Borrowing from the Christian Worldview

The question has been asked a couple of times now just what is meant by the Presuppositionalist when they claim that unbelievers “borrow from the Christian Worldview”, and so I thought it made sense to address this in its own post at this point.

In the Bahnsen/Stein debate, Bahnsen makes the following comments in his rebuttal to Stein regarding the laws of logic:

“As invariant, they don’t fit into what most materialists would tell us about the constantly changing nature of the world. And so, you see, we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use the laws of logic tonight. I maintain that by doing so he’s borrowing from my worldview. For you see, in the theistic worldview the laws of logic make sense, because in the theistic world view there can be abstract, invariant, universal entities such as the laws of logic. Within the theistic worldview you cannot contradict yourself, because to do so you’re engaging in the nature of lying, and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it. And so, the laws of logic are something Dr. Stein is going to have to explain as an atheist or else relinquish using them.”

In short, what Bahnsen means (and any other Presupper for that matter) is that unbelievers do not have a worldview (i.e. set of foundational presuppositions) that can make intelligible their use of logic, morality, science, etc.  And so for the unbeliever to be consistent in their use of these things, they implicitly “borrow” from the Christian worldview which *does* contains foundational presuppositions which make these things intelligible.

The major thrust of the Presuppers’ argument is not that unbelievers do *not* make use of logic, morality, science, etc.  But rather, it is that *if* their espoused worldview were true, *then* they would not be able to do these things.  The argument points to the inconsistencies between what unbelievers do (on the one hand), and what they would be *able* to do (on the other) if Christianity were not true.

Van Til shares the story of a little child sitting on her father’s lap, and slapping it (only being able to do so because she sits on his lap in the first place) as a way of representing what the unbeliever is doing when they reject the existence of God.  Their ability to make an *intelligible* argument (on the surface) depends on the existence of the very thing they are arguing against.  As Van Til said – “Antitheism presupposes Theism”.

There is much more to be said about this topic, no doubt, but hopefully this is at least an initial answer to why Presuppers use the word “borrow” so often.

BK


49 Comments

Agreus

BK, how is it that in a world where there is no Christian God, I would not be able to make use of logic?

Mike

I think what BK is indicating is that in a world where there is no Christian God, there could never be a rational justification for using logic/reason – for presupposing that the use of reason/logic would lead to truth.

Suppose I ask a rationalist for his justification for using reason. If he tries to give a reason for using reason he is reasoning in a circle. If he gives any other justification he refutes himself.

Mitchell LeBlanc

I think BK is *really* suggesting that there is no world where there is no Christian God. =P

Dawson Bethrick

We must remember that logic is *conceptual* in nature, and since Christianity has no theory of concepts, Christianity cannot account for logic. Simply, Christianity as a worldview lacks a conceptual understanding of the nature of logic, and thus has no authority on the matter whatsoever. Moreover, the presuppositionalist attempt to underwrite logic with Christian doctrines can only demonstrate all the more that Christianity is inherently antithetical to logic.

I explain all this in my paper Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God? which can be found here: http://www.katholon.com/Logic.htm

Regards,
Dawson

BK

Dawson – thanks for your perspective on all things Presuppositional. I encourage people to read what you have to say (that is, if they have the time 🙂 )

ZaoThanatoo

I agree with Mitch. 🙂

“Antitheism presupposes theism” assumes that atheism can be stated coherently (in some form). Of course, if it presupposes theism then it is clearly incoherent. So if it is incoherent it’s hard to say in what meaningful sense it presupposes anything.

Of course, in making the statement Van Til is stating the conclusion of an internal critique of antitheism, its coherence being assumed “for argument’s sake,” as he was fond of saying.

Bahnsen commonly described the “borrowing” phenomenon as practically affirming something epistemologically (in this case theism) which one explicitly psychologically denies (antitheism); a form of self-delusion, according to him.

Ryft Braeloch

Agreus — The point is that the non-Christian can make use of logic; however, it’s in spite of his world view, not as a result of it. Things like the laws of logic and properly functioning brains, etc., are what relevant Christian theological doctrines predict of mankind (e.g., imago Dei), whereas other views, like metaphysical naturalism, offer no such predictions. So when an atheist like Stein makes use of such terms and concepts, it is in spite of his world view, not because of it; i.e., he is borrowing intellectual capital from without.

Christopher G Weaver

Thanks for this BK. You da man.

