How would classical apologists or evidentialists respond to this?

[Cheshire Cat]

This isn't really a dichotomy. Just as if God were to speak to you directly and tell you something, the Bible carries the exact same authority. It is essentially God's own words written down in a book graciously given to us.

Did I say it was a dichotomy? No, I didn’t. The bible is God’s word, but it is not God. Of course it carries the same authority, because it is God’s word, but it is awkward at best to say “The Bible is the highest authority”.

I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?

They don't prove the Bible true, because they're based on presuppositions that the Bible is not true, and moreover, Christian apologists who use such arguments are actually deceivingly concealing their own presuppositions before the unbeliever.

1. I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.

2. How are science, logic, and the findings of archaeology based on presuppositions that the bible is not true?!?

3. It is not a matter of “concealing” presuppositions. In fact, in what way are the arguments being used? Especially using logic, it can be a presuppositional argument. Anyway, in some argument presuppositions don’t enter the picture. So one shouldn’t fault another for “concealing” presuppositions. They aren’t germane to the argument.

Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.

Because it's logical. If proposition X were to authenticate proposition Y, then Y could not possibly be authoritative over X, since its authority would be stemming from something outside itself [INSERT ARGUMENT HERE FOR WHY AUTHORITY WOULD BE OUTSIDE ITSELF], removing any intrinsic potency from which it can have authority over X.

If X, then Y. Say X is ‘objective morality’. Say Y is God’s existence. If X then Y. X, therefore Y. X is “authenticating” Y. Objective morality “authenticates” God’s existence. Uh oh, guess objective morality is outside God. Wrong.

Furthermore, if this is just an assertion, then so is your claim that something lesser can justify something greater. You would need to positively justify that.

Eh? I didn’t claim something lesser can justify something greater. The OP said, “Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.” I asked, “Why suppose this”? And yes, what I responded to is just an assertion. There isn’t any supportive argument to see why it is the case.

 

[Confessor]

Did I say it was a dichotomy? No, I didn’t. The bible is God’s word, but it is not God. Of course it carries the same authority, because it is God’s word, but it is awkward at best to say “The Bible is the highest authority”.

Well, it seemed you implied a meaningful distinction between God's authority and the Bible's when you said, "God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him." Regardless, we are agreed on this point. We both understand that the Bible is authoritative.

1. I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.

The fact that they couldn't prove the Bible true apart from a Christian framework is in fact a form of TAG. Also, I answered your accusation that it is merely an assertion below, so I will deal with it there.

2. How are science, logic, and the findings of archaeology based on presuppositions that the bible is not true?!?

They aren't per se, and I never claimed such a thing. I merely said that the way evidentialists have handled them is a way which presupposes that God does not exist. They use all the entities as if they are intelligible apart from God and therefore not absolutely contingent on His sovereignty.

3. It is not a matter of “concealing” presuppositions. In fact, in what way are the arguments being used? Especially using logic, it can be a presuppositional argument. Anyway, in some argument presuppositions don’t enter the picture. So one shouldn’t fault another for “concealing” presuppositions. They aren’t germane to the argument.

When evidentialists use their arguments, they absolutely are concealing their presuppositions. As a most obvious example, the argument from evidence for the resurrection to the truthfulness of the entire Bible would be concealing the presuppositions that God does not lie, that a resurrection is proof of deity, that God can know the future, etc. If they were to do this without using the Bible as a spiritual authority (so as to remain "neutral"), then they would never possibly be able to enter those presuppositions into the argument. The Christian apologist could make no meaningful connection between these events unless the Bible were accepted as true beforehand.

Also, I obviously know that in some arguments presuppositions don't enter the picture. But when it comes to the truthfulness of worldviews, of entirely different scopes of life, transcendental argumentation and its consequent honesty regarding presuppositions is necessary.

If X, then Y. Say X is ‘objective morality’. Say Y is God’s existence. If X then Y. X, therefore Y. X is “authenticating” Y. Objective morality “authenticates” God’s existence. Uh oh, guess objective morality is outside God. Wrong.

I'm not saying that argument would not work, absolutely speaking. But the fact is that it would only work if the Bible were true. In order to establish "If objective morality, then God," one would have to presuppose the Bible's veracity, for without that there would be no meaningful connection between the two. Objective morality only authenticates God's existence in a confirmatory, and not foundational, sense.

See, if you hold objective morality (and the connection between its existence and God's corollary existence) as some existing truths apart from God's sovereignity -- as some "obvious fact of life" or something -- then you are admitting that God is not sovereign over everything and thus denying the Bible's veracity.

But back to the point you were trying to make -- such an argument does not prove that lesser things can prove greater things' authority. If you held objective morality as a criterion independent of God, then you now have two authorities in your system: the Bible and whatever objective morality implicates. The Bible is not absolutely authoritative, and that is a problem indeed.

Eh? I didn’t claim something lesser can justify something greater. The OP said, “Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.” I asked, “Why suppose this”? And yes, what I responded to is just an assertion. There isn’t any supportive argument to see why it is the case.

Well, then I guess until you can prove that, you can not possibly defend the faith. I don't mean this disparagingly; that is the unfortunate conclusion to your assertion of my argument's falsity.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.

Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible claims the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?

 

[Confessor]

I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.

Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible claims the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?

His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.

Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible claims the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?

If your view is correct, then what difference does it make what argument is given? The natural man will reject it regardless and if the person is draw by the Holy Spirit, he will accept the Bible for what it is, regardless of how good or bad the argument is.

CT

 

[cih1355]

The Bible is the highest authority.

God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him.

If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.

I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?

Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.

Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.

Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Something can be self-attesting without being obvious or the famously ambiguous phrase self-evident. It does have to be ultimately unquestionable. It might take some work to see that it is self-attesting though.

When you say it might take some work to see that it is self-attesting, do you mean that in the sense that its self-attestation needs to be proven? That's what you seem to be implying in the rest of your post, and obviously I would have to disagree with that.

My point is that something does not cease to be self-attesting (nor does it become self attesting when an objection is not made) when an objection is made to it. The objection could be either incoherent or rest on an incoherency.

I would ask how do you know that X is correct and Y is not? One normal way is that you know the X does not lead to contradictory implications while Y does. That is what normally what happens when someone knows a lot more than the other person.

By asking how I know that Scripture is a self-attesting authority, you are tearing down Scripture's authority. If reason were necessary to justify one's belief in God (i.e. if the belief would be unjustified prior to that), then reason would be authoritative over Scripture.

First off let me say that when I talk of reason, I am not necessarily talking about a formal proof (Premise 1, Premise 2, Conclusion). A person can identify contradictions etc. without taking formal logic classes.

I would say that reason is authoritative over Scripture in the sense, that if I believed that Scripture was contradictory (or containing contradictions), then I would reject it as being God's word. That would automatically rule out the ability of Scripture to be self attesting.

While apologetics is about demonstrating that other starting points are incoherent, we first know that our position is absolutely right, and that from the Holy Spirit. Just as one can know one will win an argument prior to having his argument in place (have you never felt that before?), one can also simply know that Scripture has marks of the divine and is therefore God's Word without a shred of doubt. If you continue to think that we have to prove that the Holy Spirit is leading us to the right book, then you have enthroned human reason as your king.

We should know it because it is clear that it is right. However due to moral and ethical problems we do not. The Holy Spirit helps us here.

I have had feelings that I would win an argument and lost, so I am not sure if that segment of your statement means very much.

Next, I am not sure if you can apologetically demonstrate that other starting points are incoherent if your opponent attempted to mirror your argumentation. For example, "I believe that the Koran is correct because Allah has allowed me to know and sense that such is the case. Reason cannot be used to critique it because that would make reason more authoritative than the Koran."

Now if you can demonstrate an incoherency without reason, I would love to hear how.

I also know that Scripture has the marks of the Divine and one part of those marks is that it is coherent with reason.

Also is knowing just a tightly held conviction that you have not been disabused of yet?

Are you asking for a definition of knowledge?

I was not but instead asking how you would identify the difference between tightly held conviction (which could be wrong) and one that could not be.

Actually depending on how you wish to interpret Romans 1, one can make an issue about what exactly is known. One can be without excuse without knowing something.

Rom. 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

God's attributes have been clearly seen. The point of whether or not people can be without excuse when they don't know something is irrelevant.

God's attributes are clearly seen, the problem is when one attempts to infer things from what is clearly seen.

A pagan can agree that God's attributes are clearly seen and then sacrifice their first born to the Sun god.

The issue is attempting to identify what God is clearly seen. The problem is going from the attributes seen to Full Trinitarian Theism espoused in the Bible.

Actually that was one of the options that I gave. Remember I said, "contradicts reality or contradicts the Bible itself". So what you are claiming is that if the Arminian theology was the theology taught in the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong. Therefore the Arminian theology is to be rejected.

In all fairness, you said, "contradicts reality or the Bible contradicts itself," which carries an entirely different connotation. By reality it appears you are implying such things as laws of logic, causality, and other undeniable things; however, if the substance of the Bible is embedded in your use of the word "reality," then I guess I would agree with that.

I was simply saying that if the Bible taught Arminian Theology then it would contradict the passage that teach non Arminian Theology, which would be problematic.

Nonetheless, the reason behind the falsity of Arminian theology is foremost because it contradicts what the Bible teaches -- which is entirely different from saying that the reason Arminianism is false is because if the Bible taught it we would reject the Bible. The Bible does not teach it, and it is pointless to even speak of it as some sort of hypothetical.

So you would use reason against the Arminian in defense of Calvinism?

As another point, lets say you have never seen a Bible before but a Evangelical Arminian comes up to you and attempt to tell you the gospel. Would you just have to say, "okay, cool" or could you say, wait a minute..."

Appropriately, the fact that Arminianism contradicts reality (i.e. it has a false philosophy of the will, among other things) is only secondary, because our judgments our ministerial to the Bible's substance.

It is not secondary, if you do not know that the Bible teaches Calvinism, is it? Or is that something the Holy Spirit tells you when you accept the Bible as true?

First off you missed the question again. I asked you what could this person say to God on judgment day? Is it impossible for such people to exist? I know there is much work being done to translate the Bible into every language, but that work is not done yet.

They would be without excuse due to their sensus divinitatis.

So they know how they should act but choose to do something different?

Next, I think you are just lacking in Reformed History. From Calvin onward, the Reformed have not rejected Natural Theology. It is the recent century or so where this issue of Rejecting natural theology has come up.

Calvin's affirmation of natural theology is irrelevant, and it was never a topic of my discourse. I was critiquing natural theology qua natural theology, not making a historical argument.

So if no one has ever argued as you have for the first 1900 years of Church History, you would not find that problematic? Would you still call yourself Reformed?

Next, I would not say that Natural Revelation says that there is a Gospel to be preached.

I agree. I merely said that they cannot be saved without the Gospel, not that they know they cannot be saved without that exact means.

Okay, we agree here.

Next, Natural Theology does not imply the either/or of non inferential knowledge of God or non inferential knowledge of God. It can take the form of a both/and. Certain things known non inferentially and certain things not. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that full trinitarian theism is known by being born.

I'm not saying the entirety of Christianity is non-inferential. I am merely arguing that the part which makes men without excuse must be non-inferential; otherwise, the many people who do not follow the natural-theological arguments would be with excuse, which is contrary to Romans 1. And if the part which makes men without excuse in Romans 1 is non-inferential, then natural theology is not taught in that chapter.

To be without excuse does not imply that you know something. So there is no problem with that part being inferential.

Next, your questions almost assume that people do not naturally make idols and depend on as well as worship those idols. Everyone has a God slot. Either they will put God in it or put something else in it.

My question does not assume that. Again, I was not saying that all of Christianity must be non-inferential, only that the knowledge which makes men without excuse must be. In fact, the God-slot is evidence of the sensus divinitatis, which is of course non-inferential, supporting my position.

A God slot does not imply that you have God in that slot. You can put a golden calf in that slot.

I agree that a God-slot is non-inferential, but I do not see God being in it also being non-inferential.

The complicated arguments are just formalizations of things that should be easily accepted but man is rebellious. Because you cannot follow the complicated arguments would not be an excuse, because the answer is/ and should be accepted as clear that non God is not God and God is God.

No, they're not. Both the cosmological argument and teleological argument, apart from explicitly Christian presuppositions, beg the question.

Where does the Bible tell you that?

People try to make it more complicated to give themselves a probability factor supporting their position (William Craig does this a ton), and it is not clear at all who is winning the debate.

Who said anything about probability?

What do you mean the answer is clear that non God is not God and God is God? How does that stem from natural theology?

For example, is it clear that the Sun is not the Eternal, Holy, Infinite God proclaimed in natural revelation/theology?

So every language has special or supernatural revelation available so that all have access to the Bible?

My point is that natural revelation cannot be properly interpreted except in light of supernatural revelation; not that no one can make an interpretation without it. The plethora of false religions in uncivilized tribal areas is evidence of this.

