Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 5)

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen - Basic Training for Defending the Faith. Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews - part five of nine.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• plato
• aristotle
• idealism
• Immanuel
• kant
• berkely
• descartes
• leibniz
• schopenhauer
• nietzsche
• Kierkegaard
• bertrand
• russell

[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

[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 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 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 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 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'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 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 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]

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.