Frame and Logic

[Ron]

Originally posted by natewood3
Ron,

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

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

I think you grasp it! :bigsmile:

Ron

 

[Civbert]

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

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

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

1. it asserts that only Christianity can account for logic (which begs the question by presuming logic to account for logic)

1. 
   
   It might help to know what you are attacking before you attempt to attack it. When speaking in terms of worldviews, you need to account for more than logic, or you can account for nothing. (If no knowledge then can't account for anything)

1. 
   
   Without logic, there can be no knowledge. The claim is that the Christian worldview alone can account for both (as you agree, both logic and knowledge are implied by "intelligibility"). Since the Christian worldview can not account for logic (logic I showed in my earlier posts transcends worldviews), then this alone shows that the claim begs the question.
   
   

   Originally posted by ChristianTrader
   
   

   Originally posted by Civbert
   
   [*]2. it says that only Christianity provides the content for logic to work with (a premise that itself needs justification)
   [/list=1]

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

   
   As you said, a worldview must account for knowledge. Unless you know all the details of all possible worldviews - you can not make the claim that only Christianity can account for knowledge. And thus my "counter claim" is the conclusion of a valid argument - and therefore justified.
   
   To deal with my argument, you need to show that logic is created or accounted for without assuming any particular worldview or the validity of logic, and/or prove that Scripturalism is true without assuming it is true. The first will refute my first conclusion, and the latter my second.
   
   [Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Ron]

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

Civbert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nate, do you see the problems that Civbert has?

Ron

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by natewood3
I am aware that you can give philosophical arguments for this all day, but can it be proven with Scripture?

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

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

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

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

This verse boldly declares that one's fear of God is not the result or conclusion of his knowledge, but is rather the beginning of knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

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

Originally posted by Civbert

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

This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.

CT

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

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

I didn't "claim" that, I gave an argument that showed that God was not a necessary precondition for intelligibility.

And your argument failed so you are reduced to asserting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

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

CT

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

The issue is that both are derivations of scripture. So if one begs a question then so does the other.

Maybe you mean that TAG is Christianity.

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

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

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

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

CT

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by ChristianTrader]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Ron

Originally posted by Civbert

This all sounds great except there is no real argument that makes the connection between logic and God necessary.

Civbert,

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

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

Originally posted by Ron

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

Originally posted by Ron

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

Originally posted by Ron

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

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

Originally posted by Ron

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

As you said in your post:

Not to mention, the conclusion of the proof for step 2, which is "œthe Christian worldview is true," exceeds the scope of the premises!

The conclusion that the Christian worldview is more reasonable than the non-Christian worldview remains unjustified because the question of whether one is even philosophically justified in his use of induction has not been established. There are no freebies in Philosophy, as Dr. Bahnsen used to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Ron

Nate, do you see the problems that Civbert has?

Ron

Too logical!

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

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

Originally posted by Civbert

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

This begs the question that there are other working worldviews.

CT

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

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

I didn't "claim" that, I gave an argument that showed that God was not a necessary precondition for intelligibility.

And your argument failed so you are reduced to asserting.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[natewood3]

Civbert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it asserts that only Christianity can account for logic (which begs the question by presuming logic to account for logic)

it says that only Christianity provides the content for logic to work with (a premise that itself needs justification)

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

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

In his debate with Dr. Stein, Bahnsen said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

 

[natewood3]

Jacob,

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

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

 

[Ron]

Civbert,

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

Ron

 

[Me Died Blue]

Nate,

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

 

[natewood3]

Chris,

Sorry for not responding yet.

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

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

 

[natewood3]

Ron,

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

 

[Ron]

Nate,

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

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

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

Ron

 

[natewood3]

Ron,

I would agree.

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

Would you agree or am I misunderstanding this?

 

[Ron]

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

Nate,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you agree or am I misunderstanding this?

I think you´re getting it.

Ron

 

[Ron]

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

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

Ron

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Civbert wrote:

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

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

Clark writes:

But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God´s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God´s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God´s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.

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

Clark doesn't even seem to agree with you.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Ron

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

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

Ron

Wow!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Nate,

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

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

Originally posted by natewood3
Civbert,

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

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

Originally posted by natewood3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Nate,

The next section.

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

Originally posted by natewood3

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

Originally posted by natewood3

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

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

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

Originally posted by natewood3

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

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

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Civbert]

Nate,

Almost done:

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

Originally posted by natewood3

Without a Christian worldview, there cannot be any laws of any sort, whether they are laws of logic, science, or morality. It takes a personal, absolute God to have universal laws.

In his debate with Dr. Stein, Bahnsen said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Nate,

Last one... (whew!)

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

Originally posted by natewood3

Originally posted by Civbert

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

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

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

Originally posted by natewood3

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Ron
Civbert,

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

Ron

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Civbert wrote:

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

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

Clark writes:

But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God´s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God´s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God´s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.

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

Clark doesn't even seem to agree with you.

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

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

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

Did that clear things up any?

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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

Yes! The laws of logic are insufficient for knowledge.

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

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

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

Any better?

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by SemperFideles]