Where does the Bible tell you that natural revelation cannot be properly interpretated except in light of supernatural revelation? I would counter that SD, natural revelation, and right reason should get you where you want to go. The reason people don't get there is due to rebellion.

Also could you agree with Calvin here: He stated that men who make idols of various physical objects, are proof of the sensus divinitatis. Would you agree with that statement?

Yes, I agree with him.

Alright, then can you see Calvin saying, that the same person knows that the Bible is true?

Reason with the God's natural revelation should be enough to get you where you need to go. If it does not then there are three options for where the problem is:

1)Reason is deficient (Since this is dependent on God then it will be hard to attack this)
2)Natural Revelation is deficient (Again it will be hard to attack without attacking God)
3)One's interpretation of one or the other is deficient

4) Reason is used outside of the context which it was intended to be used in. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with reason or with natural revelation, and if we were not depraved we would interpret it correctly -- with Christian presuppositions. However, we are depraved, and therefore we refuse to use Christian presuppositions. And of course, natural theology does not use Christian presuppositions, preferring autonomous axioms which accept reason as an entity independent from God, and thus the system is not a reliable means of truth.

Is being depraved:
1)Moral/Ethical
2)Logical/Reasoning

Natural Theology does not assume that reason is independent from God. You would need to show some argumentation for that claim.

Thus, man's use of reason is deficient, because he uses it in a way which does not honor or glorify God as the King over human reason.

Man could use reason in a non God honoring way but I take that as akin to not using "Right Reason".

If I do not say "Premise 3: Reason is dependent on God" then I am denying it?

Yes! Insofar as you pretend that you are being "neutral" and use reason as some common ground between you and the unbeliever, you will be deceiving him into thinking that reason is independent from God.

Nope, try again. I am assuming that natural revelation actually has content. If it does then I should not have a problem doing so. If you have a problem still then you have to say assuming natural revelation is somehow dishonoring to God.

Or put another way, An Arminian Bible would be a false scripture because it is self contradictory.

That is not the point I'm making. You're trying to get me to admit to a position which would place reason above Scripture in practice (e.g. we would have to test the Bible through the filter of "reality" to make sure it's acceptable, making reality epistemologically ultimate). See what I said above about this. It is foolish to speak of Arminianism as hypothetically being taught in the Bible. That's akin to saying that God's Word would not be authoritative if it were not God's Word. It's pointless speculation which provides no truth in apologetical methodology.

How do you argue against Islam and other faiths, if you do not argue in this fashion. And if you argue against them in this fashion, why cannot they argue against you in the same way?

I am saying that something that claims to be God's Word would be found to be false if it claimed certain things.

I am saying that you reject it because "the undeniable reason" dictates that it must be rejected.

Arguments predate St. Thomas, but sure, I would not have a problem debating some with you.

I reject natural theology because it's unreasonable -- because it is built on autonomous presuppositions, if that's what you're trying to say. Yeah.

You have shown no reason to reject natural theology. You have made a number of claims, but that is about it.

You can make a new thread to debate the cosmological or teleological arguments, if you so wish.

If you want to do it, then we can do such.

Do you believe that everyone has access to the Bible now, not even talking about years ago?

The Bible does not have to exist just as Jesus did not have to come and save us (assuming a promise was never made). We would just die in our sins and go to Hell.

Exactly! It's possible that we would not have received a specific special revelation which matches with natural revelation. Therefore, inasmuch as you try to "prove" the Bible by saying that it "fits" with natural revelation, you're only proving a part of it when some other currently nonexistent holy book might be the real special revelation.

No position will succeed if one denigrates faith. Now one should denigrate Blind faith, but that is not our situation here.

Now the Bible says more than what natural revelation says, but it does not contradict natural revelation. Now unless you assume something about yourself that is against natural revelation, then that should not be a problem at all.

If you only prove part of Christianity, you have not necessitated the acceptance of all of Christianity, and if you haven't proven all of Christianity, then you have proven nothing.

Now that statement is just nonsense. If I have proven 1+1=2 but have not proven square root of 100 = 10, then I have proven nothing. Good beliefs can exist with false ones.

Argue with me not Geisler.

I was merely trying to show a parallel between your and his methodologies. They both seem to take the "thread" approach, trying to get specific parts to match up and then claiming that the entirety of Christianity is necessarily true, but that doesn't logically follow.

Christianity parallels Islam in certain areas, do you feel the need to bring such up?

Also, you do know that TAG is not going to help you here, right?

Next, the whole approach is more like, being faithful in little then ask to be faithful in much. Because one is faithful in little does not imply that one is faithful in much, but if you are unfaithful in little then why should one expect the same to be faithful in much.

If the Bible did not exist, then natural revelation would not align with any of the texts.

I'm afraid you misunderstand my objection. If your main criterion of accepting a holy text is its coincidence with natural revelation, then it is plausible that the correct holy text might have "gone extinct." Therefore, the fact that the Bible aligns with natural revelation does not necessitate its full acceptance. How, then, can you persuasively tell someone to accept the entirety of the Bible based on one part coinciding with reality?

I think you objection assumes that Natural Theology/Natural Revelation does not tell us much. If it does then the objection goes by the way side.

According to standard Classical Apologetics, one would prove God first, then worry about what that God would do/act.

Then they're not proving God. They're proving a blank entity which they call God. They're proving a nothing.

Who said anything about a blank. That would only be the case, if natural revelation does not have any content, and if that is the case, then Romans 1 is false.

Your question would assume that I would not trust, the infinite, eternal, creator of the world over finite, fallen me. Would that make any sense?

How do you know that the creator of the world is infinite and eternal without special revelation from him?

Are you making a claim that such cannot be known outside of natural revelation? But you said that man knows by Natural Revelation the attributes of God, which include infinite and eternal. (Unless you do not believe that such are attributes of God.)

The entire crux of my argument is that you are relying on yourself too much rather than on the Bible. You keep trying to neutrally prove your position from reason without a framework of God; this is not proving the God of the Bible.

Well that objection only works if there is a framework that works without God. If such a framework does not exist, then why not just attack my arguments and say that they do not work, versus arguing over non explicitly Christian frameworks being icky.

CT

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 02:23:44 EST-----

The Bible is the highest authority.

God is the highest authority. The bible is God's word, but ultimately the authority stems from him.


I see no reason to think that "logic, science, or the findings of archaeology" have more authority than the bible if it proves what the bible says is *true*. Why would they?

Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.

Why suppose this? At this point these are just assertions, which I don't see as following at all. That's probably how they would respond.

Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?

Natural Revelation is from God, right? If you test the Bible against Natural Revelation (to test against something it implies some sort of reason). This would be an example of testing God's revelation against something that claims to be God's revelation, right? Is there harm in that?

CT

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 02:30:54 EST-----

How does God have authority over an essential attribute? If God has authority over it, then he can change it right?

I didn't say He has authority over the attribute which is part of His character (that's an entirely different discussion and unrelated to apologetics); I implied that His witness has authority over man's determining whether a text is consistent or not.

The problem is that one has to determine what is his witness. The most basic thing we have is general revelation. So we test something that claims to be his witness vs. something that we know is His witness. If it fails then we reject the thing that makes the claim.

Next, we agreed that the witness of the Holy Spirit was needed to break our rebellion against that which is already clear, not to make something unclear clear. It seems that now you want to make it necessary in order to make something unclear clear.

How so? I talked about "the perspicuity of God's authoritative revelation."

Alright, and since there are Christians who make bad interpretations of Scripture at almost everyone point, I am not sure how you can attempt to argue to the perspicuity of special revelation over natural revelation.

Looking for consistency per se is not undermining; seeing it as an entity which necessarily must be established prior to its acceptance as God's Word (e.g. arguing with an unbeliever that God's Word is authoritative because it is consistent) is undermining it, however.

If it is not consistent with the revelation that we know by being born (General Revelation) then why should we accept it?

So God is sovereign over the things that make him God? He is sovereign over Holiness, Justice, Eternality, etc

Again, we are not speaking of God's attributes. That's not what I was referring to when I said that consistency (or anything else) was on a throne above God. I meant "consistency" in the sense of man accepting the Bible because he saw it to be consistent.

If you did not see something as consistent, would you accept it, in any area?

In like fashion, man should not accept the Bible because it appears holy to him (or consistent or majestic, etc.), but rather because it is indisputably God's Word due to its marks of deity. As a result of being God's Word, then, the book's holiness and majesty are confirmatory of the Holy Spirit's leading.

And consistency is a mark of deity.

 

[Confessor]

[I would say that reason is authoritative over Scripture in the sense, that if I believed that Scripture was contradictory (or containing contradictions), then I would reject it as being God's word. That would automatically rule out the ability of Scripture to be self attesting.

This denies that the witness of the Holy Spirit is infallible and results in the dangerous position of theological rationalism. I do not deny that Scripture can be approached and reasoned with, but not with any intention of finding contradiction or with any belief that contradiction is possible. I will deal with the example of another person mirroring this below.

I have had feelings that I would win an argument and lost, so I am not sure if that segment of your statement means very much.

Regardless of those experiences, have you ever had an argument where you completely understood the opponent's position, and also that he did not understand your position? You have a feeling of victory even before you have presented your case fully. That is what I am referring to.

Next, I am not sure if you can apologetically demonstrate that other starting points are incoherent if your opponent attempted to mirror your argumentation. For example, "I believe that the Koran is correct because Allah has allowed me to know and sense that such is the case. Reason cannot be used to critique it because that would make reason more authoritative than the Koran."

First of all, I'm not saying we can't use reason on Scripture, not by any means. It has to do with the intent of its use, as I said above. We should always be willing to go about our exegeses honestly and with reason, and with the knowledge that we are reading God's Word.

Now, here's the thing with unbelievers: although they may attempt to mimic the same method I am using, they would necessarily run into some glaring contradiction in their system. They may believe sincerely that the Qur'an is above reason, but there is a clear difference between paradox and outright contradiction. When they come across these, they will know they are wrong and can either righteously come to Christ with the Holy Spirit's help or unrighteously suppress it and remain in their unbelief.

I also know that Scripture has the marks of the Divine and one part of those marks is that it is coherent with reason.

And the only way you could know it was such a mark is if it were authoritatively taught to you that reason was such a criterion! Just as you might claim that the veracity of reason is an "obvious" claim, even more obvious is the veracity of the Scriptures itself, non-inferentially. Reason is a mark of deity and thus derived from divine authority, not vice versa. You should reflect this in your apologetic.

I was not but instead asking how you would identify the difference between tightly held conviction (which could be wrong) and one that could not be.

Like the specific feelings one would feel for each of these? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure this question is answerable. You're asking me to put something non-inferential in inferential terms.

God's attributes are clearly seen, the problem is when one attempts to infer things from what is clearly seen.

A pagan can agree that God's attributes are clearly seen and then sacrifice their first born to the Sun god.

The issue is attempting to identify what God is clearly seen. The problem is going from the attributes seen to Full Trinitarian Theism espoused in the Bible.

"Clearly seen" would certainly imply that one cannot infer from the clearly seen attributes anything other than the living God of the Bible. You even said that a pagan "agreed" that God's attributes are clearly seen and then worshiped the wrong god. But that evidences that he never actually agreed that God's attributes are clearly seen, in the sense that they are accepted. You are granting that the pagan is right! Rather than telling him that he's suppressing the truth, you are telling him that he is just doing his best with what he's got, in the sense that he is excused until a Bible comes around.

And as I already explained, this knowledge (just this condemning type, not the totality of Christianity which you thought I meant earlier) cannot possibly be inferential knowledge, or else not all people would be "without excuse."

So you would use reason against the Arminian in defense of Calvinism?

As another point, lets say you have never seen a Bible before but a Evangelical Arminian comes up to you and attempt to tell you the gospel. Would you just have to say, "okay, cool" or could you say, wait a minute..."

Of course I would use reason against the Arminian. Why? Because the dispute is not over whether the Bible is authoritative, but on a grievous misinterpretation of an obvious principle. I would probably accept the Arminian's explanation of the Gospel because I would know about the Bible in order to know that he is wrong. Of course, if he gave me a Bible and I happened to look at certain passages I would be able to see that he is wrong.

It is not secondary, if you do not know that the Bible teaches Calvinism, is it? Or is that something the Holy Spirit tells you when you accept the Bible as true?

Yes, the fact that Arminianism contradicts reality absolutely is secondary (e.g. contradictory to experience, a false philosophy of free will). The fact that it contradicts the Bible is primary. Of course, I'm not saying that the Bible is disconnected from reality, but rather I am using "reality" as a synonym for "experience," since that is the way you used it in the question. (Otherwise there would be distinction between the two in your question.)

So they know how they should act but choose to do something different?

Well, the sense of deity terrifyingly lets people know that they are absolutely condemned, and most people suppress that knowledge.

So if no one has ever argued as you have for the first 1900 years of Church History, you would not find that problematic? Would you still call yourself Reformed?

