Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

More of this borrowing nonsense.

ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Christian claims are extraordinary to say the least. They offer philoso-babble as evidence.

Even if these philoso-babble arguments were sound (we've been all over why they're not convincing), they would still fail to meet their burden of proof.

Conjecture, abstract ideas and theoretical models, even if they make perfect sense, can't substitute for experimentation and hard evidence. The universe is under no obligation to conform to our concepts of what makes sense to us. It sometimes happen that the universe works in ways that we consider counter-intuitive. Simply offering a philosophical argument, even if it is based on sound reasoning (as opposed to an attempt to rationalize the sacred belief already held), at best makes it a hypothesis that is yet to be tested.

Where is the evidence for the extraordinary claims of Christianity? If all they've got is philoso-babble, they've already fallen short of the burden of proof before we even examine the soundness of their logic.

[Statler Waldorf]

ECREE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Christian claims are extraordinary to say the least.

Actually they are not, a majority of people living today believe the supernatural exists, and so by definition atheism is the extraordinary claim. Look up the words ordinary and extraordinary.

Even if these philoso-babble arguments were sound (we've been all over why they're not convincing)

A sound argument is not necessarily convincing to an irrational mind, that’s why an argument’s soundness is not determined by whether or not a person like you is convinced by it.

they would still fail to meet their burden of proof.

Where do you come up with this garbage? A deductively sound argument is more than enough to meet the burden of proof; it’s the strongest argument that can even be presented.

Conjecture, abstract ideas and theoretical models, even if they make perfect sense, can't substitute for experimentation and hard evidence. The universe is under no obligation to conform to our concepts of what makes sense to us. It sometimes happen that the universe works in ways that we consider counter-intuitive. Simply offering a philosophical argument, even if it is based on sound reasoning (as opposed to an attempt to rationalize the sacred belief already held), at best makes it a hypothesis that is yet to be tested.

You do realize that empiricism is a self refuting position right? So why did you appeal to it above?

Where is the evidence for the extraordinary claims of Christianity? If all they've got is philoso-babble, they've already fallen short of the burden of proof before we even examine the soundness of their logic.

A logically sound argument is irrefutable. That’s probably why you resort to this sort of whining.

[DeistPaladin]

Actually they are not, a majority of people living today believe the supernatural exists, and so by definition atheism is the extraordinary claim. Look up the words ordinary and extraordinary.

Logical fallacy: appeal to popularity.

This is not what is meant in the ECREE doctrine.

A sound argument is not necessarily convincing to an irrational mind, that’s why an argument’s soundness is not determined by whether or not a person like you is convinced by it.

It's not convincing because it's not a rational argument.

Where do you come up with this garbage? A deductively sound argument is more than enough to meet the burden of proof; it’s the strongest argument that can even be presented.

No, it's not. All you've done is present an untested hypothesis at best.

This does not prove the existence of invisible angels and demons, the afterlife, the history of a demigod who walked the earth and performed miracles or any of the other mythology asserted by Christianity. We need more than conjecture to believe these extraordinary claims.

You do realize that empiricism is a self refuting position right?

Prove it.

That’s probably why you resort to this sort of whining.

Well, I guess we all have our own definition of what constitutes "whining".

[Statler Waldorf]

Logical fallacy: appeal to popularity.

Nope, you are using terms that are defined by what is and is not popular. An ordinary belief is by definition what the majority of people believe and an extraordinary one is by definition the opposite. Don’t use those terms if the definitions of them don’t matter to you.

It's not convincing because it's not a rational argument.

Assertion, you have not demonstrated how it is not a sound argument.

No, it's not. All you've done is present an untested hypothesis at best.

A deductively sound argument is the strongest proof possible, that’s basic logic. You keep appealing to evidence which of course is based off of induction which is weaker than deduction.

This does not prove the existence of invisible angels and demons, the afterlife, the history of a demigod who walked the earth and performed miracles or any of the other mythology asserted by Christianity. We need more than conjecture to believe these extraordinary claims.

Actually it does, it proves the God of scripture exists and therefore everything else detailed in His revealed word also exist or happened.

Prove it.

Easy enough. Empiricism states that all truth claims are discerned through empirical observation. However, that claim right there cannot be discerned through empirical observation. So if empiricism is true it refutes itself and has to be false, if it is false it also has to be false so therefore it is false. It is a self refuting position.

