Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[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).