Friday, August 15, 2008

I'm betting he'll run away

Take a look here and see reason #6.

Since there's no logic unless there's a god, you can't prove to me logically that there's no god. Ergo, there is a god.

That's close to what I'd call a part of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. Not exactly, but we'll let it slide for now.
I've posted a challenge in The Exterminator's combox. Perhaps he'll take the opportunity to actually engage the issue and come join the fun, or maybe he'll just blow me off, insult me, and make perverted and offensive statements like he often does, thereby reinforcing the reason why and the category under which he is listed on the sidebar.

Update:

He ran away. Well, like I've said before, we can't all be rock stars.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since there's no logic unless there's a god, you can't prove to me logically that there's no god. Ergo, there is a god.

The problem with the TAG is that that is merely a question begging assertion. I've yet to see anyone prove this is even remotely true.

Furthermore, since no Christian apologist actually has an explanation for how God endows us/the universe with any of these wonderful qualities like logic, the atheist is perfectly justified in simply retorting that 'I know atheism somehow accounts for logic, I just don't know how that is'.

Rhology said...

Well, judging from the combox over there, looks like I was right. He just doesn't care.

Tell you what - I'll just posit God. He posits logic, I posit God.
Problem solved.

Rhology said...

Notice the subtle shift.

From:
"no Christian apologist actually has an explanation for how God endows us/the universe with any of these wonderful qualities like logic"

To:

"I know atheism somehow accounts for logic, I just don't know how that is"

Those are not the same thing. Are you trying to be disingenuous, or is it accidental?
We know HOW God accounts for logic. It flows out of Who He is. It is an attribute, it's how He is, how He thinks.
The atheistic thought pattern you're referring to here begs the question too. It is necessary to beg the question on these ultimate questions, so keep that in mind.


So... how *do* you acct for logic? Are you admitting you just don't know? Is that very reasonable or commendable?

yunshui said...

We know HOW God accounts for logic. It flows out of Who He is. It is an attribute, it's how He is, how He thinks."

How do you know? Where do you get the idea that God is accounts for logic? Why is logic necessarily one of God's attributes?

yunshui said...

Ach - I forgot the mantra: "Preview is my friend, Preview is my friend..."

Dr Funkenstein said...

So your answer Rhology, is that you don't actually know how any of this happens when you say 'it flows from who he his' (and I might add Cornelius Van Till thought otherwise re: the law of non-contradiction), you just assert another 'Goddidit' - after all, I already know you think we need God in the picture, but I'm still none the wiser as to the mechanisms by which humans have their minds illumined with these attributes by God or how the universe becomes endowed with these properties/laws.

So now you've trebled your burdens by both claiming that logic requires TGOTB, and therefore you have to account for how/why TGOTB exists, and that it flows from him to endow the universe and humans with it/the means to use it, yet you have no explanation for the mechanism by which it happens, it apparently just does/just exists. Like God, who also just exists and apparently requires no explanation.

You've also still not disproven that logic could just be a straightforward fact of the universe. It's well worth checking Stephen Law's blog for a series of posts he debated on this very topic.

Dr Funkenstein said...

addendum:

To add - you could also have a completely different set of laws of logic and provide the same answer - 'they flow from who he is'. It's no better than the answer 'because the sun rises in the morning'.

davohynds said...

Yunshui and Dr Funk:
As a theist, I would say that a person is endowed with such qualities as logic and awareness of God in that a people and the universe are created in the image of God. Therefore those attributes are manifest within them.

Therefore, logic is manifest with "creation" or the world. So either way, whether there is a God or not, the we derive logic from the universe/creation and our interaction with it. So logic proves neither the existence or the nonexistence of God.

NAL said...

Rho:
We know HOW God accounts for logic. It flows out of Who He is. It is an attribute, it's how He is, how He thinks.

You presuppose the existence of God and that God is the source of logic. Then you cannot use logic to prove the existence of God. That would constitute the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Rho:
So... how *do* you acct for logic? Are you admitting you just don't know? Is that very reasonable or commendable?

