ExFundiDCLawyer Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I have a friend on FB (my former youth pastor) who recently linked to this page for Christian apologetic works. As I read through the articles on the site, I noticed many false assumptions and fallacies contained within. I also realized that a few years ago, as a Christian, I would have been swayed by the arguments. I wrote a brief critique of the arguments and sent them to my friend. I would like to see what everyone hear thinks about the articles and my critiques of them. My link Absolutes Are Necessary I have asked hundreds and hundreds of non-absolutists, from self-styled religionists to independent atheistic materialists, the following question without ever receiving a logical answer: Mike: Is there absolute truth? Non-Christian: No. We can’t know anything for certain. Mike: Are you certain of that? Anything that contradicts the Biblical worldview will, at some point, be self-stultifying, self-defeating, and self-refuting. Bringing up this point is a great way to start a conversation. Do not let them change the subject. Press them on their self-refuting fallacy, and then proceed to share the law and the gospel with them. If one asserts that we can’t know anything for certain, then we cannot know that for certain. If their statement is true, then it is false. If it is false, then obviously it is not true. Kant built on Socrates and Hume in promulgating the notion that one could discern and practice morality without God’s revelation. Kant would have us believe we could discover ethics through the use of “pure reason.” Yet a normative ethical code has not and cannot exist without God’s law. There isn’t a constant and universal ethical common ground among cultures or peoples. Even cultures within the same country lack ethical common ground (as we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and India). Many Islamic terrorists decree that it is the moral duty of faithful Muslims to blow up innocent civilians. Various pagan cultures demand the burning of widows. Some cultures demanded the sacrifice of virgins to the Aztec gods. A few Buddhist sects sanction burning oneself to death in a suicidal protest to make a political point. All these acts are evil because they contradict God’s law. Only the true and living God can decree that which is good and that which is evil. ------------ (for more information order the book on this site: "There Are Moral Absolutes") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atheism Self-Destructs The examination of assumptions and worldviews is an important task in one’s maturity of thought. (Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens), in their books, have avoided this process. Anti-theism, this autonomous starting point fails to justify any tangibles or non-tangibles. The philosophical exploration of one’s belief system, to find out if it can supply the transcendental necessities for rational laws, is a significant means for one’s intellectual growth. Bahnsen brings out the importance of this undertaking with the following: “a transcendental argument begins with any item of experience or belief whatsoever and proceeds, by critical analysis, to ask what conditions (or what other beliefs) would need to be true in order for that original experience or belief to make sense, be meaningful, or intelligible to us.” Anti-theists are usually intellectually fearful so they avoid logical critical examination. “The philosophy of the non-Christian cannot account for the intelligibility of human experience in any sense.” Van Til famously stated that “Anti-theism presupposes theism.” Bahnsen also refutes anti-theism as he argues that “a transcendental analysis... would show that the possibility of its coherence or meaningfulness assumes the existence of the very God it denies.” Atheism fails to provide the rational and moral pre-essentials for the meaningfulness of human apprehension of our world. The starting point for knowledge and the intelligibility of the world must be transcendent and immutable as it furnishes universals. In order to make sense of man’s knowledge and experience, there must be “transcendental categories” of understanding that are “inherent in the mind and constitute its structure prior to any sense-experience.” An invariant heavenly universal in reach foundation is needed for human rationality. A being who cannot provide the required pre-environment for the laws of logic cannot account for knowledge and human experience. This rules out the anti-theism of the Brights and the New Atheists. Anti-theism is Rationally Self-Destructive Transcendental scrutiny of anti-theism demonstrates that it is self-destructive inasmuch as it fails to give what it does not possess. Man is devoid of eternal omniscience, aseity, sovereignty, and omnipotence. Bahnsen set forth transcendental analysis as that “which asks what the preconditions are for the intelligibility of human experience. Under what conditions is it possible, or what would also need to be true in order for it to be possible, to make sense of one’s experience of the world? To seek the transcendental conditions for knowing is to ask what is presupposed by any intelligent experience