Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Ryft]

If logic depends on God's existence, then it is contingent and not necessary.

Recall what I said about the nature of that dependency (Msg. 104); i.e., that 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). In your response to this you suggested that this does not really work: "If he is omnipotent, then he can remove himself from our universe (given that he created it) but also leave it in a self-sustaining state."

This scenario you paint does not follow from biblical Christianity; you are attempting to posit a challenge which, under the view I am arguing for, would be utterly impossible because the universe is not self-sustaining. "For all things in heaven and on earth were created by [the Son]—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him" (Col 1:16-17). The word here translated as "held together" is sunesteken, perfect active indicative (intransitive) of sunistemi, to place together and here to consist or cohere. See also Heb 1:1–3 ("through whom he made the universe ... sustaining all things by his powerful word"), Acts 17:28 ("in him we live and move and have our being"), Rev 4:11 ("by your will [all things] were created and have their being"), and so forth. In other words, the universe cannot be self-sustaining, for it cannot exist apart from God. Challenges against biblical Christianity must target biblical Christianity.

It is incoherent to deny logic, but not to deny that God exists. How can this be the case if logic depends on God?

If logic depends on God, then it certainly is incoherent to affirm that logic exists while denying that God exists. You will of course deny this view, that logic cannot exist apart from God, but since that is what we are debating you should not therefore beg that question.

[These Christian presuppositions] 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... [snip proceeding list]

1. Jesus cannot be reduced to the Godhead, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the Godhead is a trinity of three persons and Jesus is not.

2. As the necessary precondition of intelligibility God is self-evident to all acts of cognition. You will deny this view, of course, but it will not do to beg that question. (And it is not that people who reject the God of Scripture are "sick," which strikes me as a physiological term, so much as committed to ultimate self-referential incoherence.)

3. God is utterly undeniable. While arguments can be constructed which deny his existence, they all reduce to self-referential incoherence ultimately (due to the fallacy of stolen concept).

Thus it only seems a terribly weak place to start because you have begged the very question at nearly every turn. If I were to perform an internal critique of your view using the presuppositions of mine, then I would be engaged in a self-stultifying activity; namely, by using my presuppositions I am NOT performing an internal critique of your view, but rather merely noting where and how it conflicts with mine. In such a contest between the truth of your view or mine I would therefore be begging the question. Now flip the roles and see if you get what I am driving at.

But this seems to send the argument into a circular tailspin; i.e., it is logically impossible for the nature of God not to include logic, because of the nature of God, etc.

Nobody has argued that "it is logically impossible for the nature of God not to include logic," so this circular tail-spin never begins.

---

---

Okay, I'll go slow this time. I have asked you to prove God exists, and then to prove that this God is the Christian God. I would assume from the way you brushed past this request that you can't. If I'm wrong, please do tell. Until I hear otherwise from you, I'll go with the assumption that you can't.

This is the fallacy of argumentum ex silentio, concluding that I cannot answer from the fact that I have not answered. Your affinity for fallacious reasoning is continually substantiated.

Since you can't prove God exists, you simply assume that which needs proof in your attempts to "argue from God to logic", which is called begging the question.

You were right: you do not understand the fallacy of begging the question (Msg. 134). And the fact that you keep demanding proof that God exists demonstrates that you also do not understand the very arguments made in the presuppositional apologetics of Van Til, et al.—which in a thread dedicated to that makes your contributions a form of comedic relief. "Prove your axiomatic presupposition!" That is awesome. But nothing will stop you from hurling accusations of fallacies, not even when you mishandle fallacies or even fail to understand the very subject at issue. I appreciate the entertainment you bring.

I would still maintain that the line of argument is fallacious as it is built on an assumption that should require proof but none is offered. ... Maybe "begging the question" isn't the right term to use here but the line of reasoning is still clearly fallacious because it's not built on a solid foundation.

Yeah? Great, now just name that fallacy and demonstrate how it was committed.

Show me the foundation is sound first.

And the criteria from what view is to be used to qualify soundness? (This might end up being where you demonstrate for everyone what begging the question looks like.)