Conversation about First Principles

Below is an edited conversation I had. 

 What we need to do is show that only B (a self-authenticating, non-contradictory epistemology—with enough propositions) plus being used with Z (a rational system) are able to yield truth and thus, if any worldview does not rely on B & Z they do lead to skepticism or nonsense and so they must by logical exclusion presuppose K (Bible), which does have B & Z, in order to speak intelligently.  But the K they presuppose says all other worldviews are false. 

My friend Bob (I have changed his name for privacy sake) said this did not represent Gordon Clark’s position.

Bob, I said this syllogistic argument is a “typical” presuppositional argument, and not Clark’s.   I do not agree with Clark is his point that a presupposed axiom or First Principle cannot be proven, for such a statement is unproven, self-refuting, and not a valid inference, as I have already dealt with. (see my book: Undefeatable Worldview.)

  Bob asked if I used the Law-of-noncontradictions as my epistemology or the Bible.

The law-of-noncontradictions is not the Biblical Worldview’s axiom.  The reason I have been talking about this Law is to help you comprehend what I have been saying over and over, which is: That Scripture as a First Principle is “necessarily true”, “equivalent” to the necessity of the law of noncontradiction.   And so you must bear in mind that to argue for the necessity of the truth of Scripture is more complex and time-consuming because of the wide-ranging content (scripture) involved.  It seems I am justified for harping on this example, for as of yet, I do not believe you appear to understand this concept.

The Law-of-noncontradictions is a provable axiom in that is necessary for any thought or intelligence, but it is not the Biblical Worldviews First Principle. 

Bob said that, I believe this Law is necessarily true for reality, but not for logic.

          This is statement used the logical law of noncontradictions to say it is not necessary of logic.  This is a self-refuting statement, and thus, one withdraws from the debate with such a comment.

Personally I think you are confusing a logical axiom with what we mean strictly by a “first principle or epistemology.”  A logical axiom, like the Law of noncontradiction, is indeed a necessarily true, but it fails at being a first principle of a worldview for it does not contain enough propositions to be a “world”view.   We are not to look at a self-evident, necessary logical axiom and say, “oh…no what are we to do?”   They are necessary logical axioms for thought and intelligence, but nothing more; they fail at being first principles.  Understand?

I quote Jesus all the time in Mark 12:37 appealing to the Law-of-noncontradictions and how we are made in the image of the Logos (John 1:1), but although true, it is not as though one can speak one syllable without using this axiom; thus, it is necessary for intelligence.  Now, the Biblical Worldview justifies the why, how and where of this necessary logical axiom is needed for intelligence.  Although, anti-Christian thought knows this logical axiom is necessary for thought they cannot justify why, where or how; they presuppose these things concerning it, which of course comes from our worldview.  But that does not mean it stops being a necessary for all communion and intelligence just because they presuppose these things; it just means that they cannot justify it and so are presupposing it somewhere.  Because the Biblical Worldview can justify these things we do not presuppose them

Bob tells me that axioms cannot prove themselves; also, if a First Principle uses another source to support it that this First Principle stops being one.  He says this because he thinks I am teaching that the Bible as my First Principle needs the law of noncontradiction to authenticate it.

As said before, the Bible justifies the where, how, and why concerning the Law-of-noncontradictions and so does not rely on it in an epistemology sense. Rather than presuppose this law, the Bible justifies it.  But this does not mean one cannot speak one syllable of intelligence without it.  You need to see that the Scriptures are necessarily true, similar to how this Law is: understand?

Look, you are right about the idea that if an axiom, (in context of it being a worldview’s First Principle) uses something outside of it to prove it, whether high up the chain or lower, that it fails at being a “first principle.” 

What you need to understand is that there is a distinction between being circular fallacious and being, for example, “self”-authenticating by being “necessary” for any communication and intelligence.  Being circular fallacious would be to use something (observation) to prove itself, but the attempt failed at doing so; observations need other observations to prove the other observations; this is skepticism and/or you used other things to help out; in other words, observation is not necessary; it is circular fallacious.  The Scripture does not need other scriptures or bibles or revelations, or observations, or imperialism, or anything in past or future to support it; the Scripture authenticates itself.   The Law-of-noncontradiction proves it is necessary for all intelligence; with its own Law it self-authenticates itself as a proven logical axiom for all thought and intelligence.  It does not rely on outside help, nor is fallacious for the reason of being it “necessary” for “all” intelligence.  But although true, it fails at being a “First Principle” for it does not contain enough propositions, nor does it justify where, or why it is here.

