# Plantinga's modal logic version of the ontological argument



## Whitefield

Because Plantinga's modal logic version of the ontological argument was mentioned in another thread, I had to look it up and refresh my memory of it. Something made me uncomfortable about it and I think I know why. If we add three words in the opening proposition ("solitary in personality") and carry them throughout, I think it has a disastrous result. The ontological argument is an _a priori_ rational argument, so we cannot appeal to anything but reason in developing it. Limited to that arena, I don't see why proposing the one who has maximal excellence is one God .. and one Person. Before you flame me, I know that is heresy of the first order, and that is why I say the argument in this form results in disaster. So, I guess I need to be told why the addition cannot be made in the modal ontological argument.

Here is the argument as I understand it:

1.It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, and solitary in personality in W; and 

2.It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 

3.Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) 

4.Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and solitary in personality being exists. 

5.Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and solitary in personality being exists. (By S5) 

6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and solitary in personality being exists.


----------



## Whitefield




----------



## chbrooking

With the crickets chirping, shall we declare Lance the victor?


----------



## VictorBravo

chbrooking said:


> With the crickets chirping, shall we declare Lance the victor?



Unless you want to wait until the end of next week when I find the time to read Plantinga. . . . 

By the way, without giving it a lot of thought right now, Lance's presentation seems similar to Anshelm's, and subject to a similar criticism.


----------



## steven-nemes

Plantinga never suggests that the maximally excellent being has to be (or even _might_ be) only one in person.


----------



## chbrooking

steven-nemes said:


> Plantinga never suggests that the maximally excellent being has to be (or even _might_ be) only one in person.



Yes, but Lance's point, I think, attacked the arbitrariness of what _is_ included in the premise. Forget Plantinga's statement and consider why Lance's recasting of the argument fails. Obviously, the question is not directed to presuppositionalists, since we will regard both constructions as failing.


----------



## steven-nemes

No, how in any way would being only one person contribute to maximal excellence? I can see that goodness, knowledge, strength, etc., do, but how is being only one person in any way similar to the other traits?


----------



## Whitefield

victorbravo said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the crickets chirping, shall we declare Lance the victor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you want to wait until the end of next week when I find the time to read Plantinga. . . .
> 
> By the way, without giving it a lot of thought right now, Lance's presentation seems similar to Anshelm's, and subject to a similar criticism.
Click to expand...


This isn't my argument, but Plantinga's which to which I add three words in an attempt to show the first proposition determines the final result. Many proponents of Plantinga's ontological argument think it is immune from the criticisms leveled against Anselm's.

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 02:54:12 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> Plantinga never suggests that the maximally excellent being has to be (or even _might_ be) only one in person.



Why not? Based on a purely rational argument (which the ontological argument is) why is the first proposition limited to only three attributes? What argument is there not to add the fourth ("solitary in personality")? I think one could argue, within the ontological arena, that singleness is greater than multitude. But if multitude is greater than singleness, then why wouldn't infinitude be the "maximally excellent"? In that case, change "solitary in personality" to "infinite in personalities." Either way, the result is the God who is proved is not the God of the Scriptures.

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 03:22:07 EST-----

The point of this little exercise in my head is to show that the rational/philosophical arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral) cannot tell us *who* this "proven" concept of God is, or *what* He is like.


----------



## steven-nemes

I don't see the connection between the number of personalities in a being an that being's excellence; I can see the connection between the goodness, power, and knowledge of a being and that being's excellence, however. I don't think the choices are arbitrary because I can plainly see that the latter traits constitute an excellent being, and no one would say that the former is even relevant to the excellence of a being.


----------



## Philip

Whitefield said:


> The point of this little exercise in my head is to show that the rational/philosophical arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral) cannot tell us who this "proven" concept of God is, or what He is like.



Are they supposed to? Reason can only get one to the idea that God exists. The apologist can only (pardon the mixed metaphor) lead the horse to water. Only the Holy Spirit can make him walk on it. Knowledge of _who_ God is can only be gained by reading the Scriptures, and even then, only if one already has some idea (i.e. they are regenerate).

Reason can only get one so far--the Holy Spirit must do the rest. Apologetics can only point to the truth, but cannot alone open blind eyes.


----------



## Confessor

steven-nemes said:


> No, how in any way would being only one person contribute to maximal excellence? I can see that goodness, knowledge, strength, etc., do, but how is being only one person in any way similar to the other traits?



The unbeliever would also ask how a God who predestines people to hell can be _wholly good_. (In fact, a Molinist attempted to lay out a "reverse ontological argument" and a "reverse moral argument" on Facebook against me; he thought the Calvinist God was so evil.)

All the terms in the first premise are subject to our presuppositions about the world.

