It is a question that has been asked for centuries. Yet God never bothered to answer this question in His word. Obviously because He felt that His existence was kind of a given! I mean, how else did it get here? Duh!Whether we look at archeology, astronomy, fossils, or even systems and information, we see the hand of God. I believe that is why God said people would be without excuse for not believing in Him.
Our ministry offers a book called, The Big Argument: Does God Exist? and I have to say that whether you're a theist, agnostic, or a supposed atheist, this book is a great read!
I have also been reading the work of Dr. Greg Bahnsen and was alerted by an atheist twitter about a website called proof that God exists. www.proofthatgodexists.org When you get right down to it, he hits the nail on the head. You can prove the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary. I enjoyed his notes to those who do not believe in laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality. It is a simple site that guides a thinking person to TRUTH using simple logic and reason. Let me know what you think of the site after you go through it. Here is one of his responses to someone who does not believe in the laws of mathematics:
Laws of Mathematics Do Not Exist?
If you believe that laws of mathematics do not exist, what would you do in the following scenario? Let's say that you walked into a bank and asked for change for a $100 bill. If the teller handed you only 2 $5 bills would you be satisfied with his or her personal interpretation of mathematics or would you appeal to a universal law of mathematics to show that he/she was wrong? I suspect the latter.
You see, you deny that laws of mathematics exist, yet you use them all the time. Unless you reconsider your position on this matter, your road to this site's proof that God exists ends here. It is my prayer that you come to understand how irrational and inconsistent this way of thinking is and return to seek the truth.
Hope you enjoy his site. Let me know what you think!
Eric
15 comments:
My friend, you cannot say "impossibility of the contrary" until
a) We've established there are only 2 possibilities
b) we've actually established the 2 are completely contradictory
c) we agree that the "contrary" view you hold is actually wrong, not just incomplete or insufficient and unsatisfying
in addition, this helps
d) it's better to have actual positive proof rather than negative proof (lack of proof).
Using mathematics is a convention to simplify business transactions, if belief in God simplified lives, it'd serve a good use too. But just because mathematics is useful does not mean it's absolute, just because people use mathematics doesn't mean they believe in other things outside of mathematics.
Glad you've come across the works of Greg Bahnsen. He's been a hero of mine ever since I first heard "The Great Debate" 5 or so years ago. His "Debate that Never Was" was also very good. His debater, Michael Martin, didn't show up, so he lectured and provided a devastating critique of naturalistic, rigorously empirical philosophies. In addition to being an incredible philosopher he was also a great theologian, with lectures and sermons on a wide variety of subjects.
I agree with Kyle that the "impossibility of the contrary" statement sometimes seemed a bit premature, but with more time, Bahnsen would typically go further to making the case that the two options are Biblical Christianity and all other non-Christian worldviews, none of which can account for life as we know it.
If Kyle would listen to the debate or read it, he'd see that it's made quite clear that the laws of mathematics, morality, and logic (special attention is given to the last two in the debate) simply cannot be seen as mere convention. The are unchangeable and the are universal, yet they are not physical and cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic philosophy. The argument, far from lacking proof, is that you cannot prove anything without God (for instance, how would you prove something without the laws of logic?).
Grant S.
I love presup. apologetics. Great job.
Hello Eric!
Thanks for posting the link to my site, it showed up on my site tracker. I have really enjoyed your father's work and quote him often. I would love to meet him one day and had thought about a trip to visit him in SC. If that is at all possible, please let me know sye@proofthatgodexists.org
I see that Mark Spence has posted here too. Great to 'see' you again Mark, and I'm glad that you still love the presup! :-)
There are a number of points which show presuppositionalism is a rather silly argument.
1) Presuppositionalism is a viciously circular argument. Viciously circular arguments are logical fallacies so how can logic come from God and yet the logic used by presuppositionalism to show this is a logical fallacy?
In other words if logic comes from God then presuppositionalism is wrong since it doesn't use this revealed logic.
