# Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God?



## cupotea (Jun 10, 2004)

Could someone please help me out with understanding exactly how we get, utilizing the Transcendental Argument, from the laws of logic to the Christian God being the necessary condition for intelligibility?

I'm sure one of our resident presuppositionalists could help me out with this one...


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:a75f274ac9][i:a75f274ac9]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:a75f274ac9]
Could someone please help me out with understanding exactly how we get, utilizing the Transcendental Argument, from the laws of logic to the Christian God being the necessary condition for intelligibility?

I'm sure one of our resident presuppositionalists could help me out with this one... [/quote:a75f274ac9]

In the words of Cornelius VanTil

[i:a75f274ac9]&quot;.....we can show negatively that unless the objector will drop his objections and stand with us upon the Scriptures of God and hold with us to the God of the Scriptures there is no meaning to his experience. Thus the law of contradiction may be used negatively as a means by which the two mutually exclusive views of life may be set apart from one another. Thus it may be shown that if this law is to be used in the way that the objector would use it, then this very law would have no application to anything. On the assumption of the ultimacy of human experience, as involved in the position of the objector, the universe is a universe of Chance. And in a universe of Chance the law of contradiction has no fulcrum. It is then like a revolving door resting upon chance moving nothing into nothing except for the fact that it then cannot move.&quot; (*Particularism and Common Grace*)[/i:a75f274ac9]

So what does that mean? 

Bahnsen explains:

[i:a75f274ac9].......if the laws of science, the laws of logic and the laws of morality are not seen as expressions of the unchanging mind of God, then the notion of universal and absolute laws or the concept of order in a contingent and changing world of matter is incoherent. If universality is supposed to be objective then there is no justification for holding to it on the basis of man's limited experience and if universality is subjective (internal to man's thinking) then it is arbitrarily imposed by man's mind on his experience without warrant. (VanTil's Apologetic)[/i:a75f274ac9]

Demonstrating the possibility of intelligibility is the goal of the presuppositional argument, and &quot;making sense&quot; refers to the means to reach that conclusion. Specifically, &quot;make sense,&quot; &quot;account for&quot; and like phrases refer to showing the logical compatibility of the basic beliefs of a worldview on the one hand, and intelligible experience on the other. For example, 

(1) abstract universals are necessary for knowledge (i.e. intelligible experience)-[i:a75f274ac9]the laws of logic for example are abstract universals. [/i:a75f274ac9]

(2) the materialistic/atheistic worldview excludes the existence of abstract universals---[i:a75f274ac9]after all what is an abstract universal (a law) made of? [/i:a75f274ac9]

(3) the materialistic/atheistic worldview contradicts (i.e. &quot;cannot account for,&quot; &quot;cannot make sense of&quot the possibility of abstract universals and therefore knowledge. 

Hope that helps

Mark


----------



## 2legit2quit (Jun 10, 2004)

How does the impossibilty of atheism prove that the *Christian* God exists.

From my experience with TAG there are two ways to prove that logic/science/morality presuppose the Christian God.

One is by trying to prove that a certain religion, say, Islam can't account for the intelligibility of our experience, but if you try to prove the existence of God by concluding that a particular religion can't account for l/s/m then in order to prove the truthfulness of Christianity you would have to show that *every* possible religion can't account for l/s/m. This is of course impossible.

The second is by reducing every possible religion to simply antitheism so now the argument becomes:
1. A or ~A
2. ~~A
:. A

instead of,
1. A or B
2. ~B
:. A

But I don't see how every other religion can be reduced to just one big antitheist (or more properly anti-Christian) religion without being visciously circular or arbitrary.

Can someone please help me with that? uzzled:


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2004)

2L2Q,

[quote:6a303086ab]
Can someone please help me with that?
[/quote:6a303086ab]

VanTilian presuppositionalism is not the silver bullet it's touted to be. The problem you see is one that was discussed for well over a year on the VanTil list where men like Byron, Welty, Martin and Sudduth discussed a hypothetical "Fristianity" that provided all the elements of "Christianity" to show that though a well argued TAG may lead to theism it does not necessarily lead to Christian theism. Nevertheless it remains a powerful argument against atheism and as Bahnsen said on many occasions it's purpose is often to simply reduce the atheistic position to absurdity and close the mouth of the unbeliever. 

In any case the only thing that proves the truth of Christian theism is the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner.

Blessings


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2004)

Epistemologically, in the order of knowing, logic preceedes God.

Ontologically, in the order of being, God preceedes logic.

But we don't know that until until we use logic, and the rules of logic, to understand him.

If we throw away that linear line to God, we end up in all sorts of craziness.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:473007ba95][i:473007ba95]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:473007ba95]
Epistemologically, in the order of knowing, logic preceedes God.

Ontologically, in the order of being, God preceedes logic.

But we don't know that until until we use logic, and the rules of logic, to understand him.

If we throw away that linear line to God, we end up in all sorts of craziness. [/quote:473007ba95]
Priority, at least ontological priority (precedence), would seem to suggest independence. So then, is logic an aspect of creation? If so, then God should be able to exceed its limitations.

Mark


----------



## cupotea (Jun 11, 2004)

I think the the Transcendental argument IS a brilliant argument against the atheist. I even think it may be the &quot;silver bullet,&quot; at least against an atheist.

Is there anyone who thinks that we can prove the CHRISTIAN God utilizing only the presupposition of logic? This is not a challenge, so much as a point of interest for me. I did a presentation in my Faith and Reason class once on the Transcendental argument and became very impressed with it, but I have always wondered how particular we can get when it comes to the details of what the TAG can actually accomplish vs. other religions who bear similarities to Christianity (Islam, for example, with it's monotheistic God).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 11, 2004)

Mark,

One would have to make a logical priority based on being, not in general. Int he order of knowing (for a human being) logic must precede God because in the order of knowing we have to exercise our minds to know.

That does not make Logic for human being some kind of entity, just a mode.

For God, which is ontological, Logic is God, and God is Logic (see John1).


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:5381db162a][i:5381db162a]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:5381db162a]
Mark,

One would have to make a logical priority based on being, not in general. Int he order of knowing (for a human being) logic must precede God because in the order of knowing we have to exercise our minds to know.

That does not make Logic for human being some kind of entity, just a mode.

For God, which is ontological, Logic is God, and God is Logic (see John1). [/quote:5381db162a]

Matt thanks for the clarification. Notice I said "seems" to suggest independence because your statement, [i:5381db162a]"ontologically, in the order of being, God precedes logic", [/i:5381db162a]is open to question as it didn't really identify its referent. (God or man) Logic is not a matter of ontology for the human being (unless you are simply saying that Logic, being a divine attribute, is ontologically and logically prior to man) and though it certainly is an ontological matter when considering God is doesn't precede Him for the two are identical [simplicity] as you correctly note in citing John 1:1. I mention divine simplicity because there are those that deny it that happily affirm that God is logic, but are unwilling to accept that logic is God. 

I think we agree.

Mark


----------



## 2legit2quit (Jun 11, 2004)

If you guys are saying what i think you are sying about TAG then it seems like TAG isn;t the silver bullet; it by itself does not prove the existence of the Christian God. So if it doesn't then what other arguments should we utilize to *prove* the existence of God.


----------



## VanVos (Jun 11, 2004)

I think the TA does more than refute atheism and promote theism. Let's take it step further, understanding that theism is the neccessary precondition for the intelligibility of man's experience. In order to prove something you need a source that is infallible, anything less leads to skepticism. The only source one can appeal to is the bible because it's the only one available, that is only the source that can be presented as a authoritative consistent whole. In other words without the Christian worldview you can't prove anything.

VanVos

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## JohnV (Jun 11, 2004)

And yet it is true that the normal syntax within the created norms makes the written Word intelligible. And the written Word is in a solid volume you hold in your hand, that you have to behold with your eyes, that you have to process cognitively, in a created brain. 

This is how I see it:

It's imposssible to prove just any god, for there is no such thing; but it cannot be that the proof can prove anything else but the One True God, for He truly is. 

What is the proof that Jesus would have us demonstrate? Is it not love for one another, as He has loved us? And how are we to demonstrate to the world that the Father sent the Son? Is it not by our oneness in Him? The world will know that there is a God when they see us living as if there really is a God, a God of salvation. 

The problem with proof is that if I wanted to prove to you that I had blue socks on, and I pulled up my trousers to show you, you would still not believe it if you did not want to. The problem is not with the proof itself, for there is plenty of that. 

Logic itself is so big, because it is, as Matt said, a mode, not a thing on its own. It is the relationship of truths that makes up what we call logic. It may very well be that God does not need logic at all because He comprehends all of truth, and Himself forms the relationships. So in one sense God is logic in its' most complete sense. But yet that same &quot;bigness&quot; of logic, complared to our limitedness, provides countless escapes for those who will not believe, not because of logical necessity (for that could not be) but because they want an out. The problem is not with the proofs, but with the prover's limitations, and with the stubbornness of the &quot;proofees&quot;.

God's revelation of Himself is perspicuous in His creation too. And that too is as inviolable as Scripture is. What I mean is that, no matter what theories man may come up with, or how he interprets nature, the facts are still all there, unerasable, showing forth God's deity and power.


----------



## panicbird (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:cb4edb2874]
The problem you see is one that was discussed for well over a year on the VanTil list where men like Byron, Welty, Martin and Sudduth discussed a hypothetical "Fristianity" that provided all the elements of "Christianity" to show that though a well argued TAG may lead to theism it does not necessarily lead to Christian theism.
[/quote:cb4edb2874]


[quote:cb4edb2874]
I have always wondered how particular we can get when it comes to the details of what the TAG can actually accomplish vs. other religions who bear similarities to Christianity (Islam, for example, with it's monotheistic God).
[/quote:cb4edb2874]

The problem with &quot;Fristianity&quot; is that one cannot choose some elements of Christianity while rejecting others. The reason for this is that the Christian worldview is a revealed worldview (that is part of the overall scheme of it). If it is a God-revealed worldview, then it is incumbent upon us to take it as a whole. At no point are we able to say, &quot;I reject this aspect of your revelation, God.&quot; If we say so, then we have rejected the entire worldview, for the worldview itself says that our reasoning is not autonomous. However, in rejecting an aspect of the worldview, we assert our autonomy over the revelation, thus negating the worldview as a whole.

Also, the Christian worldview must be taken as a whole, for it is not a aspect of God or His revelation that we defend, but the Christian God as a whole and His revelation as a whole that we are arguing for. To pick and choose is to be arbitrary. All we have to do is say to those who do so, &quot;Well, I pick the parts that say you are going to hell if you attempt to change God's revelation.&quot; It is arbitrary, which is irrational. Thus, to resort to arbitrariness is to admit defeat.

Lon


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:58f81aa3b4]
The problem with &quot;Fristianity&quot; is that one cannot choose some elements of Christianity while rejecting others.
[/quote:58f81aa3b4]

You are missing the point. The Fristian does not pick some elements of Christianity and reject others. He asserts the originality and validity of his own revelation and denies the truth of Christianity.

[quote:58f81aa3b4]
The reason for this is that the Christian worldview is a revealed worldview (that is part of the overall scheme of it).
[/quote:58f81aa3b4]

Many religions assert their revelatory aspect. The truth of Fristianity is by revelation. Its truth is revealed truth.

[quote:58f81aa3b4]
If it is a God-revealed worldview, then it is incumbent upon us to take it as a whole.
[/quote:58f81aa3b4] 

If? That is the very thing that one must prove is it not? The Fristian denies that areas of similarity between his view and the Christian view are borrowed by himself. How do you propose to prove to another theist '[i:58f81aa3b4]presuppositionally[/i:58f81aa3b4]' that the deity you presuppose is the true God and not the deity he presupposes? He isn't picking and choosing elements from your view but insisting that his view is truth.

[quote:58f81aa3b4]
At no point are we able to say, &quot;I reject this aspect of your revelation, God.&quot; If we say so, then we have rejected the entire worldview, for the worldview itself says that our reasoning is not autonomous. However, in rejecting an aspect of the worldview, we assert our autonomy over the revelation, thus negating the worldview as a whole.
[/quote:58f81aa3b4]

Once more, the Fristian denies the truth of Christianity in toto and asserts the truth of Fristianity. Elements of coincidence are irrelevant for the Fristian insists that those coincidental elements are original to his revelation and borrowed by the Christian. He insists that the Christian has perverted the pure truth. How will you prove [i:58f81aa3b4]presuppositionally[/i:58f81aa3b4] that you are right and he is wrong?

[quote:58f81aa3b4]
Also, the Christian worldview must be taken as a whole, for it is not a aspect of God or His revelation that we defend, but the Christian God as a whole and His revelation as a whole that we are arguing for. To pick and choose is to be arbitrary. All we have to do is say to those who do so, &quot;Well, I pick the parts that say you are going to hell if you attempt to change God's revelation.&quot; It is arbitrary, which is irrational. Thus, to resort to arbitrariness is to admit defeat.
[/quote:58f81aa3b4]

You are obviously not familiar with the objection. I can substitute the word Fristian for Christian in your paragraph above. Now what are you going to do? Give us a [i:58f81aa3b4]presuppositional [/i:58f81aa3b4]argument for the truth of your revelation that nullifies the competing theistic view and verifies the truth of your own.

Mark


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:4b8cf49e7c]
The problem with proof is that if I wanted to prove to you that I had blue socks on, and I pulled up my trousers to show you, you would still not believe it if you did not want to. The problem is not with the proof itself, for there is plenty of that. 
[/quote:4b8cf49e7c]
Yes John and that is precisely the point isn't it? God grants and God withholds and there is no proof at all independent of the eye opening work of the Holy Spirit. Good observation.

Mark

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by Westmin]


----------



## panicbird (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:186e1b0ba5]
He asserts the originality and validity of his own revelation and denies the truth of Christianity.
[/quote:186e1b0ba5]

You are right about me not knowing much about Fristianity. I should have held my tongue until I knew more. So, I will not say much here except to respond to the above. We must push the Fristian on his claims of revelation. Why should we believe his revelation? Ultimately, it seems to me that he is being arbitrary. That is where we should attack them: they will ultimately &quot;oppose themselves&quot; (2 Timothy 2:25) either by being inconsistent or arbitrary.

Also, anyone can say that they have received revelation. What is the evidence for his revelation? I know, I know, we are not evidentialists, but there is at times a call for evidence. Is his revelation verifiable? Christianity's is. Jesus rose from the dead, rose the dead, performed miracles, etc. Anyone can look into the claims of Christianity, see the proof themselves (whether or not they accept it is another discussion).

If I am charged with not being a thoroughgoing presuppositionalist (because I asked for evidence from the Fristian), then I am OK with that. 

Lon


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 12, 2004)

So is the lesson to be learned from the Fristian challenge, is that one can only kill specifics claims and not overly general ones? Also is it rational to say that one cannot account for various preconditions of intelligibility but some God will show up at some point and help you do so?

Hermonta


----------



## JohnV (Jun 12, 2004)

Mark:
[quote:ccfb0d5392]Yes John and that is precisely the point isn't it? God grants and God withholds and there is no proof at all independent of the eye opening work of the Holy Spirit. Good observation. 

Mark [/quote:ccfb0d5392]
That is not exactly what I said, Mark. I do not hold to &quot;no proof at all independant of the eye-opening work of the Holy Spirit.&quot; I hold to that the proof is there whether or not the eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit; it just isn't necessarily taken in. Whether or not the Holy Spirit opens the eyes, there is no impact on the proofs themselves. It is, to speak plainly, not the proofs that are suddenly brought into being, but the mind that is opened when the Holy Spirit moves men to faith. It is a change in man, not in creation. If no-one believed, the facts would still just as clearly manifest God's glory.

I know it seems nit-picky, but it is phrases like that that make it hard for me to take in Presuppositionalism. I lose the line of argument soon after statements like that, every time.


----------



## panicbird (Jun 12, 2004)

Thanks Paul!

I knew this topic would drag you back to the PB, even if for a short time.

&quot;Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.&quot;

Lon


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:c539d28979]
That is not exactly what I said, Mark. I do not hold to &quot;no proof at all independant of the eye-opening work of the Holy Spirit.&quot; I hold to that the proof is there whether or not the eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit; it just isn't necessarily taken in. 
[/quote:c539d28979]

You may present evidence John but it isn't proof until it's accepted by the party you are trying to convince.


[quote:c539d28979]
I hold to that the proof is there whether or not the eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit; it just isn't necessarily taken in. 
[/quote:c539d28979] 

There is no impact on the facts as you perceive them John and likewise there is no impact on the person you are trying to reach. Until there is they prove nothing.

[quote:c539d28979]
I know it seems nit-picky, but it is phrases like that that make it hard for me to take in Presuppositionalism
[/quote:c539d28979]

That was not a presuppositional statement John. Anyway your post tells me that this is probably not a good place for me to be. I was assuming too much.

Pax

Mark

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Westmin]


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:f48e34aa13]
If I am charged with not being a thoroughgoing presuppositionalist (because I asked for evidence from the Fristian), then I am OK with that.
[/quote:f48e34aa13]

Good, because that was why I italicized presuppositional and that was the only point.

Blessings,

Mark


----------



## JohnV (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:47041c80c1][i:47041c80c1]Originally posted by Westmin[/i:47041c80c1]
[quote:47041c80c1]
That is not exactly what I said, Mark. I do not hold to &quot;no proof at all independant of the eye-opening work of the Holy Spirit.&quot; I hold to that the proof is there whether or not the eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit; it just isn't necessarily taken in. 
[/quote:47041c80c1]

You may present evidence John but it isn't proof until it's accepted by the party you are trying to convince.


[quote:47041c80c1]
I hold to that the proof is there whether or not the eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit; it just isn't necessarily taken in. 
[/quote:47041c80c1] 

There is no impact on the facts as you perceive them John and likewise there is no impact on the person you are trying to reach. Until there is they prove nothing.

[quote:47041c80c1]
I know it seems nit-picky, but it is phrases like that that make it hard for me to take in Presuppositionalism
[/quote:47041c80c1]

That was not a presuppositional statement John. Anyway your post tells me that this is probably not a good place for me to be. I was assuming too much.

Pax

Mark
[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Westmin] [/quote:47041c80c1]
Yes, Pax, Mark. I know what that means. 

I hope that this does not mean you are considering leaving us. That just will not do. We're just getting to know one another. 

The &quot;proof&quot; I was referring to was the proof God displays daily, whether or not it is received. It is there, and just because many remain unconvinced does not do any damage to the proof as proof. Whether it is proof is not determined by whether it is believed, but by whether it is made such by God. No one will have an excuse, but that won't keep many form trying. 

And I spoke out of turn by insinuating a Presuppositional language. I'm sorry, Mark; it was completely unnecessary for on my part.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2004)

John,

[quote:9a29e93fde]
It is there, and just because many remain unconvinced does not do any damage to the proof as proof. 
[/quote:9a29e93fde]

It doesn't do any damage to the evidence as evidence. It is only proof to the one who accepts it.

[quote:9a29e93fde]
Whether it is proof is not determined by whether it is believed, but by whether it is made such by God.
[/quote:9a29e93fde]

Whether it is true is not determined by whether it is believed. The evidence is true whether or not it is accepted as proof.


Mark


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2004)