[5thHorseman]

Lots of people today think the supernatural exists. This is not conformation something is correct, it shows a severe lack in critical thinking and gullability, as you have shown in your post.

It does not prove the god of scripture exists, do not be so silly and naive. That maybe the silliest post you have ever made, although that's doubtful.

I've seen a similarly terrible argument from Dr Frank Turek. He said that if Jesus was reincarnated, then that would mean he was god and that everything he taught like the old testament was correct.

How he could get to that I will never know. Thankfully he got slapped down very quickly.

[Sam]

Hey Sam,

Ok here it goes, can your worldview justify the assumption that the future will for the most part resemble the past providing a basis for the principle of induction that all of science is based on?

Okay, Sorry for the delay by the way.

Well, in all honesty I would say that the uniformity of nature is presupposed since it cannot be legitimately justified by induction nor deduction. Induction is discounted because any reference to it would make the argument viciously circular and a deductive argument for it would have to rely on axiomatic assumptions relating directly to the point in question.

That being said, I would hold that the uniformity of nature is a result of natural laws controlling all interactions between particles at various scales. It follows from this that nature, being a result of a limited number of these laws which control particle interactions would behave uniformly in a manner predictable by these laws. Of course, this conjecture, developed via the scientific method relies initially on the assumption of uniformity but the theory is well corroborated by the sum of current knowledge.

Whether this point, has any bearing on our ability to legitimately conduct science is a much more complex question.

Since induction, as used in the scientific method does not claim to discover truths or absolutes it would not necessarily be invalidated by some non-uniformity of nature. In the sense the induction allows for the development of knowledge in probabilistic terms it would still be a useful tool. As such extreme inductive scepticism; that an inductive conclusion and its negation would be equally likely cannot be justified whereas moderate inductive scepticism; admitting that we do not know for sure or absolutely, can be. There are also certain mathematical and deductive proofs of certain aspects of inductive reasoning which support it as a probabilistic method of knowledge development which is self-correcting and therefore likely to bring us closer to truth.

I would hold, as did Hume that given its usefulness in life we would always be pragmatically justified in using it if and until it proved otherwise.

There are also arguments proposed by Karl Popper et al., who argue that in fact science does not uses induction but a system of conjecture, criticism and refutation to arrive at knowledge in the form of well-corroborated theories.

These are my thoughts, if they can be called that, based on what I have read and studied thus far. All that being said my final point is that inductions strength is not its ability to be clearly justified or validated but its ability to correct itself and generally promote true knowledge.

Now Statler, You will, of course deny or disagree with some, if not all of what I have said. Could I ask you to explain how your worldview justifies the uniformity of nature? Assuming you will have to reference scripture can you provide the exact passages which mention this?

Regards

Sam

---

A deductively sound argument is the strongest proof possible, that’s basic logic. You keep appealing to evidence which of course is based off of induction which is weaker than deduction.

It's funny, I don't even see how the TAG classifies as a deductive argument, its form (indirect, transcendental) is more a re-hashing of both inductive and deductive techniques. I believe even some of its proponents recognise that it "[The TAG] presupposes a whole system of definitions and sub-arguments" (John Frame)

Easy enough. Empiricism states that all truth claims are discerned through empirical observation. However, that claim right there cannot be discerned through empirical observation. So if empiricism is true it refutes itself and has to be false, if it is false it also has to be false so therefore it is false. It is a self refuting position.

That's a pretty fatuous attempt a 'refuting' an epistemology Statler. Put simply, Empiricism claims that knowledge derives from sensory experience. That claim is an abstraction of the method used by empiricists to arrive at knowledge and is thus justified by their sensory experience of said method.

[The Grand Nudger]

The great myth of the problem of induction..lol. Someone will alert me when satellites fall from the sky yes?

[fr0d0]

Leo posted it already

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15021323

[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.

[Statler Waldorf]

Lots of people today think the supernatural exists. This is not conformation something is correct, it shows a severe lack in critical thinking and gullability, as you have shown in your post.

Where did I say it confirms anything? I was merely pointing out that if atheists want to use that absurd canard, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” they should be careful because atheism by definition is the extraordinary claim since a majority of people believe in the supernatural.