I respond to you here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1007041

Enjoy

BK

Chris – the link doesn’t work, and I’m not interested in signing up on yet another forum if that is what is required.

Since the original question is what was meant by the phrase, perhaps you can just let me know whether this answered your question or not? You say “thanks” as if it did, but I want to make sure I have sufficiently answered the question.

BK

Christopher G Weaver

Oops…here’s the right one:

http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1007044

Christopher G Weaver

Oh, BK…the issue was whether or not Bahnsen provides us with a substantive answer to question #2 (there were two questions). You cited Bahnsen, and my post shows rather easily, that Bahnsen’s answers is not substantive at all since it is:

(a) coarse-grained and imprecise
(b) such that all plausible readings entail its falsehood
and
(c) such that it affirms two conjuncts that are plainly false.

So no, your excerpt from Bahnsen does not provide a substantive reply to question #2.

The “thanks” was only indicative of the fact that you tried to respond to question #2. That’s all.

The correct link is: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1007044

Thanks

BK

Thanks so much for correcting the link, Chris.

Apparently I read past your use of the word “substantive”, because I was under the impression you did not understand what Bahnsen meant when using the phrase “borrowing from the Christian worldview” (based on your initial questions). Rather, it seems as if you understand what he means, and are of a different opinion than him.

I will take a look at your post later today and decide if it warrants a response.

Thanks

Agreus

Mike, what do you mean by “rational justification” and how is it relevant to the existence of God?

Agreus

Ryft, if logic is self-evident, whereas the Christian God is not, then why is there a need to borrow intellectual capital from the Christian worldview?

Christopher G Weaver

BK, if you look at the summary of the reasons I provided (above) for thinking that the excerpt from Bahnsen is not a substantive reply to question #2, you’ll see the plain admission that Bahnsen’s would-be answer is coarse-grained and imprecise. If you view the link I specifically stated that (what I call) Bahnsen’s thesis “is opaque, and vague.” So I don’t know what Bahnsen’s answer amounts to in any fine-grained way. So you’ve misunderstood me. It’s not the case that I understand what he means, but just disagree.

FYI

BK

Thanks for the response, Chris. I’m very interested to see where this discussion goes.

I think you need to be a bit more precise here. Clearly you aren’t saying you don’t understand *any* of what Bahnsen has offered, else your putting forth of (b) and (c) above would have no basis, as they are (purportedly). Is that what you mean – that you are getting pieces of his thesis, but that they aren’t all coming together for you in a detailed, coherent manner?

If you are having difficulty with Bahnsen’s statement I quoted above, why not take a shot at my restatement (also above) of what he is saying?

BK

BK

“as they are (purportedly)” … should read “as they are (purportedly) based on what Bahnsen said.”

🙂

Christopher G Weaver

I said:

“So I don’t know what Bahnsen’s answer amounts to in any fine-grained way”

Just prior to this I said:

“…you’ll see the plain admission that Bahnsen’s would-be answer is coarse-grained and imprecise”

A sentence or two later I said:

“It’s not the case that I understand what he means, but just disagree.”

The charitable reading (the one which keeps context in mind) is that I don’t understand Bahnsen in any fine-grained way.

BK

Chris – thanks for pointing that out. I must be juggling too many things today, as I read right past your “fine-grained way” statement. That’s twice now in the span of a couple hours, so I am definitely going to come back to your post later this evening as I previously stated!

BK

Christopher G Weaver

BK, your reading is completely off the mark. The plausible readings I entertain in http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1007044 are much closer to what’s going on in Bahnsen’s paragraph….

You seem to think he’s interested in making science, morality (all things he does not mention in his excerpt), and logic intelligible on Atheism…your interpretation introduces the equivalence “worldviews are sets of presuppositons” (an equivalence nowhere in Bahnsen’s excerpt.

Likewise, as I’ve maintained here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1005007 Presuppositionalists don’t know what they mean by “presuppose”, there is no friendly account of that relation which can be coherently subsumed by Van Tilian and Bahnsenian presuppositionalism. So, your interpretation (besides being inaccurate as to ascertaining the meaning of Bahnsen’s excerpt) is vague and imprecise, and therefore provides me with no substantive reply to question #2.

Christopher G Weaver

I should have gone on to say that Bahnsen isn’t interested in “making the laws of logic intelligible”…rather (as he plainly admits) he’s interested in explaining the laws of logic on Atheism, and Christian Theism. Even this though is vague….see:

http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1007044

BK

Chris – once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I enjoy our interaction here.

