Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Captain Scarlet]

Actually that is precisely what it does. But you admit to not seeing the connection so let us try a different approach. Given the biblical theology of divine necessity and simplicity, please explain how logic as an attribute of God could fail to obtain in all possible worlds. That is prima facie an untenable contradiction…

It may obtain in all possible worlds, that’s not my point?…The point I made (and I gave my reason) is that even given your view logic is still arbitrary. It still depends on gods existence/gods will/thoughts. The best you can do is to specify the nature of the subjectivity of logic (ie god) and not wash this problem away by using the predictable representation that logic is “grounded in the nature of”. This still appears to be just a statement of mystery about god, and a rhetorical device to park the dilemma. I gave a counter example of a human feature (attribute) grounded in human genome (nature) and expressed through DNA. We can state such a thing is “grounded in the nature of”. But as for logic being “grounded in the nature of the xtian god”, well it is just a meaningless phrase with no explanatory power. My previous post gave more detail on this point but I am not going to simply accept it because you assert it and leave it hanging there.

On the contrary, logical order certainly is intrinsic to the natural world. But the fact that reality is non contra se (not contrary to itself) is an a-priori assumption we bring to scientific …. yet it is only biblical Christianity which can explain that fact of nature. (To confess "I don't know" is to admit not having an explanation.)

Firstly the claim that Christianity can account for induction and the consistency of the universe is incoherent. By definition Christianity accepts miracles. A miracle suspending/changing the facts of nature, means on your view, induction is impossible. At any ‘time’ god can change his mind about nature and make things chaotic for us. For example he could make the dead, alive again; a result not predicted by induction.

Secondly under your view, I think you are wrong to assume that logic is intrinsic to the natural world. You would naturally assert that god bootstraps the natural world, in built with logic and anything else which you wish to claim are transcendental absolutes (including logic and physical laws). But neither of us have any idea of what happens on the boundary of Planck time (10 -43 secs). What we can so far deduce is that these ‘absolutes’ do not obtain at that boundary (at least physics and its laws break down). What about logic? Additionally, I can point to the Hartle-Hawking hypothesis where we can deduce the universe has a near 99% unconditional probability of coming into existence out of nothing (not even a vacuum in space), and specifically excludes the idea of divine creation. An interpretation of this hypothesis also states that during the Planck epoch we can expect (not just an electron) but the whole universe to exist and not exist (as an uncollpased wave function), at the same point. This would suggest logic would indeed break down on the Planck time boundary. Yes of course these are unproven hypothesis, but as I don’t believe you have or can show god to be axiomatic, so is god and a natural explanation, ceteris paribus, is preferable.

Thirdly, you are now correcting your position (rightly in my view) to suggest that god can be separate/d from his creation (at least until he creates it). But then you cannot reason to this stating that god necessarily is “antecedent to that which he creates” and god and logic are “co-terminus”. Both of these phrases imply time. You are therefore using temporal phrasing to justify the atemporal. This appears to be fallacious reasoning (stolen concept).

Let me try this, then. What do you mean by "logic" in your question here?

That which you claim is both transcendental and caused by the xtian god. But I am assuming it is in essence the body of knowledge that is and stems from the LOI, LONC, LOEM.

What I am seeking is what nature within any god could possibly give rise to logic. The counter example I gave is that human DNA contains a program of our ‘nature’ and inculcates features within us that are uniquely human and truly concrete (grounded). There are no parallels for what you are claiming placing such a fantastic claim well beyond our own experience and into the realms of non-cognitivism.

…. but we can comprehend what God is like because he has revealed himself in Scripture…

…very, very badly.

You will deny this of course. The conflicted and still hotly debated scripture to which you refer is a source of more confusion, than revelation. This is the field of study for theology however. I would cite the argument from reasonable non-belief/hiddenness of god. As such it looks at least to my acts of cognition that man revealed his own god in his own image, and not the reverse.

Actually I do—God's self-disclosure in Scripture.

