(August 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: I concede this could be my lack of understanding of the TAG argument wrt logic. I do not grasp what it can really do for the theist.

Same thing Stroebol does for the theist with faltering faith. I don't know of any atheists who were converted by such "logic". The purpose is to plug the hole in the dam and keep more souls from being "lost".

Its a nice snake oil salesman suit. Hell, by using logic to construct an idea I want to pass to others, mixing some expensive wording in it, I might keep some sheep in the flock. But this is just me in my suspicius thinking, right?

Presuppositionalists interpret Rom 1:18-21 to support their claim that deep down, in the recesses of your heart, you already know the truth of God. You're just being rebellious, you know and yet deny. It's very insulting.

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Attempting to prove the existence of anything by positing an argument is "arguing x into existence" by definition.

No, sir. Arguing a thing into existence implies that it did not exist prior to said argument. An argument that regards the existence of S is very different from arguing S "into existence."

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: I listed the fallacies in [Matt Slick's] version of TAG, a common version of the argument we see often.

Slick is only marginally better informed on this issue than Sarfati; he is considerably better in the arena of theology (having earned a Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary). It is curious that so much is said about Van Tilian presuppositionalism with references to just about anyone but Van Til (or Bahnsen, Frame, Oliphint, etc.), particularly when those references point to the weakest arguments. Is that how we conduct rational inquiry and scrutiny of competing views, by seeking out the weakest arguments? You keep asking me to post a "refined" presuppositional apologetic, but I fail to see the need to repeat the work already done by Van Til and others. If you want the strongest arguments, then go and seek them out; they have been in print for a very long time. Here are some recommendations:

- Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 4th edition. (Ed.) K. Scott Oliphint.
- Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. (Ed.) Joel McDurmon.
- K. Scott Oliphint, Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology.
- John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought.

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: If I used the wording you began with in our conversation and simply changed God to L. Ron Hubbard, you would be similarly unable to pick apart the argument.

Because you say so?

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: "And how do we know that The Bridge of Fire is a credible source of information?" -- Irrelevant question (your own tactics).

Incorrect. I did not identify your question as an irrelevant issue but rather as a separate issue. It is an obfuscating categorical error to confront a metaphysical point with an epistemological counter, because metaphysics and epistemology, although related, are separate categories. In discussions I tend to insist that separate categories remain, well, separate. It is my hope that with this correction in place you will not misrepresent me in the future. (For those reading this thread, he was referring to a conversation we had in a Google Plus hang out.)

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: "And when his writings conflict with observed reality?" -- Do they? You have misunderstood (your own tactics).

Again, incorrect. I did not say that you misunderstood. You said that Genesis 1 says such-and-such and I replied, "Does it?" I wanted you to make your case that Genesis 1 does in fact say that; since you refused to make that case, I am incapable of determining whether or not you misunderstood the text. You may or may not have. You would need to make your case in order for that to be determined. (He is referring to that same conversation.)

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: If you wish to use this argument then you must also allow Scientologists to use this argument.

What makes you think I do not allow them to? They are free to try. And they will fail.

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Can both Scientology and Christianity be true?

You know very well that it is impossible for both X and not-X to both be true.

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Your premise is in effect "God exists." It is therefore unsurprising that your conclusion is "God exists."

It seems you do not understand what a presupposition is. If X is a conclusion drawn, then by definition it is not an axiom presupposed. The truth of God and his word is not something we conclude, it is something we presuppose; specifically, it is prior to even the criteria by which anything is concluded (given its nature as the necessary precondition of intelligibility). Your misrepresentations of presuppositional apologetics suggests that you have not even read Van Til or Bahnsen, etc.

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: That is the point of my comment about invalidating logic. If we allow arguments to contain fallacy, and if we allow such massive presuppositions—pregnant, as you would say—then any false statement can be proven true.

You repeat this point without having addressed my response to it.

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm sure you would lose your shit if materialists used your exact presupposition and replaced "God" with "metaphysical naturalism."

That is quite a comedic error. If they replace God with anything not-God, then they are not using my presupposition (much less exactly).

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Back to TAG, the explanation of numbers assumes nothing; it merely states that these things are observations that would exist even if there were no transcendent minds.

Umm, if there are no minds (transcendent or otherwise), then how are these things "observations"?

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: There may be such a mind ...

Saying that there "may be" such a mind demonstrates that you have not turned our attention "back to TAG" at all, for God is necessary being (cf. actus purus).

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: ... but using logical absolutes as proof of such a mind is bad practice for exactly those reasons stated.

Presuppositional apologetics does not reason from logic to God, but from God to logic. You really need to read Van Til (et al.).