-----Added 6/12/2009 at 04:29:47 EST-----



P. F. Pugh said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this little exercise in my head is to show that the rational/philosophical arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral) cannot tell us who this "proven" concept of God is, or what He is like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they supposed to? Reason can only get one to the idea that God exists. The apologist can only (pardon the mixed metaphor) lead the horse to water. Only the Holy Spirit can make him walk on it. Knowledge of _who_ God is can only be gained by reading the Scriptures, and even then, only if one already has some idea (i.e. they are regenerate).
> 
> Reason can only get one so far--the Holy Spirit must do the rest. Apologetics can only point to the truth, but cannot alone open blind eyes.
Click to expand...


This is the Catholic view of faith and reason. It stresses that there really is no _reason_ to accept revelation, except purely on faith, as something that natural reason is completely disconnected from.

The Reformed view rather understands that man has no excuse whatsoever (including "it's not reasonable to accept revelation"), and that although the unbeliever must be led to repentance by the witness of the Spirit, it is nonetheless true that he has no rational reasons to remain in unbelief. The Holy Spirit provides a moral change, not some addition of knowledge. Otherwise those who reject the Gospel would have an excuse (_contra_ Romans 1:20) because there would be _no rational reason at all_ for them to accept it.

In brief, if you tell a man that faith has to "bridge the gap," then there is no _reason_ to accept unbelief, and thereby you are proposing a mitigated fideism, denying that man is wholly "without excuse."


----------



## steven-nemes

Confessor said:


> The unbeliever would also ask how a God who predestines people to hell can be _wholly good_. (In fact, a Molinist attempted to lay out a "reverse ontological argument" and a "reverse moral argument" on Facebook against me; he thought the Calvinist God was so evil.)
> 
> All the terms in the first premise are subject to our presuppositions about the world.



Well even if our common notions of good preclude a God who destines some to damnation, this argument still proves that a God who is good exists; the existence of God is to me a priority for a natural theology argument, but whether or not this God is identical in character to the God I understand to exist from scripture is not immediately important to me. Once the unbeliever accepts that a good God exists, then later on, when his faith is more developed, we will perhaps refine our definition of "good" so that it is more in tune with what scripture says.


----------



## Confessor

steven-nemes said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unbeliever would also ask how a God who predestines people to hell can be _wholly good_. (In fact, a Molinist attempted to lay out a "reverse ontological argument" and a "reverse moral argument" on Facebook against me; he thought the Calvinist God was so evil.)
> 
> All the terms in the first premise are subject to our presuppositions about the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well even if our common notions of good preclude a God who destines some to damnation, this argument still proves that a God who is good exists; the existence of God is to me a priority for a natural theology argument, but whether or not this God is identical in character to the God I understand to exist from scripture is not immediately important to me. Once the unbeliever accepts that a good God exists, then later on, when his faith is more developed, we will perhaps refine our definition of "good" so that it is more in tune with what scripture says.
Click to expand...


Once you establish that autonomous reasoning is permissible and ground the other person's faith on that principle, then he will not be rationally obliged in any sense to alter his definition of "good."

I have personally seen natural theology lead to ridiculous views, such as annihilationism and of course any form of free-willism. This is because autonomous reasoning is labeled as premium. If man has the prerogative to interpret the universe at the outset, then he will have that prerogative at every point. And if he has that prerogative at every point, then he can conclude what counts as good _entirely by his decision_. He will be fulfilling Satan's enticement in Genesis 3:5 perfectly.

In other words, you can only expect his faith to develop if you convince him of the authority of the Scriptures and not of himself. I don't doubt that it is possible for someone to be convinced of the ontological argument and later accept reprobation, but I would say that such can occur only by blessed inconsistency.


----------



## steven-nemes

Confessor said:


> Once you establish that autonomous reasoning is permissible and ground the other person's faith on that principle, then he will not be rationally obliged in any sense to alter his definition of "good."



Sure he will. Consider the following argument:

If scripture teaches X, then X is true.
Scripture teaches X.
Therefore, X is true.

Surely any believer would be more than happy to believe anything that follows along those lines. The difficulty is in proving that scripture teaches X.


----------



## Confessor

That syllogism presupposes that God has the prerogative to interpret reality rather than man. There is no way you could prove such a thing from natural theology, since natural theology presupposes that man has that prerogative.

In other words, the only way a person will grant that first premise is if he eventually submits to the Bible on the Bible's own authority, which cannot be done via natural theology or an ontological argument.

And you would be quite surprised at how many people would not really grant that first premise. I was talking to a friend who believes capital punishment is wrong, and I asked her, "If God came in this room and directly told you to kill someone, would you be obliged to do it?" She said she wasn't sure. This same girl also concedes that the Bible teaches predestination but refuses to believe it. Now, this girl is most likely unaware of the ontological argument, but nonetheless she shows that professing believers can have a lot of autonomy within them, based on their own interpretations of reality (specifically, ethics in her case: "God can't do that!" and "You can't kill anybody!") rather than on God's.

