Frame and Logic
- Thread starter natewood3
- Start date
- Status
Because without logic and faith, there could be not knowledge.
Because I'm using an epistemically definition of knowledge - justified true belief - which does not include psychological certainty. I don't "know" that God has saved me, I believe it with all my heart. For me to know it logically, I'd need to prove it from Scripture. I use the Axiom of Scripture to justify knowledge - ergo only Scripture and what can be deduced therefrom I account as knowledge. But this is the logic order of knowledge, not the temporal order. All knowledge is from God first and ultimately. But I can not logically justify knowledge from the premise "God exists". What God? The God of Scripture. Therefore I start with Scripture for my epistemological knowledge process.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
If you did not come about this belief by the rules of Aristotlean logic and don't believe anybody else will be convinced by Aristotlean logic (which I quite agree with) then why would that be your Apologetic standard? Beg the question all you want because you believe in the TRUTH OF THE PREMISES - Jesus IS LORD!
The world be damned if they find it circular!
How do you justify knowing the premise "Jesus is Lord" is a true premise? From hearing it in Scripture. There is the Axiom, Scripture. How do you know the axiom is true? Like all axioms, it is taken on faith. The only thing I beg is that non-believers should hear the Gospel and, by God's grace, believe the Word. But that's evangelism. The apologetics side is: can I prove Scripture is true with a deductive logical argument? No, because Scripture is the axiom of my Christian epistemology. Ultimately, only faith "proves" Christianity. Not TAG or any other rational argument can do it - the logic fails.
Worldviews are based on faith ultimately, faith in the axioms that define them. You can't logically prove a worldview. As clever and appealing as the TAG argument sounds, it's still logically fallacious.
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]
I don't know. I think some people are agreeing violently here.
I don't know if you're just being overly punctillious but I think the way you expressed yourself came off as saying: "I believe the Gospel but I can't be sure of it...." As I understand people when they say they are pre-supposing a worldview is that they have adopted and trusted in its premises.
You pour in a bunch of other epistemological stuff now that revealed: "Yes I believe in absolute Truth but I didn't get there by the same formula as is being represented by others...." Couldn't you see that others were concerned about an apparent equivocation on Truth from you? Why not put away that concern first? Maybe I missed it but this is the first time I've seen you in this thread acknowledge the trueness of Truth. Elsewhere it seems you've been saying your worldview may or may not be true. I don't think I'm the only one that was alarmed by that.
I'm still not convinced by your approach. If you're convinced that only the Word and the Spirit can "prove" Christianity then I think the TAG folks would agree just not necessarily write out the same formulas. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about when both affirm that only the Holy Spirit will convince. Are you just concerned that they're arguing wrongly? I mean, it can't do any harm. It's not as if the Gospel is being perverted - it's just offending philosophy profs sense of circularity. You tell somebody to repent and believe - they think that's foolish too unless the Lord should move them.
I admitted before I'm still trying to work out the consequences of all this. Thanks to all sides for helping me figure out what this tempest between Clarkians and VanTillians is. I'm still learning...
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]
I don't know if you're just being overly punctillious but I think the way you expressed yourself came off as saying: "I believe the Gospel but I can't be sure of it...." As I understand people when they say they are pre-supposing a worldview is that they have adopted and trusted in its premises.
You pour in a bunch of other epistemological stuff now that revealed: "Yes I believe in absolute Truth but I didn't get there by the same formula as is being represented by others...." Couldn't you see that others were concerned about an apparent equivocation on Truth from you? Why not put away that concern first? Maybe I missed it but this is the first time I've seen you in this thread acknowledge the trueness of Truth. Elsewhere it seems you've been saying your worldview may or may not be true. I don't think I'm the only one that was alarmed by that.
I'm still not convinced by your approach. If you're convinced that only the Word and the Spirit can "prove" Christianity then I think the TAG folks would agree just not necessarily write out the same formulas. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about when both affirm that only the Holy Spirit will convince. Are you just concerned that they're arguing wrongly? I mean, it can't do any harm. It's not as if the Gospel is being perverted - it's just offending philosophy profs sense of circularity.
You tell somebody to repent and believe - they think that's foolish too unless the Lord should move them.I admitted before I'm still trying to work out the consequences of all this. Thanks to all sides for helping me figure out what this tempest between Clarkians and VanTillians is. I'm still learning...
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Rich,
I would urge you not to think in terms of Van Til and Clark, it only seems to cloud the issues. I would urge you to evaluate what is before you.
What Civbert doesn't get is that "taking it on faith" is equivocal. He want's to know how one knows that Jesus is Lord? The simple answer is that God has revealed this truth to you in his Word by His Spirit.
If you agree that a sound deductive argument only requires true premises and a valid form, then you should put this matter to rest. Whether one does not accept the source of true premises is not germane to whether an argument is actually sound, lest argumentation becomes contingent upon what people will admit as true as opposed to what is actually true.
Again, HERE´S THE RUB: Everything that Civbert proves is unjustified because his axioms, which all his proofs proceed from, are all unjustified. ...
In response to this he asks me to "œprove" my axioms. He does not address the fact that all his proofs proceed from that which is unjustified for him, leaving his proofs unjustified! When I prove my starting point with valid formal arguments that have true premises he rejects those arguments because he doesn´t appreciate that the sufficient condition for a sound argument is a valid form and true premises. Accordingly, he will not accept an appeal to Scripture as a source of truth (as shameful as that is), but he will, should he try to prove something, accept an appeal to memory, sight, logic, truth over time, all of which presuppose that the Scriptures are true! Accordingly, the proof of God's existence is that without him one could not prove anything. Accordingly, all those autonomous absolutes that Civbert will appeal to in order that he might find true premises are in fact arbitrary given his system. If their truth values are indeed justifiable, then it is because of God's word, which he will not have, hence his skepticism - which I think you are beginning to see.
Ron
I would urge you not to think in terms of Van Til and Clark, it only seems to cloud the issues. I would urge you to evaluate what is before you.
What Civbert doesn't get is that "taking it on faith" is equivocal. He want's to know how one knows that Jesus is Lord? The simple answer is that God has revealed this truth to you in his Word by His Spirit.
If you agree that a sound deductive argument only requires true premises and a valid form, then you should put this matter to rest. Whether one does not accept the source of true premises is not germane to whether an argument is actually sound, lest argumentation becomes contingent upon what people will admit as true as opposed to what is actually true.
Again, HERE´S THE RUB: Everything that Civbert proves is unjustified because his axioms, which all his proofs proceed from, are all unjustified. ...
In response to this he asks me to "œprove" my axioms. He does not address the fact that all his proofs proceed from that which is unjustified for him, leaving his proofs unjustified! When I prove my starting point with valid formal arguments that have true premises he rejects those arguments because he doesn´t appreciate that the sufficient condition for a sound argument is a valid form and true premises. Accordingly, he will not accept an appeal to Scripture as a source of truth (as shameful as that is), but he will, should he try to prove something, accept an appeal to memory, sight, logic, truth over time, all of which presuppose that the Scriptures are true! Accordingly, the proof of God's existence is that without him one could not prove anything. Accordingly, all those autonomous absolutes that Civbert will appeal to in order that he might find true premises are in fact arbitrary given his system. If their truth values are indeed justifiable, then it is because of God's word, which he will not have, hence his skepticism - which I think you are beginning to see.
Ron
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Rich,
Lastly, can you see how utterly confused Civbert is? What he has just argued is that circular arguments with valid forms and true premises, like the one I'm willing to employ, can make unsound arguments sound! No doubt, the Mulsim may employ a valid form of argument for his worldiew that concludes that Allah is God, but his premises will be false if his conclusion is untrue, which would make his argument unsound.
Do you see how he opposes himself every time he responds?
Ron
I appreciate you concern and your questions. It helps me to know where I'm not communicating as well as I should. I think much of it can be due to a difference in how we are using terms, and some is how we view the role of logic and argument - and it's relationship to truth and knowledge.
Yes, I can see how that would be. I'm working in more traditional philosophical terms, were religious terms can be more metaphorical. When we say God is true, that is a metaphor, not a logical statement. The logical statement may be "all God's thoughts are true thoughts" or "all propositions God reveals in the Word are true propositions" or "God is trustworthy". In logic, "true" is a characteristic of propositions. "Truth" can have both epistemic and metaphysical senses. I generally use Truth to mean the universe of true propositions - and these are known by God. But logically, I am presupposing a Christian worldview which starts with the axiom of Scripture. From this I know the the whole of God's knowledge is greater than any man can obtain. And logically, my worldview is not the same as the non-believer, who has his own set of presuppositions.
With that in mind, when I am arguing logically for my worldview axiom, I must maintain the rules and laws of logic. I do not mix metaphorical truths with logical truths. I'm operating with rational standards for sound and valid logic. And these rules and laws, if nothing else, are common to all rational worldviews that purport to obtain knowledge. I must allow other worldviews to use the same standards of reason as I use. And so if I allow circular arguments as proof in Christianity, then it must be allowed for Islam and Empiricism. And the problem with the TAG argument, is the same form can be used to prove many other worldviews. So now we are in a situation were other worldviews can be proven and disprove Christianity. [/quote]
My only concern is that calling circular arguments valid proofs will only lead to confusion. I suppose one could argue that it doesn't matter if we use dishonest arguments, as long as we can trick some people into believing the Gospel, we have helped to save some souls. But I'm also concerned with how Christianity is viewed before the world. Do we want to appear as a group of irrational fools who have fallen for an fallacious argument? Or do we show them that they have their own presuppositions they take on faith, and so they have no real argument to defeat Christianity.Originally posted by SemperFideles
I'm still not convinced by your approach. If you're convinced that only the Word and the Spirit can "prove" Christianity then I think the TAG folks would agree just not necessarily write out the same formulas. I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about when both affirm that only the Holy Spirit will convince. Are you just concerned that they're arguing wrongly? I mean, it can't do any harm. It's not as if the Gospel is being perverted - it's just offending philosophy profs sense of circularity.
