# Preconditions of Intelligibility



## natewood3

What exactly ARE the preconditions for intelligibility? Is God Himself the precondition, or does He simply create the preconditions? If God is not the precondition or does not create the preconditions, then what is?

Another question that came to mind when reading this is what does traditional apologetics say in answer to this question?

I ask these questions because Bahnsen and Van Til claim that intelligibility exists because God exists, and God must exist for there to be intelligibility. However, I would like to know HOW God is the precondition of intelligibility and what must be necessary for knowledge to exist? Saying that you must presuppose the Christian worldview or deny intelligibility does not answer these questions for the unbeliever. I suppose I need concrete examples of this...I do not find Bahnsen or Van Til giving those examples. Maybe I am blind though...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Well, the Laws of Logic, Math, Science and so forth wouldn't make any sense otherwise.


----------



## natewood3

Paul,

No problem at all. I figured you are probably a busy guy. I just figured I would post this on here too and maybe get a discussion on it as well. So I don't expect you to reply to this unless you just want to do so.

WrittenFromUtopia,

So is your answer that laws of logic, math, and science are the preconditions for intelligibility? One of the biggest problems I find with presuppositionalism, not that I reject it, is that they seem to be on the offensive only in the critique of non-Christian worldviews and make general statements like the laws of logic would not be intelligible apart from God, or God is the precondition for intelligibility. I see how laws of logic are necessary for intelligibility, but for the Christian to say the laws of logic are part of God's nature, is that really an answer to how God is the precondition of intelligibility? It seems that it cannot be proven apart from a presupposed belief in the authority and infallibility of Scripture, of which one is only convinced by the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, do we have objective proof that God is the precondition for intelligibility apart from the impossibility of the contrary? It seems as if we cannot argue for the truth of Christian theism without first showing the futility of non-Christian worldviews, and then proving our worldview by the fact that no other can meet the standards. In other words, it seems we just keep hacking away at their worldview and never dealing with the supposed problems with ours...

Is the work of the Holy Spirit in convincing us of the truth of the Word subjective or objective proof? It seems like we must simply tell the unbeliever we believe the Bible is the Word of God based on subjective proof rather than objective proof (although I know this is somewhat off topic).


----------



## Vytautas

The preconditions for intelligibility are language and logic. If you believe in God, the belief is not going to help you understand what a book is saying. In fact, some unbelievers understand the Bible than Christians. To understand a book you need to know the language that the book is using. For example, you´re not going to understand a German book without knowing the language so that you need to read a lot of German to understand what it is saying. To learn a language you need a lot of input either from books or speakers of the language. You´re not going to learn the language by speaking the language or doing grammar exercises. Therefore, the preconditions for intelligibility is from language that is logically written or spoken.


----------



## Vytautas

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, the Laws of Logic, Math, Science and so forth wouldn't make any sense otherwise.



If Christianity is true, you would not know otherwise that they make no sense because this is the only world that we know that they make sense in.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'll just answer here:
> 
> The preconditions of intelligibility is to ask under what conditions is it possible, or what would need to be true (or conceptually presupposed in some instances) in order for it to be possible to to make senses of one's experience (often called, therefore, the preconditions of the intelligibility of human experience)..



Very interesting! I did not know that the phrase "the preconditions of the intelligibility" was an attempt to make empiricism rational! I thought it was a statement regarding the ability to have epistemic "knowledge" (i.e. justifying a "justified true belief"). But if I understand correctly now, the statement basically says Christianity is the only thing that validates (so called) empirical knowledge. Is that correct?

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> The preconditions for intelligibility are language and logic. If you believe in God, the belief is not going to help you understand what a book is saying. In fact, some unbelievers understand the Bible than Christians. ....




Well said.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Paul,
> 
> No problem at all. I figured you are probably a busy guy. I just figured I would post this on here too and maybe get a discussion on it as well. So I don't expect you to reply to this unless you just want to do so.
> 
> WrittenFromUtopia,
> 
> So is your answer that laws of logic, math, and science are the preconditions for intelligibility? One of the biggest problems I find with presuppositionalism, not that I reject it, is that they seem to be on the offensive only in the critique of non-Christian worldviews and make general statements like the laws of logic would not be intelligible apart from God, or God is the precondition for intelligibility. I see how laws of logic are necessary for intelligibility, but for the Christian to say the laws of logic are part of God's nature, is that really an answer to how God is the precondition of intelligibility? It seems that it cannot be proven apart from a presupposed belief in the authority and infallibility of Scripture, of which one is only convinced by the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, do we have objective proof that God is the precondition for intelligibility apart from the impossibility of the contrary? It seems as if we cannot argue for the truth of Christian theism without first showing the futility of non-Christian worldviews, and then proving our worldview by the fact that no other can meet the standards. In other words, it seems we just keep hacking away at their worldview and never dealing with the supposed problems with ours...
> 
> Is the work of the Holy Spirit in convincing us of the truth of the Word subjective or objective proof? It seems like we must simply tell the unbeliever we believe the Bible is the Word of God based on subjective proof rather than objective proof (although I know this is somewhat off topic).


I'll let Paul continue to flesh this out as he is much better equipped than I at this stuff. My first exposure to Presuppositionalism was the Classical Apologetics book by Gerstner and Sproul. I had a pretty low view of presuppositionalism from it.

When I moved to CA, I started attending an OPC Church and the pastor was a recent WSCAL grad and most in that area were presuppositionalists. I must say that it is hard to speak in a way that just doesn't come off as sounding a bit ridiculous to the uninitiated. I think Paul does a good job of lowering defenses. For instance, I remember people saying "You can't do math until you presuppose the Christian worldview...." That just sounds dumb to people unless you take time to explain what you mean but some don't take the time or don't do a good job of explaining it.

I don't agree, Civbert, that Vytautas' answer is a good one. I think he answers the question: "What are the _conditions_ for intelligibility but _not_ what are the _pre_-conditions for intelligibility.

Language and logic are obvious conditions. Even a pagan knows that and it is indisputable. The more fundamental question is what is the basis for language and logic. A materialist can just say that our brains have evolved in a way in which facts are processed, like a sausage machine, with facts going in one end and our brain's process them into "logical" categories. They would be wrong of course but they would still have an answer for the pre-conditions that would take the answer a step further back than the proximate cause for intelligibility.

I believe we have language and logic because we are image bearers of an intelligent, logical God who speaks to us and gives us capacity for the same.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...I don't agree, Civbert, that Vytautas' answer is a good one. I think he answers the question: "What are the _conditions_ for intelligibility but _not_ what are the _pre_-conditions for intelligibility.


What's the difference? What is logically prior to intelligibility, or temporally prior. Logic itself has no preconditions. It's like saying the precondition of "up" is "down". Is "down" prior to "up"? 




> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Language and logic are obvious conditions. Even a pagan knows that and it is indisputable. The more fundamental question is what is the basis for language and logic.


 Logic does not have a "basis" or precondition. Logic simply describes reality. Now language is another question. There are theories of language that do not require any divine being.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_ A materialist can just say that our brains have evolved in a way in which facts are processed, like a sausage machine, with facts going in one end and our brain's process them into "logical" categories.



Of course they does not satisfy the question of intelligibility - it merely says that the mind is a product of evolution. The fact's are prior to the mind. Logic is prior to the human mind. So the only thing that could have evolved is "language". Again we agree here I think that this does not answer the question of intelligibility.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_ They would be wrong of course but they would still have an answer for the pre-conditions that would take the answer a step further back than the proximate cause for intelligibility.
> 
> I believe we have language and logic because we are image bearers of an intelligent, logical God who speaks to us and gives us capacity for the same.



I agree. But this does not prove Christianity is necessary for intelligibility. Vytautas' answer is still satisfactory for answering the immediate question of the pre-conditions of intelligibility - language and logic. But I think the only thing that it needs is presuppositions in the form of axioms.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

First, to state that logic has no preconditions is baldly false in my estimation. If true then logic can exist apart from God. We wouldn't even be dialoguing if there were no preconditions for _ex nihilo nihil fit_. 

Secondly, your answer does not challenge any worldview's use of logic and reason. The naturalist uses it just as comfortably as you do and can give the same answer that intelligibility comes from logic and language. They are phenomena to him though. What he cannot do is account for an immaterial invariant. He believes that the only truth that can be derived can be measured and emperically verified. The only things that exist that we can have knowledg of are material things. The problem, then, is that he cannot account for logic being useful or true on the basis of his worldview. Thus, the answer "logic and language" is inadequate because they are the _conditions_ that every worldview will adopt but no worldview but Christianity can account for their use according to the rules (_pre_-conditions) of their worldview. We should not grant them their use without challenging them on it.