Is it more reasonable or commendable to invent God instead of admitting a lack of knowledge? Is the lack of knowledge such a difficult admission for the theist?

Logic may be an offshoot of mathematics. Rudimentary mathematics, such as counting, would have given certain early human civilizations an survival advantage.

Paul C said...

He posits logic, I posit God. Problem solved.

Well, it solves his problem, but it destroys your argument that without God logic couldn't exist.

Paul C said...

So... how *do* you acct for logic?

What exactly do you mean when you say "account for" logic? It's still very unclear.

Are you admitting you just don't know? Is that very reasonable or commendable?

It's entirely reasonable and entirely commendable, as well as being intellectually honest. Just because somebody else doesn't have an answer for you doesn't mean that your answer is correct.

Rhology said...

Hi all,

Anonymous said:
The problem with the TAG is that that is merely a question begging assertion.

Quite true.
It's self-justifying, though, that's the nice thing about it.
Take many atheist's first principle, though - it has insurmountable problems. So, no dice there. Show me sthg else that is coherent and rational and we'll talk.


since no Christian apologist actually has an explanation for how God endows us/the universe with any of these wonderful qualities like logic

It flows out of Who He is. He has made humans in His image. Generally, we think like He does - logically.

yunshui took a break from his usual perversity (which is good, b/c any such comments here will be deleted) and said:
How do you know?

B/c He revealed it.


Where do you get the idea that God is accounts for logic?

The Bible. And the impossibility of the contrary (absent an alternative explanation). If you have an alternative, by all means bring it forth. Post it on your blog and let me know and we can discuss.


Why is logic necessarily one of God's attributes?

The impossibility of the contrary.
The existence of TGOTB accounts for and explains the existence and utility of the laws of logic and evidence.
I've not yet seen a workable alternative, but I'm always open to new ones. Feel free to propose one. If it resembles this one, though, I recommend you deal with my challenges to it - no one wants to read recycled material.


Dr Funk said:
So your answer Rhology, is that you don't actually know how any of this happens when you say 'it flows from who he his'

You mean the minute, detailed mechanics of it?
He created us in His image. He made us so that we'd think in many essential ways like Him.


you just assert another 'Goddidit'

Yes, of course.
You can throw around pejoratives all you want - prove that such is irrational.


I'm still none the wiser as to the mechanisms by which humans have their minds illumined with these attributes by God or how the universe becomes endowed with these properties/laws.

Speak for yourself. I'm quite a bit the wiser. Your rebellious mind and willful ignorance are hardly God's fault.


therefore you have to account for how/why TGOTB exists...
Like God, who also just exists and apparently requires no explanation.

He's a necessary being.


yet you have no explanation for the mechanism by which it happens, it apparently just does/just exists.

The Darwinian mechanism is laughable and unproven, and you're criticising the fact that it's not explained to your satisfaction? Double standard alert!


You've also still not disproven that logic could just be a straightforward fact of the universe.

Actually, I have.


It's well worth checking Stephen Law's blog for a series of posts he debated on this very topic.

I will, thanks.
If this is a representative example, I don't know if I'll waste my time. It's pathetic.
"Ask me to prove my claim and I will say: "But prove to me your mind is not addled, then, Sye". Which you won't be able to, for the above reason. I might then add, with a flourish - "So you see, it's proved by the impossibility of the contrary".

And of course I have a good explanation for why your brain is addled - you were hit by a rock.

Is my claim reasonable, then? Of course not. It's bull____. I really can't see how
your position is any less of a bull___ position. Can you?"


Wow. I don't know what to say. I'm blown away.


you could also have a completely different set of laws of logic and provide the same answer - 'they flow from who he is'.

Go ahead and provide an example of a "different set of laws of logic". This should be interesting.


NAL said:
Then you cannot use logic to prove the existence of God.

