A Brief Defense of the Faith

Let God Be True: A Brief Defense of the Christian Faith
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

"Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.

As it is written:

That You may be justified in Your words,

And may overcome when You are judged."

(Romans 3:4)

God calls upon Christians to "sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:!5). As we obey him we must defend the faith in such a way that it "sanctifies the Lord" in our hearts. We must defend the faith from a position of faith. Too many defenses of the faith cede the method of approach to the unbeliever and end up "proving" at best the possibility that a god exists — not the certainty that the God of Scripture exists.

Let us see how we may do this.

The Role of Presuppositions in Thought

The Uniformity of Nature and Thought

We exist in what is known as a "universe." The word "universe" is composed of two parts: the first part, "uni," means "unit, one." The second part, verse," indicates "diversity, varying parts." By this it is meant that we live in a single unified and orderly system which is composed of many diversified parts. These parts function coordinately together as a whole, rational system. We do not live in a "multiverse". A multiverse state-of-affairs would be a dis-unified, totally fragmented, and random assortment of disconnected and unconnectable facts. These unconnectable facts would be meaninglessly scattered about in chaotic disarray and ultimate disorder.

This concept is vitally important to science. For the very possibility of scientific investigation is totally dependent upon the fact of a "uni-verse" — an orderly, rational and coherent system. If it were the case that reality were haphazard and disorderly there could be no basic scientific laws that governed and controlled various phenomena. And if this were the case there could not be any unity at all in either reality itself, or in experience, or in thought.

In such a multiverse each and every single fact would necessarily stand alone, utterly disconnected from other facts, not forming a system as a whole. Consequently, nothing could be organized and related in a mind because no fact would be related to any other fact. Thus, science, logic, and experience are absolutely dependent upon uniformity as a principle of the natural world.



Uniformity and Faith

But now the question must be raised: How do we know assuredly that the universe is in fact uniform? Has man investigated every single aspect of the universe from each one of its smallest atomic particles to the farthest comers of its solar systems and all that exists in between, so that he can speak authoritatively? Does man have totally exhaustive knowledge about every particle of matter, every movement in space and every moment of time? How does man know uniformity governs the world and the universe? Furthermore, how can we know that uniformity will be the case tomorrow so that we can conjecture about future events? And since man claims to have an experience of external things, how do we know our experience is accurate and actually conform to reality as it is?

Such questions are not commonly asked, but they are nevertheless vitally important questions to consider. The point of these questions is to demonstrate a particular phenomenon: it must be realized that any and every attempt to prove uniformity in nature necessarily requires circular reasoning. To prove uniformity one must assume or presuppose uniformity.

Is it not the case that if I set out to argue the uniformity of die universe because I can predict cause-and-effect that I am presupposing the uniformity and validity of my experience? How can I be sure that my experience of cause-and effect is an accurate reflection of what really happened? Furthermore, am I not presupposing the trustworthy, uniform coherence of my own rationality - a rationality that requires uniformity?

The issue boils down to this. Since man cannot know everything he must assume or presuppose uniformity and then think and act on this very basic assumption. Consequently the principle of uniformity is not a scientific law but an act of faith which undergirds scientific law. Thus adherence to the principle of uniformity - though basic to science - is an intrinsically religious commitment C. Presuppositions in Thought.

Scientists follow a basic pattern in discovering true scientific laws. First, they observe a particular phenomenon. Then on the basis of their observations they construct a working hypothesis. Next, experiments are performed implementing this hypothesis. Subsequently this is followed in turn by an attempt to verify the experiments performed. Then a verified hypothesis is accepted as a theory. Finally a well-established theory is recognized as a scientific law which governs in a given set of circumstances.

Thus the basic pattern of scientific activity is this: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, verification, theory and law. Christians agree whole-heartedly with the validity of this scientific methodology. We accept the notion of a uniform universe which allows for Such.

Physicist Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 work entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, noted that scientists must work from certain preconceived ideas, certain presupposed concepts about things in order to begin formulating their theories and performing their experiments. That presuppositions are always silently at work is evident in that the scientist when dealing with a particular problem selects only a few basic facts to consider while rejecting or overlooking numerous other facts. They perform certain types of experiments while neglecting others, And they do this in keeping with their presuppositions. One of the most basic presuppositions held by scientists is the one of which we have been discussing: that the universe is in fact one orderly, logical system. Were this not assumed then science could not even get off the ground.

But, as a matter of fact, there am numerous presuppositions that all men hold to that play a vital role in all human thought and behavior. The various presuppositions held by men govern the way we think and act all the way down to how we select and employ specific facts from the millions presented to us each moment. The presuppositions we hold are the foundation blocks upon which we build out way of understanding the world about us. Presuppositions are the very basis for what is known as our "world-and-life" view.

