God Alone Supplies the Necessary Truth Conditions

Ontological Pre-essentials and Truth

by Mike Robinson, Granbury, Texas

Evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically (Atheist Michael Ruse).
Conflicts between science and religion result from misinterpretations of the Bible (Maimonides).

"We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit" (John Calvin).

Jesus declared, “I am the truth” (John 14:6) and in Scripture, the Lord Jesus said to the Father, “Your word is truth” (John 14:17). Lawson comments: “What is truth? It is defined as that which conforms with fact or reality. It is genuineness, veracity, or actuality. In a word, truth is reality. It is how things really are. Theologically, truth is that which is consistent with the mind, character, glory, and being of God. Truth is the self-disclosure of God Himself… All truth must be defined in terms of God, whose very nature is truth” (Steven J. Lawson: Tabletalk Magazine). God’s existence is essential for the discovery of truth because He is the springhead for truth.

Gerald Schroeder cogitates, “God chose from the infinite realm of the Divine, ten dimensions or aspects and relegated them to be held within the universe. These dimensions are hinted at in the ten repetitions of the statements, ‘and God said...’ used in the opening chapter of Genesis. With an amazing congruity, particle physicists now talk of the String Theory, a unified description of our universe in ten dimensions.” So many underlining ideas within theoretical science baffle men and often draw humanity toward God and His majesty. Nevertheless, it’s not so much that science can prove theism but that it requires theism. Science utilizes changeless necessities that only theism can account for. The latest scientific theory (whether it endures the test of time or not) rests on the absolute changeless truths that only theism can deliver.

There is true truth. Every scientist or philosopher who is searching for truth must begin the epistemic process with God and His revelation in Christ if he desires to maintain a legitimate epistemic status. Science is involved with more than rocks, slime, and stars. The concepts of truth, justice, ethics, and reason lay beyond the world of concrete nature, yet, they are essential elements of scientific endeavors. Moreover, these abstractions cannot be explained in terms of the material world alone. Even the material dynamic within our world cannot be explained solely by physical terms.

Since the material reality is not completely intelligible in itself it has to be grounded in something which has an intelligibility that is at once complete and real. This is … identified with the unrestricted act of understanding that possesses the property of God and accounts for everything else (Bernard Lonergan: Insight).

The physical world is selectively composed of organized energy. The strict materialist cannot explain what energy is and why (teleologically)  it “self-organized.” The believer can declare God’s thoughts after Him, and He has revealed that all power comes from Him. He organized it for His glory, beauty, and the delight of mankind. The pure materialist is going to be at a loss for words when you ask him for foundational answers. His rational paradigm is self-defeating, backward, and destructive to science.

Whenever materialists discover something that will benefit the world, they have breached their worldview, and in that discovery they have borrowed from the CWV (the foundation for truth). Jesus is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14); the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of Truth” (John 15:26) and the Bible is “the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Ultimate and full-fledged materialism denies the source of truth and thus contradicts true science and inhibits the motivation for progress.

If a worldview, such as naturalism, gives us no reason to think that our belief-forming mechanisms are generally trustworthy, then we have no reason to believe that worldview is true (Spiegel: The Making of an Atheist).

The argumentative skeptic Voltaire once said to a friend, “It took twelve ignorant fishermen to establish Christianity; I will show the world how one Frenchman can destroy it.” Setting to his task, he openly mocked Isaac Newton. One day Newton made a prediction based on Daniel 12:4 and Nahum 2:4: “Man will someday be able to travel at the tremendous speed of 40 miles an hour.” Voltaire responded: “See what a fool Christianity makes of an otherwise brilliant man, such as Sir Isaac Newton! Doesn’t he know that if a man traveled 40 miles an hour, he would suffocate and his heart would stop?” A few years after Voltaire died, his house was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and became a Bible storeroom, and his printing press was used to print Bibles. In the modern era, the Bibles were delivered by trucks going faster than 40 miles an hour (without mass heart stoppages). CT does not make men fools; it confers the only changeless ground for knowledge, including scientific knowledge.

In contrast to man engineered science, God has the ontic attributes (immutability, aseity, etc.) to sufficiently account for the a priori conditions required for immutable truth. Additionally,  God is necessary in our actual world, and thus is necessary in all possible worlds.

New apologetic E-book The Assured Proof for God for Kindle and E-readers Here

see my apologetic book God Does Exist! Here

Theistic geniuses like Saul Kripke, RD Wilson, and Isaac Newton May Encourage Theists

Theistic geniuses like Saul Kripke (invented K Modal Logic), RD Wilson (learned 45 languages), and Isaac Newton  may edify theists

There are innumerable examples of theistic geniuses.[1] Below are three fascinating examples; may God provide many more.

Robert Dick Wilson Lived 1856-1930, was a linguist and Presbyterian scholar who devoted his life to uphold the truth and reliability of Scripture. In his academic career he determined that the Old and New Testament manuscripts were trustworthy and due to their peculiar nature--Messianic prophecies; vocabulary that would only appear intelligible many centuries after the origination, order, uniqueness, and precision--were of divine origin. [2]  Wilson learned 45 languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, numerous ancient Near-eastern, and Greek, as well as all the languages into which the Bible had been translated up to the seventh century AD.

Josh McDowell writes: "The accuracy of transcribing is confirmed by Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of my heroes.  At twenty-five years old, Robert Dick Wilson believed that he would probably live to be seventy years old.  So he made this pact to God that the first fifteen years, he would study all the necessary languages to be an expert of the Old Testament.  The next fifteen years, he would spend night and day studying the Old Testament.  Then the next fifteen years, he would write."

McDowell continues: "He mastered forty-five languages, almost every single language significant to the Old Testament.  Wilson discovered twenty-nine names of ancient kings mentioned in the Old Testament have also been discovered on monuments going back to their times.  Through four thousand years of transcribing their names, all twenty-nine of the kings were spelled right, listed in the exact chronological order and assigned to the exact country that the monuments show."

