Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 5)

[jaynkay100]

A name is a label assigned to an object or person. We have a memory of such a label. Take that memory away from everyone, including the owner of the name, and suddenly that label no longer exists in correlation to that person, and a new name might be given in its place.

Concepts do not exist independently of consciousness. To take god out of the picture just means our thoughts go with us to the grave.

[niggaids]

@jaynkay100 No. That's wrong. If there is no natural world there will still be logical absolutes. That is, if something is brought into existence it will be itself, and not not be itself because something was before nature. That thing is the logical bind that adheres to it. Another way of expressing this, why is it that one chemical state of the brain leads to another chemical state of the brain produces logical inference that existed before humans even existed? Because logic comes before nature

[jaynkay100]

@niggaids You talk like "logic" is a "thing" that come before another "thing". You fail to see that logic cannot exits in any meaningful way without other stuff to ascribe it to. This is simply because "logic" at its most basic level, is a description of the nature of the universe. Again, logic is DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me how the statement "A thing is itself" makes sense with NO THINGS to talk about. In what manner does "logic" exist at all?

[niggaids]

@jaynkay100 I'm saying it isn't made of matter. And that's a bad comparison. What I would be saying is 2+2 still equals 4. Just like if an object (lemon) could come from nothing it would still be itself, and not not be itself. That's because it adheres to what is before it (PRE, logic) before it comes into existence.

[jaynkay100]

@niggaids Then I ask you directly. "What comes before a thing?" WHAT is there to 'adhere to'?

I am saying a thing is a thing, as a brute fact of existence. If "A" was simultaneously NOT-A, then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. How possibly could it?

[niggaids]

@jaynkay100 I already said it isn't matter. I think that's where you misunderstand me. By you asking these questions your not helping your case. I believe that these logical absolutes come before the thing. But this isn't the first time i've seen somebody waver from one position to another. Go look at Matt Dillahunty's iron chariots wiki on TAG, he says they are bound by nature then in a telephone debate with Matt Slick he says that aren't.

[jaynkay100]

@niggaids I'm not furthering MY CASE. You are proposition some THING for an object to 'adhere to' before it comes into existence. Quoting you here: "That's because it adheres to what is before it before it comes into existence."

This statement alone is nonsensical. As a thing does not even exist before it exists, so how does it 'adhere' to anything?? Furthermore you've said "it isn't matter." Fine. Tell me what it IS now, because that was my question.

[niggaids]

@jaynkay100 Then you may be mistaking what I mean by "it". If there is no physical universe, logic absolutes will still exist (law of identity, law of non contradiction, law of excluded middle), if something comes into existence. Let's say a lemon. It (lemon) must adhere to those logical absolutes. The lemon will still be itself, not not be itself, and not be in some middle state. If logic comes after nature then something, in theory, could be itself, not be itself, and be in a middle state.

[jaynkay100]

@niggaids Agreed. However, this kind of description is just telling about the "nature of a thing". These are the requirements that must be met in order to conceptualize and describe ' a thing '. If something fails to meet these very basic requirements then we cannot speak of it in terms of its existence. All we can say is that there is no " it ". We can say that every 'thing' that exists can be said to embody these properties, but these logical absolutes are inescapable. Even for your God.

[niggaids]

@jaynkay100 This part is very hard to explain. But i think Matt Slick did well in the Matt Dillahunty debate (to explain it)... this is why we say it transcends it. (

/watch?v=fE3cSvE8CJ8&feature=r­elated

[Xerxal]

Devout,

Let's bring it closer to home. You know that you have a name today. If you and everyone that has ever met you had their brains wiped of that knowledge tomorrow, it would still be metaphysically true that you had had that name. Ignorance of a fact doesn't make the fact untrue.

[ADAMOLOGY]

this is good

[DevoutAtheist42]

To destroy every instance of Jim's name, you'd have also to wipe it from his brain.  If neither he nor anyone else knew his name, would he still be "Jim?" I don't see why he would.

[eldalon]

The ignorant are wise in their own deceit... it is pointless to beat your head against the wall with the unbeliever. If God hasn't ordained this man to salvation, he has no ears to hear. You are just wasting your time and energy.

[MRKetter81]

You said "Let's take, say, the Laws of Logic:

They are transcendental, immutable, self evident Laws. They are not the same as Logic but that to which Logic points

I know because of the impossibility of the contrary"

Which is using logic to prove logic exists. "All evidence to the contrary" only works in the realm of worldviews where logic has already been presupposed.

[MRKetter81]

Well I only see up to 22 coments, and I believe I addressed them, but if you wish to give give a reference to which one. I will also respond again to what I originally thought was the focus

[MRKetter81]

Only in the case of you trying to prove the, need and existance of logic does your logic become self refuting. Otherwise you are being logical, wother or not that actually comports with your use there of.

[Entropy56]

Greg loves to poke holes in Atheistic worldviews. But one doesn't need to refute every pillar of Christianity for the whole thing to come crashing down

Pillars such as the Deity of Christ, Virgin Birth, Trinity, Inerrancy of Scripture, or contingency of the Laws of Logic upon God.

Let's take, say, the Laws of Logic:

They are transcendental, immutable, self evident Laws. They are not the same as Logic but that to which Logic points

I know because of the impossibility of the contrary

[Entropy56]

Therefore the Laws of Logic do not necessarily need to depend upon God. If something can exist apart from or precede God in logical necessity then God is not ultimate and therefore not God.

[MRKetter81]

Also the Bible reads

"1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος 2ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον"

"λογος" is where the derived the english word "logic"

"In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God, and the logic was God."

In otherwords you just swung at a strawman.

[Entropy56]

Nope. You conflate Logic with the Laws of Logic. Nowhere did I talk about Logic. I already made this distinction in my first statement. This is the Achilles' Heel of TAG.

[MRKetter81]

You logically deduced the need for logic from...... logic.

That's circular. Nope. I don't see how you've found a Achilles' Heel by using circular reasoning to say we need logic.

You used logic to prove your need for logic.. circular.

Your first post is logically fallacious

[Entropy56]

I've seen you before. My point is moot? Okay. Can you prove to me where the Laws of Logic can't possibly exist? Help me out, cause I can't.

[MRKetter81]

Well.. circular reasoning leads to something with no backing other than it self.

It's like saying "I'm right, cause I'm right". What is the reason for me being right? The same as my claim. Thus that equate to a nonstatement.

When you logically deduced the need for logic. You're breaking the very laws that logic says would lead you in to a circular arguement.

That's how your point is moot.

[Entropy56]

I ask again, Can you prove to me where the Laws of Logic can't possibly exist?

[MRKetter81]

Tell me what method to use and I'll do so. However in this case you can't use logic.

Simply saying they're there cause I cant find how it not to be the case is to do what? Make a logical statement AND back in the circal we go.

You ask me to prove what you cant prove from either a postive or negative side. It's called a transcendental.

You're presupposing logic in ordor to presuppose your need there of.

[Entropy56]

What is your problem with Logic? What statement to you want to make? Let's hear it now before I grow weary of your game. I assume you are using Logic in order to talk to me as I am doing to you. I never denied Logic.

[MRKetter81]

I have no problem with logic as I see need for it, as it reflects the character and nature of my God. However that it is also a presupposition and faith based statement.

You however are trying "prove" logic claiming you haven't presupposed it as I have, so you can maintain that things need to be proven in ordor for us to know that they exist.

Well then prove that logic exists or submit to the fact that such can not always be empirically observed, and that you have presupposed it.

[Entropy56]

Let me get this straight. You are saying that you can't prove logic?

[MRKetter81]

No I'm saying whatever logic is by whatever definition you carry there of, is presupposed.

logic can be witnessed, but not entirely grasped.(look up the word transcendental)

[Entropy56]

So why is your use of Logic not self refuting and mine is?

[MRKetter81]

Because you claim to prove logic by logic which enters in to circular reasoning.

Now if you admit that you presupposed logic as I have, then you would be submitting a universal abstract transcendental entity can and does exist.

[Entropy56]

Again, I never discussed Logic. You keep changing the subject.

If you scroll back up to my first statement I said the Laws of Logic are transcendent.

[MRKetter81]

Your use of logic isn't self refuting. Your arguement to prove what logic is.

[MRKetter81]

Also make sense out of your worldview from such a stand point.

Such as universal absolutes.

Moral absolutes.

The uniformity of nature.

The laws of induction.

Then tell me from what source can you derive an answer for making sense out of such experience apart from a borrowed christian worldview.

[Entropy56]

I'm not arguing for anything on the list you give. My focus is on the Laws of Logic. Nothing else.

[MRKetter81]

Also I never said you denied logic. Only your use of logic to prove logic goes against the very principles of logic; not to enter in to circular reasoning, Leading you in to a logical bind which is self refuting.

[Entropy56]

And your justification for the use of Logic is that it is rooted in the mind of God? And that your mind is a reflection of Gods mind and therefore you can use Logic. Right?

[MRKetter81]

Yes that's a faith based presupposition of the Christian worldview.

[NuclearRadio]

Ah, Plato's Parable of the Cave. The Greco-Roman groundation of Christianity just DOES not DIE, and yet they hate the Greek and Roman gods and philosophy their religion is derived from.

[fiercegallantry]

That remark is rather ignorant. I was I had a few hours to unpack it.

[fiercegallantry]

Er...

"I _*wish*_ I had a couple of hours to unplack it."

My typing is awful, sorry.

[Victoruto]

"...yet they hate the Greek and Roman gods and philosophy their religion is derived from. "

While many Christian thinkers may be influenced by the Greeks (Plato, Aristotle), Christianity itself is in no way derived from the Greeks. It is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant, which posits an absolute, sovereign, personal God.

[coopsicle]

What about materialism allows only extensional definitions? I really don't understand his argument here: "if you as an unbeliever hold that the only things that exist are particular experiences, then you can't say that a word applies to many things." WHAT?

[Xerxal]

There is actually a semicolon after "applies to many things." He says; "If you as an unbeliever hold that the only things that exist are particular experiences, then you can't say that a word applies to many things; a word can only apply to one thing at a time." If you're going to critique the guy, at least be honest in quoting him.

[coopsicle]

I don't see how adding the assertion "a word can only apply to one thing at a time" (which is clearly a false proposition) makes any difference.

[groundless]

Pointing to another world will never stop vice among us; shedding light over this world can alone help us. - Walt Whitman

[Tancred2006]

Define "light." Define "help." Define "us."

The Nazis believed that Nietzsche was right, so was his philosophy "light" to them? If Superman ethics "helped" the Nazis (who considered themselves an "us") to eradicate another 'pack' among them they would refer to as "them," then Whitman's aphorism is just as useful in the hands of the Nazi as it is in the hands of the Quaker.

A self-referential, undefined morality can justify evil as much as extol good.

God must define the good.

[andeee77]

1000% agree, with reason and evidence. God IS good, regardless of what you think it is.

[kisstheclowns]

Wow, your a baddass! Wish there were more of you out there.

[chinchilla8]

The God of Abraham and Isaac, as He describes Himself in the Bible (His Holy Word), is the God of which Dr. Bahnsen speaks. Of course there are disagreements between Christians, but they do not actually refer to claims of who God says He is, rather who these Christians say God is. I hope that makes sense! Also, thanks for posting these videos.

[Harpakhrad11]

He is wrong in assuming that all atheists are materialists.

[a5dr3]

He doesn't, and addresses that issue directly in the Smith and Stein debates both of which are posted. -But the fact is that 98 percent of atheists are. I still haven't met one that isn't.

[Harpakhrad11]

Perhaps we have a different understanding of who is and who is not an atheist.

[mindwis3]

The concept of "God" is universal between all christians? or "godliness"?

Ah, he knows how God thinks, well, that explains a lot, he certainly is A physical manifestation of a concept i call "theist".

Greg, what is your concept of "the non-believer"?