Defending the Bible
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Ultimate Proof of Creation
    • The Real Battle>
      • Rescuing Devices
      • Worldviews>
        • Creation
        • Evolution
        • Competing Worldviews
    • Resolving the Origins Debate>
      • Neutral Grounds?
      • Resolving the Debate>
        • Consistency
        • Preconditions of Intelligibility
        • Arbitrariness
    • The Ultimate Proof
  • How it all started...
    • Big Bang
    • Abiogenesis
    • Organic Evolution
  • Arguments
    • Creation>
      • Design!
      • Irreducible complexity
      • INFORMATION
    • Science>
      • Mathematics
      • Thermodynamics
      • Carbon dating
      • Probability (Chance)
    • Logic and Morality>
      • Logic
      • Morality
      • Inconsistency
      • Arbitrariness
      • Lack of Knowledge
      • Sexuality
      • Causalty
  • Informal Logical Fallacies
    • Fallacies of Ambiguity>
      • Reification
      • Equivocation
    • Fallacies of Presumption>
      • More...>
        • "No True Scotsman" Fallacy
        • Special Pleading
        • False Analogy
        • Fallacy of False Cause
        • Slippery Slope
      • Hasty Generalization
      • Sweeping Generalization
      • The Fallacy of Bifurcation
      • Begging the Question
      • Question Begging Epiphet
      • Complex Question
      • Straw Man Fallacy
    • Fallacies of Relevance>
      • More...>
        • Mob Appeal
        • Faulty Appeal to Authority
        • Faulty Appeal to the One
        • Faulty Appeal to the Majority
        • Appeal to Ignorance
        • The Fallacy of Relevant Thesis
      • Genetic Fallacy
      • Ad Hominem Fallacy
      • Fallacies of Faulty Appeal
      • Faulty Appeal to Pity
      • Faulty Appeal to Fear
  • "Missing Links"
    • Lucy
    • Heidelberg Man
    • Nebraska Man
    • Piltdown Man
    • Peking Man
    • Neanderthal Man
    • New Guinea Man
    • Cro-Magnon Man
    • Homosapiens
  • Extras
    • The Scientific Way to Shoot a Rubberband
    • Secret Deceptions>
      • The Quantum Pendant
      • "Christian Yoga"
      • Contemplative Prayer
    • Tear the Gospel
    • Free PDF Books
    • Audio Sermon
    • Webpages You Should Check Out>
      • Serving Persecuted
      • Setterfield.org
      • Save Payatas

Preconditions of Intelligibility

I also wish there was a shorter word for it, but before we can begin to defend the creation worldview with the ultimate proof, we need to understand what the preconditions of intelligibility are, and that they exist.

The preconditions of intelligibility are conditions that must be accepted as true before we can know anything about nature. Most people take these things for granted.

For example: the reliability of our memory. You probably already assume that your memory is pretty reliable, but this isn't very easy to prove. How do you really know that your memory is reliable? You could say, "I just had a memory test recently, and I got a very good grade on it." But I could just as easily reply, "How do you know you took a memory test? Just because you remember this doesn't prove it happened unless we already knew your memory was reliable before you claimed to have taken a test." We all assume that our memory is reliable. Well, this is actually unavoidable. Before we can start to study nature, we all have to assume that our memory is basically trust-worthy.

Another example: the reliability of our senses. Before we study anything, we presuppose that our senses are reliable. We assume our eyes, ears, nerves, nose, tongue, etc. all reliably report the details about what is going on around us. Without this assumption, science would be impossible. We couldn't be able to trust what we saw or felt, therefore we couldn't draw a reliable conclusion. Imagine if everything around us were just an illusion. Science couldn't be possible.

One more crucial example: the laws of logic are true. We all presume that the laws of logic govern correct, rational reasoning. On the consistency page, I claimed that multiple contradictions cannot be true. I bet none of you really stopped to question why contradictions cannot be true; it's something we all presume. But how could we prove that there really are laws of logic? Before we could even begin to investigate whether they're true or not, we must assume ahead of time that they are true and that they do exist. They must be assumed before we can start reasoning about anything–even the laws of logic themselves.

Quick summary: most of us presume that our senses and memory are basically reliable, and there are laws of logic.

Though we take all these things for granted, few wonder why these things are so. To a biblical creationist, these preconditions of intelligibility make perfect sense. God created our brains to be reliable (though the brain is now marred by sin), therefore we can basically trust our senses and memories. And the laws of logic reflect God's perfect way of thinking; we'll get more into this later.

A rational worldview must provide these preconditions, because without them we could not know anything. If our senses and memory weren't reliable, we could not trust our judgments. If the laws of logic did not exist, we could not come to a reliable conclusion.

Atheists, creationists, polytheists, etc. all assume that there are preconditions of intelligibility because without them, we could not know anything at all. But how does atheism and polytheism (which are inconsistent) account for these preconditions? Atheists must borrow principles from biblical creationism; we'll get more into that later.



God indicates, in His Word, that wisdom begins with a respectful submission to Him and that rejection of His Word leads to irrationality (or "foolishness"). This is the key to the ultimate proof of biblical creation.

If biblical creation were not true, we could not know anything.

That is the ultimate proof. I can already hear you skeptics, but please continue reading. There are still things to be discussed before this proof can truly be understood.

If you are one of those skeptics, one of your objections may have been, "But there are people who haven't even read the Bible, who don't believe in creation, who haven't even heard of Jesus, yet they know things!" Let me stop you there; this response is fallacious. It is not relevant to the claim that I made. I did not claim that people have to read the Bible, or believe in creation, or hear of Jesus in order to know things. The argument made here is that the Bible's account of origins (and its other accounts) must be true. Or, preferably, because the Bible is true, we can know things.

Only the God described in the Bible can provide the foundation for the things we take for granted. Without God's Word, we would not have a good reason to believe in the preconditions of intelligibility: the basic reliability of memory and senses, laws of logic, uniformity of nature, morality (we'll get into that), personal dignity and freedom, etc.
Back to Consistency
Continue to the Importance of being Non-Arbitrary

    Got a question or comment?

    Please pick a topic
Submit
"...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you..."
 -1 Peter 3:15