I don't "prove" His existence. I presuppose it.


Is it more reasonable or commendable to invent God instead of admitting a lack of knowledge?

So you're not going to answer the question? Dude, you're a member of The Atheist Experience. I mean, ****THE**** friggin' Atheist Experience. If you don't have an answer, what hope is there for the atheist laymen out there?


Logic may be an offshoot of mathematics.

Sigh.
How do you acct for laws of mathematics?
Don't evade the question.


Rudimentary mathematics, such as counting, would have given certain early human civilizations an survival advantage.

Oh, this is good.
So laws of mathematics are a human convention?
Or are they immaterial concepts, laws of the universe?
Are laws of logic a human convention, then?


Paul C said:
What exactly do you mean when you say "account for" logic? It's still very unclear.

Why do laws of logic exist, as opposed to no logic?
Whence do they come?
There's no Lawgiver - whence the laws?
Why aren't they different? Why doesn't the law of contradiction (as opposed to the law of non-contradiction) exist?

Paul C said...

So when you ask atheists to "account for" logic, you're actually asking 4 different questions? This is remarkably imprecise, isn't it? Can I suggest that you clarify what you mean when you ask the question if you expect anybody to answer?

Let's assume that you mean the first question, which seems most likely. One answer could be that they simply exist, of course, in exactly the same way that you claim that God simply exists. You seem to acknowledge that this is a possible answer when you say "He posits logic, I posit God". So it would seem that you have answered your own question.

Rhology said...

4 questions, imprecise

It wouldn't kill atheists to think a little.


"He posits logic, I posit God".

Anyone who would posit logic as a bare fact needs to deal with the post I refer to.

Paul C said...

So when you who said "He posits logic, I posit God", you didn't actually mean it? Thanks for clearing that up.

The post that you wrote on Evidentialism doesn't refutes the positing of logic as a brute fact. What you refer to as an "infinite regress" simply demonstrates that JN's first principle is self-supporting - e.g. it cannot be and is not undermined by the argument that you present. Why you think this is a killer blow puzzles me.

As an analogy, imagine JN's first principle as the keystone in a stone archway. If you ask "what keeps the keystone in place?", the answer is "the structure of the archway". If you then ask "what maintains the structure of the archway?" the answer is "the keystone". Simply re-asking the two questions does not constitute an "infinite regress" - it simply misunderstands the nature of the archway. This is your position with regards to JN's philosophical musings.

Rhology said...

when you who said "He posits logic, I posit God", you didn't actually mean it? Thanks for clearing that up.

It was a brief rejoinder. If the atheist gets to just assume what he likes, OK, I get to assume what *I* like. Atheists' claim to all this rational, epistemic advantage vanishes.


What you refer to as an "infinite regress" simply demonstrates

You're on the record stating that an infinite regress is not irrational.
Let the reader judge whether you're even close to qualified to comment on this.
Sthg that is an infinite regress is not self-justifying, it's irrational. My worldview is not infinite and is self-justifying.


if you ask "what keeps the keystone in place?", the answer is "the structure of the archway". If you then ask "what maintains the structure of the archway?" the answer is "the keystone"

It's more like - "what keeps the keystone in place?", the answer is "the keystone".
Show me in the JN's argument anythg beyond the keystone.

Paul C said...

Sthg that is an infinite regress is not self-justifying, it's irrational.

My point is that it's not an infinite regress, it's simply circular questioning on your part. There is no regression; you're just asking the same two questions repeatedly.

It's more like - "what keeps the keystone in place?", the answer is "the keystone".

No, it isn't. The keystone is the First Principle, and the archway is constructed from the evidential conclusions enabled by that First Principle.

Rhology said...

Let's go over this again.
The statement is: Evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth.

I want to determine whether that statement is true.
I therefore subject it to its own test.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?

An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?

An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?
An answer is provided.
I then want to determine whether *that* statement is true.
I ask: What is the evidence for that?



Does that help?


The keystone is the First Principle, and the archway is constructed from the evidential conclusions enabled by that First Principle.

The archway is question-begging, for the reasons provided.

Paul C said...

Coherentism.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Wow. I don't know what to say. I'm blown away.

That's the point - it's supposed to be really stupid. But the style of argumentation is exactly the same. The John Frame article that you know I like to post outlines a similar scenario that is again absolutely no different from PA. Using the TAG style of argument, you can justify pretty much any nonsense.



As to the 'Darwinian mechanism', in previous posts (such as the finch beaks) you agree that it's a genuine, observed mechanism of evolution (assuming you are not retracting that now). However, it isn't the only one by a long shot. By comparison there is no known mechanism of instantaneous creation, creation ex nihilo or mechanisms by which God imparts his qualities on to us/the physical world. There are no known examples of instantaneous creation outside the claims of religious texts.

"It flows out of Who He is."

This is meaningless, as Goddidit statements can apply to any set of observations and therefore don't explain anything.

"The Bible. And the impossibility of the contrary (absent an alternative explanation)."

As you've described logic as an attribute of God, and by extension and attribute of the universe etc, the same applies to logic as an attribute of the universe as a brute fact. It makes one less assumption after all.

Impossibility of the contrary is a question begging assumption, as it needs to rule out absolutely every alternative explanation, even ones we may not have thought of yet. As you say - you posit God as a brute fact, the other guy just posits logic as a brute fact. It's also a false dichotomy - ie if I can't provide an explanation, yours must be true without having to prove it. Even if I give a wrong explanation, yours can also be wrong.


I'm also assuming by laws of logic you mean:

Law of non-contradiction
Law of identity
Law of excluded middle


So where in the bible are these outlined, especially as they were formalised by the Greeks, a society not unknown to biblical authors?

As for alternative laws of logic, here's a one starting point (although obviously there are objections to this also):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/#3

"The existence of TGOTB accounts for and explains the existence and utility of the laws of logic and evidence. "

"Yes, of course.
You can throw around pejoratives all you want - prove that such is irrational."

How can TGOTB (for presuppositonalists) be a grounds for evidence? Evidence by definition doesn't come with a tag saying 'this supports conclusion X', whereas you've committed yourself to certain conclusions already. "Classical Apologetics" even points out this problem for PAs. You still haven't "accounted for" anything - all we've been given is more 'Goddidits".

I'm also not the one making the assertions - you are. The burden of proof is on you. I'm also not saying it's necessarily irrational that God could be a grounds for logic etc, I'm just saying you are making unsupported, question begging statements.

"You mean the minute, detailed mechanics of it?"

Yes - that would be an "account" for the laws of logic. Goddidit is not.

You can't really cricitise evidentialism for circularity given that PA is exactly the same. The prominent PAs even admit as much (eg Frame).

"I don't "prove" His existence. I presuppose it. "

Yet you spend posts on things like the Kalaam argument, EAAN, the resurrection story being true etc? This is the dilemma outlined in Classical Apologetics - the PA is forced to eventually go to evidence, which is directly contradictory to being a PA in the first place. It also discounts your complaints about circularity, as the ^^^ statement is blatantly circular. Van Till also pretty much admits that PA is just a means of insulating believers beliefs - see the David Snoke essay (page 23 I think)

http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/PRESBY.pdf

"There's no Lawgiver - whence the laws?"

I think you're conflating 'laws' as referring to observation etc with 'command' here. Newton's Laws break down in certain circumstances, for example.

"Why aren't they different? Why doesn't the law of contradiction (as opposed to the law of non-contradiction) exist?"

This is like the anthropic principle, which essentially boils down to 'if things were different, they'd be different'.

"It was a brief rejoinder. If the atheist gets to just assume what he likes, OK, I get to assume what *I* like. Atheists' claim to all this rational, epistemic advantage vanishes."

Right, but then this falsifies your 'impossibility of the contrary claims', as Paul has pointed out.

"It wouldn't kill atheists to think a little."

And simply reciting the standard PA script counts as thinking now?

Dr Funkenstein said...

The archway is question-begging, for the reasons provided.

Some statements can be retortions - eg if i say existence is an axiom, the person who wanted to argue against it would have to assume the existence of my choice of axiom, thus refuting his/her own position. It's circular but self-supporting. Denying the existence of TGOTB has no such internal contradiction.

Paul C said...

Anyone who would posit logic as a bare fact needs to deal with the post I refer to.

I've just realised that this is false. Your post on evidentialism refers only to the problems we might have in knowing the laws of logic; but of course any problems we have with such knowledge are irrelevant to whether the laws of logic are a brute fact in the way that you accept that they may be. So the proposition that the laws of logic are a brute fact is unaffected by your argument.

Rhology said...

Dr Funk said:

Using the TAG style of argument, you can justify pretty much any nonsense.

Naked assertion.
No you can't. You like that?
The invitation is open for you to try to justify "ANYthing", "any nonsense". You haven't tried yet. the JN tried with his green and musical gods, and failed utterly. At least he made the attempt, which is more than can be said for you.


However, it isn't the only one by a long shot.

Right, it's called "evolution via unguided natural selection acting on random mutations" for no reason at all, and there are tons of other mechanisms waiting in the wings.


By comparison there is no known mechanism of instantaneous creation, creation ex nihilo or mechanisms by which God imparts his qualities on to us

The supernatural. To say they're not known begs the question.


There are no known examples of instantaneous creation outside the claims of religious texts.

The creation of the world.
Or maybe you have an alternative start-of-the-universe acct.


This is meaningless, as Goddidit statements can apply to any set of observations and therefore don't explain anything.

Sorry, I don't accept that it's meaningless. It may not contain all the mechanistic details, but it explains the issue just fine.
And once again, PROVE IT. PROVE that Goddidit statements can apply to any set of observations.


As you've described logic as an attribute of God, and by extension and attribute of the universe etc, the same applies to logic as an attribute of the universe as a brute fact.

Laws of logic as brute fact are not, however, self-justifying.


Impossibility of the contrary is a question begging assumption, as it needs to rule out absolutely every alternative explanation

I've examined quite a large amount of possible alternatives.
And I know that atheism is NOT true. Maybe you should concentrate your efforts on defending your position than an imaginary one. In any other scenario, you'd be excoriating as irrational a guy who spent all his time defending imaginary beliefs rather than his own. But somehow it's OK here.


As you say - you posit God as a brute fact, the other guy just posits logic as a brute fact. ...Right, but then this falsifies your 'impossibility of the contrary claims', as Paul has pointed out.


That's far from my only or even primary argument, as you should know if you read my comments.
I say that to rebuff the atheist claim. It puts us on an epistemic par, while the atheist likes to put on Uber-Rational airs.


I'm also assuming by laws of logic you mean:

Law of non-contradiction
Law of identity
Law of excluded middle


Yes.


So where in the bible are these outlined, especially as they were formalised by the Greeks, a society not unknown to biblical authors?

The Bible =/= God, you know. It is His partial, sufficient revelation.
These laws of logic are implied in the way the Bible speaks.


dialetheism

Feel free to construct a meaningful defense of logic based on sentences such as ‘this sentence is not true’.

How can TGOTB (for presuppositonalists) be a grounds for evidence?

He made the world so that evidence, properly interpreted, leads to true beliefs. Sthg there's no reason to expect in an atheist universe.


I'm also not the one making the assertions - you are.

Let the reader judge. And let him judge whether that itself wasn't an assertion.
Looks like your 'defense' of dialetheism is already getting warmed up.


I'm just saying you are making unsupported, question begging statements.

While you're not even engaging the argument. I question your grounds for using evidence or reason, and you respond by throwing evidence and 'reason'-based arguments at me. That's brilliant. THAT, my friend, is what is question-begging.