Finally, my conclusion _does_ give a pre-condition for intelligibillity. God created me with the capacity for logic and language. I frankly do not care that my answer meets the requirement of autonomous human reason. I do not claim that the answer will convince any man that he should bend the knee to His Creator for I am already convinced they know that God created them. Sinful man's requirement that I form the idea "Repent and Believe..." in a proper axiom that he finds acceptable is not my concern. Man's problem is not that they do not know Who created them but Sin which convinces them they are justified in rejecting Him. Many in Athens scoffed at Paul after all...but what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> First, to state that logic has no preconditions is baldly false in my estimation. If true then logic can exist apart from God.


What does existence have to do with logic? If there is no God, does not imply or entail there is no logic. And if God, then logic, is not a necessary inference either. Sounds nice, but it's begs the question.




> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> We wouldn't even be dialoguing if there were no preconditions for _ex nihilo nihil fit_.



Always use Latin, it makes it sound smarter. 

Nothing comes from nothing implies that everything comes from something. Well God is something, so what did God come from? That argument can turn on you. Scientist say there was nothing before the "Big Bang", Christians say there was nothing before God. But if ex nihilo nihil fit, what did God come from? And if God did not have a beginning, why not logic? Both are immaterial. But this is the first mover argument, a logical fallacy as old as Thomas Aquinas. He said everything has a cause (nothing comes from nothing). But if everything must have a cause, so must God. But if God exists, and God is eternal by definition, then not everything must have a cause. And if not everything must have a cause, then who can say logic must have a cause - an accounting?



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Secondly, your answer does not challenge any worldview's use of logic and reason.


It does some - not all. It challenges all anti-rational world-views. 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> The naturalist uses it just as comfortably as you do and can give the same answer that intelligibility comes from logic and language.


So? He'd be right. We should not beg the question by saying he can't use the same arguments we use just because we believe his worldview is wrong.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> They are phenomena to him though. What he cannot do is account for an immaterial invariant.


 So? He does not need to. He may presume it. We presume an immaterial invariant too. We either presume God exists, or we presume Scripture is God's Word, or logic exists, or language is valid or all of this. So it would be hypocrisy to deny the immaterial invariant presumptions to the non-believer.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> He believes that the only truth that can be derived can be measured and emperically verified. The only things that exist that we can have knowledg of are material things.


 That's a particular worldview called empiricism. It's not all that is left to the non-believer. It's one worldview among thousands. I'd argue empiricism can not account for any kind of knowledge, much less knowledge of logic or language. But there are other worldview and religions to deal with. (Atheism is by far the easiest to deal with.)



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> The problem, then, is that he cannot account for logic being useful or true on the basis of his worldview.


 Sure he can. Logic is assumed by all rational world-views. Christianity assumes logic also. We don't prove logic, but we explain language intelligibility. That does not make us necessarily correct. Just because we can give an accounting for intelligibility, does not mean no one else can.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Thus, the answer "logic and language" is inadequate because they are the _conditions_ that every worldview will adopt but no worldview but Christianity can account for their use according to the rules (_pre_-conditions) of their worldview. We should not grant them their use without challenging them on it.


 We _can_ challenge them to account for intelligibility. And they can give an adequate answer. They don't need to account for "logic", and "language" can be explained if only weakly by some worldviews. It's not as good as the Christian view at explaining things, but even Christianity must assume logic as a pre-condition - as you demonstrate next.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Finally, my conclusion _does_ give a pre-condition for intelligibility. God created me with the capacity for logic and language.


I agree with this, and it presumes logic and language is prior to intelligibility and mans' creation. 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> I frankly do not care that my answer meets the requirement of autonomous human reason. I do not claim that the answer will convince any man that he should bend the knee to His Creator for I am already convinced they know that God created them.


 Amen! We argue God's Word, not Aristotelian logic.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Sinful man's requirement that I form the idea "Repent and Believe..." in a proper axiom that he finds acceptable is not my concern.


The axiom is better stated as Scripture. That's how we know that we must repent and believe - because God says so. Axioms are presuppositions - first principles. Sinful man wants the idea of "repent and believe" to be a conclusion of an argument, not as an axiom. But that argument is presented: 1) God's Word is true, 2) God's Word says repent and believe, 3) conclusion: therefore it is true we must repent and believe. Sinful man rejects the axiom, God's Word is true. 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Man's problem is not that they do not know Who created them but Sin which convinces them they are justified in rejecting Him. Many in Athens scoffed at Paul after all...but what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?


 Amen!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Of the above, I'll correct that I shouldn't have used _ex nihilo nihil fit_. God created immediately by the power of His Word. 

My only point is that God is necessary for logic because His pattern of thinking is logical or, put another, logic is the pattern of God's thinking. I do not believe logic is "created" any more than God's mind is. You cannot have logic without God for you cannot have God's thought or Word without God.

That does not get to the issue, however. I do not want to just say that logic is one of the pre-conditions without insisting more on _what logic is!_ On the basis of agreeing that God is the Logos, and therefore is the precondition for intelligibility (aka logic), I would agree, but claiming "logic" without anchoring it in God is allowing the pagan to stand in mid-air. We're not even talking about the same logic in such cases. The pagan's "logic" is not my Logic. 

The pagan can only use logic because he has been created in the image of and is upheld by the Creator. That Creator is Triune and Personal. He is the God of the Christians only. The pagan abuses a capacity that God has graciously given him, using it to blaspheme the One He owes worship to. Instead he creates idols in his mind building a "logical" fortress on the basis of a pagan presupposition.

All other discussions about what a pagan can or does do are quite immaterial. I know he only has the capacity to reason because God created him.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ... The pagan's "logic" is not my Logic.



It was a pagan that formulated the same logic that was demonstrated by Paul and Jesus, and in all the Old and New Testament. The laws of logic were presented by Aristotle, but they are the same laws of logic affirmed in Scripture by demonstration. If the law of contradiction is not true, then Jesus is not God's Son. 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> The pagan can only use logic because he has been created in the image of and is upheld by the Creator. That Creator is Triune and Personal. He is the God of the Christians only. The pagan abuses a capacity that God has graciously given him, using it to blaspheme the One He owes worship to. Instead he creates idols in his mind building a "logical" fortress on the basis of a pagan presupposition.


 I agree, but would only because I presume Scripture. 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> All other discussions about what a pagan can or does do are quite immaterial. I know he only has the capacity to reason because God created him.


 Again I agree. But I would not claim this as an proof a Christianity. By my Christian presuppositions, the pagan, being created in God's image uses the same laws of logic the Christian does. The only difference is the axioms he holds. And we hold the right axioms by God's grace alone. The common ground between the Christian and the pagan is we are both created in God's image.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> It was a pagan that formulated the same logic that was demonstrated by Paul and Jesus, and in all the Old and New Testament. The laws of logic were presented by Aristotle, but they are the same laws of logic affirmed in Scripture by demonstration. If the law of contradiction is not true, then Jesus is not God's Son.


You're not paying attention.

If you think Aristotle's logic was the same as the Logic of Paul and Christ then you and I have very different concepts of who God is. The Triune God is not Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> If you think Aristotle's logic was the same as the Logic of Paul and Christ then you and I have very different concepts of who God is. The Triune God is not Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.



I see, "_L_ogic", not "_l_ogic". You might get in trouble saying "In the begging was the Logic". That's very Clarkian, Paul _M_. will not approve.


----------



## BobVigneault

"unbelievers can count, but they cannot account for counting." Van Til

(In other news, Clarkian quotes Van Til)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> If you think Aristotle's logic was the same as the Logic of Paul and Christ then you and I have very different concepts of who God is. The Triune God is not Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, "_L_ogic", not "_l_ogic". You might get in trouble saying "In the begging was the Logic". That's very Clarkian, Paul _M_. will not approve.
Click to expand...

Though Paul doesn't scare me , I'm not quite saying God is Logic. If you read what I'm saying more carefully then you'll see I'm distinguishing between where their use of God's gift takes them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> The pagan can only use logic because he has been created in the image of and is upheld by the Creator. That Creator is Triune and Personal. He is the God of the Christians only. The pagan abuses a capacity that God has graciously given him, using it to blaspheme the One He owes worship to. Instead he creates idols in his mind building a "logical" fortress on the basis of a pagan presupposition.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but would only because I presume Scripture.
Click to expand...

