# Can we "prove" that God exists?



## cupotea (May 19, 2004)

Very simple (2 part) question:

1) Is it possible to &quot;prove&quot; beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists?

2) Is there any argument that does not appeal simply to probability (i.e. &quot;It is very very probable that God exists in light of such and such evidence&quot.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 19, 2004)

No and No. &quot;In the beginning God....&quot; That is the axiom that all other truth is proved by. We cannot prove an axiom.

You might try reading the tiny book, &quot;Flatland&quot; for one perspective of how we observe and the limits put upon us simply by our frame of reference.


----------



## sastark (May 19, 2004)

[quote:a10e766465][i:a10e766465]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:a10e766465]
Very simple (2 part) question:

1) Is it possible to &quot;prove&quot; beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists?

2) Is there any argument that does not appeal simply to probability (i.e. &quot;It is very very probable that God exists in light of such and such evidence&quot. [/quote:a10e766465]

&quot;Simple question&quot;. haha.

Answer to 1- Yes. The proof is all around us. The issue is not how we &quot;prove&quot; the existence of God, the issue is God choosing to regenerate someone by His Holy Spirit and thus allowing that person to finally see the &quot;proof&quot;. Remember, the fool says in his heart there is no God. He is a fool, because it is so obvious! We don't need proof, we need the Holy Spirit.


----------



## JohnV (May 19, 2004)

I'd like to agree with Seth, and add a yes to #2 as well. 

Now I suppose you are going to ask me to do it, aren't you? 

Well, that is another story, not because I can't do it, but because our fallen nature, even in the redeemed state often still refuses the evidences. There is an awful lot of cloudy fabric to our knowledge that has to be cleared away in order for us to see the plain truth. And of all things that are plain, the plainest and most universal is that God exists, and clearly so. 

So the question is not so much and issue of &quot;proving&quot;, but rather of allowing the proof to do it's work. 

When I look up at the starry host on a clear night I see much more than what I perceive other people see, going by what they say. I cannot help but be overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the proofs of God's existence; so much so that I wonder how others cannot see it. 

That is often called a subjective proof, but is that right? If it is true that I actually do objectively see something, as for example the Apostle John saw our Lord Jesus' resurrected body, in addition to all the miracles he witnessed first hand, then it is an objective proof. The fact that others have not, or perhaps cannot, see it does not make it subjective in nature. For it is true that, whether or not I personally witnessed the miracles, or personally saw Jesus alive after He had died, does not make it any less true that these things did occur. The fact that it is testified to us by people does not make it any less true, or any less historically accurate.

It is not I that testify to you that the evidences of God's deity are all around us; it is the Word that testifies it. And this from God Himself, who alone is most objective and equitable in His obeservations. He says, &quot;For what can be known about God is plain to them (those who suppress the truth), because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.&quot; (Rom 1:19, 20 )

We as men may equivocate on what that may mean, but God Himself says it is perspicuous: He uses the adverb &quot;clearly&quot;. And He follows afterward with the injunction, &quot;Therefore you have noe excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another.&quot; (Rom 2:1 )

So you see, it is not a question of proofs, or the objectivity of them, but rather of our abilities to see them. And that has a lot to do with our willingness to see them.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 19, 2004)

But JohnV the Word is true because it is God's Word and we are presuming that the God of the Bible exist's and has revealed himself. We are also presuming that propositional truth exists. These things cannot be proven.


----------



## panicbird (May 19, 2004)

[quote:37286bc401][i:37286bc401]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:37286bc401]
But JohnV the Word is true because it is God's Word and we are presuming that the God of the Bible exist's and has revealed himself. We are also presuming that propositional truth exists. These things cannot be proven. [/quote:37286bc401]

Could you not argue from the impossibility of the contrary (to use Bahnsen's phrase)? Could you not say, &quot;OK, so propositional truth does not exist. How would you communicate that? By means of propositional truth. Even to communicate the statement 'Propositional truth does not exist' one must use a propositional statement. Therefore, propositional truth exists because the contrary is impossible.&quot; Or, of the Word being true, could you not say, &quot;OK, so the Bible is not true; what it says about God is false. How, then, do you account for uniformity? How do you account for logic? How do you account for the fact that I am speaking to you and you understand what I am saying? You cannot account for it apart from an appeal to Scripture. Therefore, the contrary is impossible. Scripture must be true and what it says about God must correct; otherwise, we would have no account for anything. You cannot stand on the foundation of God's revelation and then deny you are standing on it.&quot; These may not be the proofs you are looking for, but they are proofs nonetheless. God's Word is true because the contrary is impossible and absurd. Propositional truth exists because for it not to exist is not possible.

