Nice picture! The argument we are making is: without the Triune God there is no justification for logic. One caller said he could say that for a five person god or a four person god. No he couldn’t. For “facts” to have any credibility you must assume the Triune God to make sense of anything whatsoever. All facts must be grounded in the Triune God because without Him you couldn’t make sense of anything, or at least you’d have no justification for it. We have to start with the Triune God to make sense of anything at all (I’m sure you know this). God is our ultimate authority, we must begin with Him in order to make our lives intelligible. I suppose I’d ask you this simple question: why be logical without this God? You said at the end of your video “logic is a harsh mistress.” How come? You act like logic makes sense and is intelligible. You come across like you guys have found the sweet argument that cripples Christians. But the crucial point not to miss is that without this God all arguments, logic, reasoning from a to b becomes irrelevant. We are arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Triune God you couldn’t make sense of anything. He is our Ultimate. Good discussion here, friend!
When you say things like "must be" and "impossible" and "couldn't," are you talking about what's logically possible and impossible, must be or couldn't be? There are different ways for things to be possible and impossible. For example it is physically impossible for me to jump to the moon, for easy to think of reasons like my legs not being strong enough. However, there is no logical contradiction in the idea of me jumping to the moon. In the video, I said it is like pulling teeth to get presuppers to pick a modality, and so we atheists usually assume you mean logical impossibility. You asked why be logical without God. I guess you're asking why it matters if something is contradictory or not. Imagine I say it doesn't matter -- are you then going to respond, "Ok, the contrary is POSSIBLE, so what?" -- then I'll respond "that's it, that's the conclusion, the contrary is POSSIBLE," and I'll be happy stopping there.
@@DiscernibleInferences Interesting. Yes, I would say why be logical (not contradicting yourself) in an atheistic worldview. You appeal to these immaterial laws that you seem to “take for granted” without giving any justification for them. I would assume you may just say: it’s just that way, possibly? Why do atheists assume that the universe is cogent and things are regular by blind “faith?” I’m appealing to the Triune God who controls all things and keeps them regular but given your naturalistic chaos of series of events (although series assumes uniformity and that’s not possible in an atheistic chaos world) you are attempting to appeal to what we call logic without any justification for it. You must have an ultimate authority that’s self authenticating. Christians have it. I’m sure you listened to Greg Bahnsen? I’m sure you disagree with him but I think you’d like his lectures on Transcendental arguments. There are definitely big issues we need hash out with each other!
You're taking the same position that atheists do when it comes to intelligibility, only instead of just admitting that you don't know what absolute fundamental ultimate is, you're just saying "because God". Its even more absurd, by an extra step.
@@SLS859 _"The argument we are making is: without the Triune God there is no justification for logic."_ That's not an argument. That's simply a bald assertion. An argument would include some reason for accepting that assertion. You've provided none. _"For “facts” to have any credibility you must assume the Triune God to make sense of anything whatsoever. "_ Again, you make this claim, but you provide no reason to accept it as true. Why should I accept this as true? _"All facts must be grounded in the Triune God because without Him you couldn’t make sense of anything, or at least you’d have no justification for it."_ Now you just moved the goalposts. Which claim are you (presumably) going to argue for, the stronger claim ("without [God] you couldn’t make sense of anything" or the weaker claim ("at least you’d have no justification for it") Those are two very different claims, that aren't really related in any obvious way (as it pertains to the alleged truth of your worldview or the alleged falsity of mine) Are both os these necessary to reach your conclusion, or just one? If the latter, which one? _"I suppose I’d ask you this simple question: why be logical without this God?"_ From where I stand, God is irrlevant to logic, so the real question is simply "Why be logical?" and my answer to that is I don't know how to make sense of the world any other way. _" You act like logic makes sense and is intelligible."