Preconditions of Intelligibility

[natewood3]

What exactly ARE the preconditions for intelligibility? Is God Himself the precondition, or does He simply create the preconditions? If God is not the precondition or does not create the preconditions, then what is?

Another question that came to mind when reading this is what does traditional apologetics say in answer to this question?

I ask these questions because Bahnsen and Van Til claim that intelligibility exists because God exists, and God must exist for there to be intelligibility. However, I would like to know HOW God is the precondition of intelligibility and what must be necessary for knowledge to exist? Saying that you must presuppose the Christian worldview or deny intelligibility does not answer these questions for the unbeliever. I suppose I need concrete examples of this...I do not find Bahnsen or Van Til giving those examples. Maybe I am blind though...

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Well, the Laws of Logic, Math, Science and so forth wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

 

[natewood3]

Paul,

No problem at all. I figured you are probably a busy guy. I just figured I would post this on here too and maybe get a discussion on it as well. So I don't expect you to reply to this unless you just want to do so.

WrittenFromUtopia,

So is your answer that laws of logic, math, and science are the preconditions for intelligibility? One of the biggest problems I find with presuppositionalism, not that I reject it, is that they seem to be on the offensive only in the critique of non-Christian worldviews and make general statements like the laws of logic would not be intelligible apart from God, or God is the precondition for intelligibility. I see how laws of logic are necessary for intelligibility, but for the Christian to say the laws of logic are part of God's nature, is that really an answer to how God is the precondition of intelligibility? It seems that it cannot be proven apart from a presupposed belief in the authority and infallibility of Scripture, of which one is only convinced by the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, do we have objective proof that God is the precondition for intelligibility apart from the impossibility of the contrary? It seems as if we cannot argue for the truth of Christian theism without first showing the futility of non-Christian worldviews, and then proving our worldview by the fact that no other can meet the standards. In other words, it seems we just keep hacking away at their worldview and never dealing with the supposed problems with ours...

Is the work of the Holy Spirit in convincing us of the truth of the Word subjective or objective proof? It seems like we must simply tell the unbeliever we believe the Bible is the Word of God based on subjective proof rather than objective proof (although I know this is somewhat off topic).

 

[Vytautas]

The preconditions for intelligibility are language and logic. If you believe in God, the belief is not going to help you understand what a book is saying. In fact, some unbelievers understand the Bible than Christians. To understand a book you need to know the language that the book is using. For example, you´re not going to understand a German book without knowing the language so that you need to read a lot of German to understand what it is saying. To learn a language you need a lot of input either from books or speakers of the language. You´re not going to learn the language by speaking the language or doing grammar exercises. Therefore, the preconditions for intelligibility is from language that is logically written or spoken.

 

[Vytautas]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Well, the Laws of Logic, Math, Science and so forth wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

If Christianity is true, you would not know otherwise that they make no sense because this is the only world that we know that they make sense in.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I'll just answer here:

The preconditions of intelligibility is to ask under what conditions is it possible, or what would need to be true (or conceptually presupposed in some instances) in order for it to be possible to to make senses of one's experience (often called, therefore, the preconditions of the intelligibility of human experience)..

Very interesting! I did not know that the phrase "the preconditions of the intelligibility" was an attempt to make empiricism rational! I thought it was a statement regarding the ability to have epistemic "knowledge" (i.e. justifying a "justified true belief"). But if I understand correctly now, the statement basically says Christianity is the only thing that validates (so called) empirical knowledge. Is that correct?

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Vytautas
The preconditions for intelligibility are language and logic. If you believe in God, the belief is not going to help you understand what a book is saying. In fact, some unbelievers understand the Bible than Christians. ....

Well said.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by natewood3
Paul,

No problem at all. I figured you are probably a busy guy. I just figured I would post this on here too and maybe get a discussion on it as well. So I don't expect you to reply to this unless you just want to do so.

WrittenFromUtopia,

So is your answer that laws of logic, math, and science are the preconditions for intelligibility? One of the biggest problems I find with presuppositionalism, not that I reject it, is that they seem to be on the offensive only in the critique of non-Christian worldviews and make general statements like the laws of logic would not be intelligible apart from God, or God is the precondition for intelligibility. I see how laws of logic are necessary for intelligibility, but for the Christian to say the laws of logic are part of God's nature, is that really an answer to how God is the precondition of intelligibility? It seems that it cannot be proven apart from a presupposed belief in the authority and infallibility of Scripture, of which one is only convinced by the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, do we have objective proof that God is the precondition for intelligibility apart from the impossibility of the contrary? It seems as if we cannot argue for the truth of Christian theism without first showing the futility of non-Christian worldviews, and then proving our worldview by the fact that no other can meet the standards. In other words, it seems we just keep hacking away at their worldview and never dealing with the supposed problems with ours...

