# Frame and Logic



## natewood3

I am somewhat new to studying apologetics. However, I am trying to understand presuppositional apologetics. I have read some John Frame books, such Apologetics to the Glory of God, DKG, parts of DG. I have also read some of his online articles. I have seen him make the claim that God's nature is the ultimate basis of logic.

My question is simply, is this right, and if so, how can you prove philosophically and Biblically? I agree that the laws of logic, science, and morality are unintelligible in other worldviews, and that when other worldviews use the laws, they are in fact borrowing from the Christian worldview. However, when I try to prove that the laws of logic and science presuppose God, I have a hard time doing that. How do I KNOW that the laws of logic and science presuppose God? I am aware that you can give philosophical arguments for this all day, but can it be proven with Scripture?

Any help in understanding these issues would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## RamistThomist

The laws of logic, science, and morality are abstract entities. For example, they couldn't exist in say a worldview that say all there is is Matter. I will try to get back to this tonight. My notes are elsewhere and I want to give a good response to it.


----------



## RamistThomist

This was originally written by Ron in the post on transcendentals. Hopefully, you will find it helpful.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> There are only two worldviews. One says that Scripture is the necessary precondition for the justification of intelligible experience and the other says that it´s not. Accordingly, all that needs to be defeated is the one worldview that argues that knowledge, ethics and reality are intelligible apart from revelation.
> 
> The argument that was employed earlier in this thread was correct. It was essentially: "For x (some aspect of human experience) to be the case, y must also be the case since y is the precondition of x. Since x is the case, y is the case." Page 79 of Festschrift
> 
> As a formal proof, this argument takes the following form:
> 
> *Prove A:* The Christian God exists.
> *Step 1 ~A:* (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.
> *Step 2 (~A--> B):* If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
> *Step 3 (~B):* There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!)
> *Step 4 (~ ~A):* It is not the case that God does not exist (_Modus Tollens_ on 2 and 3)
> *Step 5 (A):=* God does exist (Law of negation.)
> 
> It would not do to write: "if causality (C), then God (G)"¦," for this only communicates that G is a necessary condition for C (and C is a sufficient condition for G); it does not address the transcendental challenge - that the consequent is a necessary precondition for C, hence the need for a semantic revision of _modus ponens_. {For instance, if one is regenerate, then he is in Christ; it is also true that if one is in Christ, then he is regenerate. What is the logical order? Does regeneration presuppose being in Christ or is a precondition for being in Christ regeneration? Well of course, regeneration is logically prior to being in Christ, but this is not grasped by a simple "if p then q" proposition. We are in Christ because we are regenerate; we are not regenerate because we are in Christ. Similarly, God's revelation is the necessary precondition for intelligible experience, but we cannot articulate this truth by "if causality, then God," since necessary conditions need not be prior to that which they are a condition, hence the need for a slight semantic variation such as: causality presupposes God's revelation, or God's revelation is the precondition for causality.}
> 
> Many Christians might hold to the above argument, which is transcendental in nature. A common debate among certain apologists will be over whether step 2 can be shown to be philosophically certain.
> 
> Immediately below is what I believe to be a feeble justification for step 2 of the above proof but I have seen it enough that I believe it is worth interacting with.
> 
> *Premise 1:* Within the worldview of Christianity intelligibility can be justified.
> *Premise 2:* All worldviews that we have been confronted with cannot justify intelligibility.
> *Conclusion:* Since we cannot deny intelligibility, and since only the Christian worldview so far can justify it, then the Christian worldview is true.
> 
> Some believe that step-2 of proof can be inductively justified because every worldview that a particular apologist had encountered has been refuted. It is argued by such apologists that the "œrational inference" that God exists is based upon a statistical-confidence one might have from refuting many opposing worldviews. One of the problems I have with this justification is how can an inductive argument justify the God of Christianity when it cannot justify the heart of Christianity, the Resurrection of Christ? In other words, the _inductive_ justification of step-2 presupposes uniformity in nature, yet the existence of the Christian God requires discontinuity, the Resurrection! How does one plan on justifying discontinuity on the basis of induction, apart from presupposing the self-attesting word of God as the foundational truth by which one can even draw rational inference, which can only be done by presupposing the uniformity of nature! Although the unbeliever cannot account for uniformity, he is no less justified in arguing for uniformity than the Christian who argues for it on the basis of an inductive claim. Not to mention, the conclusion of the proof for step 2, which is "œthe Christian worldview is _true_," exceeds the scope of the premises!
> 
> The conclusion that the Christian worldview is more reasonable than the non-Christian worldview remains unjustified because the question of whether one is even philosophically justified in his use of induction has not been established. There are no freebies in Philosophy, as Dr. Bahnsen used to say.
> 
> *3 Critical points:*
> 
> 1. In step-3 of the proof it is affirmed that there is intelligible experience, which presupposes true _a priori _categories of thought that can interpret the facts of a mind-independent world according to actual, _objective_ truth.
> 2. The proof itself presupposes the intelligibility of deductive reasoning.
> 3. In the justification of step-2 the precondition of intelligible inductive inference is presupposed.
> 
> Accordingly, in order to rationally infer that God´s existence is "philosophically uncertain" yet "œmost probable," one must first presuppose that which the conclusion does not afford "“ God´s _actual_, ontological existence, which is the necessary precondition for inductive inference! This problem is insurmountable. In arguing for the high probability of God´s existence, the apologist, like the unbeliever who argues against God´s existence, presupposes God´s _actual_ existence. The proof, which concludes with minimal philosophical uncertainty that God exists, begins by presupposing the actual certainty of God´s existence in order to employ both deduction (the proof) and induction (the justification for step 2). Accordingly, one´s presupposition of God´s actual existence ends up contradicting his conclusion that God´s existence is not actually certain. Accordingly, one would have to revise his presupposition-hypothesis to one of "œGod might not exist." In doing so, one will not be able to justify _actual_ induction or deduction. In sum, in order to infer that God´s existence is philosophically uncertain, one must first borrow from a worldview that comports with philosophical certainty so that there can be philosophical uncertainty.
> 
> The justification for step two of the proof is simply: God's word teaches two worldviews; God's word is true; therefore, it is true that there are two worldviews. Accordingly, the Christian need not evaluate an infinite number of worldviews anymore than he needs to witness an infinite amount of deaths to know that all men are mortal. We have an appeal for such a premise, God´s word. Moreover, induction requires as a necessary precondition something more than a conceptual scheme for God´s existence. Note well that the transcendental proof, which is deductive in nature and can be simply demonstrated through either _modus ponens_ or _modus tollens_ analogues, requires an ontological God who has revealed himself to men.
> 
> The problem many people have is that they don't appreciate that when we get to the ultimate truth claims proof must be circular. For the empiricist, observation is the final appeal. For others, logic is ultimate. The problem is that logic does not comport with a mere conceptual necessity for God, let alone a conceptual necessity that is only probable! Logic is only justifiable by presupposing Scripture.
> 
> We must begin our reasoning with the ontological Trinity who has revealed himself in Scripture. My proof is sound in that the form is valid and the premises true. NOTE: The truth of any deductive conclusion is not predicated upon anyone's agreement of the truth of the premises. Accordingly, since unbelievers will not accept the truth claims of the Bible and, therefore, step 2 of the proof, the only thing the Christian can do is refute the hypothetical competitors. In doing so we don´t gain more philosophical confidence that God exists. We merely demonstrate the veracity of TAG to a watching world. Finally, we do not arrive at premise-2 by borrowing from another worldview in order that we might reason inductively. We know our premises by our first principle, God's clear revelation of himself to us in Scripture.
> 
> Finally, some might say that since men are fallible men cannot be certain about anything, let alone their proof for God´s existence. I would like to see one put this assertion into a formal argument. Can the skeptic be certain of that claim? Do foibles logically necessitate uncertainty about all things? If so, then the Bible is wrong when it states that we can know we have eternal life? Doesn´t the Christian know that his redeemer lives? Doesn't the fallible Christian know that fallible men chose the correct books for the canon under God´s sovereign guidance?
> 
> I´ve probably said enough, especially for my first post on this site. However, there should be much to launch from into further discussion.
> 
> Ron
> 
> [Edited on 3-1-2006 by Ron]


----------



## natewood3

I am not sure if that post helped me or simply made matters worse! I understand the formal argument for TAG, as was given by Ron. However, even though he "explained" step 2, I still am not sure as to how we can prove that God's existence is the precondition for all intelligibility. Can it be shown to be _Biblically_ certain, as well as philosophically?

When you go from not hardly knowing anything about apologetics 6 or 7 months ago to trying to understand everything Ron said in his post, it is somewhat difficult to comprehend.

I think I need to understand how Christianity can philosophically and Biblically justify intelligibility before I can demonstrate that other worldviews cannot. Correct?


----------



## crhoades

This is really simplistic so please forgive me if I'm stating the obvious. The Bible proves the preconditions of everything by the fact that God is the Creator. there was a time when nothing was but Him. Also, in Christ are hidden all of the riches of wisdom and knowledge and a fear of the Lord is the beginning of such. These are not arguments per se but rather Biblical assertions...

Hope this scratched where you were itching...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> ... I agree that the laws of logic, science, and morality are unintelligible in other worldviews, and that when other worldviews use the laws, they are in fact borrowing from the Christian worldview. However, when I try to prove that the laws of logic and science presuppose God, I have a hard time doing that. How do I KNOW that the laws of logic and science presuppose God? I am aware that you can give philosophical arguments for this all day, but can it be proven with Scripture?..



Although it's very tempting to say that only Christianity establishes the "preconditions" of intelligibility, I don't think this is provable simply because one (if not the only) fundamental requirement for intelligibility is rationality, which in turn requires logic, and if anything is transcendental to any worldview, it's the laws of logic. Regardless of what worldview one adopts, the laws of logic are. That is, there is nothing that can be said or communicated if not for logic. Logic _is_ right thinking. 

So if atheist of empiricists or rationalists or Scripturalist make any claim whatsoever, they have already affirmed logic (ergo the laws of logic transcend worldviews). So I don't think Christians should claim that _only_ the Christian worldview provides "the preconditions" of intelligibility. I do think we can properly argue that while Christianity has been shown to describe a fully rational, coherent, and comprehensive worldview, no other known worldview has been shown to do the same. Which leaves the opponent no choice but to produce a worldview that "does the job" better than Christianity. 

Worldviews that deny the existence of a "supreme being" are not difficult to defeat since most are incoherent. This leaves alternative "religions". This gets more complicated since you have to examine the "doctrines" of each, but it's not impossible to deal with since most of them are based on forms of mysticism, or mystical experience.


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,

You said that "I don't think Christians should claim that only the Christian worldview provides "the preconditions" of intelligibility." From my understanding, you claimed that all worldviews affirm the laws of logic. 

My question is this: Can all worldviews account for the laws of logic? Can they account for laws of morality, which are implied in the laws of logic? Do they have an ultimate standard of truth by which they can be justified in the use of universal and abstract laws?

These are just questions that came to mind...


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> You said that "I don't think Christians should claim that only the Christian worldview provides "the preconditions" of intelligibility." From my understanding, you claimed that all worldviews affirm the laws of logic.
> 
> My question is this: Can all worldviews account for the laws of logic? Can they account for laws of morality, which are implied in the laws of logic? Do they have an ultimate standard of truth by which they can be justified in the use of universal and abstract laws?
> 
> These are just questions that came to mind...



Nate,

Good observation. All men are constrained by the laws of logic and are justified, in one sense, in using them because they know them to be true by the warrant God grants to all created in his image. However, to your question, how can a naturalist, for instance, account for universal, abstract entities that are invariant in nature? He cannot. The mind is a contradictory to "all that exists is matter in motion."

I hope Civbert means that all men "affirm" the laws of logic in that they bear witness to the fact that logic is unavoidable, etc. By this affirmation, they do not offer a _justification_ for the intelligibility of logic since logic will not comport with their worldview at the presuppositional level. Unbelievers argue with borrowed capital.

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Ron,

Is it able to be proven that logic is ultimately based on God's nature? Maybe I am suffering a mental lapse, but I cannot think of any Scripture to show that logic is ultimately based on God's nature or that the ultimate basis for logic is the nature of God. I do not think Frame ever gives Scripture for this statement either...


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> Is it able to be proven that logic is ultimately based on God's nature? Maybe I am suffering a mental lapse, but I cannot think of any Scripture to show that logic is ultimately based on God's nature or that the ultimate basis for logic is the nature of God. I do not think Frame ever gives Scripture for this statement either...



Well, is Clark right on John 1? :bigsmile:

I would say that God cannot deny himself, niether can he lie. Neither can he affirm contradiction or think falsely.

Ron

[Edited on 3-6-2006 by Ron]


----------



## natewood3

Ron,

Thanks. That makes sense. Since God cannot lie, then He cannot affirm contradictions or think falsely about any matter. Since we are created in the image of God, He has given us the ability to think rationally and logically. However, the fact that we think logically and expect others to think logically presupposes the existence of the absolute personal God of the Bible. Therefore, the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of the laws of logic is the God of the Bible. Is my thinking correct?

This would also mean that God did not "create" logic nor is logic "above" God. I have heard people accuse Christians of believing such things, but in a Christian worldview that is not even intelligible, for how can God's nature be "above" God, and how can God "create" an essential part of His nature?

Would you call logic or logical thinking an attribute of God, or is it implied in the fact that God is righteous and just, which means that He cannot lie or think falsely about anything?


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> Thanks. That makes sense. Since God cannot lie, then He cannot affirm contradictions or think falsely about any matter. Since we are created in the image of God, He has given us the ability to think rationally and logically.



I wouldn't say that since we are created in his image he has given us logical ability. After all, we can't say that since we are created in his image that, therefore, we are immutable since we're not. But yes, God has chosen to communicate this attribute to us. 



> However, the fact that we think logically and expect others to think logically presupposes the existence of the absolute personal God of the Bible.



Yes, as well as our being made in him image.



> Therefore, the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of the laws of logic is the God of the Bible. Is my thinking correct?



Yes, but the precondition for the justification for logic is the Scripture's revelation of God.



> This would also mean that God did not "create" logic nor is logic "above" God. I have heard people accuse Christians of believing such things, but in a Christian worldview that is not even intelligible, for how can God's nature be "above" God, and how can God "create" an essential part of His nature?



Yes, I do not believe in "human logic," as if it was an arbitrary convention God created for man.



> Would you call logic or logical thinking an attribute of God, or is it implied in the fact that God is righteous and just, which means that He cannot lie or think falsely about anything?



Both

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Ron,



> Yes, but the precondition for the justification for logic is the Scripture's revelation of God.



Could you elaborate?


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the precondition for the justification for logic is the Scripture's revelation of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...


Gladly. All men know that they should be logical; in fact, all men know this is an ethical requirement, for not to think logically is to bear false witness of what is true. These laws are written on man's heart, being made in God's image. Men believe them to be true and they are justified in those beliefs. However, how can one justify that there are such universals apart from special revelation, Scripture? What can man appeal to in nature to justify his beliefs besides a conceptual scheme that is simply a matter of finite opinion? In a word, men know things, they just cannot account for what they know apart from Scripture. Having knowledge and giving a justification for knowledge are two different matters. 

Helpful?

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Ron,

It helps when I learn how it all fits together, so let's see.

All people are logical and have a moral obligation to be logical. When a person uses the laws of logic, they are presupposing the existence of the Christian God because there are not any other worldviews that can account for universal, unchanging, invarient laws. In other words, God is the precondition for having intelligible human experience of any sort. A unbeliever may be justified in his belief of the laws of logic, but no man can justify his beliefs and use of the laws of logic apart from the revelation of God. The reason for this is because only Scripture can justify universal, unchanging, and abstract entities.

Correct me if I am wrong, or if something needs to be added to my explanation.

BTW, I understand what you mean I think when you say they cannot "justify" or "give an account" for the laws of logic apart from Scripture, but could you give me a definition of justify?


----------



## Ron

Nate,

We probably agree but let me amplify your response by inserting some clarifying words into your statements (all in caps). 

"God is the precondition for having intelligible human experience of any sort. A unbeliever may be justified in his belief (USE) of the laws of logic, but no man can (OFFER A JUSTIFICATION FOR) his beliefs and use of the laws of logic apart from the (SPECIAL) revelation of God, (i.e., SCRIPTURE). The reason for this is because only Scripture can justify universal, unchanging, and abstract entities."



> BTW, I understand what you mean I think when you say they cannot "justify" or "give an account" for the laws of logic apart from Scripture, but could you give me a definition of justify?



By justify I mean give a sound reason that comports with one´s pre-commitments to his worldview. 

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Ron, 

So your point is that even though man uses the laws of logic, they cannot give a sound reason as to why they are justified in using the laws of logic. In other words, the use of universals, such as the laws of logic, science, and morality, is inconsistent with their overall worldview. Therefore, when they use these laws, they are simply borrowing from the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview is the only worldview able to account for such universal and abstract laws because universal laws that are binding on man can only come from an absolute, personal God. If there were no absolute, personal God, then man would have no obligation to follow laws of logic, science, or morality because we do not owe allegiance to an impersonal or nonabsolute force.

I understand I am probably somewhat of a pain, but I am really trying to get a grasp on this...


----------



## Civbert

This all sounds great except there is not real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary. An atheist can simply claim that logic exists and need go no further. Why? Because the only way to dispute the existence of logic is to use logic. The fact that we can reason and think in abstract terms means that logic is the case. But this does not mean God is the case. As much as I'd like to say that logic is impossible without God, it just ain't so. That is why it is said that the laws of logic are transcendental - because they can not be disputed without using them (which is irrational and absurd), and they can not be proven without assuming them (which begs the question). Speaking of "preconditions of intelligibility" simply begs the question. The necessary "preconditions" of intelligibility is logic - but not necessarily God or Christianity.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> This all sounds great except there is not real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary. An atheist can simply claim that logic exists and need go no further. Why? Because the only way to dispute the existence of logic is to use logic. The fact that we can reason and think in abstract terms means that logic is the case. But this does not mean God is the case. As much as I'd like to say that logic is impossible without God, it just ain't so. That is why it is said that the laws of logic are transcendental - because they can not be disputed without using them (which is irrational and absurd), and they can not be proven without assuming them (which begs the question). Speaking of "preconditions of intelligibility" simply begs the question. The necessary "preconditions" of intelligibility is logic - but not necessarily God or Christianity.



The assertion that God or Christianity is not necessary, needs some argumentation to have any teeth. All you have done is make a claim. Speaking of preconditions of intelligibility is not begging any question, for if one has logic but nothing else, then one has no knowledge, so the game ends there.

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> You said that "I don't think Christians should claim that only the Christian worldview provides "the preconditions" of intelligibility." From my understanding, you claimed that all worldviews affirm the laws of logic.
> 
> My question is this: Can all worldviews account for the laws of logic? Can they account for laws of morality, which are implied in the laws of logic? Do they have an ultimate standard of truth by which they can be justified in the use of universal and abstract laws?
> 
> These are just questions that came to mind...



Sorry - I missed the question.

No worldview can "account" for the laws of logic without begging the question (presuming the laws of logic to prove the laws of logic). The laws of logic "transcend" worldviews. A world view that does not assume the laws of logic is irrational and absurd. A worldview that tries to account for logic beg the question. 

The law of logic in themselves do not imply anything else, not morality or ethics, or God, or perceptions. Logic laws are empty forms, without any content or substance. Only by providing them with content can we apply logic to explain things, prove truths, account for other universals laws. 

The presuppositions of worldviews add content to logic, to prove (or not) universal moral laws, or meaning, or experience. Some worldviews deny any universal moral laws. Some can not give us any purpose for living. If these presuppositions are correct, then there is not purpose to living, no meaning for life, what is, is. Christian presuppositions give us purpose and meaning, moral codes, explanations for our experience, universal truths. The Christian worldview is fully rational, coherent, comprehensive, etc. But it can not "account" for logic without begging the question. No worldview can do that.


----------



## natewood3

Maybe I am confused or simply wrong, but the question is not simply, "Can we account for logic?" The question is how does any other worldview except for Christianity account for universal, invariant, abstract entities? How can any other worldview except for Christianity account for laws of any sort? I may be mistaken, but I don't think any presuppositionalist says they can account for logic itself, but they can account for abstract, universal, and unchanging laws. 

As far as I understood Bahnsen in his debate with Stein, his main point was that the atheistic worldview cannot account for laws of any sort, not that the atheistic worldview cannot account for logic itself.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> This all sounds great except there is not real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary. An atheist can simply claim that logic exists and need go no further. Why? Because the only way to dispute the existence of logic is to use logic. The fact that we can reason and think in abstract terms means that logic is the case. But this does not mean God is the case.  As much as I'd like to say that logic is impossible without God, it just ain't so. That is why it is said that the laws of logic are transcendental - because they can not be disputed without using them (which is irrational and absurd), and they can not be proven without assuming them (which begs the question). Speaking of "preconditions of intelligibility" simply begs the question. The necessary "preconditions" of intelligibility is logic - but not necessarily God or Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion that God or Christianity is not necessary, needs some argumentation to have any teeth. All you have done is make a claim. Speaking of preconditions of intelligibility is not begging any question, for if one has logic but nothing else, then one has no knowledge, so the game ends there.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


The argument that God or Christianity is necessary is for intelligibility is what is being asserted. 

But since it is not necessary for logic (which I have shown and not simply claimed), and it is not necessary for content (as all rational worldview provide content), then it is not necessary for intelligibility (which needs both logic and content). 

The claim is only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility is begging the question for two reasons

it asserts that only Christianity can account for logic (which begs the question by presuming logic to account for logic) 
it says that _only_ Christianity provides the content for logic to work with (a premise that itself needs justification)
[/list=1]

We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only _X_ provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## crhoades

Article on Logic by Frame for the Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,




> The law of logic in themselves do not imply anything else, not morality or ethics, or God, or perceptions. Logic laws are empty forms, without any content or substance. Only by providing them with content can we apply logic to explain things, prove truths, account for other universals laws.



Should the laws of logic be observed and obeyed? Are they universal in nature?

If they do not presuppose the existence of an absolute, personal God, then where do the laws of logic come from? What is their ultimate basis? Are just there or just that way?

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by natewood3]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> This all sounds great except there is not real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary. An atheist can simply claim that logic exists and need go no further. Why? Because the only way to dispute the existence of logic is to use logic. The fact that we can reason and think in abstract terms means that logic is the case. But this does not mean God is the case. As much as I'd like to say that logic is impossible without God, it just ain't so. That is why it is said that the laws of logic are transcendental - because they can not be disputed without using them (which is irrational and absurd), and they can not be proven without assuming them (which begs the question). Speaking of "preconditions of intelligibility" simply begs the question. The necessary "preconditions" of intelligibility is logic - but not necessarily God or Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion that God or Christianity is not necessary, needs some argumentation to have any teeth. All you have done is make a claim. Speaking of preconditions of intelligibility is not begging any question, for if one has logic but nothing else, then one has no knowledge, so the game ends there.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument that God or Christianity is necessary is for intelligibility is what is being asserted.
Click to expand...


Actually you made an assertion, I called you on it. You said that Christianity is not necessary. If you are going to make a claim then you have the burden to defend it. Ill accept burden of my stance when you accept yours.



> But since it is not necessary for logic (which I have shown and not simply claimed)



The claim is that Christianity's truth is necessary for knowledge. Again knowledge needs more than just the laws of logic to exist. Remember if you have no knowledge then you can't know what the laws of logic (as well as other issues)



> , and it is not necessary for content (as all rational worldview provide content)



That is either a bare assertion, or you are playing around with the term "content". Content that makes sense of experience etc. (then no)



> , then it is not necessary for intelligibility (which needs both logic and content).



If one accepts that above, (which I dont) then alright.



> The claim is only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility is begging the question for two reasons
> 
> it asserts that only Christianity can account for logic (which begs the question by presuming logic to account for logic)





It might help to know what you are attacking before you attempt to attack it. When speaking in terms of worldviews, you need to account for more than logic, or you can account for nothing. (If no knowledge then can't account for anything)



> [*]it says that _only_ Christianity provides the content for logic to work with (a premise that itself needs justification)
> [/list=1]



Actually the counter claim needs just as much if not more justification. One must not skirt their burden of justification.



> We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only _X_ provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.
> 
> [Edited on 3-8-2006 by Civbert]
> 
> [Edited on 3-8-2006 by Civbert]



This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Article on Logic by Frame for the Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible



Good article - not great, but fair. Here's a better article: God and Logic by Gordon H. Clark.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law of logic in themselves do not imply anything else, not morality or ethics, or God, or perceptions. Logic laws are empty forms, without any content or substance. Only by providing them with content can we apply logic to explain things, prove truths, account for other universals laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the laws of logic be observed and obeyed?
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of "should". If you are thinking correctly, you are being logical - using the laws of logic. If you are not, you are being irrational. But it's more basic than that. If you presume to communicate meaning with speech or text, then you are already assuming the laws of logic. The law of identity and contradiction are necessary for words to have any meaning.




> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> Are they universal in nature?


Yes. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> If they do not presuppose the existence of an absolute, personal God, then where do the laws of logic come from? What is their ultimate basis? Are just there or just that way?



You can not base the laws of logic on anything. To base the laws of logic on something, presumes they are true. This is the meaning of "question begging" - to try to prove something is true by assuming it as a premise of your proof. One can not prove logic without asserting what is to be proven.

From the Christian perspective, logic is how God thinks. God did not create logic, unless you want to assert that God was meaningless before he created the things. I'm not ready to say that before God created he was irrational or absurd. 

But from an atheist worldview - there is logic and perceptions. Logic is undeniable, and can not be accounted for or justified. It transcends any philosophical justification. But since the atheist must provide something to think logically about, he must add "empiricism" or "rationalism". Both have problems, but do not lack the ability to reason.

But there are other "theistic" worldviews that assert revelation. We can not discount them by saying "only" Christianity is true. We have to deal with them on their own terms. Do they assert a knowable god? Do they deny logic, or affirm "experience" over revelation? There are many things that can show alternatives theistic worldviews fail - but this must be done on a case-by-case basis. We can not assert they all fail because we don't know them all. That would be a logical fallacy.

In the end, we believe Christianity, not based on any undeniable proof, but because God gives us faith. We can not prove Christianity, we must assume it - and this only because the Spirit gives us faith to believe. There is no "saving argument" - there is only "saving faith". Faith is a gift from God, not the product of a logical proof.

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Actually the counter claim needs just as much if not more justification. One must not skirt their burden of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only _X_ provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't. It is merely to acknowledge that since I don't know all other possible worldviews, I can not claim to know all other worldviews fail. 

"Some worldviews fail" does not imply "All worldviews fail". That is a fallacy.

So I repeat: the claim is _"only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility"_. 

And as I have shown (repeatedly), this begs the question. I'm not claiming or asserting this - I've given a rational argument for my conclusion.

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Actually the counter claim needs just as much if not more justification. One must not skirt their burden of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only _X_ provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It is merely to acknowledge that since I don't know all other possible worldviews, I can not claim to know all other worldviews fail.
Click to expand...


Actually as a scripturalist, that is about all you can claim to know. And you made the assertion that God wasnt necessary. (If God is necessary for knowledge then God is necessary for everything that knowledge entails) At best you could only claim is that you could not know if God/Christianity is necessarily true.



> "Some worldviews fail" does not imply "All worldviews fail". That is a fallacy.



Alright, and if that is all the TAG reduced down to, then you could perhaps make a case, but that is not what it reduces to.



> So I repeat: the claim is _"only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility"_.
> 
> And as I have shown (repeatedly), this begs the question. I'm not claiming or asserting this - I've given a rational argument for my conclusion.
> 
> [Edited on 3-8-2006 by Civbert]



I sliced your argument into pieces and you just assert that it still works?

But to clarify, which questions does the statement, "belief in Jesus (as savior etc.) is the only way to heaven" beg?

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Actually the counter claim needs just as much if not more justification. One must not skirt their burden of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only _X_ provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It is merely to acknowledge that since I don't know all other possible worldviews, I can not claim to know all other worldviews fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually as a Scripturalist, that is about all you can claim to know. And you made the assertion that God wasnt necessary. (If God is necessary for knowledge then God is necessary for everything that knowledge entails) At best you could only claim is that you could not know if God/Christianity is necessarily true.
Click to expand...


I didn't "claim" that, I gave an argument that showed that God was not a necessary precondition for intelligibility. My argument showed that one does not need to assume God exists to have logic or knowledge. Have you not claimed that empiricism is a valid means of knowledge? That does not requirer the existence of God, so you should agree.

