Some of Nocterro’s Presuppositions

Someone commenting on the site by the name Nocterro recently posted the following:

I just have one final point to make regarding presuppositions.

Presuppose: To believe or suppose in advance. (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition).

You said earlier in this discussion: “You presuppose autonomy in that you reject the Lordship of Christ and the interpretation of the resurrection provided by Scripture which states that it was a supernatural event and assume that a naturalistic interpretation is possible for any given evidence.”

This is wrong. In fact, you could say that I started with similar presuppositions to the ones that you have. I was a Christian for most of my life. But, after careful study of religious issues, I have determined that God(at least the Christian God) most likely does not exist and that my presuppositions were wrong. Of course I may be wrong. But the point is that I do not presuppose ‘no God’. Issues such as the existence of God must be dealt with carefully. I approach them with this attitude: ‘Is this idea true? Why or why not? How sure can I be?’ To be quite honest, I cannot think of anything that I presuppose. You might say that I presuppose that the universe exists as a response to this, however I’m not even 100% certain of this. I merely operate as if it does, because it’s more useful to do so(and the same for similar ideas). If I dropped everything until I was certain that ‘reality is real’, I would never get anything done.

The overall point is this: when an idea is presented to me, I do not immediately think ‘this is true’ or ‘this is false’. I study the issue first, then come to a conclusion.

 The first thing worth mentioning is that what is in view are the presuppositions Nocterro currently has, not those of the past. Nocterro defines “presuppose” as “to believe or suppose in advance”. There are commitments that guide the interpretation of evidence which are believed or supposed prior to even examining that evidence. There are no such things as brute facts (facts which speak for themselves). Presuppositions are brought to the facts. There is a great deal more to be said about this term, but I will work from the definition provided by Nocterro as best as I am able.

Nocterro claims that he started with presuppositions that are similar to the ones I have because according to him he was a Christian for most of his life. What does the Bible say?

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 1 John 2.19

According to this passage Nocterro was never a Christian. Inherent in his claim that he was a Christian is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.

Nocterro claims, as many do, that he came to his current position “after careful study of religious issues”. Let the reader understand that “careful study of religious issues” is not what led Nocterro to his current position; it certainly did not lead me away from faith. What does the Bible say?

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Romans 1.21-25

According to this passage Nocterro has interpreted “religious issues” incorrectly. Inherent in his claim that he is not a Christian because of careful study of religious issues is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.

Nocterro claims, as many do, that he came to his current position “after careful study of religious issues”. As is often the case with such claims, he fails to be very specific. Perhaps he means he has carefully studied religious issues not in terms of ‘other religions’ but in terms of philosophical cogency. Let the reader understand that careful philosophical analysis of Christianity is not what led Nocterro to his current position; it certainly did not lead me away from faith. What does the Bible say?

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1.20

According to this passage Nocterro has not come to reject Christianity through the “wisdom of the world”. Inherent in his claim that he has is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.

Nocterro claims that he has “determined that God (at least the Christian God) most likely does not exist” and adds, “Of course I may be wrong. But the point is that I do not presuppose ‘no God’”. Someone who claims that God most likely does not exist and concedes that he may be wrong might be categorized as “agnostic” with respect to God. Nocterro is safely said to be claiming that he does not know whether or not God exists. What does the Bible say?

…they knew God… Romans 1.21

According to this passage Nocterro knows God. Inherent in his claim that he does not know God is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.

What Nocterro claims with respect to his approach to issues such as the existence of God reminds one of Eve in the Garden of Eden. He writes, “Issues such as the existence of God must be dealt with carefully. I approach them with this attitude: ‘Is this idea true? Why or why not? How sure can I be?’” Calling the Word of God into question in this manner is rejecting God as final authority. It presupposes that there is a final authority higher than God by which His Word may be weighed.

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself. Hebrews 6.13

Inherent in Nocterro’s alleged method is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.

Nocterro presupposes that he thinks when he writes, “To be quite honest, I cannot think of anything that I presuppose”. Perhaps he even presupposes that he has no presuppositions. He presupposes that words have meaning, that communication is possible, senses and reasoning, etc. etc.

Nocterro closes by claiming, “when an idea is presented to me, I do not immediately think ‘this is true’ or ‘this is false’. I study the issue first, then come to a conclusion”. This presupposes that there is no finally authoritative Word like that from God which is known to be true because of the One who speaks it.