I would also like to add that I agree with John. The problem is not the God has not revealed Himself and that we must [i:37286bc401]prove[/i:37286bc401] Him. The problem is with fallen man; it is with us. God's existence is our problem, not His.

Just my $0.02.

Lon


----------



## JohnV (May 19, 2004)

[quote:058172f076][i:058172f076]Originally posted by panicbird[/i:058172f076]
[quote:058172f076][i:058172f076]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:058172f076]
But JohnV the Word is true because it is God's Word and we are presuming that the God of the Bible exist's and has revealed himself. We are also presuming that propositional truth exists. These things cannot be proven. [/quote:058172f076]

Could you not argue from the impossibility of the contrary (to use Bahnsen's phrase)? Could you not say, &quot;OK, so propositional truth does not exist. How would you communicate that? By means of propositional truth. Even to communicate the statement 'Propositional truth does not exist' one must use a propositional statement. Therefore, propositional truth exists because the contrary is impossible.&quot; Or, of the Word being true, could you not say, &quot;OK, so the Bible is not true; what it says about God is false. How, then, do you account for uniformity? How do you account for logic? How do you account for the fact that I am speaking to you and you understand what I am saying? You cannot account for it apart from an appeal to Scripture. Therefore, the contrary is impossible. Scripture must be true and what it says about God must correct; otherwise, we would have no account for anything. You cannot stand on the foundation of God's revelation and then deny you are standing on it.&quot; These may not be the proofs you are looking for, but they are proofs nonetheless. God's Word is true because the contrary is impossible and absurd. Propositional truth exists because for it not to exist is not possible.

I would also like to add that I agree with John. The problem is not the God has not revealed Himself and that we must [i:058172f076]prove[/i:058172f076] Him. The problem is with fallen man; it is with us. God's existence is our problem, not His.

Just my $0.02.

Lon [/quote:058172f076]

Good answer, Lon. From a subjective point of view we are still left with the objective facts to deal with. 

Bob, if it depend on your presumptions then God does not exist for me. If it depends on my presumptions, then God does not exist for you. In either case, we are talking aobut separate Gods, though we may have reference to the same source.

The thing is, the fact that God exists, and that He has displayed His power and deity, even to those who suppress the truth, does not depend on either your or my presumptions. I would say, rather, that the presumptions that I may be given to are more dependant on His objective reality. In the end of the discussion, that is what Lon is saying. Your and my presumptions may change, but the fact that God exists and that He has clearly, I repeat, clearly displayed His power and deity to even those who suppress the truth, was true before we ever made any presumptions, and remains true regardless of the presumptions we may ever make, no matter how founded or unfounded. Our presumptions are not more real than God. 

What I tried to say at first is that the proofs are all there, and they are perspicuous. That is revealed to us by God; it cannot be untrue. The problem is that we fail to see them. If the proofs are true if we first presume, then we have no ground for the things we presume. In fact, the proofs are true, and that enables mankind to make presumptions. So the fact that we presume that God exists is a proof in itself. We would not be able to do that if He didn't.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 20, 2004)

I agree with what you are saying in that what you are saying is consistent with Scripture and hence, true. Everyman has an inate knowledge of God and is without excuse. There is no such thing as an atheist. Until God regenerates us we hold down, suppress the truth. Nature itself gives evidence that there is an intelligent creator and therefore a God who owns all things and may dispose of all things as he pleases. The orderliness of nature directs us to inquire about laws that govern nature and our behavior before such a God. We agree on these things. These are epistomological issues.

The original question was can we prove without a doubt that God exists. In practice, I cannot. The other person, unconciously suppressing the truth sees &quot;truth&quot; as a matter of opinion and empiricism. We believe in, as Schaefer said, 'true truth', but in this post-modern culture with no classical training in logic or the Word or even a need for it, 'truth' is determined by feelings. 

Because of the suppression of truth in unrighteousness, God cannot be proven, he can only be revealed after regeneration. 