Saul Kripke

Kripke taught himself Hebrew by 6, read the works of Shakespeare by 9, mastered the works of Descartes & complex math problems by 12. Wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic [K Modal is named for him] by 17.

Wiki entry highlights: Saul Kripke is the oldest of three children born to Dorothy K. Kripke and Rabbi Myer Kripke. His father was the leader of Beth El Synagogue, the only Conservative congregation in Omaha, Nebraska, while his mother wrote educational Jewish books for children. Saul and his two sisters, Madeline and Netta, attended Omaha Central High School. Kripke was labelled a prodigy, having taught himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six, read the complete works of Shakespeare by nine, and mastered the works of Descartes and complex mathematical problems before graduating elementary school. He wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at the age of 17, and had it published a year later. After graduating from high school in 1958, Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor's degree in mathematics. During his sophomore year at Harvard, Kripke taught a graduate-level logic course at nearby MIT. Upon graduation (1962) he received a Fulbright Fellowship, and in 1963 was appointed to the Society of Fellows.

After teaching briefly at Harvard, he moved to Rockefeller University in New York City in 1967, and then received a full-time position at Princeton University in 1977. Two of Kripke's earlier works,  A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic and Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic, the former written while he was still a teenager, were on the subject of modal logic. The most familiar logics in the modal family are constructed from a weak logic called K, named after Kripke for his contributions to modal logic. Kripke introduced the now-standard Kripke semantics (also known as relational semantics or frame semantics) for modal logics. Kripke semantics is a formal semantics for non-classical logic systems. It was first made for modal logics, and later adapted to intuitionistic logic and other non-classical systems. The discovery of Kripke semantics was a breakthrough in the making of non-classical logics, because the model theory of such logics was absent prior to Kripke.

A Kripke frame or modal frame is a pair, where W is a non-empty set, and R is a binary relation on W. Elements of W are called nodes or worlds, and R is known as the accessibility relation. Depending on the properties of the accessibility relation (transitivity, reflexivity, etc.), the corresponding frame is described, by extension, as being transitive, reflexive, etc.

---------------

Funny note: A character in the TV show Big Bang Theory is named Kripke in his honor.

Isaac Newton

by John Tiner

Isaac Newton is today remembered as the greatest scientific genius who ever lived. His discoveries about light, physics, and mathematics have changed the world.

Isaac was born on a cold Christmas Day in 1642 outside the English town of Woolsthorpe. His father died before his birth. His Mother was poor. She was afraid Isaac would not live through the harsh winter.

Isaac Newton survived the first few days. He grew into a healthy farm boy. The young Isaac Newton enjoyed making models of clocks, wagons, and windmills. His models actually worked. Doors opened, wheels turned, and sails spun. He made a miniature flour mill with a grindstone turned by the wind.

Isaac also made tiny lanterns of crinkled paper with a candle inside. On dark winter mornings, the lanterns lighted his way to school. At school, Isaac made his best grades in Bible class. At the time, England suffered through a bloody Civil War. The Bible gave Isaac the faith to look to the future. The Bible was his favorite book. He read it through time and again.

One morning in 1658, Isaac Newton awoke to a threatening sky. Dark, dangerous-looking clouds raced overhead. A few hours later a powerful storm swept across England. Isaac rushed outside to lead the animals into the barn and to bolt the doors. Lightning flashed and thunder rumbled. The wind howled and uprooted trees. Limbs flew through the air. The vicious storm frightened most people, but not Isaac. Its force fascinated him.

Isaac Newton fled to his mother's farm in the country. The forced holiday gave him time to think deeply about the unsolved problems of science. In good weather, he worked at a study table in the apple orchard.

Isaac explored a dozen different subjects, including light, astronomy, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. When he tired of one subject, he switched to some other unsolved mystery of science.

For instance, scientists were puzzled by the fact that bodies on earth and bodies in the heavens appeared to follow different laws. Imagine a ball rolling across a perfectly smooth and level table. It rolls forward at a constant speed in a straight line. It only slows because of air resistance and the friction between it and the table. The moon, like a ball on a flat and perfectly smooth table, keeps moving year after year without slowing. However, the moon does not travel in a straight line. Instead, it circles the earth.

Why did the moon not travel in a straight line?

Isaac Newton remembered the force of the wind. Although invisible, it turned his windmill. The force of the storm had uprooted trees. He concluded that a force acts upon the moon to bend its straight-line path into a closed orbit. What was the unknown force?

One day an apple fell from the tree overhead and banged onto Isaac's worktable in the orchard. He picked up the apple. As he held it, he noticed the moon, which had risen in the east.

Could it be, Isaac asked, that the moon and the apple are both subject to the same force of gravity? Isaac proved that gravity acts on both the apple and the moon He showed that earth's gravity extends far out into space and controls the moon in its orbit.

Isaac Newton returned to Cambridge where he taught mathematics. Working off and on for the next 20 years, he proved that all objects attract each other according to a simple equation. The sun, moon, planets, even apples and grains of sand are all subject to the law of gravity.

The law of gravity became Isaac Newton's best-known and most important discovery. Isaac warned against using it to view the universe as only some machine like a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Despite the fame as scientist, the Bible and not nature had been Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to Scripture than to science. He said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

----------

see my apologetic E-book God and Logic HERE

or a new apologetic Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Knowledge-Reason-God-Christianity/dp/1432765914

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. There are numerous intellectual giants who were/are theists, and yes, in the last 125 years there have been many atheists of great intellectual power. Nonetheless, one often observes contemporary atheists arguing that theists are unintelligent, but not too often the converse. Still, this is not any direct form of proof for theism, but the countless intellectual notables are to be appreciated.

        2. See Triablogue’s Many Posts including: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=fulfilled+messianic+prophecies

"In the Beginning Was the Word: Language: A God-Centered Approach" by Vern Poythress - A Review

God The Alpha and Omega of Language: Review By Mike Robinson 

In the Beginning Was the Word: Language--A God-Centered Approach written by Vern Poythress.