23 Comments

Nocterro

I may or may not respond to this in more depth, but first I would like to ask you a few questions.

Are you willing to concede the possibility that..
1) Your claims in the above article are flawed?
2) Your presuppositions are flawed?
3) Your interpretations of scripture are flawed?
4) Scripture itself is flawed?
5) God, as you define Him, does not exist?

Please keep in mind that I have used the word ‘possibility’ if you decide to answer these questions.

Turning the mirror around, I am willing to concede these things:

1) Your claims in the above article may be true.
2) I may have presuppositions.
3) Your interpretations of scripture may be correct.
4) Christianity may be true.
5) God may exist.
6) I may unconsciously know or believe God exists.

I am not, however, willing to concede this:

1) I currently, consciously know or believe God exists.
2) I never truly believed that God existed, and that Jesus was Lord.

I can tell you with complete confidence that at a certain point in my life, I really, truly was a Christian. I believed in Jesus Christ with everything I had, and placed complete trust in Him. If you want to say that my belief was flawed in some way, that’s fine. But to say I never believed, that is erroneous. So, you seem to be left with 3 possibilities:

1) Your interpretation of scripture is flawed.
2) Scripture itself is flawed.
3) I am lying.

So, which is it?

C.L. Bolt

“Are you willing to concede the possibility that..

1) Your claims in the above article are flawed?”

Which claims?

“2) Your presuppositions are flawed?”

Which presuppositions?

“3) Your interpretations of scripture are flawed?”

Which interpretations?

“4) Scripture itself is flawed?”

No.

“5) God, as you define Him, does not exist?”

No.

“I am not, however, willing to concede this:

1) I currently, consciously know or believe God exists.
2) I never truly believed that God existed, and that Jesus was Lord.”

This only confirms what I have written above regarding your presuppositions.

“I can tell you with complete confidence that at a certain point in my life, I really, truly was a Christian.”

You can tell me that, but that does not make it true.

“I believed in Jesus Christ with everything I had, and placed complete trust in Him.”

I disagree.

“If you want to say that my belief was flawed in some way, that’s fine.”

It is not that it was flawed; it was not there.

“But to say I never believed, that is erroneous.”

I disagree.

“So, you seem to be left with 3 possibilities:”

“1) Your interpretation of scripture is flawed.”

No, not with respect to what I believe are the relevant passages.

“2) Scripture itself is flawed.”

No.

“3) I am lying.

So, which is it?”

Have you ever had a false belief about yourself?

You are self-deceived as follows.

Nocterro believes that God exists.

Nocterro believes “Nocterro does not believe that God exists”.

Thus you have a false belief about yourself and use it to suppress your knowledge of God.

Nocterro

I see a few issues here…

First, you seem to have completely skipped over the conscious/unconscious issue(although perhaps ‘subconscious’ is a better word?). I think this is a very important distinction, please address this.

Second, you seem to be implying that I am delusional regarding the contents of my own mind.

Third, you claim that I have beliefs (X, Y, Z) when I have stated that this is not the case. You also seem to claim that you have insight into my own thoughts that I myself do not have. This seems…well, silly. You do not know me at all. You have no idea how my thought processes operate or what I think.

If you cannot even grant that we have different beliefs regarding the existence of God, how can we even have a discussion?

“Have you ever had a false belief about yourself? ”

This seems possible, but not in the sense that you are stating.

“Nocterro is popular.” This could be a false belief about myself.

“Nocterro believes he is popular.” How could this be false?

Are you saying that there is something so fundamentally flawed with my reasoning that I can hold contradictory beliefs within my mind, ABOUT my own mind?

C.L. Bolt

“First, you seem to have completely skipped over the conscious/unconscious issue”

You consciously believe:

Nocterro believes that God exists.

Nocterro believes “Nocterro does not believe that God exists”.

“although perhaps ’subconscious’ is a better word?”

I do not know that the concept of subconsciousness is coherent.

“Second, you seem to be implying that I am delusional regarding the contents of my own mind.”

You are self-deceived.

“Third, you claim that I have beliefs (X, Y, Z) when I have stated that this is not the case.”

I do not see your point.

“You also seem to claim that you have insight into my own thoughts that I myself do not have.”

You do have them.

“This seems…well, silly.”

Incredulity is not an argument.

“You have no idea how my thought processes operate or what I think.”

