tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post2963065184877538576..comments2014-07-10T14:00:01.950-07:00Comments on Choosing Hats: Helping Dawson Recognize a TABrian Knapphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09343706473535031469noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-28507737425588243982009-09-18T10:21:17.571-07:002009-09-18T10:21:17.571-07:00BK stated: What is inferred here is the existence ...<b>BK stated</b>: What is inferred here is the existence of God, based on the premise “for without him you cannot prove anything”. This structure has all the necessary elements of an argument - namely a conclusion and a reason why one should accept the conclusion as true. <br /><br /><b>Dawson responded</b>: So what is/are the premise(s) given to support the conclusion "Therefore, God Brian Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09343706473535031469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-46948837012140016862009-09-16T10:20:21.798-07:002009-09-16T10:20:21.798-07:00Anonymous, is there anything in my comment which s...Anonymous, is there anything in my comment which suggests to you that I expect readers to take what I say merely on my say so? Is that what you are implying with your comment?<br /><br />For the record, I am not expecting this. That is why I (a) link to another article of mine where I present my interaction with a similar argument, and (b) identify the objective account of concepts as the proper Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-85286094692474753542009-09-15T13:29:16.239-07:002009-09-15T13:29:16.239-07:00(Teacher to class) "Gather around, children. ...(Teacher to class) "Gather around, children. Remember, we've been studying informal fallacies. Today's lesson will be brought to us by a subject matter expert, Mr. Dawson Bethrick. He will be lecturing primarily on ipse-dixitism..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-72936091728509929112009-09-14T21:49:11.040-07:002009-09-14T21:49:11.040-07:00At least what Anonymous has presented is better th...At least what Anonymous has presented is better than what we find in Bahnsen’s debate, for at least here we have an argument that’s been spelled out. <br /><br />I rebutted a very similar argument on <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-logic-presuppose-christian-god_04.html" rel="nofollow">my blog</a>. In the argument which I considered in this blog, the arguer seeks to prove Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-75057397415874675752009-09-14T19:13:18.455-07:002009-09-14T19:13:18.455-07:00Here's a TA for your consideration. I call it...Here's a TA for your consideration. I call it the "Transcendental Ontological Argument from Mathematical Infinity" or (to use the language of the Children's Catechism) "God is Big":<br /><br />Mathematical entities, such as numbers, appear to be mental entities. They don't subsist in time and space. 1+1 doesn't become 2. There is no secret valley where the CIAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-24173542593220915982009-09-14T14:37:11.649-07:002009-09-14T14:37:11.649-07:00BK wrote: I will present for you Bahsen’s formulat...<b>BK wrote:</b> I will present for you Bahsen’s formulation, and one that I am more than comfortable with: “The proof of God’s existence is that without him you cannot prove anything.” There ...that is an “informal” representation of TAG that begs no questions.<br /><br /><b>I responded:</b>I wouldn't call that an argument, but simply an assertion. Since I see no attempt to *infer* a Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-15973989272000269882009-09-14T11:04:11.243-07:002009-09-14T11:04:11.243-07:00Dawson said: Thank you for this post, Brian. I'...<b>Dawson said</b>: Thank you for this post, Brian. I've read what you've stated, but still I don't see any actual arguments in either Bahnsen's or RK's debates. Rather, it appears that they're just asserting their position, and presuppositionalists are dubbing their assertions "arguments." <br /><br />Perhaps an examination of the history of TAs would help, as Brian Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09343706473535031469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-83667034747669603372009-09-09T22:36:08.879-07:002009-09-09T22:36:08.879-07:00Thank you for this post, Brian. I've read what...Thank you for this post, Brian. I've read what you've stated, but still I don't see any actual arguments in either Bahnsen's or RK's debates. Rather, it appears that they're just asserting their position, and presuppositionalists are dubbing their assertions "arguments."<br /><br />For example, you write:<br /><br /><b><< I will present for you Bahsen’s Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.com