I get it: all meaning presupposes and requires theism. From In The Beginning Was The Word: Language A God-Centered Approach, there's seldom a cease-fire during Vern Poythress' cogent, erudite musings on language. While his apologetic chops are impeccable in this well-crafted philosophical volume, the weighty and powerful essays cry out for apologetic application regarding the subject of language. Vern Poythress (esteemed and longtime Westminster Theological Seminary professor) argues that language necessitates Christian theism: "God is personal, and man is clearly personal. As an aspect of his personal character, God is able to speak and use language. Human beings likewise are able to speak and use language ... Human language and human use of language come about only because God has created human beings" with the capacity to use language. (p. 29). Human language flows from God's ontology and economy as "The Father is the speaker, the Son as discourse, and the Spirit as the hearer" (p. 33). Because of sin there is a division of languages and the gospel is the means to overcome those "barriers" (p. 137). All ethnic groups and cultures can find their unity, not by mere utilitarian methods, by having faith in the truth of Christ (pp. 140-141).

Dr. Poythress contends that the unity in diversity within humanity is a finite replication of the triune God forasmuch as the Trinity is the solution to the problem of the "one and the many" (pp. 148/166, etc.).

In the Beginning Was the Word: Language: A God-Centered Approach features work including:

• Translation Theory
• Diction and Syntax
• Literary Theory
• Cultural Reconciliation
• Logical Positivism.

The author also discusses at length the notion that all myths are mini-stories of God's work of redemption and the stories of truth within scripture (pp. 195-240 - he covers the work of C.S. Lewis and Bultmann that touch on the topic of myths). Poythress rightly contends that language must convey truth and those who deny such fall into self-impaling assertions (considering that they must employ language as meaningful, to deny that language is meaningful).

Poythress adds: "Language when God uses it has a certain ontological primacy" (p. 256). Spoken truth retains its truth "only because God is continually present" (without the Christian worldview one is faced with Hume's problem of Induction and this problem also surfaces in the dynamic of language.

Additionally it can be utilized to demonstrate that mathematics, identity, and countless truths have permanent aspects to them only because God is always present and continually sustains them. An always-in-flux material cosmos lacks the capacity to guarantee a retention of anything over time, even a short duration of time. Hence the non-theist cannot account for the truth that 2 + 2 = 4 even five minutes after it was asserted. The omnipotent and always present God has the capacity to guarantee truths can retain their truth in the future). Furthermore the author argues that universals require God and connectivity presupposes and requires God (pp. 256-260).

This significant book provides various outstanding graphs that add precision and comprehension.

Chapters include:

• Language and the Trinity
• God Sustaining Language
• God's Rule
• World history
• Speaking and Writing
• Truth as a Perspective
• Modernism and Postmodernism
• Doubt
• Platonic Ideas
• Reaching Out to Deconstructionism
• and numerous additional useful and intriguing topics.

This dynamic volume has been endorsed by John Frame, C. John Collins, and Wayne Grudem.

Frame extols this work: "God is not merely a possibility, not merely a conclusion, but the starting point for any understanding at all." This is a necessary and important resource for philosophers, epistemologists, ministers, logicians, linguistic scholars, missionaries, translators, and other people in disciplines which actively rely on the study of language. The writing is splendid and accessible; an outstanding presentation for the non-scholar or the academician.

Christianity Today opined that Poythress in his "theology of language leaves no stone or relevant Scripture verse unturned."

check out my paperback Presuppositional apologetics books on Amazon and see my new eBook Reality and the Folly of Atheism HERE 

Plato's Theory of Forms and Atheism

Plato's Theory of Forms and Non-theism: An Improbable Wedlock

By Mike Robinson, Granbury, Texas

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1).

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Jesus Christ: Revelation 1:7-8).

Behind this unreliable world of appearances is a world of … “Forms” or “Ideas” (eidos/idea in Greek). But what is a Platonic Form or Idea? Take for example a perfect triangle... This would be a description of the Form or Idea of (a) Triangle. Plato says such Forms exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their own realm. Considering this Idea of a perfect triangle, we might also be tempted to take pencil and paper and draw it. Our attempts will of course fall short. Plato would say that peoples’ attempts to recreate the Form will end up being a pale facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form. The Forms are not limited to geometry. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that thing or property. The list is almost inexhaustible. Tree, House, Mountain, Man, Woman, Ship, Cloud, Horse, Dog, Table and Chair, would all be examples of putatively independently-existing abstract perfect Ideas.[1]

The thinking Christian knows that God is the foundation for the laws of logic and other immaterial truths. Pressing this actuality is a potent way to refute materialistic atheism. Most atheists are materialists and even strict materialists (physicalists). Nonetheless, there is a small minority of atheists who affirm the reality or possibility of immaterial things such as the laws of logic, selected universals, and Forms.[2] Sundry schools affirm immaterial Platonic Forms[3] of one sort or another. Yet what in an atheist world could produce or ground such immutable universals? The human mind and the material cosmos both lack immutability and universal reign. God is immutable and has universal reign and thus the ontological capacity to ground immutable universals such as selected Forms, ideas, and the laws of logic.

Problems with the Theory of Ungrounded Forms

Various problems appear when one attempts to ground any immutable universal outside God. Selected queries that should be asked regarding ungrounded & impersonal Forms:

1. Plato’s Forms look as if they are arbitrary as well as incomplete. Are all variety of things Forms such as mud, urine, and skin?

2. When and who decides when a Form is not one particular Form but another? When is a large stream Form a creek and not a stream? And when is a large creek a river? Or a large lake Form actually a small sea Form?  When is a large hill form actually a mountain Form. Plato’s Forms look, under scrutiny, to be more than a bit problematic.

Who is the world’s shortest giant or the tallest midget?