Is the work of the Holy Spirit in convincing us of the truth of the Word subjective or objective proof? It seems like we must simply tell the unbeliever we believe the Bible is the Word of God based on subjective proof rather than objective proof (although I know this is somewhat off topic).

I'll let Paul continue to flesh this out as he is much better equipped than I at this stuff. My first exposure to Presuppositionalism was the Classical Apologetics book by Gerstner and Sproul. I had a pretty low view of presuppositionalism from it.

When I moved to CA, I started attending an OPC Church and the pastor was a recent WSCAL grad and most in that area were presuppositionalists. I must say that it is hard to speak in a way that just doesn't come off as sounding a bit ridiculous to the uninitiated. I think Paul does a good job of lowering defenses. For instance, I remember people saying "You can't do math until you presuppose the Christian worldview...." That just sounds dumb to people unless you take time to explain what you mean but some don't take the time or don't do a good job of explaining it.

I don't agree, Civbert, that Vytautas' answer is a good one. I think he answers the question: "What are the conditions for intelligibility but not what are the pre-conditions for intelligibility.

Language and logic are obvious conditions. Even a pagan knows that and it is indisputable. The more fundamental question is what is the basis for language and logic. A materialist can just say that our brains have evolved in a way in which facts are processed, like a sausage machine, with facts going in one end and our brain's process them into "logical" categories. They would be wrong of course but they would still have an answer for the pre-conditions that would take the answer a step further back than the proximate cause for intelligibility.

I believe we have language and logic because we are image bearers of an intelligent, logical God who speaks to us and gives us capacity for the same.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
...I don't agree, Civbert, that Vytautas' answer is a good one. I think he answers the question: "What are the conditions for intelligibility but not what are the pre-conditions for intelligibility.

What's the difference? What is logically prior to intelligibility, or temporally prior. Logic itself has no preconditions. It's like saying the precondition of "up" is "down". Is "down" prior to "up"?

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Language and logic are obvious conditions. Even a pagan knows that and it is indisputable. The more fundamental question is what is the basis for language and logic.

Logic does not have a "basis" or precondition. Logic simply describes reality. Now language is another question. There are theories of language that do not require any divine being.

Originally posted by SemperFideles A materialist can just say that our brains have evolved in a way in which facts are processed, like a sausage machine, with facts going in one end and our brain's process them into "logical" categories.

Of course they does not satisfy the question of intelligibility - it merely says that the mind is a product of evolution. The fact's are prior to the mind. Logic is prior to the human mind. So the only thing that could have evolved is "language". Again we agree here I think that this does not answer the question of intelligibility.

Originally posted by SemperFideles They would be wrong of course but they would still have an answer for the pre-conditions that would take the answer a step further back than the proximate cause for intelligibility.

I believe we have language and logic because we are image bearers of an intelligent, logical God who speaks to us and gives us capacity for the same.

I agree. But this does not prove Christianity is necessary for intelligibility. Vytautas' answer is still satisfactory for answering the immediate question of the pre-conditions of intelligibility - language and logic. But I think the only thing that it needs is presuppositions in the form of axioms.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

First, to state that logic has no preconditions is baldly false in my estimation. If true then logic can exist apart from God. We wouldn't even be dialoguing if there were no preconditions for ex nihilo nihil fit.

Secondly, your answer does not challenge any worldview's use of logic and reason. The naturalist uses it just as comfortably as you do and can give the same answer that intelligibility comes from logic and language. They are phenomena to him though. What he cannot do is account for an immaterial invariant. He believes that the only truth that can be derived can be measured and emperically verified. The only things that exist that we can have knowledg of are material things. The problem, then, is that he cannot account for logic being useful or true on the basis of his worldview. Thus, the answer "logic and language" is inadequate because they are the conditions that every worldview will adopt but no worldview but Christianity can account for their use according to the rules (pre-conditions) of their worldview. We should not grant them their use without challenging them on it.

Finally, my conclusion does give a pre-condition for intelligibillity. God created me with the capacity for logic and language. I frankly do not care that my answer meets the requirement of autonomous human reason. I do not claim that the answer will convince any man that he should bend the knee to His Creator for I am already convinced they know that God created them. Sinful man's requirement that I form the idea "Repent and Believe..." in a proper axiom that he finds acceptable is not my concern. Man's problem is not that they do not know Who created them but Sin which convinces them they are justified in rejecting Him. Many in Athens scoffed at Paul after all...but what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

First, to state that logic has no preconditions is baldly false in my estimation. If true then logic can exist apart from God.

What does existence have to do with logic? If there is no God, does not imply or entail there is no logic. And if God, then logic, is not a necessary inference either. Sounds nice, but it's begs the question.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

We wouldn't even be dialoguing if there were no preconditions for ex nihilo nihil fit.

Always use Latin, it makes it sound smarter.

