View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-02-2008, 07:43 PM
Cheshire Cat Cheshire Cat is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 507
Thanks: 21
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse View Post
It almost seems oxymoronic to speak of a "proven" presupposition. A presupposition is a "pre" -supposition. Of course, you may be using the term in a different sense than I am. I think of presuppositions as something assumed by which other things are proved, and itself is not proved.
I have often read in discussions of TAG that God is the presupposition of 'X'. But isn't the point of this to prove God's existence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse View Post
One can present arguments for and against certain presuppositions. As to whether or not this constitutes a proof depends on how broadly you are using the term 'proof'. However, if you use it in a broad sense, then one can easily apply this to an argument justifying a certain axiom.
I think you are correct. If I am using proof in such a broad sense (which I am), then it could also apply to axioms. Its just that I don't think people think axioms can be proved, which is no doubt because they are using a narrower definition of proof.
__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA