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.                  
   

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.

The Transendental Argument for the Existence of God Part 3

Introduction
    1) In the debate over origins, it is a lot like a debate over the existence of air.
    2) If two individuals were arguing about the existence of air, what would the critic
         of air say? 
    3) Whatever the arguments might be, one thing is for sure, they would have to use
         air in order to make them.
        A) Air would be crucial for the individual to survive
        B) More importantly, the critic would have to use air in order to make their
             argument heard and understood.
    4) In this case, would it not seem strange for someone to argue against the existence
         of air, while simultaneously breathing, and expecting their arguments to be heard         as the sounds travels through the air.
    5) In order for the critic of air to be able to make an argument, it would of necessity
         have to be wrong.
    6) In this sense, the evolutionist must use Biblical creation principles in order to argue
         against Biblical creation.
        A) In order for their argument to make sense, it would of necessity, have to be
             wrong.
        B) The fact is that evolutionists are able to argue against creation proves that
             creation is true.
        C) Just as the critic of air has to use air in order to make their argument heard,
             the evolutionist has to assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order
             to make any argument whatsoever.
        D) Yet these assumptions do not comport, or go well with, their world view.
             The fact is they only make sense if creation were true.
    7) Biblical creation MUST be true because if it were not, we could not know anything
         at all.
    8) Objection to this fact
        A) The critic may say something like this, “Creation doesn’t have to be true in
             order for us to know things.  After all, I do not believe in creation; and I know
             lots of things!”
        B) This response is fallacious.  It is just like the critic of air saying, “We do not
             need air to breath.  After all, I do not even believe in air; and I can breath just
             fine!”
        C) The argument is not breathing requires a profession of belief in air, but it does
             require air.
        D) Like wise, knowledge does not require a profession of belief in Biblical
             creation, but it does require that Biblical creation is true.
    9) In order to illustrate this concept, we will be concentrating on 3 specific examples.
         These preconditions only make sense in the Biblical creation world view, yet
         they are required in order for us to learn anything about the universe.
        A) The are as follows;
            1) Laws of logic
            2) Uniformity of nature
            3) Absolute morality
        B) There are others that we could examine, but these three are the most easily
             understood and commonly used.
        C) Clearly, for us to reason logically, there must be laws of logic.
        D) In order for us to study nature, the universe must have an underlying
             orderliness: it must have some regularity in time and space, which is
             uniformity.
        E) Morality may seem odd for a rational world view.  But it is centered in the
             idea that we SHOULD be rational, which is a moral obligation.  So morality
             is required if we are to argue that people OUGHT to have a rational basis
             for their world view.

I) Morality
    1) This is a very difficult problem for the evolutionist.
    2) We are not stating that the evolutionist is some how less moral then anyone else.  In
         fact most do adhere to a code of behavior.  They do believe in the concepts of right
         and wrong.
    3) The problem for them is that they have no rational reason to believe in any sort of
         moral imperative within their world view.
    4) In their world view, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical
         reactions in the brain, it is the result of time and chance.
        A) The concepts of right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to
                  Genesis.
        B) By attempting to be moral, the evolutionist is being irrational, for they must
             borrow biblical concepts that are contrary to their world view.
    5) The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3).  All things
         belong to God (Ps. 24:1), thus God has the right to make the rules.  So an absolute
               moral code makes sense in a Biblical creation world view.
    6) But if the Bible were not true, If all human beings were merely the outworking of
              millions of years of mindless chemical processes, then the question can be asked,
         “Why should we hold to a universal code of behavior?  Could there really be such
         concepts as right and wrong if evolution were true?”
        A) These are perfectly valid questions that need to be asked.
        B) But we need to listen to the answers in order to see the irrationality of their
             world view.

    7) Some responses to the questions
        A) “That’s true, Morality is just relative.  There’s no such thing as absolute
             morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your personal moral
             code on other people.”
            1) The key thing to listen for when someone asserts that there is no
                  absolute moral standard is things such as “you should not”
            2) In making this kind of remark, they are doing just what they are
                 telling you not to do, they are enforcing their personal moral code
                 on other people.
            3) If there is no absolute moral code, then nothing is actually
                     fundamentally wrong: not lying, stealing, or murder.  Yet people
                 cannot live consistently by such an amoral standard.
        B) “Well, I do believe in right and wrong, and I also believe in evolution, so
               obviously they can go together.”
            1) This does not follow.  People can be irrational; they can profess to
                 believe in things that are contrary to each other.
            2) The question is not about what people believe to be the case, but what
                 actually is the case.
            3) Can the concepts of right and wrong really be meaningful apart from the
                 Biblical God?  Is morality JUSTIFIED in an evolutionary world view?
        C) “Of course.  People can create their own moral code apart from God.  They can
             adopt their own standards of right and wrong.”
            1) This is arbitrary and will lead to absurd consequences.
            2) If everyone can adapt their own moral code, then no one could argue
                 that what others think and do is actually wrong since other people can
                 also invent their own personal code.
            3) A person might adopt the moral code that it is perfectly acceptable to
                  murder someone.  This may seem upsetting to us, but how could we
                 argue that it is wrong for others to murder if morality is nothing but a
                 personal standard?
            4) If morality is a subjective personal choice, then Hitler cannot be
                         denounced for his actions since he was acting in accord with his chosen
                 standard.
            5) Clearly this is an unacceptable position.
        D) “Right is what brings the most happiness to the most people.”
            1) This is arbitrary to.
            2) The question can be asked “Why should their be a selected standard as
                 opposed to some other view?”
            3) Also, this view borrows from the Christian position.  In the Christian
                 position, we should indeed be concerned about the happiness of others
                 since they are made in the image of God.
            4) But if other people are simply chemical accidents, why should we care
                 about their happiness at all?
            5) Concern about others does not make sense in an evolutionary universe.

        E) “Well, morality is what the majority decides it to be.”
            1) This view has the same defects as the others.  It merely shifts an
                 unjustified opinion from one person to a group of people.
            2) It is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions.
            3) Just like the others, we are unable to denounce certain actions that
                 we know to be wrong.  Hitler was able to convince a majority of his
                 people that his actions were right, but that does not really make them
                 right.
    8) Only in the Biblical creation world view can we have right and wrong
        A) Without the biblical God, right and wrong are reduced to mere personal
             preferences.
        B) In an evolutionary universe, the statement “murder is wrong” is nothing more
             than a personal opinion on the same level as “blue is my favorite color”.
        C) If others have a different opinion, we would have no basis for arguing with
             them.
        D) When an evolutionist talks about morality as if it were a real standard that
             others should follow, they are being inconsistent with their own professed
             world view.
    9) Evolutionary Inconsistency
         A) When an evolutionist makes the comment,”We cannot teach creation in the
             classroom because it is wrong, you are lying to the children!” they are being
             inconsistent.
        B) This begs the question since the truth of falsity of creation is the concern at
             issue: we are convinced that creation is true, and evolution is the lie.
        C) The truly absurd thing about such evolutionary arguments is that they are
             contrary to evolution.
        D) In an evolutionary world view, why shouldn’t we lie, particularly if it benefits
             our survival value?
        E) If we are merely chemical accidents, why should we be so concerned about
                 what we do?  We do not get mad at any other chemical reactions that we
             observe?
            1) Baking soda and vinegar react violently when mixed.
            2) Does the teacher of chemistry get upset that this happens?
            3) Why not?  It is just what chemicals do. 
            F) So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one human does to another,
             if we are all nothing more than complex chemical reactions?
        G) If we are simply evolved animals, why should we hold to a code of conduct?
        H) What one animal does to another is morally irrelevant.  When an evolutionist
             attempts to be moral, they are “borrowing” from the Christian world view.
    10) Understanding the Evolutionary Position
        A) It is the Christian world view that accounts for morality, but it also accounts
                for why evolutionists behave the way they do.
        B) Even those who have no basis for morality within their professed world view
             nonetheless hold to a moral code.
        C) This is because they really do know the God of the Bible despite their
                       profession to the contrary.
        D) Romans 1:18-21 tells us that all know the Biblical God but they suppress that
             knowledge in unrighteousness.
            1) Those who are in this position do, in fact, know the truth.
            2) The key to understanding this is in the fact that they suppress the truth.
            3) How can someone suppress something that they are not in contact with?
            4) In water polo, The teams sometimes try to hide the ball from the
                          opposing team by suppressing it in the water.  The player must be in
                 contact with the ball in order to accomplish this.  They cannot do this
                 without contact.
            5) We can see the same type of logic with those suppressing the truth.
                 They must be in contact with it in order to suppress it in unrighteousnes
         E) Nearly everyone believes that people ought to behave in a certain way, a moral
             code.
        F) In order for morality to be meaningful, biblical creation must be true.
            1) God created human beings, therefore He determines, in line with His
                        nature, what is right and wrong.
            2) Therefore we are responsible for our actions, whether good or bad.
        G) Therefore we must conclude that evolutionists are being irrational when they
             talk about right and wrong , for such concepts make no sense in an
             evolutionary world view.