Nothing comes from nothing implies that everything comes from something. Well God is something, so what did God come from? That argument can turn on you. Scientist say there was nothing before the "Big Bang", Christians say there was nothing before God. But if ex nihilo nihil fit, what did God come from? And if God did not have a beginning, why not logic? Both are immaterial. But this is the first mover argument, a logical fallacy as old as Thomas Aquinas. He said everything has a cause (nothing comes from nothing). But if everything must have a cause, so must God. But if God exists, and God is eternal by definition, then not everything must have a cause. And if not everything must have a cause, then who can say logic must have a cause - an accounting?

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Secondly, your answer does not challenge any worldview's use of logic and reason.

It does some - not all. It challenges all anti-rational world-views.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

The naturalist uses it just as comfortably as you do and can give the same answer that intelligibility comes from logic and language.

So? He'd be right. We should not beg the question by saying he can't use the same arguments we use just because we believe his worldview is wrong.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

They are phenomena to him though. What he cannot do is account for an immaterial invariant.

So? He does not need to. He may presume it. We presume an immaterial invariant too. We either presume God exists, or we presume Scripture is God's Word, or logic exists, or language is valid or all of this. So it would be hypocrisy to deny the immaterial invariant presumptions to the non-believer.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

He believes that the only truth that can be derived can be measured and emperically verified. The only things that exist that we can have knowledg of are material things.

That's a particular worldview called empiricism. It's not all that is left to the non-believer. It's one worldview among thousands. I'd argue empiricism can not account for any kind of knowledge, much less knowledge of logic or language. But there are other worldview and religions to deal with. (Atheism is by far the easiest to deal with.)

Originally posted by SemperFideles

The problem, then, is that he cannot account for logic being useful or true on the basis of his worldview.

Sure he can. Logic is assumed by all rational world-views. Christianity assumes logic also. We don't prove logic, but we explain language intelligibility. That does not make us necessarily correct. Just because we can give an accounting for intelligibility, does not mean no one else can.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Thus, the answer "logic and language" is inadequate because they are the conditions that every worldview will adopt but no worldview but Christianity can account for their use according to the rules (pre-conditions) of their worldview. We should not grant them their use without challenging them on it.

We can challenge them to account for intelligibility. And they can give an adequate answer. They don't need to account for "logic", and "language" can be explained if only weakly by some worldviews. It's not as good as the Christian view at explaining things, but even Christianity must assume logic as a pre-condition - as you demonstrate next.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Finally, my conclusion does give a pre-condition for intelligibility. God created me with the capacity for logic and language.

I agree with this, and it presumes logic and language is prior to intelligibility and mans' creation.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

I frankly do not care that my answer meets the requirement of autonomous human reason. I do not claim that the answer will convince any man that he should bend the knee to His Creator for I am already convinced they know that God created them.

Amen! We argue God's Word, not Aristotelian logic.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Sinful man's requirement that I form the idea "Repent and Believe..." in a proper axiom that he finds acceptable is not my concern.

The axiom is better stated as Scripture. That's how we know that we must repent and believe - because God says so. Axioms are presuppositions - first principles. Sinful man wants the idea of "repent and believe" to be a conclusion of an argument, not as an axiom. But that argument is presented: 1) God's Word is true, 2) God's Word says repent and believe, 3) conclusion: therefore it is true we must repent and believe. Sinful man rejects the axiom, God's Word is true.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Man's problem is not that they do not know Who created them but Sin which convinces them they are justified in rejecting Him. Many in Athens scoffed at Paul after all...but what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?

Amen!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Of the above, I'll correct that I shouldn't have used ex nihilo nihil fit. God created immediately by the power of His Word.

My only point is that God is necessary for logic because His pattern of thinking is logical or, put another, logic is the pattern of God's thinking. I do not believe logic is "created" any more than God's mind is. You cannot have logic without God for you cannot have God's thought or Word without God.

That does not get to the issue, however. I do not want to just say that logic is one of the pre-conditions without insisting more on what logic is! On the basis of agreeing that God is the Logos, and therefore is the precondition for intelligibility (aka logic), I would agree, but claiming "logic" without anchoring it in God is allowing the pagan to stand in mid-air. We're not even talking about the same logic in such cases. The pagan's "logic" is not my Logic.

The pagan can only use logic because he has been created in the image of and is upheld by the Creator. That Creator is Triune and Personal. He is the God of the Christians only. The pagan abuses a capacity that God has graciously given him, using it to blaspheme the One He owes worship to. Instead he creates idols in his mind building a "logical" fortress on the basis of a pagan presupposition.

All other discussions about what a pagan can or does do are quite immaterial. I know he only has the capacity to reason because God created him.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
... The pagan's "logic" is not my Logic.