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: They do not REQUIRE such a mind.

That may be true on YOUR presuppositions, but not on the presuppositions of those you are arguing against. Ergo, your statement begs the very question. As Frame said, regarding logic being grounded in the nature and character of God, "If logic cannot exist without God, then to deny that God exists while affirming the law of contradiction is like denying the existence of the sun while affirming the existence of its rays. Of course, you will deny my view that logic cannot exist without God. But that is what we are debating, and you should not therefore beg that question."

(August 28, 2011 at 10:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: It isn't incumbent upon me to explain the preconditions of knowledge; I need only show that there is no requirement of God—

—which you have not in fact shown, but merely asserted. The question in our present context is the presupposition of God being the necessary precondition of intelligibility, which cannot be denied by simply begging the very question.

---

---

(August 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: If [the TAG] goes through, it would mean that in some way logic depends on God and is thus contingent. But to state this appears to be self refuting because it would mean logical truths aren't necessarily true, but are instead arbitrary ...

That does not follow. Logic "depends on God" in the sense that it is grounded in the nature and character of God; thus it cannot be arbitrary and cannot fail to be necessarily true, as God himself is necessary being (cf. actus purus).

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists; it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

http://members.tripod.com/~quick_geelong...an_Til.pdf
(because you always ask an enemy first, lol)

(August 28, 2011 at 9:19 pm)Ryft Wrote:

(August 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: If [the TAG] goes through, it would mean that in some way logic depends on God and is thus contingent. But to state this appears to be self refuting because it would mean logical truths aren't necessarily true, but are instead arbitrary ...

That does not follow. Logic "depends on God" in the sense that it is grounded in the nature and character of God; thus it cannot be arbitrary and cannot fail to be necessarily true, as God himself is necessary being (cf. actus purus).

If god were to remove his influence from our universe, then logic would no longer be necessarily true, thus within our universe if logic depends on god it is contingent on him in some way.

There is an assertion that these things are 'grounded' in gods character how is this known and what does it mean? A beings character only has meaning in relation to others and the population in general. For example to state than someone is larger-than-life is only meaningful if that person is not the only one around and it says something about them. But to say god has the character of grounding logic seems to not meet either challenge. Firstly it says nothing about him (unless he is a computer). Secondly it leaves me wondering as compared to which other god or populations of gods we can say that this particular one is the logic grounder. It appears to be a convenient mechanism for the theist to anchor a problem that would otherwise exist in theism. If god was around for an eternity with all of these characteristics bootstrapped into his very being (by an unknown process), it renders the concept so far from anything we can comprehend, it becomes meaningless and something which we are not justified believing in.

This really is just an attempt to brow beat you while creating a self fulfilling prophecy for christans. It's a hell of a hole to climb into when you consider the frustrating trip back out.

(August 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: If God were to remove his influence from our universe, then logic would no longer be necessarily true; thus within our universe, if logic depends on God then it is contingent on him in some way.

Now if that were the sort of deity I was talking about then your point would find its mark. However, my argument regards the God who is revealed in Scripture; if such a God should remove his influence from our universe then everything that is not God—absolutely everything—would cease to exist. But logic would not, though, for it is grounded in the nature and character of God; all the attributes of his essence share in the necessity and immutability that constitutes his being. Logic is not an artifact of divine fiat, something God decided might be a good idea to create, but is an attribute of divine being. This is why I said that logic "cannot be arbitrary and cannot fail to be necessarily true, as God himself is necessary being."

(August 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: There is an assertion that these things are 'grounded' in God's character. How is this known? And what does it mean?

Answering the question of how this is known is probably too large and complex to answer appropriately and sufficiently in a forum post. Since the answer arises from a philosophical system so at odds with your own, it is likely to raise more questions than it answers because your natural response will be to parse the information according to your epistemic criteria; that is, each aspect of my attempt to answer will undoubtedly raise a multiplicity of further questions (which of course is due to the fact that metaphysics is a predicate of epistemology). That is not a helpful way to start. It would require a learned understanding of this philosophical system, so that you grasp the answer under its own terms (as opposed to the antithetical terms you presently hold). It would be like trying to understand theistic young-earth creationism through the lens of atheistic biological evolution, or vice versa. Each view has to be taken under its own terms.

