I wanted to pose a question regarding presuppositionalism in regards to logic. I believe that I am correct in saying that presuppositionalist say that logic cannot be supported by the unbelievers worldview. However, I am not sure that a theistic worldview is necessary to give an account of logic. My reasoning is that logic seems to be built on self evident laws such as A and not A. It seems obvious to me that one can self evidently perceive apart from the existence of God that my car is not both in my driveway and not in my driveway at the same time. Any thoughts?

__________________
"If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, then God is not sovereign." -RC Sproul-
James Baird
Fellowship of Grace (member)
BA in Christian Studies with emphasis in Historical Theology and Philosophy

Total Depravity. We can twist whatever our sinful heart desires and call it "logic" when we are unregenerate. And we do!

__________________
Rev. Toby L. Brown, pastor
Jefferson Center Presbyterian Church--in, but not of, the PC(USA)
Saxonburg, PA
A Classical Presbyterian
Proud member of The Westminster Fellowship

"The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which God is also highly exalted." --Jonathan Edwards

I agree that depraved man will twist logic, but as far as being able to account for logic from a worldview perspective, I believe that the unbeliever can give an account apart from appealing to theistic presuppositions.

Simply put, without God there are no consistent laws, period; including laws of logic. Without God "A" has no meaning, let alone "not A." Such a position, IMO, is foundationally unstable and unsustainable.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

I could say anything is self-evident. It still doesn't prove anything.

Also, you may have never seen your car in your driveway and not in your driveway at the same time...does that mean it isn't (or hasn't been)?

One can be logical without being rational. You can take false premises and logically build conclusions from them. Obviously, such conclusions would be as or even more erroneous then the premises. An unbeliever building a world view upon false premises (atheistic) can draw logical conclusions that are utter nonsense. Rationality of worldview can only be achieved through theistic thinking, for therein lies true premises.

Theognome

__________________
Bill Cunningham
Covenant Reformed Church, URC
Kansas City
There are three kinds of people- those who can count, and those who can't.

These self-evident laws are a part of the presupposed framework within which humans reason. Are they applicable everywhere, at all times, and under all conditions? If so, then there must be an infinite, eternal and unchangeable Mind which validates them. If not, then they are not self-evident laws, but mere temporary conventions.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

You could not accurately say all things are self evident. 2 plus 2 equals four because once the nature of 2 and addition are understood then they must equal four, hence it is a self evident truth. Once the nature of something being and not being is understood then A and not A have to be self evident laws. Also, it is part of the very nature of self-evident laws such as 2 and 2 equal four to be applicable everywhere and for all time.

Says who? I say it's self-evident that cold baths kill people. I saw a man step into a bath tub, lay down, then grabbed a hairdryer that was plugged into the wall. I knew the water was too cold because he shook himself to death.

You're assuming there's a relationship between numbers...you would be begging the question as you're establishing order by first assuming it is the case. As Rev Winzer has pointed out, that may only be a convention...true now, but maybe not in 5 seconds. I see change all day long...especially after many years...if anything, it is self-evident that all things change. It should be self-evident that there are no fixed laws of logic.

Have you been everywhere all at once to know that it is a self-evident truth? There may be some place somewhere in which it is not self-evident. You are making an assumption about the regularity of the human condition which you are unable to personally validate. IOW, you are assuming the Christian view of man in a created universe in order to state what you consider to be a fact.

The self-evident laws of logic make it impossible for the non-theistic framework to work. A book has an author, a painting has a painter, and logic has its Logistician. The very laws the unbeliever appeals to in order to make their argument for the non-existence of God provides the noose to hang them with-they have to account for its existence somehow, it cannot be self-evident because it does not allow itself to be.

The laws of logic say that ex nihilo nihil fit, i.e. there is no self-creation from nothing. The laws of logic also say that A cannot be both A and non A at the same time in the same place, ergo the Universe cannot create itself. The non-believer has to answer these questions that logic bears, and they are unable to.

Even assuming that logic is self-evident and woven within the fabric of the Universe itself, it still must ultimately have a Creator.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

I think that was Van Til's point when he used the example of a young girl he saw on a train who slapped her father's face while sitting on his lap.

__________________
Lance G. Marshall
Pastor
Georgetown, Indiana

*sigh*

You can't win. Logic can be built from anything, but truth can only be given through faith. No one can logically pinpoint theistic thinking, for it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and has not its origins in man. This thread will, unfortunately, go nowhere.

The strength of Presuppositionalism is the acknowledgment of this very fact- man, outside of regeneration, can only build upon irrational premises that are based upon a rebellious state. The logical conclusions of guilty man will always be in error. No amount of logical wrangling will ever fix this, and to try to make sense of it is to play the role of God. This is the mystery Paul spoke of- that we, as fallen beings, are given a true, rational Rock upon which to build our thinking. If anything, we should tremble before this truth, and pray for the furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ into the world of the unrepentant.

Theognome

The problem with the term "self-evident" is clearly underlying the context of this discussion. "Self-evident", or even "evident" for that matter, is only concerned with the subjective perception of an individual. Many things may appear self-evident to me without being grounded in fact. Greg Bahnsen never had a problem with using the term but I do and Van Til commonly veered away from it also, forsaking it for "necessity". A necessary truth is one that is true in all possible worlds (as opposed to a contingent truth, which is true in at least one possible world). God Himself is necessary and cannot not exist. Logic, being contingent upon Him, is thus also necessary, but ONLY because of His unchanging character. Hence, logic cannot not exist, but that truth only makes sense at all because logic itself is a quality of God, not some reified principle existing somewhere in the abstract universe. The Christian worldview, being the only one to accurately hold the fundamental character of God and all of His attributes, is the only one which can account for the existence of logic and ordering of our world, including logic which is imposed upon the human mind by God when He created us in imago Dei.

__________________
"Peace if possible, truth at all costs." (Martin Luther)

David G. Suggs Jr.
New Covenant, PCA
Anderson, South Carolina

The term "self-evident" is practically useless. It's reminds me of the term "common sense." (Though they don't mean the same thing) For centuries it was "common sense" that the earth was flat.

Who is the "self" that "self-evidence" is evident to? And what is "evident" to you may not be evident to "my-self"

Would someone grab my hand and pull me out of this fog?

__________________
Kevin - PCA - Mississippi

"What, for some, is sin, others do to the glory of God. And the good Dr. Pentecost's remarks notwithstanding, I intend to go home tonight and smoke a cigar to the glory of God. It is a kind of incense drifting to Heaven." - Charles Spurgeon

"Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!" - 2 Corinthians 9:15

There are some things without which nothing would be evident -- these are self-evident truths according to the philosophy of common sense realism. They are not subjective and limited to one viewpoint, but true in all conditions of human thought.

Hmmm... that's new to me. Would you mind telling me more about "the philosophy of common sense realism?" I am a Presuppositionalist but I've never believed in common sense. The only thing I know of without which nothing would be evident is logic. Do I have the wrong idea about that?

IMO, I think your confusing the fact that humans can reason with the notion that atheist can't account for this reasoning. Presuppositionalism doesn't say atheist don't use logic or reason because as you stated obviously they do and do so at the same time denying that God exist BUT the problem is that by denying God they contradict themselves and become irrational so that at the same time they are logical and illogical, go figure. So therefore an atheist can reason but cannot account for their reasoning.

Maybe you already knew that but I just thought I share

__________________
Richard W. Roldan "Ricky"
Member and Teacher of Iglesia Presbiteriana Reformada Berea (PCA)
Winter Haven, FL./ Under Care of the Southwest Presb.(PCA)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,...” Jesus

" I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel," Paul

1) Logic does not make sense outside of the non-christian worldview. Atheists are able to think logically, but their worldview does not account for this.

2) Provide an alternative worldview which gives an account of the laws of logic.

3) Self evident to whom? Which kind of logic? Who determines what is and what is not self evident? Who determines what is and what is not logical? Either the laws of logic are a reflection of God's thinking or they are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

4) Without the Christian God you have no class concept of car, driveway, not, and language and therefore could not state anything about your perceptions. Or to put it another way, apart from the existence of God your experiences are meaningless.

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

"Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they,... did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists,... and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton

Please consult the introductory article, "Scottish Realism," by D. F. Kelly in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. It is available online here: Scottish Realism and Scotism.

Thanks! I will!

I have been doing some personal work on this subject, and by God's grace I believe I have made some great strides.

To put it briefly, the atheist can be absolutely correct when he mentions the axiomatic nature of logic. He is completely correct when he establishes that logic is self-evident and cannot possibly be denied.

...but it doesn't follow that any worldview is justified in holding logic, as some type of coherence still has to be demonstrated between the unbelieving presupposition and this established fact of logic. He still has to have a presupposition, and as he could later find out in some argumentation, the characteristics of logic (i.e., its universality and prescriptiveness) cannot possibly be reconciled with his presupposition.

The most important thing to do if an atheist brings up this objection is tell him that he is correct that logic is self-evident -- now how does it fit into his worldview? He has explained the characteristics of it, but he hasn't begun to say how that actually fits into his worldview.

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

First, I am presuppositional in my theology, and I hold that the universe in which we live is in fact correctly viewed only through the lens of scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. I hold that the only universe that could exist is the one that God created, because I hold that God does exist as he has revealed himself.

That said, I would want to state something I do not believe is true, but at least is consistent from the standpoint of logic.

Suppose logic is an inherent property of the universe. Not that it is caused by anything or that anything could change universal consistency, but just that these are properties of an eternally existent universe (I know, that is a rather large pill to swallow, but remember, I don’t believe it for a heartbeat either).

Now what do you have? Logic is possible, and can be consistent without a presupposition of a God that causes consistency. That flies in the face of what we as believers know to be true, but from a logical standpoint, if those properties required for logic just happen to be part of the universe, then it just is.

We cannot escape our worldview any more than the unregenerate could escape their world view without the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit.

The real issue though is not that they could be consistent. That is beside the point. The Bible says they know the truth because God has made it known to them. Nobody doesn’t believe in God because they don’t have enough evidence; people do not believe because they know who God is, and hate him. We should not be surprised that the world hates God; Jesus said “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.” (John 15:18 NASB) The world denies God because it hates God and for “good reason”: God is the thrice Holy, Righteous Judge who will not pardon the guilty; He will bring justice, which is condemnation to the world.

Because our eyes have been opened, we no longer have a perspective of being blind. We no more could see the universe without God than we could have a heart of stone if God has given us a heart of flesh.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

Does this eternally existing universe possess a Mind then?

Be careful not to argue evidentially with premises such as these. It is not our goal to try to build our case from the ground up and say, "Logic demands an infinite mind; therefore, Christianity is true" -- because 1. that presupposes a self-existing framework apart form God (since we did not explicitly presuppose Him from the outset), which is to deny His sovereignty and idolatrously prefer a separate worldview, and 2. such an argument would never possibly work, for it is a non sequitur to jump from the premise "an eternal mind exists" to the conclusion "Scripture is true," even if deism and all other revelational religions have already been refuted in some other way. We have to start with Scripture.

...and if you implied this entire methodology in your statement without explicitly saying so, then I apologize for essentially preaching to the choir.

It wouldn't have to, it would only have to have logic as one of the inherent properties.

It is *really* difficult to get outside of my own view ... but what I tend to do with these things is remove the axioms I hold true, and then figure out what axioms would be necessary without my axiom set. It is painfully difficult, because I *know* it isn't what anyone actually lives by (nobody really believes it) but I also know that some are so blind that they talk it as if they did.

It is perfectly acceptable to let the unbeliever say that logic is "inherent in the universe" or whatever, because logic is axiomatic. Unbelievers are perfectly justified in believing in axiomatic truths. However, it does not follow that these truths which they believe are consistent with their previously chosen presuppositions.

For instance, before a person can even begin to reason with logic, he must first view the laws of logic as either an entity under God's sovereignty, or a self-existent entity apart from God's sovereignty. There is no middle ground. At this point, he can choose a Christian presupposition or an anti-Christian one.

If he chooses the anti-Christian one (we'll assume generic atheism for demonstration's sake), then he has just affirmed the lack of a providential Organizer of the universe and the lack of a universal Judge. Seeing as laws of logic (which he already believes and is justified in believing because they are axiomatic) are universal and prescriptive, it follows that his presupposition is inconsistent with his belief in the law of logic.

Thus, he is not wrong in believing in logic; he's wrong in thinking that he can believe in whatever presupposition he's holding. Hopefully this will make him come to repentance, seeing as he is utilizing a concept which doesn't make sense with his presupposition, yet he used the concept sensibly. But only God can make the unbeliever identify the grace of God at work and accept it in faith.

So basically, the general rule for arguing this way is not to argue for the sheer existence of axiomatic truths -- since everyone, per the definition of "axiom," is epistemically justified in believing in them -- but rather for the characteristics of these truths, and showing how they do or do not comport with the unbeliever's presupposition.

I'm not sure how you arrive at point 1. A presupposition is not something thought up out of thin air, but that which can be proven to be a precondition of rationality. One must be able to provide a rational account for their starting point in order to counter a charge of irrationality. This is not evidentialism since it does not argue from evidence to fact, but simply provides the theoretical basis upon which the facts can be accounted for.

Point 2 is easily rebutted by keeping in mind that a precondition for human rationality is not only the eternal Mind validating all facts but also the realisation that there could be no knowledge of any fact unless that eternal Mind revealed Himself.

Logic requires a thought process whereby one moves from antecedent to consequent. If this so-called eternal universe has no thought process then logic cannot be inherent within it. In order for there to be logic in this universe there must be a Mind in which the antecedent and the consequent are validated.

You beat me to it. This just dawned on me and I was about to post something to this effect, though not as concise.

As Christians (actually, as humans), we do not have a rationalistic approach to our worldview. We don't reason towards the truthfulness of Scripture. Scripture is truthful from the outset, and we know that it is not because we've figured it out in some other manner, but because the Holy Spirit Himself has opened our eyes to accept it as a pre-rational authority. Scripture is the ground of all reasoning and not merely the conclusion of metalogical reasoning.

In fact, the methodology of trying to find out which authority is correct is a flaw which Van Til pointed out in Francis Schaeffer's (I think) apologetic, for doing so presupposes that there is some authority external to the one for which we are searching, and from which we can reason in the first place. If we try to say the Bible is not necessarily true and "neutrally" attempt to find out what is a necessary precondition of intelligibility, then we are assuming that a separate framework is possible from which we can neutrally reason, and that the Bible is not completely necessary.

So, in other words, because of the Holy Spirit's witness, we do in a sense obtain the presupposition of Scripture out of thin air. We start with it before even reasoning in the first place. We still have a rational account for holding this presupposition, but not for arriving at it, because by definition we must start with it. And if we don't start with our presupposition, then we are trying to lay the groundwork for rationality is a purportedly neutral fashion, which is in fact evidentialism, albeit an uncommon variance of it.

But, again, this does not establish the Bible's authority, even if all other revelations (e.g. the Qur'an) are disproven. This is true because, in such a case, we are still saying that the Bible is God's Word iff it passes a test for us humans (viz. that we find it to be consistent), and iff it remains rationally appropriate for us humans. If there is some methodology which does not necessarily have Scripture's veracity as its basis, then Scripture cannot be as authoritative as it ought to be -- for in that case whatever methodology was used to arrive at the conclusion "Scripture is true" is in fact more authoritative than Scripture itself.

Moreover, a nonbeliever could legitimately claim, after being confronted with this argument, that whatever appropriate revelation there was is now gone. Why not the revelation of the Mayans or the Incans? Why not some Eastern religion whose text we have lost in the annals of history? If we establish the necessity of revelation, and even if we establish the Bible as consistent, this still leaves plenty of (rational) safety valves for unbelief.

I'm not saying it's wrong to argue for the fact that revelation is needed. That is still an awesome argument to use. However, once we establish the necessity of revelation, we should not view this as some "neutral" fact from which we can move to Scripture. Rather, we show how the starting point of Scripture accords with this fact (of the necessity of revelation), and how the unbeliever's starting point adamantly does not.

In other words, the argument for the necessity of revelation is a "primary interpretation" as I espouse in this thread. I have, however, changed my current terminology to "immutable fact" rather than "primary interpretation," because the former term fits the concept much better than the latter does. The last post in that thread makes note of this modification.

I can tell you are no mathematician.

If you have that a presupposition is what can be proven as a condition of rationality, then what you are left with is rationality is the presupposition and all else is theorem. Not only that, but many rational systems would be excluded as the axioms of the system would not be provable as necessary.

Presuppositions are statements taken as true without proof. Irrationality can only be charged against a system of presupposition which lead to contradiction. Thus strong geometry (those that have no parallel postulate or one of the alternatives) are rational, but that does not mean that either Euclidean geometry or elliptical geometry are irrational. The Euclidean parallel postulate is not required for rationality (every time I step on an airplane I trust the pilot to have done his navigation via spherical geometry, a subset of elliptical geometry, which contradicts Euclidean geometry at the level of presupposition).

Presupposition in any field is fairly straight forward ... it is taken as true without proof. That does not mean there cannot be reason for thinking it true. The example of elliptical geometry came out of attempting to prove the parallel postulate from the other Euclidean postulates ... until a model for elliptical geometry in the real world was mapped to the geometry. The real world has no contradictions (thanks to the God who designed it), so discovering model for the real world in elliptical geometry proved it is without contradiction.