I know - faith is a dirty world. Aquinas gave up the field of reason when he declared that Christian faith was separate from reason. But we can show that all worldviews, no matter how rational the claim to be, start with faithful acceptance of their axioms. And so we can defend our Axiom and the worldview it entails. We do not give up the ground of reason and logic. But we can claim exclusive rights to it without using poor logic - and thus destroying our own cause. You can not logical prove axioms. You can only defend them. I'd rather use evidential arguments that support Christianity, then the TAG which makes the arrogant claim to have exclusive rights to all reason and intelligibility - making all other worldviews ipso facto false. Why make fools of ourselves?
Even if you don't agree with me, I hope I've helped encourage you to learn more about the subject and issues involved. Really, these discussion groups and not reliable sources of good information, (for every expert like me you find
, there's some crackpot to confuse things) but they are good for helping you work out your thinking and seeing what kinds of objections and faults they turn up. Reading the likes of Clark and Plantinga will help you get a better understanding of the issues. Van Til can be helpful, but his defenders like Bahnsen might be more comprehensible.Rich,
As a P.S.: Ron has a few helpful things to say, but whenever he starts saying that I'm confused or illogical, it's an abuse ad hominem. He's trying to discredit me so you will not consider the arguments I've posted. But it's the arguments (not Civbert) which undermine the TAG.
Consider the arguments, read Clark, Van Til, etc, and don't forget the classics which are foundational to philosophy in general - Plato and Aristotle. But Most of all, pray and read the Word because that is the Axiom of Christianity. Don't take my world for it.
As a P.S.: Ron has a few helpful things to say, but whenever he starts saying that I'm confused or illogical, it's an abuse ad hominem. He's trying to discredit me so you will not consider the arguments I've posted. But it's the arguments (not Civbert) which undermine the TAG.
Consider the arguments, read Clark, Van Til, etc, and don't forget the classics which are foundational to philosophy in general - Plato and Aristotle. But Most of all, pray and read the Word because that is the Axiom of Christianity. Don't take my world for it.
TAG argument for the existence of God in a nutshell is:
- If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience
- There is intelligible experience
- :. God does exist
Argument form is Modus Tollen.
The first part presumes "God is the precondition of intelligibility" either as an axiom, or for some other reason, begs justification.
And the second premise that "there is intelligible experience" begs the question too. The true philosophical skeptic will say "intelligible experience" is uncertain since his knowledge comes from sensory experience.
If you reply knowledge comes from God, that's begging the question too.
There's not avoiding how bad the TAG argument is on simple logical 101 standards of reason.
Both premises any rational mind will rightly question. As a proof, it proves nothing really.
As for an argument for any axioms, none has been given. What is your axiom?
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Take it for what it´s worth Ron, but I have found a number of your attacks against Anthony to be to the man and lacking substance. As for being confused, I would also suggest you look at some of your own posts. While your misuse of key terms leading to some confusion has already been noted, consider this from a recent post of yours on this thread:
in my opinion Anthony has been very clear in that he is using the word to know in the sense of JTB. Therefore, if one is said to "know" something he must provide a valid account for any truth claim. As such, there is no nor can there be any antecedent set of premises by which the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" can be deduced. As the WCF states while the Scriptures "œevidence" that they are 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." This last clause would be irrelevant and simply wrong if the proposition "œthe Scriptures are true" could be demonstrated. Therefore, the axiom of Scripture is a choice. One either comes by God´s grace to accept the Scriptures as true or they don´t. Consequently, there is no proof that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Of course, the Scriptures claim to be the Word of God, but that is a circular argument. However, once someone posits the Scripture as true, from there the entire system of Christianity can be validly inferred. As I recall, Clark said in his Wheaton lectures that unless someone accepts the Scriptures as the Word of God he can know nothing.
In any event, I don´t find Anthony´s posts to be particularly confusing or his reasoning poor. OTOH I think you are being more than a bit unfair.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Civbert,
Once again you have not dealt with what is before you - not even close. Moreover, you've made an additional mistake. Necessary conditions are not necessarily "necessary preconditions" as I argued on this site before. Accordingly, the consequent of an "if then" proposition does not necessarily qualify as a transcendental! If one is regenerate, then he is united to Christ and if one is united to Christ, then he is regenerate. Logical order is not implied in such a constructs.
Ron
Once again you have not dealt with what is before you - not even close. Moreover, you've made an additional mistake. Necessary conditions are not necessarily "necessary preconditions" as I argued on this site before. Accordingly, the consequent of an "if then" proposition does not necessarily qualify as a transcendental! If one is regenerate, then he is united to Christ and if one is united to Christ, then he is regenerate. Logical order is not implied in such a constructs.
