Saturday, April 20, 2013

TheTransendetal Argument for the Existence of God

The question that is commonly asked is this, "Does God exist?" is probably the most important question that a person can ask.  This question should never be taken lightly (as is today by many).  This question has to do with the very existence and destination of every living human on the face of the earth, not only in the present but also in the past and in the future.  If this question is not answered properly, the destiny of the individual is at extreme risk.  The question must be answered properly.

Not only the above question, but also the question of "Are the Scriptures the inspired Word of God?".  This question is on par with the above in terms of importance.  Again, this question has to do with the very nature and destination of every living person that has walked the face of the earth.  To answer this question improperly even if we answer the above question in the proper manner puts the destiny of the person in extreme risk.

The following study has to do with the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God and the Inspiration of the Scriptures.  It is a lengthy study and it will challenge the way in which we think.  It took me a long time to get my head wrapped around the concept as I imagine it will you also.  The important item to understand and remember is the fact that this argument has no refutation.  I have seen and listened to a few debates in which this argument was presented.  It was laughed at, ridiculed, made fun of, but it was never refuted. Since this seems to be the case, I believe this to be the best argument that can be given.

I have attached links to this study as follows (it will be important to start at part one and proceed in numerical order).

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

I pray that this study will help the Kingdom

Examples of the Transendental Argument

Introduction
    1) As we have studied, we can see that we have a good reason for the Christian faith.
    2) It is the only world view that is consistent, non-arbitrary, and can account for
         reality.
    3) A few things to clear up first
        A) The claim that the Christian faith needs no defense
        B) Evidence first verses the Bible first
    4) Does the Christian faith need to be defended?
        A) Many claim that the faith needs no defense.  It is only a matter of belief and
             that is all that can be said.
        B) Yet I find it strange that many people never consult the Bible for an answer
             to this question.
            1) If the Bible is our ultimate authority and we know that it is the source
                 of truth, then we should be able to find the answer within its pages.
            2) II Peter 1:3 informs us of the truth that God has given to us all things
                 that pertain to LIFE and GODLINESS.
        C) This position is not consistent with God’s revealed truth
            1) I Peter 3:15 tells us that we are to always be ready to give a defense
                 of the faith that we have.
            2) Those who ask us if we have a reason for our faith ARE TO BE
                 GIVEN AN ANSWER.
            3) This indicates that we should indeed have a reason for our faith.
            4) Throughout our study, we see that we indeed have a very good reason
                 for our faith.  Without the Biblical God, we could know absolutely
                 nothing.
            5) Our reasoning presupposes Biblical faith.
            6) The notion that Christianity cannot be defended is not consistent with
                 the teachings of God.
    5) Evidence first
        A) If we are to be ready at all times to give a reason for the faith that we have,
             What kind of reason should it be?
        B) We have already seen that the evidence first approach will not rationally
             resolve world view issues.
        C) Everyone interprets the evidence in light of their world view
        D) Evidence can be very useful when we agree on how it should be interpreted
        E) But when the question is “How evidence should be interpreted?” the evidence
             first approach will always fail.
        F) This approach also commits the pretend neutrality fallacy.
    6) The Bible first approach
        A) Since we are told to be ready to give a reason for our faith, and the evidence
             first approach does not answer the underlying question, what options are
             left to us?
        B) The Bible first approach is what we have been studying in this class.
        C) We could restate the ultimate proof as such “The Bible must be the ultimate
             standard because no other standard can make knowledge possible.
            1) The Bible must come first, it must be presupposed before we can
                 properly evaluate the evidence.
            2) Notice that this approach does not make use of evidence per say, but
                 since all evidence must be interpreted through an ultimate standard,
                 we must always start with the Bible when we look to the evidence.
        D) This simply means that the Bible is foundational in all our thinking, it is the
             ultimate standard.
            1) When we argue for the truth of the Bible, we must begin our argument
                 by presupposing the Bible as our supreme criterion for evaluating
                 all the facts.
            2) We will be accused of circular reasoning, but we have already
                 shown that such reasoning is logically necessary and not fallacious
                 if done properly.
            3) Everyone must appeal to their ultimate standard even when defending it
            4) As we have seen it is only the Bible that can do this successfully!

I) The Bible’s Standard for Reasoning
    1) This idea that we cannot know anything apart from God is not a modern claim, it
         is contained in scripture
        A) Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: but fools
             despise wisdom and instruction.”
            1) We must begin with a reverential submission to God as revealed in
                 His word in order to have knowledge.
            2) If on rejects the instruction and wisdom of His word, they are reduced
                 to foolishness.
        B) Romans 1:18-23
            1) Everyone has an innate knowledge of God
            2) This is why everyone knows about the laws of logic, uniformity, and
                 morality.
            3) But, as indicated, they suppress this knowledge in unrighteousness
            4) They do not acknowledge God as the foundation of knowledge, and as
                 a result, their thoughts are reduced to foolishness
        C) Colossians 2:3 “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
            1) All wisdom and knowledge is deposited in Christ (Verse 2)
            2) We cannot have knowledge apart from Christ.
            3) Verse 8 warns us about being robbed of these very treasures by
                 accepting secular standards
                 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
                 deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
                 and not after Christ.”
            4) Our way of thinking, our philosophy, must be according to Christ
                 and therefore according to His revealed word.
            5) Any other standard is merely empty deception
        D) I Cor. 3:19 “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.  For it is
              written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”
            1) The evidence first approach is really a secular position in that it states
                 that man is able to come to correct conclusions about evidence without
                 God.
            2) Again we can see that this is foolishness.
        E) Eph. 4:17-18 “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth
             walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their own mind, having the
             understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the
             ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.”
            1) We are not to think as those in the secular realm think.
            2) We cannot start with the presuppositions of the world and expect it
                 not to have a damaging effect.
            3) This approach would have us attempt to show that the Bible is true by
                 starting from another standard.  The neutral standard.
            4) If it were possible to prove the Bible from another standard, then the
                 Bible could not be true!!
                a) Prov. 1:7
                b) Col. 2:3
            5) I Cor. 1:21 “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
                 knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save
                 them that believe.”
        F) If we argue that the Bible is true on the basis of some piece of scientific
             evidence, then we are teaching people that the Bible is less foundational
             than human understanding of scientific evidence.
        G) We would essentially be teaching that man’s ability to understand the evidence
             is the ultimate standard and not the Word of God.
        I) This kind of thinking can and does have serious consequences
            1) Using this kind of thinking, we are raising a generation of people who
                 do not accept the Bible as the ultimate standard!
            2) They only believe the Bible if it fits their own personal interpretation
                 of the evidence, and if the Bible does not fit, the Bible is the one that
                 gets reinterpreted and not the evidence.
            3)This is the main reason that so much incorrect doctrine is being allowed
                 into the church.
                a) Instrumental music
                b) Woman in roles of authority
                c) Homosexuality
                d) Fellowship with denominational groups
            4) Eph. 4:12-15
        J) Examples of
            1) Gen. 3:1-7
            2) Luke 16:19-31
            3) II Peter 3:1-10

II) The Apologetics of Christ
    1) Christ constantly used the Bible first approach when dealing with those around Him.
    2) He seems to never use evidence to show who He was.
    3) In all aspect, Christ presented the Biblical world view when encountering those
         who questioned Him.
    4) Christ never once attempted to first establish the truth of God’s word by an unbiased
         evaluation of the evidence.
        A) Matt. 4:1-11
            1) When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, Christ’s approach was
                 scripture first
            2) Satan tried to tempt Jesus using the 3 lines of temptation that he uses
                 on all individuals, the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the
                 pride of life.
            3) In all three of these attempts, Jesus never gave up the surpremecy of the
                 Scriptures in His thought process.
        B) Matt. 12:24-29
            1) Here we find Jesus using the strategy that we have been discussing
                 that of “Don’t answer, answer”.
            2) He did not accept there foolish standard, but then He showed them the
                 silliness of their position by showing what would happen if it were true.
            3) He pointed out that a kingdom that is divided against itself could not
                 stand.
            4) He showed them the inconsistency of their position.
        C) Matt. 21:23-27
            1) Here we find the chief priests asking who gave Christ His authority to
                 teach the things that He was teaching.
            2) Jesus knew of their foolish standard so He did not answer them
                 according to it, but showed them the inconsistency of their position.
            3) He asked them a question “The baptism of John, whence was it? from
                 heaven, of men?”
            4) By asking them a simple question, Jesus exposed the error in their
                 thinking.
            5) If they answered ‘from heaven’, Jesus could simply ask them why they
                 did not believe what John was saying about Him
            6) If they answered any other way they knew the reaction of those that
                 believed that John was a prophet of God
            7) This one simple question neutralized their position and left them
                 unable to answer Him.
        D) Matt. 22:23-33
            1) The Sadducees had the world view that there was no resurrection of
                 the dead
            2) This was an attempt to ensnare our Lord or try to confuse Him in
                 order to show that He was not who He said He was.
            3) Jesus did not accept the error of their thought process, instead
                 He answered with the Bible first approach
            4) He indicated to them that they did not know the scriptures nor
                 the power of God.
            5) He then shows them their error by quoting from Ex. 3 Which shows
                 that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive somewhere even though
                 they had been physically dead for a number of years.
            6) This shows the error of their thinking in the fact that if they are still
                 alive somewhere, which gives credence to the resurrection.
            7) Verse 34 indicates that given this response, the Sadducees were
                 silenced they could not make a defense of their position .
                a) If they denied what our Lord had said, they would be going
                     against plain scripture.
                b) If they accepted His answer, they would of necessity have
                     to change their world view which they were not able to
                      do, hence they were reduced to being foolish.
        E) Matt. 23
            1) This entire chapter shows the inconsistency of the scribes an Pharisees
            2) Christ never tried to show that they were wrong by the force of evidence
                a) the things that they were doing has a bad outcome.
                b) Showing the statistical data and comparing different things.
            3) He used the Bible as His standard in His reasoning.
            4) In doing so Jesus showed them the foolishness of their world view.

III) The Apologetics of Paul

    1) Acts 17:16-34
    2) Paul also used the Bible as his ultimate authority just as Christ did (I Cor. 11:1)
    3) He presented the Christian world view, internally critiqued the secular world view and
         used the strategy in his response
    4) Here we find Paul reasoning with the people and not employing the “pull at the
         heartstrings” approach.
    5) Paul begins by analyzing the world view of his critics (17:22-25)
        A) He notes that the Athenians were religious in the sense that they worshiped
             idols.
        B) One was to the unknown God
        C) He uses this concession to begin presenting his world view by going back
             to Genesis and explaining to them that God is the creator of all things.
        D) He then corrects their erroneous view of deity by pointing out that the
             creator would not dwell in temples or need to be served by humans hands
             since it is God who gives life and breath to all.
    6) Verse 26-28
        A) He continues to present the Christian world view by showing that we are all
             descended from Adam and indicates that God has been sovereign in human
             history and that He is not far from us.
        B) He also points out that in God we live and move and exist which is a fact that
             the Athenians already knew.
        C) Paul also points out the fact that the Athenians world view cannot account for
             this.
            1) Their world view was one in which the gods were made of gold and
                 silver.
            2) They were made by human hands
            3) Their world view could not make sense of this fact.
            4) Paul is showing here that it is only the Christian world view that can
                 make sense of this fact.
        D) Paul really drives this fact home when he uses the Athenians own poets to
             confirm what he was saying.  The implication here is the fact that they already
             knew this to be true (Roms. 1:18-21)
    7) Verse 29
        A) Paul here points out that it is only the Christian world view that can make this
             intelligible.
        B) The Christian view states that God made man in His image.
        C) Yet the Athenian gods were made of gold, silver, and stone.  They were
             created by man.  How could we be their offspring?
        D) Paul is showing the inconsistency within their world view.
    8) Verses 30-31
        A) Paul continues his presentation and teaches that all should repent and turn
             back to God because God will judge the world through Christ.
        B) He ends his speech with the Resurrection of Christ.
            1) Notice that Paul does use the Resurrection of Christ as evidence of
                 Christ’s deity, but only after he had given his listeners the proper
                 frame work im which to interpret that evidence.
            2) He had already shown their world view to be incorrect and that it
                 is only the Christian world view that is correct.
            3) He showed them that the Christian world view is the only world view
                 that can make sense of the things that they already knew to be true.
    9) Going back to the beginning
        A) Paul provided the Biblical background to understand the theological
             implications of the resurrection.
        B) By going back to Genesis, he showed that God is the sovereign Creator and
             thus had the right to set the rules.
        C) Many today start with the crucifixion and resurrection in their communications
        D) This is not effective if the person does not have the correct interpretive frame
             work.

        E) Sometimes we must go back to Genesis and explain Christianity from its
             beginning.

IV) The War of World Views

    1) There is a war going on all around us today
        A) It is a battle of ideologies
        B) It is a battle of competing authorities
        C) One says that mankind is the final authority
        D) One says that God and His word are the final authority
    2) The problem with world view is that they are all based on autonomous human
         reasoning.
        A) Unfortunately the human mind is not up to the challenge
        B) We have limited experience
        C) We do not always think properly
        D) Apart from God and His word, how can we be certain about anything?
        E) With finite knowledge, how could we ever know for certain that there is not
             some undiscovered fact that refutes what we think we know?
        F) If we invent our own ultimate standard for truth, how could we ever know that
             it is correct?
    3) God’s nature
        A) God’s nature is quite different.
        B) He does not observe and learn about the universe the way that we do because
             He does not have our limitations.
        C) God, by virtue of His nature, already knows everything(Col. 2:3), and thus
             only He is in a position to be absolutely certain about anything on His own
             authority.
        D) Since this is the case, we must learn to base our thinking on God’s word and
             refute those who would challenge their maker.
    4) II Cor. 10:3-5
        A) The key is to submit our thinking to Christ
        B) Our apologetic is not merely a defense of the biblical world view, but an
             application of it.
        C) Knowing that a reverential submission to God is the beginning of knowledge,
             we can expose the absurdity of rejecting God and reduce the critic to
             foolishness.
Conclusion

    1) This is the ultimate proof of creation.
    2) The bible is not proved externally by some greater standard of knowledge, It proves
         itself.
    3) Only the Biblical world view is able to provide a rational foundation for all human
         experience and reasoning while passing its own criteria.
    4) Other world views turn out to be mere idols, failing to provide a basis for knowledge
         and refuting themselves in the process.
    5) Biblical creation is proved by the fact that if it were not true, we could not prove
         anything at all.
       