But it is known by divine revelation—in Scripture, nature, and the self (imago Dei), a tripartite package whole. "In every act of knowledge we simultaneously come to know God's law, his world, and our selves," Frame notes. "These are not three separable 'parts' of our experience, but three 'aspects' of every experience." Thus we account for the normative, situational, and existential perspectives on experience, altogether rooted in the nature and purpose of God. For a better understanding of this view, how we know, and what it means, I would recommend John Frame's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (P&R Publishing, 1987); I would even recommend Cornelius Van Til's A Survey of Christian Epistemology, 2nd ed. (P&R Publishing, 1980). You will not only understand the terms of this philosophical system but also what it means for God to be the final reference point of predication ("ground") and how it is we know.

(August 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: A being's character only has meaning in relation to others and the population in general.

Perhaps under your view, but then how is that relevant to the view being discussed? A being's character only has meaning in relation to God; this includes God himself, and is the subject of the trinitarian doctrine of aseity.

(August 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: But to say that God has the character of grounding logic ...

Grounding logic is not a character God has. Rather, it is God's nature and character taken as a whole that grounds logic. In other words, it is not some part of God that grounds logic but the whole of God, the unity of his nature and character (cf. divine simplicity), as revealed to us in Scripture, nature, and our selves as imago Dei. So of course this says something about him; it says an awful lot, for there is a bottomless wealth of information about who God is and what he is like, revealing an extraordinary web of relations which informs the intelligibility of reality. Einstein once said that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible. Well its intelligibility is not mysterious when you grasp the God behind it. (While the universe has vast mysteries beckoning us to discover and explore them, the fact that it is comprehensible to human inquiry is itself not a mystery.)

---

You asked a question before, and I realized that you had completely missed the concept I was trying to communicate. Probably my fault. You asked "who would make these observations if there were no such minds" or something to that effect. That's exactly the point. If a square is hidden in some deep recess of the universe where it has never been seen, it still has 4 sides. The number of sides to a square would always be 4, observed or unobserved. The conceptual abstraction (IE the word square, the number 4 etc) is dependent upon a mind, our own. Squares however existed before human beings were capable of describing them. "Logical absolutes" are simply descriptions of the way our universe appears to behave. There would be logical absolutes in any conceivable universe. That is, a square would be a square in a universe created by a toaster, by nothing, by a god, etc. Again, this is the reason that logical absolutes are an insufficient proof of any gods existence. It would probably be a better proof of gods existence if logical absolutes DID NOT exist. That would at least show that some omnipotent hand was at work in ways that were impossible to comprehend or explain. If a thing could be both itself and not itself, there would be no other word to describe this universe but miraculous.

(September 1, 2011 at 8:50 am)Rhythm Wrote: You asked a question before, and I realized that you had completely missed the concept I was trying to communicate. Probably my fault. You asked, "Who would make these observations if there were no such minds?" or something to that effect.

What you had said was, "These things are observations that would exist even if there were no transcendent minds" (Msg. 97). I was wondering if you were aware of the internal conflict in your statement, so I asked you a question to make you aware of that conflict; namely, "If there are no minds (transcendent or otherwise), then how are these things 'observations'?" (Msg. 104). In other words, "observation" implies mind. (1) If there are no minds, then nothing is observed. (2) If nothing is observed, then there are no observations. (3) Therefore, if there are no minds, then there are no observations. It is thus incoherent to say that x, y, and z are observations that would exist even if there were no minds.

(September 1, 2011 at 8:50 am)Rhythm Wrote: If a square is hidden in some deep recess of the universe where it has never been seen ...

Never seen by whom? Is your scenario assuming God out of existence from the outset?

If it assumes God out of existence from the outset, then it is a scenario that does not address the Christian argument and leaves the reader wondering why it was presented. If it does not assume God out of existence from the outset, then it is a painfully incoherent scenario—for it suggests that an omnipresent God who sustains absolutely all of creation could somehow fail to observe something. I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that such abstract realities are mind-dependent, but then I would return your attention to the divine mind at the center of the very position you are attempting to engage. Indeed logical absolutes existed before human beings were around to comprehend them, which is due to the necessary being in whom they are grounded (and thus they exist in any conceivable universe).

(September 1, 2011 at 8:50 am)Rhythm Wrote: Logical absolutes are simply descriptions of the way our universe appears to behave.

Incorrect. Logical absolutes are a-priori normatives, not a-posteriori descriptives; they are statements of what must be the case or cannot be the case, not what is or is not the case. For example, the law of non-contradiction states that X and not-X cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. Moreover, it expresses something that is definitionally impossible to observe; ergo, it is not a description of some observed behavior.

(September 1, 2011 at 8:50 am)Rhythm Wrote: Again, this is the reason that logical absolutes are an insufficient proof of any gods existence.

That is because logical absolutes are unintelligible apart from God's existence. Disregarding the likes of Sarfati and Slick, presuppositional apologetics argues from God to logic, not the other way around.