Ron
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Once again, Rich, do you see how Civbert does not deal with the issues? He requires more for a sound argument than a valid form and true premises but he cannot live this way. Secondly, all his axioms, being unjustied, make all his proofs unjustified for they are based upon things he cannot prove because he has no ultimate authority for truth that he feels he can appeal to. Finally, he believes that a sound argument for Christianity (where the premises are true and the form valid) falls to the level of an unsound, yet validly formed, argument for Islam!
Ron
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Ron]
Ron
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Ron]
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Mark's been banging his head against the wall for years... I just talked to him and he's not interested, so I'll address some of your basic premises below.
O.K, Sean, what additional information will Civbert have in glory that he does not have now that will enable him to know that the Christian worldview is true?
You´ve just confused how we know with giving a defense of that which we know.
You´ve just argued: If I know that X exists without proof, then I cannot deduce that X exists! NOTE: I am not saying that one comes to know God through deduction.
Again, you´ve created a false dilemma. Your premise is that if we know something apart from discursive reasoning, then that which we know in this manner cannot be discursively demonstrated as true.
Ron
O.K, Sean, what additional information will Civbert have in glory that he does not have now that will enable him to know that the Christian worldview is true?
You´ve just confused how we know with giving a defense of that which we know.
You´ve just argued: If I know that X exists without proof, then I cannot deduce that X exists! NOTE: I am not saying that one comes to know God through deduction.
Again, you´ve created a false dilemma. Your premise is that if we know something apart from discursive reasoning, then that which we know in this manner cannot be discursively demonstrated as true.
Ron
Civbert,
How can you not presuppose your own worldview? Am I not presupposing my own worldview as I am typing this?
What were the apostles doing when they "reasoned" with unbelievers?
You have been telling me that it is impossible to know if our worldview is the only true worldview, but now we can know with certainty the truths of Scripture? Is it really possible to not know if the TRUTH is true? If it is truth, is it not true by definition? Hence, if Christianity is really the truth, then it cannot possibly be false.
What does it mean when we say that the Scripture is "self-attesting"?
This simply leads me to believe that Christianity is a blind leap in the dark.
Again, I see nothing but arbitrariness and unjustified belief in your worldview. Why can an unbeliever not arbitrarily believe that God does not exist, because we cannot prove that Christianity is true, nor can we prove that atheism is not true. Hence, why is the atheist wrong for adopting an atheist worldview? It almost comes down to randomly picking a worldview, because no worldview is for certain true or false, so it doesn't really matter. We are all unjustified in believing our worldview to be true. We must just accept whatever that worldview is by faith. It seems the discussion must stop right there, because the unbeliever is not doing anything differently from you in adopting his worldview. It does not matter that he is arbitrary and unjustified in his beliefs, because as it is, we are too.
I also have enjoyed the discussion, although you have obviously studied more than I have in these areas.
How can you not presuppose your own worldview? Am I not presupposing my own worldview as I am typing this?
What were the apostles doing when they "reasoned" with unbelievers?
You have been telling me that it is impossible to know if our worldview is the only true worldview, but now we can know with certainty the truths of Scripture? Is it really possible to not know if the TRUTH is true? If it is truth, is it not true by definition? Hence, if Christianity is really the truth, then it cannot possibly be false.
What does it mean when we say that the Scripture is "self-attesting"?
This simply leads me to believe that Christianity is a blind leap in the dark.
Again, I see nothing but arbitrariness and unjustified belief in your worldview. Why can an unbeliever not arbitrarily believe that God does not exist, because we cannot prove that Christianity is true, nor can we prove that atheism is not true. Hence, why is the atheist wrong for adopting an atheist worldview? It almost comes down to randomly picking a worldview, because no worldview is for certain true or false, so it doesn't really matter. We are all unjustified in believing our worldview to be true. We must just accept whatever that worldview is by faith. It seems the discussion must stop right there, because the unbeliever is not doing anything differently from you in adopting his worldview. It does not matter that he is arbitrary and unjustified in his beliefs, because as it is, we are too.
I also have enjoyed the discussion, although you have obviously studied more than I have in these areas.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
I can only hope that the following is read in a spirit of fair play.
The formal argument affords a point of discussion at the points of the premises. No one is expecting anyone to roll over and accept any deductive argument, for if the premises were embraced, the argument would most likely not have been needed in the first place.
A sound argument that all men are mortal is:
Whatever Scripture teaches is true
Scripture teaches that all men are mortal
Therefore, it is true that all men are mortal
The premises are true and the form valid, so the conclusion is reliable and true.
NOTE: The "demonstration" that all men are mortal is not to be found in the proof. Demonstration, which is most appropriate, is accomplished through witnessing one death after another, which supports but does not establish as sound the argument for all men being mortal. If that is not grasped, the rest will be lost. Induction is impotent to establish the absolute truth of any premise, but it is most useful in corroborating what the Scriptures teach as true.
Now consider TAG:
Prove A: The Christian God exists.
Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.
Step 2 (~A--> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
Step 3 (~B): There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!)
Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)
Step 5 (A):= God does exist (Law of negation.)