The Scriptures being the Biblical Worldview’s “First Principle” “self-authenticates” itself as proven, similar to the logical axiom of the Law-of-noncontradiction, in that it is “necessary” for “all” language, intelligence, communication and all things (whether epistemology or metaphysics (etc)).  Unlike the our logical law which self-authenticates itself by a law, the scripture does so by its contents, and because its contents is the thing used to authenticated itself  it is thus, self-authenticating.  Because it is self-authenticating by its own contents and that its contents are “necessary” for all intelligence, communication, logic and all things it is not circular fallacious.   

Also, because the scripture has propositions that may be deduced for all of life, for all humans, in all times, then the Scripture is a “First Principle” that gives the Biblical Worldview foundation to be a “World”-view.  Its First Principle is self-authenticating, non-self-contradictory, and its deducible propositions cover all of life. 

For this reason, because the Biblical Worldview’s First Principle is like no other I am hesitant to call it an “axiom” out of others confusing it with negative associations with the board ideas connected with the definition of axiom. 

Bob say: “From my worldview's perspective the law of noncontradiction cannot be a legitimate axiom.”

But if I am not mistaken you agree with Clark that no axiom or first principle can be prove?  But for you to say that no first principle of any worldview can be proven is proclaiming this from your system-of-thinking which cannot prove your first principle or axiom is true!  This means you cannot prove that any axiom cannot be proven, because you are asserting this from an unproven axiom yourself, and so your system-of-thinking forfeits  knowledge!  At this point you have withdrawn yourself from the debate.

Bob says: “Your argument, rested on the provability of a logical axiom, and so You were telling me that apples are good to eat on the basis that oranges are good to eat.”

Are you using a straw-man on purpose?  I said the way that the epistemology of the Biblical Worldview is necessarily true and self-justified is similar to how it is for the law-of-noncontradictions, only as a way of relating the concept: like using an analogy if you would. 

You might say, “but your worldview depends on this Law for you to communicate this to me”; well, so does yours; unless you would like to communicate your worldview to me without this Law? 

This does not mean my First Principle “depends” on this Law to prove itself, for my epistemology does not only justify the where, how and why of the Law, but tells me I must use it to communicate my worldview, for I am made in the image of the Logos.  This is similar to my physical body, in that I am dependent to use my physical body in some manner or the other (whether speaking or typing) to communicate the epistemology of my worldview, yet, this does not mean my worldview is dependent on the provability of my body to be true; rather, it is my worldview that proves or justifies my body and why I must use it to communicate.

I harp on the Law-of-noncontradictions to help you see the fallacy of saying no first principle can be necessarily true, because it can: if you say that, then you divorce your system-of-thinking from the possibility of knowledge, and so falling into the abyss of skepticism such a system-of-thinking is false.  It is only the Biblical Worldview that can rescue the mind from the chasm of skepticism.   

But unlike the law-of-noncontradictions that is necessarily true, yet, cannot justify where it is from, the Biblical worldview can justify itself, both knowledge and metaphysics (where, how, why what): among all the others even this Law.  Furthermore, since all anti-Christian worldviews are not able to justify its propositions, even such things as basic as logic and intelligence, they must, by logical exclusion, borrow from the Biblical worldview. 

This means, unlike the law-of-noncontradiction—which although is necessarily true, but only as a logical law, and proven to be so when one tries to deny it they use—yet, the Biblical worldview when one borrows from it, its epistemology covers all things, even the propositions that say other worldviews are false and only it is truth.  And so when one borrows from our worldview it is more than merely showing their worldview as false, but it proves our worldview—including epistemology—as necessarily true and justified, for among other things, the epistemology they are borrowing from says all other worldviews are false and only it is true: . Understand?

How is saying, "seeking to prove God’s existence is impossible," self-refuting"?

