Antitheism Presupposes Theism

THIS is a very interesting post from JAMES ANDERSON which appears to be an elaboration from THIS PAPER, which was recently released for public viewing.  Those interested in the Transcendental Argument for God's existence and possibly even the Ontological Argument will likely find this post as helpful as I did.

Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Justin Schieber on Yahweh or Myweh

Recently, Sye appeared on Justin's podcast to discuss presuppositional apologetics.  It appeared that this particular episode was arranged in order to discuss Justin's lecture on presuppositional apologetics.  However, while some of this was discussed, the two spent more time debating the issues in general.

I must say that this is one of the best encounters i've heard on this topic; probably as good, if not better, than Sye's first interaction with Paul Baird on unbelievable.  This was a fast paced contrasting of positions in a near hour of non-stop cross examination from both sides.  While I thought that Sye kept his demeanor at a very patient level, I was a bit disappointed with Justin's performance as he seemed annoyed and frustrated throughout the exchange.

Sye has also informed me that Justin's recording was edited.  I have yet to listen to the unedited version, but will make it available once Sye grants permission or posts in publicly.  At the least, there is supposed to be a transcript of the unedited recording forthcoming.

To listen to the "edited" version of the exchange, go HERE.

"What is your evidence for God?" A response to WitchHunter93

A YouTube user by the name of Witchhunter93 left a comment on my Video, to which I respond to below.  I think this sort of approach could prove to be more useful than seeking to respond to all the comments, which I don't have time for anyway.

Gene Cook Interviews an Atheist

Today I listened to a podcast that took place in early February where Gene Cook interviewed/debated an atheist by the name of Justin Shieber.  If my memory serves me correctly, I recommended that Justin contact Gene to appear on his show after learning that he's sharp, articulate, and knows how to defend his position.

When I spoke to Justin, I had learned of a moral theory called DESIRE UTILITARIANISM, which he was happy to explain to me.  Since this is a unique and non-popular moral theory (as far as I can tell), I was happy to learn that Justin had arranged to appear on Gene's show.

Anyone interested in atheism and Christianity will find this one hour cross examination intriguing.  Moral theory and epistemology are discussed and defended from both positions.

You can listen to the full dialogue HERE

Responding to AbusiveAnthitheist's, "Questions for theists who advocate TAG"

Responding to Dhorpatan's critique of Christian epistemology

You can view the video I am responding to HERE, but the full video is played in the video I did below:

Logic and Child Development: a response to Paul Baird

After my initial RESPONSE to Paul's criticism of my VIDEO, I was expecting something equally thoughtful to what he first WROTE.  But I must say I was quite disappointed with his NON-RESPONSE, which could be summed up as, "You're stupid and i'm smarter than you."  And if you think i'm exaggerating, read it for yourself.

I suppose it was that "made in the image of God" thing (which Paul directly denies but indirectly affirms) that made Paul realize that such a response was disrespectful.  Therefore, Paul decided to not "give up" on what did not "warrant a response" (per his own words) by taking a STAB at my rebuttal.  Though Paul didn't respond to all of what I said, he at least provided some insights on his "expertise" in the matter since he's, "been a single father, taking a two year sabbatical, raising children from under 5 into their teens, so I know just a little bit about child development, and Mike's analysis is so naive as to not warrant a response."

I'm going to ignore some of his insulting words and respond only to what he said of substance.  But feel free to read his response for YOURSELF to get the full context.

First Paul cites from a PAPER to highlight the following:

Deductive reasoning involves making inferences on the basis of some given premises. Making logical inferences is one of the key components of advanced thinking in humans. In fact, it could be argued that the ability to make inferences whose truth value depends entirely on the supposed truth of given, and possibly arbitrary, premises is one of the clearest examples of a cognitive capacity that differentiates human from nonhuman species. The distinctiveness of the processes involved in logical reasoning is sufficiently striking to have prompted some researchers to suppose that inference rules may have been biologically built into the human cognitive architecture (Braine, 1978; Cohen, 1981; MacNamara, 1986). However, while human reasoners often show the ability to make logical deductions in the classic sense, studies on reasoning also clearly show that inferential performance can also be highly variable and subject to a variety of influences. One of the major challenges of any theory of reasoning is to account for both the capacity to make inferences that are logically valid and at the same time to explain variation in reasoning performance due to both developmental and situational variables. While many forms of reasoning exist, one in particular, conditional reasoning, has been studied enough both in adults and developmentally to provide a set of empirical results substantial enough to provide a serious test for any theory of reasoning.

Paul cites this portion in order to ask the following:

"How does Presuppositional Apologetics deal with that variation?"