                                   

The Transendental Argument for the Existence of God Part 7

Introduction:
    1) In the beginning of our studies of this topic we asked the question “What is
         the place of scientific evidence in the origins debate?”
    2) We have seen, through reasoning, that scientific evidence, by itself, cannot
         solve this debate.
        A) It can be useful in the debate as long as all parties involved agree on how
             the evidence should be interpreted.
        B) It is perfectly appropriate for creationists to argue with one another that
             certain evidence supports a certain model.
        C) When both parties agree on the “rules of interpretation” they should be
             able to draw the same conclusion to the same evidence.
        D) The problem, as we have shown, is that the creationist and evolutionist
             have different opinions on what the rules should be.
        E) Each party interprets the facts within the confines of their respected
             world view.
        F) Both sides are allowed to invent a “rescuing device” to explain seemingly
             contrary evidence.
        G) Therefore, scientific evidence by itself will not solve the problem, we must
             use a different approach in order to settle the matter.
    3) We have found that the debate can be resolved by using the ultimate standard
        A) We do this by showing that the Biblical creation world view alone provides
             for the preconditions of intelligibility in a way that is consistent and
             non-arbitrary.
        B) Throughout this study we really have not focused on the evidence to prove
             this point.
        C) Is evidence really necessary in our defense?
\            1) It does
            2) But only if it is properly used
            3) In this study we will explore rational ways to use the evidence to
                 proclaim that God does exist and that the Bible is His word.

I) Confirming Biblical Creation
    1) One perfectly reasonable use of scientific evidence is to confirm Biblical Creation
        A) The word confirm here means that the evidence is consistent with the
             Biblical creation world view or that it coincides and shows agreement.
        B) It is unfortunate that many Christians have been taught that the scientific
             evidence points to evolution.
        C) Because of this they have erroneously concluded that we must have a
             “Blind faith” when it comes to the things of God.
        D) Many evolutionists conflate “science” with “evolution” in an attempt to
             convince people that we must accept evolution if we are going to accept
             science.
        E) We must challenge such erroneous teachings, and scientific evidence is
             helpful in this endeavor
    2) Science is perfectly consistent with the Christian world view
        A) We can give many examples of this
            1) Genetics shows us that organisms reproduce “after their kind”,
                 this is exactly what we would expect to see from Genesis
            2) The fossil record indicates a global catastrophe, that animals
                 and plants were killed and rapidly buried by flood waters,
                 again, this is exactly what we would expect from Genesis.
            3) C14 in diamonds and other materials is exactly what the
                 Biblical creationist would expect to find.
        B) These facts challenge the ABSURD notion that “all of science is on the
             side of evolution”.
    3) Evidences are faith affirming
        A) We need to understand that our world view is not merely hypothetical
             in nature.
        B) We need to realize in our heart of hearts that the universe is the Biblical
             universe as created by God as He has dictated with in the scriptures.
        C) Since the Bible is true, it can be used to explain and make successful
             predictions about what we find in the universe.
        D) All the fields of science all show facts that are what we would expect,
             given the truth of the Bible.
        E) This should encourage us to find out the facts.

II) An Introduction to World Views
    1) In the debate over origins, it is crucially important to understand the nature of
         world views and how they control our interpretation of evidence
    2) Without is, we will be “talking past each other” and will never get to the real
         issue.
    3) Most people do not even realize that they have a world view, and thus have not
         given mush thought to what their’s is.
    4) Most people think that “the evidence speaks for itself”.
    5) This error in thinking must be addressed and refuted if the debate is to be resolved.
    6) Evidence can help in this process.
    7) We can take a particular piece of evidence and then show how creationists and
         evolutionists draw different conclusions for this fact because they have different
         world views
   


    8) Examples
        A) Humans and apes have similar DNA
            1) The evolutionist concludes that this is because apes and humans are
                 descended from a common ancestor.
            2) The creationist concludes that this is because apes and humans are
                 made by God and have somewhat similar physiology, which would
                 require similar genetic instructions.
            3) Each position can account for the facts, but the interpretation is
                 different.
        B) The fossil record
            1) The evolutionist believes that fossils have been deposited over millions
                 of years os local floods and other small-scale catastrophes have killed
                 and buried organisms.
            2) The creationists believes that most of the fossils were deposited in the
                 Genesis Flood
            3) Again each position is able to account for the facts but draw different
                 conclusions.
    9) Our goal to this point
        A) Our goal at this point is not to argue that we have a better interpretation of the
             evidence (this will come latter)
        B) Our goal here is to show the evolutionist and creationist interpret the facts
             differently and that they must do so because of the different world views in
             play
        C) Our goal here is simple
            1) It is to educate them on the nature of world views
            2) It is to show them how wold views affect our interpretation of facts
            3) It is to kindly make them realize that they do, in fact, have a
                 world view.
        D) This must take place.  If it does not, we will never get anywhere.

III) Showing Inconsistency and Arbitrariness
    1) Remember our “AIP” check list
        A) Arbitrariness
        B) Inconsistency
        C) Preconditions of Intelligibility
    2) Scientific and historical evidence can help us to accomplish this
    3) Examples
        A) The Bible not reliable
            1) It is often said that the Bible is not accurate because it has been copied
                 so many times that the original has been lost.
            2) Yet historical research confirms the reliability of the Bible as we have
                 previously studied.
            3) Remember that we have numerous manuscripts at our disposal and the
                 time frame between the originals and the copies is small which
                 minimizes the possibility of transmission errors
            4) Contrast this with the works of Plato
            5) Ancient copies of Plato are far fewer in number and the time span
                 of transmission is much greater, yet virtually everyone accepts them
                 as authentic.
            6) People can deny that the Bible has been accurately transmitted, that
                 is their choice, but then how can they go on to accept other LESS
                 RELIABLE manuscripts like Plato?
            7) It is inconsistent for someone to deny the historical reliability of the
                 Bible, while embracing the historical reliability of Plato
        B) SETI-the search of extraterrestrial intelligence
            1) This program hopes to detect radio signals from alien civilizations
            2) But many things in space produce radio waves, stars, quasars, pulsars
            3) How do we deduce intelligence from these signals
            4) One area that they look at is information content
            5) If we were to hear a radio signal that contained instructions on how to
                 build a machine, no one would doubt that the signal came from an
                 intelligent being.
            6) DNA has just such coded information, instructions on how to build a
                 complex machine, you and I
            7) Yet the same researchers deny that DNA has an intelligent source.
            8) It is inconsistent for researchers to accept coded information as an
                 indication of intelligence in space, while denying that very same
                 principle in the DNA of living organisms.
            9) Of course, the evolutionist might say “We have yet to discover the
                 mechanism that generates information in DNA.”  But this is arbitrary
                 It is simply a rescuing device.
    4) Appeal to world view
        A) In the origins debate, we can always appeal to our world view as the
             explanation for our beliefs
        B) This is the rescuing device and it is not necessarily arbitrary.
        C) The evolutionist could respond that they have a good reason for their rescuing
             device, “These explanations are required by my world view, and I am certain
             that my world view is correct.”
        D) But then the evolutionist must be prepared to defend their world view, which
             they will not be able to do.

IV) Introducing the Correct World View
    1) In addition to exposing arbitrariness and inconsistency in the evolutionary world view,
         scientific evidence can be used to introduce the preconditions of intelligibility.
    2) We can respond “We have been talking about scientific evidence, but which world
         view can make sense of the fact that science is actually possible?  Which world
         view can account for the fact that the universe is logical and understandable by the
\         human mind?  Which world view can make sense of the laws of logic by which we
         reason and the uniformity of nature by which we do science?”
    3) The evolutionist (or any other world view) will not be able to account for such things
    4) It is only the Biblical world view that is able to successfully account for these things
         and others.

V) Application
    1) “There is no evidence whatsoever for the creationist position.”
    2) #1, “Actually, there are many evidences that confirm Biblical creation.  Consider
         DNA...” and so on.
    3) #2, “ But these evidences support evolution and not creation.” 
         “Actually, creationists interpret this same evidence differently than you do.  Here is
          how we understand it.” (Present our interpretation) “So you see, we all have the
         same facts, but we interpret them differently based on our respective world views.”
    4) #3 The evolutionist may then try to argue that their interpretation of the evidence is
         better than ours.  This is when we point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of
         their view.  They must constantly evoke a rescuing device to explain away
         contrary evidence which is totally arbitrary.
    5) #4 Once the evolutionist has the right frame of mind, that all evidence is interpreted
         through our own world view, then we can ask them to defend their world view
         “Which world view can make sense of science anyway?  For that matter, which
         world view can make sense of any of the things we take for granted?”
    6) It will never be this simple, this is a very abbreviated example of the technique.
    7) It make take several questions and answer periods to get the individual to the point
         that they need to be.



The Transendental Argument for the Existence of God Part 6

Introduction
    1) The proof of creation
        A) We all have within our world view, assumptions that we all take for granted.
        B) In order to be rational, we have to have a rational reason for these assumptions
        C) The assumptions that we have discussed
            1) Absolute Morality
            2) Laws of logic
            3) Uniformity of nature
        D) These are not the only ones that we take for granted, there are others which
             we will look at later.
        E) The proof is that it is ONLY the Biblical creationist world view that can
             account for these things.
        F) It is because of the impossibility of the contrary that we express to a lost
             and dying world.
        G) All other world views lead to inconsistence within themselves or are reduced
             to absurdity, that we can not know anything.
    2) How can we use this?
        A) We need to understand that we cannot even begin to know anything about
             science, rationality, or morality without borrowing biblical concepts.
        B) In order for any argument to make sense, the evolutionist must consciously
             or unconsciously assume that Biblical creation is true.
        C) Since this is true, we can turn it to our advantage.
            1) We can show them the inconsistency of their world view
            2) We can show them that their world view ultimately leads to the
                 absurd conclusion that we cannot know anything.
        D) The first thing that we need to understand is how the unbeliever thinks as
             compared to the Biblical creationist.

I) Presuppositions
    1) All people have things that they believe to be true
        A) No matter who you are, you have certain beliefs that we cannot show to be
             true.
        B) Some are held loosely, while others are held very strongly
   

        C) Example of loosely held belief
            1) I believe that KD furniture, the stuff made out of pressed board,
                 is of inferior quality to furniture made from plywood and hardwood.
            2) I also believe that the best construction method is joinery and not
                 mechanical fasteners.
            3) Yet, if someone was to claim that they discovered a method to
                  construct KD furniture was of better quality then traditional methods,
                 and have compelling evidence for such, I would quickly change my
                 belief to match.
        D) Example of strongly held belief
            1) I believe that there is a law of non-contradiction, true at the same time
                 and in the same sense or relationship, that is universal in nature.
            2) If someone claimed to have discovered two contradictory claims that
                 are both true, I would be very skeptical.
            3) In fact, I would dismiss the claim out-of-hand, because I am convinced
                 that two contradictory claims cannot both be true.
        E) The beliefs that we hold to most strongly are called presuppositions.
        F) we are all very reluctant to give them up.
    2) Presuppositions are assumed from the onset.
        A) Our most strongly held beliefs are assumed from the onset.
        B) We have to assume them before we can ever start any investigation of the
             evidence.
        C) They are pre-supposed and control our interpretation of any evidence.
        D) Most of the time, for most people, we are not even aware of our
             presuppositions, but they are ever present
            1) Just like we are always breathing, most of the time we are not even
                 aware of the fact.
            2) It is only when we stop and think about our breathing that we become
                 aware of it.
            3) Likewise, our presuppositions are constantly guiding our understanding
                 of our experiences and the evidence.
        E) Our presuppositions are assumed before we can investigate other things.
            1) We must assume that there are laws of logic before I can even begin
                 to reason about them.
            2) We must assume the uniformity of nature before we can begin the
                 scientific method.
    3) Definition of world view
        A) All our presuppositions taken together form our world view.
        B) A world view is a network of presuppositions in light of which all reasoning
             and experiences are interpreted.
        C) So now we can see the difference between the Biblical creationist and the
             evolutionist.  It is in the fact that they have different sets of presuppositions
             that they each bring to the table of evidence.


            1) The Biblical creationist believes that the Bible is true, that God exists,
                 that there are laws of logic, that there is uniformity in nature, that there
                 is an absolute and binding moral code, and that our sense and memory
                 are basically reliable.
            2) These presuppositions go well together.
            3) Evolutionists have their presupposition to (however it may be difficult
                 to get them to realize this fact).  Many believe that the Bible is
                 irrelevant to science, they believe in empiricism, naturalism, that the
                 evidence can be interpreted neutrally, and unaided human reasoning is
                 capable of determining truth.
            4) Some even accept evolution as a presupposition, an unquestionable fact
                 through which all other evidence is to be interpreted.
        D) Evolutionary presuppositions do not comport with each other
            1) These presuppositions do not form a consistent world view in which
                 knowledge is possible. 
            2) In many cases they wind up to be self-refuting.
            3) In all cases, they fail to provide for the preconditions of intelligibility
            4) If evolution were true, science and reason would not be possible, there
                 would be no rational basis for logic or for the uniformity of nature.
            5) If evolutionists were consistent with their world view, they would be
                 unable to reason or do science.
            6) Yet we know and acknowledge that they are able to reason and do
                 science.
            7) Therefore evolutionists do not consistently rely upon their own
                 professed world view, they rely upon the Biblical creationists
                 presuppositions.
        E) How can this inconsistency be accounted for?

