Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

Calvinism isn't based off of scripture?

Sure it is, but the two words are not synonymous so you can't just jump around like that in the middle of a discussion. You first wanted to know how having an internally consistent worldview was different than an internally consistent piece of fiction, now you are wanting to know how having an internally consistent ultimate standard of truth like scripture is different than an internally consistent piece of fiction. Those are two totally different topics.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm assuming that there will be no difference between the positions of Calvanism and the positions of scripture, as I understand this to be the belief. If I'm wrong, tell me where the two differ. What I'm asking here is if consistency is always a measure of factual accuracy, or if a false positive can be obtained by relying on it. such as the case of internally consistent fiction.

[DeistPaladin]

Now I feel unfortunately that you are just being intellectually dishonest. I already pointed out that “plants of the field” are cultivated plants which are not the same kind of plants created on day three.

I'm no expert in farming but are "bushes" and "shrubs" considered to be "plants of the field"?

Regardless of what you think God should have done, having multiple translations is a very good thing because it helps preserve the meaning of the original text because we can do a cross reference.

And here I am thinking that if God really wrote a book, that there would only be one book, one translation and one correct edition (to say nothing of clearly and concisely written, qualities that any edition of the Bible lack). For that matter, I would expect there to be no need for missionaries since the book would have been published all over the world. There would be no other form of sacred scripture for all cultures would have been introduced to the Word of God.

Then again, Nature's God is a very different being from Yahweh, a god who deliberately confuses people so they won't be saved.

Have any proof of that little theory of yours?

Aside from the fact that it seems more plausible than an omniscient deity provides his Word but pays no attention to all the translation errors which are bound to confuse these KJV-only Christians?

Translation errors are still errors.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anytime somebody says "farming" I'm going to show up like a Genie. So, Deist, bushes and shrubs could be considered plants of the field, sure. Not all of them, but fruit bearing ones, why not. Since we're on the subject of farming, and Statler wants to waffle on about cultivated plants, I can tell you that god most definitely did not create "the plants which require cultivation". Only one group of plants require cultivation, agricultural crops. These crops were bred by human beings from wild cultigens in many different areas of the world (though most of what we eat today is from the Middle East and the Americas). They did not exist at the time that our species first appears. In fact, we lived without them for all but the last 10,000-4,500 years of our 195,000 years here. So now we're talking seriously long days aren't we, and taking wild liberties with the word "created". What part of the USDA do you work for anyway Statler?

http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Agricult...0716750554
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture

[Sam]

Hello All,

I realise I arrive late to this thread, but if you'll permit me I'd just like to add a few observations I've picked up on while reading through it. There have been a number of posts that have piqued my attention but I think for the sake of clarity I'm just going to discuss one or two of the main points.

I should probably say that I only have a passing understanding of presuppositionalism and therefore do not claim any real ability to pontificate on the subject.


1. Morality in the absence of a creator deity.

I think it was Statler who raised a question earlier in the tread regarding the justification of moral claims in the absence of the transcendental moral laws of his espoused faith.

Personally I believe that a moral system cultivated by man has much greater power than he would like to believe. A moral system based around the universal acknowledgement of rights (derived from natural rights, utility or similar) would provide a rigid framework within which individuals could be afforded maximum liberty so long as they did not infringe on the rights of any other individual. Such a framework would allow moral claims to be adjudicated simply and justly. In the case of Mr. Waldorf’s hypothetical about the Marquis De Sade; society and his victim would have a legitimate moral claim (cause to exercise control) over him because he infringed on the rights of another. His own complicity in similar acts upon himself is irrelevant as preventing an individual of sound mind and maturity from harming themselves is not sufficient grounds for societal intervention.


2. The preconditions of intelligibility and non-Christian 'worldviews’.

In my understanding the crux of the presuppositonalist argument is that only the Christian 'worldview' can adequately account for certain axiomatic principles which are necessary for valid or rational enquiry to occur. I hesitate in starting my reply as I have been unable to find an exhaustive list of what these principles are. Perhaps someone would be kind of enough to furnish me with one?[/i]

Perhaps you will indulge me and allow me to start simply. With the Three Classical laws of Thought which given their eminence as the axiomatic rules on which philosophy and rational discourse are based I assume feature in the aforementioned preconditions. These are;

-The Law of Identity
-The Law of Noncontradiction
-The Law of The Excluded Middle

One would think that the Law of Identity and its two correlates mentioned above need no foundation as proposed in this thread i.e. in the Christian God but are in fact simple codifications of the nature of reality. That a thing must be itself and cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time is a necessity of reality. One could also suggest (as I believe Locke did) that these principles are not [i]a priori[i] principles but ideas about that nature of reality which were arrived at by critical philosophical thought.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts; I felt a need to get them down on paper, as it was. That being said it’s quite late and I’ve been at work all day so i reserve the right to add to amend this ramble later.