2) Logic & Mathematics has been altered many, many times since they were first formulated. Why did it need to be altered if it is from God and absolutely true? Well the actual reason is that logic and math is neither from God not is it abolutely true. Both are only objectively true.
In other words both math & logic are objectively true [true for this time & this place] until proven otherwise.
3) Math & logic are systemic truths. That is they require a mind to formulate & use them. What does this have to do with anything? Quite simple. Give an example of an absolute truth which is not systemic. i.e. does not require a mind to formulate & use it. Nither Bahnsen nor any other presuppositionalist ever even tries to answer such a question. They just give the questioner the run around.
Conclusion: Presuppositionalism is a method to provide support for the presuppositionalist's ego & nothing else. It was formulated, not to convert unbelievers, but to make the users feel superior.
I should mention also that one of the "proofs" for presuppositionalism is the rule of non-contradiction.
This is often claimed as an example of absolute truth. The only trouble is...it isn't absolutely true.
What is absolute truth? If something is absolutely true then it is true at all times & in all places.
Now the rule of non-contradiction states that all statements are either true or false.
How about this next statement then? "This statement is a lie"
If that sentence is true then it is false. But if it is false then it is true. So the statement is neither true nor false. The rule of non-contradiction is an objective but not absolute truth. i.e. it is not true in all times & in all places.
Hello Chris,
Allow me to address your ‘points.’
You said: ”1) Presuppositionalism is a viciously circular argument.”.
I disagree, but before I get into particulars, could you tell us why viciously circular are absolutely fallacious according to your worldview? You see, it hardly makes sense to borrow the absolute standard of logic from my worldview, to attack my worldview.
” Logic & Mathematics has been altered many, many times since they were first formulated.”.
No, our understanding of logic and mathematics may have changed, not logic and mathematics themselves. Surely you would not say that gravity had changed because we discovered a new variable in calculating its affect? Still, if you maintain that logic has changed, please provide an example.
”3) Math & logic are systemic truths.”.
Is it absolutely true that logic and math are “systemic truths?” This is not a run-around, this is exposing the fallacy of your ‘point.’
”Conclusion: Presuppositionalism is a method to provide support for the presuppositionalist's ego & nothing else. It was formulated, not to convert unbelievers, but to make the users feel superior”.
No true apologetic is formulated to convert unbelievers, that is the work of the Holy Spirit.
”I should mention also that one of the "proofs" for presuppositionalism is the rule of non-contradiction.
This is often claimed as an example of absolute truth. The only trouble is...it isn't absolutely true.”.
Even though your example does not apply, as it is an example of a paradox, not a contradiction, ANY absolutes prove the existence of God. If you claim that it is absolutely true that the rule of contradiction is not absolutely true, then you appeal to an absolute standard which cannot be accounted for apart from God, and once again, refutes your position.
Hello Sye
Let's start with point #1
You said: ”1) Presuppositionalism is a viciously circular argument.”.
I disagree, {you disagree with Bahnsen & van Till? They both admitted that the argument is circular. But what would they know? They just invented presupp.]
Then you continued "but before I get into particulars, could you tell us why viciously circular are absolutely fallacious according to your worldview?"
I'll do better than that sye I'll demonstrate how illogical circular arguments are. I assert that you have had a blow to the head which has caused brain damage & therefore you cannot think rationally. Prove to me that you can think rationally.
Of course every argument you make I'll merely assert "But sye that presupposes that you can think rationally. Try again." :-)
The argument MUST be ok since all I am doing is copying the presupp argument.
My next point was ” Logic & Mathematics has been altered many, many times since they were first formulated.”.
You answered "No, our understanding of logic and mathematics may have changed, not logic and mathematics themselves."
Incorrect sye. Logical systems & numbers are not floating in space waiting for us to discover them. As various systems of logic [such as aristotelian, cartesian, etc] were observed to have limitations new systems were formulated. If such systems were absolute no new formulations would be needed or would even be possible since no limitations would ever have been observed.
You continued "Surely you would not say that gravity had changed because we discovered a new variable in calculating its affect? "
That depends sye on whether you are talking about the brute fact of gravity or the theory of gravity which seeks to model gravity & its effects. Gravity itself is a brute fact. The theory of gravity is a systemic truth which seeks to model this brute fact. See the difference?