Why is it when I refer to Scriptural categories you have to fall back to philosophical and epistemological categories? Seems like you're unable just to agree with Romans 1:18-31 without adding some sort of Clarkian qualifier.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> All other discussions about what a pagan can or does do are quite immaterial. I know he only has the capacity to reason because God created him.
> 
> 
> 
> Again I agree. But I would not claim this as an proof a Christianity. By my Christian presuppositions, the pagan, being created in God's image uses the same laws of logic the Christian does. The only difference is the axioms he holds. And we hold the right axioms by God's grace alone. The common ground between the Christian and the pagan is we are both created in God's image.
Click to expand...

Again, I speak of God's image in man and you have to use logical axioms. Your language is dissonant with the Scriptures in my estimation.

While you may haggle about the use of the word "mystery" in Scripture, I know for a fact that the phrase "axiom of Scripture" is _nowhere_ found.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## natewood3

I am not sure Civbert believes that there IS objective proof for Christianity. He seems to allow the unbeliever to remain in his intellectual autonomy by not making him give an account or justification for intelligibility. If Civbert does believe there is objective proof for Christianity, I would like to hear what it is...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> I am not sure Civbert believes that there IS objective proof for Christianity. He seems to allow the unbeliever to remain in his intellectual autonomy by not making him give an account or justification for intelligibility. If Civbert does believe there is objective proof for Christianity, I would like to hear what it is...



I think the account for intelligibility is simple. If you hold to the truth of logic, and the validity of language to convey information - you have intelligibility. Logic is axiomatic - and only irrational systems deny it. Language can be explained as a product of evolution, or one of the results of being created in God's image. I hold to the latter as a consequence of being a Christian. 

I think the evolutionary view of language is far-fetched - but it is commonly held by many Christian scholars - so apparently they do not seem to have much problem with it. I suppose other religions or philosophies have other theories of language. I haven't study theories of language so I can not expound on them. Most people hold to the evolutionary model (unquestioningly). And since the evolutionary models are so a malleably and fluid, it's hard to argue against them. I can argue against the overarching theory of evolution instead, but it's not something that can be dis-proven. There are many elements of faith in those who hold to the theory of evolution.

So some non-believers have a justification of intelligibility. It's a bit flimsy, and requires faith in certain axioms, but it's still valid. Biblical Christians have a more solid and rational justification for intelligibility - one that is also undefeatable. We have alternative axioms that the non-believer may never accept. But if they will agree with our axioms - for the sake of argument - they must concede to the strength of the Christian justification for intelligibility. It is much less flimsy then that of the non-believer, that much we can say objectively.

If we use proof to mean a deductive argument from acceptable true premises, then no - we can not prove Christianity. Our premises will not be acceptable to the non-believer. If we mean proof in the sense of the strength of evidence, then we can prove Christianity. But this weaker form of proof can also be used to prove alternative views. So this weakened proof does not really amount to any advantage for the Christian.

I think it is better for the Christian to use the stronger definition of proof because that requires us to be very explicit with presenting our axioms. And if we hold the non-believer to this strict definition of proof, they too will need to make their axioms explicit. 

The non-Christian axioms may be the reliability of the senses - materialism - empiricism - or some form of irrationalism. They may assume the only things that are "real" are those things that can be sensed physically. 

This is popular with many Christians who say things like numbers and justice are not "real". They have been infected by liberal philosophies. Many Christians have adopted the secular axioms or empiricism - so they can be more "scientific". But they do so at the cost of weakening the defense of Christianity. They also adopt a weak definition of proof - again shooter themselves in the foot by doing so.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Why is it when I refer to Scriptural categories you have to fall back to philosophical and epistemological categories? Seems like you're unable just to agree with Romans 1:18-31 without adding some sort of Clarkian qualifier.
> ...
> Again, I speak of God's image in man and you have to use logical axioms. Your language is dissonant with the Scriptures in my estimation.
> 
> While you may haggle about the use of the word "mystery" in Scripture, I know for a fact that the phrase "axiom of Scripture" is _nowhere_ found.



Well I don't think you'll find the terms "category"or "qualifier" in Scripture either. Nor will you find the term "intelligibility". So if you don't care for terms you don't find in Scripture, there's a lot of other writings you'll need to avoid. As for Rom 1:18-31, I think it very well agrees with my epistemology. It's a naturalist/empiricist spin that people put on it that has people confused.


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,

Presuppositionalist do not deny that unbelievers use logic. The question is can they account for it in their worldview. I believe the Christian worldview is the only one that can account for logic and reasoning.

What you are seemingly saying is that Christianity is only probably true, while the unbeliever's worldview is also possible. You are also seemingly advocating a position that says that the unbeliever can give an account of intelligibility--apart from God--and that account is simply weak and flemsy, but not necessarily wrong. The Christian worldview is simply a much strong account for intelligibility. It seems there are other possible worldviews that could make more sense of intelligibility than the Christian worldview. If it is possible that Christianity is false and that the Christian God does not exist, it seems you are left with skepticism or at least fideism.

Does acceptance make a premise true? You seem to believe a premise is not true because it is not accepted as true. Proof is not persuasion.

Do you believe knowledge is possible apart from God? You seem to believe that unbelievers can give an account for intelligibility apart from God. I am not sure how this is even possible...Maybe I am missing something.


----------



## natewood3

Paul,

Have you listened to Bahnsen's Transcendental Argument series? If so, would he explain these things in more depth?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> Presuppositionalist do not deny that unbelievers use logic. The question is can they account for it in their worldview. I believe the Christian worldview is the only one that can account for logic and reasoning.


Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case, nor does it really help the cause of apologetics. Is this account a proof? You can't prove logic without assuming logic - so that's out. And there's no prior cause of logic that is rational. (You can not prove an abstract timeless and formal concept by using a cause/effect argument. There are no temporal characteristic in the laws of logic.) If God is true, he must be logical or he would have been absurd at some point. God is not a paradox. 

If there is no God, logic is still part of reality. There is no rational conception of a time before logic, or a cause of logic, or a proof of logic. The very idea of giving an "account" for logic is itself either circular or paradoxical. How can one use an irrational argument for logic? 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> What you are seemingly saying is that Christianity is only probably true, while the unbeliever's worldview is also possible. You are also seemingly advocating a position that says that the unbeliever can give an account of intelligibility--apart from God--and that account is simply weak and flimsy, but not necessarily wrong. The Christian worldview is simply a much strong account for intelligibility. It seems there are other possible worldviews that could make more sense of intelligibility than the Christian worldview. If it is possible that Christianity is false and that the Christian God does not exist, it seems you are left with skepticism or at least fideism.



How could I be either. My worldview accounts for knowledge, I have no doubts that I can know things. I strongly hold to the validity of deductive reasoning. And I don't believe in a disconnect between faith and reason.

The fact is, any worldview can be wrong. Since it is impossible to prove a worldview (by the nature of worldviews), then it is impossible to identify which worldview is absolutely the truth. If I could do that, or show it to anyone else, then I could convert anyone to Christianity based on nothing but the strength of my arguments. But worldviews always contain presuppositions, un-provable axioms, that are accepted as true. The Christian has faith in God and his revealed Word - and this faith is a gift from God. We don't reason out way to faith. We start with faith in order to have knowledge.

I won't pretend that it is impossible that my worldview is incorrect. I won't play mind games, or present question begging arguments that sound great to my fellow Christians, but are intellectually dishonest. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> Does acceptance make a premise true? You seem to believe a premise is not true because it is not accepted as true. Proof is not persuasion.



Proof is not persuasion. But an argument that is based on false premises is not sound, even if the conclusion is true. And an argument based on premises that your opponent does not accept, is is unpersuasive since he will reject it as unsound. It's a waste of time in apologetics or any kind of reasonable debate to use premises you know or false or are unacceptable to your opponent. 

So when I debate an unbeliever, I do not start with premises that I know are false in his worldview, and expect him to agree. I can however, ask him to accept my premises for the sake of argument to show him the reasonableness of my views. And I can adopt his axioms for argument sake to show the flaws in his worldview. This would be call an argument ab hominem. Christ often used that approach to show how absurd his opponents where being. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> Do you believe knowledge is possible apart from God? You seem to believe that unbelievers can give an account for intelligibility apart from God. I am not sure how this is even possible...Maybe I am missing something.