Well, in all honesty I would say that the uniformity of nature is presupposed since it cannot be legitimately justified by induction nor deduction. Induction is discounted because any reference to it would make the argument viciously circular and a deductive argument for it would have to rely on axiomatic assumptions relating directly to the point in question.

Good so far…

That being said, I would hold that the uniformity of nature is a result of natural laws controlling all interactions between particles at various scales. It follows from this that nature, being a result of a limited number of these laws which control particle interactions would behave uniformly in a manner predictable by these laws. Of course, this conjecture, developed via the scientific method relies initially on the assumption of uniformity but the theory is well corroborated by the sum of current knowledge.

However, natural laws don’t control or cause anything; they are merely descriptions of the uniformity we observe. Your position is the same as saying the coast line on a map controls what the coast looks like on the ground. If nature behaved differently tomorrow we’d revise the laws of nature just like if the shape of the coast changes we revise the map.

Since induction, as used in the scientific method does not claim to discover truths or absolutes it would not necessarily be invalidated by some non-uniformity of nature.

I disagree here too, if the laws of nature were changing all the time it would be impossible to make any future predictions since the very notion of probability assumes some degree of uniformity.

I would hold, as did Hume that given its usefulness in life we would always be pragmatically justified in using it if and until it proved otherwise.

Well if you believe in the God of scripture you don’t have to hold to such a weak position, the “problem of induction” is a non-problem for the believer.

There are also arguments proposed by Karl Popper et al., who argue that in fact science does not uses induction but a system of conjecture, criticism and refutation to arrive at knowledge in the form of well-corroborated theories.

Well Popper believed that you could gain no real knowledge from science at all, a position that very few atheists would hold to today.

These are my thoughts, if they can be called that, based on what I have read and studied thus far. All that being said my final point is that inductions strength is not its ability to be clearly justified or validated but its ability to correct itself and generally promote true knowledge.

I think you are trying to prove a point that we both already agree upon. I support the principle of induction just as much as you do; it just violates the principle of sufficient reason to not be able to give account for your assumptions. Namely, in an atheistic universe why would we even assume the there will continue to be uniformity in nature? Induction does not make any sense in a purely naturalistic universe.

Now Statler, You will, of course deny or disagree with some, if not all of what I have said. Could I ask you to explain how your worldview justifies the uniformity of nature? Assuming you will have to reference scripture can you provide the exact passages which mention this?

I only disagreed with some of it Sam. In the Christian worldview it is believed that God upholds His creation in a consistent and predictable manner. We derive this from many areas of scripture but one of the best is Genesis 8:22 where God tells us that until the end of the age he will conduct His governing in a predictable manner.

It's funny, I don't even see how the TAG classifies as a deductive argument, its form (indirect, transcendental) is more a re-hashing of both inductive and deductive techniques. I believe even some of its proponents recognise that it "[The TAG] presupposes a whole system of definitions and sub-arguments" (John Frame)

Well we can disagree on whether it is a sound deductive argument, but it’s form (If A is possible, then B. A is possible therefore B.) is a valid deductive format. Arguing for “A” because of the impossibility of “not A” is also a deductive form of argumentation used in the TAG.

That's a pretty fatuous attempt a 'refuting' an epistemology Statler. Put simply, Empiricism claims that knowledge derives from sensory experience. That claim is an abstraction of the method used by empiricists to arrive at knowledge and is thus justified by their sensory experience of said method.

It was not a failed attempt at all. If all knowledge is a derivative of sensory perception then you cannot ‘know’ that all knowledge is derived from sensory perception since that claim cannot be perceived by your senses. It would be like someone saying, “I can only tell lies.” If that claim is true it is false if it is false it is false therefore it is false. Empiricism also has a huge problem dealing with generalizations and cause and effect. If knowledge is only gained by sensory perception then knowledge can only be made up of particulars and no generalizations (induction and probabilities) can be used. This is why you’d be hard pressed to find a pure empiricist today; the epistemology died a couple hundred years ago.

Take care,

SW

---

The great myth of the problem of induction..lol. Someone will alert me when satellites fall from the sky yes?

Only you would be so arrogant as to think you have the answer to a problem that no secular philosopher has been able to resolve in the last 5000 years.