Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I really wish you would have had time to get onto the logical part of the argument
because that's really what a lot of this focuses on.
there's a lot going on there,
especially how you were going against empiricism
the idea of the uniformity of nature
Of course, that's a big debate in philosophy, as I'm sure you know. [Dr. Lisle:] Right.
But what I'm curious about is,
you talked about how one of the fallacies you could commit
is to appeal to authority.
You appeal to the Bible
how do you get around the fact
by doing that we are,
you are creating a fallacy in your argument.
[Dr. Lisle:] My argument against appeal, a faulty appeal to authority, like you say,
is because people are not infallible.
to the Bible, and are not infallible to God
so it seems to me that the appeal to an infallible source is not a problem.
Now if you claim that Joe Blow is infallible,
then you can make a case that it is okay to appeal to him.
[Will:] So, okay, so the Bible is the infallible authority.
but then, as you've said many times,
one of the things I find you using many times is circular reasoning.
and obviously you're expecting this, what I'm about to say to you.
is that, the only thing that says that the Bible is infallible
is the Bible.
So how do you get around that?
[Dr. Lisle:] The Bible makes another claim as well,
It tells us that knowledge and wisdom are in Christ.
Therefore if you reject the biblical presuppositions
you can't have knowledge.
So in a sense, all reason is circular. As Dr. Watson pointed out,
because whenever you test an ultimate standard, you have to test it by your ultimate standard.
That's something that is logically inevitable.
[Will:] But are the ultimate standards results though? That would be the ultimate standard.
The ultimate standard would be the results.
[Dr. Lisle:] The ultimate standard is the thing by which you judge
true claims. And eventually you have to say:
Well, how do I know if my ultimate standard is true?
[Will:] Consistency. [Dr. Lisle:] Well, Consistency would be one part, yes.
It has to be consistent.
I would point out that also, it would have to make knowledge possible
otherwise, what's the point?
If knowledge isn't possible, then what's the point of having an ultimate standard?
[Will:] So how does evolution discredit the possibility of knowledge?
[Dr. Lisle:] No uniformity of nature.
Jesus's word. [Will:] You say there's no reason for it?
[Dr. Lisle:] Oh no, I'm pointing out there is no justification for it.
no rational reasoning.
[Will:] But there is a rational reasoning for it though.
You've also talked about
if you reject the book, you put up the block of your future, you can't get past it.
Although the wording on that, man, you gotta change that one.
cause the past, present thing is just like...
but, I would say that
by your own standard
you would be saying that the Bible
would be uniform
and that all of God's knowledge would spread both through the past and the future, correct?
as evidence in your diagram.
But by your own standard then, you have no proof yourself
that tomorrow God's Word wouldn't break down in and of its self.
You would have no results, uniformity of nature.
So by then, we can just take the question
and move it to the side.
I know what you're going to say here
[that's not rational], but it is rational, because it's not useful.
in any sense.
That's the thing about the uniformity of nature
All we can do is empirically test it out.
I mean, you're a scientist yourself.
You can understand how frustrating it can be
for somebody like me
or somebody in general
that appreciates the idea of Creationism.
I mean, obviously you said that
you relented that some true claims can be reached
I respect that. Obviously, you couldn't say ALL
[Dr. Lisle:] Right. [Will:] It wouldn't make sense, right?
But, that's the whole idea though, isn't it?
Let me backtrack a little bit here
What you're saying is, with consistency, uniformity of nature,
matters, but it is also an unanswerable question.
I wish you really would have gotten into logic
because, it's hard for me to get past the whole fact that,
you're saying the Bible says something
and the Bible says it, so it must be true
You're not getting past that part, the circular reasoning
[Dr. Lisle:] You had two questions in there.
[Will:] Let's just focus on the infallibility of the Bible.
[Will:] I think that's the crucial point in all of this. [Dr. Lisle:] Right.
It claims to be that, so we can either accept that or reject it. [Will:] Right.
[Dr: Lisle:] If we accept it we find that knowledge makes sense and is possible. Uniformity would have justification of conformity.
and if we reject that, we don't have justification for knowledge and conformity.
So my reason for accepting the Bible
is that it makes reason possible.
So that gets us out of the vicious loop.
[Security Guard:] You've got a lot of questions.
Can we let them [other visitors] go first, and you can come back later?