snatchbalance

Kent,

If we can only be human, are not human standards the only valid ones?

sb

TooBad

My problem is that, if "God is rational" is analytic, then all manner of absurdities follow. If God decides that black is white, then black is white. If God decides that two mutually inconsistent statements can both be true, then so be it. I take this to be self-evidently nonsensical.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

'Reason' can be defined as 'non-contradictory identification'. The laws of logic are based on the Law of Identity: Aristotle's recognition that A is A, that something is what it is, and cannot be what it is not. A thing cannot act except in accordance with its nature.

Yet, God is generally described as having a nature in which God is 'all-powerful', 'all-knowing', 'all present', etc.

This means that God's nature is not 'what it is', but can be whatever it needs to be. A 'miracle' is when something happens which--by natural law--cannot happen.

Thus, it is in God's nature to cause things to act against their nature, against natural law--in favour of God's supernatural abilities.

A God thus defined cannot thus be rational; a God defined thus would have to be completely irrational.

Keith.

sir drinks-a-lot

Hmmm...but how does it get there? How does having God as your ultimate presupposition justify using logic in your worldview?

You would be unable to tell for sure whether or not I was perfect, absolute, and invariant using your autonomous reasoning. Once you have made the ultimate presupposition, you could no longer even say that I would need to be perfect, absolute and invariant. Your resoning is less autoritative than my completely correct answers. You would also not be able to say for certain whether I made typing mistakes or not. Your senses may have deceived you, or those could be the correct spellings according to Me.

Something seems fishy about presuppositionalism to me, although I am not sure I understand it. Do you adhere to the same version as Van Til? It seems like the main issue alot of presuppositionalist have with atheism is that they claim atheism offers no absolutes. Is this why you think atheism is irrational?

Kent Symanzik

Hi TooBad,

Absurdities only follow if God is not the God that he is. God is such that the laws of logic exist as we have them. God's character is unchanging so your absurdities only exist in imagination of the impossible.

Kent

TooBad

Unchanging with reference to what?

Kent Symanzik

Hi sir drinks-a-lot,

God is the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. The laws of logic are from the character of God. That is how God thinks.

You bring up a very good point here. If someone was actually consistent in their presupposition then they would have to act as you described.

This is the situation that people are in who have an atheistic worldview. The only difference is that people with atheistic worldviews are not consistent as you described here. They use the laws of logic that are only justified by Christian theism. What you are describing is someone who is totally consistent in adopting you as their presupposition.

But, what happens in reality is that people adopt certain presuppositions but then act in ways that require other presuppositions. That is why I say that when atheists use the laws of logic they are not acting in accordance with their own worldview. But if they do act in accordance with their own worldview they must give up the laws of logic as you have described.

But, then you have to wonder why can't someone just say that sir drinks-alot is their presupposition and get along fine in the world? Because they are living in a world created and maintained by the Christian God. So, anyone can adopt any presupposition but it does not mean that it will work in this world because it does not necessarily conform to reality.

I have not read Van Til directly but I know what I have learned is mainly from Van Til. I think those with atheistic worldviews are irrational because they cannot be consistent with their worldview. If they adhere to the laws of logic then they are stepping out of their own worldview to do so. If they do not adhere to the laws of logic then they are not acting consistently with reality. But, I have not encountered anyone who gave up reality in order to consistent with their worldview.

You bring up some very good points.

Thanks

Kent

Kent Symanzik

What I mean is that God is immutable, not subject or susceptible to change.

Kent

TooBad

But if God's nature is the standard against which change is to be measured, then to say that God's nature is unchanging is to say no more than that God's nature is God's nature. And if God suddenly decided to command us to hate our neighbour, we would have no logical ground for complaining that he is being inconsistent.

Without some independent standard external to God, relative to which God's nature is constant, we can logically have no assurance that God will not suddenly make new and conflicting pronouncements and demands.

Kent Symanzik

Hi TooBad,

You must be misunderstanding the nature of ultimate presuppositions. God is the Christian's ultimate authority. It does not make sense for a Christian to look to another authority to validate his ultimate authority.

We know that God does not change because he tells us so. To insist on validating your ultimate authority is not rational.

Kent