I do not know what your other readers will see, but what I see is that you have chosen to focus on your own misrepresentation of a statement I have made, treating a parenthetical observation of mine as if it were my primary argument, instead of examining my detailed analysis of the presuppositionalist claim that logic presupposes the Christian god. So far, like other presuppositionalists who’ve been told about my interaction with the logic version of TAG, you have offered no challenge to my many criticisms. So much for your elenctic apologetics.

You express sharp disagreement with the view that “an argument does not need attempted refutations in response to it in order for one to recognize that its conclusion has been soundly established.” Specifically, you stated that “the rational person must firmly disagree with” this. Can you cite any logic text which states that an argument does need attempted refutations in response to it in order for one to recognize that its conclusion has been soundly established? I’ve consulted several and have found no such requirement affirmed in any of them.

You ask whether or not my arguments are “valid, much less sound.” If you and/or your readers truly want an answer to the question that you pose here, my analysis is available for all to review.

You then state that “Without any critical analysis to speak of, there is nothing whatever available to us but a brute ipse dixit from Bethrick that it is both.” But I have provided this critical analysis that you require. Have you examined it? To suggest that I’m resting on “a brute ipse dixit” ignores the fact that I’ve produced my arguments for my verdicts in the site that I’ve linked. Is it a habit of yours to ignore opposing arguments in this manner?

Apparently so, for you then stated that “it is not to be found anywhere in philosophical literature that his bald say-so is the criterion for establishing validity or soundness.” Indeed, I have not rested my verdicts about the logic version of TAG on my “bald say-so.” I’ve already linked you to my arguments for those verdicts.

You then state: “a critical analysis of his argument is precisely what is needed in order to recognize that it is sound.” And by providing the link to my analysis, I have invited you to conduct such an analysis. Of course, you do understand that there’s a difference between an analysis and an attempted refutation, do you not?

Then you stated: “As our readers probably realize, an argument is ‘sound’ when, first, it is formally valid and, second, its premises are true.” Indeed, this is true. Notice that you yourself have not included attempted refutations as a criterion for soundness.

Then you state: “With nothing but Bethrick’s say-so, how is one to know that it is either?” But you have more than my mere say-so. I have provided you with a link to my arguments. Perhaps you did not see this link originally? It’s unclear how else to explain your kicking against the pricks here.

You go on, saying: “with regard to his ‘concepts’ argument that I have ignored, he injects such bellicose remarks as ‘perhaps you have no answer’ and that I am ‘trying to deflect the issue’.” Yes, I did notice that you have ignored my ‘concepts’ argument. But that won’t make it go away. Maybe you don’t have an answer. I suspect you don’t, and that’s why you’re ignoring it. But really, how do you expect to account for aspects of conceptual cognition such as logic when your worldview has no theory of concepts? Pointing to something that is merely imaginary will not suffice. Also, pointing to something that is internally self-contradictory, as the doctrines of the incarnation and the trinity prove themselves to be, as the basis for logic, is simply ludicrous.

I’m guessing that in spite of your flurry of self-embarrassing remarks, you’ll still look for a way to ignore my rebuttal to presuppositionalism’s case for logic depending on the Christian god while seeking to disparage me personally. After all, that is the presuppositionalist’s stock and trade.

Regards,

Dawson

Editors Note: As I said previously, if any of our readers need some point or issue to be addressed from the dialogue between Bethrick and myself, please feel free to submit it below and I will be glad to address it.

Second, Bethrick said that his argument “does not need attempted refutations in response to it in order for one to recognize that its conclusion has been soundly established” (emphasis mine). Despite this impressive estimation Bethrick has of his own argument, the rational person must firmly disagree with him here. Is his argument even valid, much less sound? Without any critical analysis to speak of, there is nothing whatever available to us but a brute ipse dixit from Bethrick that it is both. However, it is not to be found anywhere in philosophical literature that his bald say-so is the criterion for establishing validity or soundness. So the rational person must disagree with him: a critical analysis of his argument is precisely what is needed in order to recognize that it is sound. (As our readers probably realize, an argument is ‘sound’ when, first, it is formally valid and, second, its premises are true. With nothing but Bethrick’s say-so, how is one to know that it is either?)

The TAG is refuted only if Bethrick’s extensive argument is correct, an argument which, in the absence of any critical analysis thereof, we have no reason to think is either valid or sound other than his pointing to its mere existence and his brute ipse dixit that it is both. Does that strike any reader as compelling reason? I certainly hope not.

Third, give some attention to the sort of rhetoric that Bethrick employs in his responses here. For instance, with regard to his ‘concepts’ argument that I have ignored, he injects such bellicose remarks as “perhaps you have no answer” and that I am “trying to deflect the issue”—as though it has ever been a live debate between us. Also, with regard to my identifying the indicated fallacy, he says this tells him that I am “afraid” to confront his cited argument against the TAG—again, as though it has ever been a live debate between us. Surely the readers of The Aristophrenium never mistake such bellicose rhetoric for rational discourse.

Bethrick will no doubt respond to this. However, unless his anticipated response contains something relevant, substantive, and rational, I am going to let him have the last word. Also, if any of our readers need some point or issue to be addressed from the aforementioned dialogue, please feel free to submit it below and I will address it. Barring either of these two things, I am finished with this.

You did argue this, Bethrick.

Kindly show where I *argued* this.

The TAG has been refuted only if your argument is correct.

Indeed, there are numerous arguments in my piece. I hold that they are correct, and I argue for them in my analysis. Where is your refutation? None that I see.

And you are observed as stating here that the TAG has indeed been refuted, which means your argument must be correct.

My arguments stand on their own merits. I give detailed reasons in support of my verdicts.

Again, let me ask: how can you account for logic when you have no theory of concepts? Perhaps you have no answer to this and are trying to deflect the issue. Since this question has been posed to you now, what is your answer? How do you account for concepts? Or do you?

But is it?

Yes, it is.

Since you have not seen any responses to it, not even bad ones, how is it that your argument is found to be correct, such that the TAG has been refuted?

An argument does not need attempted refutations in response to it in order for one to recognize that its conclusion has been soundly established. I’d think that even you would understand this. But perhaps not. At any rate, the answer to your question is in my analysis. Have you read it?

The only way such a conclusion can follow is by argumentum ad ignorantiam—it is correct by virtue of having not been proven false—a very basic fallacy.

If my argument were “TAG is false because no one has refuted my answer to it,” you might be able to claim this. But that’s not my argument, and you’ve not shown where I’ve presented such an argument. All I did in my initial comment was observe that I’ve seen no responses to my analysis. That you interpret this to constitute an argument ad ignorantiam only tells me that you’re afraid to deal with the issues I raise in my analysis. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be evading them like this.

Regards,

Dawson

But is it? Since you have not seen any responses to it, not even bad ones, how is it that your argument is found to be correct, such that the TAG has been refuted? The only way such a conclusion can follow is by argumentum ad ignorantiam—it is correct by virtue of having not been proven false—a very basic fallacy.

I nowhere argued this. That you interpreted my statement in this manner says quite a bit.

Regardless, I have answered the logic version of TAG. How would you defend against it?

One of the issues I point out in my analysis is the fact that logic is a conceptual method, and therefore that an account for logic requires a theory of concepts. Christianity has no theory of concepts. How can Christianity account for a conceptual method when it has no theory of concepts in the first place? There are numerous other problems that I raise as well. They are not even anticipated in the literature.

I’m glad these aren’t my problems.

Regards,
Dawson

Regards,
Dawson Bethrick