Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Transendental Argument for the Existence of God Part 4

Introduction:
    1) In our previous studies we have been exposed to the irrefutable argument for
         Biblical creation and the Christian world view.
    2) we have also seen that the Bible gives us a strategy that we can use.
    3) In this study, we will look at generalizing the procedure to responding to any
         possible criticism of our world view.
    4) In order to do this, we need to review what we have learned so far.
        A) We must realize that everyone has a world view
            1) We all have presuppositions or a basic set of beliefs that we take
                 for granted before we begin to draw any conclusions about the
                 universe.
            2) These include the laws of logic, morality, and the reliability of
                 our senses.
            3) All of our presuppositions taken as a whole form our world view
            4) It is our world view that determines how we interpret the facts, and
                 what constitutes a fact.
            5) Most people are not aware that they even have a world view and have
                 not given much thought to it.
        B) The presuppositions of the unbeliever do not comport
            1) They do not go well with each other
            2) They are inconsistent, often self-refuting, and would make knowledge
                 impossible.
            3) Their world view cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility,
                 those things that are required in order for us to know anything.
            4) These include
                a) Laws of logic
                b) Uniformity of nature
                c) Absolute morality
            5) Without a rational basis for the preconditions of intelligibility, the
                 unbeliever cannot really know anything.
            6) They can certainly believe things, but they have no way to prove them,
                 and thus do not actually know anything, based on their world view/
        C) Do not act consistently with professed world view
            1) The unbeliever cannot act in accordance with their world view
            2) If they did then they could not know anything, in fact they would not
                 be able to function at all.
            3) Yet they do, this is because they steal Christian presuppositions.
            4) They constantly assume things that make no sense within their
                 professed world view.
            5) The fact that they consistently fail to embrace their own
                 presuppositions shows that they do in fact know the real God.
        D) Biblical strategy
            1) To expose their failings in thought we use the don’t answer, answer
                 strategy as shown in Proverbs 26:4&5.
            2) We never embrace the presuppositions of the unbeliever, otherwise
                 we to will be foolish and draw out the wrong conclusions just as
                 they do.
            3) However, we do show that their presuppositions lead to absurd
                 conclusions if they were true.
            4) We try to show them that they do indeed know the Biblical God but
                 have suppressed this truth in unrighteousness.

I) A Few Guidelines
    1) In order to assist us in this method, we need to have a mental flowchart.
    2) Make them realize that they do have a world view
        A) As stated, most people do not think about their world vie.
        B) This is true of the evolutionist as well who hold to the philosophies of
             empiricism and naturalism (which are world views).
        C) They do not understand that the biblical creationist has a different standard
             for determining truth.
        D) We must therefore explain to the evolutionist that we reject their criteria
             for what is to be considered true and reasonable.
        E) We reject their presuppositions, instead we embrace the Bible as our ultimate
             standard
        F) Most evolutionists are not aware of what the biblical creationist really believe.
        G) We have to make them aware that everyone has a world view in which all
             evidence is interpreted.
        H) We must show them that our world view makes sense of the evidence.
        I) We show them that our world view is internally consistent, non-arbitrary,
             and can make sense of those things necessary for knowledge.
    3) The internal critique
        A) We need to be able to do an internal critique of the unbelievers world view
        B) In doing so we should be able to show them that it is internally inconsistent
             and leads to absurdity.
        C) We show them that they have not carefully considered the ramifications of
             their professed beliefs, in fact if their beliefs were true, they would lead one
             to the conclusion that we cannot know anything since they have no basis for
             those presuppositions that we all have.
       

II) Introduction to the check list “AIP”
    1) While we do the internal critique of the unbelievers world view, there are three things
         that we need to pay particular attention to.
    2) This needs to be our mental checklist and each letter stands fo a different item
        A) A = Arbitrariness
        B) I = Inconsistency
        C) P = Preconditions of intelligibility
    3) Lets take a closer look at each on of these
    4) Arbitrariness
        A) In logical reasoning no one is allowed to be arbitrary, we cannot simply assert
             a claim that has no reason behind it and expect others to accept the claim.
        B) All beliefs must have justification
        C) This is simple to understand because it would be impossible to have any type
             of rational debate if the parties were allowed not to have any reason for their
             claims.
        D) If each person were allowed to assume what they are trying to prove, then
             there would be no point in the debate.
        E) Yet we find that many unbelievers believe in a number of things with no
             logical reason at all.
        F) The evolutionist always asked the Biblical creationist for a reason for
             their beliefs, yet most are unwilling to do the same.
        G) When an evolutionist gives an arbitrary claim, simply ask “Why should I
             accept that claim?”.  If they do not have a good reason, we can simply
             assert the opposite and insist that we do not need a reason either.
        H) If they are allowed then so are we.
        I) Some arbitrary beliefs that they hold
            1) Evolution is accepted as an unquestionable fact.
            2) Methodological naturalism is accepted without justification
            3) Empiricism is also an unquestionable fact
            4) A few even argue that they do not need justification for their
                 presuppositions.  But presuppositions must be justified if they are
                 to be considered rational (However, by their nature, presuppositions
                 must be assumed before they can be justified).
        J) Asserting something without justification is not the same as having a bad
             reason.
            1) Being arbitrary means that you have no reason for your belief
            2) Some may give a reason, but it can be a bad reason.  The reason
                    Must be exposed as inadequate by further analysis.
   


    5) The four main types of arbitrariness
        A) Mere opinion
            1) This is where a person asserts his opinion without any justification
                 and thinks that this settle the matter.
            2) A rational person should not base their beliefs on what they want to
                 be true, or what seems reasonable by mere intuition or opinion.
            3) Plate tectonics is a perfect example of this
            4) Most people seem to think that since the plates are so large that they
                 could only be pushed apart slowly.  It just does not seem plausible to
                 them that something so large could move so fast (as with the flood).
                 But when pushed, they do not have a justifiable reason for their belief.
        B) Relativism
            1) It asserts that there are no absolutes and that truth is subjective.
            2) Yet all logical reasoning presupposes that there are absolutes and that
                 truth is objective
            3) The law of non-contradiction would be meaningless if truth varied
                 from person to person
            4) This inconsistency must be pointed out to them.  “ If what you are
                 saying is true, then why are you debating me?  How can you say that
                 my position is wrong if truth is relative to the individual?”
            5) True that the person may not feel the need to be consistent in any way
                 but it must be pointed out that they are being unfair by arbitrarily
                 expecting us to be consistent and logical if they are not willing to do so.
            6) It should also be pointed out that they cannot possibly live according to
                 their world view.  They must look both ways before crossing the street.
        C) Prejudicial conjecture
            1) This is where a person substitutes an arbitrary conjecture for knowledge
            2) They have failed to study the topic in question, and so they simply begin
                 stating guesses based on nothing more than imagination.
            3) A prejudicial conjecture is not making a reasonable guess based on the
                 best information available, it is when a person has failed to do their
                 homework on the subject.
            4) “For all we know, the Bible was probably written by some monk during
                 the dark ages.  We don’t know that any of the persons in the Bible even
                 existed.  And besides, it’s been copied so many times it probably has
                 lots and lots of errors.”
                a) This is a subject we have studied in depth
                b) The information is available to all who inquire, just takes a little
                     time.
        D) Unargued Philosophical Bias
            1) An unargued philosophical bias is (by definition) unargued.
            2) The statement “Evolution must be true, because it is the only
                 naturalistic way that life could come about.”
            3) The bias here is that naturalism is true.
            4) We need to be able to find the hidden presuppositions that are
                 responsible for the erroneous conclusion.
            5) We must expose the bias and force them to defend it.  We can
                 use the strategy of “don’t answer, answer”
            6) “But sir, I do not accept naturalism.  In fact, if naturalism were true
                 it would be impossible to prove anything since there would be no
                 basis for the laws of logic, which are not part of nature.”
            7) “There is no evidence that the things that happened in the Bible
                 ever happened.”  In a response such as this the person has
                 arbitrarily assumed that the Bible itself does not count as
                 historical evidence.  If we accept the Bible as it is written (a
                 historical book) then all of the events it records have historical
                 evidence, the Bible.
    6) Inconsistency
        A) There are four types of inconsistency
            1) Logical Fallacies
            2) Reductio Ad Absurdum
            3) Behavioral Inconsistency
            4) Prepositional Tensions
        B) Logical Fallacies
            1) Most people that we come into contact with have never given much
                 thought to this. 
            2) Because of this fact, we will look at this topic in depth at a later study
            C) Reductio Ad Absurdum
            1)This simply means “reducing to absurdity”
            2) In this type of inconsistency, a principle taken to its logical
                 conclusion will yield an absurd result.
            3) Many atheists and evolutionists will want to take a philosophy only
                 so far, and then inconsistently switch to another.
            4) Empiricism is a great example
                a) Recall that empiricism teaches that all things are known through
                     observation.
                b) If we take this standard to its logical conclusion, we would
                     eventually have to apply it to empiricism itself.
                c) If empiricism were true, we could never know that it was
                     true since it has not been observed.
                d) Empiricism leads to the absurd conclusion that we cannot know
                     anything.
        D) Behavioral Inconsistency
            1) “Action speak louder than words”
            2) It is not a mark of rationality for a person to assert one things, but then
                 live contrary to it.
            3) This is because one belief is at work when they assert a certain position
                 but a conflicting belief is evident when they behave in a way contrary
                 to that position.
            4) Examples

                a) They presuppose human dignity and attend a friends funeral
                     even though they preciously argued that man is, in principle,
                     no different than a dog or a roach.
                b) They will insist that man is nothing more than a complex array
                     of bio-chemical factors that are controlled by the laws of
                            physics, and then kiss their spouse as though they share love
                     with each other.
                c) They will suggest that the things which happen randomly, by
                     chance, but then turn around and look for regularities, law like
                     explanations of events, and uniformity in the things studied
                     by natural science.
            5) If one cannot live by their professed world view, then their view is
                       faulty and should be rejected as their world view.
        E) Presuppositional Tensions
            1) We must be mindful of the presuppositions of those we come into
                    contact with.
            2) Many of them do not comport with each other
            3) They are self refuting, or make knowledge impossible.
            4) These can fall into 3 categories
                a) Metaphysical (The nature of reality)
                b) Epistemology (The nature of knowledge)
                c) Ethics (Right and wrong in human behavior)
            5) Not every one thinks in these terms, but everyone utilizes some basic
                 perspective regarding reality, knowledge, and conduct.
            6) Everyone does philosophy, but not all do it well, not everyone
                 reflects self-consciously about such matters and seeks a cogent and
                 consistent outlook.
            7) As we become better at identifying the assumptions of those around us,
                 we will see that every time they have unmanaged and irresolvable
                        tensions between their assumptions.
            8) Tension within one’s ethical perspective
                a) Some say pleasure is the leading value in life, and there is no
                       accountability for our conduct after this life.
                b) Yet the some person expresses indignation over a well
                             documented case of police brutality.
                c) These two views, that pleasure is the highest value, but
                     brutality is to be condemned expose a tension within the
                     person’s thinking.
                d) If the policeman gets pleasure from what they are doing to
                           others, then they should, based upon the ethical perspective,
                     be allowed to do it without any type of condemnation .
            9) Tension within one’s epistemological perspective
                a) Imagine that your friend, who is critical of your faith, says that
                     you are being superstitious and gullible.
                b) According to them, we should not believe anything that is not

                     verified by observation or by our sense perceptions.  “Seeing is
                     believing”
                c) The problem as they see it is that Christians believe things
                           simply on the alleged authority of God (speaking in the Bible)
                d) You ask them how they came to hold such a view.  They explain
                     that they have been taking a college course and the teacher
                     convinced them that we can only trust our senses in determining
                     what to believe in this world.
                e) The tension is clear.  They criticize you for believing things, not
                     by observation, but on the authority of another (God), yet they
                     themselves have come to believe what they do, not by
                      observation, but on the authority of another (the teacher).
            10) Tensions within one’s metaphysical perspective
                a) You are taking a class on the behavioristic view of man.  The
                     teacher claims that all human behavior is determined and
                     predictable as long as we know all the factors.  In principle,
                     human free will is an illusion.  All of us think and do what we
                     have been conditioned to think and do, given the variable
                            factors of our environment.
                b) You go in on day to take a test on the material that was covered.
                     You cheat on the examine and are caught by the teacher.  They
                     are indignant and insists upon imposing a strict penalty, to
                     flunk the course.
                c) If the teacher does flunk you, they expose an open conflict
                           within their view of human nature.
                d) By punishing you, they assume that you were free to chose how
                     to approach the test.  You could have studied hard for the test or
                     taken the easy way out.
                e) If you could not help doing what you did, given your previous
                     conditioning and the variables of your environment, it would
                     be senseless to punish you for doing what you predictably did.
            7) Precondition of intelligibility
                        A) We have already covered most of these in previous studies
        B) There are others but for time sake, we will not examine them at this time
        C) I will try to have a guide made up at a later date.

III) Conclusion
    1) This internal critique of the unbelievers world view will help us to identify some
         of the things that are wrong with it.
    2) It all boils down to which world view is the correct on to have. 
    3) There can be only one.
    4) In our next study, we will discover that it is only the Christian world view that can
         make sense of the things that we have discussed.

No comments:

Post a Comment