Think of it in these terms. I paint a picture of a mountain. Did I discover my painting? No! I sought to represent what I saw when I looked at the mountain. [Just like logic & math seek to model reality]. Without a mind the painting would not exist. [just like without a mind logic & math would not exist]. But the brute fact of the mountain would continue to exist whether I am here or not. [just like without a mind reality would continue to exist]. Really a little kid could understand the difference.
Part 2
”3) Math & logic are systemic truths.”.
You then added "Is it absolutely true that logic and math are “systemic truths?” This is not a run-around, this is exposing the fallacy of your ‘point.’"
Sye, Sye, Sye. As I've already pointed out there is relative truth, objective truth & absolute truth. I can declare that something is objectively true & not be engaged in logical contradiction.
You seem to be suffering from the misconception that there is only relative & absolute truth. Why is that Sye since many people have explained this to you over & over & over again?
”Conclusion: Presuppositionalism is a method to provide support for the presuppositionalist's ego & nothing else. It was formulated, not to convert unbelievers, but to make the users feel superior”.
You replied "No true apologetic is formulated to convert unbelievers, that is the work of the Holy Spirit."
So you admit that presupp exists merely for ego gratification. Well done Sye!
In my last point I wrote ”I should mention also that one of the "proofs" for presuppositionalism is the rule of non-contradiction.
This is often claimed as an example of absolute truth. The only trouble is...it isn't absolutely true.”.
You replied Even though your example does not apply, as it is an example of a paradox, not a contradiction,..." I love it when people make up definitions. :-)
Definition: Paradox- A self contradictory statement. [The Age encyclopedic dictionary]. Back to school for you young man.
You go on further to add "ANY absolutes prove the existence of God. If you claim that it is absolutely true that the rule of contradiction is not absolutely true, then you appeal to an absolute standard which cannot be accounted for apart from God, and once again, refutes your position."
Oh Sye, Sye, Sye. I've already shown that there are three type of truths. There are relative truths, objective truths & absolute truths. I can assert that it is OBJECTIVELY true that the rule of contradiction is not absolutely true & not be engaged in logical contradiction. It has limits so it cannot be absolutely true as I've already pointed out.
In my experience many presupps have a real problem with admitting that they are wrong so I'll tell you what we'll do. Anytime that you avoid things like objective truth, refuse to answer questions like you ability to think rationally, etc we'll take that as code that you're admitting that you're wrong but are having trouble admitting it. We'll keep it just between us. Ok?
Oh it’s THAT Chris. This should be fun! :-)
You said: ”Presuppositionalism is a viciously circular argument”.
I responded: “I disagree”
You then said: ”you disagree with Bahnsen & van Till? They both admitted that the argument is circular. But what would they know? They just invented presupp”.
Problem is Chris, you said “VICIOUSLY circular” and neither Bahnsen or Van Til claim that. Allow me to quote Dr. Bahnsen: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
You see Chris, it is the ATHEIST who is engaging in viscious circularity when they claim things such as “I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid.”
Then I asked: “Could you tell us why viciously circular are absolutely fallacious according to your worldview?"
You answered: ”I'll do better than that sye I'll demonstrate how illogical circular arguments are. I assert that you have had a blow to the head which has caused brain damage & therefore you cannot think rationally. Prove to me that you can think rationally.”
Well Chris, your very challenge presupposes that I can think rationally, or you would be a fool for levelling it, but THAT does not tell us why viciously circular arguments are fallacious according to your worldview, why they are illogical, or, for that matter, why we should not be illogical.
You said: ” Logic & Mathematics has been altered many, many times since they were first formulated”.
I answered "No, our understanding of logic and mathematics may have changed, not logic and mathematics themselves... …Still, if you maintain that logic has changed, please provide an example."
You only mentioned logial systems, but not logic itself. Please provide an example of a law of logic which has changed (not merely our understanding of it).