Since this is just an assertion, I will just stick to my claim that I do have an idea about how your thought processes operate. This statement also has a self-referential problem though as it is a claim that I do not have a particular idea. How can this claim be made unless you have an idea how my thought processes operate or what I think? The reason I do know the things I have written is because God, an all-knowing being, has told them to me.

“If you cannot even grant that we have different beliefs regarding the existence of God, how can we even have a discussion?”

I am not sure I understand the question. If we do have different beliefs regarding the existence of God I am left wondering how we can have a discussion.

“Are you saying that there is something so fundamentally flawed with my reasoning that I can hold contradictory beliefs within my mind, ABOUT my own mind?”

What contradictory beliefs do you think I am claiming that you hold?

Nocterro believes that God exists.

Nocterro believes “Nocterro does not believe that God exists”.

Your false belief is not about the existence of God, it is about yourself.

Nocterro

A few more questions, if you don’t mind…

1) Could you elaborate on why you think the concept of subconsciousness is incoherent?

2) Could you outline an epistemic justification for the position that one may be deceived in their cognizing of their own states of mind?

Punchy Bloke

Nocterro believes that he doesn’t believe in God While consciously believing it? Or are you saying that Nocterro is a deluded person who says that they don’t believe in God but does believe in him? Or is Nocterro a liar? I am greatly confused, Bolt doesn’t seem to be saying anything coherent..

C.L. Bolt

“A few more questions, if you don’t mind…”

Certainly.

“1) Could you elaborate on why you think the concept of subconsciousness is incoherent?”

I appears to me that one is either conscious or unconscious. Perhaps I just do not understand what subconscious means. I may very well have a silly suspicion here.

“2) Could you outline an epistemic justification for the position that one may be deceived in their cognizing of their own states of mind?”

Yikes. Yes, but it will take some time. :pencils in Nocterro:

C.L. Bolt

“Nocterro believes that he doesn’t believe in God While consciously believing it?”

What is the referent of “it” in your question?

“Or are you saying that Nocterro is a deluded person who says that they don’t believe in God but does believe in him?”

Nocterro claims that he does not believe in God. Nocterro does believe in God.

“Or is Nocterro a liar?”

Insofar as he states things which contradict what God states.

“I am greatly confused”

Sorry to hear that.

“Bolt doesn’t seem to be saying anything coherent.”

What is incoherent about what I have written?

Punchy Bloke

“What is the referent of “it” in your question?”

God.

“Nocterro claims that he does not believe in God. Nocterro does believe in God.”

That makes no sense, why would Nocterro claim to not believe in God but believe in God? Furthermore, the evidence is on you to show that Nocterro does believe in God, you have given no epistemic justification of this. How can you possibly know what goes on inside Nocterro’s, and for that matter ALL atheists minds? These would have to be the stupidest people in the world. They’d have to have some sort of hidden agenda and be conspiring against God. That makes NO sense, especially sense there is NO evidence for your claim. Does Nocterro have a past history of chronic lying or something, do ALL Atheists have some sort condition of chronic lying?

“Insofar as he states things which contradict what God states.”

All interpretations of the bible have to be logically consistent, until you adequately refute my objections above I will maintain that this interpretation of the bible makes no sense.

“What is incoherent about what I have written?”
see above as well.

Peace, sorry if I have in any way misrepresented you.

~Collin

C.L. Bolt

“Nocterro believes that he doesn’t believe in God While consciously believing [in God]?”

Yes.

“Nocterro claims that he does not believe in God. Nocterro does believe in God.”
“That makes no sense”

Yes it does. There is nothing incoherent about the statement ‘Nocterro believes in God yet claims not to’. If you continue to assert that there is you will need to spell out your reasoning for your claim.

“why would Nocterro claim to not believe in God but believe in God?”

Nocterro would claim to not believe in God because he is a sinner who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Nocterro would believe in God because it is impossible to escape belief in God.

“Furthermore, the evidence is on you to show that Nocterro does believe in God”

I think you meant to write that the burden is on me to show that Nocterro does believe in God. This may be, but if I am not making any sense, how do you know this? I am simply writing out responses in accordance with my overall worldview. If you do not understand what it is I am defending first you will not likely understand why it is it should be accepted.

“you have given no epistemic justification of this.”

I already addressed this with Nocterro.

