Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

Okay, from square one then. What I find compelling about the Transcendental Argument is that it engages discussion around a field in philosophy that I find interesting, namely epistemology (how we know what we know). Now, I've told you what I find compelling about it.Secondly, you want to know if I just assume that the assertions are true. Fine. I assume the the correct assertions are true and I assume the incorrect ones are false... [lurkers: that was tongue in cheek, please don't take me seriously and try to rebut]. Since "every form of the argument you have encountered avoids really discussing those assertions", why don't you raise one of them and I'll tell you if I assume it is correct or not.I'm really not trying to be evasive with you PaulK. I understand you've heard the TA used, but I don't know what you've heard. It's kind of like me asking you to sign a blank check. Well, will you?

So it makes assertions in an area you find interesting ? Why would that be compelling ? Making assertions is easy.But OK, lets start with the assertion that only theism can account for logic. Since that's the first - and one that is often used to try to claim Christian "ownership" of logic (despite the fact that it was developed by Greek pagans).I will state right now that in every case attmepts to support the "TA" consist only of trying to knock down opposing views - exactly as we have seen in this thread. I have NEVER seen an attempt to develop a positive case.

Logic is merely a relection of God's timeless nature. Atheism, on the other hand, cannot account for this because they do not believe in God and think we are here by mere chance.

Please let the Presuppositionalists spout their own rubbish. That way they can't justifiably complain when they lose.

You've made it quite clear that a dialog with you is going to be a waste of time.

You're said that you find the "TA" compelling - but despite that you have twice denied knowing what it actually says.I've argued with Presuppositionalists before, I know that you can't defend the assertions of the "TA". You'll notice that Justin didn't produce an argument - just another assertion. Are you really saying that you don't have anything better than that ?So if you are determined to avoid the problems of your world view then there is no point in dialog with me - you'll be exposed to truths you don't want to know.But please don't use the fact that I know how empty your claims are as an excuse for running away. If you REALLY beleive that you have a compelling argument produce it. After all I'm not the only one reading these posts.

Logic is merely a language with very restrictive grammar. I dont't see what that has to do with God.If logic is like God then you're going to have to deal with the fact that God must therefore be incomplete or inconsistent, like logic is.

I enjoy philosophy. I think a more accurate (and popular) way to phrase it would be to say that Laws of thought are universal, abstract and invariant in nature, and the Biblical claim is that God who is Spirit (abstract), universal (omnipresent) and unchanging (James 1:17), created the world in His image. As such, the Christian's view of the world is able to account for abstract, universal and invariant entities such as laws of reason.The non-Christian world-views need to show how their world-view can account for such things. So TA really boils down to a world-view comparison between schools of thought on what accounts for human experience. If one wishes to remain rational, he should give up those aspects of his world-view that result in skepticism, incoherence or undermine reason and adopt ones that can account for them. The TA as I understand it doesn't claim ownership of the laws of logic and rejects any notion that laws are the sorts of things that are developed. Laws, such as the law of negation, are abstract concepts, unlike cultural languages which evolve within the context of societies. These abstract concepts apply universally to intellect and are the very underpinnings of communication regardless of the language used to convey it. So I would say that the Greek Pagans as you described them, didn't develop them in the sense of creating them, but developed systems by which to understand and categorize them for the purpose of teaching the proper use of them. This categorization of them resulted in something scholars like to call their classes, "Logic 101". If the opposing view cannot account for the foundations of his epistemology, then he needs to adopt a new view on life that does. So the knocking down should really be viewed as an attempt to encourage rationality. Are you referring to my conversation with Ned? We agreed that presuppositions dictate the interpretation of facts. That's hardly an opposing view. Perhaps the person didn't approach the argument correctly, or perhaps you made inflammatory statements such as "let the Presuppositionalists spout their own rubbish" which put them on the defensive. I'll maintain courtesy in writing; I hope you will endeavor to do the same.

Again this is really a collection of assertions. There is no real attempt to develop a genuine argument. And it is not a world-view comparison since it does not really compare world-views - instead it argues that other world-views are inconsistent with parts of the Presuppositionalist world-view, without even adequately developing those parts.For isntance it doesn't explain what it means for an abstract entity to be omnipresent. How can you attribute a spatial location to something that does not exist as a "thing" ? In my world-view that makes no sense at all so my world-view does not have to account for it.I note that you managed to even misread my post when I stated that part of the "TA" is used to support a claim, your reply was that the "TA" did not make that claim. Well of course it doesn't. Surely that is implicit in what I said.But lets point out the biggest problem with the "TA". You cannot solve epistemological problems through presuppositions. Presuppositions are just assumptions and no conclusion can be more certain than the assumptions it is based on.