II) Laws of Logic
    1) Rational reasoning requires using the laws of logic.
    2) Since this is the case, a rational world view must be able to account for the existence
         of such laws.
    3) Example; Law of Non-Contradiction
        A) This law states that any contradiction is false; you cannot have A and not-A
             at the same time and in the same relationship (the letter A represents any
                   claim).
        B) “My car in the garage and it is not the case that my car is in the garage” is
             necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction.
    4) All rational persons accept this law.
    5) Yet we can and should ask why, “Why is this law true?  Why should there be a law of
           non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning?”
    6) It is only in the Christian world view that these questions can be answered.
        A) For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern
             our thoughts after God’s.
            B) We know, in a finite way, how God thinks as revealed in his word.
        C) We are made in His image (Gen. 1:26), we are to follow His example
                 (Eph. 5:1)
        D) The laws of logic are a reflection of the way that God thinks, and thus the
             way that He expects us to think.
        E) The law of non-contradiction is not a personal opinion of how we ought to
             think, rather it stems from Gods’ self-consistent nature.

        F) God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), all truth is in God (John 14:6;
             Col. 2:3), therefore truth will not contradict itself.
        G) Since God is constantly upholding the universe by His power (Heb. 1:3)
             we expect that no contradictions will ever occur.
    7) Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and they are a
         prerequisite for logical thinking.  Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible
         without the Biblical God.
    8) Laws of logic only make sense in the Christian world view.  Apart from this
         world view, how can we know that contradictions are always false?
        A) We could only say that they have been false in our experience.
        B) But our experiences are very limited, and no one has experienced the
             future.
        C) If someone asserted that they have discovered two contradictory claims
             that are both true, the non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an
             assertion.
        D) Only in a Biblical world view can we know that contradictions cannot occur.
        E) Only the Christian has a basis for the laws of logic.
    9) Possible responses
        A) “Well, I can reason just fine, and I do not believe in the Bible.”
            1) This is not a rational response.
            2) Logical reasoning (and the other things that are required for knowledge)
                 requires the biblical God, not a profession of belief in Him.
            3) The evolutionist can reason, but that is only because God created the
                 human mind and given mankind access to the laws of logic.  That is
                 the point.
            4) Logical reasoning is possible because Biblical creation is true.
            5) The evolutionist can reason, but within his own world view he cannot
                 account for his ability to do so.
            6) Therefore the evolutionist world view is arbitrary and irrational.
        B) “Laws of logic do not require biblical creation.  They are simply conventions
                made up by human beings.”
            1) This type of response will not suffice.
            2) Conventions are (by definition) conventional.  That is, we all agree to
                 them and so they work, Like driving on the right side of the road.
            3) If laws of logic are conventional, then different cultures could adopt
                 different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road).
            4) In some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself.  In
                 some societies truth could be self-contradictory.
            5) This will not do.
                a) If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal
                     laws.
                b) Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were
                     conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick
                     different standards for reasoning.
                c) Each would be “right” according to his own arbitrary standard.