whatsoever.” Humankind does not need to exist for the intelligibility of the universe. People cannot supply the transcendental conditions that are needed for the laws of logic, love, and morality. Van Til contended that “the general precedes the particular” in our reality. This implies that the anthropology of atheism cannot supply the general and universal realities that must be present, for the necessary and unavoidable transcendental conditions listed above. Most people, especially anti-theists, take the unseen and lofty incorporeal principals of thought and ethics for granted. But the true God is transcendent, so refuting a non-theistic worldview starts at his rational pre-commitment, the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one’s method of knowledge. The simple-minded Brights/New Atheists are all bluster and they lack consistency. A restricted and fixed human cannot be the indispensable foundation for the unity of experience and knowledge. Van Til warns that “the only alternative to thinking of God as the ultimate source of unity in human experience as it is furnished by laws or universals is to think that the unity rests in a void. Every object of knowledge must, therefore, be thought of as being surrounded by ultimate irrationality.” If one denies the triune God, the world must be encircled by irrationality. If atheism is true, mankind is “swimming in a void.” A void of irrationality because the finite minds of human beings are claimed by atheism to be the foundation for rational thought. Therefore, atheism is self-contradictory on its own ground. Even its fallacious assertions and false notions presuppose the truth of the triune God. • Atheism fails to supply universal and transcendental necessities. • Without universal and transcendental necessities Atheism cannot account for knowledge. • There must be knowledge. • Atheism is false. ------ (for more study material purchase the book from this site: "God's Necessary Existence.") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Certain Argument for the Existence of God But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases (Psalms 115:3). A certain and simple argument for the existence of God is: Without God one cannot account for anything. God is the ground and source for the laws of logic, moral law, mathematics, and everything else in the cosmos. This is an argument that is absolutely true. The truth is simple and it is powerful. One must employ changeless universal truths when one assesses, ponders, and communicates things and their meaning in our world. Only God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, can ground immutable universals. This truth the unbeliever needs to hear it echo and reecho. The great thing about employing this argument is that it grows in power when the unbeliever attacks it. The argument grows in force because the unbeliever must use the laws of logic to make his intellectual challenge. These laws of thought require God. For God alone supplies the pre-essential environment for the laws of logic. Thus every time an unbeliever rationally attacks theism he is actually demonstrating that God lives. Without God (He alone can ground the laws of logic) he cannot make any rational assertion. The old science-fiction movie that has a huge electric monster on the loose illustrates this point. The monster in this thriller grows larger and stronger every time someone uses a weapon in attempting to kill it. The monster is ready to take over ....America...., and the President orders the army to hit it with an atomic bomb. The troops launch the bomb and as the mushroom cloud slowly starts to dissipate, when the smoke clears, they are stunned by the horror of horrors: the energy monster survived. Not only does the monster survive, he now is ten times larger. The energy monster absorbed the massive energy from the bomb. It did not get weaker, but grew in size and strength. Similarly, the unbeliever will attempt to fire intellectual weapons at this “argument from the impossibility of the contrary”(Bahnsen). Nevertheless, all their attacks will only be consumed by the truth, while the defense of the truth grows stronger and larger. There is nothing a skeptic can assert without ultimately relying on theism, since God alone provides the pre-essential environment for the laws of logic that must be utilized in their attacks. Therefore the unbeliever’s argument will always presuppose God because the unbeliever cannot supply the preconditions for the non-physical, unchanging, universal and atemporal laws of logic (God is non-physical, unchanging, universal in power and reach, and atemporal). The triune God is the preexisting foundation for all debate, even a debate over the existence of God. Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it... Therefore let all the house of ....Israel.... know ASSUREDLY that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:24 & 36). ------- (for more research material order the book from this site: "God Does Exist!"). Here is my response: One point I would like to make at the onset of this critique. Even if you grant the author’s arguments regarding the existence of god, the most that this demonstrates is the existence of an intelligent first cause who was the source of natural law and order. It is an intellectual leap, not supported by these arguments, to then equate this “god” with the Christian version of god. The first Article, “Absolutes Are Necessary” raises several points of logical fallacies as well as presumptions that are unsupported by the arguments. The first problem with this article is the starting point in which it frames the question in the light that is most favorable to its argument but fails to recognize that the question asked could be answered in many different ways. On the question of absolute truth, my response would be that it depends on what you are talking about. If you are referring to absolute truth in the sense of the natural and physical laws which govern the workings of the universe, then I would say yes, that is the closest we will get to absolute truth. If of course you are referring to human morality, then no, I would say that absolute truth does not exist. I can say for certain that I recognize the limitation of human intellect to fully understand all processes in the universe without agreeing to the false dichotomy that the author presents. Second “a normative ethical code has not and cannot exist without God’s law” is a presumption for which the author does not lay any foundation. He lists cultural versions of morality without offering any evidence to refute the rational anthropological basis for human cultural morality; instead he simply uses them to prove his previously stated presumption. “All these acts are evil because they contradict God’s Law” is circular logic at its finest. A perfectly rational alternative explanation assumed to be false without any evidence is that human morality is the result of the evolutionary process which has allowed human beings to live together in communities. Just like physical changes lead to a greater degree of survival and thus drive the evolutionary process, so too has changes in human understanding of a “moral code” allowed for better human interaction and the survival of communities. His second article, “Atheism Self-Destructs” also has its basis in faulty presumptions. He engages in philosophical arguments regarding the nature of knowledge is an argument that philosophers have been having for thousands of years. Again, he rests his argument on the preemption that “the starting point for knowledge and the intelligibility of the world must be transcendent and immutable” fails to lay the proper foundation for why this is true. Why must there be some higher understanding. Again, the anthropological explanation for human understanding and rational thinking guided by the natural laws which govern the universe are just as rational in understanding human knowledge and understanding. At best, as I stated before, this argument supports some transcended being, it is a large leap in logic to necessitate that this supports the biblical god. One other point that he makes is a common argument against atheism. He states “Anti-theism presupposes theism.” This either an unintelligent play on words, or a knowing deception regarding the nature of theism and anti-theism. Anti-theism of course is lack of belief in a deity, theism is a belief in a deity. Atheism does not presuppose the existence of god, atheism presupposes the existence of the belief in god. They are completely different ideas. He would like you to believe the former, but the reality is all that atheism presupposes is that human beings have developed a belief in god, it does not presuppose that gods existence. As I said, this statement is misleading, either intentionally or otherwise, that attempts to get the uncritical reader to concede the premise of his argument. The third article is much more complex from a philosophical perspective. I will not attempt to give a detailed critique of this article due to the length of the paper that would ensue. This is a broad and complex area of philosophy that has been debated by philosophers throughout history. The quest for human understanding and knowledge has enthralled mankind at least as far back as the written word. Suffice it to say that this debate will not be answered here and probably never will be. His arguments are neatly summarized at the end: • Atheism fails to supply universal and transcendental necessities. • Without universal and transcendental necessities Atheism cannot account for knowledge. • There must be knowledge. • Atheism is false For his conclusion to be true all of the three premises must also be true. I would point out that rational arguments exist on the anthropological and theoretical level, Kant is a good example, which offer an account for knowledge without the necessity of a transcendent being. One logical fallacy I would like to point out. He states that “the true god is transcendent, so refuting a non-theistic worldview starts at his . . . metaphysical principles.” In other worlds in order to refute atheism and prove god, one must presupposes the existence of that god. Another example of circular reasoning Finally, I will again I will point out that even granting him the arguments for a transcendent being, the jump between a “god which is transcendent” and the “truth