“How can you possibly know what goes on inside Nocterro’s, and for that matter ALL atheists minds?”

I already addressed this as well.

“These would have to be the stupidest people in the world.”

You said it, not me.

“They’d have to have some sort of hidden agenda and be conspiring against God.”

This is what enemies do.

“That makes NO sense”

Again, why not?

“especially sense there is NO evidence for your claim”

Can you prove your claim that there is no evidence for my claim? How do you know there is no evidence? What do you consider evidence? Why do I need evidence for my claim?

“Does Nocterro have a past history of chronic lying or something do ALL Atheists have some sort condition of chronic lying?”

I think I already touched on this.

“All interpretations of the bible have to be logically consistent”

Why?

“until you adequately refute my objections above I will maintain that this interpretation of the bible makes no sense”

You have not raised any objections. You just keep claiming that what I have written is nonsensical and then contradict yourself by attempting to interact on a surface level with what I have written.

“What is incoherent about what I have written?”
“see above as well.”

I see you writing this over and over again, but that is about it.

Please quote for me the incoherent part of what I have stated and show why it is problematic.

“Peace, sorry if I have in any way misrepresented you.”

I don’t see that you have misrepresented me. I think you are just blowing smoke.You are also ignoring the main thrust of the original post.

C.L. Bolt

“That makes NO sense, especially sense there is NO evidence for your claim”

Whether or not there is evidence for a claim is rather irrelevant to whether or not the claim makes sense. I forgot to mention this.

Nocterro

“There is nothing incoherent about the statement ‘Nocterro believes in God yet claims not to’”

Yet, you seem to have claimed much more than that.

“This is what enemies do.”

If I believe in God as you claim, would this not mean I also believe He is perfect? Why would I be an enemy of a being I believed is perfect?

“Why do I need evidence for my claim?”

You’re welcome to believe anything you want, of course…but if you expect us to accept your claims, you must support them in some way.

“All interpretations of the bible have to be logically consistent”

“Why?”

Because things which are logically inconsistent are absurd.

C.L. Bolt

“There is nothing incoherent about the statement ‘Nocterro believes in God yet claims not to’”
“Yet, you seem to have claimed much more than that.”

I did claim much more than that, but Punchy Bloke’s suggestion there that I was responding to was offered with respect to the specific line I restated. The other things I wrote have not been shown to be incoherent either though.

“If I believe in God as you claim, would this not mean I also believe He is perfect?”

Yes.

“Why would I be an enemy of a being I believed is perfect?”

Because He requires perfection of you and you do not have it.

“You’re welcome to believe anything you want, of course…”

Well thank you. 🙂

“but if you expect us to accept your claims, you must support them in some way.”

Okay, why do you need evidence to accept my claims?

“Because things which are logically inconsistent are absurd.”

Tautology. Why cannot any interpretations of the Bible be absurd? Where has my interpretation of the Bible been shown to be absurd?

You claim to have been a Christian in the past; had you never read these passages before? Are you suggesting that I have misinterpreted them? Does any of this really have much to do with the post showing that you do in fact have presuppositions?

Pardon me if I am being unfair to you since some of Punchy Bloke’s comments have bled into this.

Nocterro

“Because He requires perfection of you and you do not have it.”

And yet, it seems that if I believed He was perfect, I would also believe that He is justified in requiring perfection of me; and thus I would would try my best to live up to His standard, not become His enemy.

“Okay, why do you need evidence to accept my claims?”

It should be noted that I am using “evidence” and “justification” rather interchangeably here. I do not mean *empirical* evidence only. To answer your question, I need evidence to accept your claims because I need evidence to accept ANY claim. If I did not, I would accept every idea I was presented with. I would believe that the moon is made of cheese, that the earth was flat, and that leprechauns exist.

It should also be noted that I am not attempting to shift the burden of proof. If I claim “God does not exist”, then I must support that with evidence as well.

I guess the real issue is whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I would say, as veritas48 on youtube has said, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence only if we would expect to find evidence for claim X were claim X true, but we do not. This line of thought will inevitably lead to 2 questions:

1) Should we expect to find evidence of God?
2) If we should expect that, does it exist?

However, this is getting a bit off topic, and perhaps should be best saved for another discussion.

“Why cannot any interpretations of the Bible be absurd?”