The fact that people have done or not done something in the past does not imply that anyone in the present is necessarily wrong (such is a Catholic argument), but rather that we should give strong consideration and reconsideration to our position, which I can assure you I have done.

Of course, also, I do think that people argued presuppositionally for the entirety of church history; I just don't think they did it completely honestly or consistently.

To be without excuse does not imply that you know something. So there is no problem with that part being inferential.

Regardless of whether or not someone can possibly be without excuse without knowing something (which I would deny), the Bible says that all people do know it. One cannot suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18) without holding the truth! In fact, Rom. 1:20 says that God's attributes "have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." In other words, men are without excuse because God's attributes have been "clearly seen" and are "being understood." This cannot mean anything but actual knowledge.

A God slot does not imply that you have God in that slot. You can put a golden calf in that slot.

I agree that a God-slot is non-inferential, but I do not see God being in it also being non-inferential.

Okay, I think you're straying off course a little bit because of whatever you conceived the God-slot to be. The sense of deity tells us that the living God is the only God who exists. It does not open the doors to harmless guessing (e.g. a golden calf). In other words, it does imply that God is in it that slot. How else could He be suppressed? Also, as I showed in Rom. 1 immediately above, God being in the God-slot is necessarily non-inferential as well.

Where does the Bible tell you that?

Simple logic can tell me that. I never claimed that the Bible told me it.

Who said anything about probability?

Traditional apologetics necessarily utilizes probability, since reason is itself fallible, among other things.

For example, is it clear that the Sun is not the Eternal, Holy, Infinite God proclaimed in natural revelation/theology?

Curiously enough, it's not. Why couldn't a divine presence who manifests himself in a cosmic fireball be the uncaused cause, the designer of the universe, etc.?

Where does the Bible tell you that natural revelation cannot be properly interpretated except in light of supernatural revelation? I would counter that SD, natural revelation, and right reason should get you where you want to go. The reason people don't get there is due to rebellion.

Well, first of all, at all points in history God is either speaking directly to His people or He has given them His Word. God's Word is always seen as a final authority and final court of appeal. Considering that not interpreting things in light of revelation would mean we interpret things in light of something else which is not God's Word, we will necessarily run into problems (and that is in fact the presuppositional apologetic!).

You say that right reason should help us get where we want to go! Well, how does one use right reason? Only by submitting to and understanding the source of that reason!

Alright, then can you see Calvin saying, that the same person knows that the Bible is true?

No, I bet he would say that they know they are condemned and that the idols are not truly saving them, which is of course my position.

Is being depraved:
1)Moral/Ethical
2)Logical/Reasoning

Natural Theology does not assume that reason is independent from God. You would need to show some argumentation for that claim.

Depravity is ethical, and it affects the way we reason (i.e. by not honoring God as the foundation of all knowledge).

Natural theology uses reason without assuming God's existence and therefore assumes that God is not necessary for reason to exist and therefore assumes that reason is independent from God.

Man could use reason in a non God honoring way but I take that as akin to not using "Right Reason".

Exactly! And how would we know how to reason in a God-honoring way (use "right reason") if we did not accept God's Word as true and reliable?

Nope, try again. I am assuming that natural revelation actually has content. If it does then I should not have a problem doing so. If you have a problem still then you have to say assuming natural revelation is somehow dishonoring to God.

I am not denying that natural revelation is objectively unreliable, only that man's subjective interpretation of it apart from the truthfulness of the Bible is unreliable. Natural revelation has content. Man's sinful reasoning (not honoring God as Creator) distorts that content.

How do you argue against Islam and other faiths, if you do not argue in this fashion. And if you argue against them in this fashion, why cannot they argue against you in the same way?

I point out drastic internal inconsistencies, which as I explained above is perfectly consistent with the certain knowledge we have of Christianity's veracity.

I am saying that something that claims to be God's Word would be found to be false if it claimed certain things.

I can agree with that, as long as we keep the Holy Spirit out of the discussion. If we are talking merely about claims to be God's Word -- and not at all of the Spirit infallibly leading us to the right one -- then I agree with you.

You have shown no reason to reject natural theology. You have made a number of claims, but that is about it.

I wrote a brief little thing about natural theology for my philosophy class. I can post a topic with that if you would like.

No position will succeed if one denigrates faith. Now one should denigrate Blind faith, but that is not our situation here.

If you want to admit that it's just a leap of faith (it honestly seems like a large jump to me), then that's fine with me.

Now the Bible says more than what natural revelation says, but it does not contradict natural revelation. Now unless you assume something about yourself that is against natural revelation, then that should not be a problem at all.

Again, I have no problems with natural revelation, objectively speaking, just with its interpretation, subjectively speaking.

Now that statement is just nonsense. If I have proven 1+1=2 but have not proven square root of 100 = 10, then I have proven nothing. Good beliefs can exist with false ones.

What I meant when I said that "you have proven nothing" is that the nonbeliever has no reason to accept Christ. So, you've proven him that part of the Bible is consistent with natural revelation. Why ought he go the next step and become a Christian? You haven't rationally supported that claim yet.

Christianity parallels Islam in certain areas, do you feel the need to bring such up?

Also, you do know that TAG is not going to help you here, right?

Next, the whole approach is more like, being faithful in little then ask to be faithful in much. Because one is faithful in little does not imply that one is faithful in much, but if you are unfaithful in little then why should one expect the same to be faithful in much.

I'm not sure how the Islam question is relevant.

TAG absolutely does help me here. I had problems in the past with avoiding the piecemeal method but I have since solved them, by God's grace.

I don't understand how the "faithful in little/much" analogy is pertinent to apologetics. Could you explain that?

Who said anything about a blank. That would only be the case, if natural revelation does not have any content, and if that is the case, then Romans 1 is false.

Actually, considering that natural theology decisively proves a blank, it would support my claim that man's interpretation of natural revelation is severely distorted, not that natural revelation is objectively distorted contrary to Romans 1.

Are you making a claim that such cannot be known outside of natural revelation? But you said that man knows by Natural Revelation the attributes of God, which include infinite and eternal. (Unless you do not believe that such are attributes of God.)

I deny they can be known inferentially (i.e. by natural theology).

Well that objection only works if there is a framework that works without God. If such a framework does not exist, then why not just attack my arguments and say that they do not work, versus arguing over non explicitly Christian frameworks being icky.

No -- your methodology only works if there is a framework that works without God. My objection works because God actually does exist and it is impossible to leave this framework in practice, though it is possible in speech.