A "world-and-life" view is the very framework through which we understand the world and our relation to it. Everyone necessarily has a particular way of looking at the world, a "world-and-life" view, that serves to organize things about the world in his mind. "Mis world-and-life view must be founded on basic presupposed ideas that we hold to be truth. We begin with certain presuppositions and go from there in our learning, communicating, behaving, planning, etc.

The Impossibility of Neutrality

Everyone holds to presuppositions. No one does - or can operate from a vacuum. We simply do not think or behave "out of the blue." It is impossible to think and live as if we were aliens having just arrived in this world from a radically different universe, totally devoid of all knowledge of this world, absolutely objective and utterly un-predisposed to ideas about truth: People behave in terms of their basic world-and-life view which best implements their conceptions regarding truth.

Whether we are defending our moral behavior or rationally explaining something, we are working within the context of a particular, concrete way of looking at the world. This is our system of thought and behavior. This is our world-and life view. Our world-and-life view then is an important tool which organizes our way of looking at the world in terms of our specific presuppositions.

Consequently, neutrality in thought is impossible. Each person — the philosopher and scientist included — has his own bias. This bias has predetermined the facts on the basis of his presuppositions. Yet it is almost always the case that scientists claim to be presenting neutral, unbiased, impartial and objective facts in his research. But man is not and cannot be truly objective and impartial. All thinking must begin somewhere! Thus all thinking must have some fundamental, logically primitive starting point Or presupposition. At (he very least we must presuppose the reality of the external world, the rationality of mental activity, the compatibility between external reality and the mind, and the uniformity of nature, i.e., the law of cause-and effect As noted previously a certain faith is necessary in the selection and organization of the several facts chosen from the millions presented By the very nature of the case, then, presuppositions are held to be self-authenticating or self-evidencing.

Facts are inseparable from their interpretation. Facts cannot stand alone. "They must be understood in terms of some broad, unified whole or system. They must be organized in our rational minds in terms of their general relationships to other facts and principles. This leads us then to our most basic question: Which system can give meaning to the facts of the universe? Which system of thought can provide an adequate foundation for reality? Why is our state of-affairs conducive to rational thought and behavior? What is the basis for an orderly universe?

World-Views in Collision

When we contrast Christian thought with non-Christian thought we must realize that we are not contrasting two series of isolated facts. We are not comparing two systems of truth sharing a basically similar outlook with only intermittent differences at specific turns. We are contrasting two whole, complete, and antithetical systems of thought. Each particular item of evidence presented in support of the one system will be evaluated by the other system in terms of the latter’s own entire implicit system with all of its basic assumptions. Each fact or piece of data presented either to the Christian or the non-Christian will be weighed, categorized, organized, and judged as to its possibility in terms of the all pervasive world-and-life view held.

Consequently, it is essential to see that the debate between the Christian and the non-Christian is between two complete world-and-life views - between two ultimate commitments and presuppositions which are contrary to one another. Two complete philosophies are in collision. Appealing to various scientific evidences would be arbitrated in terms of the two mutually-exclusive and diametrically opposed, presupposed truths held by the systems.

Thus the debate between the Christian and the non-Christian must eventually work its way down to the level of one’s ultimate authority. Every series of arguments must end somewhere; one’s conclusions could never be demonstrated if they were dependent upon an infinite regress of arguments and justifications. So all debates must terminate at some point, at some premise held as unquestionable. This is one’s foundational starting point, one’s presupposition. The question which surfaces at this point is this: Which system of truth provides the foundational preconditions essential for observation, reason, experience, and meaningful discourse? Thus, which faith system will be chosen; the Christian or the non-Christian?

The Christian System And Presuppositions

What is the Christian’s starting point? What is his most basic presupposition upon which he builds his entire world and-life view? Where do we begin our argument?
Christian thought holds as its logically primitive, fundamental, all-pervasive and necessary starting point or presupposition, the being of God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Thus our presupposition is God and His word. "Me Scripture, being His own infallible word, reveals to us the nature of the God in whom we Mist.

God is self-sufficient, needing nothing outside of Himself at all. All else in the universe is utterly dependent upon ,Him. God is
all-powerful, fully capable of creating the entire universe. God is personal, thus giving meaning to the vast universe. And God has clearly and authoritatively revealed Himself in Scripture, so we may build upon His word as Truth.

The entire Christian system of thought is founded solidly upon this God; the all-ordering God of Scripture. We presuppose God for what He is. If God exists and demands our belief in Scripture, we cannot challenge or test Him in any area. We recognize the independence of God and the utter dependence of man and the universe. Thus we do not have to exhaustively know everything to be sum. God knows all things and has revealed to us in His word the truth of uniformity (Gen. 8:22; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) and all

other truths we need to build upon.

