If Some One asked.. (why does law have to presuppose God?)
- Thread starter T.A.G.
- Start date
- Status
I think this might turn in to a dualism thread, what if someone states that we can have an immutable universal law but that doesn't presuppose God because it immaterial laws can exist outside of there being a God..
I am talking with an apostate from my college so I am getting prepared..
I am talking with an apostate from my college so I am getting prepared..
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
I think this might turn in to a dualism thread, what if someone states that we can have an immutable universal law but that doesn't presuppose God because it immaterial laws can exist outside of there being a God..
I am talking with an apostate from my college so I am getting prepared..
Tell him that he is making it up out of thin air; what can he do ... quote a philosopher?
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
If there is no God, then how do you know the law is universal and immaterial? A universal law requires universal knowledge of that law in all situations and times in order for it to be called universal. Otherwise it's just one man's speculation based upon very limited observations of the universe over a relatively short period of time. The universe is really really big, and man is very very puny. Seems rather arrogant to speculate universal laws when we have observed and experimented with so little. 
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
I think this might turn in to a dualism thread, what if someone states that we can have an immutable universal law but that doesn't presuppose God because it immaterial laws can exist outside of there being a God..
I am talking with an apostate from my college so I am getting prepared..
If there is no God as he is positing, his immaterial, immutable, universal law, has arisen in a universe that is conditioned at every point by irrationalism, chance and impersonalism.
Is this supposed "law" just a law because he says it is or because he wants it to be?
By denying God the atheist is "saying" (he might not like that to be pointed out to him) that he's in a particular kind of "universe" if it could be called that. Meanwhile by saying that you subscribe to the God of the Bible you are "saying" that you are in a certain kind of universe.
Deep down - or even revealed by what he says or does - the atheist "wants" to be in the Christian's universe but without the Christian's God. We can bring before the atheist more clearly just how irrational, amoral, chaotic and unliveable his awful "universe" is.
In the atheist's world the only law is that there are no laws. They are living in constant denial of this of course.
You need an argument here because what is being asked for is the establishment of a necessary connection between universal moral laws and a personal God.
A moral law, in order to have moral force, must be the product of a moral being. The existence of Confucius' Analects presupposes the existence of Confucius (or some moral being). No one would possibly posit that the Analects are the product of something other than a moral being--if we did, we would not consider them to be rational or moral. If we are to propose that there are universal moral laws, then we are led to the conclusion that there is a universal moral lawgiver.
Further, we must posit that this lawgiver is personal because only a personal being can make moral decisions. An impersonal pantheistic conception of God does not satisfy this criterion because such a being would contain not only that which we call "good" but that which we call "evil." This being the case, it would follow that there are no moral absolutes, undermining the given--that there is a universal moral law. Therefore God must be personal.
A moral law, in order to have moral force, must be the product of a moral being. The existence of Confucius' Analects presupposes the existence of Confucius (or some moral being). No one would possibly posit that the Analects are the product of something other than a moral being--if we did, we would not consider them to be rational or moral. If we are to propose that there are universal moral laws, then we are led to the conclusion that there is a universal moral lawgiver.
Further, we must posit that this lawgiver is personal because only a personal being can make moral decisions. An impersonal pantheistic conception of God does not satisfy this criterion because such a being would contain not only that which we call "good" but that which we call "evil." This being the case, it would follow that there are no moral absolutes, undermining the given--that there is a universal moral law. Therefore God must be personal.
If there is no God, then how do you know the law is universal and immaterial? A universal law requires universal knowledge of that law in all situations and times in order for it to be called universal. Otherwise it's just one man's speculation based upon very limited observations of the universe over a relatively short period of time. The universe is really really big, and man is very very puny. Seems rather arrogant to speculate universal laws when we have observed and experimented with so little.
Patrick's answer is what I would have said. There is no universal law without universal knowledge. The person believing that there is a universal law must assume that at least one being has universal knowledge and has communicated that fact to us mortals (who very obviously do not have universal knowledge).
Christoffer
Puritan Board Sophomore
I would ask this: if there are immaterial laws and universal laws such as logic, but no lawgiver, what reason is there to assume that they have anything to do with the particulars?
MMasztal
Puritan Board Sophomore
If there is no God, then how do you know the law is universal and immaterial? A universal law requires universal knowledge of that law in all situations and times in order for it to be called universal. Otherwise it's just one man's speculation based upon very limited observations of the universe over a relatively short period of time. The universe is really really big, and man is very very puny. Seems rather arrogant to speculate universal laws when we have observed and experimented with so little.
I thought we weren't doing your homework for you anymore
Anyway, I'd echo Puritan Sailor. A universal, immutable, immaterial law, by necessity, requires a God. Otherwise that law could not have the attributes you list.
It's an ill conceived, almost rhetorical, question in my opinion.
Last edited:
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
lol that class is long done away with
Why could it not have the attributes that I listed?
