Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[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...