The Non-Christian System and Presuppositions

Against this presupposed system, what does the non-Christian presuppose as ultimate truth? What does the secularist have to offer as its ultimate authority?

The non-Christian must ultimately explain the universe not on the basis of the all-organizing, self-sufficient, all-wise, personal God as his starting point, but by nebulous, chaotic, impersonal chance. He asserts that the universe was produced by a combination of impersonal chance plus an enormous span of time. Thus the ultimate starting point and the all-conditioning environment of the universe is time plus chance.
Consequently rational science is rooted in the irrationality of chance. The scientist cannot speak of design or purpose in the universe because there is no designer or purpose. There can be no goal or purpose in a random

system.

Science must by the very nature of its non-Christian commitment assume facts are bits of irrationalism strewn about awaiting rationalization by man. Thus modem science is schizophrenic. On the one hand, everything has its source in random, ungoverned chance. On the other hand, evolution assumes all is not random, but uniform: that all is ungoverned, yet, nevertheless, is moving in an upward direction from disorder to order, from simplicity to complexity.

In this regard Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til has noted: "On his own assumption his own rationality is a product of chance. The rationality and purpose that he may be searching for are still bound by products of chance." To prove a rational universe by chance man must believe the rational is the product of, and is dependent upon, the irrational.

Not only is all of reality founded on chance, but this leaves man to be the final criterion of truth, Man - sinful, fallible, finite man - becomes ultimate in the non-Christian system.

Presuppositions Make a Difference

External Reality (Ontology)

When asked to give the basis and starting point for the orderly universe and all external reality, the Christian points to the self-contained, omnipresent all-powerful, all-wise God of Scripture.

When the non-Christian is asked to give the basis and starting for the orderly universe and external reality, he points to literally nothing. All has risen from nothing by the irrational mechanism of chance. When asked if something can miraculously pop into being from nothing in an instant the non-Christian vigorously responds in the negative. Instant miracles are out of the question! But when asked if something can come out of nothing if given several billion years, the non-Christian confidently responds in the affirmative. As Van Til, has noted, the non-Christian overlooks the fact that if one zero equals zero, then a billion zeros can equal only zero. Thus, the Christian has a more than ae1equate reason for the universe, whereas the non-Christian has no reason whatsoever.



Knowledge (Epistemology)
The Christian establishes his theory of knowledge on the all-ordering omniscient God of Scripture. God has instantaneous, true, and exhaustive knowledge of everything. And He has revealed to man in the Bible comprehensive principles which are clear and give a sure foundation for knowledge. Such a foundation insures that what man does know (although he cannot know all things) he can know truly. Knowledge does work because man’s mind as created by God is receptive to external reality and is given validity by God Himself.

On the other hand, the non-Christian must establish his theory of knowledge on the same foundation upon which he established reality; nebulous chaos and irrational chance. If followed out consistently the non-Christian theory of knowledge would utterly destroy all knowledge, causing it to drown in the turbulent ocean of irrationalism. There is no reason for reason in the non-Christian system The concepts of probability, possibility, order, rationality, etc., are impossible in a chance system. Thus, the Christian has a sure foundation for knowledge, whereas the non-Christian has none.

Morality (Ethics)
When we consider the issue of moral behavior, bow we shall conduct ourselves, again the question must be settled in terms of one’s system.

For the Christian morality is founded upon the all-good, all-knowing, everywhere present, all powerful, personal, and eternal God of Scripture. His will, which is rooted in His being and nature, is man’s standard of right. Since God is all good, moral principles revealed in Scripture are always relevant to our situation. Since God is eternal, His moral commands are always binding upon men.

For the non-Christian there is no sure base for ethics. Since reality is founded on nothing and knowledge is rooted in irrationalism, morality can be nothing other than pure, impersonal irrelevance. In such a system as presupposed by non-Christian thought there are no --- there can be no — ultimate, abiding moral principles. Everything is caught up in the impersonal flux of a random universe. Random change is an ultimate in such a system, consequently ethics is reduced to pure relativism. Non-Christian thought can offer no justification for any moral behavior whatsoever.

Purpose (Teleology)
To the question of whether or not there is any significance and meaning to the universe and to life, the "Christian confidently responds in the affirmative. There is meaning in the world because it was purposely and purposefully created by and for the personal, loving, all-ordering, eternal God of Scripture. Man came about as the direct and purposeful creation of the loving God. Furthermore, man was assigned a specific and far-reaching duty by God on the very day he was created. Man and his task must be understood in terms of the eternal God and His plan rather than in terms of himself and an environment of chance and change.

Non-Christian thought destroys the meaning and significance of man by positing that he is nothing more than a chance fluke, an accidental collection of molecules arising. out of the slime and primordial ooze. Man is a frail speck of dust caught up in a gigantic, impersonal, multi-billion year old universe. That, and nothing more.