3. Are Plato’s Forms something definite and if so, where do they reside? What is the ontological makeup of Plato’s Forms? Are they transcendent or immanent? Or both?

4. If one suggests that Plato’s Forms are transcendent, how do they effect the land of the living—the non-transcendent? If they are merely a Form, they do not possess causal powers, so how do they affect the material world? By what power do they achieve their rule?

5. Are the Forms atemporal and aspatial? –if they are, how do they effect the temporal and spatial realm?– by what means do they bridge the gap? Forms are impersonal so they lack will and the power to act and determine things, so how does any non-theistic Form rule as God rules? God is a divine person so He acts, wills, and has the power to effect the non-transcendent.

6. If one denies theism, I cannot apprehend any evidence that a Form or Forms exist anywhere. But there seems to be counterevidence against the possibility of ungrounded Forms, since Forms cannot avoid an infinite regress of negative Forms. Is a Form of a bear also a Form of “not-deer,” and “not-car,” and “not-tree,” and “not-planet,” and “not-number 2” and ad infintum? I cannot see how a Form avoids such. The concept of ungrounded Forms falls into an infinite regress.

A Theory of Forms fails to explain most of reality. It appears that such theories lack the ability to explain change? Additionally, a Theory of Forms may have trouble explaining particulars, love, and the moral ought?

God Has the Explanatory Capacity to Explain Material and Immaterial Truths

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). 

God is the beginning, middle, and end of all. He is the supreme mind or reason, the effectual cause of all things, eternal, unchangeable…[4]

The Christian worldview has the explanatory power to explain all things–it appears that the Theory of Ungrounded Forms falls infinitely short in accounting for things it’s designed to enlighten.

In your light do we see light (Psalm 36:9). 

The distinctiveness of the Platonic philosophy is precisely this direction toward the supersensuous world, it seeks the elevation of consciousness into the realm of spirit. The Christian religion also has set up this high principle, that the interior spiritual essence of man is his true essence, and has made it the universal principle.[5]

A dualism[6] that manifests in the Theory of Forms might be compatible with minority schools of atheism, but it appears to be an awkward amalgamation. The Theory of Forms advances the existence of mental constituents such as ideas, minds, and souls. These immaterial elements can intrude causally in the physical world of change. Similarly, God is a non-material Person—a Spiritual being that ordains and interposes His will on the material world. Most atheists believe the notion that an immaterial thing can intrude causally in the physical world is incongruent; to consent to the reality that immaterial mental elements exist seems to eliminate a major objection to the existence of God.

Moreover, how did these immaterial elements and ideas come into being through unguided evolutionary progression?

A dualism that exhibits itself in a Theory of Forms might be united with marginal schools of atheism but seems to be an uncomfortable unification. It would be easier to press Sasquatch’s feet into Dorothy’s ruby slippers than a Theory of Forms into atheism.

See my new Apologetics eBook Reality and the Folly of Atheism HERE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. David Macintos.  http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms
2. Forms: I capitalize the word “Form” in order to help the unfamiliar reader correctly identify the usage.
3. The importance of Plato for the history of philosophy is evident… For Plato to understand anything … is to relate it to its class concept [Form or Idea]… Greg Bahnsen: Van Til’s Apologetic, p. 318.
4. Plato, Republic. 716 A.
5. Hegel. History of Philosophy, Vol. 2.
6. Plato believed that the same point could be made with regard to many other abstract concepts: even though we perceive only their imperfect instances, we have genuine knowledge of truth, goodness, and beauty no less than of equality. Things of this sort are the Platonic Forms, abstract entities that exist independently of the sensible world. Ordinary objects are imperfect and changeable, but they faintly copy the perfect and immutable Forms. Thus, all of the information we acquire about sensible objects (like knowing what the high and low temperatures were yesterday) is temporary, insignificant, and unreliable, while genuine knowledge of the Forms themselves (like knowing that 93 - 67 = 26) perfectly certain forever. Since we really do have knowledge of these supra-sensible realities, knowledge that we cannot possibly have obtained through any bodily experience, Plato argued, it follows that this knowledge must be a Form of recollection and that our souls must have been acquainted with the Forms prior to our births. But in that case, the existence of our mortal bodies cannot be essential to the existence of our souls—before birth or after death—and we are therefore immortal. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2f.htm

Applied Apologetics: Objective Moral Values and Theism

Objective Moral Values Presuppose & Need God

By Mike Robinson, Granbury, Texas

  

Introduction

One can avoid moral skepticism by depending upon an unchanging, infinite, infallible, and exhaustive moral authority. God has these necessary qualities. In accounting for objective moral values, God is mandatory since He is unchanging, universal in knowledge, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. Harmoniously, objective moral values are unchanging, universal, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. God has the necessary attributes to account for objective moral values.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You’re thinking in black and white. Think in shades of gray.[1] 

[When I was an atheist], My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But, how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?[2] 

Let us change the rule we have hitherto adopted for the judging what is good. We took our own will as rule; let us now take the will of God.[3]

Objective moral values are not determined by the opinions, preferences, or psychological dispositions of an individual man or groups of men. It is a moral value “independently of whether anyone believes it or not” (William Lane Craig). The moral view which is based on one’s personal preference is a type of ethical subjectivism. Ultimately, it is based on preferences similar to one liking clam chowder over chicken soup. It is a descriptive form of ethics that leaves one without an ultimate arbitrator to settle moral disagreements among men with different preferences.