Because absurd things (things which are logically inconsistent) cannot be. What is logically possible is determined by the Law of Non-Contradiction(LNC). If a claim violates the LNC, it cannot be true. I should also clarify that I do not claim that any interpretations of scripture cannot be absurd, but that no sound interpretations of scripture can be absurd. An absurd(logically inconsistent) interpretation must be a false interpretation.

“Where has my interpretation of the Bible been shown to be absurd?”

I will address this after I receive your epistemic justification for your position position that one may be deceived in their cognizing of their own states of mind. 😀

C.L. Bolt

“And yet, it seems that if I believed He was perfect, I would also believe that He is justified in requiring perfection of me; and thus I would would try my best to live up to His standard, not become His enemy.”

You do not become His enemy, you already are His enemy. Many unbelieving people do try their best to live up to God’s standard. The problem is that none of us can live up to God’s standard. The solution is Christ Jesus who did live up to God’s standard.

“I need evidence to accept your claims because I need evidence to accept ANY claim.”

What is your evidence for accepting this claim?

“If I did not, I would accept every idea I was presented with.”

What is your evidence for accepting this claim?

“I would believe that the moon is made of cheese, that the earth was flat, and that leprechauns exist.”

What is wrong with accepting every idea you are presented with?

That one may be deceived in one’s cognizing of his or her own states of mind is not as controversial as I think you may believe it is. Much more importantly though, it has little to do with what the passages I quoted state.

Punchy Bloke

I’m starting to think that Bolt is trolling here. Are you trolling nocterro, here? or are you serious in all of the things you’ve said?

‘What is wrong with accepting every idea you are presented with?”

Some ideaologies are contradictory. Someone will present the idea that God exists, some will present the idea that God doesn’t exist, are you going to accept these two contradicting ideas at the same time? Of course not.

“What is your evidence for accepting this claim?”

Ask yourself this: how can you possibly accept every claim without evidence and be logically consistent? You can’t. It’ll end up making you believe in Christianity, Atheism, Scientology all at the same time! While I do agree that the evidentialist approach is flawed, generally in order to be logically consistent one must have evidence for a claim.

“You do not become His enemy, you already are His enemy. Many unbelieving people do try their best to live up to God’s standard. The problem is that none of us can live up to God’s standard. The solution is Christ Jesus who did live up to God’s standard.”

I see you threw preaching in your trolling thar

Nocterro

“You do not become His enemy, you already are His enemy.”

Are you saying that He considers me to be an enemy, or that I consider Him to be an enemy?

“I need evidence to accept your claims because I need evidence to accept ANY claim.”

The evidence for this(for other people) is that I ask for evidence before accepting claims that are presented to me. It is a claim about myself, hence it is self-apparent to me.

“If I did not, I would accept every idea I was presented with.”

Let me restate this in a bit more detail.

If I did not require justification of any sort to be provided before I accept a claim, then I would immediately accept all claims presented to me.

The problem is, actually accepting all claims would include accepting logically contradictory claims. One cannot possibly accept, for example, both “Mars exists” and “Mars does not exist”. This violates the LNC. It is not possible to conceive of.

“What is wrong with accepting every idea you are presented with?”

One must wonder if you are even being serious anymore. I suspect that you are merely nitpicking me, and know very well what is wrong with accepting every idea one is presented with. But if you truly think there is nothing wrong with this, allow me to present some ideas for you to accept:

1) You exist.
2) You do not exist.
3) I actually live on Jupiter.
4) You are a scientologist.
5) I am an atheist.
6) Jesus was actually a blue squid from the planet Venus.
7) There is a giant dancing ant wearing a top hat in your kitchen.

“That one may be deceived in one’s cognizing of his or her own states of mind is not as controversial as I think you may believe it is”

So explain it to me.

“it has little to do with what the passages I quoted state.”

We can discuss this after we deal with the current, much more important issues.

C.L. Bolt

Oh that’s nice; suggest I may be trolling on my own territory. No I am seriously asking for answers to these questions from you all. Why do you think I am trolling? Now, I have repeatedly mentioned that most of this is not overly relevant to the original post, but if you all continually make irrelevant comments then it says much more about your lack of an answer to what I have written then it does about what I have written.

I want to know what is wrong with accepting every idea you are presented with. Stating that some ideas are contradictory does not answer the question. A question as to what is wrong with accepting contradictory ideas is contained in the question as to what is wrong with accepting every idea you are presented with.