And if you can't provide a rational reason why people should not be autonomous (even though they know it's morally wrong), then you haven't demonstrated rationally that they're without excuse, and we're back to the false Roman view on faith and reason that I outlined above.


----------



## steven-nemes

That syllogism there is good enough to rationally oblige _anyone_ to accept X. If they accept that what scripture teaches is true, then they are forced to follow the argument through to its conclusion, otherwise they are irrational in holding to not-X; if they are not willing to accept that (namely, that what scripture teaches is true), then they are not believers anyway, and what does it matter?


----------



## Whitefield

steven-nemes said:


> That syllogism there is good enough to rationally oblige _anyone_ to accept X. If they accept that what scripture teaches is true, then they are forced to follow the argument through to its conclusion, otherwise they are irrational in holding to not-X; if they are not willing to accept that (namely, that what scripture teaches is true), then they are not believers anyway, and what does it matter?



"rational" ... "irrational" ... "contradiction of 'x' and 'not-x'" ... please tell me again, which argument in classical apologetics account for such terms?


----------



## steven-nemes

Whitefield said:


> "rational" ... "irrational" ... "contradiction of 'x' and 'not-x'" ... please tell me again, which argument in classical apologetics account for such terms?



Well, definitions of such terms are irrelevant to whether or not the ontological argument proves the existence of a God, which I think was the topic of the discussion. But to answer your question: it seems that there are many things meant by the terms "rational" and "irrational" when used in various contexts, so I don't know what to tell you about that. As far as there being distinctions between X and non-X, these are plain and self-evident truths, anyone could admit to that. I don't see why this, however, is relevant to the topic of classical apologetics and natural theology.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> That syllogism there is good enough to rationally oblige _anyone_ to accept X. If they accept that what scripture teaches is true, then they are forced to follow the argument through to its conclusion, otherwise they are irrational in holding to not-X; if they are not willing to accept that (namely, that what scripture teaches is true), then they are not believers anyway, and what does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "rational" ... "irrational" ... "contradiction of 'x' and 'not-x'" ... please tell me again, which argument in classical apologetics account for such terms?
Click to expand...


The ability to make a distinction between 'x' and 'not-x' is basic to meaning. One does not need a "system of apologetics" to account for such.

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> That syllogism there is good enough to rationally oblige _anyone_ to accept X. If they accept that what scripture teaches is true, then they are forced to follow the argument through to its conclusion, otherwise they are irrational in holding to not-X; if they are not willing to accept that (namely, that what scripture teaches is true), then they are not believers anyway, and what does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "rational" ... "irrational" ... "contradiction of 'x' and 'not-x'" ... please tell me again, which argument in classical apologetics account for such terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ability to make a distinction between 'x' and 'not-x' is basic to meaning. One does not need a "system of apologetics" to account for such.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


But one has to give an account for the source of such "plain and self-evident" things. The classical arguments rely upon rationality, but fail to ask the meta-question: "Whence this rationality which is relied upon so heavily."

And whose meaning is the law of contradiction basic to?


----------



## Confessor

steven-nemes said:


> That syllogism there is good enough to rationally oblige _anyone_ to accept X. If they accept that what scripture teaches is true, then they are forced to follow the argument through to its conclusion, otherwise they are irrational in holding to not-X; if they are not willing to accept that (namely, that what scripture teaches is true), then they are not believers anyway, and what does it matter?



My point is they will not be logically obliged to accept premise 1 unless they drop their autonomy, since premise 1 is essentially a relinquishment of autonomy, an understanding that God alone has the authority to interpret the world.

Or, In other words,, if they accept premise 1, it will not have followed from natural theology.

-----Added 6/13/2009 at 07:48:56 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> "rational" ... "irrational" ... "contradiction of 'x' and 'not-x'" ... please tell me again, which argument in classical apologetics account for such terms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to make a distinction between 'x' and 'not-x' is basic to meaning. One does not need a "system of apologetics" to account for such.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But one has to give an account for the source of such "plain and self-evident" things. The classical arguments rely upon rationality, but fail to ask the meta-question: "Whence this rationality which is relied upon so heavily."
> 
> And whose meaning is the law of contradiction basic to?
Click to expand...


No, no one is obliged to "give an account" for such things, simply because they're already rationally warranted in believing it. You wouldn't tell a seven-year old kid, "No son, you can't speak as if the logical law of identity and law of contradiction exist until you give an account for them first."

Rather, the presuppositional apologist can use the existence of laws of logic in order to show a _contradiction_ within the unbeliever's worldview, namely how he believes in universal, rational, prescriptive laws "within" or "inherent to" matter, a _non-rational_ substance.