As a Scripturalist, I presume that revelation (Scripture) is the basis for knowledge. But I don't say this proves Scripturalism is true and all other worldviews are false - that would be begging the question. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> "Some worldviews fail" does not imply "All worldviews fail". That is a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, and if that is all the TAG reduced down to, then you could perhaps make a case, but that is not what it reduces to.
Click to expand...


No. That's one of my arguments. You started by commenting on my argument, and I explained that the one argument for why I do not assert that only the Christian worldview "works" is that I don't know about all other possible worldviews. Do you?



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> So I repeat: the claim is _"only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility"_.
> 
> And as I have shown (repeatedly), this begs the question. I'm not claiming or asserting this - I've given a rational argument for my conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sliced your argument into pieces and you just assert that it still works?
Click to expand...


You did not deal with my argument. You sliced out pieces out of context to refute - such as taking my conclusion and saying it was an assertion. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> But to clarify, which questions does the statement, "belief in Jesus (as savior etc.) is the only way to heaven" beg?
> 
> CT



That is not TAG, nor is it the claim _"only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility"_. 

Maybe you mean that TAG _is_ Christianity.

Also, you know that "begging the question" does not imply a particular question. It means a key premise in the argument needs to be justified, or that the conclusion is actually one of the premises being assumed. TAG begs the question on logic, and it's claims the Christian worldview is the only logical means of knowledge.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Ron,
> 
> So your point is that even though man uses the laws of logic, they cannot give a sound reason as to why they are justified in using the laws of logic. In other words, the use of universals, such as the laws of logic, science, and morality, is inconsistent with their overall worldview. Therefore, when they use these laws, they are simply borrowing from the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview is the only worldview able to account for such universal and abstract laws because universal laws that are binding on man can only come from an absolute, personal God. If there were no absolute, personal God, then man would have no obligation to follow laws of logic, science, or morality because we do not owe allegiance to an impersonal or nonabsolute force.
> 
> I understand I am probably somewhat of a pain, but I am really trying to get a grasp on this...



I think you grasp it! :bigsmile:

Ron


----------



## Civbert

To show that you did not really deal with my argument - this was how you addressed my two main conclusions:



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> The claim is only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility is begging the question for two reasons
> 
> it asserts that only Christianity can account for logic (which begs the question by presuming logic to account for logic)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might help to know what you are attacking before you attempt to attack it. When speaking in terms of worldviews, you need to account for more than logic, or you can account for nothing. (If no knowledge then can't account for anything)
Click to expand...




Without logic, there can be no knowledge. The claim is that the Christian worldview alone can account for both (as you agree, both logic and knowledge are implied by "intelligibility"). Since the Christian worldview can not account for logic (logic I showed in my earlier posts transcends worldviews), then this alone shows that the claim begs the question.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> [*]2. it says that _only_ Christianity provides the content for logic to work with (a premise that itself needs justification)
> [/list=1]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the counter claim needs just as much if not more justification. One must not skirt their burden of justification.
Click to expand...


As you said, a worldview must account for knowledge. Unless you know all the details of all possible worldviews - you can not make the claim that only Christianity can account for knowledge. And thus my "counter claim" is the conclusion of a valid argument - and therefore justified.

To deal with my argument, you need to show that logic is created or accounted for without assuming any particular worldview or the validity of logic, and/or prove that Scripturalism is true without assuming it is true. The first will refute my first conclusion, and the latter my second.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

> This all sounds great except there is not real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary.



Civbert, 

Arguments have been offered that are sound. The problem is, you do not accept what a sound argument entails. 



> An atheist can simply claim that logic exists and need go no further. Why? Because the only way to dispute the existence of logic is to use logic.



To "claim" that logic exists is not to square logic with one's worldview! The atheist cannot account for logic and remain true to his worldview. 



> The fact that we can reason and think in abstract terms means that logic is the case. But this does not mean God is the case.



If logic is a necessary precondition for logic, then logic cannot exist apart from God. Again Civbert, you don't accept sound arguments - valid form and true premises. 



> As much as I'd like to say that logic is impossible without God, it just ain't so.



Oh, so now you are saying that logic can exist without God? I thought that logic was an attribute of God! 

Nate, do you see the problems that Civbert has?

Ron


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> I am aware that you can give philosophical arguments for this all day, but can it be proven with Scripture?



In light of Nate's _original_ statement and question here, I must say I'm really surprised by the abundance of the former in this thread, and the utter absence of the latter. Nate, here are some of the clearest, most direct Scriptures that show the _biblical_ position of the Christian worldview being the necessary foundation for all knowledge, rationality, logic and experience:

-*Psalm 53:1* (also *Psalm 14:1*) "*The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'* They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good."

This verse tells us that the denial of God goes beyond merely being immoral, but that it is actually _foolish_.

-*Proverbs 1:7* (also see *Psalm 111:10* and *Proverbs 9:10*) "*The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge*; fools despise wisdom and instruction."

This verse boldly declares that one's fear of God is not the _result_ or _conclusion_ of his knowledge, but is rather the _beginning of knowledge_.

-*1 Corinthians 1:18-25* "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, *'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?* For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

In verses 19-20, this passage tells us that God "will destroy the wisdom of the wise," will thwart "the discernment of the discerning," and that He has "made foolish the wisdom of the world." And in the surrounding verses of 18 and 21-25, we find that the _true_ wisdom with which God makes the world's wisdom foolish is the message and person of Christ.

-*Colossians 2:1-3* "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is *Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge*."

This is one of the clearest biblical statements relevant to this topic; for here we see plainly that _all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge_ are hidden in Christ.

-*1 Timothy 6:20-21* "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid *the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge,'* for by professing it some have swerved from the faith."

This verse tells us that much of what is thought to be true knowledge is actually in and of itself not knowledge at all.

Also, *Romans 1:18-32* is helpful in light of the truths shown by the above verses, as it tells us that all men know God in their heart of hearts, which explains from our perspective as Christians why unbelievers are still able to exercise rational reason and levels of morality in spite of their denial and suppression of that knowledge.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Actually the counter claim needs just as much if not more justification. One must not skirt their burden of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only _X_ provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It is merely to acknowledge that since I don't know all other possible worldviews, I can not claim to know all other worldviews fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually as a Scripturalist, that is about all you can claim to know. And you made the assertion that God wasnt necessary. (If God is necessary for knowledge then God is necessary for everything that knowledge entails) At best you could only claim is that you could not know if God/Christianity is necessarily true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't "claim" that, I gave an argument that showed that God was not a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
Click to expand...


And your argument failed so you are reduced to asserting.



> My argument showed that one does not need to assume God exists to have logic or knowledge.



For the argument to work, then you would have to produce a working worldview (without the Biblical God), and that you have not done.



> Have you not claimed that empiricism is a valid means of knowledge? That does not requirer the existence of God, so you should agree.



Ive never claimed to be an empiricist, I have claimed that I can gain knowledge from the senses.

And to do so requires the existence of God, for you have to assume certain things about the world in order to gain knowledge from the senses. And those things only make sense in the context of the Biblical worldview.



> As a Scripturalist, I presume that revelation (Scripture) is the basis for knowledge. But I don't say this proves Scripturalism is true and all other worldviews are false - that would be begging the question.



Do you know the Bible to be true, and every contrary claim to be false or not?



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> "Some worldviews fail" does not imply "All worldviews fail". That is a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, and if that is all the TAG reduced down to, then you could perhaps make a case, but that is not what it reduces to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. That's one of my arguments. You started by commenting on my argument, and I explained that the one argument for why I do not assert that only the Christian worldview "works" is that I don't know about all other possible worldviews. Do you?
Click to expand...


Yes. I know such. Now perhaps I can persuade you to believe as I do or maybe not, that has nothing to do with me knowing or not knowing.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> So I repeat: the claim is _"only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility"_.
> 
> And as I have shown (repeatedly), this begs the question. I'm not claiming or asserting this - I've given a rational argument for my conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sliced your argument into pieces and you just assert that it still works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not deal with my argument. You sliced out pieces out of context to refute - such as taking my conclusion and saying it was an assertion.
Click to expand...


I broke down every premise and then said your conclusion was an assertion. (which is has to be if you premises are faulty).



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> But to clarify, which questions does the statement, "belief in Jesus (as savior etc.) is the only way to heaven" beg?
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not TAG, nor is it the claim _"only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility"_.
> 
> The issue is that both are derivations of scripture. So if one begs a question then so does the other.
Click to expand...




> Maybe you mean that TAG _is_ Christianity.



I won't go that far, I would say that it is a subset of it.



> Also, you know that "begging the question" does not imply a particular question. It means a key premise in the argument needs to be justified, or that the conclusion is actually one of the premises being assumed. TAG begs the question on logic, and it's claims the Christian worldview is the only logical means of knowledge.



All that it does is say, "Because the Bible is true", TAG is true, which is nothing different than saying, Because the Bible is true, we know that there are no other ways to heaven except by Jesus.

You would never go on to say, "Well you do not know that there are no other ways, because you havent tried them all".

CT

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> This all sounds great except there is no real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert,
> 
> Arguments have been offered that are sound. The problem is, you do not accept what a sound argument entails.
Click to expand...


A sound argument is one that is both formally valid, and contains true premises that do not beg the question. TAG has an unjustified (question begging) premise.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> An atheist can simply claim that logic exists and need go no further. Why? Because the only way to dispute the existence of logic is to use logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To "claim" that logic exists is not to square logic with one's worldview! The atheist cannot account for logic and remain true to his worldview.
Click to expand...


The only things that squares logic with a worldview is to _not deny logic_. There is no sound argument the proves logic. The actual act of accounting for logic assumes that logic is true - which is the definition of begging the question. And since you can not contradict logic nor prove logic, then logic transcends worldviews. So affirming logic is the only logical thing one can do if one presumes the communication is possible. Sure, more is required for a comprehensive worldview, but logic is part of all worldviews - whether you square it or not.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> The fact that we can reason and think in abstract terms means that logic is the case. But this does not mean God is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If logic is a necessary precondition for logic, then logic cannot exist apart from God. Again Civbert, you don't accept sound arguments - valid form and true premises.
Click to expand...


I've underlined the premise that needs to be justified within the formal proof to make it a sound proof:


> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> *Step 2 (~A--> B):* If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility



While the form of the argument is valid, the key premise within step 2 that "God is the precondition of intelligibility" is not justified true. Therefore, this argument is not sound. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> As much as I'd like to say that logic is impossible without God, it just ain't so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are saying that logic can exist without God? I thought that logic was an attribute of God!
Click to expand...


I believe logic is an attribute of God. But this does not mean that God is necessary for logic to be true. As a presuppositionalist, I assume the truth of Scripture as an axiom of my worldview. My worldview is rational because it accepts logic as true. This does not prove that other worldview can also be logical. It does imply that if my worldview it correct, that others are false. But this is far from proving my worldview is the only possible true worldview. 

As you said in your post:


> Not to mention, the conclusion of the proof for step 2, which is "œthe Christian worldview is true," exceeds the scope of the premises!
> 
> The conclusion that the Christian worldview is more reasonable than the non-Christian worldview remains unjustified because the question of whether one is even philosophically justified in his use of induction has not been established. There are no freebies in Philosophy, as Dr. Bahnsen used to say.



And I agree with you and Bahnsen in that point - no freebies. But the freebie you want to make your argument sound requires that induction is sound. Your critical points were: 


> 1. In step-3 of the proof it is affirmed that there is intelligible experience, which presupposes true a priori categories of thought that can interpret the facts of a mind-independent world according to actual, objective truth.
> 2. The proof itself presupposes the intelligibility of deductive reasoning.
> 3. In the justification of step-2 the precondition of intelligible inductive inference is presupposed.



If you presuming the intelligibility of deductive reasoning (logically valid reasoning), then you can not assume the validity of inductive reasoning. Induction is deductively fallacious. It violates the rules of deductive logic - thus causing an internal contradiction. An inductive "proof" is formally invalid - and can not be sound. You can not presume two contrary systems of logic at the same time without violating the law of identity which is axiomatic to sound logic.

While deductive logic may conform to the concept of objective truth, this does not make the existence of God necessary, merely sufficient. And since inductive logic violates the criteria for necessary truth that objective truth implies, then induction does not conform to the existence of God or deductive logic. Thus, no induction freebie.



> The justification for step two of the proof is simply: God's word teaches two worldviews; God's word is true; therefore, it is true that there are two worldviews. Accordingly, the Christian need not evaluate an infinite number of worldviews anymore than he needs to witness an infinite amount of deaths to know that all men are mortal.



God's word does not teach anything about the number of worldviews, only that it asserts it is the truth. There are infinite possible worldviews, one is true, and the rest are false. But to assert Christianity is proven true because Scripture says so, is blatant question begging. The proof of mortality presupposes the truth of Scripture (i.e. the Christian worldview). But one can not prove a worldview by assuming the worldview - nor refute one worldview by assuming another.



> The problem many people have is that they don't appreciate that when we get to the ultimate truth claims proof must be circular.



Ultimate truth claims are not circular - arguments for worldviews that claim to be proof are always circular and thus unsound. The only way to convince anyone that a worldview is a good worldview (not proof of truth) is by showing that all worldviews start with axioms which are presumed true. Circular proofs are fallacous. Proofs from axioms are logically valid. But the axioms by definition must be assumed - not proven. 



> .... Logic is only justifiable by presupposing Scripture.



I'm afraid that is backwards. Presupposing "Scripture is true" assumes logic since it is a logical statement. The reason for assuming Scripture is true is not for the sake of logic, but for the sake of knowledge. Logic stand on it's own. It can not be proven. 




> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> Nate, do you see the problems that Civbert has?
> 
> Ron



Too logical!  

For some more on "begging the question" fallacy - see Begging the question at wikipedia. Here's a relevant quote: 


> Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself; the question remains, "begging" to be answered.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> As a Scripturalist, I presume that revelation (Scripture) is the basis for knowledge. But I don't say this proves Scripturalism is true and all other worldviews are false - that would be begging the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the Bible to be true, and every contrary claim to be false or not?
Click to expand...


No. I do not "know" philosophically that the Bible is true. It's the presupposition of my worldview that the Bible is true. I "believe" strongly that the Bible is true and claims to the contrary are false - but this is not by definition knowledge. It can not be justified true without begging the question. In fact, my belief is entirely a gift from God and depends on no logical justification. 

For it to be philosophical knowledge, I'd need to give a deductive proof from a priori truths - and if I did that, then my faith would be a product of my own reasoning.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Actually the counter claim needs just as much if not more justification. One must not skirt their burden of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only _X_ provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It is merely to acknowledge that since I don't know all other possible worldviews, I can not claim to know all other worldviews fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually as a Scripturalist, that is about all you can claim to know. And you made the assertion that God wasnt necessary. (If God is necessary for knowledge then God is necessary for everything that knowledge entails) At best you could only claim is that you could not know if God/Christianity is necessarily true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't "claim" that, I gave an argument that showed that God was not a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your argument failed so you are reduced to asserting.
Click to expand...


Your response is the equivalent of "Oh yeah! Says you!" 

If my argument is false, you have yet to show this. (Strike one!) 

And even if you showed my argument is false (which you have not ), that would not make my conclusion an assertion! (Strike two!)

So you can keep _asserting_ that you have defeated my argument, and I'll _assert_ you haven't. Until you actually deal with the substance of my arguments and responses, there's not point in asserting otherwise.

So.....back at ya!  (Strike three!!!!)


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,




> This all sounds great except there is not real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary. An atheist can simply claim that logic exists and need go no further. Why? Because the only way to dispute the existence of logic is to use logic. The fact that we can reason and think in abstract terms means that logic is the case. But this does not mean God is the case. As much as I'd like to say that logic is impossible without God, it just ain't so. That is why it is said that the laws of logic are transcendental - because they can not be disputed without using them (which is irrational and absurd), and they can not be proven without assuming them (which begs the question). Speaking of "preconditions of intelligibility" simply begs the question. The necessary "preconditions" of intelligibility is logic - but not necessarily God or Christianity.



An an atheist can claim that logic exists and is assuming logic in even making the statement that logic exists. Can he account for such laws though?

If logic is an attribute of God, as you have seemed to affirm, then if God does not exist, there is no such thing as logic. Hence, if God does not exist, there is no such thing as intelligibility, so everything is reduced to absurdity.



> The law of logic in themselves do not imply anything else, not morality or ethics, or God, or perceptions. Logic laws are empty forms, without any content or substance. Only by providing them with content can we apply logic to explain things, prove truths, account for other universals laws.



How does this not make logic the beginning of all knowledge and wisdom?



> The presuppositions of worldviews add content to logic, to prove (or not) universal moral laws, or meaning, or experience. Some worldviews deny any universal moral laws. Some can not give us any purpose for living. If these presuppositions are correct, then there is not purpose to living, no meaning for life, what is, is. Christian presuppositions give us purpose and meaning, moral codes, explanations for our experience, universal truths. The Christian worldview is fully rational, coherent, comprehensive, etc. But it can not "account" for logic without begging the question. No worldview can do that



Any worldview may claim to give purpose and meaning to life, but just because Christianity does that also, how does this prove the truth of Christianity in any way? I am sure that almost all other religions claim that their "god" or religion gives their life meaning and happiness; otherwise, why would they keep practicing it?



> The claim is only Christianity provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility is begging the question for two reasons:
> 
> it asserts that only Christianity can account for logic (which begs the question by presuming logic to account for logic)
> 
> it says that only Christianity provides the content for logic to work with (a premise that itself needs justification)
> 
> We can say is Christianity is a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. The phrase "only X provides the preconditions of intelligibility" itself begs the question regardless of what worldview it is asserted for.



I don't think the claim is that Christianity can account for logic, but Christianity is the only worldview that can account for the _use_ of logic. Christianity is the only worldview that can account for _universal, unchanging, abstract entities_. Without a Christian worldview, there cannot be any laws of any sort, whether they are laws of logic, science, or morality. It takes a personal, absolute God to have universal laws.

In his debate with Dr. Stein, Bahnsen said:

_Dr. Stein has yet to explain to us in even the broadest, simplest Sunday school child manner, that I told you about laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality. He hasn't even begun to scratch the surface to tell us how in his worldview, *there can be laws of any sort. And if there can't be laws or standards in his worldview, then he can't worry about my irrationality.*

The transcendtal argument says the proof of the Christian God is that without Him, you can't prove anything. Notice, the argument does not say that atheists don't prove things. The argument doesn't say that atheists don't use logic, science, or laws of morality. In fact they do. The argument is that their worldview cannot account for what they are doing. Their worldview is not consistent with what they are doing. *In their worldview, there are no laws, there are no abstract entities, there are not universals, there are not prescriptions*. There is just the material universe, naturalistically explained and the way things happen to be. That's not law like or universal and therefore their worldview doesn't account for logic, science, or morality._

You say that Christianity is simply a rational worldview, not the only possible true worldview. So can there be more than one true worldview? If not, why is it that you believe Christianity is the only true worldview without simply being arbitrary or subjective in your standards of truth?



> It's not a matter of "should". If you are thinking correctly, you are being logical - using the laws of logic. If you are not, you are being irrational. But it's more basic than that. If you presume to communicate meaning with speech or text, then you are already assuming the laws of logic. The law of identity and contradiction are necessary for words to have any meaning.



What is one's justification for using these laws of logic? How can there even be such universal laws? You said that if one is thinking correctly, they are being logical, but if they are not thinking correctly, they are being irrational? What is the standard of rationality? 



> From the Christian perspective, logic is how God thinks. God did not create logic, unless you want to assert that God was meaningless before he created the things. I'm not ready to say that before God created he was irrational or absurd.



How can you make this claim? Does this not mean that logic is based on God's thinking? How do you know that logic is the way God thinks?



> But there are other "theistic" worldviews that assert revelation. We can not discount them by saying "only" Christianity is true. We have to deal with them on their own terms. Do they assert a knowable god? Do they deny logic, or affirm "experience" over revelation? There are many things that can show alternatives theistic worldviews fail - but this must be done on a case-by-case basis. We can not assert they all fail because we don't know them all. That would be a logical fallacy.



You have to say that we must show that all worldviews are false on a case by case basis because you have already assumed that God is not the precondition for intelligibility, so therefore Christianity is only rationally true, not necessarily true.

I would say the Christian worldview is based upon the Biblical and divine revelation of God, while all other worldviews are not based upon the Biblical revelation and are thereby false systems of thought. If we believe the Bible, we must say that. If the Bible is where we get our knowledge, then all other worldviews are false.



> In the end, we believe Christianity, not based on any undeniable proof, but because God gives us faith. We can not prove Christianity, we must assume it - and this only because the Spirit gives us faith to believe. There is no "saving argument" - there is only "saving faith". Faith is a gift from God, not the product of a logical proof.



I agree that I initially believed because God gave me faith. I do not see how you are presupposing or assuming the truth of Christianity when you also say that the Christian worldview is not the only possible true worldview!

Your view seems to leave an excuse for the unbeliever, because if it is only possible that Christianity is true, then it is also possible that atheism is true, or that Islam is true. It is then possible that Christianity is not true, so the unbeliever can have an excuse that Christianity may or may not be true. The atheist seems to know about as much as we do concerning the issue of whether God exists.


----------



## RamistThomist

Is there a difference between saying Logic is an attribute of God
and
Logic is measured by the standard of God's thinking
?


----------



## natewood3

Jacob,

There is not according to Civbert, because he has affirmed both, but yet he denies that God is the precondition of intelligibility.

Hopefully, he will explain himself, although I am positive I am not always clear either...


----------



## Ron

Civbert,

Your underlying axiom is that a sound argument must not only be valid and contain true premises but the premises must not "beg questions!" What you don't appreciate is that if arguments that contain valid forms and true premises are not necessarily sound, then nothing can be proved, which reduces you to a skeptic, which the Bible calls a fool. You really need to think harder about these matters.

Ron


----------



## Me Died Blue

Nate,

Did the Scriptures I cited above get at what you were looking for at the beginning of this thread?


----------



## natewood3

Chris,

Sorry for not responding yet.

However, they did help give me some Scriptures to use. I had heard a few people quote them, but didn't really put them all together, so I do appreciate you posting them.

This forum has really helped me start to understand TAG and apologetics in general...


----------



## natewood3

Ron,

Anything I said that was either wrong, not well thought out, simply stupid or something that I missed and should have added in my last reply to Civbert? I am sure he is going to disagree though...


----------



## Ron

Nate,

Your last post to Civbert was very good in my estimation. For time sake, let me only deal with one point that might need clarification. I could write sheets and sheets commenting on what I liked, very much.



> I don't think the claim is that Christianity can account for logic, but Christianity is the only worldview that can account for the use of logic. Christianity is the only worldview that can account for universal, unchanging, abstract entities. Without a Christian worldview, there cannot be any laws of any sort, whether they are laws of logic, science, or morality. It takes a personal, absolute God to have universal laws.



If Christianity can account for universal, abstract entities that are invariant in nature , then it can account for laws - including laws of logic, can it not? Accordingly, as logic presupposes Christianity, it is also true that holiness does as well.

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Ron,

I would agree.

Is it the case that presuppositionalism is arguing that we can account for logic itself, or simply that we can account for universal laws, such as the laws of logic or the laws of morality? Civbert seems to be right that you cannot account for logic itself without presupposing logic, but my argument was that Christianity is the only worldview able to account the universals laws *of any sort*. 

Would you agree or am I misunderstanding this?


----------



## Ron

> Is it the case that presuppositionalism is arguing that we can account for logic itself, or simply that we can account for universal laws, such as the laws of logic or the laws of morality?



Nate,

Laws of logic are a subset of all universal laws. Accordingly, if Christianity accounts for all universal laws, which it does, then it accounts for the laws of logic in particular. Presuppositionalism, in arguing for the former, argues for the latter. 



> Civbert seems to be right that you cannot account for logic itself without presupposing logic



Yes, he is correct. Where he makes his mistake is that he thinks that the necessity of logic is a justification for logic. Yes, logic is necessary, as is ethics, reality and knowledge. However, how do we _justify_ such necessities apart from God´s say so?



> "¦but my argument was that Christianity is the only worldview able to account the universals laws *of any sort.*



Yes, I agree, but what laws can you account for without presupposing the laws that are in view? Can one account for the laws of ethics without presupposing ethics? Moreover, aren´t truth values ethical in nature after all? 

Civbert´s problem is that he doesn´t understand that the sufficiency for a sound argument is true premises and a valid form. He would like to believe that one must not "œbeg the question" even when the argument is sound! Well, begging the question is in the eyes of the beholder when dealing with ultimate truth claims, which he has not begun to grasp. Since _you_ affirm that the Scriptures are the word of God, then for me to prove to you that Jesus was baptized by John all I´d have to do is point to Scripture. I would not be guilty of "œbegging the question." As you can see, for Civbert "œbegging the question" is not an objective fallacy but a subjective one since he would argue that I may not appeal to Scripture with the professing _un_believer, yet I may do so with you since we both agree that Scripture contains true premises. All this to say, whether an argument is sound or not depends, _for Civbert_, upon the audience and not the objective validity of the form and the truth of the premises. Please try to lay hold of that before moving on. It´s the essence of the matter.

In sum, simply because the unbeliever refuses to listen to the plain teaching of God´s word, my argument does not become fallacious. Tell me, if a skeptic who denied that he could trust his senses denied that crackers were in the pantry when they were, would a proof for the crackers´ existence in the pantry become unsound, if the proof entailed showing him, the skeptic, the physical crackers in the pantry? Since when are sound arguments contingent upon what a liar will agree to? 



> Would you agree or am I misunderstanding this?



I think you´re getting it.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Is there a difference between saying Logic is an attribute of God
> and
> Logic is measured by the standard of God's thinking
> ?



No. Holiness is an attribute of God and it is measured by the standard of God's holiness. 

Ron


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert wrote:


> I believe logic is an attribute of God. But this does not mean that God is necessary for logic to be true. As a presuppositionalist, I assume the truth of Scripture as an axiom of my worldview. My worldview is rational because it accepts logic as true. This does not prove that other worldview can also be logical. It does imply that if my worldview it correct, that others are false. But this is far from proving my worldview is the only possible true worldview.


In the article you commended from Gordon Clark he maintains that God is Logic. I know you are not in agreement with VanTillian presuppositionalism but you statements don't even seem to comport to Clark's understanding of logic.

Clark writes:


> But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.
> 
> For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God´s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God´s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God´s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.





> Nor need we waste time repeating Aristotle´s explanation of ambiguous words. The fact that a word must mean one thing and not its contradictory is the evidence of the law of contradiction in all rational language. This exhibition of the logic embedded in Scripture explains why Scripture rather than the law of contradiction is selected as the axiom. Should we assume merely the law of contradiction, we would be no better off than Kant was. His notion that knowledge requires a priori categories deserves great respect. Once for all, in a positive way"”the complement of Hume´s negative and unintentional way"”Kant demonstrated the necessity of axioms, presuppositions, or a priori equipment. But this sine qua non is not sufficient to produce knowledge. Therefore the law of contradiction as such and by itself is not made the axiom of this argument.


Clark doesn't even seem to agree with you.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Is there a difference between saying Logic is an attribute of God
> and
> Logic is measured by the standard of God's thinking
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Holiness is an attribute of God and it is measured by the standard of God's holiness.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Wow!

There is here a great difference in how we are using terms. That is, there is a difference in how I understand the terms and would use them, compared the the ways that they is used here. I'm going to have to do some thinking on this. 

As I understand it, logic is a capability, or an attributable result of, the unity of truth. Thus it is truth that it the centre of reason, not logic. Logic is only what we call the relating of truths under the apprehension of its absolute consistency. It can be done well or it can be done poorly, but either way truth itself is aloof from its effects. In other words, logic itself can do no harm to truth, whether done well or poorly. Logic is only what we do with truths to try to understand them, to try to understand the unity in truth. 

For example, there could be no contradiction between things that are true; that means that we can put truths up against each other to test and weigh them, and perhaps discover that some things are not true as posited or propositioned. 

One the differences in understanding, then, would be that God does not need to do logic, as logic implies movement of thought ( from premises to conclusion ), otherwise it would then need to assume that God is under the rules of the relationships of truths as opposed to being above them. Truth is upheld in God, not in logic; as logic is merely the working out or the relationships of truth that is upheld in God. God, in other words, is prior to propositioning of truths: all pluralization of truth is consummated in the unity of truth, which is in God. Therefore logic is not something God would need to do. It would make more sense to say that truth itself needs to do it, as a servant of God ( if you could personify truth, as Augustine did ), than to say that God is, or needs, or even does logic. Since truth subsists in God, and therefore its unity subsists in God, it would be contradictory to think that God requires logic in any way. It would be more right, in my opinion, to say that logic requires God. 