One can prefer torturing babies for fun over forbidding such behavior in the same way one prefers the chowder over the soup; it is a matter of personal taste and choice. In principle, if one observes a greasy old man ready to torture an innocent little baby, your repugnance is no more morally justified than one who is a bit queasy over a friend sipping his clam chowder. Under this sort of subjectivism, formally, it makes no sense to claim that the man torturing the baby for fun is morally wrong. He prefers it and you do not. You have no principled justification to attempt to stop the baby torturer from preferring his behavior any more than you may stop a friend from enjoying clam chowder. Nonetheless, torturing babies for fun is objectively and immutably wrong. It cannot be morally right to engage in such behavior. The subjectivist lacks the foundation to declare that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. There are no behavior directing moral laws; morality is merely a matter of one’s preferences. Of course most atheists know such actions are morally wrong. Nevertheless I contend that it’s not a matter of knowing right from wrong—atheists can know (epistemological realm) right from wrong (Romans chapters 1 & 2)—I argue that atheists cannot account for the truth that there are objective moral values (right & wrong exist; ontological realm).

If there is no God, anything is permitted.[4]

Regeneration Required

If man is to change ethically, he must be converted.[5]

Jesus taught that for men to change, their heart must change; men must be born again (John 3:3-8). If one dresses up a wolf to look like a lamb, one still has an animal that can viciously attack humans if hungry or alarmed. For the animal to become sheep-like, the wolf needs a miracle: regeneration into a lamb (or a huge genetic swap). The wolf needs a complete change. And that’s what God’s grace does to men by the power of the Gospel. By grace through faith men are born again by the Spirit (regenerated) and after regeneration they have a changed heart that leads them to grow in moral goodness.

Biblical Law

Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long (Psalms 119:97). 

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). 

But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever... You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” (Hebrews 1:8-9). 

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! ... So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good... We know that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:7-14). 

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him (John 14:15 & 21).

The moral commandments of Scripture found in the Ten Commandments must be the standard for normative ethics. Biblical ethics are proscriptive (what one ought not to do) as well as prescriptive (what one ought to do) of normative human conduct—the general equity of the Decalogue—should be the ground for our rule of law: deontological. Deontological is obligatory inasmuch as it is the moral will of God in real-life situations: explicit actions that are based on its broad principals. Thus all persons are obligated to affirm and embrace the commandments of God in establishing laws and in living their lives.

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands (2 John 6). 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).

Morality and Unguided Evolution

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines morality as: “An informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, having the lessening of evil or harm as its goal, and including what are commonly known as the moral rules, moral ideals, and moral virtues.”[6] The word "ethics" is given the following definition by the same dictionary: “The philosophical study of morality. The word is commonly used interchangeably with morality ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual.”[7] Theologian Norman Geisler states: “Moral law is morality for conduct... Law is a moral rule by which we are led to act or are withheld from action... God’s purpose for law is to regulate human activity.”[8]

The theory of unguided evolution offers no ontological basis for fixed moral values. Many people have fallen for the bamboozlement of the ages, the theory of unguided evolution. This theory, along with selected features of Nietzsche’s philosophy, has accomplished a lot. What has been accomplished by this misreading, this hoax, this fallacy, this misapprehension? This theory has given many of the world’s despots and dictators aspects of their ideological systems for carrying out the atrocities they had ordered. Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge butchered over fifty million people in the twentieth century under the influence of communism, atheism, and evolution. Unguided evolution not only gives no fundamental basis for morals; it, in principle, disallows essential features of benevolent ethics. The evolutionist’s creed is “survival of the fittest.” This doctrine helps hoist the proposition that “might makes right.” When one applies this to reality, the strong should take everything they can through force. Under that view, they should go through the country raping, trampling the weak, and killing the handicapped. Strict Darwinism undermines selected altruistic endeavors and charitable ethics as it gives men reason to be selfish, inhumane, wicked, murderous, and destructive.

All power grows from the barrel of a gun (atheist Mao Zedong).

In atheistic evolution, ultimately, the only thing that is important is promoting the survival of one’s own genes to the next generation. Turning the other cheek or doing good to the physically and mentally challenged only weakens the gene pool, so charity and benevolence should be rejected. The strong should step on anyone they can to promote their own genetic success. In contrast, I agree with the way Martin Luther King put it in his homily upon receiving his Nobel Peace Prize: “I refuse to believe the notion that man is mere flotsam and jetsam ... unable to respond to the eternal oughtness that forever confronts him.”

The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes (Psalms 19:8).

Today, many people assert that there are no moral absolutes. Yet arguing against unchanging moral truths is self-stupefying. What the anti-moralist asserts stifles itself on its own grounds. If he objects to you pointing this out, he also stultifies himself. To state that he rigidly objects to any moral notion is to appear to assume a moral absolute. Hence, his objection is duplicitous. Just ask the non-absolutist, “Do you think that it is always ‘wrong’ to affirm moral absolutes?” If he answers “No,” at that point he has contradicted himself and indirectly affirms moral absolutes. If he answers “Yes,” you point out that this objection is a moral truth; a truth he seems to want you take as an absolute.

Universal Binding Laws Presuppose God

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14-15). 

The moral law was written on the human conscience by nature. This writing has been defaced, but not obliterated. A clear and correct knowledge of the moral law requires the republication of the commandments, summarized in the Decalogue as the permanent and unalterable rule of man’s duty on earth.[9]

Moral laws are immaterial immutable realities that presuppose an immaterial immutable God who has the wisdom and authority to decree and enact them. Without God, as the moral lawgiver, there cannot be invariant moral laws. A holy, wise, and good God is the essential truth condition for true, invariant, immaterial, and irreducible realities called moral laws. The Decalogue provides apodictic (established by God as immutable commandments) moral duties since they are universal and unconditional; they are laws for all cultures and people in all time periods. A distinction is made regarding case law. Case laws are specific applications for particular people and definite applications of these apodictic commandments.

Materialistic atheism cannot account for irreducible immaterial invariant entities that are to govern human behavior. Without an omnipotent sovereign God, issuing laws that are based on His perfect character, one has no motivation to obey the law simply because obedience is morally good. Leave God out of the picture and one only obeys the law because of the fear of possible penal sanction and civil punishment from an earthly government. When the civil authorities aren’t looking, one can steal, lie, cheat, and rape with impunity. There must be a sovereign God, as the sufficient and universal condition, to obey out of gratitude and love. We have strong motivation to follow laws, when no one is looking, if the laws are intrinsically good, and come from a good all-seeing God. A God one loves, who commands humanity to love Him by obeying His commandments. When you take away the character and authority of God to enact law, one is not obliged to obey them out of mere love and gratitude.

