Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse  I am not sure how to provide a link directly to the post. It is found on the previous page. Here is the quote... |
Brian, you don't really think
that's a proof of a priori knowledge do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse 1. Prove A: Apriori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is justified apart from Scripture.
2. Assume ~A: Apriori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is not justified apart from Scripture.
3. ~A-->(Case 1 or Case 2)
4. ~(Case 1 or Case 2)
5. ~~A by the logical law of Modus Tollens.
6. A by the Law of Negation.
Q.E.D. |
Step 4 begs the question. Do you recall how you gave someone a hard time about the TAG argument when the first premise of the argument actually assumed the conclusion being proven. Anything can be proven using that technique. You have not proven a priori is logically necessary, you have assumed it is necessary.
Your argument for step 4 is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse Case 1 (the apriori knowledge is not justified)
If this apriori knowledge is not justified, then all derivations based on this unjustified knowledge are unjustified. Since, all derivations of Scripture utilize apriori knowledge, then all derivations of Scripture are unjustified under this scenario. You deny this possibility. |
Notice that you have switched "deduction" for "derivation". And when I asked you to deduce a simple proposition without using Scripture, using a priori forms you gave this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse Premise: God is a being who is omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful. (Axiom 1)
Conclusion A: A being who is not omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful is not God. (Law of Contraposition)
Q.E.D. |
You are merely assuming your axiom, no deducing any new proposition. And you did not deduce any propositions from a priori forms or ideas. I can assume A and deduce not-not-A. But that all. If your axiom can not logically produce any knowledge, what good is it? Your a priori knowledge can not justify any knowledge. As an axiom, you could get as much knowledge from assuming "all dogs have four legs".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse Case 2 (the apriori knowledge is justified by Scripture)
How do we know that apriori knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that apriori knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize apriori knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify apriori knowledge must use apriori knowledge. ... |
Again begging the question. This is not a given, it is what you are supposed to be proving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse ... This means you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. It is along the lines of arguing that A is justified because of B, and when asked what justifies B, you respond with A. It is a vicious circle. |
Isn't it. But that's what you have done here. The Scripturalist can justify a priori forms post temporori. This is not begging the question, it a logical consequence of assuming the axiom of Scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse [Clearly, neither case 1 nor case 2 are desirable options, and as such it refutes your claim that there is no knowledge justified apart from Scripture. Consider the following argument. |
Ergo step 4 begs the question. You have not proven ~(Case 1 or Case 2).