I usually ask the person what color shirt they are wearing and then prove to them that observable evidence is not a good source of truth, and that most of what they believe is based in man's conventions. I can quickly prove that all men have built their belief systems and knowledge on presuppositions and unprovable axioms - but unless God does heart work on the person, I cannot prove that the biblical God exists. I can only demonstrate that my presup leads to a more consistent explanation of the world than theres. There is not an argument perfect enough to regenerate a man, if there was then I would go back to being an arminian.

I may be confusing proving God exists with arguing a man into rebirth but I believe it's one and the same. I may be able to prove intelligent design or a god, but I want to prove the biblical God. But a right knowledge of the God of the bible is eternal life.

&quot;And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.&quot; John 17:3


----------



## JohnV (May 20, 2004)

[quote:0d8f919297][i:0d8f919297]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:0d8f919297]
I agree with what you are saying in that what you are saying is consistent with Scripture and hence, true. Everyman has an inate knowledge of God and is without excuse. There is no such thing as an atheist. Until God regenerates us we hold down, suppress the truth. Nature itself gives evidence that there is an intelligent creator and therefore a God who owns all things and may dispose of all things as he pleases. The orderliness of nature directs us to inquire about laws that govern nature and our behavior before such a God. We agree on these things. These are epistomological issues.

The original question was can we prove without a doubt that God exists. In practice, I cannot. The other person, unconciously suppressing the truth sees &quot;truth&quot; as a matter of opinion and empiricism. We believe in, as Schaefer said, 'true truth', but in this post-modern culture with no classical training in logic or the Word or even a need for it, 'truth' is determined by feelings. 

Because of the suppression of truth in unrighteousness, God cannot be proven, he can only be revealed after regeneration. 

I usually ask the person what color shirt they are wearing and then prove to them that observable evidence is not a good source of truth, and that most of what they believe is based in man's conventions. I can quickly prove that all men have built their belief systems and knowledge on presuppositions and unprovable axioms - but unless God does heart work on the person, I cannot prove that the biblical God exists. I can only demonstrate that my presup leads to a more consistent explanation of the world than theres. There is not an argument perfect enough to regenerate a man, if there was then I would go back to being an arminian.

I may be confusing proving God exists with arguing a man into rebirth but I believe it's one and the same. I may be able to prove intelligent design or a god, but I want to prove the biblical God. But a right knowledge of the God of the bible is eternal life.

&quot;And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.&quot; John 17:3 [/quote:0d8f919297]

Bob:
I think we may have the same ends in mind when we use the example of the colour of a shirt or hat. I used to use a hat I commonly wore to prove God's existence, by relying on obeserved reality. Whereas you discount the veracity of such an observation for particular reasons, which I support, I did the opposite for other reasons. But the ends are the same. We are both tryin to point to the inescapable attributes of epsitemology that every many must carry. You may point to his self-decpetion, which he perpetrates in his mind, even against himself; and I may point to the unshakeable blueness or redness of something which his mind cannot get rid of no matter what he deceives himself to believe. 

God's existence is even more sure than the bleueness of the blue hat I used to wear. The unshakeable facts that no mind can get rid of, and must deal with, are not rooted in anything less than God's existence. The most primary fact of any eternal or temporal truth is that God made it so, and He did so because of His good pleasure. He is more basic than anything else, even to our knowledge. 

If the original question was, &quot;[u:0d8f919297]Can[/u:0d8f919297] we prove God's existence?&quot;, then the anser must be, &quot;Indeed, we can do nothing else.&quot; That is the same answer, you will note, that a Presuppostionalist gives. It seems to me that you are doing this as well, following a Presuppositional mindset. And no matter how I may disagree with some of the peripheral arguments, that I have problems accepting, that a Presuppositionalist puts along side of this, I am in full accord with him here. He may claim that the Presuppositionalist is the true evidentialist; then I am with him in so far as he is using his method to ascertain truly the existence of God for the unbeliever, and to silence the silly and incomprehensible objections to the solid and firm foundation of the believers' trust. 

Our ends are the same. We may disagree with what constitutes consistency within the field, but we are both trying, to the best of our ability and our knowledge, to be consistent to the truth. We both do so on account of our faith and trust in the God whose existence we both know.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 20, 2004)

JohnV,
I appreciate and commend you for your very clear presentation of argument. I don't see, however, how blueness proves the existence of God. Blue is an abitrary quality that men came up with to label higher frequencies of the visible spectrum. It is the description of a thing arrived at by common convention. How do we know blue is blue? What is blue? We can make it red tomorrow. If what you say is true then science would be able to prove God exists. Remeber, Eve was the first scientist, &quot;I can determine truth apart from the Word of God by what I see, feel, taste and touch.&quot; You and I see the stars or a tree and are immediately induced to worship but to the darkened, natural mind, he sees a tree and can at best deduce that there was a Big Tree long ago that created all the other trees.

