# VanTillian apologetics begs the question?



## knight4christ8 (Mar 13, 2005)

Insightful, but unfortunately you do exactly what you accused the atheist of. Van Tillian apologetics are filled with arguments that beg the question. Assume the Christian God to prove the Christian God, right?  Maybe that is a little too basic for a summary of the position, but it caught my attn. when you accused him of this.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> Insightful, but unfortunately you do exactly what you accused the atheist of. Van Tillian apologetics are filled with arguments that beg the question. Assume the Christian God to prove the Christian God, right?  Maybe that is a little too basic for a summary of the position, but it caught my attn. when you accused him of this.



If memory serves me, I think Paul has answered this charge a couple of times in his 4500 other posts...


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 14, 2005)

[quote/]If memory serves me, I think Paul has answered this charge a couple of times in his 4500 other posts... [/quote]

Even Bahnsen himself was not able to answer this charge. There is no way to get around it. BTW, this 4500 post thing is getting really old. It's turning into a logical fallacy. If he has done it before, he should have his answer refined enough that you could understand it well enough to reiterate for me, rather than doing what you did. Especially since you seem to be speaking for him. 

As humans we are seperate beings from God. God created us, but how are we to understand all of his communication? . . . it is all through a direct communication that we hear and understand. We recieve communication because we use reason. Without reason we cannot recieve this communication. Ask an animal why they exist, or does God exist. This is not their concern. Only humans seek to answer these questions. Why? Because reason, as the laws of thought, drive us to explain the world around us. You cannot say that God exists apart from appealing to reason. You can say that reason exists apart from appealing to God. NO human can question reason because it is what allows one to question. These are the only grounds which Christians can argue from honestly . . . and disprove every other worldview by revealing and shining light on where other worlviews fail to use reason consistently. If you argue from the existence of God you are beginning from a dishonest point of reference. Romans 1 can be understood rightly apart from any presupposition of God. In fact, in accordance with John 1 it points to reason being the light which is in all men as they enter the world. Rom. says that God's divine attributes and eternal nature is known by what has been made. There is NO appeal to an innate knowledge here, but as the passage goes on into less basic terms, you fail to understand what he is saying b/c you fail to remember the clarity of his basis set out earlier in the chapter.
I pray that you will earnestly consider my words without trying to rebuttle immediately. I respect open ears and questioning. I will earnestly listen to anything that you say as long as you do the same for me. Thank you.

[Edited on 3/15/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 15, 2005)

One can beg the question if he has an epistemological framework to back it up. Bahnsen did indeed answer this in his 12 part series on Michael Martin under the Microscope.

Frame (or Bahnsen) said:
All arguments are circular, but not all circles are valid.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 16, 2005)

Frame or Bahnsen were wrong when they said: 
"All arguments are circular, but not all circles are valid." 

I showed clearly in my text above, which I hope you cared enough to read, that there is one argument that is not circular . . . the mark of a God-provided basis from which to know Him and evangelize the nations.

Try to argue for the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction. You can't. These are what allow the exact processes of questioning that you are trying to use when questioning them. There is no circular argument involved when you begin with the proper framework.

I will say it again . . . from man's finite standpoint in time and space:
He cannot say that God exists apart from appealing to reason. He can say that reason exists apart from appealing to God. 

Begging the question is dishonest and disrespectful to mankind if you are given the means by which you can argue foundationally from an undeniable premise. No man can deny that reason stands in him at a basic level . . . even to use language he must assume the laws of thought: law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of the excluded middle. (i.e. "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome it."). 

What Presuppositionalism utilizes is a false diagnosis that people (e.g. Stein) have to assume the existence of God before they can be moral creatures. Rather, it is the fact that reason stands in them condemning them at that level, because they, and all men left to themselves, fail to use reason consistently with the less basic (i.e. Does God exist?), but still use reason at an autonomous level.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 16, 2005)

Gregory:

If I may, I'd like to interject. I'm not really sure follow your reasoning. But I would like to say that some representations of Presuppositionalism are not very good ones at all, and that perhaps you are arguing against that instead of a proper presuppositionalistic presentation. For example, if Bahnsen justifies his circular reasoning, but discounts anyone else's, then that is no more than pride, for he has logically undermined his own position. He has placed the degree of rightness on his person, and not on the reason. Everyone's circularity is right in his own eyes, so that cannot be the criterion for soundness. I don't think Bahnsen meant to do that, though it is followed by many exclusive subscribers to his views. To be fair, I would say he used unfortunate language in saying some of the things I have read from him. 

He is right that some arguments are valid, and that they seem to be reducible to a circular beginning. However, I disagree with the assessment that they are reduced to a circular beginning of necessity. He disparages any kind of proof as a beginning, and thus places all arguments into the realm of circularity, of proposing (inducting) conceptual beginnings or paradigms. This, then, must include his own. All he is saying is that at least his is consistent all the way through, even though he himself may be wrong on some or many things. 

This is fine for him, but it is not fine for me. I believe that there are prerequisites to presuppositions, and that we could not reason or have presuppositions without the environment of the creation within which we live. We have the proof laid out before us to make basic presuppositions from. They are unchangeable facts; _brute facts_ if you will (and not if you will not). We live in the world as it is, and as God has ordained it, and not in just a nebulous world of thought and ideas. In basic, its a real world out there that we have thoughts about. We agree on the fact that only under the acknowledgement of God does it all make sense.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 17, 2005)

JohnV,

I find no disagreement with you, except . . . the fact that there is absolute truth. I know that I am probably misunderstanding you, but it is not fine for Bahnsen if it is a dishonest confrontation of man's sin. The only thing that we can have, apart from creation, is the unquestionable image of God standing as reason in us. Rom. 1 tells us plainly, before it gets to the less basic, that we understand God's eternal power and divine nature from what has been made. What knowledge of God could be more basic than the fact that He is eternal? Nothing. This observation plainly refutes any dishonest notion that we have a knowledge of God deep down inside us that we are suppressing. All knowledge is gained through working dominion (this includes accepting Scripture). A being is known by its act necessarily, and in no way apart from it. In this same way God is known by the creation and the giving of Scripture, but in no way apart from that (i.e. knowledge of God innately in us).


----------



## JohnV (Mar 17, 2005)

Gregory:

I wasn't disagreeing with you, though I think we differ somewhat on our ideas of knowledge. What I was trying to say is that followers of Bahnsen do a lot to make us think that Bahnsen said so-and-so, but he really didn't say that at all. The problem lies in the kind of language he used. 

I could give examples, but that's not my point. What I was trying to say is that we should not attribute to Bahnsen those things that are, in reality, misrepresentations or overstatements of what Bahnsen really said. I can't believe that I'm defending him, but its not really him that I'm defending as much as trying to stay honest to the subject. What I meant was that just as some of his followers have overstated the case using his examples so perhaps you are overstating the case the other direction, in reaction perhaps not to Bahnsen but to his followers. 



Where I differ with you is that you and I are also part of that basic fact, both in our body and in our mind. That is, our physical outer world and mental inner world are both part of the creation, both of which speak firstly of God's power and divinity. So the fact THAT you can think is already a proof of God's existence, so to speak. It is this basic concept that presuppositionalism builds on. And I would agree with that; but I don't agree with the idea that reasoning begins on our presuppositions, same as you. They are basic, but you need things to have presuppositions about; and God exists outside our presuppositions, not because of them. But then we start splitting hairs over the faculty of reason and basis of reason itself, which admittedly are two different things, but needs to be thought through carefully as a whole first. So I don't make an issue here over that. I find it better to work in the area of mutual concepts, and try to keep to these commonalities. Its not that they are all wrong, it just that they aren't always careful about their ideas. Some do chase their tails, but that is their shortcoming, and not necessarily a shortcoming of Presuppositioinalism itself. I think it is, but then I may be wrong; I just don't want to confuse the truth of it with the representations given of it.

In basis I agree with you on the outward exhibits placed before our mind, which speak eloquently of God's power and deity. And the Belgic Confession, art. II says the very same thing explicitly. It is basic to our confession and our faith.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 17, 2005)

Gregory, can you prove your point without assuming it first?

