The following is an edited correspondence. The subject is an "argument from existence" used by some atheists against theists. It is a silly argument and does not deserve much attention, and the following correspondence does not give the full context anyway, so unless you are dealing with someone who uses this argument, or unless you want to read it for the positive content, feel free to skip this post. Also, my answer is just an application of what I have already written in books like Ultimate Questions and Apologetics in Conversation.

The claim being made is that the theist in asserting the existence of God automatically (presuppositionally) demonstrates that he accepts the priority of existence.

Followers of Van Til often state as their presupposition the existence of God, or the "Ontological Trinity." In contrast, I do not say that my first principle is the existence of God, but it is the entire divine verbal revelation, which we often just call "the Bible." To be fair, in one instance, Bahnsen states that when he says his starting point is the existence of God, or the "Ontological Trinity," he means the same thing as saying that his starting point is the whole Bible. I am uncertain whether this claim is commonly agreed or even known by followers of Van Til, or whether it is consistently conscious in their thinking and consistently practiced by them. What I can say is that Bahnsen made this claim at least once. In any case, it is better to always say that our first principle is the Bible instead of the existence of God; that is, it is better to altogether avoid implying that our first principle is the existence of God alone. I mention this just to note that the difference in language between me (and Clarkians) and the followers of Van Til on this point is deliberate, and most likely based on a real difference in thinking.

In any case, my main concern is not who believes what, but the point is that beginning from the whole Bible instead of just "the existence of God" avoids a whole host of problems and difficulties. For example, even if you start with the existence of God, you still don't have all the other necessary things (propositions) in your biblical worldview, including things that are necessary to assert the existence of God in the first place, such as theories of epistemology, linguistics, and so forth. Unless you start with a complete and true worldview, and then proceed by deduction, the worldview will always fail.

For the same reason, even if the atheists can start with existence, so what? (I think their definition of existence begs the question, so that they cannot even start there, but we will ignore this for now.) What else do they have, including the things that they must have to assert this first proposition?

Let me paste something that I previously wrote to another person, and then get back to this main topic. Someone asked me how to respond if the non-Christian claims to use "logic" as his first principle:

I do agree that logic, or let's just say "the law of non-contradiction" to be more specific, is indeed self-verifying in a sense — that is, in a proximate and subsidiary sense, and not an ultimate sense.

Let me explain.

The law of non-contradiction is self-verifying or self-evident at least in the sense that it is undeniable; that is, you must affirm it to even deny it. Because of this, your opponent considers it appropriate to make the law of non-contradiction his starting point, or at least one of his axioms. However, the law of non-contradiction cannot be a standalone first principle in one’s worldview.

(a)
This is because the law itself carries no content or information at all, so that from it, one cannot derive any knowledge by deduction. So, he must find some way to supply information for the law to process.

Since the law of non-contradiction is already his first principle, and precisely because of this, knowledge by strict deduction is no longer an option, unless he has some other first axioms, in which case you will have to examine and attack them. For example, if his other ultimate axioms come from intuition, then you can attack intuition as a foundation of knowledge. Also, his ultimate axioms must also be self-authenticating, consistent with one another, and sufficient to provide an entire worldview. (See my Ultimate Questions)

But if he uses logic or the law of non-contradiction alone as his first principle, and if he does not have other axioms from intuition, etc., then he must supply the content for this first principle to process by induction, and this he means that he will also employ empiricism. He might also appeal to science or the "scientific method."

Here is where the differences between Van Til and me necessarily produce a difference in approach. At this point, I would challenge the opponent to rationally justify induction, empiricism, and science. Of course, he is going to say a lot of things, but since induction, empiricism, science cannot really be rationally justified, my opponent can no longer proceed. I don’t have to listen to even one more thing that my opponent has to say unless he gets pass this point, but he will never get pass this point.

Briefly, Van Til accepted induction, empiricism, and science, but he taught that they are unintelligible without the right presuppositions. I disagree because I would say that induction, empiricism, and science are irrational in themselves, and even the right presuppositions cannot rescue that which is inherently wrong. For example, even if I make Scripture my starting point, this does not make "1 + 1 = 99" true.

Again, here I am not trying to settle my differences with Van Til’s approach. I am only trying to tell you what I would do and what would happen. But if you differ with me on this because you prefer Van Til, then you will have to take induction, empiricism, and science away from your opponent through some other way (even if you want to keep these things for yourself), or to let him keep these things and use another strategy against him.

(b)
Another "angle" from which you may attack his appeal to the law of non-contradiction as his first principle is to point out that any proposition implies a whole host of philosophical questions — it implies an entire worldview. For example, the very fact that your opponent says, "Logic (or the law of non-contradiction) is axiomatic; it is self-verifying," demands that he has a theory on epistemology (logic, truth, knowledge, etc.), metaphysics (he must have a theory about the nature of reality to explain the fact that he is speaking, etc.), linguistics (he is using language), and a number of other things.

This means that he can never rest after claiming logic as his axiom, but if you demand it, he must present his view on every related subject. Moreover, his view on each of these areas must be rationally defensible (you should attack him on each), and coherent (e.g. his view on linguistics must not contradict his epistemology).

No non-Christian can satisfy these requirements. So, if you press him on it, he will never be able to get away with just saying "Logic is my axiom."

**
To summarize, to the claim that logic is axiomatic and self-verifying, you can respond with at least (1) "But logic contains no information. You still need a defensible epistemology to supply it with information, but then, is your epistemology defensible?"; and (2) "But just to say this demands that you already have an entire true and coherent worldview, including theories on epistemology, metaphysics, linguistics, mind, and so forth. So, explain and defend all these areas of your worldview."

If he fails to satisfy (1) and (2), then that logic is self-evident is irrelevant. It does not help him at all.

This is different for the Christian. The whole Bible is his first principle from which he deduces all the necessary information for his worldview. Logic is already an integral part of Scripture from the start, but it is not a standalone axiom.

Without further explanation, I hope that you grasp how the above would equally apply to using "existence" as one's starting point. In short, one needs much more than just the idea of "existence" in his worldview in order to even just assert "existence."

The only defensible noetic structure is deduction from a first principle, and the only way this is possible is if your first principle contains all the necessary information in your worldview. Neither "God exists" nor existence itself can satisfy this. If you do not start with the whole divine revelation, your starting point will not have all the information you need to allow you to start at all. Then, you will have to depend on induction, intuition, empiricism, etc., to supply your first principle with information. But then, how did you know your first principle in the first place? If it is by these methods, then how is it first? Also, if these methods themselves fail, then even if you can have your narrow first principle, you are still as good as having nothing at all.

To repeat, in terms of the structure of a defensible biblical philosophy (we are not talking about what is metaphysically prior within the biblical worldview), God is on the same level with everything else at the top (which is the whole of revelation). Whether it is God, "existence," language, epistemology, etc., they all start at the top with the whole divine revelation as the first principle. The atheistic argument from existence starts from "existence," and I am saying that they can't do that unless they have everything else that makes that possible (so they still need to put together an entire worldview). But I have everything including logic and "existence" (whatever that means) on the same level at the top, so that my first principle has the content to make such an assertion possible in the first place. All that I need is embedded from the start; otherwise, one cannot start at all.

Also, I wonder how their argument can refute pantheism.

When a presuppositionalist fails to be effective, it is often because the opponent's argument derails him from the presuppositional track. That is, the opponent says something that somehow pulls the believer to see things from the unbeliever's false perspective, and if he can't get out using the unbeliever's perspective, or if he can't jump back to this own principles, then he is in trouble. But this is not a failure of presuppositional apologetics, but a failure to consistently use it.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy

Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief

Posted in Philosophy, Apologetics | Permanent Link