Synaesthesia

Kent,
You reassert that God is a sufficient condition for logic (ie. That the laws follow from God) but you have yet to actually answer the question that was posed: How is it possible to justify your contention that God is the only possible source of logic?

Should we take your word for it?

Logical thought is a rule governed process. Provided certain classes of orderly behavior (and you have given no justification for thinking that orderly behavior can come only from an omnipotent person) we have the possibility of both rules and intelligent beings - without having a higher intelligence to guide them.

I don't think presuppositions, such as "believing source X because God did it, believing God did it because source X said so..." are really all that rational.

It's not simply the fact that you have an ultimate authority that I am talking about here. (although I am increasingly convinced that such a notion is highly problematic.) I am talking about how you determine what God's nature, properties and existence.

My basic problem with your epistemic idea of God is this: one presupposition about God, or anything else is as good as another.

"Ah, but mine is consistent and can explain X, Y, and Z."

Putting aside the question of whether God can explain anything at all, I should point out that it really doesn't matter whether a presupposition is consistent or not or whether it has a functional role in theories. These things require a meta-evaluative system which defeats the whole purpose of

So if you presuppose God, you cannot hold that he is more rational than any other presupposition. If you do no presuppose God, you can establish truth-preference, but open yourself to other epsitemic vulnerabilities.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Kent Symanzik

Hi Synaesthesia,

Hmm, this is a good question. I can definite argue that God is the foundation of logic and that all other worldviews that I know of cannot be the foundation for logic. But, I'm not sure that I can prove the impossibility of another source of logic. Some Christian apologist's do make that claim. Van Til said, "The only 'proof' of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of 'proving' anything at all". In other words, he said, "Antitheism presupposes theism".

I believe these statements are true but at this time I'm not sure how to prove the impossibility of another foundation.

Again, you are talking about possibilities. So, see above.

I may be missing your point. All I was saying here is that my ultimate authority is ultimate. Ultimate authorities are not measured by other authorities. If they were, they would not be ultimate.

Maybe you are forgetting that Christian theism is based on revelation. God has specifically revealed himself in scripture. We are not guessing what he is like, he has told us so.

How can you hold that other presuppositions are rational if they do not provide a foundation for logic?

Kent

Synaesthesia

Kent,
It's quite simple actually, one would do exactly what you are doing: presuppose that it provides a foundation for logic!

So you admit that you cannot say why no other system can integrate logic, you simply presuppose it. hmm.

I am talking about the minimal conditions for logic. They do not include God, only organization. The latter is perfectly capable of developing blindly.

Yes but you presuppose that "God exists and has propeties such as having written the bible in which he tells us about himself." Hence, the authority of the bible is no better than your own assumptions.

If you are omnipotent, you presuppositions are sound. If you are like most humans, your dogma, even if correct, is epistemically very thin.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Kent Symanzik

Hi Synaesthesia,

I presuppose the Christian God of the scriptures and he as described in the scriptures provide a foundation for logic. You cannot just presuppose a foundation for logic. I am not just saying that God provides the preconditions for logic I am stating how he does. Logic is part of his own character which is universal and invariant.

I only admitted that I do not know that I can prove the universal negative that no other worldview can provide the preconditions necessary for logic. I can say that at this time I only know of one worldview that does provide the preconditions necessary for logic, that is Christian theism.

You have not shown this or I missed it. Can you elaborate? Please explain how an atheistic worldview provides the preconditions necessary for logic.

The authority of the bible does not rest on human belief. Your choice to not believe has no bearing on its authority.

We all must presuppose something in order to start our reasoning. Can you please explain why presupposing the Christian God is not rational?

Whatever it is that you presuppose, if it does not account for logic it is not rational. My presupposition does account for logic and I know no other presupposition that does. So, what is more rational, a presupposition that gives you a foundation for rationality or a presupposition that does not?

You seem to be saying here that I must be omniscient before I can make a presupposition. I don't understand your reason for this. Can you elaborate?

What I do know is that if I do not presuppose the Christian God then I cannot rationally know anything.

Maybe you can explain why you think other presuppositions are more sound than mine.

As usual, thanks for the good discussion.

Kent

sir drinks-a-lot

Hello Kent,

It seems to me that you are treating the proposition "A worldview must be rational and consistent" as a more ultimate proposition than god, and then using those criteria to evaluate worldviews and come to the conclusion that the christian worldiew is the only consistent worldview!

Also, when you say that atheism is inconsistent, don't you mean incomplete? Couldn't an atheist just say that they agree with the laws of logic but have no idea why they work?

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi sir drinks-a-lot,

I understand how it would seem that way. I talk about logic alot because I know that atheists hold rationality in high regard. But, my rationality rests on the foundation of the universal and invariant Christian God.

It is true that I am using rationality as a test for worldviews and I have found that the Christian worldview is the only one that can pass it.

The problem I have with just saying it is incomplete is that it implies that much of the worldview can remain in tact once we find the missing pieces. But, I believe that atheistic worldviews are wrong at the core. In other words, it is the ultimate presupposition that is wrong and the whole worldview will have to thrown out if one wants to account for his own rationality.

I suppose that atheists could believe that their worldview is simply incomplete and that rationality will somehow be explained in atheistic terms someday. But, this is simply blind faith that I believe is itself irrational.

Kent

NialScorva

This thread has gone on quite a while, and while it walked the line of philosophy vs EoG for a while, it's definately in the EoG column now.

sir drinks-a-lot

Greetings Kent:

How is this not circular? In the second sentence it sounds as if the Christian worldview is a conclusion, not a presupposition. In this case, you will have reached the conclusion using autonomous reasoning. In other words, if Christianity is the result of your process of rationally testing worldviews you cannot have held the Christian worldview while doing the rational testing!

Do you have any justification for these beliefs? What if you are mistaken?

Atheists do not necessarily believe that rationality will somehow be explained in atheistic terms some day. I see no reason to make that assertion.

Does a computer behave rationally? How about pet dog?

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Mark_Chid

Do you often contradict yourself like this? it makes your arguments really really unconvincing, you know!

Mark_Chid

Whoops, I'm an idiot, I misread it!

He died, but he isn't dead - what's the big deal about the sacrifice when it wasn't permanent? I guess thats our (unanswered) question.