I obviously disagree that my reading is off the mark here, but am certainly happy to discuss this further. My comments as to what Bahnsen means when he uses the term “borrow” are based on more than the single section I quoted from his rebuttal in the debate with Stein. There is a common theme that runs throughout Bahnsen’s lectures, debates, and books as it pertains to the non-Christian Theist (not merely the Atheist) “borrowing” from the Christian Theistic worldview. Bahnsen consistently gives logic, morality and science as three examples of where this “borrowing” occurs. I can easily support this with further quotes from the Stein debate, and various other materials if you so desire – your call.

The comment that worldviews are sets of presuppositions is also something Bahnsen consistently speaks of in his writings, and even in the Stein debate. I’m not sure whether you a) disagree that a worldview is a collection of presuppositions, that b) Bahnsen believes and states that a worldview is a collection of presuppositions, or c) are saying something entirely different. Some clarification on this point will be helpful.

The comment that “Presuppositionalists don’t know what they mean by ‘presuppose'” strikes me as rather odd, if by using “know” in this way you mean to have a concept that sits behind that word that is understood. Perhaps I will gain a better understanding of what you mean when I get a chance to read the article you have linked to.

In closing, I would like to solicit your comments on the following portion of my statement above:

“The major thrust of the Presuppers’ argument is not that unbelievers do *not* make use of logic, morality, science, etc. But rather, it is that *if* their espoused worldview were true, *then* they would not be able to do these things. The argument points to the inconsistencies between what unbelievers do (on the one hand), and what they would be *able* to do (on the other) if Christianity were not true.”

Specifically, would you agree that this is what Presuppers attempt to do in their argumentation (including Bahnsen), or do you think their program is something else altogether?

Thanks –

BK

Christopher G Weaver

I emailed Scott Oliphint, he confirmed that Bahnsen is interested in “accounting for” (explaining) the laws of logic…and by consequence not making sense of, that is to say, making intelligible.

He went on to suggest that unbelievers may have accounts of logic, but because they know the truth God, any “godless” account will not be true.

So you are wrong about how to interpret Bahnsen, according to one authority re presuppositionalism.

fronf

Mr. Weaver

Are you planning on offering any additional thoughts about your previous debate on the morality of homosexuality?

Christopher G Weaver

Where does Bahnsen suggest that worldviews are “sets of presuppositons”?

I’ll respond to your paragraph soon.

BK

Chris asked: “Where does Bahnsen suggest that worldviews are “sets of presuppositons”?”

He uses the terms in an interchangeable manner rather consistently throughout many of his lectures. Here’s an explicit example I found in a paper he wrote:

Everybody has what can be called a “worldview,” a perspective in terms of which they see everything and understand their perceptions and feelings. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man’s knowledge and awareness is interpreted. This worldview, as explained above, is not completely derived from human experience, nor can it be verified or refuted by the procedures of natural science. Not everybody reflects explicitly upon the content of his worldview or is consistent in maintaining it, but everybody has one nonetheless. A person’s worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One’s worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life, etc. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs.[1]

BK

[1] “The Heart of the Matter”, http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA099.htm, accessed 7/20/2010

Christopher G Weaver

Oh, and BK, you da man.

BK

Chris –

I wonder, did you ask Scott both questions explicitly?

a) Is Bahnsen interested in “accounting for” the laws of logic?
b) Is Bahnsen interested in “making intelligible” the laws of logic?

Or, did you ask the former and conclude the latter on your own? Also, did you send a link to our discussion in order to give Scott the context?

I certainly agree that Bahnsen is interested in getting unbelievers to “account for” things such as the laws of logic. In fact, the comment that unbelievers can count, they just can’t account for counting, is a great analogy of this very point. Bahnsen uses that example many times in his work.

In addition, I will stick to my comment that “unbelievers do not have a worldview (i.e. set of foundational presuppositions) that can make intelligible their use of logic, morality, science, etc. “, supported by another quote of Bahnsen that “God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of experience”.

I would not say that this precludes Bahnsen also wanting unbelievers to making sense of (that is to say, make intelligible) these same things. We can spin another thread and discuss whether there is a true dichotomy here, especially as it pertains to how Bahnsen uses the terms. In the interim, I will dig for some support for the latter.