Hello again Paul,

[quote:a7d8310e95]
First, the phrase &quot;how we get&quot; to the Christian God &quot;from&quot; the laws of logic seems to imply a discursive method of a step by step process. It is not if we start with the laws of logic and then build &quot;up to&quot; the Christian God in a step by step process. We start with a concrete worldview that has all the &quot;bells and whistles&quot; included.
[/quote:a7d8310e95] 
Paul are you sure you worded that statement correctly? Specifically the middle sentence, i.e. [i:a7d8310e95]"It is not if we start with the laws of logic and then build &quot;up to&quot; the Christian God in a step by step process." [/i:a7d8310e95] Anything with a starting point that then proceeds via a step by step progression is indeed discursive. Discursive reasoning is reasoning from premises to conclusions or proceeding from particulars to generalizations or vice versa. And no one comprehends anything in any other manner. Whatever is understood is understood logically.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Secondly, we might rephrase this question thus: how do the laws of logic presuppose the Christian God and only the Christian God? The answer to this question could be laid out in a book by itself. So I will be general. The laws of logic are not intelligible by themselvbes without reference to other concepts within which they are made intelligible. 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
The question is good but the answer is incorrect. Logic is the a priori element necessary for understanding anything. Logic assumes itself. Logic is self attesting. Any attempt to argue against Logic must use Logic and is therefore self defeating. And in fact one must use logic to understand logic. Now accounting FOR logic is another thing altogether. But that too requires its use.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
By way of analogy I can talk about milk. At the store milk costs 2.50. What is presupposed by that statement? The reality of numbers. The relaibility of language. &lt;snip&gt; This should serve to show that a worldview needs to deal with all the peripheral issues involved. 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Paul, any world view has its fundamental axioms and that whether one realizes it or not. Everyone has a worldview that provides the things necessary to make intelligent decisions about the world around them. One needn't be a Christian to function in society. Children are taught math, enjoy various foods because they taste good, know not to put their hand on a hot stove a second time etc. All of these occur over and over in this world without the knowledge of God or Christianity or without the individual giving any thought to world view for it isn't necessary. Everyone has a worldview for life's experiences provide one. But no one needs to know that in order to function. Having a worldview is entirely different than accounting for the rational tools which make human predication possible. Having a worldview is quite different than understanding that the fundamental axioms of ones worldview may not be capable of accounting for its own assumptions.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Now, when I start with the Christian worldview as a unit I begin with all of the above mentioned things already in my worldview.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
No you don't. You don't have those things. You don't have the price of milk or beer or the color of eggs or mathematical concepts. Those things are learned by experiences and observations. Learning and teaching facts do not require presupposing God's existence; unbelievers know all of those things. What the Christian worldview can do and others cannot do is give an epistemological account of itself. It not only uses logic but provides a location for abstract universals. It is not only ethical, but provides a basis for prescription. The only question is whether the worldview a person holds can account for its own axioms.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
The &quot;order of knowing&quot; is determined by ones worldview. 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Not necessarily and certainly not in this context. Matt clarified his first statement with this [i:a7d8310e95]"In the order of knowing (for a human being) logic must precede God because in the order of knowing we have to exercise our minds to know." [/i:a7d8310e95]Matt is correct and inarguably so. Logic, the ability to think rationally, is fundamental and prior to our knowledge of anything. You cannot think or understand without it. We are rational beings. Any fact is only understood logically. Now how a fact is interpreted IS affected by ones worldview but that is something else altogether
[quote:a7d8310e95]
To say that we don't know God until we use logic is faulty, I think.
[/quote:a7d8310e95] 
Well you are wrong. You could not have written that sentence without logic. You could not have read this thread with comprehension without it. You cannot conceive of God without it and therefore you cannot know God or anything else without it. In all rational discourse the laws that govern that discourse are assumed....or perhaps I should say presupposed?
[quote:a7d8310e95]
What is meant by &quot;use logic&quot; first off?
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Well one would think that obvious. It means to think, to cognate, to exercise the mind rationally to comprehend or know something.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Webmaster tells us that logic is, &quot;just a mode.&quot; Whatever &quot;just a mode&quot; means he does not tell us. 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Why didn't you ask? Gosh Paul it may be a unique way of putting it, but a charitable reading within context is really all that is necessary to understand what is meant. And if one doesn't understand charity suggests a question for clarification.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
If he means a formalized mode that was first put forth by Aristotle then he would say that before Aristotle men didn't know God? That seems to be the interpretation when he tells us that, &quot;But we don't know that until until we use logic, and the rules of logic, to understand him. &quot;
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Oh how silly. You should be sure there are no matches in the vicinity while you play with all that straw. It is obvious that is not what he meant and one must stretch himself to the limit to suggest that it "seems" to be the interpretation. He is not suggesting that everything must be understood syllogistically or examined under the microscope of LC, I and LEM. And "using logic, and the rules of logic" is really used tautologically here.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Well, when do we &quot;use the rules of logic to understand Him&quot;?
[/quote:a7d8310e95] 
Whenever we engage the mind Paul. Whenever we think. This thread would not be occurring without them. This does not mean that every conversant is aware of them or that they even know such things exist. But the laws of logic are there. Human discourse is impossible without them.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
