A Brief Introductory Response To Mitch LeBlanc Concerning His Question

Mitch LeBlanc has written an alleged defense of his attempt to redefine God and hence defeat the presuppositionalist program. You may find his article here:

During a debate, Mitch asked of Razorskiss, “What if God is deceiving you?”
Several times now I have stated that this question is subject to Fallacy of Complex Question. Mitch disagrees, writing, “I did not present a false dichotomy of a yes or no, in which case I would agree that a labelling [sic] of my question as fallacy would be warranted” and “my question (2) does not force an answer in a similar manner [to illustrative question ‘1’ (“Do you know that God is deceiving you?”)]” in an attempt to justify this disagreement. My response to this is that Mitch just needs to review the fallacy in question. For the Fallacy of Complex Question to apply to a question the question does not need to require a “Yes or No” answer, therefore Mitch’s attempted justification for disagreement on whether or not the fallacy applies fails.

This aside, I have claimed that the question “What if God is deceiving you?” requires that some consequence or consequences be named if it is the case that God is deceiving the recipient of the question. I cannot think of how any such answer, if one were able to supply it (it is inconceivable to me that God should lie), would serve to further understanding for either the Objectivist or the presuppositionalist. The point of the question appears to me to be to suggest that God can lie, and nothing more. We will examine this suggestion soon, if the Lord wills.


MitchLeBlanc said...

I look forward to the rest of your reply.

Of course, regarding the question, it doesn't seem an important issue to me. The answer I expected from RK in response to my question "What if God is deceiving you?" was indeed "Then we are deceived" or some variation. My question thereafter would be "How do you know that God is not decieving you?" an obviously non-complex question.

As such, we could break down my question into a couple further ones but not in the manner that "Have you stopped beating your wife?" has. You accuse me of a pre-emptive redefinition attempt (as did RK), but that is not the goal. The goal is indeed an analysis of the justification for the current held definition of my opponent.

Pluruim Interrogationum (the fallacy of which you are accusing me) is an informal fallacy. This means that the content/intent of the said fallacious statement is indeed of grave importance to whether or not it be labelled as fallacious or not. It's not a formal fallacy so one cannot say that "all statements which meet criteria X are fallacious"

In this situation, I'd disagree with you that my question was fallacious as I did not attempt to draw the type of conclusion that would be drawn from "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

At any rate, it doesn't seem that we have any problem analyzing the issue of God's ability to lie from a presuppositionalist worldview, and in doing so we affirm at least the importance of the question. We seem to be able to discuss the issue quite cogently and as such I do not see the relvance of a critique of the question as I presented.

Thus, if in my future responses I do not respond to any mentionings of the question: "What if God is deceiving you?", it is for the above reasons.

As I've said, I look forward to reading the rest of your response and writing one of my own in turn.


C.L. Bolt said...

That will do, thank you for clarifying.

Mitchell LeBlanc said...

No problem. I am waiting for the entirety of your response before I write one in turn.

Am I correct in assuming you are still working on the next portion?

C.L. Bolt said...