[MisterAgreeable]

Originally Posted by Miscellaneous

I agree. One can see by his opening statement that he was completely befuddled by Bahnsen. While reading it his own opening statement, it sounded as though he was pondering Bahnsen's claims at times.

He also doesn't seem to understand his argument at all, as his continuous arguments with atoms and regularity of matter show.

Anyway, I listened to the argument again yesterday, this time reading it while I listened to it, and Stein is not nearly as underprepared as his tone sounds. Bahnsen just shows that his arguments really hold no weight. Bahnsen is a pretty quick thinker too. An excellent debater.

Stein probably has debate experience, but not formal debate like this. I'd be very surprised to learn that this wasn't among his very first moderated debates.

I think he lack of preparation is arrogant, and shows contempt for his audience and Dr. Bahnsen. Bahnsen had read the works of Stein, clearly, and was prepared to counter his arguments. It seemed equally clear that Sten had no familiarity with Bahnsen's arguments. Unless there was something very unusual about this debate, we can assume that each side had months to prepare for this debate - preparing for your oponent's likely arguments is simply due dilligence.

It just frustrates me - there are so few Bahnsen debates available and none have him paired up with a competent, researched opponent. Such a shame that the Martin/Bahnsen debate didn't happen.

[JerryLove]

This is a very substantive response. Bahnsen notes that Stein has ignored the possibility of different kinds of immaterial entities.

I could note that you said that in English, but such a comment would not be substantive. Bahnsen could have simply ommitted the middle sintence and said "no, they are not identical".

Bahnsen covers this objection.

It covers Stein's problem. Bahnsen would then claim it's a conclusion from his presupposiiotn (borrowing from his worldview). I would first call that an subjective claim; then invoke occam's razor to establish mine as simpler, then make my argument that logicl must neccessairily be the first presupposition (as I did later in the post you are quoting).

He never argues that logic is created by God.

you see we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use the laws of logic tonight. I maintain, in so doing, he’s borrowing my world-view. For you see, within the theistic world-view, laws of logic make sense. Within the theistic world-view, there can be abstract, universal, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. Within the theistic world-view you cannot contradict yourself because to so do you engage in the nature of lying, and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it;

He didn't say that circularity was avoided. He just said that there is evidence.

Circular evidence is useless for establishing anything but consistancy. Non-circular evidence would preclude the need to presuppose.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

you see we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use the laws of logic tonight. I maintain, in so doing, he's borrowing my world-view. For you see, within the theistic world-view, laws of logic make sense. Within the theistic world-view, there can be abstract, universal, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. Within the theistic world-view you cannot contradict yourself because to so do you engage in the nature of lying, and that's contrary to the character of God as we perceive it;

So what? Laws of logic are themselves a part of God's character. They're not something He created at one point in time. They've coexisted with Him throughout eternity as a part of His nature. Or at least that's how I understand it.

Circular evidence is useless for establishing anything but consistancy. Non-circular evidence would preclude the need to presuppose.

But, since all worldviews are circular, all evidence is only useful for establishing anything but consistency anyway. It is impossible to preclude the need to presuppose.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

So what? Laws of logic are themselves a part of God's character. They're not something He created at one point in time. They've coexisted with Him throughout eternity as a part of His nature. Or at least that's how I understand it.

1. Removes the "borrowing" assertation.

2. Is delt with by the first two arguments I posted though not the third

But, since all worldviews are circular, all evidence is only useful for establishing anything but consistency anyway. It is impossible to preclude the need to presuppose.

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. To be actual evidence of a claim, it must be non-circular. If you have non-circular evidence, there is no need to presuppose what you can prove.

I'm not saying the fact that I can prove that water is more dense than alcholol does not require me to have *some* presuppositions; I'm saying I don't have to presuppose specifically that water is denser than alcholol.

[zatchster]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. To be actual evidence of a claim, it must be non-circular. If you have non-circular evidence, there is no need to presuppose what you can prove.

Evidence can count positively toward a claim without being sufficient for proof. I don't see the problem here.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Previously, I

This is a very substantive response. Bahnsen notes that Stein has ignored the possibility of different kinds of immaterial entities.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I could note that you said that in English, but such a comment would not be substantive. Bahnsen could have simply ommitted the middle sintence and said "no, they are not identical".