Presuppositions are the foundation we set for a logical system. While as Christians, we know there is a foundation that models the universe appropriately, it is not impossible to have a set of axioms that say nothing of the real world (pure mathematics does it all the time). What is significant in one sense is that we know those that oppose our system of presuppositions cannot do so consistently with their lives. Those that want to borrow morality have to presume a basis for it. Not only that, but they know the truth, because God has made it known to them, and God created them with a conscience that either excuses them or accuses them based on conformity to our foundation (at least when they have not had their conscience seared by long practice of suppression the truth in unrighteousness).

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 10:05:38 EST-----

Hmmm.... I'm not sure what you are intending that the axioms which he holds are universal and prescriptive. That the universe is logical (as an inherent trait) does not seem to (at first blush) mean that it must have additional axioms which are universal and prescriptive. In my prior post to Matthew W. I stated that two axiom sets are operative and without contradiction in different geometric spaces. I'm not sure why what you are saying requires some different "universal and prescriptive" when in our day-to-day lives, we can have different logical systems.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 10:19:09 EST-----

I would respectfully disagree. Moving from antecedent to consequence is causality, not logic. I see no reason for either to be validated in order to exist. If they just are, there is no need for validation ... of course if you are talking about there needs to be a way of mapping the axiom set to a model of the universe (model validation) then either mapping or not mapping is irrelevant to the logic of the model. There are mathematical models for which no map has been found and for which none are sought. Validation from the standpoint of proving non-contradiction is not required for logic, though it would be required that presuppositions that are contradictory be labeled illogical. People examine them for years upon years without finding a model or a contradiction. Are they logical? From the standpoint of being based on a set of axioms, undefined and defined terms, and built upon them -- yes, they are logical. Are those systems validated? A pure mathematician would only care in as much as if they were, they might move on to some other system that is still within abstraction.

Then the "causality" is a rational observation. Again, this is not something inherent in the universe, but something mind abstractly works with.

How do you know that it is the Holy Spirit who opened your eyes to Scripture and not some other spirit? There must be marks whereby this can be ascertained to be genuine. The marks are not the cause for the belief but are a consequence to be expected if this is a true work of the Holy Spirit. One is not at liberty to say, The Holy Spirit told me so, and leave it at that; the Bible requires us to "prove all things."

No, I'm saying that the axiom of logic, i.e., "the laws of logic are true," contains the characteristics of logic, and these characteristics are universality and prescriptiveness. It would make absolutely no sense for an atheist to say he believes in the laws of logic but not in their universality or their prescriptiveness. They are objective, not conventional. Thus, he must show whether or not his presupposition is consistent with these characteristics that he is obliged to accept contained in the axiom.

Also, just so I can learn some more stuff pertaining to axioms, what specifically are the axioms of different types of geometry? What propositions are they?

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 10:39:48 EST-----

This is the thinking that denies presuppositionalism in the first place. "You can't do that; you must prove it by some other means." No, I simply do not have to appeal to a higher authority to validate any work of God. You may ask how I know it is a work of God, but the answer is that I simply know it. If I had to make it accord with a higher authority, then God would not retain any authority. His witness is infallible, and I don't have to "prove" its infallibility; that is an absurd concept.

The best feeling I can explain which can objectify the subjectivity of the experience is this one: imagine you are in an argument with someone, and at some point (maybe after you've heard a point he just made), you are completely assured that you are correct -- you know you are correct -- but this assurance occurs before you actually formulate your argument. Of course, as the argument pans out, you formulate your argument and end up beating the other guy down, meaning that you had some legitimate knowledge prior to an actual rational undergirding for it. There did end up being a correct rational basis, but nonetheless you had correct knowledge before even thinking of this basis. It is likewise with Christians and the Holy Spirit and the obvious witness of Scripture.

While this may sound unfair, please recognize that I am still willing to demonstrate the consistency of my worldview and offer a full apologetic, but I am not doing this as if I expect to find any sort of flaw in mine, because I already have a completely true and convincing knowledge that such an occasion would be impossible. In fact, it would be illogical for me to expect any type of possible flaw in the first place, but I still am completely willing to demonstrate this flawlessness. Thus, certainty of the faith and fairness in apologetical argumentation are still balanced, and this is done by none other than God Himself, the Holy Spirit.

Actually, to appeal to the work of God as proof would be objectively sound, but it would lack any persuasive ability. Apologetics consists of this persuasion.