If I understand the cited portion correctly, the author is asking why some people reason in an underdeveloped manner verses one who is mature in their reasoning capabilities?  The first problem is that of sin and how it darkens the mind to think sinfully and irrationally:

“So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” (Ephesians 4:17-18)

While it is true that humans who come into this world are made in the image of God and able to think as God thinks, their minds are darkened by sin because they are a son of Adam.  So only in this sense is there a need for child development.  When Adam and Eve came into the world, they weren't provided with courses in philosophy and formal logic.  Instead, they were without sin and held the fullest potential in thinking rationally.

But how do Christians deal with variation?  We, "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4) by teaching them that in Christ, "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and, "YHWH gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding." (Proverbs 2:6)  Thus, the Christian has a reason for expecting his or her children to reason logically:

1. They are made in God's image

2. Having trustworthy reasoning faculties requires the truth of God's Word.

Can Paul provide a basis by which children should be expected to reason logically?  On what basis could Paul tell his kids, "Let me show you why X is logical and Y is not."  Is it because Paul says so?  What if his kids ask, "Daddy, how do I know that your reasoning process is right?  Why can't I just come up with my own reasoning process?"  Would Paul answer, "Well, its because this is what your daddy learned in school and its what my dad taught me to do as well, just as I am teaching you."  But this assumes that Paul's Father as well as his school system reasons logically.  The regress could be pushed as far back as one could go, to the very first humans who began to reason about reality.

If proper reasoning is dependent upon what one's father or school system has taught them, then it would have to assume the proper reasoning abilities of the one who first decided to reason and impart his knowledge to others.

Another problem would be in the development of logic itself.  Were those first humans able to develop a perfectly valid logical system from the outset?  Or did logic develop?  And how does Paul know that the logic he uses is in the correct stage of development?  If Paul thinks that such is absurd to suggest, would not the first proponents of reason think that their stage of logical development is the correct and final stage?  And this is the problem; every human who reasoned assumed the reliability of his reasoning faculties.  But they did so without basis, just as Paul does and teaches his kids to do the same.

One could go on and on with the problems in Paul's child development epistemology, but the conclusion is this: neither Paul or his kids know that their reasoning faculties are truthful and produce reliable results about reality.  Instead, they arbitrarily assume these things.  Even Paul's children; though Paul may think that they are ignorant about all things philosophical in early stages of development, they have to assume their own reasoning faculties in order to interpret their Father's epistemological conclusions about reality.  And the question I have for Paul is this: how and why do children assume their reasoning faculties from the outset? 

My point was that reasoning does have situational and developmental influences, as well as logic, and to move on from there to state that this shows that the absence of logic from some decision making and reasoning processes highlighted an issue with the Presuppositional Apologetic in that if logic was evidence of, or a gift from, God then why did humans not use it all of the time?

I've already answered this, and Paul should know better anyway if he has had so many discussions with Sye.  Humans do not use logic all the time because of their sinful state, as the Bible clearly articulates.  As I highlighted above, the idea of developmental logic is an epistemological mess for the atheist.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development also undermines the Presuppositional Apologetic in that it confirms the sceptics view of the justification for the basis of logic in humans.

But what is it that is actually justified? That humans will reason in accordance with what their parents teach them as well as their schools? Such says absolutely nothing as to whether one's reasoning is truthful.  In addition, such is arbitrary in that Paul would have no basis in disagreeing with the system of learning that one would have in being raised and educated in a Christian home.  After all, its what their parents have taught.  And if what parents and educated determines truth, then why would Paul be disagreeing with it? Its as if Paul thinks that this developmental theory actually determines the truthfulness of one's reasoning process.

Logic is not a God given set of laws that a human intuitively knows because they were created in God's image.

And Paul knows this how? Again, i'm amazed at the closed-mindedness and assurance of a self-proclaimed "free thinker." I'd like to ask Paul the following: is it possible that, if God exists, he can enable man to reason like Him in virtue of being created in His image? If its not possible, then i'd like to hear how Paul knows this.

Logic and reasoning are learned as the baby grows into a child and then an adult. Indeed there are recognised developmental stages.

This is certainly true as far as it goes (since man is sinful and must be pointed to Christ to have a trustworthy epistemology), but it doesn't answer the question: how does Paul know that the logic and reasoning he has learned is correct and trustworthy?  And how can Paul explain the phenomena that children all around the world, even in societies separated from modern philosophical thought, able to reason like everyone else?  Why is it that those in a secluded country like North Korea reason like those in the U.S.?  And if they did live consistently with a hopelessly irrational worldview, then on what basis could Paul call their reasoning process right or wrong?  At the most, he could only describe them as "different."  They would simply be the product of a particular stage of evolutionary development.

