ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Clete]

Soulman,

You're not really giving me much to work this here. You've already conceded that your worldview is incoherent and that mine is not. What more do you want? It is not possible to prove a universal negative, which you also seem to understand and yet you insist that I do just that before you would accept my argument. It makes no sense!

You are, in effect, rejecting Christianity hoping that there will someday come along a viable alternative which will allow you to reasonably avoid submitting to a God whom who clearly do not like. My question is why? I mean I really don't get it. What is so bad about the God of Christianity that makes you fight so hard against accepting that He even exists, and hope against hope that you'll someday come across something that you'll be able to use as a reasonable excuse for having not obeyed Him? Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to just admit that you would rather follow a God whom you don't necessarily understand but who is real rather than live you life based on something you know cannot be true?

As far as your specific question is concerned...

Would I be begging the question to ask how it follows that the invisible hand of logic must by necessity be metaphysical?

You can't beg the question by asking a question. Begging the question is any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Here's a good example, which deals with the issue of logic...
Take the statement, "All truth claims must be verified by logic and reason." This statement is a common position among those with a naturalistic worldview. And it is also basically what you are asking me to do now. You have asked me to prove logically that Christianity must be presupposed and the proof of which is that the contrary is impossible. If you insist that all truth claims must be verified by logic and reason then I would ask you how you verify that truth claim? If you say that you verify it with logic and reason then you beg the question, and if you say that you verify it another way then you contradict the statement itself. So either way you go your stuck in a hopeless mess of logical incoherence.
Every worldview out there ends up with the same sort of problems to one degree or another, every single one that is except for Christianity which presupposes the existence of a Creator who is logical, reasonable, intelligent, able to communicate, etc, etc.

Now you could arbitrarily go out there and formulate a worldview which presupposes these same things and call it something other than Christianity but what good would that do? You are still borrowing from the Christian worldview whether intentionally or otherwise. The bottom line is that Christianity is the only one out there that has all the pieces in place which allows for a worldview completely free from logical incoherence.

There's lots more that could be said but that's enough for now. Thanks for continuing with the conversation, by the way. I'll look forward to your response.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Soulman,

I was just going over some other material that I have on this issue and came across something that Bob Enyart wrote during Battle Royale VII. It happens to be germain to our discussion and so I will post it here for your consideration. It makes the same point I just made in my last post but goes into a lot more detail and just basically does a much better job of it that I did. (The link above will take you to the post that the excerpt below is from.)

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Transcendental Proof for God

As soon as the atheist says he wants to resolve this Battle Royale in a rational way, he has lost. Here’s why:

God exists because of the impossibility of the alternative. Unbelievers require theists to provide evidence for God which is not circular, which does not beg the question, that is, they insist that we do not assume that which we should try to prove. They claim that faith puts theists at a disadvantage, because we trust in God. Contrariwise, they claim that they reject faith, and constrain themselves to the laws of logic and reason. Atheists claim that only evidence based upon logic and reason is valid. But how do atheists validate that claim? They cannot. For [BA10-9] if atheists attempt to justify “logic and reason” by logic and reason, then they have based their entire godless worldview on circular reasoning; and we find that rational atheism is an impossibility. And if they cannot defend the foundation of their worldview by logic or reason, they leave themselves only with the illogical and irrational, which accounts for arguments actually offered by atheists. To justify logic apart from circular reasoning, you must seek the foundation of logic outside of logic itself. Thus we learn that, apart from belief in God, nothing can be truly knowable. If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning. Therefore on the one hand, if the atheist claims to know anything at all, he unwittingly has shown that atheism (the alternative to God) is an impossibility, because apart from God, nothing is knowable, as demonstrated in this paragraph.

On the other hand, as a last ditch attempt to consistently defend atheism, the atheist may claim to be a no-nothing, that is, to know nothing at all, because by atheism, actual knowledge is impossible. Popular atheism is moving in this general direction. When this happens, we theists point out that the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. As I have said, every observation provides direct evidence for God while atheism struggles to account for anything whatsoever. The honest thinker who wants to work out a systematic atheistic worldview will find that without God, the only things that are possible are nothing and ignorance (the lack of knowledge). Apart from God, nothing can be known or justified, not microevolution nor heliocentricity, not a wit of logic nor even a half-wit. No certainty can exist without Him who is the foundation of truth, and those who love truth, love Him. (Dr. Greg Bahnsen successfully used the transcendental proof for God while debating a leading atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, at the University of California at Irvine.)

A fundamental difference between God and logic is that logic is a system of thought that attempts to rationally justify ideas, and as an idea itself, logic must somehow be justifiable, or found to be illogical. God is not a system of thought that needs to be justified. He is an actual being. And while the existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory as just demonstrated in BA10-9, there exists no contradiction in the existence of the rational God whose very mind and thoughts provide the foundation for logic itself. And while we cannot see God, as we cannot see hope or love, the Bible defines “faith” as accepting “the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

In giving my first eight lines of evidence (except for the epistemological part of [BA10-7]) I assume that atheists often use logic and reason (imitating Christians) even though they cannot logically defend doing so in their own godless worldview. But without a foundation for logic, I also realize that their intellectual discipline allows them to treat all evidence illogically, since they have no ultimate commitment to reason, not even to logic itself, and certainly not to truth or morality. So, in an atheist’s attempt to win a debate, there is nothing inherently inconsistent or wrong with lying, cheating, or quitting in an attempt to spoil the endeavor (which I will not let Zakath do); for there is no ultimate reason for honesty, no absolute commitment to truth, and no foundation for an unwavering determination to be logical. Word games, contradictions, unresponsiveness, slight of hand, obfuscation, misstatements, and ignoring arguments all can be used as consistent with atheism in order to attempt to win the debate, and in actual practice, such deception is the strength of the atheist’s ability to persuade.

Yet surely, God either exists or does not exist. (Ahh, see, there I go again! I said “surely!” I’ve used logic here, which a theist can use with certainty, whereas the atheist cannot absolutely defend even such simple logic.) The atheist worldview is dysfunctional, and they can only operate by borrowing the certainty that is possible with God. By the way, that is an insight we can find in Christ’s statement that, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), by which He was not claiming that square circles could be drawn, nor defending any irrationality, but that all things knowable or doable, especially evident in the matter of salvation itself, are only possible because of God. In contrast to atheism, my theistic worldview is functional, because I recognize that logic and reason do exist, that they are absolutes, and that they are possible because they flow from the mind of God. Logic exists and can only exist as a consequence of the rational thoughts in the mind of God. God is non-contradictory, truthful, logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable, and there is no other epistemological basis upon which we can absolutely defend truth, logic, reason, and knowledge.

Popular atheism has come to accept that it rejects absolute morality. As mankind corporately continues to think through these matters, given enough time, popular atheism will also come to accept that atheism also rejects absolute truth, logic, reason, math, and science. Again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. We find examples of this in the early rounds of this debate and in the life of Bertrand Russell. Zakath readily talks about morality, and admits that he does not believe in absolute morality (although he recoils from the ramifications), whereas he is more hesitant to talk about truth, and posts 2a to 4b show that his intuition tells him that an atheist should resist defending even the existence of truth. While Zakath consciously acknowledges that atheism disallows absolute morality, only subconsciously does he fear that atheism also disallows truth, logic, and reason. So like most atheists, Zakath has yet to embrace the intellectual, though amoral, ramifications of atheism. Apart from a righteous God, as Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason rightly observed, no such thing as absolute morality can exist; and conversely, if Zakath admitted the existence of absolute morality, he would thereby concede the existence of God. What atheists disdain most about God is absolute right and wrong (because they pridefully rebel against His moral constraints, desiring immorality with impunity). So naturally, the atheist community is most ready to admit to the moral consequence of atheism that denies the possibility of ultimate righteousness. But as the intellectual ramifications of atheism continue to work their way into mankind’s corporate thinking, eventually, atheists will lose their hesitancy and admit the same effect regarding logic. Apart from God logic cannot exist, since it is illogical to prove something via circular reasoning, that is, you should not assume (or declare by faith) that which you are claiming to prove, so atheists cannot build a consistent, godless, logical worldview. Notice that it is with foundations and origins that atheists have the greatest difficulty in even attempting to construct a defense, as regarding the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, personality, higher biological functions, and now, even of logic itself. Why is this? Because God is the foundation of all that exists, physical and spiritual, rational and logical. So atheists are stuck beginning with faith in their origins, apart from any evidence, science, logic, reason, or laws which predict or justify their faith in atheist origins, and then by faith they construct arguments for origins which, unlike the theistic origins claims, defy all evidence, science, logic, reason, and law, superficially and fundamentally. So only with a rational God can the laws of logic can truly exist, as can math and the laws of science, and they can be known only because knowledge can exist. Bertrand Russell devoted his long life to providing an atheistic foundation for logic, reason, math, and knowledge, and after many decades, he became increasingly uncertain of almost all knowledge. Again, and again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance.