To say God or the Biblical Worldview is unprovable in anyway, is always self-refuting and is enough to prove any worldview as false, for this always leads to skepticism which denies the law-of-noncontradiction.  You cannot rationally claim you know your God is not provable.

 How do you know something is unprovable?  Did you get enough knowledge and proof about God first to conclude God unprovable, but if this is the case then your subject is provable.  If you do not have enough knowledge and proof about your subject, then how can you rationally say you know for sure it is unprovable?  This system-of-thought collapses on itself; it is self-contradictory, and so it is not self-justified.

 The unprovability of God`s existence is part of the axiom, which, by definition, cannot be proven, else it would not be an axiom. A request for proof is a request for a prior, and the axiom is the prior. An axiom, by definition, has no prior.

These statements are irrational by definition and so cannot be proven either.   The statements here betrays a lack of understanding both of what is an axiom and a worldview’s First Principle. The First Principle is what a system-of-thought stands upon for acquiring knowledge, or making knowledge possible, and therefore, what the rest of their worldview will stand upon to make claims or proclaim truth with.

          Vincent Cheung says it clearly like this: “The justification for a first principle cannot come from a higher authority or a prior premise, for then it would not be the first principle.  A lower authority or premise within the system cannot justify the first principle, since it is on this very first principle that this lower authority or premise depends.  Therefore, a first principle of a system of thought must be self-authenticating – it must stand on its own authority.”[1]

          You are making an “invalid inference” that because a first principle cannot depend on a higher or lower authority that it infers it cannot be proven.  This is simply nonsense; it is not a valid conclusion. Prove it! Stop asserting over and over as if it magically makes it true.  In other words, leave the tapping of the heels to Dorothy; let us rather think in image of the Logos.

          I have already shown that logical axioms (noncontradiction) using their own laws, without lower or higher authorities “prove” themselves as necessarily true.  This is different than being circular fallacious. Take for example when empiricism uses observations for its first principle.  This first principle is circular fallacious because it needs more observations to support the other observations, which need other observations to support the other observations that never did have truth to begin with, which they need more observations to support them, ad infinitum. Because the “other” observations, it must use, themselves are not infallible it must use other observations with are not infallible, ad infinitum. It is “fallacious” because the purpose of this “first principle” is to grasp knowledge, but it never does.  The law-of-noncontradictions uses only its own law and does what t intends to do, show itself as necessarily true. 

The Law-of-noncontradiction proves it is necessary for all intelligence; with its own Law it self-authenticates itself as a proven logical axiom for all thought and intelligence.  It does not rely on outside help, nor is fallacious for the reason of being it “necessary” for “all” intelligence. 

When I breath air I presuppose it most of the time without thinking it through, but I also have moments where I control my breathing without presupposing it.  This is similar to an axiom or first principle, yes, it might be presupposed much of the time, but it does not mean it cannot be logically laid out and proven.

I say all this to demonstrate the insanity to say a First Principle cannot be proven.  If by its “own content (for the Biblical Worldview all of scripture)” and it proves itself as “necessarily true” for all life, intelligence, thought, and all things, then it is a provable First Principle.

Why does the axiom need to be self-proving? How does that help apologetics at all? Clark readily admitted that our axiomatic reasoning was circular.   Outside of revelation, man in all anti-christian systems-of-thought cannot be certain of anything, for everything must be verified by an imperfect authority which we can misread.

          I have already addressed the irrationality of this reasoning, but let us examine the hypocrisy of it.  Your statement answers itself in that a system-of-thought needs to be certain of knowledge or else fall into skepticism, and so be forced to borrow knowledge from a worldview that does.

First, getting to the point: it is helpful because a First Principle is about giving a system-of-thought the justification for the possibility of KNOWLEDGE!  If your worldview cannot justify knowledge then you are the one guilty of borrowing propositions from the worldview that can.  If your worldview cannot justify knowledge then your system-of-thinking, no matter how much you assert otherwise, is a worldview of skepticism!  But skepticism when followed to its logical end always, always denies the law-of-noncontradiction, and so such a system-of-thought is a false worldview!

