Contending for Truth: The True God Exists
Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought (C.S. Lewis).
Change is the condition of life. … But the unchangeableness of God is the negation of all imperfection, it is the negation of all dependence on circumstances, it is the negation of all possibility of decay or exhaustion, it is the negation of all caprice. It is the assurance that His is an underived, self-dependent being, and that with Him is the fountain of light; it is the assurance that, raised above the limits of time and the succession of events … It is the assurance that round all the majesty and the mercy which He has revealed for our adoration and our trust there is the consecration of permanence, that we might have a rock on which to build and never be confounded (Charles Spurgeon).
God is sufficient to account for everything (He’s God after all!). God, as the One who provides the a priori truth conditions for all things, has the ontic (His being or nature) capacity to account for immutable (changeless) universals (laws of logic, fixed mathematical truths, moral law, etc.). Mutable and non-universal entities (humans, the cosmos) are devoid of the sufficient attributes that are required, so they are ontologically undersupplied to account for the laws of logic. These laws are invariant universals and are required for communication and knowledge see previous post on logic here.
At least one of the implications of this for epistemology is this: just as in the theology there must be a principium essendi that grounds our principium congoscendi—that is, just as the existence and character of God ground our knowledge of him, since that knowledge presupposes his existence and character (as given to us in Scripture)—so also in epistemology generally. With respect to knowledge, in general, it must be that the existence and character of God ground our knowledge of him as given to all through all that is made (K. Scott Oliphint: God with Us).
God furnishes all the a priori essentials; the necessary epistemic equipment utilized in all thoughts and achievements. God has the ontic attributes of omniscience, immutability, and omnipotence (He has universal reach) enabling Him to be the ground for the immaterial universal and immutable laws of truth (also termed as the laws of logic and laws of reason) and ethical necessities (moral law) that are utilized in thought and action. Any position that rejects the true God as the epistemic (knowledge) base not only leaves an unnerving fissure, but hopelessly fails. Consequently, whatever evidence one discovers must be discerned and processed with the rational implements that arise from Christian theism and the worldview that streams from the true God.
The Triune God is the primordial requirement for all knowledge, proof, evidence, and logic. He is the a priori verity condition for the intelligibility of reality. The immaterial, transcendent, and immutable God supplies the indispensable pre-environment for the use of immaterial, transcendent, universal, and immutable laws of logic (law of identity: A = A; law of non-contradiction: A~~A). Since atheistic thought rests on mutable matter it cannot furnish the necessary a priori truth conditions for the immutable universal laws of logic; therefore it results in irrational futility because of its internal weakness. Non-theistic worldviews fall into absurdity inasmuch as they are self-contradictory and lead to conclusions that controvert their own primary assumptions. Without God, ultimately, nothing can make sense. (post on Ontology relates to Epistemology here).
In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1 & 14).
God is Always There: Repent and Believe on Christ
I heard the story of a Christian doctor witnessing to his barber. A doctor went to a barber to have his hair and his beard trimmed. He began to discuss mundane matters with the stylist. After discussing several subjects, the topic of God came up. The barber said: “Listen, I don’t believe that God exists.”
“Why?” asked the customer.
“Well, it’s simple; you just have to go out in the street to realize that God does not exist. See, if God existed, would there be so many poor and hurting people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t think of loving a God who allows all of these evil things.” The barber finished the haircut and the customer went out of the shop. Once he left the shop he saw a man in the street with long messy hair and shabby beard. So the customer again entered the barber shop and he said to the barber, “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”
“How can you say they don’t exist?” asked the barber. “Well I am here and I’m a barber.”
“No!” the customer exclaimed. “They don’t exist because if they did there would be no people with long hair and a beard like that man who walks in the street.”
“Ah, barbers do exist, what happens is that people do not come to me.”
“Exactly” replied the doctor. “And unbelievers do not seek God, yet He is always there.”
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God (John 3:16-21).
Hell is Real: turn to Jesus Christ
You can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality (atheist Ayn Rand).
If you do not trust in Jesus Christ, repent of your sins and turn in faith to Him; trust in Christ’s death and resurrection for the remission of your sins. You will find pardon, peace, love, and acceptance with God.
But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men (Titus 3:4-8).
See my nee E-book Reality and the Folly of Atheism for fully developed contentions extending this argument and methodology Reality & the Folly of Atheism HERE
Even as someone very friendly to TAG, I have been underwhelmed with most logic-oriented renditions of TAG I have seen from presuppositional apologists thus far. Usually, they seem to assume that atheism = materialism. While it seems self-evident that a purely materialistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic, not all variants of atheism are materialistic.
Platonistic atheists acknowledge the reality of abstract entities, including laws of logic and mathematics. Based on my (admittedly limited) experience, I think most Platonist atheists would say these abstract entities are necessary and self-existent. It’s hard to see on what grounds we could object to this explanation, if we can posit that God is necessary and self-existent.
If we want to show a necessary connection between logic and theism, I suppose we would need to show that the laws of logic require a PERSONAL ground. Some, like James Anderson, have attempted to do this. However, as far as I have seen, most presuppers do not take this route, at least not explicitly. In any event, it is a difficult thing to prove.
Dave: Thanks for your assessment. I did not focus on the immaterial aspect of the TA I utilized. I stressed the immutable and universal features of the laws of logic which all non-theistic WV lack the ontic capacity to account for; this includes Platonistic views. Anyone can posit anything, but if the WV they hold is devoid of explanatory clout due to its deficient ontic ground, it would appear to fail.
Thanks for responding. A couple of points:
The central assumption of your argument, and many other renditions of the same, seems to be that laws of logic (and other abstract entities like laws of mathematics) require something ELSE to ground them. I would like to know what justification you would give for that assertion.
You can point to God as the ontic ground of the laws of logic, but if someone asked you what is the ontic ground of God, you would (rightly) say that God is self-existent. What I would like to know is why it is illegitimate for the Platonist to say that the laws of logic are self-existent. Is there some reason we must assume a priori that the laws of logic require exterior ontic grounding?
If one wants to assert that the LL do not require explanation, then they admit that their WV cannot explain them — the LL just are. Thus for one of the most essential elements required for rationality, their WV is deficient of explanatory clout. Moreover, What is? What is under their worldview? Is there anything that is universal and immutable (U/I) to ground the LL? If not, are the LL alone U/I? for nothing w/i the mutable particular cosmos has the ontic ability to account for the LL. That can be pressed further. But alas, now comes a greater difficulty, why ought one morally affirm the laws of logic? Why “ought” one strive to be consistent w/ the LL? W/o a theistic ground it seems more than difficult to furnish a universal “ought” in this case.
Many contemporary TA advocates, as do I, propose one often needs sundry arguments to properly defend the Christian WV. One blog post will not completely suffice. What has the ontic gravitas required for the explanatory scope w/i human experience? the Triune God. Since men know God exists, one the the most important features of a dialogue w/ a non-Christian is the pressing of the sinner’s guilt and the proclamation of the Gospel (placed near the end of the post). Jesus is the answer as Logos, Savior and God.
I do not want to take too much of your time, so don’t feel pressed to continue this conversation, but I would like to offer a few points of response. First you say:
“If one wants to assert that the LL do not require explanation, then they admit that their WV cannot explain them – they just are. Thus for one of the most essential elements required for rationality, their WV is deficient of explanatory clout.”
But the Platonists (at least the philosophically savvy ones) would not say that the LL are without explanation. Rather, they are self-existent; they exist by a necessity of their own nature. Under this view, they provide their own explanation, as God is His own explanation in theism. You still have not explained why it is permissible for the theist to posit that God is self-existent, but not for the Platonist to posit that the LL are self-existent.
Next you say:
“Moreover, What is? What is under their worldview? Is there anything that is universal and immutable (U/I) to ground the LL? If not, are the LL alone U/I? for nothing w/i the mutable particular cosmos has the ontic ability to account for the LL.”
You seem to be again assuming that the LL require an external grounding and cannot be self-existent, a premise which, if you want your argument to be successful, I think you must justify a bit more rigorously. I do not think that most Platonists would say that the LL are the ONLY U/I entities that exist; they might also point to the laws of mathematics and other abstract entities.
Finally:
“But alas, now comes a greater difficulty, why ought one morally affirm the laws of logic? Why ‘ought’ one strive to be consistent w/ the LL? W/o a theistic ground it seems more than difficult to furnish a universal ‘ought’ in this case.”
Whether one has a moral obligation to affirm the LL is separate from the question of whether the LL exist. One could easily affirm the existence of the LL without affirming that all people have a moral obligation to think in accordance with them.
Perhaps you are thinking more in terms of a deontological conception of rationality – people have certain epistemic duties, and to neglect them is to be irrational. I would agree with you that such a conception of rationality seems inconsistent with an atheistic WV, but again, this is separate from the question of whether the LL exist.
Dave thanks again for the thoughtful rejoinder. You observed: “But the Platonists (at least the philosophically savvy ones) would not say that the LL are without explanation. Rather, they are self-existent; they exist by a necessity of their own nature. Under this view, they provide their own explanation, as God is His own explanation in theism. You still have not explained why it is permissible for the theist to posit that God is self-existent, but not for the Platonist (Pl) to posit that the LL are self-existent.”
Agreed. That is what has been proposed throughout this interchange and I am happy to discuss such w/ non-strict materialistic atheists, disparate Kantians, or those who affirm that immaterial entities exist – this opens them up to many challenges from theists.
But to posit that the LL just are – or to lean on the LL as a basic belief exposes the Pl to a larger host of problems including:
What is the basis of the ontic and epistemic unity of the LL (A=A & A~~A)?
How do you justify Induction?
What warrants empirical knowledge?
How do you know that universals exist?
In addition: How & why do the LL relate to the material world?
These and many supplementary queries can reveal that a detailed Pl or Kantian is stuck w/ a host of unjustified or un-unified truths and entities as well as no basis to justify knowledge claims. Each truth the Pl aims to affirm sets on a WV that lacks the ontic stature to underwrite them and appears to be stuck in a vicious circle on each issue.
Since the vast majority of non-theists whom I have communicated with are strict materialists – the preponderance of my arguments are aimed at them. If a non-rigid materialist or an immaterialistic non-theist comes to the knowledge enterprise – I will ask him details concerning his WV. W/o a detailed WV explicated by an interlocutor, perhaps one is merely speaking to the air. Much of the apologetic attack would be aimed at the foundation of their WV.
The CWV affirms the Triune God as the source who has the ontic heft needed for full explanatory potency. Pl lacks such, so if one rests on a deeply deficient ground, so be it (men are created to seek explanations). The Christian may attempt to exploit the ontic and epistemic weaknesses of the Pls then let the Law pressed do its work and proclaim the Gospel.
And yes the Pl are devoid of a personal source issuing moral law binding one to be rational.
The CWV has explanatory supremacy–one can attempt to provide an intelligible exposition of this notion united with the preached truth of the Law & Gospel, yet if the unbeliever aims to hold to a feeble WV, still the Christian has done his duty.
To rightly defend the CWV from the sundry Pls and other immaterialistic non-theists would take solid Pl presentations and perchance a book to rebut. Respectfully and sincerely I will take the liberty to suggest that you consider writing an exhaustive article or a book that attempts to defend the CWV against immaterialistic atheist WVs.
Great response! I agree with you that the average “atheist on the street” is a materialist, and so he does not escape your criticisms anyway. I am mainly interested in attempting to fine-tune certain varieties of TAG. You left me with some tantalizing points that I am tempted to respond to, but I think it’s best to conclude this conversation. If I ever tackle immaterialistic atheist WVs in writing, I will send you a link.