II) The Nature of the Unbeliever
    1) It is to the Bible that we must go for the answer.
    2) The Bible gives us the reason why all unbelievers do rely on Biblical presuppositions
        A) All people know in their heart of hearts the Biblical God because God has
                   revealed Himself to EVERYONE.
        B) Romans 1:18-23
           C) The problem is not that people are unaware of God, the problem is that they
             “hold the truth in unrighteousness;”
        D) The word “hold” means to hold down or suppress.
        E) All men are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), therefore we are hard
             wired with certain information which includes an innate knowledge of Him
             and His principles.
        F) In order to suppress something, you must be in contact with it.
            1) A water polo player attempts to hide the ball under the water by
                                         suppressing it under the water, but they must be in contact with the
                 ball in order to accomplish this.
            2) Politicians attempt to suppress the truth with cunning and crafty words,

                 yet they must be in contact with the truth in order to do this.
        G) The same is true of the unbeliever.  They have to be in contact with the truth
             in order to suppress it or hold it down.
          F) Romans 1:21-23 tells us why everyone believes in laws of logic, uniformity
             of nature, and absolute morality. 
                                    1) God has made Himself known to everyone
            2) But not all honor God or are thankful for His revelation.
        H) This verse confirms what we have seen.  When people reject Biblical
                       principles, it leads to futile thinking, and it destroys the possibility of
             knowledge.
        I) Eph. 4:17&18
            1) Paul here further illustrates this fact.
            2) We are not to “walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their
                 minds.  Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the
                 life of God through ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness
                 of their hearts.”
            3) The vanity or futility of unbelievers thinking stems from the hardness
                 of their hearts, a stubborn rebellion against God.
            4) This leads to ignorance, which results in darkened understanding,
                 which leads to a type of useless, futile thinking.
        J) Unbelievers are not totally consistent with their faulty, futile presuppositions.
            1) It is impossible for the unbeliever to be totally consistent with their
                 professed world view.
            2) If they were, they could not function at all because reasoning, science,
                                         and behavior would have no justification.
            3) They must rely upon Biblical presuppositions in order to know anything
            4) The unbeliever cannot stop themselves from “stealing” these
                 presuppositions.  They have to in order to function and understand the
                 universe.
            5) They have forgotten (suppressed) where these presuppositions come
                  from.  They believe in God, but they have convinced themselves that
                 they do not.
    3) He is a fool; Psalm 14:1
        A) God indicates to us that those who reject the innate knowledge of Him is
             a fool (Prov. 1:7; Romans 1:22)
        B) This is not simply name calling, a fool, in the Biblical sense, is someone
             whose thinking is futile because they have rejected Him and His word.
        C) The fool may be very intelligent, but they refuse to use their intellect in
             the way that God has designed it or in a way that is faithful to His revelation.
        D) The result of this kind of thinking is absurdity, futility, vanity, or foolishness
        E) This fool arbitrarily rejects the Biblical presuppositions that lead to knowledge,
             and replaces them with secular presuppositions that lead to this self-defeating
             reasoning.
        F) The only reason that the fool is able to know anything is because they do not
             do this consistently.  They do believe in Biblical presuppositions.
III) How to Argue with a “Fool”: Don’t Answer, Answer
    1) I believe the Bible gives us the instruction on how to identify the “fool” and also
         how to converse with on.
    2) We have already established that we cannot simply use scientific evidence with
         those who have different presuppositions since they will simply re-interpret the
         evidence in order to fit their world view.
    3) It seems clear that God knew that this would transpire, so He provided us with a
         crucial tool, a strategy for answering those who foolishly embrace those erroneous
         presuppositions.
    4) It is a two step tactic found in Proverbs 26:4&5
    5) Proverbs 26:4
        A) This is the first step, it states “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest
             thou also be like unto him.”
        B) The first thing that we need to notice is that we are not to answer the fool
             according to his folly or according to his fallacious presuppositions.
        C) We do not accept their standard for the debate, since they are nonsense.
        D) Their ultimate standard, of necessity, leads to the absurd conclusion that we
             cannot know anything. In which case there is nothing to debate.
        E) If we accept their foolish standard, we will also be reduced to futile,
             contradictory thinking, and this puts us on the plane of the world instead of
             on the proper plane in which God’s word is the ultimate standard.
        F) Example of empiricist
            1) The empiricist will only want to accept arguments that are based on
                 empirical observations.  This is their standard, that all knowledge is
                 based on observation.
            2) Yet as we have discussed, this standard is self defeating; if all
                 knowledge is based on observations, then we could never know that
                 all knowledge is based upon observation, since this has not been
                 observed.
            3) The empiricist cannot really know anything at all since their standard
                 (by which they test other things) is uncertain.
            4) If we accept this self defeating standard, we to will be in the same
                 position as they are, not being able to know anything.  We have
                 become like them.
        G) Example of “science verses faith”
            1) Evolutionist oft times frame the debate as “science verses faith”. 
            2) We need to understand that by science they really mean evolution.
            3) When this claim is made, sadly some Christians fail to challenge
                 this claim, instead they accept it and attempt to argue by this
                 erroneous standard.
            4) They respond by disparaging science, “Science is not reliable, and
                 evolution is just a theory anyway.”
            5) They are essentially arguing that the Bible is good, Science is bad.
            6) We cannot let the debate be argued in this manner.
            7) Science is a very wonderful and powerful tool that God has given
                 to mankind and it confirms creation when used properly.
        H)Example of “leave the Bible out of it”
            1) Many times those who espouse the evolutionary theory will state
                 “We can talk about origins, but let’s leave the Bible out of the
                 discussion.  I’m only interested in the scientific evidence.”
            2) Many times we are tempted to say “okay” and then proceed to try
                 and convince them by mere evidence.
            3) This goes against what the Proverb writer has instructed us to do.
            4) We must first realize that mere evidence will not motivate them to
                 change.  I have witnessed this first hand.  It is because their
                 presuppositions will interpret the evidence to match their world view.
            5) Secondly, this is the “Pretend Neutrality Fallacy”
                a) The biblical creationist is trying to show that the Bible is the
                     ultimate standard by which all evidence should be interpreted.
                b) If it were possible to correctly interpret evidence about origins
                     without biblical presuppositions, then the Bible is not the
                     authority that it should be.
                c) If we agree that the Bible can be left out, we have already lost.
            6) Leaving the Bible out of the discussion really does not make any sense
                a) The Bible is the only infallible record we have
                b) The Bible is the only ultimate standard that can provide the
                     preconditions of intelligibility that makes knowledge
                     possible.
                c) If we trade in our correct world view for a faulty one, then we,
                     will be reduced to foolishness.
        I) “Answer not a fool according to his folly” (according to their erroneous
             presuppositions) or we will be just like them.
    6) Proverbs 26:5
        A) This is the second step, it states “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest
             he be wise in his own conceit.”
        B) At first this seems to be a contradiction, it is not, because the sense is
             different.
        C) In verse 4 we learned that we should not embrace the folly of the unbeliever
             lest we be like him.
        D) In verse 5 we are instructed to show them where their folly would lead
             if it were true.
        E) We accept their faulty presuppositions only hypothetically in order to show
             them that it would lead to nonsense.
        F) We make it clear that we do not accept their standard, but if we hypothetically
             did, it would lead to absurd conclusions, and thus the fool cannot be wise in his
             own conceit.
        G) Example of the relativist
            1) The relativist states, “I do not believe in absolutes.  We can talk about
                 the Bible if you like, but you cannot use any absolute statements,
                 because I do not believe in such things.”
            2) First we do not answer them according to their folly.  “I do not accept
                 your claim that there are no absolutes.”
            3) Then we show them where such a standard would lead if it were true.
            4) “But for the sake of argument, if there were no absolutes, you could not
                 even say that “there are no absolutes” because that is an absolute
                 statement.  Your standard is self-refuting and leads to the conclusion
                 that is cannot be true.
        H) Example of naturalism
            1) “I believe in naturalism.  Show me logically how the earth could be
                 6,000 years old.  But you cannot invoke the supernatural, because I
                 do not believe in things that you cannot observe with your senses.”
            2) We must avoid the temptation to embrace the critics standard or we
                 become just like them, foolish.
            3) We must listen to what they are saying, here we see that there are two
                 ideas that do not go well together.  They are naturalism and logic
                a) If nature is all there is, then laws of logic cannot exist because
                     they are not a part of nature.
                b) You cannot stub your toe on a law of logic.
            4) Here’s how we should answer them “I do not accept your belief in
                 naturalism, or your belief that all things must be observed by the
                 senses.  In fact, if naturalism were true, you could not have laws of
                 logic anyway since they are not a part of nature.  You say you only
                 believe things observed by your senses.  If that is true, then you cannot
                 believe in laws of logic since they cannot be observed by the senses.
                 So why do you ask me to be logical?  Laws of logic only make sense
                 if biblical creation is true.”