The veracity of step 2 can be demonstrated by refuting all would-be competitors to the Christian worldview but the inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof. For how can the truth value of a premise for a deductive argument be deduced as true on inductive grounds? If we are left to establish step-2 by induction, then we don't have a deduced or revealed truth value for the premise in question, which means that the conclusion that it is true that God exists goes beyond the scope of the premises. Moreover, we know that induction is only possible given God's existence. Therefore, the inductive principle used to establish step-2 would be unjustified and would, therefore, entail question begging over the necessary preconditions for induction. I would think that the non-Van Tillians on this site would join me in arguing that induction cannot properly justify step 2.
I don´t think faith is a dirty word in the least. Fideism is though. Faith saves our reasoning; faith being a justified belief in God granted by God. That all men have an a priori knowledge of God does not imply that a sound proof for God´s existence cannot or should not be constructed as a point of engagement. We don´t put forth an argument such as I have and leave it there. That would be fideism. We should engage the atheist in order to demonstrate before God and a watching world that God is the precondition for all intelligible experience. We engage him on step 2 by refuting, one by one, all his arguments. By doing so we are not providing a sound argument through the inductive elimination of a finite number of hypothetical worldviews; rather we're corroborating by induction the sound, deductive argument we've posited.
Not to take away from what I just wrote, what is below is most worthy of serious consideration. I don´t know that I can improve upon it.
One cannot prove as true those axioms that are inductively inferred because there´s nothing that can be appealed to as proving the truth value of the axiom apart from finite observations, yet to do so in an effort to establish an absolute truth proposition is to commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Accordingly, what does one "œdeductively" prove when the premises of the proof are based upon inductively assumed axioms? That is something worthy wrestling with I would think.
Now let´s shift gears. The "œaxiom" of Scriptural revelation is not an inductively inferred axiom but an actual truth that we know, not by inference but upon God´s self-attesting say so. Accordingly, being absolute truth it can properly be appealed to in order to establish true premises that fit into a valid argument. At the very least, what I find terribly ironic in all of this is that so many are willing to base the premises of deductive arguments on inductively inferred axioms, but they are unwilling to base premises on God´s revealed axiom. They call the latter "œbegging the question" and the former "œlogic!" It hardly needs to be said that nobody has experienced every instance of the law of non-contradiction; so to appeal to the axiom of logic apart from God´s unchanging character as revealed in Scripture is to reduce any appeal to logic to an appeal to an inductively inferred axiom, which is to make the conclusion of any deductive argument no more grounded than it´s foundational axiom, which is being defended on inductive grounds, not revelation.
Accordingly, I see two problems. 1) It has been asserted that a sound, deductive argument needs more than a valid form and true premises. 2) If one denies the validity of appealing to Scripture to justify premises in deductive arguments, then all deductive arguments must be philosophically based on inferred or arbitrary axioms. 2 leaves us with no defense of the faith.
Now I trust that my opponents will say that they know their axioms based upon God´s revelation. That much is good. Notwithstanding, their views on sound argumentation and "œquestion begging" do not allow them to prove anything, simply because they will not put forth any justification for their axioms other than inductive inference or arbitrariness.
Ron
Of course you do, that's why you can't prove it. In order to prove it, you'd have to say there is something logically prior to your axioms - but that can't because you can not justify knowing anything prior to adopting some worldview axiom. All you can do is evaluated it by some other desiderata that can not prove the axioms.
Not using circular or fallacious arguments, that I can assure you.
Maybe you'd feel better if you were to say it's impossible to prove a worldview is true. You might also consider what a logical definition of true is - without assume the existence of the God of Scripture. I don't mean true in the existential sense, or the empirical sense, just the simple logical sense.
Scripture testifies to it's own authority. Scripture is not justified by prior true premises, it is "believed" true by power of the Holy Spirit to transform the mind to believe.
Except I've stated many times that there are many rational arguments for the Christian worldview - just none that prove it true. I can list some of them again if you wish. It's not random, but nether is it necessary.
Because the atheist worldview can not account for knowledge since nothing can be deduced from his axiom "there is no God".
Only in the strict sense of justified. If we use a looser term like warrant, then we can say that we have good warrant in adopting the Christian worldview because it is far more rational and comprehensive than other known worldviews. Again, this is not a proof, but it is a good reason.
Yes, necessarily, since axioms are the logical first statements from which the worldview knowledge follows. You can't justify the truth of an axiom. You can argue for it, you can show may positive epistemic results from adopting it, you can show how it leads to moral objectivity, but you can't prove it logically.
See my prior comments about the criteria for choosing a worldview. It's not random. Faith does not entail random, or unwarranted, or unreasonable, or irrational. Is your faith irrational? Why not? It's not because it's proven true or it would not be faith. But faith is rational because all worldviews start with asserting faith in their axioms. If that's not rational, then there is no such thing. But that would lead to insanity - no sane man can argue rationality is irrational.
