View Single Post
Old 10-06-2008, 12:00 AM   #5
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
Originally Posted by Litofsky View Post
How did the Greeks do this?
Well, before the internet people had a lot of time on their hands. Me included.

Seriously, however, that was a very interesting post to read. My first thoughts revolved around the current state of the world compared to your post. But I digress.
I'm curious what you mean here. I wasn't aware I was being quite that general.

You propose that Bahnsen undermined his own argument by faulty logic, correct? By saying that there can be no order without God, he presupposed his own argument?
Well, I think he uses a particular view of logic, etc., which forces him to assert that God is necessary for them to exist. However, his argument doesn't force people to agree that his view is the only one.

This might be a bit above me, but I'll do my best to attempt to answer anyways:

You say that there does not need to be God to prove the laws of reason and logic, and that it can, in fact, be proven by human beliefs (or societal ideals, if I'm correct) and reason.
Well, I'm a bit wary of "proving" the laws of reason and logic. I agree with Aristotle in that we should argue from some central ideas like logic, morality, etc., and not to them. I think it's clear that no finite amount of cases where someone jumping out the window and living will ever make it necessary that someone who jumps out a window will live. I'm not even sure what it would be like to argue "for" logic. I mean, how could you argue without it? Something has got to be the bedrock for discussion here; it's not just turtles all the way down. Logic is that kind of bedrock for many things.

Again, you also say that a human creation (logic, in this case) cannot be separated from humanity without losing its meaning. After all, what is the point of a book if there are no people to read it (that example might not be the best, but, on first glance, it appears to work)? Therefore, if attempt to apply the principles of reason and logic to God, we arrive at an impossible-to-solve conundrum, due to the fact that these two ideas are incompatible.

Did I have that even close to right, or am I terribly off-course?
I'd say that the meaning of logical propositions cannot be separated from how we use them. That doesn't mean that the truths of logic are human "creations", but the development of our methods of logic could certainly be seen as a subject of scientific interest. I think it's entirely possible to apply reason and logic to God, but doing so comes after you accept certain things (like the existence of God). Those things which are accepted are not reasonable and they are not logical. You can see them as a religious bedrock. "Whatever else happens, this cannot be doubted."

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 10-06-2008 at 12:29 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,