_ I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the individual rules of classical logic? The collection of those rules? Some other abstract conception? It's not really a clear statement. _"You come across like you guys have found the sweet argument that cripples Christians. "_ No, most Christians are perfectly content to cling to their dogma, regardless of the evidence or argumentation provided, so, speaking for myself, I don't ever claim an argument is going to cripple Christians. Though many of the arguments I've seen over the year are pretty devastating to the Christian position. _"But the crucial point not to miss is that without this God all arguments, logic, reasoning from a to b becomes irrelevant"_ Yeah, you've made that same assertion using slightly different wording about a half dozen times already. You've still provided no reason to accept that assertion as true. _" We are arguing from the impossibility of the contrary."_ I've seen many a presup apologist use those exact same words, but I've never encointered the first one that actually backed up the claim. You actally have to provide _reason(s)_ why the contrary is impossible. Otherwise, you're just restating the same claim you've already made several times (without any justification) _"Without the Triune God you couldn’t make sense of anything. "_ Yeah, I seem to recall you mentioning that once or twice already. Any reason that I should accept that assertion, or is this one of those "because I said so" type of arguments? _"I would say why be logical (not contradicting yourself) in an atheistic worldview. You appeal to these immaterial laws that you seem to “take for granted” without giving any justification for them. "_ You seem to be treating the laws of logic as if they are some prescriptive dictate, that have some causal power over how reality operates. I see no reason to accept that position. I treat the laws of logic as axioms. Those axioms, definitionally, are the arbiters of truth. (Truth being a possible property of a proposition as adjudicated by the laws of logic) Those axioms make no direct claims about reality itself, rather they simply describe a useful way to evaluate propositions. Chess is a game that is governed by axioms. Those axioms dictate which pieces can move where on the board, and other actions that are allowed or disallowed. They are descriptive. That a rule exists forbidding me to move a piece to a specific location on the board, doesn't _in reality_ prevent me from moving the piece there, it simply means if I _do_ make an illegal move, I am no longer playing the game of chess. Likewise when I am being logical I'm sticking to the axioms of logic. And just like I don't need some metaphycial grounding or "just so" story to explain the rules of chess in order to play chess, I don't require some metaphysical grounding ot "just so" story to explain the laws of logic in order to apply them. _"Why do atheists assume that the universe is cogent and things are regular by blind “faith?” "_ I don't assume that on blind faith. I observe it to be the case. Why do Christian assume the universe is cogent and things are regular when they believe in a diety that is capable of altering reality on a whim, and a book that states he can and does do this? _"I’m appealing to the Triune God who controls all things and keeps them regular"_ Wow, you are all over the place here. What you're appealing to is an abstract concept that you've assinged properties to, a priori. Why should I beleive that such a thing exists at all, let alone with all of the attributes you claim it has? _"but given your naturalistic chaos of series of events (although series assumes uniformity and that’s not possible in an atheistic chaos world) you are attempting to appeal to what we call logic without any justification for it. "_ Chaos is not the product of my worldview. It's the foundation of yours. It's te fundamental thing that you're fighting against. You claim that a God is _necessary_ to avoid chaos. That would make chaos the default state in your worldview. My worldview is deterministic. _"You must have an ultimate authority that’s self authenticating."_ Says who? Why should I accept your standard over any other? Can you justify the need for such a thing, or is just an arbitrary rule you've invoked because it's convenient for you? At the end of the day, I can ask you or any other prespper the same "trap" questions you try and use to corner everyone else, and you'll explain everything with "God." and if I ask why it is that God is the way he is, you'll appeal to some specific attribute of God and say "God is logic, or God is love, or God is truth" or whatever thing it is you're trying to explain, or you might just skip that step and go to what all Christians ultimately appeal to... "God's nature." And God's Nature is the unaccounted for, unexplained, unjustified brute fact at the bedrock of your worldview. Sure, you might try to claim that God's Nature is "self authenticating" but you have no demonstration of this. It's just an empty claim devoid of any meaning. Meanwhile I'm perfectly content to say that everything in reality behaves the way that it does because it's the nature of reality (or the nature of existence if you prefer) and that's good enough for my worldview, because I'm not compelled to make up an answer for wverything. I'm not so arrogant as to think the universe owes me an explanation for everything, or that I'm clever enough to figure it out. I'm perfectly happy operating within the limits of my mind.
