Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

I don’t know how many times I need to answer your question before you realize that I’ve answered it 3 times now. I’ll answer it again.My World-view (hypothesis as you put it at the end of your post) says that God exists, and God is defined as infinite in being, invisible, without body or parts; immutable, immense, eternal, most absolute. My world-view on this definition has built into it the concepts of immutability, eternality, absoluteness and abstractness. The concept of a law (as I defined as having these traits) is no stranger to THIS (the Christian) world-view.Back to you: What is YOUR hypothesis? What do YOU believe concerning "laws" of thought? Are they conventions of men, are they absolute in nature, or do they stem from something else? How do they fit into YOUR world-view (what ever it is... are you ever going to confess to what you believe?)I eagerly await your reply.I’ll answer the rest of your questions in a separate thread since you keep ignoring this question in your replies.[This message has been edited by Transcendasaurus, 02-07-2004]

I'm not ignoring your questions. However I do insist that we do this in the proper order. First you provide your account of logic, which means answering the questions I asked or admit that you cannot. And yes that does mean explaining how logic works and if it could fail to hold even in principle.And if you insist that God is an abstract entity are you insisting that God lacks any causal powers ? Because that is one of the defining featurs of abstract objects as they are usually taken in philosophy, but I find it hard ot beleive that you mean that at all.For instance what do you mean by a "law". You certainly don't refer to law in the sense of human laws, so what do you mean ?If you cannot give an account of logic - and at present that is very much in doubt - or if your account is inadequate the TA has already fallen on the first hurdle.But still I'll give you a hint. What is the most basic fact about logical proofs ? Think about it.[added in edit]
I also have to remind you to explain why it is that logic - as "ultimate" a presupposition as you can get - needs to be accounted for yet God - a whole complex of presuppositions - does not.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-07-2004]

And I did lay out mine, several times, and you haven’t shown my view of the world to be internally inconsistent. Instead, you focused on attacking my use of the term entity, which really isn’t anything more than nitpicking because I defined it in context of what I meant by it.There is no internal inconsistency with what I said concerning my view of what a law is and my view of how they came about, their existence in relationship to God and man, their absoluteness, their universality and their necessity for knowledge. So unless you can demonstrate for me how it is internally inconsistent to hold both views that God and abstract entities can co-exist in my world-view such that one does not undermine the other, then you need to show in kind how YOU view logic, it’s relationship to man, and how it came about if not metaphysically, because that is in question. You want to use laws of reason to show how my world-view is internally inconsistent but you don’t want to give an account of the very reason you wish to hold me to. So, please it’s you’re turn. What other assumptions need to be accounted for in order for God to exist? Examples please. You should go back and read your posts because you made this claim too. Yes, presuppositions are assumed to be true. Point being? And either is a law of logic so what is wrong with the analogy?I gave you my definition of God. I‘ll give it again: God is infinite in being, invisible, without body or parts; immutable, immense, eternal, most absolute. I also believe laws to be infinite, invisible, eternal and absolute. You haven’t given me reason to believe otherwise, and you certainly haven’t made it clear what YOU think laws are. Infinite by definition is not particular so trying to apply the term object in the sense of special location, I reject. I’ve noticed that you have a habit of equivocating terms such as object, entity, everywhere and abstract when discussing universality. Universality by definition cannot be particular; I’ve defined God and laws as being universal, not particular. I’m not using the spatial sense, and universality is not a problem on MY world-view. What we have yet to see is how it’s not a problem on YOUR world-view. I view the world as having been created by God such that there are both material and immaterial aspects (such as laws) to it.How do YOU view laws of logic, and where do they come from? Again, knowing the mechanics of something in order to know that it’s possible is just nonsense. You certainly don’t know the specifics of every field of science, every manufactured part of the chemical make up of every planet in the solar system. Would you conclude then that none of those are possible because YOU don’t know how they work?But if you seriously want to apply this line of reasoning, then you need to swallow your own pill and give YOUR explanation of the mechanics of logic, otherwise I will come to the same conclusion that you want to apply to me; that you are a skeptic because you cannot know whether or not there is some hidden contradiction in logic because you don’t the mechanics of logic or do you? Which ones? Line them up in a bulleted list for me. See how willing I am to answer questions? Why are you hiding what YOU believe? Can you describe this other creator that can do such a thing, and do YOU believe this Creator to be to true? I don’t, so why should I posit this Creation as if it were true? You haven’t told me your view, so instead of positing this hypothetical other God, why don’t you posit YOUR view that can explain all this as an alternative view that doesn’t lead to incoherence or skepticism. One more time then... My hypothesis is that this world was created by God and our ability to know anything at all derives from the fact that God created us with faculties for understanding, with the intention that man can understand God and that because of the nature of God is such that He cannot lie, we have a foundation for trusting that said laws will not arbitrarily change. I don’t hold that position, and I certainly don’t place weight on hypothetical assertions that entail incoherence because you cannot show them to be true let alone coherent. Apart from begging the question, you haven’t shown how God is unnecessary in that you haven’t given an alternative world-view that can account for reason. You’re just asserting that mine can’t, but I’ve shown that it is internally consistent with itself as a world-view. Let’s see the competition that makes my world-view unnecessary and extravagant. The Bible doesn’t give the Christian any reason to assume that God guarantees man will not be deceived, and God does not do the deceiving.So up to this point, your entire tactic appears to be to attack senses of words, even when the sense should be apparent from the context, you have raised hypothetical situations that the Christian world-view doesn’t assert, you have asked for a justification of how my world-view can account for laws which I supplied, and during this entire discussion, you have not yet shown yourself or what you believe. This smacks of hypocrisy based on your opening statement Since the "TA" is not an argument at all - just a set of assertions, and since every form of the argument I have encountered avoids really discussing those assertions are we to take it that you simply assume that the assertions are true ?So again, if you have a cogent explanation for how your world-view can account for knowledge / reason, then why are you afraid of sharing? Don’t you want to convert me?If you are not willing to put forth a general theory on how knowledge is possible in your world-view, then trying to show that my world-view is irrational is utterly baseless.Also, you posted before I could put this one up, so I'll answer that post when I'm able to. But I gave you an example of what I mean by "law" when I used the illustration of "Joe has a ball" and "joe does NOT have a ball". I am not using the term "law" to denote civil law, but laws such as the law of negation.thanks.[This message has been edited by Transcendasaurus, 02-07-2004]

Please try to get less angry just because you are being asked to explain your views. There are certain basic issues here which have to be addressed and you are refusing to address them.You have not explained how logic is supposed to work in your worldview or why it is necessary to presuppose God to believe that logic does work - as the TA claims. You have not explained what you mean by a "law". Or even the relationship between God and logic (is it no more than that they are similar entities in your view ? That's all you have given)You say that you want to know what additional presuppositions God involves. The answer should be obvious - the nature and history you attribute to God requires a significant number of presuppositions - you must assume that God is intelligent, powerful, the direct creator of our universe - and probably other doctrines such as the Trinity.And no, I did not claim that the presupposition of God should be treated differently from the presupposition of logic. I say that the presupposition of God does need to be accounted for, every bit as much as that of logic does. In fact more so since the pragmatic necessity of presupposing logic does not apply to God. If you say otherwise it is up to you to show that necessity (and before you use that as an excuse to demand I explain my worldview I will just point out - again - that you cannot show that God is a necessary assumption even be successfully attacking my worldview). The laws of logic AREN'T abstract entities in your worldview ? Then why did you say that they were ? They are in mine. I have not equivocated at all. I've been quite consistent in taking the laws of logic to be abstract objects. You are the one who has suddenly denied that. Perhaps you are confusing abstraction with a lack of material substance - I assure you that if a spiritual substance exists than spiritual entities would be concrete, and not abstract objects and that is the standard Christian view of God. I've already explained why it is not a problem Abstract objects have no spatial location so they cannot be said to be absent from a location any more than they can be present. The fact is that you have not presented any reason as to why universality is a problem at all.As I said, first things first. We still need to get to grips ewith your idea of logic. And simply insisting that you have given an adequate account while refusing to answer questions intended to fill in the gaping holes in your explanation is not helpful in the slightest. I did not say any such thing - although there are hints of serious problems in your view of logic I am still awating your explanations to see if they are real or not.
However it is the TA you are disagreeing with here - it is the TA which demands an account. It is not enough - according to the TA - to just suppose that it works. And the TA claims that you have an account. So why are you getting so angry when I ask you to deliver it ? Of course I am not insisting that just because you cannot explain logic that you need to be a skeptic. But neither can you claim that you have an account of logic or that anyone who does not have one should adopt your worldview. THAT is what I am saying
Strictly speaking if you cannot give an adequate account then I do not need to. The TA has been shown to be false.But I will - WHEN we have dealt with your worldview. So please no evasions, and if you do not have an adequate account of logic just admit that fact. I have asked you to deal with a hypothetical situation, so that I can understand your views. And you are refusing to answer. Please skip all this angry rhetoric and give a straight answer to a straight question instead of evading the issue.
Indeed you seme to have the completely mistaken impression that the question refers to some specific "other creator" - I assure you that if I had meant it to do so I would have given you the necessary details. I am not suggesting that such a position is either true or even coherent. I just want you to answer the question because it will shed light on your view of logic. A simple "yes" or "no" will do. If you can assert your opinion that God *is* a necessary presupposition - then I can assert mine to the contrary. And since you have yet to show that God *is* a necessary presupposition my view is entirely reasonable. Indeed you have not even shown that your worldview is internally consistent - in fact you keep refusing to answer questions intended to clarify aspects of your worldview that may indicate such inconsistencies.Indeed you insist that God must give us the means to acheive reliable knowledge yet you also admit that those means are fallible and could lead us into error. Optical illusions are systematic errors in our vision. Your presupposition could easily be taken as denying the existence of such things. After all is God not capable of providing us a system of vision without such flaws ? Interesting. My strategy has been to deny you the tactic of attacking my worldview without first showing that the claims you make for your worldview are true. I even stated why I was doing it - BECAUSE it is easier to attack than defend and that therefore since you assert that you CAN account for logic that you should do so. And past experience with other presuppositionalists have convinced me that this strategy is necessary. There is no hypocrisy in expecting you to live up to your own claims !Indeed if you do not have an adequate account then that shows that I am correct - the TA only asserts that such an account exists while not providing one as it must do. So showing that you do not have an adequate account - or even better that your worldview has the problems that the TA claims that all other worldviews do is entirely relevant.
As I said your worldview is far more important to the TA than mine - another reason for dealing with yours first.And I must point out that I still do not know what you idea of a "law" is as it deals with the laws of logic. Simply using one of the laws of logic as an example adds nothing. Is it a rule actively enforced by God ? A fundamental part of reality (which therefore requires no enforcement) ? something else ?

I’m not angry. I’m amazed at the extent to which you are unwilling to participate in this, um, monologue of mine. It’s been several days of discussion and you haven’t come out from hiding yet. Don’t you know what you believe? Logic (and laws of thought) works in the Christian world-view as a universal, invariant set of conceptual standards of reason employed by one or more persons in the way of an intellectual appeal to what statement, concept or situation is coherent or not. The individual would consider those situations, in which an appeal to this conceptual standard results in incoherence, irrational, false, and impossible.Now, what part of my explanation do you think is not an explanation? The material world we live in is constantly changing, and yet there is this immaterial, unchanging, invariant aspect to it. You need a world-view to bring these two conflicting aspects of human experience together, and the Christian world-view does this.By law, I mean invariant, universal, and abstract (conceptual) standard. I think this is the common philosophical understanding of the term, so you can look it up if you like.The relationship between God and logic is the Christian world-view’s position that God, a rational being, sovereignly imposed uniformity that reflects the same consistency and logical coherence that is in His thinking, on His creation such that man could be a rational being, capable of understanding and communicating with God.Apart from the Christian world-view, laws of logic can only be seen as "sound and fury signifying nothing", and as such, you have no justification for thinking they will continue having their success generating feature.I’ll answer the rest of your questions after you come out of the closet.

I have clearly stated my reasons for not going into detail on my position and you don't seem inclined ot argue against them, so I don't know why you are insisting that I should change strategy.Especially as it is necessary to even find out what your own justification is. Well this is progress since you are now describing the laws of logic as a purely mental standard, without any reference to external physical reality. However it doesn't explain why this particular standard woks - are you suggesting that a different, contradictory standard could work equally well ? Because if not then you need to go beyond what you have stated here. You state that there are conflicts but I simply don't see it. You are talking as if the nature of the physical universe should automatically be transferred to abstractions like the laws of logic. But why ? abstracts are by definition very different from concretes and it is not clear how they could "change". And since they lack substance then why expect them to be composed of substance (matter) ? The term "law" is used in a variety of ways in philosophy. But again this is just reiterating your past claims rather than dealing with the actual question Well since you clearly AREN'T going to give even a simple yes or no answer to my question, I will have to choose a "yes" based on your claim above that God "imposes" logic.Indeed if logic were truly necessary then your appeal to God would be irrelevant - it would be impossible to create a universe where logic would not apply and therefore God's intentions have no bearing on the matter. He could not do otherwise even if He wished.But this raises a very real problem of skepticism. Your worldview can't provide a genuine guarantee that logic does not apply since you assume that it is not necessary - all you can do is assume that it does apply but any attempt to explain why it does so is hit by the problem that such an explanation must assume that logic applies to *it*. But there can be no basis for making such an assumption because such an explanation must be prior to the application of logic.On the other hand a worldview that assumes that logic is necessarily true has less of a problem. Of course you can insist that making such a presupposition does not make it so, but then we come back to the question of why - according to you - some presuppositions can be accepted as ultimate and require no account and others cannot. Another of the questions you refuse to answer, despite being central to the TA and one that reaonably precedes any need for me to give any account of my worldview. Well then I don't have to explain how my worldview accounts for logic at all do I ! You claim that you can refute it without even hearing what it is. Of course it is your claim that is just "sound and fury signifying nothing". You aren't in any position to make such a claim, and you should know it. I've stated my reasons for delaying and they still seem good. While you may desire something to distract the discussion from your worldview I think it is far better to focus on a single topic until we reach the point where we can say that your worldview really does account for logic - instead of solving non-problems and creating very real problems as seems to be the case.Indeed we have yet to establish that I need to give any account at all.Of course if you want to admit that you cannot acocunt for logic then we can move on to the next stage.

Wow! Paul K and Transcendasaurus have got me thinking! I am assuming that Tran has the basic worldview which declares that God exists, that He is the very source of all definition of every imagined and defineable verbal or philosophical concept ever expressed. By extension of this definition, any contrarian entity...such as personified evil and every concept defineable as "false" will for the purposes of this definition be labled as "the knowledge of evil"...or, evil personified.
Biblically, this premise is supported by the fact that according to the basic story as defined by a majority of believers, the "knowledge of evil" was created by God. We have already discussed the debate between "knowledge of evil"...or, evil chosen vs evil as a seperate dualistic entity.
Now...Paul, I can not judge or define your worldview, but for the sake of our discussion, lets agree upon the terminology being used. I have given my basic definition of God. In one respect, God is known to be an abstract concept by some. Based on this definition of the word, abstract, God is NOT abstract in my worldview. True that we have no concrete representation of God except through the character and personality of Jesus Christ who is not an abstract concept but a concrete one. Now, Paul you say that . Let me get the Webster definition of logic...hold up... Logic by definition is akin to sound reasoning. OK so far? OK. Based on my worldview, it is impossible to "account" for God by way of verifiable proof. The reasons are because, 1) He is beyond definition in totality except through Jesus Christ, and 2) You have the right to deny His necessity. I can never prove Him to you if you deny the necessity. So in this sense, Paul, you are correct. In fact, you yourself stated that Transcendasaurus, it is impossible to "prove God" to someone who sees no necessity. That is Pauls free will. That is his right.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-09-2004]

I'll work on a reply as soon as I can. Long weekend and I usually only have an opportunity to reply late weekday evenings.tran.

I think you have something there, Phatboy. It seems everyone is pushing for a most 'valid' viewpoint, 'evangelizing' if you will. A friend of mine shared with me the best way for a Christian to evangelize was not logic in a vacuum, but through the person of Jesus Christ.If all humans were suddenly wiped out, save yourself, your life might not have much meaning, eh? In fact, it would be relegated to either the chore of dying, or the chore of living - personal 2way interaction would be gone.My faith/worldview/belief system rests on the person of Jesus Christ. I got excited by the fact that He seemed to love me, and seemed able to communicate that love to me in myriad, diverse ways. I gave my life to Him because of that love, which I tested according to His invitation, and found to be infallible and true. The whallop of a bonus I got was a consistent worldview, a way to live and deal with things like the 'heat of the moment', and a way to love others (especially my wife - such that I am not using her for my own ends).I cannot prove God, like you said Phatboy. But I do not deny his necessity. I need Him. Not to survive, to have 'life.' But to have Life - and Life to the full. What I mean by Life is a love based on an eternal love. Every time I test his love, by trusting Him when it might let me crash and burn, he amazes me with a divine display of more love. My faith is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He claims you can pray, seek Him, and He will be found. That I have discovered to be true. Christianity based on logic falls apart, as would my desire to go on living without any other humans (assuming I didn't have a relationship with Jesus). Christianity based on a relationship where I have the right to deny Him yields Life. Because when I don't deny Him, I find love. When I do deny Him, I find frustration with life, and the ache of missing love.Thanks Trans and Paul and Phatboy for a fascinating read.

By the usual Christian doctrine (although the earlier writers of the Bible clearly thought differently) God has no physical form and therefore no image in the strict visual sense.However God is supposed to be a thinking being capable of acting on the world, and is though of as being everywhere rather than having no spatial location at all and so certainly qualifies as a concrete entity rather than an abstract object.Here is what the _Oxford Companion to Philosphy_ says about abstract entities "abstract entities...have no causes or effects, have no spatio-temporal location....". There is even disagreement over whether abstract entities can be said to exist at all (the "nominalist" position). I tend to the view that there is a sense in which abstract objects can be said to exist but that it is obviously not identical to the sense in which physical objects exist. (But that may be my mathematical background where such terminology is used all he time).Now the laws of logic are abstract entities in the sense that philosophers use and I expect I will get into my own viws in due course. I have provided some hints but you'll have to think a bit - or a lot if you lack the background knowledge.I agree that it is not possible to account for God - but I want to know why the lack of an account is held to be a serious problem in the case of logic and not in the case of God.I also point out that my classification of God as an "unnecessary and extravagant assumption" was in the context of the discussion. That is it is in the context of *assuming* God's existence to account for logic. I beleive that many Christians could agree to that statement, and believe in God for entirely different reasons. I won't say that I would strictly limit the statement to just that context but neither would I entirely generalise it.

Well, Paul...for a Christian by definition, God is a Spirit which can only be defineable as concrete within the person of Jesus Christ. Once a Christian "knows" Jesus, they may tell you that their concept of God is concrete. I would argue that this is why the Trinity needed to be a monotheistic necessity. Many have other opinions on this topic.

I'm thinking of the philosophical idea of "concrete" - while a concept might be abstract God is supposedly a "person" - a thinking, acting being. Quite definitely not an abstract entity - and therefore a concrete entity.

Quick apologies for taking so long to reply. Here is my reply to PaulK. No, I’m not describing laws of logic as a purely mental standard. As I stated in the previous post, laws of thought stem from God (as defined earlier), who sovereignly imposed uniformity that reflects the same consistency and logical coherence that is in His thinking. As far as we are concerned, laws of thought exist outside of our material brains (gray matter). The reason this standard works is just because it does derive ultimately from God who is above man, that all men can apply the same laws which come from Him. I’m not saying that at all. The problem lies in the fact that you have two aspects to the world we live in; the material and the immaterial. Because the immaterial aspects of the world are not seen or experienced, there is no way for a purely material person to perceive their existence. We believe laws of thought to exist purely by necessity . They need to exist as abstract, universal and unchanging in order to have coherence at all. Exactly my point. We have a changing material world around us, yet apart from all of this change that we experience, there are unchanging aspects to it that are necessarily so if we expect to be able to trust laws of thought as yielding predictable truths about our experience. This is why I find materialism as a world-view to be inadequate, because it doesn’t have a place for them in its world-view. They are assumed, but in assuming them, they contradict their own theory that the world is material only. God imposes logic on man, but only in that logic stems from God’s thinking, it is an inseparable aspect of who God is, and when he created man, he created man such that man could think in a manner capable of understanding God (i.e., after God’s mind).I don’t think my appeal to God would be irrelevant at all, since the biblical claim is that God is eternal and infinite, and laws stem from Him ultimately, so abandoning God would be the same as abandoning the possibility of intellect. God is not contingent on laws of thought laws of thought have their meaning and origin in the mind of God. I do assume logic is necessary, in the same manner that I assume God is necessary. See above. I do assume that logic is necessarily true. I say necessarily in the sense that it is incoherent to say that logic does not exist because the assertion itself relies on logic to make any sense. The power of claims, and concept of knowledge rely on logic.Why can some presuppositions be accepted as ultimate and require no account? When did I say they don’t require an account? The way in which you prove a presupposition would be to demonstrate necessity of that presupposition to maintain coherence. All presuppositions that are not ultimate are built on top of, ultimate presuppositions, so they must all in a sense be accounted for. Are you not understanding what I said, or is this an admission of materialistic failure? I said _apartfrom_ the Christian world-view. Laws make sense in the Christian world-view, as I’ve said, they fit in quite nicely. If you are a materialist however, bringing an abstract entity into contact with the physical brain such that the physical brain can implement them is the great mystery. If a materialist takes the stance that abstract entities such as laws do exist outside of the brain, then one is left asking how and why? The why is the question are they then sound and fury signifying nothing?

Please describe how we can test this hypothesis and potentially falsify it. If your hypothesis cannot be so tested, it is unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless. Then how are you so certain that they exist at all? Not so as I have demonstrated in the past in my discussions with grace2u. Please see the thread Gdel, Tarski, and Logic for grace2u. Yet by your own assertion we cannot perceive these aspects, so how do you know they exist? False. Materialists are quite satisified regarding them as arbitrary mental constructs. Logical systems are built upon postulated axioms. The axioms are postulated precisely because they cannot be proven. Postulation is basically the act of inventing a mental rule by which a system of thought is required to abide. This is perfectly consistent with the materialist position that the so-called "laws of thought" are simply creations of human minds. Again, I must insist that you supply a means for testing this hypothesis of yours. I believe it to be untestable, and therefore unfalsifiable, and therefore again meaningless. You are free to assume whatever you choose, however without a means of supporting your assertions that your assumptions are based in objective reality, your assumptions will have very little relevance in a debate such as this. Then you can begin by accounting for yours. But in a materialist universe this is not what is supposed to happen. Instead, the "abstract entities" are created in the minds of material beings. Temperature, for example, is an abstraction from the behavior of atoms and molecules. Movement and time are equally abstractions from reality's behavior. All of these are easily accounted for in a material universe. Please show me a materialist that has insisted that these "abstract entities" exist apart from the mind.That aside, that the laws of thought and logic are bascially arbitrary does not render them meaningless. Keep in mind that meaning is subjective.

No hurry, I can wait a few days for a reply. Well I've already raised the point that saying that the lws of logic are imposed denies their necessity and creates the very sort of problems you claim other world views suffer from.But I have to ask how "conceptual standards of reason" "employed...in the way of an intellectual appeal" could be considered anything other than a mental standard. Remember that abstract entities lack sybstance so a straightforward material/immaterial dichotomy is inadequate unless you deny the existence of non-material substances (which would be rather a problem for a Christian). But being both abstract and necessary would seem to be a less problematic explanation than insisting that the laws of logic are somehow imposed (for what possible reason ? after all it is not as if you can coherently claim ANY consequences follow from a failure ot impose them). Presumably you mean a strict materialism that includes nominalism. But to what depth have you investigated nominalism ? How can you condemn a worldview as inadequate without knowing what it actually claims ? For all you know they could have quite good alternatives to accepting that abstract entities exist. Or maybe they just define "existence" more strictly than I would.But you still present no good reason why abstract objects should change. I very much doubt that this is genuinely a Biblical claim.
But I didn't say that your invocation of God was irrelevant - it is only irrelevant IF you assume that the laws of logic are necessarily true and that therefore it is beyond God's power to create a universe where logic did not apply. But you assume that logic is NOT necessary - it is quite clear. If you assumed it was necessary then it would make no sense to say that God imposed it or that it stemmed from God or that God chose to create a universe where logic applies. So if you also assume that logic is necessarily true then you are assuming a contradiction and your worldview is incoherent. QED. But that is not necessity - that is a case for pragmatically assuming that logic is true and perhaps for assuming that it is necessarily true. Indeed the TA relies on assuming that the laws of logic are not necessarily true since if that were the case there would be no need to invoke God to account for them. [/qs] Why can some presuppositions be accepted as ultimate and require no account? When did I say they don’t require an account? The way in which you prove a presupposition would be to demonstrate necessity of that
presupposition to maintain coherence. All presuppositions that are not ultimate are built on top of, ultimate presuppositions, so they must all in a sense be accounted for. [/qs]Great ! In that case before we finish dealing with your worldview you need to account for God. I understod what you were saying perfectly. All you were doing was repeating the assertions we are meant to be discussing in an rather insulting and arrogant fashion. It is the sort of behaviour which explans why I have a low opinion of Presuppositionalists.If you prefer to insist that your beliefs are infallibly correct despite lacking any real basis for them then there is no point in this discussion. The mere fact that you do so is a victory for me.We will get to my worldview when we have finished dealing with yours and then you will have your explanations. But I do not even need to provide them - I can echo your view that there is no need to explain how logic works and that it is enough to know that it does - which is better explained by the presupposition that logic is necessarily true, rather than the presupposition that it is imposed by God.