Hello again Paul,
[quote:a7d8310e95]
First, the phrase "how we get" to the Christian God "from" the laws of logic seems to imply a discursive method of a step by step process. It is not if we start with the laws of logic and then build "up to" the Christian God in a step by step process. We start with a concrete worldview that has all the "bells and whistles" included.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Paul are you sure you worded that statement correctly? Specifically the middle sentence, i.e. [i:a7d8310e95]"It is not if we start with the laws of logic and then build "up to" the Christian God in a step by step process." [/i:a7d8310e95] Anything with a starting point that then proceeds via a step by step progression is indeed discursive. Discursive reasoning is reasoning from premises to conclusions or proceeding from particulars to generalizations or vice versa. And no one comprehends anything in any other manner. Whatever is understood is understood logically.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Secondly, we might rephrase this question thus: how do the laws of logic presuppose the Christian God and only the Christian God? The answer to this question could be laid out in a book by itself. So I will be general. The laws of logic are not intelligible by themselvbes without reference to other concepts within which they are made intelligible.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
The question is good but the answer is incorrect. Logic is the a priori element necessary for understanding anything. Logic assumes itself. Logic is self attesting. Any attempt to argue against Logic must use Logic and is therefore self defeating. And in fact one must use logic to understand logic. Now accounting FOR logic is another thing altogether. But that too requires its use.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
By way of analogy I can talk about milk. At the store milk costs 2.50. What is presupposed by that statement? The reality of numbers. The relaibility of language. <snip> This should serve to show that a worldview needs to deal with all the peripheral issues involved.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Paul, any world view has its fundamental axioms and that whether one realizes it or not. Everyone has a worldview that provides the things necessary to make intelligent decisions about the world around them. One needn't be a Christian to function in society. Children are taught math, enjoy various foods because they taste good, know not to put their hand on a hot stove a second time etc. All of these occur over and over in this world without the knowledge of God or Christianity or without the individual giving any thought to world view for it isn't necessary. Everyone has a worldview for life's experiences provide one. But no one needs to know that in order to function. Having a worldview is entirely different than accounting for the rational tools which make human predication possible. Having a worldview is quite different than understanding that the fundamental axioms of ones worldview may not be capable of accounting for its own assumptions.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Now, when I start with the Christian worldview as a unit I begin with all of the above mentioned things already in my worldview.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
No you don't. You don't have those things. You don't have the price of milk or beer or the color of eggs or mathematical concepts. Those things are learned by experiences and observations. Learning and teaching facts do not require presupposing God's existence; unbelievers know all of those things. What the Christian worldview can do and others cannot do is give an epistemological account of itself. It not only uses logic but provides a location for abstract universals. It is not only ethical, but provides a basis for prescription. The only question is whether the worldview a person holds can account for its own axioms.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
The "order of knowing" is determined by ones worldview.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Not necessarily and certainly not in this context. Matt clarified his first statement with this [i:a7d8310e95]"In the order of knowing (for a human being) logic must precede God because in the order of knowing we have to exercise our minds to know." [/i:a7d8310e95]Matt is correct and inarguably so. Logic, the ability to think rationally, is fundamental and prior to our knowledge of anything. You cannot think or understand without it. We are rational beings. Any fact is only understood logically. Now how a fact is interpreted IS affected by ones worldview but that is something else altogether
[quote:a7d8310e95]
To say that we don't know God until we use logic is faulty, I think.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Well you are wrong. You could not have written that sentence without logic. You could not have read this thread with comprehension without it. You cannot conceive of God without it and therefore you cannot know God or anything else without it. In all rational discourse the laws that govern that discourse are assumed....or perhaps I should say presupposed?
[quote:a7d8310e95]
What is meant by "use logic" first off?