The atheist can not account for knowledge. Theism can account for knowledge, but that covers a lot of possible religions. However, most religions have other tenants that make them absurd. I think knowledge is only possible if God exists. However, even if I can get a non-believer to accept that argument, that does not prove Christianity. And agnostic or Muslim unbeliever is just as lost as the atheist. The un-believer will not accept Christianity until he is persuaded by the regeneration of his mind so that he believes the Gospel and that God's Word is true. That, in the end, is faith.


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,



> If there is no God, logic is still part of reality. There is no rational conception of a time before logic, or a cause of logic, or a proof of logic. The very idea of giving an "account" for logic is itself either circular or paradoxical. How can one use an irrational argument for logic?



What you are assuming is that there IS reality apart from God. I say there isn't reality at all apart from the Christian God. Without Him, nothing at all makes sense.

Do you believe logic is above God? Is God subject to logic?



> The fact is, any worldview can be wrong. Since it is impossible to prove a worldview (by the nature of worldviews), then it is impossible to identify which worldview is absolutely the truth. If I could do that, or show it to anyone else, then I could convert anyone to Christianity based on nothing but the strength of my arguments. But worldviews always contain presuppositions, un-provable axioms, that are accepted as true. The Christian has faith in God and his revealed Word - and this faith is a gift from God. We don't reason out way to faith. We start with faith in order to have knowledge.



If all worldviews are possibly wrong, you are left with skepticism.

You seem to attribute coming to believe in the Christian God to strong arguments. I believe there is objective proof for the existence of the Christian God, but whether they accept that proof for what it really is is up to the work of the Holy Spirit. Just as the Gospel is still true whether or not someone accepts it, so an argument for the existence of God can be true, yet it may not be accepted. Strong arguments are not what convert people; just because you can show that Christianity is the only possible worldview (which I believe you can), that doesn't mean it will be accepted as such.

What is faith?



> Proof is not persuasion. But an argument that is based on false premises is not sound, even if the conclusion is true. And an argument based on premises that your opponent does not accept, is is unpersuasive since he will reject it as unsound. It's a waste of time in apologetics or any kind of reasonable debate to use premises you know or false or are unacceptable to your opponent.
> 
> So when I debate an unbeliever, I do not start with premises that I know are false in his worldview, and expect him to agree. I can however, ask him to accept my premises for the sake of argument to show him the reasonableness of my views. And I can adopt his axioms for argument sake to show the flaws in his worldview. This would be call an argument ab hominem. Christ often used that approach to show how absurd his opponents where being.



If though premises are objectively true, it doesn't matter if it is unpersuasive because the argument will be sound and the conclusion objectively true. How is it a waste of time to argue by means of the truth??? Is truth relative based on whether or not someone accepts it as such? Why would anyone debate with premises that they know are false? Can something be "false" in one worldview and yet "true" in another? Is there even such a thing as objective truth in your worldview? If so, what else would you use in debating with an unbeliever?



> The atheist can not account for knowledge. Theism can account for knowledge, but that covers a lot of possible religions. However, most religions have other tenants that make them absurd. I think knowledge is only possible if God exists. However, even if I can get a non-believer to accept that argument, that does not prove Christianity. And agnostic or Muslim unbeliever is just as lost as the atheist. The un-believer will not accept Christianity until he is persuaded by the regeneration of his mind so that he believes the Gospel and that God's Word is true. That, in the end, is faith.



I did not say "theism" can account for knowledge. I would say only the Christian worldview can account for knowledge. If an unbeliever accepts that knowledge is only possible if the Christian God exists, then there cannot be any other worldview that IS true; otherwise, there would be no knowledge. Hence, if knowledge is only possible within the Christian worldview, and we know that knowledge is possible, then Christianity must be true. Otherwise, you remove the foundation for even arguing that Christianity is not true.

I agree that it takes regeneration for a personally to truly believe and accept that Christianity is true. Does this change the fact that Christianity is in fact true? Or is it only true believe we believe and accept it to be such?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nate,

When Civbert wrote this:


> If there is no God, logic is still part of reality.


You should just stop. It's just utter nonsense and the rest follows...

I don't even grant "reality" without God but Civbert grants not only reality but logic as well. Apparently, neither reality nor logic depend upon God.


----------



## natewood3

Rich,

I agree with you. I see no other way to put it than to say that he is a skeptic. He cannot know anything for sure because he doesn't even know for certain if his own worldview is correct!

I also do not grant that there is a "reality" apart from God. How can you even define "reality" apart from God? What is logic if God does not exist? Where did it come from? Apparently, it "just is." That was seemingly Gordon Stein's answer when he debated Bahnsen...


----------



## natewood3

Paul,

Would you recommend me listening to those lectures if I wanted to understand the argument better? 

My problem is that I can't apply alot of what I seem to understand, which makes me believe I don't really understand it yet. I am about 250 pages through VTA. There is so much information in that book, and I find it hard to retain, especially since I have no philosophical training. I find Van Til easy to understand for the most part, especially after reading Bahnsen's explanation of VT's views. The worst thing I have found about VT is that he doesn't give examples of how to apply what he is saying or why it makes that big of a difference. Or he simply says something without necessarily showing how that is the case.

Are there any other books I should read to understand transcendental arguments in general or presuppositional apologetics or epistemology as it applies to apologetics? Or just any apologetical/philosophical books that I need to read as am I beginning to learn this stuff?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Nate,
> 
> When Civbert wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no God, logic is still part of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> You should just stop. It's just utter nonsense and the rest follows...
> 
> I don't even grant "reality" without God...
Click to expand...

And the non-believer will say to you - just stop there. There's no point on going on because you are merely making assertions and not giving arguments.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...but Civbert grants not only reality but logic as well. Apparently, neither reality nor logic depend upon God.



Give the counter argument in proper syllogistic form that proves that God is necessary for logic. It should be easy. Remember, you're debating a non-believer, not a fellow Christian. If you're are going to say it's an obvious conclusion, (logic and reality depend on the existence of God), then the argument for that conclusion should be easy to construct. 

However, if this is an assertion (which it is), then you should be able to give some other reasons for making the assertion (i.e. you can't prove it logically, but you believe it's true for reason x, y, and z.)

But here's the best you can honestly do. If God exists, then reality is logically dependent on God. If God does not exist, then reality does not depend on God. Reality depends on God, only if the Bible is true. However, that's a hypothetical proposition. It can not be proven, and the assertion needs to be justified. The non-believer is within his epistemic rights to reject that position out of hand if you merely assert it and not give any reasons to support it. If you give inductive evidence, the non-believer may do the same. 

The bottom line is, if you are going to play by the rules of reason, your opponent should be allowed the same consideration.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> If there is no God, logic is still part of reality. There is no rational conception of a time before logic, or a cause of logic, or a proof of logic. The very idea of giving an "account" for logic is itself either circular or paradoxical. How can one use an irrational argument for logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are assuming is that there IS reality apart from God. I say there isn't reality at all apart from the Christian God. Without Him, nothing at all makes sense.
> 
> Do you believe logic is above God? Is God subject to logic?
Click to expand...


Too vague. What does "above God" or "subject to" mean. God is not irrational, there are no square circles in God's mind. X does not mean not-X in God's mind. 

I _believe_ that God created all things, therefore reality depends on God's power and will. But I can not prove this is the case apart from assuming the Scriptures are God's Word. And since the non-believer does not accept Scripture, there's not point to asserting the reality depends on God. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_ The fact is, any worldview can be wrong. Since it is impossible to prove a worldview (by the nature of worldviews), then it is impossible to identify which worldview is absolutely the truth. If I could do that, or show it to anyone else, then I could convert anyone to Christianity based on nothing but the strength of my arguments. But worldviews always contain presuppositions, un-provable axioms, that are accepted as true. The Christian has faith in God and his revealed Word - and this faith is a gift from God. We don't reason out way to faith. We start with faith in order to have knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all worldviews are possibly wrong, you are left with skepticism.
Click to expand...

 Please look up the philosophical definition of skepticism.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> You seem to attribute coming to believe in the Christian God to strong arguments.


 No, I believe coming to believe in Christianity is attributable to the Holy Spirit giving saving faith. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_ I believe there is objective proof for the existence of the Christian God, but whether they accept that proof for what it really is is up to the work of the Holy Spirit.