It's an epistemological question. How can you, a finite creature, know that a law is universal, without universal knowledge and experience? You can't. When you argue for universal laws, you've moved beyond finite observation (i.e. scientific knowledge) into the realm of faith. An atheistic worldview cannot account for universal laws within their system of thought (i.e. scientific method). They only assume it's universal based upon induction from their current observations, and following the traditions of other men who say these laws are universal. But none of these men have been to the other side of the Universe to see if the laws work the same way there, nor have then gone back in time or into the future to see if the laws remained constant there.
The same problem with immaterial. How can you know a law is immaterial, when all you have seen and experienced is material? How can anything immaterial exist in a strictly material universe? How do you get beyond the material realm into the immaterial, when you deny the possibility of the immaterial? And if you argue that these universal laws are intrisic properites of matter, and so binding on the whole universe, then you're back to square one, how do you know they're intrisic? Have you seen all matter? How can matter be in flux (i.e. evolving) and yet have universal unchanging properties at the same time?
It's not that we as Christians deny there are universal laws. It's that we can account for them in a logical way because God tells us he created the Universe and it reflects his thinking. He upholds it all together in his providence. But an atheist has no such logical basis for universals. He can only assume it (by faith) and hope the rest of the universe is actually the way he thinks it is.
I would like to point out that scientific laws cannot prove a lawgiver as even a scientific law can be doubted if we find even one exception. A good scientist would say that scientific laws are simply the best we can do at describing the way the universe works from our perspective--and that perspective may change with new discoveries. Logic is the same way: a description of how things must be, but not necessarily an infallible one. These laws are immaterial only in the sense that they are not inherent properties of objects, merely descriptions of inherent properties.
For the existence of God, it is much better to work with moral rather than scientific laws. Universal moral laws are much clearer examples of immaterial laws.
For the existence of God, it is much better to work with moral rather than scientific laws. Universal moral laws are much clearer examples of immaterial laws.
MMasztal
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, you could wait and give them a yet to be written book called, "Are You Skeptical of Your Skepticism? A Guide to Help Those With Unclear Thinking"
Ok, so now I def see how a man can not be sure or account for something that is immutable or universal for you would have to have infinite knowledge of past present and future, or there would have to be a God who are those things. But the question I have can something be immaterial, immutable, and universal and we can just assume and hope that it does not change?
Laws come to us in the form of commandments. They specify what you ought to do. Commandments can only come from a personal being. Non-personal or non-living things cannot give people commandments. Moreover, if people were given commandments and those commandments are things that they ought to obey, then there must be a personal being who has authority over them. If there is an immaterial, universal, immutable law that applies to all people in all places at all times, then there must be some personal being who gave it and who has authority over all people in all places at all times.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Try asking the question another way.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Quote from Tyler
In an atheist world you cannot call it a law, because it is irrational, impersonal and there by chance. You can't assume and hope anything about it because it could and should change tomorrow. You have no way of accounting for why it has not changed or does not change.
In an atheist world, assuming for the sake of argument that an atheist world can exist, which of course it can't, literally anything can and will happen. The idea of "law" is an illusion. How has this atheist managed to recognise something as law in a world that is conditioned by irrationality at every point?
Any assumption about and hope in any "law" that an atheist posits in his atheist world shows his deep down knowledge of his Creator. The atheist for practical and liveable purposes must put his "hope" in God.
The atheist cannot account for law without God but must assume law and put his hope in it at every moment of existence, thus he/she is assuming/hoping in God as Creator at every moment of existence.
In an atheist world you cannot call it a law, because it is irrational, impersonal and there by chance. You can't assume and hope anything about it because it could and should change tomorrow. You have no way of accounting for why it has not changed or does not change.
In an atheist world, assuming for the sake of argument that an atheist world can exist, which of course it can't, literally anything can and will happen. The idea of "law" is an illusion. How has this atheist managed to recognise something as law in a world that is conditioned by irrationality at every point?
Any assumption about and hope in any "law" that an atheist posits in his atheist world shows his deep down knowledge of his Creator. The atheist for practical and liveable purposes must put his "hope" in God.
The atheist cannot account for law without God but must assume law and put his hope in it at every moment of existence, thus he/she is assuming/hoping in God as Creator at every moment of existence.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm no expert on logic. You'd have to do a bit of study on exactly what logic is and how atheists try to account for it according to their "worldview".
In "Apologetics to the Glory of God" Frame makes the point that logic implies "an ought" (we ought to be logical, as we ought to be good) and therefore a personal as well as an absolute (infinite, eternal, unchangeable, omnipresent) God, to be obligated to. God of course has to be absolute to account for the invariant nature of logic, that it applies in all times and places.
Presumably the laws of logic would need Someone rational behind them, because if the laws of logic are irrational they are self-refuting.
