Answering the skeptical Atheist's

Answering the Skeptical Atheist’s

As I said in my last post I will be giving an answer to the writer of www.mycaseagainst god.blogspot.com and the great Atheist Philosopher Michael Martin.

The first charge against us is that the Transcendental Argument is begging the question.

When Michael Martin says,
“The argument's validity is not a function of the truth of the premises but its form”

What does he mean? Yes it is true we all start with presuppositions about the world and yes logic does not tell us what is true always but only what is clearly false. Logic is built upon premises, first principles which if true will bring us to the conclusions. But this does not mean that the “form” is what makes it true only. Is Michael Martin and the others saying that no argument or premises “speak” about reality and that every argument is empty of any objective truth? It seems that to try and destroy the Transcendental argument one must destroy that an argument can be valid. Which in itself destroys the charge made against us by the Atheists. In fact the ability to claim that a statement is valid is to assume that the world has a fixed interpreation.

But are we begging the question? Or as John Frame would say “Is Christianity just using circular arguments”. The truth is every one begs the question,

“Everyone reasons the same way. Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions; otherwise, its is simply inconsistent. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority (rationalism) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism. Those who believe in the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose it in arguing for their philosophy (empiricism). And skeptics must be skeptical of their own skepticism (a fact that is, of course the Achilles’ heel of skepticism). If that is circularity then every body is guilty of circularity.”

The question should not be who’s begging the question, but whose worldview can account for rational thought. What worldview can give us a foundation for a rational world and make experience rational. Can the Atheist please give us an explanation on how he believes his thoughts corresponds to reality as a whole in an impersonal irrational world, Where human thinking has been produced by impersonal irrational matter. How could non-intelligence produce intelligence and how could we distinguish one from the other. The atheist needs to stop telling us we are just wrong all the time and give us an answer to these questions.

The fact is I am not begging the question, is the world not rational? If it is then we must have a rational answer. It seems the only thing the atheist can do
is try and undermine my logic and label me by saying that’s just my assumptions.

He mentions "gratuitous assumptions." Yes, I do assume God exists - but not without logical reason’s. Given that I can make assumptions, even as he does in certain areas of his life, what is to prevent me from drawing logical conclusions based upon those assumptions? Again, the atheist has not demonstrated that my conclusions are in error. At best, all he can do is attack my presupposition of God's existence. Whether or not the atheist like’s this introduction bears no weight in the argument. The point is that as a Christian I have a logical means of accounting for a rational world that has an eternal interpretation to reality as a whole, where, it would seem, the atheist does not. If reality as a whole does not have an interpretation then the atheist can not say anything objective it. What can or can not be true, as he has no standard to judge his claims against. For him there are no facts to be found in the world!
Therefore I believe that the Christian worldview can account for a rational, moral, knowing world.

It is no good telling me that I am begging the question if you can not give any rational answer in its place. Attacking the ability of making premises and true conclusion does not prove anything.