Atheist presuppositions

[Objectivitees]

We...along with Augustine..."Believe in order to know..."

Sweet.

JMS...

So I still don't see how the statement I gave, or any statement that isn't a tautology, can authenticate itself...

Well, if I understand you...I'm not claiming either "statement" ('Christianity' or 'Logic') from my 'arguemnt', validate themselves. I am claiming they 'affirm', or compliment, each other. The argument is not a tautology, because Christianity is not a re-statement of Logic, and Logic is not a re-statement of Christianity. They (to use your word) 'authenticate' each other.

Did that help?

[jms]

Objectivitees, still not sure on that one. However, Shotgun, I just read Manion's paper. FANTASTIC! My atheist critic and I had already covered the first half on our own, and he agreed that ethics doesn't exist for the atheist. However, I had not considered in much depth the subject of the second half. I need to spend some time thinking about it, and I'll get back to you.

FYI, there are apparently two versions of it. The version you posted is the shorter of the two, and at the following page you can find the longer:

http://presupposetheism.blogspot.com/20 ... -i_29.html

This version picks up where the one you posted lets off and makes one more excellent step in the argument. Thank you again for hooking me up with that paper!

P.S. Keith, you should definitely read this paper, if you haven't already. I'm most interested to know what you think of it.

[shotgun]

Wow...looks like someone added on to the paper...thanks for the link.

I've been trying to track down Manion for awhile with no luck...I still have no idea who he is, or when this new bit was added to the paper. The audio reading stops at the "metaphysical wild card" part. Interesting.

[Keith C]

Fallacious circular reasoning happens when the "conclusion" of an argument (syllogism, modus tollens) is essentially a re-statement of one or more of the premises.
An argument that is made, where premise and conclusion affirm each other, (but do not prove or disprove or 're-state') is a reasoning wherein one idea gives support to the other and vice versa, is 'circular', but not fallacious.

What we are saying here, is that Christianity gives us reason to expect logic exists, is valid means for testing, and we 'should' use it, (these ideas are actually expressed by scripture, as well as informal restatements of the laws of logic themselves)and logic which is assumed as a precondition of intelligibility turns right around and allows us to examine the internal consistency of the idea of Christianity, giving us "reason" to believe our "reasons", when we find the logical consistency of the worldview.

Your argument in the last paragraph I quote above seems to be:-
1. The idea of Christianity is internally consistent.
2. Christianity gives us reason to expect logic exists, but not complete proof of this.

How does a logically consistent system based upon an axiom which may or may not be true give any certainty about the real world?
I presume you are trying to argue that since logic is used to show the internal consistency of Christianity, then logic must be correct.
As an alternative, assume that Christianity can be proven false by some (divine?) system of logic. However, using the false human logic, Christianity appears to be internally consistent. Does this prove that human logic is true?

[Objectivitees]

I presume you are trying to argue that since logic is used to show the internal consistency of Christianity, then logic must be correct.

Sigh.... No, once again you have completely twisted the order, meaning and intent of my post by adding your own definitions and interpretations from your worldview to arrive at a completely irrelevant thesis. I'm not going to bother to explain how you missed the point, because that would just give you more of my words to interpret and go even further off the course I am trying to help you set. Did you at least read manion's paper yet?

And just when I almost saw a small bit of light leaking into your view of my view. Sigh.

[shotgun]

In all fairness to Keith though...

Due to its "nature", naturalists have difficulty thinking outside of their worldview. They've been born and raised in it for so long that it's hard for them to question certain beliefs. It's almost impossible to get them to realize that they hold certain beliefs let alone self-consciously reflect on them. (Conviction is a job for the Holy Spirit!)

Keith made an illustration earlier that reflects this: He can't know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow because of the possibility that an asteroid may knock the Earth out of orbit. It's true that inductive inferences will never be "valid" only "strong". The interesting thing about Keith's admission however, is that he doesn't apply this to nature itself. There are a whole host of things that could happen within nature that would cause the sun not to come up tomorrow. The sun could mysteriously implode. The Earth could implode...etc. However, what Keith doesn't admit, is that nature itself could lose its uniformity. Suppose the sun turns into a giant hippo? Suppose the nature of light changes, and instead of shining, it spreads darkness?!? Such suppositions about nature itself are unthinkable to Keith since he's committed to a consistent and uniform nature...a nature that always has the same "nature" (if you will.) (By way of example: Bill will always be Bill, even though Bill has the ability to do lots of things. We may not be able to predict what Bill may do, but we know Bill will always be Bill. He won't spontaneously turn into Bob! But why suppose this without first assuming the uniform nature of Bill? Who says that it is impossible for Bill to turn into Bob two seconds from now? No one! It's an arbitrary belief on our part and no allusion to past experience will solve the puzzle for us! It may be that Bill has always been Bill, but who's to say that he will always be Bill?)

Even though I was raised as a Christian...I wasn't raised explicitly as a Christian. In fact, I was an implicit humanist. Average Americans that grew up in the culture of the past 100 years are most likely going to be implicit humanists (even if they profess Christ.) It's wonderful to know that we have a Savior willing to admit people into the covenant of grace, despite having foundational beliefs that dishonor Him.

It is impossible for the Christian God not to exist. Without appealing to a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, triune, and immanent God, who has revealed Himself to His creation...it is impossible to make sense out of the world. All attempts at secular philosophy fail...as many of the most brilliant non-Christian philosophers have implied. (Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus.)

ALL (I repeat) ALL...of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are bound up with this mysterious and controversial figure: Jesus Christ.

Fear Him.

[Keith C]

It's true that inductive inferences will never be "valid" only "strong". The interesting thing about Keith's admission however, is that he doesn't apply this to nature itself. There are a whole host of things that could happen within nature that would cause the sun not to come up tomorrow. The sun could mysteriously implode. The Earth could implode...etc. However, what Keith doesn't admit, is that nature itself could lose its uniformity.
................. Such suppositions about nature itself are unthinkable to Keith since he's committed to a consistent and uniform nature...a nature that always has the same "nature"

I used to enjoy science fiction and I can certainly imagine all number of improbable occurrences. But that is exactly the point. The earth could mysteriously implode but I consider the probability of that happening is substantially lower than the asteroid collision I mentioned.

It is impossible for the Christian God not to exist. Without appealing to a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, triune, and immanent God, who has revealed Himself to His creation...it is impossible to make sense out of the world. All attempts at secular philosophy fail...as many of the most brilliant non-Christian philosophers have implied. (Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus.)

If your statement is correct ( and I am not admitting that), then one possible conclusion is that god does not exist and the universe does not make sense. Perhaps the order and sense which science is revealing is just illusion because of our faulty perception and faulty logic.

Why is it your worldview which is correct and not mine?

For O.
I read the longer version of Manion, but did not think it particularly useful. Which particular part do you think is relevant?

[shotgun]

Will the sun turn into a Hippo in the next 5 minutes?

And, by the way...

If you admit that the only way my position is false, is if reality is illogical, irrational, and absurd...then I'm fine with that. Just don't expect me to believe your statements about history, or the nature of reality...

[Keith C]

If you admit that the only way my position is false, is if reality is illogical, irrational, and absurd...then I'm fine with that. Just don't expect me to believe your statements about history, or the nature of reality...

You stated your position as:-

It is impossible for the Christian God not to exist. Without appealing to a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, triune, and immanent God, who has revealed Himself to His creation...it is impossible to make sense out of the world.

I was probably not clear, but even if your statement is CORRECT, then it is possible that both statements, god does not exist and the universe really does not make sense are true.
In that case, I would claim that science shows only a limited amount of 'sense' in the material universe. Cause and effect works well in normal experience, but in relativity it is less certain which comes first and in quantum physics it is not clear at all to me why observation of one entangled particle produces the observed experimental result.

[Objectivitees]

Due to its "nature", naturalists have difficulty thinking outside of their worldview. They've been born and raised in it for so long that it's hard for them to question certain beliefs. It's almost impossible to get them to realize that they hold certain beliefs let alone self-consciously reflect on them.

Yeah SG, Keith is not the first Atheist I have had difficulty with in respect to this 'inability'. I tend to get frustrated too, as it begins to appear to be intentional at times. Thank you for the reminder it is not (always) intentional on the non-believers part. Perhaps I owe Keith an apology for the times I have been 'snippy'. Sorry Kieth.

However, what Keith doesn't admit, is that nature itself could lose its uniformity.

Ayup. This is another direction the 'argument' I made could be presented from. I have not touched on it because I was trying to keep things as simple as I could. Guess I failed at times. Nevertheless, glad you bring the point up. Uniformity of nature is another assumption the Atheist makes that is unsupportable from the Atheist worldview, just as Logic is. A third way to approach this, (deliver my argument) would be from the standpoint of absolute Morality. Morality, is the method Ravi Zacharias uses very often, I think because, Morality is a touchstone even Atheists can relate to by personal experience, where Logic and Uniformity of Nature require a person to think a bit about philosophy.

Anyway, this has all been great fun, no? Let the challenge continue....!

Keith...

Which particular part do you think is relevant?

The part where the inconsistent naturalist is convinced by the consistent naturalist knowledge is impossible within a natural worldview. "My" argument points out the same thing in a different way. You (Atheism) have no way to claim the knowledge you derive from Logic is rational, by the precepts of the very Logic you use.

[Keith C]

The part where the inconsistent naturalist is convinced by the consistent naturalist knowledge is impossible within a natural worldview. "My" argument points out the same thing in a different way. You (Atheism) have no way to claim the knowledge you derive from Logic is rational, by the precepts of the very Logic you use.

You need to be a bit more explicit about which part so that I know we are talking of the same section.

[Objectivitees]

The part where the inconsistent naturalist is convinced by the consistent naturalist knowledge is impossible within a natural worldview. "My" argument points out the same thing in a different way. You (Atheism) have no way to claim the knowledge you derive from Logic is rational, by the precepts of the very Logic you use.

You need to be a bit more explicit about which part so that I know we are talking of the same section.

I can't possibly be more explicit than to point to the point of the whole article, which was, no genuine (rational) knowledge can be claimed without a metaphysic reality.