With clarity Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner reveals an implication of Einstein’s Gulf: “If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e., spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial.”

What gives intelligibility to the world? Only the thoughts in the mind of God can make the cosmos understandable. Nothing but God can demonstrably or even conceivably allow for actual knowledge. The reason Einstein could not identify any way for matter to give meaning to symbols is that there is no way, for the physical laws have no symbolic logic function, and they cannot have any such function because logic is not physical and so is outside of the jurisdiction of physical laws. No physical law can even influence symbolic logic, yet the rules of logic constrain the physical laws, showing Baumgartner’s point that the spiritual takes precedence over the physical!

So try this: go and find an unsuspecting atheist, and ask him two questions. First, Q1: Is atheism logical? Second, Q2: Are the laws of logic absolute or has society only agreed upon them by convention? He will be happier with the first question than with the second. To the first, a typical atheist today will answer, yes! A1: Atheism is logical. (Why that answer? Atheists crave a foundation and so they are still substituting an indefensible, reasonless rationalism for the reasonable God whom they rebel against.) But for the second question, the atheist’s fear of the absolute will cause him to hesitate. If that phobia is strong enough, it could bring him to expose his own rejection of logic itself. A2-1: “No, the laws of logic are not absolute!” as the leading atheist Stein maintained in the above mentioned debate. And if logic is not absolute but rather a consensus of rules which some men have created, then any logical argument for atheism is really just an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of those men or those societies which agreed upon the current set of laws. And since atheists reject the source of all authority (God), they especially despise appeals to authority. (When pressing for an answer to Q2, expect some obfuscation, word games, or unresponsiveness.) When it dawns upon them, whether consciously or not, that denying its absolute nature turns logic into an argument from authority, some atheists then hesitate to say that logic is not absolute. But the unbeliever must step out of his own realm of atheism and become inconsistent to answer yes. A2-2: Yes, the laws of logic are absolute. He will then face the immediate follow-up question for which we will not permit him a circular justification: “What validates logic?” What justifies your faith in logic? Atheists tell the theist not to beg the question by using circular arguments. So by his own worldview, we will not allow him to assume (by faith) that which he claims he should be able to prove by logic (remember A1). This atheist finds himself with the same difficulty as his predecessors who tried to defend absolute morality apart from God: it can’t be done. And so, popular atheism has long ago yielded absolute morality to theists. (With even knowledge, logic, and reason falling victim to atheism, not surprisingly, the godless long ago discarded wisdom and righteousness.) Paralleling their loss of absolute morality, apart from God today’s atheist cannot defend the absolute laws of logic either. Regarding A2-1, as with morality, atheism will move toward a consensus against the existence of logic. For eventually, either atheism collapses, or its trust in logic collapses. They will redefine logic to mean just convention, as they have redefined right and wrong. As atheists fall into denial by increasingly rejecting the universality of logic, they will eventually yield logic to theists, just as they did with morality. Such intellectual schizophrenia demonstrates the claim of Christians that atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and more than just morality, atheism also undermines logic. For, rational atheism is easily demonstrated to be impossible [BA10-9], and the transcendental proof for God affirms His existence by the impossibility of the alternative. And so, which worldview is logical, theism or atheism? Once again I will grant that if right and wrong does not exist, and now if logic does not exist, then God does not exist. So if Zakath wanted to resolve this Battle Royale disagreement over God’s existence in a rational way, he has lost, for atheism has no rational basis.

Sorry about the legth but it's worth the time to read. If you're interested I can get you a link to the debate that Bob mentioned at the end of the second paragraph.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Without regeneration as the impetus for embracing the verity of the Scriptures you're left with evidentialism.

Clete writes:
Why? Where's the connection exactly?

If you don't have regeneration to drive you toward belief in the Scriptures, what are you left with? Discursive reasoning? Scientific evidence? Based on what? Senses you can't calibrate? Reasoning faculties you cannot verify? Authorities you can't justify? Flesh and blood does not reveal this (Matthew 16:17). Human effort cannot manufacture belief (John 1:13 Romans 9:16). Even if someone were to rise from the dead, unbelievers would not believe (Luke 16:31). Evidence is not sufficient. Human effort is not sufficient. Reasoning is not sufficient. Because the problem is not a lack of evidence or a lack of compelling argument. The problem is rebellion born out of a dead spirit. Only regeneration can make a dead spirit live. Only regeneration can break the desire to rebel. Note that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1Co 2:14)." This doesn't mean the natural man is incapable of understanding the things of the Spirit. Almost anyone can comprehend the teachings of scripture. Rather, he does not receive them because he is a rebel and has no desire to embrace that which indicts him before God. The mind of such a person is described as "carnal" and stands in aggressive opposition to God., "for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Ro 8:7,8).

Clete writes:
I don't understand how a removal of the regeneration doctrine (as I understand it) leads inescapably to evidentialism. And if it did, why would that be such a big deal?

It's a big deal because evidentialism is the sin of Adam. It's the sin Paul warns about when he says to beware, "lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2Co 11:3).

Certainly, Lucifer was crafty, but what did he do that would warrant that description? One thing was that he didn't go directly to Adam, although Adam was standing right beside Eve the whole time ("... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" Ge 3:6). When we consider Paul's fear and warning in 2Co 11, the beguiling of which he speaks describes more than just being deceived by a Satanic "end around," as Adam experienced (and errantly permitted to happen).

Satan's craftiness goes beyond his indirect approach, rather, it is the fact that he enticed Adam with the prospect of being his own lawmaker. That was, after all, the temptation of the forbidden fruit: It was borne of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (or, "The truly evil good" if we look at it hendiadystically). The actual aim of Lucifer's question, "Hath God said?" was to get Adam to justify or condemn God on his own terms. It didn't matter which. In other words, Lucifer was suggesting, "Why don't you use your own reason, Adam, your own assessment, your own standard of evaluation to ascertain whether or not God's mandate makes sense to you? Why don't you become your own lawmaker?"

Of course Adam's answer should have been: "Yes, God hath said, and yes He means what He says" (presuppositionalism) But instead, Adam's response could be characterized like this: "Hmm. Good point, Lucifer. God warns us that we will surely die if we eat the fruit of that tree. But what evidence do I have that this true? What does it mean to 'die,' after all, I've never seen anyone die before" (evidentialism).

By so doing, Adam asserted his own imagined autonomy, presuming to have sufficient knowledge of good and evil beyond that which God revealed to him. It appears to me that the eating of the fruit coincided perfectly with Adam's presumed usurpation of God as Lawmaker. The eating of fruit is almost incidental (almost), the very act being the outward declaration of what had already occurred in Adam's mind and heart. Consider it like this: The fruit was not the thing. It was the presumption of knowing good and evil autonomously, apart from God's law. There is no way Adam could have eaten the fruit from that tree without this presumption having already occurred. The eating was a manifestation of Adam's presumption to know good and evil apart from God. It was Man's act of independence from God, becoming his own lawmaker, becoming as God, becoming his own judge of good and evil.

Thus, when Adam was found by God, hiding because of his newly realized nakedness, Adam's guilt and presumed autonomy was exposed (no pun intended). And God's question was both leading and loaded: "Who told you that you were naked?" We could paraphrase God's question this way: "You're not supposed to know that, Adam. You're supposed to get your information from ME. Will you now be your own lawmaker?"

