Open Air Atheist

I had a discussion with Open Air Atheist on my Youtube channel. Here is my reply to him.

Please explain logically how objective values are contradictory? You maintain my question “…is like asking [you] to explain why a square circle is logically contradictory.” And then conclude, “It simply is the case that both of these concepts are by definition distinct from one another.”  No one disputes circles and squares are distinct. Your main point is misplaced. If the concept of objective moral values is logically contradictory, as you claim, then a conceptual analysis is due on your part to demonstrate it. But what you level against objective moral values is no simple task. You must show logically there is no possible world in which objective moral values can exist. But as I see it, by the use of possible world semantics, a conceptual analysis of ‘objective moral values’ can be shown as logically coherent.   

First, lets fill in the content of the words “objective moral values.”  By objective moral values, we mean moral values/facts that are universally binding on all people regardless of whether or not people acknowledge them. For example, an act of rape is morally wrong no matter if anyone believes it or not. 

Why is God essentially rational? I think this kind of question is wrongheaded. It is like the question, who made God? The question is fallacious or worse utter nonsense. I kindly take it to be the former than the latter. It is a category mistake on the part of the questioner. What the question is fundamentally asking is why God, a being who is necessarily rational, is not contingently rational. But clearly such a question confuses the categories of being, namely the necessary and contingent.    

Define your use of the term "created"? Do you mean A can cause something to come from nothing? If so, then if something can come from nothing, then we don't need God (whatever that is if indeed an is).

I maintain that God, who is omnipotent (i.e. consistently by nature all powerful), brought the universe, and humans into existence from no thing. It is the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. And my view conforms to biogenesis. Thus something only comes from something. But if you deny the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo you are left with affirming the absurd conclusion that something comes from nothing by nothing. In the words of William lane Craig, “ such a view is worse than magic.” 

What is God? "God is a person?" Obviously you don't mean that in the usual sense. A person has qualia and physical correlates. If you say no! Then its like saying God is a person which is not a person, or at least not like any person you have experienced which tells me nothing!

What is qualia? Please define qualia. There are plenty of definitions for God. But since you asked me, I would subscribe to the Westminster or London Baptist Confession of Faith’s definition. Now if you wish to tell me the word ‘God’ has no referent; and in effect, all Christians are deluded when they talk about God, such a tactic gets us nowhere in discussion. Moreover, by leveling such a claim, you are taking upon the burden to prove all Christians are deluded when they speak of God and the word itself is meaningless. But there are countless books that would demonstrate the term ‘God’ is meaningful.[1] Moreover, your questions show you are out of step with the Christian renaissance in contemporary analytic philosophy. God is absolute personality, the one in the many, Tri-personal: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is absolute in lordship, authority, presence, knowledge, power and goodness.

Because value judgments are by nature intrinsically subjective. They are personal like, dislikes, expectations (first person experiences) etc.

So is it your subjective value judgment that all value judgments are subjective? This is clearly self-refuting.  I do not deny the subjective component to values but nor do I deny the normative component to values either. And the latter component was the main focus of my discussion with you.

Define your usage of the term "reality" without committing a fallacy of definition.

What is the fallacy of definition? If you are claiming it is a tautology I'd refer you to Quine's paper Two Dogmas of Empiricism.  It is obvious this question is simply a tactic to get away from debating. All one has to do to reveal this fact is ask, "is it true to reality you do not know what ‘reality’ means?" By reality I mean the actual state of affairs.  

 I know what I mean when I use the term "know," but I'm asking you to define your usage of the term. 

Again, another obvious question simply to get away from debating. But I will answer. The term “know” refers to knowledge, which is traditionally understood as justified true belief. But after Alvin Plantinga came along, it might properly be changed to warranted true belief.

 "Why care about truth?" The reason I project value onto truth etc, is because it suits my goals.

Goals to what ends? So truth is merely instrumental? It is instrumental to what? If there is no ultimate end to the means, then one is left in an infinite regress.    

---

[1] JP Moreland and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus, Amherst, 1993)p.p.57-59,156-158.

Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman Jr. The Unchanging Faith in a Changing World (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1997)p.p.72-76.

Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God. 2003. PDF. p.22.

Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think about God: A Guide to a 20^th-Century Pagan.(Macmillan, New York, 1980)p.p.78-93.

William Lane Craig. Defining God  

  

The Bible wrong?

Steve Hays has written another great post. Check it out:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-bible-be-proven-wrong.html?m=1

Fristianity Refuted?

An interesting article defending the sufficiency and necessity of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence.

Check it out HERE

\

Also check out Choosing Hats discussion on the subject HERE  

Book Recommendations

Book recommendations:

I strongly recommend Dr Jason Lisle's works below as a easy and concise introduction to Biblical apologetics.

Dr. Pratt Jr's wonderful work.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen's foundational work.

Robert Reymond's work offered for free Here

A Good Introduction to Propositions

Here is a old but good introduction to the nature of propositions. Here


It is written by Brian Bosse who is know for his thought provoking critique of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. Here

I still think he is wrong in this critique but I figured I'd post a link since it is a good contribution to seek to better defend the faith.

Mulvihill's Lecture on TAG

Joe Mulvihill gave a lecture on the Transcendental Argument for God's existence Here.

I wish to comment on Mulvihill’s lecture. First, Mulvihill, by his articulation of the Transcendental Argument for God’s existence (TAG), seems to mistake Cornelius Van Til for Gordan Clark and/or Edward John Carnell. Since he wrongly claims TAG is properly understood as a reductio or abductive argument. Despite what Mulvihill may think, Van Til in fact taught that TAG is an argument for the impossible of the contrary. It is an indirect argument that demonstrates Christianity is true by presupposing its contradiction, (tokens of the same type) Non-Christianity. Non-Christianity is shown to be impossible, and therefore, it proves the contrary, namely, Christianity is true. “In other words, the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism. Either A or ~A,~~A, therefore, A.”[1]

Mulvihill as a side comment says Van Til might not even be rightly considered a philosopher. Mulvihill seems to follow the footsteps of his colleague William Lane Craig to take such a stance about Van Til. The trouble is both man show their ignorance of Van til; if only they would have bothered to look at Van Til’s dissertation on Hegel’s Absolute, they would not make such inaccurate claims.

Mulvihill’s criticisms of TAG can be summarized as follows:

1. It is an indirect argument.
2. It is complex.
3. It is not unique.

Certainly TAG is indirect but it does not exclude giving positive answers directly. The main concern with TAG is to uphold biblical authority. Man cannot have a positive argument if man thinks it gives him the right to judge God.

TAG can be formulated in different ways both for the academic and student. So it can be simple or complex. To illustrate watch this simple use of TAG by Sye Ten Bruggencate.

  

         

TAG is unique; the problem lies with a misunderstanding of the structure of TAG. Michael Butler's comments would be helpful here. Butler explains,  

"But Bahnsen makes the further point is that this criticism misses the thrust of TAG altogether.  TAG argues for the impossibility of the contrary (the non-Christian worldview) and not the impossibility of an infinite number of possible worldviews.  TAG does not establish the necessity of Christianity by inductively refuting each and every possible non-Christian worldview (as finite proponents of TAG, this is an impossible task), but rather contends that the contrary of Christianity (any view that denies the Christian view of God) is shown to be impossible.  And if the negation of Christianity is false, Christianity is proved true.  In other words, the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism.  Either A or -A, -- A, therefore, A.

At this point the clever opponent will simply deny the first premise.  He will contend that it should not be construed as a disjunction of a contradiction, but a simple disjunction.  The argument should thus be restated along the following lines: A or B, -B, therefore, A.  And once this move is made he will then contend that while the argument is valid, the first premise involves a false dilemma.  That is, he will grant that given A or B and the negation of B, A does indeed follow, but nevertheless maintain that the argument is unsound because the first premise (A or B) is not true.  The reason being that there are more possibilities than just A and B.  Given a true first premise, A or B or C or D ... n, the negation of B merely entails that A along with the disjunction of other propositions besides B (C, D,...n) follows.

In order for this to be successful, it is incumbent upon the opponent of TAG to defend two claims.  First, he must defend the contention that the original first premise is not the disjunction of a contradiction and, second, he must show that there are other possible disjuncts besides B (what we can call the view that is opposed to the Christian worldview)."[3]

I strongly suggest Mulvihill and anyone interested in learning a correct presentation of the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG) to listen to Dr. Greg Bahnsen's lectures Here and Michael Butler (Bahnsen's former student) Here 

[1] Butler, Michael. The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen (Covenant Media Press: Nacogdoches, 2002) p.85. www.butler-harris.org/tag/

[2] Butler, Michael. ;www.butler-harris.org/tag/;

Biblical Apologetics

Here is an excellent sketch on Presuppositional apologetics by Sye Ten Burggencate.

Some helpful material I compiled from Van Til, Bahnsen, Anderson, Lisle, and Cheung.

5 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to


make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;


yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15






As this verse says "make a defense" that comes from the Geek ἀπολογία which


means to give an argument or reasoned response. Thus as Christians we are to be


ready to give an argument for our faith with Christ at the center of it. Our


argument is to honor Christ's lordship and our actions are to exemplify


likeness of Christ. We are to be gentle and respectful to all who ask of us a


justification of our faith.






"2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach


all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's


mystery, which is Christ,


3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col 2:2-3






"7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and


instruction." Proverbs 1:7






"1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do


abominable deeds, there is none who does good. " Psalm 14:1






Biblical Guidelines

"1. That we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology: the


self-attesting, self-explanatory Christ of Scripture.


2. That we no longer make an appeal to "common notions" which Chris- tian and


non-Christian agree on, but to the "common ground" which they actually have


because man and his world are what Scripture


says they are.


3. That we appeal to man as man, God's image. We do so only if we set the


non-Christian principle of the rational autonomy of man against the Christian


principle of the dependence of man's knowledge on God's knowledge as revealed


in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.


4. That we claim, therefore, that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to


hold. It is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of


Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of "chance."


5. That we argue, therefore, by "presupposition." The Christian, as did


Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position. The


only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself.


6. That we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of


Scripture by sinners who, being alienated from God, seek to flee his face, comes


about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of inescapably clear evidence, opens


their eyes so that they see things as they truly are.


7. That we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as


clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is,


the non-Christian will be able to under- stand in an intellectual sense the


issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him what


he "already knows" but seeks to suppress. This "reminding" process provides


a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign grace may grant the


non-Christian repentance so that he may know him who is life eternal. "[1]





An easy apologetics outline: AIM

A- Arbitrariness=Expose the unbelievers assertions that have no justification.

I- Inconsistencies= Expose any inconsistencies in what the unbeliever says.

M- Mistaken foundations for knowledge. One must demonstrate only the Christian
worldview can provide the necessary foundations or presuppositions for knowledge. Only from the Christian worldview can one claim to have knowledge (i.e. justified true beliefs) for two reasons:(1) The absolute triune God has
revealed truth to us in His Word and continues to illuminate our minds by His Spirit (2) Scripture tells us all mankind are the image bearers of God and hence possess intellects and wills that can reliably acquire knowledge.[2] The goal is to show the unbeliever must assume the Christian viewpoint to know
anything with certainty. If any unbeliever claims to have knowledge of anything, he can never be certain since one must either be God or know God to have knowledge of anything. That is because one must be everywhere at once, be outside of time and control everything in order to know something. Since all facts are related to each other. And in order for one to know a fact in its proper context one must know them all.









   Unbelievers either reason in a circle putting human reason or experience on the


throne as ruler and ultimate standard of their knowledge. We must show only God


and His Word can rightly be the ultimate standard and authority. Only God can


give us knowledge. Christians, too, argue in a circle. But our circle from God’s


Word provides the necessary foundations/assumptions for knowledge. Moreover, the


circle is rational since the authority appealed to as ultimate is in fact


Ultimate, namely God. Unbelievers are forced into skepticism and/or fideism.[3]





  If a Christian gets stumped he can always resort to these questions that can


be phrased in different forms.



“1. Why? A question that demands reasons for whatever is asserted by the


unbeliever so the mistaken foundation can be exposed.


2. So? This question seeks to counter irrelevant things the unbeliever asserts.


3. Really? The question exposes the fact Christianity is the truth and the


unbeliever ought to reexamine his view. But most of all it gives Christians


opportunity to show the unbeliever the necessity of presupposing the Christian


worldview in order to have knowledge.”[4]








   [1] Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed. rev. (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967), pp.298-99.




[2] I made my own acronym from Jason Lisle. The Ultimate Proof Of Creation. (Green Forest: Master Books, 2009),pp.84-95.




[3] James Anderson via email




[4] Vincent Cheung. Students in the Real World. http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf p.76.