----------



## chbrooking

Hang on, I've been away and haven't really kept up. But reading through, I got lost at post 14. How did persuading a person that a God exists suddenly put them in the camp of "believer" and how did an argument that was supposedly sufficient quite apart from scripture now lead to them accepting that scripture is authoritative? The conversation went on to talk about contradiction and such, but I don't see how this major issue was missed. Suppose you persuade them that God exists, using the ontological argument. How did you move from God existing to God speaking, and speaking particularly in the Bible?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> "rational" ... "irrational" ... "contradiction of 'x' and 'not-x'" ... please tell me again, which argument in classical apologetics account for such terms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to make a distinction between 'x' and 'not-x' is basic to meaning. One does not need a "system of apologetics" to account for such.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But one has to give an account for the source of such "plain and self-evident" things. The classical arguments rely upon rationality, but fail to ask the meta-question: "Whence this rationality which is relied upon so heavily."
> 
> And whose meaning is the law of contradiction basic to?
Click to expand...


An analogy of your position is this: "Someone claims that they own a car parked outside. You then respond that unless you tell me who made it and where they made it, then you cannot claim to own that car."

It is basic to anyone who thinks.

CT


----------



## Philip

Let us pretend for a minute that my friend joe is now convinced that a good God exists. What I can do now is prove that goodness is not what he thought it was. Damnation, in fact, is a good and just thing.

Fact is, we all start life by thinking autonomously. You cannot know God until you know yourself (insofar as that is possible without God).


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to make a distinction between 'x' and 'not-x' is basic to meaning. One does not need a "system of apologetics" to account for such.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But one has to give an account for the source of such "plain and self-evident" things. The classical arguments rely upon rationality, but fail to ask the meta-question: "Whence this rationality which is relied upon so heavily."
> 
> And whose meaning is the law of contradiction basic to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An analogy of your position is this: "Someone claims that they own a car parked outside. You then respond that unless you tell me who made it and where they made it, then you cannot claim to own that car."
> 
> It is basic to anyone who thinks.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Have you verified this with everyone who thinks? Or are you presupposing that everyone thinks this way? 

Your axiom seems to be "anyone who thinks rationally, thinks rationally on their own"; my 
axiom is "anyone who thinks rationally, thinks rationally because God thinks rationally."

Re: your analogy about the car - if you try to title and register the car in Indiana you will need to prove those things.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one has to give an account for the source of such "plain and self-evident" things. The classical arguments rely upon rationality, but fail to ask the meta-question: "Whence this rationality which is relied upon so heavily."
> 
> And whose meaning is the law of contradiction basic to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An analogy of your position is this: "Someone claims that they own a car parked outside. You then respond that unless you tell me who made it and where they made it, then you cannot claim to own that car."
> 
> It is basic to anyone who thinks.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you verified this with everyone who thinks? Or are you presupposing that everyone thinks this way?
Click to expand...


I am not an empiricist, so I do not see that I have any obligation to empirically verify everything.



> Your axiom seems to be "anyone who thinks rationally, thinks rationally on their own"; my
> axiom is "anyone who thinks rationally, thinks rationally because God thinks rationally."



My sole claim is that there are rules and consequences for violating said rules. If the rules hold because God is rational or if they hold even if there is no God is not the present concern.



> Re: your analogy about the car - if you try to title and register the car in Indiana you will need to prove those things.



There are definite things that you have to do to register the car, but the whether or not I can convince you that I own the care, is of no consequence of me owning the car or not.

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> My sole claim is that there are rules and consequences for violating said rules. If the rules hold because God is rational or if they hold even if there is no God is not the present concern.



Who is it that made these rules and consequences for their violation?



ChristianTrader said:


> There are definite things that you have to do to register the car, but the whether or not I can convince you that I own the care, is of no consequence of me owning the car or not.



It is if you are accused of having stole the car.


----------



## Confessor

P. F. Pugh said:


> Let us pretend for a minute that my friend joe is now convinced that a good God exists. What I can do now is prove that goodness is not what he thought it was. Damnation, in fact, is a good and just thing.



How can you possibly prove this objectively? You can try to give him principles (e.g. justice) that he might accept, but at no point is he rationally obliged to accept them. Why would an unbeliever desire justice anyway? How can justice be shown as important on a naturalistic basis? Nietzsche would certainly not care about such things.

Even worse, at this rate, if an unbeliever has got you in a hole like this, he can keep asking questions until you prove on an autonomous basis that every single Bible verse is legitimate and "good." If the unbeliever is allowed to question the goodness of a Biblical doctrine and legitimately suspend belief until it is proven to be good, then he can legitimately suspend belief on every single thing in the Bible until it is proved on a separate basis. This is destructive of Biblical authority.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Fact is, we all start life by thinking autonomously. You cannot know God until you know yourself (insofar as that is possible without God).



Although we are _prima facie_ justified believing in many things without having to directly recourse to God immediately (e.g. seven-year-olds can justifiably speak logically without having to give a transcendental account for knowledge), there still is a presupposition that we hold as self-evident that "flavors" every other belief in our noetic structure. And this presupposition can either be a belief that _man_ has a prerogative to interpret reality, or _God_. The entire history of philosophy has generally believed it to be self-evident that man is responsible for constructing a philosophy himself, whereas Christians are to believe that God has already provided us with an authoritative revelation containing its own distinct philosophy. Christians understand that it is man's duty to submit to God's interpretation and not to construct one of our own.