Remember the basic principle of transcendental arguments which Van Til got from Kant, and then proceed from there:
"A transcendental argument starts from a premise like "I think", "I believe myself to be free", or "I have an idea of myself" [or "I believe there is no God" and/or "I believe there are laws of logic" and/or "I believe there are laws of nature"] ; it then asks "What must be true if there is to be such a thought? What else must I think, and what must the world be like in which I exist, thinking such a thought? " " ( An Intelligent Person's Guide to Philosophy by Roger Scruton, Duckworth,1996)
So laws of logic are a reflection of our impersonal, irrational, amoral and random chance godless universe? What does that say about the laws of logic? Doesn't that undermine all intelligibility and render atheists babblingly incoherent according to their own premises?
davidsuggs
Puritan Board Freshman
Bahnsen explained it well in his debate with Stein in the Q&A. It depends which "law" you mean.
Natural Law: A binding and necessary principle, that has hold over the physical universe, cannot exist arbitrarily and inexplicable. More importantly, you cannot even hold belief in such a law as an unbeliever because you have no basis whatsoever for holding confidence in the principal of causality or uniformity of nature; thus, they cannot believe (justifiably) that any repetition of similar events in the past (even the collective experience of the human race) in any way necessitates similar occurrences in the future.
Laws of Logic: These are trickier than laws of nature. Essentially the laws of logic do have to be, themselves, transcendental, but not 'in and of themselves.' In other words, their transcendental character and authoritative force over all human thought cannot justify themselves. We know that they are metaphysical (beyond empirical investigation), but we also know them to be necessary and prominent in their visible influence in all human reasoning. So then, if God does not exist, and the patterns of His thought are not the laws by which we are expected to think like him (and indeed, to some degree required to do so by the image of God in our human substance), then they exist in some INEXPLICABLE void, and the unbeliever fits Van Til's description of wandering back and forth from rationality to irrationality. For an unbeliever, they can only be conventions which we developed through the evolutionary process because of their survival value. But if this is the case, they are not actually binding and we can throw all scholarly endeavors out the window, which Postmodernism (humanist modernism slowly growing more consistent with its essential principals) continues to attempt.
Moral Law: The most obviously contingent of those laws in the category you described. If we define "law" (as I have done above) as by its very nature being ultimately binding upon those within its parameters (humanity in this case), we can only base such laws on something beyond ourselves. These govern the evaluation and prescription of human actions, and thus cannot be created by the same human source without losing their legitimacy and claim to authority, save by the human imposition of force (which, of course, reduces moral "law" to nothing more than Thrasymachus' definition of justice as "the interest of the stronger party," which cannot be accepted, even as intuition tells us). Rather, they must be prescribed from One (a personal one, because the evaluation of the value of an action or actions cannot be provided from any non-conscious object or organism) who Himself ultimately transcends and has legitimate authority over humanity. If made relativistic constructs of individuals, chaos is inevitable; if that of cultures, the authority it has above individual relativism is nonexistent and is arbitrarily and unjustifiably asserted authoritative merely by virtue of size or popular consent.
I hope this is sufficient an answer.
Any other type of law you had in mind?
Natural Law: A binding and necessary principle, that has hold over the physical universe, cannot exist arbitrarily and inexplicable. More importantly, you cannot even hold belief in such a law as an unbeliever because you have no basis whatsoever for holding confidence in the principal of causality or uniformity of nature; thus, they cannot believe (justifiably) that any repetition of similar events in the past (even the collective experience of the human race) in any way necessitates similar occurrences in the future.
Laws of Logic: These are trickier than laws of nature. Essentially the laws of logic do have to be, themselves, transcendental, but not 'in and of themselves.' In other words, their transcendental character and authoritative force over all human thought cannot justify themselves. We know that they are metaphysical (beyond empirical investigation), but we also know them to be necessary and prominent in their visible influence in all human reasoning. So then, if God does not exist, and the patterns of His thought are not the laws by which we are expected to think like him (and indeed, to some degree required to do so by the image of God in our human substance), then they exist in some INEXPLICABLE void, and the unbeliever fits Van Til's description of wandering back and forth from rationality to irrationality. For an unbeliever, they can only be conventions which we developed through the evolutionary process because of their survival value. But if this is the case, they are not actually binding and we can throw all scholarly endeavors out the window, which Postmodernism (humanist modernism slowly growing more consistent with its essential principals) continues to attempt.
Moral Law: The most obviously contingent of those laws in the category you described. If we define "law" (as I have done above) as by its very nature being ultimately binding upon those within its parameters (humanity in this case), we can only base such laws on something beyond ourselves. These govern the evaluation and prescription of human actions, and thus cannot be created by the same human source without losing their legitimacy and claim to authority, save by the human imposition of force (which, of course, reduces moral "law" to nothing more than Thrasymachus' definition of justice as "the interest of the stronger party," which cannot be accepted, even as intuition tells us). Rather, they must be prescribed from One (a personal one, because the evaluation of the value of an action or actions cannot be provided from any non-conscious object or organism) who Himself ultimately transcends and has legitimate authority over humanity. If made relativistic constructs of individuals, chaos is inevitable; if that of cultures, the authority it has above individual relativism is nonexistent and is arbitrarily and unjustifiably asserted authoritative merely by virtue of size or popular consent.
I hope this is sufficient an answer.
Any other type of law you had in mind?
- Status