          What has happened over the years, ever since Plato, is that rationalist have realized that deduction is indeed formal logic, but they have failed at finding a self-justifying, non-contradictory First Principle that contains enough propositions to cover all life.

Aristotle and his followers like St. Thomas Aquinas, and Van Till (Till is nothing more than a St. Thomas who mixes the broad idea of presuppositionalism in the bag of apologetics), have tried to compensate for this lack, by mixing the logical system of “induction” into their thinking, as if this would solve the problem, but since induction cannot prove its conclusion must be true it is always a fallacy to use this method.  And because induction works from the ground up it destroys any first principle since the first principle is being validated by a lower authority.

Rationalist and it seems presuppositionalist/rationalist (Gordon Clark) have done the opposite.  Instead of trying fix the problem they just pretend it’s not there.  It is similar to a bunch of children in a playground who are enjoying a childhood game of pretend—as long as everyone will play this pretend game it is fun and it works, but if one kid stops the masquerade it ends.  I will be that one kid here.  You may pretend all you like, but the problem is still there: if you cannot justify your First principle then your system-of-thinking, no matter how deductive or rational it is, does not have the possibility of knowledge!

There is a unsaid rule among rationalist that no one is allowed to mention the four-letter phrase of, a justified first principle, because no one seems to have one, and so all will just pretend this problem is not there.  And so while pretending this problem is not there, the rationalist and presuppositionalist will try to defeat each other knowing that no one can justify knowledge, and since knowledge does not need to be justified then even empiricalist have grounds to enter in the debate.  Since knowledge does not need to be justified then the debate is left to who can shout the loudest, assert the most, and be at the top of their witty game.

  Mind you, a rationalist’s argument is better that an empirical one, and presuppositionalist/rationalist is better than a  rationalist’s argument, but better is no good if knowledge is not justified, for as long as knowledge is not justified then better is no better than nothing, for without knowledge you have nothing, and nothing is nothing.  Now, we could just all pretend a justified First Principle does not matter and if so, then the presuppositionalist win, but the win is a fraud.  I do not like to pretend, for the gospel is the power of God, and God’s weakest wisdom is greater than man’s greatest.

Rather, the test for a first principle is that of coherency. If it is not coherent, it is already falsified.

          This is exactly what I have been addressing.  We will just pretend that a justified possibility of knowledge does not need to be found and just merely skip to the point that one’s First Principle and Metaphysics cannot be self-contradictory.  This will only work if everyone pretends that the possibly of knowledge cannot be found and so the opponents will just hack each other with the swords of exposing contradictions in each other’s system-of-thought.

          It is true that if a First Principle has contradictions it leads to skepticism and so by denying the law of noncontradiction it exposes that it is not able to justify knowledge.  But even if other worldviews are shown to be contradictory in their First Principle it does not mean it magically makes the Bible’s proven.  That would be an invalid inference.  All it would mean is that other worldview’s First Principles are false for being contradictory, and if this is the only thing supporting the provability of the Biblical Worldview’s, then all it would mean is that the Biblical system-of-thought is—although not contradictory—is still without justification for knowledge; but without the justification of knowledge then skepticism is the result and the result of skepticism is a false system-of-thought. 

          Avoiding being contradictory will keep a First Principle from being made false right of the bat, but it does not make it self-justified, such an inference is not valid.  A non-contradictory First Principle is just that and nothing more; it still must be shown to justify the possibility of knowledge.

(X = an epistemology and Y= an epistemology)

          X - is false

          Y – is false

Q – without truth nonsense results, but nonsense is impossible[2]

R - The (K) Bible does not rely on X or Y,

Therefore, the Bible is true.

          This is a mistake.  This is not a valid inference from our premises.  It could as easily mean that worldview (T, G, or H) might be true.

What we need to do is show that only B (a self-authenticating, non-contradictory epistemology—with enough propositions) plus being used with Z (a rational system) are able to yield truth and thus, if any worldview does not rely on B & Z they do lead to skepticism or nonsense and so they must by logical exclusion presuppose K (Bible), which does have B & Z, in order to speak intelligently.  But the K they presuppose says all other worldviews are false. 

           This is not a 1, 2, 3 step system, but more akin to a method that must be shown over time due to the large amount of content (Bible) involved.