Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Captain Scarlet]

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 ...

Ryft, I understand what you are trying to convey. What I cannot grasp is its meaning. Saying X is grounded in the very nature of Y doesn't obviate the contingency of X. Saying Person A, has human property B (lets say this is a unique bioilogical property of humans), is grounded in his humanity (lets define that as his genome for now), makes sense. But whilst property B does not depend on person A for all of humanity, it does for Person A's exsitence, ie Person A's own property B, is wholly contingent on person A's existence. It is therefore contingent. I concede that you may fully grasp the meaning of it and I do not. But that does not alter the fact that I do not, even though I have earnestly tried. To me it seems like a non-answer and a form of words which adds mystery but no explanation.

This scenario you paint does not follow from biblical Christianity...

I understand that you beleive there is a contradiction with biblical scripture. But you are only framing the debate to favour your position and giving no latitude to explore what is logically possible from your arguments. So whilst the god you believe in may not have done this nor intends to do this, my understanding is that it is still logically possible that the xtian god can do this. He is ominpotent and separate from his creation, that ominpotence and spearation is also part of his nature and thus, it is logically possible for him to exit the universe and leave it self-sustaining (but operating without logic, because of his absence). I see no contradiction with other parts of his nature unless you care to point them out. Nor do I accept that I cannot explore this argument and if true it is hard to see how this can be the case.

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

Again you seem to be narrowing the debate to only the ground that you want to debate on. I do not see how I am begging the question, but exploring what appears logically possible under the views you hold. It seems to me that under your view, the statement: "it is logically impossible for the nature of God not to include logic, becuase of his nature" is true. But this argument is also circular.

1. Jesus cannot be reduced to the Godhead...

2. As the necessary precondition of intelligibility God is self-evident to all acts of cognition...

3. God is utterly undeniable....

Thus it only seems a terribly weak place to start because you have begged the very question at nearly every turn....

Based on my admittedly limited understanding of philsophy, I beleive you are presenting an epistomology based on certain axiomatic truths (presuppositions). I am engaged in an attempt to disprove those axioms, as axioms. You are then advising that the act of trying to disprove these axioms is based on an informal fallacy (question begging), therefore I can't (at least in the way I've presented them). It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for me to demonstrate why I do not think that belief in the alleged Jesus and his supposed redemptative qualities are axiomatic. If I can demonstrate this, your epistomolgy is baseless, so I would expect you to defend it vigourously; but not to cut off debate. Given I am making no assumption when refuting the presuppositionalist axioms, but demonstrating how they cannot be axioms, I do not see how I am begging the question? To your response:

1. God, whether the godhead, or any of its 3 mainfestations are, prima facie, reducible into one another (ie If Jesus cannot be reduced to the godhead, the godhead can be reduced to Jesus. If they are not I can't see how the trinity works? Either way would seem to deny xtain revelation as axiomatic. Further to my previous argument Jesus, is reducible to a man, which is reduciable to a body etc etc.

2. This is a bare assertion. You cannot demostrate that any god, let alone Jesus is self-evident to all acts of cognition. Infact he was so not self evident that he had to appear to his followers after his death (if that ever happened) to convince them that he really was who he claimed to be (if he ever claimed that), even though they knew him!

There are also powerful inductive reasons (which you may not accept) to beleive that xtian god is self-evident: The argument from non-belief/divine hiddenness, the argument from religious confusion, the geographical distribution of the worlds faith etc. Either way the mere fact that we can argue over gods existence, that this argument has happened since the huamn race either invented religion or was revealed to, and that it continues to be debated suggests that you are wrong and that it is not available to all cognitive acts. I cannot for example logically prove that earthquakes happen primarily as a result of tectonic activity. There is however a very strong correlation of distribution between the worlds observed tectonic plate interfaces and earthquakes. Would you live above the San Andreas fault becuase no logical proof was available?

3. Any imagined being could be invented that this could be said of. I thought you were ONLY arguing for xtian theism, therefore to rebut this you must present evidence why the xtian god is undeniable and not just any god. In addition I fail to see how the statement "god, probably, does not exist" commits the fallacy of the stolen concept?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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

---

My goodness it's Sam! I have not talked to you in ages, I hope all is well.

---

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

Not sure what you are getting at there.

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.

Ought/Is Fallacy. The way you think God ought to have done something has no bearing on the way He really did it.

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

Grace obligated is by definition not grace. Believing in a God that has revealed nothing to man is a bit absurd.

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?

That’s a meaningless claim, it is impossible to determine what is “more plausible” in such matters.

Translation errors are still errors.

They are not errors in inspiration though like you originally claimed existed but seemed to have backed off of now.

[DeistPaladin]

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

Not sure what you are getting at there.