Now, one of these two beliefs, autonomy or theonomy, must be assumed at the outset. It cannot be proven that one has the prerogative to interpret reality at the outset on the basis of assuming that the other has it. There is no neutrality.

As for your proposal that man must be autonomous, I reply that it is not necessary that he assumes man has the prerogative to interpret reality. I already conceded that there are several beliefs man is justified in holding (that he exists as a "self", sensory perception, reliability of memory, belief in laws of logic, etc., etc.), but it doesn't follow that man must assume an autonomous presupposition. Autonomy is not necessary in the least.


----------



## Whitefield

P. F. Pugh said:


> Fact is, we all start life by thinking autonomously. You cannot know God until you know yourself (insofar as that is possible without God).



I don't think this is a fact; I think it is more an assumption.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sole claim is that there are rules and consequences for violating said rules. If the rules hold because God is rational or if they hold even if there is no God is not the present concern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is it that made these rules and consequences for their violation?
Click to expand...


That is a legit question, to ask, once we have common ground that there are rules.



> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are definite things that you have to do to register the car, but the whether or not I can convince you that I own the care, is of no consequence of me owning the car or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is if you are accused of having stole the car.
Click to expand...


If you want to use the analogy that way, my claim then is simply that I have a car. If you want to make the claim that I stole it, rightfully paid for it etc., that comes after my possession of the car. If I do not possess the car, then I cannot even be accused of stealing it.

CT


----------



## Confessor

Rev. Marshall,

Did you see my reply to you above? I for one thought it was rather important, as I have seen a lack of clarification in presuppositionalists regarding when we are justified in holding beliefs. in my opinion this has arisen because Bahnsen wrongly said that atheists have to "account for" things rather than absolve contradictions within their worldview. As I said, it is not the case that people walking around have to account for their belief in laws of logic; they are already rationally justified in believing in laws of logic and need nothing more. But yet the apologist can point out a contradiction, namely that their belief in laws of logic contradicts some other part of their worldview.

Now, I don't know if declaring the importance of my statements makes me narcissistic or not, but irrespective of that I would appreciate your understanding my point.


----------



## Whitefield

Confessor said:


> Rev. Marshall,
> 
> Did you see my reply to you above? I for one thought it was rather important, as I have seen a lack of clarification in presuppositionalists regarding when we are justified in holding beliefs. in my opinion this has arisen because Bahnsen wrongly said that atheists have to "account for" things rather than absolve contradictions within their worldview. As I said, it is not the case that people walking around have to account for their belief in laws of logic; they are already rationally justified in believing in laws of logic and need nothing more. But yet the apologist can point out a contradiction, namely that their belief in laws of logic contradicts some other part of their worldview.
> 
> Now, I don't know if declaring the importance of my statements makes me narcissistic or not, but irrespective of that I would appreciate your understanding my point.



Ben,

I think the "accounting for" has to do with justifying a starting point, and the basic argument for the existence of God. The "pointing out of contradictions" is much more practical and results in clearer results.

If one starts from point A and travels 3 miles at 60 degrees they will arrive at point C. If one starts from point B (which is not A, nor on the line from A to C) and travels at 60 degrees they will not arrive at point C. in my opinion the "accounting for" is a discussion of the difference between points A and B. 

If one starts from point A and travels 3 miles at 60 degrees they will arrive at point C. If one starts from point A and travels at 75 degrees they will not arrive at point C. The "pointing out contradictions" is a discussion as to why the second person did not arrive at point C.

This is a rough analogy, it is late, but in my thinking, the effects of sin on the human mind has them start at the wrong point and head in the wrong direction (i.e., one is starting at point B and heading off at 75 degrees). 

*Autonomous man* is sinful man, *autonomous thinking by man* is sinful thinking, without _metanoia_ man does not know where point A is, and his direction of travel will always be towards himself.

I don't know if this answers your question, but I think the atheist has to both give an account for the tools he uses, and resolve contradictions in the use of those tools.


----------



## Confessor

Whitefield said:


> I think the "accounting for" has to do with justifying a starting point, and the basic argument for the existence of God. The "pointing out of contradictions" is much more practical and results in clearer results.



1. As for justifying a starting point, there's not much to say. Unbelievers think it self-evident that man has the prerogative to interpret reality; Christians think it self-evident that God has the prerogative, that the Bible is His Word and His authoritative revelation-interpretation. (Keep in mind that a proposition is "self-evident" to a person iff that person comes to believe it solely by understanding it.) Rationally speaking (not morally), there's nothing wrong with an unbeliever choosing autonomy as his presupposition -- that is, until he recognizes its implications, its _contradictions_.