We can pause to point out an equivocation. First he talks about &quot;knowing&quot; God and then at the end of the sentance he talks about &quot;understanding&quot; God.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
You may be pointing but you haven't identified it. I think you err. Let's look at it: Matt said [i:a7d8310e95]"Ontologically, in the order of being, God precedes logic. But we don't know that until we use logic, and the rules of logic, to understand him." [/i:a7d8310e95]Matt defines his subject in the first sentence quoted, i.e. "ontological priority". His second sentence clarifies. &quot;We do not know", [where know refers back to priority not God], &quot;until we understand God&quot;. Understanding is used in reference to God and know is used in reference to the priority mentioned in the preceding sentence. There is no equivocation. You say he talks about knowing God and understanding God when in fact he doesn't say that at all. Additionally, even if he had done so (which he didn't), there is no justification for the charge of equivocation since your argument assumes your own definition of terms. But the Bible itself sometimes uses truth, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding synonymously though at other times to draw certain distinctions. But in any case the terms are so closely related that the charge of equivocation is unwarranted. In fact, if we are going to be technical if one does not understand, one does not really know for knowledge is justified true belief.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
What &quot;know&quot; and &quot;understand&quot; means is not mentioned. 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
And as shown, no explanation was necessary. One must posit some unwarranted distinction to invent an equivocation. 
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Understanding is usually a term applied to ones who have reached a certain leval of cognative abilities.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Cognitive ability is usually understood to mean intellectual acumen. How smart is someone? What are his cognitive abilities? Understanding denotes a grasp of the meaning of something or some set of facts and btw is often defined as knowledge or comprehension. I'll be happy to post the definition from Websters Unabridged if I need to. You've accused your brother of equivocating but no such thing has occurred.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
I mention all of this to make my point. My conclusion is that it is wrong since Romans tells us that all men know God. Yes, even infants! But who wants to say that an infant is using and applying logic and the laws of it? 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
This lays bare the fact that you do not understand what has been said. All men do know something of God. His revelation through creation is enough to render men without excuse. (though your reference to infants fails here) But whatever men do know, whether it is suppressed or not, is not known apart from those laws which make comprehension possible. It is the "Truth" that is suppressed in unrighteousness.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
I contend that this misundersatnding rests on the idea that Romans one is talking about a discursive knowledge of God and not a immediate one.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Paul you're off in some unwarranted never, never land all based on an imagined equivocation that never occurred. Additionally the supression of the truth of the revelation of creation requires that men see and comprehend something of it. Don't confuse the visible creation with the sensus divinitatus.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Also, what is meant by &quot;throwing away a linear progression is to end up in all sorts of craziness?&quot; 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
He is addressing the absurdities that occur when people arrive at knowledge by non-rational means. Affectively might be a good example or the relational theology of neo-orthodoxy.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
If it is meant that if one doesn't reason linearly to any conclusion then he will end up in craziness then I maintain that Webmaster cannot use the laws of logic.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
It should be obvious that the short statement by the webmaster (logic is prior to human knowledge) assumes this very thing. How could you miss it?
[quote:a7d8310e95]
This is because in his response I would like to see a linear argument that proves logic. Now, we know that any argument he gives will use logic and therefore, will beg the question. If he says that in this instance we don't reason linearly then I maintain that he ends up in all sorts of craziness!
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Well now aren't you being a bit inconsistent? Your entire post is based on the a priori assumption of the laws of logic. Yet, and let me remind you that in the very first part of your message you said: [i:a7d8310e95]"The laws of logic are not intelligible by themselves without reference to other concepts within which they are made intelligible." [/i:a7d8310e95]I said you were wrong. I called attention to the fact that logic is axiomatic. Logic is self affirming. And btw Matt would not have said what he did if he did not understand this to be true. So now, after misunderstanding what was said to begin with and inventing an equivocation which was never made, you now want to correct him by saying that he cannot argue against logic without using it. THE VERY THING HIS POST ASSUMES TO BE TRUE. Good grief man.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
The simple fact of the matter is if God is the precondition for intelligibility then He must be presupposed in order to offer, or make, any intelligible argument or statement. God is the precondition for intelligibility (does anyone doubt this?). Therefore, He must be presupposed for any intelligent argument, even about His existence(!), to be given. 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Paul your recitation of the presuppositional mantra adds nothing to this discussion. God IS the precondition for all things including rational thought and human discourse. No one has suggested otherwise. But the laws of logic are also necessary preconditions for rational thought and human discourse. So which one is prior Paul? Is God prior to logic? If so then logic is created and God, being necessarily greater than His creation should be able to transcend it. But God can't make a spherical cube can He? Is logic prior to God? If so then it is superior to God and He is subject to it. Neither is that plausible. God is neither inferior nor superior to logic. Logic is ontologically grounded in the being of God. It is what He is.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Lastely, before we move on, I sense a inconsistancy in Webmasters statements below 