Because some of the verses translations specify "bushes" and "shrubs". You can rationalize all you like but I read what's there.

Ought/Is Fallacy. The way you think God ought to have done something has no bearing on the way He really did it.

It's a question of which is more likely and drawing attention to the strange motivations of your deity. Sure, a deity who wants universal love and adoration from people all over the world might have published his revelation only in one corner of the world and then it could only be spread by human hands but the simpler explanation is that this religion is man-made.

The reason it appears to be man-made is because that's what it is. Occam's Razor.

Grace obligated is by definition not grace. Believing in a God that has revealed nothing to man is a bit absurd.

So you're going the "Yahweh can't reveal himself because that would violate free will" route? So how come the overt miracles and magic of the Biblical times weren't a violation of this rule. Seems a bit inconsistent to me. Perhaps the reason your god has become so quiet all of a sudden in the modern age is because he was never there at all? Much like how the nasty monster under the 6 year old's bed goes away when the light is turned on and mom and dad are looking. Again, the simpler explanation indicates your religion and supposed revelation are bs.

That’s a meaningless claim, it is impossible to determine what is “more plausible” in such matters.

Oh, I think it is possible. Asking "which is more likely" and then going with the indications of Occam's Razor is not only valid reasoning but commonly applied. Many a criminal investigation is decided by it.

Translation errors are still errors.

They are not errors in inspiration though like you originally claimed existed but seemed to have backed off of now.

I haven't backed off anything as the two Genesis accounts on page 1 have yet to be reconciled.

I'm just saying "translation error" or "you have to use my favorite translation" doesn't give you an out. If Yahweh wrote a book to communicate with humanity but then failed to make sure the translations faithfully preserved this message, then the who practice is rendered rather moot, wouldn't you say?

One more thing:

I'm curious how you would respond to my earlier question paraphrasing Carl Sagan, which relates to the OP. If you feel you don't need to logically justify the existence of a god who justifies your use of reason, why not save a step and say we don't need to logically justify the use of reason?

[Statler Waldorf]

Because some of the verses translations specify "bushes" and "shrubs". You can rationalize all you like but I read what's there.

The Hebrew word used means cultivated food bearing plants, the Hebrew is what was inspired.

It's a question of which is more likely and drawing attention to the strange motivations of your deity. Sure, a deity who wants universal love and adoration from people all over the world might have published his revelation only in one corner of the world and then it could only be spread by human hands but the simpler explanation is that this religion is man-made.

Scripture is very clear that everyone who is supposed to hear the gospel will hear the gospel.

Again you are making a meaningless claim (opinion) about probability. If you are going to talk about what is more likely I want to see it written out, what are you using for your numerator, what are you using for your denominator?

The reason it appears to be man-made is because that's what it is. Occam's Razor.

*cringes at the misuse of Occam’s Razor. You’d have to demonstrate that 40 some authors cooporating over a period of roughly 1500 years to forge the best preserved and most influential book of antiquity is a simpler explanation than the fact that it is what it claims to be, the word of God. Good luck.

So you're going the "Yahweh can't reveal himself because that would violate free will" route?

Nope (I don’t believe in autonomous free will), I was pointing out that God is not obligated to give anyone grace. I was also pointing that you claim to have knowledge about a God (Nature’s God) who has not revealed anything to man, which is an absurd claim.

Oh, I think it is possible. Asking "which is more likely" and then going with the indications of Occam's Razor is not only valid reasoning but commonly applied. Many a criminal investigation is decided by it.

Not at all valid in such matters because we have no idea what is more likely, you’d have to demonstrate the probability here. You are appealing to something that is completely arbitrary and therefore proves nothing.

I haven't backed off anything as the two Genesis accounts on page 1 have yet to be reconciled.

Well they were logically reconciled, I demonstrated that they were nothing even close to an actual logical contradiction, a demonstration you have done nothing to refute.

I'm just saying "translation error" or "you have to use my favorite translation" doesn't give you an out. If Yahweh wrote a book to communicate with humanity but then failed to make sure the translations faithfully preserved this message, then the who practice is rendered rather moot, wouldn't you say?

Whew, it’s a good thing Yahweh didn’t do that then isn’t it? I find it interesting you make the “favorite translation” point but then it was you who ran to the KJV as if it were mother’s milk, but you could not demonstrate a single contradiction in the translation I own, interesting indeed.

I'm curious how you would respond to my earlier question paraphrasing Carl Sagan, which relates to the OP. If you feel you don't need to logically justify the existence of a god who justifies your use of reason, why not save a step and say we don't need to logically justify the use of reason?