So, in the language used in the discussion so far, truth is the precondition of doing logic, thus the precondition of intelligent reason. But God is the "precondition", if you could call it that, for truth. This could all be, though, the very same thing that all of you mean, only using the terms differently. 

But, hey, this might have nothing to do with Frame, or Van Tillian logic. I don't know. I'm just trying to figure these things out, because there's some things said that don't make sense to me. I'm only putting in my two cents in the hope that this might spur some more discussion on these things.


----------



## Civbert

Nate,

Since you asked so many good question, I figured I better break my response down into parts. I'll also try to keep it fairly short - something I'm not good at - but I'll try to be succinct, brief, and to the point. 

****************************



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> An an atheist can claim that logic exists and is assuming logic in even making the statement that logic exists. Can he account for such laws though?


No. No worldview can account for the laws of logic. It may be we are using the term "account" differently. If you mean a proof of logic - no. If you mean a demonstration of logic, then yes. But all worldviews can demonstrate logic - because all worldviews necessarily demonstrate logic when they communicate ideas. There is no worldview that you or I know of that does not demonstrate the laws of logic. Because to know of a worldview assume that worldview has some sort of presuppositions that we can know - which presumes language - which presumes logic.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> If logic is an attribute of God, as you have seemed to affirm, then if God does not exist, there is no such thing as logic. Hence, if God does not exist, there is no such thing as intelligibility, so everything is reduced to absurdity.


No. Logic must be an attribute of God, because He speaks to us by his verbal revelation. God uses words, sometimes auditory like when he spoke to Moses, or when Christ spoke, but today it is through Scripture. So for the Christian worldview to make any objective sense, then God is necessarily logical.

However, this still does not mean the logic necessitates God. Certainly God is the best example of logic, but since it is not possible prove or disprove logic, then logic does not logically requirer the existence of God. There is no argument that can prove that God is necessary for logic. Logic is neither prior, nor subsequent to God. 

Maybe if we looked more careful of logic. It has been said that logic is a subset of universal laws. This is false. For it to be true, one would need to deduce the laws of logic from some prior universal laws. However, the laws of logic can not be deduced without assuming them - therefore no argument can prove the laws logic. 

One of the fundamental laws of logic is the Law of Contradiction. This says that no statement can be both true and false at the same time. _A _and _not-A_ is false. What this means for "words" is that when you use a word in a sentence, that word means something - and it can not mean something else. And your words do not mean everything. And this is what all men know when they use language.

Logic deals with the forms of propositions, and what other forms can be deduced from combining certain forms. There are four forms: All _A _is _B_, Some _A _is _B_, Some _A _is not _B_, and No _A _is _B_. Any statement that can be said to be true or false, is reducible to these four forms. Terms we use have meaning which can be reduced to: All _(Term)_ is _(definition of the Term)_. So language and meaning assumes logical forms are valid. Reasoning assumes logical rules of inference are valid. 

Aristotle did not invent logic, is discovered it. He was not a Christian, but the logic rules of inference he formulated are the same that are used all through Scripture. 

But if the laws of logic are not true, then "Jesus died for sin", means "all purple goats like cheese". And any thinking person uses logic if he knows true from false.


----------



## Civbert

Nate,

The next section.

**********************************



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> The law of logic in themselves do not imply anything else, not morality or ethics, or God, or perceptions. Logic laws are empty forms, without any content or substance. Only by providing them with content can we apply logic to explain things, prove truths, account for other universals laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does this not make logic the beginning of all knowledge and wisdom?
Click to expand...

Because the laws of logic are formal. The law of identity says the A implies A. It doesn't tell us what A means. The four forms of statements are forms. In themselves they contain no meaning. Knowledge and wisdom requires meaning. Worldviews supply the statements that logic works with. The Christian worldview supplies the truths of Scripture as it's axiom. Other worldviews try to find knowledge through other axioms. Some fail. 




> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> Any worldview may claim to give purpose and meaning to life, but just because Christianity does that also, how does this prove the truth of Christianity in any way?


It doesn't. Christianity requires faith. But so do all worldviews in that they all presume some first principles that define that worldview - axioms that one must assume to have a worldview - axioms that can not be proven. We can not prove the truth of Christianity because it's a worldview. 

To analyze a worldview requires other criteria, proof is not one or them. I can show the Christianity is fully rational, comprehensive, coherent, etc. And I can show that other worldviews that I know of fail to meet these criteria. But I can not disprove any worldview by assuming Christianity. I must first assume the other worldview is true (for the sake of argument), then test the implications of that worldview. You assume the truth of an alternative worldview - then show how it is incoherent or fails to provide some other desired attributes (the desiderata) of worldviews. But this will not prove Christianity is true. 




> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> I am sure that almost all other religions claim that their "god" or religion gives their life meaning and happiness; otherwise, why would they keep practicing it?


Presuming Christianity, only God's sovereign will that I should believe Christianity - the gift of faith. Presuming some other worldview - maybe dumb luck. 

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

Nate,

Almost done:

*************************************



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> Without a Christian worldview, there cannot be any laws of any sort, whether they are laws of logic, science, or morality. It takes a personal, absolute God to have universal laws.
> 
> In his debate with Dr. Stein, Bahnsen said:
> 
> _Dr. Stein has yet to explain to us in even the broadest, simplest Sunday school child manner, that I told you about laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality. He hasn't even begun to scratch the surface to tell us how in his worldview, *there can be laws of any sort. And if there can't be laws or standards in his worldview, then he can't worry about my irrationality.*_


Dr. Stein was an atheist, was he not? That's one worldview down. The rest of the quote asserts that atheism can not account science, morality, etc. But no argument was made to this effect. All we know from the debate is Dr. Stein failed to account for these things. 

And there are problems with the claim. Laws of logic can not be accounted for by any worldview. As for laws of science - this is an oxymoron. Laws of science are not absolute - they are theories and approximations. And morality - well clearly atheism can not explain them - but they do have their ethical theories - utilitarianism is one. 

The problem with debating atheist is you can not deduce anything from the atheist axiom - "there is no God". So atheist are always more then atheist - they must also have some sort of epistemology like empiricism or rationalism or skepticism. These can be defeated also - but only by assuming them and showing they are incoherent or fail to meet some of desiderata of epistemology. But they can not be defeated by asserting that only Christianity is true.




> _
> ...That's not law like or universal and therefore their worldview doesn't account for logic, science, or morality._


Sadly, no argument is made to show that Christianity can account for logic, science, or morality either - at least not in this quote.


----------



## Civbert

Nate,

Last one... (whew!) 

**************************************



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> In the end, we believe Christianity, not based on any undeniable proof, but because God gives us faith. We can not prove Christianity, we must assume it - and this only because the Spirit gives us faith to believe. There is no "saving argument" - there is only "saving faith". Faith is a gift from God, not the product of a logical proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that I initially believed because God gave me faith. I do not see how you are presupposing or assuming the truth of Christianity when you also say that the Christian worldview is not the only possible true worldview!
Click to expand...

Let me be clear - I'm not saying there can be _more_ than one true worldview. There can be _only_ one true worldview. I'm saying that we can not prove which particular worldview is the one true worldview. To know that only Christianity is the true worldview - we'd need to know all other possible worldviews and defeat them by showing how adopting them leads to some failure to meet desiderata of epistemology and morality.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> Your view seems to leave an excuse for the unbeliever, because if it is only possible that Christianity is true, then it is also possible that atheism is true, or that Islam is true. It is then possible that Christianity is not true, so the unbeliever can have an excuse that Christianity may or may not be true. The atheist seems to know about as much as we do concerning the issue of whether God exists.


If believe an argument can be made that if atheism is true, then objective knowledge is not possible (no matter what kind of epistemology one uses with it). Islam has other problems which make knowledge problematic. 

These can be defeated. But given that Christianity it true, what is being excused by recognizing that we can not prove it? There is no valid excuse for not believing Christianity if it is true - God tells us that. But we beg the question if we claim this is a proof. We should not defend the faith with a fallacious argument.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Civbert,
> 
> Your underlying axiom is that a sound argument must not only be valid and contain true premises but the premises must not "beg questions!" What you don't appreciate is that if arguments that contain valid forms and true premises are not necessarily sound, then nothing can be proved, which reduces you to a skeptic, which the Bible calls a fool. You really need to think harder about these matters.
> 
> Ron



You assert your premise is true, but you also know that it begs the question. Basically, you assert the premise that only Christianity can be true. And then go on to "prove" Christianity is true. That is the reason that circular reasoning is considered fallacious, and should be avoided. 

So with all respect Ron, I do not think harder thinking is required here. And since my epistemology is sufficient to prove all that God has made known to me through his Word "concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life" then I don't think you can rightly label me a skeptic - or say that I am a fool. 

We both agree on the truth of Scripture and the validity of logic to deduce truth therefrom. And since we both have access to the same knowledge - then how can you call me a skeptic?

Really, the main conflict we have here is questions of proper reasoning. I believe I have show sufficiently that the TAG argument begs the question and should not offered as a proof the Christianity. You believe you have given a sound defense of TAG. If you want to deal with my arguments please do. I'm sure I can always make them clearer.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Civbert wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe logic is an attribute of God. But this does not mean that God is necessary for logic to be true. As a presuppositionalist,  I assume the truth of Scripture as an axiom of my worldview. My worldview is rational because it accepts logic as true. This does not prove that other worldview can also be logical. It does imply that if my worldview it correct, that others are false. But this is far from proving my worldview is the only possible true worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> In the article you commended from Gordon Clark he maintains that God is Logic. I know you are not in agreement with VanTillian presuppositionalism but you statements don't even seem to comport to Clark's understanding of logic.
> 
> Clark writes:
> 
> 
> 
> But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.
> 
> For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God´s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God´s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God´s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor need we waste time repeating Aristotle´s explanation of ambiguous words. The fact that a word must mean one thing and not its contradictory is the evidence of the law of contradiction in all rational language. This exhibition of the logic embedded in Scripture explains why Scripture rather than the law of contradiction is selected as the axiom. Should we assume merely the law of contradiction, we would be no better off than Kant was. His notion that knowledge requires a priori categories deserves great respect. Once for all, in a positive way"”the complement of Hume´s negative and unintentional way"”Kant demonstrated the necessity of axioms, presuppositions, or a priori equipment. But this sine qua non is not sufficient to produce knowledge. Therefore the law of contradiction _as such and by itself_ is not made the axiom of this argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clark doesn't even seem to agree with you.
Click to expand...


Well that's because I'm not as clear as Clark. I believe he was addressing the accusation that he was making law of contradiction (LC) a priori to God. But this is impossible since no knowledge can be deduced from pure logic (that is the law of contradiction). And since one can not deduce LC by assuming the existence of God (or by any other means) then how can LC be subsequent to God. Ergo, God and LC must be contemporary. Clark's conclusion is the axiom is not logic, it is Scripture. 

What Clark does _not_ say here (if this is what you mean) is that only the axiom of Scripture is necessary for knowledge. Rather, he is saying the not any axiom is sufficient for knowledge. Some axioms will fail to lead to knowledge (for instance, the axiom of the law of contradiction does not lead to knowledge, not does the axiom of empiricism). But the axiom of Scripture _is_ sufficient by itself for knowledge. And since the law of contradiction is embedded in Scripture, there is no need to make it an additional axiom.

"God is logic" means that God thinks logically, or logic is an attribute of God. It is just as correct to say "God is logic" as it is to say "God is love".

Did that clear things up any?

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Not really. How can you state that "God is not necessary for logic to be true..."

If God is Logic then logic cannot exist apart from God. Clark says the law of logic is "...God thinking..." so without a God to think there would be no logic.

I think, regarding the axiom, you were agreeing pretty violently with some others who seemed to be saying that laws of logic are insufficient for knowledge.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Not really. How can you state that "God is not necessary for logic to be true..."
> 
> If God is Logic then logic cannot exist apart from God. Clark says the law of logic is "...God thinking..." so without a God to think there would be no logic.
> 
> I think, regarding the axiom, you were agreeing pretty violently with some others who seemed to be saying that laws of logic are insufficient for knowledge.



Yes! The laws of logic are insufficient for knowledge.

However I also agree that God is logic. But I know this only because I presuppose the "Axiom of Scripture" - and logic is embedded in Scripture and Scripture is a demonstration of the truth of the law of contradiction. In the beginning was the Logos.

_But_...what if we don't accept the axiom of Scripture??? Just for the sake of argument, what if we presume some other axiom? What happens to logic? Can I say there is no logic? No, any denial of logic is absurd - one must assume logic to state logic is false. And I can't prove the truth of logic because I would be presupposing my conclusion as my premise which proves nothing. So we can not void laws of logic no matter what worldview axioms we assume. That is why the laws of logic transcend worldviews.

And since the laws of logic are universal to all worldviews, even those that deny the existence of God, one can not validly concluded that the existence of God is necessary for the laws of logic to be true. But we can say that God does not contradict logic and that nothing about God is illogical or irrational - for God is perfect and nothing false comes from God. This we know from the Scripture. And why we can agree the God is logic in the same sense that God is love, God is just, God is perfect, God is...

Any better?

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No better. Clark does not state that God is Logic because he presupposes the axiom of Scripture. He states that Logic is God thinking. If Logic is God thinking then saying that God is not necessary for logic is illogical.

It seems you grant that the real ultimate transcendent is not God/Logic but only logic. The only time you seem to find it acceptable to say that God is necessary for Logic is when your worldview gives it permission. It is rather odd for you to grant that God is Logic for your worldview and believe in a God, without whom Logic could not exist, but then grant that logic doesn't depend on God when others don't share your world view.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Ron

I'm about done..........

Ron

[Edited on 3-14-2006 by Ron]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> No better. Clark does not state that God is Logic because he presupposes the axiom of Scripture. ....



Clark justifies all things he knows from the axiom of Scripture. Otherwise, Scripture would not be his Axiom. And so he justifies saying "God is logic" because of Scripture. I'll try to find the relevant quotes from Clark - but if you want to understand Clark, you need to understand how Clark's presuppositionalism is axiomatic. The Axiom is the first principle from which knowledge follows. And any knowledge that a worldview purports to justify, must be rooted in the axioms of that worldview. "God is logic" is not the Axiom, so it must be justified by the Axiom if it is knowledge.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Darn. I was starting to like some of what Clark had to say. If God is Logic is only justifiably axiomatically then I don't think I like him too much after all.

I'm going back to lurking in this forum. I haven't devoted enough attention to the subject to argue confidently.


----------



## Ron

> Darn. I was starting to like some of what Clark had to say.



Rich

Chew on the meat and spit out the bones. 

Also, make sure you're understanding Clark and not his disciples. 

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,

Thanks for responding to what I said. I will try to do the same and keep it short.



> No. No worldview can account for the laws of logic. It may be we are using the term "account" differently. If you mean a proof of logic - no. If you mean a demonstration of logic, then yes. But all worldviews can demonstrate logic - because all worldviews necessarily demonstrate logic when they communicate ideas. There is no worldview that you or I know of that does not demonstrate the laws of logic. Because to know of a worldview assume that worldview has some sort of presuppositions that we can know - which presumes language - which presumes logic.



An atheistic worldview is not justified in his use of the laws of logic. I do not deny that all worldviews use logic. That is not the argument; they just cannot justify the use of any universal laws. An immaterial, universal, unchanging law cannot come from a changing and material universe. You must also have a personal, absolute God to have an obligation to follow such laws.



> No. Logic must be an attribute of God, because He speaks to us by his verbal revelation. God uses words, sometimes auditory like when he spoke to Moses, or when Christ spoke, but today it is through Scripture. So for the Christian worldview to make any objective sense, then God is necessarily logical.
> 
> However, this still does not mean the logic necessitates God. Certainly God is the best example of logic, but since it is not possible prove or disprove logic, then logic does not logically requirer the existence of God. There is no argument that can prove that God is necessary for logic. Logic is neither prior, nor subsequent to God.



I agree logic is an attribute of God. However, could there be such a thing as universal laws of morality that were unchanging and universal if God did not exist? I do not believe there can be. There may be laws that everyone follows, but they are arbitrary and subjective. In the same way, we are logical because we are created in the image of God. If there is no God, that is not true. Hence, how can we be logical without the One that deems all facts intelligible?

I asked, _How is logic not the beginning of all knowledge and wisdom in your view,_ and you said:



> Because the laws of logic are formal. The law of identity says the A implies A. It doesn't tell us what A means. The four forms of statements are forms. In themselves they contain no meaning. Knowledge and wisdom requires meaning. Worldviews supply the statements that logic works with. The Christian worldview supplies the truths of Scripture as it's axiom. Other worldviews try to find knowledge through other axioms. Some fail.



You must have logic to even have meaning though! If there is no logic, there is no meaning. Hence, you seem to say that logic, not God, is the beginning of knowledge. This is why I say that without God, there is no intelligibility.



> It doesn't. Christianity requires faith. But so do all worldviews in that they all presume some first principles that define that worldview - axioms that one must assume to have a worldview - axioms that can not be proven. We can not prove the truth of Christianity because it's a worldview.
> 
> To analyze a worldview requires other criteria, proof is not one or them. I can show the Christianity is fully rational, comprehensive, coherent, etc. And I can show that other worldviews that I know of fail to meet these criteria. But I can not disprove any worldview by assuming Christianity. I must first assume the other worldview is true (for the sake of argument), then test the implications of that worldview. You assume the truth of an alternative worldview - then show how it is incoherent or fails to provide some other desired attributes (the desiderata) of worldviews. But this will not prove Christianity is true.



So believing in any worldview takes blind faith? You say all worldviews have "axioms" that they assume to be true, but they cannot be proven. I reply that all other worldviews have no justification for trusting or believing anything because they do not assume the God of the Bible as their ultimate standard of truth. All other worldviews that do not assume the Bible as their ultimate presupposition are arbitrary and incoherent. The only coherence they do have is because of the fact that in their heart they know the God of the Bible exists because they are in His image.



> Dr. Stein was an atheist, was he not? That's one worldview down. The rest of the quote asserts that atheism can not account science, morality, etc. But no argument was made to this effect. All we know from the debate is Dr. Stein failed to account for these things.
> 
> And there are problems with the claim. Laws of logic can not be accounted for by any worldview. As for laws of science - this is an oxymoron. Laws of science are not absolute - they are theories and approximations. And morality - well clearly atheism can not explain them - but they do have their ethical theories - utilitarianism is one.
> 
> The problem with debating atheist is you can not deduce anything from the atheist axiom - "there is no God". So atheist are always more then atheist - they must also have some sort of epistemology like empiricism or rationalism or skepticism. These can be defeated also - but only by assuming them and showing they are incoherent or fail to meet some of desiderata of epistemology. But they can not be defeated by asserting that only Christianity is true.



I agree that all worldviews can be defeated by assuming their position and showing their arbitrariness, incoherence, and absurdity. However, the Bible, which is my ultimate presupposition, tells me that you are either a believer who has been renewed in his mind, or you are an unbeliever who supresses the truth of God and assumes the principles of the world. You either accept the Scriptures as the ultimate standard of knowledge or you don't. From the standpoint of the Christian worldview, no other worldview can justify knowledge, universal laws, etc., etc. Therefore, Christianity is the only true worldview because of the impossibility of the contrary. Christianity is the only possible true worldview because God's Word would attest to that. If I say the Scriptures are my ultimate standard, how can I even begin to affirm that other worldviews MAY be true?



> Sadly, no argument is made to show that Christianity can account for logic, science, or morality either - at least not in this quote.



In regards to the Bahnsen quote I gave, that was his closing statement.



> Let me be clear - I'm not saying there can be more than one true worldview. There can be only one true worldview. I'm saying that we can not prove which particular worldview is the one true worldview. To know that only Christianity is the true worldview - we'd need to know all other possible worldviews and defeat them by showing how adopting them leads to some failure to meet desiderata of epistemology and morality.



So what is the point of apologetics? How are we really defending the faith against anything if we cannot know for certain that the Bible is truly the Word of God and Christianity is the only possible worldview, except subjectively?

If we take Scripture as our ultimate standard, I do not see any way to deny that Christianity is the only possible true worldview. If what God says is true, then there is no other God besides the God of the Scripture. If that is the case, there are no other worldviews that are possibly true. I don't need to test all worldviews because Scripture tells me that they are all futile and vain and supress the truth of God.



> If believe an argument can be made that if atheism is true, then objective knowledge is not possible (no matter what kind of epistemology one uses with it). Islam has other problems which make knowledge problematic.
> 
> These can be defeated. But given that Christianity it true, what is being excused by recognizing that we can not prove it? There is no valid excuse for not believing Christianity if it is true - God tells us that. But we beg the question if we claim this is a proof. We should not defend the faith with a fallacious argument.



Given that Christianity is true? You have said it is possible that it isn't true! There is a valid excuse, and that is it may not be the case that Christianity is true. Why would anyone want to accept a worldview that is possibly false?

You speak of begging the question, but you just seemed to imply that the unbeliever has no reason for not accept Christian worldview as truth because the Christian worldview says so! I agree, but I do not see how you can use that type of argument. 

You obviously believe our ultimate standards of truth are unable to be proven, which means that it may be that Scripture is not true, since we cannot prove it one way or the other. Again, if no worldview can be proven to be right or wrong, why even do apologetics? Just arbitrarily accept Christianity as truth and don't bother with giving an answer to those who ask about our hope, because our hope may very well be no hope at all...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Darn. I was starting to like some of what Clark had to say. If God is Logic is only justifiably axiomatically then I don't think I like him too much after all.
> 
> I'm going back to lurking in this forum. I haven't devoted enough attention to the subject to argue confidently.



You mean that "God is Logic" is justified by Scripture is insufficient? 

I don't think you need to just lurk - if you're not certain, just ask. I don't mind questions about my views - I'm the expert in Civbertism!  And I'm not really confident about that.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> ...Given that Christianity is true? You have said it is possible that it isn't true! There is a valid excuse, and that is it may not be the case that Christianity is true. Why would anyone want to accept a worldview that is possibly false?



Because every worldview is possibly false. Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken. If Christianity is true, then only by God's will, will you hold to that worldview - but you will not know perfectly until we are with Him in heaven. And if there is no God, then you'll never know. 



> ...
> You obviously believe our ultimate standards of truth are unable to be proven, which means that it may be that Scripture is not true, since we cannot prove it one way or the other. Again, if no worldview can be proven to be right or wrong, why even do apologetics? Just arbitrarily accept Christianity as truth and don't bother with giving an answer to those who ask about our hope, because our hope may very well be no hope at all...



We do apologetics to defend our faith against the arguments of those who wish to invalidate our faith by arguing that its incoherent or unprovable. We can show the Christianity is not only fully coherent and rational, but that these opponents can not prove their own worldviews either. Their worldviews are not only unprovable, but can usually be show to be internally incoherent. We defend the perfect reasonableness and soundness and even the beauty of the Christian worldview.

But apologetics is not how people are saved. People are saved by faith, and this by hearing the Gospel and receiving the faith as a free and prefect gift from God. Our belief in the Gospel is never a product of logical arguments. And fallacious arguments can only hinder the work of the Spirit.

Logical arguments and perfect reasoning will never convince anyone of the truth of Scripture - proofs and arguments will always fall short of proving the truth of Christianity. And so the ultimate belief in the truth of Christianity always starts with saving faith - and that is a gift from God. This is consistent with what we know from Scripture, but it is also consistent with logic because all worldviews start with a faith in their axioms - axioms that can not be proven but are presumed true. And we know as Christians that our choice is really God's gift of saving faith.

My hope is not in my apologetics - and not in the arguments that anyone can produce - my hope is in Christ alone. That is the only hope we have to offer the world - Christ, and him crucified.

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

> ...every worldview is possibly false.



Nate,

For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't. 



> Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken.



Do you see the contradiction here, Don? How can that proposition be known as true? The statement presupposes it's own truth value of a worldview, which incorporates God as being the One who knows which worldview is true. 



> If Christianity is true, then only by God's will, will you hold to that worldview - but you will not know perfectly until we are with Him in heaven. And if there is no God, then you'll never know.



Nobody has revealed this to him. It's just an opinion. Moreoever, you and I know that we already know our worldview is correct. If we don't know this by God's revelation, we certainly will not know it when we're in 
Heaven. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> ...every worldview is possibly false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate,
> 
> For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't.
> ...
Click to expand...


Assumes the premise the Christian worldview is true - which begs the question.

[Edited on 3-13-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the contradiction here, Don? How can that proposition be known as true? The statement presupposes it's own truth value of a worldview, which incorporates God as being the One who knows which worldview is true.
Click to expand...


I'm assuming that if any worldview can be known true, then God knows it. But then I was speaking hypothetically, that is, if there _is_ a God. But since the existence of God is entailed by our worldview, then we can not know if there is a God independent of presuming a worldview. Any proof of God would beg the question by presuming God exists according to my worldview.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> ...every worldview is possibly false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate,
> 
> For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assumes the premise the Christian worldview is true - which begs the question.
> 
> [Edited on 3-13-2006 by Civbert]
Click to expand...


It begs no question at all. I'm stepping into _your_ belief system where God knows that the Christian worldview is true. Accordingly, if something is true in your system, it cannot also be possibly false. If you wish to deny your own worldview and say that you don't know whether God knows the Christian worldview is true, then fine, we'll ask whether God knows that the true worldview is possibly false. Same answer! Not all worldviews can be possibly false.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the contradiction here, Don? How can that proposition be known as true? The statement presupposes it's own truth value of a worldview, which incorporates God as being the One who knows which worldview is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that if any worldview can be known true, then God knows it. But then I was speaking hypothetically, that is, if there _is_ a God. But since the existence of God is entailed by our worldview, then we can not know if there is a God independent of presuming a worldview. Any proof of God would beg the question by presuming God exists according to my worldview.
Click to expand...


Given what you just said, then all proof begs the question for proof presupposes things that you call "axioms" which you believe are unproveable because you reject all circular reasoning. Consequently, your position is arbitrary and inconsistent for it asserts true premises that cannot be demonstrated as true. You're forever learning and never coming to a cogent defense of what you believe.

Ron


----------



## Ron

Nate,

Again, you and I know that our worldview is correct. If we don't know this by God's revelation, we certainly will not know it when we're in Heaven. If we can only know this in Heaven, why do you suppose we can't know it now? *Will an appeal to revelation no longer be fallacious in Heaven?* It's obvious, to me anyway, where C-B got tripped up. He doesn't accept circular reasoning. However, he's now taken this one step further. *He has now denied that we can know (not prove but know!) that the Christian worldview is true, which is more than denying circular reasoning to prove what we know apart from discursive reasoning; it is to deny a knowledge of his axiom! Would Clark have done this?!* How can any Christian take issue with: _"For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't."_

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Sorry I haven't responded in a few days, but I got busy with school and studying for a sermon this past weekend. I will reply in the morning, as I have been at school the entire day and my mind is drained...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> ...every worldview is possibly false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate,
> 
> For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assumes the premise the Christian worldview is true - which begs the question.
> 
> [Edited on 3-13-2006 by Civbert]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It begs no question at all. I'm stepping into _your_ belief system where God knows that the Christian worldview is true. Accordingly, if something is true in your system, it cannot also be possibly false. If you wish to deny your own worldview and say that you don't know whether God knows the Christian worldview is true, then fine, we'll ask whether God knows that the true worldview is possibly false. Same answer! Not all worldviews can be possibly false.
Click to expand...


First your original statement is a response to a quote of mine saying "all worldviews are possibly false". That statement was made _without_ presupposing the any particular worldview. If you don't presuppose any worldview, then all worldviews are possible false. So you're saying does God think Christianity is possible false begs the question since it presuppose the Christian worldview. Any _Muslim_ can say: "does God know the Islam worldview as possibly false? Of course he doesn't!" 

I can't ask God which worldview He knows is true, because that begs the question that God exists. Hypothetically, if He does exist, then He knows the true worldview. But we can only speak hypothetically to avoid begging the question since God's existence is a key part of a worldview. And it's trivial to say God knows the true worldview speaking from within _any_ of the many possible worldviews that include an omniscient god - so that doesn't help us either. From within many worldviews, it's trivial; from outside of worldviews it begs the question.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the contradiction here, Don? How can that proposition be known as true? The statement presupposes it's own truth value of a worldview, which incorporates God as being the One who knows which worldview is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that if any worldview can be known true, then God knows it. But then I was speaking hypothetically, that is, if there _is_ a God. But since the existence of God is entailed by our worldview, then we can not know if there is a God independent of presuming a worldview. Any proof of God would beg the question by presuming God exists according to my worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given what you just said, then all proof begs the question for proof presupposes things that you call "axioms" which you believe are unproveable because you reject all circular reasoning. Consequently, your position is arbitrary and inconsistent for it asserts true premises that cannot be demonstrated as true. You're forever learning and never coming to a cogent defense of what you believe.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


No, only circular arguments, and arguments with key premises that are in need of justification just as much as the conclusion - are "question begging" arguments. I'm saying all proofs of worldviews are begging the question, as well as proofs of the existence of God.