Clete writes:
Perhaps it would be wise to start by clarifying what exactly you mean by regeneration.

The Greek word is palingenesia. It can mean "restoration," as in the case of Israel in Mt. 19:28 (also referred to as the "time of reformation" (Heb 9:10)). But in the case of the members of the Body of Christ, it refers to individual rebirth (Titus 3:5), the quickening of the dead spirit (Eph 2:1). Paul refers to the same concept as being made a "new creation."

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Ga 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Clete writes:
Also, you may have done so to some degree already but would you mind responding further to post 135? (In particular, the last paragraph of that post).

I'll have a look at it and get back with you.

 

[Soulman]

You're not really giving me much to work this here. You've already conceded that your worldview is incoherent and that mine is not. What more do you want? It is not possible to prove a universal negative, which you also seem to understand and yet you insist that I do just that before you would accept my argument. It makes no sense!

Let’s apply the logical coherency of the biblical worldview to a concrete situation. I introduced the concept of randomness earlier. As a discrete event in a “logically coherent” universe, what “purpose” does a drive by shooting serve? There are any number of “logically plausible” ways to explain “how” a drive by shooting “might” be possible (poverty, “sin,” mental incapacity), but there is no “logical” way to explain why this child in particular was killed. That’s what the mother of this child wants to know. Why HER? It doesn’t “make sense,” i.e., the child’s death and manner of death is, to her, “logically incoherent.” A subjectivist randomist sun worshipper would say that she is absolutely right; the death of her daughter doesn’t make sense. The challenge for the Presuppositionalist is to “make coherent” the “senslessness” of her daughter’s death, especially in the “logically coherent” universe of the biblical worldview. In a naturalistic “random” universe, a logically coherent reason for her daughter’s death is unnecessary: Stuff “happens.” No less tragic, but in a universe of matter in motion, people are going to get hurt. My worldview not only accommodates the drive by shooting, but the mother’s “why HER” question – (i.e., why NOT her?) -- without introducing the “wildcard” of a deity.

In the biblical worldview, every conceivable event, no matter how minor, must have a purpose contributing in a real, medial way toward the successful accomplishment of God’s ultimate, overriding purpose. There can be no event whose purpose is not tied to and utterly dependent upon this larger, overriding purpose, for to imagine an event isolated from God’s larger, overriding purpose is to imagine a rogue event “independent” of this larger, overriding purpose. In the logically coherent universe of the biblical worldview, a “rogue event” is impossible.

Any event that is NOT medially necessary to God’s ultimate, overriding purpose is by definition, then, superfluous; that is, all events either contribute to the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose, or not. If not, such an event is mere adornment, an event without a purpose. The biblical worldview does not allow for the possibility of a “random” or “rogue” event. It therefore follows that in the biblical worldview, the drive by shooting must be both medial AND necessary for the achievement of God’s ultimate purpose.

Even in the orderly universe of the biblical worldview, the concept of randomness (even if “randomness” is only “apparent” randomness) cannot be avoided. The drive by shooting must be “accounted for,” that is, attributed. In the logically coherent universe of the biblical worldview, that child was not shot in vain; she was shot for a “reason.” God ordained it, or “allowed” it to happen. One thing we do know: God did nothing to stop it. God did not intervene. God “let” that child be killed. The drive by shooting, then, is not a “random” act in the biblical worldview, but the “will of God” and therefore necessary to the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose. Either her death is “necessary” to the accomplishment of God’s purpose, or her death is of no consequence and “neutral” in respect to God’s larger purpose. If the success of God’s ultimate purpose does not “hinge” on the child’s death, then her death is not only “senseless” (as it would be in a naturalistic, random universe), her death was entirely “avoidable” (unlike the same event taking place in a naturalistic, random universe).

We are not, however, told how or why the brains of an innocent child splattered over the family porch should be “necessary” to the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose, or why, in the infinite number of ways God’s purposes might be achieved, this child must necessarily be “selected,” or why an alternative method of achieving the same purpose could not have been devised. In the inconceivably vast number of discrete events that must occur in order to form the unbroken chain of redemptive history, this single event could not be overlooked. Either her death was “necessary” in the mind of God in order to get from redemptive point A to redemptive point B, or the child’s death served no purpose. We can only conclude that her death, down to the “manner” of her death and the smallest forensic detail, was “necessary” in order for God to accomplish his ultimate purpose.

Unlike the “logic” of a naturalistic explanation, the “logic” of God requiring her death escapes us. If we live in a naturalistic universe of matter in motion, accidents such as this are easily accounted for. If, however, we live in a universe governed by a logically coherent Creator (not to mention just, loving, merciful, etc.), and the death of this child was “logically necessary” as an expedient to the larger “object lesson” of redemptive history, we are never told why. Nor can a “logical” reason be imagined. The “logic” of the biblical worldview, in fact, defies even the "regenerated" mind on this point. There IS no "logical" answer. The “biblical” explanation is an enigma, not an explanation. There is nothing “logically coherent” (or even remotely satisfying) about a worldview requiring the death of an innocent child to achieve the higher purposes of God. The “logical coherence” you speak of only “works” in the biblical worldview. In fact, as you’ve already demonstrated, the “logic” you’re using fails miserably in the real world -- until a “wildcard” is played. In the real world of matter in motion, wildcards are not necessary, and convoluted arguments explaining “how” or “why” God behaves the way he does are avoided all together.

Interestingly, whether God exists or not, the “results” are the same. The child is just as dead.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

This conversation has really slowed down. Have you lost interest, or are you just busy?

Balder wrote:
Aren't you really saying that, based on your faith in the Bible, you have faith that whatever logical elements show up in the Bible must be "parts" of the true system of logic?

Sure, you can put it that way. But it's much more complete than your characterization of it. Look at it this way: The Bible, rightly understood, describes reality in a way that comports with my daily experience. With a priori faith in the verity of the Bible, I then compare its claims to my personal experience and I see congruity and verification. Therefore I conclude that my personal experience must be generally trustworthy and reliable. If, hypothetically speaking, my personal experience did not line up with scripture, then my a priori faith in scripture would tell me that something is wrong with me, not scripture. Schizophrenic and alcoholic believers may have to deal with this more often than those who do not have these debilitating conditions.

Do you imagine you are unique in having this experience? Do you imagine that people with other belief systems do not experience congruity and verification among their beliefs and experiences?

Balder wrote:
Admittedly it's been at least 10 years since I read the Bible all the way through, so my memory may be failing me; can you point me to direct, clear Biblical teachings on logic? I have no problem believing that the Bible affirms and demonstrates logic, but that feature is certainly not unique to the Bible.

That is true. My high school geometry book affirmed and demonstrated logic. But even Archimedes understood the problem of geometry sans a grounding of the concepts he developed. He lamented not having a pou sto, or a locus standi, a ledge or fulcrum at which ground his lever. And that's what makes the Bible unique. The existence of God provides the ledge or fulcrum by which one can "move the world," that is, ground one's knowledge. Without it, there is only blind faith and knowledge floating in the void.

Yes, you can find many examples of thinkers who developed some system of thought and then desired to find a way to concretely ground that system. And you can find systems which do coherently account for the world, which are more complete than Archimedes' model (because they deal with more than Archimedes' limited set of concerns, for example). Using your "method," all Archimedes had to do was to posit an ineffable "Ground of Geometrical Law" that can only be known by faith, a Platonic Form of Forms which accounts for the existence of all Forms in space and thought. And the fact that you really know this ground, and thus have a geometrically pure mind, is demonstrated by the objective fact that you believe Archimedes' assertions, and find them to make sense of your world. When you find examples of geometrical systems -- new spaces, Rheimannian manifolds, whatever -- that go beyond what Archimedes imagined, all you have to do is retreat to a safe level of abstraction: well, the Ground of Geometrical Law is fundamentally geometrical, therefore it can coherently account for the existence of all geometrical models, no matter their level of complexity.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Hi Balder,

Thanks for the reminder. My next installment is below.