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Well one would think that obvious. It means to think, to cognate, to exercise the mind rationally to comprehend or know something.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Webmaster tells us that logic is, "just a mode." Whatever "just a mode" means he does not tell us.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Why didn't you ask? Gosh Paul it may be a unique way of putting it, but a charitable reading within context is really all that is necessary to understand what is meant. And if one doesn't understand charity suggests a question for clarification.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
If he means a formalized mode that was first put forth by Aristotle then he would say that before Aristotle men didn't know God? That seems to be the interpretation when he tells us that, "But we don't know that until until we use logic, and the rules of logic, to understand him. "
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Oh how silly. You should be sure there are no matches in the vicinity while you play with all that straw. It is obvious that is not what he meant and one must stretch himself to the limit to suggest that it "seems" to be the interpretation. He is not suggesting that everything must be understood syllogistically or examined under the microscope of LC, I and LEM. And "using logic, and the rules of logic" is really used tautologically here.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Well, when do we "use the rules of logic to understand Him"?
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Whenever we engage the mind Paul. Whenever we think. This thread would not be occurring without them. This does not mean that every conversant is aware of them or that they even know such things exist. But the laws of logic are there. Human discourse is impossible without them.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
We can pause to point out an equivocation. First he talks about "knowing" God and then at the end of the sentance he talks about "understanding" God.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
You may be pointing but you haven't identified it. I think you err. Let's look at it: Matt said [i:a7d8310e95]"Ontologically, in the order of being, God precedes logic. But we don't know that until we use logic, and the rules of logic, to understand him." [/i:a7d8310e95]Matt defines his subject in the first sentence quoted, i.e. "ontological priority". His second sentence clarifies. "We do not know", [where know refers back to priority not God], "until we understand God". Understanding is used in reference to God and know is used in reference to the priority mentioned in the preceding sentence. There is no equivocation. You say he talks about knowing God and understanding God when in fact he doesn't say that at all. Additionally, even if he had done so (which he didn't), there is no justification for the charge of equivocation since your argument assumes your own definition of terms. But the Bible itself sometimes uses truth, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding synonymously though at other times to draw certain distinctions. But in any case the terms are so closely related that the charge of equivocation is unwarranted. In fact, if we are going to be technical if one does not understand, one does not really know for knowledge is justified true belief.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
What "know" and "understand" means is not mentioned.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
And as shown, no explanation was necessary. One must posit some unwarranted distinction to invent an equivocation.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Understanding is usually a term applied to ones who have reached a certain leval of cognative abilities.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Cognitive ability is usually understood to mean intellectual acumen. How smart is someone? What are his cognitive abilities? Understanding denotes a grasp of the meaning of something or some set of facts and btw is often defined as knowledge or comprehension. I'll be happy to post the definition from Websters Unabridged if I need to. You've accused your brother of equivocating but no such thing has occurred.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
I mention all of this to make my point. My conclusion is that it is wrong since Romans tells us that all men know God. Yes, even infants! But who wants to say that an infant is using and applying logic and the laws of it?
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
This lays bare the fact that you do not understand what has been said. All men do know something of God. His revelation through creation is enough to render men without excuse. (though your reference to infants fails here) But whatever men do know, whether it is suppressed or not, is not known apart from those laws which make comprehension possible. It is the "Truth" that is suppressed in unrighteousness.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
I contend that this misundersatnding rests on the idea that Romans one is talking about a discursive knowledge of God and not a immediate one.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Paul you're off in some unwarranted never, never land all based on an imagined equivocation that never occurred. Additionally the supression of the truth of the revelation of creation requires that men see and comprehend something of it. Don't confuse the visible creation with the sensus divinitatus.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Also, what is meant by "throwing away a linear progression is to end up in all sorts of craziness?"
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
He is addressing the absurdities that occur when people arrive at knowledge by non-rational means. Affectively might be a good example or the relational theology of neo-orthodoxy.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
If it is meant that if one doesn't reason linearly to any conclusion then he will end up in craziness then I maintain that Webmaster cannot use the laws of logic.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
It should be obvious that the short statement by the webmaster (logic is prior to human knowledge) assumes this very thing. How could you miss it?
[quote:a7d8310e95]
This is because in his response I would like to see a linear argument that proves logic. Now, we know that any argument he gives will use logic and therefore, will beg the question. If he says that in this instance we don't reason linearly then I maintain that he ends up in all sorts of craziness!
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Well now aren't you being a bit inconsistent? Your entire post is based on the a priori assumption of the laws of logic. Yet, and let me remind you that in the very first part of your message you said: [i:a7d8310e95]"The laws of logic are not intelligible by themselves without reference to other concepts within which they are made intelligible." [/i:a7d8310e95]I said you were wrong. I called attention to the fact that logic is axiomatic. Logic is self affirming. And btw Matt would not have said what he did if he did not understand this to be true. So now, after misunderstanding what was said to begin with and inventing an equivocation which was never made, you now want to correct him by saying that he cannot argue against logic without using it. THE VERY THING HIS POST ASSUMES TO BE TRUE. Good grief man.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
The simple fact of the matter is if God is the precondition for intelligibility then He must be presupposed in order to offer, or make, any intelligible argument or statement. God is the precondition for intelligibility (does anyone doubt this?). Therefore, He must be presupposed for any intelligent argument, even about His existence(!), to be given.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Paul your recitation of the presuppositional mantra adds nothing to this discussion. God IS the precondition for all things including rational thought and human discourse. No one has suggested otherwise. But the laws of logic are also necessary preconditions for rational thought and human discourse. So which one is prior Paul? Is God prior to logic? If so then logic is created and God, being necessarily greater than His creation should be able to transcend it. But God can't make a spherical cube can He? Is logic prior to God? If so then it is superior to God and He is subject to it. Neither is that plausible. God is neither inferior nor superior to logic. Logic is ontologically grounded in the being of God. It is what He is.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Lastely, before we move on, I sense a inconsistancy in Webmasters statements below
That does not make Logic for human being some kind of entity, just a mode.
For God, which is ontological, Logic is God, and God is Logic (see John1).
First, if we are going to be philosophically technical, then abstract entity is the proper term for logic.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Since we are being philosophically picky, it is a [i:a7d8310e95]universal [/i:a7d8310e95]abstract entity. Any human thought, concept, idea is an abstract entity but it is not universal. And here, rather than charitably ask Matt to explain what he means by mode you just assume error and use it as a platform to preach. What did Matt mean by mode Paul? Do you know without asking? Are you sure he is not just referring to method as opposed to the foundation for that method in the passage quoted?
[quote:a7d8310e95]
Secondly, I do not agree with the Clarkian interpretation given in the Johnian Logos. I think this passage is talking about Christ and not logic qua logic, per say.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
That's Johannine Logos and you haven't actually said why you disagree and what you do say doesn't lead me to think that you understand Clark on this. And it IS talking about Christ who is, according to the Bible, the Wisdom of God.
[quote:a7d8310e95]
First we must note that the so-called "Fristianity problem" is only a hypothetical one. TAGs only remaining challenge is from a hypothetical worldview. To be honest I am not much bothered by this.
[/quote:a7d8310e95]
Fristianity was mentioned to show that once atheism is shown to be insupportable (assuming your opponent surrenders) that the argument then becomes theological and the appeal to evidences (or lack of corroborating evidences as in the case of Fristianity) becomes inevitable.
Presuppositionalism, while a useful tool, is not a silver bullet. If it were, then presuppositionalists would never fail to convert their opponents. But Stein died an atheist. And Tabash and Martin and Flew and a host of others, all who have encountered presuppositionalists (unsuccessfully in my prejudiced opinion) remain atheists. Our most powerful tool remains the Gospel which God uses to save the elect.
In Christ,
Mark
[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Westmin]
the possibility of abstract universals and therefore knowledge. 
uzzled:
