# Does the TAG demonstrate that only the Cxn Worldview works?



## Monergism (Dec 2, 2004)

Can someone explain how the TAG demonstrates how only the Christian worldview can account for knowledge? I see it used all the time in order to show the inability of other non-Christian worldviews to account for knowledge, but does this demonstrate a universal? It appears to simply say, "œEvery worldview we know of cannot account for it, but we (the Christian Worldview) can."

How does the TAG demonstrate that only the Christian Worldview can account for knowledge?
I know this is true because it is part of the Christian worldview, but how do I demonstrate this universal?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> You need necessity, order, rationality, personality, one and many solution, reliability of senses, a mind that thinks, a world to know, unity between my mind and the world outside it, coherence and corespondance, inductive/deductive justification, universals, particulars, etc.
> 
> Now, the Christian story gives a picture where all the above is intelligible.



That didn't answer the question. All you've shown is that the Christian worldview makes intelligible these things. Can you show how _only_ the Christian worldview makes intelligible these things?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 2, 2004)

Actually. . . 


Can you demonstrate how _only_ the Christian worldview _can ever_ make intelligible these things?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> well, we're going slow.
> 
> So, you admit that I have shown that Christianity is suffiecient for these things but not *necessary*, right?



I don't admit it, I've already asserted it


----------



## Monergism (Dec 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Huh?
> 
> You said: "All you've shown is that the Christian worldview makes intelligible these things."
> ...




No. I'm not _saying_ that it doesn't provide the necessary conditions. To be consistent with God's Word I must say that it provides the necessary conditions. I just don't know how to demonstrate it past saying "I believe it because the Bible says so." But to answer what you're getting at, yes, I feel comfortable _demonstrating_ Christianity to provide the _sufficeint_ conditions, but I do not feel comfortable _demonstrating_ Christianity to provide the _necessary_ conditions.

I'm hoping you can (slowly) show me how Thanks for your help with this brother.


----------



## Monergism (Dec 2, 2004)

Here is the dialogue that puzzles me:

_(After shredding the Non-Christian´s professing worldview)_

*Christian:* You see, you´ve actually been presupposing the Christian worldview all this time.
*Non-Christian:* Alright, the worldview I was just professing doesn´t work, but why does it have to follow that I´ve been presupposing your worldview? Perhaps I´ve actually been presupposing some other non-Christian worldview that does account for knowledge this whole time?
*Christian:* Can you demonstrate that that worldview actually exists?
*Non-Christian:* No more than you can demonstrate that it doesn´t. 
*Christian:* But I just demonstrated that the Christian worldview provides the transcendental.
*Non-Christian:* It only provides the transcendental in so far as it´s claim to be the only worldview to provide the transcendental is true. But if there is another worldview out there I haven´t found yet that is actually the transcendental, then that shows that Christianity isn´t the transcendental after all.
*Christian:* But you haven´t demonstrated that such a worldview actually exists.
*Non-Christian:* No I haven´t, I simply have faith that it´s there. How can you prove that there isn´t such a worldview out there somewhere yet to be found and that the Christian worldview has simply made a false claim? It seems to me that you´re taking it on faith as well.
*Christian:* But you don´t even have a worldview from which to even launch your objection!
*Non-Christian:* Yes I do. I´m launching it from the worldview I haven´t found yet.
*Christian:* But you don´t even know what it is.
*Non-Christian:* Perhaps I´ve suppressed it like you´re saying I´m suppressing yours. 

At this point, both seem to be at fideism. . . .I honestly don't know what to do with this.


----------



## Monergism (Dec 6, 2004)

> Furthermore, I'm not afraid of some guy saying that there's another one out there that he doesn't know about. I mean, if we're going to reason like this then I'll just respond that it can't provide the transcendental. *If he says that I can't just assert that I'll say, why?* I learned this game from you. In apologetics we deal with real worldviews.



Paul,

What I see you doing is this. You present the TAG and claim to prove a universal negative (i.e. no other possible worldview can provide the necessary preconditions), and then when someone challenges your claim, you show their worldview to be inadequate to account for argumentation and tell them to go sit in the corner until they're tired of looking for another worldview that works. How is that any different than simply asserting the claim of the Bible that only it can provide the necessary preconditions, and then when someone disagrees, show their worldview to be inadequate to account for argumentation, tell them to go sit in the corner, etc.?