I do not know what you mean by “evidentialist approach”.

I am certainly not above preaching, but I was responding to Nocterro in the lines you dubbed “preaching”. If what I wrote is familiar then I am not sure why Nocterro would have written what he did, unless he has just forgotten what the Bible teaches. Then again, I cannot see thus far that either of you show much familiarity with what the Bible teaches.

So, how many trails do I need to follow you down before you actually deal with the main thrust of the things I am writing? 🙂

C.L. Bolt

“Are you saying that He considers me to be an enemy, or that I consider Him to be an enemy?”

Both, but we would probably need to work out a more nuanced and biblically based description.

“The evidence for this(for other people) is that I ask for evidence before accepting claims that are presented to me.”

Bzzz. Wrong. It does not follow from your asking for something that you need that something. In fact I’m going to go ahead and ask you for a llama. I’ve always wanted one. I don’t need one though. So again, what is your evidence for accepting the claim, “I need evidence to accept your claims because I need evidence to accept ANY claim”?

“It is a claim about myself, hence it is self-apparent to me.”

And apparently it is wrong.

“If I did not require justification of any sort to be provided before I accept a claim, then I would immediately accept all claims presented to me.”

I do not see that this is very easily justified, but okay. I want to know what is wrong with accepting all claims presented to you.

“The problem is, actually accepting all claims would include accepting logically contradictory claims.”

Yes. And what is wrong with this?

“One cannot possibly accept, for example, both ‘Mars exists’ and ‘Mars does not exist’. This violates the LNC. It is not possible to conceive of.”

Nonsense. People accept contradictory claims all the time. I want to know why you think they are wrong in doing so.

“One must wonder if you are even being serious anymore.”

It is interesting that when I ask people serious and extremely important questions that should come prior to discussion concerning ultimate matters they start questioning whether or not I am being serious. Yes, I am being serious.

“I suspect that you are merely nitpicking me, and know very well what is wrong with accepting every idea one is presented with.”

Oh I do know what is wrong with it, but you do not accept my position, remember? So I want to know what you think is wrong with it. I am trying to be fair to you.

“But if you truly think there is nothing wrong with this”

Where did I ever write anything like this?

“So explain it to me.”

If I don’t have a post written on it in a few days I will just link you to a source or two.

So by the way, would you say you presuppose the LNC?

Nocterro

OK, Chris…

This is rapidly descending into absurdity, so let’s start over and get back to the claim you made in the original post.

“According to this passage Nocterro knows God. ”

This seems to be the core issue here, so I just have one question: What makes your interpretation of scripture more of an authority on my beliefs than my own words, and even my own thoughts?

Punchy Bloke

So by the way, would you say you presuppose the LNC? <– Because two things which are contradictory cannot logically coexist.

"Nonsense. People accept contradictory claims all the time. I want to know why you think they are wrong in doing so. "

LNC.

Absurdity In Atheism And Incredulity Concerning Inquiry | Choosing Hats

[…] Nocterro and Punchy Bloke who have been commenting on the post found here. It did not take long, once some of their beliefs were challenged, to start dodging my questions […]

chrisbolt

“This is rapidly descending into absurdity, so let’s start over and get back to the claim you made in the original post.”

You brought us here, but okay.

“‘According to this passage Nocterro knows God.’
This seems to be the core issue here, so I just have one question: What makes your interpretation of scripture more of an authority on my beliefs than my own words, and even my own thoughts?”

With this question you are asking for evidence and justification that you were just now unable to justify asking for but I will once again go ahead and answer your question anyway. Scripture is the Word of God and God is the final authority in matters of truth. My interpretation of the passage of Scripture relevant to the discussion is correct and thus is more authoritative than your words. Your implication that I am incorrect in my “interpretation” via the baggage that word carries with it remains completely unfounded.

…………….

“So by the way, would you say you presuppose the LNC? <– Because two things which are contradictory cannot logically coexist." How is that an answer to my question at all? I asked if you would say that you presuppose the LNC. The answer should be 'yes' or 'no' and may include and explanation. You just answered "two things which are contradictory cannot logically coexist" which already assumes the LNC. This is not an answer to my question. "'Nonsense. People accept contradictory claims all the time. I want to know why you think they are wrong in doing so.' LNC." Yes I know that contradictions are contradictions, but what is wrong with someone accepting, for example, LNC and not-LNC?


Leave a Comment