No rational mind will accept circular reasoning as a proof. Take the following.

My domestic feline enjoys poultry.
Last Friday I saw a movies.
When ever the alarm goes off, I wake up.

Therefore: My cat likes chicken.

There, I have proven my cat likes chicken. It's formally valid, and all my premises are true (like the TAG). Therefore my conclusion is proven? I don't think so.

All men are mortal,
Socrates was a man,
therefore Socrates was mortal.

That is a valid syllogism, non-circular - and proof of the mortality of Socrates.

[Edited on 3-14-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Sorry I haven't responded in a few days, but I got busy with school and studying for a sermon this past weekend. I will reply in the morning, as I have been at school the entire day and my mind is drained...



That's . 
No apology necessary. Theses post's are not going anywhere, but you've got to keep to you school and sermon schedule. Take your time. 

The only danger is my burying your posts with more replies and comments.  But then I think you should feel free to jump in at any time. 

There's no obligation to read an entire thread - it's not like these posts have the weight of doctrine or any authority. Many things are more important to read, I'm just happy to discuss these things with you and others as they come along.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Best of Providence, Civbert.
> 
> Nate, I trust you see how convoluted Civbert's reasoning. He opposes himself with every word he utters.
> 
> Ron



Oh no yes I you don't!


----------



## Ron

Best of Providence, Civbert. 

Nate, I trust you see how convoluted Civbert's reasoning. Take particular note of what he avoids in my posts, like his alleged ability to know in Heaven what he cannot know now about the truth of the Christian worldview. Also, take note of his inability to understand that sound argumentation need not persuade, otherwise sound arguments would be contingent upon the presuppositions of another as opposed to absolute form and truth, which reduces his criteria to subjectivism and, therefore, skepticism. Notice how he thinks that "non-circular" proof is not circular _in what it presupposes at the axiom level_ in order to have what he thinks is a linear proof that does not "beg" crucial questions! In other words, notice how he _presupposes_ in an unspoken yet circular manner that which is transcendental to his syllogisms! Finally, notice how he thinks that the following argument takes a valid form: _"My domestic feline enjoys poultry. Last Friday I saw a movies.When ever the alarm goes off, I wake up.Therefore: My cat likes chicken.There, I have proven my cat likes chicken. It's formally valid, and all my premises are true (like the TAG). Therefore my conclusion is proven? I don't think so."_ 

In a word, simply notice how Civbert opposes himself with every word he utters. Don't judge all "Clarkians" by his inability to discuss the very basics of logic and philosophy.

Ron


----------



## Civbert

Ron, 

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you keep trying to discredit me personally with assertions and ad hominems. I don't like to point out these kinds of fallacies, but since you are targeting me personally with these comments, I feel I must do this. I'm sorry if this embarrasses you but if you continue using these poor tactics in place of sound logic, then I will call you on them. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> ...
> Nate, I trust you see how convoluted Civbert's reasoning.


Abuse ad hominem. Do you really want to go there? We can revisit your post on the TAG argument if you want an example of convoluted reasoning.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> Take particular note of what he avoids in my posts, like his alleged ability to know in Heaven what he cannot know now about the truth of the Christian worldview.


There's a difference between avoiding and ignoring - some things are not worth the effort. But if you want to know - according to my worldview - Christianity - many things will be made clear to me when I am with Him in heaven. When I am in heaven, all my presuppositions will be confirmed by God. This is trivial - it follows linearly from my presuppositions. It does not prove my worldview or imply my worldview is true.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> Also, take note of his inability to understand that sound argumentation need not persuade, ....


Strawman. I never said _any_ argument "needs" to be persuasive to be sound. I said circular arguments (and other unsound arguments) are not persuasive. 

Logic 101: 

Some (unsound arguments) are not (persuasive arguments)

-- does not imply --

All (persuasive arguments) are (sound arguments)



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ....otherwise sound arguments would be contingent upon the presuppositions of another as opposed to absolute form and truth, which reduces his criteria to subjectivism and, therefore, skepticism.


Building on the strawman - therefore irrelevant. Also convoluted.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> Notice how he thinks that "non-circular" proof is not circular _in what it presupposes at the axiom level_ in order to have what he thinks is a linear proof that does not "beg" crucial questions!



Did you follow that, it was a bit convoluted? He's saying that my sound and valid proof of the mortality of Socrates is circular because it depends on unspoken axioms. But I'm not trying to prove my axioms. That _would_ be circular. And since "Socrates was a man", and "all men are mortal" are acceptable premises, no question begging has occurred. Question begging implies a dishonest argument - one which tries to slip a questionable premise into the argument - a premise which is simply the conclusion reworded, or a premise that demands just as much justification as the conclusion. 

Presupposing at the axiom level is another way of saying "presuppositionalism". As I said, all worldviews start with axioms (presuppositions - this is Clark 101). Ron would have us believe now that "all arguments" are circular along with all worldviews (this is not even worthy of Van Til). But he is wrong on both counts. Circular arguments only occur when you try to prove your *conclusion* by assume it as a premises. 

Logic 101: With circular arguments, the "implication" itself is trivially true because _A_ implies _A_ (this is logic's Law of Identity) - but we have still failed to give an argument for the truth of _A_ itself. We have merely assumed _A_ and given a tautological argument for _A_. A proof can only follow from premises which are "a priori" truths. A truth can not be logical prior to itself, so one does not prove a truth by asserting it as one of the premises of an argument.

Technically speaking, proofs follow from axioms. I did not state my axioms in the Socrates proof, they were assumed - I am assuming also that the reader shares the same axioms. Since the axioms were not the conclusion of the proof, the proof still stands as valid and sound. The only problems occurs when attempting to prove axioms.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> In other words, notice how he _presupposes_ in an unspoken yet circular manner that which is transcendental to his syllogisms!


(see above for my answer) There is nothing circular about presupposing axioms - only in trying to prove them. And any "transcendental" characteristics of my axioms are irrelevant.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Finally, notice how he thinks that the following argument takes a valid form: _"My domestic feline enjoys poultry. Last Friday I saw a movies.When ever the alarm goes off, I wake up.Therefore: My cat likes chicken.There, I have proven my cat likes chicken. It's formally valid, and all my premises are true (like the TAG). Therefore my conclusion is proven? I don't think so."_



Red herring, but I'll bite.

Logic 101 again. The form of the argument.

A(ab) [my cat likes chicken]
A(cd) [...]
A(xy) [...]
:. A(ab) [my cat likes chicken]

which can be shortened to 

A(ab) -> A(ab). [ my cat likes chicken implies my cat likes chicken]

It's red herring because it distracts from the point - that circular arguments are not proofs.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> In a word, simply notice how Civbert opposes himself with every word he utters. Don't judge all "Clarkians" by his inability to discuss the very basics of logic and philosophy.



False accusation and abuse ad hominem. It's statements like these that motivate me to give you these public spankings. I've taken you to school on this, and if you want to keep up the abuse and ad hominems, then I will have to continue to embarrass you _with your own words_. I suggest you avoid these kinds of statements in the future and we can have some reasonable discussions.


----------



## Ron

> It's statements like these that motivate me to give you these public spankings. I've taken you to school on this...


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,


> Because every worldview is possibly false. Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken. If Christianity is true, then only by God's will, will you hold to that worldview - but you will not know perfectly until we are with Him in heaven. And if there is no God, then you'll never know.



Everyone of us has a worldview that we "believe" is true or "know" is true? There is obviously a difference. I believe the Bible would tell us that we can "know" that Christianity is true, not just "believe" it is true. We can not only be confident, we can also be certain that it is true. It seems that you want people to accept Christianity on the basis of faith, including Christians. I agree that we must believe, but is it rational to believe in something that we cannot know is true? That is an honest question...



> We do apologetics to defend our faith against the arguments of those who wish to invalidate our faith by arguing that its incoherent or unprovable. We can show the Christianity is not only fully coherent and rational, but that these opponents can not prove their own worldviews either. Their worldviews are not only unprovable, but can usually be show to be internally incoherent. We defend the perfect reasonableness and soundness and even the beauty of the Christian worldview.



You say we do apologetics to defend Christianity against those who say it is incoherent or UNPROVABLE? It sounds very arbitrary in my thinking to say we should accept Christianity even though it is unprovable. Is it not unprovable to say that God does not exist? Why should I not accept that proposition?



> But apologetics is not how people are saved. People are saved by faith, and this by hearing the Gospel and receiving the faith as a free and prefect gift from God. Our belief in the Gospel is never a product of logical arguments. And fallacious arguments can only hinder the work of the Spirit.



I assume you are a Calvinist, as I myself am. Hence, I understand how a person comes to faith, and it is definitely not by logical arguments. If the Holy Spirit is not involved in our apologetic encounters, the person will NOT be persuaded. I am also not sure if I would say that our arguments can "hinder" the Holy Spirit...



> Logical arguments and perfect reasoning will never convince anyone of the truth of Scripture - proofs and arguments will always fall short of proving the truth of Christianity. And so the ultimate belief in the truth of Christianity always starts with saving faith - and that is a gift from God. This is consistent with what we know from Scripture, but it is also consistent with logic because all worldviews start with a faith in their axioms - axioms that can not be proven but are presumed true. And we know as Christians that our choice is really God's gift of saving faith.



I again agree that no one can coming to believe the truth of Christianity unless the Spirit opens their eyes, but we are to argue for the truth, i.e., certainty of Christianity, regardless of whether or not they are persuaded. God will use that encounter to open eyes to the truth or harden their heart and thereby increase the condemnation. I do not think our apologetic encounters can be "hindered" if the Word of God is proclaimed, for His Word will accomplish all that it sets out to accomplish.



> My hope is not in my apologetics - and not in the arguments that anyone can produce - my hope is in Christ alone. That is the only hope we have to offer the world - Christ, and him crucified.



My hope is not in apologetics either, but you seem to want people to simply have blindly trust that the Christian worldview is right. The apostles seemed to believe that we could prove the certainty of Christianity. If we cannot, I see no reason why anyone should accept it.


----------



## natewood3

Ron,



> Given what you just said, then all proof begs the question for proof presupposes things that you call "axioms" which you believe are unproveable because you reject all circular reasoning. Consequently, your position is arbitrary and inconsistent for it asserts true premises that cannot be demonstrated as true. You're forever learning and never coming to a cogent defense of what you believe.



These we my thoughts, just you put them in a more eloquent manner than I could have.

My thought was simply that Civbert does not seem to believe that any ultimate standard or presuppositions can be demonstrated or proven as true. Hence, this must mean that they could be possibly false. This simply leads to saying that we must accept everything arbitrarily, because we cannot know anything for sure. I know you have said this already, but it leads to skepticism. I see no other place it could lead.



> Again, you and I know that our worldview is correct. If we don't know this by God's revelation, we certainly will not know it when we're in Heaven. If we can only know this in Heaven, why do you suppose we can't know it now? Will an appeal to revelation no longer be fallacious in Heaven? It's obvious, to me anyway, where C-B got tripped up. He doesn't accept circular reasoning. However, he's now taken this one step further. He has now denied that we can know (not prove but know!) that the Christian worldview is true, which is more than denying circular reasoning to prove what we know apart from discursive reasoning; it is to deny a knowledge of his axiom! Would Clark have done this?! How can any Christian take issue with: "For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't."



I must agree. If we must avoid circular reasoning, then we cannot prove anything because to appeal to our ultimate standard for proving things would seemingly beg the question for Civbert. I do not understand how Civbert would argue with an unbeliever...

I will respond more later...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> 
> 
> Because every worldview is possibly false. Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken. If Christianity is true, then only by God's will, will you hold to that worldview - but you will not know perfectly until we are with Him in heaven. And if there is no God, then you'll never know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone of us has a worldview that we "believe" is true or "know" is true? There is obviously a difference. I believe the Bible would tell us that we can "know" that Christianity is true, not just "believe" it is true. We can not only be confident, we can also be certain that it is true. It seems that you want people to accept Christianity on the basis of faith, including Christians. I agree that we must believe, but is it rational to believe in something that we cannot know is true? That is an honest question...
Click to expand...


"Believe" and "know" are certainly not the same, but in everyday usage we tend to use them interchangeable. When I say "know" in this discussion, I am using a philosophical definition - justified true belief - rather than the common definition - to believe with certainty. I agree that the Bible teaches that we can be certain about the truths of Christianity. We can even give valid sound argument for the propositions which make up the doctrines of Christianity - but only from within the scope of the Christian worldview which is defined by the Axiom of Scripture. But the axiom of Scripture must be assumed true for the truths of Christianity to be justified true beliefs. 

It is not only rational to "believe" something we can not "know" (justify true), but it is necessary. For us to know anything logically, we must first assume some starting point from which we can justify what we know. But since the starting point of knowledge can not be justified itself (how can we know it is true if we can not know anything prior to it logically), then we believe it on faith. The axioms we choose can be defended with evidence and inductive arguments and by demonstrating the coherences of the "knowledge" that the axiom makes possible, but we can not prove axioms from logically prior knowledge.

This is not to say we can not give any reasons for our axioms, only that we can not prove our axioms. Plantinga's view is that the belief in Christianity is "warranted," that is, it is perfectly reasonable to be a Christian. But that does not mean we can give an absolute proof that Christianity is true and all other worldviews are false. And in that philosophic meaning of "knowledge", we can not "know" Christianity is true, not matter how strong the arguments are for Christianity, no matter how much we can give evidences for Christianity, we can not give a logical proof that show Christianity is necessarily true. 

FYI: "Necessarily" is a specific logical term. Something that is proven by a valid and sound logical argument is necessarily true - it can not be possible false if the premises are true. A proof by deductive argument shows a conclusion that is true, a fact that is a fact because it can not be otherwise given what we know is true. If all dogs like meat, and Fido is a dog - it is necessarily true (can not possible be false) that Fido likes meat. The only way to get around the conclusion is to equivocate with the terms in the argument, which invalidates the inference (terms must maintain their meaning throughout the argument for the inference to be valid).

With worldviews - axioms are the first points from which we know things. All worldviews have axioms from which they can justify that something they believe is "necessarily" true and therefore knowledge, or justified true belief. Since nothing can be known logically prior to the axiom, then we can not know (justify the truth) of the axiom. And so we can not ultimately know that Christianity is the true worldview opposed to all other worldviews because we can not prove the Axiom from prior knowledge - if a proposition is logically prior to the axioms of a worldview, then axioms of the worldview are not its true axioms. And so we can not say that other worldviews are irrational or false simply because we believe (however certainly) that Christianity is true. We can only show how more reasonable Christianity is compared to other worldviews. 

Someone may object that my definition of justification is too strong - if that is the case, then it applies to all other worldviews - and does not help the defense of the Christian worldview. By maintaining a strict definition of knowledge by logical necessity, I am keeping the bar high - high enough to show the incoherence of may other worldviews. For instance, empiricism can not produce knowledge based on a necessary rule of inference. Evidential arguments may "warrant" Christian belief, but they also warrant non-Christian beliefs. Keeping the bar high simply cuts out worldviews that can not meet the standards of a reasonable worldview.

Well I've covered more than was "warranted" by your questions in your first paragraph. I'll need to check to see if I covered your other questions. It's a pleasure discussing this with you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK. Jumping back in after lurking for a bit.


> Because every worldview is possibly false. Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken. If Christianity is true, then only by God's will, will you hold to that worldview - but you will not know perfectly until we are with Him in heaven. And if there is no God, then you'll never know.


This disturbs me less from an Apologetic level and more from a pure *Truth* level. I don't know if you're thinking of a worldview in terms of having more or less perfect knowledge. I'm trying to figure out what Civbert is getting at.

Are you:

1. Expressing skepticism that, although you believe the Gospel, you might not have all the facts of God in your worldview completely right? That is, you trust savingly in the God who is True but you could admit to a more perfect knowledge of that Truth.

2. Expressing skepticism that anybody can know for sure that the Gospel is true?

Honestly, any other issues of question begging become immaterial if you're arguing for number 2. I can at least appreciate your doubt as to perfect knowledge for the case of 1 above. If it's number 2, then what kind of "worldview" is it that believes in the Triune God but then admits that we can't be sure that the Triune God exists?

I've been reflecting, and brooding, about this for a few days. The problem I have with these arguments of circularity is that it assumes too much out of the command to "...always be ready to give a defense of the hope that lies within you...." I certainly see a utility in equipping ourselves to plumb the depths of philosophical thinking but there is a danger that the simplicity of trusting God's truth be lost to fear of "begging the question" when we tell a sinner to repent and believe. On the one hand, I'm not sure from what you're arguing if the gospeller is "allowed" to preach the Truth of the Gospel because it "begs the question" of God's existence. On the other hand, even if he is allowed, it seems the only people "equipped" to defend their faith would have to have a Master's degree in philosophy to prevent the horror of "...begging the question...."

Fundamentally, worldiew or not, God _IS_. I was dead in sins and tresspasses BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy, made me alive in Christ Jesus. I cannot merely chalk that reality up to some worldview and say it "...begs the question..." to quote the Words of Almighty God as absolutely true. If I believe He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him why is it "begging the question" anymore than saying Socrates is a man? I've never seen Socrates? I've never been made alive by Socrates. My only intersection with Socrates is words on a page. I have less faith in the reality of a man called Socrates than in the reality of the Triune God. If God is real, why is it question begging to insist upon His reality? Why should I grant the reality of any physical object to an atheist if I'm not even permitted to affirm the self-existence of the Triune God?

I confess, Civbert, I just don't understand a Christian admitting his worldview could be false. It sounds like unbelief. My worldview does not allow me to believe you are an unbeliever and a believer. Please explain better.

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...
> I'm trying to figure out what Civbert is getting at.
> 
> Are you:
> 
> 1. Expressing skepticism that, although you believe the Gospel, you might not have all the facts of God in your worldview completely right? That is, you trust savingly in the God who is True but you could admit to a more perfect knowledge of that Truth.
> 
> 2. Expressing skepticism that anybody can know for sure that the Gospel is true?



Neither really, both question only make sense for the Christian. I'm trying to address the idea that it is possible to logically prove the necessity of any particular worldview being true and all other worldviews false. Because the TAG argument purports to be a logical proof that necessitates the truth of it's conclusion - to defeat all worldviews - and prove the Christian worldview - then we must step away from assuming any particular worldview and try to prove one is true - namely Christianity. This task is impossible since we can only have knowledge within our worldview framework - truths can not be logically proven prior to the axioms that define our worldview. 

From that perspective, no worldview is ultimately provable. Any argument which claims otherwise is dishonest - either it presumes what it proves, or it begs the question. Basically - knowledge is founded on our axioms - the first truths that define all following truths. If we get the axioms wrong, we can not be certain that anything that follows is true. Since we can not prove our axioms, we must assume them. Knowledge starts with faith in our axioms.

Bahnsen said there is no neutral ground. This is correct - our worldviews define what we think is true, and the non-believer does not agree with the axiom that define Christianity. I believe Scripture is the most proper first principle for the Christian. We presume the truth of Scripture, and all that we know is justified by that axiom. Our definition of God comes from Scripture, our understanding of the world, our ethics and moral laws. But we can not defeat other worldviews with our presuppositions. We can only defend ours.

We believe the Gospel because God gives us faith - not logical proofs. If logical proofs were sufficient, then rationalism would be our ultimate worldview and faith would not be neccessary for salvation - just pure reason.



[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

> My thought was simply that Civbert does not seem to believe that any ultimate standard or presuppositions can be demonstrated or proven as true.



Nate,

Yes and no, depending on Civbert´s intention at the time. In all cases he denies that an ultimate standard can be proven and this is because he denies that a valid formal argument with true premises is sufficient for a sound argument. However, I do believe, maybe at weaker moments, he has argued that one can demonstrate that ultimate axioms are true. For instance, he is correct that to deny logic one must employ logic. However, this demonstration is inductive in nature, for all he can do is refute other persons one by one. As soon as he would formulate a sound formal argument, he´d be guilty of what he thinks is fallacious circular reasoning. However, all of Civbert´s un-provable axioms beg the question of whether we can know or prove that _a priori_ laws of logic correspond to an external, mind-independent world, let alone bring forth truth, which is always ethical in nature. HERE´S THE RUB: Everything that Civbert proves is unjustified because his axioms, which all his proofs proceed from, are all unjustified. In this sense, he is no different than the infidel. He´s doomed from the start because his epistemology is not revelational but rather autonomous, rooted in arbitrary laws and axioms that have no grounding. Where he and Clark part ways is that Clark knew that the Christian worldview was true this side of glory. What he denied was that we could prove it, for Clark too had a defective view of proof. Civbert takes Clark where Clark would never have gone. 



> Hence, this must mean that they could be possibly false.



Yup



> This simply leads to saying that we must accept everything arbitrarily, because we cannot know anything for sure.



Yup, but Civbert´s hero, Gordon Clark, did not think this way. Clark appreciated the internal work of the Spirit´s illumination of revelation to man. Accordingly, Scripture was not arbitrary to Clark, yet it is with Civbert though he would probably deny this. Scripture is part of the Christian worldview, yet Civbert is on record saying that he cannot know that the Christian worldview is true this side of glory. Accordingly, how can he know that the Bible is God´s word without knowing the Christian worldview is true since they imply each other? 



> I know you have said this already, but it leads to skepticism. I see no other place it could lead.



His creed is skepticism but he can´t live that way, nor does he. He´s much like the atheist who borrows from the Reformed, Christian worldview to make sense of intelligible experience. 



> I do not understand how Civbert would argue with an unbeliever...



Frankly, he would argue with an unbeliever the same way he does with a believer "“ rather poorly. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> ... HERE´S THE RUB: Everything that Civbert proves is unjustified because his axioms, which all his proofs proceed from, are all unjustified. ...Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how you prove an axiom? Then tell me how you can justify knowing anything without assuming any axioms.
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> ...In this sense, he is no different than the infidel. He´s doomed from the start because his epistemology is not revelational but rather autonomous, rooted in arbitrary laws and axioms that have no grounding. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My epistemology revelational - I justify knowledge from the Axiom of Scripture. My epistemology is foundational, dogmatic, rational, coherent, comprehensive, consistent, reliable, and revelational. It is not autonomous or random or skeptical. My knowledge depends on God's revealed Word in Scripture. I am a Scripturalist.
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> We believe the Gospel because God gives us faith - not logical proofs. If logical proofs were sufficient, then rationalism would be our ultimate worldview and faith would not be neccessary for salvation - just pure reason.


If true then why are you spending so much time worrying about logic?

The statement: We believe the Gospel because God gives us faith is a worldview that presupposes the God who is. If your salvation is based upon the condescending and real love of Almighty God then how can you express a sentiment that "...we cannot know for certain that our own worldview is accurate..."?

In other words, you either believe that God saved you and you KNOW that, or you are not certain of it. Which is it? If your worldview is God, you either believe in Him as necessary or you don't believe in Him at all.

If you did not come about this belief by the rules of Aristotlean logic and don't believe anybody else will be convinced by Aristotlean logic (which I quite agree with) then why would that be your Apologetic standard? Beg the question all you want because you believe in the TRUTH OF THE PREMISES - Jesus IS LORD!

The world be damned if they find it circular! 

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> ...His creed is skepticism but he can´t live that way, nor does he. He´s much like the atheist who borrows from the Reformed, Christian worldview to make sense of intelligible experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. You don't seem to know what a logical proof entails. But if you insist that circular arguments can be valid, then any Muslim can prove their worldview using the same form of argument. TAG works for Islam as well as Christianity if circular arguments are proofs. Maybe you are borrowing capital from the Islamic worldview??
> 
> You don't know what skepticism entails either. A skeptic will refrain from making truth claims. Often they are known as radical empiricists. I have no problem making truth claims, I prove truths from the axiom of Scripture. I even claim Scripture is true although it can not be proven since it is the starting point of my epistemology.
> 
> The problem you are having is you think you can take your particular worldview and prove it is true - but since the axiom defines the worldview, it can not be proven. That's presuppositionalism. You are going to have to refute presuppositionalism or the necessity of axioms. But since proofs presume axioms, and nothing that is presumed can be then proven, you can do it logically. A proof is not valid if the conclusion is presumed. Again, this is Logic 101. You can try to run, but you can't hide.
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> We believe the Gospel because God gives us faith - not logical proofs. If logical proofs were sufficient, then rationalism would be our ultimate worldview and faith would not be necessary for salvation - just pure reason.
> 
> 
> 
> If true then why are you spending so much time worrying about logic?
Click to expand...

Because without logic and faith, there could be not knowledge.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> The statement: We believe the Gospel because God gives us faith is a worldview that presupposes the God who is. If your salvation is based upon the condescending and real love of Almighty God then how can you express a sentiment that "...we cannot know for certain that our own worldview is accurate..."?
> 
> In other words, you either believe that God saved you and you KNOW that, or you are not certain of it. Which is it? If your worldview is God, you either believe in Him as necessary or you don't believe in Him at all.



Because I'm using an epistemically definition of knowledge - justified true belief - which does not include psychological certainty. I don't "know" that God has saved me, I believe it with all my heart. For me to know it logically, I'd need to prove it from Scripture. I use the Axiom of Scripture to justify knowledge - ergo only Scripture and what can be deduced therefrom I account as knowledge. But this is the logic order of knowledge, not the temporal order. All knowledge is from God first and ultimately. But I can not logically justify knowledge from the premise "God exists". What God? The God of Scripture. Therefore I start with Scripture for my epistemological knowledge process.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> If you did not come about this belief by the rules of Aristotlean logic and don't believe anybody else will be convinced by Aristotlean logic (which I quite agree with) then why would that be your Apologetic standard? Beg the question all you want because you believe in the TRUTH OF THE PREMISES - Jesus IS LORD!
> 
> The world be damned if they find it circular!




How do you justify knowing the premise "Jesus is Lord" is a true premise? From hearing it in Scripture. There is the Axiom, Scripture. How do you know the axiom is true? Like _all_ axioms, it is taken on faith. The only thing I beg is that non-believers should hear the Gospel and, by God's grace, believe the Word. But that's evangelism. The apologetics side is: can I prove Scripture is true with a deductive logical argument? No, because Scripture is the axiom of my Christian epistemology. Ultimately, only faith "proves" Christianity. Not TAG or any other rational argument can do it - the logic fails. 

Worldviews are based on faith ultimately, faith in the axioms that define them. You can't logically prove a worldview. As clever and appealing as the TAG argument sounds, it's still logically fallacious.

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't know. I think some people are agreeing violently here.

I don't know if you're just being overly punctillious but I think the way you expressed yourself came off as saying: "I believe the Gospel but I can't be sure of it...." As I understand people when they say they are pre-supposing a worldview is that they have adopted and trusted in its premises. 

You pour in a bunch of other epistemological stuff now that revealed: "Yes I believe in absolute Truth but I didn't get there by the same formula as is being represented by others...." Couldn't you see that others were concerned about an apparent equivocation on Truth from you? Why not put away that concern first? Maybe I missed it but this is the first time I've seen you in this thread acknowledge the trueness of Truth. Elsewhere it seems you've been saying your worldview may or may not be true. I don't think I'm the only one that was alarmed by that.

I'm still not convinced by your approach. If you're convinced that only the Word and the Spirit can "prove" Christianity then I think the TAG folks would agree just not necessarily write out the same formulas. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about when both affirm that only the Holy Spirit will convince. Are you just concerned that they're arguing wrongly? I mean, it can't do any harm. It's not as if the Gospel is being perverted - it's just offending philosophy profs sense of circularity.  You tell somebody to repent and believe - they think that's foolish too unless the Lord should move them.

I admitted before I'm still trying to work out the consequences of all this. Thanks to all sides for helping me figure out what this tempest between Clarkians and VanTillians is. I'm still learning...

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Ron

Rich,

I would urge you not to think in terms of Van Til and Clark, it only seems to cloud the issues. I would urge you to evaluate what is before you. 

What Civbert doesn't get is that "taking it on faith" is equivocal. He want's to know how one knows that Jesus is Lord? The simple answer is that God has revealed this truth to you in his Word by His Spirit. 