"You mean the minute, detailed mechanics of it?"

Yes - that would be an "account" for the laws of logic. Goddidit is not.


Sorry, can't provide them. What is your argument for why the detailed mechanics are required to know that X is a sufficient explanation?


Yet you spend posts on things like the Kalaam argument, EAAN, the resurrection story being true etc?

Most of what I post is not directed towards you the unbeliever. There are friends and church members and other Christians reading; I aim to encourage them and to shut the mouth of the unbeliever (like yourself). The irrationality of your responses is encouraging to me and to others, as are the power of these other arguments I put fwd.


the PA is forced to eventually go to evidence

Not really.


Van Till also pretty much admits that PA is just a means of insulating believers beliefs

Then we agree.
He would say that PA-ics are just a more biblical strategy of shutting the mouth of the unbeliever. The Holy Spirit's regenerating power is required to turn a heart, not PA.


I think you're conflating 'laws' as referring to observation etc with 'command' here.

This just moves the question back one step. There is general order, rather than chaos - whence the order?


This is like the anthropic principle, which essentially boils down to 'if things were different, they'd be different'.

More question-begging, sticking your fingers in your ears.

Newton's Laws break down in certain circumstances, for example.

Maybe you could point out an instance where the laws of logic "break down".

Paul C said...

The irrationality of your responses is encouraging to me and to others, as are the power of these other arguments I put fwd.

Frightening.

Dr Funkenstein said...

Naked assertion.
No you can't. You like that?
The invitation ...which is more than can be said for you.


I just gave you two examples where the form of the argument was exactly the same as TAG - including one by a PA!

Right, it's called "evolution via unguided natural selection ...mechanisms waiting in the wings.

OK

Drift
Fusions
Fissions
Endosymbiosis
Recombination
Insertions via retrotransposons and ERVs
Lateral gene transfer
Sexual selection

to name a few


The supernatural. To say they're not known begs the question.

But 'supernatural' is neither a mechanism or an explanation, it's an untested assertion - since any and all observations could be filed under 'supernatural'. For example in my blog post that we are discussing just now, you seem to agree that creationism could account for both the experimental hypothesis and the null hypothesis ie an observation and its total opposite - what explanatory power does a claim have if it cover absolutely any observation? Alternatively, if you take a set of observations, then form the theory that 'God did it', what on Earth do you propose as the next hypothesis from that?

Sorry, I don't accept that it's meaningless. It may not contain all the mechanistic details, but it explains the issue just fine. And once again, PROVE IT. PROVE that Goddidit statements can apply to any set of observations.

It contains NO mechanistic details. It contains NO explanation.


1. Could Goddidit cover all organisms having DNA genomes and completely different genomes? Yes.
2. Could Goddidit cover humans having both evidence of a chrom. fusion and no evidence of a chrom fusion? Yes
3. Could Goddidit cover shared ERV insertions and no shared ERV insertion between humans and chimps? Yes
4. Could Goddidit cover information flow from DNA-->RNA-->protein, or a whole bunch of completely different mechanisms of information flow? Yes.
5. Could Goddidit cover any fossils in any strata, and specific fossils restricted to specific strata? Yes.

etc etc

If I had answered any question above with "because the sun rose this morning" it would offer as much explanation

Laws of logic as brute fact are not, however, self-justifying.

How so? It's the same thing you are positing, but with less assumptions to prove (ie the existence of God and that logic depends specifically on him and only him). PAs seem to think they can make these claims and we're just supposed to accept them simply on their say so without any obvious reason. After all, PA just asserts the very thing it is asked to prove.


I've examined quite a large amount...a guy who spent all his time defending imaginary beliefs rather than his own. But somehow it's OK here.

You're making several claims though. In no real order:

1. Atheism can't account for logic (and you've not really defined which atheist worldview(s) that might be)
2. God exists
3. Theism accounts for logic, specifically only Christian theism
4. It is impossible that any other viewpoint could account for logic
5. The laws of logic are universal and invariant

So, we have several things to respond to.