@@ajhieb “My worldview is deterministic.” Great! That’s all I need to show you that your presuppositions are bankrupt and you need to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of anything. In your atheistic, “chaos blob” of materialism, your brain is controlled by gray matter that is controlled by the laws of physics (again, can’t be a “law” because that assumes uniformity). What you believe is just the “laws” of physics working their way out in this naturalistic chaos. There is no freedom to look at evidence and make any decisions on what to believe, it’s just the “laws” of physics working their way out. Therefore you have no reason to argue with anything I’ve said or no reason to be logical. In your atheistic worldview my brain is controlled by the “laws” of physics to believe what I believe and yours is controlled to believe another way. Why debate in an atheistic worldview then? Why be logical? If naturalism is true there can be no “reasoning” that supports naturalism because men do not reason. We are just controlled by our brain fizz to believe what we believe. You see my point, AJ? The very debate we are having already assumes the Triune God. You are assuming we can argue and look at evidence and convince one another about what is true, except, in your atheistic worldview, there is no truth. These are not “assertions” as you claim, I am arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. That is: without this God you couldn’t prove anything. You assume capital that your atheistic worldview cannot produce (perhaps this is why atheists are commonly communist/socialists). Please remember every time you reason as if I’m wrong about anything you are assuming the God you know exists. You know Him and you are crated in His Image (Gen. 1:26). You can’t help but think logically because the God who created you is logical. I am asking what are the preconditions necessary for any argumentation? Only the Christian worldview can account for these issues. Thanks for your reply. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
If you can teach a man to think logically he will cease to have anymore useful thoughts at all. Yes the phrase “there is no God” is logically inconsistent. If God does not exist prove it by not existing yourself.
Thanks for posting this, and you have one new sub! 😊 Especially double thumbs up for the part on helping to expose Presup stooge Darth Dawkins👍🏼👍🏼
Jay Dyer needs to show that only his Triune god can account for logic.
At this point Jay HAS to understand the issue. the contrary is impossible
Declarative sentences make claims or state facts, and they can be either true or false, but they cannot directly entail contradictions.
I liked the last line there 😅
Nice picture! The argument we are making is: without the Triune God there is no justification for logic. One caller said he could say that for a five person god or a four person god. No he couldn’t. For “facts” to have any credibility you must assume the Triune God to make sense of anything whatsoever. All facts must be grounded in the Triune God because without Him you couldn’t make sense of anything, or at least you’d have no justification for it. We have to start with the Triune God to make sense of anything at all (I’m sure you know this). God is our ultimate authority, we must begin with Him in order to make our lives intelligible. I suppose I’d ask you this simple question: why be logical without this God? You said at the end of your video “logic is a harsh mistress.” How come? You act like logic makes sense and is intelligible. You come across like you guys have found the sweet argument that cripples Christians. But the crucial point not to miss is that without this God all arguments, logic, reasoning from a to b becomes irrelevant. We are arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Triune God you couldn’t make sense of anything. He is our Ultimate. Good discussion here, friend!
When you say things like "must be" and "impossible" and "couldn't," are you talking about what's logically possible and impossible, must be or couldn't be? There are different ways for things to be possible and impossible. For example it is physically impossible for me to jump to the moon, for easy to think of reasons like my legs not being strong enough. However, there is no logical contradiction in the idea of me jumping to the moon. In the video, I said it is like pulling teeth to get presuppers to pick a modality, and so we atheists usually assume you mean logical impossibility.
You asked why be logical without God. I guess you're asking why it matters if something is contradictory or not. Imagine I say it doesn't matter -- are you then going to respond, "Ok, the contrary is POSSIBLE, so what?" -- then I'll respond "that's it, that's the conclusion, the contrary is POSSIBLE," and I'll be happy stopping there.
