Logic has a simple problem in that most people do not understand its basic limitation.  That limitation?  Logic can not prove anything as true. 

Example:

Fire breathing dragons can fly hundreds of feet into the air.
My home is only 15 feet tall.
Therefore a fire breathing dragon can fly over my home. 

Totally logical, but is it true?

Presuppositions are the Achilles heel of logic.  Not that logic is weak or useless, but that most people don’t understand presuppositions.

The presuppositions above are
1.  Fire breathing dragons exist
2.  Fire breathings dragons can fly well
3.  My home is 15 feet tall

If these 3 things are true, then the statement “A fire breathing dragon can fly over my home” is a factual statement. 

So how do we prove presuppositional statements? 
Science?
Faith?
Reason?
Observation?
A combination of the above?

Can we prove presuppositional statements? 

Your thoughts,
Andrew

Andrew D. Schalchlin wrote:

Can we prove presuppositional statements?

Hello:

I think the only way to prove a presuppositional statments is comparing with the True ( The Bible as Special Revelation and/or use the Bible to interpretate the General Revelation (natura)).

Bye, bye

Saying the bible is a way/the only way to prove any presuppositional statement is itself a presuppositional statement!

TruePurple wrote:

Saying the bible is a way/the only way to prove any presuppositional statement is itself a presuppositional statement!

True Pruple:?

To say that “the Bible is the only way to prove if a presupposicion is True”, it is an affirmation. ?You can like it or not, you can accepted or not, your oppinion or my oppinion in general to not change the True that come direct from God.

Bye, bye

True Pruple:?

To say that “the Bible is the only way to prove if a presupposicion is True” it is an affirmation. ?You can like it or not, you can accepted or not, your oppinion or my oppinion in general to not change the True that come direct from God.

Bye, bye

pre·sup·pose   Audio Help   /?pris??po?z/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pree-suh-pohz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -posed, -pos·ing. 1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance. 
2. (of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as an antecedent condition: An effect presupposes a cause.

[Origin: 1400–50; late ME < MF presupposer. See pre-, suppose]

—Related forms
pre·sup·po·si·tion   Audio Help   /?pris?p??z???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pree-suhp-uh-zish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun
pre·sup·po·si·tion·less, adjective

—Synonyms 1. presume.

Source.

Something has to be assumed at the very core level of reasoning.  Thinking is founded on presupposition.  Any foundational, or fundamental statement arises from an assumption about the object of that thought.  For example, “God is honest” assumes three things:

1) The concept of deity;
2) That God (deity) exists;
3) That that existent God has the quality of honesty.

Hence any assertion of any aspect of reality necessarily presupposes a quality, or predicate to which we can refer.  It is what we attach to those presuppositions later on that determine, or effect the truthfulness, coherency or usefulness of the presupposition(s).  If it were not so, we would not be aware of the presuppositions in our thinking, much less make an attempt to change them when they are found to be wrong.

TruePurple,

Saying the bible is a way/the only way to prove any presuppositional statement is itself a presuppositional statement!

I think you are right.  But that is the point, isn’t it?
What is the starting point that makes the most sense?
What system will hold together without any logical contradictions?

Now this doesn’t mean that presupposions don’t have evidence for or against them.  It just means that they can’t be proven in the logic sense.  When we look at “proving” presuppssions we are looking at the evidence.  Not at some logic formula.

As you can tell, most of us have looked at the evidence and decided that the Bible is the place to start. 

If I may ask, what do you place as the foundation of your logic? 

Andrew

This forum is for discussing logical fallacies, not philosphy or religion - except as these are related to fallacies. Please make sure your posts are relivant to this forum, otherwise I may need to remove them.

I don’t want to sound harsh here, but I need to keep this forum focused.

The first example about dragons we could call “uncogent”.  Sure, it is logically valid, but it is not cogent, hence it is not relevant.

But as far as presuppositions:

Metaphysics has numerous definitions, but one tenet is that it is the study of “first principles”.  Some generally agreed upon examples: the statement “something exists”; “the law of identification”; and the biggie, the “law of noncontradiction”.

Whenever someone tries to prove something, one way to find it’s proof is to apply these laws.  Does it follow the law of noncontradiction, the law of identification, etc.  If not, it can’t prove anything.  If so, then you at least have something to work with.

So yes, everyone has presuppositions, but first principles can be applied to help smooth things out and to get rid of them.

Ravi Zacharias dealt with this situation many times.
Numerous times, when faced with a question set from an opponent of his theology, RaviZ will ask for the philosophical construct, the philosophical presuppositions preceding the voiced question set.

I cannot give an example because it would involve too much theology.
I have to think of a “topic-transfer” that would illustrate RaviZ’s counter so as to not derail this thread.

Roland