Tautology Wiki
Advertisement

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point) The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever) The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

The presuppositional apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate at May Memorial Universalist Church in Syracuse.

The persons debating Sye and it seems even Sye himself are unaware that the concept they are discussing is the http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma (Münchhausen Trilemma). Sye is making the point that our only alternative to circularity and infinitism is unfalsifiability or being unscientific.

Since atheists insist they are scientific, they therefore don't understand Sye's arguments. The mistake they make is to think that Sye is the originator of his line of questioning.

Radical skepticism with regard to the possibility of ultimate philosophical grounding is based on an abstractive fallacy. It is somewhat misleading coherence to present the radical skeptic position in terms of an argument, because in presenting an argument one is usually committed to the truth of its premises and conclusion, whereas radical skeptics would suspend judgment with respect to them. Problems remain regarding the coherence of anyone who accepts the soundness of an argument whose conclusion is that we are not justified in believing anything. The so called Münchhausen trilemma can be overcome by recognizing that some presuppositions are necessary for the very possibility of intersubjectively valid criticism and argumentation. The “principle of fallibilism” which holds that any claim can, in principle, be doubted is only meaningful within an framework where some pragmatic rules and norms are not open to question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Albert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Münchhausen_Trilemma

"....Some people would say that all statements need evidence to support them. Others would say that some statements can follow out of other statements. Most people belong to both categories, but all face one problem: what if there's no evidence for a fundamental statement and that statement also doesn't follow out of any other statements? ..."

James Randy[]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=lF8AbSFmHnQ&feature=endscreen


Sye Ten Bruggencate[]

Stephen Law debate with Sye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmIEZsrP1HE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYFrMF1L4E

The presuppositional apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate at May Memorial Universalist Church in Syracuse.

The persons debating Sye and it seems even Sye himself are unaware that the concept they are discussing is the http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma (Münchhausen Trilemma). Sye is making the point that our only alternative to circularity and infinitism is unfalsifiability or being unscientific.

Since atheists insist they are scientific, they therefore don't understand Sye's arguments. The mistake they make is to think that Sye is the originator of his line of questioning.


Sye Ten Bruggencate's line of reasoning is very good. See the youtube links at http://proofthatgodexists.org/multimedia-video.php

notes on Sye: 1. truth is what is real, correspondence theory of truth. Problem is we don't know what is real.

2. The only way to stop an infinite regress is if you have infinite knowledge 2min


> Sye Ten Bruggencate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvjKC-JNA2w makes the following point: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/revised-chapter-for-comments.html

"..... P.S. For my parody "proof" that Sye has been hit on the head with a rock and his brain addled, go here ....."

Carneades.org[]

http://www.carneades.org/ - Carneadesofcyrene's video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kzhae8sFfY&list=UU1VzCyqpmCaRh8_BnijbOvg - on Agrippa takes the position of skepticism concerning the validity of the trilemma itself. Since the very concept of skepticism bootstraps the law of excluded middle, he is still bound by the Agrippian rhetorical circle. We are all bound, either virtuously or rhetorically.

These types of pop. expositions on Agrippa all bootstrap their respective world views into the problem and are oblivious to this fact since they don't cite any journal papers. Dr.Andrew Cling did not spend hours of his life and over 20 pages in the Journal of Philosophical studies, nor the the four university professors who had to peer review it before publication, if he thought the whole Agrippian issue is bogus, rather for him it is "intolerable". Carneades is using "sceptical" as dissimilar term for 'bogus', 'misguided', uninteresting in his Adaptationist angle on Agrippa and presup issues.

Presuppositional apologetics Notes[]

Dr. Jason Lisle

One way to respond is to deny that it is a problem. Those familiar with some philosophy of mathematics and discussion of circularity in definition will know that not all circles are vicious, so this isn't as hopeless a reply as it might seem. So, you shouldn't assume that to describe reasoning as "circular" is always a negative thing (even though it might be in very many instances).

Presuppositional apollogetics[]

Sye Ten Bruggencate's - http://proofthatgodexists.org/ - pre suppositional

The Atheists in on Youtube, attempting to refute Bruggencate's apologetics are actually attempting to refute the Münchhausen Trilemma , without knowing that Wikipedia defines it as an unsolved philosophical problem. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYFrMF1L4E

Sye said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c60c-4CZ7Qo "... 49:30min ..... God is not an axiom, he is a necessary pre-condition. .... because axiom is not provable. ... axiom is not a necessary truth...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYFrMF1L4E 2min "..... are viciously circular arguments invalid ....."

His arguments must be incorporated into this wiki and thus some things could be up for review. A full course on his views is here http://store.creationtoday.org/index/page/product/product_id/1484/category_id/165/product_name/How+to+Answer+the+Fool%3A+a+Presuppositional+Defense+of+the+Faith

At Stephen Law I have compiled Prof.Stephen Law's replies to Sye http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/sye-show-continues.html

Darth Dawkins Circular Reasoning[]

Darth Dawkins is an internet famous Christian who uses Pressuppositional apologetics. Darth's defense is that Christianity rounded in the pure strength of deductive inference, in the wish to unite all explanations in one ultimate rule, often from some incredible premise (e.g. the Nazi idea of being hereditarily destined to make the greatest scientific and technological progress, a belief that they "knew" was true). But our questions are not asked like that; there is no magic moment when one answer is literally that ultimate. Our knowledge is beholden to truth enough for us to emphasize the aim for truth in statements of knowledge, even in the wishful cases (we do wish we knew, and that what we wish overall is true...).


Darth Dawkins circular reasoning. This Christian apologist is an extremely stubborn, obstinate, and borderline insane presuppositionalist philoso-troll. Like other presuppers, he will shut down any conversation or argument with questions like "how do you know that?" and demands for opponents to justify their ability to reason, but with a level of antisocial animosity at least an order of magnitude higher than your average presupper. Basic-to-intermediate philosophical knowledge (and/or equal levels of trollishness) is recommended in dealing with him, but he's better off just being ignored at all costs.

C0nc0rdance[]

NOTE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMtj0vXWAc C0nc0rdance at 10min misstates Sye's argument. Sye differentiates virtuous circularity from vicious circularity(Logical fallacies , concordance left out the 'virtuous part'. Presup states that beings with finite knowledge cannot refute God who has infinite knowledge, nowhere does Concordance use the term 'infinite' in his video. He misrepresents Sye not quoting anything that can be directly verified on youtube or in print. Concordance idea of God is as a being with finite knowledge, God has infinite knowledge.

Links[]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RCIYI9dY1Y from http://wwww.Carneades.org

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=257883

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195183214.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195183214-e-23

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/6413/the-coherentist-solution-to-agrippas-trilemma-and-the-possibility-of-pure-impur some replies seems to equivocate between logical circularity and rhetorical circularity. Just like logical tautologies, there must be logical circularity, don't confuse the two

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

http://john.turri.org/research/finitude.pdf finite-mind objection

Klein, Peter. 2005a. “Infinitism Is the Solution to the Regress Problem.” In M. Steup and E. Sosa, eds, Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/251316845_Does_Kleins_infinitism_offer_a_response_to_Agrippas_trilemma