tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post665035388434655035..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: By what authority?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26110478215285214682017-05-04T12:35:06.512-04:002017-05-04T12:35:06.512-04:00To merely stipulate that the Roman Magisterium is ...To merely stipulate that the Roman Magisterium is "axiomatic" hardly confers "absolute certainty" on your posit. It's just your assertion that that's axiomatic. So it doesn't begin to satisfy your own criterion of "absolute certainty". Your claim that x is axiomatic doesn't make the claim absolutely certain. Not even close. <br /><br />Now, it's possible to *argue* for certain axioms or presuppositions, but you relegate that to mere "fallible private" opinion, where (according to you) one side is on no better ground than the other. So your position dissolves into alethic relativism, which is self-referentially incoherent. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81933187704558316782017-05-03T11:21:47.770-04:002017-05-03T11:21:47.770-04:00Good point!Good point!stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47331262764526265082017-05-03T10:04:38.156-04:002017-05-03T10:04:38.156-04:00I find the Tu Quoque charge interesting. The argum...I find the Tu Quoque charge interesting. The argument presented against the Catholic apologists seems to be more like a reductio ad absurdum.geoffrobinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14949411893531888555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45672507884812039572017-05-02T12:02:20.125-04:002017-05-02T12:02:20.125-04:00Arvinger "I am the one who presses you for c...Arvinger "I am the one who presses you for consistency. Your tu quoque argument claims that I'm on no better ground than you because I have just a fallible, private opinion than the Catholic Church is true. If that is the case, epistemologically you are on no better ground than a Muslim which your belief in inspiration of the Bible vs. his belief in inspiration of the Quran (two private opinions), and you are on no better ground than an atheist regarding existence of God (two private opinions). Of course we don't consider inspiration of the Bible and existence of God to be just private opinions, but it is a logical conclusion of your tu quoque argument against my belief in the truthfulness of the Catholic Church."<br /><br />You keep swinging and you keep missing the ball because you keep imputing your assumptions and conclusions to me. I don't concede that if two people have "fallible private" options, then each is on no better ground than the other. That's hopelessly simplistic. It's not reducible to the generic comparison between "fallible private" opinions, but the specific comparison between the quality of evidence and reasoning. If a conspiracy theorist and I disagree on whether the lunar landings were fake, it doesn't imply that I'm on no better ground than he just because we both have "fallible private" opinions on the matter. <br /><br />I'm responding to you on your own terms. Given your assumptions, it follows that your belief in Catholicism is on no better ground than belief in evangelicalism. A tu quoque argument doesn't commit me to your assumptions and your conclusions. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81798281148894555692017-05-02T09:53:01.232-04:002017-05-02T09:53:01.232-04:00"I have infallible interpretation of the Cath..."I have infallible interpretation of the Catholic Church" -- Ipse dixit.<br /><br />"Inspiration of the Bible is not logically necessary from epistemological viewpoint - does that mean that we could be wrong about it?" -- So you are claiming that only logically necessary things are infallible? Because *I* haven't made that claim.<br /><br />"The New Testament did not exist for thousands of years - does it mean that the belief in its inspiration is not axiomatic and that we could be wrong about it?" -- Yes, the inspiration of the New Testament is *NOT* axiomatic. No, that doesn't mean it's not infallible.<br /><br />"Why would the Magisterium need to interpret everything in order to be authoritative?" -- EVERYTHING? How about *ANYTHING*?<br /><br />Look, Arvinger, it's obvious that you don't have a clue about philosophy or logic. Someone needs to knock you off your pedestal before you die of hypoxia, so I'll explain this as easily as I can (although honestly I wish you were part of the Magisterium because fewer people would fall for the lies of Catholicism after hearing you, which frankly will save more children from abuse).<br /><br />God's existence can be established as an axiom. All it takes is perception, which you have direct access to already. If you perceive anything, then necessarily you are not perceiving its contradiction. This establishes the law of non-contradiction and the basis for logic. The validity of logic presupposes the existence of a self-existent, eternal, omnipotent, personal being, all the attributes of classical theism.<br /><br />Notice what's missing from the above? Any requirement of infallibility! You can imagine your perceptions, and the rest of the chain still follows. You can be oppressed by the Cartesian demon, and the rest of the chain still follows. You can be high on pot and think that your priest really does have the authority to touch you there, and the rest of this chain still follows.<br /><br />Ergo, your desire for some kind of "authority" to salve your fears that you might be mistaken is just stupid. Grow up.<br /><br />While you're at it, please tell me why I should give up my golden foundation that is true no matter what (hey, look, a definition of an axiom) for some claims of a group of guys too busy playing "hide the pedophile in another diocese before we get sued" to answer questions about the Bible? You said it yourself: "[T]he Magisterium simply did not interpret them infallibly, because there is no need to."<br /><br />Exactly. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE MAGISTERIUM.<br /><br />Repeat that until it sinks in. There is no need for the Magisterium because it's not axiomatic, it's not logically necessary, it's useless, it serves no purpose. While you're at it, reject ANY system that is based on "authority" instead of truth, because every system based on authority inevitably results in abuse. Just like Catholicism has.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22560221535460535882017-05-02T09:09:59.177-04:002017-05-02T09:09:59.177-04:00Arvinger
"Of course I don't agree with i...Arvinger<br /><br />"Of course I don't agree with it, I believe that we see infallible Magisterium in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), but here is where discussion moves away from epistemology onto Biblical ground, which we have not touched upon so far."<br /><br />1. I'd like to see you make a case for the Magisterium in Acts 15.<br /><br />2. In fact, I'd like to see you make a case for the Magisterium in the Old Testament (OT). <br /><br />"It is very telling that nobody can answer a simple question "could you be wrong about inspiration of the Bible?". If you argue that I have just fallible private opinion about truthfulness of the Magisterium, then you are in the same boat with your belief about inspiration of the Bible - its just your private opinion."<br /><br />1. No, these claims do not parallel one another. For one, the inspiration of the Bible is ultimately based on objective qualities of the Bible itself, not on personal experience or private judgment. Although that's not to say Jesus' sheep do not hear his voice and follow him (John 10:27). <br /><br />2. You could say the Magisterium is ultimately based on the objective qualities of the Magisterium itself, not on personal experience or private judgment. We presumably agree the Bible is God's word and therefore don't further arguments about the Bible as such. So the question is, does the Magisterium have objective qualities on par with the Bible? For example, how internally consistent is the Magisterium with itself and how externally consistent is the Magisterium with the Bible? It seems to me the Magisterium is riddled with tension and conflict in ways the Bible is not. rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5064258913836253482017-05-02T06:31:14.832-04:002017-05-02T06:31:14.832-04:00"But you are not doing that. When you say &qu..."But you are not doing that. When you say "Scripture", what you really mean is your private interpretation of Scripture (or that of your denomination), which makes you or your denomination the final authority, which is fallible. There is no such thing as Scripture alone, it is always Scripture + interpretation."<br /><br />There's no such thing as RCM alone, it is always RCM + interpretation.<br /><br />"When it comes to canon, I would simply demand to know by what authority does Protestant know that his canon is correct..."<br /><br />Ok, so Scripture is "axiomatic" and RCM is "axiomatic", but knowledge of any claim *about* Scripture must be validated from an independent and infallible authority (viz., RCM) whereas knowledge of any claim *about* RCM does not... got it. Sola Ecclesia.<br /><br />Just be honest with everyone and quit including Scripture in your axiom. The best interpretation of you I can see here is, again, some bastardized presupp stuff. I'm all for being eclectic, but you don't have that luxury with your restrictive and self-defeating criterion for knowledge.<br /><br />"...such as historical continuity and biblical truthfulness..."<br /><br />That's rich. And you know this how? By appeal to RCM? So, RCM can make claims for itself that don't require independent and infallible validation, but scriputure *can't*? Got it. Sola Ecclesia.<br /><br />Or, maybe you think you can investigate those claims of historical continuity and biblical fidelity on your own, apart from the RCM., so you don't look like a dupe, just blindly accepting RCM claims without the slightest bit of independent, infallible authorization... got it, "axiomatic" + private interpretation.<br /><br />Just to recap: some axioms need independent and infallible validation (e.g., Scripture), and some axioms do NOT need independent and infallible validation (e.g., RCM).Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547006817210841406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64713566194668982792017-05-02T03:45:10.550-04:002017-05-02T03:45:10.550-04:00Steve,
"Arvinger's apologetic suffers fr...Steve,<br /><br />"Arvinger's apologetic suffers from multiple-personality disorder. When attacking evangelicalism, the Cartesian skeptic surfaces. When defending Rome, the fideist surfaces."<br /><br />Absolutely not. The fact that I presuppose something to be true does not mean it is fideism - we can discuss the claims of the Catholic Church on Biblical and historical ground. <br /><br />I am the one who presses you for consistency. Your tu quoque argument claims that I'm on no better ground than you because I have just a fallible, private opinion than the Catholic Church is true. If that is the case, epistemologically you are on no better ground than a Muslim which your belief in inspiration of the Bible vs. his belief in inspiration of the Quran (two private opinions), and you are on no better ground than an atheist regarding existence of God (two private opinions). Of course we don't consider inspiration of the Bible and existence of God to be just private opinions, but it is a logical conclusion of your tu quoque argument against my belief in the truthfulness of the Catholic Church.Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59554954836920412682017-05-02T03:34:50.957-04:002017-05-02T03:34:50.957-04:00Peter,
"1) Steve hasn't couched anything...Peter,<br /><br />"1) Steve hasn't couched anything in terms of private interpretation--that's your horse that you're flogging. Steve's merely pointed out that *IF* a Protestant only has private interpretation of Scripture, the RCC is on *NO BETTER GROUND*. Thus, if you claim that Protestants have only private interpretation, it is *YOU* who are reduced to mere solipsism."<br /><br />Yes, Protestant has only private, fallible interpretation of the Bible, I have infallible interpretation of the Catholic Church. If you now say "but your claim that the Catholic Magisteroum is infallible is just a fallible private judgment!", then so is your claim that Bible is the Word of God and that God exists.<br /><br />"For one thing, axioms have to be logically *necessary*, and the Magisterium is not."<br /><br />Inspiration of the Bible is not logically necessary from epistemological viewpoint - does that mean that we could be wrong about it? <br /><br />" How do we know? Because the Magisterium did not exist until Rome invented it."<br /><br />Of course I don't agree with it, I believe that we see infallible Magisterium in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), but here is where discussion moves away from epistemology onto Biblical ground, which we have not touched upon so far.<br /><br />"This is radically different from the axiom, "God exists", which is necessarily true and cannot be otherwise. There was never a time when "God exists" was false"<br /><br />The New Testament did not exist for thousands of years - does it mean that the belief in its inspiration is not axiomatic and that we could be wrong about it?<br /><br />It is very telling that nobody can answer a simple question "could you be wrong about inspiration of the Bible?". If you argue that I have just fallible private opinion about truthfulness of the Magisterium, then you are in the same boat with your belief about inspiration of the Bible - its just your private opinion.<br /><br />"Tell me where the Magisterium has interpreted whether Genesis 1:1 is talking about six-day creationism or what it says on Darwinism. Tell me where the Magisterium helps us to interpret whether or not Revelation is speaking of postmillenialism or amillinialism? Show me where the Magisterium has ruled on how we are to interpret the conquest of Canaan."<br /><br />Why would the Magisterium need to interpret everything in order to be authoritative? None of the things you mentioned above are foundational for the Christian faith and the Magisterium simply did not interpret them infallibly, because there is no need to.Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11317242085655475932017-05-02T03:24:51.872-04:002017-05-02T03:24:51.872-04:00Coheceris a verdade,
"All right, I presuppos...Coheceris a verdade,<br /><br />"All right, I presuppose as axiom that I am infallible. I don`t need to argue why I am infallible just as you don`t argue why the Roman Magisterium is infallible. All that I say is infallible by definition. The Roman Magisterium is a hoax. Could I be wrong? No. Remember I am infallible, you don`t. :)"<br /><br />Great, now can you please provide arguments supporting your clam to infallibility? The fact that I put the truthfulness of the Catholic Church among the axiomatic beliefs such as existence of God does not change the fact that I can argue for it rationally from the Bible, Church history etc. (contrary to your misrepresentation of my position), while you can produce no evidence supporting your claim to infallibility. Presupposing something is not equal to fideism.Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61144290271191741292017-05-02T03:13:17.401-04:002017-05-02T03:13:17.401-04:00OK, I don't have time to answer everything now...OK, I don't have time to answer everything now, so just quickly, since it is one of the things it comes down to:<br /><br />"One of your problems is that you arbitrarily exempt some beliefs from your general requirement that beliefs must be verified by an authority source."<br /><br />We have three options:<br /><br />1) We verify every belief by an authority source<br />2) We verify no belief by authority source<br />3) We verify some beliefs by authority source<br /><br />The problem with no 1. is that it is impossible and leads to hard solipsism. We don't verify whether the world which surrounds us is real or whether God exists by higher authority. <br /><br />The problem with no. 2 is that if we don't verify any belief by authority, all beliefs remain on the level of private opinion/private judgment and they could all be wrong. <br /><br />The only possible approach is no 3. - there are certain things which are exempt from verification by authority source, such as existence of God or reality of the world which surrounds us. Again, that does not mean that we can't rationally argue for them (there are plent of good arguments for the existence of God), but there is only as far as human can go in verifying beliefs by higher authority - some claims necessarily remain axioms. Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56865308176150889012017-05-02T03:02:18.165-04:002017-05-02T03:02:18.165-04:00"(1) Why are you allowed to stipulate two axi..."(1) Why are you allowed to stipulate two axiomatic authorities (scripture and RCM), but I can't stipulate just one of them?"<br /><br />But you are not doing that. When you say "Scripture", what you really mean is your private interpretation of Scripture (or that of your denomination), which makes you or your denomination the final authority, which is fallible. There is no such thing as Scripture alone, it is always Scripture + interpretation.<br /><br />"(2) Would you not press the Protestant for an account of how he knows the NT canon? If you would, why does the "axiomatic" knowledge of the authority of RCM get a pass but the "axiomatic" knowledge of the authority of a *specific set of scriptures* NOT get a pass?"<br /><br />The fact that I say that the knowledge of the truth of the Catholic Magisterium is axiomatic does not mean that I will not provide arguments to support that claim (I have not done it in this discussion since we focused on epistemology rather than Biblical evidence). We can go to Acts 15, Matthews 16:18-19, Church history etc., regardless of axiomatic nature of the fact that the Catholic Magisterium is true (just like you can rationally argue for the existence of God despite the fact that we presuppose it). When it comes to Canon, I would simply demand to know by what authority does Protestant know that his canon of Scripture is correct. Does he know this by infallible authority, like I do? A Protestant has to say no - which automatically makes his Canon of Scripture fallible.<br /><br />"(You're the one who said that "...there are beliefs which are axiomatic, such as belief in the existence of God, the authority of scripture, and...")"<br /><br />Do you disagree with this? Would you concede that you could be wrong about the existence of God or inspiration of Scripture? Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7319509608680641352017-05-02T02:50:39.243-04:002017-05-02T02:50:39.243-04:00It is not my intention to follow Van Tillian or an...It is not my intention to follow Van Tillian or any other sort of defined presuppositional approach, I simply recognize the fact that we will always have to presuppose some things as axiomatic - such as existence of God, reality of the world which surrounds us, inspiration of the Bible etc. There is only as far as human being can go in verifying things by higher authority, certain truths are necessarily axioms (which of course does not mean we can't provide rational arguments for it).Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27268155941996861952017-05-02T02:47:26.238-04:002017-05-02T02:47:26.238-04:00"So if Protestantism just so happened to be w..."So if Protestantism just so happened to be whittled down to a uniform view with a uniform set of ruling elders, would you be in trouble as to how to adjudicate the claims of RCM and uniform-Protestantism? Would it become a contender for infallible authority merely by becoming uniform?<br /><br />What about the Mormon church? What about Watchtower Society? Are either of them approaching sufficient uniformity?"<br /><br />No, because uniformity and existence of central authority is an important, but not the only criteria - there are others, such as historical continuity and Biblical truthfulness, which the Catholic Church fulfills, but Protestants, Mormons and JW's don't.Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33473345488039917762017-05-01T21:39:39.703-04:002017-05-01T21:39:39.703-04:00BTW, what authority gave you permission to go off ...BTW, what authority gave you permission to go off and bastardize presupp material? Do you know if you're in safe waters?Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547006817210841406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76458479315203106532017-05-01T21:31:41.077-04:002017-05-01T21:31:41.077-04:00Arvinger's apologetic suffers from multiple-pe...Arvinger's apologetic suffers from multiple-personality disorder. When attacking evangelicalism, the Cartesian skeptic surfaces. When defending Rome, the fideist surfaces. He needs to see a psychiatrist to get that sorted out. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72637853598225568182017-05-01T21:29:48.662-04:002017-05-01T21:29:48.662-04:00Arvinger
"We have a living Church authorit...Arvinger <br /><br />"We have a living Church authority which can do that and clarify things, you just have the Bible which cannot interpret itself."<br /><br />Test case: what's the infallible interpretation of Amoris Laetitia on the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to communion?<br /><br />Bonus point: what's the infallible interpretation of Rome's position on capital punishment? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53824557265402448092017-05-01T21:08:06.556-04:002017-05-01T21:08:06.556-04:001) Steve hasn't couched anything in terms of p...1) Steve hasn't couched anything in terms of private interpretation--that's your horse that you're flogging. Steve's merely pointed out that *IF* a Protestant only has private interpretation of Scripture, the RCC is on *NO BETTER GROUND*. Thus, if you claim that Protestants have only private interpretation, it is *YOU* who are reduced to mere solipsism.<br /><br />2) You can't logically assert the Magisterium as an axiom. For one thing, axioms have to be logically *necessary*, and the Magisterium is not. How do we know? Because the Magisterium did not exist until Rome invented it. This is radically different from the axiom, "God exists", which is necessarily true and cannot be otherwise. There was never a time when "God exists" was false; but there were THOUSANDS of years when "The Magisterium does not exist" was true. So to assert the Magisterium as an axiom is boneheaded and foolish, not logical at all.<br /><br />3) If the Magisterium was an axiom, at bare minimum it would be *useful*. Tell me where the Magisterium has interpreted whether Genesis 1:1 is talking about six-day creationism or what it says on Darwinism. Tell me where the Magisterium helps us to interpret whether or not Revelation is speaking of postmillenialism or amillinialism? Show me where the Magisterium has ruled on how we are to interpret the conquest of Canaan.<br /><br />What's that? It doesn't? Well, what purpose does it serve to have a neutered infallible interpreter who says nothing and makes you use your own private judgement to figure out how to understand the Bible?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25487233730803258272017-05-01T21:08:01.326-04:002017-05-01T21:08:01.326-04:00Arvinger said, "If Protestantism had just one...Arvinger said, "If Protestantism had just one denomination with one authoritative doctrine and some sort of authority higher than private judgment which would be able to verify truthfulness of that doctrine with absolute certainty, it would be a different matter."<br /><br />So if Protestantism just so happened to be whittled down to a uniform view with a uniform set of ruling elders, would you be in trouble as to how to adjudicate the claims of RCM and uniform-Protestantism? Would it become a contender for infallible authority merely by becoming uniform?<br /><br />What about the Mormon church? What about Watchtower Society? Are either of them approaching sufficient uniformity?Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547006817210841406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19077896415893568182017-05-01T21:05:58.767-04:002017-05-01T21:05:58.767-04:00All right, I presuppose as axiom that I am infalli...All right, I presuppose as axiom that I am infallible. I don`t need to argue why I am infallible just as you don`t argue why the Roman Magisterium is infallible. All that I say is infallible by definition. The Roman Magisterium is a hoax. Could I be wrong? No. Remember I am infallible, you don`t. :)Conhecereis a Verdadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10120910946523193443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18327067016213893462017-05-01T21:04:41.230-04:002017-05-01T21:04:41.230-04:00Of course you could be be wrong about the truthful...Of course you could be be wrong about the truthfulness of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. They are not infallible i.e. incapable of erring. No human being is except the Lord Christ. meyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01357165469112868757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9005788712397931742017-05-01T21:01:52.800-04:002017-05-01T21:01:52.800-04:00So, I don't understand at least two things abo...So, I don't understand at least two things about you:<br /><br />(1) Why are you allowed to stipulate two axiomatic authorities (scripture and RCM), but I can't stipulate just one of them?<br /><br />(2) Would you not press the Protestant for an account of how he knows the NT canon? If you would, why does the "axiomatic" knowledge of the authority of RCM get a pass but the "axiomatic" knowledge of the authority of a *specific set of scriptures* NOT get a pass?<br /><br />(You're the one who said that "...there are beliefs which are axiomatic, such as belief in the existence of God, the authority of scripture, and...")Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547006817210841406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59071940676731728742017-05-01T20:55:04.373-04:002017-05-01T20:55:04.373-04:00"1) In terms of authority in Protestantism th..."1) In terms of authority in Protestantism they have equal merit, i.e. they are not binding on the universal Church. James White's interpretation of Romans 1 doesn't have any authority that James Brownson's interpretation of Romans 1 doesn't. Even though we agree that White is right and Brownson is wrong, these are just private opinions which are not binding on anyone. Even if someone denomination accepts one or another, it is just a fallible, non-binding decision of this specific denomination. In modern Protestantism you can't call an Ecumenical Council to excommunicate James Brownson or Matthew Vines authoritatively like Ephesus did with Nestorius, because you have no authority to do so."<br /><br />i) You keep recasting the issue in terms of "authority", which begs the question. <br /><br />ii) Truth is binding. The salient distinction isn't between private and official or fallible and infallible, but true and false. <br /><br />"But all of them are fallible, so all you have is difference in probabilities."<br /><br />And a probable interpretation trumps an improbable interpretation.<br /><br />"If there is no infallible authority declaring that the doctrine of Trinity is true, than automatically that doctrine is fallible (since it is based on private interpretation of Scripture). Yes, there are good arguments to support it, but there is no way to verify it with absolute certainty."<br /><br />i) You're demanding an authority higher than divine revelation. <br /><br />ii) God gave us a "privately" or individually interpretable Bible. That's not a defect. That's the way it's supposed to be. <br /><br />iii) By what infallible authority do you verify that the Roman Magisterium is an infallible authority? What's the higher authority that certifies the Roman Magisterium?<br /><br />"I don't verify them, because they are infallible"<br /><br />You merely assert that they are infallible.<br /><br />"this is an axiomatic belief "<br /><br />Slapping an "axiomatic" label onto your cherished beliefs doesn't make them true, much less infallible. That's you positing that they are axiomatic, based on your "private fallible" judgment. <br /><br />"Not in case of axiomatic beliefs which we presuppose, such as existence of God. I agree with a presuppositionalist who, asked whether he could be wrong about the existence of God, says 'no.'"<br /><br />And how would you respond to a Muslim who posits the Koran as axiomatic?<br /><br />It's not enough to *say* he can't be wrong: the question is whether he can *show* it. <br /><br />"It falls into the category of beliefs which are axiomatic."<br /><br />That's just your buzzword.<br /><br />"If there are no axioms, there is no way you can know anything about the world - hard solipsism is all that remains."<br /><br />That doesn't mean you're entitled to stipulate "axioms" willy nilly. <br /><br />"Because there are certain things which I presuppose and don't verify by any higher authority, , such as existence of God and reality of the world which surrounds me."<br /><br />To say you *presuppose* something to be the case hardly entails that you *know* it to be true. You careen between Cartesian skepticism and fideism. <br /><br />You have an idiosyncratic position that isn't even representative of standard Catholic apologetics, viz. Aquinas, Bellarmine, Newman. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22075198805939205032017-05-01T20:51:09.462-04:002017-05-01T20:51:09.462-04:00You beat me to the dilemma :-)You beat me to the dilemma :-)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34582152980554985112017-05-01T20:36:23.106-04:002017-05-01T20:36:23.106-04:00"and in my argument the truthfulness of the C..."and in my argument the truthfulness of the Catholic Church falls into the same category. Could I be wrong about the Catholic Church being true? No."<br /><br />That's very convenient and very ad hoc. And unfortunately for you, you've forfeited the right to argue for the Catholic church since any arguments you offer are merely private fallible arguments which, by your own admission, are neutralized by private fallible arguments to the contrary.<br /><br />"I clearly indicated that there are beliefs which are axiomatic, such as belief in existence of God, authority of Scripture and truthfulness of the Catholic Church."<br /><br />You have an arbitrary stipulation that you compartmentalize from your general demand that beliefs must be warranted by a higher authority. Why should anyone take that seriously? <br /><br />"I derive it from a real life situation - hundreds of Protestant denominations with contradicting interpretations of Scripture (including on salvation issues)…"<br /><br />And the Catholic church adds yet another contradictory package of interpretations. Another denomination with another set of contradictory interpretations. <br /><br />"and with no way to verify with absolute certainty which interpretation is right. The best assurance you can have is a *hope* that *most* of your doctrines are *likely to be* correct. But, since all of them are based on fallible interpretations, from epistemological viewpoint all of them could be wrong, because a fallible individual is the highest authority…"<br /><br />i) You have no solution to what you find so unacceptable. Your alternative is to declare that your own position is axiomatically true. That's not a philosophically serious contention. <br /><br />ii) If you really want to play the Cartesian skeptic, let's go all the way. I'll raise you the Cartesian demon. How do you know with "absolute certainty" that your belief in the Catholic church isn't caused by the Cartesian demon? You don't. <br /><br />iii) I don't erect an inhumane, artificial standard of demonstrative certainty that no one can satisfy, least of all Catholic apologists. I'm not scandalized by probabilities. That's the world God has put us in. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com