If you agree that a sound deductive argument only requires true premises and a valid form, then you should put this matter to rest. Whether one does not accept the source of true premises is not germane to whether an argument is actually sound, lest argumentation becomes contingent upon what people will admit as true as opposed to what is actually true. 

Again, HERE´S THE RUB: Everything that Civbert proves is unjustified because his axioms, which all his proofs proceed from, are all unjustified. ...

In response to this he asks me to "œprove" my axioms. He does not address the fact that all his proofs proceed from that which is unjustified for him, leaving his proofs unjustified! When I prove my starting point with valid formal arguments that have true premises he rejects those arguments because he doesn´t appreciate that the sufficient condition for a sound argument is a valid form and true premises. Accordingly, he will not accept an appeal to Scripture as a source of truth (as shameful as that is), but he will, should he try to prove something, accept an appeal to memory, sight, logic, truth over time, all of which presuppose that the Scriptures are true! Accordingly, the proof of God's existence is that without him one could not prove anything. Accordingly, all those autonomous absolutes that Civbert will appeal to in order that he might find true premises are in fact arbitrary given his system. If their truth values are indeed justifiable, then it is because of God's word, which he will not have, hence his skepticism - which I think you are beginning to see.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> You don't seem to know what a logical proof entails. But if you insist that circular arguments can be valid, then any Muslim can prove their worldview using the same form of argument. TAG works for Islam as well as Christianity if circular arguments are proofs. Maybe you are borrowing capital from the Islamic worldview??



Rich,

Lastly, can you see how utterly confused Civbert is? What he has just argued is that circular arguments with valid forms and true premises, like the one I'm willing to employ, can make unsound arguments sound! No doubt, the Mulsim may employ a valid form of argument for his worldiew that concludes that Allah is God, but his premises will be false if his conclusion is untrue, which would make his argument unsound. 

Do you see how he opposes himself every time he responds?

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I don't know. I think some people are agreeing violently here.
> 
> I don't know if you're just being overly punctillious but I think the way you expressed yourself came off as saying: "I believe the Gospel but I can't be sure of it...." As I understand people when they say they are pre-supposing a worldview is that they have adopted and trusted in its premises.


I appreciate you concern and your questions. It helps me to know where I'm not communicating as well as I should. I think much of it can be due to a difference in how we are using terms, and some is how we view the role of logic and argument - and it's relationship to truth and knowledge.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> You pour in a bunch of other epistemological stuff now that revealed: "Yes I believe in absolute Truth but I didn't get there by the same formula as is being represented by others...." Couldn't you see that others were concerned about an apparent equivocation on Truth from you? Why not put away that concern first? Maybe I missed it but this is the first time I've seen you in this thread acknowledge the trueness of Truth. Elsewhere it seems you've been saying your worldview may or may not be true. I don't think I'm the only one that was alarmed by that.


Yes, I can see how that would be. I'm working in more traditional philosophical terms, were religious terms can be more metaphorical. When we say God is true, that is a metaphor, not a logical statement. The logical statement may be "all God's thoughts are true thoughts" or "all propositions God reveals in the Word are true propositions" or "God is trustworthy". In logic, "true" is a characteristic of propositions. "Truth" can have both epistemic and metaphysical senses. I generally use Truth to mean the universe of true propositions - and these are known by God. But logically, I am presupposing a Christian worldview which starts with the axiom of Scripture. From this I know the the whole of God's knowledge is greater than any man can obtain. And logically, my worldview is not the same as the non-believer, who has his own set of presuppositions.

With that in mind, when I am arguing logically for my worldview axiom, I must maintain the rules and laws of logic. I do not mix metaphorical truths with logical truths. I'm operating with rational standards for sound and valid logic. And these rules and laws, if nothing else, are common to all rational worldviews that purport to obtain knowledge. I must allow other worldviews to use the same standards of reason as I use. And so if I allow circular arguments as proof in Christianity, then it must be allowed for Islam and Empiricism. And the problem with the TAG argument, is the same form can be used to prove many other worldviews. So now we are in a situation were other worldviews can be proven and disprove Christianity. [/quote]



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> I'm still not convinced by your approach. If you're convinced that only the Word and the Spirit can "prove" Christianity then I think the TAG folks would agree just not necessarily write out the same formulas. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about when both affirm that only the Holy Spirit will convince. Are you just concerned that they're arguing wrongly? I mean, it can't do any harm. It's not as if the Gospel is being perverted - it's just offending philosophy profs sense of circularity.  You tell somebody to repent and believe - they think that's foolish too unless the Lord should move them.


My only concern is that calling circular arguments valid proofs will only lead to confusion. I suppose one could argue that it doesn't matter if we use dishonest arguments, as long as we can trick some people into believing the Gospel, we have helped to save some souls. But I'm also concerned with how Christianity is viewed before the world. Do we want to appear as a group of irrational fools who have fallen for an fallacious argument? Or do we show them that they have their own presuppositions they take on faith, and so they have no real argument to defeat Christianity. 

I know - faith is a dirty world. Aquinas gave up the field of reason when he declared that Christian faith was separate from reason. But we can show that all worldviews, no matter how rational the claim to be, start with faithful acceptance of their axioms. And so we can defend our Axiom and the worldview it entails. We do not give up the ground of reason and logic. But we can claim exclusive rights to it without using poor logic - and thus destroying our own cause. You can not logical prove axioms. You can only defend them. I'd rather use evidential arguments that support Christianity, then the TAG which makes the arrogant claim to have exclusive rights to all reason and intelligibility - making all other worldviews ipso facto false. Why make fools of ourselves?



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> I admitted before I'm still trying to work out the consequences of all this. Thanks to all sides for helping me figure out what this tempest between Clarkians and VanTillians is. I'm still learning...
> 
> [Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]



Even if you don't agree with me, I hope I've helped encourage you to learn more about the subject and issues involved. Really, these discussion groups and not reliable sources of good information, (for every expert like me you find , there's some crackpot to confuse things) but they are good for helping you work out your thinking and seeing what kinds of objections and faults they turn up. Reading the likes of Clark and Plantinga will help you get a better understanding of the issues. Van Til can be helpful, but his defenders like Bahnsen might be more comprehensible.


----------



## Civbert

Rich, 

As a P.S.: Ron has a few helpful things to say, but whenever he starts saying that I'm confused or illogical, it's an abuse ad hominem. He's trying to discredit me so you will not consider the arguments I've posted. But it's the arguments (not Civbert) which undermine the TAG. 

Consider the arguments, read Clark, Van Til, etc, and don't forget the classics which are foundational to philosophy in general - Plato and Aristotle. But Most of all, pray and read the Word because that is the Axiom of Christianity. Don't take _my_ world for it.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ...can you see how utterly confused Civbert is?



Abuse ad hominem. [spank spank}

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

Brother Civbert,

When I asked Rich whether he sees how confused you are, I am asking him whether he understands how confused your arguments are. There's no attack at the man intended. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> ...
> When I prove my starting point with valid formal arguments that have true premises he rejects those arguments because he doesn´t appreciate that the sufficient condition for a sound argument is a valid form and true premises.....Ron



TAG argument for the existence of God in a nutshell is:
 If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience 
 There is intelligible experience 
 :. God does exist

Argument form is Modus Tollen.

The first part presumes "God is the precondition of intelligibility" either as an axiom, or for some other reason, begs justification.

And the second premise that "there is intelligible experience" begs the question too. The true philosophical skeptic will say "intelligible experience" is uncertain since his knowledge comes from sensory experience. 

If you reply knowledge comes from God, that's begging the question too. 

There's not avoiding how bad the TAG argument is on simple logical 101 standards of reason.

Both premises any rational mind will rightly question. As a proof, it proves nothing really.

As for an argument for any axioms, none has been given. What is your axiom?


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Brother Civbert,
> 
> When I asked Rich whether he sees how confused you are, I am asking him whether he understands how confused your arguments are. There's no attack at the man intended.
> 
> Ron



Take it for what it´s worth Ron, but I have found a number of your attacks against Anthony to be to the man and lacking substance. As for being confused, I would also suggest you look at some of your own posts. While your misuse of key terms leading to some confusion has already been noted, consider this from a recent post of yours on this thread: 



> Scripture is part of the Christian worldview, yet Civbert is on record saying that he cannot know that the Christian worldview is true this side of glory. Accordingly, how can he know that the Bible is God´s word without knowing the Christian worldview is true since they imply each other?



in my opinion Anthony has been very clear in that he is using the word to know in the sense of JTB. Therefore, if one is said to "know" something he must provide a valid account for any truth claim. As such, there is no nor can there be any antecedent set of premises by which the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" can be deduced. As the WCF states while the Scriptures "œevidence" that they are the Word of God, yet," notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." This last clause would be irrelevant and simply wrong if the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" could be demonstrated. Therefore, the axiom of Scripture is a choice. One either comes by God´s grace to accept the Scriptures as true or they don´t. Consequently, there is no proof that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Of course, the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God, but that is a circular argument. However, once someone posits the Scripture as true, from there the entire system of Christianity can be validly inferred. As I recall, Clark said in his Wheaton lectures that unless someone accepts the Scriptures as the Word of God he can know nothing. 

In any event, I don´t find Anthony´s posts to be particularly confusing or his reasoning poor. OTOH I think you are being more than a bit unfair.


----------



## Ron

Civbert,

Once again you have not dealt with what is before you - not even close. Moreover, you've made an additional mistake. Necessary conditions are not necessarily "necessary preconditions" as I argued on this site before. Accordingly, the consequent of an "if then" proposition does not necessarily qualify as a transcendental! If one is regenerate, then he is united to Christ and if one is united to Christ, then he is regenerate. Logical order is not implied in such a constructs. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

Sean,

I'll leave you to Mark Chambers.

Ron


----------



## Ron

Once again, Rich, do you see how Civbert does not deal with the issues? He requires more for a sound argument than a valid form and true premises but he cannot live this way. Secondly, all his axioms, being unjustied, make all his proofs unjustified for they are based upon things he cannot prove because he has no ultimate authority for truth that he feels he can appeal to. Finally, he believes that a sound argument for Christianity (where the premises are true and the form valid) falls to the level of an unsound, yet validly formed, argument for Islam! 

Ron

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Ron]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Sean,
> 
> I'll leave you to Mark Chambers.
> 
> Ron





What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Ron

Mark's been banging his head against the wall for years... I just talked to him and he's not interested, so I'll address some of your basic premises below.



> Therefore, if one is said to "know" something he must provide a valid account for any truth claim.



O.K, Sean, what additional information will Civbert have in glory that he does not have now that will enable him to know that the Christian worldview is true? 



> As such, there is no nor can there be any antecedent set of premises by which the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" can be deduced. As the WCF states while the Scriptures "œevidence" that they are the Word of God, yet," notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."



You´ve just confused how we know with giving a defense of that which we know. 



> This last clause would be irrelevant and simply wrong if the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" could be demonstrated.



*You´ve just argued: If I know that X exists without proof, then I cannot deduce that X exists!* NOTE: I am not saying that one comes to know God through deduction.



> Therefore, the axiom of Scripture is a choice. One either comes by God´s grace to accept the Scriptures as true or they don´t. Consequently, there is no proof that the Scriptures are the Word of God.



Again, you´ve created a false dilemma. Your premise is that if we know something apart from discursive reasoning, then that which we know in this manner cannot be discursively demonstrated as true. 

Ron


----------



## natewood3

Civbert,



> First your original statement is a response to a quote of mine saying "all worldviews are possibly false". That statement was made without presupposing the any particular worldview. If you don't presuppose any worldview, then all worldviews are possible false. So you're saying does God think Christianity is possible false begs the question since it presuppose the Christian worldview. Any Muslim can say: "does God know the Islam worldview as possibly false? Of course he doesn't!"



How can you not presuppose your own worldview? Am I not presupposing my own worldview as I am typing this?



> No, only circular arguments, and arguments with key premises that are in need of justification just as much as the conclusion - are "question begging" arguments. I'm saying all proofs of worldviews are begging the question, as well as proofs of the existence of God.



What were the apostles doing when they "reasoned" with unbelievers?



> "Believe" and "know" are certainly not the same, but in everyday usage we tend to use them interchangeable. When I say "know" in this discussion, I am using a philosophical definition - justified true belief - rather than the common definition - to believe with certainty. I agree that the Bible teaches that we can be certain about the truths of Christianity. We can even give valid sound argument for the propositions which make up the doctrines of Christianity - but only from within the scope of the Christian worldview which is defined by the Axiom of Scripture. But the axiom of Scripture must be assumed true for the truths of Christianity to be justified true beliefs.



You have been telling me that it is impossible to know if our worldview is the only true worldview, but now we can know with certainty the truths of Scripture? Is it really possible to not know if the TRUTH is true? If it is truth, is it not true by definition? Hence, if Christianity is really the truth, then it cannot possibly be false.



> It is not only rational to "believe" something we can not "know" (justify true), but it is necessary. For us to know anything logically, we must first assume some starting point from which we can justify what we know. But since the starting point of knowledge can not be justified itself (how can we know it is true if we can not know anything prior to it logically), then we believe it on faith. The axioms we choose can be defended with evidence and inductive arguments and by demonstrating the coherences of the "knowledge" that the axiom makes possible, but we can not prove axioms from logically prior knowledge.



What does it mean when we say that the Scripture is "self-attesting"?



> This is not to say we can not give any reasons for our axioms, only that we can not prove our axioms. Plantinga's view is that the belief in Christianity is "warranted," that is, it is perfectly reasonable to be a Christian. But that does not mean we can give an absolute proof that Christianity is true and all other worldviews are false. And in that philosophic meaning of "knowledge", we can not "know" Christianity is true, not matter how strong the arguments are for Christianity, no matter how much we can give evidences for Christianity, we can not give a logical proof that show Christianity is necessarily true.



This simply leads me to believe that Christianity is a blind leap in the dark.



> With worldviews - axioms are the first points from which we know things. All worldviews have axioms from which they can justify that something they believe is "necessarily" true and therefore knowledge, or justified true belief. Since nothing can be known logically prior to the axiom, then we can not know (justify the truth) of the axiom. And so we can not ultimately know that Christianity is the true worldview opposed to all other worldviews because we can not prove the Axiom from prior knowledge - if a proposition is logically prior to the axioms of a worldview, then axioms of the worldview are not its true axioms. And so we can not say that other worldviews are irrational or false simply because we believe (however certainly) that Christianity is true. We can only show how more reasonable Christianity is compared to other worldviews.
> 
> Someone may object that my definition of justification is too strong - if that is the case, then it applies to all other worldviews - and does not help the defense of the Christian worldview. By maintaining a strict definition of knowledge by logical necessity, I am keeping the bar high - high enough to show the incoherence of may other worldviews. For instance, empiricism can not produce knowledge based on a necessary rule of inference. Evidential arguments may "warrant" Christian belief, but they also warrant non-Christian beliefs. Keeping the bar high simply cuts out worldviews that can not meet the standards of a reasonable worldview.



Again, I see nothing but arbitrariness and unjustified belief in your worldview. Why can an unbeliever not arbitrarily believe that God does not exist, because we cannot prove that Christianity is true, nor can we prove that atheism is not true. Hence, why is the atheist wrong for adopting an atheist worldview? It almost comes down to randomly picking a worldview, because no worldview is for certain true or false, so it doesn't really matter. We are all unjustified in believing our worldview to be true. We must just accept whatever that worldview is by faith. It seems the discussion must stop right there, because the unbeliever is not doing anything differently from you in adopting his worldview. It does not matter that he is arbitrary and unjustified in his beliefs, because as it is, we are too.

I also have enjoyed the discussion, although you have obviously studied more than I have in these areas.


----------



## Ron

> My only concern is that calling circular arguments valid proofs will only lead to confusion.



I can only hope that the following is read in a spirit of fair play.

The formal argument affords a point of discussion at the points of the premises. No one is expecting anyone to roll over and accept any deductive argument, for if the premises were embraced, the argument would most likely not have been needed in the first place. 

A sound argument that all men are mortal is:

Whatever Scripture teaches is true
Scripture teaches that all men are mortal
Therefore, it is true that all men are mortal

The premises are true and the form valid, so the conclusion is reliable and true. 

NOTE: *The "demonstration" that all men are mortal is not to be found in the proof.* _Demonstration_, which is most appropriate, is accomplished through witnessing one death after another, which _supports_ but does not _establish_ as sound the argument for all men being mortal. If that is not grasped, the rest will be lost. Induction is impotent to establish the absolute truth of any premise, but it is most useful in corroborating what the Scriptures teach as true.

Now consider TAG:

*Prove A:* The Christian God exists. 
*Step 1 ~A:* (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist. 
*Step 2 (~A--> B):* If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
*Step 3 (~B):* There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!) 
*Step 4 (~ ~A):* It is not the case that God does not exist (_Modus Tollens_ on 2 and 3) 
*Step 5 (A):=* God does exist (Law of negation.)

The veracity of step 2 can be _demonstrated_ by refuting all would-be competitors to the Christian worldview but the inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof. For how can the _truth_ value of a premise for a deductive argument be deduced as true on inductive grounds? If we are left to establish step-2 by induction, then we don't have a deduced or revealed truth value for the premise in question, which means that the conclusion that it is _true_ that God exists goes beyond the scope of the premises. Moreover, we know that induction is only possible given God's existence. Therefore, the inductive principle used to establish step-2 would be unjustified and would, therefore, entail question begging over the necessary preconditions for induction. I would think that the non-Van Tillians on this site would join me in arguing that induction cannot properly justify step 2. 



> I know - faith is a dirty world. Aquinas gave up the field of reason when he declared that Christian faith was separate from reason.



I don´t think faith is a dirty word in the least. Fideism is though. Faith saves our reasoning; faith being a justified belief in God granted by God. That all men have an _a priori_ knowledge of God does not imply that a sound proof for God´s existence cannot or should not be constructed as a point of engagement. We don´t put forth an argument such as I have and leave it there. That would be fideism. We should engage the atheist in order to demonstrate before God and a watching world that God is the precondition for all intelligible experience. We engage him on step 2 by refuting, one by one, all his arguments. *By doing so we are not providing a sound argument through the inductive elimination of a finite number of hypothetical worldviews; rather we're corroborating by induction the sound, deductive argument we've posited.* 



> You can not logical prove axioms.



Not to take away from what I just wrote, what is below is most worthy of serious consideration. I don´t know that I can improve upon it. 

One cannot prove as true those axioms that are inductively inferred because there´s nothing that can be appealed to as proving the truth value of the axiom apart from finite observations, yet to do so in an effort to establish an absolute truth proposition is to commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Accordingly, what does one "œdeductively" prove when the premises of the proof are based upon inductively assumed axioms? That is something worthy wrestling with I would think.

Now let´s shift gears. The "œaxiom" of Scriptural revelation is _not_ an inductively inferred axiom but an actual truth that we know, not by inference but upon God´s self-attesting say so. Accordingly, being absolute truth it can properly be appealed to in order to establish true premises that fit into a valid argument. *At the very least, what I find terribly ironic in all of this is that so many are willing to base the premises of deductive arguments on inductively inferred axioms, but they are unwilling to base premises on God´s revealed axiom.* They call the latter "œbegging the question" and the former "œlogic!" It hardly needs to be said that nobody has experienced every instance of the law of non-contradiction; so to appeal to the axiom of logic apart from God´s unchanging character as revealed in Scripture is to reduce any appeal to logic to an appeal to an inductively inferred axiom, which is to make the conclusion of any deductive argument no more grounded than it´s foundational axiom, which is being defended on inductive grounds, not revelation. 

Accordingly, I see two problems. 1) It has been asserted that a sound, deductive argument needs more than a valid form and true premises. 2) If one denies the validity of appealing to Scripture to justify premises in deductive arguments, then all deductive arguments must be philosophically based on inferred or arbitrary axioms. 2 leaves us with no defense of the faith.

Now I trust that my opponents will say that they know their axioms based upon God´s revelation. That much is good. Notwithstanding, their views on sound argumentation and "œquestion begging" do not allow them to prove anything, simply because they will not put forth any justification for their axioms other than inductive inference or arbitrariness. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> Civbert,
> 
> How can you not presuppose your own worldview? Am I not presupposing my own worldview as I am typing this?


Of course you do, that's why you can't prove it. In order to prove it, you'd have to say there is something logically prior to your axioms - but that can't because you can not justify knowing anything prior to adopting some worldview axiom. All you can do is evaluated it by some other desiderata that can not prove the axioms.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> What were the apostles doing when they "reasoned" with unbelievers?


Not using circular or fallacious arguments, that I can assure you. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> "Believe" and "know" are certainly not the same, but in everyday usage we tend to use them interchangeable. When I say "know" in this discussion, I am using a philosophical definition - justified true belief - rather than the common definition - to believe with certainty. I agree that the Bible teaches that we can be certain about the truths of Christianity. We can even give valid sound argument for the propositions which make up the doctrines of Christianity - but only from within the scope of the Christian worldview which is defined by the Axiom of Scripture. But the axiom of Scripture must be assumed true for the truths of Christianity to be justified true beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been telling me that it is impossible to know if our worldview is the only true worldview, but now we can know with certainty the truths of Scripture? Is it really possible to not know if the TRUTH is true? If it is truth, is it not true by definition? Hence, if Christianity is really the truth, then it cannot possibly be false.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd feel better if you were to say it's impossible to _prove _a worldview is true. You might also consider what a logical definition of true is - without assume the existence of the God of Scripture. I don't mean true in the existential sense, or the empirical sense, just the simple logical sense.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> It is not only rational to "believe" something we can not "know" (justify true), but it is necessary. For us to know anything logically, we must first assume some starting point from which we can justify what we know. But since the starting point of knowledge can not be justified itself (how can we know it is true if we can not know anything prior to it logically), then we believe it on faith. The axioms we choose can be defended with evidence and inductive arguments and by demonstrating the coherences of the "knowledge" that the axiom makes possible, but we can not prove axioms from logically prior knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it mean when we say that the Scripture is "self-attesting"?
Click to expand...

Scripture testifies to it's own authority. Scripture is not justified by prior true premises, it is "believed" true by power of the Holy Spirit to transform the mind to believe. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> This is not to say we can not give any reasons for our axioms, only that we can not prove our axioms. Plantinga's view is that the belief in Christianity is "warranted," that is, it is perfectly reasonable to be a Christian. But that does not mean we can give an absolute proof that Christianity is true and all other worldviews are false. And in that philosophic meaning of "knowledge", we can not "know" Christianity is true, not matter how strong the arguments are for Christianity, no matter how much we can give evidences for Christianity, we can not give a logical proof that show Christianity is necessarily true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This simply leads me to believe that Christianity is a blind leap in the dark.
Click to expand...

Except I've stated many times that there are many rational arguments for the Christian worldview - just none that prove it true. I can list some of them again if you wish. It's not random, but nether is it necessary.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> With worldviews - axioms are the first points from which we know things. All worldviews have axioms from which they can justify that something they believe is "necessarily" true and therefore knowledge, or justified true belief. Since nothing can be known logically prior to the axiom, then we can not know (justify the truth) of the axiom. And so we can not ultimately know that Christianity is the true worldview opposed to all other worldviews because we can not prove the Axiom from prior knowledge - if a proposition is logically prior to the axioms of a worldview, then axioms of the worldview are not its true axioms. And so we can not say that other worldviews are irrational or false simply because we believe (however certainly) that Christianity is true. We can only show how _more_ reasonable Christianity is compared to other worldviews.  _Post Script - I should not say "only" - we can do much more, we can give many strong arguments and evidences, just none that prove our axiom._
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I see nothing but arbitrariness and unjustified belief in your worldview. Why can an unbeliever not arbitrarily believe that God does not exist, because we cannot prove that Christianity is true, nor can we prove that atheism is not true. Hence, why is the atheist wrong for adopting an atheist worldview?
Click to expand...

Because the atheist worldview can not account for knowledge since nothing can be deduced from his axiom "there is no God".



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> It almost comes down to randomly picking a worldview, because no worldview is for certain true or false, so it doesn't really matter. We are all unjustified in believing our worldview to be true.


Only in the strict sense of justified. If we use a looser term like warrant, then we can say that we have good warrant in adopting the Christian worldview because it is far more rational and comprehensive than other known worldviews. Again, this is not a proof, but it is a good reason.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> We must just accept whatever that worldview is by faith.


Yes, necessarily, since axioms are the logical first statements from which the worldview knowledge follows. You can't justify the truth of an axiom. You can argue for it, you can show may positive epistemic results from adopting it, you can show how it leads to moral objectivity, but you can't prove it logically.



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> It seems the discussion must stop right there, because the unbeliever is not doing anything differently from you in adopting his worldview. It does not matter that he is arbitrary and unjustified in his beliefs, because as it is, we are too.


See my prior comments about the criteria for choosing a worldview. It's not random. Faith does not entail random, or unwarranted, or unreasonable, or irrational. Is your faith irrational? Why not? It's not because it's proven true or it would not be faith. But faith is rational because all worldviews start with asserting faith in their axioms. If that's not rational, then there is no such thing. But that would lead to insanity - no sane man can argue rationality is irrational. 



> _Originally posted by natewood3_
> 
> I also have enjoyed the discussion, although you have obviously studied more than I have in these areas.



Anytime. I hope I've been some help.


----------



## Magma2

> Mark's been banging his head against the walls for years... I just talked to him and he's not interested, so I'll address some of your basis premises below.



Fortunately, and after hitting his head long enough and to his credit, he finally came to realize that Clark was right in his opposition to Van Til. He evidently is still a bit confused concerning some aspects of Clark´s system, I suppose in part due to some of your arguments from another thread which he shared with me. Part of it had to do with your argument that one can prove he is saved.



> Quote:
> As such, there is no nor can there be any antecedent set of premises by which the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" can be deduced. As the WCF states while the Scriptures "œevidence" that they are the Word of God, yet," notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."
> 
> 
> You´ve just confused how we know with giving a defense of that which we know.




You´re wrong Ron and you miss the point. The above has to do with how a person comes to accept the Scriptures, the axiom of the Christian faith. There is no argument by which a person can infer the Scriptures are true except, I suppose, by way of a tautology: The Scriptures are true because the Scriptures say they´re true. If you know of any other account by which we can KNOW the Scriptures are true, then please share it. It will certainly be of help when I encounter atheists. Instead, you write things like the following:



> Everything that Civbert proves is unjustified because his axioms, which all his proofs proceed from, are all unjustified. In this sense, he is no different than the infidel. He´s doomed from the start because his epistemology is not revelational but rather autonomous, rooted in arbitrary laws and axioms that have no grounding. Where he and Clark part ways is that Clark knew that the Christian worldview was true this side of glory. What he denied was that we could prove it, for Clark too had a defective view of proof.



I suggest you study Clark´s refutation of Mavordes posted on the Trinity Foundation website. Clark argued that knowledge, if we´re going to call it that, requires an account; i.e., a sound argument. That is, after all, the point of epistemology since it seeks to answer how can we know anything at all. The point the WCF makes along these lines is that there is NO proof, NO demonstration by which we can come to accept the Scriptures are true, rather the HS causes us to believe they are true. It doesn´t make them any less true, but just saying the HS causes us to believe is not an argument, at least no better than the one Christian Trader used in that whatever he things is true is true because he thinks it unless proven otherwise. Basically, the form of the argument for Scripture is along the lines of the one found in Heb 6; since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself . . . . So, strictly speaking the axiom of Christianity, which is the Bible alone is the Word of God, does not rise to the level of knowledge as Anthony defined it since there is no way to account for it. By contrast, Clark rejected the classical proofs because they are made up of a series of fallacious argument and fail as an account for what they intend to prove. As far as Clark´s imagined "œdefective view of proof," he used it in the ordinary logical sense as in a proof of a logical theorem or a set of premises used to establish a conclusion. Hardly defective, at least for someone interested in epistemology not to mention logical argumentation. 




> Quote:
> This last clause would be irrelevant and simply wrong if the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" could be demonstrated.
> 
> 
> You´ve just argued: If I know that X exists without proof, then I cannot deduce that X exists!



Try to follow what people write Ron rather than what you might think they write. We cannot know in the formal sense that the Scriptures are true. One might say "œI know the Scriptures are true," because they accept them as such, but that´s a different thing. We can be induced to believe they are true by the evidences of Scripture and the work of the Spirit on our minds, but since we cannot provide a logical demonstration for the truthfulness of Scripture Anthony is spot on when he said; "œYou cannot logically prove axioms. You can only defend them." Or, to put it another way, while you can´t prove axioms, you can certainly disprove them which is the work of apologetics and the method Clark used. Unless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously).