Without postulating the existence of God it would be impossible to link the moral order to the natural order: the two realms would remain separate. How could the moral laws confront me with the kind of demands they do, how could they come to me with the kind of force they do, unless they have their source in a Being who exists objectively that is, independently of me and is essentially good? ... There is something in every man, it may seem, that demands God as a postulate.[10]

Placing No Value on Objective Moral Absolutes

The denial of moral absolutes is a self-diminishing exertion because the denial of moral absolutes presupposes a moral view: it is morally permissible to absolutely deny absolute moral values. So in a sense, the attempt to deny absolute moral values affirms that they exist. To deny fixed moral values is self-deflating; the denial, in the end, leads to the removal of a standard that obligates others to communicate the denial absolutely. If you ask them if they absolutely believe that there are no absolutes; they may say no. Then you just ask them if they absolutely believe their answer of no. At some point they must stand on an absolute or they fall into idiocy.

Conclusion

It is a divine doctrine which teaches what is right and pleasing unto God and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will (The Book of Concord).

Fearing the Lord is the beginning of moral knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7, NET).

The best way to avert moral skepticism is to have an unchanging, infinite, infallible, and exhaustive authority. The God of the Bible has these attributes. God is required because He is unchanging, universal in knowledge, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. Correspondingly, objective moral values are unchanging, universal, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. God has the required attributes to account for objective moral values.

Additionally, the way to avoid eternal condemnation is to turn from your ways and trust in Jesus Christ: the One who died for His people and rose again on the third day. He’s wonderful and full of excellencies that will thrill your heart.

Check out my new Apologetics eBook The Sure Existence of Moral Absolutes HERE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES

1. Craig Boldman, Every Excuse in the Book: 714 Ways to Say it’s not My Fault (New York: MJF Books, 1998), p. 94.

2. C.S. Lewis: Martindale and Root, Editors, The Quotable Lewis (Wheaton, Il: Tyndale House, 1989), p. 59.

3. Thomas Morris, Making Sense of It All (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman, 1992), p. 211.

4. Fyodor Dostoevsky: The Brothers Karamazov, Bantam Classics. Many impute this line to Dostoevsky, but it nowhere appears in the volume. Perhaps it is a summary of a position of one of the characters within the text.

5. P. Andrew Sandlin, We Must Create A New Kind of Christian (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Publication, 2000), p. 16.

6. Robert Audi, General Editor, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press 1999), p. 586.

7. Ibid., Audi, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 284.

8. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 414-416.

9. Carl Henry, Editor, Wycliff Dictionary of Ethics (Peabody, MA: 2000), p. 432.

10.Geddees McGregor, Introduction to Religious Philosophy (Boston, MA: Mifflin, 1959), pp. 117-119.

God and Logic: Some Definitions and Applications

God, Reason, and the Laws of Logic

by Mike Robinson
Definitions are important in communication; perhaps the fallen nature and finiteness of men make understanding many philosophical issues difficult to fully grasp or defend. It may surprise the reader that very few apologetic works provide clear and explicit definitions of the terms logic, the laws of logic, and reason; including many classical and presuppositional apologetic books. Furthermore, regarding some doctrines (the Trinity; Sovereignty; the Incarnation; etc.) conceivably one might have to utilize philosophical and theological distinctions that are so minutely exact and fine that a fallible finite man could under no circumstance, in principle, comprehend them entirely. Thus one must study essential classifications and delineations as one communicates eternal truths with humility.

I. Distinctions I Maintain Between Logic and the Laws of Logic

Logic: “The study of argument [not a quarrel]; a piece of reasoning in which one or more statements are offered as support for some other statement” (S. Morris Engel: With Good Reason).

Logic is: (1) The Science of Argument. (2) A Hermeneutical Tool. (3) A Science of Commitment (John Frame: DKG, p. xi).

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning (Irving Copi: Introduction to Logic).

The Laws of Logic: Laws of thought and reason that are immaterial, aspatial, atemporal, universal, obligatory, necessary, immutable, and absolute. Some academics identify them as the laws of thought, the laws of truth, or the laws of reason. Various scholars strongly prefer to name them the laws of logic because they are independent of human minds and are ubiquitous throughout all experience. All rational thinking (and communication) presupposes and uses the laws of logic.

The Law of Identity (LOI) is A=A. The most well-known law is the Law of Non-contradiction (LNC): A cannot be A and Non-A at the same time in the same way (A~~A). A man cannot be his own father.

The laws of logic “are basic principles of reasoning” (Frame: CVT).

The laws of logic reflect the nature and mind of the God of the Bible; thus, they have ontological grounding—that is, they are grounded in the very nature of truth itself and cannot be reduced to human convention, opinion or psychology. Without these laws, knowledge and rational thinking are impossible. To deny the laws of logic, one must use these laws in one’s attempt to deny them. Those who deny the laws of logic are participating in a self-defeating endeavor. The Law of Non-contradiction (the Principle of Contradiction or the Law of Contradiction) is perpetually necessary and in the words of Aristotle: “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

Various scholars assert that the Law of Excluded Middle may have real exceptions.

Allan Bloom stated that “The earliest-known explicit statement of the principle of contradiction, the premise of philosophy, and the foundation of rational discourse” is given in Plato’s Politeia. Therein is where the character Socrates states, “It’s plain that the same thing won’t be willing at the same time to do or suffer opposites with respect to the same part and in relation to the same thing” (all the above are excerpts from my Apologetic Book: Truth, Knowledge, and the Reason for God at: http://thelordgodexists.com/product/truth-knowledge-and-the-reason-for-god-the-defense-of-the-rational-assurance-of-christianity/).