 An objective proof would not require the work of the Holy Spirit. It's an objective proof - case closed.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Just as the Gospel is still true whether or not someone accepts it, so an argument for the existence of God can be true, yet it may not be accepted.


 Arguments have two main properties, validity and soundness. Validity is purely formal. Many arguments for the existence of God are formally valid, but unsound because they are circular. They assume the thing they are trying to prove. Aquinas's first mover is a case-in-point. It is formally correct, but invalid because his proof requires assuming that there must be a "first mover". This "question begging" technique is common in so-called proof for God's existence. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Strong arguments are not what convert people; just because you can show that Christianity is the only possible worldview (which I believe you can), that doesn't mean it will be accepted as such.


 If you can show it, then it would be undeniably true. It's like saying 2+2 is 4, but you don't have to believe that. Of course you believe it, it would be irrational to not believe 2+2=4. If it's objectively true, then it's true and one must believe it because it's been shown to be necessarily true. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> What is faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_ Proof is not persuasion. But an argument that is based on false premises is not sound, even if the conclusion is true. And an argument based on premises that your opponent does not accept, is is unpersuasive since he will reject it as unsound. It's a waste of time in apologetics or any kind of reasonable debate to use premises you know or false or are unacceptable to your opponent.
> 
> So when I debate an unbeliever, I do not start with premises that I know are false in his worldview, and expect him to agree. I can however, ask him to accept my premises for the sake of argument to show him the reasonableness of my views. And I can adopt his axioms for argument sake to show the flaws in his worldview. This would be call an argument ab hominem. Christ often used that approach to show how absurd his opponents where being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If though premises are objectively true, it doesn't matter if it is unpersuasive because the argument will be sound and the conclusion objectively true. How is it a waste of time to argue by means of the truth??? Is truth relative based on whether or not someone accepts it as such? Why would anyone debate with premises that they know are false? ....
Click to expand...

Why indeed? But I was using the example given to me.


> _Originally posted by natewood3_... Can something be "false" in one worldview and yet "true" in another?


 As far as you can determine, yes. A worldview that does not accept the axiom of Scripture, may not come to the same conclusions. Worldviews effect what we consider true, what we "know". 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_ Is there even such a thing as objective truth in your worldview? If so, what else would you use in debating with an unbeliever?


 Yes, in my worldview, Scripture, and all things deducible therefrom are objectively true. But that is not the worldview of the unbeliever. For the unbeliever, I can only start with reason. I can show him that reason is insufficient to produce a comprehensive worldview, and therefore he must include axioms. My axioms is Scripture, what is his axiom? We can then see the consequences of our axioms and reason together.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_ The atheist can not account for knowledge. Theism can account for knowledge, but that covers a lot of possible religions. However, most religions have other tenants that make them absurd. I think knowledge is only possible if God exists. However, even if I can get a non-believer to accept that argument, that does not prove Christianity. And agnostic or Muslim unbeliever is just as lost as the atheist. The un-believer will not accept Christianity until he is persuaded by the regeneration of his mind so that he believes the Gospel and that God's Word is true. That, in the end, is faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say "theism" can account for knowledge. I would say only the Christian worldview can account for knowledge.
Click to expand...

 Prove it.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> If an unbeliever accepts that knowledge is only possible if the Christian God exists, then there cannot be any other worldview that IS true; otherwise, there would be no knowledge.


 You inference does not work. Even if he accepts your assertion that knowledge is only possible if the Christian God exists, then it does not follow that there is no other worldview. There is the worldview that says knowledge is impossible. Second, the unbeliever by definition rejects the Christian God, so he will not accept you position. At best, he will allow only that knowledge is "possible" given the Christian God, and that only for the sake of argument. You still have to prove it is the case.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_Hence, if knowledge is only possible within the Christian worldview, and we know that knowledge is possible, then Christianity must be true.


Well he might agree knowledge is possible, or he might not. We can not assume this is the case.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Otherwise, you remove the foundation for even arguing that Christianity is not true.


 This does not follow. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> I agree that it takes regeneration for a personally to truly believe and accept that Christianity is true. Does this change the fact that Christianity is in fact true?


 No. But it does not prove it either.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_Or is it only true believe we believe and accept it to be such?


 Believe something is true does not make it true, but all thinks be think we know, depend on asserting some axiom we believe is true. And the non-believer has different axioms, different first principles. Ergo, what he thinks is knowledge, is not going to be the same as the Christian. As Christians, we believe in objective truth - and that God is the standard of that truth. And God gives us access to knowing that truth through is revelation in Scripture. But, the non-believer does not accept the axioms of the Christian. His worldview may overlap the Christians', but his axioms are different. And we need to understand his axioms, and our own, to see what is "real" within our respective worldviews. Because they are not the same in all areas.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Nate,
> 
> When Civbert wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no God, logic is still part of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> You should just stop. It's just utter nonsense and the rest follows...
> 
> I don't even grant "reality" without God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the non-believer will say to you - just stop there. There's no point on going on because you are merely making assertions and not giving arguments.
Click to expand...

I thought _you_ were a believer. I never assert or assume anything apart from the knowledge that there is a God. I don't assume He isn't simply because I want to make my argument acceptable.

When a fellow believer states that God is not necessary for logic then I state, unequivocally, IT IS NONSENSE. When I agree with the Scriptures that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" I don't care in the least whether or not you, or anyone else, accept the authority of that teaching.

That you answer as an unbeliever would is very shocking.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...but Civbert grants not only reality but logic as well. Apparently, neither reality nor logic depend upon God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the counter argument in proper syllogistic form that proves that God is necessary for logic. It should be easy. Remember, you're debating a non-believer, not a fellow Christian. If you're are going to say it's an obvious conclusion, (logic and reality depend on the existence of God), then the argument for that conclusion should be easy to construct.
> 
> However, if this is an assertion (which it is), then you should be able to give some other reasons for making the assertion (i.e. you can't prove it logically, but you believe it's true for reason x, y, and z.)
> 
> But here's the best you can honestly do. If God exists, then reality is logically dependent on God. If God does not exist, then reality does not depend on God. Reality depends on God, only if the Bible is true. However, that's a hypothetical proposition. It can not be proven, and the assertion needs to be justified. The non-believer is within his epistemic rights to reject that position out of hand if you merely assert it and not give any reasons to support it. If you give inductive evidence, the non-believer may do the same.
> 
> The bottom line is, if you are going to play by the rules of reason, your opponent should be allowed the same consideration.
Click to expand...

Again, I assume I'm talking to a believer here who knows that God created the Universe.

Do you believe in God? Does anything exist apart from Him?

Get off your hobby horse and speak to me as a believer!


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> I thought _you_ were a believer. I never assert or assume anything apart from the knowledge that there is a God. I don't assume He isn't simply because I want to make my argument acceptable.
> ....
> 
> Get off your hobby horse and speak to me as a believer!



Come on Rich! The issue is apologetics. The whole point of apologetics is to defend the faith against other worldviews. We are dealing with the views of unbelievers - not fellow Christians. You need to be able to understand what different worldviews entail, and who your audience is. We're not preaching to the choir, we are debating with a unbeliever who already rejects many of your presuppositions. You don't just ignore that, you deal with it directly. That's what I'm trying to do here. So read my post in that light, and then come back with something relevant.

When you are debating your position with an unbeliever - if you are going to act like he's a fellow Christian, then you might as well have stayed home. You're wasting his time and yours.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

My problem, Anthony, is that I _expect_ an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic. You presented that as _your_ view. If you're speaking as pagan would then say "But the pagan would say to you...." You don't do that, you repeatedly put that forward as your view that logic doesn't require God as if you don't believe He created the world and everything in it. It's just a very strange assumption to hear, repeatedly, from a Christian.

Further, I don't very much care that the unbeliever rejects my presuppositions. I cannot very well agree with him that his materialistic view of the universe is a valid starting point. I don't engage in philosophical debates with unbelievers anyhow and I don't see a pattern for it in the NT. Over and over, Paul and the other apostles, present Christ as the Son of the Living God who has died and risen for the forgiveness of sins. They then command people to obey. Many Sophists at Athens ridiculed him but it was not because he "respected" their worldview that some embraced the Gospel.