Conclusion
To the question as to which system is the most adequate to explain external reality, the possibility of knowledge, a relevant and binding ethic, and the, significance of man, the answer should be obvious. Actually the defense of Christianity is simple. We argue the impossibility of the contrary. Those who assault the Christian system must actually assume the Christian system to do so, If the God of Scripture did not exist there would be no man in the real world to argue, there would be no possibility of rationality by which an argument could be forged, and there would be no purpose in debate!

"Darwin said it well in his personal letter to W. Graham on July 3, 1881: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Paul also spoke well when he said in Romans 3:4, "Let God be true and every man a liar."

Atheists Believe the Laws of Logic are Physical!

Atheists Believe the Laws of Logic are Physical!

Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?"

One of the points of this post is that the nature of logical absolutes is not physical, but conceptual. This is an ontological [deals with the nature of something] difference between the nature of the physical universe and conceptual realities. What I perceive to exist in my mind does not mean that it exists in the physical universe. If I perceive that I am actually larger in mass than the sun, my perception has no bearing upon the reality or lack of reality of it.
This atheist simply states that matter and energy are essential to logic yet he does not demonstrate how they are. When he asks "Suppose all matter and energy in the universe disappear, where then would logic be found?", he fails to discuss the nature or essence of logic and absolutes which is so necessary in this discussion. He mentions the "physical" universe, but does not mention the "conceptual" nature of logic. He ignores the latter and attempts to contrast it with the former without developing a sufficient discussion of the nature of each or how they relate. This is important because the nature of something reveals its characteristics. If the nature of something is that it is not physical and energy, then for him to assume that it is dependent upon the physical universe would not necessarily be logical.
Additionally, he asks questions without providing answers. When I asked the atheist to demonstrate or give a logical reason for the existence of "logical absolutes", I did not stop there. I went on to provide a solution that could account for their existence. This solution is easily explainable in a Christian presuppositional system, but not so easily explainable in an atheistic one.

How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

1. If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."
2. The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
3. If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.

We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.

1. For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
2. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot.
3. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.
4. Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?

1. You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
2. The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.

1. In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind.

2. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
3. If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
4. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
5. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

Logical processes of thought, which is what logic is - a process - occur in rational minds, not in inanimate objects. The process of logical reasoning does not occur in a rock or in heat. A rock and heat simply exist without the capacity of rational thought. Rationality, logic, etc. are by default, processes that involve and necessitate cognition. Physical and energy realities are not and have no conceptual processes. They are simply reflections of the nature of materiality and energy. Therefore, they are not the source of logical absolutes nor can they account for the existence of these logical absolutes.

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?

1. The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.
2. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
1. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
3. Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
4. Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
5. Nevertheless, the atheist might say that in his answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.

A Transcedental Argument for Logic

Here is a good Transcendental argument for Logic by; Matt Slick from www.Carm.org

This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using logical absolutes. The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows. Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God

Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse

If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non contradiction).
But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.
If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true, otherwise we would not be able to rational discuss or know truth.
If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

Logical Absolutes are transcendent

Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we traveled a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we traveled a billion in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.

People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, then they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.

Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world

Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc. and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
For example, if the universe did not exist it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence, that anything that did exist would have an identity, and that whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.

Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature

Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
If they are conceptual by nature, they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
Thoughts reflect the mind
A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, God.

Objections Answered

Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence
In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?
Logical Absolutes simply exist.
This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.

Logical Absolutes are conventions.

A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds and therefore are not the product of human conventions; that is, of human agreements.
This would mean that logical absolutes were invented upon an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes with a product of human minds which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that the trend send space and time and are absolute by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds are finite and not absolute.

Logical Absolutes are eternal.
What is meant by stating they are eternal?
If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)?
Logical Absolutes are uncaused
Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual process known as logic, it would be logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused, as if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them.

Logical Absolutes are self authenticating.
This means it logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence.
It is begging the question. It just says the are, because they are.
Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess which are not absolute and transcendent.
The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid.
There are different kinds of logic
Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes.
"Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying "they would be true even if matter didn't exist" is irrelevant, because we're concerned with their existence, not their logical validity. Saying "the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn't exist" doesn't imply that your car is transcendental. (reductio ad absurdum)"
Why do logical absolute need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don't need a transcendental existence doesn't account for their existence. "Need" deals with desire and wants, which are irrelevant to the discussion of the nature of logical absolutes.
Also, why is it irrelevant to say that they would be true even if matter didn't exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we're dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities, not physical ones.
The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid.

"Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e. brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc. Suggested by the fact that logic - like language - is learned, not inbuilt. (ball's in your court to demonstrate an independent existence, or problem with this)" (...continued in next objection...)
How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so, doesn't make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates your assertion is incorrect. No
(continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes are absolute not because of some special quality, but because we judge them using logic. Therefore their absoluteness doesn't arise from any special ontological quality. (category error on your part)"

You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly.
Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate that they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds because human minds contradict each other and themselves.
I do not see any category mistake on my part. The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual, not physical. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question.
(continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, any more than the wide employment of the word "lolly" as something small and yummy implies that the word "lolly" is transcendental. (non sequitor)
Saying that they are "widely employed does not imply anything transcendental" is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used.
This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes. And
(continued from previous objection...) "Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known "input" or "guidance" from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all. (reality check)
You haven't defined "material construct" or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn't help you at all because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven't solved the problem of their existence since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute but dependent upon human minds. Again the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory.
You don't have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.

"Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human 'has'. It's not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that 'number of eyes' is a value that doesn't vary between healthy humans."
Saying that logic is something that everyone "has" does not explain its existence. Essentially this is begging the question; stating that something exists because it exists.
The analogy of "eyes" is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures.
Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today?
"semantics of the language". Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say that the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words, is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non absolute languages?
Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence -- reasons given at beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.

If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.
If logic is the result of language and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute.
Saying that "a statement is a theorem of logic" does not account for logic but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.

No Interpretation! "Every Man does what is right in his own eyes"

"Every Man does what is right in his own eyes" if there is no absolute Eternal Interpretation to reality. (Judges 17;6, 21;25)

The Irrationality of Unbelief

An Exegetical Study

Throughout this blog I have made the claim that if one rejects the revelation of God one is left with an irrational world and irrational beliefs. But does the Bible give us any ground to base this Thesis on. I believe an exegetical study of Romans 1; 18-28 gives us the foundation to support my Thesis.

Romans 1;18-28 says, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Because what may be known of God is manifested in them, For God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead , so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds and four footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Like wise also the men leaving the natural uses of women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was against nature. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things, which are not fitting.

This passage starts off with declaring that God’s wrath is being reveled from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness because mankind suppresses his truth.
God’s wrath is his holy judgement on sin and is manifested in two ways. The first is God’s immediate awareness in our consciousness convicting us on what is evil and the second is the disorder and fallen-ness of creation. God’s judgement intensifies as we suppress the knowledge of God, which is clearly seen in us. The knowledge we have in our minds is knowledge of knowledge, minds corresponding to mind. Because God is the self-contained being of all-knowledge and man is made in the image of God. Man is a reflector and re-interpreter of Gods knowledge. This does not mean man can know all what God knows. But God has implanted a clear revelation that man cannot avoid.
Our knowledge is not just abstract, but is part of the fullness of God’s total interpretation of all reality. Man knows he is a rational being, so the world must be rational, he knows that he is a moral creature, so the world must have a moral standard. Man sees that evil is committed in this world and that something is wrong with creation. Wherever man looks he sees God weather he is seeking for knowledge, meaning, or purpose.
This is what Paul means in verse 20-21 “For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead , so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. Our attributes must have a source, that being personal, rational, and moral. When we look inside ourselves we see the creator and when we look in nature we see the creator of design and purpose. This is why God says there is no excuse in not believing in him. When man rejects God trying to have his own wisdom, he becomes a fool, because he makes the assertion that he is a rational being in a impersonal meaningless world. He makes himself out to be God and determines what must be.
For what is clearly seen, man exchanges for a lie. Instead of worshiping the creator of his existence he worships himself or the creation. By doing this man exchanges truth for error and dethrones a rational world is be irrational. This is why unbelief is irrational as it makes the whole of reality irrational. By exchanging the truth and suppressing it, the errors of mankind ways are expressed, by changing what is natural to the unnatural. Paul gives the example of men and women becoming gay or lesbians because of their suppression of truth and so become debased in their minds and hearts. This is what happens when man rejects God's revelation, man is confussed with the purpose of reality and lives deep in his sins according to his sin nature

Reality needs a Guide and an Interpretation

“Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” 1 Corinthians 1;20.

As we have seen in our survey of epistemologies without God. When you reject his existence you lose all wisdom. Without God the world is irrational and there are no facts to be found in an impersonal world. As Calvin said, “How can man survey himself if there is know interpretation for his existence”. Man is left in the void of random chance.

But because this world is rational and Gods existence establishes its rationality there is an interpretation to reality. Creation speaks out drawing man to look behind the facts of nature to see the mind of God uniting all the facts together into a unity of truth. God speaks in Creation and in his Word. For the Word became flesh and manifested his light (eternal revelation to the world) to the world for understanding. As the Word spoke (Jesus), his words latter become to be recorded in the Bible. The words of Jesus the eternal Word.
Jesus made it clear, that he was the “Way” the “Truth” and the “Life”! He was the Way, meaning that flowing him lead to life and meaning. He was the Truth meaning he was the eternal guide to reality, the true interpretation on all things as all things came from him. He was the Life, meaning that in him and his interpretation one would be able to survey their existence and understand there place in the universe to reap abundant life.

