“The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic” by James Anderson and Greg Welty

Comments

4 responses to ““The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic” by James Anderson and Greg Welty”

1. 

   Mitchell LeBlanc

   December 22, 2011

   Cheers for linking, I might have missed this otherwise.

   Reply
2. 

   Mitchell LeBlanc

   December 22, 2011

   Now that was a refreshing read! I’m sure some presuppositionalists will be quick to criticize the argumentation on the basis of its not being wholly in the spirit of presuppositional apologetics (isn’t this paper more accurately a piece of natural theology?) or its making dialectical concessions to “the Academy” but I hope they do not overlook the value of this contribution. The more I’ve thought about my interactions here and the more I’ve been asked to explain what presuppositionalism is/is arguing, I’ve come to see it as some variant of divine conceptualism. I was pleased to read this paper and see that I’m not alone, and to also see that a key component of the presuppositionalist position can be argued without having to “argue transcendentally” or abandoning the purview of analytic philosophy.

   I expect that the paper will stimulate some interesting discussion and given its clarity, those discussions might even be productive!

   Reply
   1. 

      BK

      December 22, 2011

      Hey Mitch! I shall be the presupper who will criticize the argument. 🙂

      I will say you find this refreshing because it doesn’t challenge your autonomy. Just because the argument is not transcendental in nature, there is no requirement for you (at least as far as the argument goes) to give up yourself as the standard of what is rational. That means you can evaluate the argument and toss it aside (or even accept it), and nothing will really change, as the argument doesn’t prove the Triune God of the Bible exists – even if the argument is sound.

      In addition, Logic requiring God to exist actually isn’t a “key component” so much as it is a single illustration (one of many). That is, TAG can proceed without bringing up logic at all.

      Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!

      BK

      Reply
3. 

   Tony Flood

   January 3, 2012

   Certainly fleshes out Greg Bahnsen’s terse answer to one of Gordon Stein’s questions, the one that brought down the house: “The laws of logic.” The authors’ culminating point — that the laws of logic both entail and presuppose the existence of God — was most impressive. Thanks for the link.

   Reply