If somebody challenges me to defend the hope that lives within me then I defend it based on what I know to be True. I will speak in vernacular they understand but I will never compromise and grant that the Universe and everything in it just might not be created and that the worldview they form as a security blanket to suppress the Truth has any validity.

The Gospel is not True because we build a logical argument that satifies man's existential rational test before he submits. The Gospel is "Believe and Live" or "Remain in your Unbelief but you will bow the knee...."


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> My problem, Anthony, is that I _expect_ an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.



I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

"In Him we live, and move, and have our being..."

Take your complaint up with Paul.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Beside the fact that his talk is just like a pagan.

Seriously, I'd like one example where any prophet or Apostle grants any reality apart from God. The very first words of Scripture begin with God.

The Shema makes declarations that God is one and must be worshipped.

Your speech, while it may impress others, does not impress me in the least. It is un-Biblical plain and simple. It is not a speech that can be found in Scripture or deduced from any apologetic example given in the Scriptures.

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> My problem, Anthony, is that I _expect_ an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. * Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.
Click to expand...


Anthony,

I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> My problem, Anthony, is that I _expect_ an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. * Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.
Click to expand...

*THANK YOU!!!* I was beginning to fear that this was a tightly held Clarkian belief. His assertion is completely un-Scriptural and I wondered if some Clarkians feel compelled to defend their logical standards so vigorously that they'll abandon the Scriptures just to ensure they don't step away.

Seriously, Jeff, if not for you jumping in, I was losing all hope for Clark's disciples. I wasn't even going to read his stuff if I thought it would ever lead me to a point where I came to the point that I stated that God was not necessary for logic.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> My problem, Anthony, is that I _expect_ an unbeliever to say that God is not necessary for logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim. There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means. * Worse, the premise is question begging when used in any argument in support of Christianity as a worldview. It has no valid place in apologetics, and it has no beneficial implication within theology. It's bad logic and bad apologetics. It's a pietistic claim that appeals to us because anything that makes Christianity seem right, must be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.
Click to expand...


From within my worldview, I believe the being created in God's image means we were created with the ability to think logically and communicate with God. I think this ability for abstract reasoning is (at least part) what it means to be created in God's image. And in that sense, or capacity for reason depends on God being our creator.

However, this is completely within the Christian worldview. I can only deduce this by assuming the axioms of Christianity. But if I did not accept them, there is not logically chain that ties God to the laws of logic. There is not syllogism that can be constructed that proves that without God, there can be no logic.

I don't think you can prove the mere existence of anything requires the existence of something else, unless it is by definition. If it is by definition, it is a tautology. That is, you can not say that _A_ exits, therefore _B_ exists, unless "all (or some) _A_ is _B_" is true. 

"Existence" as a predicate is meaningless. The only things that do not exist are true contradictions. Existence is only a matter of how you define something, or what is predicated of something.

So you can not say God exists is logically necessary for logic to exists, unless logic is God. You can not say "_p_ & ~_p_ is false" implies God exists. If you think about it, God is not the predicate of any logical statement, He is always the logical subject. The only way to make God the predicate is in the statement "God is God".

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Anthony,
> 
> I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> *THANK YOU!!!* I was beginning to fear that this was a tightly held Clarkian belief. His assertion is completely un-Scriptural and I wondered if some Clarkians feel compelled to defend their logical standards so vigorously that they'll abandon the Scriptures just to ensure they don't step away.
> 
> Seriously, Jeff, if not for you jumping in, I was losing all hope for Clark's disciples. I wasn't even going to read his stuff if I thought it would ever lead me to a point where I came to the point that I stated that God was not necessary for logic.
Click to expand...


Please provide the Scriptural support for "God is necessary for logic". You did say my position is *completely* un-scriptural, so I'm assuming you can defend that from Scripture.



[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Genesis 1:1


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Anthony,
> 
> I don't see how you can deny that God is necessary for logic. He is the basis for all logical thought. Logic is part of the image of God in man, and without that, we would be as the "brute" beasts in scripture that are without reason altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> *THANK YOU!!!* I was beginning to fear that this was a tightly held Clarkian belief. His assertion is completely un-Scriptural and I wondered if some Clarkians feel compelled to defend their logical standards so vigorously that they'll abandon the Scriptures just to ensure they don't step away.
> 
> Seriously, Jeff, if not for you jumping in, I was losing all hope for Clark's disciples. I wasn't even going to read his stuff if I thought it would ever lead me to a point where I came to the point that I stated that God was not necessary for logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide the Scriptural support for "God is necessary for logic". You did say my position is *completely* un-scriptural, so I'm assuming you can defend that from Scripture.
Click to expand...


Anthony,

Surely you believe that part of the image of God in man is logic, don't you? If so, then logic is dependant upon God. If not, we can start a new thread and debate it.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> Surely you believe that part of the image of God in man is logic, don't you? If so, then logic is dependent upon God. If not, we can start a new thread and debate it.



Yes, if you mean by logic "the capacity for logical thinking," then that capacity depends on God. And you can only show that by assuming the Christian worldview. Therefore, making the claim (logic depends on God) in an apologetic debate is begging the question.

But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because the claim itself presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.

We can start a new thread on this subject.



[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Genesis 1:1



Nope.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Anthony likes to play "give me the syllogism." Okay, me too:
> 
> (let's also remember that for Anthony to *know* anything he must deduce it from Scriptural propositions)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Tell me how you *know* this.
Click to expand...


See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Tell me how you *know* this.
Click to expand...


Done. See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> Also, Anthony, do you believe that "God is logic?"



Nope, not literally. It might be a true metaphor, like "God is love". God is not literally love, nor is He literally logic, but love and logic are both characteristics of God.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because *the claim itself * presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.



What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, *but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."*


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because *the claim itself * presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, *but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."*
Click to expand...


Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because *the claim itself * presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, *but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).
Click to expand...


I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because *the claim itself * presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, *but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?
Click to expand...


What do you mean by the term depend? Let's say it was possible for God to blow up and stop existing. Would the laws of logic stop existing as well?

CT


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because *the claim itself * presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, *but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the term depend? Let's say it was possible for God to blow up and stop existing. Would the laws of logic stop existing as well?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


 Talk about contradictory statements! By "depend", I mean it is impossible to account for logic without pressuposing God. One could also say that the rules themselves "depend" on God as our existence does. "

In him, we live, and move and have our being.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> But if you mean by logic "the laws of logic", then no, there is no logical necessary connection to God or God's existence. And this is especially bad logic in a debate on Christianity because *the claim itself * presupposes the truth of God of Christianity in an attempt to prove the truth of the God of Christianity. This is blatant question begging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "claim" are you talking about here? Is it the claim that "the laws of logic depend on God"? If so, I agree with you that the laws of logic presuppose the truth of the Christian God, *but to me, this is the same as saying "the laws of logic depend on God."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the claim is "the laws of logic depend on God". That is a premise of the transcendental argument (in so many words).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the term depend? Let's say it was possible for God to blow up and stop existing. Would the laws of logic stop existing as well?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about contradictory statements! By "depend", I mean it is impossible to account for logic without pressuposing God. One could also say that the rules themselves "depend" on God as our existence does. "
> 
> In him, we live, and move and have our being.
Click to expand...


Well it only be contradictory depending on how one uses the term possible ;-)

Now I agree that the rules themselves depend on God as we do, but one should understand that one is then put into a great minority position as far as philosophers go.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Genesis 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Honestly, at this point then, based on the _way_ in which you respond (which is pagan) I am left with two choices regarding your denial of God as necessary for all:

1. Proverbs 26:4
2. Proverbs 26:5

By the way, I'm still waiting on what I demanded long ago in this thread: Provide us with any kind of pattern in the Prophets or the Gospels or the Epistles where apologetics gave away that God is not necessary for all. There is a notable lack of Scripture in your posts. I'd settle for a single example where a Christian character even remotely resembles what you affirm is proper apologetics.

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> I just don't see a problem with this statement. The laws of logic are universal, and all universal laws depend on God. Yes?



Everything that God created, clearly depend on the creator. Everything that God commands, came from God. So did God create the universal laws? What laws would these be? Would these be laws of physics? I'll buy that. The laws of physics depend on God. They did not exist until God created the world and everything in it. What about God's commands - sure, they did not exist until God gave them. Now consider some other things: love, justice, glory, logic, power. Each of these are characteristics of God. Did God create them? No. Do they have a beginning? No. Do they depend on God? We can not say. 