Balder previously wrote:
Yes, an unconscious entity can have being. Unconsciousness is still a form of consciousness, albeit often a stepped down, non-self-reflective form of consciousness.

Hilston replied:
So, would you say a shard of metal is an unconscious entity with a stepped down, non-self-reflective form of consciousness?

Balder rejoins
No, a shard of metal is not an "entity." The atomic and molecular constituents of metal may be considered to have a form of prehension, but the organization of metal itself is not such that it is capable of "mediating" or supporting any higher forms of consciousness than that.

Three questions:
(1) How do you know this?
(2) Is a plant considered an entity on your view?
(3) How do you define "unconsciousness"?

Hilston asked:
Why do you believe the teachings of the Dzogchen tradition to be true?

You wrote that "there are in fact quite a number of teachings that give a glimpse of what 'lies beyond.'" Why do you believe that these teachings are true?

Why do you believe Siddhartha was right?

Balder writes
There are a number of reasons. I find his teachings to be both practical and profound, answering the questions of "why" and "wherefore" more fully and satisfactorily than other bodies of teachings that I've come across.

By what criteria did you determine the teachings of Dzogchen and Siddartha to be "more fully satisfactory"?

Balder writes
Since Siddhartha's teachings deal primarily with direct experience, in meditation and outside of it, they are largely open to practical verification.

If I were to seek verification based on direct experience via meditation, etc., what would you tell me to look for as confirming evidence for the verity of your view?

Hilston asked:
Is your belief in the verity and righteousness of Dzogchen tradition and Siddhartha's teachings based on the existence of the "humanly inexplicable gift of faith" or the object of that faith, i.e. that which you believe in. In other words, in what or who have you placed your faith?

Balder rejoins
I have placed my faith both in the transmitters of these teachings and the truth to which they point.

Do you view the transmitters as authoritative regarding what they taught? Do you believe the transmitters had any errors in their teaching/writings?

Hilston wrote:
I agree, and that's partly my fault. I was genuinely interested (before I knew what I was getting into) in what you believed. Now, I'm not convinced that there is any need whatever to understand it. In fact, it seems deliberately obtuse, and you seem to be wholeheartedly swept away by its ambiguities. Your view seems to preclude any true desire or goal to understand with clarity, or to impart clear understanding to others.

Balder writes:
If I may respectfully submit, however, I believe that many of the "ambiguities" that you see in what I've communicated so far are probably due to your own unfamiliarity with these teachings. I would be similarly disoriented by a conversation which employed terms like Acts 9 dispensationalism, post-trib, etc, and while it would seem muddy and unnecessarily complicated to me, I'm sure it would convey quite meaningful distinctions to you.

You raise a good example. Whenever I communicate with anyone who is admittedly unfamiliar with theological terms, I don't use them. I substitute the terms with explanations or phrases that may be a bit more unwieldy, but easier to understand than the theological jargon for those who don't have the background. When I asked for clarification from you, it went in the opposite direction.

Balder Writes:
To help move things along on a track that hopefully will be more agreeable to you, if my answers to your questions in this letter leave you confused, I will state the outlines of my general (Dzogchen/Buddhist) beliefs in brief in a subsequent post if you would like me to do so.

I'm interested, but not making any promises, not having seen what you have in mind.

Hilston asked:
Do you believe in the permanence of the soul, Balder? Or do you hold to the doctrine of anatta? Is a yes or no answer possible? Or is that going require another prolix treatise, complete with Tibetan transliterations and hyphenated character strings?

Balder writes:
I do hold to the doctrine of anatta, or non-self. The meaning of this is that individual beings are contingent beings; they are not self-existent, but rather are completely dependent upon all other aspects of reality for their existence. What you call Hilston -- your memories, your habits, your dispositions, your physical condition, etc, etc -- are all contingent and as such are subject to change. In this sense, Hilston is not "permanent," nor self-existent. In other words, you are not the cause of your own existence; you are not a self-existent monad, completely sufficient unto yourself. This is the meaning of anatta. It points to the radical interdependence of all phenomenal existents, including people.

From your explanation, it appears to me that your definition of "self" requires being the cause of one's own existence; self-existent and unchanging. If you are not the cause of your own existence and if you are not self-existent and unchanging, you are not permanent, right? Why do you believe this?

Balder rejoins
I answered "both" to your question, however, because while individual beings are largely contingent "products" of their karma (the conditioning factors of samsara), every sentient being is capable of realizing buddhahood, in which case the individual, in realizing union with the Dharmakaya (the formless body of the Buddha, Mind-as-Such), is capable of existing forever in Sambhogakaya (light body) and Nirmanakaya (material form body) manifestations, depending on the intentions and purposes of the enlightened being.

Do you believe you yourself have reached buddhahood yet? If not, do you know anyone who has?

Hilston wrote:
There are plenty of Biblical data to affirm the first Law of Thermo', and myriad other recent scientific discoveries. There are plenty of data to show that the Biblical worldview and the ancients had vastly superior knowledge of science, mathematics, nature, etc. But I don't wave these things as proud trophies because it's not a biblical way to approach the matter.

Balder rejoins
I'd be interested to hear examples of Biblical data that you believe confirm recent scientific discoveries. In the last letter to you, I mentioned the mythical cosmology that is apparent as the background of many Biblical passages, so I'm sure you'll be dealing with that as well, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

There are whole organizations and websites devoted to this stuff. It doesn't interest me. It has no bearing whatever on my faith in scripture. Even if there were not a single example of Biblical data confrimed by science, I would still believe the Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word. That's the nature of a priori belief.

Balder rejoins
Not to be too picky, but I suppose you have to acknowledge that Christianity doesn't really "solve" the problem of unity and multiplicity, it just postpones it by making it an inexplicable aspect of ultimate reality instead of an inexplicable aspect of everyday reality.

No, it's not that vague. The Bible teaches about a triune Godhead. The many in one. The regenerated philosopher reads the Bible and says, "Of course! That's the solution! The many and the one (diversity/unity) is a reflection of the Godhead! No wonder it is such an elusive concept; it is an analogy to the elusive nature of the Godhead itself. It's no longer a problem because the very nature of the Creator underpins this phenomenon in nature."

Hilston wrote:
In a book titled Buddhism: The Light of Asia, by Kenneth K.S. Ch'en, the author quotes: "Not to commit any sin, to do good, to purify one's own mind, that is the teaching of the Buddha." He goes on to define sin as "any act that is harmful to oneself or to another." Do you agree with these statements? If so, why is it your desire to eschew sin and to do good and to purify your mind?

Balder rejoins
Yes, the Buddha does teach these things. Buddhism doesn’t have an exact word for sin, however; the word used is akusala, which means unwholesome or unskillful.

How are those terms defined (unwholesome, unskillful)?

Balder rejoins
There are many reasons to avoid sin, to do good, and to purify the mind. One purifies the mind because that allows you to perceive reality more clearly, ...

Why do you want to perceive reality more clearly?

Balder rejoins
... both on the relative level, where you gain insight into the nature and causes of suffering and evil, ...

Why do you want this insight? Aren't reality and suffering and evil unpleasant? Why do you want this insight?

Balder rejoins
... and on an absolute level where you gain insight into the true nature of reality, the pure Dharmakaya.

Do you believe you have attained or acquired this?

Balder rejoins
Because all things are interdependent (pratitya-samutpada), and because as contingent beings we are continually being influenced and shaped by the nature of our thoughts, feelings, reactions, and interactions (karma), and because the pristine light of buddhanature that is in us is also in all beings, we desire to do good and to avoid evil out of wise recognition of the genesis of our own suffering and confusion, and out of compassion for others.

Why is it your desire to be compassionate to others? Why does it matter to you that the pristine light of buddhanature is in all beings?

Balder rejoins
The Buddha teaches that when we awaken to the depths of the truth of our mutuality, we are also awakened to our responsibility.

Why do you want responsiblity?

Balder rejoins
The bodhisattva is one who dedicates himself to working for the welfare of others because of this insight into the true nature of things.

Do you consider yourself a bodhisattva?