TAG is supposed to prove a universal negative. But in order to prove a universal negative, in the end, we're going to have to appeal to God's word and say "the omniscient God knows every possible non-Christian worldview and has said they don't work." We can show that the Christian worldview does make intelligible human experience, but it seems at the end of the day, we never actually demonstrate the universal negative, rather we have to take it on faith, and then shut the mouth of anyone who would say we are wrong, objector by objector.


----------



## Monergism (Dec 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Brett, I've said this before and maybe you missed it.
> 
> There are only TWO worldviews. There are not an infinite amount of them.
> ...



I guess I need help with the two worldviews part (perhaps we could say two classes of worldviews instead of two worldviews?). How do I demonstrate that to see one [illustration of a non-Cxn worldview] is to see them all?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Jesus said: He who is not with me is against me. No man can serve two masters.
> 
> 
> ...



So we demonstrate this to the unbeliever then simply by pointing to God's word and asserting that the Bible says there are only 2?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 7, 2004)

> Usually they try and make one up that looks just like the Christian worldview.



How would you prove that there isn't a working non-Christian theistic worldview that looks a lot like the Christian worldview with all of the tough philosophical problems solved?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> where did you get this worldview?
> 
> Tell me about it?



I've been listening to Bahnsen (Biblical Apologetics, lecture 25), and he deals with someone who says he has a worldview parallel to Christianity but not Christianity. Once the guy gives answers to all the tough philosophical questions, Bahnsen says we should ask him how he knows these answers. 

If the guy says "I'm using the Bible, only I'm taking just enough to get by and leaving what I don't like," Bahnsen nails him on being arbitrary. In such a case, the guy isn't actually taking from Christianity, because Christianity doesn't allow you to take and leave from Scripture at your pleasure. 

But what if the guy says he isn't stealing from the Bible? Then Bahnsen asks the same question, "how do you know?" Bahnsen says that the guy cannot say "God told me." But why can't he!?!?!

Honestly, if he says "God spoke to me and told me all these things," how do we demonstrate to him that he is wrong? If we approach him like Bahnsen tells us to and say "God couldn't have told you these things," he is just going to say, "Yes he can, and he has!" What do we do with this guy?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'd need to see the worldview worked out.



Why do you even need to see the worldview? This is the very question I've been asking all along! You end up having to look at each individual case. This is what happens when you assert a universal negative, you end up having to go case by case. This is exactly what I was getting at earlier:


> _Originally posted by Monergism_
> What I see you doing is this. You present the TAG and claim to prove a universal negative (i.e. no other possible worldview can provide the necessary preconditions), and then when someone challenges your claim, you show their worldview to be inadequate to account for argumentation and tell them to go sit in the corner until they're tired of looking for another worldview that works. How is that any different than simply asserting the claim of the Bible that only it can provide the necessary preconditions, and then when someone disagrees, show their worldview to be inadequate to account for argumentation, tell them to go sit in the corner, etc.?



How are those two apologetic methods any different other than one claiming to have objective proof and one not?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 7, 2004)

Paul,

Before going further, could you explain how the two apologetic methods I've mentioned are any different other than one claiming to have objective proof and one not?


----------



## Monergism (Dec 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I've already told you that I'm not doing that method. Recast my approach properly and then I'll tell you.



I apologize if I've misrepresented your approach. Please correct me and explain your approach, then we can go further.


----------



## Monergism (Dec 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Paul: There are only two worldviews. I'm refuting the negation of A.



Here is where I'm confused them. I don't believe you've refuted the class ~A. So far I've seen you refute several illustrations of ~A. If I've missed it, please copy and paste where you've done it or send me to where I can go and read it. All I've seen you do is throw out several philosophical problems any worldview must account for, show how Christianity accounts for it, and then assert that no other can. In other words, _it seems to me_ that you're saying the Christian worldview accounts for these things, therefore the Christian worldview provides the _necessary_ preconditions.

As you said earlier, "œWell, to tell you the *specific* problems I'd need to see it, right? I can give you a general refutation" Your "œgeneral refutation," as I´ve understood it, amounts to nothing more than an assertion. You´ve said, "œThe Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions," but again, I don´t see how this doesn´t amount to a fideistic assertion. Can you please restate your "œgeneral refutation" in an argument? If you´ve already done it, I hope it won´t be too much trouble to recopy here.

Paul, I´m genuinely hoping I´m in the wrong on these things, so I truly appreciate your patience as we think through these things together.


----------