2. Regarding your analogy, I think you're evidencing that we are on the same page. According to the part of your analogy involved with "accounting" (the difference between points A and B when leaving at the same angle) would in fact be showing the atheist his _contradiction_. If you show him the logical implications of his worldview, you would show him how they lead somewhere other than C. Then, given that he is at C, it would follow that his worldview is false, since his worldview starts at B.

As a result, I would honestly say that pointing out contradictions is not merely a more "practical" method (as if it's a form of evidentialism that works despite its inconsistency), but *the* presuppositional defense of the faith, TAG. When one is pointing out such a contradiction, he is taking whatever fact of reality he wants, showing how the unbeliever's worldview leads to a separate "endpoint" and how the Christian's worldview leads to that endpoint.

In other words, the contradictions I'm trying to point out are not _ad hominem_ inconsistencies that can be resolved while the unbeliever maintains his presuppositions (therefore I think your second analogy is mistaken); they are _irreconcilable_ contradictions that the unbeliever can fix only by abandoning his worldview.

3. Otherwise, I'll stand by my argument that the unbeliever does not have to give an account for anything -- if a seven-year-old is justified in believing in the laws of logic, then he is justified whether or not he can explain how. However, if someone tells an unbeliever that his presupposition (that man has the prerogative to interpret reality) results in a contradiction (e.g. that he would have believe in the absence of laws of logic), then he'd be in a quagmire.

You'll notice too that when you tell unbelievers to account for various things (e.g. logic, uniformity) without positing a contradiction in their worldview, they'll often respond, "Fine, I presuppose logic/uniformity." That is unanswerable unless you show a _contradiction_ in their worldview.

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 01:04:34 EST-----

And I just now noticed that I hijacked this thread.


----------



## Philip

Confessor said:


> Even worse, at this rate, if an unbeliever has got you in a hole like this, he can keep asking questions until you prove on an autonomous basis that every single Bible verse is legitimate and "good."



You're assuming here that _he's_ asking the questions.



> And this presupposition can either be a belief that man has a prerogative to interpret reality, or God.



Or what if God has given man the tools necessary to interpret reality and man has consistently misused those tools?



Whitefield said:


> The "pointing out of contradictions" is much more practical and results in clearer results.



I've never seen it work. I have an agnostic friend who I have been debating with for a couple months now. I have honestly tried pinning him down and working out contradictions, but his views are so general and vague (and changeable) that one cannot find a place to find contradictions. One is forced, with this fellow, to use an external reality that is acknowledged by both parties.


----------



## Whitefield

Confessor said:


> As a result, I would honestly say that pointing out contradictions is not merely a more "practical" method (as if it's a form of evidentialism that works despite its inconsistency), but *the* presuppositional defense of the faith, TAG. When one is pointing out such a contradiction, he is taking whatever fact of reality he wants, showing how the unbeliever's worldview leads to a separate "endpoint" and how the Christian's worldview leads to that endpoint.
> 
> In other words, the contradictions I'm trying to point out are not _ad hominem_ inconsistencies that can be resolved while the unbeliever maintains his presuppositions (therefore I think your second analogy is mistaken); they are _irreconcilable_ contradictions that the unbeliever can fix only by abandoning his worldview.



I agree with you on this, and I think this is the only effective apologetic approach in the post-modern world.


----------



## Confessor

Philip,

1. I'm not assuming he's asking questions; I'm assuming that the unregenerate will not immediately submit to the fallaciously jumpy reasoning of natural theology. There are tons of gaps in natural theology and he will not traverse them.

2. God has not given man the prerogative to interpret reality at all; that's why the Bible exists in the first place. In fact, statements like these imply that the Bible is supplementary rather than foundational and can be found in such anti-Scriptural frameworks as the Wesleyan quadrilateral and the Catholic pretense that Tradition and Scripture are "equal."

3. No offense, but your mistakes in pointing out others' contradictions do not entail the validity of natural theology.

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 01:56:51 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> I agree with you on this, and I think this is the only effective apologetic approach in the post-modern world.



Cool. From what I have seen, it comes down to a minor mistake in carrying out the apologetic. Rather than telling the atheist to account for things, we should point out how that thing objectively makes no sense on his presupposition, thereby positing a contradiction which he must correct rather than something which he must justify; for if you ask him to justify something, then he'll just say, "I presuppose it." More likely, he'll be confused, because he already thought that he was justified in holding such beliefs (and he correctly thought that, too).


----------



## Whitefield

Confessor said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this, and I think this is the only effective apologetic approach in the post-modern world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. From what I have seen, it comes down to a minor mistake in carrying out the apologetic. Rather than telling the atheist to account for things, we should point out how that thing objectively makes no sense on his presupposition, thereby positing a contradiction which he must correct rather than something which he must justify; for if you ask him to justify something, then he'll just say, "I presuppose it." More likely, he'll be confused, because he already thought that he was justified in holding such beliefs (and he correctly thought that, too).
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing against what you are saying. It's just sometimes I like to look into the atheist's eyes and ask, "where are you getting this garbage from?"


