When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he employed an ingenious trick to persuade people of evolution. He linked evolution to natural selection, implying that natural selection was the mechanism of evolution. This was a clever trap because when something false (evolution) is linked with something true (natural selection), people are often fooled.
Our feedback this week once again comes from Peter who is still convinced that I have misrepresented the presuppositional method. Peter claims that (1) all forms of circular reasoning are fallacious and (2) that the presuppositional method as advanced by Bahnsen and Van Til does not involve any circular reasoning.
We previously covered the Münchhausen trilemma: an argument that knowledge is impossible because it can never be ultimately justified. Any (true) belief must be based on a good reason in order to be considered knowledge. But the reason is only good if it also is based on a good reason, which is based on a good reason and so on.
We saw previously that the Bible can make sense of laws of logic and their properties, and that the three laws of thought are rooted in the nature of God. However, non-biblical worldviews cannot make sense of laws of logic or their properties.
Laws of logic are the rules of correct reasoning. They reflect the way God thinks and the way we must think if we are to think correctly. Laws of logic are also called “rules of inference.” Correct reasoning can never violate a law of logic. There are many laws of logic. But three are considered the most basic or primary.
An enthymeme is an argument in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not explicitly stated. Usually, this is because the unstated claim is obvious. Enthymemes are perfectly acceptable if used properly. But sometimes, they can be used incorrectly to draw a false conclusion. So, understanding enthymemes can be extremely useful in apologetics.