[Edited on 3-18-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 17, 2005)

I suppose I should point out where I'm trying to lead you with the last question. You said:


> What knowledge of God could be more basic than the fact that He is eternal? Nothing. This observation plainly refutes any dishonest notion that we have a knowledge of God deep down inside us that we are suppressing. A being is known by its act necessarily, and in no way apart from it. In this same way God is known by the creation and the giving of Scripture, but in no way apart from that (i.e. knowledge of God innately in us).



But the reformed tradition has clearly taught an innate knowledge within us of God. (I'll refer you to Berkhof for now). We are part of that creation which declares the glory of God in fact the crown of that creation, and made in His image. Mankind clearly does suppress the truth he knows in unrighteousness. That is the whole point of Romans 1. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Also, where does Bahnsen argue there is no such thing as absolute truth? Presuppositional apologetics does not argue there are no absolutes. In fact quite the opposite. The whole point they try to make is that mankind cannot avoid absolute truth. It is ingrained in his nature to reason logical and morally, though corrupted by the Fall. But as a man, and a thinker, he has to start somewhere. The act of reasoning must presuppose things in order to make sense. This doesn't mean there's no absolute truth, only that man must presume these absolutes in order to make sense of anything to himself.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 17, 2005)

Patrick.

It's been hard for me to watch this thread and resist the temptation to get involved at the moment because of my schoolwork. But in brief, there are a couple points I want to make:

One of them Patrick has already made, which is that all arguments are in fact ultimately circular when you get down to their foundation.

The second point is that Bahnsen does _not_ do what he accuses the atheist of doing, since his fundamental critique of the atheist is _not_ that their argument is circular (which he admits of his own as well), but that their circle is meaningless, self-refuting and unable to provide or account for the necessary preconditions to change that--whereas the Christian circle, which simply points to God as the starting point, is the only circle that _can_ provide and account for those elements. A quotation from Bahnsen from his debate with Stein makes the point better than I ever could. Quoting Stein, he says (emphasis mine):



> "The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of a statement which claims to be factual." That´s the end of the quote.
> 
> One must eventually ask Dr. Stein then how he proves this statement itself. That is, how does he prove that logic or reason is the only way to prove factual statements? He is now on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma. If he says that the statement is proven by logic or reason, then he is engaging in circular reasoning and he is begging the question, which he staunchly forbids. If he says that the statement is proven in some other fashion, then he refutes the statement itself! That logic or reasoning is the only way to prove things.
> 
> *Now my point is not to fault Dr. Stein´s commitment to logic or reason, but to observe that it actually has the nature of a pre-commitment or a presupposition. It is not something he has proven by empirical experience or logic, but it is rather that by which he proceeds to prove everything else.* He is not presuppositionally neutral in his approach to factual questions and disputes. He does not avoid begging crucial questions rather than proving them in what we might call the "garden variety ordinary way."



Just as the atheist with an ultimate commitment to logic and reason is forced to acknowledge that commitment as being a circular one, so we cannot escape the same acknowledgement for that which is our ultimate commitment, which is biblically God Himself. And that is why any biblical defense of the faith must have God as the starting point - but well-meaning Christians will always squirm at that notion until they are willing to admit that our commitment is circular just as much as that of the atheist, which Classicism and Evidentialism deny as systems attempting to defend the faith beginning from a "neutral" position, which is simply not possible.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> Rom. 1 tells us plainly, before it gets to the less basic, that we understand God's eternal power and divine nature from what has been made. What knowledge of God could be more basic than the fact that He is eternal? Nothing. This observation plainly refutes any dishonest notion that we have a knowledge of God deep down inside us that we are suppressing. All knowledge is gained through working dominion (this includes accepting Scripture). A being is known by its act necessarily, and in no way apart from it. In this same way God is known by the creation and the giving of Scripture, but in no way apart from that (i.e. knowledge of God innately in us).



In the very next chapter, Paul writes, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Rom. 2:14-15).

That certainly sounds like an innate knowledge of God that is being suppressed to me.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 17, 2005)

> _quoted from Patrick_
> Presuppositional apologetics does not argue there are no absolutes. In fact quite the opposite. The whole point they try to make is that mankind cannot avoid absolute truth. It is ingrained in his nature to reason logical and morally, though corrupted by the Fall. But as a man, and a thinker, he has to start somewhere. The act of reasoning must presuppose things in order to make sense. This doesn't mean there's no absolute truth, only that man must presume these absolutes in order to make sense of anything to himself.





> _from Chris_
> One of them Patrick has already made, which is that all arguments are in fact ultimately circular when you get down to their foundation.
> 
> ...whereas the Christian circle, which simply points to God as the starting point, is the only circle that can provide and account for those elements.



Hi guys:
Here's where I have a problem with this. I see these two things above as contrary the way the Presuppositionalist conveys them, but not from an empiricist point of view. And as such, does not understand the critique Gregory made. Maybe you could explain it for me. 

What seems to me to be going on is that it puts man outside the circle of knowledge, and allows him to make inducted "leap-in-the-dark" propositions, but that's all. So the "innate" knowledge that you speak of is a wholly different thing than what Gregory is speaking of, as I see it. The atheist presupposes there is no God, and the theist presupposes there is a God; but from where I stand, the Christian "knows" there is a God, and he knows this with certainty. After all, a Christian is one who has a relationship with God, and that is not a "leap-in-the-dark" action. He does not have a relationship with a product of his presuppositions, but with a real God that exists prior to his presuppositions. So its not a presupposition with him. 

As a point of argument, I think its a pretty good and solid argument to make. But its not the only one. I would think that its an argument that shows the atheist that he too is inside that circle of knowledge, if only he would acknowledge it. He is living a lie, even to his own system, much less to the truth. So we have a point of contact with him that is more basic than presuppositions, though it includes them: we live in the same created world, and there just is no such thing as evidence that it is not created by God. We have to get not just his presuppositions in line, but we have to get him to see the facts for what they really are so that he can begin to make real and true presuppositions. 

Anyways, I think Gregory makes a good point. Maybe we could think it through more carefully together. I think he could probably explain it better than I could.

[Edited on 3-18-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Hi guys:
> Here's where I have a problem with this. I see these two things above as contrary the way the Presuppositionalist conveys them, but not from an empiricist point of view. And as such, does not understand the critique Gregory made. Maybe you could explain it for me.
> 
> What seems to me to be going on is that it puts man outside the circle of knowledge, and allows him to make inducted "leap-in-the-dark" propositions, but that's all. So the "innate" knowledge that you speak of is a wholly different thing than what Gregory is speaking of, as I see it. The atheist presupposes there is no God, and the theist presupposes there is a God; but from where I stand, the Christian "knows" there is a God, and he knows this with certainty. After all, a Christian is one who has a relationship with God, and that is not a "leap-in-the-dark" action. He does not have a relationship with a product of his presuppositions, but with a real God that exists prior to his presuppositions. So its not a presupposition with him.


It is a presuppostion when he tries to explain it and defend it to others including himself. It's part of conscious thinking. Sure, the Christian knows with certainty that God exits. But, he still makes presuppositions in his thoughts about God, true presuppositions based on absolute truth, in order to comprehend it rationally. It is some of these same presuppositions that the atheist adopts innately in which he can still make sense of the world, though still suppressing the truth in other ways, living a lie as you say. He adopts false presuppositions in his thought to justify his unbeleif.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2005)

The Presuppositional Challenge:

I want to divert the challenge from the thread on Paul´s blog to the Apologetics forum. JohnV, forgive me if I do not address some of your concerns. This is mainly with Knight4Christ. Knight, I am not going to address overtly the areas I think we agree in; time limits me, you see.

You wrote:


> We recieve communication because we use reason. Without reason we cannot recieve this communication



Where did this reason come from? Did it come from God and therefore must be interpreted within a framework that is determined by His Lordship? Is reason independent from God? These are just preliminary questions.



> Why? Because reason, as the laws of thought, drive us to explain the world around us



Are they brute facts that exist apart from God? 

The rest of your posts seems to imply that the laws of logic are not transcendental, which I think, you did not adequately address the nature of transcendentals; but rather, that the laws of Logic are self-evident. This can be problematic for your position but since you didn´t outright state it I won´t mention it too much right now.

Chris and Patrick dealt with your opposition to arguing from the existence of God so I won´t.



> Try to argue for the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction. You can't. These are what allow the exact processes of questioning that you are trying to use when questioning them. There is no circular argument involved when you begin with the proper framework.