----------



## Confessor

Whitefield said:


> I'm not arguing against what you are saying. It's just sometimes I like to look into the atheist's eyes and ask, "where are you getting this garbage from?"


----------



## Philip

Confessor said:


> I'm not assuming he's asking questions; I'm assuming that the unregenerate will not immediately submit to the fallaciously jumpy reasoning of natural theology.



If they won't listen to common sense, what makes you think they'll submit to what they know is an attempt on your part to unravel their interpretation of reality? You have no dialogue without something to grab hold of.



> God has not given man the prerogative to interpret reality at all



Of course God gives us a prerogative. It's built into us physically. Our eyes are sets of lenses that give us a generally accurate picture of the world. 

Calvin compared the Biblical worldview to a set of glasses. When you put on a pair of glasses (assuming you have the right prescription) you learn a) how wrong your visual perception was b) how right your visual perception was. 



> that's why the Bible exists in the first place.



No, it exists to tell us _who_ God is. Natural theology exists to tell us _what_ God is. The Bible never proves the existence of God because it assumes that you already know and believe that fact. 



> Rather than telling the atheist to account for things, we should point out how that thing objectively makes no sense on his presupposition



I would argue that objectivity is a myth. We all see the world through a set of lenses.



> No offense, but your mistakes in pointing out others' contradictions do not entail the validity of natural theology.



Any more than pointing out my flaws in natural theology entails the validity of presuppositionalism. No offense taken, BTW.

Question: was Elijah presuppositional when he called the bluff of the prophets of Baal?


----------



## Whitefield

P. F. Pugh said:


> Of course God gives us a prerogative. It's built into us physically. Our eyes are sets of lenses that give us a generally accurate picture of the world.



Eyes give us nothing if they are not connected to a brain. And if that brain has been impacted by the noetic effects of sin, then the "accurate picture of the world" is radically askew.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course God gives us a prerogative. It's built into us physically. Our eyes are sets of lenses that give us a generally accurate picture of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eyes give us nothing if they are not connected to a brain. And if that brain has been impacted by the noetic effects of sin, then the "accurate picture of the world" is radically askew.
Click to expand...


When Romans 1, says that the unbeliever is without excuse, what does that mean? From what you seem to be saying, he can say, "My brain works a certain way, and therefore I do not believe"

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course God gives us a prerogative. It's built into us physically. Our eyes are sets of lenses that give us a generally accurate picture of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eyes give us nothing if they are not connected to a brain. And if that brain has been impacted by the noetic effects of sin, then the "accurate picture of the world" is radically askew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Romans 1, says that the unbeliever is without excuse, what does that mean? From what you seem to be saying, he can say, "My brain works a certain way, and therefore I do not believe"
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


It seems the Synod of Dort wrestled with this question and responded with this: 

Third and Fourth Heads, Article 4:



> There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. *Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness.* In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eyes give us nothing if they are not connected to a brain. And if that brain has been impacted by the noetic effects of sin, then the "accurate picture of the world" is radically askew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Romans 1, says that the unbeliever is without excuse, what does that mean? From what you seem to be saying, he can say, "My brain works a certain way, and therefore I do not believe"
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems the Synod of Dort wrestled with this question and responded with this:
> 
> Third and Fourth Heads, Article 4:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. *Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness.* In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Do you think the quote from Dordt is equal to what you wrote earlier because I certainly do not.

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Romans 1, says that the unbeliever is without excuse, what does that mean? From what you seem to be saying, he can say, "My brain works a certain way, and therefore I do not believe"
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the Synod of Dort wrestled with this question and responded with this:
> 
> Third and Fourth Heads, Article 4:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. *Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness.* In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think the quote from Dordt is equal to what you wrote earlier because I certainly do not.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


1. Eyes connected to a brain affected by sin results in a skewed vision.

2. "in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness."

Those look pretty similar to me.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems the Synod of Dort wrestled with this question and responded with this:
> 
> Third and Fourth Heads, Article 4:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the quote from Dordt is equal to what you wrote earlier because I certainly do not.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Eyes connected to a brain affected by sin results in a skewed vision.
> 
> 2. "in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness."
> 
> Those look pretty similar to me.
Click to expand...


I see

1)As akin to blaming a color blind person for not seeing certain colors

and 

2)As a person who can see colors putting on tinted shades and then saying that he cannot see certain colors.

CT


----------



## Confessor

Philip,

1. I didn't say the unbeliever wouldn't listen to common sense. I said he would not grant all the presupposed Christian assumptions of the natural theologian in order to cross the gaps that he is not rationally obliged to cross. Theistic proofs, even when combined with supposed historical evidences, cannot prove Biblical authority. It's not even possible.

