Agrippa's trilemma

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma
• http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/category/epistemology/ Also known as Agrippa's trilemma

• http://www.friesian.com/foundatn.htm

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

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 ....."

Presuppositional apologetics Notes

Dr. Jason Lisle

Links

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.

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

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.

fsx23 rebutal to Bruggencate

NOTE: Bruggencate's premise is that if you could be wrong about everything then the conclusion is you don't know anything. Whatever else this argument might be it is at least not circular reasoning. Sye's body of arguments on virtuous circularity, infinite knowledge preventing infinite regress, Descartes etc. enables his conclusion to derive from his premise in such a way that he doesn't effectively restate the premise. Neither Concordance, fsx23 , Alex Botten(http://www.youtube.com/user/theealex) references Bruggencate's core argument: God has infinite knowledge and as such we can be certain about what he revealed to us(finite knowledge) in scripture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHOhNoKawQ at 3:16 min fsx23 3:16min stated that sye should have said:

"....If your premise is that you could be wrong about everything then your conclusion is that you don't know everything....."

This is circular logic because the conclusion is already contained in the premise. If you don't know everything, you could be wrong about everything. If you could be wrong about everything then this implies you don't know everything. Fsx23 did not indicate whether he realized that if Sye had phrased it as such it would be circular reasoning.