I don´t think you entirely understand Bahnsen´s argument in general. Note that he never says that unbelievers don´t reason; rather, they cannot account for reason. Unbelievers can do math; they cannot account for universal truths or the uniformity of science.



> He can say that reason exists apart from appealing to God.


He can say that but he can´t live that way. He will assume that the laws of logic are valid for reality; he doesn´t know why. His worldview is schizophrenic. When forced to justify his presuppositions he can only say, "œWell, it works" or "œThe laws of logic just exist and that´s that." Fine, God exists and the Bible is true and that´s that."



> Begging the question is dishonest and disrespectful to mankind if you are given the means by which you can argue foundationally from an undeniable premise



I am not going to apologize for his worldview´s inability to account for the deepest concerns of life. My job is to destroy his worldview; not give it a resting place. 



> No man can deny that reason stands in him at a basic level . . . even to use language he must assume the laws of thought: law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of the excluded middle



Precisely. To make sense out of reality he must assume my worldview. Bear in mind, again that I never said that unbelievers do not reason but that they cannot account for it.

Now for the nitty-gritty (I had some help from Paul). 

Just to let you know, Douglas Walton, one of the top experts on logic, fallacies, and circular arguments (and he's not a Christian/Van Tilian) writes: "Circularity: A sequence of reasoning is circular if one of the premises depends on, or is even equivalent to, the conclusion. Circularity is not always fallacious, but can be a defect in an argument where the conclusion is doubtful and the premises are supposed to be a less doubtful basis for proving the conclusion." (Oxford Companion To Philosophy, p. 135). So, here we have an expert in the field, who doesn't know about Van Til, or that knight would be arguing against my position, telling us that not all circular arguments are fallacious. So it's not as obvious as knight would have us believe. Now, in a sophmoric sense it is but this isn't interesting. 

Now, the Bible tells us that in Christ are hid *all* the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Also, the *beginning*of knowledge is the fear of Jehovah. Also, that "In Thy [God's] light we see light." And that He is the Lord over everything (including our reasoning). Since God is the ULTIMATE authority there is nothing more ultimate than Him that we can appeal to in order to prove his existence. So, it is foolish to assume that there is something more ultimate that we can appeal to in order to prove that God is ultimate! Since it is impossible to be neutral then one either presupposes God or one does not-"he who is not for me is against me." So, while I commit the schoolboy error of begging the question, others can commit the sin of being against Christ. 

Finally, we are not inconsistant, as knight suggests. Furthermore, there is a difference between vicious circular arguments and non-vicious ones. I argue for the latter. And, Knight confuses temporal with epistemological presuppositions. So, I'd suggest that he do some study before he 'refutes' us and the top logicians with a wave of the hand.


I hope this clears a few things, and thanks, Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What seems to me to be going on is that it puts man outside the circle of knowledge, and allows him to make inducted "leap-in-the-dark" propositions, but that's all. So the "innate" knowledge that you speak of is a wholly different thing than what Gregory is speaking of, as I see it. The atheist presupposes there is no God, and the theist presupposes there is a God; but from where I stand, the Christian "knows" there is a God, and he knows this with certainty. After all, a Christian is one who has a relationship with God, and that is not a "leap-in-the-dark" action. *He does not have a relationship with a product of his presuppositions, but with a real God that exists prior to his presuppositions.* So its not a presupposition with him.



I _completely_ agree with the sentence of yours that I highlighted above, that man does not know God because of His presuppositions - rather, as you said, God is the _source_ of his presuppositions, such as the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the senses, and the co-existance and nature of universals and particulars; and I am saying that God exists _prior to_ those presuppositions. And indeed, presuppositionalism does not point to those presuppositions as the epistemological starting point, but points to God Himself as the sole starting point in the realm of knowledge and as the transcendental in which all those presuppositions are rooted. But as Patrick explained, those presuppositions are still the means by which He enables our human minds to conceive, process and understand the true knowledge we have about Him and everything else - and we see the job of the apologist as being to show that He is indeed the only possible root and source of it all.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> As a point of argument, I think its a pretty good and solid argument to make. But its not the only one. I would think that its an argument that shows the atheist that he too is inside that circle of knowledge, if only he would acknowledge it. He is living a lie, even to his own system, much less to the truth. So we have a point of contact with him that is more basic than presuppositions, though it includes them: we live in the same created world, and there just is no such thing as evidence that it is not created by God. We have to get not just his presuppositions in line, but we have to get him to see the facts for what they really are so that he can begin to make real and true presuppositions.



I essentially agree, and so do all other presuppositionalists I have read from or conversed with, in that we have an _abundance_ of common ground with the unbeliever because we are both in our very natures created in God's image, and we both live in His created world. At the same time, that *common* ground is _not_ *neutral* ground with regard to the question we are debating with the unbeliever (the truth of Christianity), since as you said, there is no such thing as evidence for their position. And that is because of the abundant point of contact we have with them in both the created order and in man's universal, innate knowledge of God and His law - and it is that very point of contact that we are labeling our "presuppositions," and ultimately the unbeliever's as well, the difference being that he does not acknowledge them as his presuppositions, but attempts to suppress them by deceiving himself into presupposing falsehoods, such as, say, Gordon Stein's presupposition that there is no room for supernatural explanation in the realm of science. And it is our goal in apologetics to show the unbeliever the folly of his _stated_ presuppositions, and show him that the reason he is able to experience and understand everything that he does is because those stated presuppositions are actually self-deception, and that he is actually assuming our Christian presuppositions in all that he does and thinks.



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Knight confuses temporal with epistemological presuppositions.



I think that is one of the most common misunderstandings of the Van Tillian apologetic, in that it is easy to misunderstand the presuppositionalist as claiming that people must have a fully-developed, rationally and intellectually conscious realization of God before (in a chronological sense) they can understand anything. But that is not what we mean by saying that a knowledge of God's principles must "precede" any true knowledge of anything else, but we rather mean that all true knowledge makes sense *only* because it intrinsically exists within the foundational framework of God's truth.



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> So, I'd suggest that he do some study before he 'refutes' us and the top logicians with a wave of the hand.



Speaking of secular philosophers and logicians whose work can help in understanding some of the concepts related to presuppositional apologetics and its actual claims, the work of Immanuel Kant has a lot of parallels. For one thing, he was the first philosopher to formalize transcendental reasoning in his arguments, which is simply reasoning that proceeds to prove statement B specifically by showing that B is a necessary precondition for A being the case, and then showing that A is the case. In presuppositional apologetics, B is the fact that the biblical worldview is true, and A is the existence of logical rationality and meaningful experience itself.

The reason this is on my mind right now is that I'm studying Kant in my current philosophy course, and the parallels are interesting, especially his response to Hume's claim that our only conception of space comes from experience, which Kant countered by arguing that an innate knowledge of space existing in our minds prior to any experience of space is in fact a precondition for any such experience eventually giving us any greater conception of it at all.

So to bring this back around to its original point, even from the philosophical developments of the world of secular academia, there is more to transcendental reasoning and presuppositional thought than often first meets the eye.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 18, 2005)

Whew!, that's a lot of stuff at once. I'd like to take it bit by bit, if I may. But first I'd like to see Knight make a response. Today I'm going to be quite busy anyways. The weekends are usually slow (notice that I make a Christian presupposition here, in saying "weekends", because Saturday is the one end, and Sunday is the other end of the week. ) So I'll have time to make some comments, I would think, before too many more posts come in. 

And maybe, Chris, you might like to move this part of the thread to its own listing, and into the proper category of topics. Just a thought.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Today I'm going to be quite busy anyways.



I can certainly relate to that, especially lately.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> And maybe, Chris, you might like to move this part of the thread to its own listing, and into the proper category of topics. Just a thought.



I don't have the ability to do that with this particular forum. Patrick?


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 18, 2005)

Wow! 
I will try to respond ASAP, but have to study for an exam now. Know first and foremost that I respect Bahnsen and I wasn't saying that he disbelieved in absolute truth . . . that is clearly the entire goal of his apologetic. I was just trying to point out that there is one, and only one, properly honest apologetic according to biblical standards.