@@DiscernibleInferences Interesting. Yes, I would say why be logical (not contradicting yourself) in an atheistic worldview. You appeal to these immaterial laws that you seem to “take for granted” without giving any justification for them. I would assume you may just say: it’s just that way, possibly? Why do atheists assume that the universe is cogent and things are regular by blind “faith?” I’m appealing to the Triune God who controls all things and keeps them regular but given your naturalistic chaos of series of events (although series assumes uniformity and that’s not possible in an atheistic chaos world) you are attempting to appeal to what we call logic without any justification for it. You must have an ultimate authority that’s self authenticating. Christians have it. I’m sure you listened to Greg Bahnsen? I’m sure you disagree with him but I think you’d like his lectures on Transcendental arguments. There are definitely big issues we need hash out with each other!
You're taking the same position that atheists do when it comes to intelligibility, only instead of just admitting that you don't know what absolute fundamental ultimate is, you're just saying "because God". Its even more absurd, by an extra step.
@@SLS859 _"The argument we are making is: without the Triune God there is no justification for logic."_ That's not an argument. That's simply a bald assertion. An argument would include some reason for accepting that assertion. You've provided none.
_"For “facts” to have any credibility you must assume the Triune God to make sense of anything whatsoever. "_ Again, you make this claim, but you provide no reason to accept it as true. Why should I accept this as true?
_"All facts must be grounded in the Triune God because without Him you couldn’t make sense of anything, or at least you’d have no justification for it."_ Now you just moved the goalposts. Which claim are you (presumably) going to argue for, the stronger claim ("without [God] you couldn’t make sense of anything" or the weaker claim ("at least you’d have no justification for it") Those are two very different claims, that aren't really related in any obvious way (as it pertains to the alleged truth of your worldview or the alleged falsity of mine) Are both os these necessary to reach your conclusion, or just one? If the latter, which one?
_"I suppose I’d ask you this simple question: why be logical without this God?"_ From where I stand, God is irrlevant to logic, so the real question is simply "Why be logical?" and my answer to that is I don't know how to make sense of the world any other way.
_" You act like logic makes sense and is intelligible."_ I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the individual rules of classical logic? The collection of those rules? Some other abstract conception? It's not really a clear statement.
_"You come across like you guys have found the sweet argument that cripples Christians. "_ No, most Christians are perfectly content to cling to their dogma, regardless of the evidence or argumentation provided, so, speaking for myself, I don't ever claim an argument is going to cripple Christians. Though many of the arguments I've seen over the year are pretty devastating to the Christian position.
_"But the crucial point not to miss is that without this God all arguments, logic, reasoning from a to b becomes irrelevant"_ Yeah, you've made that same assertion using slightly different wording about a half dozen times already. You've still provided no reason to accept that assertion as true.
_" We are arguing from the impossibility of the contrary."_ I've seen many a presup apologist use those exact same words, but I've never encointered the first one that actually backed up the claim. You actally have to provide _reason(s)_ why the contrary is impossible. Otherwise, you're just restating the same claim you've already made several times (without any justification)
_"Without the Triune God you couldn’t make sense of anything. "_ Yeah, I seem to recall you mentioning that once or twice already. Any reason that I should accept that assertion, or is this one of those "because I said so" type of arguments?
_"I would say why be logical (not contradicting yourself) in an atheistic worldview. You appeal to these immaterial laws that you seem to “take for granted” without giving any justification for them. "_ You seem to be treating the laws of logic as if they are some prescriptive dictate, that have some causal power over how reality operates. I see no reason to accept that position. I treat the laws of logic as axioms. Those axioms, definitionally, are the arbiters of truth. (Truth being a possible property of a proposition as adjudicated by the laws of logic) Those axioms make no direct claims about reality itself, rather they simply describe a useful way to evaluate propositions.
Chess is a game that is governed by axioms. Those axioms dictate which pieces can move where on the board, and other actions that are allowed or disallowed. They are descriptive. That a rule exists forbidding me to move a piece to a specific location on the board, doesn't _in reality_ prevent me from moving the piece there, it simply means if I _do_ make an illegal move, I am no longer playing the game of chess. Likewise when I am being logical I'm sticking to the axioms of logic. And just like I don't need some metaphycial grounding or "just so" story to explain the rules of chess in order to play chess, I don't require some metaphysical grounding ot "just so" story to explain the laws of logic in order to apply them.
_"Why do atheists assume that the universe is cogent and things are regular by blind “faith?” "_ I don't assume that on blind faith. I observe it to be the case. Why do Christian assume the universe is cogent and things are regular when they believe in a diety that is capable of altering reality on a whim, and a book that states he can and does do this?
_"I’m appealing to the Triune God who controls all things and keeps them regular"_ Wow, you are all over the place here. What you're appealing to is an abstract concept that you've assinged properties to, a priori. Why should I beleive that such a thing exists at all, let alone with all of the attributes you claim it has?
_"but given your naturalistic chaos of series of events (although series assumes uniformity and that’s not possible in an atheistic chaos world) you are attempting to appeal to what we call logic without any justification for it. "_ Chaos is not the product of my worldview. It's the foundation of yours. It's te fundamental thing that you're fighting against. You claim that a God is _necessary_ to avoid chaos. That would make chaos the default state in your worldview. My worldview is deterministic.
_"You must have an ultimate authority that’s self authenticating."_ Says who? Why should I accept your standard over any other? Can you justify the need for such a thing, or is just an arbitrary rule you've invoked because it's convenient for you?
At the end of the day, I can ask you or any other prespper the same "trap" questions you try and use to corner everyone else, and you'll explain everything with "God." and if I ask why it is that God is the way he is, you'll appeal to some specific attribute of God and say "God is logic, or God is love, or God is truth" or whatever thing it is you're trying to explain, or you might just skip that step and go to what all Christians ultimately appeal to... "God's nature." And God's Nature is the unaccounted for, unexplained, unjustified brute fact at the bedrock of your worldview. Sure, you might try to claim that God's Nature is "self authenticating" but you have no demonstration of this. It's just an empty claim devoid of any meaning. Meanwhile I'm perfectly content to say that everything in reality behaves the way that it does because it's the nature of reality (or the nature of existence if you prefer) and that's good enough for my worldview, because I'm not compelled to make up an answer for wverything. I'm not so arrogant as to think the universe owes me an explanation for everything, or that I'm clever enough to figure it out. I'm perfectly happy operating within the limits of my mind.
@@ajhieb “My worldview is deterministic.”
Great! That’s all I need to show you that your presuppositions are bankrupt and you need to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of anything.
In your atheistic, “chaos blob” of materialism, your brain is controlled by gray matter that is controlled by the laws of physics (again, can’t be a “law” because that assumes uniformity). What you believe is just the “laws” of physics working their way out in this naturalistic chaos. There is no freedom to look at evidence and make any decisions on what to believe, it’s just the “laws” of physics working their way out. Therefore you have no reason to argue with anything I’ve said or no reason to be logical. In your atheistic worldview my brain is controlled by the “laws” of physics to believe what I believe and yours is controlled to believe another way. Why debate in an atheistic worldview then? Why be logical? If naturalism is true there can be no “reasoning” that supports naturalism because men do not reason. We are just controlled by our brain fizz to believe what we believe. You see my point, AJ?
The very debate we are having already assumes the Triune God. You are assuming we can argue and look at evidence and convince one another about what is true, except, in your atheistic worldview, there is no truth. These are not “assertions” as you claim, I am arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. That is: without this God you couldn’t prove anything. You assume capital that your atheistic worldview cannot produce (perhaps this is why atheists are commonly communist/socialists). Please remember every time you reason as if I’m wrong about anything you are assuming the God you know exists. You know Him and you are crated in His Image (Gen. 1:26). You can’t help but think logically because the God who created you is logical.
I am asking what are the preconditions necessary for any argumentation? Only the Christian worldview can account for these issues.
Thanks for your reply. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
Did darth Dawkins steal this guy's speech?
Not sure about his speech, but DD definitely borrowed this guy’s ignorance and arrogance.
If you can teach a man to think logically he will cease to have anymore useful thoughts at all. Yes the phrase “there is no God” is logically inconsistent. If God does not exist prove it by not existing yourself.