If something is real with God, how can we say they would be un-real without Him. These things are not created, they have no physical substance. We do not know if these things depend on God because we can not say all love is God, or all God is love except in a metaphorical sense. God is not the same as love. When we say God is love, we mean love is a characteristic of God. If we say love is God, we make love an object of worship instead of the God of Scripture. 

Since we do not say God is a subset of these things, or that these things are subsets of God, then they do not logically depend on the existence God. We can not say that logic or love or justice depends on the existence of God. Either God exists, or he doesn't. Either love is real or not. Either logic is, or reason is an illusion. 

As I think about this, I'd say to look at it this way. For something to depend on something else, it would either have to be caused by that thing (as in created), or it would have to be a logical subset (of the same category). Since God did not create love or logic (else He was not loving or logical before the creation), and since love (or logic) and God are categorically different things (and neither is a subset of the other) then neither depends on the other in a logical or ontological sense.

And all this is speaking in terms of worldviews. From withing the Christian worldview, Scripture tells me that I can only truly act in love by the power of the Holy Spirit, and my ability to reason is due to being created in His image. But this knowledge depends only on the axiom of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit enable my mind to believe. I can not know these things if I start with some other axiom, because I can no deduce them otherwise. 

And it's good and wonderful to say I will not give and ground on Scripture, it's a waste of time to tell talk to an unbeliever as if he were a believer. We are to be all things to all people. We don't change out axioms, but we try to understand others. You can't rationally defend Christianity to an unbeliever if you reason with him as if he were a believer. And we are supposed to be able to do that - to give an answer for our faith.

We want to be very clear in our thinking. We say all men are sinners - but we don't mean Jesus was a sinner. We say God created all things - but that does not mean he created himself. We say God can do all things - but that does not mean he can create a rock too large for for him to lift. We say God knows all things - but he can not know a true contradiction. We can still say many things, but we need to be able to correctly qualify what we mean when we say them - and not to make categorical or logical mistakes, or over generalize, or irrational inferences.


----------



## Civbert

I'd be interested in someone listing the "universal laws".


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Genesis 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, at this point then, based on the _way_ in which you respond (which is pagan) I am left with two choices regarding your denial of God as necessary for all:
> 
> 1. Proverbs 26:4
> 2. Proverbs 26:5
> 
> By the way, I'm still waiting on what I demanded long ago in this thread: Provide us with any kind of pattern in the Prophets or the Gospels or the Epistles where apologetics gave away that God is not necessary for all. There is a notable lack of Scripture in your posts. I'd settle for a single example where a Christian character even remotely resembles what you affirm is proper apologetics.
> 
> [Edited on 5-25-2006 by SemperFideles]
Click to expand...


See the last paragraph in my response to Jeff regarding "all things" - God knows all things, is all powerful, is all loving - but it's a sin to over-generalize these statements to make them mean what God's word does not mean. Else you have no answer for the fool who says, if the Bible says all men have sinned, and Jesus was a man, then Jesus sinned. Are you willing to concede such a point?

As for Scripture usage, if you want to call me a fool, go ahead, but I think you might be more careful in you application of Scripture. It's one thing to try to correct a brother's errors in love, it's another to insult a brother's character using God's Holy Word. The verses you gave were not spoken to the fool, but to someone who is trying to be wise in he's dealing with fools. The proper application then might be if I was seeking you for advise on how to deal with a foolish person, then you would reference those verses. It seems to me that you are using the verse to say you think I'm a fool. Even if you are correct, you have miss-used God's Word.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I'd be interested in someone listing the "universal laws".



How about the law of contradiction for one.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I'd be interested in someone listing the "universal laws".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the law of contradiction for one.
Click to expand...


Any others? That's one I'm sure of, that isn't explicit in Scripture, but is necessary for language and knowledge. 

God's decrees are universal laws. But are there any others? Are there any laws of the physical universe that we really know?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Anthony likes to play "give me the syllogism." Okay, me too:
> 
> (let's also remember that for Anthony to *know* anything he must deduce it from Scriptural propositions)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Tell me how you *know* this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Tell me how you *know* this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Done. See my reply to Jeff. Logic is not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> Also, Anthony, do you believe that "God is logic?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not literally. It might be a true metaphor, like "God is love". God is not literally love, nor is He literally logic, but love and logic are both characteristics of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh, Civbert...
> 
> I asked more questions that "is God logic."
> 
> You made CLAIMS. I askeds you to prove them and how you knew them. Nowhere did you lay out a formal argument, using propositions in scripture, or deduced from scripture, which showed that you KNEW and PROVED your claims.
> 
> So, care to try again?
> 
> If you don't KNOW that God is not necessary for logic, then it's simply your subjective opinion, unjustified opinion.
> 
> As long as you come clean that you're just giving your opinion in this thread, then I'm fine with that.
> 
> You want you cake and to eat it too. But now it's time to see where Scripturalism lands you.
Click to expand...


Well since God and logic are not the same categories, then the statement (God is logic) is not a logical proposition, it's a metaphor. But if you want me to point to all the Scripture verses that explain what God is, and is not, and which are metaphors and which are literal, I can do that. But I think you could find them yourself. You see the difference between a metaphor and a literal statement? And you do understand that the substance of God can not be an abstraction. Love and logic are not persons, God is a person.

Here:

*God is a person.
*No person is an abstract concept.
*Therefore, God is not an abstract concept.

*Logic is an abstract concept.
*Therefore God is not logic.

We can look up scripture verses for showing God is a person. You can also dispute the logic is in the category person or that the bible supports categorical errors.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The logic is God was one question I asked you. I thought you held that view. I don't, you don't, good. You've been barking up the wrong tree, here.
> 
> But, you're still missing the point. You said,
> 
> "I'll be blunt. "God is necessary for logic", is an unprovable claim."
> 
> I asked how you knew that and for you to prove it.



I explained that already. Here it is again:


> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Well since God and logic are not the same categories, then the statement (God is logic) is not a logical proposition, it's a metaphor. But if you want me to point to all the Scripture verses that explain what God is, and is not, and which are metaphors and which are literal, I can do that. But I think you could find them yourself. You see the difference between a metaphor and a literal statement? And you do understand that the substance of God can not be an abstraction. Love and logic are not persons, God is a person.





> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> You said,
> 
> "There is no proof for the assertion, and it is an unwarranted claim by any means."
> 
> I asked how you knew that and for you to prove it.



Here's the proof again:


> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> *God is a person.
> *No person is an abstract concept.
> *Therefore, God is not an abstract concept.
> 
> *Logic is an abstract concept.
> *Therefore God is not logic.





> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> as a p.s. do concepts exist in minds?



Depends on what you mean by exist. Do you mean, "is a concept or idea like the law of contradiction true only because we know it" - I don't think so. It's similar to the tree falling in a forest, but know one is around to hear it. I don't think anyone needs to be around for it to make a sound, no does there need to be any minds for the law of contradiction to be true. However, the law of contradiction may be an excepting. I can't imagine the concept of justice having any meaning if there was no mind to consider it. But then take the concept of lenght. Would the length of a stick not exist if no one measured it?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> as another p.s. how do you *know* that logic is an abstract cncept?
> 
> Is that deducible from Scriptural propositions? If so, deduce on, G-money.



The only way for a person know what a person said or wrote, is if the law of contradiction is true.

_Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself." 
(Gen 3:9-10 NKJV)_

God asked a question of Adam, and Adam understood God and answered.

Adam understood what God said because the words had meaning. But if words do not have meaning, then Adam could have answer "I'd like a pepperoni pizza with mushrooms." 

Another way to deduce the law of contradiction from Scripture is by reading the Bible. Read Gen 3:9-10 again. Did you understand it? Then you prove the law of contradiction from Scripture.