> Quote:
> Therefore, the axiom of Scripture is a choice. One either comes by God´s grace to accept the Scriptures as true or they don´t. Consequently, there is no proof that the Scriptures are the Word of God.
> 
> *sigh* Again, you´ve created a false dilemma. Your premise is that if we know something apart from discursive reasoning, then that which we know in this manner cannot be discursively demonstrated as true.




What you keep missing is that knowledge - if we´re going to call it that - must be accounted for and there is no prior account for the premise that the Scriptures are true. The Scriptures are true is not the conclusion of an argument but the beginning. It is the required starting point for all truths that can be known. One accepts the Scriptures and presupposes their truthfulness and from that starting point of any number of propositions which are either explicitly set down in Scripture or necessarily inferred from Scripture can be accounted for given the starting point and rise to the level of knowledge as Anthony defined it and which I assumed you understood. *sigh* indeed.

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Ron

> Unless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously).



Prove that dogmatic _conclusion_, Sean, and square it with your statement that _"The Scriptures are true is not the conclusion of an argument but the beginning."_ Or are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified? 

What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entites that are invariant in nature? Prove something, Sean, and show me how your conclusion "rises to the level of knowledge" when your deduction is based upon axioms that are either arbitrary or inferred. 

You're simply a fideist and a skeptic, Sean. I guess you might find comfort in the axiom that you can't know that you are for you can't know anything in your world.

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> fideism
> 
> noun
> reliance on faith for knowledge: the view that religious knowledge depends on faith and revelation
> 
> 
> [Late 19th century. Formed from Latin fides "œfaith" (see faith).]
> 
> Encarta Dictionary 2005



Yeah! Call me a fideist! 

But then:



> Main Entry: fiÂ·deÂ·ism
> 
> exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone accompanied by a _consequent disparagement of reason_ and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth
> 
> _"fideism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (15 Mar. 2006)._



A "disparagement of reason"!! 

 Nope. Not me. Knowledge depends on reason as well as faith. You'll have to tell me which definition of fideism is best.

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Don

Sean, 



> By contrast, Clark rejected the classical proofs because they are made up of a series of fallacious argument and fail as an account for what they intend to prove.




This is off topic but a quick question: Where does Clark critique the traditional arguments? I'm totally unimpressed by Bahnsen and company. 

Thanks,
Don


[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Don]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Sean,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By contrast, Clark rejected the classical proofs because they are made up of a series of fallacious argument and fail as an account for what they intend to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is off topic but a quick question: Where does Clark critique the traditional arguments? I'm totally unimpressed by Bahnsen and company.
> 
> Thanks,
> Don
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-15-2006 by Don]
Click to expand...



Thales to Dewey.


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Don_
> Sean,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By contrast, Clark rejected the classical proofs because they are made up of a series of fallacious argument and fail as an account for what they intend to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is off topic but a quick question: Where does Clark critique the traditional arguments? I'm totally unimpressed by Bahnsen and company.
> 
> Thanks,
> Don
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-15-2006 by Don]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thales to Dewey.
Click to expand...


Cool, I have that one. Thanks.


----------



## Magma2

> Prove that dogmatic conclusion, Sean, and square it with your statement that "The Scriptures are true is not the conclusion of an argument but the beginning."



Bingo! Let´s rephrase; Prove your axiom Sean. Funny, Clark called his biblical philosophy "œDogmatisim" which Robbins later renamed Scripturalism. Trivia aside, you confuse axioms with theorems and can´t seem to tell the difference. 



> Or are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified?



Arbitrary in what sense? As for the "œinductive principle," you´ve already affirmed that it cannot justify anything, so this is not a point of difference between us. As you said per the question begging of TAG above; "œthe inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof." Amen brother Ron! So I´ll ask again, if you think you can demonstrate, as in prove, the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, please provide your proof now.



> What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entites that are invariant in nature?.



Would you care to name such an entity? If you mean God, then I would refer you to WCF Chapter II. But I thought God was a concrete entity, not an abstraction? How about sin then? Is that good or is it too not an "abstract entity"?




> You're simply a fideist and a skeptic, Sean. I guess you might find comfort in the axiom that you can't know that you are for you can't know anything in your world.



And you have your powdered wig on too tight  

Just kidding. Seriously, Clark was similarly attacked, so I guess I´ll take that as a compliment. I am skeptical about anything not found in Scripture or deduced therefrom, but that hardly makes me a skeptic. As far as being a Fideist, again your opinion appears to be based on a failure to differentiate between axioms and the theorems derived from them. I'm not skeptical at all about any number of propositions from all men are sinners to salvation is by belief alone in Jesus Christ. Both of which, I might add, are propositions of Scripture. A fideist, at least according to Websters (maybe you have a different definition since you tend to define words uniquely) is someone who relies on "œfaith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth." I hardly think I qualify, but we have already established that you´re not above ad hominem attacks when you start getting into the deep end of the pool.


----------



## Magma2

> Cool, I have that one. Thanks.



Read the section on Aquinas. I'm curious if you think he did a better job. Thanks.


----------



## Ron

Ron States: Prove that dogmatic conclusion: {"œ_Unless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously)."_ Sean, and square it with your statement that "_The Scriptures are true is not the conclusion of an argument but the beginning._"

Sean Replies: Bingo! Let´s rephrase; Prove your axiom Sean. 

Ron Replies: Ah, so you weren´t drawing a conclusion but simply stating a wish. You sounded so conclusive, so naturally I thought you were finishing an argument rather than making an assertion. 



> Trivia aside, you confuse axioms with theorems and can´t seem to tell the difference.



Oh no, Sean, I understand what you´re trying to say all to well. My point is that your so called theorems are not conclusive for they are based upon axioms that are either arbitrary or inferred. Please decide which faulty foundation your deductive arguments are built upon, arbitrariness or inductive usefulness.

Ron Stated: "œ"¦ are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified?

NOTE how Sean doesn´t answer:

Sean Replies: Arbitrary in what sense? As for the "œinductive principle," you´ve already affirmed that it cannot justify anything, so this is not a point of difference between us. As you said per the question begging of TAG above; "œthe inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof." Amen brother Ron! 

Ron States: Your axiom is arbitrary because within your worldview, you neither know it to be true nor can you prove it to be true. Given your worldview, you simply would like it to be true. Just admit that your axiom is arbitrary, wishful thinking. In fact, admit that you don´t know that Jesus died for you. Admit that your slavish adherence to what you believe to be Clarkianism undermines your knowledge of God´s existence. In fact, you don´t even know that you exist given your worldview! Your autonomous reasoning sadly undermines the confidence you could otherwise have in Christ.



> So I´ll ask again, if you think you can demonstrate, as in prove, the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, please provide your proof now.



The Bible is the only word of God, or we cannot justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes. We can justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes; therefore the Bible is the word of God. Sean, each premise is true and the form is valid, therefore, the argument is sound. You say the argument begs the question, but the conclusion is always implied in the premise in first order predicate logic, is it not? Accordingly, your issue seems to be with what logic and proof entail. 

Ron Asked: What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entities that are invariant in nature?

Sean Replies: Would you care to name such an entity? If you mean God, then I would refer you to WCF Chapter II. But I thought God was a concrete entity, not an abstraction? How about sin then? Is that good or is it too not an "abstract entity"?

Ron States: We´re not talking about "œabstractions" Sean; we´re talking about "œabstract entities," i.e., things that are not material in nature, that are invariant and universal, like the laws of logic. I'll wait for you to catch up. :bigsmile:



> I am skeptical about anything not found in Scripture or deduced there from, but that hardly makes me a skeptic.



What do you know with certainty Sean? You don´t think that you know you´re saved. What do you know for sure, Sean? 



> I'm not skeptical at all about any number of propositions from all men are sinners to salvation is by belief alone in Jesus Christ.



Are you a man, Sean? Do you have saving faith, Sean? Moreover, you say you´re not skeptical about propositions found in Scripture, well do you know them to be true, or are you just not "œskeptical" about them? Prove how you know your axiom Sean. Oh that´s right, you don´t know it to be true. O.K., tell me why you believe it to be true other than on inductive grounds such as it seems to make sense of things. *Sean, for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, you must first exist for your existence is a necessary condition for your knowing anything. Unfortunately for you, given your worldview, you don´t know you exist because your existence is not found in Scripture. Accordingly, if you don´t know you exist and your alleged knowledge of your axiom presupposes your existence, how can you truly know your axiom?* However, if you know you exist, then you know something not revealed in Scripture! Oh Sean, you have all these problems because you will not begin your reasoning with God. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

I guess it's kinda like beating a dead horse. 

I've been debating a man who doesn't think that he knows he exists.  

I have to question who is more insane, him for thinking that way or me for trying to reason with him.

Goodnight,

Ron


----------



## Civbert

Ron,

Are you saying a conclusion based on an axiom is not a proof? Hmmm. Sounds familiar. How about, anything demonstrated from an axiom is unknowable. OK. Then you don't know anything. For everything you think is knowledge is based on some sort of axiom. You just tried to hide your axioms in a circular argument. Never-the-less, your argument depends on your axiom - that only Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility. You know you can not prove this, so it must be an axiom. And since by you standards, everything based on axioms are unknowable, you no nothing. 

The TAG argument claims to prove the existence of God - _ by asserting that God is the reason for intelligibly!!_ But asserting this assumes God exist, and that is what you are trying to prove! - which means it does not prove anything at all. So much for TAG.

Now Scripturalism is an honest system of for knowledge. It does not make promises it can not keep. It is not circular, it does not beg the question. It merely does what all rational (and honest) systems do - it starts with an axiom (the Scriptures). It says Scripture is my starting point, my first Principle. Whatever Scripture says is true, and anything I can deduce from the truths of Scripture are necessarily true also.

You asked Sean to "prove that dogmatic conclusion" which was "Unless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously)." First you are correct only in that was a dogmatic statement. But you were wrong that it was a conclusion. Sean was just stating the immediate consequence of the Axiom of Scripturalism.

The axiom can be stated this way: all Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. 

Now lets define knowledge as justified true belief.

Given the Axiom of Scripture, and the definition of knowledge - then the immediate logical conclusion is: all Scripture and all things deducible from Scripture are knowledge. 

So you will complain that I can not prove my definition of knowledge. That's fine, but then you'll have to use your own definition and use it as your epistemic process.


----------



## Civbert

Ron,

How do you know?


----------



## Ron

> Are you saying a conclusion based on an axiom is not a proof? Hmmm. Sounds familiar.



Civbert,

This is just another indication that you have not wrapped your mind around what is being argued. If the axiom is not provable, then it reduces to a finite opinion that might or might not be rational, which reduces the conclusion to the same level of uncertainty. 



> For everything you think is knowledge is based on some sort of axiom.



The difference is that you believe your ultimate starting point is not provable, which makes your conclusions at least as suspect as your starting point. Garbage in, garbage out, we might say. 



> You just tried to hide your axioms in a circular argument.



Nope, not at all. I´m defending the cogency, consistency and necessity of my ultimate authority as well as giving an example in the very argument itself that it is an inescapable authority that I have an ethical and logical obligation to uphold and presuppose in my reasoning. 



> You know you can not prove this, so it must be an axiom.



You keep saying this Civbert hoping it will come true I suppose; I have already demonstrated a valid argument with true premises, which makes my argument sound. You don´t deny the form of the argument, nor do you deny the truth values of the premises, though you should deny the latter since given your worldview you can´t know anything is true!



> Scripturalism"¦ It is not circular, it does not beg the question.



Show me a deductive argument that´s not circular in any sense, or doesn´t beg the question by presupposing its ultimate authority. While you´re at it, prove to me that you know anything, like you exist. 

Civbert, I´m only engaging you because there are several lurkers who believe they are profiting from my answers. As soon as they think they've been filled, I´ll be done with you - for you are simply a skeptic who believes he doesn´t know that he exists.

Ron


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Ron,
> 
> How do you know?



How do I know what, that you don't know what you're talking about?

Ron


----------



## Civbert

Ron, 

You missed my big mistake! I said you were wrong about Sean's statement being a conclusion. But since I immediately followed that with a _deductive proof_, then you were correct. It was a conclusion - and I proved it. 

For the benefit of the lurkers, here is a good article on dogmatism, faith, and logic from the Wikipedia. Notice how dogmatism and axioms of logical systems are conceptually related. If you have any faith Ron, you are dogmatic. Welcome to the club can I hear an AMEN!

I didn't miss your point Ron, it pretty clear that you do not know anything (or your position is irrational). Since all rational systems of thought start with dogmatic axioms presumed true (think presuppositionalism, Gordon Clark, and dogmatism), and if you are right - that any thing that follows from axioms is unknowable - then you don't know anything. For _you_ assert axioms yourself. You assert God exists in your TAG argument. You assume the Scripture is inerrant, but you can not prove that. You have all the requirements of being a good Scripturalist but one, you think circular arguments can prove anything.

Circular arguments prove nothing. Can you admit that?

And can you answer the more general question - how do you know?

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2

> Oh no, Sean, I understand what you´re trying to say all to well. My point is that your so called theorems are not conclusive for they are based upon axioms that are either arbitrary or inferred.




I don´t think you understand well at all (albeit I can tell you like to think you do). If you think you can prove the proposition Scripture alone is the Word of God, which Clark argues is the axiom of the Christian faith, then please do so or I will conclude that your objections are all bluster and no substance. 



> Please decide which faulty foundation your deductive arguments are built upon, arbitrariness or inductive usefulness.



I realize things are bad in the OPC with the false gospel of the Federal Vision standing side by side with what´s left of the true Gospel and those who still believe it, but I didn´t think I´d hear an OPC man assert that the Westminster principle of Scripture alone is a "œfaulty foundation." We´ve come a long way from A Mighty Fortress is Our God  




> Ron Stated: "œ"¦ are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified?
> 
> NOTE how Sean doesn´t answer:
> 
> Sean Replies: Arbitrary in what sense? As for the "œinductive principle," you´ve already affirmed that it cannot justify anything, so this is not a point of difference between us. As you said per the question begging of TAG above; "œthe inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof." Amen brother Ron!
> 
> Ron States: Your axiom is arbitrary because within your worldview, you neither know it to be true nor can you prove it to be true.



Aside from the tautological argument already mentioned, if you would like to provide an account for how you know (since you claim you do) that the Bible alone is the Word of God, then for the 5th or 6th time now, please provide your argument or withdraw. Strike that, I see below you provide a "œproof." 

As far as the axiom of the Christian faith, i.e., the Scriptures, being "œarbitrary," and given your rather liquid use of words, I think mine was an excellent question. I would think the choice of Scripture as someone´s starting point would be no more arbitrary than, say, God´s sovereign choice in election. OTOH the axiom of Scripture is not arbitrary at all in the sense that it alone covers and accounts for everything which follows in the Christian system. Again, it´s clear to me you have really no idea what axioms are or how they function in geometry much less in philosophy. Websters defines an axiom as:

1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth 

With the exception of changing "œself-evident" to "œself-attesting," all seem pretty good to me and any of which show that the role of Scripture is hardly "œarbitrary" especially to the system of thought some of us call the Christian faith. I think it rather essential for without the Scriptures there is no Christian faith. 




> Given your worldview, you simply would like it to be true.




If you think it false, let´s see your argument against it? Many an atheist I´ve encountered have tried as well as more than a few "œreligious" folk, papists or otherwise. As I´ve said while you cannot prove an axiom you can disprove it, so have at it Ron. 




> Just admit that your axiom is arbitrary, wishful thinking. In fact, admit that you don´t know that Jesus died for you. Admit that your slavish adherence to what you believe to be Clarkianism undermines your knowledge of God´s existence. In fact, you don´t even know that you exist given your worldview! Your autonomous reasoning sadly undermines the confidence you could otherwise have in Christ.



As Clark pointed out long ago arguments for existence are those things which are paraded around as profound and meaningful, but really mean nothing. The reason being since the word "œexists" can be predicated on everything it logically means nothing. The better question, which the WSC asks, is not does God exist but what is God and to answer that question we go to the Scriptures.



> Quote:
> So I´ll ask again, if you think you can demonstrate, as in prove, the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, please provide your proof now.
> 
> 
> The Bible is the only word of God, or we cannot justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes. We can justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes; therefore the Bible is the word of God. Sean, each premise is true and the form is valid, therefore, the argument is sound. You say the argument begs the question, but the conclusion is always implied in the premise in first order predicate logic, is it not? Accordingly, your issue seems to be with what logic and proof entail.




The argument certainly begs the question, is circular and is nonsensical. Replace bible with the Koran and you´ll see what I mean 




> Ron Asked: What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entities that are invariant in nature?
> 
> Sean Replies: Would you care to name such an entity? If you mean God, then I would refer you to WCF Chapter II. But I thought God was a concrete entity, not an abstraction? How about sin then? Is that good or is it too not an "abstract entity"?
> 
> Ron States: We´re not talking about "œabstractions" Sean; we´re talking about "œabstract entities," i.e., things that are not material in nature, that are invariant and universal, like the laws of logic. I'll wait for you to catch up. :bigsmile:




I´ve provided what I think is an excellent proof from Scripture of LC, Identity and LEM on another thread recently which I think you were apart of. Shall I reprint it here again for your benefit? 




> Quote:
> I am skeptical about anything not found in Scripture or deduced there from, but that hardly makes me a skeptic.
> 
> What do you know with certainty Sean? You don´t think that you know you´re saved. What do you know for sure, Sean?




Again, certainty has nothing to do with epistemology, certainly not mine ;-P Certainty is a psychological state of mind. Many people are certain about a lot of things which turn out to be false. As for knowing I´m saved, I had a former assistant pastor at my church tell me I wasn´t because I argued that mere belief alone in the gospel is what saves a man. See, we in the PCA have our own problems too  




> Quote:
> I'm not skeptical at all about any number of propositions from all men are sinners to salvation is by belief alone in Jesus Christ.
> 
> Are you a man, Sean?



I think so.



> Do you have saving faith, Sean?



I think so again.



> Moreover, you say you´re not skeptical about propositions found in Scripture, well do you know them to be true, or are you just not "œskeptical" about them?




Yes, I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom. 




> Prove how you know your axiom Sean.




Hey, that´s what I´ve asked you to do and you could only beg the question. Again you persist with the irrational and repeated request that I prove my axiom. I can´t prove it, that´s the point. If I could then that proof, whatever it would entail, would be the axiom of the Christian faith, not the Scriptures.




> Oh that´s right, you don´t know it to be true. O.K., tell me why you believe it to be true other than on inductive grounds such as it seems to make sense of things.



Since you´ve very ably demonstrated that "œinductive grounds" are fallacious, I´ll stick with the answer provided by the WCF already cited.


----------



## Don

Anthony, 

In all honesty, I think you would benefit much by studying epistemic circularity vs vicious circularity. Douglas Walton has a good article that was posted here a while back. William Alston and most other epistemologists discuss epistemic circularity. This is one of the oldest critiques of TAs which has been dealt with over and over. 

It would also be beneficial to read contemporary literature on transcendental arguments - from davidson, strawson, brueckner, stroud, et al. Professional philosophers have been using them in their attempts to defeat skepticism for a while now. Having said that, I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post. 

Don

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Don]


----------



## Don

Sean, 



> Again, certainty has nothing to do with epistemology, certainly not mine ;-



I am not sure what you mean here, so maybe you could explain. What was Descartes trying to do, if certainty has nothing to do with epistemology? 

Don


----------



## JohnV

> I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.



If you don't mind, Don, explicate away. I'm interested.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind, Don, explicate away. I'm interested.
Click to expand...


I'll take a crack at it, although I have a different view than Don on it (we talked it over lunch a few times): arguing transcendentally is a valid way, and Van Tillians are correct to argue that way, but does their particular conclusion follow? That's the debate.


----------



## Ron

> Sean States: So I´ll ask again, if you think you can demonstrate, as in prove, the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, please provide your proof now.
> 
> Ron Replied: The Bible is the only word of God, or we cannot justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes. We can justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes; therefore the Bible is the word of God. Sean, each premise is true and the form is valid, therefore, the argument is sound. You say the argument begs the question, but the conclusion is always implied in the premise in first order predicate logic, is it not? Accordingly, your issue seems to be with what logic and proof entail.
> 
> Sean States: The argument certainly begs the question, is circular and is nonsensical. Replace bible with the Koran and you´ll see what I mean



Sean,

If we replaced "œBible" with "œKoran" the major premise becomes false, the conclusion unreliable and the argument unsound. Consequently, Sean, you´ve shot just another misguided arrow, for by the laws of logic, my proof had a valid form and incorporated true premises. Moreover, you affirm my premises!



> Ron States: Are you a man, Sean?
> 
> Sean Replies: I think so.



So you don´t "œknow" whether you´re a man. So it´s possible that you´re a woman? 



> Yes, I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.



Interesting. You say you can know the propositions of Scripture, yet your worldview doesn´t allow you to know that you exist. Yet your existence is a necessary condition for your knowledge of anything. Consequently, if it´s possible that you don´t exist, then it´s possible that you don´t know the propositions of Scripture that you say you know. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> ...
> Show me a deductive argument that´s not circular in any sense, or doesn´t beg the question by presupposing its ultimate authority. While you´re at it, prove to me that you know anything, like you exist. ..
> Ron



This is so close to the truth of the matter...._so close!_.

It's easy. I can prove all A is C without first assuming A is C. 

P1: All A is B
P2: All B is C

C3: All A is C

Notice that "A is C" is not found in the premises. And you can not prove my premises from my conclusion, and I did not presume A is C, I proved it from my premises. 

I assume the ultimate authority of Scripture. But let me repeat this - _it is not begging the question because I'm not trying to prove the authority of Scripture_. Now I can not CONCLUDE the authority of Scripture is proven - that would be begging the question.

Here is a circular argument.

P4: All X is Z
P5: All Y is Z

therefore 

C6: All X is Z.

That IS formally valid. Is it sound? Sure, if all X is Z. Does it prove all X is Z? What do _you_ think?


Here's begging the question - to show "all O is Q".

P7: All O is P ( because: all O is Q & all Q is P implies all O is P)
P8: All P is Q

therefore

C9: All O is Q.

This is formally correct too. See how I prove "all O is Q" because I've hidden it in my premise P7. That's how proofs of God work. That's how TAG begs the question. If you like, I'll explain it explicitly by showing how the TAG premises assume the conclusion "God exists".

It's simply poor logic to say all systems are circular. And it's more honest and straight forward to admit that Christianity is a faith based system of thought. Wow! Christianity is founded on faith. It's dogmatic. 

But guess what! So is empiricism, and rationalism, and Islam, and Buddhism, and existentialism, and every other -ism or worldview philosophical system of thought. So either they are all irrational by the fact that they are all rooted in faith (as Ron insists), or the fact they are rooted in faith does not make them ipso facto irrational. We can't have it both ways. We can't logically argue that Christianity is the only true system because it's the only true system (TAG). But we can show that all coherent systems are dogmatic.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Anthony,
> 
> In all honesty, I think you would benefit much by studying epistemic circularity vs vicious circularity. Douglas Walton has a good article that was posted here a while back. William Alston and most other epistemologists discuss epistemic circularity. This is one of the oldest critiques of TAs which has been dealt with over and over.
> 
> It would also be beneficial to read contemporary literature on transcendental arguments - from davidson, strawson, brueckner, stroud, et al. Professional philosophers have been using them in their attempts to defeat skepticism for a while now. Having said that, I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
> 
> Don
> 
> [Edited on 3-16-2006 by Don]



Thanks for the info Don, 

It could be I'm not arguing against the best formulation of the TAG - all I'm familiar with is the Bahnsen/ Van Til version of TAG. 

I'll look up the references. If there is a better statement of TAG then has been given in the thread, I'm all ears. 

I'm sure TAG has come under this criticism many times - though at this point I'd have to say that's because it's fundamentally unsound. Whether this criticism has been "dealt with", I'll just say I remain skeptical about that.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> If we replaced "œBible" with "œKoran" the major premise becomes false....



Why? How do you know?


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind, Don, explicate away. I'm interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take a crack at it, although I have a different view than Don on it (we talked it over lunch a few times): arguing transcendentally is a valid way, and Van Tillians are correct to argue that way, but does their particular conclusion follow? That's the debate.
Click to expand...


Ahh, cohorts, eh? ( in a typical Canadian accent ). 

Yes, I understand that this is the debate. I would like to see it stated more clearly, where exactly the differences lie. Not that I'm trying to be lazy by not reading the posts. I have been reading them, and thinking about them. 

I asked this because everyone here knows that I am not a Presuppositionalist, and I'm reading this thread with great interest. 

I would like to commend Anthony for his courage in following his thesis to the practical conclusions that he has. I think he differs with the run-of-the-mill Presupper in some ways, but I personally think he is being honest with the method, even if it costs him. He's just going where few dare to tread, and is facing some of the results that others have evaded. I don't think he's there yet, but he's further than many. He does not argue like a Presuppositionalist, and that's intriguing to me. I hope you don't mind these comments, Anthony. I'm trying to spur things along, even if its for personal, or perhaps selfish reasons.

But, that is the second reason that I asked this, to try to evince some things that I would like to know about.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> If we replaced "œBible" with "œKoran" the major premise becomes false....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? How do you know?
Click to expand...


God's word, the Bible is how I know. I know by revelation and I can formulated this knowledge into a valid syllogism with true premises that you agree with.

Now little civbert, tell me once again how this is begging the question and that sound arguments need more than true premises and valid forms... 

Ron


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with the transcendental argument per se, rather I have a problem with the claims made by some Van Tillians, which I never fully explicated in the other post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind, Don, explicate away. I'm interested.
Click to expand...



Hi John, 

I may one day just not yet. Being that I suffer from mental constipation most of the time , I first want to cover as much material as I can before I do (I also don't want to get bogged down in debate at this time). 

In the meantime, most of this has already been discussed on the Van Lists in posts by James Anderson, David Byron, Sean Choi, Michael Sudduth, and Greg Welty, so I definitely claim no originality. Don't forget that most of the guys are Van Tillian or sympathetic to Van Til. Ron has attempted to establish the stronger transcendental claim, but I think this suffers from various setbacks as well. Also, Dr. Sudduth mentioned to me in private correspondence that two chapters of his book will discuss with Van Til. 

So I have to get all my 'ducks in a row' first! 

Don

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Don]


----------



## Don

> Thanks for the info Don,
> 
> It could be I'm not arguing against the best formulation of the TAG - all I'm familiar with is the Bahnsen/ Van Til version of TAG.
> 
> I'll look up the references. If there is a better statement of TAG then has been given in the thread, I'm all ears.
> 
> I'm sure TAG has come under this criticism many times - though at this point I'd have to say that's because it's fundamentally unsound. Whether this criticism has been "dealt with", I'll just say I remain skeptical about that.




What up Anthony, 

Heard back from Aquaboy?

It's not that you are unfamiliar with the formulation (though some would say that you have not understood it because you have left out different modal terms etc), but with the different types of circularity that are involved in argumentation and epistemology. Not all circularity is of the fallacious sort. This is what Dr. Walton points out in his article. In a way, it's analogous to claiming that different cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of composition, which is not necessarily the case. 

Strawson and friends do not argue for TAG. TAG attempts to prove the existence of God, while their goal is to defeat the knowledge skeptic. However, since the form is usually the same, much of what applies to their arguments could apply to TAG as well. Also, there are local TAs and global TAs, with Bahnsen's group attempting to prove global TAs through demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. There are also truth-directed and belief directed TAs, with the former being the more difficult. 

Plantinga's argument EAAN can also be considered a TA of sorts, in that God must be presupposed in order for us to have a reason that our noetic structure is truth oriented. 

Don


----------



## JohnV

Don:

I understand about the ducks. They're not very cooperative, are they? 

I read some of the Van Til list discussions. Because I found it as late as I did, I found it hard to follow sometimes. I've only been formally introduced to Presuppositionalism not too long ago, and the Van Til list after that. Its hard to go all the way back and read all the threads. Its too cumbersome, too daunting, and too intimidating. 

Isn't it important to discuss these things all over again, though? Isn't the idea to develop our thinking off each other?

Anyways, it would help me if some of these things got slugged out, so that I can read the presuppositions ( taken-for-granted propositions ) that make up the Presuppositionalism that each one holds to, or in general that makes up the whole. 

Is the Van Til list still available online? I seem to remember that they ceased operating. Its no longer open, as I recall. But can it still be read?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> It's not that you are unfamiliar with the formulation (though some would say that you have not understood it because you have left out different modal terms etc), but with the different types of circularity that are involved in argumentation and epistemology. Not all circularity is of the fallacious sort. This is what Dr. Walton points out in his article. In a way, it's analogous to claiming that different cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of composition, which is not necessarily the case. ...Don



Here's a quote from the start of Walton's article (link to PDF follows) ARE CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS NECESSARILY VICIOUS?. 