IV) Conclusion
    1) This strategy all most always never enters the minds of those who try to defend the
         faith.
    2) We just are not trained to think in this manner, to question our most fundamental
         beliefs.                                       
    3) I Peter 3:15
        A) “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give and
             answer to every man the asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you
             with meekness and fear:”
        B) We are commanded to give a reasoned argument in defense of our position
        C) Many times we miss the first part of this verse which is key
            1) “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts,”   
            2) We must set apart The Lord God in our heart (in the core of our
                 being) so that all our thinking is based on Him.
            3) When we do this, we can see how unbelievers already know God and
                 secretly rely on biblical principles.
            4) This forms the basis of our defense.

           

The Transendental Argument for the Existence of God Part 5

Introduction
    1) Through our studies we have attempted to show that everyone has a world view
         and it is through their world view that they interpret evidence.
    2) It is the aim in this study to try and answer the following questions.
        A) Is it really necessary to have an ultimate standard?
        B) Can we interpret the evidence in an objective and neutral way?
        C) If we use the Bible in our defense of the Bible, does this constitute
             circular reasoning?
        D) How would people have defended the Biblical world view before the
             Bible was written?
        E) Is their a place for faith in apologetics, or is it all about reason?                                                             
    3) Throughout our studies, we have tried to show that it is only the consistent
         Christian world view that makes sense of reality.
        A) It is the only world view that can account for the preconditions of
             Intelligibility.
        B) It is the only world view that is non arbitrary
        C) It is the only world view that is consistent.
    4) With these thoughts in mind we now turn to our ultimate standard.  We will
         attempt to show that it is the correct ultimate standard by which the evidence
         must be interpreted through.

I) The Necessity of an Ultimate Standard
    1) There is a story about a little old lady who challenged a scientist on the nature of
         the earth.  The scientist had just given a lecture on astronomy, talking about the
         roundness of the earth and how it orbits the sun and so on.  The lady challenged
         the scientist after his presentation.  She told the scientist that his lecture was
         incorrect.  She stated that the earth was flat and that it was supported on the
         back of a giant tortoise.
    2) The scientist replied “What is the tortoise standing on?”  Obviously, it would have
         to rest upon something, another tortoise perhaps?  And that would have to rest
         upon another.  He had her.
    3) She was not swayed in the lest bit.  Her reply was, “You’re a very clever young
         man, but it’s no use.  It’s turtle all the way down!”
    4) Beliefs are much like the turtles in the lady’s view of the earth.
        A) Our beliefs are supported by other beliefs, which are supported by other
             beliefs, which are supported by still other beliefs.
        B) Is there an ultimate standard, or is it just turtles all the way down.
        C) Is there a belief that is foundational for all other beliefs?
    5) Many suppose that an ultimate standard is just for the religiously minded.
        A) This is a correct view
        B) Almost all religions have what they consider an ultimate standard
        C) A belief that is foundational to all others
        D) It is a faith commitment
    6) Many people feel that they themselves do not have an ultimate standard, or
         a faith commitment of any kind.
        A) They believe that their perceptions of the world are objective, neutral,
             and not dependent on any ultimate standard.
        B) Of course, this idea is itself a belief about the world through which
             all other observations are interpreted.
        C) So the belief that there is no ultimate standard turns out to be an
             ultimate standard itself.
        D) We studied about the pretend neutrality fallacy in our second study of
             this series and that it is impossible for someone to have a neutral
             world view.  I suggest that you reread that study to help understand
             this concept.
    7) The chain of reasoning
        A) To help us better understand that everyone has a faith commitment of
              some kind, we must understand the chain of reasoning that we all use when
             our beliefs are challenged.
        B) For any belief that a person has (p), we can always ask, “How do you
             know that to be true?”
        C) The person will then supply an argument that supports that belief.  In
             their argument, the person will appeal to another proposition (q) that
             they feel supports their conclusion (p).
        D) But since they have appealed to another proposition (q), we now ask
             the question, “How do you know that q is true?”
        E) In their defense of q, they will appeal to yet another proposition (r),
             in which we can again ask them, “How do you know that r is true?”
             leading them to suggest another proposition (s), and so on.
        F) Here is the important part to understand, ULTIMATELY, any such
             chain of reasoning must come to an end.  It MUST terminate in an
             ultimate standard, let’s call it (t).
    8) Why must the chain end?
        A) If it does not end then it goes on forever.
        B) If it goes on forever, then the argument could never be completed.
        C) But an incomplete argument does not prove anything.
        D) We cannot know an infinite number of things anyway
        E) All chains of reasoning must be finite.
        F) Since this is the case, everyone must have an ultimate standard: a
             proposition (upon which all others depend) that cannot be proved
             from a more foundational proposition.
        G) This is the case with all people, whether they realize it or not.
    9) The “Killer Question”
        A) Now we must ask, “How do you know that your ultimate standard (t)
             is true?”
        B) There are 3 bad answers to this question and one good one.
        C) The first bad answer is this, “I know t is true because it follows logically
             from u.”  They are appealing to a higher standard.
            1) If this is the case, then t really is not the ultimate standard.
            2) It is not the most foundational proposition.
            3) It can not be if it follows from something else.
            4) Anyone responding in such a way has not understood the nature
                 of an ultimate standard.
        D) A person may try to appeal to a lesser standard
            1) “I know t is true because it implies s (where s is claimed to be true
                 because it follows from t).
            2) This type of reasoning commits the fallacy of begging the question.
            3) Since s is only necessarily true if t is, the person is essentially
                 arguing that t is true because t is true.
            4) When restated, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the
                 consequent (1. If t then s.  2. S.  3. Therefore t).
            5) One cannot prove an ultimate standard in this way, so this response
                 also fails.
        E) Being arbitrary
            1) “I guess I can’t actually prove my ultimate standard.  I accept it
                 as a presupposition.”
            2) Granted, by their very nature, presuppositions must be accepted
                 before they can be proved,
            3) But if they cannot (eventually) be proven, then they are arbitrary
                 and thus irrational.
            4) In fact, if a person’s ultimate standard cannot pe proven, then that
                 person does not actually know anything.  Here’s why.
        F) Reductio ad absurdum
            1) We can argue that we know p is true because if follows from q, which
                 follows from r, and so on, all the way back to our ultimate standard (t)
            2) So, all these propositions (p,q,r, and s) depend upon the truth of t.
            3) Therefore, if t is not known to be true, then neither can we know that                 p, q, r, and s are true.
           
