DYF: Introducing the Four Principles - My Thoughts

Now Dr. Sproul introduces what he calls "the four principles of knowledge." What he basically argues is that these four principles are assumed in Scripture, so they are essential to knowledge.

The key seems to be that these four principles need to be shown valid. According to Sproul, the most formidable atheist thinkers have historically argued that at least one of these principles is invalid. Sproul states that if we can show these principles to be valid and essential to knowledge, the atheist will be hard pressed to argue against God without contradicting them, thus falling into irrationality. How can an argument be rational if it denies something required for knowledge of something?

The four principles are:

1. The law of noncontradiction (A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time)
2. The law of causalty (everything has a cause)
3. The basic reliability of sense perception (our senses, while they can deceive us, are generally reliable), and
4. The analogical use of language (while God is separate from us and divine, our human language can make analogies that say meaningful things about Him)

Confused? I am too. The law of contradiction I definitely agree with; I definitely know absolutes exist in this world. Same with the basic reliability of sense perception, although I wonder how this will fit in if God generally can't be seen or heard. It probably has something to do with the eyewitness accounts of the writers of Scripture.

I think the one I'm most interested in is the law of causality. I've heard the argument that everything has a cause many times before. Many Christians say that the universe can't have created itself. But lately I've wondered about a possible atheist counter-argument: what created God? And then if we say He's just always existed (which I wholeheartedly believe), aren't we seemingly contradicting ourselves since there is something (someone) with no cause for existence? I know Sproul talks about this later, so I'm really looking forward to the answer.

Analogical use of language needs some explanation. According to Sproul, there are many thinkers, theologians, and philosophers who have argued that, since God is separate and divine, our human language cannot begin to comprehend Him, so it's impossible to have any meaningful discussion about Him. To that I say "Poppycock," but I don't have a logical reason for saying that. So I'm curious as to Sproul's counter to the argument.

I'm really glad each of these has it's own chapter, because I really need some explanation of these concepts.