        C) “Laws of logic are chemical reactions in the brain that have been preserved
             because they have survival value.”
            1) Survival value does not equate to truth
                                                a) My left arm has survival value, but we would not say that it
                     is true of false; it simply is.
                b) So we would have no reason to think that the law of
                     non-contradiction (or any law of logic) is true, if it is simply
                     a chemical reaction.
            2) If laws of logic are chemical reactions, then they are not laws and they
                    are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain.
            3) We could not argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since
                 no one’s brain is on Mars.
            4) If laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then
                 they would differ somewhat from person to person, because everyone
                 has different reactions in their brain.
            5) If it were just reactions then we could never have a rational debate,
                 furthermore the evolutionist has no reason to require the creationist
                 to be rational.
        D) “Laws of logic are a description of how the physical universe behaves.”
            1) First, laws of logic are conceptual in nature.  They do not really
                 describe aspects of the universe.
            2) Rather, they describe the correct chain of reasoning from premises to
                 conclusions.
            3) Second, if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe,
                 then we would expect different regions of the universe to have different
                 laws of logic, since different regions of the universe are described
                 differently; but laws of logic apply everywhere.
            4) Third, we would have no way of knowing (and therefore no reason to
                 expect) that laws of logic apply in the future as they have in the past,
                 since no one has experienced the universe’s future.
            5) Finally, conditions in the universe are constantly changing.  If laws of
                 logic were mere descriptions of such conditions, then they would have
                 to change as well.
        E) “Laws of logic are descriptions of how the brain thinks.”
            1) They why would we need laws of logic to correct how the brain
                 thinks?
            2) If the laws of logic simply describe how people think, then no one
                 could ever violate them, since that is how they think.
            3) Also, why debate?  My brain is not the same as your brain, my
                 brain thinks differently then does yours.  If that is the case we can
                 never come to any conclusions about anything.
        F) “No I cannot account for the laws of logic, but neither can you!”
            1) The is fallacious since it merely sidesteps the actual argument.
            2) It is called a Tu Quoque fallacy
            3) Actually the Christian can indeed account for the laws of logic; we have
                 a universal standard for reasoning because God has revealed His
                 thoughts to us in the Bible.
        G) “I don’t believe in laws of logic, therefore I don’t need to have a reason for
             logic in my world view.”
            1) This is self-refuting
            2) The critic is attempting to use logic (when they say therefore) in order
                 to argue that they do not need logic.
            3) Also, by giving up logic, the critic has lost the debate.
    10) The argument is this, only Biblical creationists have a logical, rational basis for laws
         of logic, and thus evolutionary world views are inherently irrational.
    11) Laws of logic pose a serious problem for the evolutionist
        A) They know that they should be logical in their approach, but they have no
             basis for them within their own world view.
        B) This is a real problem to the materialistic atheist.
            1) They do not believe in anything beyond the physical universe.
            2) All that exists in the universe is matter in motion.
            3) Laws of logic are not matter; they are not part of the physical universe
            4) The laws of logic are contrary to their world view.
            5) Therefore it is irrational.
    12) Theistic evolution
        A) Laws of logic reflect the thinking of God and do not make sense in the
             evolutionary world view.
        B) Some have tried to compromise to alleviate the tension.
        C) They believe in God so they state that they can in fact account for the laws
             of logic, without giving up the evolutionary world view.
        D) This cannot work
            1) Laws of logic reflect how God thinks, but how can we know how God
                 thinks?
            2) He has revealed some of them in His word.
            3) God has made mankind in His image according to Gen. 1:26.
            4) But the evolutionary world view rejects a literal reading of that very
                 passage.
            5) In their professed world view they have the same problem, if Gen. 1:26
                 is not literal history, then how do they know that we are able to pattern
                 our thoughts after God’s.
            6) Nor do they believe that God has accurately recorded His thoughts in
                 the scriptures, since they reject many portions of them.
            7) One other problem with this view is that it exalts man’s mind above
                 God’s.  Man determines what is and what is not God’s word
                 It is the problem of man to God instead of God to man.
    13) Biblical creation can account for logic
        A) Since God is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have
             laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging.
        B) God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic
        C) God made the universe, God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds
             would have the ability to study and understand the universe.
        D) If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance as the
             evolutionist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of
             the universe?  How could science and technology be possible?
        E) Rational thinking, science, and technology only make sense within the Biblical
             creation world view.
        F) We have a basis for these things while the evolutionist does not.
        G) This is not to say that the evolutionist cannot be rational.  They can be because
             they to are made in the image of God and have access to God’s laws of logic.
        H) The point is they have no rational basis within their professed world view for
             them.
        I) The evolutionist is a walking bundle of contradictions.  They reason and do
            science, yet they deny the very God who makes reasoning and science possible.
        J) An illustration can be stated as such.
            1) A child is sitting on their father’s lap. 
            2) The child is constantly slapping the father in the face, ridiculing him,
                 and even denying that he exists.
            3) All the while the father is supporting the child.
            4) This is exactly how the evolutionist acts, just like the child. 
            5) They constantly slap the Father in the face all the while the Father
                 is supporting the evolutionist since God has given to all men the
                 preconditions of intelligibility.