Briefly, every time I hear that word I think of the nightmare of Strong Bad, lol. Anyways, I would like to point out that the WCF is what I will refer to in order to establish my apologetic as orthodox. Otherwise I could use Hodge, Edwards, Dabney, etc. to try to prove my point that reason is the basis for all knowledge, but appealing to individuals wastes a lot more time than cutting to the chase summed up in the confessions. Just to point John in the direction that I will go . . . the confession points out two seperate basises for the authority of Scripture. It is self-attesting Objectively, not needing man's testimony for its establishment as the W of God, and it is self-attesting Subjectively, through the use of arguements. The latter nature of Scripture does not concern whether the W of G is the W of God, but rather man's proper reception and defense of Scripture, that being through arguments. As a subject apart from God, all men must make a judgment of discernment about the W of God as referred to in Deut. 18. This judgment is on the basis that we have reason in order to discern. Reason is presupposed by Scripture and General Revelation. When we look at GR, which I affirm does include our ability to think, we should see clearly that there is a God, but this is not as immediate as our process of thought. We must think before we can make judgments or form concepts about the character of God.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> Reason is presupposed by Scripture and General Revelation. When we look at GR, which I affirm does include our ability to think, we should see clearly that there is a God, but this is not as immediate as our process of thought. We must think before we can make judgments or form concepts about the character of God.



What validates reason? How do we know it is reliable?


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 18, 2005)

I have responded to Evie via U2U so that we can stay on track. Be sure that you have read my short, perhaps inadequate response above. way too much random questioning going on here to post a good response now. I will come back, hopefully this evening, to respond to horse and blue as best as I can.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 18, 2005)

Actually, I think her question relates very much to your claims, is thus very relevant to the discussion. It is actually what I was likewise thinking when I read your last post.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 18, 2005)

Indeed, Knight. I meant it to directly bring up some points that haven't fully been explored in the thread so far and perhaps set you up for some more questioning from Chris or Jacob. Would you mind posting your response on the board? I thought it was very good and would like to see what the guys make of it. :bigsmile:

(BTW, thanks, Chris.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2005)

If I may continue their line of thinking:
In your earlier posts you had waxed long on reason all the while assuming that reason was valid. You did not like Bahnsen's massac, approach to Stein, but you never really said why that is wrong. Chris quoted Bahnsen so I won't. If I may plunder the Egyptians for a while.

Kant was correct in saying that reason must be presupposed, it being a transcendental. Geisler and Co. would say that reason was "self-evident." The problem there is that he is begging the question more viciously than Bahnsen ever thought of doing. Saying something is self-evident _assumes_ that everyone is seeing it the same way, or seeing it at all for that matter. And that is the problem of this thread--assumptions. Presups say that reason, science and morality are assumed to be true and can then appeal to an objective standard which is the self-contained God in scripture.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> ...



Did you read Rene Descartes' First Principles? (I try not to do this, because I want to keep the discussions within what we do know and have read, and not try to give off a notion of having read more than others, because I haven't. ) Just in case you have, that's all. 

Reason cannot but be validated, for even to doubt it is to affirm it. It requires a subject/object relationship, and that's usually the thing in question here, whether or not it is real. Or, one could ask how we know that our inducted principles are valid: where is the proof? But after all the doubts are on the table, we have to ask, logically, where these doubts come from. After all, they beg the question of validity themselves. In other words, we're at a draw at the very worst of it: how also do we know our uncertainty is valid? 

To question reason at all requires the very same reason as a basis. In other words, it uses the same basis to question it as it questions. The invalidity of reason is impossble. 

Now, that's a creation-oriented response. What I mean is that in this God-created world things make sense within the system itself, not apart from God, but that the creation is a complete creation. And so we are able to make such a response. That is the way the creation is, regardless of whether one believes in God or not. After all, God is not in the least lessened from His sovereignty and might by any one person's unbelief. 

From a standpoint of a Christian in relationship with God, reason is validated because God speaks to us in reasonable terms, and in no other. In other words, He reasoned first. As creatures made in His image, we respond in the same way, for that is how God made us and the world we live in. It is not chaotic, but orderly; and so in our persons we reason. Again, it is impossible to have reason as invalid. 

Or, yet again, one could return the question by asking what would replace it? Or one could ask why (what reason) one would ask this question? Or there are any number of such responses (Who shall I say is asking? etc.) one could make. But the crux of it is that the question itself is completely unanswerable if it comes from a skeptical unbeliever. Its not that reason is invalid, but that he refuses to validate his reasoning properly. 

This is my short answer. I hope it helps. But we have some fine fellows on this Board who are quite able to add some expertice to this.

[Edited on 3-19-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> Reason cannot but be validated, for even to doubt it is to affirm it. It requires a subject/object relationship, and that's usually the thing in question here, whether or not it is real. Or, one could ask how we know that our inducted principles are valid: where is the proof? But after all the doubts are on the table, we have to ask, logically, where these doubts come from. After all, they beg the question of validity themselves. In other words, we're at a draw at the very worst of it: how also do we know our uncertainty is valid?
> ...



Well-thought out answer, John. I semi-understand. I would go further and say that reason is intelligible because it reflects the character of God, all men having the _imago Dei_ in them.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



I can agree with that. 

But as I said in the U2U to Knight, the argument that arguing against the laws of logic proves them to be true because we have to use them to argue against them is just presuming their own truth. If the law of the excluded middle isn't true, and A and be both A and not A at the same time, the law can be truth for me when I'm using it and not true for the thing I'm arguing against (the law itself). We know intuitively this is false, but we are still appealing (just more subconsciously) to the laws of logic to prove it. If the laws of logic aren't true, there's not reason to see any inherent contradiction between using them and refuting them... since contradiction isn't necessarily inherently wrong. 

I absolutely agree that the laws of logic are correct, but 1) we have to presuppose this, because any argument for it (and the argument "you can't argue against it" _is_ an argument for it) appeals to logic, which means you are proving logic with logic... and that's every bit as circular as anything presupps do, but without recognizing it... and 2) only a Christian worldview can account for this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2005)

ANother problem I see is that we are assuming that we are properly interpreting, or rather, properly using our reasoning.

Limits of Logic:

The law of non-contradiction (LNC) is heavily qualified itself: A cannot be non-A _in the same time and in the same respect._ As John Frame says, "...limitations indicate taht logic can only examine consistency and implication only in relatively changeless situations, taht is, when relevant meanings and referents of terms remain the same over the course of hte anlalysis. BUt as we know, the world is changing all the time. Therefore, logical analysis often can only approximate; it can deal adequately only with those aspects of reality that do not change--a rather small subste of our experiences" (Frame, 258-259). 

Law of Excluded Middle: What about the situations that defy this:

A heavy mist? is it rain or is it non-rain? The answer lies only in extreme qualifications.

Frame, John. _Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_. 

[Edited on 3--19-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> To question reason at all requires the very same reason as a basis. In other words, it uses the same basis to question it as it questions. The invalidity of reason is impossble.



It is indeed true that logic and reason are necessary preconditions for any meaningful thought and experience to occur - even so, it is crucial to realize that logic and reason alone are not enough in themselves to account for meaningful thought and experience, for that requires other things as well, such as the reliability of the senses and the uniformity of nature, which are both necessary for us to be able to trust that reasoning and logical thoughts are even what they seem to be in our minds, and that the neurons in our brains minds will interpret the same logical concepts in the same way day after day. So in order to make logic and reason meaningful at all, there are other necessary assumptions that must be made - but once that is realized, it becomes clear that one must necessarily presuppose an entire worldview in order to account for thought and experience at their most basic levels. The Christian can do this, for we point to God as the foundational epistemological starting point, and He account for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses, etc. But the skeptic has no such starting point, and pointing to reason or the laws of logic as their starting point will not do, as I showed above;

And they cannot point to more than one starting point, such as the laws of logic _and_ the reliability of the senses _and_ the uniformity of nature _and_ this and that, because in attempting to view multiple things as the starting point or the ultimate authority, a relationship between those things is assumed (because the whole reason multiple things are being assumed is because they are _all_ required to account for different parts of one thing--intelligible experience--in their respective, interrelated ways), and thus it must be asked just what it is that holds them together, or relates them to each other, and the answer to that question will thus be more *ultimate* and *primary* than any of those multiple things, showing that they are not actually the starting points after all.

