Presup transcripts

== Prescriptive descriptive ==
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/transcript.php
Justin: No, no, as a precondition of the natural world. For something to exist it needs to be, it needs to fall within those logic, that those things are just um markers of what what it means for some things to exist essentially. That's what it's describing, when we say that something exists, what do we mean by that? And then that's where the laws of logic come in. They are describing what that means.
Sye: So, you're you're saying that the laws of logic are, that logic is descriptive then.
Justin: Oh yeah.
Sye: Ok then on what basis do you apply it to anything other than that which was described?
Justin: Well if we want our reasoning to align with with reality then it, then we need to treat it as prescriptive. If I'm going to reason to a particular conclusion, but ah my reasoning in no way reflects reality then I'm not going to be taken seriously...
Sye: That's that's exactly right.
Justin: ... if I want, if I wanna be taken seriously...
Sye: That's exactly right, but on what basis do you make a descriptive law prescriptive? I'm not asking the consequences of not doing so. I know the consequences of not doing so. I'm just asking your basis of doing so.
Justin: Oh, I'm um, we make it prescriptive ah, simply because, you know, if you want to be taken seriously, then then...
Sye: Right
Justin:... you need to be ah logical.
Sye: But I'm not asking the consequences, I'm not asking what's gonna happen if you don't do it. I'm asking what is your basis for doing it?
Justin: What is my basis, I...
Sye: ...For making a descriptive law prescriptive.
Justin: Ah, what do you mean by basis?
Unedited 14:30 Edited 11:16
Sye: Well, what is your reasoning for doing... I'm not asking you the result for not doing it. The result, ok, you won't be taken seriously, I I agree with that. But the thing is, what is your um, what is your um reasoning, what what is your fundamental... Um, how do you, how do you go from taking a description to a prescription? What, what is the process by which you do that?
== I have never died ==
Sye: So your argument is that um, you're you're assuming that the future is like the past, based on the past?
Justin: Ah right. Which is an assumption.
Sye: Ok, so what if I said that I'm I'm going to assume that I'm never going to die based on the past, based on the fact that I've never died in the past. Would that be valid?
Justin: Ah, no that would be really, really bad reasoning, because everybody else that lives dies.
Sye: Ya, but I'm a lot like those other people except for one thing, I've never died. So why can't I take that assumption based on the past that I've never died into the future.
Justin: Well you can go ahead and make that assumption, but I don't think anybody's gonna to pay attention (chuckes).
Sye: Okay, so the the same thing is with logic then. On what basis...So so you're saying an argument from, an argument ad populum, that based on the majority, that's why you believe these things. It's not necessarily...
Justin: No. Where do you get that from?
Sye: Well you say: "Well, because nobody's going to take you seriously." So you're saying that that's why it's an invalid argument.
Justin: No I'm saying I'm saying you can go ahead and use that argument but it's...
Sye: Okay, so it's a valid argument then, I can use it. It's valid but people won't take me seriously. Is that what you're saying?
Justin: Ah, no, what I'm saying is that ah everyone else does die and...
Sye: Ya, that's right.
Justin: ...so you have strong reasons to accept that you are going to die.
Sye: No, but based on the past fact that I've never died, I have no reason, if if you use the same argument for logic, you're saying based on the past that, you know, the fact that logic hasn't changed in the past, which you, by the way couldn't know, um, but, you know, you're saying that based on that past ah, fact that logic hasn't changed you're going to assume that it won't change in the future. Well, you know, I can say the same thing because lots of things have changed in the past lots of other things have changed in the past why can't logic change. (2 second pause)
Justin: Ah, I'm I'm ... because its necessarily so.
Sye: How do you know that?
Justin: That's why... How do you know that God is not going to change? It's the exact same thing.
Sye: Well because okay, now that's that's the question, is how do I know that? Because God has revealed to me such that I can know for certain that He cannot change. That's how I know it.
Justin: How is that possible?
Unedited 20:31 Edited: 16:37
Sye: How is it possible?
Justin: How, how can you know...
Sye: Are you saying, are you suggesting that if the Christian God exists, who's all powerful and all knowing, He cannot reveal things to us such that we can know them for certain?
Justin: Well, of course I'm suggesting that.
Sye: That if such a God exists He couldn't do that?
Justin: Ah, ya, my my answer would be no, He couldn't do it.
Sye: Why not, and how do you know that for certain?
Justin: Because to know, to know something for certain means that it can't logically be any other way but...
Sye: Right.
Justin: ... but you can't disprove every other possibility. For instance...
Sye: Are you certain, are you certain?
Category:Presuppositionalism
Category:Logical fallacies