Balder rejoins
... There is more to say on this, of course, but I am keeping things short and to the point for the time being. Certainly all of these points could be fleshed out, in themselves, but also in their interrelationship with each other. If necessary, I’ll be happy to explain anything that isn’t clear – or to answer any charge of incoherence you may muster!

I'm doing my best.

Cheers, bloke.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

Thanks for your letter. I'm in the middle of finishing up a paper right now and will give a fuller response in a day or two. For now, I just wanted to say that I noticed many of your questions asked me to justify why I believe a certain thing, why I trust this tradition, etc. These questions are certainly fair, but I don't know if they are on topic. As I understand it, the presuppositionalist argument is that all other worldviews are incoherent, floating in the void, and necessarily logically self-refuting, so I thought this is what we were going to be debating: the coherence of a non-Christian worldview. Why I follow Buddhism is relevant, to me, and I understand why you might want to know the motivations of a person who has chosen a different path from yours, but I don't know if it really matters in this discussion. If the Buddhist tradition I follow is incoherent and incapable of accounting for the world, then shouldn't we be examining why you think Buddhism is incoherent as a worldview, rather than why a particular adherent believes in it?

If you can explain to me your rationale for asking these questions, and that rationale turns out to be relevant to this discussion, then I'll get more personal in my answers. But at this point, it appears that such questions are a digression; they are not getting to the point, which is your assertion that Buddhism is necessarily incoherent.

Peace,
Balder

 

[temple2006]

Balder...I hate to inflict myself on you again ...... but I want to know why you are Buddhist rather than Christian and I certainly have no problem with thinking that Buddhism is an incoherent world view. I am so nosy I just cannot stand not knowing.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Balder,

You write:
For now, I just wanted to say that I noticed many of your questions asked me to justify why I believe a certain thing, why I trust this tradition, etc. These questions are certainly fair, but I don't know if they are on topic. As I understand it, the presuppositionalist argument is that all other worldviews are incoherent, floating in the void, and necessarily logically self-refuting, so I thought this is what we were going to be debating: the coherence of a non-Christian worldview.

If I'm going to accomplish that task, I need information. My questions are aimed at understanding your view. My past debates with Buddhists have been different, for whatever reason. My original approach with you revealed some deficits in my understanding -- at least in your brand of Buddhism. I need those gaps plugged if I'm to make a logically sound and biblical critique of your view.

Balder writes:
Why I follow Buddhism is relevant, to me, and I understand why you might want to know the motivations of a person who has chosen a different path from yours, but I don't know if it really matters in this discussion.

It matters greatly. I don't know how much you're familiar with biblical apologetics, but it is an ad hominem approach (not in the logical-fallacy sense of ad hominem, but as an apologetic methodology).

Balder writes:
If the Buddhist tradition I follow is incoherent and incapable of accounting for the world, then shouldn't we be examining why you think Buddhism is incoherent as a worldview, rather than why a particular adherent believes in it?

Buddhism, as I understand it, is a worldview that must be personally experienced. The verity of its teachings must be personally confirmed, according to Buddhism. If that's the case, and what you've written seems consistent with this, then I must explore your personal feelings, experiences, reactions, etc. regarding this path you've chosen.

Balder writes:
If you can explain to me your rationale for asking these questions, and that rationale turns out to be relevant to this discussion, then I'll get more personal in my answers. But at this point, it appears that such questions are a digression; they are not getting to the point, which is your assertion that Buddhism is necessarily incoherent.

I am confident that I will be able to demonstrate the incoherence of your view once I have a better understanding. My time is valuable to me, as I'm sure yours is to you. I have and will continue to do my best to stay on topic with our discussion. I assure you that my questions are right on track with the topic. If you were a strict materialist, this would be easy. You're not, so it's going to take a bit more poking and prodding.

 

[Balder]

Okay, fair enough.

But I have to ask for your patience (you too, Temple!). As I mentioned, I'm finishing some fairly big projects, but I'll be done in a day or two.

Until then...

Visualize whirled peas.

Balder.

 

[temple2006]

Balder...I will try very hard to restrain myself Are you using a play on words here?

 

[Balder]

Yes! Parrotting a silly bumpersticker.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Has anyone pointed out that presuppositionalism is twofold?

R.C. Sproul is, to my knowledge, the theologian who delves most deeply into presuppositional apologetics versus classical apologetics.

He teaches that presuppositional apologetics is giving a Christian apologetic based on the presupposition that the existence of God is a given, and therefore the apologetic doesn't attempt to prove the existence of God. It assumes it and continues from that starting point, testifying to what scripture teaches concerning Him.

Classical apologetics, attempting to engage the minds of skeptics, appeals to man's powers of rationality and reasoning to prove the existence of God.

I believe that presuppositional is the more biblical method of apologetics. Appealing to man's reasoning powers overinflates an ego that greatly needs to be deflated rather than given a high gloss by any appeal to it other than the testimony of Christ.


Apologetics on the basis of the existence of God being presupposed usually leads to a second presupposition--that men are so fallen that attempting to reason anyone into faith is a vain exercise and that just as God has independently created the world apart from the input of His creatures, so He will also, when He pleases, create new creatures in Christ Jesus through the ministry of His word and the accompanying power of the Holy Spirit.

Those who adopt the classical apologetic method most often--though not always--carry their attempt to deal with men through rationality and reasoning past the issue of believing in the existence of God into believing in Christ by the same method, which is even more unbiblical.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Has anyone pointed out that presuppositionalism is twofold?

R.C. Sproul is, to my knowledge, the theologian who delves most deeply into presuppositional apologetics versus classical apologetics.

He teaches that presuppositional apologetics is giving a Christian apologetic based on the presupposition that the existence of God is a given, and therefore the apologetic doesn't attempt to prove the existence of God. It assumes it and continues from that starting point, testifying to what scripture teaches concerning Him.

Classical apologetics, attempting to engage the minds of skeptics, appeals to man's powers of rationality and reasoning to prove the existence of God.

I believe that presuppositional is the more biblical method of apologetics. Appealing to man's reasoning powers over inflates an ego that greatly needs to be deflated rather than given a high gloss by any appeal to it other than the testimony of Christ.


Apologetics on the basis of the existence of God being presupposed usually leads to a second presupposition--that men are so fallen that attempting to reason anyone into faith is a vain exercise and that just as God has independently created the world apart from the input of His creatures, so He will also, when He pleases, create new creatures in Christ Jesus through the ministry of His word and the accompanying power of the Holy Spirit.

Those who adopt the classical apologetic method most often--though not always--carry their attempt to deal with men through rationality and reasoning past the issue of believing in the existence of God into believing in Christ by the same method, which is even more unbiblical.

Rolf,

It seems to me that attempting "to deal with men through rationality and reasoning" is precisely what you are doing. Both Jim and now you have made this same point that appealing to evidence is somehow elevating man's mind beyond a point which would be Biblically appropriate and that presuppositionalism does not do this. The thing is, I just don't see it.
First of all when the Bible defines faith it speaks about substance and evidence (Heb. 11:1) so I'm not convinced that presenting such substantive evidence is all that unbiblical in the first place, indeed, it seems to me that it is God Himself who provides such evidence and holds us responsible for either accepting or rejecting it.
Further, presuppositionalism, it seems to me, simply presents another form of evidence for the existence of God, that evidence being, the demonstrably logical incoherence (i.e. rational impossibility) of any other alternative. When someone makes the transcendental argument for the existence of God they are presenting evidence. It's not physical to be sure but it is substantive and compelling and there can be no doubt that it is reasonable. In fact, reasonability is what the argument is based upon.
Now, you can hold to the position that someone will not accept this evidence of reason and thereby come to faith without having first been regenerated but that can in no way get you out from under the fact that you have indeed used evidence of one kind or another in order to prove the existence of God. And what’s more is that such a doctrinal position goes against something else that Jim said several days ago about how his life experience confirms the truths that have been communicated to him via revelation (regeneration).
Here are Jim’s exact words (emphasis added)…

Originally posted by Hilston
The Bible, rightly understood, describes reality in a way that comports with my daily experience. With a priori faith in the verity of the Bible, I then compare its claims to my personal experience and I see congruity and verification. Therefore I conclude that my personal experience must be generally trustworthy and reliable. If, hypothetically speaking, my personal experience did not line up with scripture, then my a priori faith in scripture would tell me that something is wrong with me, not scripture.

This statement sounds fine and with most Christian theologies I would say that it is a perfectly fine thing to say. The problem is, that Jim (and I assume you as well) do not hold the doctrine of regeneration to this same test. If you did, you would have to drop it because the simple fact is that the world as we experience it operates precisely as one would expect for it to operate if regeneration was not a true theology. From an ‘experience’ point of view, regeneration cannot be confirmed. Unregenerate people look exactly like regenerate people and vise versa. The only difference is that one either does, or is going to, believe and the other does not and will never believe. That’s the only difference which is the exact same difference between people anyway; people either do or will believe or the don’t and won’t; regeneration changes nothing as far as our experience is concerned. If someone refuses to believe they may not be regenerate now but they might be at some point in the future so everyone must be treated as if they are regenerate because if you assume they are not then there is no reason to have the conversation in the first place. The result is both action and experience that exactly duplicate that which would occur if regeneration weren’t true.
So what’s the point, you ask? Well, if the exclusivity of the presuppositional method of apologetics is based upon the doctrine of regeneration and a rejection of evidentialism, which I think is Jim’s position (correct me if I’m wrong), then with both of those pillars compromised the exclusivity of presuppositional apologetics cannot stand.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I’ve been out of town for the last few days and am very far behind on my responses. I probably have something else that needs to be said but this will have to do for now. When I’ve gotten a chance to review everything that I’ve missed, I may have more to say. Thanks for your patience!

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Soulman

Let’s apply the logical coherency of the biblical worldview to a concrete situation. I introduced the concept of randomness earlier. As a discrete event in a “logically coherent” universe, what “purpose” does a drive by shooting serve? There are any number of “logically plausible” ways to explain “how” a drive by shooting “might” be possible (poverty, “sin,” mental incapacity), but there is no “logical” way to explain why this child in particular was killed. That’s what the mother of this child wants to know. Why HER? It doesn’t “make sense,” i.e., the child’s death and manner of death is, to her, “logically incoherent.” A subjectivist randomist sun worshipper would say that she is absolutely right; the death of her daughter doesn’t make sense. The challenge for the Presuppositionalist is to “make coherent” the “senselessness” of her daughter’s death, especially in the “logically coherent” universe of the biblical worldview. In a naturalistic “random” universe, a logically coherent reason for her daughter’s death is unnecessary: Stuff “happens.” No less tragic, but in a universe of matter in motion, people are going to get hurt. My worldview not only accommodates the drive by shooting, but the mother’s “why HER” question – (i.e., why NOT her?) -- without introducing the “wildcard” of a deity.

No it doesn't! It doesn't even explain how you understand the concept of "tragedy" in the first place, or how she would have ever figured out how to ask the question "Why me?". In fact, your scenario is just that much more argument that the world is not random and that things generally make sense. If it were a totally common event for children of all ages to just randomly drop dead for no reason at all then why would the mother have detected anything to be upset about in the first place? The whole point is that it isn't normal for mothers to be deprived of their children for any reason much less a random drive-by shooting. Indeed, in a totally, inherently random universe, randomness would never be noticed; it is only with order that randomness becomes meaningful.

In the biblical worldview, every conceivable event, no matter how minor, must have a purpose contributing in a real, medial way toward the successful accomplishment of God’s ultimate, overriding purpose.

By what logic did you come to this conclusion? There is nothing in the Bible that teaches such a thing. There are lots of Calvinists who would teach you this, but the Bible does not. In fact, the Bible teaches just the opposite. God has enemies that are actively working to keep Him from accomplishing His purposes. They will, of course, be defeated in the end but that does not mean that they never complete a task designed to hinder God and to advance the cause of evil in the world. God's enemies were so successful at one point that God wiped out every last person on the planet save eight individuals and started all over again with those eight people.

There can be no event whose purpose is not tied to and utterly dependent upon this larger, overriding purpose, for to imagine an event isolated from God’s larger, overriding purpose is to imagine a rogue event “independent” of this larger, overriding purpose. In the logically coherent universe of the biblical worldview, a “rogue event” is impossible.

You are definitely reacting here to Calvinism not simply a Biblical worldview. If you want to reject Calvinism or the idea that God is a control freak, then I encourage you to do so, but ripping Calvinism to shreds is not the equivalent to ripping the Biblical worldview to shreds, it's not the same thing at all.

Any event that is NOT medially necessary to God’s ultimate, overriding purpose is by definition, then, superfluous; that is, all events either contribute to the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose, or not. If not, such an event is mere adornment, an event without a purpose.

There are three main possibilities. An event either serves directly to further God's purpose, or it serves to further the purposes of evil, or it is neutral. My attempt to convince you of the verity of the Biblical worldview serves God, your rejection of it serves evil, a supernova in another galaxy that goes completely unnoticed by anyone on this planet is neutral. God is able to use events that directly serve evil or that are neutral to accomplish His goals but doing so is an event discrete from the evil or neutral event itself.

The biblical worldview does not allow for the possibility of a “random” or “rogue” event. It therefore follows that in the biblical worldview, the drive by shooting must be both medial AND necessary for the achievement of God’s ultimate purpose.

If your premise was correct so would your conclusion. Your premise is not correct however, so your conclusion is erroneous as well.

• 2Sa 1:6 And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.
  
  Luke 10:31 [jesus]And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.[/jesus]

Even in the orderly universe of the biblical worldview, the concept of randomness (even if “randomness” is only “apparent” randomness) cannot be avoided. The drive by shooting must be “accounted for,” that is, attributed. In the logically coherent universe of the biblical worldview, that child was not shot in vain; she was shot for a “reason.” God ordained it, or “allowed” it to happen.

God could stop the entire universe from existing if He chose to, so every event that happens is "allowed" by God, everything. I do not believe and the Bible does not demand (logically) that God "ordained" every event or that every event have a meaning or a specific overarching cosmic purpose. Some things, many things, perhaps most things just happen.

One thing we do know: God did nothing to stop it. God did not intervene.

You could not possibly know this.

God “let” that child be killed. The drive by shooting, then, is not a “random” act in the biblical worldview, but the “will of God” and therefore necessary to the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose.

More Calvinist heresy and a prime example of why I hate that theology so completely.

Either her death is “necessary” to the accomplishment of God’s purpose, or her death is of no consequence and “neutral” in respect to God’s larger purpose.

Or it is evil! Remember that Satan fellow in the Bible?

If the success of God’s ultimate purpose does not “hinge” on the child’s death, then her death is not only “senseless” (as it would be in a naturalistic, random universe), her death was entirely “avoidable” (unlike the same event taking place in a naturalistic, random universe).

In a Biblical worldview, you have both good AND evil, love AND hate. You cannot love if it is impossible to hate. Love must be volitional as must be any act that has a moral component attached to it. Without choice morality is meaningless and without options choice is meaningless. The fact that you understand mindless murder to be a problem is proof that you know (at least intuitively) that good and evil, right and wrong, exist. Your own conscience, your own sense of right and wrong testify against the position you are arguing.

We are not, however, told how or why the brains of an innocent child splattered over the family porch should be “necessary” to the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose, or why, in the infinite number of ways God’s purposes might be achieved, this child must necessarily be “selected,” or why an alternative method of achieving the same purpose could not have been devised. In the inconceivably vast number of discrete events that must occur in order to form the unbroken chain of redemptive history, this single event could not be overlooked. Either her death was “necessary” in the mind of God in order to get from redemptive point A to redemptive point B, or the child’s death served no purpose. We can only conclude that her death, down to the “manner” of her death and the smallest forensic detail, was “necessary” in order for God to accomplish his ultimate purpose.

You keep repeating this same idea. Why are "good" and "neutral" the only two options? What ever happened to evil?

Unlike the “logic” of a naturalistic explanation, the “logic” of God requiring her death escapes us.

Yeah, if you close your eyes to the possibility of evil, it escapes you! But logic cannot exist in a naturalistic universe. It is rationally impossible.

If we live in a naturalistic universe of matter in motion, accidents such as this are easily accounted for.

No. In a naturalistic universe you cannot account for the existence of anything at all, accident or otherwise. Nothing is knowable at all including whether or not something is an accident or what the word accident means or even if it is a real word.

If, however, we live in a universe governed by a logically coherent Creator (not to mention just, loving, merciful, etc.), and the death of this child was “logically necessary” as an expedient to the larger “object lesson” of redemptive history, we are never told why. Nor can a “logical” reason be imagined. The “logic” of the biblical worldview, in fact, defies even the "regenerated" mind on this point. There IS no "logical" answer. The “biblical” explanation is an enigma, not an explanation.

The logical answer is evil.

There is nothing “logically coherent” (or even remotely satisfying) about a worldview requiring the death of an innocent child to achieve the higher purposes of God.

I completely agree with you.

The “logical coherence” you speak of only “works” in the biblical worldview. In fact, as you’ve already demonstrated, the “logic” you’re using fails miserably in the real world -- until a “wildcard” is played. In the real world of matter in motion, wildcards are not necessary, and convoluted arguments explaining “how” or “why” God behaves the way he does are avoided all together.

What "wild card" are you talking about? I have used no wild cards, only simple, unavoidable logic.

Interestingly, whether God exists or not, the “results” are the same. The child is just as dead.

Precisely! This goes right along with my previous post. Only you are discussing random chance rather that regeneration. Calvinism (as it is today) discounts randomness or chance, just as you have accused the Bible of doing. The problem is that the world we live in looks PRECISELY like it would if randomness and chance did exist. Ask anyone in Los Vegas if chance is real and you'll be told in no uncertain terms that it absolutely does. This is another Calvinistic theology that does not stand up to the test of verification by our experience. This would be a problem for the Biblical worldview if the Bible actually did teach such a thing but it does not. The idea is derived from other erroneous theologies, it is not explicitly (or implicitly) taught in Scripture at all. At best, theologians read this into the text.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Sorry it took so long to reply, I'm trying to get caught up!
P.S.S. I didn’t do any editing except for a spell check. Let me know if I need to clarify something.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Balder,
Latest installment follows:
Hilston wrote:
The plan sounds good, but it just doesn't pan out. When you gave explanations, I asked for clarifications on things I didn't understand. Then I couldn't understand your explanations without further explanation, which I also couldn't understand.

Balder writes:
Maybe your presuppositions are getting in the way. Sometimes they have to be suspended, though not necessarily forsaken, to understand where another person is coming from.

This statement indicates to me that you're not clear on what presuppositions are. They can't be suspended. That's the nature of them. They are non-negotiables that underpin our thinking. As to the statement itself, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or professor of linguistics to recognize the problem of explaining solecisms with neologisms or vice versa. At some point, there must be a nexus in our language that allows us to actually communicate.

Hilston said:
It's horribly uninviting and discouraging to make an effort toward understanding something, only to be hamstrung time and again by a deeper and deeper quagmire (or so it seems) of alien terminology, invented words, syntactic acrobatics, and Tibetan guru-speak.

Balder writes:
Come on, now. I've been trying. I think you'll find my last several posts to you to be relatively short on Guentherese. At least you are still saying "or so it seems"; maybe I can clear up some of the confusion in coming letters.

You're absolutely right. Recent posts have been much easier to understand and contemplate.

Balder writes:Hilston then asked uncharitably: ...

You're being a little too sensitive here, Balder. This is not an attack on you. It is a legitimate question, one you could just as legitimately ask of me. Here it is again:

How am I to tell the difference between what you say and the words of someone who is not being honest, but just trying to jack me around to try to prove me wrong. I've said it before, and I'll say it again because I'm earnestly interested if you can disprove this. How do I know that all of this is nothing more than your own obsession with trying to dissect obscure ramblings of some ancient writings and to find warm-and-fuzzy "enlightenment" by shoehorning modern scientific explanations into Dzogchen, not unlike how modern interpreters try to eisogete Nostradamus as a foreteller of modern events?

Balder writes:
Since a few paragraphs later you use astrology to support the supposed scientific knowledge of the writers of the Bible, I think you should think twice about telling others that they are trying to "shoehorn" science into an outmoded worldview or are on par with Nostradamus supporters!

This is the wrong reaction, Balder. Instead, you should have said, "I didn't realize the Bible teaches that the Zodiac was intended by God to communicate revelation to man."

Balder writes:
Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer your question; ...

Do your best; come up with something. How am I to know you're not being disingenuous, sandbagging and simply trying to sabotage the discussion? Hint: It has to do with the authority to which you appeal. How am I to know you're not on a psychological trip and everything you're saying are delusional ramblings?

Balder writes:
I am definitely doing my best to answer your questions honestly and in a straightforward manner.

I don't doubt that, and I truly appreciate your efforts. My question is not intended to express doubt regarding your sincerity, but rather to discover the foundation of your belief and why I should care. I think we are making progress and I hope you're inclined to continue.

Balder writes:
How do I know that you aren't obsessed or dishonest or deluded or whatever? How are you to prove that?

Excellent question! Here's the answer: You can check my claims against that of scripture.

Balder writes:
Why don't we just give each other a fair listen for starters.

I assure you, if that were not my goal, this discussion would have ended a dozen pages ago.

Balder previously wrote:
If you know the "true logical system" only partially, and largely by faith, how are you able to ascertain which human systems of logic are corruptions of a logical system which is admittedly opaque to you?

Hilston responded:
You misunderstand. First, I'm not a logician; that doesn't mean I do not use logic successfully. Most people use logic successfully and have never had a class on advanced logic. Second, my knowledge of logic is not "largely on faith." As I said, I knew and understood the use of logic prior to my introduction to the Bible. My trust and certainty in logic is ultimately based on faith, but my understanding, use, and application of it preceded faith in Christ and the Bible. And Third, my faith in Christ and the Bible enables me to make sweeping and general claims (such as "no other worldview can account for the intelligibility of human experience" and "the true logical system is both demonstrated and affirmed in the J-C Bible") because I appeal to an Authority Who makes that claim. That does not absolve me from having to demonstrate it, but I can confidently take that as my starting point because my Authority has given that direction and instruction.

Balder writes:
The point I am making is that you believe there is a perfect logical system, but you do not know it directly.

Sure I do. The scriptures give direct affirmation of the verity of logical laws.

Balder writes:
You conclude that it must exist because the fallible human logical inferences and deductions you make nevertheless appear to be generally reliable, but you do not know it in itself;

On the contrary. I do know it in itself because God has verified it. If I didn't have God to verify it, there would be no way to verify it.

Balder writes:
... it is an object of faith, like the God of which you believe it is a part.

Of course, and there is nothing more sure than that faith. All worldview operate on faith and place their faith in unproven assumptions. The Christian worldview does not have this problem. The Christian's faith is sure, unwavering, certain, and solid because it depends not upon the believers efforts or will, but upon God Who gives the give of faith and certainty.

Balder writes:
Your understanding, use, and application of logic that preceded your knowledge of the Bible are all based on your exposure to human systems of logic -- linear, grammatical, etc. You suggest that the Bible supports your use of logic in a way that no other worldview can, but you haven't demonstrated this yet, beyond making an appeal to the authority you attribute to the Bible.

I cannot prove a universal negative, Balder. If that's what you want, then this conversation will end right here. The Bible makes the claim, and that suffices for me. Any worldview that wants to challenge it can have its day in court, and that's what we're doing here. If I can show that your worldview is internally incoherent and violates the laws of logic, then my claim stands with respect to your worldview versus mine, and that's all that matters right here and right now between these two men named Hilston and Balder.

Balder writes:
But you haven't demonstrated the logical superiority of the Christian worldview, or proven why the Bible of necessity must be the only valid source of knowledge.

In order to do that adequately, I need a better understanding your view. I have shown how the Christian worldview answers every major area of human existence and experience. Now if I can show that yours does not, then the demonstration will have succeeded competely.

Balder writes:
Certainly there are other worldviews as well that similarly claim to account for the existence of orderliness and logical structure in the universe...and this, of course, is one of the focuses of this conversation.

This is what the Bible denies and I aim to demonstrate, specifically with regard to your particular brand of Buddhism.

Hilston wrote: [K]nowledge based on faith is still knowledge. The question is whether or not that knowledge can be certain, and that depends on the verity of what one's faith is based upon. My certainty of knowledge is based on the Judeo-Christian faith, which is objective faith in the Person of Christ. I knew how to use logic before I had faith in Christ, but if someone were to press me on my certainty in that knowledge, I would be left with a blind faith commitment to my own experience, which is hardly reliable apart from some assured grounding of it. David Hume is excellent on this point, and remains unanswered by anti- or non-biblical philosophers.

Balder writes:
Two questions:

1) What do you mean by "objective faith" in the Person of Christ?

Objective faith is faith that does not only exist in the mind. It is not subjective but objective. It is objective because it is the faith of Christ Himself given to man.

Balder writes:
Are you just using that word to give your claim more weight and apparent authority, or do you mean something specific by it that is objectively demonstrable?

The latter.

Balder writes:
Do you just mean that it is an objective fact that you have faith in Christ?

No, but I appreciate your obviously careful thought on this question. Very good. :thumb:

Balder writes:
2) How is your certainty in the existence of a logical God less of a blind faith commitment than your previous faith in the verity of logic itself? (I'm not saying that belief in God is necessarily "blind," but rather asking you to clarify the differences between the two positions, as you see them.)

I understand. My previous faith in the verity of logic was without foundation. It was not proveable or testable because there is no way to test those laws without using those laws. If the laws don't work, you can't use them to prove them. So my trust in them was blind assumption. Of course the assumption is correct, but that's not the same as justifying or accounting for them. And the reason the assumption is correct and that people have used these laws of logic successfully all over the world and throughout human history is precisely because God created the universe in a way that reflects His logical nature and character and He created man, His pinnacle creation, with a mind analogous to His own (the imago dei -- in the image of God). My certainty in the existence of a logical God is not blind. It has been communicated to me via regeneration, imparting unwavering certainty, unshakeable confidence and full irrevocable assurance in that fact and in the verity of the Bible as God's Word.

 

[Clete]

Anyone heard from Rolf or Soulman?

 

[Hilston]

Clete,

Did you get my response to your last post to me?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Clete,

Did you get my response to your last post to me?

Umm. Nope!

I found it now though! :doh:

I knew I must have missed something! Sorry about that. I'll respond ASAP. Some of my last two posts is pertinent to our discussion; feel free to throw in your two cents on those in the mean time if you like.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Rolf,

It seems to me that attempting "to deal with men through rationality and reasoning" is precisely what you are doing. Both Jim and now you have made this same point that appealing to evidence is somehow elevating man's mind beyond a point which would be Biblically appropriate and that presuppositionalism does not do this. The thing is, I just don't see it.

This isn't true Clete. There's nothing wrong with appealing to evidence. The problem lies in the atheist's uncritical acceptance of his own standards of evaluation. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Therefore, we challenge the knowledge of the atheist apart from the fear of God.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
First of all when the Bible defines faith it speaks about substance and evidence (Heb. 11:1) ...

You're misunderstanding the verse. Faith itself is the evidence.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... so I'm not convinced that presenting such substantive evidence is all that unbiblical in the first place, ...

It isn't unbiblical as long as you are presenting faith as substantive evidence. If you're presenting irreducible complexity as evidence, you're being unbiblical.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... indeed, it seems to me that it is God Himself who provides such evidence and holds us responsible for either accepting or rejecting it.

Without a doubt, God presents His own evidence, but that is based upon the witness He immediately bears upon their souls regarding His existence. That is why they are without excuse. That is why they cannot say, "Show me more evidence." God has sufficiently and completely done this already. The one who denies it is self-deluded and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Further, presuppositionalism, it seems to me, simply presents another form of evidence for the existence of God, that evidence being, the demonstrably logical incoherence (i.e. rational impossibility) of any other alternative.

Again, there's nothing wrong with evidence as long as the means by which it is assessed is justified and accounted for. To demonstrate the rational impossibility of atheism by shining a light on their own reasoning deficits is not the same as shining a light on an irreducibly complex flagellum. The latter is arguable on the basis of incomplete knowledge, gaps of data, unknown mechanisms, limited purview, etc. The former is not arguable on any of those bases. The force of the logic is compelling and irrefutable. The atheist can only (a) acknowledge and yield, (b) acknowledge and run, or (c) refuse to acknowledge.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, you can hold to the position that someone will not accept this evidence of reason and thereby come to faith without having first been regenerated but that can in no way get you out from under the fact that you have indeed used evidence of one kind or another in order to prove the existence of God.

You really seem hung up on this mistaken assumption. Try to get it out of your head that evidence is a big no-no. The fact is, presuppositionalists are the only one's who can rightly and biblically make use of evidence. The evidentialists (i.e. Classical apologists) cannot without begging crucial questions.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And what’s more is that such a doctrinal position goes against something else that Jim said several days ago about how his life experience confirms the truths that have been communicated to him via revelation (regeneration).
Here are Jim’s exact words (emphasis added)…[snipped Hilston's quote]

This statement sounds fine and with most Christian theologies I would say that it is a perfectly fine thing to say. The problem is, that Jim (and I assume you as well) do not hold the doctrine of regeneration to this same test.

How would propose to test it?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you did, you would have to drop it because the simple fact is that the world as we experience it operates precisely as one would expect for it to operate if regeneration was not a true theology.

That's not true, Clete. Because of regeneration, there are Christians with unwavering confidence and faith in the scripture to argue in its behalf. Without regeneration, you would have a bunch of evidentialists making their best guess about the scripture, never knowing for sure whether to completely trust it or not. Remember, faith is the substance and the evidence. Not bacterial flagellum.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
From an ‘experience’ point of view, regeneration cannot be confirmed.

It can be approximated, but not absolutely confirmed. It is not supposed be. Regeneration is a personal experience. It cannot be adequately investigated.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Unregenerate people look exactly like regenerate people and vise versa.

That's exactly right.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The only difference is that one either does, or is going to, believe and the other does not and will never believe.

No, you're confusing unregenerate with reprobate. The regenerate do or will believe, that is correct. But the unregenerate may still become regenerated. The reprobate, on the other hand, can never be regenerated.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
That’s the only difference which is the exact same difference between people anyway; people either do or will believe or the don’t and won’t; regeneration changes nothing as far as our experience is concerned.

When a person becomes regenerated, the journey begins, the hunger, the drive, the insatiable desire for God and His truth. That's quite a big change, isn't it?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If someone refuses to believe they may not be regenerate now but they might be at some point in the future so everyone must be treated as if they are regenerate because if you assume they are not then there is no reason to have the conversation in the first place.

Here you're confusing regenerate with elect. There are elect people in the world who are not yet regenerated; we don't know who they are, but we keep our eyes peeled. Non-elect people (the reprobate) will never be regenerated, but we don't know who they are (usually). We should consider all unbelievers as possible elect people. But how we treat them might vary depending on their reaction to the gospel.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The result is both action and experience that exactly duplicate that which would occur if regeneration weren’t true.

That's not true. When I meet someone who is newly regenerated, but not yet converted, it is an amazing experience. They don't even know what has happened to them. All they know is they want more, they want God, they want truth at all costs. When you tell them what has happened to them, they are blown away, fully acknowledging that it was nothing they could have done or mustered on their own.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
So what’s the point, you ask? Well, if the exclusivity of the presuppositional method of apologetics is based upon the doctrine of regeneration and a rejection of evidentialism, ...

It's important that you understand that a rejection of evidentialism is NOT a rejection of evidence.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... which I think is Jim’s position (correct me if I’m wrong), then with both of those pillars compromised the exclusivity of presuppositional apologetics cannot stand.

I can honestly see how you would come to this conclusion based on what you wrote above. I'm hoping that I've cleared some of those things up for you and that my view will at least be seen a logically coherent (not that you have to agree with it). If it doesn't, then I haven't done my job and I'll have to explain better.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, Clete. I think it's going quite well.