"The law of contradiction [LNC] cannot be thought of as operating anywhere except against the background of the nature of God” (Van Til: IST).

II. Definitions of the Term Logic

Logic: enables us to think in a rational, systematic and orderly way.

Etymological definition: logike is the Greek term that means thought; a treatise pertaining to thought.

Logic real definition: commonly defined as the art and science of correct inferential thinking deals with the laws, methods and principles of correct thinking. Through Logic, we acquire the techniques and skill of thinking correctly whereby our mind is able to proceed with order, ease and without error, when we master the techniques and acquire the skill of correct thinking then we are able to expound our thought orderly, clearly and systematically

Logic as the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. Thus it provides us with the techniques for testing the correctness (and also the incorrectness) of arguments (Copi).

Logic real definition as a Science: It is a systematized body of knowledge about the principles and laws of correct inferential thinking. It follows certain rules and laws in arriving at valid conclusions.

Logic real definition as an Art: The art of reasoning. It requires mastery of the laws and principles of correct inferential thinking. Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Aristotelian logic: A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference. (http://www.slideshare.net/ulrick04/1a-logic-intro).

III. Additional Definitions of the Terms Logic and Reason

Logic: Removing or preventing contradictions in one's thoughts or ideas. Logic is the art of conforming one's thoughts to the Law of Identity. In one respect, thoughts have to conform to the Law of Identity, as does everything else. This has to do with the nature of thoughts. Ideas have a different nature than memories, which are different from emotions. In this respect, all thoughts conform to the Law of Identity.

In a different respect, though, it requires focused action to conform to the Law of Identity. Ideas have content. This content is generated by the thinker from perceptual data. However, it may be generated incorrectly. Logic requires the content to be clear and identifiable. It requires that no contradiction exist within the idea.

Logic is used in integrating ideas as well. Again, it is the process of conforming to the Law of Identity. What this means in practice is combining information clearly, and without contradiction. It must be combined into a specific, identifiable package, that doesn't contradict itself.

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It is the mental tool that sets the standard for proper thought. It is the foundation of knowledge. It is the means of understanding and clarity. Without logic, we could not distinguish between the true and the false. We could not throw out bad ideas because we could not judge them as bad. Without logic, our minds would be cluttered with so many absurdities and falsehoods that if there was some truth, it would be lost in the garbage of contradictions, fuzzy thoughts, and non-integrated mental images. (www.ImportanceofPhilosphy.com)

--------------------------
Reason: Rational capacity, and the ability and proclivity to follow the same in a logical manner. To reason or to use one's reasons in an orderly manner. The concept of reason is closely related to the concepts of language and logic, as reflected in the multiple meanings of the Greek word logos, the root of logic, which translated into Latin became ratio and then in French raison, from which the English word "reason" was derived. In contrast to reason more generally, language refers not to the thinking as such, but to the communication or potential communication of rational thoughts.

Reason: (1) The ability to understand and explain cogently, based on evidence and according to logical principles; (2) the ability to treat others fairly and decently, unless one is harmed by them.

A. This is a fundamental human capacity, and based on the capacity to represent things symbolically. A cogent explanation is one that is based on true or probable premises and deductively entails what it explains. Science is based on reason, and the test that something is a real science is that it has produced a real technology that works independent of belief in or understanding of the science that produced it.

There are three basic kinds of reasoning, where reasoning involves argumentation of any kind using assumptions and inferences of conclusions:

1. Deductions: To find conclusions that follow from given assumptions
2. Abductions: To find assumptions from which given conclusions follows
3. Inductions: To confirm or infirm assumptions by showing their conclusions do (not) conform to the observable facts.

Normally in reasoning all three kinds are involved: We explain supposed facts by abductions; we check the abduced assumptions by deductions of the facts they were to explain; and we test the assumptions arrived by deducing consequences and then revising by inductions the probabilities of the assumptions by probabilistic reasoning when these consequences are verified or falsified.

B. The term "reason" is used in another sense, that is more related to morals and ethics than to science. In this sense, one is reasonable if one treats others fairly, does not harm them unless attacked, does not deceive them without provocation, and in general behaves towards them according to some schema of values that chart what it is to be virtuous (www.PhilosophicalDicitonary.com).

I do not believe Van Til defines reason anywhere, but it is clear that he views it primarily as a human capacity or faulty. Specially, reason is the capacity of a person to think and act according to logical norms, including the capacity to form beliefs, draw inferences, and formulate arguments (Frame: CVT).

Reason is the power or capacity whereby we see or detect logical relationships among propositions (Alvin Plantinga: Warranted Christian Belief).

Supporting Material on The Laws of Logic

Laws of logic are also known as the laws of truth, thought, and reason (many prefer to designate them the laws of logic since they are ubiquitous throughout human experience). These laws are immaterial, aspatial, atemporal, universal, obligatory, necessary, immutable, and absolute. Some academics identify them as the laws of thought, the laws of truth, or the laws of reason. A few scholars strongly prefer to name them the laws of logic because they are independent of human minds. All rational thinking (and communication) presupposes and uses the laws of logic.

The Law of Identity (LOI) is A=A. The most well-known law is the Law of Non-contradiction (LNC): A cannot be A and Non-A at the same time in the same way (A~~A). A man cannot be his own father.

The laws of logic reflect the nature and mind of the Triune God; thus, they are grounded in the very nature of God and cannot be reduced to human psychology. Without these laws, knowledge and rational thinking are impossible. To reject the laws of logic, one must use these laws in one’s attempt to reject them.

The ultimate norms for human knowledge are found not in any human mind or minds, or anywhere else in creation, but in the mind of God (James Anderson: Speaking the Truth in Love).

There are things that transcend the material realm, including the laws of logic. A = A (Law of Identity) and A~~A (Law of Non-contradiction) universally; an immutable universal (something that is always true) cannot be grounded by a mutable particular (non-universal) cosmos, which non-theism rests upon. Therefore non-theism lacks the necessary endowment to underwrite the laws of logic.

I employ the expression “a particular” as an individual thing, a specific entity that may be material, abstract, or spiritual. It lacks universal reach forasmuch as it is one finite thing. A material particular cosmos that is mutable lacks universality and immutability required to account for the universal immutable laws of logic; Yahweh possesses these attributes, thus He sufficiently accounts for the laws of logic. The laws of logic must be utilized in everything one does: in all one’s actions and in all knowledge claims. They are inescapable; hence Yahweh is inescapable.

This argument contends that one would have to believe the contrary of the possible, a universal law of logic exists, yet logically it’s not possible to demonstrate that a law of logic’s existence is impossible, thus the law of logic’s existence is logically necessary inasmuch as a law of logic, by definition, is an ubiquitous universal.

This contention is not a gap dependent argument since it does not ascribe to divine work something which may possibly, in principle, be explained through mutable natural causes. The whole of the natural world is in a state of flux, all natural things change. Thus one cannot argue for a mutable ground to account for the immutable laws of logic. On cannot appeal to individual mutable natural causes to account for immutable universals such as the laws of logic.

In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1).

Belief in God is ultimately, of course, the presupposition that controls even one’s concept of reason itself (John Frame, DKG).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the E-Book God and Logic: Proof for Theism, Mike Robinson demonstrates that God is the true foundation for the Laws of Logic and that atheism lacks the necessary substructure to ground these laws of thought. Many noteworthy issues that atheism upholds are tackled with clarity, precision, and thoughtfulness. Throughout this volume the author informs, needles, illumines, elucidates, enlivens, and motivates the reader with powerful truth regarding the laws of logic. This work is accessible, fluid, and loaded with useful arguments for Christian Theism.

Aristotle, Frege, the Laws of Logic, and Theism is not the typical criticism of atheism; it utilizes new ground proclaimed by numerous and diverse apologetic advancements.

or The Paperback HERE

The eternal Logos is a Necessary Truth Condition of Human Knowledge

 In the beginning was the Logos … (John 1:1).

Jesus’ ontology (His being and essence) is a substantial element of Christianity, for He is the great Logos (John 1:1), and logic is an attribute of His being and nature. Christians are a community that can account for reason; as reason comes from the nature of God. The true God is the God of reason. Reason cannot be held over His head in a type of Eurythro Dilemma, but is a reflection of His nature; additionally we must espouse it in submission to His revelation in the Bible. Christians should base their worldview on God’s word and His character. The Laws of Reason (Laws of Logic) have no material content. One cannot put the laws of reason (A = A; A~~A) in a bowl and pour milk over them. The abstract application of reason also has no material content.

The laws of logic are essential (they are immutable universals) and an a priori truth condition for any communication. Logic is the foundational instrument necessary for all utterance, debate, science, mathematics, and learning. Without using the laws of logic, one could not deny that logic is mandatory for communication. God is necessary to account for the universal operational features within rationality--including the laws of logic.

Without the transcendent, immutable, and universal-in-reach God, one cannot justify or account for the transcendent, immutable and universal rules of logic. God is the truth condition for laws of reason. Also known as the laws of truth (Frege), these laws are an a priori truth condition for knowledge, discourse, and argument. Logic is absolutely necessary for the intelligibility of life and God is absolutely necessary for logic. Thus, the Triune God is, and has to be. And He alone is God. No other named god supplies the obligatory truth conditions for the intelligibility of this world.

----------------------

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/121406

Suggested Reading

• Adler, Mortimer (1985). Ten Philosophical Mistakes. St. Martins
• Aristotle, Metaphysics. Oxford.
• Bahnsen, Greg (1996), Always Ready, Covenant Media.
• Bahnsen (1998). Van Til’s Apologetic, P & R.
• Carroll, Lewis (1989). Best of Lewis Carroll, Castle.
• Charnock, Stephen. ([1684], 2000), The Existence and Attributes of God, Baker Books.
• Clark, Gordon (1961). Religion, Reason, and Revelation, Trinity Foundation.
• Frame, John (1994). Apologetics to the Glory of God, P & R.
• Engel, S. Morris (1994). With Good Reason, St. Martins.
• Frame, John (1987). The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, P & R.
• Garson, James (2006). Modal Logic for Philosophers. Cambridge.
• Girle, Rod (2000). Modal Logic and Philosophy, McGill.
• Goble, Lou (2001). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, Blackwell.
• Hughes, G.E. (1995), A new Introduction to Modal Logic, Routledge.
• Hunter, Geoffrey (1973). Metalogic, Campus.
• Konyndyk, Kenneth (1986). Introductory Modal Logic, ND Press.
• Lambert, Karel (1991), Philosophical Applications of Free Logic, Oxford.
• Lewis, C.I. (1946). An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation., Open Court.
• Lewis, C.I. (1969) Values and Imperatives, ed. by J. Lange, Stanford University Press.
• Lonergan, Bernard (1970). Insight, Philosophical Library.
• Plantinga, Alvin (2000), Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford Univ. Press.
• O’Connor, Timothy (2008), Theism and Ultimate Explanation, Blackwell.
• Quine, W.V.O. (1993), Pursuit of Truth, Harvard University Press.
• Stern, Robert (2000). Transcendental Arguments and Skepticism, Oxford University Press.
• Strawson, P.F. (1966). The Bounds of Sense, Methuen & Co.
• Strawson, P.F. (1963). Introduction to Logical Theory, Methuen & Co.
• Stroud, Barry (1968). “Transcendental Arguments,” Journal of Philosophy 65.
• Tarski, Alfred (1961). Introduction to Logic. Dover.
• Van Til, (1980), Survey of Christian Epistemology, P & R.

• Van Til, (2007), Introduction to Systematic Theology, P & R.