So since one cannot have more than one truly *ultimate* starting point, and the laws of logic themselves do not adequately account for meaningful thought and experience, the unbeliever is still in the same pickle of being unable to account for those things without presupposing God in their assumptions.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> That is the way the creation is, regardless of whether one believes in God or not.



Indeed, which is why unbelievers _can_ still actually think and experience things by common grace - but their alleged system and their stated presuppositions cannot _account for_ that logic and experience, and it is precisely because they do indeed make use of those things that their presuppositions are shown to be insufficient.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> What validates reason? How do we know it is reliable?


_from JohnV, me_
From a standpoint of a Christian in relationship with God, reason is validated because God speaks to us in reasonable terms, and in no other. In other words, He reasoned first. As creatures made in His image, we respond in the same way, for that is how God made us and the world we live in. It is not chaotic, but orderly; and so in our persons we reason. Again, it is impossible to have reason as invalid.[/quote]

I can agree with that. 

But as I said in the U2U to Knight, the argument that arguing against the laws of logic proves them to be true because we have to use them to argue against them is just presuming their own truth. If the law of the excluded middle isn't true, and A and be both A and not A at the same time, the law can be truth for me when I'm using it and not true for the thing I'm arguing against (the law itself). We know intuitively this is false, but we are still appealing (just more subconsciously) to the laws of logic to prove it. If the laws of logic aren't true, there's not reason to see any inherent contradiction between using them and refuting them... since contradiction isn't necessarily inherently wrong. [/quote]
Well, Evie, you only asked about verifying logic, or reason to be precise. Others have included logic in this, and rightly so, for logic is part of reason. But there is much more that one could ask the validity for, for a language that is only terms, propositions and syllogism is a dead language. There is much more to man than reason. What about love, justice, science, or fellowship, just to name a few? Language itself is made of much more than propostitions, such as metaphor, picture, and connotation. It isn't just a discipline, it is also an art. 

But to get back to your observation, I only would restate that it is impossible to doubt reason without standing squarely on it to do so. If A can be non-A at the same time, then what you wrote is both perfect sense and jibberish at the same time. And I don't have a clue what you said. So your objection has not fallen on deaf ears, but on ears that cannot discern what you communicated. Unless, of course, it is only possible that A cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same way (thanks, Jacob).


> I absolutely agree that the laws of logic are correct, but 1) we have to presuppose this, because any argument for it (and the argument "you can't argue against it" _is_ an argument for it) appeals to logic, which means you are proving logic with logic... and that's every bit as circular as anything presupps do, but without recognizing it... and 2) only a Christian worldview can account for this.



Well, Chris answers this one. The one who does not presuppose the laws of logic does so by presupposing the laws of logic. He cannot avoid it. Whether he likes it or not, he is a creature of God's created world, and he himself is created of God; moreover he bears God's image (thanks again, Jacob). He really can't presuppose anything else. The question is not what his presuppositions are, but what he claims they are. 

We don't need to attack him, and leave him hurt and bleeding because he carries an antagonistic belief, for he already is hurt and bleeding. What he needs is the medicine of the gospel. His unbelief has not done one bit of damage to truth, but only to himself. We don't need to destroy his arguments for the sake of truth, but for his sake. He's only fooling himself if he thinks he can cast aspersions on the truth on God, His Word, and His work. He can't change the truth. He just can't, no matter how powerful he is. If Christ is king, then we need not fear that His kingdom is in jeapardy at all. 

But the monolith that this skeptic represents, that needs to be attacked and brought down for the sake of those of our brothers who may fall prey to it. It is certain that they are safe in Jesus, but it may also be that Jesus has vouchsafed them through the faithful service of his disciples in standing firm in the truth. 

Again, you only ask this in the area of reason. There is much more to man, and we need to stand on guard in all arenas of life. Here too, but also in the service of justice, love, and mercy; but also in the service of language, science, etc., and in fellowship. There is an orthodoxy to all of these.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 19, 2005)

Thead Split


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 19, 2005)

Well put, John. If I'm reading what you said correctly, then I actually agree with everything in your last post, especially regarding the way in which we are to present our apologetic to the unbeliever, and the reason we are presenting it, and that doing so is vain if it does not include a presentation of the Gospel in our defense of the Christian worldview.

I also think we're either on the same page or close regarding the nature of the necessity of reason and logic - do you agree that while a rejection of it does indeed inevitably result in empty foolishness, it alone is still not enough to change that and to account for intelligible thought and experience?


----------



## JohnV (Mar 19, 2005)

> _from Chris_
> I completely agree with the sentence of yours that I highlighted above, that man does not know God because of His presuppositions - rather, as you said, God is the source of his presuppositions, such as the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the senses, and the co-existance and nature of universals and particulars; and I am saying that God exists prior to those presuppositions. And indeed, presuppositionalism does not point to those presuppositions as the epistemological starting point, but points to God Himself as the sole starting point in the realm of knowledge and as the transcendental in which all those presuppositions are rooted. But as Patrick explained, *those presuppositions are still the means by which He enables our human minds to conceive, process and understand the true knowledge we have about Him and everything else* - and we see the job of the apologist as being to show that He is indeed the only possible root and source of it all.



I *bolded* and underlined the two statements that I'd like to comment on. I agree fully. Where I believe we may differ is that this is and always has been the stand of a proper Classical approach, and is not unique to Presuppositionalism. I would say the bolded sentence applies to all men alike. No man can think unless in the realm of thought that God has created. There is no thinking outside that. Its just not a possibility that there is a realm outside of God's sphere unless He has cast it out. It is not that man thinks in his own realm, but that he thinks rebelliously. He is mistaken in the analysis of his thoughts if he believes not in God. In basic, he doesn't have a different system of thought, he has rebellion in the same system of thought that every man must live in to think at all. He will acknowledge truth to the degree that he has to, in order to live, to feel, to love, to emote, to do his work, and to make his rebellious reasons. 

I see the Presuppositionalist as the one who takes on these rebellious reasons. That part I accept of Presuppositionalism. I see it as the Classical method also applied to the area of basic notions, or presuppositions; but that's me. 

But that is not the only area in which any man needs to be dealt with. He can't just be told that he is lost in the forest intellectually, and then be left lost in the forest. We have to address the whole man in order to let the light shine on the path out of the forest. It isn't just intellectual. And it is not our aim to put ribbons on the wall for our favourite methods, but to lead the man out of the woods, at least as far as we ourselves are out of the woods. For we too have a lot left in our thinking that ought to be demolished, and God is doing this gently and sweetly through the work of the Holy Spirit, sanctifying us as we grow in faith and knowledge and holiness, up to the mature image in which we were created. So it is firstly a humble and humbling work. 



> Speaking of secular philosophers and logicians whose work can help in understanding some of the concepts related to presuppositional apologetics and its actual claims, the work of Immanuel Kant has a lot of parallels. For one thing, he was the first philosopher to formalize transcendental reasoning in his arguments, which is simply reasoning that proceeds to prove statement B specifically by showing that B is a necessary precondition for A being the case, and then showing that A is the case. In presuppositional apologetics, B is the fact that the biblical worldview is true, and A is the existence of logical rationality and meaningful experience itself.
> 
> The reason this is on my mind right now is that I'm studying Kant in my current philosophy course, and the parallels are interesting, especially his response to Hume's claim that our only conception of space comes from experience, which Kant countered by arguing that an innate knowledge of space existing in our minds prior to any experience of space is in fact a precondition for any such experience eventually giving us any greater conception of it at all.
> 
> So to bring this back around to its original point, even from the philosophical developments of the world of secular academia, there is more to transcendental reasoning and presuppositional thought than often first meets the eye.



The first one I read that had the idea in its central theis is Rene Descartes. I know that most of academia doesn't figure it this way, but I can't see how its avoidable. His treatise (First Principles) is usually described as a particular type of ontological argument. But to be consistent with that, then, it seems clear to me that he was pointing to the ontological necessity of the transcendant and preconditional aspect of reason, and of the paradigm of truth that only God can account for, though he did not use those words. Like you said, Kant was the first to formalize it, or maybe we could say, to specifically formulate it in terms. The basic ideas have been there a long time, and I would contend that they are present in Anselm's treatise as well. We might call it presuppositions in our day, but that would be because of modern formulations of the discussions. 

To tie this in with the first part of this post, if the argument is the case, then it must be believed that presuppositions have been part of any method from the very start, from Job to Solomon, to the Greeks, to the Church-age philosophers, to our present day. They are nothing new. But this is the first generation where it is concentrated on, even at the cost of addressing the other areas of thought and life. 

I hold a difference between presuppositions and preconditions. But I usually have to use the former term to mean preconditions, because I think Presuppositionalists often confuse them, and I want to reply to them in the terms they choose to use. Preconditions are the same across the board for everyone; we all live in the same world, in the same intellectual environment, and under the same curse. But some of us have been rescued from the penalty of that curse, and so receive grace,light and truth to help us overcome the darkness in our souls and minds. Presuppositioins, therefore, can't be more basic than the precondition. A rebellious man may have his presuppositions, but his precondition is the same as ours. We can get under his presuppositions by calling him to continuity and consistency in his thought, to show a deeper set of presuppositions that he carries, but will not acknowledge. It is his rebellion which overshadows his thinking, not his so-called system of thought. For there is no other system of thought in reality, for they are only fool's errands.

I wouldn't normally put it in these terms when dealing with an unbeliever in discussion. These things would remain hidden from him as I discuss his ideas and concepts. I would edge him to rethinking his ideas, so as to make an introduction to God not just plausible, but real. He may refuse, but I am not going to burn bridges with him. I want to leave the door open for others to talk with him as well as myself. It took many years for me, a Christian, to understand some of these things; it is far too much to ask him to step up to anyone else's level right from the start. 

Where we need to be aggressive is in the area of proud obstacles to the faith. Most of the time these are within our own circles, in the Church. That is the context of II Cor. 10. And that is the struggle I am in now. The offices were being used to unfair advantage against those who were not Presuppositionalists or Theonomists or Postmillennial. The preaching was used to add an air of Christ's own authority to these views, so that to hold to other views was deemed to be opposed to Christ. This the very thing that the Confessions warn us against, that we must guard against. But further, the offices were used to hide the situation, and to put down the one who withstood this abuse; to discipline the one instead of the many, for the sake of peace. This is a most gross thing in the church, and we should be indignant and forceful in removing it. But notice that this says nothing negative about these views, but only about the abuses of office. That is the point. That is the proud obstacle that we must deal with with boldness, according to the context of that passage. 

It is not a call to go out and destroy everyone's ideas that don't match with the Christian's. We are to evangelize among those, and to show the love of Christ to them. There is much more to them then their arguments. They too bear the image of God, and they may indeed be of the elect, but not yet regenerated. It may be that our efforts may make the difference. It may happen through our efforts, or it may be the root of someone else's effort later on, or it may be one of the building along the way. It's the Spirit's work, and we have to do our part, whether small or big; it's all equally important. 

Well, I hope that is an adequate response to the posts now a ways back. There is a lot to discuss, but I think I covered Jacob's, Patrick's, Gregory's and Chris' posts way back there. I think Evie has taken this thread into new and exciting areas, and we should pursue that too.



[Edited on 3-19-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Well put, John. If I'm reading what you said correctly, then I actually agree with everything in your last post, especially regarding the way in which we are to present our apologetic to the unbeliever, and the reason we are presenting it, and that doing so is vain if it does not include a presentation of the Gospel in our defense of the Christian worldview.
> 
> I also think we're either on the same page or close regarding the nature of the necessity of reason and logic - do you agree that while a rejection of it does indeed inevitably result in empty foolishness, it alone is still not enough to change that and to account for intelligible thought and experience?



Yes, most heartily. One either reasons rightly or wrongly. It is not possible to reason rightly and hold to beliefs that deny God or His Word. That cannot truly be called _reason_, nor intelligent, and really isn't thought so much as it is rebellion. There is only one set of principles for reason, and they're in place by God's design, not man's. 

It has been my hope that we can see the commonalities as primary to our disagreements. Because we are both of the household of faith, then if would follow that our basis of reason is the same. Where we differ is how we use them, or employ them in our arguments. And at that point we all need to grow. And that is the hope of the use of this Board, to have iron sharpen iron, and to remain iron as a result, but only sharper. I never doubted your fellowhip and love, Chris. Please accept mine as well.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Mar 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> Insightful, but unfortunately you do exactly what you accused the atheist of. Van Tillian apologetics are filled with arguments that beg the question. Assume the Christian God to prove the Christian God, right?  Maybe that is a little too basic for a summary of the position, but it caught my attn. when you accused him of this.



It's like this... everyone without exception makes an assumption concerning the God question. Everyone believes their assumption to be correct, or else they would not hold their assumption. But everyone's assumption does not agree, so everyone's assumption cannot be correct. I assume the Christian God exists, and the impossibility of the contrary. You see, I can prove the Christian God, by disproving all other assumptions concerning the God question. This method of proving the Christian God is by a process of elimination. In a nutshell, I think your question begging depends upon an oversimplified version of presuppositional apologetics. 

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the only way to have 100% proof for the existence of God, is through presuppositonalism (and that is why I say "everyone without exception makes an assumption concerning the God question"). You can reach a high degree of certainty concerning the existence of God through rationalism, but not absolute certainty. It is for that very reason that I started looking into presuppositonalism, and have not turned back since. 

Along the way I also decided revelational epistemology is more biblical than rationalism.


----------



## BrianLanier (Mar 21, 2005)

Here is Paul Manata's response to _begging the question_:


> I don't post at the PB anymore. I did e-mail Draught Horse a response to see if he would post it, and he hasn't. Anyway, I want other presupps to be able to handle this kind of stuff. Here is what I wrote, you can post it for me if you wish
> 
> 
> Just to let you know, Douglas Walton, one of the top experts on logic, fallacies, and circular arguments (and he's not a Christian/Van Tilian) writes: "Circularity: A sequence of reasoning is circular if one of the premises depends on, or is even equivalent to, the conclusion. Circularity is not always fallacious, but can be a defect in an argument where the conclusion is doubtful and the premises are supposed to be a less doubtful basis for proving the conclusion." (Oxford Companion To Philosophy, p. 135). So, here we have an expert in the field, who doesn't know about Van Til, or that knight would be arguing against my position, telling us that not all circular arguments are fallacious. So it's not as obvious as knight would have us believe. Now, in a sophmoric sense it is but this isn't interesting. Furthermore, Walton wrote a paper which was an award winning paper by logicians and philosphers titled: Are Circular arguments Necessarily Vicious? http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers in pdf/85circarg.pdf So, it is even understood that circular arguments are not always fallacious by a lot of the professionals in the field.
> ...



and



> oh yeah, you can add this into what I wrote:
> 
> WCF
> 
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2005)

I got the email the same night you did and posted it...some of it, anyway.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 21, 2005)

John, how do any of the historic Classical arguments attempt to show the absolute vanity and indeed non-existence of reason without God? I do not see that in the cosmological, ontological, teleological or other Classical arguments, which all traditionally seem to start from a neutral territory of thought with the skeptic, and from there proceed to reason their way to God by building arguments upon that neutral territory of thought. I cannot see how any of them even attempt to speak of God as a necessary precondition for any and all reason and experience to be intelligible. I do not doubt your personal commitment to that truth, but fail to see it properly accounted for in the Classical arguments. Even Matt (Webmaster), who is a Classicist, has said here before that while God _ontologically_ precedes logic, logic _epistemologically_ precedes God, which is consistent with what I see in the Classical arguments and have heard from most other Classicists.

Also, I couldn't agree more that the intellectual side of man is certainly not the only part that needs to be dealt with - and actually, that leads into another important point that I see in presuppositional apologetics, but honestly cannot see in Classical apologetics - and that is the presentation of the Gospel. Obviously a Classicist arguing for the faith can present the Gospel alongside of his arguments, but none of the Classical arguments seem to have any presentation of the Gospel inherently embedded in them, while the Transcendental Argument does, since it inevitably involves a presentation of the Christian worldview as a whole. So as an honest question, where is the Gospel _necessarily_ presented in any of the Classical arguments?


----------



## knight4christ8 (Apr 3, 2005)

Okay. First, please forgive me for having bailed out on our dialogue. Spring Break had me in other places. Hopefully, now we can get to some good challenging dialogue.

To the board . . .


> oh yeah, you can add this into what I wrote:
> 
> WCF
> 
> ...


 [/quote]

There is a categorical mistake going on when Paul is using this to support Presuppositionalism. I affirm that God could not care any less whether the unbeliever affirms that His Word is His Word or not . . . His Word is His Word b/c it is His Word. But, note that this is the objective sense in which God's Word is self-attesting. The next section in the Confession [see last paragraph] also speaks of why God's Word is the Word of God. If the entire synopsis of our apologetic should be comprised of the fact that God's Word is God's Word b/c it is God's Word, then there would have been no reason for the next section to be written. However, it was. It speaks of God's Word in its subjective self-attesting nature. It begins by stating those reasons that "We may be moved by Scripture . . ." to give it the respect that Scripture demands. So, the Confessional fathers intended to make it clear that God's Word is God's Word no matter what we think, but then they go on and speak of how we, as subjects, can know that the Word of God is the Word of God. Thus, the fathers employ a "classical"-type approach by which we can know that the Bible is the Word of God, not in addition to the section quoted above, but seperate from and in a completely different sense in dealing with man's mind. This subjective sense is all too often ignored. Unfortunately, what I have seen come from your type of apologetic is unsympathetic and in a sense, considers those like Gordon Stein reprobate. Rather, the Word tells us to be "gentle" with those who oppose us and pray that they might repent. There seems to be little care for the unbeliever in the apologetic that forgets we are subjects, and, as such know God by the subjective and mediate means which He provides to us. 
The Word of God is objectively and subjectively self-attesting. The objective nature has nothing to do with our apologetic or man's knowledge of God, but everything to do with God's superiority to man. The subjective sense has everything to do with our apologetic and employs the use of arguments in order to argue that Scripture is Scripture. Nowhere in this subjective sense of the self-attesting nature of Scripture is there an appeal to an immediate knowledge of God. The only sense in which the Confessional fathers refer to man's knowledge of God is through the mediate means by which God makes Himself known. 

"V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be 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."


----------



## knight4christ8 (Apr 3, 2005)

Please be sure to read my post above first. All points are valid. 

Blue I agree that Classical apologetics is not complete and does not directly lead to the gospel as apologetics must do.
I will post the first argument in which "Rational Presuppositionalism" lays its foundation to show the sin of the unbeliever. All men must hold to the laws of thought in order to even speak. All men speak, so they affirm the laws, but when forming their worldview fail to seek God and affirm their incosistency and irrationalism. Not all unbelievers are at the point of denying the follwing argument (i.e. spiritual monists, etc.) , but what follows is clearly seen by all men and denied by some unbelievers less consistent in reason. 

There must be something eternal is shown to be true through an analysis of the contrary: none is eternal.

None is eternal implies all is temporal.
If all is temporal, then all had a beginning.
If all had a beginning, then all came into being.
If all came into being, then being came from non-being.
Being from non-being is not possible. 
Therefore the contrary . . . Something is eternal must be true.

There are certainly some questions you may have, but when it comes down to it, denying the above leaps into absurdity. Through deductive arguments, Christianity, as holding Christ as God and Savior of fallen man, is shown to be the only rationally consistent belief system. Our apologetic is based on the classical assumption that God makes himself know through what has been made, and again, speaking to men, the subjective nature of God's self-attesting Word is the only honest means to prove God. Through being consistent with the Word of God our apologetic hushes the fool and evangelizes the elect at the same time.



[Edited on 4-4-2005 by knight4christ8]


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> 
> There must be something eternal is shown to be true through an analysis of the contrary: none is eternal.
> ...



NOt bad but couldn't a Muslim do the same thing with Islam?


----------



## JohnV (Apr 4, 2005)

Chris:

I'll do the best I can to answer your questions. Let me apologize in advance for sermonizing, for that is certainly not my calling or my position. 


> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> John, how do any of the historic Classical arguments attempt to show the absolute vanity and indeed non-existence of reason without God? I do not see that in the cosmological, ontological, teleological or other Classical arguments, which all traditionally seem to start from a neutral territory of thought with the skeptic, and from there proceed to reason their way to God by building arguments upon that neutral territory of thought. I cannot see how any of them even attempt to speak of God as a necessary precondition for any and all reason and experience to be intelligible. I do not doubt your personal commitment to that truth, but fail to see it properly accounted for in the Classical arguments. Even Matt (Webmaster), who is a Classicist, has said here before that while God _ontologically_ precedes logic, logic _epistemologically_ precedes God, which is consistent with what I see in the Classical arguments and have heard from most other Classicists.


I think that there may be a misconception involved here. Maybe its mine, but then my misconception is an affirmative one, while yours is negative. That is not evidence, but it certainly is a consideration. At least it has been for me, which is why I conceive of the arguments as I do. 

To be more precise, I have no way of knowing what you mean by "neutral territory", since a properly held Classical or Evidential approach knows of no such thing. This is not the same kind of denial of neutral ground that the Presuppositionalist claims. But that is the point I don't understand as yet. To me it sounds like a contradicting and partisan sentiment held by Presuppositionalists. The bottom line is that I don't think the criticism by Presuppositionalists of the Classical or Evidential (or Verificationist) approaches is honest, and that's the main stickler for me. But all this is doing is batting the ball back, and that too is not honest to the question at hand. But I do want to say this in order to underline the proposition that I believe that there is a misconception at work here, and why I hold the position I do. 

The misconception that I perceive has to do with the fact that almost all the criticisms of the Ontological Argument that I've read are of the kind that was first raised against Anselm, and which he did not feel necessary to answer. I agree with him; it does not need answering, for the criticism answers itself. And that is that the proof is akin to imagining a perfect island, and then assuming it exists. Although this criticism shows that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, or that the conclusion is assumed in the premise, yet it is not at all of the kind that Anselm dealt with. One could say that he would have been arguing for the perfect island from which he was standing on, but though that may be better, it still is not the same argument. One may say that he was arguing from that perfect island about that perfect island, showing that everyone else is also on that island, and that still would not mirror his argument, though, again, it may be a better one yet. He is not arguing for the created earth (the perfect island); he is arguing for the Creator, without which the island could not exist, nor even the acknowledgment of the island; no, not even the perception of the island. This entirely misses his argument. And yet this has been the academic answer to his argumentation. 

Anselm's argument is not just the first three chapters of his treatise. You have to read the whole thing. Try to understand how it all fits in. He is not proceeding from "neutral territory", he is denying it. No one exists in that territory. Its just not a possibility. 

Allow me another approach with this question. What is it that atheists and God-deniers deny? Are they denying Allah? No! Are they denying Buddha? No! Are they denying any of the lesser gods of any other religion? No! Though they may deny these, this is not what their main thrust in denying God is about. They have only one thing on their minds, and that is to deny the only God ever described in the perfection that the Bible teaches. They are not denying a philosophical construction, or a religious point of departure. They are denying He of whom none greater can be named. Atheists are not greatly concerned about defeating the notion of Allah, or any other god of any other religion. Nor are other religions as adamant against other religions as they are about Christianity. Nor is there apostacy like there is apostacy from the Christian religion. The entire world is proclaiming with the loudest of jeers and jibes that there is only one real God that everyone knows of. And they hate Him with all that they own. And they couch it in courting semi-virtuous or counterfeit good. There is no neutral territory here that one can start from. 

But you cannot make of this the same anti-neutral Dooyweerdian argument that many have taken on instead of Van Til's view as Van Tillian. It is not the same. But that is another discussion. I just want to show that there is a misunderstanding here about what the Classical and Evidential (and Verificationist) arguments are about. 

Unless that is done, I don't think that you can escape the notion that you have given above. Of course, you may not want to either. It is still possible that I am the one that misconceives. I just don't think so, because I believe my view goes a lot deeper into the questions. That may be more brag than fact, though; yet it is what I believe.



> Also, I couldn't agree more that the intellectual side of man is certainly not the only part that needs to be dealt with - and actually, that leads into another important point that I see in presuppositional apologetics, but honestly cannot see in Classical apologetics - and that is the presentation of the Gospel. Obviously a Classicist arguing for the faith can present the Gospel alongside of his arguments, but none of the Classical arguments seem to have any presentation of the Gospel inherently embedded in them, while the Transcendental Argument does, since it inevitably involves a presentation of the Christian worldview as a whole. So as an honest question, where is the Gospel _necessarily_ presented in any of the Classical arguments?



This is a more acute criticism, and one for which I, as a Classicist, ought to thank the mainline Presuppositionalists. Apologetics has been in quite a funk, even before Van Till's time. C. S. Lewis witnessed the same thing. If you have an early copy of his Mere Christianity, which is called The Case for Christianity, then it becomes quite evident that the general religious public was quite ignorant of the basics in defending the faith. And my own tradition was very negative to anything philosophical, or that pretended to do more than the Catechism or Confession did. They were very suspicious of any authority that trumped the church, as they saw it. And the traditional "proofs" were held in poor repute, and often mishandled even by those who still tried to argue them. 

This is not the case for the academic world, but it is still the truth that the arguments did not hold the same sway as they do now. One minister once remarked to me that he had never heard of a Reformed person defending the Ontological Argument before, and he asked whether I may not be a closet Romanist. But he also found that I knew the Reformed doctrines almost as well as he could hope for a parishioner, and that I truly believed them. This idea of defending it from a Reformed perspective was new to him, as it would be to most people, I suppose. But a careful read of Anselm's Proslogium shows that it is actually a reiteration of Augustine's faith, as found in combining his Confessions, the Enchiridion, The City of God, and On Christian Doctrine. It was merely combined by Anselm, and formulated by him. But the notions are all Augustine's. And they are the same background that Calvin used for much of his theological work in the Institutes. So the Reformed connection is quite clear. 

However, there has been quite a shift in apologetics since Van Till. I believe Schaeffer had as much, if not more, to do with that than Van Till. Van Till was an academic, working in academic circles. That filtered down through his students into the circles of the churches. It also filtered down to Schaeffer, who popularized his methodology all over the world to the everyday man as well as the academic, without favour or distinction. Sproul, Zacharias, Tada, and many others owe to Schaeffer the groundwork, or fieldwork, for their ministries. He took real apologetics and applied it to real people with real intellectual problems, and presented the gospel to them by helping in answering their questions. He did not profess to have the answers himself, but always underlined that the Bible gave answers to those who were really searching for truth in their lives. And the Bible gave answers in every area of life; it gave answers that no other could give, and it gave answers that proved right and true (He Is There And He Is Not Silent). 

As I am given to understand, this is still the epitome of human efforts in our time. This is definitely a presentation of the gospel through apologetic endeavours. And it is simply not true that Schaeffer was a Presuppositionalist at the expense of all other methodologies. He was asked in an open forum if he believed in the Ontological, the Classical, or the Evidential views, and his answer was simply, "Yes". I don't have documentation for that, because I have it on the word of my friend who was attending Westminster Philadelphia at the time of his speaking engagement there. 

It was a long, academically laden question, and his answer was simply, "Yes". He did not want to draw undue attention to method, or person, or approach, as much as he wanted to draw attention to the Word, and its reliability for the modern mind. Dr. E. P. Clowny makes the same observation in his summary of a meeting between Schaeffer and Van Till. And this same emphasis comes through time and again in his works, but never more so than in the L'Abri statement of purpose. (I'll look it up and post it. )

It is not that Presuppositionalism does not work. It does work. It is just that I think it is misapplied too often, and has almost become a sectarianist methodology, which no methodology ought to have a right to claim unless it is false. And that ought to scare many of us. If Presuppositionalism is all that it claims to be, then it ought to be showing itself to be the true Classical, the true Evidential, the true verificationist approach to apologetics, instead of disparaging against them. It ought to be incorporating all the best of the past, and stand in the tradition of the faith, rather than forging its own tradition. It is the Spirit that has been upholding the Church, not any methodology of man's making. And He has done so in all ages, governing His servants in the leadership afforded the Church in those ages. Man does not invent propositions, he discovers them. He formulates into proposition the truth that he discovers. And he only discovers through the open door the Spirit grants to us. 

Are these methodologies full of wickedness too? Surely they are. Men have wrested even the surest of truths to their own advantage, or tried to. The inward hatred of God inherent in all sinful men always moves them to distort and rearrange the truth once established by the Spirit through Christ's Church. Think of Corinthians and Galations. But just because men have added sin upon sin onto those established truths, the truth itself is still much stronger than deception for those who are in Christ. And it is with this kind of discernment that any of us must approach the defense of the faith. It is not to win, because that has already been done. It is rather to win the soul for Christ, to rescue the wandering faith from the beguiling lies of the world, and to firm up the faith of the believer who must work in the world the other six days of the week. And we need to relegate all our methodologies to such a work. 

The Classical Methodology is only this: that whatever question or argument or speculation is raised against the faith, it is able to answer, but only from the Word and from an honest appraisal of nature. The Evidential Methodology is only this: that no matter what evidence is given, it can evidence no other than that God exists and that He is true in all He says. And it is my assumption that the Presuppositional Methodology is nothing more than that man can presuppose nothing else but that God exists as a premise to any other proposition, including everything the Word of God teaches and lays as a foundation. So I take it that these cannot work separately, but are all interwoven particularly so that we may have certainty and assurance of what Christ has done for us.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> ...



Well, there is obviously greater and lesser consistency in man's use of reason. There are different points at which people begin to sway from rational thought (Muslims are more consistent than materialists - matter is not eternal). The point at which a person begins to deny reason is where reason should begin to be applied. The Muslim would agree with us at this point -- that something must be eternal. However, the Muslim begins to sway from rationality when the traits of what is eternal are made clear. It is clear that God is infinite in all of His attributes. To be evil God would stand against Himself. He is all good. Good being shown to imply perfect justness, He cannot ever deny Himself or neglect His nature . . . that would be evil. Thus, as Scripture shows man that God is merciful, this cannot be taken without remembering that God is also perfectly just, as shown in the creation. Thus, the Muslim fails to remember that God cannot deny one part of Himself in order to act upon another part of Himself. He cannot deny His Justness in turn for His mercy. Rather, if He is to be merciful (as is revealed in Scripture) He must be so not denying His justice. This is how we know that Christ's atonement is in satisfaction of the Father's wrath . . . not only showing Muslims to sway from rationality, but also Arminian theologians who deny that God has wrath which must be satisfied by Christ's atonement in order for man's redemption. The Word is consistent with General Revelation in that it adds to what can be known, telling us that God acts in mercy, but does not deny what is made clear in General Revelation, telling us that God is Just and cannot stand against His nature in any way.


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 5, 2005)

If there is no self-authenticating authority, then there would be an infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims. For instance, suppose you have authority A. What would authenticate authority A? Suppose that authority B authenticates authority A. What would authenticate authority B? Another authority? This process of authenticating one's authority would go on forever if there were no authority that authenticated itself. If God's word were not self-authenticating, then there would be another authority that would authenticate the God's word. One could ask, "What authenticates the authority that authenticates the God's word?". Moreover, if something other than God's word authenticated God's word, then something would have more authority than God's word.

It is not fallacious to prove your highest authority with your highest authority because if you don't prove your highest authority with your highest authority, then you are claiming that there is an authority that is higher than your highest authority. Moreover, having no authority that proves itself will lead to an infinite process of justifying one's truth claims.

[Edited on 4-6-2005 by cih1355]


----------



## knight4christ8 (Apr 6, 2005)

Nothing need authenticate Scripture objectively. It is the Word of God innately. But, when dealing with subjects whom Scripture must show itself to be consistent with God's nature, it must prove itself. This is the only reason that the Divines included section V. If Scripture were immediately self-attesting subjectively then no arguments would be needed, and any arguments (i.e. the consitency of its parts, etc.) cannot add any support to what is already had in the immediately self-attesting Word of God. But, the Divines show that they felt something could be added b/c their readers find consistency to be a reasonable demand of anything claiming to be Scripture.

Creation could not have come from any other than an eternal being who is infinitely good and all that follows from that. He created man, but he also created creation of which Adam was to name. This creation was to tell Adam about God. This is God's first act toward communicating Himself to man. The second act, Scripture is not validating. If it is not consistent with what is created, then it must be thrown out b/c creation was the first act and could have come from none other than God. We know properly that the Bible is the Word of God not b/c it is self-validating, but b/c it is consistent with God's first act of communicating Himself, Creation.


----------