2. I'm not saying we don't interpret reality in any sense; I'm saying that we don't have the prerogative to lay down all the basic parts of a worldview from our perspective (that is why I differentiated between secular philosophies as autonomous and God's Word, a prefabricated philosophy by God Himself, as theonomous).

3. There's no difference between who and what as far as God goes. Both those words describe the identity of a thing, with the former referring to a personality and the latter an impersonality.

And you're missing my point. _It makes no sense to say that we must accept what the Bible teaches on its own authority and that God gave man the prerogative to interpret reality_. I'm not saying the entire purpose of the Bible is to lay down Christian philosophy, but that's certainly one of its purposes.

4. Would you say "a dog is a non-dog" is objectively nonsense? I was simply referring to the fact that we can point out complete, irreconcilable contradictions; there's no need to bring up the red herring of objectivity and interpretations.

5. I am not trying to prove the validity of presup by pointing out natural theology's flaws.

6. Insofar as Elijah assumed God's authority on its own authority, he was being presuppositional.


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the quote from Dordt is equal to what you wrote earlier because I certainly do not.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Eyes connected to a brain affected by sin results in a skewed vision.
> 
> 2. "in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness."
> 
> Those look pretty similar to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see
> 
> 1)As akin to blaming a color blind person for not seeing certain colors
> 
> and
> 
> 2)As a person who can see colors putting on tinted shades and then saying that he cannot see certain colors.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I gather, then, you have a disagreement with Dort.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Eyes connected to a brain affected by sin results in a skewed vision.
> 
> 2. "in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness."
> 
> Those look pretty similar to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see
> 
> 1)As akin to blaming a color blind person for not seeing certain colors
> 
> and
> 
> 2)As a person who can see colors putting on tinted shades and then saying that he cannot see certain colors.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gather, then, you have a disagreement with Dort.
Click to expand...


Dordt is fine, it says that a person's problem is due to rebellion, not due having a brain malfunction.

CT


----------



## Confessor

Methinks you guys are talking past each other a bit. Lance was not explicitly clear in that the noetic effects of sin were due to moral rebellion (rather than innocent malfunction), but I'd say it's what he meant. I highly doubt Lance subscribes to the Plantingian notion that unregenerates simply have not had the right "belief-experience" to be Christians.


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see
> 
> 1)As akin to blaming a color blind person for not seeing certain colors
> 
> and
> 
> 2)As a person who can see colors putting on tinted shades and then saying that he cannot see certain colors.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gather, then, you have a disagreement with Dort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dordt is fine, it says that a person's problem is due to rebellion, not due having a brain malfunction.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Malfunction, interesting term, and one you interject, not I. There is nothing organically wrong with their brain. The problem with their intellect is that is has been seriously injured by the effects of sin (sin being rebellion against God).


----------



## ChristianTrader

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gather, then, you have a disagreement with Dort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dordt is fine, it says that a person's problem is due to rebellion, not due having a brain malfunction.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Malfunction, interesting term, and one you interject, not I. There is nothing organically wrong with their brain. The problem with their intellect is that is has been seriously injured by the effects of sin (sin being rebellion against God).
Click to expand...


But then the problem is not an organic or inorganic problem with the brain or intellect but how one wants to/does use it.

CT


----------



## Whitefield

ChristianTrader said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dordt is fine, it says that a person's problem is due to rebellion, not due having a brain malfunction.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malfunction, interesting term, and one you interject, not I. There is nothing organically wrong with their brain. The problem with their intellect is that is has been seriously injured by the effects of sin (sin being rebellion against God).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then the problem is not an organic or inorganic problem with the brain or intellect but how one wants to/does use it.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Too late ... the damage has been done by sin. It is not as though the atheist will wake up tomorrow morning and decide on his own that "today, I will begin to think in a radically new direction."


----------



## Confessor

Hermonta is right that the problem is only _how_ one uses it. Then, due to TD, we know that the atheist will never _want_ to use it correctly except by regeneration.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Whitefield said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Malfunction, interesting term, and one you interject, not I. There is nothing organically wrong with their brain. The problem with their intellect is that is has been seriously injured by the effects of sin (sin being rebellion against God).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then the problem is not an organic or inorganic problem with the brain or intellect but how one wants to/does use it.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late ... the damage has been done by sin. It is not as though the atheist will wake up tomorrow morning and decide on his own that "today, I will begin to think in a radically new direction."
Click to expand...


Reason in itself is not fallen, one can use or not use reason to see what is clear about God.


----------



## Whitefield

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then the problem is not an organic or inorganic problem with the brain or intellect but how one wants to/does use it.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too late ... the damage has been done by sin. It is not as though the atheist will wake up tomorrow morning and decide on his own that "today, I will begin to think in a radically new direction."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reason in itself is not fallen, one can use or not use reason to see what is clear about God.
Click to expand...


Reason itself is not fallen, but the one using it is.


----------