His Word, his interpretation is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.

The Bible is like milk that nourishes us (1 Peter 2;20
The Bible is like meat that satisfies us (Hebrews 5;14)
The Bible is like water that washes us clean (Psalm 119;9)
The Bible is like a Mirror to reflect ourselves to us (James 1;23-25)
The Bible is like medicine to keep us from sin (Psalm 119;11)
The Bible is like a counselor that comforts us (Romans 15;40
The Bible is like a sword that cuts deeply into us (Hebrews 4;13)

Induction proves Christian Theism

INDUCTION PROVES CHRISTIAN THEISM

Induction is an inference from particular, observed instances to a general law or conclusion. Scientific data can conclude, for instance, that a certain number of times in the past water has boiled at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level, but it cannot assume that it was always so in the past or that it is so throughout the world today or that it will be so in the future without employing induction. Scientists perform inductive reasoning when they take a limited set of empirically-proven facts and apply it to the whole and make generalizations. Induction assumes the uniformity of nature: that as the world was yesterday, it is today, and will be in the future. Causes that produced certain effects yesterday, all things being the same, will produce identical effects tomorrow.

Induction is more evidence for the existence of the Christian God. Only the Christian God can account for what all sane scientists do when they employ inductive reasoning to perform studies and draw conclusions, when they brew their tea, shampoo their hair, put gasoline in their S.U.V.s, or don sunscreen before going golfing. The atheist worldview not only fails miserably to account for induction, but it actually undermines it! Atheistic scientists assume scientific induction every day, but they must "borrow" the Christian worldview to do so. The Christian worldview's foundation for induction is that a personal, intelligent God sustains the created order. The Christian God can be proved from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God, you couldn't prove anything! Without God, there could be no induction, just like without God you could not justify moral judgments or laws of logic.

Atheists profess a devotion to the scientific method, but even the scientific method assumes things that cannot be proven or tested by the scientific method. If all facts require verification by the scientific method in order to be believable, then the scientific method itself is not believable, because it assumes things that cannot be verified by the scientific method! The scientific method assumes things that the atheist's naturalism cannot support: immaterial, unchanging, universal entities, like laws of logic, the laws of nature, and even morality (falsifying data would be immoral in light of the scientific method). So, in appealing to the scientific method to defend the worldview of naturalism, the atheist must first assume the worldview of Christianity, which alone provides the metaphysical framework for the assumptions in the scientific method.

Atheists profess devotion to empirical facts to make scientific conclusions, but scientific conclusions are based upon more than bare facts. All scientific experiments and conclusions assume the uniformity of nature in inductive reasoning. Atheism not only fails to provide the foundation on which the uniformity of nature is dependable, but their empiricism and naturalism refute the idea of unchanging laws in an ever-changing universe. Even if the assumptions of induction were true in spite of naturalism's refutation of them, how could the atheist ever know of them with their empiricism? How can their naturalism account for unchanging, uniform laws of nature in an ever-changing universe? How can their empiricism account for inductive reasoning? Can they through finite sense experience alone assume a universal, or through their limited sense data affirm the uniformity of nature, upon which all inductive reasoning is based? The assumptions necessary for induction are not obtained through any of their five senses or the five senses of those experts upon whose testimony atheists rely, because no person(s) has checked the boiling temperature of water at every place on the earth, for instance, and no person has done so in the future. The uniformity of nature is taken "by faith" (if I may use that term in its broadest sense) - the atheist believes what he has not seen. His five senses haven't confirmed induction, and proof is impossible because of our inherent limitations. Induction is assumed a priori, before an examination of the evidence, in spite of the fact it doesn't meet their naturalistic or empiricist criteria for reality. So naturalism and empiricism fail miserably to provide the basis for induction. The atheist's acceptance of some things he hasn't seen, like the uniformity of nature, and his rejection of other things he hasn't seen, like God, is completely arbitrary. He's assumed the uniformity of nature to make sense of the universe, but why doesn't he also assume God to make sense of the uniformity of nature? He is completely arbitrary and insincere. Oh! the hypocrisy of those atheists who demand empirical data and scientific fact from the theists to prove their God exists when at the same time they assume things all the time they cannot prove, things whose foundation only exists within the Christian worldview! Atheists are living contradictions. They have their feet planted firmly on thin air!