And yes, I am fully aware that you believe I am interpreting Bahnsen incorrectly 😉

RazorsKiss

“Since the argument with the unbeliever is finally over those presuppositions which control all other reasoning and interpretation, what kind of argument can be rationally employed? It will be an argument regarding the preconditions of all intelligible experience, logic, science, ethics, etc. – an argument ‘from the impossibility of the contrary.'” – Greg Bahnsen, Pressing Toward The Mark: Machen, Van Til, and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC

“Thus there is absolutely certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism. Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christian theism in order to account for their own accomplishments.” Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 260.

(formatting mine)

“In The Defense of the Faith, Van Til explains that this is an indirect method of proof, whereby the believer and the unbeliever together think through the implications of each other’s most basic assumptions so that the Christian may show the non-Christian how the intelligibility of his experience, the meaningfulness of logic, and the possibility of science, proof or interpretation can be maintained only on the basis of the Christian worldview (i.e., on the basis of Christian theism taken as a unit, rather than piecemeal).”

“Taking Christian theism “as the presupposition which alone makes the acquisition of knowledge in any field intelligible,” the apologist must conduct a critical analysis of the unbeliever’s epistemological method “with the purpose of showing that its most consistent application not merely leads away from Christian theism, but in leading away from Christian theism, leads to [the] destruction of reason and science as well.”[11] This point, which Van Til drives home persistently throughout his large corpus of publications, is expressed with these words in A Christian Theory of Knowledge: “Christianity can be shown to be, not ‘just as good as’ or even ‘better than’ the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience.”[12] Because the unbeliever’s commitment to random eventuation in history (i.e., a metaphysic of “chance”) renders proof impossible, predication unintelligible, and a rational/irrational dialectic unavoidable, Van Til claims repeatedly in his writings that the truth of Christianity is epistemologically indispensable.” – Greg Bahnsen, The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics

“When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or moralityThe atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for our debate tonight.” – End of Bahnsen’s opening statement in his debate vs. Stein.

Once again, options 1 and 2 come to mind.

Ryft Braeloch

Agreus — You asked me, “Why is there a need to borrow intellectual capital from the Christian worldview?” Please review my original response to you and notice that I already answered this question.

AKuyper

I was under the impression that Chris had studied Bahnsen. It has become quite apparent that this is not the case! I wonder if he truly is having such difficulty understanding what Bahnsen meant.

Agreus

The problem with many presupposers is that they never actually offer any arguments. They may, as Bahnsen says, “suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary”, however until they actually provide an actual argument, I don’t see how they can even be taken seriously. Of course, if they try to prove this claim, they start reasoning in circles, which is what their initial objection to atheism was.

Agreus

Ryft, I’ve reviewed your original response and still do not see where you’ve established a necessity for atheists to borrow intellectual capital from the Christian worldview. Your original response is a bit vague though.

For instance, how are the “laws of logic” like things as you state? How exactly does Christian theological doctrine make the predictions of “laws of logic” and “properly functioning brains” as you claim it does? What do you mean when you say an atheist does not use logic as a result of their worldview? Logic is self-evident so there is no reason to justify logic.

Dawson Bethrick

There is a lot of truth to what Agreus has stated. Presuppers repeat over and over claims such as “non-Christian worldviews cannot account for logic,” but what exactly is their argument for this? Do they show us that non-Christian worldviews cannot “account for” logic? Objectivism is a non-Christian worldview; where have presuppositionalists shown that Objectivism cannot “account for” logic? Above I pointed to a paper of mine which refutes the presuppositionalist claim in spades (see here http://www.katholon.com/Logic.htm), and yet presuppers continue to repeat the same claim. Brian Knapp encouraged everyone to read my paper. Has Brian Knapp read it? Does he have a response?

I suspect that presupposers typically like to read things which only support their position. Even when they exhibit some familiarity with the specifics of a rival worldview, it is familiarity which they tend to have acquired through other presuppositionalist sources, sources which are sympathetic to the Christian worldview from the get go and which filter the rival position through Christian presuppositions.

In contrast to this, I read presuppositionalist literature (including books by Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, even Hubner’s The Portable Presuppositionalist). I interact with presuppositionalists from their very sources. So I’m getting what presuppositionalists say from their own mouthpieces. And I interact with what they say.

Presuppers claim that, as a non-Christian, I borrow from the Christian worldview every time I use logic, rely on science, and apply moral principles to guide my choices and actions. This is pure sloganry; there isn’t any truth to it at all.

When I use logic, I am using a system of cognitive principles which is entirely based on the primacy of existence, while Christianity grants validity to the primacy of consciousness.

When I rely on science (or more precisely, inductive reasoning), I am consciously recognizing that nature is inherently uniform, that its uniformity is not a product of conscious intentions, contrary to the Christian position (see here: http://katholon.com/Bolts-Pile-of-Knapp.htm).

When I apply moral principles to my choices and actions, I am not adhering to the 10 commandments (see here: http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2007/05/moral-uselessness-of-10-commandments.html), nor am I supposing that love is subject to commands (see here: http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/04/do-i-borrow-my-morality-from-christian.html). I do not adhere to any morality which teaches that one must “deny himself” (cf. Mk. 8:34, Mt. 16:24, Lk. 9:23), nor do I expect personal gain at someone else’s sacrifice (such as Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross).

On the contrary, my morality holds explicitly that I have the right to exist for my own sake, regardless of who disapproves (whether real or imaginary), and that I shall take those actions which I determine necessary by means of my own reasoning to secure my life and the values which make it possible and worth living.

If someone thinks this is problematic, I’m willing to hear his case. But clearly this is not the Christian view of morality that I’m “borrowing.”

Christians like Brian Knapp and Chris Bolt do not interact with my paper on logic because they do not know how to, and they do not know how to interact with my paper because they don’t really have a position of their own in the first place. Their worldview (Christianity) does not give them an understanding of the conceptual level of cognition, which is why they appeal to a storybook character in their “account for” logic, rather than offer a conceptual analysis which coheres with their claims against non-Christian worldviews.

“Ryft Braeloch” said:

The point is that the non-Christian can make use of logic; however, it’s in spite of his world view, not as a result of it. Things like the laws of logic and properly functioning brains, etc., are what relevant Christian theological doctrines predict of mankind (e.g., imago Dei), whereas other views, like metaphysical naturalism, offer no such predictions. So when an atheist like Stein makes use of such terms and concepts, it is in spite of his world view, not because of it; i.e., he is borrowing intellectual capital from without.

Neither Ryft nor any presuppositionalist has shown that I make use of logic “in spite of [my] world view” as opposed to “a result of it.” Logic presupposes an objective orientation to reality, while Christianity claims that reality is a product of conscious intentions in its doctrine of creation. As Van Til says, “Creation, on Christian principles, must always mean fiat creation” (The Defense of the Faith, p. 26), and “God controls whatsoever comes to pass” (Ibid., p. 160). On the Christian view, the subject of consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over any and all objects. That’s subjectivism, pure and simple. There’s no way around this.

Contrary to the Christian worldview, logic on my worldview’s premises presupposes the objective orientation between the subject of consciousness and its objects.

As for what “the relevant Christian theological doctrines predict of mankind,” this is open to whatever the believer imagines, based on what he interprets from the storybook of the bible. Prediction is of primary importance only to the mystic, while facts are what are of primary importance to the rational thinker.

When Gordon Stein “makes use of such terms and concepts” as logic, science and morality, I wager that he more likely had something akin to what Objectivism teaches than what Christianity teaches. Whether he did this “in spite of his world view” or not, remains to be demonstrated. Stein was not an Objectivist, but he was surely no Christian. If he endorsed the destruction of the human mind, self-sacrifice, political collectivism and mass surrender to “the unknowable,” then I would agree that he may have been borrowing from the Christian worldview. But “Ryft” has not shown that this is the case.

Regards,
Dawson

taco

The problem with many presupposers is that they never actually offer any arguments.

They may, as Bahnsen says, “suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary”,

Sort of like arguing a position?

however until they actually provide an actual argument, I don’t see how they can even be taken seriously.

See second quote and comment.

Of course, if they try to prove this claim, they start reasoning in circles, which is what their initial objection to atheism was.

Kind of like in an argument where one argues for a position?

I guess I’m failing to understand how you haven’t just contradicted your initial statement twice.

C.L. Bolt

“Presuppers repeat over and over claims such as ‘non-Christian worldviews cannot account for logic,’ but what exactly is their argument for this?”

I don’t know, but it must be circular, whatever it is.

“I suspect that presupposers typically like to read things which only support their position.”

Haha.

May want to keep the preaching over on your site. 😉

RazorsKiss

Dawson says: “Christians like Brian Knapp and Chris Bolt do not interact with my paper on logic because they do not know how to” “Does he have a response?”

Ecc. 5:3: For a dream comes with much business, and a fool’s voice with many words.

Pro 10;19 – “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise.”

Ecc. 10:12-14 – “Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness. Yet the fool multiplies words. No man knows what will happen, and who can tell him what will come after him?”

Pro 23:9 – “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.”

Proverbs 29:9 – “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.”

2Ti 2:23 – “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.”

Job 13:5 – “Oh that you would keep silent, and it would be your wisdom!”

Christopher G Weaver

Hi BK,

I’ve enjoyed myself here interacting with you. FYI

I respond to some of your more recent questions and comments here:

http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/file?id=1007837

Christopher G Weaver
Ryft Braeloch

Agreus — Whether or not I established the atheist’s need to borrow intellectual capital from the Christian world view depends pretty heavily on what you mean by “established.” As can be observed in my response, I indicated pretty clearly the necessity; i.e., the atheist uses logic not as a result of his world view but in spite of it, for his world view does not provide such terms and concepts; consequently, he is borrowing intellectual capital from without. It features in his world view, it is used by his world view, it is may even be integral to his world view; but it is not a product of his world view. Everyone uses logic—ironically even those who deny it—from atheists of every stripe to theists of every stripe; and since it is the Christian world view alone that provides the necessary preconditions for the coherent intelligibility of such terms and concepts, that is the “without” from which he is borrowing.

If by “established” you mean to say that I failed to convince you of the Christian framework of these issues (e.g., how Christian theological doctrine predicts the laws of logic and properly functioning brains, etc.), then I must concede the point; but then I would also add that it was not my intention to convince you, because quite obviously I take serious issue with the non-Christian criteria you would require my effort satisfy, as the entire problem turns on those criteria being gravely broken. Christian truth claims are not “established” using the rules of your world view, just as your truth claims are not “established” using the rules of the Christian world view. Each world view stands or falls under its own terms; and you will not be prepared to accept the criteria Christianity employs to establish its claims until you recognize and acknowledge the fatal bankruptcy of your world view and its criteria.

(P.S. Myself and the gentlemen responsible for this site already recognize that the laws of logic are self-evidently true, so obviously when we talk about the need to “account for” them we are not denying that they’re self-evidently true. What we are talking about is not the “self-evident” part but the “true” part; i.e., what it means for something to be “true” under your world view leaves logic naked and orphaned.)

C.L. Bolt

For the record I cannot think of anyone I personally know who is more familiar with Bahnsen than BK is. It appears to be the case that while ample evidence has been provided by both BK and RK to establish what Bahnsen meant in the context of the rest of his work, Oliphint immediately draws from what Van Til meant about an admittedly ambiguous phrase in response to an email provided to him outside of the context of the discussion. I suppose I am at a loss as to what has allegedly been shown and what the point in showing it was.

BK

@Chris Weaver – I will take a look at your response in the next day or two and will likely post something new to address it, rather than respond in comments.

Christopher G Weaver

@BK…

Ok bro. Thanks.

BK, are you and Chris Bolt and maybe others interested in having a recorded discussion about this stuff?

Nocterro
Agreus

taco, my point was that many presuppers will merely focus on the inadequacy of other worldviews and fail to produce an actual argument for the existence of God. When it comes to actually proving the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary, they will simply resort back to pointing out the inadequacy of other worldviews. That is what I mean when I say they never actually offer any arguments. The reason they do this is because they want to avoid having to offer an a’priori proof of God’s existence as this would entail committing the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Agreus

Ryft, the claim that the Christian worldview provides the preconditions for coherent intelligibility has not been supported. If it is not your intention to convince a non-Christian of the Christian framework, then why are you evangelizing to an unconvinced non-Christian? Since I see no clear argument that you are making and you have conceeded that you are not trying to convince me, I don’t see the point of continuing this discussion. I am curious though as to what you mean by logic being “naked and orphaned”?

Nocterro
Christopher G Weaver

“While the federal government requires one-party consent, it does not have much in the way of specific legislation. But the FCC requires that all parties in a recorded interstate call must be notified either verbally or through an intermittent beep. Lawsuits concerning interstate telephone calls have been judged in both the originating state and the receiving state, so the recommendation is to follow the guidelines of the stricter state.” [1]

I’d be more than happy to give recorded verbal consent to the recording and public online publication of the discussion over youtube. All I ask is that you have my verbal consent on the recording first.

FYI

——————
[1] http://www.fairdebtforconsumers.com/Recording-Laws-Summaries.html#Illinois

Christopher G Weaver

I forgot…

I love you too Nocterro.


Leave a Comment