelian / 37 -- I think Christopher Langan's theory (which I greatly admire) *is* foundationalist.

P13: "Logic... is the basis of mathematics, being the means by which propositions are stated, proved or disproved, and it is the core of science, underwriting the integrity of rational and empirical methodology. Even socalled “nonstandard” logics, e.g. modal, fuzzy and many-valued logics, must be expressed in terms of fundamental two-valued logic to make sense. In short, two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist. If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible."

P14: "In fact, the validity of scientific theories and of science as a whole absolutely depends on the existence of a fundamental reality-theoretic framework spanning all of science…a fundamental syntax from which all scientific and mathematical languages, and the extended cognitive language of perception itself, can be grammatically unfolded, cross-related and validated." (p14)

He argues that the "fundamental syntax" are the tautologies of sentential logic. But if you look at what he asserts as an example of a sentential tautology, he uses “X v ~X” (X OR NOT-X)". That's simply one of the laws of thought, known to Aristotle and other foundationalists; it's often phrased as "each and every thing either is or is not" or "X is either A or not-A" or "everything must either be or not be".

Langan's presentation of the laws of thought as sentential tautologies is very elegant because it ties the self-referentiality of the tautologies to the self-referentiality of the participatory universe. But he is, nevertheless, a foundationalist in his metaphysics: The foundation of reality is the syntax of thought.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 29, 2020 2:13 AM  

"Circularity is not unfounded, it is self-founded IF it accounts for the paradigm as a whole."

No. A paradigm is just a larger system of circularity. That's the definition of the word. If a seeming circularity takes into account reality, it is rather foundational with circularity contained inside.

Blogger wreckage October 29, 2020 4:09 AM  

Tradition is just a way of applying simple survival (or Darwinian if you like) proof to the foundations. It requires that you prefer foundations that haven't failed unto extinction. It doesn't require you to prove them.

Blogger Scuzzaman October 29, 2020 4:19 AM  

"it assumed culture/people would remain a constant."

That doesn't fit with the statements made at the time, e.g. a republic - if you can keep it" and "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

On the contrary they knew that nothing lasts forever but they observed that if you want to keep the form of government you have then you have to periodically reset the distribution of power because over time it tends to accumulate in the centre.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

and

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787

Blogger Zastavnik Džemo October 29, 2020 4:34 AM  

This is the fundamental problem of our universe. Mathematics itself is based on axioms that are self-consistent but cannot be proven.

In mathematics or logic or society or religion, you need an "inspired" man to pick the axioms as a foundation, after that it is all based on faith.

Atheists are really the stupidest of all creatures.

Blogger Dan Karelian October 29, 2020 7:45 PM  

@48
The syntax itself is defined and implicated by itself. It is not without justification as in a foundational belief of foundationalism.
The MAP (metaphysical autology principle) necessitates syntactic closure (circularity) and is likewise tautologous and implicated by the other tautologies of the 3Cs.

@49
You can call it foundational in a sense but it isn't foundationalism. If a circularity takes into account reality, then there is necessarily only "inside" to account for.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 30, 2020 1:01 AM  

"You can call it foundational in a sense but it isn't foundationalism. If a circularity takes into account reality, then there is necessarily only "inside" to account for."

You must first assume that such a circularity even exists, for which there is neither evidence nor need. You make the assumption because it eventually supports what your itching ears want to hear.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 30, 2020 1:06 AM  

If on the other hand the circularity does not take into account all of reality, but rather only a part, it is by that part anchored and founded, as I said.

Think for a moment about your desire for reality to be circular. In order for it to be true God would have to be subject ultimately to certain parts of reality other than himself. Reality is either founded by God, in a way that may appear to us circular but must actually be foundational upon an infinity, or there is no omnipotent God. Pick one.

Blogger Dan Karelian October 30, 2020 12:40 PM  

It's not for any desire or assumption but for realization that circularity is discovered. It is inferentially proved to be necessary at a high enough level of analysis.

The CTMU can account for the omnipotency of god by isomorphic identification with reality(no parts outside of himself), but it is not the God I believe in so this is where it gets theological.

