jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I said earlier that explaining causality was like explaining the principle of non-contradiction or why an infinite set cannot be made through successive addition. And by causality, I mean specifically that things do not begin or occur by nothing.
You must remeber that simply using logic or an idea like causality never explains why there is such things to begin with. The materialist cannot explain what logic is in an unproblimatic way. So they use logic but they cannot account for why logic exists in the first place. They believe that all logic is electrical impulses in our brain but how can account fo rthe universal use of logic by human beings? What if my impulses are different from yours, that means different logics? These are all problems with contemporary theories of mind from a materalistic point of view.
Atheists generally accept that things do not come into existence uncaused, but they suppose that this can happen at the quantum level. I think your point may be that they accept principles of causality in everyday life, even though they cannot explain why they do.
That is correct to a degree but I would add that they cannot explain why we believe in causality at all, not if causality exists only the why question.
Or it may be that they are the kind of atheist who strongly maintains the principle of causality, but nevertheless holds to an infinite regressive universe or multiverse (same idea if multiverse is causally connected). But then he cannot explain why the principle of causality is such. BUT neither can he explain why contradictions are necessarily false. They just are.
Yeah his or her problem would be explaining why an infinite series of dependent things doesn't require an explinaition. Most scientific atheists simply ignore questions of metaphysics but they can give no reason to do so except a very circuler arguement that if science can't answer it no one can.
Again though you must give an account of why there is logical or scientific laws to begin with. That is interpreting the reality we all experience. So there are no givens, like logic or causality, in this sense that we cannot ask questions about them at all. That does not mean that the unbeleiver cannot do science or reason only that they cannot explain why such things exsist in a meaningful way to begin with.
BUT then again, if he is a committed rationalist, he would also see that a first cause is necessary, even if he will not admit it.
I am not a rationalist, or anyother western or eastern epistomology, so I can't say. I agree with Van Til's Revealational Epistomology. No revealation from, natural or special, God no knowledge. The unbeleiver will never admit to the christian God, they will use their God given image to atempt to undermine what they know to be true.
---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------
But in that case, our response is to present the Biblical narrative of creation-fall-redemption-consummation.
I don't quite get you here?
Making sense is subjective. The metanarrative of Scripture makes sense to me, but to Bertrand Russell, it did not. Making sense is a function of one's paradigm.
I think you are getting hungup on thinking that there is no connection between worldviews or paradigms and reality. Van Til and all other thinkers who have or will use the TA maintain that there is. We must think and talk about the same reality we experience so a given worldview either will or will not be able to explain the reality that they are trying to. This is not a worldview verses worldview argument it is a worldview verses reality argument.
But it's only interesting to a select group of people.
So, how does that get them off the logical hook here? Why are they immune from such questions?
But it's a tool that only works correctly from correct premises. Without a correct starting premise, the syllogism is flawed.
I agree but that has nothing to do with the unbeleiver being able to say why logic exists as we experience it?
To which the multiverse theorist will inevitably reply that the question is unanswerable---remember also that multiverse theorists are largely scientistic in their paradigm and as such, there is no room for God, at least not the God of Christian theism.
So how can a scientist scientifically prove that any question that science can't answer cannot be answered, that is circuler reasoning?
All this is to say, without a word from the outside, no atheist is going to buy your argument, even if you deconstruct his. He still has warrant for using reason, even if he can't explain it metaphysically---most atheists haven't studied metaphysics extensively anyway.
If by word from the outside you mean the Holy Spirit regenerating them than fine your are right but if you mean something else than I would point out that my goal is not to convince rebellious covenant breakers of what they know to be true but only to silience the mouth of naysayers and strengthen the faith of the beleiver.