You're right, we need God in order to understand and make sense of truth and for me that is proof, but we cannot impart that to the rebel.

By the way brother, I play a Seagull, it's one of the first they made. :bs2:

[Edited on 5-20-2004 by maxdetail]


----------



## BobVigneault (May 20, 2004)

Paul, 
you know I count you as THE local authority on presuppositionalism and I would only disagree with you in 'great fear and trembling' but in your excitement you left out a few key letters in your post. I will need some time to decrypt and figure out what you just said. Thanks for joining the thread. 

[Edited on 5-20-2004 by maxdetail]


----------



## JohnV (May 20, 2004)

Bob:
I want to break your questions down a bit, so that I can explain to you what I had in mind. It's going to take a bit of effort on your part, I think, to try to fit into my frame of reference. But I am going to do the best I can to state my ideas in terms that are clear to me, and yet hopefully accommodating to your frame of reference.

[quote:0916f1db3e][i:0916f1db3e]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:0916f1db3e]
JohnV,
I appreciate and commend you for your very clear presentation of argument. I don't see, however, how blueness proves the existence of God. Blue is an abitrary quality that men came up with to label higher frequencies of the visible spectrum. It is the description of a thing arrived at by common convention. How do we know blue is blue? What is blue? We can make it red tomorrow. [/quote:0916f1db3e]

What we call a colour is arbitray. But we cannot make it another colour by our own decisions. Simply calling it by another name does not change it's own qualities. 

Also, whether or not we agree that we are both seeing the same colour is also not pertinent to the actual colour the thing is. The qualities that the object has, are it's qualities, not ours by the use of our minds. Our need or disire for a red hat will not make my blue hat red; nor will any amount of fancy epistemological footwork. One of the basic rules of logic is that a thing is what it is: the law of identity. Any epistemological lack on our part plays no role whatsoever in the identity of, or identified qualities of, an object. A blue hat is a blue hat. If you (a hypothetical you, not you personally ) want to call that colour another name, fine; that changes nothing about the thing itself. If you want to quibble about whether or not we are seeing the same colour, fine; that too changes nothing about the thing itself. The object is what it is, or our logic falls to the ground.

Now, I think it is quite foolish to quibble over whether or not we see the same colours. The Presuppositionalist has the right answer for that: just as you (again, hypotheitical ) claim I have no ground for saying we both see the same colour, so you have no ground to saying we do not. You are, in fact, undermining your own argument, not mine.

[quote:0916f1db3e]If what you say is true then science would be able to prove God exists. Remeber, Eve was the first scientist, &quot;I can determine truth apart from the Word of God by what I see, feel, taste and touch.&quot;[/quote:0916f1db3e]
Your quote of Eve is suggestive, not actual. We have no record that this was her answer. In fact, it would be your answer. You may be very convinced that Eve also thought this, but it may yet be that it was not. I don't think that she thought this way. But that is my view.

In fact, I am saying that science fails at the outset if it cannot see first off that God exists. There is something wrong with the observation process if science does not see the most obvious of observations, both epistemologically and empirically. What else is there to see that is real, if science fails to see that this creation can have no other source than He whose attributes are elegantly and sufficiently displayed, even for the naysayers? Is science going to prove that the world evolved over billions of years? That is sheer audacity, not science. Is it going to prove that men have a groundwork for knowing, apart from God's imparted norms? That again is sheer audacity, not science. At every point where the observation of science makes necessary the conclusions that do not confess the existence of God, you can bet your bottom dollar that they have trangressed the laws of logic, at the very least. As people, of course, they have transgressed much more than that, but I am confining myself to the ends and means of science. 

Every concern of science is filled with wonder and awe. I am perplexed by the fact that they wonder and awe at things only to hide the amazing things that sparkle even brighter before them. Many, it seems, cannot see the forest for all the trees. 

[quote:0916f1db3e]You and I see the stars or a tree and are immediately induced to worship but to the darkened, natural mind, he sees a tree and can at best deduce that there was a Big Tree long ago that created all the other trees.[/quote:0916f1db3e]
If this is so, then who has the greater &quot;leap of faith&quot;? What principle in nature impells a scientist, or an unbeliever (I'm not assuming they are equivalent terms, for there are many believing scentists ) that there was at one time a big tree that made all other trees. This is pulled out of thin air ( a term meaning &quot;nothingness&quot;. ) But not so the attributes which are clearly displayed, not only in the air, but in all things. The ideas of good and bad, right and wrong, fit an unfit, the one and the many, so many things put before us to distinguish perfection and beauty from those which are not, place before our eyes a judgment of things that are what they are. 

Someone may say that all he sees is evil, meaning he sees no perfection. But certainly the lack of it is an emminent testimony of the want of it, and the want of it is the trace of God's own hand, in that things have a need to be perfect, and and end in mind to that direction, and not otherwise. No tree will be better by being worse. And there is no ambivalence in the want of things. Thus we have at the same time an unshakeable evidence of the perfection of God, as well as an unshakeable evidence of the Fall into sin, and this only in nature. What nature reveals to us is explained for us in Scripture. It is not merely true because Scripture says so; it is true on it's own witness as well.

[quote:0916f1db3e]You're right, we need God in order to understand and make sense of truth and for me that is proof, but we cannot impart that to the rebel.[/quote:0916f1db3e]
Both assertions, Bob, are true. That means that neither contradicts the other. They are complimentary, not contradictory. In order, in fact, to uphold the one, the other is required as well. That is, to assert the one without the other is only half the truth; and half the truth is not the truth.

A rebel may not be able, for all our efforts, to be brought to understand the plain revelation of God in the things that are made, but that is not because of the evidences; it is because of his hard heart. His hard heart does absolutely no damage to the quality of proof in the things God has put in place. Man, by his unbelief, cannot undo what God has done, what God has proclaimed to stand firm. Man only damages his own self. He may damage others by subverting truth and beguiling others, but he does so in spite of the evidences, not ever because of them. A miscarriage of reason, using the evidences for beguiling purposes, is just as wrong as falsifying the evidences. And evidences for the divine purpose of showing forth God's deity and power, used to deny God's deity and power, is a miscarriage of reason, and a misrepresentation of the facts. 

[quote:0916f1db3e]By the way brother, I play a Seagull, it's one of the first they made. :bs2:[/quote:0916f1db3e]
It's almost a twin, then, to my Yamaha. It too was one of the first that they made, when they changed their direction and made a whole new line. My guitar is now one of those Yamaha legends. 

With mine, though, you can see some manufacturing faults. The neck does not line up with the Bridge like it should. I mean the angle of the neck to the body, not the straightness or alignment to each other. This makes for a different playability than my later Yamaha, which shows the correction of that defect. You can also see a slight imperfection in the bonding of the neck to the body. 

But the selection of woods is great, the framing just right for the sound, and the feel of it in your hands very comfortable. The top has aged very nicely, and continues to give up a lively resonance. I would put it beside a new Martin any day. 

I've played a Seagull. But that was quite a while ago now. It too was a very good guitar for the price they were asking. But I can't remember anymore what things I liked or disliked about it. All I can remember is that it compared well with my other Yamaha, which is a good guitar too. 



[Edited on 5-20-2004 by maxdetail] [/quote]


----------



## BobVigneault (May 20, 2004)

[quote:73114de8de]
His hard heart does absolutely no damage to the quality of proof in the things God has put in place.
[/quote:73114de8de]

That's rich John, I like that very much. Thank you for taking the time to answer each question. I will need to re-read it a few times and ponder the things you said. Great thoughts.

When people in my church heard the new fellow was a &quot;Clarkian&quot; they would huddle around me cautiously like they expected me to bite them or to see if my knuckles dragged on the ground. They were amazed to find out I was gentle and winsome. As I have demonstrated, I know only enough 'dogmatic presuppositionalism' to be dangerous and the folks in my church are praying for my 'conversion' to 'transcendental presup'. 

I am thankful for having brothers like you and Paul who are willing to take the time to give me a free education. I wish we could all go out for a beer (or sweet tea) some time. Have a blessed day.


----------



## JohnV (May 20, 2004)

Bob:

Up until the last sentence of your post I thought that you had posted in the wrong thread. It may still be, but I am glad that you posted in this discussion, for I am in deep gratitude to you that you put Paul and I together like that, along with yourself. If we are going to work out differences in opinions about certain things, our brotherhood and common interest must be kept in mind, and valued. 