It was a pagan that formulated the same logic that was demonstrated by Paul and Jesus, and in all the Old and New Testament. The laws of logic were presented by Aristotle, but they are the same laws of logic affirmed in Scripture by demonstration. If the law of contradiction is not true, then Jesus is not God's Son.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

The pagan can only use logic because he has been created in the image of and is upheld by the Creator. That Creator is Triune and Personal. He is the God of the Christians only. The pagan abuses a capacity that God has graciously given him, using it to blaspheme the One He owes worship to. Instead he creates idols in his mind building a "logical" fortress on the basis of a pagan presupposition.

I agree, but would only because I presume Scripture.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

All other discussions about what a pagan can or does do are quite immaterial. I know he only has the capacity to reason because God created him.

Again I agree. But I would not claim this as an proof a Christianity. By my Christian presuppositions, the pagan, being created in God's image uses the same laws of logic the Christian does. The only difference is the axioms he holds. And we hold the right axioms by God's grace alone. The common ground between the Christian and the pagan is we are both created in God's image.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Civbert
It was a pagan that formulated the same logic that was demonstrated by Paul and Jesus, and in all the Old and New Testament. The laws of logic were presented by Aristotle, but they are the same laws of logic affirmed in Scripture by demonstration. If the law of contradiction is not true, then Jesus is not God's Son.

You're not paying attention.

If you think Aristotle's logic was the same as the Logic of Paul and Christ then you and I have very different concepts of who God is. The Triune God is not Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

If you think Aristotle's logic was the same as the Logic of Paul and Christ then you and I have very different concepts of who God is. The Triune God is not Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

I see, "Logic", not "logic". You might get in trouble saying "In the begging was the Logic". That's very Clarkian, Paul M. will not approve.

 

[BobVigneault]

"unbelievers can count, but they cannot account for counting." Van Til

(In other news, Clarkian quotes Van Til)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles

If you think Aristotle's logic was the same as the Logic of Paul and Christ then you and I have very different concepts of who God is. The Triune God is not Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

I see, "Logic", not "logic". You might get in trouble saying "In the begging was the Logic". That's very Clarkian, Paul M. will not approve.

Though Paul doesn't scare me , I'm not quite saying God is Logic. If you read what I'm saying more carefully then you'll see I'm distinguishing between where their use of God's gift takes them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by SemperFideles

The pagan can only use logic because he has been created in the image of and is upheld by the Creator. That Creator is Triune and Personal. He is the God of the Christians only. The pagan abuses a capacity that God has graciously given him, using it to blaspheme the One He owes worship to. Instead he creates idols in his mind building a "logical" fortress on the basis of a pagan presupposition.

I agree, but would only because I presume Scripture.

Why is it when I refer to Scriptural categories you have to fall back to philosophical and epistemological categories? Seems like you're unable just to agree with Romans 1:18-31 without adding some sort of Clarkian qualifier.

Originally posted by SemperFideles

All other discussions about what a pagan can or does do are quite immaterial. I know he only has the capacity to reason because God created him.

Again I agree. But I would not claim this as an proof a Christianity. By my Christian presuppositions, the pagan, being created in God's image uses the same laws of logic the Christian does. The only difference is the axioms he holds. And we hold the right axioms by God's grace alone. The common ground between the Christian and the pagan is we are both created in God's image.

Again, I speak of God's image in man and you have to use logical axioms. Your language is dissonant with the Scriptures in my estimation.

While you may haggle about the use of the word "mystery" in Scripture, I know for a fact that the phrase "axiom of Scripture" is nowhere found.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[natewood3]

I am not sure Civbert believes that there IS objective proof for Christianity. He seems to allow the unbeliever to remain in his intellectual autonomy by not making him give an account or justification for intelligibility. If Civbert does believe there is objective proof for Christianity, I would like to hear what it is...

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by natewood3
I am not sure Civbert believes that there IS objective proof for Christianity. He seems to allow the unbeliever to remain in his intellectual autonomy by not making him give an account or justification for intelligibility. If Civbert does believe there is objective proof for Christianity, I would like to hear what it is...

I think the account for intelligibility is simple. If you hold to the truth of logic, and the validity of language to convey information - you have intelligibility. Logic is axiomatic - and only irrational systems deny it. Language can be explained as a product of evolution, or one of the results of being created in God's image. I hold to the latter as a consequence of being a Christian.

I think the evolutionary view of language is far-fetched - but it is commonly held by many Christian scholars - so apparently they do not seem to have much problem with it. I suppose other religions or philosophies have other theories of language. I haven't study theories of language so I can not expound on them. Most people hold to the evolutionary model (unquestioningly). And since the evolutionary models are so a malleably and fluid, it's hard to argue against them. I can argue against the overarching theory of evolution instead, but it's not something that can be dis-proven. There are many elements of faith in those who hold to the theory of evolution.

So some non-believers have a justification of intelligibility. It's a bit flimsy, and requires faith in certain axioms, but it's still valid. Biblical Christians have a more solid and rational justification for intelligibility - one that is also undefeatable. We have alternative axioms that the non-believer may never accept. But if they will agree with our axioms - for the sake of argument - they must concede to the strength of the Christian justification for intelligibility. It is much less flimsy then that of the non-believer, that much we can say objectively.

If we use proof to mean a deductive argument from acceptable true premises, then no - we can not prove Christianity. Our premises will not be acceptable to the non-believer. If we mean proof in the sense of the strength of evidence, then we can prove Christianity. But this weaker form of proof can also be used to prove alternative views. So this weakened proof does not really amount to any advantage for the Christian.

I think it is better for the Christian to use the stronger definition of proof because that requires us to be very explicit with presenting our axioms. And if we hold the non-believer to this strict definition of proof, they too will need to make their axioms explicit.

The non-Christian axioms may be the reliability of the senses - materialism - empiricism - or some form of irrationalism. They may assume the only things that are "real" are those things that can be sensed physically.

This is popular with many Christians who say things like numbers and justice are not "real". They have been infected by liberal philosophies. Many Christians have adopted the secular axioms or empiricism - so they can be more "scientific". But they do so at the cost of weakening the defense of Christianity. They also adopt a weak definition of proof - again shooter themselves in the foot by doing so.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Why is it when I refer to Scriptural categories you have to fall back to philosophical and epistemological categories? Seems like you're unable just to agree with Romans 1:18-31 without adding some sort of Clarkian qualifier.
...
Again, I speak of God's image in man and you have to use logical axioms. Your language is dissonant with the Scriptures in my estimation.

While you may haggle about the use of the word "mystery" in Scripture, I know for a fact that the phrase "axiom of Scripture" is nowhere found.

Well I don't think you'll find the terms "category"or "qualifier" in Scripture either. Nor will you find the term "intelligibility". So if you don't care for terms you don't find in Scripture, there's a lot of other writings you'll need to avoid. As for Rom 1:18-31, I think it very well agrees with my epistemology. It's a naturalist/empiricist spin that people put on it that has people confused.

 

[natewood3]

Civbert,

Presuppositionalist do not deny that unbelievers use logic. The question is can they account for it in their worldview. I believe the Christian worldview is the only one that can account for logic and reasoning.

What you are seemingly saying is that Christianity is only probably true, while the unbeliever's worldview is also possible. You are also seemingly advocating a position that says that the unbeliever can give an account of intelligibility--apart from God--and that account is simply weak and flemsy, but not necessarily wrong. The Christian worldview is simply a much strong account for intelligibility. It seems there are other possible worldviews that could make more sense of intelligibility than the Christian worldview. If it is possible that Christianity is false and that the Christian God does not exist, it seems you are left with skepticism or at least fideism.

Does acceptance make a premise true? You seem to believe a premise is not true because it is not accepted as true. Proof is not persuasion.

Do you believe knowledge is possible apart from God? You seem to believe that unbelievers can give an account for intelligibility apart from God. I am not sure how this is even possible...Maybe I am missing something.

 

[natewood3]

Paul,

Have you listened to Bahnsen's Transcendental Argument series? If so, would he explain these things in more depth?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by natewood3
Civbert,

Presuppositionalist do not deny that unbelievers use logic. The question is can they account for it in their worldview. I believe the Christian worldview is the only one that can account for logic and reasoning.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case, nor does it really help the cause of apologetics. Is this account a proof? You can't prove logic without assuming logic - so that's out. And there's no prior cause of logic that is rational. (You can not prove an abstract timeless and formal concept by using a cause/effect argument. There are no temporal characteristic in the laws of logic.) If God is true, he must be logical or he would have been absurd at some point. God is not a paradox.

If there is no God, logic is still part of reality. There is no rational conception of a time before logic, or a cause of logic, or a proof of logic. The very idea of giving an "account" for logic is itself either circular or paradoxical. How can one use an irrational argument for logic?

Originally posted by natewood3

What you are seemingly saying is that Christianity is only probably true, while the unbeliever's worldview is also possible. You are also seemingly advocating a position that says that the unbeliever can give an account of intelligibility--apart from God--and that account is simply weak and flimsy, but not necessarily wrong. The Christian worldview is simply a much strong account for intelligibility. It seems there are other possible worldviews that could make more sense of intelligibility than the Christian worldview. If it is possible that Christianity is false and that the Christian God does not exist, it seems you are left with skepticism or at least fideism.

How could I be either. My worldview accounts for knowledge, I have no doubts that I can know things. I strongly hold to the validity of deductive reasoning. And I don't believe in a disconnect between faith and reason.

The fact is, any worldview can be wrong. Since it is impossible to prove a worldview (by the nature of worldviews), then it is impossible to identify which worldview is absolutely the truth. If I could do that, or show it to anyone else, then I could convert anyone to Christianity based on nothing but the strength of my arguments. But worldviews always contain presuppositions, un-provable axioms, that are accepted as true. The Christian has faith in God and his revealed Word - and this faith is a gift from God. We don't reason out way to faith. We start with faith in order to have knowledge.