Anytime. I hope I've been some help.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Fortunately, and after hitting his head long enough and to his credit, he finally came to realize that Clark was right in his opposition to Van Til. He evidently is still a bit confused concerning some aspects of Clark´s system, I suppose in part due to some of your arguments from another thread which he shared with me. Part of it had to do with your argument that one can prove he is saved.
You´re wrong Ron and you miss the point. The above has to do with how a person comes to accept the Scriptures, the axiom of the Christian faith. There is no argument by which a person can infer the Scriptures are true except, I suppose, by way of a tautology: The Scriptures are true because the Scriptures say they´re true. If you know of any other account by which we can KNOW the Scriptures are true, then please share it. It will certainly be of help when I encounter atheists. Instead, you write things like the following:
I suggest you study Clark´s refutation of Mavordes posted on the Trinity Foundation website. Clark argued that knowledge, if we´re going to call it that, requires an account; i.e., a sound argument. That is, after all, the point of epistemology since it seeks to answer how can we know anything at all. The point the WCF makes along these lines is that there is NO proof, NO demonstration by which we can come to accept the Scriptures are true, rather the HS causes us to believe they are true. It doesn´t make them any less true, but just saying the HS causes us to believe is not an argument, at least no better than the one Christian Trader used in that whatever he things is true is true because he thinks it unless proven otherwise. Basically, the form of the argument for Scripture is along the lines of the one found in Heb 6; since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself . . . . So, strictly speaking the axiom of Christianity, which is the Bible alone is the Word of God, does not rise to the level of knowledge as Anthony defined it since there is no way to account for it. By contrast, Clark rejected the classical proofs because they are made up of a series of fallacious argument and fail as an account for what they intend to prove. As far as Clark´s imagined "œdefective view of proof," he used it in the ordinary logical sense as in a proof of a logical theorem or a set of premises used to establish a conclusion. Hardly defective, at least for someone interested in epistemology not to mention logical argumentation.
Try to follow what people write Ron rather than what you might think they write. We cannot know in the formal sense that the Scriptures are true. One might say "œI know the Scriptures are true," because they accept them as such, but that´s a different thing. We can be induced to believe they are true by the evidences of Scripture and the work of the Spirit on our minds, but since we cannot provide a logical demonstration for the truthfulness of Scripture Anthony is spot on when he said; "œYou cannot logically prove axioms. You can only defend them." Or, to put it another way, while you can´t prove axioms, you can certainly disprove them which is the work of apologetics and the method Clark used. Unless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously).
What you keep missing is that knowledge - if we´re going to call it that - must be accounted for and there is no prior account for the premise that the Scriptures are true. The Scriptures are true is not the conclusion of an argument but the beginning. It is the required starting point for all truths that can be known. One accepts the Scriptures and presupposes their truthfulness and from that starting point of any number of propositions which are either explicitly set down in Scripture or necessarily inferred from Scripture can be accounted for given the starting point and rise to the level of knowledge as Anthony defined it and which I assumed you understood. *sigh* indeed.
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Magma2]
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Prove that dogmatic conclusion, Sean, and square it with your statement that "The Scriptures are true is not the conclusion of an argument but the beginning." Or are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified?
What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entites that are invariant in nature? Prove something, Sean, and show me how your conclusion "rises to the level of knowledge" when your deduction is based upon axioms that are either arbitrary or inferred.
You're simply a fideist and a skeptic, Sean. I guess you might find comfort in the axiom that you can't know that you are for you can't know anything in your world.
Ron
Nope. Not me. Knowledge depends on reason as well as faith. You'll have to tell me which definition of fideism is best.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Bingo! Let´s rephrase; Prove your axiom Sean. Funny, Clark called his biblical philosophy "œDogmatisim" which Robbins later renamed Scripturalism. Trivia aside, you confuse axioms with theorems and can´t seem to tell the difference.
Arbitrary in what sense? As for the "œinductive principle," you´ve already affirmed that it cannot justify anything, so this is not a point of difference between us. As you said per the question begging of TAG above; "œthe inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof." Amen brother Ron! So I´ll ask again, if you think you can demonstrate, as in prove, the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, please provide your proof now.
Would you care to name such an entity? If you mean God, then I would refer you to WCF Chapter II. But I thought God was a concrete entity, not an abstraction? How about sin then? Is that good or is it too not an "abstract entity"?
And you have your powdered wig on too tight
Just kidding. Seriously, Clark was similarly attacked, so I guess I´ll take that as a compliment. I am skeptical about anything not found in Scripture or deduced therefrom, but that hardly makes me a skeptic. As far as being a Fideist, again your opinion appears to be based on a failure to differentiate between axioms and the theorems derived from them. I'm not skeptical at all about any number of propositions from all men are sinners to salvation is by belief alone in Jesus Christ. Both of which, I might add, are propositions of Scripture. A fideist, at least according to Websters (maybe you have a different definition since you tend to define words uniquely) is someone who relies on "œfaith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth." I hardly think I qualify, but we have already established that you´re not above ad hominem attacks when you start getting into the deep end of the pool.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Ron States: Prove that dogmatic conclusion: {"œUnless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously)." Sean, and square it with your statement that "The Scriptures are true is not the conclusion of an argument but the beginning."