Natural Revelation is from God, right? If you test the Bible against Natural Revelation (to test against something it implies some sort of reason). This would be an example of testing God's revelation against something that claims to be God's revelation, right? Is there harm in that?

Well, you'd be testing the objective veracity of God's Word against your subjective and faulty interpretation of natural revelation, so yeah, there'd be harm in that.

The problem is that one has to determine what is his witness. The most basic thing we have is general revelation. So we test something that claims to be his witness vs. something that we know is His witness. If it fails then we reject the thing that makes the claim.

You keep speaking of "something that we know is His witness," but you don't take this seriously. You keep thinking that King Reason can supersede this definite knowledge which the Holy Spirit provides.

Alright, and since there are Christians who make bad interpretations of Scripture at almost everyone point, I am not sure how you can attempt to argue to the perspicuity of special revelation over natural revelation.

First of all, if you deny the perspicuity of Scripture, then you're denying a central confessional tenet. Second, perspicuity is an attribute of the Bible, not of persons; therefore the fact that people disagree does not mean that the Bible is problematic, only that people are sinfully misinterpreting it.

You know all those threads where we say things like, "Oh, this passage is so obvious; how can people deny this?" In one thread about Calvinist trouble verses, someone jokingly said that Arminian trouble verses are Genesis-Revelation. The fact is that the Bible, in its most key points, is obvious.

If it is not consistent with the revelation that we know by being born (General Revelation) then why should we accept it?

I am not saying we should accept it despite inconsistency. I am saying that consistency should not be a criterion which prompts our acceptance of the Bible. We accept the Bible foremost because we know without a doubt via the Holy Spirit that it is God's Word.

This is what I mean when I say that the attribute of consistency in the Bible is confirmatory and not foundational.

If you did not see something as consistent, would you accept it, in any area?

Of course not, but you misunderstand my point. See above.

And consistency is a mark of deity.

See what I said above (way up there) about reason being a mark of the divine.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I was answering a hypothetical which presumed they *did* prove the bible true. To quote the OP, “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.” Like I said, I don’t see why this follows, and it is just an assertion. Surely you can see that.

Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible claims the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?

His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.

I understand that but to say that the bible's claim of authority must be proven by other authorities is to say that those authorities are superior to the biblical claim. It's a question of epistemology. The evidentialist denies pressupositions by saying you must have evidence for warranted belief. The problem is that the statement is a pressuposition; there is no evidence for evidentialism. I was attempting to show that this is not a philosophical issue but a biblical one. According to 1 Corinthians the Jews looked for signs (a sign is a physical proof) and the Greeks wanted wisdom (philosophical argumentation) but God uses the foolishness of preaching so that their faith would rest on the power of God.

 

[Confessor]

Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible claims the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?

His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.

I understand that but to say that the bible's claim of authority must be proven by other authorities is to say that those authorities are superior to the biblical claim. It's a question of epistemology. The evidentialist denies pressupositions by saying you must have evidence for warranted belief. The problem is that the statement is a pressuposition; there is no evidence for evidentialism. I was attempting to show that this is not a philosophical issue but a biblical one. According to 1 Corinthians the Jews looked for signs (a sign is a physical proof) and the Greeks wanted wisdom (philosophical argumentation) but God uses the foolishness of preaching so that their faith would rest on the power of God.

Oh, I agree with you. I was just letting you understand that he knows he is trying to justify the Bible with lesser authorities.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

The fact that they couldn't prove the Bible true apart from a Christian framework is in fact a form of TAG. Also, I answered your accusation that it is merely an assertion below, so I will deal with it there.

So? For the last time, the OP was assertions. You can certainly argue for the claims, and you have, but the claims in the OP were not argued for in the OP, which is why I said they were assertions.

I merely said that the way evidentialists have handled them is a way which presupposes that God does not exist. They use all the entities as if they are intelligible apart from God and therefore not absolutely contingent on His sovereignty.

Just because an argument is not at the presuppositional level, it doesn’t follow that the argument presupposes God does not exist.

When evidentialists use their arguments, they absolutely are concealing their presuppositions. As a most obvious example, the argument from evidence for the resurrection to the truthfulness of the entire Bible would be concealing the presuppositions that God does not lie, that a resurrection is proof of deity, that God can know the future, etc.

Being omniscient and omnibenevolent is part of the concept of God, so it’s not concealing anything. The argument for the resurrection is not an argument for the truthfulness of the entire bible.

I'm not saying that argument [the moral argument] would not work, absolutely speaking. But the fact is that it would only work if the Bible were true. In order to establish "If objective morality, then God," one would have to presuppose the Bible's veracity, for without that there would be no meaningful connection between the two.

Actually there would be. One might argue that a personal being must ground duties. An argument for God’s existence need not prove every attribute of God.

See, if you hold objective morality (and the connection between its existence and God's corollary existence) as some existing truths apart from God's sovereignity -- as some "obvious fact of life" or something -- then you are admitting that God is not sovereign over everything and thus denying the Bible's veracity.

Objective morality isn’t some “existing truth apart from God’s sovereignty”, whatever that means.

But back to the point you were trying to make -- such an argument does not prove that lesser things can prove greater things' authority. If you held objective morality as a criterion independent of God, then you now have two authorities in your system: the Bible and whatever objective morality implicates. The Bible is not absolutely authoritative, and that is a problem indeed.

Objective Morality is not a criterion independent from God. That is the whole point of the argument.

You seem to that there is only a negative aspect of TAG, that shows that non-Christian worldviews cannot account for objective morality. But there is a positive part too, which *argues* that the Christian worldview *can* account for objective morality. The moral argument for God's existence does the same thing.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 09:52:20 EST-----

Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?

Okay, i'll say this test of truth is the correspondence theory of truth: that something is true if it corresponds with reality. If the bible is true, it should correspond to reality. I believe this to be the case. Am I making the correspondance theory of truth a higher authority than God? No, i'm not. It isn't a matter of authority.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 10:11:09 EST-----

Do you believe the bible makes the claim of being authoritative? I think the entire argument hinges on that. If the bible claims the authority but we still go to science, archaeology, and history before we are convinced of biblical authority then it shows that we see science etc. as having the greater authority. Your response may be that the lost person will not accept our presupposition of biblical authority and I have no problem agreeing with you.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

It is only God who regenerates the lost enabling them to believe so why is it acceptable to appeal to what the lost man finds convincing (science, history, etc)? Was Paul wrong to know "nothing" among them but "Jesus Christ and him crucified"?

His argument is that the Bible is authoritative, but lesser authorities can still prove the Bible's authority.

I understand that but to say that the bible's claim of authority must be proven by other authorities is to say that those authorities are superior to the biblical claim. It's a question of epistemology. The evidentialist denies pressupositions by saying you must have evidence for warranted belief. The problem is that the statement is a pressuposition; there is no evidence for evidentialism. I was attempting to show that this is not a philosophical issue but a biblical one. According to 1 Corinthians the Jews looked for signs (a sign is a physical proof) and the Greeks wanted wisdom (philosophical argumentation) but God uses the foolishness of preaching so that their faith would rest on the power of God.

Then by all means, don't give arguments. Preach.

 

[cih1355]

Originally Posted by cih1355
Suppose that there is a test of truth that decides whether or not something is true. Suppose that this test of truth is not the Bible; it is not God and it is outside of the Bible. In order for the Bible to be judged true by this test, the Bible would have to submit to that test's standard. If the Bible has more authority than this test, then why does the Bible have to submit to that test's standard? Shouldn't the test submit itself to what the Bible says is true?

Okay, i'll say this test of truth is the correspondence theory of truth: that something is true if it corresponds with reality. If the bible is true, it should correspond to reality. I believe this to be the case. Am I making the correspondance theory of truth a higher authority than God? No, i'm not. It isn't a matter of authority.

Does the Bible teach the correspondence theory of truth?

 

[Confessor]

So? For the last time, the OP was assertions. You can certainly argue for the claims, and you have, but the claims in the OP were not argued for in the OP, which is why I said they were assertions.

They were not assertions at all. Manley even demonstrated this to you, to which your response was that he should just preach. Saying so does not prove your position; it only demonstrates that you think you have disproved apologetics in general.

Lesser authorities cannot justify greater authorities. Otherwise the greater authorities would not be authoritative over the lesser authorities. It's logical, it's necessary by the definitions of the concepts, and it is not an assertion.

Just because an argument is not at the presuppositional level, it doesn’t follow that the argument presupposes God does not exist.

Of course. But evidentialists use arguments with the presupposition that God does not exist. They assume that logic, science, reasoning, etc. can all be done on neutral grounds with the unbeliever, but in doing so they are embracing the unbeliever's antitheistic presupposition.

Being omniscient and omnibenevolent is part of the concept of God, so it’s not concealing anything. The argument for the resurrection is not an argument for the truthfulness of the entire bible.

But if the Bible is not supposed to be introduced as a premise of the argument, and we only know of God's specific characteristics through the Bible, then we cannot introduce this as anything specifically true. Why couldn't the resurrection evidence a pretty strong, pretty smart magic sky-rabbit? The only way we get to introduce omniscience and omnibenevolence is by assuming some authority in the Bible prior to "proving" that the Bible is true in those regards.

Actually there would be. One might argue that a personal being must ground duties. An argument for God’s existence need not prove every attribute of God.

This doesn't really prove an attribute of God though; it just says there must be lawgiver. The possibilities are extremely open at that point.

Objective morality isn’t some “existing truth apart from God’s sovereignty”, whatever that means.

If you don't know what it means, then you can't say that it isn't. Do you believe that the morality which exists today is not because of God? Do you believe it is self-existent? If so, then you have denied the doctrine of God's sovereignty. If not, then you agree with me.

You seem to that there is only a negative aspect of TAG, that shows that non-Christian worldviews cannot account for objective morality. But there is a positive part too, which *argues* that the Christian worldview *can* account for objective morality. The moral argument for God's existence does the same thing.

I know that one would demonstrate Christianity's consistency as an aspect of TAG. But that doesn't mean I do it with the antitheistic presuppositions that the moral argument typically uses.

 

[cih1355]

If a non-Christian were to ask you, "How do you know that the Bible originates from God?", how would you respond? Would you argue that without Christianity, one could not have the laws of logic, science, morality, meaning in life, and so on?

 

[Confessor]

If a non-Christian were to ask you, "How do you know that the Bible originates from God?", how would you respond? Would you argue that without Christianity, one could not have the laws of logic, science, morality, meaning in life, and so on?

I would tell him that Christianity is the only starting point (or the Bible's truthfulness, or the Christian God's existence, same thing) to have any sort of knowledge whatsoever, and then I could demonstrate this on any instance or fact at all.

For example, I could take the proposition, "I think; therefore, I am," and show why this is intelligible on Christian presuppositions but not on the opponent's.

EDIT: Sorry, I kind of missed your question there...if they were to ask me how I straight up know that, I would say unashamedly that I have been regenerated, and that it's obvious.

...which would probably make them mad, which is when you would change the subject to apologetics.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

They were not assertions at all

Let’s cash out the OP shall we:
“The Bible is the highest authority”. I’ll grant that God is the highest authority, and the bible is God’s word, so *whatever is said within the bible* carries that same authority.
Here comes the argument form If P then Q: “If logic, science, or the findings of archaeology prove that the Bible is the word of God, then logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the Bible.”
Sure in form that is an argument (technically he would have to say, P, therefore Q), but we aren’t given any reason to suppose that follows. It is asserted. For example, I could say, “If packabacka is a presupper, then ice cream is nutritious”. Okay, well why suppose that follows? Clearly you see that in the OP we aren’t given reasons to suppose why logic, science, or the findings of archaeology would have more authority than the bible if they prove that the Bible is the word of God.
“Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.”
It is not clear why this is the case. This is an assertion. The OP wasn’t argued for, which is why my point that the OP was just a bunch of assertions still stands.

Lesser authorities cannot justify greater authorities.

Not sure what you mean by “justify”, but the OP said “authenticate”.

Manley even demonstrated this to you, to which your response was that he should just preach. Saying so does not prove your position; it only demonstrates that you think you have disproved apologetics in general.

He demonstrated nothing. CT’s gave him an adequate response.

But evidentialists use arguments with the presupposition that God does not exist.

No they don’t. They do suppose we can reason with the unbeliever.

But if the Bible is not supposed to be introduced as a premise of the argument, and we only know of God's specific characteristics through the Bible, then we cannot introduce this [omniscience and omni benevolence] as anything specifically true.

The classic idea of a perfect being [God] is one that is all knowing and all good.

Why couldn't the resurrection evidence a pretty strong, pretty smart magic sky-rabbit?

? If the resurrection argument works it proves the…resurrection…

This doesn't really prove an attribute of God though; it just says there must be lawgiver. The possibilities are extremely open at that point.

In what ways are they extremely open?

Do you believe that the morality which exists today is not because of God? Do you believe it is self-existent? If so, then you have denied the doctrine of God's sovereignty. If not, then you agree with me.

Of course I believe it is because of God. That is the point of the moral argument.

I know that one would demonstrate Christianity's consistency as an aspect of TAG. But that doesn't mean I do it with the antitheistic presuppositions that the moral argument typically uses.

Christianity’s consistency? TAG argues that the Christian worldview *makes sense* out of objective morality, makes it *intelligible*. And this is proved by positive argument, no different in *content* from the moral argument. What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?

 

[MW]

What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?

What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?

What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.

Morality doesn't teach "though shalt not kill", it's "though shalt not *murder*". Not sure what your point is though.

 

[Confessor]

“Something of lesser authority cannot authenticate something of greater authority.”
It is not clear why this is the case. This is an assertion. The OP wasn’t argued for, which is why my point that the OP was just a bunch of assertions still stands.

Have you completely ignored the arguments I have given? This has been quite frustrating. You keep re-asserting the fact that the proposition "lesser authorities cannot authenticate/justify [they're synonymous the way I used them] greater authorities" is an assertion, essentially forgetting the fact that at the very least I have attempted to explain why this is true. For what's it worth, I could just assert that the entirety of what you say is an assertion, keep repeating this, and "win" the argument -- to me, it honestly appears that you are doing nothing more than this, hence my frustration. You have to realize there's a degree of obviousness involved. Quit thinking that it is just an assertion. Try to understand your opponent and critique him. If you're right, his argument can be critiqued. Now, for the last time:

If greater authorities were justified by lesser authorities, then "lesser" authorities would be more authoritative than greater authorities because the lesser ones were the ones that gave the "greater" authority its authoritativeness. But that is absurd. A greater authority's authority cannot possibly stem from a lesser authority; that is an incoherent notion.

But evidentialists use arguments with the presupposition that God does not exist.

No they don’t. They do suppose we can reason with the unbeliever.

...by using the unbeliever's presuppositions, that God is not sovereign over everything! That is assuming that the God of the Bible does not exist!

The classic idea of a perfect being [God] is one that is all knowing and all good.

Where do you think we got that idea from?

? If the resurrection argument works it proves the…resurrection…

Exactly, and any kind of speculation on the cause of this (e.g. natural causes, the Christian God, a sky rabbit, etc.) is meaningless on naturalistic presuppositions. The resurrection does nothing for the case for Christian theism.

This doesn't really prove an attribute of God though; it just says there must be lawgiver. The possibilities are extremely open at that point.

In what ways are they extremely open?

Why couldn't this lawgiver be a natural cause? A sky rabbit? Anything other than the Christian God? (Do you notice that I get to use the same non-Christian explanations often?)

Do you believe that the morality which exists today is not because of God? Do you believe it is self-existent? If so, then you have denied the doctrine of God's sovereignty. If not, then you agree with me.

Of course I believe it is because of God. That is the point of the moral argument.

I know that that's the point of the moral argument -- but the moral argument fails in its purpose. The Christian God cannot come close to being established from the existence of objective morality alone. It must be placed in a Christian framework.

I know that one would demonstrate Christianity's consistency as an aspect of TAG. But that doesn't mean I do it with the antitheistic presuppositions that the moral argument typically uses.

Christianity’s consistency? TAG argues that the Christian worldview *makes sense* out of objective morality, makes it *intelligible*. And this is proved by positive argument, no different in *content* from the moral argument. What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?

TAG is entirely different from the moral argument. The moral argument starts with morals and says that the existence of morality necessitates God's existence. TAG (at least, a TAG pertaining to objective morality) starts with the entire Christian worldview as a unit, and shows how the fact of objective morality is consistent with this unit and not with the unbeliever's worldview.

The antitheistic presuppositions of the moral argument are what I said above: it assumes that objective morality exists as some entity outside of God's necessary sovereignty, denying the doctrine of God's sovereignty as espoused in the Bible. Again -- if you believe that God is sovereign over morals, then you cannot make the moral argument, but rather you are a presuppositionalist.

 

[MW]

What antitheistic presuppositions does the moral argument ‘use’?

What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.

Morality doesn't teach "though shalt not kill", it's "though shalt not *murder*". Not sure what your point is though.

The point is, if morality proves God, doesn't God Himself become bound by the code of morality?

 

[ChristianTrader]

What becomes of positive commandment? E.g., morality teaches "thou shalt not kill;" but God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.

Morality doesn't teach "though shalt not kill", it's "though shalt not *murder*". Not sure what your point is though.

The point is, if morality proves God, doesn't God Himself become bound by the code of morality?

If morality does not disprove the justice of God, then I do not see the problem with God commanding the killing of the Canaanites.

Also if we believe that God is just, then unless we take all the content out of the word, then does that not imply a code of morality?

CT

 

[MW]

Also if we believe that God is just, then unless we take all the content out of the word, then does that not imply a code of morality?

But the code of morality is clearly labelled God's law for man. In the moral argument you have to assume a code of morality exists before you conclude God exists.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Also if we believe that God is just, then unless we take all the content out of the word, then does that not imply a code of morality?

But the code of morality is clearly labelled God's law for man. In the moral argument you have to assume a code of morality exists before you conclude God exists.

That one is concluded/assumed first is not a problem. If morality could be concluded and then no God, then we could have problems.

CT

 

[MW]

That one is concluded/assumed first is not a problem. If morality could be concluded and then no God, then we could have problems.

If morality without God poses problems, then obviously God is presupposed in any discussion of morality. So again, we see the argument is a consequence of belief in God, not a cause for belief in God.

 

[Confessor]

CT,

His point is that if morality were treated as some entity which could exist apart from God (even for a second), then antitheistic presuppositions are being used.

 

[ChristianTrader]

That one is concluded/assumed first is not a problem. If morality could be concluded and then no God, then we could have problems.

If morality without God poses problems, then obviously God is presupposed in any discussion of morality. So again, we see the argument is a consequence of belief in God, not a cause for belief in God.

I mean problems for Christians and arguing for God.

Here is an analogy (I am not saying that it is perfect). Lets say that I want to prove that the square root of 4 is 2, but on the way, I first prove/assume that 1+1=2. That I accept it first does not imply that it is more important than the square root of 4 etc. It also does not assume that the square root of 4 is something other than 2.

CT

 

[MW]

That I accept it first does not imply that it is more important than the square root of 4 etc. It also does not assume that the square root of 4 is something other than 2.

If 1+1=2 were not true, then the consequence could not follow, hence, yes, it is more basic and in that sense more important. But all you are showing here is that mathematics can't be done outside of a system. So we are back to foundations and superstructures again. We do not assess beliefs apart from their systems.