Sam

[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.)

[The Grand Nudger]

"You will deny this view, of course" is Ryfts smug way of calling you a godless heathen, utterly depraved and unable to do or seek good. His religious views serve as a tool for him to belittle anyone who disagrees with him. This argument is his religion.

[Ryft]

"You will deny this view, of course" is Ryft's smug way of calling you a godless heathen ...

Way to attack the arguer, not the argument. So much for rational integrity.

[The Grand Nudger]

I told you at the outset that I do not accept your premise, nor your definition of logical absolutes as transcendent. I do find more than a little irony in your complaints about an ad hom, considering your "you will of course deny this" song and dance.

Your argument does not attempt to argue for the existence of god, as you yourself have stated. What it does is provide you with a vehicle to degrade others by way of defining concepts in a favorable manner, and refusing to address whether or not those definitions are accurate.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Philosophical legerdemain in place of intellectual rigor. You could have avoided such unpleasant exchanges by removing the "you will of course deny this" bit from your script. Maybe then I could show you, and your argument, just an ounce more respect. I'm not having a debate with you Ryft, I'm trying to have a discussion with you.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

I see you still refuse to answer the question. Don't worry about it. We all know you can't because if there was any proof that your god existed, we'd have no need for either faith or apologetics.

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.

Oh, I understand it quite well. Let me break it down how the mental shell game works.

Step 1. Start with a belief in your god and realize you need to invent some kind of proof or justification to support that belief.

Step 2. Ask some unanswered or abstract philosophical question like what is morality, why do we use logic, where did life come from, or how did the universe begin.

Step 3. When the skeptic doesn't know, say "GodDidIt" or "GodWillsIt".

Step 4. Define your god in such a way as to answer the question. "The very essence of morality is grounded in the very nature of God" or some such flowery but unsubstantiated bs. (Create your definition to suit your needs in order to arrive at the desired conclusion).

Step 5. Dismiss all the other manufactured gods and religions. Don't apply the same skeptical thinking to your own god or your own religion.

Step 6. Declare that you don't need to ask similar questions about your god that you've asked about the universe, such as "OK, what created God?" or "How do we know what your god wants or does is moral?". You can escape this scrutiny by once again making use of your contrived definitions specifically manufactured for this purpose. "Because God is the uncreated creator so obviously God doesn't need to be created because God is uncreated" or "Because the very nature of morality is grounded in the substance of God so obviously God can't be immoral because that would go against the nature of God."

Step 7. If the skeptic is annoying enough to pull out the Bible and start to expound on the irrationality and immorality of your god, you can create your own flimsy rationalizations, ranging from "taking it out of context" or as StatWal does, asking essentially "who are you to judge God".

The fallacious reasoning here is overwhelming.

• Preconceived idea with a search for justification to support it
  
• Contrived definitions of "God" created to suit the purpose of the argument
  
• The unsatisfying "GodDidIt" or "GodWillsIt" which really doesn't do anything to elucidate our understanding of what morality is, why we use logic or what our purpose is in life.
  
• Special pleading, in that the same critical thinking that dismisses other religious claims aren't applied to yours. Why couldn't this "god" just as easily be Zeus, Odin, Allah, Shiva or Nature's God?
  
• Special pleading in that your god is insulated from the same questions you ask about the universe. If Yahweh doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?
  
• Circular reasoning: "We know that Yahweh is good because Yahweh is good. Goodness is grounded in the nature of Yahweh so we know that Yahweh's nature is good. Goodness is defined as consistent with Yahweh's will so when we say "Yahweh is good" we mean "Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills."
  

You can type all the latin phrases you like. It's still merde torus.

---

Special pleading in that your god is insulated from the same questions you ask about the universe. If Yahweh doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?

This line of argument is a series of variations on a theme (what is morality, what is our purpose in life, why do we use logic, etc) but to cite an example specific to this application:

If you've decided that your belief in a god who justifies the use of logic doesn't need to be logically justified, why don't we save a step and simply say that the use of logic doesn't need to be logically justified?

-paraphrased from Carl Sagan