So now that we we have proven the law of contradiction is true, how do we know it is an abstract concept? Well can you touch it? Is it an individual? Can you know it? If you answered these correctly, then you know by definition that it is an abstract concept.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Genesis 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, at this point then, based on the _way_ in which you respond (which is pagan) I am left with two choices regarding your denial of God as necessary for all:
> 
> 1. Proverbs 26:4
> 2. Proverbs 26:5
> 
> By the way, I'm still waiting on what I demanded long ago in this thread: Provide us with any kind of pattern in the Prophets or the Gospels or the Epistles where apologetics gave away that God is not necessary for all. There is a notable lack of Scripture in your posts. I'd settle for a single example where a Christian character even remotely resembles what you affirm is proper apologetics.
> 
> [Edited on 5-25-2006 by SemperFideles]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the last paragraph in my response to Jeff regarding "all things" - God knows all things, is all powerful, is all loving - but it's a sin to over-generalize these statements to make them mean what God's word does not mean. Else you have no answer for the fool who says, if the Bible says all men have sinned, and Jesus was a man, then Jesus sinned. Are you willing to concede such a point?
> 
> As for Scripture usage, if you want to call me a fool, go ahead, but I think you might be more careful in you application of Scripture. It's one thing to try to correct a brother's errors in love, it's another to insult a brother's character using God's Holy Word. The verses you gave were not spoken to the fool, but to someone who is trying to be wise in he's dealing with fools. The proper application then might be if I was seeking you for advise on how to deal with a foolish person, then you would reference those verses. It seems to me that you are using the verse to say you think I'm a fool. Even if you are correct, you have miss-used God's Word.
Click to expand...

Let me be clearer in what I am saying:

You are talking _as if_ you are a pagan. Pagans are fools. Ergo, you are talking _like_ a fool in the statements you are making when you say that God is unecessary for logic. If that insults you then I cannot help what you _feel_ about that statement but pagans say what you're saying. They are not Christian statements. They are not statements of belief.

I did not say you were an unbeliever but when somebody is acting like an unbeliever I'm going to call them on it.

You also continue to refuse to provide a single _Scriptural_ example of what you're saying. Very shocking for a Scripturalist in my estimation.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Let me be clearer in what I am saying:
> 
> You are talking _as if_ you are a pagan. Pagans are fools. Ergo, you are talking _like_ a fool in the statements you are making when you say that God is unecessary for logic. If that insults you then I cannot help what you _feel_ about that statement but pagans say what you're saying. They are not Christian statements. They are not statements of belief.
> 
> I did not say you were an unbeliever but when somebody is acting like an unbeliever I'm going to call them on it.
> 
> You also continue to refuse to provide a single _Scriptural_ example of what you're saying. Very shocking for a Scripturalist in my estimation.



See my previous post for a scripture example. 

As for my my taking like a pagan, please explain that. 

Nothing I said was essentially pagan, so I reject your assertion to the contrary. You can call me all the names you want, if you can't back them up with some good reasons, then you're point has no merit. So please explain yourself. 

I admit I have not taken full advantage of Scripture in my arguments, but my points are still correct. And Sean Gerety has used more scripture than any Vantillian, so I guess that proves that Clarkians are right. Right?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

1. I don't know if it's an issue of occassionalism but are you missing my challenge:

Please provide a _single_ example of a prophet or an apostle or Christ, speaking as you have: admitting for one moment that God is unnecessary for reason.

I just want one. If you cannot provide one as a Scripturalist I would think you would have the courage to recant your statement.

2. This is not a school play yard Anthony, I'm not calling you names and I don't care what Sean is saying. I am saying that you talk _like_ a pagan when you deny that God is necessary for _anything_. You can whine all you want that Sean Gerety uses lots of Scripture (more Scripture than Vantillians in history in fact!) but that says nothing about your statement.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 1. I don't know if it's an issue of occassionalism but are you missing my challenge:
> 
> Please provide a _single_ example of a prophet or an apostle or Christ, speaking as you have: admitting for one moment that God is unnecessary for reason.
> 
> I just want one. If you cannot provide one as a Scripturalist I would think you would have the courage to recant your statement.
> 
> 2. This is not a school play yard Anthony, I'm not calling you names and I don't care what Sean is saying. I am saying that you talk _like_ a pagan when you deny that God is necessary for _anything_. You can whine all you want that Sean Gerety uses lots of Scripture (more Scripture than Vantillians in history in fact!) but that says nothing about your statement.




And you keep missing my points. The reason God is not necessary for reason is that God and reason are categorically two separate things. Neither of which has a beginning - so "cause" is also out of the question. And that being the case, AND that we are talking about apologetics with unbelievers - all combine to clearly show the idea that God is necessary for reason is not the case. Please address my arguments so that I can better explain what you don't understand. You keep asking for something that doesn't exist - and the contrary is also not there. There is no point in seeking something you can't have, and since you don't have the a " a _single_ example of a prophet or an apostle or Christ saying God is _necessary_ for reason- the point is mute. 

And be clear, it is not that God is unnecessary for us to be able to reason, it is God is unnecessary for logic or reason to exist.

Address my arguments.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> While we're at it, for those who claim that circular arguments are always fallacies, and thus think that only linear arguments are acceptable, can we see an argument for that?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, btw, your argument had better not be linear



Here's a circular argument for "All A is B".

All A is B
All B is C
All D is Q

therefore

All A is B.

So do you see the fallacy?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Time to show the Scripturalist the true folly of his position.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scripturalist position: Knowledge consists only of Scriptural propositions or propositions validly deduces from Scriptural propositions.
> 
> If one does not have the above, one does not have knowledge.
> 
> 
> Scriptrualism...
> 
> [Edited on 5-26-2006 by Paul manata]



Very good. Close, but not correct. 

Scripturalism: All Epistemic Knowledge is God's revelation. Therefore, "all things necessary for His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture". 

I.e. what more do you need to know? 

Now do have something better? What do you know? How do you know it?



> _ from WCF 1:6_
> 
> The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture



Let me ask you, what is knowledge?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> as another p.s. how do you *know* that logic is an abstract cncept?
> 
> Is that deducible from Scriptural propositions? If so, deduce on, G-money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way for a person know what a person said or wrote, is if the law of contradiction is true.
> 
> _Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."
> (Gen 3:9-10 NKJV)_
> 
> God asked a question of Adam, and Adam understood God and answered.
> 
> Adam understood what God said because the words had meaning. But if words do not have meaning, then Adam could have answer "I'd like a pepperoni pizza with mushrooms."
> 
> Another way to deduce the law of contradiction from Scripture is by reading the Bible. Read Gen 3:9-10 again. Did you understand it? Then you prove the law of contradiction from Scripture.
> 
> So now that we we have proven the law of contradiction is true, how do we know it is an abstract concept? Well can you touch it? Is it an individual? Can you know it? If you answered these correctly, then you know by definition that it is an abstract concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gues the Scripturalist, who bullies the TAGists for them to "lay out the TAG by a deductively valid syllogism" can't play his own game.
> 
> I'll make it easy for you.
> 
> 
> P1.
> 
> P2.
> 
> P.3.
> 
> so on
> 
> 
> _____________
> 
> C1: Therefore, logic is an abstract concept.
> 
> 
> Also, how do you know you can't touch it? Is that deducible from Scripture? If so, do it.
> 
> p.1
> 
> p.2
> 
> p.3.
> 
> ...
> 
> ______
> 
> C1: Therefore, logic is not touchable.
> 
> 
> Time to show the Scripturalist the true folly of his position.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scripturalist position: Knowledge consists only of Scriptural propositions or propositions validly deduces from Scriptrual propositions.
> 
> If one does not have the above, one does not have knowledge.
> 
> 
> Scriptrualism...
> 
> [Edited on 5-26-2006 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...


The fact that you've got so many blanks show you're not understanding my arguments. That's okay. Maybe that's my fault. But that does not mean I'm wrong, and you are not addressing my arguments, so what can I say. Tell me what you don't understand - please be specific or I can't help you.



P.S. Sorry if you feel bullied. That happens when you are dealing with your intellectual superiors. 

:bigsmile:


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ....
> 
> Now, go back aqnd re-read the thread, answer my questions, or just admit that you're using unjustifdied opinion.
> 
> Van Til: 1
> 
> Clark: 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor Clarkian, getting the intellectual beat-down from an intellectual inferior!



I see, if you can't beat 'em, wear them down. 

If I won't play your game, you'll claim the win, and you didn't even have to counter my arguments. 

Let see. I first said : 

P1 "The only way for a person know what a person said or wrote, is if the law of contradiction is true." 


Now, at this point you will say - how do you know that from Scripture. Is that it? I've got to expand out all the steps, and break it down into tiny bites. And if I don't, you'll cry foul. 

Let me ask you first, do you disagree with the first premise? If you don't, we can go to the next. If you do, tell me why not. If you're more interested in winning, we can play your game your way, but I'm calling a timeout so I can get some work done.

So what's it going to be? Are you going to deal with my arguments, our do I have to chew your food for you?


----------