I said: "Surely you would not say that gravity had changed because we discovered a new variable in calculating its affect? "
You answered: ”That depends sye on whether you are talking about the brute fact of gravity or the theory of gravity which seeks to model gravity & its effects. Gravity itself is a brute fact. The theory of gravity is a systemic truth which seeks to model this brute fact”.
How do you know that gravity is a brute fact? How do you know that gravity will not change 5 seconds from now? How do you know that your perceptions and understanding about gravity are valid, and how do you account for the ‘brute facts” of gravity, or of logic - such as the law of non-contradiction? (Or are you suggesting that the law of non-contradiciton is not a brute fact?!?)
cont'd
I asked: "Is it absolutely true that logic and math are “systemic truths?” This is not a run-around, this is exposing the fallacy of your ‘point.’"
You answered: ”Sye, Sye, Sye. As I've already pointed out there is relative truth, objective truth & absolute truth. I can declare that something is objectively true & not be engaged in logical contradiction”.
Have it your way: Is it objectively true that logic and math are “systemic truths?” If so, how do you know this?
You said: ”You seem to be suffering from the misconception that there is only relative & absolute truth. Why is that Sye since many people have explained this to you over & over & over again?”
How about you define the difference between objective, and absolute truth, and let the readers determine for themselves if you have a point.
You said: ”Conclusion: Presuppositionalism is a method to provide support for the presuppositionalist's ego & nothing else. It was formulated, not to convert unbelievers, but to make the users feel superior”.
I answered: "No true apologetic is formulated to convert unbelievers, that is the work of the Holy Spirit."
You replied: ”So you admit that presupp exists merely for ego gratification. Well done Sye!”
More of your ‘brilliant’ logic I see :-) Because presuppositionalism is not formulated to convert people, it must exist merely for ego gratification??? How does that follow?
You wrote: ”In my last point I wrote ”I should mention also that one of the "proofs" for presuppositionalism is the rule of non-contradiction.
This is often claimed as an example of absolute truth. The only trouble is...it isn't absolutely true”.
I replied: “Even though your example does not apply, as it is an example of a paradox, not a contradiction,..."
You said: ”I love it when people make up definitions. :-)
Definition: Paradox- A self contradictory statement. [The Age encyclopedic dictionary]. Back to school for you young man.”
I didn’t make it up: ”A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact.”Websters Dictionary 1913
Your statement was: “This statement is a lie.” THAT does not qualify as a contradiction in the definition of paradox, because it does not contain contradictory elements nor does it violate the law of non contradiction which states that a proposition cannot both be true and false at the same time and in the same way. You yourself said:”So the statement is neither true nor false.” NOT both true and false at the same time and in the same way, so your objection is moot.
I said: "ANY absolutes prove the existence of God. If you claim that it is absolutely true that the rule of contradiction is not absolutely true, then you appeal to an absolute standard which cannot be accounted for apart from God, and once again, refutes your position."
You answered: ”Oh Sye, Sye, Sye. I've already shown that there are three type of truths. There are relative truths, objective truths & absolute truths. I can assert that it is OBJECTIVELY true that the rule of contradiction is not absolutely true & not be engaged in logical contradiction. It has limits so it cannot be absolutely true as I've already pointed out”.
So, you are claiming that ‘objective truths’ have limits? Okay, so it is not absolutely true that the rule of contradiction is not absolutely true, and again you are refuted.
(I knew this would be fun :-)
Cheers,
Sye
I don't normally jump onto old blog posts, but this title had me rolling with laughter. Yes, presupposing that God exists will lead you to the answer that God exists. Presupposing that fairies exist will lead you to the answer that fairies exist.
Dennis said: ”Yes, presupposing that God exists will lead you to the answer that God exists.”
And um, presupposing that God does not exist will lead you to the answer that God does not exist. What’s your point?
If i presume fairies make the rain fall, every time it rains, I get proof of fairies!
Flute said: "If i presume fairies make the rain fall, every time it rains, I get proof of fairies!"
Um no, since the existence of fairies is not the necessary precondition for the falling of rain, all you get is fodder for your delusion.
Post a Comment