I assume you mean the orthodox account rather than the plethora of differing interpretations. This view eventually dominated some 400 years after, the one allegedly inspired by the xtian god. I would cite the argument from religious confusion here.

Does scripture come from inspiration or intervention from the xtian god. Or just very prosaic nature of human politics and theology of the Mediterranean and Middle East? Any of these views (well supported by historians) could have prevailed:

-the Ebionites (Jesus was a human, and not a god); the view apparently held by Jesus’ family localised in Jerusalem, who became marginalised
-the Marcionites (Jesus was a god, and not a human); a group with only regional support who wanted to bring back some form of polytheism
-the Gnostics (Jesus was a god and a human, but 2 distinct entities); a rag taggle band of mystics who had no support
-the Orthodox (Jesus was a god and a human, and 1 entity); a group eventually backed by force of the Roman Empire and later the Vatican

First, your objection fails to account for the doctrine of divine immanence.

OK, lets assume I have failed to account for it. Divine immanence lacks specificity. I am asking for is how logic gets/has gotten into the natural world? We can give a specific account for most natural phenomena, so lets here it for the supernatural. If the supernatural is as close to our natural universe as you claim, then we should be able to account for how logic gets from god to us. At the moment you are left appealing to magic, magical spells and incantations.

Third, your naturalism fails to avoid it by virtue of reducing itself to self-referential incoherence.

I do not agree with the theistic attacks on naturalism – no surprise there! But it is hardly relevant to defending your position. The problem for supernaturalism is that naturalism works and supernaturalism doesn’t, and we all live our lives as if that statement is true (except when we do god talk). There should be a different thread if you want to attack naturalism, I am happy to contribute to naturalisms defence.

“…If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority…. to justify an axiomatic presupposition is to concede that it is not axiomatic.”

That’s exactly the problem though isn’t it; you have to accept that "If statement" in the first place. I do not accept that any god has revealed himself to us in any scripture/acts, and as far:
> as I’m concerned all the evidence would support that view
> as I’m aware I’m fully cognitive about reality - and so is my unicorn ;-)

… For whatever reason it has gone unnoticed, so let me be explicit. It is a contradiction for there to be a possible world where a necessary … is not necessary, for an immutable being to be mutable…. It also creates a logical contradiction with respect to the universe, viz. contingent being having of itself its own necessity….

Unnoticed no. Your argument says nothing about the proposition I am giving you. If the universe is contingent, on a necessary being it says nothing about the continued need for that being to be present wrt the universe. Once created there is no need for the creator to be ever present, it has the power to leave it self sustaining. There is no contradiction here, leaving it self sustaining the universe is still contingent on their initial actions; but god is separated. Indeed an immutable being can’t be mutable, which is why I argued that god under your view cannot be immutable and therefore your xtian conception of a god is wrong.

A minor but important correction: God can be separated from the universe—obviously, as his existence is necessarily antecedent to that which he creates.

I agree that god must have been separate from the universe. But how can he be antecedent if he is atemporal. Antecedence would imply time.

However, God separating himself from the universe would render it non-existent, which is the force of my point. As Van Til notes, "We know that sin is an attempt on the part of man to cut himself loose from God. But this breaking loose from God could not, in the nature of the case, be metaphysical; if it were, man himself would be destroyed, and God's purpose with man would be frustrated. Sin is therefore a breaking loose from God ethically and not metaphysically. Sin is the creature's enmity and rebellion against God but is not an escape from creaturehood"

If someone sat next to me on the bus and said this, then I would probably edge away. I tend not to concern myself with masochistic views, and I do not consider myself a sinner, nor a slave to a gods vanity. If you wish to consider yourself, myself or indeed humanity as in some way depraved, be my guest; but it isn’t an argument and says more about the people espousing these views than any non-believer.

Moreover, his sustaining the fusion of hydrogen into helium does not lead to him being mutable, given that he is not temporally bounded (omnipresent); he is present at every stage of the event simultaneously, at this and every other star likewise simultaneously; that is, events for God are not a matter of linear temporal succession (observes first t1 then t2) but of an ever-present now (observes both t1 and t2 at once).