of the triune god” is a logical leap unsupported by the arguments provided. The author takes the arguments made for a “god” in the general sense and places upon this “god” the attributes of his particular religious belief in god without offering any arguments or offering any evidence as to why this must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Absolutes Are Necessary I have asked hundreds and hundreds of non-absolutists, from self-styled religionists to independent atheistic materialists, the following question without ever receiving a logical answer: Mike: Is there absolute truth? Non-Christian: No. We can’t know anything for certain. Mike: Are you certain of that? I believe there are absolute truths, but... I'm not quite certain that we can now for sure that what we know are those truths. Reality is real, but our knowledge and understanding of reality is subjective an skewed. When we talk about truths, we mostly talk about our convictions and our own personal certainty about something, but a personal conviction about a "truth" is still subjective and not absolute. We know, for certain, that 1+1=2. But what is 1 apple + 1 orange? Or the law of identity 1 apple = 1 apple. But if they're not the same apple? "Apple" and "orange" and "1" and "2" are only references to abstract concepts, and the "1+1=2" only applies when equal categories are considered. So what is a category? We define it. For instance, what if one apple was plastic? Is it still an apple? What if the apples were of different kinds? Or if one was splice with a different kind of fruit? What if one apple was hollow from a mask eating up the inside? Are things equal in category by nature or by our own design? So what is truth really when we have to define what things are before we can answer the question? But still, I do believe the spoon exists, but our experience of the spoon might be different. Enough crazy talk by me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I have a friend on FB (my former youth pastor) who recently linked to this page for Christian apologetic works. As I read through the articles on the site, I noticed many false assumptions and fallacies contained within. I also realized that a few years ago, as a Christian, I would have been swayed by the arguments. I wrote a brief critique of the arguments and sent them to my friend. I would like to see what everyone hear thinks about the articles and my critiques of them. My link I'll bite! My take on this stems from my long-time interest in astronomy and cosmology. Age of the universe - 13.7 billion years. Age of Homo Sapiens - 200,000 years or so. Which came first? Which one requires the existence of the other? Which one can easily exist without the other? It's a no-brainer, imho. Absolutes Are Necessary I have asked hundreds and hundreds of non-absolutists, from self-styled religionists to independent atheistic materialists, the following question without ever receiving a logical answer: Mike: Is there absolute truth? Non-Christian: No. We can’t know anything for certain. Mike: Are you certain of that? Anything that contradicts the Biblical worldview will, at some point, be self-stultifying, self-defeating, and self-refuting. Bringing up this point is a great way to start a conversation. Do not let them change the subject. Press them on their self-refuting fallacy, and then proceed to share the law and the gospel with them. If one asserts that we can’t know anything for certain, then we cannot know that for certain. One should not ASSERT that we can't know anything for certain. Doing that is a mistake that allows Theists to spring the true-yet-false trap outlined below. It plays into their hands. One should state that the evidence INDICATES, but doesn't prove, that we can't know anything for certain. One can never reach the condition of certainly knowing that nothing is certain. It's like chasing the end of a rainbow - always receding from you, no matter how hard you try to reach it. Therefore, it's a cardinal error to make the aforementioned assertion. Robinson is playing word games and you just have to be smarter with your words than he is. Period. If their statement is true, then it is false. If it is false, then obviously it is not true. Kant built on Socrates and Hume in promulgating the notion that one could discern and practice morality without God’s revelation. Kant would have us believe we could discover ethics through the use of “pure reason.” Yet a normative ethical code has not and cannot exist without God’s law. There isn’t a constant and universal ethical common ground among cultures or peoples. Even cultures within the same country lack ethical common ground (as we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and India). Many Islamic terrorists decree that it is the moral duty of faithful Muslims to blow up innocent civilians. Various pagan cultures demand the burning of widows. Some cultures demanded the sacrifice of virgins to the Aztec gods. A few Buddhist sects sanction burning oneself to death in a suicidal protest to make a political point. All these acts are evil because they contradict God’s law. Only the true and living God can decree that which is good and that which is evil. ------------ (for more information order the book on this site: "There Are Moral Absolutes") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atheism Self-Destructs The examination of assumptions and worldviews is an important task in one’s maturity of thought. (Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens), in their books, have avoided this process. Anti-theism, this autonomous starting point fails to justify any tangibles or non-tangibles. The philosophical exploration of one’s belief system, to find out if it can supply the transcendental necessities for rational laws, is a significant means for one’s intellectual growth. Bahnsen brings out the importance of this undertaking with the following: “a transcendental argument begins with any item of experience or belief whatsoever and proceeds, by critical analysis, to ask what conditions (or what other beliefs) would need to be true in order for that original experience or belief to make sense, be meaningful, or intelligible to us.” There is a serious flaw in any thinking that ASSERTS that reality must have a meaning that the human mind can encompass. Must it really? The concept of meaning itself is exclusively human and so is found nowhere else in the entire universe but here on Earth. But, didn't the universe exist before we humans evolved? Does the universe really need us to give meaning to it or can it exist quite indifferently and independently of whatever meaning we give to it? The sensible answers to the questions should be Yes and No, in that order. Therefore, the universe and reality do not require anything from us, let alone meaning. Anti-theists are usually intellectually fearful so they avoid logical critical examination. “The philosophy of the non-Christian cannot account for the intelligibility of human experience in any sense.” Wrong. This should be rephrased, "The philosophy of the non-Christian cannot account for the intelligibility of human experience from the Christian position, which ASSERTS and ASSUMES that reality must have a meaning as an article of faith." This is falsely linking the intelligibility of the human experience exclusively to the Christian paradigm. Van Til famously stated that “Anti-theism presupposes theism.” Bahnsen also refutes anti-theism as he argues that “a transcendental analysis... would show that the possibility of its coherence or meaningfulness assumes the existence of the very God it denies.” Atheism fails to provide the rational and moral pre-essentials for the meaningfulness of human apprehension of our world. As outlined above, the human concept of meaning is just that - human. The universe did very well without any meaning for 13.7 billion years, thank you very much. Humanity needs meaning, not the universe. The starting point for knowledge and the intelligibility of the world must be transcendent and immutable as it furnishes universals. In order to make sense of man’s knowledge and experience, there must be “transcendental categories” of understanding that are “inherent in the mind and constitute its structure prior to any sense-experience.” An invariant heavenly universal in reach foundation is needed for human rationality. A being who cannot provide the required pre-environment for the laws of logic cannot account for knowledge and human experience. This rules out the anti-theism of the Brights and the New Atheists. Anti-theism is Rationally Self-Destructive Transcendental scrutiny of anti-theism demonstrates that it is self-destructive inasmuch as it fails to give what it does not possess. Man is devoid of eternal omniscience, aseity, sovereignty, and omnipotence. Bahnsen set forth transcendental analysis as that “which asks what the preconditions are for the intelligibility of human experience. Under what conditions is it possible, or what would also need to be true in order for it to be possible, to make sense of one’s experience of the world? To seek the transcendental conditions for knowing is to ask what is presupposed by any intelligent experience whatsoever.” Humankind does not need to exist for the intelligibility of the universe. People cannot supply the transcendental conditions that are needed for the laws of logic, love, and morality. Van Til contended that “the general precedes the particular” in our reality. This implies that the anthropology of atheism cannot supply the general and universal realities that must be present, for the necessary and unavoidable transcendental conditions listed above. Most people, especially anti-theists, take the unseen and lofty incorporeal principals of thought and ethics for granted. But the true God is transcendent, so refuting a non-theistic worldview starts at his rational pre-commitment, the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one’s method of knowledge. God is transcendent? Care to offer up some proof of that ASSERTION. The simple-minded Brights/New Atheists are all bluster and they lack consistency. A restricted and fixed human cannot be the indispensable foundation for the unity of experience and knowledge. Van Til warns that “the only alternative to thinking of God as the ultimate source of unity in human experience as it is furnished by laws or universals is to think