I ask the atheist to provide a foundation for the laws of logic and induction. I ask the atheist to provide the basis for his claim to absolute truth - a principle the atheist assumes when he judges Christianity to be false and atheism true. I ask the atheist to provide the metaphysical framework for his moral indignation - so aptly demonstrated by the atheist when he judges Christian creationists for falsifying data. Aside from smoke and mirrors, he can't. The Christian God is the necessary pre-condition to the intelligibility of human experience - the atheist's experience as well as the theist's. God is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. His reality is irrefutably demonstrated transcendentally.
I challenge you atheists. If you're going to dig in your heels and fight the Christian "magical sky gawd" myth, then bite the bullet! Be consistent! And then, welcome to the barbarism of Hume! Consistent empiricism and naturalism, that rejects all unsensed and non-empirical data, disintegrates ultimately into the skepticism of Hume, who rejected even that sense data was dependable, because there never was any empirical evidence that the sense data was reliably linked to what the brain perceives. This connection has always been assumed valid by all humanity, Hume admitted, but he said that this was without basis in logic or reason. Reject God as the necessary precondition of reality, and it's reductio ad absurdum! If you don't have the courage to brave consistency with your worldview, then at the very least reject your inadequate naturalistic worldview and search for a worldview that you can live out consistently! The validity of induction is only confirmed within Christian worldview, the constancy of a created order over which God governs. The Christian worldview is the only worldview, or network of presuppositions, that is internally consistent, that can make human experience intelligible, and can provide the preconditions necessary for the assumptions that we all make with our moral judgments, the laws of logic and debate, and scientific induction.

The Laws of Logic prove The Christian Worldview

THE LAWS OF LOGIC PROVE THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW

When the atheist employs the laws of logic to try and refute Christianity, Christianity has already won! When the atheist assumes that which his worldview undermines and which Christianity supports, in his arguments against Christian theism, he has become his own worst enemy. Universal, unchanging, and immaterial entities like the laws of logic have a firm foundation in the context of Christian theism. Atheism cannot account for them. Atheism undermines them.

Atheism is naturally naturalistic. That is, atheists deny the existence of the supernatural. "I will only believe what my five senses tell me!" they insist. My response is: Which of your five senses told you that? The truth is that their empiricism (that they can only know what their senses tell them) cannot be empirically sensed, and so it doesn't meet their own criteria for reality and so is self-refuting. They insist: "No faith in the unseen and unsensed is necessary in order to explain everything in the universe!" I rebut, Which of your five senses told you that, that sense experience is all that is needed to explain things? If the atheist responds that his senses told him then he engages in circular reasoning. If he says that something other than his five senses told him then he refutes himself.
The fact is that atheists do not arrive at their naturalism as a conclusion, but rather, it is their unproven, unverified premise, which is easily falsifiable with transcendental scrutiny. Their empiricism (their theory of knowing) and their naturalism (their theory of reality) do not meet their own criteria for credibility, and so they are self-refuting. Transcendental inquiry leads to supernaturalism, but the atheist is unwilling to go where the evidence leads, because he has excluded that option before an examination of the evidence has even commenced!

The fact is that atheists, like all sane persons, assume things everyday that cannot be derived through sense experience. The laws of logic, for instance, are assumed in order for the atheist to process sense data and experience in the first place. In order for the atheist to get his arguments against Christianity off the ground, he assumes the veracity of the universal, invariant, and immaterial laws of logic. Can the atheist taste, smell, touch, see, or feel the "law of contradiction" (that A does not equal non-A), for instance? No. His worldview cannot make sense of what he does when he speaks his first sentence, "I am an atheist..." At that point, he's lost the debate, because in assuming the laws of logic ("law of identity" in this case), he himself has become one more piece of evidence that the Christian God is real, for without God, there can be no universal, invariant, immaterial laws of logic in the first place.

Atheists notoriously beg the question repeatedly when asked to reconcile their dependability on logic with their atheistic presuppositions. One atheist insisted, "The basis for logic, science, induction, and reasoning is that the material world exists and can be tested objectively." That's like saying, "The basis for logic is logic," or "The basis for objective science and the objective uniformity of nature and the objective laws of science is objectivity." The acknowledgement of the objectivity of the laws of logic presupposes the Christian worldview in the first place! To admit that objective testing is possible presupposes an attainable objective truth. To even state that the immaterial world exists as a fact presupposes the Christian worldview! The atheist can only be certain that the immaterial world exists because of his presupposing of that which only the Christian worldview can account for. The atheist cannot account for universal, invariant, immaterial laws at all. How can the atheist, consistent with his worldview, account for unchanging laws in a constantly changing universe? He can't. His worldview undermines what is he doing! Admission of objectivity in the laws of logic or the external world is an admission that the atheist is secretly reliant on the Christian Deity in order to argue against the Christian Deity.
David Hume said that there was no empirically verifiable basis for the trustworthiness of our senses in experiencing the external world - our senses are trusted beforehand, a priori; the dependability of our senses is presupposed. Hume went on to profess, consistent with his strict empiricism and his naturalism, that the existence of the external world had no basis therefore in reason or logic! He was reduced to such absurdity by sheer consistency with his false premise. Bertrand Russell tried to save the sciences from the skepticism of Hume, but ultimately was reduced to the same skepticism of the external world by consistency with his starting premises. Strict empiricism and strict logical positivism descends to absurdity if consistent, and they are inconsistent to admit the objectivity of the external world. It is completely arbitrary for the atheist to admit the existence of the universal, invariant, immaterial laws of logic and yet reject the existence of the eternal, unchanging, immaterial God Almighty. Most do admit the reality of the external world and the laws of logic, however, they cannot come to this conclusion apart from presupposing God in their reason and logic, in their scientific induction, and in their objective data that presupposes objective truth. The atheist presupposes that which strict empiricism and naturalism refutes in order to make his case against the Christian God.

Some atheists argue that the laws of logic are conventions agreed upon by men, that they are not univeral, invariant, and immaterial. However, if this were true, then that democratic consensus who agreed to make illogic "logical" by, for instance, determining contradictory statements to have equal truth value, or by considering falsified data to be acceptable for scientific studies, would be just as logical as those who held these basic laws of logic to be dependable. This cannot be so. Laws are not conventions or human creations, whether they are the laws of logic or laws of science. Gravity existed before Newton studied and documented it just as the laws of logic existed before the Greeks wrote textbooks on logic. Logicians study logic, just like biologists study biological organisms, but logicians did not create logic any more than biologists created biological organisms. "A" does not equal "non-A" even if there are no humans around to document it, even if whole world of disagrees or cannot comprehend the proposition.

If the laws of logic were a human convention, then I can just start a new convention and reject the old, can't I? Okay, I'm starting a new convention: "Atheists are Christians! There! That's now logical and to say atheists are non-Christians is heretofore illogical!" Now, would you accept that as logical if I happened to get a country of imbeciles to agree with me? No, a logical atheist would not. The point is plain: laws of logic are universal, invariant, immaterial rules by which we judge all propositions and data. They are transcendent in origin and quality, because they reflect the laws by which God's own intellect and actions are governed and by which those made in His image should be governed. He is the necessary precondition to make sense of the laws of logic, as well as induction, morality, and reality in general. Furthermore, no sane person can live like logic is merely conventional. Debate itself presupposes that there are universal and invariant laws of logic. When each debate opponent tries to convince others of their view, they presuppose the attainability of objective truth through universal laws of logic and deny determinism. Even if they deny the freedom of man's will in theory, the debater in practice admits that men have free wills and can be intellectually persuaded to disregard certain views to adopt others. So atheists who debate Christians are their own worst enemies. In agreeing to debate, they have lost the debate.
Some have argued that the laws of logic are simply descriptive of how our minds evolved. However, the laws of logic do not describe how we think so much as it describes how we should think. If logic was primarily descriptive as they propose, then the philosopher who begged the question would be just as "logical" as the one who did not, the mathematician who thought that the shortest distance between two points was an arc would be just as "logical" as the one who thought it was a straight line, the scientist who believed that the sun did not exist would be just as "logical" as the one who did. Disagree with it in theory if you like but you cannot live like that, Mr. Atheist - your theory is contrary to universal human experience. Logic is an universal, invariant, immaterial entity which is presupposed, that is, embraced as true beforehand, in all of our studies - in calculus, geometry, astronomy, grammar, quantum physics, philosophy, epistemology, anthropology, all the way to the simple things of life like baking bread and telling your wife that you're going to the pharmacy to pick up your Haldol prescription. J The laws of logic are like mathematics: objective and external to self. They are not dependent on a democratic consensus or vote. General agreement that the sun rotates around the earth does not make it true any more than philosophers who beg the question and vote that they are logical are really being logical. A tree is not a bird even if no humans are around to document it. The laws of logic are prescriptive in philosophy as well as all of the sciences and literature, as all men intuitively know and demonstrate for us when the scientist instructs and corrects the ignorant, or when the philosopher instructs and corrects those that beg the question, or when the mathematician instructs and corrects the child who thinks 1 + 1 = 3, or when you try to correct the bad arguments of the theist.
Only the Christian worldview can account for immaterial laws of logic, because the universe was made by God who governs logically and expects and empowers intelligent creatures to learn about his universe in a reasonable fashion and govern themselves logically. So in order for you to get your arguments off the ground, Mr. Atheist, you have to presuppose God, and your guilt for resisting the Christian truth that you cannot completely abandon in practice only accumulates until the revelation of God's wrath on you on the