View Single Post
Old 10-07-2008, 10:41 AM   #12
Arcesious's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
It's not supposed to.

I'm curious why you would both say it was a strawman fallacy within the context of the debate. Stein responded to Bahnsen's statement which you (Arcesious) quoted with this:
But look at what Bahnsen said:
Bahnsen's Crackers in the Pantry fallacy covers a variety of mistaken assumptions, some of which do not apply to Stein. While the choice of name for the fallacies he is talking about is certainly unfortunate (it's clear that Stein does not care about how we find out whether there are crackers in the pantry), I don't think he has committed a fallacy himself by saying that Stein has made a category error.

If you try reading the debate you'll find out that such objections aren't legitimate answers to his argument.

You read the debate.
Everybody loves fallacies... But I think it is reasonable to allow some fallacies to fly. (Within limit)

And just how hard do they need to be? Bahnsen's objective is to win a debate. He obviously thought that his was a better tactic than trying other ways, like natural theology. It may be that his ideas are unnecessary to us, but quite necessary for him, in which case he hasn't made them harder than they need to be.
His objective was to win the debate yes, but when you try to use metaphysical concepts with logic, without anything but 'fallacy this, fallacy that' to back up an argument, there's a problem...

I don't know what would constitute evidence for transcendental necessity. I'd venture to guess that Bahnsen isn't too worried by a lack of evidence.
But the evidence is exceedingly important. If its there, it's best to take it into account. If God wanted us to follow him religiously, why did he give us these five senses and brains and useful hands that allowed us to construct such complex pieces of technology that are telling us otherwise as we look at the universe and see quite a bit of evidence for things such as human evolution...

Logic is practically the definition of abstraction. Being abstract doesn't mean it's mysterious, just generalized: you can use the same kind of reasoning with different specific instances of the same class of concepts.
True when you put it that way. The logic I was talking about is scientific, rational, analytical logic.

Bahnsen's problem with logic in an atheistic universe is that it asserts as its domain everything, yet provides no justification for that generality. He sees it as an unfounded assumption that A=A will always be so. There is no such thing as proving the laws of logic by experiment, so he comes to his conclusion that logic is not justified. And he's right; logic isn't justified in that way.
Our claims are falsifiable though. The scientific method doesn't use the inductive fallacy that much, because it is self correcting. If we find evidence for or against something, we go with it, and attempt to find every contributing factor for and against what we analyze with the scientific method. True, it uses the inductive fallacy, but only to a certain extent. All scientific papers are examined by the scientific community to be put under peer review in order to make sure that everything checks out. We as humans have to use the inductive fallacy to a certain extent, but those nice scientists who give us these amazing computers and other conveniences such as modern medicine and whatnot- they go to a lot of work to make sure things work. BTW, faith uses the inductive fallacy much more.

I don't know if he did disagree with any of those items or not, but his argument would not force him to deny any of them (save of course, the illogicality of theist Gods. He might deny that a theistic God is illogical, but agree that God is a non-logical concept).
He was arguing in metaphysics, but not analyzing the illogical actions of the Christian God in the Bible.

I imagine he is talking about the problem of induction there, in which case no amount of scientific, falsifiable claims are going to help at all. For example, why should the nature be uniform? Why should how things happened in the future reflect how things happened in the past? Those are not a scientific questions insofar as you would have to use the scientific method in order to check the scientific method - an obvious nonstarter. He talks about induction later in the debate transcript starting on page 27.
Nature is not all that uniform, and if you see my points on abiogenesis and cdk007's, you can see that it isn't too hard for the universal conditions to form complex life over a long period of time.

I'd hope you think your argument is best. I certainly think that of mine; that's why I hold it. In any case, Bahnsen was making a point: if the laws of logic are physical, then they are conditional. They couldn't be universal, so Stein couldn't say they apply the same everywhere (in Bahnsen's brain, for example, so that he would agree with Stein).
Most of the time now I come to debate not to win, but to learn. Although there are some debates I come to try to come to an agreement with fellow debaters.

He's making a point: that we wouldn't be satisfied if we just decided to define God as existing or not, and then manufactured "evidence" to show that our assertion was true. Why wouldn't we be satisfied by that if truths were truths because we agreed to them?
The scientific method isn't something you vote about... We don't know all the answers, and perhaps we never will know them all, but it seems less of a waste of time to attempt to understand the universe than to cling to a superstition. We've gotten pretty far thanks to the people who do all that confusing science stuff...

I'm not sure what the rest of your post had to do with the debate so I won't respond to it.
Oh I was just trying to explain how the formation of complex life such as humans on earth doesn't need divine intervention to happen.

Please feed the trolls. XD

Last edited by Arcesious; 10-07-2008 at 05:18 PM.
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,