Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does faith require defense or reasoning? If it does, is it faith?

[ThomM]

What is the purpose of this argument, given what I understand to be the Calvinists view of salvation and atonement?

(found a way to ask a question in fewer words, always a plus)

To provide a defense of and reason for the faith.

And so - what IS your reason to believe in the fairy tale?

[Statler Waldorf]

Does faith require defense or reasoning? If it does, is it faith?

Yes, and yes.

---

What is the purpose of this argument, given what I understand to be the Calvinists view of salvation and atonement?

(found a way to ask a question in fewer words, always a plus)

To provide a defense of and reason for the faith.

And so - what IS your reason to believe in the fairy tale?

…the fact that it would be impossible to prove anything to be true if scripture itself were not the inerrant word of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're up to the task of proving scripture to be the inerrant word of god?

On the count of 3, 1....2....3.....go

(holds breath)

[Statler Waldorf]

You're up to the task of proving scripture to be the inerrant word of god?

On the count of 3, 1....2....3.....go

(holds breath)

Only after you actually nut up and answer my challenge on the principle of induction rather than running from it...

[The Grand Nudger]

Good thing I cheated with the whole breathing thing huh?

[Statler Waldorf]

Good thing I cheated with the whole breathing thing huh?

Still waiting...you can do it in the other thread if you'd like.

[DeistPaladin]

…the fact that it would be impossible to prove anything to be true if scripture itself were not the inerrant word of God.

A better example of a non sequitur would be hard to imagine.

[Ryft]

Exactly. You beg the question.

So you assert—which of course is uncompelling ipse dixit. Try demonstrating it. (Good luck.)

---

---

I have to ask, Ryft (and this probably has more to do with you than our discussion): why argue from God to logic on the one hand, as an explanation, but on the other label the concepts of logic as self-evident, requiring no further elaboration?

There is a bit of confusion here. Let me clear it up. You had asked for an elaboration of the law of non-contradiction, which is expressed as a proposition. My response pointed out that this proposition is self-evident; its truth is known immediately (as opposed to mediately) upon understanding the meaning of the terms.

However, there are certain aspects of logic which cry out for explanation—such as, for example, the fact that the truth of the aforementioned proposition is known immediately. How is it that our minds have this capacity to "get it" upon merely understanding the meaning of the terms? Or how is it that such laws of thought are so universal and inescapable that even the attempt to deny logic itself uses logic? Or if logic is a convention of the human mind, and our mind is reducible to our brain, and our brain is composed of matter that obeys the laws of physics, then is logic a physical law? And if so, then how is it that logic has the nature of being normative and necessary (as opposed to being descriptive and contingent, such as the law of gravity)? And so on it goes.

There is something which grounds logic that explains how all of this is so. And since logic is not constituted as physical laws—by definition of its very nature as normative, absolute, universal, objective, and necessary (careful attention must be paid to those terms) and the fact that logic is antecedent to physical laws—whatever it is that grounds logic must transcend the physical universe in some way. There has been no satisfying resolution among secular philosophers as they continue to hotly debate the issue (with people choosing this, that, or the other side), unwitting victims of their own presuppositional blind spot. Reformed theology, argued presuppositionally, quite happily leaves those philosophers to battle amongst themselves, established firmly on precisely what grounds logic and explains how all of this is so, while continuing to refine this view with ever greater precision.

What is the purpose of this argument, given what I understand to be the Calvinist's view of salvation and atonement?

It is an argument that recognizes and maintains the internal coherence of the biblical theology of God being for whom and through whom and to whom are all things, the sovereign creator and Lord who is before all things and in whom all things consist. Any theology or philosophy which compromises or denies these things contravenes what God reveals about himself in Scripture (and thereby introduces internal inconsistencies and incoherence). Any theology or philosophy that is plagued by internal inconsistencies and incoherence is fatally flawed and produces cognitive dissonance (caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously)—but only for those who possess the courage of honest and critical self-reflection. Thus the other purpose of this argument in its broader application: forcing those conflicting ideas to the surface and into the person's field of vision, so to speak.

It maintains fidelity to God as he revealed himself in Scripture and the only proper order of things, upon whom the gospel and salvation depend very directly and by which the universe and the human experience thereof have any intelligibility, coherence, and consistency.

Does faith require defense or reasoning?

It depends on what you mean by "faith." Experience has shown that "faith" is perhaps the most abused and misunderstood term in these forums. I have yet to encounter an atheist here that defines the term in a way that is recognizable to biblical Christianity—even after I have taken great pains to make it very clear (e.g., 12 March 2010, Msgs. 46-59).

[Captain Scarlet]

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."

I understand that you do not beleive this would be the action of the revealed god of scripture. I am merely referring to logical possibilities. If logic depends on gods existence, then it is contingent and not necessary, using the term "grounded in the very nature" cannot just bootstrap it into place. If he is omnipotent he can remove himself from our universe, given he created it, but also leave it in a self sustaining state. If he is capable of doing that then logic would disappear from the universe along with god. This seems a horribly incoherent scenario. I suppose in short, it is incoherent to deny logic, but not to deny that god exists. How can this be the case if logic depends on god?

Answering the question of how this is known is probably too large and complex to answer appropriately and sufficiently in a forum post..... 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.

Yes you are probably right and thank you for the references, which I have breifly looked at, but not studied; you will have to forgive me if my knoweldge seems rudimentary. I understand your position after making the assumption that the claims of xtian presuppositionalism are axiomatic. But they do not seem to be axiomatic on first reading. My understanding of axioms is that must be irreducible, self evident and undeniable. The god of scripture seems to fail all of these in that:

- Jesus can be reduced to the godhead, the godhead to a mind, minds to ? (depends on your view at this point)
- god is not self evident to all acts of cognition. Unless you are to argue that anyone who does not accept orthodox xtianity is in some way sick
- god is not undeniable. Arguments can be constructed which deny his existence and do not lead to a direct contradiction. In addition other faiths can take the same route and argue that they are true, by presupposing their revleations are true.

It seems a terribly weak place to start which undermines the whole of the subsequent epistomolgy you claim. Is it merely a matter of faith that makes this so for you?

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...

But this seems to send the argument into a circular tailspin, ie it is logically impossible for the nature of god not to include logic, becuase of the nature of god etc...