That does not make Logic for human being some kind of entity, just a mode. 

For God, which is ontological, Logic is God, and God is Logic (see John1). 

First, if we are going to be philosophically technical, then abstract entity is the proper term for logic.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Since we are being philosophically picky, it is a [i:a7d8310e95]universal [/i:a7d8310e95]abstract entity. Any human thought, concept, idea is an abstract entity but it is not universal. And here, rather than charitably ask Matt to explain what he means by mode you just assume error and use it as a platform to preach. What did Matt mean by mode Paul? Do you know without asking? Are you sure he is not just referring to method as opposed to the foundation for that method in the passage quoted?
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Secondly, I do not agree with the Clarkian interpretation given in the Johnian Logos. I think this passage is talking about Christ and not logic qua logic, per say. 
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
That's Johannine Logos and you haven't actually said why you disagree and what you do say doesn't lead me to think that you understand Clark on this. And it IS talking about Christ who is, according to the Bible, the Wisdom of God.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
First we must note that the so-called &quot;Fristianity problem&quot; is only a hypothetical one. TAGs only remaining challenge is from a hypothetical worldview. To be honest I am not much bothered by this.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Fristianity was mentioned to show that once atheism is shown to be insupportable (assuming your opponent surrenders) that the argument then becomes theological and the appeal to evidences (or lack of corroborating evidences as in the case of Fristianity) becomes inevitable.

Presuppositionalism, while a useful tool, is not a silver bullet. If it were, then presuppositionalists would never fail to convert their opponents. But Stein died an atheist. And Tabash and Martin and Flew and a host of others, all who have encountered presuppositionalists (unsuccessfully in my prejudiced opinion) remain atheists. Our most powerful tool remains the Gospel which God uses to save the elect.

In Christ,

Mark

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Westmin]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 15, 2004)

[quote:c416836ac2] [i:c416836ac2]posted by Westmin[/i:c416836ac2]
Presuppositionalism, while a useful tool, is not a silver bullet. If it were, then presuppositionalists would never fail to convert their opponents. But Stein died an atheist. And Tabash and Martin and Flew and a host of others, all who have encountered presuppositionalists (unsuccessfully in my prejudiced opinion) remain atheists. Our most powerful tool remains the Gospel which God uses to save the elect. [/quote:c416836ac2]
Are you saying that those holding to Presuppositionalism aren't preaching the gospel in their encounters? 

Is there any such things as a silver bullet in our evangelistic encounters? 

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2004)

Hi Sailor
[quote:3d23d15e2e]
Are you saying that those holding to Presuppositionalism aren't preaching the gospel in their encounters? 
[/quote:3d23d15e2e]
Not at all. Proper use of the presuppositional argument and fidelity to Christ requires that one present the Christian God as the solution to life. And I would say most attempt to do just that. But I would not say that the argument itself IS the presentation of the Gospel, only that when properly engaged it leads to it.
[quote:3d23d15e2e]
Is there any such things as a silver bullet in our evangelistic encounters?
[/quote:3d23d15e2e]
That depends on what we're looking for. Our silver bullet is fidelity to God's command to faithfully present the Gospel knowing that His word never returns void but accomplishes its intended purpose without fail.

Blessing,

Mark

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by Westmin]


----------