In Orthodoxy we believe in the essence-energies distinction, which states that we can only know of God directly through His energies and never can we as created beings know of His essence by more than analogies of creation i.e. that it is one and common to the three persons.
More to the point, God's energies permeate through all of creation. Creation in this context is equivalent to reality. As such creation is completely dependent on these energies, which God has voluntarily willed, not the other way around. The energies are infinite individually and in number and some do not relate to creation in any way.

Omnipotency, as it pertains to God is defined theologically rather than through philosophical speculation about how God should be able to make a rock that He can't lift or make Himself not exist etc. Furthermore God is bounded by His nature in that He cannot sin for example. So the dichotomy is based on false assumptions.

Epistemologically all of this is ultimately known by circularity. Again you can call it foundational (in a sense) all day long but it simply does not amount to a definition of foundationalism.

Blogger Restitutor Orbis October 30, 2020 7:00 PM  

@53 Hmmm. So no foundationalist I have read believes that their axioms are unjustified. They believe *exactly* what Langan said: "two-valued logic is something without which reality could not exist. If it were eliminated, then true and false, real and unreal, and existence and nonexistence could not be distinguished, and the merest act of perception or cognition would be utterly impossible."

A postmodern skeptic would assail Langan the exact same way they assail a foundationalist, by demanding that he prove the laws of logic. The issue is actually being debated on the CTMU community:

***
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Comparisons_to_other_theories
Bernardo Kastrup
SOURCES: More Than Allegory, p.193-194, "The circularity of consensus reality"
"Kastrup's story in Part III depicts "the Other" describing reality/realities as circular, self-sustaining conceptual loops of belief systems. He alludes to the self-referential qualities of these constructs, which certainly smacks of the CTMU's use of tautology. However, when the Other says, "If you were to righteously proclaim that classical logic were self-evident, you would simply betray your unquestioned belief in it. Indeed, any attempt to logically prove the validity of logic would just make the circularity of the whole thing rather explicit, wouldn't it?" What would Langan's comment on this be?"
***

A foundationalist would argue that the concept of proof presupposes the concept of logic and that without logic, there is no such proof; they would say that the interlocutor is committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.

How do you think Langan would respond? He hasn't answered the question in the wiki. I think that the answer to our debate hinges on this. I've attempted to join Langan's group to ask him directly. Cheers.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 30, 2020 7:45 PM  

"It's not for any desire or assumption but for realization that circularity is discovered. It is inferentially proved to be necessary at a high enough level of analysis.

Circularity existing at some levels does not mean circularity being supreme or ultimate. I repeat, existence is not supremacy, that circularity exists does not mean that everything is ultimately circular.

You consider ultimate circularity discovered because you wish it to be so, not because you possess sufficient information, knowledge, or perception to know that it is so. You have found teachers to tell you what your itching ears want to hear.

"Creation in this context is equivalent to reality. As such creation is completely dependent on these energies, which God has voluntarily willed, not the other way around."

This is necessarily inconsistent with your own belief in supreme circularity. What you are describing is Infinity > Foundation, circularity is neither necessitated nor even implied.

"Furthermore God is bounded by His nature in that He cannot sin for example. So the dichotomy is based on false assumptions."

No, you're maliciously dishonest as usual, it's the other way around. Anything God did would not be sin. You're hierarchically reversed as expected. Sin is what is not of or in God, never the reverse. God defines sin. Sin does not define God, in either sense.

"Epistemologically all of this is ultimately known by circularity."

No, not only is it not, but it cannot be. Review again, you cannot fly by pulling up on your shoes, correct? Neither can the world exist solely because it exists.

It is correct to say that you see and know what you see and know, but you neither see nor know everything. You are confusing infinity with circularity due to your limited perspective. You attempt to limit God via sin, thereby revealing your own limitation, and your desire that all should be in your image. The end.

Blogger Dan Karelian October 30, 2020 8:30 PM  

@57
Langan is essentially utilizing a transcendental argument for 2VL.
But let's define foundationalism. I think this is accurate from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

"Foundationalism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The foundationalist’s thesis in short is that all knowledge or justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief."

If so 2VL doesn't require justification yet he does exactly that through presuppositionalism. That's circular and thus not foundationalism.

I don't think the way your describing foundationalism with presuppositions is foundationalism at all.

BTW I read the second article relating to the trilemma. From what I gather, you are basically attempting to defend the peripatetic axiom in your series, correct?

In any case I do have my issues with the CTMU especially with the way unbound telesis is defined and the way he tries to equate the Trinity with his triality -just plain old modalism- but on epistemology we're on the same page.

Blogger Dan Karelian October 30, 2020 9:20 PM  

@58
You're idiotically conflating metaphysics & ontology with epistemology here. Related categories that imply each other but distinct also.
The trilemma is concerned with justification of knowledge. That is where the circularity is contained.

You can express the sinlessness of God the other way too. Sin is that which is not in accordance with the will of God. The will is of His nature. Therefore God cannot sin. That said I do not believe that God can change what is now good to be evil and vice versa.
But let's run this train of justification again, since that is what the topic is about. How do you know the relationship between sin and God? Scripture?

Blogger Restitutor Orbis October 31, 2020 2:32 PM  

@59 - Since this comment thread is rapidly vanishing into the archives of Vox Popoli, I'm going to answer your query about what I'm attempting over at my blog. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation! Cheers.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 01, 2020 3:38 AM  

"You're idiotically conflating metaphysics & ontology with epistemology here."

No, you're just a moron as usual, I use metaphysics and ontology because you yourself sidetracked into them, and I hoped you could understand analogies to them since you liked them so much. Clearly I was mistaken.

Knowledge can be foundational, for example as historical records passed down from people who met God or otherwise spoke to Him. Further, any sort of record counts as foundational, though not in the same ultimate sense. This is where circularity fails to contain. I'll repeat the same very obvious thing in yet another way: You neither do --nor can-- ultimately know only because you know. At the very best you might say that you cannot doubt that you doubt.

Part of God is the very essence of Truth, and knowledge can only proceed from there. Circular knowledge per dogmas, tautologies, and autoreferences, only exists within the mind, and the mind only functions because of Truth. That your mind is a vessel for some knowledge does not mean it is a vessel for all knowledge, nor that it even could be. So, when you examine your own mind and find its contents finally circular, it does not mean that knowledge is only ultimately derived in circular fashion, rather it means that you have built your own understanding on the sand, so retarding yourself that you can no longer know anything more.

Oh, and please do try to "theologically" define omnipotence in a way that somehow cannot touch either the physical or the informational. I've no interest in watching you embarrass yourself, so I won't wait, wormtongue.

"How do you know the relationship between sin and God? Scripture?"

Yes, and the plain causal hierarchy it states. It's obvious, regardless that you don't like it because it refutes your idiocy. God > Lucifer > Sin, or if you prefer to add a sometimes-intermediary step, put Man in between Lucifer and Sin.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 01, 2020 3:44 AM  

You might prefer to refer to the Scriptures on the subject of the origin of knowledge as well, Dan. The first chapter of Proverbs can set you straight, should you choose to heed it rather than the words you want to hear.

Blogger Dan Karelian November 01, 2020 10:36 AM  

The circularity you posit is not the kind I'm concerned with.
You've just made further claims about the foundation of knowledge that you haven't justified. None of these are given.

How do you know that God exists in the first place to give a foundation for knowledge?
How do you know that God has parts?
How do you know that Truth can only proceed from a part of God?
To reference Proverbs as the account for knowledge, you must first justify your knowledge as to why Proverbs is an accurate account as opposed to, or including any other historical records. To rephrase: on what basis can you claim that any historical record is or EVEN CAN be the infallible Word of God?
On what basis can you claim that your interpretation of it is the accurate impartation of knowledge?

Omnipotence obviously touches the informational if it is to have any meaning at all. Still we do not exactly know what it is like to be all powerful and will never truly know. We can know what it isn't in a theological context and exclude certain logical absurdities.

Do take your self-righteous and unjustified accusing somewhere else.

Blogger Dan Karelian November 01, 2020 3:27 PM  

@58 "This is necessarily inconsistent with your own belief in supreme circularity. What you are describing is Infinity > Foundation, circularity is neither necessitated nor even implied."

If you were simply drawing an analogy, you would not consistently come to conclude that my belief is necessarily inconsistent with circularity in epistemology. You are conflating the ontological relationship between God and creation with how the knowledge of that relationship is arrived at.
Clearly you were mistaken.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 02, 2020 2:09 AM  

"You've just made further claims about the foundation of knowledge that you haven't justified. None of these are given.

How do you know that God exists in the first place to give a foundation for knowledge?"


You're off in the solipsistic weeds yet again. What I know or not is irrelevant to what knowledge exists. This is your fundamental error, placing man as the sole avenue for knowledge. The same irrelevancy applies to your following questions.

"How do you know that God has parts?"

Do you or do you not agree that God is Truth? If so, do you or do you not agree that God is other things as well? If so, you're a moron to ask the above. Call it a part or an aspect or a perspective or what-have-you, doesn't matter, you're trying to gamma nitpick, and it's irrelevant.

"To reference Proverbs as the account for knowledge, you must first justify your knowledge"

Same irrelevancy as above.

"On what basis can you claim that your interpretation"

Still same.

"We can know what it isn't in a theological context and exclude certain logical absurdities."

That's not what you claimed above. Pick one.

"Do take your self-righteous and unjustified accusing somewhere else."

Projecting.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 02, 2020 2:13 AM  

"You are conflating the ontological relationship between God and creation with how the knowledge of that relationship is arrived at."

You are conflating your own grasp of knowledge with knowledge period, and that results in you wrongly interpreting what I said as the above.

Blogger Dan Karelian November 02, 2020 12:05 PM  

At this point you're either dishonestly evading or you just don't know what epistemology is.

Your not providing any justification here. I didn't ask about what you know but how you know. Making a distinction between your knowledge and the totality of knowledge does not explain the method by which you justify how you know, including how you know to make the distinction in the first place.

The same questions still apply.

Whether I agree with you on God is irrelevant. I already referenced the essence-energies distinction.
The question is how can you make the claim. You're making a knowledge claim about the status of Truth. On what basis?

And what do you see as contradictory about these statements concerning omnipotence?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 02, 2020 3:57 PM  

"Your not providing any justification here."

Look in the mirror. All along you've been making claims without even scant logical support.

"I didn't ask about what you know but how you know."

Same answer. It's not about my knowledge. Further, if even my or your knowledge ultimately had only circular bases, we would and could know nothing at all. The word "knowledge" would be a word for a thing that does not exists to us.

"Whether I agree with you on God is irrelevant.

No, it's the only relevant thing here. Considering the Scriptures declare both that:

A: Romans chapter 1, verses 16-21:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

B: That the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

"You're making a knowledge claim about the status of Truth. On what basis?"

You're not only doing that, but then literally claiming that there is no possible basis. A circularity is by definition baseless. My claim is what God has said to us, in every sense.

"And what do you see as contradictory about these statements concerning omnipotence?"

I see that you're a liar who walks his claims back and then pretends he didn't make them.

Our fundamental difference, Dan, is that you don't believe the Bible, and I do. There's an endless array of gradations and sophistries for you to ply in between, so I'm cutting to the root of it. God makes known. He created your mind. Even if there are circularities in your mind, they depend on your mind to exist, and are thereby founded with knowledge as subset -- from your perspective -- to your baseless-by-choice self.

Now, I'm done talking with you, you don't even believe that objective truth is knowable, why would I bother? It's been revealed since the creation of the world. Your only potential issue between what is revealed and your own knowledge is the verity or lack thereof of your own mind. You're dishonest, so of course you deny the foundation of knowledge, you want an excuse.

Blogger Dan Karelian November 02, 2020 7:35 PM  

Azure Amaranthine you are a self-projecting liar.
You claim that I believe that objective truth is not knowable. Wrong liar.
You claim that I don't believe the Bible. Wrong Liar.
I deny foundationalism as the basis for knowledge. You've conjured up a definition of circularity all your own.

"Further, if even my or your knowledge ultimately had only circular bases, we would and could know nothing at all."
Precisely the opposite. There are absolute truth categories, without which logic and knowledge would be impossible and as such they are necessarily true - tautologous.
A belief system extracting the necessary implications of these absolute truths is a supertautalogy.
God is the necessary antecedent for these tautologies to amount to the necessitated closure, comprehensiveness and consistency. The resulting certainty is presupposed in any coherent truth claim (including here) and is thus circular.

You haven't justified how you know what Scripture and revelation is and why it is the infallible word of God.
Well except of course for the irony that you reference Scripture to justify the veracity of Scripture. Presumably your knowledge is now baseless.

"I see that you're a liar who walks his claims back and then pretends he didn't make them."
Accuser, back this claim. What claims have I walked back and pretended not to have made specifically? I asked what is the contradiction?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 02, 2020 10:34 PM  

"You claim that I believe that objective truth is not knowable."

You claim that the foundations of all knowledge are ultimately circular. Check.

"You claim that I don't believe the Bible."

Then agree with it instead of disagreeing.

"I deny foundationalism as the basis for knowledge."

Then you can have no truth. Period.

"Precisely the opposite. There are absolute truth categories, without which logic and knowledge would be impossible and as such they are necessarily true - tautologous."

"Knowledge is circularly founded because if it weren't there wouldn't be knowledge."

Ass backward as always, it's the reverse. If it were only circularly founded there is no reference, no object, no relevance of it, the word knowledge would be without meaning and void. Because it is externally referential it is founded rather than ultimately circular, and it has meaning. Because its foundation is meaning Himself, it has Logos.

"God is the necessary antecedent for these tautologies to amount to the necessitated closure, comprehensiveness and consistency."

Read, God is the foundation, the cause, the origin, but Dan can't admit he was wrong and stupid, as usual.

"You haven't justified how you know what Scripture and revelation is and why it is the infallible word of God."

Because God has revealed himself to me in certain ways. Dan, do you have no relationship with God?

"Well except of course for the irony that you reference Scripture to justify the veracity of Scripture."

I did no such thing you illiterate fool. No, the origin of Scripture justifies its veracity. Again, whether or not you or I can verify it, it is veritable or not by nature and with accord to God rather than the acclaim of man.

"Accuser, back this claim. What claims have I walked back and pretended not to have made specifically? I asked what is the contradiction?"

V

"Omnipotency, as it pertains to God is defined theologically rather than through philosophical speculation about how God should be able to make a rock that He can't lift or make Himself not exist etc. Furthermore God is bounded by His nature in that He cannot sin for example." ~Dan Karelian.

This is you saying that God is not omnipotent. Go ahead Dan, dig deeper, you're a liar, a moron, and a heretic. I won't be wasting any more time on you.

Blogger Dan Karelian November 03, 2020 1:06 PM  

Not done talking quite yet.
I see that you're a liar who walks her claims back and then pretends she didn't make them.

"Check"
Circularity is the self-reference and self-relevance required for certitude. That is why I can have Truth and truths.
Because you have no epistemic closure, you have no certitude. That's what you don't understand.

Disagreeing and questioning are rather different.

"Read, God is the foundation,"
Once again you demonstrate that you don't know what epistemology is. You don't even comprehend the difference between what and how.

How can you be certain that it was God who revealed Himself to you? How I justify my relationship with Him is different. That's what's in question.
How do you know the origin of Scripture? The Scripture tells you doesn't it and what else?
If you cannot verify your knowledge of it with certitude then you have no basis.

"V"
That is me saying that omnipotence is defined within the paradigm. That applies to other terms in theology as well. God cannot sin because His nature is enhypostatized. This connects to the second statement.

You call me a heretic but that implies dogma, which a non-denominational larper has no way to justify other than by ad-hoc opining. Not even the origin of Scripture which he has appropriated from those who can justify dogma, including what Scripture is and thus what is heresy.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts