[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, it's not an argument. He isn't arguing for anything. He is observing something. If I observe how a car works, and you keep saying prove it, of course, the empirical evidence is the ultimate proof that my observations are correct. At this point, Lessans is only describing his observations as to how conscience works (just like the car example). It obviously hasn't been empirically tested on a global scale (it would have been impossible during Lessans' lifetime), but that does not mean his observations are unsound.

Again, whether you call them descriptions or observations or anything else is irrelevant. The fact remains that he drew conclusions on the basis of them, and that means what he wrote qualifies as an argument. So I ask you again: Are the things I listed not presuppositions because his conclusions still follow even if these things are false? Or are they not presuppositions because he argued for and supported them (with further 'observations' or whatever)?

My position is that his conclusions do not follow unless these things are true, and that he did not anywhere provide reasons for thinking that they are true.

What part of this do you disagree with?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that's what you were going to say. I suggest you don't read any of the book. You will have to wait until these principles are put into practice to finally admit that his observations were spot on all along.

It's still true that copypasting the whole chapter doesn't answer my question. If you can't show me either that his arguments work without the truth of these presuppositions, or that he somewhere argued for and supported them, then his whole first non-discovery rests upon these presuppositions which no-one has any reason to accept. His principles will never get put into practice until you can give people some reason to think that they will work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you getting nasty on me Spacemonkey? All you are is a follower of what other people are saying such as NA. Do I say you that you have a mental illness just because you are not a good investigator but think you're top notch? I know you wish I would run away with my tail between my legs so you can proclaim yourself the fake winner. Even if I do leave, you don't come close to being the great philosopher you think you are.

I'm not being nasty. I'm just pointing out the facts. Your behaviour here and elsewhere demonstrates beyond any possible doubt that you are severly mentally incapacitated. If you don't believe me, then get someone you trust, like a family member or a mental health professional, to read through these threads and see what they think. I don't want you to run away. I would much rather see you start to think rationally and start being honest with yourself regarding your faith-based attachment to this material. And as I said:

If you don't try to prove his premises then everyone will simply continue to reject his arguments as unsound. That's what happens when you begin an argument from premises which others do not find convincing. It makes no difference that you think those premises were true and somehow accurately 'observed'. If other people don't agree with them, you still need to give them some reason to do so.

And until you address this...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My position is that the following things are required for the soundness of his first non-discovery arguments, but that they are not actually argued-for or supported in his book:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.
You were denying that he made any presuppositions about conscience. Yet I've showed you exactly what his presuppositions were. To refute this you need to show that they were not presuppositions because either (i) his arguments do not require them to be true; or (ii) he did actually offer arguments or evidence in support of them.

...your claim that his work is not based upon any presuppositions remains refuted.