Yep I didn’t help you out here. When I said ‘about to fuse’ more accurately I should have stated ‘had a very high probability of fusing’. Fusion occurs from the effects of quantum tunnelling (a time independent feature of the quantum world), expressed through Shrodingers time independent equation. Your reasoning for why god is really immutable in this example fails badly as time isn’t a factor.

… the observer effect in quantum mechanics is predicated on the "observer" being constituted by matter—even if it is only a single electron. Thus the God of Scripture necessarily fails to represent the problem your point attempted to construct, for he is transcendent and immaterial….

Fallacy of special pleading. God can observe but only in a special way which allows you to maintain his integrity. You cannot possibly know this nor back this up.

Of course they are separate. The proposition "David is a married bachelor" is logically impossible, whereas the proposition "water is not dihydrogen monoxide" …

I wasn’t referring to David nor dihydrogen monoxide, but god. How do you separate the metaphysically impossible from the logically impossible wrt the god concept. If god is simple, logic is grounded in his nature, is by definition logical, is necessary then what is metaphysically impossible must also be logically impossible and vice-versa.

In other words, of course "it is asserted but not argued for"—precisely because it is axiomatic! That is to say, it is argued from, not for. "The fact that the apologist presupposes the word of God in order to carry on a discussion or to debate about the veracity of that word does not nullify his argument, but rather illustrates it" (Bahnsen 1996, p. 75).

My bad use of English, apologies. It was your axiom as an axiom that does not work as it passes none of the tests. You don’t seem to agree but you have failed to prove I am begging the question (assuming god) to make my arguments of acts of cognition. As I am not attacking your arguments which stem from your axiom, but your axiom itself (as its foundational) you cannot accuse me of question begging, because you have not established that your axiom is valid in the first place. Unfortunately I cannot get away from interpreting what you are saying as something like: my of a lack of cognition wrt the emporers new clothes, is invalid because if I would only recognise the truth of the statement that “the emporers new clothes exist” I would after all see them. But to deny the emporers new clothes exist is to beg the question because I need to assume them to even deny them in the first place.

Can the Trinity be spoken of as "an immaterial mind"? Certainly….[snip]

Then it isn’t axiomatic.

On the contrary, mankind already knows God (Rom 1:18–28): … but they suppress that knowledge in ungodliness and unrighteousness. Since the nature and power of God is clearly seen and understood through what has been made, such people are without excuse, for although they knew God they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, instead exchanging the truth of God for a lie, honoring and serving the creation rather than the Creator.

Is it at all surprising that iron age people with an agenda of spreading a faith (sp. their version of it), would want to say that non-believers are rubbish in some way? Its hardly an argument is it. Furthermore, if I am ‘surpressing’ that knowledge you would have to prove that not assert it.

The difference between us is not one of truth or falsity, but of the very intelligibility of truth or falsity. We both speak of truth as though it is meaningful. The difference is this: my worldview accounts for the intelligibility of truth, whereas the self-referential incoherence of yours shipwrecks it….

I do not need to assume god to understand the truth of the axiom “existence, exists” and neither do you. As for naturalism being shipwrecked, I would take issue with that (as you know). Attacks on naturalism are somewhat ironic given the daily reliance we place on naturalism being true, just to have these conversation we are relying on the fruits of naturalisms own methodology. As for your view you certainly can offer nothing wrt to induction. Xtainity makes induction impossible.

It is true that we consequently exclude the classical theistic (and atheistic) arguments, but in the presuppositionalism of Reformed theology is the explanation of why we do so. The problem with the classical arguments is that their evidentialism begs the very question ….

Yep but they would argue, rightly I think, that there is a way to know god without presupposing his existence, ie the Atlantis example I gave you. This has been an interesting discussion, especially since I was a lot more unfamiliar with this apologetic than classical arguments. I don’t often find myself agreeing with WLC, but he does have a point about the circular reasoning in using xtian theism, to prove xtian theism, which is what your offering here.