It served three functions:
1. Answering the question directly.
2. Evidencing his earlier claim.
3. Showing the relevance of his earlier claim.

This seems like quibbling about debate tactics, not arguments.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

Bahnsen covers this objection.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It covers Stein's problem. Bahnsen would then claim it's a conclusion from his presupposiiotn (borrowing from his worldview). I would first call that an subjective claim; then invoke occam's razor to establish mine as simpler, then make my argument that logicl must neccessairily be the first presupposition (as I did later in the post you are quoting).

Except that, as I said, Bahnsen responds to your objection in the debate. In a weak sense, we may see him making the argument that non-material laws of logic must exist by transcendental necessity (just as you claim), and they are incompatible with a materialist worldview. In the strong sense, though, Bahnsen is directly presented with this objection in the Q&A session.

--------
Question 5

Why is it necessary for the abstract universal laws to be decided from the transcendental nature of God, or derived from the transcendental of God. Why not assume the transcendental nature of logic?

Dr. Bahnsen

Somebody who wrote the question is good in that you’ve studied some of these philosophical issues. The answer may not be meaningful to everybody in the audience, but very briefly, is that I do believe in the transcendental nature of the laws of logic. However the laws of logic do not justify themselves. Just because they are transcendental, that isn’t a precondition of intelligibility. I mean, why isn’t it just sound and fury signifying nothing? That’s a possibility too.

So the laws of logic do have a transcendental necessity about them, but it seems to me you need to have a world-view in which the laws of logic are meaningful. Especially when you consider such a possible antemenies as the laws of logic being universal, categorizing things in that way. And yet, we have novelties in our experience. Universal, categorizing things in that way. and yet we have novelties in our experience.

I mean, the world of empirical observation isn’t set rigidly by uniformity and by sameness as it were. There isn’t a continuity in experience in that way, as there is a necessary continuity in the laws of logic. How can the laws of logic then be utilized when it comes to matters of personal experience in the world? We have a contingent changing world, and unchanging invariant laws of logic. How can these two be brought together? You need a world-view in which that transcendental necessity of logic an be made sense of in terms of my human experience. And I believe that Christianity provides that, and I just can’t find any other one that competes with it that way.
--------

Originally Posted by Previously, I

He never argues that logic is created by God.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

you see we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use the laws of logic tonight. I maintain, in so doing, he’s borrowing my world-view. For you see, within the theistic world-view, laws of logic make sense. Within the theistic world-view, there can be abstract, universal, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. Within the theistic world-view you cannot contradict yourself because to so do you engage in the nature of lying, and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it;

I don't see where he claims that the laws of logic were created by God.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

He didn't say that circularity was avoided. He just said that there is evidence.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Circular evidence is useless for establishing anything but consistancy. Non-circular evidence would preclude the need to presuppose.

I don't think that your first statement is true. But, even if it is, I don't see how it matters.

[JerryLove]

This seems like quibbling about debate tactics, not arguments.

You seem to have lost sight of my original statement; I'll quote myself:

Bahnsen is pretty condecending; and tends toward rhetoric occasionally over substantitive reseponse.

I did not bring tihs up to devalidate his argument. I was simply making a comment on the debate. You telling me that my comment on the debate seems more about the debate than the arguent seems rather out-of-place... of course it does.

Except that, as I said, Bahnsen responds to your objection in the debate. In a weak sense, we may see him making the argument that non-material laws of logic must exist by transcendental necessity (just as you claim), and they are incompatible with a materialist worldview.

But I think that such a claim is a straw-man of the "materialist worldview". It certainly is a straw-man of Stein's position as presented in this argument.

We have a contingent changing world, and unchanging invariant laws of logic. How can these two be brought together? You need a world-view in which that transcendental necessity of logic an be made sense of in terms of my human experience.

This is simple assertion. There is no reason (outside his own belief) that such a thing is neccessairy. The fact that reality is consistant (or appears to be) hardly requires a creator for reality... under that logic, a consistant creator would require a creator for "justification".

[quote]I don't see where he claims that the laws of logic were created by God.[/qoute] He does it when he claims that logic is neccessairily "borrowed from his worldview". The fact that this is what he means is clarified in your cite from his QnA session.

I don't think that your first statement is true. But, even if it is, I don't see how it matters.

A circular proof is no proof at all.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Previously, I

This seems like quibbling about debate tactics, not arguments.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You seem to have lost sight of my original statement; I'll quote myself:

Bahnsen is pretty condecending; and tends toward rhetoric occasionally over substantitive reseponse.

I did not bring tihs up to devalidate his argument. I was simply making a comment on the debate. You telling me that my comment on the debate seems more about the debate than the arguent seems rather out-of-place... of course it does.

I was dealing with the "over substantitive reseponse" (emphasis added) claim first, and second just reiterating what you're already noting.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

Except that, as I said, Bahnsen responds to your objection in the debate. In a weak sense, we may see him making the argument that non-material laws of logic must exist by transcendental necessity (just as you claim), and they are incompatible with a materialist worldview.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But I think that such a claim is a straw-man of the "materialist worldview". It certainly is a straw-man of Stein's position as presented in this argument.

Why/how?

Originally Posted by Previously, Bahnsen

We have a contingent changing world, and unchanging invariant laws of logic. How can these two be brought together? You need a world-view in which that transcendental necessity of logic an be made sense of in terms of my human experience.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This is simple assertion. There is no reason (outside his own belief) that such a thing is neccessairy. The fact that reality is consistant (or appears to be) hardly requires a creator for reality... under that logic, a consistant creator would require a creator for "justification".

Bahnsen didn't make that claim. He said that "a contingent changing world, and unchanging invariant laws of logic... [must] be brought together." That is, simply appealing to their transcendental nature doesn't solve the problem, because such a bare fact is (philosophically) useless apart from a worldview.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

I don't see where he claims that the laws of logic were created by God.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

He does it when he claims that logic is neccessairily "borrowed from his worldview". The fact that this is what he means is clarified in your cite from his QnA session.

I don't see why the atheist borrowing intellectual capital (with respect to laws of logic) from the Christian worldview requires that God created these laws. It does mean that Bahnsen thinks that the Christian worldview accounts for these laws, while Stein's does not.

Originally Posted by Previously, I

I don't think that your first statement is true. But, even if it is, I don't see how it matters.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A circular proof is no proof at all.

I don't see why we should rule out virtuous circularity.

You're (presuppositionally?) claiming that we cannot have anything with the kind of transcendental necessity he claims. The Law of Non-Contradiction surely seems to fit the bill here. Thus, not only does this seem an implausible/unworkable principle, it also begs-the-question against Bahnsen.

[JerryLove]

I was dealing with the "over substantitive reseponse" (emphasis added) claim first, and second just reiterating what you're already noting.

If I implied there were no substantive responses, I apologize for the confusion.

Why/how?

By asserting falsely that everything Stein holds real is material.

Bahnsen didn't make that claim. He said that "a contingent changing world, and unchanging invariant laws of logic... [must] be brought together." That is, simply appealing to their transcendental nature doesn't solve the problem, because such a bare fact is (philosophically) useless apart from a worldview.

But that's immaterial to *which* worldview. You claim that God is consistant and logic is from him; I simply skip the middle man and claim logic is consistant... no transendental problem.

I don't see why the atheist borrowing intellectual capital (with respect to laws of logic) from the Christian worldview requires that God created these laws. It does mean that Bahnsen thinks that the Christian worldview accounts for these laws, while Stein's does not.

Do you have a non-God assertion as to why logic is Christian and the only way an atheist can have it is to borrow from Christianity? Because if you do not (didn't God create everything in your worldview?) my criticism stands.

I don't see why we should rule out virtuous circularity.

Because it is circular. *Any* consistant claim or claim sans-logic would be provable by that method.

You're (presuppositionally?) claiming that we cannot have anything with the kind of transcendental necessity he claims. The Law of Non-Contradiction surely seems to fit the bill here. Thus, not only does this seem an implausible/unworkable principle, it also begs-the-question against Bahnsen.

How do you leap from "not proof" to "cannot have"?