Perhaps you don't think a genuine argument is one that reduces a world-view to absurdity, but that seems like a pretty significant argument to me. I would call any world-view whose basic tenet rests on assumptions that lead to incoherence, irrational. Because ultimate presuppositions are basic, you cannot appeal to anything more basic than they, so the only appeal available is in the form of a horizontal comparison. It’s true that TA argues that other world-views are internally inconsistent. The proper response to such a finding would be to give up the inconsistent one for a consistent one. The term entity in abstract entity does not refer to a physical object. Here is an example of what it means for an abstract entity to be universal.Joe has a ball
Joe does NOT have a ballA law of negation tells us these sentences cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. Is this law spacial? No. Is it everywhere? Yes. This law holds true whether you are in a class room or driving in a rover on planet Mars. You need to account for it if you want to be taken seriously. If your world-view says that the only things that exists in this world are matter, yet you grant existence to such things as laws which are not matter, then you are being arbitrary and can’t complain if someone just matter of factly says you’re wrong without trying to support that claim.Now here is where the comparison part comes into play. The Christian world-view CAN account for laws and matter in our experience. The universe was created in the image of a universal, invariant, omnipresent being who is described in Scripture as not being able to lie. This unchangeableness of God is reflected in that when he ordered the universe, he did so such that men could reason using laws that you can appeal with confidence that they won’t negate or disappear on you. So if you are looking to salvage rationality, I can give you a world-view that accounts for reason, if you want it. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. The Transcendental Argument addresses the question by answering the question "What preconditions are necessary for intelligibility?" If there is a "problem", then the first place you should look are your ultimate presuppositions since those are the foundations of knowledge. Presuppositions are assumed, but profound epistemological skepticism results from presuppositions that conflict with each other, which is why world-views need to be examined internally and compared with each other.

Hey Transcendasaurus! I am jumping in on this topic with no real knowledge of what you all are talking about, but when you mentioned the concept of abstract entity you said: First, what is an abstract entity?
1abstract \ab-strakt, ab-strakt\ adj 1 : considered apart from a particular instance 2 : expressing a quality apart from an object 3 : having only intrinsic form with little or no pictorial representation <~ painting> abstractly adv abstractness n ===Thus, if God were abstract, He would be non pantheistic, as He had a quality apart from the rest of created matter(objects) He would be non defineable by definition such as a picture..yet what would this concept do to the bodily ressurrection
people?

That would only make sense if you had in fact made such an argument - in fact you did not. You have neither produced your account of logic not explained how you can rule out all others. Now this is in response to my point that you had not made such a comparison. Therefore it concedes my point that you had not made such an argument, since you say a comparison is needed and no genuine comparison was provided.
It also implies that actually producing the TA would be impractical since individual comparisions with all other world-views is simply not possible.The only sensible way to actually argue for the TA would be to lay out the relevant elements of your orldview and show that they are truly necessary. I don't need to reproduce your example because it does not address my point. Universality cannot be the same as omnipresence since non-spatial entities cannot be said to be present or absent. That is the point you need to address. I add that my view of logic is radically different from the one you seem to be proposing. It would make sense if you were to make your ideas about logic explicit and justify them (and i will add that on one occasion a presuppositionalist ran away form the discussion rather than do that !). This is a contradiction. You assert that logic is non-spatial and then presuppose that it is spatial by stating that it is "everywhere". No, it is meaningless to state that it is "everywhere" or "anywhere". Of course the only assertion I have made relevant to this is that my worldview holds that abstract entities are non-spatial - a statement that you have agreed to. You have even agreed to that, so there is no need for me to defend it.
If you insist that my worldview has to account for statements which do not even make sense before you will take me seriously then there is no point in discussion. I'm not about to change my worldview just because it would help your argument - that would be silly. So please do not make such demands. Well it's nice to knwo that young Earth creationism is not Christian. But you haven't yet accounted for logic - or even explained how in your worldview it actually works. Indeed lets assume that your creator was totally different - do you assert that some other creator could have created a universe where logic failds to work ? Does the idea of such a universe even make sense ? If not then surely how the universe came to be is irrelevant to that question. Again this fails to address my point. Problems *with* presuppositions can be addressed by adopting better presuppositions. But other problems such as Cartesian Doubt can not be dealt with in such a way. I repeat a presupposiiton is an assumption and no conclusion cna be more certain than the assumptions it rests on. The more you rely on assumptions and the less certain they are the less reliable your conclusions will be.This seems to be a sound reason for not making such extravagant and far reaching presuppositions as your idea of God above. Unless you adopt a "true-for-you" relativist view of truth you are at great risk of falling prey to false certainty. Perhaps this explains why presuppositionalists are prone to making quite absurd assertions such as Greg Bahnsen's idea that there were no atheists.

That’s fine. To shorten the argument then, let me revise it to say that the goal of TA as I understand it is to show how a world-view A, if it were true, would lead to skepticism or incoherence. Practically speaking, with my new understanding of TA, all I would need to show is that your world-view is internally problematic, since I would be arguing against you, and not the rest of the world. I think it would be satisfactory to demonstrate at least one necessary precondition for intelligibility, and then ask the opposing world-view to show how it can meet that requirement. In kind, I would show how mine does as well.Let me shoot from the hip: A necessary precondition for intelligibility is at least some form of universal, invariant law of thought that can be universally applied to any situation with predictable results such that knowledge can be built on prior experienceI gave an example of how the Christian world-view, if it were true, would have no problem accommodating something that is invariant, abstract and universal in nature. One example was God Himself. Use this biblical definition instead: God is infinite in being, invisible, without body or parts; immutable, immense, eternal, most absolute. I can only go on what you give me, which so far isn’t much, so I’ve based my argument on the materialist world-view. I never claimed that it was your world-view. See above for my justification. It should be obvious what I mean by the term everywhere, especially when it is placed in context of what I mean when I’m using it. So replace the term everywhere with the term universal if it’s hanging you up. I said if your world-view says that so far you haven’t confessed to materialism, or anything for that matter. I’m currently under the microscope, and willingly so but at some point I hope you will come out of the closet. See above. The Christian world-view assumes a world containing universal, abstract entities, so there is no conceptual problem with having laws in that world-view.Secondly, I’m not sure if you’re asking the mechanics of logic or how logic interacts with my world-view, so I’ll answer both. I don’t know the mechanics, neither do I think that it is necessary to know how in order to say that they exist or are possible. How they interact in the Christian world-view is that God created man in His image, and man was created such that man could understand the commands of God. Because logic is a prerequisite for knowledge, and knowledge is required for understanding (God), man was made such that he can perceive it. I would say that it is incoherent to assume a different creator, which is why the TA argues that non-Christian world-views are incoherent or at least lead to skepticism. Please explain what you mean by Cartesian Doubt. I don’t deny that presuppositions can be adopted on discovery of problematic ones. Develop this a bit further for me, because it’s not clear to me which presuppositions that I hold are far reaching. Since I certainly don’t wish to fall prey to false certainty, can you give me a definition of certainty, then give me an example of a true certainty about the world we live in, and how you know that certainty to be true.Thanks.

Never thought of it in those terms before now. Good catch. He would have attributes, yet unlike a picture, those attributes would be immaterial in nature and unknowable apart from what could be known either directly or derived by good and necessary consequence from special revelation. It would do nothing to the resurrection because God, being omnipotent (a summary word for can do all things except lie/deny Himself from being God) He became a man without giving up being God. Read the Westminster Confession, namely Chapter VIII: of Christ the Mediator at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_text.html to get the details.I apologize if I can't continue replying as I can only handle one discussion at a time given my work schedule.thanks.

Well the claim of the TA is all worldviews other than the "Christian" (i.e. Presuppositionalist) are incoherent. Even if you could successfully show that some other worldviews were incoherent (a big project in itself) it wouldn't be very significant in terms of achieving that goal. It seems to me that I was right all along - there is no "TA" - just the assertion that all other worldviews are incoherent. I don't know why any rational person would find that a compelling argument. In fact you should lay out yours first because the argument automatically fails if you cannot succeed in that. These debates are usually between philosphically naive people and it is easier to attack than defend. But of course "God" is a whole complex of assumptions that themselves cannot be accounted for. Now if you say that some presuppositions require no account then we need to say why the efficacy of logic - which is as basic a presupposition as any ,and one that we both make - needs to be accounted for yet the existence of God does not.And I assume that your claim that "God" as an example of something that was "invariant, abstract and universal in nature" was an error - in your worldview God is certainly NOT an abstract object. This is in response to my suggestion that you lay out your own view. Now you don't need me to tell you what your views are. And your answer is below, not above.And you still aren't seeing something. Universality isn't a problem - certainly not in the spatial sense you are using since abstract entities are non-spatial. How could something inherently non-spatial be restricted to a limited spatial area ? So you can't actually account for logic - just SOME of the features you attribute to it. And if you don't know how it works you can't know that there isn't some hidden contradiction with your worldview - or even that your"account" is correct - what if the way logic works explained "universality" and "invariance" ?
And there are still the issues I introduced in my last post.And you didn't answer those This is not an adequate response. Even if it were rational not to assume that some other creator existed that does not make it impossible for it to be the case. Thus we can certainly consider the consequences of such a hypothesis and we should do so, since it will illuminate your explanation of logic. So I must ask you to go back and answer the questions.do you assert that some other creator could have created a universe where logic fails to work ?
Does the idea of such a universe even make sense ?I note that your response indicates that you believe that the answer to the first is at least "yes" - perhaps stronger than that. But since a "yes" answer creates serious problems for you I won't go on without an explict answer"Cartesian" refers to the philospher Renee Descartes. Descartes attempted produce a complete Rationalist worldview - and he attemtped to deal with the problem of skepticism by proving God (of course he failed to do so).And I explicitly stated which presupposition I considered extravagant and unnecessary - "God". Heres an example - if you assume that God guarantees you will not be decieved then you must assume that any optical illusions you percieve are in fact real. Clearly a simplistic use of presuppositions to eliminate uncertainties is not epistemlogically reliable.