I won't pretend that it is impossible that my worldview is incorrect. I won't play mind games, or present question begging arguments that sound great to my fellow Christians, but are intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by natewood3

Does acceptance make a premise true? You seem to believe a premise is not true because it is not accepted as true. Proof is not persuasion.

Proof is not persuasion. But an argument that is based on false premises is not sound, even if the conclusion is true. And an argument based on premises that your opponent does not accept, is is unpersuasive since he will reject it as unsound. It's a waste of time in apologetics or any kind of reasonable debate to use premises you know or false or are unacceptable to your opponent.

So when I debate an unbeliever, I do not start with premises that I know are false in his worldview, and expect him to agree. I can however, ask him to accept my premises for the sake of argument to show him the reasonableness of my views. And I can adopt his axioms for argument sake to show the flaws in his worldview. This would be call an argument ab hominem. Christ often used that approach to show how absurd his opponents where being.

Originally posted by natewood3

Do you believe knowledge is possible apart from God? You seem to believe that unbelievers can give an account for intelligibility apart from God. I am not sure how this is even possible...Maybe I am missing something.

The atheist can not account for knowledge. Theism can account for knowledge, but that covers a lot of possible religions. However, most religions have other tenants that make them absurd. I think knowledge is only possible if God exists. However, even if I can get a non-believer to accept that argument, that does not prove Christianity. And agnostic or Muslim unbeliever is just as lost as the atheist. The un-believer will not accept Christianity until he is persuaded by the regeneration of his mind so that he believes the Gospel and that God's Word is true. That, in the end, is faith.

 

[natewood3]

Civbert,

If there is no God, logic is still part of reality. There is no rational conception of a time before logic, or a cause of logic, or a proof of logic. The very idea of giving an "account" for logic is itself either circular or paradoxical. How can one use an irrational argument for logic?

What you are assuming is that there IS reality apart from God. I say there isn't reality at all apart from the Christian God. Without Him, nothing at all makes sense.

Do you believe logic is above God? Is God subject to logic?

The fact is, any worldview can be wrong. Since it is impossible to prove a worldview (by the nature of worldviews), then it is impossible to identify which worldview is absolutely the truth. If I could do that, or show it to anyone else, then I could convert anyone to Christianity based on nothing but the strength of my arguments. But worldviews always contain presuppositions, un-provable axioms, that are accepted as true. The Christian has faith in God and his revealed Word - and this faith is a gift from God. We don't reason out way to faith. We start with faith in order to have knowledge.

If all worldviews are possibly wrong, you are left with skepticism.

You seem to attribute coming to believe in the Christian God to strong arguments. I believe there is objective proof for the existence of the Christian God, but whether they accept that proof for what it really is is up to the work of the Holy Spirit. Just as the Gospel is still true whether or not someone accepts it, so an argument for the existence of God can be true, yet it may not be accepted. Strong arguments are not what convert people; just because you can show that Christianity is the only possible worldview (which I believe you can), that doesn't mean it will be accepted as such.

What is faith?

Proof is not persuasion. But an argument that is based on false premises is not sound, even if the conclusion is true. And an argument based on premises that your opponent does not accept, is is unpersuasive since he will reject it as unsound. It's a waste of time in apologetics or any kind of reasonable debate to use premises you know or false or are unacceptable to your opponent.

So when I debate an unbeliever, I do not start with premises that I know are false in his worldview, and expect him to agree. I can however, ask him to accept my premises for the sake of argument to show him the reasonableness of my views. And I can adopt his axioms for argument sake to show the flaws in his worldview. This would be call an argument ab hominem. Christ often used that approach to show how absurd his opponents where being.

If though premises are objectively true, it doesn't matter if it is unpersuasive because the argument will be sound and the conclusion objectively true. How is it a waste of time to argue by means of the truth??? Is truth relative based on whether or not someone accepts it as such? Why would anyone debate with premises that they know are false? Can something be "false" in one worldview and yet "true" in another? Is there even such a thing as objective truth in your worldview? If so, what else would you use in debating with an unbeliever?

The atheist can not account for knowledge. Theism can account for knowledge, but that covers a lot of possible religions. However, most religions have other tenants that make them absurd. I think knowledge is only possible if God exists. However, even if I can get a non-believer to accept that argument, that does not prove Christianity. And agnostic or Muslim unbeliever is just as lost as the atheist. The un-believer will not accept Christianity until he is persuaded by the regeneration of his mind so that he believes the Gospel and that God's Word is true. That, in the end, is faith.

I did not say "theism" can account for knowledge. I would say only the Christian worldview can account for knowledge. If an unbeliever accepts that knowledge is only possible if the Christian God exists, then there cannot be any other worldview that IS true; otherwise, there would be no knowledge. Hence, if knowledge is only possible within the Christian worldview, and we know that knowledge is possible, then Christianity must be true. Otherwise, you remove the foundation for even arguing that Christianity is not true.

I agree that it takes regeneration for a personally to truly believe and accept that Christianity is true. Does this change the fact that Christianity is in fact true? Or is it only true believe we believe and accept it to be such?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nate,

When Civbert wrote this:

If there is no God, logic is still part of reality.

You should just stop. It's just utter nonsense and the rest follows...

I don't even grant "reality" without God but Civbert grants not only reality but logic as well. Apparently, neither reality nor logic depend upon God.

 

[natewood3]

Rich,

I agree with you. I see no other way to put it than to say that he is a skeptic. He cannot know anything for sure because he doesn't even know for certain if his own worldview is correct!

I also do not grant that there is a "reality" apart from God. How can you even define "reality" apart from God? What is logic if God does not exist? Where did it come from? Apparently, it "just is." That was seemingly Gordon Stein's answer when he debated Bahnsen...

 

[natewood3]

Paul,

Would you recommend me listening to those lectures if I wanted to understand the argument better?

My problem is that I can't apply alot of what I seem to understand, which makes me believe I don't really understand it yet. I am about 250 pages through VTA. There is so much information in that book, and I find it hard to retain, especially since I have no philosophical training. I find Van Til easy to understand for the most part, especially after reading Bahnsen's explanation of VT's views. The worst thing I have found about VT is that he doesn't give examples of how to apply what he is saying or why it makes that big of a difference. Or he simply says something without necessarily showing how that is the case.

Are there any other books I should read to understand transcendental arguments in general or presuppositional apologetics or epistemology as it applies to apologetics? Or just any apologetical/philosophical books that I need to read as am I beginning to learn this stuff?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
Nate,

When Civbert wrote this:

If there is no God, logic is still part of reality.

You should just stop. It's just utter nonsense and the rest follows...

I don't even grant "reality" without God...

And the non-believer will say to you - just stop there. There's no point on going on because you are merely making assertions and not giving arguments.

Originally posted by SemperFideles
...but Civbert grants not only reality but logic as well. Apparently, neither reality nor logic depend upon God.

Give the counter argument in proper syllogistic form that proves that God is necessary for logic. It should be easy. Remember, you're debating a non-believer, not a fellow Christian. If you're are going to say it's an obvious conclusion, (logic and reality depend on the existence of God), then the argument for that conclusion should be easy to construct.

However, if this is an assertion (which it is), then you should be able to give some other reasons for making the assertion (i.e. you can't prove it logically, but you believe it's true for reason x, y, and z.)

But here's the best you can honestly do. If God exists, then reality is logically dependent on God. If God does not exist, then reality does not depend on God. Reality depends on God, only if the Bible is true. However, that's a hypothetical proposition. It can not be proven, and the assertion needs to be justified. The non-believer is within his epistemic rights to reject that position out of hand if you merely assert it and not give any reasons to support it. If you give inductive evidence, the non-believer may do the same.

The bottom line is, if you are going to play by the rules of reason, your opponent should be allowed the same consideration.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by natewood3
Civbert,

Originally posted by Civbert
If there is no God, logic is still part of reality. There is no rational conception of a time before logic, or a cause of logic, or a proof of logic. The very idea of giving an "account" for logic is itself either circular or paradoxical. How can one use an irrational argument for logic?

What you are assuming is that there IS reality apart from God. I say there isn't reality at all apart from the Christian God. Without Him, nothing at all makes sense.

Do you believe logic is above God? Is God subject to logic?

Too vague. What does "above God" or "subject to" mean. God is not irrational, there are no square circles in God's mind. X does not mean not-X in God's mind.

I believe that God created all things, therefore reality depends on God's power and will. But I can not prove this is the case apart from assuming the Scriptures are God's Word. And since the non-believer does not accept Scripture, there's not point to asserting the reality depends on God.

Originally posted by natewood3

Originally posted by Civbert The fact is, any worldview can be wrong. Since it is impossible to prove a worldview (by the nature of worldviews), then it is impossible to identify which worldview is absolutely the truth. If I could do that, or show it to anyone else, then I could convert anyone to Christianity based on nothing but the strength of my arguments. But worldviews always contain presuppositions, un-provable axioms, that are accepted as true. The Christian has faith in God and his revealed Word - and this faith is a gift from God. We don't reason out way to faith. We start with faith in order to have knowledge.

If all worldviews are possibly wrong, you are left with skepticism.

Please look up the philosophical definition of skepticism.

Originally posted by natewood3

You seem to attribute coming to believe in the Christian God to strong arguments.

No, I believe coming to believe in Christianity is attributable to the Holy Spirit giving saving faith.

Originally posted by natewood3 I believe there is objective proof for the existence of the Christian God, but whether they accept that proof for what it really is is up to the work of the Holy Spirit.

An objective proof would not require the work of the Holy Spirit. It's an objective proof - case closed.

Originally posted by natewood3
Just as the Gospel is still true whether or not someone accepts it, so an argument for the existence of God can be true, yet it may not be accepted.

Arguments have two main properties, validity and soundness. Validity is purely formal. Many arguments for the existence of God are formally valid, but unsound because they are circular. They assume the thing they are trying to prove. Aquinas's first mover is a case-in-point. It is formally correct, but invalid because his proof requires assuming that there must be a "first mover". This "question begging" technique is common in so-called proof for God's existence.

Originally posted by natewood3
Strong arguments are not what convert people; just because you can show that Christianity is the only possible worldview (which I believe you can), that doesn't mean it will be accepted as such.

If you can show it, then it would be undeniably true. It's like saying 2+2 is 4, but you don't have to believe that. Of course you believe it, it would be irrational to not believe 2+2=4. If it's objectively true, then it's true and one must believe it because it's been shown to be necessarily true.

Originally posted by natewood3

What is faith?

Originally posted by Civbert Proof is not persuasion. But an argument that is based on false premises is not sound, even if the conclusion is true. And an argument based on premises that your opponent does not accept, is is unpersuasive since he will reject it as unsound. It's a waste of time in apologetics or any kind of reasonable debate to use premises you know or false or are unacceptable to your opponent.

So when I debate an unbeliever, I do not start with premises that I know are false in his worldview, and expect him to agree. I can however, ask him to accept my premises for the sake of argument to show him the reasonableness of my views. And I can adopt his axioms for argument sake to show the flaws in his worldview. This would be call an argument ab hominem. Christ often used that approach to show how absurd his opponents where being.

If though premises are objectively true, it doesn't matter if it is unpersuasive because the argument will be sound and the conclusion objectively true. How is it a waste of time to argue by means of the truth??? Is truth relative based on whether or not someone accepts it as such? Why would anyone debate with premises that they know are false? ....

Why indeed? But I was using the example given to me.

Originally posted by natewood3... Can something be "false" in one worldview and yet "true" in another?

As far as you can determine, yes. A worldview that does not accept the axiom of Scripture, may not come to the same conclusions. Worldviews effect what we consider true, what we "know".

Originally posted by natewood3 Is there even such a thing as objective truth in your worldview? If so, what else would you use in debating with an unbeliever?

Yes, in my worldview, Scripture, and all things deducible therefrom are objectively true. But that is not the worldview of the unbeliever. For the unbeliever, I can only start with reason. I can show him that reason is insufficient to produce a comprehensive worldview, and therefore he must include axioms. My axioms is Scripture, what is his axiom? We can then see the consequences of our axioms and reason together.

Originally posted by natewood3

Originally posted by Civbert The atheist can not account for knowledge. Theism can account for knowledge, but that covers a lot of possible religions. However, most religions have other tenants that make them absurd. I think knowledge is only possible if God exists. However, even if I can get a non-believer to accept that argument, that does not prove Christianity. And agnostic or Muslim unbeliever is just as lost as the atheist. The un-believer will not accept Christianity until he is persuaded by the regeneration of his mind so that he believes the Gospel and that God's Word is true. That, in the end, is faith.

I did not say "theism" can account for knowledge. I would say only the Christian worldview can account for knowledge.

Prove it.

Originally posted by natewood3

If an unbeliever accepts that knowledge is only possible if the Christian God exists, then there cannot be any other worldview that IS true; otherwise, there would be no knowledge.

You inference does not work. Even if he accepts your assertion that knowledge is only possible if the Christian God exists, then it does not follow that there is no other worldview. There is the worldview that says knowledge is impossible. Second, the unbeliever by definition rejects the Christian God, so he will not accept you position. At best, he will allow only that knowledge is "possible" given the Christian God, and that only for the sake of argument. You still have to prove it is the case.

Originally posted by natewood3Hence, if knowledge is only possible within the Christian worldview, and we know that knowledge is possible, then Christianity must be true.

Well he might agree knowledge is possible, or he might not. We can not assume this is the case.

Originally posted by natewood3
Otherwise, you remove the foundation for even arguing that Christianity is not true.

This does not follow.

Originally posted by natewood3
I agree that it takes regeneration for a personally to truly believe and accept that Christianity is true. Does this change the fact that Christianity is in fact true?

No. But it does not prove it either.

Originally posted by natewood3Or is it only true believe we believe and accept it to be such?

Believe something is true does not make it true, but all thinks be think we know, depend on asserting some axiom we believe is true. And the non-believer has different axioms, different first principles. Ergo, what he thinks is knowledge, is not going to be the same as the Christian. As Christians, we believe in objective truth - and that God is the standard of that truth. And God gives us access to knowing that truth through is revelation in Scripture. But, the non-believer does not accept the axioms of the Christian. His worldview may overlap the Christians', but his axioms are different. And we need to understand his axioms, and our own, to see what is "real" within our respective worldviews. Because they are not the same in all areas.