> WHEN asked why the economy in a certain
> state is in a slump, an economist replies: "A
> lot of people are leaving the state. Things are very
> poor in the building industry, for example, because
> there is no need for new housing." Next question:
> "Why are people leaving the state?" The
> economist's answer: "Well, the state of the economy
> is poor. People just don't seem to be able to
> get jobs, with the economy being so slow at the
> moment."' This sequence of questions and answers
> has taken us in a circle: the economy is depressed
> because people are leaving, and people are leaving
> because the economy is depressed. Isn't this just
> the sort of argument that might be cited in a logic
> text as an instance of petitio principii, the fallacy
> of arguing in a circle? If so, it seems that the
> economist's argument must be fallacious.


The answer to the retorical question is - no, that is not an example of a circular argument. He seems to see that in the next statement where he accounts for this by saying that maybe this is a case of a feed back loop. As an engineer, and any computer programmer, is familiar with feedback loops. However, feedback loops are not analogous to circular arguments. I haven't read the rest of the article, but so far it's off to a bad start. 

This would be better seen as a chicken or egg situation. 

Why is the economy bad? Housing is down. 
Why is housing down? People are leaving the state.
Why are people leaving the state? The economy is bad.
Why is the economy bad....

It seems to be a circular argument, but it's not. All we know is that at some point, the housing went down and the economy followed, causing more drops in housing... We don't know what came first - but we know one thing - it STARTED with something and continued over time. This is not the circular logical argument, e.g. statement-1 implies statement-2 implies statement-3 implies statement-1 implies statement 2.... We are going from cause and effect to cause and effect, with a repeating pattern of cause effects . But each is a unique state in time condition, not a return to the same state and time condition. You can't go back in time, so the case is linear, not circular. All we see is a repeated pattern, not a repeated time/state. 

"You can't step in to the same river twice."

Notice also that in the chicken and egg question, each egg produces and *new* chicken, and that chicken produces a *new* egg. Although the pattern repeats, it is not logically circular.

The TAG argument (as far as I've heard it) purports to prove the existence of the exact same God it assumes exists in it's premises. Ergo, it proves nothing.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Don

John,

Here is the link to the VT Lists. It is still open to be read and fully searchable. There are many good posts there.




> Isn't it important to discuss these things all over again, though? Isn't the idea to develop our thinking off each other?



No doubt it is important.  

Don

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

P.S. No answer from Aquascum, but VC sent me a lengthy reply.


----------



## Civbert

Walton give another seemingly circular example that is not logically circular.


> Perhaps what Hull is suggesting is something
> like the following sort of process. First, a hypothesis
> is formulated on the basis of some initial
> evidence. As new evidence comes in, the hypothesis
> is clarified and refined. However, once stated
> more clearly and precisely, the hypothesis points
> to new evidence that has thereby become "relevant"
> or "significant." This new evidence improves the
> hypothesis once again.



Notice that we are going from hypothesis-1, observation-1, hypothesis-2, observation-2... and so on. Each "cycle" moves to a changed hypothesis (not a repeat of the same hypothesis) and *new* observations. Again, this is not the circular fallacy. Logically, this is completely linear.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2

> If we replaced "œBible" with "œKoran" the major premise becomes false, the conclusion unreliable and the argument unsound. Consequently, Sean, you´ve shot just another misguided arrow, for by the laws of logic, my proof had a valid form and incorporated true premises. Moreover, you affirm my premises!



You really just don´t get it do you Ron? The Bible is the Word of God is what you need to prove, yet you use it as your major premise. Amazing. 



> Quote:
> Ron States: Are you a man, Sean?
> 
> Sean Replies: I think so.
> 
> So you don´t "œknow" whether you´re a man. So it´s possible that you´re a woman?



I might be a dream you´re having or perhaps you´re one I´m having. Must be a nightmare.



> uote:
> Yes, I know the propositions of Scripture are true for I can account them per my axiom.
> 
> 
> Interesting. You say you can know the propositions of Scripture, yet your worldview doesn´t allow you to know that you exist. Yet your existence is a necessary condition for your knowledge of anything. Consequently, if it´s possible that you don´t exist, then it´s possible that you don´t know the propositions of Scripture that you say you know.




You´re really not following Ron. Everything exists. Hallucinations, dreams, you name it. At this point I'd be better off discussing with that dead horse you keep beating.


----------



## Ron

> I can prove all A is C without first assuming A is C.
> 
> P1: All A is B
> P2: All B is C
> 
> C3: All A is C
> 
> Notice that "A is C" is not found in the premises. And you can not prove my premises from my conclusion, and I did not presume A is C, I proved it from my premises.



The confusion is subtle indeed but it is confusion just the same. When we replace A, B and C with actual propositions, things should become a bit more obvious. I am grateful that you gave me something substantial to interact with. 

All dogs are cats
All cats are humans
All dogs are humans 

Is the above proof valid? Yes. Is it sound? No "“ because the premises are false. Consequently, more than a valid form is necessary for a proof to be sound. For a valid argument to be sound it must include true premises. Now let´s pump true premises into the same form. 

All Christians are in Christ
All in Christ will enter glory
All Christians will enter glory 

Is this argument, which takes the same valid form, sound? Yes. Why do you suppose that the symbolic formulation does not appear to "œbeg the question" whereas the same argument form using Christian premises does beg the question in your estimation? The reason is simply that the symbolic formulation, which is void of distinctly Christian premises, appeals merely to the laws of logic, which most people do not find offensive. The premises of the second argument beg all sorts of questions for the unbeliever, which is why people reject such an argument and why you are uncomfortable employing such an argument. Consequently, the issue of complaint has nothing to do with circularity since a non-circular argument that concludes with "œAll Christians will enter glory" is just as evasive as far as you are concerned. As I've said from the outset, you require premises that the unbeliever will accept as true! 

Given what you just said about the permissibility of that particular form of argument, you should be willing to accept such a proof that concludes all Christians go to heaven. Do you accept such a proof? If you accept it only based upon the consistency it might have within the worldview that would employ the argument, then you should also accept the proof that all dogs are humans on the same basis. In which case, mad men can prove anything and truth becomes subjective, which would result in skepticism. Such drastic measures would reduce all argumentation to form only at the expense of truth, leaving no room for _sound_ argumentation. Moreover, you should reject any validly formulated proof that concludes that the Koran is the necessary precondition for intelligible experience "“ because the proof would not be sound. The only question at this juncture is will you accept the proof that all Christians will enter into glory? If so, then you must accept it on its form and true-premises, even though it begs the question of the authority by which those premises are actually true. Consequently, all this talk about "œbegging the question" is based upon a faulty understanding regarding proof. 

In sum, the form of the argument you gave is not "œcircular" _per se_ but that´s only because it begs crucial questions regarding the truth or falsity of the premises. Consequently, the issue of begging the question was never the relevant issue at hand. Moreover, the argument for Christians entering into glory can no more be deemed as begging the question than concluding "œall A is C." Furthermore, if you are unwilling to judge premises according to absolute truth, which I refuse to to do, then the argument that concluded all dogs are humans is as sound as the one that concluded "œall A is C." As long as you are determined to employ idiosyncratic axioms that are not subject to proof, then all is subjective and anything can be proved and nothing can be disproved. 

How about this argument:

All persons who have their faculties know something 
All persons who know something know God exists
All persons who have their faculties know God exists
Civbert does not know God exists 
Civbert is not a person with his faculties 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

More from Walton:



> "All' men are mortal, Socrates is a man; therefore
> Socrates is mortal" it looks like the conclusion is
> part of, or an instance of, the major premiss. Consequently,
> since the major premiss must depend
> evidentially on the conclusion, Mill reasoned, the
> deductive argument must be circular .



This misses the whole purpose of deduction. The premise may or may not be determined by observations - but the for the this argument it's assumed true, either as a fact or hypothetically, to prove the truth of the conclusion. This is done by going from general sets of things (mortal beings), to less general (all men), to specific (Socrates). Going in the opposite direction you are saying: if all Socrates is a subset of the set of men, and all men are a subset of the larger set of mortal beings, then it is a fact that Socrates is a subset of the set of mortal beings. This going from general to specific is why Clark used the < symbol in his logical notation. If the general condition of all men are mortal, then the specific case of the man Socrates is also mortal.

(Men < Mortal) (Soc < Men) implies (Soc < Mortal) 

Interestingly, Mill is evidential a evidentialist - i.e. his epistemic worldview supports his view of dependence. He thinks that general propositions are only known based on evidences and induction. Christians should be dogmatist, they know things because God said they are true.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> I can prove all A is C without first assuming A is C.
> 
> P1: All A is B
> P2: All B is C
> 
> C3: All A is C
> 
> Notice that "A is C" is not found in the premises. And you can not prove my premises from my conclusion, and I did not presume A is C, I proved it from my premises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion is subtle indeed but it is confusion just the same. When we replace A, B and C with actual propositions, things should become a bit more obvious. I am grateful that you gave me something substantial to interact with.
> 
> All dogs are cats
> All cats are humans
> All dogs are humans
> 
> Is the above proof valid? Yes. Is it sound? No "“ because the premises are false. Consequently, more than a valid form is necessary for a proof to be sound. For a valid argument to be sound it must include true premises. Now let´s pump true premises into the same form.
Click to expand...


Confusion was imparted by substituting false premises. The original argument is a valid proof. P1 and P2 are true premises. So to make the analogy correct, you have to substitute in true premises. 


P.S. Since you conclusion depended on my excepting the false example, and rejecting the valid example - then your conclusion does not follow. You'll have to use the "question begging" form I gave, and substitute true premises. Then we can talk about it.

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 3-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> All Christians are in Christ
> All in Christ will enter glory
> All Christians will enter glory
> 
> Is this argument, which takes the same valid form, sound? Yes. Why do you suppose that the symbolic formulation does not appear to "œbeg the question" whereas the same argument form using Christian premises does beg the question in your estimation?



It doesn't. Nothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave. So you have only demonstrated my point of what a valid proof entails. Now go back and use the actual form I gave for question begging.


----------



## Ron

> You really just don´t get it do you Ron? The Bible is the Word of God is what you need to prove, yet you use it as your major premise. Amazing.



You keep saying this Sean, as if saying it a lot makes it become a valid retort. Are _modus ponens_ and _modus tollens_ fallacious forms of argumentation? No. Are such arguments invalidated when one pumps into them true premises?! Of course not! Accordingly, to object to the argument below is to object to the modes of affirmation and denial. Your issue is with logic, Sean.

If truth, then God
Truth 
Therefore, God

I´ll use a more linear argument, just to please you, in order to show you on your terms that the "œaxiom" for truth being Scripture can be concluded in a linear fashion.

P1. The axiom for truth can only be found in a preservation of God´s special revelation
P2. The preservation of God´s special revelation is Scripture today
C. The axiom for truth can only be found in Scripture today

NOTE: The conclusion is not stated in the major premise, for the major premise does not even imply that a preservation of revelation even exists. The minor premise does not address the axiom of revelation, so the conclusion is not stated in the minor premise either. Consequently, the argument is linear and should meet your requirements. 

So you see, Sean, the issue is not that the conclusion is implied in the premise. The issue is ultimate truth claims. 

Ron


----------



## Ron

Civbert,

Rather than firing off snippet-responses out of fear, why not first try to internalize the magnitude of what you've just been presented.

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> You really just don´t get it do you Ron? The Bible is the Word of God is what you need to prove, yet you use it as your major premise. Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying this Sean, as if saying it a lot makes it become a valid retort. Are _modus ponens_ and _modus tollens_ fallacious forms of argumentation?
Click to expand...


_Modus Ponens_ and _Modus Tollens_ are hypothetically valid forms. Only if the inference is valid, is the argument a proof. 

The form is: If A implies B, and A, then B. 

And also, If A implies B, and not B, then not A. 

Notice that they are both formal tautologies which is why simply inserting propositions does not make them proofs, even if the premise are true, you still have to show the implication is valid. 

If the the implications works on the basis of the individual terms, then the argument works. But if the implication is only assumed, then the argument form is valid, but it does not prove anything. That's why its such a favorite with people. It makes question begging look like real proofs. 

Example 1:

True premise A: all men are mortals and Socrates is a man.
True premise B: Socrates is a mortal

(I use this because we have shown the A implies B.)

If [(all men are mortal) & (Socrates is a men)] 
implies (Socrates is a mortal), 
and [(all men are mortal) & (Socrates is a man)], 

then (Socrates is a man). 

Well no kidding. We could just show this with a simple syllogism using two premises and a conclusion.

Less clear is the other form, but just as tautological.

Now when we substitute propositions that don't clearly imply, it's not so simple.

Example 2:

True premise A: I live in Tennessee
True premise B: All dogs have tails

If (I live in Tennessee) implies (all dogs have tails), 
and (I live in Tennessee), 

then (all dogs have tails).

Here we have both a valid form of argument (Modes Ponens) and true premises. So that conclusion is proven - right?

Nope. In fact in this case, the true premise, and valid form of argument (modus tollens or modus pollen) clearly does not make the conclusion a proof.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Civbert,
> 
> Rather than firing off snippet-responses out of fear, why not first try to internalize the magnitude of what you've just been presented.
> 
> Ron



The irony - stop it! your killing me!


----------



## Ron

Civbert,

Something tells me that I should address the person that wrote that nonsense rather than you. In any case, rather than my defending modus ponens, seeing you don't accept its validity for sound argumentation, just deal with the linear argument that I used to prove that all Christians enter into glory. 

*In your follow up post to my interaction with yours you stated:*


> "The original argument is a valid proof. P1 and P2 are true premises."



Is that so? Is it universally true that all A is B? If A and B don't stand for something, then it is false that all A is B since A and B are different symbols! However, if it is true that all A is B, then it's because you have substituted something in your mind for both propositions, A and B, which brings us back to my post to you. Do you accept my proof that all Christians enter into glory? If so, on what basis? If on its internal consistency _only_, then truth is not a necessary condition for sound reasoning, which allows it to be proved that all dogs are humans. 

Again, you are simply showing that you don't have even the most fragile grasp of these matters. You're not going to be able to Google your way out of this.


Ron


----------



## Civbert

A follow up on the Walton article: his argument can be reduced to this - since tautological arguments are formally valid, isn't it fair for me to use them? 

Response. In fact, it is "fair" to use them because you have obeyed the letter of the laws of formal logic, and rules of deduction. A implies A is the law of identity. 

However, Walton admits also that circular arguments are less then convincing. Does that make them invalid? No. Does that make them sound - questionable (as he admits). But the question is not simply formal validity and true premises, it's a question of proof. As I showed with the tautological use of the Modes Pollens and Modes Tollens forms, even when the argument is formally correct and the premises are true, the conclusion is not a proof when the internal implication is assumed. 

His examples are faulty to start with, and Mill is an evidentialist. The formal circular examples can be written A < B and B < A. This is also a definition. And definitions are tautologies. We accept them for the sake of argument, not because they are necessarily the best definitions we can formulate, or can be correctly used in other context. And if we use Mills epistemology, we are either using induction (by making out general premises a function of our particulars), or we are simply affirming tautologies like Modes Pollens. Nothing in this will result in a sound proof. 

In the end, Walton's article does not have any weight on arguments that claim to prove God or worldviews. At that level or argumentation, I think even Walton would say that circular arguments are _highly_ questionable.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> Something tells me that I should address the person that wrote that nonsense rather than you. ...



Abuse ad hominem. The rest is a waste of time since you still have not addressed my points. Show how the form of question begging I gave is not question begging when substituting in true premises.


----------



## Civbert

More on Walton.

He gives a series of statements and uses them the develop a "circular" set of arguments:


> _from http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers%20in%20pdf/85circarg.pdf_
> 
> To- grasp the structure of the argument, we begin
> with the following atomic propositions.
> O = Our team is the outstanding team in the conference.
> P = Our team has the best players.
> C = Our team has the best coach.
> W = Our team will continue to win games.
> T = Our team will win the conference title.
> J = The players have a justifiable confidence in their
> ability to win.



I notice something right away. One can not show the propositions can be used to imply each other based on their terms. All of the statements have the major term "team" except for J. Also, there is a shift in the time frame evident in going from "is" to "will". The cause and effect can not be deduced validly, and the proposition J is inductive. In fact, almost all of the diagram constructed depend on evidential arguments to come to inductive conclusions. It wrought with the logical fallacy of "asserting the consequence".

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]

Walton goes on to justify the process used to "prove" the theory of evolution. 

Much of his argument depend on assert the validity of induction. But inductive conclusions are never necessary. Since necessary conclusions are the only means we have to produce correct logical proofs, then the whole paper's implication for Vantillian's circular arguments for the existence of God is to make God's existence only "possible". And I know Van Til hated that idea (he accused Clark of having the same fault).

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Don

Civbert, 



> In the end, Walton's article does not have any weight on arguments that claim to prove God or worldviews. At that level or argumentation, I think even Walton would say that circular arguments are highly questionable.




It's been my intention for the past week or so to not engage your posts anymore except to point out an obvious misrepresentation occasionally. I think you will be a Scripturalist come hell or high water and you have not shown yourself to be familiar with the works of those whom you are critiquing, as the circularity issue has been addressed time and again. My point to ref the Walton article was to show that not all circularity is vicious. Anyway, for the relevance to Van Til, both Frame and Bahnsen have addressed this in their works, it's addressed in the VT Lists, and it's addressed here. you have shown yourself to be familiar with none of these, yet you continually critique positions you have *not studied*. 

Don

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Civbert,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, Walton's article does not have any weight on arguments that claim to prove God or worldviews. At that level or argumentation, I think even Walton would say that circular arguments are highly questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been my intention for the past week or so to not engage your posts anymore except to point out an obvious misrepresentation occasionally. I think you will be a Scripturalist come hell or high water and you have not shown yourself to be familiar with the works of those whom you are critiquing, as the circularity issue has been addressed time and again. My point to ref the Walton article was to show that not all circularity is vicious. Anyway, for the relevance to Van Til, both Frame and Bahnsen have addressed this in their works, it's addressed in the VT Lists, and it's addressed here. you have shown yourself to be familiar with none of these, yet you continually critique positions you have *not studied*.
> 
> Don
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
Click to expand...


Ouch Don! I was only working down the list of references you gave me. Just because I shot down the Walton reference as totally destructive to Van Til's goal to objective truth, doesn't mean each of you reference will similar go down in flames. Give me a chance.

And you keep saying this has been "dealt with". Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Since no one has stepped up to the plate and presented a non-fallacious TAG argument, or dealt with the circular problem, I need to go looking for it myself. If I find the answer, I'll let you know. In the mean time, in the immortal words of Queen - "Another one bites the dust!" 

Now where was I... I remember, I was reading the Wikipedia article on the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. I figure it's a pretty good bet that the Wiki article will present the good formulation of the TAG.... So far it looks like it's going down with the rest of em.

P.S. Thanks for the link to Van Til FEM. I will read it with care.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## RamistThomist

wikipedia is not the best source. the article is okay, but not the strongest. Its not intended to be.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> wikipedia is not the best source. the article is okay, but not the strongest. Its not intended to be.



But it comes with links to proponents of TAG so all hope endures.

Which do you think will be most fruitful? what about (pdf follows)Alvin Plantinga's "Naturalism Defeated"


----------



## Don

Civbert,

I didn't mean that to be rude and if it came across that way, I apologize. I'm just pointing out that you have been consistently misrepresenting people in order to prove your point (cf the other threads). 

I'm definitely not asking you to take my word for anything. I said what I did because this is a basic and common objection to Van Tillian presuppositionalism and it would seem that if you were familiar with VT in the least, you'd already know about this objection and these resources as well. Paul Manata has discussed this on his blog and on this board. If you end up not being convinced, that's fine so long as you are fair and not misrepresenting your opponent's position. 

Instead of going to the Plantinga article, I would go to James Anderson's article referenced in another thread that compares him with VT. Notice that I said that his argument was a TA 'of sorts'. 

Don

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Don_
> John,
> 
> Here is the link to the VT Lists. It is still open to be read and fully searchable. There are many good posts there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it important to discuss these things all over again, though? Isn't the idea to develop our thinking off each other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt it is important.
> 
> Don
> 
> [Edited on 3-16-2006 by Don]
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link, Don.


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> All Christians are in Christ
> All in Christ will enter glory
> All Christians will enter glory
> 
> Is this argument, which takes the same valid form, sound? Yes. Why do you suppose that the symbolic formulation does not appear to "œbeg the question" whereas the same argument form using Christian premises does beg the question in your estimation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Nothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave...
Click to expand...


Civbert,

Wonderful! You allow for me to prove that all Christians will enter glory by use of a linear argument, which you believe does not beg the question due to its non-circular form. Now let me prove, using the same "œapproved" form of argumentation, that which Sean asked me to prove in a non-circular way, _"œthat the Bible alone is the Word of God."_ 

*p1.* The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice
*p2.* Man´s only true rule for faith and practice is the word of God
*C:* The Bible alone is the word of God

And again:


*p1.*The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication
*p2.*The necessary precondition for predication is the word of God
*C:* The Bible alone is the word of God


The arguments employ the exact formulation that you find acceptable in order to avoid "œbegging the question." The arguments make use of true premises, so in conjunction with this acceptable formulation, the conclusion for both arguments must be true. Being a proof-form that you accept, the conclusion was indeed proven by your standards of validity. The conclusion that was proven was Sean´s axiom, which he said couldn´t be proven without circularity.

You can stare at the proofs all you want. You can private message Sean all you want. It won´t help. The true contention was never that I was implying the conclusion in the premises, for by using your preferred formulation I have arrived at a conclusion that you thought was not provable by a linear deductive argument. Consequently, the issue at hand has always been man´s ultimate authority for true premises. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Civbert,
> 
> I'm just pointing out that you have been consistently misrepresenting people in order to prove your point (cf the other threads).
> ...
> 
> Don
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]


Well I don't want to do that and I'd appreciate if anyone who see me doing that please tell me the moment it happens. It's one thing to disagree with a persons positions, or even to show how their arguments fail. But if I misrepresent their position in order to defeat it, then I've done nothing. So please let me know where (what post) and when and how I've done that so I can correct it. And if anyone has any suggestions for a better formal of TAG then I'm aware of, I'd be glad to know it.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> All Christians are in Christ
> All in Christ will enter glory
> All Christians will enter glory
> 
> Is this argument, which takes the same valid form, sound? Yes. Why do you suppose that the symbolic formulation does not appear to "œbeg the question" whereas the same argument form using Christian premises does beg the question in your estimation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. Nothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civbert,
> 
> Wonderful! You allow for me to prove that all Christians will enter glory by use of a linear argument, which you believe does not beg the question due to its non-circular form. Now let me prove, using the same "œapproved" form of argumentation, that which Sean asked me to prove in a non-circular way, _"œthat the Bible alone is the Word of God."_
> 
> *p1.* The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice
> *p2.* Man´s only true rule for faith and practice is the word of God
> *C:* The Bible alone is the word of God
> 
> And again:
> 
> 
> *p1.*The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication
> *p2.*The necessary precondition for predication is the word of God
> *C:* The Bible alone is the word of God
> 
> 
> The arguments employ the exact formulation that you find acceptable in order to avoid "œbegging the question." The arguments make use of true premises, so in conjunction with this acceptable formulation, the conclusion for both arguments must be true. Being a proof-form that you accept, the conclusion was indeed proven by your standards of validity. The conclusion that was proven was Sean´s axiom, which he said couldn´t be proven without circularity.
> 
> You can stare at the proofs all you want. You can private message Sean all you want. It won´t help. The true contention was never that I was implying the conclusion in the premises, for by using your preferred formulation I have arrived at a conclusion that you thought was not provable by a linear deductive argument. Consequently, the issue at hand has always been man´s ultimate authority for true premises.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


And begging the question means what? Either hiding your conclusion in your premise, or having a premise that demands just as much justification as your conclusion. 

I didn't stare, I read it once and the answer is obvious.

How do you know the first P1? Isn't it as much as a stretch as you conclusion? Don't you know P1 based on the conclusion you are trying to prove? Yes indeed. Which is why it begs the question. You can not just assume the crossing the logical t-s and dotting logical i-s will make your argument a proof.

You know P1, because Scripture is your axiom (which entails that God exists). You can't uses Scripture in a proof for the existence of God or as a proof of Scipture. It's great for an argument, Scripture testifies for itself, but that's not a proof it true. I wouldn't hand you a book with the word's this book is true, and say it proves it's true.

As for the second P1, this has no basis whatsoever. Notice though how obvious the question begging is when you take it out of the convoluted form of a Modes Pollen. 

You'd have been more honest in your question begging if you had used the formulation I gave you on "question begging". It's clearly the same you used in these arguments, even if you weren't explicit with the presumptions you used.

If you can give me a logical argument for accepting: "The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" or "The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication" without assuming the Bible alone is the Word of God (which won't help in the second case), then I will concede. But the best you can do is give me evidences and conclusions that support the question begging claims made.


"The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" is a conclusion based on accepting (by faith) that the Bible alone is the Word of God.

"The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication" is simply impossible to justify, even by assuming the existence of God (which again would be begging the question). The argument for the contrary fails, and so does the positive argument. This question begging assumption is the key to the TAG argument (as far as I know the argument - except it substitutes "God" or "Christianity" for "Bible") and it's so blatantly impossible to justify that the question begging is an insult to any rational mind who hears this argument.

It's so bad an argument that many defenders of TAG now have sunk so low as to trying to justify their circularity and question begging. (Yes I'm reading the VT stuff and others and that's what it amounts to and I'm still looking for a valid excuse for using bad logic, and I've yet to hear one). 

So please somebody help me out. How can anyone justify question begging and circularity. Or just circularity because the question begging is simply dishonest. You can give an honest circular argument, not a problem ( A implies A is the Law of Identity). I just can't justify calling a circular argument a proof of the conclusion it is presuming.

(One additional note on TAG. I wouldn't nearly object so much if they took out one word, and didn't call it a proof of God but a defense of Christianity. The world is "only". "Only Christianity provides the preconditions for intelligibility". I can prove that statement without "only", it can be justified - but the "only" makes the whole argument impossibly flawed.)

(P.S. The last PM I sent Sean was to welcome and encourage his corrections of my positions or let me know when I am in disagreement with Clark (Sean's better read on Clark than I am). It's OK to disagree with Clark - as long as I'm aware of it. )

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Ron

> How do you know the first P1?



I know it by God´s revelation. 



> Don't you know P1 based on the conclusion you are trying to prove? Yes indeed.



Again, this is laughable. You demanded that I use a linear argument and I obliged. I employed your preferred form of argument and used premises that are true in order to prove what you said was not provable. Your issue is not with the soundness of the argument but the source of my true premises! 

I put forth the following argument and you had no problem:

All Christians are in Christ
All in Christ will enter glory
All Christians will enter glory

In fact you said: _"œNothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave..."_

You gladly accepted the above argument yet the premises came from Scripture! 

Then I put forth the following two arguments:

*p1.* The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice
*p2.* Man´s only true rule for faith and practice is the word of God
*C:* The Bible alone is the word of God

And again:

*p1.*The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication
*p2.*The necessary precondition for predication is the word of God
*C:* The Bible alone is the word of God

In response to these you stated: 



> *You know P1, because Scripture is your axiom (which entails that God exists).*



Well Civbert, you gladly accepted my argument that concluded that all Christians will enter into glory, yet I used Scripture for my premises! You´re simply being inconsistent and arbitrary. You allow me to use Scripture for some premises but not others. 



> You can't uses Scripture in a proof for the existence of God or as a proof of Scipture.



Civbert, my argument is linear and no premise assumes that the Bible alone is the word of God! I relate the Bible to the necessary precondition for predication and man´s only true rule for faith and practice. I used the form of argument that you demanded. What you are now demanding is that I not use true premises! Civbert, you´re simply in over your head. You´re a skeptic because you don´t understand even the rudimentary issues of the day. I suggest reading John Frame´s books, which I reference below. 

Best of providence,

Ron

------------

For those who have been following along,

I´m bowing out of these discussions. I have put forth formal arguments that have valid forms and true premises, which conclude God's existence, etc. I was accused of "begging the question" with certain types of syllogism, even though the arguments I presented were sound. I was constrained by some only to use "linear" arguments and I obliged. In doing so I was able to conclude axioms that some said were not provable "“ using a form of argument that they said was permissible to them.