(I thought I would move my response to this thread too. )


----------



## unlearnedlearner (May 22, 2004)

[quote:7dc848b749][i:7dc848b749]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:7dc848b749]
Very simple (2 part) question:

1) Is it possible to &quot;prove&quot; beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists?[/quote:7dc848b749]

Hello, yes, but it is important to discuss the nature of proof at this point. I was discussing this with some unbeleivers a few weeks ago and they were looking for &quot;empirical proof&quot;, and I conceded that I could not prove God from the nature of this &quot;proof&quot;, etc. Also, keep in mind the Paul's clear statement that &quot;although they knew God, they neither...&quot; So, essentially everyone knows that God exists, but the challenge is demonstrating this to the unbeliever.


[quote:7dc848b749]2) Is there any argument that does not appeal simply to probability (i.e. &quot;It is very very probable that God exists in light of such and such evidence&quot. [/quote:7dc848b749]

Yes, through an appropriate discussion of the nature of proof. Paul mentioned arguing &quot;transcendentally&quot;, but this is off of most peoples radar. It basically asks, what are the necessary preconditions for anything to have meaning. From Van Til and Bahnsen, who I happen to agree with, I believe the answer is that God is necessary for any discussion of &quot;proof&quot;, so this proves His existence.


----------



## JohnV (May 22, 2004)

[quote:94ab15a960][i:94ab15a960]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:94ab15a960]
[quote:94ab15a960]
Paul mentioned arguing &quot;transcendentally&quot;, but this is off of most peoples radar.
[/quote:94ab15a960]

would: __arguing for what must necessarily be the case in order for *any* aspect of human experience to be made intelligible__ be better? [/quote:94ab15a960]
I would agree with that. It might be more cumbersome in writing, but not in understanding. 

Question:
Would your replacement for &quot;transcendental&quot; be considered a wholesale replacement? Or is there more to the Transcendental Argement?


----------



## philosopher82 (Jul 20, 2004)

Paul manatea does a good job laying out the argument. if i may though not everyone can read symbolic logic. so i'll lay it out so anyone can understand it. to transcend something is to rise above it and sort of examine it. what, i assume van til's here, the transcendental method of argumentation is, is showing a person's world-veiw or presupossitions to be inconsistant or contradictory. this argument is absolutly wonderful and helpful in the beggining of a discussion and after i have destroyed, or attempted to at least, i move into the traditional arguments or something like it. on a side note the traditional arguments for the existence of God are also a form of transcendental argumentation but a different form. it's the form that kant used, which is basicly also developed by william james in his pragmatic method of argumentation/analysis. this other form looks at a given object, principle, or thing in general and ask what are the neccessary( excuse that spelling if it's wrong) preconditions for something to be the way it is. if we look at the world and reason and say use this method we could hypotheticly show that the only possible way for the world to exist is for there to be God. this is actually the opposite direction of the traditional arguments but it dosent matter what way you go with two logicly contigent methods.


----------



## philosopher82 (Jul 20, 2004)

remember the difference though between a valid logical argument and an argument that is valid to reality. a near iffinte number of logical arguments are valid logicly but not against reality. you also can't show ethics to be meaningful without first proving God exists, read nietzche and sarte. so that argument may be one way to argue but you canever prove that the triune God of the bible exists apart from proving that the bible is spiritualy inspired. one question do think the other traditional arguments work, but you just like this one better or they dont work at all? just curious


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2004)

James:

Welcome to the Board.

I have a question for you. What is the role of axioms in logic? Would you equate that to what Paul calls "transcendentals"? Actually, that was two questions. 

Paul: would you equate these terms? Are transcendentals self consistent truths?

When you, James, look at a sentence like, "There are no brute facts" do you see it as axiomatic, or do you see an axiom that is self-excepting, or do you not see this as axiomatic?

Paul: how do you tie transcendentals into reality? How do you know that they are transcendental? 

Remember, an evidentialist sees the same transcendental, but doesn't call it that. He may not be consistent with your use of terms, but he is keenly aware of the consistency of his own use of terms, especially if he walks with his Saviour every day.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 21, 2004)

Paul:

Are not axioms self-attesting truths? Is it not that their attestation is such that they cannot be dislodged, rather than needing proof?


----------