First - statements like (3) and (4) are just assertions, since many worldviews could potentially account for it, not just mine or yours. You claim to have examined many, but presumably not all. I'd also bet that scholars of various other religions could do the same process PAs do and jump through hoops to 'prove' their religion as being the one and only account for logic.

Second, that even if (1) is true, this does not by extension mean your view is correct (which also ties in with 4) - so you've set up a false dichotomy.

On (2) and (3) I've still not seen an explanation as to how one would prove TGOTB's existence beyond simply asserting it as a fact, or any reason why logic depends on his existence.

Fourth - let's say (1) is true for argument. Your statement (4) implies no account will ever be given - how will you prove this exactly?


That's far from my only or even primary argument...Uber-Rational airs.

Right, but this still falsifies claim 3 and 4 (again).

The Bible =/= God, you know. It is His partial, sufficient revelation. These laws of logic are implied in the way the Bible speaks.

So people would know of TGOTB without the bible/parts of the bible? This seems to have escaped most civilisations and people.

It's sufficient, yet doesn't outline the very laws you claim depend on him - do you not think something that important might have been worth a mention? After all it lists many other laws he considers vital. Anyone could also argue logic is simply implied in the way the universe works (and I think some philosophers may well have put forward this argument).

Feel free to construct a meaningful defense of logic based on sentences such as ‘this sentence is not true’.

Looks like your 'defense' of dialetheism is already getting warmed up.

See claim (5)^^^. Your claim is that these laws always hold in all situations (as they are part of God's nature and God is unchanging). Dialetheism is one argument against that. Even a quick look on Wiki points out that Nikolai Vasiliev had developed a system of 'imaginary logic' not utilising the LoEM or LoNC.

He made the world so that evidence, properly interpreted, leads to true beliefs. Sthg there's no reason to expect in an atheist universe.

By the first part of that sentence you obviously mean 'come to the conclusion that the bible is true - what value is evidence to a PA if you always know what conclusion you must reach no matter what?

Sorry, can't provide them. What is your argument for why the detailed mechanics are required to know that X is a sufficient explanation?

Your entire argument just falls apart by saying that. Your claim was you could "account for" or explain how all this happens. Now you admit you are incapable of doing so, beyond simply claiming that its a fact that they depend on God with no real argument as to why.

Then we agree.
He would say that PA-ics are just a more biblical strategy of shutting the mouth of the unbeliever. The Holy Spirit's regenerating power is required to turn a heart, not PA.


I'm not sure if you actually read the quote, but here it is:

Van Til was quite prepared to accept the prevalent idea of his day, that a completely self-consistent non-Christian world view was possible. In a way, his writings have the feel of a person beaten down by non-Christian arguments, a person on the defense. He accepted the arguments of Hume and Kant that "all of the theistic proofs were invalid", and he conceded that science might one day explain away all the miracles of the Bible and anything else which seemed to point to God. He said, "We must allow that it is quite possible that at some future date all the miracles recorded in Bible, not excluding the resurrection of Christ, may be explained by natural laws." He even seems to have given credence to claims that the Bible contradicts itself, saying, "All teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." His presuppositionalism protected Christianity by removing its foundation from the realm of experience and reason altogether.

Do those sound like the words of someone actually interested in finding out truth, or dogmatically adhering to a viewpoint that he has everything invested in?

On the second part, so why get bummed out about atheists, criminals, moral relativists, evolutionists, other religions etc if none of us can do anything about it 'til the HS 'zaps' us?

This just moves the question back one step. There is general order, rather than chaos - whence the order?

So if order reflects God, what does the randomness apparent in quantum mechanics signify? I'm also still at a loss to work out why order would depend on some divine string puller.


Anyway, I feel I've posted more than enough for now, so I'll step back and content myself with reading other people's responses.