Frankly, if these opponents understood basic logic, they would have appreciated that the issue was never that I was using one sort of deductive argument as opposed to another. A cursory reading of John Frame´s "œAnalyses of Van Til" would bring this light; I believe JF addresses this matter in a section entitled "œspiral" arguments. He also touches on it in _DKG_. In any case, the issue is whether the form of the argument is valid and the premises true. Note well that a formal argument only supplies talking points with the unbeliever. No apologist worth his salt would put forth a formal argument and then just leave it there. The apologist is to perform an internal critique of the opposing worldview, assuming for argument's sake the unbeliever´s presuppositions and then show how these pre-commitments do not comport with the overall practice of the unbeliever. For instance, one might show that the naturalist´s presupposition of "œall that exists is matter in motion" does not comport with his daily use of universal, abstract entities that are invariant in nature, such as the laws of logic. After reducing the opposing worldview to absurdity by showing its inconsistencies and arbitrariness, the apologist does well to explain how the Christian worldview supplies the preconditions for reality, knowledge and ethics. Now we don´t know our worldview is the only true worldview that can make sense of "œmen and things" by inductive inference, which is to say by refuting x-amount of atheistic worldviews. We know that our worldview is the only one that can make sense of the world because God has told us this in his word. Accordingly, it´s not a mere conceptual scheme (an arbitrary axiom) we are presupposing and putting forth as the necessary precondition for intelligible experience, but a revealed, _ontological_ scheme that is true, not merely posited, whose author is God. Notwithstanding, even though we know by revelation that our worldview is true, we can easily formulate what we know to be true into sound arguments, which is what I set out do demonstrate. Again, we don´t come to know God by these arguments but nonetheless our knowledge of God is indeed rational and can, therefore, be formalized so that it might be scrutinized. In sum, as Dr. Bahnsen said, "œthe proof of God´s existence is child´s play." The issue is not proving what is true; that´s a cinch. The issue is that the atheist will not submit to obviously true premises that are revealed by God himself. Accordingly, all we can do is refute those worldviews that come our way; show that our worldview offers the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience, and then offer Christ as he is presented in the gospel, the very goal of apologetics. The sole point of this thread, as far as I was concerned, was to show that the Christian position is not a blind leap of faith but a rational knowledge of the truth that lends itself to formal argumentation, though we don´t come to embrace that which we know by such argumentation. Notwithstanding, we have a very rational defense of the faith available to us, which is in shorthand: "œThe proof of God´s existence is that without him we could not prove anything."

I believe that Sean and Civbert are committed Calvinists and soldiers of the cross. Although the theory of knowledge is very important, we have much more in common in the Lord than what we've been discussing these past several days. For this I am grateful.

Grace and Peace,

Ron


----------



## Don

Well, it looks like Aquascum has responded to Anthony...

Link


----------



## Magma2

> If you can give me a logical argument for accepting: "The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" or "The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication" without assuming the Bible alone is the Word of God (which won't help in the second case), then I will concede. But the best you can do is give me evidences and conclusions that support the question begging claims made.
> 
> "The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" is a conclusion based on accepting (by faith) that the Bible alone is the Word of God.



Anthony, you are exactly right and a good measure of the correctness of your position is the amount of abusive and personal attacks Ron has hurled your way. in my opinion his repeated personal slurs are a sign of his own desperation and impotence. I´m frankly amazed that the moderators have allow him to continue in this manner, but I'm glad they did. 



> (P.S. The last PM I sent Sean was to welcome and encourage his corrections of my positions or let me know when I am in disagreement with Clark (Sean's better read on Clark than I am). It's OK to disagree with Clark - as long as I'm aware of it. )



Maybe if Ron actually understood Clark´s position he´d be in a better position to refute it, since he seems to think himself Clark's superior. Unlike Ron, Clark was never satisfied with just begging the question, which seems to be Van Tilian's strong suit and is the heart of their apologetic method. Also, if one could prove the Scriptures alone are man´s only true rule for faith and practice, then WCF 1:5 should be scrapped - or at least rewritten with the last clause excised. I guess Ron thinks himself Westminster´s superior too?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> How do you know the first P1?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it by God´s revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Don't you know P1 based on the conclusion you are trying to prove? Yes indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is laughable. You demanded that I use a linear argument and I obliged. I employed your preferred form of argument and used premises that are true in order to prove what you said was not provable. Your issue is not with the soundness of the argument but the source of my true premises!
> 
> I put forth the following argument and you had no problem:
> 
> All Christians are in Christ
> All in Christ will enter glory
> All Christians will enter glory
> 
> In fact you said: _"œNothing about the above is question begging - it's in the exact form of a proof I gave..."_
> 
> You gladly accepted the above argument yet the premises came from Scripture!
Click to expand...

Yes, because your were not trying to prove Scripture!  It's okay to assert Scripture, it's a fallacy to try to prove it is necessary. It's not begging the question because your conclusion is not "Scripture is true".



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> Then I put forth the following two arguments:
> 
> *p1.* The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice
> *p2.* Man´s only true rule for faith and practice is the word of God
> *C:* The Bible alone is the word of God
> 
> And again:
> 
> *p1.*The Bible alone is the necessary precondition for predication
> *p2.*The necessary precondition for predication is the word of God
> *C:* The Bible alone is the word of God
> 
> In response to these you stated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> *You know P1, because Scripture is your axiom (which entails that God exists).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Civbert, you gladly accepted my argument that concluded that all Christians will enter into glory, yet I used Scripture for my premises! ...
Click to expand...

 But not too prove Scripture. That fallacy occurs when you use the assumption of Scripture to prove Scripture. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... You´re simply being inconsistent and arbitrary. You allow me to use Scripture for some premises but not others.


Not arbitrary because in one case you were assuming God's Word to prove God's Word. In the other you were merely assuming God's Word which is fine.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> You can't uses Scripture in a proof for the existence of God or as a proof of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert, my argument is linear and no premise assumes that the Bible alone is the word of God!....
Click to expand...

Then you can't justify your premise. "The Bible alone is man´s only true rule for faith and practice" is unjustifiable aside of assuming God's Word is true. And since this is a premise to prove God's Word, it is a circular question begging argument.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ...I relate the Bible to the necessary precondition for predication and man´s only true rule for faith and practice. I used the form of argument that you demanded.


The first case is unjustifiable, the second is circular. You actuallu used the question begging form I demanded and it proves my point.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ...What you are now demanding is that I not use true premises!


No, I've always demanded true premises. True premises won't save a circular or question begging argument that claims to be a proof. If you lower the criteria for proof, then you can not reject other worldviews from proving themselves and disproving Christianity just by assuming themselves to be the only possible worldview.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... Civbert, you´re simply in over your head. You´re a skeptic because you don´t understand even the rudimentary issues of the day.


Abuse ad hominem. False accusation. I'm a Scripturalist, not a skeptic.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> I suggest reading John Frame´s books, which I reference below.


Appeal to authority. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> Best of providence,
> 
> Ron
> 
> ------------
> 
> For those who have been following along,
> 
> I´m bowing out of these discussions. I have put forth formal arguments that have valid forms and true premises, which conclude God's existence, etc. I was accused of "begging the question" with certain types of syllogism,...


Certain types of premises (circular) and premises that require justification but are impossible to justify. The Modes Tollen and Modes Pollen argument forms just make them less obvious. They can fool some of the people some of the time....



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ...even though the arguments I presented were sound.


If you want to allow circular question begging arguments are sound, go ahead. Islam can do the same. You can't stop them.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> I was constrained by some only to use "linear" arguments and I obliged....


Still one was still circular - the premise was hidden, which makes it question begging too.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ...In doing so I was able to conclude axioms that some said were not provable "“ using a form of argument that they said was permissible to them.


No, one used presumed the axiom of Scripture to prove Scripture. The other used a totally unjustifiable (question begging) premise.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ...Frankly, if these opponents understood basic logic, they would have appreciated that the issue was never that I was using one sort of deductive argument as opposed to another.


Abuse ad hominem and non-sequitur. Need I add - bad "basic" logic? 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> ... A cursory reading of John Frame´s "œAnalyses of Van Til" would bring this light; I believe JF addresses this matter in a section entitled "œspiral" arguments. He also touches on it in _DKG_.


Appeal to authority. But I've read the short version of "œAnalysis of Van Til" and Frame says Van Til never bothered to prove his unjustified premise. But these appeals to authority just show that no one here seems up to the job. Which makes me wonder if the "experts" did any better. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> In any case, the issue is whether the form of the argument is valid and the premises true...


No, I showed they could be both and still not prove anything. Hide a circular argument in Modus Pollen and it seems to be both formally valid and sound. But the circularity remains and the conclusion is not proven. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... Note well that a formal argument only supplies talking points with the unbeliever. No apologist worth his salt would put forth a formal argument and then just leave it there. The apologist is to perform an internal critique of the opposing worldview, assuming for argument's sake the unbeliever´s presuppositions and then show how these pre-commitments do not comport with the overall practice of the unbeliever.


No need, you've already "proved" that only Christianity can be true. The rest is academic. However, the suggestion is good and it's what I've said all along - that internal critique are required to defeat other worldviews (especially atheistic ones). Just make sure your own "commitments" don't dictate the outcome. Don't say "you couldn't know the Quran is true because God revealed Scripture to me." That's the kind of question begging that will make your apologetics a joke. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> For instance, one might show that the naturalist´s presupposition of "œall that exists is matter in motion" does not comport with his daily use of universal, abstract entities that are invariant in nature, such as the laws of logic....


Bad idea. I've show that the laws of logic are transcendental to worldviews. And the rest are only fixed if we assume a some sort of immutable divine being. The atheist would merely reject this out of hand by saying "so there are not fixed laws except for logic, and logic is transcendental to worldviews so that doesn't matter". Bad arguments do not make for good apologetics.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... After reducing the opposing worldview to absurdity by showing its inconsistencies and arbitrariness, the apologist does well to explain how the Christian worldview supplies the preconditions for reality, knowledge and ethics.


That works for everything but "reality" since that's too abstract a concept to prove. We can't prove what is real. What is we *think* is real is a direct function of our worldview. God's love is real, because the Scripture tells us. Don't expect the naturalist to jump to accept that argument even if it is true. It assumes our worldview. But "knowledge" and "ethics" are legitimate targets. No atheistic worldview can account for moral laws (but some consistent ones will say they don't exist anyway), and knowledge for the atheist amounts to skepticism. Well, some skeptics are proud to take the label. We'll have to show how meaningless life is with skepticism. Then they may return with, "then life is meaningless". You see, sometimes showing how bad a worldview is only amounts to the holder of the worldview conceding "that's life, take it or leave it." 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> Now we don´t know our worldview is the only true worldview that can make sense of "œmen and things" by inductive inference, which is to say by refuting x-amount of atheistic worldviews....


That's true. We don't know our worldview is the true worldview by any argumentation - we believe our worldview (else we wouldn't have the worldview we do have).



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> .... We know that our worldview is the only one that can make sense of the world because God has told us this in his word. ...


-- sigh --- begs the question. We can only show our worldview is the best at providing the desiderata of worldviews. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... Accordingly, it´s not a mere conceptual scheme (an arbitrary axiom) we are presupposing and putting forth as the necessary precondition for intelligible experience, but a revealed, _ontological_ scheme that is true, not merely posited, whose author is God. ...


Still begs the question. Assumes only Christianity can explain logic, but logic can not be explained without assuming it is true, with or without God. So you can not justify the "intelligible experience" condition. Either life's experiences are intelligible, or they are not. If they are, Christianity is the best means we have for explaining them - not the _only_ possible means. And if they are not intelligible, then we couldn't say, could we? 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... Notwithstanding, even though we know by revelation that our worldview is true, we can easily formulate what we know to be true into sound arguments, which is what I set out do demonstrate. ...


Big time question begging. What we know follows from our worldview axioms, we can not justify knowing the worldview itself is true by sound arguments. The argument requires prior knowledge, and nothing is logically prior to the worldview axioms. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... Again, we don´t come to know God by these arguments but nonetheless our knowledge of God is indeed rational and can, therefore, be formalized so that it might be scrutinized. ...


Amen!



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... In sum, as Dr. Bahnsen said, "œthe proof of God´s existence is child´s play." ...


He was wrong too.  Appeal to authority.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... The issue is not proving what is true; that´s a cinch. ...


Assertion. Begs the question. It's not possible to prove truth with circular arguments.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... The issue is that the atheist will not submit to obviously true premises that are revealed by God himself.


Begs the question. It's only obviously true if your worldview dictates it is obvious. Obviousness has little bearing on arguments unless you are dealing with a person who already has your worldview. When you are arguing for worldviews themselves, then the premises must be valid in both worldviews. And since that's not going to happen, there's not point in using premises that are "obvious" only in your worldview.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... Accordingly, all we can do is refute those worldviews that come our way; ...


Amen!



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ....show that our worldview offers the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience,


Begs the question. Assertion. No justification offered.



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ...and then offer Christ as he is presented in the gospel, ...






> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... the very goal of apologetics. The sole point of this thread, as far as I was concerned, was to show that the Christian position is not a blind leap of faith but a rational knowledge of the truth that lends itself to formal argumentation, though we don´t come to embrace that which we know by such argumentation.






> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... Notwithstanding, we have a very rational defense of the faith available to us, which is in shorthand: "œThe proof of God´s existence is that without him we could not prove anything." ...


Unjustified assertion. 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> ... I believe that Sean and Civbert are committed Calvinists and soldiers of the cross. Although the theory of knowledge is very important, we have much more in common in the Lord than what we've been discussing these past several days. For this I am grateful.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Ron


Amen and amen Brother Ron. Although our disagreements are important, our agreement in the Gospel trumps all.  

I wish the arguments of TAG were not fallacious, I really do. But so far it's been nothing short of a complete failure. That's not Ron's fault, it is inherent in the argument itself. I hope that I've persuaded some not to present fallacious arguments in defense of Christianity. They will be taken apart, chewed up, and spite out. They are no aid in the defense, only a hindrance. It appeals to our desire to have autonomous validation of our worldview - it seductive and fools many who want it to believe it. Those wonderful debates between Bahnsen and atheists make it seem undefeatable. But a great debater can never make the argument valid. If I win a chess game by making an illegal more near the end or the game, not getting caught does not make my win any less a shame - even if I didn't realize my move was invalid. The win should go to my opponent. 

I'll tell you how it goes. Your playing the game of you life, and then you see the winning move, move your knight to f5 and you fork the king and queen! winning the queen and eventually the game. So you take it! Several moves latter and your opponent concedes the game. You win!! Except that's not going to happen. Your opponent points out that your knight was on d3, not e3! The move was illegal and you are forced to take back the move. ... That's how TAG seduces. It appears to win the game, when in fact, it is a illegal move. We're just blinded by the idea of victory.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Well, it looks like Aquascum has responded to Anthony...
> 
> Link



It's not a bad response, he has improved his original position, and corrected some of mine. Got it yesterday. Now I've got to find the thread the started it and post it there. I also got a response from Vincent Cheung which was informative too.


----------



## Ron

> It's been my intention for the past week or so to not engage your posts anymore except to point out an obvious misrepresentation occasionally. I think you will be a Scripturalist come hell or high water and you have not shown yourself to be familiar with the works of those whom you are critiquing, as the circularity issue has been addressed time and again.



Don,

Do you have this sort of thing in mind? I suggested to Civbert that he learn a few basics about circular reasoning from John Frame. In fact I stated: "I suggest reading John Frame´s books, which I reference below." To which he replied "Appeal to Authority." 

Now a fallcious appeal to authority would look something like: "John Frame said X-and-so, therefore, it's true." Of course that is not what I communicated; in fact not even close. I merely communicated to Civbert that he simply needs to learn a little more, since as you noted _to Civbert_: "you have not shown yourself to be familiar with the works of those whom you are critiquing, as the circularity issue has been addressed time and again..." 

I'm curious why he is so often wrong in this respect of accusing people of fallacies when none are being committed. Maybe, as you say, he is committed to Scripturalism at all cost. Or maybe, as you say, he is simply not familiar with the works of those he thinks he disagrees with. Maybe, however, it is because these matters are simply beyond his grasp. In any case, to confuse a mere suggestion to read Frame with a fallacious appeal to authority is just another indicator that either Civbert is not willing to represent other people's views truthfully or he simply lacks the necessary acumen to do so. 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## Don

Hi Ron, 

I don't want this to turn into a debate as I am still 'working' on my position but here's where I stand: 

I don't think that referencing different works is necessarily an appeal to authority. I do think Anthony (and myself) would benefit from reading (or rereading) these works. 

Having said that, I do think Anthony is 'partly' correct when it comes to question begging. I disagree with him in that a TA qua TA begs the question (as he would be implicating more philosophers of a basic mistake than I think he would intend), which is where he seemed to be going at first. What Anthony needs to do is differentiate between the *claims* that are made by different types of Van Tillians. If the arguments that are supposed to support a specific claim are lacking, then I would say that he is correct (he briefly mentioned this in a previous post). So I think it would come down to the claims that one is attempting to prove through TAG and whether the subarguments can support those claims, as I have mentioned elsewhere. 

Don

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Ron

> Having said that, I do think Anthony is 'partly' correct when it comes to question begging.



Don,

Yes, he is partly correct. The part he doesn´t get is that all sound proofs presuppose true ultimate authorities necessarily. Consequently, all respective, discrete arguments in some sense "œbeg" their presuppositions, whether they are arbitrary or revealed presuppositions. This is simply a limitation of language, for we can only prove one thing at a time. HOWEVER, this does not mean that a separate discrete argument cannot be constructed to prove starting points of other arguments, even in a linear fashion. It may not be useful to do so but it certainly isn´t fallacious. The reason such reasoning is not fallacious is that if we were to assume axioms that are not provable _by actual *true* premises_ then _all_ axioms would become equally valid and true(!), which would allow one to prove that all dogs are humans. When I illustrated that very point in the thread it went right over Civbert´s head "“ evident by his response. 

At the end of the day, Civbert is left with no deductive proof that can "œrise to the level of knowledge," though Sean thinks otherwise. The reason this must be so is because the certainty of what is allegedly deduced would be based upon an axiom not subject to logical discourse. Consequently, all that would be allegedly known through deduction would sink to the level of something not logical. Now Civbert might argue, (or I should say assert for he rarely argues), that he knows that his axiom is true; but how does he know this? Knowledge presupposes that he first exists, yet his existence is not a revealed proposition from Scripture. Moreover, how does Civbert know that it is fallacious to prove ultimate truth claims as I have done? Is this assertion of his contained within his axiom? His worldview is riddled with such arbitrariness and inconsistencies. 



> I disagree with him in that a TA qua TA begs the question (as he would be implicating more philosophers of a basic mistake than I think he would intend), which is where he seemed to be going at first.



That Civbert would be implicating more philosophers than he thought might afford him reason to pause but it certainly doesn´t make him wrong. 



> What Anthony needs to do is differentiate between the *claims* that are made by different types of Van Tillians.



I don´t think Anthony needs to deal with all the various Van Tillians out there. He need only deal with the flavor of the day, which this past week was me! 

I realize you don´t wish to debate me, nor I you. If you have any thoughts, shoot me a pm.

Ron


----------



## Don

Hi Ron, 



> _Originally posted by Ron_
> I disagree with him in that a TA qua TA begs the question (as he would be implicating more philosophers of a basic mistake than I think he would intend), which is where he seemed to be going at first.



That Civbert would be implicating more philosophers than he thought might afford him reason to pause but it certainly doesn´t make him wrong. 
[/quote]

Correct and that's what I meant - that it should cause him to pause. I wanted him to study it on his own, which is why i referenced the people I did earlier.

I don't think we are too terribly far apart as I agree with much of what you said. Maybe we could discuss things at a future time.

Don

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Hi Ron,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> I disagree with him in that a TA qua TA begs the question (as he would be implicating more philosophers of a basic mistake than I think he would intend), which is where he seemed to be going at first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Civbert would be implicating more philosophers than he thought might afford him reason to pause but it certainly doesn´t make him wrong.
Click to expand...


Correct and that's what I meant - that it should cause him to pause. I wanted him to study it on his own, which is why i referenced the people I did earlier.

I don't think we are too terribly far apart as I agree with much of what you said. Maybe we could discuss things at a future time.

Don

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don] [/quote]

I'm implicating some of the greats! Aquinas for one. Any philosopher who proposed to prove the existence of God. Descartes? Who else?

The appeal to authority comment was just to point out that a PhD does not make someone right. It common to point to the experts to support our positions. But it's a logical fallacy for good reason: even when you are not claiming to prove your arguments with appeals to authority, using them as support is just a questionable. Better if you can make you case, then add the authorities for additional information or details. Maybe the "expert" gave you bad advice. PhD's are well know for doing that.


----------



## Don

> I'm implicating some of the greats! Aquinas for one. Any philosopher who proposed to prove the existence of God. Descartes? Who else?
> 
> The appeal to authority comment was just to point out that a PhD does not make someone right. It common to point to the experts to support our positions. But it's a logical fallacy for good reason: even when you are not claiming to prove your arguments with appeals to authority, using them as support is just a questionable. Better if you can make you case, then add the authorities for additional information or details. Maybe the "expert" gave you bad advice. PhD's are well know for doing that.




I really don't know how many times this has to be said, Anthony. No one is appealing to authority to prove our points, not Ron or me. They were referenced because of your habit of not studying a position before critiquing it. Why should people have to rehash the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over? Why not reference you to some philosophers who have already discussed this, so you could at least take into account what others have to say first since you are obviously not familiar with those you are critiquing? How is that fallacious? 

Don

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Ron

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Don_
> Hi Ron,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ron_
> I disagree with him in that a TA qua TA begs the question (as he would be implicating more philosophers of a basic mistake than I think he would intend), which is where he seemed to be going at first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Civbert would be implicating more philosophers than he thought might afford him reason to pause but it certainly doesn´t make him wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct and that's what I meant - that it should cause him to pause. I wanted him to study it on his own, which is why i referenced the people I did earlier.
> 
> I don't think we are too terribly far apart as I agree with much of what you said. Maybe we could discuss things at a future time.
> 
> Don
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by Don]
Click to expand...


I'm implicating some of the greats! Aquinas for one. Any philosopher who proposed to prove the existence of God. Descartes? Who else?

The appeal to authority comment was just to point out that a PhD does not make someone right. It common to point to the experts to support our positions. But it's a logical fallacy for good reason: even when you are not claiming to prove your arguments with appeals to authority, using them as support is just a questionable. Better if you can make you case, then add the authorities for additional information or details. Maybe the "expert" gave you bad advice. PhD's are well know for doing that.  [/quote]

It's that sort of imprecision that indicates that Civbert either can't or won't think critically. Was anyone trying to bolster an argument by suggesting that Frame's books be read? No, again. I was merely pointing Civbert to a place where he might learn the A, B, C's of logic. Even this he is either seemingly unable or unwilling to grasp. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> I'm implicating some of the greats! Aquinas for one. Any philosopher who proposed to prove the existence of God. Descartes? Who else?
> 
> The appeal to authority comment was just to point out that a PhD does not make someone right. It common to point to the experts to support our positions. But it's a logical fallacy for good reason: even when you are not claiming to prove your arguments with appeals to authority, using them as support is just a questionable. Better if you can make you case, then add the authorities for additional information or details. Maybe the "expert" gave you bad advice. PhD's are well know for doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's that sort of imprecision that indicates that Civbert either can't or won't think critically. ...Ron
Click to expand...


Yes, and although your not trying to "prove" a point with that last post, I'll still call it an _abuse ad hominem._ 

Will the fallacies never stop?!?!?


----------



## Ron

> Yes, and although your not trying to "prove" a point with that last post, I'll still call it an abuse ad hominem.
> 
> Will the fallacies never stop?!?!?



The dullness continues... It would be a fallacious attack at the man if I said you are wrong _ipso facto_ because you are often obtuse. However, I was not finding your argument wrong because you are unwilling or unable to think critically. Your arguments are wrong on their own merit, apart from your ability or lack thereof. I simply observed that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to think critically. 

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and although your not trying to "prove" a point with that last post, I'll still call it an abuse ad hominem.
> 
> Will the fallacies never stop?!?!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... I simply observed that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to think critically.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


 A simple observation. Good excuse!  

Yes, that's what we tell people to excuse abuse ad hominems. Let's insult people and when they object say "That's not an insult, I was just making an observation." Here, I can prove it, if it were an abuse ad hominem, I would have said "this proves my argument". But since I didn't say that (and I crossed my fingers) then it's _technically_ not an abuse ad hominem. 

Except this is a debate and the arguments are the only thing that count. Insults are are dishonest, the intent is to avoid dealing with the arguments, and to discredit your opponent in the eyes of other: Don, do you see how ignorant Ron is? Ron, when did you stop beating your wife? This is just an observation Ron, but your logic is really bad. You see, there's a reason for insulting your opponent, and it isn't because you feel like your arguments stand on their own. 

 You should have quite when you said you where going too, but you had to come back for another spanking. Bad boy Ron. Bad boy!


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> I really don't know how many times this has to be said, Anthony. No one is appealing to authority to prove our points, not Ron or me. They were referenced because of your habit of not studying a position before critiquing it. Why should people have to rehash the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over? Why not reference you to some philosophers who have already discussed this, so you could at least take into account what others have to say first since you are obviously not familiar with those you are critiquing? How is that fallacious?
> 
> Don



Simply asserting I have a "habit of not studying a position before critiquing it" or "you are _obviously_ not familiar with those you are critiquing" _(emphasis added)_ is fallacious - these are insults with no bearing on my arguments. I am critiquing what has been posted in this thread. If the TAG arguments in this tread are not up to snuff as you seem to imply, then someone should give a better argument for TAG. I appreciate the references, but I'm not terribly impressed by well-the-reason-you-can-shoot-down-TAG-is-because-you're-not-familiar-with-the-experts-on-TAG defense. Apparently familiarity with the "experts" has not helped any TAGs proponents.

Otherwise, thanks _again_ for the references, and good day.


----------



## Don

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Don]


----------



## Magma2

> At the end of the day, Civbert is left with no deductive proof that can "œrise to the level of knowledge," though Sean thinks otherwise. The reason this must be so is because the certainty of what is allegedly deduced would be based upon an axiom not subject to logical discourse. Consequently, all that would be allegedly known through deduction would sink to the level of something not logical.



The prattle and smoke continues. Since axioms can be shown to be incoherent and self-refuting then contrary to your tired assertions they are subject to "œlogical discourse" and with considerable regularity. Maybe you should spend some time on atheist boards and then you´ll see the regularity the truthfulness of Scripture is under attack. Of course as the Van Tilian flavor of the week I´m sure you´re in agreement with CVT, Frame, Bahnsen and the rest of the bloviating irrationalists who think the Scriptures are all apparently contradictory and ultimately hostile to systemization. Like the king who couldn´t see that he was naked, Van Tilians can´t seem to see they´ve lost the battle before it´s started. Which I suppose explains why their preferred method of apologetics per TAG is to assume the very thing they pretend to prove. Prattle, smoke and mirrors.

Thankfully and praise God more and more Christians are seeing the utter futility of Van Tilianism "“ not to mention the complete and total skepticism entailed in his analogous view of truth -- and are discovering Clark for themselves.


----------



## JohnV

Sean, Anthony, and Ron:

By carrying on so you are not doing yourselves any service. You are alienating yourselves from the group.


----------



## Don

Sudduth has now responded to Anthony. 

Don


[Edited on 3-19-2006 by Don]


----------



## Ron

Sean,

You don't even believe that you know you exist. I think you should try to deal with that problem and that problem alone.

Ron


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Sudduth has now responded to Anthony.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-19-2006 by Don]



This is an honor! 

I haven't read it yet, but I honored that he felt my arguments warranted some sort of response. Now I've gotten feedback from some of the best - Vincent Cheung, Aquascum, and now Sudduth. I've posted on his Yahoo list and the silence was sort of daunting. 

Should I post any comments on the blog, or here? Maybe I need a new thread?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Don_
> Sudduth has now responded to Anthony.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-19-2006 by Don]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an honor!
> 
> I haven't read it yet, but I honored that he felt my arguments warranted some sort of response. Now I've gotten feedback from some of the best - Vincent Cheung, Aquascum, and now Sudduth. I've posted on his Yahoo list and the silence was sort of daunting.
> 
> Should I post any comments on the blog, or here? Maybe I need a new thread?
Click to expand...


Anthony Coletti has responded to Dr. Sudduth's mumbo-jumbo. 





[Edited on 3-21-2006 by Civbert]


----------