This, by the way, is why not every Christian who can think through the most intricate philosophical implications of belief is still epistemically justified in his or her belief in God, and why every person on Earth is epistemically obliged to believe in God. From the outset, everyone's sensus divinitatus makes God-belief obligatory. Submission to God is demanded prior to any reasoning, even reasoning to find out what our authority should be, which was (partially) the sin of Eve.

You are answering a figment. I have distinguished between evidentialism which proves and a presuppositional approach which confirms faith. If you cannot show how your Christianity confirms your presuppostional belief in the authority of Scripture then you are asking me to disbelieve the Bible when it tells me to discern teachings by their fruits.

It appears that this previous paragraph of mine answers your request.

"While this may sound unfair, please recognize that I am still willing to demonstrate the consistency of my worldview and offer a full apologetic, but I am not doing this as if I expect to find any sort of flaw in mine, because I already have a completely true and convincing knowledge that such an occasion would be impossible. In fact, it would be illogical for me to expect any type of possible flaw in the first place, but I still am completely willing to demonstrate this flawlessness. Thus, certainty of the faith and fairness in apologetical argumentation are still balanced, and this is done by none other than God Himself, the Holy Spirit."

I'm not saying apologetics should consist of our telling unbelievers to look inside themselves, and look inside themselves further, and they just haven't heard the right Spirit, etc. Although that may be true, that is not apologetics. But it doesn't follow that I can't legitimately recognize that as the cause of my own belief and let the unbeliever know what I believe about the Holy Spirit.

Boy are we going to get an on this one.

The axiom (postulate in geometry) that is different is the parallel postulate. In Euclidean space, it states:

It is directly contradicted by the spherical postulate which states there can be no parallel lines. (The technical language for it I have not looked up in a while, so I'm not willing to put it into a quote box.) Spherical geometry is geometry on a sphere (one model) in which lines are "great circles" of the sphere. Every great circle on a sphere intersects every other great circle at two points ... and is the shortest distance between those two points (which is why it is used in aviation).

If you used Euclidean geometry to plot courses for airplanes and used the shortest distance, you would crash the airplane into the ground trying to use the shortest distance between two point (a line).

I think I see your point on the laws of logic, but there are precious few laws for logic: identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, commutativity, associativity and the distributive law; and those laws of logic are rather bare in what they state.

What I see though (dimly, I'm not the mathematician I once was) is that logic is ruled by convention. I've taken a course on mathematical modeling and in it, an entire section was devoted to Boolean Algebras (note the plural) and logic in general. The laws I stated above are those of a Boolean Algebra. That does not mean there are not other logic systems (I know there are) in which some of these "laws" are non-existent. It doesn't mean the systems are not logical, but that they operate differently than what we are used to operating. For that matter, most people operate on an emotional level not a logical level.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 11:23:34 EST-----

The only fruit that the Bible states must be shown is that it conforms to the Bible. So the Bible is its own confirmation. WCF:

There is no outward proof that confirms the Word of God to us -- if there were, we just unseated God and put the thing which confirms the word into the place of God (judging the Word by an external standard). The Bible is Canon; it is the standard by which all else is judged.

While I might look at the arguments of someone that does not accept the Bible as canon, I do not believe their axioms are those upon which the universe is founded. Seeing the system allows me to push it to the limit that the person does not believe (most people do not hold that the universe is meaningless regardless of where they start).

Doesn't the fact that spherical lines are on spheres make a huge difference? In that case, the propositions would not correspond, because they're not referring to parallel lines in the same sense, and logical contradictions have to include propositions that are identical in that regard. For instance, f I said I have a cat "A" but I do not have a cat "B," I would not be referring to the same cat and therefore there would be no contradiction in stating the possession of one and the lack of possession of the other. Likewise, if I say that all non-spherical lines have exactly one parallel line, yet all spherical lines have exactly zero, then I am not referring to the same subject and therefore there is no contradiction.

Or perhaps I still know too little about geometric axioms.

I think "concise" might be a better word than "bare," seeing as the laws, though small, are the ground of all thought.

I've never heard of different systems of logic abandoning any of the aforementioned foundational laws. Maybe I'll have something to learn in my logic class next quarter.

Regarding people who usually think emotionally, it doesn't follow that they still don't use logic or that they do not have to provide an account for it.

Lastly, thanks for posting the WCF quotation.

This is a contradiction. That which conforms to the Bible is not in the Bible. There must a particularisation which applies the biblical principle to the real world. This particularisation -- like works in relation to justification -- is a fruit and evidence that the principle which produces it is true.