Hello Anthony!
Do you still love me?
Quote:
|
Brian, you don't really think that's a proof of a priori knowledge do you?
|
Yes, I do. It may not be sound, but I think it would fall under the category of ‘proof’. Maybe, you are asking if I really believe that it is sound? If so, then yes, I think it is sound, or I would not have presented it. Maybe, you are asking if I thought it was proof for justified
a priori knowledge apart from Scripture rather than some other conclusion? If so, yes, this clearly can be seen from the conclusion. It is a proof for justified knowledge apart from the Bible.
Quote:
|
Step 4 begs the question...You have not proven a priori is logically necessary, you have assumed it is necessary.
|
I am looking forward to your analysis that demonstrates this.
Quote:
|
Notice that you have switched "deduction" for "derivation".
|
I am using them as synonyms. You can assume they mean the same thing and interchange them. A logical derivation is the same as a logical deduction.
Quote:
|
You are merely assuming your axiom, no deducing any new proposition.
|
This is where you are mistaken. You are failing to distinguish between axioms and theorems. You asked me to derive (deduce) some proposition from my system, and you granted me the laws of logic. Well, my system has as one of the axioms the proposition “God is a God who is omniscient, omnipresent,…” I did exactly what you asked me to. I deduced a new proposition from this axiom using the laws of logic. If this somehow is not proper, then you undermine
all axiomatic systems including Clark’s.
Quote:
|
And you did not deduce any propositions from a priori forms or ideas.
|
Sure I did. I deduced a proposition based on the
a priori idea of contraposition.
Quote:
|
Again begging the question. This is not a given, it is what you are supposed to be proving...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…You have not proven ~(Case 1 or Case 2).
|
Anthony, you apparently do not understand the argument. Let me make it more explicit.
Anthony’s Position: For all ‘x’, ‘x’ is justified knowledge if and only if ‘x’ is derived from Scripture. (Note: The axiom itself is not included in this.)
Agreed Upon Proposition: All derivations from Scripture require
a priori knowledge.
Key Question: Is this required
a priori knowledge justified?
Key Issue: If it is not justified, then all derivations from Scripture are not justified because all derivations based upon unjustified premises are themselves unjustified.
Possible Cases Given Anthony’s Position: Case 1 – the
a priori knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are unjustified leading to the conclusion that all derivations are unjustified because of the “Key Issue.” You reject this claim on the basis that you think derivations of Scripture are justified. This leaves you with case 2.
Case 2 - The
a priori knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are justified. According to “Anthony’s Position” and the “Agreed Upon Proposition”, then this justified
a priori knowledge requires justification. This justification must be a derivation from Scripture which itself requires
a priori knowledge that is justified. This leads to a new key question: Is the required
a priori knowledge used to justify
a priori knowledge itself justified? This situation leaves us two options: (1) continue this regression which leads to absurdity (an infinite regression) and leaves the question unanswered and therefore unjustified, or just arbitrarily stop and beg the question. Either option fails to justify the
a priori knowledge used in the derivation.
This is my justification for my step 4 in my
Reductio Ad Absurdum proof. I think it is well founded, and as such my proof is sound.