I'd recommend anyone advocating that logic and reasoning is not developed in this fashion goes and spends some prolonged time at any pre-school parent and toddler groups and tries to guess the age of the child by their reasoning ability through play and social interaction.

Has the pre-school toddler had a revelation from God to justify their logic and reasoning? Really?

I'd suggest not, and I'd also suggest that the absence of such a revelation does not mean that the worldview of the toddler is absurd. I'd like to see the Presuppositional Apologetic arguments about Child Development that suggest otherwise.

Yes, really.  And in the absence of revelation, its not that one could say with certainty that their worldview is "absurd."  Only the Christian can do that.  I can call another's worldview absurd on the objective basis of God's Word.  The atheist would have no grounds to refer to another as "absurd" or "perfectly logical."  They could only do so with an objective standard.  The most Paul could say is, "I don't know whether this child is absurd or perfectly rational.  All I can say is that I reason like X and he reasons like Y.  To each his own."

Responding to Paul Baird

I meant to respond to THIS a few days ago but my busy schedule got the best of me. In this post, Paul offers a critique of my video, ARE ATHEISTS ARBITRARY IN THEIR REASONING?. I don't know how far i'll want to go with this, but i'll at least provide an initial response to offer some clarification.

Mike has also posted this on Youtube and I wanted to record the transcript because Mike meanders in his commentary.

I listened to it it several times, mainly to proof the transcript and I was surprised that someone was actually advocating worse line for Presuppositional Apologetics than Sye.
.
So, what is the underlying proposition - without God how can a non-Theist (Mike, like Sye interchanges a generic God and the specific Christian God) 'justify' their use of logic.

It's such a stupid line of argument that I'm genuinely surprised to see it being advanced.

When a child is born it is not given a bottle, a nappy (a diaper to our US cousins) and primer in logic. Reason and logic are things that a child discovers as part of growing up in his or her interactions with the world.

And why is that? Why would one expect a child to come into the world and begin to reason correctly as he/she "figures out" the world? In other words, how can the atheist account for such a phenomenon? Is there anything prescriptive within Paul's worldview whereby this should be expected by all humans who come into the world (i.e. a raw material universe producing rational beings)? Why couldn't it be the case that humans come into this world with an irrational mind that continues to function as such?

You see, the Christian can account for this. All humans come into this world as being made in God's image and thus can be expected to think as God thinks. That is, logic is hard-wired. In Paul's worldview, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of this; unless he resorts to arbitrary reasoning.

If the 'reason' being employed fails in it's purpose then it is discarded.
How does it fail it's purpose ?
When it is tested and we do that every minute of every hour everyday and it does not produce the expected result.

I'd like to know how Paul has such confidence in such "testing." What test did Paul implement in order to know that such a test is the manner in which one determines the reliability of their reasoning faculties? But there is a much bigger problem at hand; it begs the question. What the Christian is trying to figure out is how the unbeliever can account for the reliability of his reasoning process. But when they resort to such "testing," they have to assume their reasoning faculties in order to interpret the results of the test; whether that be repeatability, external feedback, etc.

We are not passive actors in our own lives. We do not accept that how things are is how things will be, but what we do do is to make calculated assumptions based on past experience and accept that sometimes we can get it wrong. We use our experience to calculate risk and then act accordingly.

I see. So based on probability calculations, how would you determine the future based upon past experience concerning, let's say, your immortality? As far as I know, you haven't died. So it would seem that you should have a one hundred percent probability that, based upon past experience, you will not die. The reality is, calculating probabilities on the past can only tell you one thing: the past happened in the way that it did. This serves as no guarantee for future uniformity. And as you well know, the Christian can account for the future operating like the past:

““While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.””
(Genesis 8:22)

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”
(Hebrews 1:3)

We do not need a God (generic or specific) to justify our use of reason.

If this God is the only precondition for the intelligibility, then yes, you do. But i'd like to know how Paul knows that "we don't need a God to justify our use of reason?" Is Paul discounting even the possibility of the necessity of revelatory epistemology? I must admit that I appreciate such admissions by unbelievers because it further confirms the following:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
(Romans 1:18–22)

Finally, Mike has the same problem as Sye in claiming that revelation is the source of his justification.

@Kwinnky yes, I learned about God through my senses. But through God and His revelation, I can now account for the reliability of my reasoning faculties. And since you cannot even begin to account for the reliability of your senses, you are actually borrowing from my worldview in postulating such.

I find it interesting that you can't "prove it either way." This shows that your trusting in your senses is a completely arbitrary claim; something that is believed without any basis.
theapologeticfront 1 day ago

How can Mike be sure that the source of his 'revelation' is the Christian God and not another God (Loki would be a good candidate), Satan, or a mental aberration caused by disease, injury, drink or drugs ?