Sean Replies: Bingo! Let´s rephrase; Prove your axiom Sean.
Ron Replies: Ah, so you weren´t drawing a conclusion but simply stating a wish. You sounded so conclusive, so naturally I thought you were finishing an argument rather than making an assertion.
Oh no, Sean, I understand what you´re trying to say all to well. My point is that your so called theorems are not conclusive for they are based upon axioms that are either arbitrary or inferred. Please decide which faulty foundation your deductive arguments are built upon, arbitrariness or inductive usefulness.
Ron Stated: "œ"¦ are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified?
NOTE how Sean doesn´t answer:
Sean Replies: Arbitrary in what sense? As for the "œinductive principle," you´ve already affirmed that it cannot justify anything, so this is not a point of difference between us. As you said per the question begging of TAG above; "œthe inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof." Amen brother Ron!
Ron States: Your axiom is arbitrary because within your worldview, you neither know it to be true nor can you prove it to be true. Given your worldview, you simply would like it to be true. Just admit that your axiom is arbitrary, wishful thinking. In fact, admit that you don´t know that Jesus died for you. Admit that your slavish adherence to what you believe to be Clarkianism undermines your knowledge of God´s existence. In fact, you don´t even know that you exist given your worldview! Your autonomous reasoning sadly undermines the confidence you could otherwise have in Christ.
The Bible is the only word of God, or we cannot justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes. We can justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes; therefore the Bible is the word of God. Sean, each premise is true and the form is valid, therefore, the argument is sound. You say the argument begs the question, but the conclusion is always implied in the premise in first order predicate logic, is it not? Accordingly, your issue seems to be with what logic and proof entail.
Ron Asked: What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entities that are invariant in nature?
Sean Replies: Would you care to name such an entity? If you mean God, then I would refer you to WCF Chapter II. But I thought God was a concrete entity, not an abstraction? How about sin then? Is that good or is it too not an "abstract entity"?
Ron States: We´re not talking about "œabstractions" Sean; we´re talking about "œabstract entities," i.e., things that are not material in nature, that are invariant and universal, like the laws of logic. I'll wait for you to catch up. :bigsmile:
What do you know with certainty Sean? You don´t think that you know you´re saved. What do you know for sure, Sean?
Are you a man, Sean? Do you have saving faith, Sean? Moreover, you say you´re not skeptical about propositions found in Scripture, well do you know them to be true, or are you just not "œskeptical" about them? Prove how you know your axiom Sean. Oh that´s right, you don´t know it to be true. O.K., tell me why you believe it to be true other than on inductive grounds such as it seems to make sense of things. Sean, for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, you must first exist for your existence is a necessary condition for your knowing anything. Unfortunately for you, given your worldview, you don´t know you exist because your existence is not found in Scripture. Accordingly, if you don´t know you exist and your alleged knowledge of your axiom presupposes your existence, how can you truly know your axiom? However, if you know you exist, then you know something not revealed in Scripture! Oh Sean, you have all these problems because you will not begin your reasoning with God.
Ron
Sean Replies: Bingo! Let´s rephrase; Prove your axiom Sean.
Ron Replies: Ah, so you weren´t drawing a conclusion but simply stating a wish. You sounded so conclusive, so naturally I thought you were finishing an argument rather than making an assertion.
Oh no, Sean, I understand what you´re trying to say all to well. My point is that your so called theorems are not conclusive for they are based upon axioms that are either arbitrary or inferred. Please decide which faulty foundation your deductive arguments are built upon, arbitrariness or inductive usefulness.
Ron Stated: "œ"¦ are you going to say that your dogmatic conclusion is an arbitrary starting point? Or is it a rational inference based upon an inductive principle that cannot be justified?
NOTE how Sean doesn´t answer:
Sean Replies: Arbitrary in what sense? As for the "œinductive principle," you´ve already affirmed that it cannot justify anything, so this is not a point of difference between us. As you said per the question begging of TAG above; "œthe inductive demonstration of what step 2 states is not itself a "sound" proof." Amen brother Ron!
Ron States: Your axiom is arbitrary because within your worldview, you neither know it to be true nor can you prove it to be true. Given your worldview, you simply would like it to be true. Just admit that your axiom is arbitrary, wishful thinking. In fact, admit that you don´t know that Jesus died for you. Admit that your slavish adherence to what you believe to be Clarkianism undermines your knowledge of God´s existence. In fact, you don´t even know that you exist given your worldview! Your autonomous reasoning sadly undermines the confidence you could otherwise have in Christ.
The Bible is the only word of God, or we cannot justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes. We can justify with absolute certainty ethical absolutes; therefore the Bible is the word of God. Sean, each premise is true and the form is valid, therefore, the argument is sound. You say the argument begs the question, but the conclusion is always implied in the premise in first order predicate logic, is it not? Accordingly, your issue seems to be with what logic and proof entail.