Well one obvious problem with that is you are then unnecessarily multiplying your assumptions, you’d have to axiomatically assume the laws of logic exist plus laws of morality, uniformity in nature, reliability of senses, and the reliability of memory, all of which can be accounted for by the Christian God. Ryft may have some more to address on this question though.

[The Grand Nudger]

*cringes at the misuse of Occam’s Razor. You’d have to demonstrate that 40 some authors cooporating over a period of roughly 1500 years to forge the best preserved and most influential book of antiquity is a simpler explanation than the fact that it is what it claims to be, the word of God. Good luck.

You must surely mean the Vedas. You're also mistaken on the number of authors, and the length of time. The Vedas are much older, and there were many more authors.

[Statler Waldorf]

You must surely mean the Vedas. You're also mistaken on the number of authors, and the length of time. The Vedas are much older, and there were many more authors.

Nope, I was talking about the Bible and the numbers I gave were accurate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Good for the goose, good for the gander. The Vedas are older, have more authors, and form the basis of more of the worlds religions (both by number and demographics...and historically, they crush judeo-christianity). They must be "more true" than the bible. Ah well.

[Statler Waldorf]

Good for the goose, good for the gander. The Vedas are older, have more authors, and form the basis of more of the worlds religions (both by number and demographics...and historically, they crush judeo-christianity). They must be "more true" than the bible. Ah well.

Well Bart Ehrman disagrees with you, but be that as it may I don't invoke Occam's Razor as my reason for believing the Veda is not what it claims to be so your argument does not apply to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

You gonna trust that godless sinner? For shame, you've made baby jesus angry.

[DeistPaladin]

Because some of the verses translations specify "bushes" and "shrubs". You can rationalize all you like but I read what's there.

The Hebrew word used means cultivated food bearing plants, the Hebrew is what was inspired.

I don't speak Hebrew nor have I seen the original texts, so I can't debate you on this point. What you are saying is that all the translations I've seen are sloppy mistranslations that would lead me to believe the Bible contradicted itself on this point. Hence, your omniscience and omnipotent Yahweh goofed up by not watching the translators carefully and making sure his revelation was faithfully preserved.

Furthermore, since we don't have the original copies of Genesis, what's to say a similar goof didn't take place when the earliest copies we do have were created? If Yahweh didn't watch over the copyists and translators today, what's to say he did any better a job back then?

Scripture is very clear that everyone who is supposed to hear the gospel will hear the gospel.

2nd Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1st Tim 2:4 [God] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

*cringes at the misuse of Occam’s Razor.

Perhaps you're right. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation or the one with the fewest assumptions, is usually correct. The reason it doesn't apply here is Christianity has never put forth an explanation of any kind aside from "God works in mysterious ways" which surely you recognize isn't an explanation of any kind but an evasion tactic.

A rather simple explanation for why Yahweh's supposed revelations only arrived in one corner of the world and could only spread by human hands is that Yahweh is a human invention. You still need to explain why, if Yahweh intended a revelation for the world, there was no worldly revelation and that task was delegated to sinful, flawed humans?

You’d have to demonstrate that 40 some authors cooporating over a period of roughly 1500 years to forge the best preserved and most influential book of antiquity is a simpler explanation than the fact that it is what it claims to be, the word of God. Good luck.

Seriously?

You think "power of God" is a simpler explanation than "humans wrote it"?

What exactly is there about this collection of mythology that differentiates it from other mythology, never mind what about it defies any natural explanation?

So you're going the "Yahweh can't reveal himself because that would violate free will" route?

I was also pointing that you claim to have knowledge about a God (Nature’s God) who has not revealed anything to man, which is an absurd claim.

The is a red herring (or perhaps more specifically the ad hominem tu que) as we're discussing Christianity. Additionally, this is a strawman since I make no claim to have knowledge. If you wish to pursue this topic further, why not take up the gauntlet in the "deism vs. Christianity" debate?

Well they were logically reconciled, I demonstrated that they were nothing even close to an actual logical contradiction, a demonstration you have done nothing to refute.

Actually, you failed miserably and proved my point about flimsy rationalizations. If you've rested your case, I'm willing to rest as well.

Well one obvious problem with that is you are then unnecessarily multiplying your assumptions, you’d have to axiomatically assume the laws of logic exist plus laws of morality, uniformity in nature, reliability of senses, and the reliability of memory, all of which can be accounted for by the Christian God. Ryft may have some more to address on this question though.

Actually, none of them are accounted for by any god, Christian or otherwise. I've discussed ad neuseum how "GodWillsIt" or "GodDidIt" does nothing to help our understanding of logic or morality. Among the other problems I've outlined, you're just creating an extra step. Further, you then claim that this step that justifies one belief doesn't itself need to be justified. Why demand justification for one and not the other?