            4) Remember, that in order to know something, we must have a reason
                 for it.  But if there is no good reason to believe t, then there is no good
                 reason to believe p, q, r, or s since these all depend upon t.
            5) Since all beliefs are dependent through a chain of reasoning upon a
                 person’s ultimate standard, if the ultimate standard is not known to be
                 true (i.e. provable), then one cannot actually know anything whatsoever
            6) Of course, some of the person’s beliefs may be true, but they cannot be
                 known to be true.
        G) So we have established the following
            1) Everyone must have an ultimate standard
            2) An ultimate standard cannot be proven from another standard.
            3) An ultimate standard cannot be merely assumed.
            4) This leaves us with only one possible answer to the question of
                 how an ultimate standard is to be proved.
            5) It must prove itself.
                a) It must be self attesting
                b) It must provide criteria for what is to be considered true.
                c) It must provide criteria by which all claims are judged,
                      including the ultimate standard itself.
        H) Are we arguing in a circle?
            1) If an ultimate standard must prove itself, then we are of necessity
                 engaging in circular reasoning.
            2) This will be a crucial objection when first encountered
            3) When we discuss logical fallacies, we will look more in depth
                 at this, but for now, I will just say that all circular reasoning is
                 not fallacious in nature.
            4) We cannot just merely assume what we are trying to prove.
            5) We cannot merely say that “t is true because t is true.”
            6) Yet we are forced into the seemingly strange yet inevitable conclusion
                 that we must somehow use our ultimate standard to prove our ultimate
                 standard.

II) Circular Reasoning
    1) There are two things that we need to remember about circular reasoning when it
         comes to an ultimate standard
        A) It is absolutely unavoidable
        B) It is not necessarily fallacious
    2) Absolutely unavoidable
        A) Some degree of circular reasoning is unavoidable when proving an ultimate
             standard
        B) This follows from what we have already established: an ultimate standard
             cannot be proven from anything else, otherwise it would not be ultimate.
        C) Therefore, if it is to be proven, it must use itself as the criterion.
        D) God Himself uses circular reasoning when He makes an oath
            1) We as humans must appeal to a greater authority as confirmation
                 of an oath (Heb. 6:16)
            2) But since God is ultimate, He can only use Himself as the authority
                 (Heb. 6:13).
        E) Clearly some degree of circular reasoning is inevitable when it comes to
             proving an ultimate authority.
    3) Not necessarily fallacious
        A) Circular reasoning is not actually invalid
            1) The construction of the argument can be such that it is perfectly
                 valid.
            2) It is normally considered to be fallacious be cause it is arbitrary
        B) But what if it were not arbitrary?
        C) What if the argument went beyond a mere circle, and used other information
             to support the conclusion?
        D) What if we found after making an assumption that we had good reasons for
             it?
        E) This would be perfectly legitimate
    4) All presuppositions must use itself
        A) All presuppositions must use itself as part of its own proof.
        B) Some degree of circular reasoning is involved
        C) But we need to remember that it must not be a vicious circle.
        D) Consider this proof for the laws of logic
            1) If there were no laws of logic, we could not make an argument
            2) We can make an argument
            3) Therefore, there must be laws of logic
        E) This argument is perfectly valid
            1) It is the modus tollens syllogism or denying the consequent
            2) The premises are true, so it is a good argument
            3) Yet we can see that it is subtly circular in nature
            4) We have assumed that there are laws of logic
            5) The modus tollens is a law of logic and we have used it as part
                 of the proof that there are laws of logic
            6) In this case we have no choice in the matter
                a) We must presuppose that laws of logic exist in this
                     argument.
                b) If we did not then the argument would not even get started.
        F) However, this argument does not merely assume what it is trying to prove
            1) Notice that it imports additional information to support its
                 conclusion
            2) The additional information is the addition of “we could not make
                 an argument.”
        G) What really makes this a good argument is that in order to refute it the
             person would have to use the laws of logic in their rebuttal.

        H) This is a great way to show that a particular presupposition must be true
             because one would have to assume that the presupposition is true even to
             argue against it.
        I) An argument that proves a precondition of intelligibility in this way is called
             a Transcendental Argument.
    5) The Christians ultimate standard
        A) Our ultimate standard is much the same way.
        B) Any attempt to refute the Bible must first assume that the Bible is true
             in order to get started since it is only the Bible that gives use a reason
             to assume that there are laws of logic.
        C) The Bible not only provides criteria for itself, as we have studied
        D) It also does so for all other facts of reality
            1) It gives us a foundation for rational reasoning, God
            2) It gives us a foundation for science
            3) It gives us a foundation for morality
            4) It gives us a foundation for the reliability of our senses and memory
            5) It gives us a foundation for why we should not be arbitrary
                 ( because God is not and we should imitate Him, Eph. 5:1)
        E) The Bible passes its own criteria for truth
            1) It is consistent
            2) It is non-contradictory
            3) It is non-arbitrary
        F) It alone provides criteria for all of reality
        G) The Christian circle is not a vicious circle, but one that can account for all
             human experience and reasoning.
        H) As with the argument for the laws of logic, any attempted rebuttal would
             be self-refuting since it would have to use things like laws of logic, the charge
             to be consistent, and so on that presuppose the Christian world view.
    6) Proverbs 1:7
        A) “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise
             wisdom and instruction.”
        B) We can either start with God and His presuppositions (as revealed in His
             word), or we can reject them and be reduced to being fools.
        C) The Christian claim is not a vicious circle.
            1) We are not simply saying “The Bible must be the Word of God
                 because it says it is.”
            2) Rather, we are saying “The Bible must be true the Word of God because
                 it says it is AND if you reject this claim you are reduced to foolishness”
            3) This moves beyond a simple circle of reasoning.
            4) Just like laws of logic, the Bible must be true because if it were not so
                 we could not prove anything.




