Philosophical Discussion and "The Tactic" used by Nomos

Discussion took place in #CathApol on Undernet on December 30, 2000.

Original Discussion BigScott's Commentary

[20:57] Nomos [kashubian@129.237.24.74] has joined #cathapol
[20:57] <Nomos> hullo.
[20:57] <CathApol> Welcome Nomos
[20:58] <CathApol> what would you like to see defended?
[20:58] CathApol is BigScott too
[20:58] Lucius salutes Nomos.
[20:58] Nomos stands at attention.
[20:58] <Nomos> ;]
[20:58] <Nomos> :]
[20:59] <Nomos> CathApol: You could share what you personally find convincing about catholicism if you like.
[21:00] Lucius salutes BigScott.
[21:00] <Nomos> CathApol: unless you're previously engaged.
[21:00] <CathApol> well... one of the "biggies" is history...
[21:00] <Nomos> CathApol: What about history?
[21:01] <CathApol> history cannot be denied... prior to 1500ad or so, if you were Christian, you were Catholic?
OK, I make my initial statement that "history is one of the biggies" that I personally see as convincing for Catholicism.

[21:02] <Nomos> CathApol: I'm not sure what you mean by 'history cannot be denied' - cannot be denied for what?
[21:02] <Nomos> CathApol; Doesn't that assume that history is some sort of litimus test to determine the truth value of one theological claim over another?
[21:03] <CathApol> history cannot be denied... prior to 1500ad or so, if you were Christian, you were Catholic. (take away the question mark)
[21:04] <Nomos> CathApol: There are quite a few assumptions in that proposition, [1] history determines orthodoxy, [2] a means in which to determine which part of history reflects orthodoxy, [3] a means in which to interpret authoritatively those historic documents.
[21:05] <Nomos> CathApol: So perhaps you would like to elaborate on one of those 3?
[21:08] <Nomos> CathApol?
[21:08] <CathApol> not sure of what you're after... history is quite clear... if you were a Christian in say 400ad, you were Catholic.
Nomos places more emphasis on history than I did. Nomos takes my statement as meaning "history determines orthodoxy" and that was not my point at all. My point was that if one takes an objective look at history, one will realize that if one was Christian prior to the 16th Century, with few exceptions (and certainly not enough to label any of these "exceptions" as "a" or "the" Church), then one was Catholic.

[21:08] <Nomos> CathApol: Ok, but do you see the assumptions I pointed out in that proposition?
[21:09] <Nomos> CathApol: Someone might say, "If you were born in India in the 9th century, you would be a Hindu", but that would seem irrelevant in determining a standard in which to measure orthodoxy.
But! We're not talking about a 9th century person born in India! MY point was, and I repeat, "prior to 1500ad or so, if your were Christian, you were Catholic." Now, if you were born in the 9th century in India and you were Christian then you would still have been Catholic!

[21:09] <CathApol> I disagree with 1, 2 is vague, 3 not sure of the point...
[21:11] <Nomos> CathApol: [1] addresses the assumption that history is a litimus test for orthodoxy. To appeal to history is an argumenative fallacy (ad antiquatum), unless history itself is proven to be the standard in which one determines the truthvalue of a theological claim.
[21:11] <Nomos> CathApol: How do you know history has anything to do with truth?
[21:12] <Nomos> CathApol: We can pause this discussion so that you can five your full attention to #prosapologian if you like.
[21:12] <Nomos> CathApol: I'll be here for a bit.
No, my point had nothing to do with a litimus test for orthodoxy. My statement was much more general. "prior to 1500ad or so, if your were Christian, you were Catholic." Then we did take a break here while I was answering someone else in prosapologian, then it was prayertime for my family.

[21:35] <CathApol> prayer time... bbiab
[21:35] You are now known as Cath_awy
[21:35] BigSCOTT is now known as Scott_awy
[22:02] *** Disconnected ***
[22:18] Cath_awy [CathApol@d2-33.pres.goodnet.com] has joined #cathapol
[22:23] X sets mode: +o Cath_awy
[22:46] Scott_awy is now known as BigScott
[22:50] NomsAway is now known as Nomos
[22:50] <Nomos> BigScott: If you're interested, we can pick up our discussion previously?
[22:50] <BigScott> wb... sure... where were we?
[22:51] <Nomos> <CathApol> history cannot be denied... prior to 1500ad or so, if you were Christian, you were Catholic.
[22:51] <Nomos> <Nomos> CathApol: There are quite a few assumptions in that proposition, [1] history determines orthodoxy, [2] a means in which to determine which part of history reflects orthodoxy, [3] a means in which to interpret authoritatively those historic documents.
[22:51] <Nomos> <Nomos> CathApol: So perhaps you would like to elaborate on one of those 3?
[22:51] <Nomos> <CathApol> not sure of what you're after... history is quite clear... if you were a Christian in say 400ad, you were Catholic.
[22:51] <Nomos> <Nomos> CathApol: Ok, but do you see the assumptions I pointed out in that proposition?
[22:51] <Nomos> <CathApol> I disagree with 1, 2 is vague, 3 not sure of the point...
[22:51] <Nomos> <Nomos> CathApol: [1] addresses the assumption that history is a litimus test for orthodoxy. To appeal to history is an argumenative fallacy (ad antiquatum), unless history itself is proven to be the standard in which one determines the truthvalue of a theological claim.
[22:51] <Nomos> <Nomos> CathApol: How do you know history has anything to do with truth?
[22:52] <BigScott> :-)
[22:52] <BigScott> OK.... that seems to have us caught up
Nomos recaps after my break.

[22:52] <Nomos> BigScott: Do you believe history determines christian orthodoxy?
[22:52] <BigScott> No... but history confirms it.
This point squashes Nomos' attempt to make my statement a "litimus test for orthodoxy."

[22:52] <Nomos> BigScott: What do you believe is the standard of christian orthodoxy?
[22:53] <BigScott> Apostolic Tradition, as laid out by Christ given to the Apostles and passed on to their successors.
[22:53] <Nomos> BigScott: You believe that apostolic tradition is the standard of orthodoxy?
[22:54] <BigScott> "the" standard? Hmmm... interesting question... it definitely plays a major role.
[22:55] <Nomos> BigScott: Ok, but what then is the standard of orthodoxy?
[22:56] <BigScott> Apostolic Tradition/Authority in conjunction with the consistent teaching of the Church - which includes the Canon of Sacred Scripture.
[22:56] <Nomos> BigScott: So that then is the standard of orthodoxy in your view?
[22:57] <BigScott> I would say so, yes.
[22:58] <Nomos> BigScott: I'd be interested in examining that then in particular.
[22:58] <BigScott> OK... go on.
My point is made very clear here.

[22:59] <Nomos> BigScott: It seems apostolic tradition is really the core standard under the assumption that you believe [a] what you perceive as the church reflects that apostolic tradition (rather than deviate from it), and [b] the canon of scripture likewise reflects apostolic tradition.
Nomos here has begun a tactic often used by Protestant challengers. He is attempting to get me to say that my perception/interpretation is the true "litimus test." As you will see, I did not fall for it and even call him on it later. My point was, as the log will bare out, that it is not my perception/interpretation of history that counts, but rather a generally accepted history - accepted by the Church and the secular media. My point is unchallenged, "if you were a Christian prior to the 16th century, you were Catholic."

[23:00] <Nomos> BigScott: So naturally then, I'd be interested in determining how you determine how you determine what is apostolic in nature.
[23:01] <Nomos> lots of use of 'determine' there ;]
[23:02] <Nomos> BigScott: We could start with the two assumptions you have of apostolicity, namely [1] the church, and [2] the scriptures.
[23:03] <Nomos> BigScott: ie, how do you know your church reflects apostolic tradition?
[23:03] <BigScott> Well, I don't personally have that much control to "determine" what is genuinely Apostolic in nature. I believe that Jesus did indeed found a Church, with the 12 Apostles as the foundations of that Church. They, in turn, ordained others and selected successors for their offices (like Matthias was selected to fill Judas' office/bishopric). The Scriptures themselves are part of Apostolic Tradition and are confirmed by the same.
Again, my point is made very clear here.

[23:03] <Nomos> BigScott: Why do you believe Jesus founded a church?
[23:04] <Nomos> that would probably be a good place to start.
[23:04] <BigScott> I believe it is the duty of every Christian to seek out that Church that Christ founded.... because He promised He would build a Church.
[23:04] <Nomos> BigScott: What led you to the belief that Jesus founded a church?
[23:04] <BigScott> ~nas Matt 16:18
[23:04] <Logos10> Mat16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (NAS)
Point was made and now has been supported by Scripture.

[23:05] <Nomos> BigScott; So you believe that Jesus founded a church because of a verse in the Bible?
[23:05] <BigScott> I believe the Bible conveys the Truth regarding Jesus' Word(s) here... and I believe that Jesus tells the Truth.
[23:06] <Nomos> BigScott: How do you derive an authoritative interpetation of the words which you perceive as truth?
[23:07] <BigScott> Because, also in the Scriptures we are promised that the Church is the foundation of Truth (that same foundation that is the succession of the Apostles).
Here Nomos appears to be challenging the position of authority the Scriptures hold. This is a point I come to later. I had assumed a premise that we both accepted the Scriptures as authoritive - but that premise has become cloudy here, based on Nomos' continued line of questioning.

[23:08] <Nomos> BigScott: For instance, protestants also believe matthew 16.18 teaches that Christ founded a church, but they understand the meaning of the passage perhaps in a different way - how then do you determine the validity of your interpretation over say that of a protestant (loosely used in a historic sense).
[23:09] <BigScott> Back to my initial claim, historically, Protestants have a problem... they don't exist for over 1500 years.
Please take note of the fact that Nomos admits to here, we'll come back to it later: "protestants also believe matthew 16.18 teaches that Christ founded a church."
I also make the point that Protestantism doesn't even exist for over 1500 years.

[23:09] <Nomos> BigScott: That's only a problem [a] if one accepts your interpetation of history, and [b] if one assumes history is a measure of orthodoxy.
OK, again I have already refuted point [a] - history is not dependent on MY interpretation of history! This, again, was another attempt to use the tactic to get me to say that my role in interpretation is the central point. Point [b] was also refuted - history is not a "measure" of orthodoxy - but it confirms it.

[23:10] <Nomos> BigScott: So again, how do you determine the validity of your interpretation of matthew 16.18 or 1tim 3.15 (which you alluded to)?
[23:10] <BigScott> ~nas 1tim 3:15
[23:10] <Logos10> 1Tim3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (NAS)
[23:11] <Nomos> BigScott: Is your interpretation authoritative?
[23:12] <BigScott> 1) Christ promises a Church. 2) A Church does indeed exist. 3) That Church is built on Apostolic succession/authority. 4) That Church exists today, and is known as the Catholic Church.
Here in point 1) I restate my position, then in points 2) through 4) I support and take that position to a logical conclusion.

[23:12] <Nomos> BigScott: Repeating something doesn't necessarily equate to a cogent defense. ;]
[23:12] <Nomos> BigScott: I realize *what* you believe, but I'm not sure why you believe it.
[23:13] <BigScott> that was not a repeat.
[23:13] <Nomos> BigScott: Do you believe your interpretation of those two passages, which you appeal to as part of your defense, is authoritative?
[23:13] <Nomos> BigScott; Perhaps not directly a repeat.
[23:14] <BigScott> OK, I expanded on an earlier statement... trying to clarify the position
[23:14] <Nomos> BigScott: I'm trying to understand your view. Your reply to my inquiry was that matthew 16.18 and 1tim 3.15 offer a sort of an explanation as to why you believe as you do, naturally though I'd like to know how you determine the validity of your interpretation given there are variants thereof.
[23:15] <Nomos> BigScott: clarification is appreciated. :]
Again Nomos attempt to invoke the tactic of getting me to claim I am my own authority. That is a flaw of Protestantism - not Catholicism. Catholics rely on the Church as their authority - and we can systematically and logically demonstrate our argument. Protestants, on the other hand, will find it quite impossible to systematically show their "church" existing prior to the 16th century. Nomos apparently knows this, and is attempting to divert the attention from where he lacks and attempts to use a false dilemma on me. Again, we see this tactic doesn't work - and he's not the first to try this tactic on me (see discussion with Gotschalk wherein the same tactic is used - hereafter will just be referred to as the tactic).

[23:15] <BigScott> Let's make sure we're starting with at least a similar premise... do you accept the Scriptures as a source of authority?
Here is where I begin to establish a premise.

[23:16] <Nomos> BigScott; Well, what I accept is irrelevant to *your* defense. But as a sidenote, yes I presuppose the authority of the Scriptures as a necessary starting point in which to have a cogent epistemology (but that then would reveal *my* defense, not yours ;] )
Later, I attempted to go back and quote wherein Nomos accepts this premise, I quoted a different statement - but this was the one I was after. Nomos had denied ever admitting this premise, so please take note.

[23:17] <BigScott> but if we don't have a common ground to start from, we'll just end up going in circles.
This is a basic fact of logical argumentation.

[23:17] <Nomos> BigScott: Is your interpretation of the Scriptures which you perceive as reflective of apostolic tradition authoritative?
Again, attempting to invoke "the tactic."

[23:17] <Nomos> BigScott: Our common ground is not going to be our epistemology as you have presupposed a different starting point, but nonetheless, we both share common committments to logical discourse (assumed).
[23:18] <Nomos> BigScott: That given, you have a platform to proceed in your defense.
Here Nomos attempts to say that logic itself is the "platform" on which to build. Sorry Nomos, logic is a tool - it is not the foundation on which we build - unless of course the topic of discussion is logic - then of course - the platform is logic itself. The topic of discussion here is The Church and where we find Authority, hence our "common ground" is the Scriptures - as I was saying and Nomos did agree to when he said: "yes I presuppose the authority of the Scriptures as a necessary starting point in which to have a cogent epistemology"

[23:18] <Nomos> BigScott: Particularly, you could answer my question about the nature of your interpetation of matthew 16.18 and 1tim 3.15 ;]
Again, attempting to invoke "the tactic."

[23:18] <BigScott> logical discourse is our platform?
[23:18] <Nomos> BigScott: I'm assuming you presuppose laws of logic.
[23:18] <BigScott> I do.
[23:18] <Nomos> perhaps you don't - but that then would make this interaction (or any interaction), pointless.
[23:19] <Nomos> BigScott: Given that presupposition, we can proceed.
[23:19] <Nomos> BigScott: I feel you're dodging my question about the nature of your interpretation - perhaps I am mistaken,
[23:20] <Nomos> BigScott: Care to address that?
[23:20] <BigScott> no... trying to come to consensus that the Scriptures have authority, in and of themselves (not "sole" authority at this point, but that they are authoritive)
[23:21] <Nomos> BigScott: You believe that we must have a 'consensus' in order for you to give your defense?
[23:22] <BigScott> consensus in a premise... beyond logic alone. We need a foundation to build from, a platform.
[23:22] <BigScott> and use logic as a tool, not as the foundation.
[23:22] <Nomos> BigScott: I fail to see what difference it makes what *I* believe for you to proceed in your defense.
[23:23] <Nomos> BigScott: Even so, I've already confessed my faith in the Sciptures
[23:23] <Nomos> as authoritative.
This is where I attempt to establish a consensus of a starting point so that I could build a meaningful argument. Without an accepted starting point (beyond logic alone) it is impossible to build a case. If logic alone is the basis, then my only requirement would be to construct a "valid" argument - which I have already done, so my "defense" is complete already if logic is the only requirement. Even though Nomos has stated this is his starting point, he obviously wants more.

[23:24] <BigScott> I take it from your line of questioning that you have some philosophy background... and as such, you understand that logic alone is not a foundation, but the tool - the means to an end, but not the end itself.
[23:24] <Nomos> BigScott: depends upon the philsophy.
[23:25] <Nomos> BigScott: but nonetheless, I'm trying to determine *your* foundation and the specifics therein, not compare it to mine.
[23:25] <BigScott> you have a point, but since you've confirmed the Scriptures are authoritive... I am comfortable to continue
[23:25] <Nomos> BigScott: okie. :]
[23:25] <Nomos> BigScott: Do you believe your interpretation of matthew 16.18 and 1tim 3.15 is authoritative?
[23:25] <BigScott> so, those two verses
[23:25] <BigScott> :-) you're ahead of me..
[23:26] <Nomos> BigScott; or if you're more comfortable, do you believe your interpretation of those passages is sufficient?
[23:26] <Nomos> BigScott: apologies - please continue.
This was essentially to establish that I recognize some philosophy talent in my challenger, and to let him know that I am not unfamiliar with philosophy and logical argumentation.

[23:26] <BigScott> As one of my initial statements stated... it is not "my" interpretation that is important so much as an interpretation that is consistent with the Apostolic Authority that I accept.
[23:27] <Nomos> interesting point =- but it begs the question I'm seeking.
[23:27] <Nomos> BigScott: how do you determine its consistency with apostolic tradition?
Nomos is back to attempting to corner me with "the tactic" again.

[23:27] <BigScott> that leads me back to the 4 facts I clarified earlier
[23:28] <Nomos> BigScott: but those 4 propositions are not founded, merely stated.
[23:28] <Nomos> BigScott: I can state 4 propositions too, but my stating them doesn't make them true. ; ]
[23:28] <Nomos> <BigScott> 1) Christ promises a Church. 2) A Church does indeed exist. 3) That Church is built on Apostolic succession/authority. 4) That Church exists today, and is known as the Catholic Church.
[23:29] <BigScott> :-) thanks I just went back and got those myself...
[23:29] <Nomos> BigScott: in fact, my inquiry is in light of those stated propositions. ie, we've been dealing with [1]
[23:29] <BigScott> give me a sec to type in the response...
[23:29] <Nomos> okie :]
[23:32] <BigScott> 1) Christ promises a Church. (Matthew 16:18 is clear in this promise) 2) A Church does indeed exist. (and *has* existed, as documented in Acts and in the Epistles of Paul and more [1 Tim 3:15]) 3) That Church is built on Apostolic succession/authority. [Acts 1:circa20 - shows the first selection of a successor to an Apostle's "office" or "bishopric"] 4) That Church exists today, and is known as the Catholic Church. [My assertion, support (this got truncated somehow - I don't recall how I actually finished that line, attempting to put myself back into that though process I would say I finish it with:) and conclusion all equal a logical argument - which is all you're asking me for!]
So, again if Nomos' only premise is "logic" - I have fulfulled his requirement.

[23:33] <Nomos> your response misses the point of my inquiry, rather, it just assumes the stated propositions as true.
[23:33] <Nomos> saying matthew 16.18 is clear doesn't make it clear. ;]
[23:34] <BigScott> it is clear that Jesus promises to build a Church, right?
[23:34] <Nomos> it may be clear - but 'clearly' there are diverse understandings of it and the context in which it resides - hence, it's not so obvious to all.
[23:34] <BigScott> that's why I move on to #2
[23:34] <Nomos> BigScott: Perhaps - are you suggesting then that your understanding of matthew 16.18 is sufficient?
Again Nomos is attempting to use "the tactic." I still am not falling for it.

[23:36] <BigScott> all I am submitting in posting Matthew 16:18 is that Jesus promised a church.
[23:36] <Nomos> BigScott; maybe. ;]
No, not maybe - either He (Jesus) promises a church, or He doesn't - that's a pretty straightforward proposition, so does Matthew 16:18 bare it out? Yes, it does - Jesus' own words, "I will build My church." Sorry Nomos, you lose this round.

[23:36] <BigScott> you're presupposing more
[23:36] <Nomos> BigScott: you're miss using the word presupposition there. ;]\
No, I am not misusing the word (and I can spell "misusing" too <grin> hehe). Nomos has a presupposition that I mean more in my citation of Matthew 16:18. I say that because he knows I am a Catholic and this verse is widely used by Catholic apologists as a reference to the establishment of the papacy - but in THIS discussion, I made no such contention - I have only stated that Jesus promises to build a "church." Since Nomos has already accepted with me that the Scriptures are authoritive - point 1 is completely and validly established and documented.

[23:37] <Nomos> BigScott: nonetheless, I'm not presupposing anything, I'm challenging the proposition itself.
Nomos' argumentation is groundless. I made a proposition, established our premise (the Scriptures are authoritive), then documented my proposition with a citation from Scripture. There is nothing left to "challenge" here!

[23:37] <Nomos> BigScott: How do you know what matthew 16.18 is saying or isnt saying, are you suggesting you can understand the passage yourself?
Again, Nomos attempts to invoke "the tactic."

[23:37] <BigScott> part of that verse says "I will build My church"
[23:38] <Nomos> BigScott: maybe that means something totally different than the literal interpretation?
"Maybe?" Well Nomos doesn't offer an alternative here, but "church" is "church," and "I will build..." is pretty self-explanatory. In the absense of an alternative interpretation, Nomos loses by default here.

[23:38] <Nomos> BigScott: Are you saying that you can understand the passage sufficiently yourself?
[23:38] <BigScott> that is the extent of what I am proposing in #1
And yet again, Nomos attempt to invoke "the tactic" but I shut him down stating the limitation of my proposition is that Jesus has promised to build "a church." Now, later we can get into just what that church is - which is precisely what I do in points 2 through 4.

[23:38] <Nomos> BigScott: I understand that - but stating it isn't the same as defending it.
[23:39] <Nomos> BigScott: Let's just clarify first how you've come to the conclusion that Christ built a church based upon the two passages you've cited.
[23:40] <Nomos> BigScott: As surely appealing to those passages is irrelevant if they cannot be understood.
[23:40] <BigScott> what more can I say regarding #1? Jesus said it, I believe it. Then I go on in the further propositions to summize what is meant by "church" in prop 1
[23:40] <Nomos> BigScott: I don't think you understand the point I'm making here.
[23:40] <Nomos> BigScott: You're assuming JEsus said that - I'm inquiring into how you know JEsus said it.
This is where I have him! See, Nomos has already conceded that the Scriptures are authoritive - again, let us look at his own words here: "yes I presuppose the authority of the Scriptures as a necessary starting point in which to have a cogent epistemology." Bingo! He has already conceded this argument - I "know" Jesus said it because the Scriptures say He said it and we have consensus that the Scriptures are authoritive as a

[23:41] <Nomos> BigScott: How do you know your understanding of what you believe Jesus said in matthew 16.18 is correct?
Again, Nomos attempts to invoke "the tactic"

[23:41] <BigScott> You're attempting to make "me" the final arbitor/interpretor... and I have already stated I am not in that position and submit to the Authority that is.
[23:41] <Nomos> BigScott: Well, that's precisely what I'm getting at.
I call Nomos on his use of "the tactic" and he admits "that's precisely what (he's) getting at."

[23:41] <Nomos> BigScott: If you're interpretation isn't authoritative or sufficient, then apparently there's more to your #1 then what you have stated thus far.
[23:42] <Nomos> BigScott: Therefore, if you're not the authoritative or sufficient interpreter of matthew 16.18 or 1tim 3.15, then who is?
[23:42] <BigScott> but I have already stated, long ago, that "my" interpretation is not important, but an interpretation that is in line with the Authority that is in the Apostolic succession.
Again, Nomos is invoking "the tactic" but I am not buying it.

[23:42] <BigScott> or rather:
[23:42] <Nomos> BigScott: Yes, you stated that, but stating it doesn't make it true.
Wait! According to Nomos, all that I need to do is present a logical and valid argument. I have done that.

[23:43] <Nomos> BigScott: How then do you determine *what* is an authoritative interpretation?
[23:44] <BigScott> and that is where my statement regarding history comes into play...
[23:44] <Nomos> BigScott: okie. so is your interpretation and understanding of history authoritative or sufficient?
[23:45] <BigScott> not mine alone...
[23:45] <Nomos> BigScott: whose then?
[23:46] <BigScott> Church history and secular history - both can be looked at and there can be seen the Catholic Church.
[23:47] <BigScott> I'm sure I can dig up Encyclopedia Brittanica and show the truth of the existence of the Catholic Church prior to the 16th century and beyond...
[23:47] <Nomos> BigScott: That doesn't answer the question - whose interpretation is sufficient or authoritative of secular and ecclesiastic history - you said not yours alone - then whose?
[23:48] <BigScott> proving my premise of #2
Again, I have put down "the tactic" and demonstrated that the truth here is derived from a broad base of sources.

[23:48] <Nomos> it doesnt prove anything
[23:49] <Nomos> it avoids my previous inquiry
No Nomos, it precisely addresses your inquiry. It destroys your position so you are unwilling to acquiesce.

[23:49] <Nomos> <Nomos> BigScott: okie. so is your interpretation and understanding of history authoritative or sufficient?
Again, Nomos attempts to invoke "the tactic" yet I have already squashed that tactic.

[23:49] <BigScott> I did not interpret for the writers of Encyclopedia Brittanica, nor is that company under the Church's authority... yet it will confirm the existence of the Catholic Church
[23:49] <Nomos> <BigScott> not mine alone...
[23:49] <Nomos> BigScott: How do you know - is the encyclopedia britannica auhoritative?
[23:50] <BigScott> in a vacuum... it is not... but with the overwhelming evidence that supports it... it can be accepted as fairly accurate.
[23:50] <BigScott> that was just one example/
[23:50] <BigScott> the EB is not "my" authority... but it is "an" authority
Again, I squash "the tactic" and point out that the EB is not "my" authority or even "the" authority, but clearly is "an" authority.

[23:51] <Nomos> BigScott: okie - but appealing to ncyclopedias and other sources as if they are true is question begging in the extreme.
"Begging the question" is one of the "common fallacies" in debate - but clearly I have not done this. Nomos asked me how I recognize authority and/or truth - and I have demonstrated several ways.

[23:51] <BigScott> and it confirms "my" position.
[23:52] <BigScott> you asked how *I* know something is true... and based on the overwhelming evidence... including EB, ALL my history books, etc. #2 is confirmed as a "fact."
[23:52] <BigScott> not to mention the Bible itself.
[23:53] <Nomos> I disagree,
[23:53] <BigScott> Acts and the Epistles provide scriptural proof of the existence of "the Church" in Apostolic times.
[23:53] <BigScott> you disagree with how *I* know something?
Notice how Nomos went from what was a philosophical approach in his questioning to now a personal opinion. Nomos is falling into his own trap, and I called him on that! He has placed himself as the ultimate authority in determining the truth or validity of this whole argument. His initial line of questioning to me was based on how I know something!

[23:54] <Nomos> BigScott: I disagree that you've proven or defended your stated propositions.
So, Nomos' personal opinion of my argumentation is the deciding factor here. :-) Again, Nomos has fallen into his own trap of "the tactic."

[23:55] <Nomos> BigScott: You're appealing to a rather unscholarly encyclopedia as if that somehow supports your view -= but that assumes that source as authoritative, as the others you've cited.
Now he attacks the integrity of the Encyclopedia Brittanica! That being said, the EB was not my ONLY source, and I said it could be basically ANY encyclopedia - I did not limit it to the EB, and I even included ALL the history books I have used throughout my education career.

[23:55] <Nomos> at any rate
[23:56] <BigScott> We concured that Jesus promised a church in Matthew 16:18 - you differ on what constitutes the church, but we have concurance on the fact the promise is made, do we not?
[23:56] <Nomos> my body really needs pizza right now.
[23:56] <Nomos> we concured nothing
[23:56] <Nomos> concurred either
[23:56] <BigScott> :-)
Yes, we clearly did concur this fact, and I have repeated it several times in this commentary. Nomos is backed into a corner, and it's time for a pizza break. :-) I don't challenge the possibility that perhaps Nomos is hypoglycemic and maybe needs to keep his blood-sugars up - but when I am cornering him he is backing down.

[23:56] <Nomos> BigScott: We concurred that matthew 16.18 says something, we didn't concur that we understand that saying the same.
[23:57] <BigScott> you essentially gave me the fact that He promised a church, but you differed on what constituted "the church"
[23:57] <Nomos> I've given no facts, in 'fact', what constitutes a 'fact' is reflective of other philosophical committments.
[23:58] <Nomos> but
[23:58] <Nomos> I'm simply saying - appealing to a text doesn't help your case if [1] the text isn't established as authoritative, and [2] there isnt an authoritative means to understand the text
[23:58] <Nomos> now, I'm not saying you don't have those things
[23:59] <BigScott> but we DID establish that the text (the scriptures) ARE authoritative!
[23:59] <Nomos> no we haven't
[23:59] <Nomos> we agree, but you haven't established anything of the sort. ;]
[00:00] <BigScott> <Nomos> BigScott: Even so, I've already confessed my faith in the Sciptures
[00:01] <Nomos> that was a statement of faith
[00:01] <Nomos> we didn't establish the proposition
[00:02] <BigScott> then we should not have moved on... I was "comfortable" moving on based on that statement, which I took as you affirming the authority of Scripture.
[00:02] <Nomos> we didn't move on - you just demanded that we have a 'consensus' for whatever reason ;]
[00:03] <Nomos> i need to go though.
[00:03] <Nomos> thank you for the chatting - it is always fun to discuss these things.
[00:03] <BigScott> without a comon ground/foundation... we cannot build
[00:03] <Nomos> we're not 'building', you're defending stated propositions
[00:04] <Nomos> or 'trying to
[00:04] <BigScott> you were operating on one premise... me on another I suppose.... which is why I insisted upon consession.
[00:04] <Nomos> :]
[00:04] <BigScott> without a common starting point... argumentation is pointless...
[00:04] <BigScott> I too have had my share of philosophy. :-)
[00:05] <Nomos> argumentation presupposes certain laws of thought - we share those, hence we can dialogue.
[00:05] <Nomos> you seem to (want) to have a similar statement of faith in order to carry out a discussion - but clearly that's not going to happen and will render any 'apologetics ministry' worthless.
[00:06] <Nomos> yipes - see what happens when my blood cells are neglected the cholesterol they so rightly deserve!
[00:06] <BigScott> but logic, alone, at least in "my" philosophy, is not enough to be considered the platform/foundation on which to build. Logic is the tool, not the foundation, toward Truth in Philosophy.
[00:06] <Nomos> we're not building anything
[00:06] <BigScott> :-) get your pizza... we'll do this again...
[00:07] <BigScott> I am attempting to build an argument...
[00:07] <BigScott> if I am not building on the "same ground" or on the "same plane" as you... you will not even see my building.
[00:08] <BigScott> case in point: which is what happened tonight
[00:09] <Nomos> BigScott: arguments presuppose certain laws of thought - you can build a valid argument without sharing certain epistemological or other metaphysical similarities.
Again, Nomos reaffirms that all that is needed are "certain laws of thought" in other words, logic - which I have fully provided logical argumentation to support my propositions. Whether or not Nomos "personally" agrees with my conclusions is irrelevant, according to his own stated principle of argumentation.

Now, to the two points he raises in this section: [1] We did establish that the Scriptures are authoritive. and [2] I demonstrated how from a variety of sources the text could be verified as true. Again, Nomos' personal objections to my arguments are invalid in a logical argument.


[00:10] <BigScott> my argumentation was completely valid... just not "accepted" or "seen" based on your different premise.
[00:10] <BigScott> I made a statement, supported it and built upon it and took it to a logical end.
[00:14] <BigScott> <Nomos> you seem to (want) to have a similar statement of faith in order to carry out a discussion - but clearly that's not going to happen and will render any 'apologetics ministry' worthless.
[00:14] <BigScott responds:> No, I wasn't attempting to get a statement of faith from you, other than we both accept the position of Scriptures as having authority, without getting into the sola scriptura argument - just accepting they have "authority" which I *t (truncated)
[00:15] <BigScott> (I only continued again here, because I see you're still "at it" with DaveA in #pros)
[00:16] <Nomos> heh
[00:16] <Nomos> :]
[00:26] <BigScott> You've read Newman, eh? :-)
[00:27] <BigScott> He set out to prove, via history, that Catholicism was false - and ended up converting to Catholicism!
[00:27] <Nomos> I've read his apologia pro vita sua
[00:27] <BigScott> History "proved" it to him.
[00:28] <Nomos> I think newman was a bit simple minded to be honest.
[00:28] <BigScott> :-)
We did have consensus at the beginning. Nomos did state the Scriptures are authoritive. Clearly, Nomos loses this round. I look forward to another one!