He can't. Therefore, at best, he has no better 'justification' for trusting his reason and logic than anyone else.

I can't? Again, Paul's confidence is noteworthy; especially for a self-professing "free thinker." I'm sure Paul will get a kick out of the following question: is it possible, if God exists, that He could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain? If Paul answers "no," i'd like to know how he can know for certain that I can't know for certain that God's revelation is His own?

Furthermore, my justification is not just better than that of others; its the only justification. How do I know its not from Satan? Because God has told me that its His own and He can't lie (Hebrews 6:18). I'm sure Paul will be quick to dismiss this, but it goes back to the question of Paul's certainty and how he knows that revelational epistemology is impossible.

Nonetheless Mike demonstrates the line of argument that Sye will no doubt be taking again in our next debate, so I'm looking forward to hearing it again, although no doubt better articulated.

No doubt, Sye is far more articulate and experienced in his apologetic than me. I'm not sure if this was a personal shot at me, but I know Sye and myself could both care less who is presenting the sharpest arguments. I can probably speak for Sye in that what we care about is our Lord and Savior being glorified through the proclamation of His Word.

Who's being rational? Atheists or Christians?

Are Atheists Arbitrary in their Reasoning?

Great interview on Presuppositional Apologetics

Recently, Sye TenBruggencate (Who recently DEBATED on the UNBELIEVABLE radio show) appeared for an interview on the THEOPOLOGETICS podcast. There, he was interviewed on the presuppositional approach. I found this interview to be very useful on many levels. I am not completely sold-out on this view yet, but it is very quickly growing on me. In fact, it is growing on me so fast that I am really hitting the books on this topic and really want to start promoting it. Not only do I believe this apologetic brings God glory in sanctifying Christ (1 Pt. 3:15), but it is extremely powerful.

If you are a Christian, you really need to learn this apologetic. Believe it or not, i'm finding it to be very sanctifying in my Christian walk as well. I'll share more about this as time goes on. But for now, i'm still studying and searching this out. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and LISTEN to this interview and consider SUBSCRIBING to the Theopologetics podcast as well!

Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

Recently, on the UNBELIEVABLE radio program, an atheist "free thinker" engaged a theist on the existence of God.  While this radio show regularly hosts such interactions (i'd highly recommend subscribing to the PODCAST), this one was different.  To my knowledge, this is the first time the host brought on a presuppositionalist.  His name is Sye and runs the very interesting PROOFTHATGODEXISTS.ORG website.

And I must say; this was one of the best interactions i've ever heard on the issue.  Aside from a few "nit-pickies," I think that Sye did a brilliant job of not only explaining the presuppositional approach, but arguing it as well.  If you really want to see how powerful and biblical this apologetic is in action, then look no further.

You can listen to the hour long interaction HERE.

An atheist cross-examined by a presuppositionalist

This was an obviously one-sided discussion that was controlled by the Christian, but an interesting discussion to say the least.

Trailers for "Collision"

I am very excited about this upcoming film, not only because it seems to be very well made but because it presents the theistic position that I am very fond of: the presuppositional approach. I've listened to Hitchens and Wilson debate opposing positions a number of times and feel that this interaction will be very useful to those interested. Furthermore, I think its about time the public gets exposed to arguments other than the commonly held "evidentialist" approach.

The film will be released in late October. Check out these trailers:







(ht: Richard Dawkins)

Also, if you want to listen to Doug Wilson at his finest, check out the debate between him and Dan Barker HERE

Ultimate Proof audio presentation

Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis presents the "Ultimate Proof of Creation."

LISTEN HERE

How do atheists account for logic and rationality?

Here are some more explanations of the TAG argument, and addressing some of the common objections. Personally, I have somewhat of a difficult time defending as well as explaining the argument in light of the objections, which is why I haven't really spent too much time arguing these points publicly. However, the explanatory power of the presuppositional approach is still at the top of my list for defending the existence of God. If anyone knows of any serious, published responses to the TAG argument, i'd love to check them out.

Matt slick explains some more tenants of the TAG argument:

The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

In this presentation, Matt Slick of CARM explains the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. From what I know about Matt Slick, he advocates the argument as used by the late philosopher/theologian Gordon Clark. From what I know about Clark, he differs in a few ways from that of Van Till or Greg Bahnsen, who usually shy away from presenting "evidences" without first presupposing God or the Bible. Rather, Clark seemed to be a little more "edgy" as a presuppositionalist and use "logic" and how we account for it as his evidence for the existence of God.

Though the argument can go much deeper, I think Matt Slick does a great job of explaining it from a Clarkian perspective: