J P Moreland : Skepticism and Epistemology 2 of 8 Apologeteics
BackChristian thinker J P Moreland talks about Skepticism and Epistemology
Channel: People & Blogs
Uploaded: October 18, 2007 at 12:16 am
Author: grandconjunct
Length: 00:10:00
Rating: 3.67
Views: 1854
Tags: Apologetics skepticism epistemology philosophy Christianity Moreland talbot biola metaphysics religion science argument from reason mind victor reppert lewis dangerous idea design dembski william craig Aquinas alvin plantinga richard swinburne dualism atheism agnosticism hasker douglas wilson
Video Comments:
elroy2112 (August 21, 2008 at 12:30 am)
FGB >>presupposes the validity of his "knowledge" that the law of non contradiction is true. Which means he presupposes the proposition he is trying to prove.
Elroy >> No Hes not trying to prove Law of non contradiction is true,Moreland would never say anything that backward All laws of Logic are first principles or axiom like, they explain world or reasoning in this case they cant be "proven" and if you deny them you cant reason, Moreland is showing If you deny God of reason you lose reason.
Elroy >> No Hes not trying to prove Law of non contradiction is true,Moreland would never say anything that backward All laws of Logic are first principles or axiom like, they explain world or reasoning in this case they cant be "proven" and if you deny them you cant reason, Moreland is showing If you deny God of reason you lose reason.
beamstalk (July 17, 2008 at 9:22 am)
Also he is creating a straw man about skeptics by saying that skeptics claim they know that they know nothing.
elroy2112 (August 21, 2008 at 12:53 am)
If a man says "I know nothing"
and I ask how do you KNOW "that you know nothing"
this is a valid question not a strawman you need to explain how knowing you "know nothing" can not be knowledge, just calling names and throwing around words like "straw man" is not a reponse at all.
Just like when a Hard agnostic says "you cant know anything about God" he must explain how he KNOWS you cant know anything about God, skeptics need to explain there secret knowledge not just take it on Blind faith.
and I ask how do you KNOW "that you know nothing"
this is a valid question not a strawman you need to explain how knowing you "know nothing" can not be knowledge, just calling names and throwing around words like "straw man" is not a reponse at all.
Just like when a Hard agnostic says "you cant know anything about God" he must explain how he KNOWS you cant know anything about God, skeptics need to explain there secret knowledge not just take it on Blind faith.
beamstalk (August 21, 2008 at 7:33 am)
It is a straw man because that is not what skeptics claim. There are some things not know but there is plenty that is known. He created a fake skeptic and then knocked it down, thus straw man.
FatGermanBastard (June 22, 2008 at 8:54 am)
He is making a well known old mistake here. He uses circular reasoning to prove that "I know that I know nothing" is wrong. Therefore he violates his own rules of reasoning that do apply on the ground he is moving on.
By saying that "I know that I know nothing" is circular and therefore invalid he presupposes the validity of his "knowledge" that the law of non contradiction is true. Which means he presupposes the proposition he is trying to prove.
By saying that "I know that I know nothing" is circular and therefore invalid he presupposes the validity of his "knowledge" that the law of non contradiction is true. Which means he presupposes the proposition he is trying to prove.
FatGermanBastard (June 22, 2008 at 8:59 am)
His argument could be summarized like this:
P1: If "I know that I know nothing" is wrong then we may have knowledge.
P2: Assume that we have knowledge that the law of non contradiction is true.
P3: Then "I know that I know nothing" is wrong.
=> Therefore we may have knowledge.
However, he assumed his conclusion in the second premise. This makes his argument like "Assume X, therefore X"
P1: If "I know that I know nothing" is wrong then we may have knowledge.
P2: Assume that we have knowledge that the law of non contradiction is true.
P3: Then "I know that I know nothing" is wrong.
=> Therefore we may have knowledge.
However, he assumed his conclusion in the second premise. This makes his argument like "Assume X, therefore X"
broj8s8n79 (March 9, 2008 at 10:29 pm)
I know that I think that I think that I think I know this video is cool, great vid!!
Elroy>> no FGB, 2 premises and a conclusion is a deductive argument, or logical proof, Moreland is not saying Im going to give you a proof for Logic so we can believe in the God of reason, first principles (expample Laws of Logic etc) are not provable like the axioms of geometry they cant be proven, if you deny them or Knowledge nothing makes sense at all If you assume God of reason this is consistent with reasoning being real. there is no therefore involved