that the unity rests in a void. Every object of knowledge must, therefore, be thought of as being surrounded by ultimate irrationality.” Really? Why can't a restricted and fixed human be the foundation of experience and knowledge? Because Van Til says so? Does the honest admission that we are restricted and fixed beings automatically result in our knowledge becoming irrational? Sorry, but I just don't see how that connection is made. If one denies the triune God, the world must be encircled by irrationality. Why? Some proof of concept would be nice to see! If atheism is true, mankind is “swimming in a void.” Really? Why is that so? A void of irrationality because the finite minds of human beings are claimed by atheism to be the foundation for rational thought. Ah, I think I see it now. Robinson and Van Til seem to be saying that a finite mind cannot bring about rational thought. Therefore, atheism is self-contradictory on its own ground. Even its fallacious assertions and false notions presuppose the truth of the triune God. No. The Robinson - Van Til assertion is flawed because it presupposes the existence of an infinite mind (God) who brings order and rationality to the cosmos. The onus is on them to provide evidence of this mind BEFORE citing it as a proof. • Atheism fails to supply universal and transcendental necessities. Only in a strictly Christian paradigm. Atheism discounts the existence of God, so forcing it to try and satisfy the Christian requirements for universal meaning is a lost cause. One deliberately fashioned by the Theists to MAKE atheism appear to fail. • Without universal and transcendental necessities Atheism cannot account for knowledge. • There must be knowledge. • Atheism is false. ------ (for more study material purchase the book from this site: "God's Necessary Existence.") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Certain Argument for the Existence of God A Certain argument? Q. What's the difference between a proof and a Certain argument? A. Nothing. So, this is a proof of God's existence, is it? But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases (Psalms 115:3). A certain and simple argument for the existence of God is: Without God one cannot account for anything. God is the ground and source for the laws of logic, moral law, mathematics, and everything else in the cosmos. This is an argument that is absolutely true. No, it's an unproven ASSERTION. Which came first? The cosmos or human beings? The truth is simple and it is powerful. One must employ changeless universal truths when one assesses, ponders, and communicates things and their meaning in our world. No. Meaning is a human concept that we impose on an indifferent universe. Only God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, can ground immutable universals. This truth the unbeliever needs to hear it echo and reecho. The great thing about employing this argument is that it grows in power when the unbeliever attacks it. The argument grows in force because the unbeliever must use the laws of logic to make his intellectual challenge. These laws of thought require God. For God alone supplies the pre-essential environment for the laws of logic. Thus every time an unbeliever rationally attacks theism he is actually demonstrating that God lives. Without God (He alone can ground the laws of logic) he cannot make any rational assertion. The old science-fiction movie that has a huge electric monster on the loose illustrates this point. The monster in this thriller grows larger and stronger every time someone uses a weapon in attempting to kill it. The monster is ready to take over ....America...., and the President orders the army to hit it with an atomic bomb. The troops launch the bomb and as the mushroom cloud slowly starts to dissipate, when the smoke clears, they are stunned by the horror of horrors: the energy monster survived. Not only does the monster survive, he now is ten times larger. The energy monster absorbed the massive energy from the bomb. It did not get weaker, but grew in size and strength. Similarly, the unbeliever will attempt to fire intellectual weapons at this “argument from the impossibility of the contrary”(Bahnsen). Nevertheless, all their attacks will only be consumed by the truth, while the defense of the truth grows stronger and larger. There is nothing a skeptic can assert without ultimately relying on theism, since God alone provides the pre-essential environment for the laws of logic that must be utilized in their attacks. Therefore the unbeliever’s argument will always presuppose God because the unbeliever cannot supply the preconditions for the non-physical, unchanging, universal and atemporal laws of logic (God is non-physical, unchanging, universal in power and reach, and atemporal). The triune God is the preexisting foundation for all debate, even a debate over the existence of God. Crap! Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it... Therefore let all the house of ....Israel.... know ASSUREDLY that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:24 & 36). ------- (for more research material order the book from this site: "God Does Exist!"). Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts