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.
1abstract \ab-"strakt, "ab-'strakt\ adj 1 : considered apart from a particular instance 2 : expressing a quality apart from an object 3 : having only intrinsic form with little or no pictorial representation <~ painting> - abstractly adv - abstractness
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.
1concrete \kn-"krt, "kn-'krt\ adj 1 : naming a real thing or class of things : not abstract 2 : not theoretical : actual 3 : made of or relating to concrete
Now, Paul you say that .
I've been quite consistent in taking the laws of logic to be abstract objects.
Let me get the Webster definition of logic...hold up...
logic \"l-jik\ n 1 : a science that deals with the rules and tests of sound thinking and proof by reasoning 2 : sound reasoning 3 : the arrangement of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer - logical \-ji-kl\ adj - logically \-jik(-)l\ adv - logician \l-"ji-shn\ n
Logic by definition is akin to sound reasoning. OK so far?
Paul writes:
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).
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
I explicitly stated which presupposition I considered extravagant and unnecessary - "God".
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]
™ Version 4.2