III) Impossibility of the Contrary
    1) An ultimate standard must do more than simply prove itself.  It must provide a basis
         for proving absolutely everything that is knowable.
    2)The Christian world view is the ONLY world view that can accomplish this
    3) No other world view can.  They brake down into one or more of the following
        A) They are self-refuting
        B) They are inconsistent
        C) Cannot provide a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility
        D) They have tensions within there metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical
             beliefs
    4) Examples of
        A) Empiricism
            1) Is empiricism self- attesting?
            2) No, if all knowledge is gained by observation then we could never
                 know that empiricism is true since we cannot see knowledge
            3) If empiricism would be shown to be true, then it would be false
            4) It is self-refuting in nature, there by it does not pass the test.
        B) Materialism
            1) This is the belief that all that exists is matter in motion
            2) Is materialism self-attesting?
            3) No, we could never prove that materialism is true by its own
                 standard, since we would have to use laws of logic, which are
                 needed to prove anything, which are not material in nature and
                 thus cannot exist in a materialistic universe.
            4) It does not pass the test
        C) Relativism
            1) Moral relativism
                a) We have looked at this in a previous study
                b) The problem is in the fact that no one can live by its
                     dictates.
            2) Truth relativism
                a) This is the belief that there is no absolute truth
                b) The claim is made that “There is no absolute truth”
                c) This basic claim is self-refuting in the fact that it is an
                     absolute truth claim.
        D) Atheism
            1) The belief that there is no God or gods
            2) Since they do not believe in anything supernatural, they must of
                 necessity believe in naturalism or materialism.
            3) But these beliefs are not self-attesting and do not account for the
                 preconditions of intelligibility.
            4) Atheism leads to the absurd conclusion that we cannot know anything
                 about reality
        E) Deism
            1) This is the belief in a god and that this god created the universe and
                 all the laws of nature and then left the universe to do as it may
            2) Again this view cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the laws
                 of logic, the reliability of our senses, etc...
            3) They can try and invoke that their god made these things and that is
                 why they exist, yet this is just merely an opinion.
            4) They cannot provide an explanation besides “this is what I believe”
    5) There are many more examples that we could cover, I believe that these are the major
         ones that we will encounter. 
    6) Any “ism” that a person holds to can be shown to be incorrect.  It is only the Christian
         world view that has the ability to answer the questions about reality without any type
         of inconsistency, self-refutation, or arbitrariness.
    7) The real question that must be asked is this “Which world view uses some degree of
         circular reasoning and is able to do so successfully?
        A) It is only the Christian world view
        B) It is able to authorize itself
        C) It also provides criteria for everything else
        D) It also provides us with the explanation as to why all people expect everyone
             else to be consistent
            1) A clever unbeliever should respond “No, no.  I’m not going to be
                 consistent.  That is a Biblical standard”
            2) Or “No, no.  I’m not going to have reasons for what I believe.  That’s
                 a Biblical concept.”
            3) Yet, no one thinks to argue in such a manner, and the Christian
                 world view is able to answer this question.
            4) Everyone, whether they believe or not is made in the image of God
                a) They know God within their hearts
                b) God has built into everyone the knowledge that we should
                      be consistent, non-arbitrary, rational, moral persons.
                c) Try as they might, no one can escape this principle.
                d) We must live in God’s universe and therefore must accept God’s
                     presuppositions in order to function.
                e) People can deny God’s existence, but they cannot escape it.
   
IV) Defending the Bible Before the Bible was Written
    1) What about those who lived before the Bible was written?
    2) Would they have been able to have a rational world view?
    3) How could they defend the Biblical world view before the Bible was written?

    4) These are a few questions that the critic may ask us so it will help to look at them
    5) We must always remember the nature of the argument that we are presenting
        A) It is not that people must profess the Bible or even to read it to be rational
        B) The argument is that the Bible must be true in order for rationality to be
             possible.
        C) It is only the Biblical world view that can make sense of rationality, morality,
             and science.
        D) The Biblical world view has always been true, even before the Bible that
             articulates this view was inscribed.
    6) We must also remember that even though we have not always had the Bible, people
         have always had special revelation from God.
        A) God talked to Adam directly (Gen 2:16&17)
            1) Adam passed on what he learned directly about God to his children
                 and grandchildren (Gen 4).
            2) Adam lived for many years and would have passed his knowledge
                 about God to his decedents.
            3) Also it seems that books were being written at this time (Gen. 5:1)
        B) So people have had knowledge of the Biblical God and Biblical creation
             from the very beginning.
        C) Through out time God has continued to reveal Himself to mankind through
             the prophets (II Peter 1:21)
    7) People have always had access to God’s special revelation, even long before the Bible
         was completed.  Therefore, people have always had a foundation for rationality,
         science, and morality.
    8) At any point in history, people could have used the argument that we have been
         discussing, of course they would have used different illustrations that were suitable
         to their culture.
    9) Yet, now we have God’s completed revelation.  Therefore it is much easier for us to
         defend the faith.

V) The Place of Faith
    1) What is the place of faith in apologetics?
    2) Since we have a proof of the Christian world view, do we really need faith?
    3) What is the relationship between faith and reason?
    4) In this part of our study, we will deal with these questions and find out that faith is
         absolutely necessary to our apologetic.  It is a prerequisite for logical reasoning, and
         to come to a knowledge of truth and reality.
    5) The Critics
        A) Many who would be critical of the Christian faith have a misconception of
             what faith really is.  They think that the Christian lives in two worlds.
            1) The world of faith which we use to make moral decisions of when we
                 talk about religious things.
            2) The world of reason when it comes to practical matters.
        B) They also consider faith to be contrary to reason and therefore erroneously
             consider those of faith to be irrational and that we believe in absurd things.
    6) This conception is not Biblical or reasonable to conclude
        A) According to Heb. 11:1, faith involves a confidence in things that are not
             seen.
        B) Therefore, when anyone believes in something that they have not perceived
             with their senses, they are acting on a type of faith.
            1) Laws of logic cannot be perceived by the senses, so faith is involved
                 whenever someone trusts in the laws of logic.
            2) Therefore, all logical reasoning presupposes some type of faith.
        C) But not all faiths are equal in nature
            1) Only faith in the Bible, God’s Word, as our ultimate standard will
                 result in a coherent world view that can make sense of human
                 experience and reasoning.
            2) As we have shown throughout this series of studies, any other
                 world view cannot do this.
    7) Faith not antagonistic to reason
        A) Biblical faith is required to reasoning.
        B) On must believe in order to understand
            1) Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge:
                 but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
            2) Faith must come first, we need certain presuppositions in order to
                 even begin to reason.
            3) We must first believe that there are laws of logic before we can
                 argue for them logically.
            4) We must first have faith that our senses are reliable before we can
                 even begin to read the Bible.
            5) But, when we do read the Bible, we find that we have a good reason
                 to believe that our senses are reliable and our faith is JUSTIFIED.
            6) Also, God is an infinite being while we are finite.
                a) We can only obtain a limited understanding of reality and
                     truth.  We can never have an infinite knowledge of anything.
                b) God has infinite knowledge of all things. 
                c) John 8:31&32 tells us that we can know the truth.
                d) Therefore, we have a good reason to know that our faith is
                     correct because the one with infinite knowledge has revealed
                     this to us in His word.
        C) Without faith in the Bible, we have no justification for the presuppositions
             that we all make.

Conclusion
    1) Since everyone has an ultimate standard in which they interpret the evidence, the
         question that must be answered is simple, which is the correct world view.
    2) It is only the Christian world view that can make sense of reality.
    3) The Christian world view is the only on that is self-attesting, non-contradictory,
         and provides justification for the presuppositions that we all make.
    4) Therefore the Christian world view is the correct world view.