III) Uniformity of nature
    1)The information for this particular segment is attached.
    2) It is an article written by Dr. Jason Lisle
    3) It explains the idea quite well and so I decided to have it as class material.
    4) Saves me time.
    5) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/evolution-anti-science

IV) Why so inconsistent?
    1) When we consider the concepts of morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature,
         we find that evolution cannot account for why these things are so.
    2) The problem that they have is in the fact that they do believe in them.
    3) Again the question is simply this, ‘How do they account for them?’
    4) How are we to account for such inconsistency with in the evolutionist world view?
        A)It is the Bible that gives us our answer.
        B) Not only does the Bible account for these things (a rational reason), it also
             informs us of why the evolutionist is so inconsistent.
        C) Romans 1:18-25
            1) God has revealed Himself to all mankind
            2) All people have an innate knowledge of Him but they have rebelled
                 against Him.
            3) Because of this they suppress what they know to be true.


V) Conclusion
    1) In logic, no one is allowed to be arbitrary, or to simply assert assumptions that have
         no foundation whatsoever
        A) Otherwise, why not assert the exact opposite?
        B) If people are allowed to be arbitrary the logical debate would be impossible
             since each person could “prove” his position by simply arbitrarily assuming it.
        C) A rational person has a reason for what they believe.
    2) The consistent Christian has a good reason (I would argue that they have the only
         reason) to believe in the preconditions of intelligibility.
        A) They are consistent with Biblical creation
        B) The Biblical world view provides a basis for those things that we take for
             granted.
        C) No other world view can account for these.
    3) Psalm 111:10
        A) It is in the knowledge of God that we can begin to understand the reality of
             this universe.
        B)This is the starting point in knowledge
        C) Without the correct starting point it becomes impossible to actually know
             anything.
        D) We have no reason to rely upon our assumptions, they could be wrong.
    4) Yet evolutionists believe that they do know things about the universe.
        A) This is true, it is irrational to say that they do not
        B) What they fail to realize is that in order for them to know things about
             the universe and reality, God must necessarily exist and His word must
             necessarily be the truth.
        C) If these two conditions were not so, we would then and only then actually
             not know anything about the reality of the universe.
    5) There are many other examples that we could cover, dignity of mankind, freedom,
         concept of beauty, etc... these will suffice to show the only rational world view
         is the Christian world view.
    6) Next we will explore how to use these in rational dialogue with others