Ron Asked: What can you prove, Sean, and how do you justify universal abstract entities that are invariant in nature?
Sean Replies: Would you care to name such an entity? If you mean God, then I would refer you to WCF Chapter II. But I thought God was a concrete entity, not an abstraction? How about sin then? Is that good or is it too not an "abstract entity"?
Ron States: We´re not talking about "œabstractions" Sean; we´re talking about "œabstract entities," i.e., things that are not material in nature, that are invariant and universal, like the laws of logic. I'll wait for you to catch up. :bigsmile:
What do you know with certainty Sean? You don´t think that you know you´re saved. What do you know for sure, Sean?
Are you a man, Sean? Do you have saving faith, Sean? Moreover, you say you´re not skeptical about propositions found in Scripture, well do you know them to be true, or are you just not "œskeptical" about them? Prove how you know your axiom Sean. Oh that´s right, you don´t know it to be true. O.K., tell me why you believe it to be true other than on inductive grounds such as it seems to make sense of things. Sean, for you to know that the Bible is the word of God, you must first exist for your existence is a necessary condition for your knowing anything. Unfortunately for you, given your worldview, you don´t know you exist because your existence is not found in Scripture. Accordingly, if you don´t know you exist and your alleged knowledge of your axiom presupposes your existence, how can you truly know your axiom? However, if you know you exist, then you know something not revealed in Scripture! Oh Sean, you have all these problems because you will not begin your reasoning with God.
Ron
Ron,
Are you saying a conclusion based on an axiom is not a proof? Hmmm. Sounds familiar. How about, anything demonstrated from an axiom is unknowable. OK. Then you don't know anything. For everything you think is knowledge is based on some sort of axiom. You just tried to hide your axioms in a circular argument. Never-the-less, your argument depends on your axiom - that only Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility. You know you can not prove this, so it must be an axiom. And since by you standards, everything based on axioms are unknowable, you no nothing.
The TAG argument claims to prove the existence of God - by asserting that God is the reason for intelligibly!! But asserting this assumes God exist, and that is what you are trying to prove! - which means it does not prove anything at all. So much for TAG.
Now Scripturalism is an honest system of for knowledge. It does not make promises it can not keep. It is not circular, it does not beg the question. It merely does what all rational (and honest) systems do - it starts with an axiom (the Scriptures). It says Scripture is my starting point, my first Principle. Whatever Scripture says is true, and anything I can deduce from the truths of Scripture are necessarily true also.
You asked Sean to "prove that dogmatic conclusion" which was "Unless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously)." First you are correct only in that was a dogmatic statement. But you were wrong that it was a conclusion. Sean was just stating the immediate consequence of the Axiom of Scripturalism.
The axiom can be stated this way: all Scripture is the inerrant Word of God.
Now lets define knowledge as justified true belief.
Given the Axiom of Scripture, and the definition of knowledge - then the immediate logical conclusion is: all Scripture and all things deducible from Scripture are knowledge.
So you will complain that I can not prove my definition of knowledge. That's fine, but then you'll have to use your own definition and use it as your epistemic process.
Are you saying a conclusion based on an axiom is not a proof? Hmmm. Sounds familiar. How about, anything demonstrated from an axiom is unknowable. OK. Then you don't know anything. For everything you think is knowledge is based on some sort of axiom. You just tried to hide your axioms in a circular argument. Never-the-less, your argument depends on your axiom - that only Christianity provides the preconditions of intelligibility. You know you can not prove this, so it must be an axiom. And since by you standards, everything based on axioms are unknowable, you no nothing.
The TAG argument claims to prove the existence of God - by asserting that God is the reason for intelligibly!! But asserting this assumes God exist, and that is what you are trying to prove! - which means it does not prove anything at all. So much for TAG.
Now Scripturalism is an honest system of for knowledge. It does not make promises it can not keep. It is not circular, it does not beg the question. It merely does what all rational (and honest) systems do - it starts with an axiom (the Scriptures). It says Scripture is my starting point, my first Principle. Whatever Scripture says is true, and anything I can deduce from the truths of Scripture are necessarily true also.
You asked Sean to "prove that dogmatic conclusion" which was "Unless one first believes the Scriptures are God´s Word he cannot know anything for apart from Scripture no one can account for, demonstrate, justify or prove anything (yes, I´m using these terms synonymously)." First you are correct only in that was a dogmatic statement. But you were wrong that it was a conclusion. Sean was just stating the immediate consequence of the Axiom of Scripturalism.
The axiom can be stated this way: all Scripture is the inerrant Word of God.
Now lets define knowledge as justified true belief.
Given the Axiom of Scripture, and the definition of knowledge - then the immediate logical conclusion is: all Scripture and all things deducible from Scripture are knowledge.
So you will complain that I can not prove my definition of knowledge. That's fine, but then you'll have to use your own definition and use it as your epistemic process.
- Status
