# Multiple worldviews



## Scott

According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea? 

Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!


----------



## bradofshaw

The claims made by Christianity are such that If they are true, then any deviation must be false. 

Presupps would say that Christian Theism is the necessary condition for reality to make sense (Transcendental argument I believe). 

So I suppose you could appeal first to the intelligibility found in Christian Theism, then show how Christianity claims to be the only true truth, then you could systematically show how every other view fails.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> The claims made by Christianity are such that If they are true, then any deviation must be false.
> 
> Presupps would say that Christian Theism is the necessary condition for reality to make sense (Transcendental argument I believe).
> 
> So I suppose you could appeal first to the intelligibility found in Christian Theism, then show how Christianity claims to be the only true truth, then you could systematically show how every other view fails.
> 
> Maybe I'm oversimplifying?



But showing that all other worldviews fail does not positively "prove" the Christian worldview, despite if that is what Van Tillians try to do in the Transcendental argument.

Here is where I am more Clarkian I guess.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> The claims made by Christianity are such that If they are true, then any deviation must be false.
> 
> Presupps would say that Christian Theism is the necessary condition for reality to make sense (Transcendental argument I believe).
> 
> So I suppose you could appeal first to the intelligibility found in Christian Theism, then show how Christianity claims to be the only true truth, then you could systematically show how every other view fails.
> 
> Maybe I'm oversimplifying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But showing that all other worldviews fail does not positively "prove" the Christian worldview, despite if that is what Van Tillians try to do in the Transcendental argument.
> 
> Here is where I am more Clarkian I guess.
Click to expand...


But Transcendental argumentation does not just prove by defeating all known competitors. It really wouldnt be different from deductive and inductive argumentation. The goal with Transcendental argumentation is to show that no matter where you run, you will always have to accept something in order to go anywhere.

Such was Aristotle and transcendental argument for logic. Even if you reject logic, you have to accept it for your rejection to make any possible sense.

Same thing with the Christian worldview, you can reject it, but in fact you have to accept it, in order to make sense of you rejection. 

A person rejecting the Christian worldview makes as much sense as rejection logic or saying that I can go it alone, without logic. The only issue is getting them to understand that.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?
> 
> Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ..._n_?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.
Click to expand...


Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".

The response to both "Clark and Van Til" by Mr. Unbeliever is the same. All either has done (or can possibly do) is show that what I am doing is crap, not that non Christianity is crap. 

It seems that at the end of the day, all that has been done is the burden of proof has been shifted to those who wish to oppose Christianity. And you can then say that it is irrational for the Unbeliever to reject Christianity.

That is as good as I see it getting, but it seems that the claims want to go beyond that.

I see the same thing happening with Transcendental proof of logic.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer after you tell me how that someone, call him Clark, *knows* that Christianity is *true* i.e., that there are no other consistent worldviews. I think if you re-read what you wrote you'll see the problem and, therefore, the difference.
Click to expand...


I, not Clark, would say because the Bible says that it is true. I cannot demonstrate the truth to the exclusion of the infinite number of worldviews.


----------



## Saiph

I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?

Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer after you tell me how that someone, call him Clark, *knows* that Christianity is *true* i.e., that there are no other consistent worldviews. I think if you re-read what you wrote you'll see the problem and, therefore, the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, not Clark, would say because the Bible says that it is true. I cannot demonstrate the truth to the exclusion of the infinite number of worldviews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and thats' why many people criticise Clark as a fideist/dogmatist. So, now you see the difference?
Click to expand...


No, I dont, because what I see is that Van Til is in the same boat, he is just able to avoid the title due to symantics.

For it would seem that Van Til et al. have to be dogmatic that not being the Christian worldview is what dooms all other perspectives. But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?
> 
> Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.



Where are my torches 

The issue is demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. I believe that the contrary is impossible, I just have yet to see someone demonstrate it.


----------



## Saiph

> But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.



Whatever is true in logic temporally, is true in logic eternally.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?
> 
> Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.



Prove that God created in the space of six days vs. any other number of days.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever is true in logic temporally, is true in logic eternally.
Click to expand...


Could you restate that for me please 

CT


----------



## Scott

> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ...n?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.



But when internally critiquing alternate worldviews, apologists don't just pinpoint the absence of Christ. Rather, they take the worldview on its own terms and examine how that alternate worldview does not make human experience intelligible. So from a practical perspective it seems that we are in the boat of asking "what about C, D, E, ...n?" Given the nature of the internal critiques that presups give (and I am presup of the Bahnsen variety), it seems hard to escape.


----------



## Saiph

I cannot prove the duration of creation with the Bible, or without it.
Not sure how that question was relevant.

You mentioned not having infinite time. My point is that if A != !A in any point in time, then the same is true eternally, or, without reference to time.

Does that answer your question ?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I cannot prove the duration of creation with the Bible, or without it.
> Not sure how that question was relevant.
> 
> You mentioned not having infinite time. My point is that if A != !A in any point in time, then the same is true eternally, or, without reference to time.
> 
> Does that answer your question ?



You cannot prove that Christianity is the only possible consistent worldview with any more force than you can the days of creation.

You explanation does help me, but I still dont see that as saving your position concerning the impossibility of the contrary.

First off, you can only deal with that which you are confronted with, and to say that you have confronted everything isn't going to work. But if it did, then Clark would be just as good as Van Til.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ...n?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when internally critiquing alternate worldviews, apologists don't just pinpoint the absence of Christ. Rather, they take the worldview on its own terms and examine how that alternate worldview does not make human experience intelligible. So from a practical perspective it seems that we are in the boat of asking "what about C, D, E, ...n?" Given the nature of the internal critiques that presups give (and I am presup of the Bahnsen variety), it seems hard to escape.
Click to expand...


I think the issue that Paul addresses is not that we have to go in and demonstrate how worldview X goes wrong, I think he is talking about what is the worldview missing that makes error inevitable.


----------



## Saiph

The nature of reality is not as diverse as you are making it out to be.
If I confront every worldview that is not Christianity, they will all be found to be internally conflicting. Only a personal, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, self-existing, omnibenevolent God who became flesh can make rational sense of this world. The universals and particulars are bridged only in the triune ONE in whom one person became flesh.

Present a worldview other than Christianity that can account for these things.

As for scripturalism, (Is that what you mean by Clark?) read Manatas critiques of all knowledge being X on his blog.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> The nature of reality is not as diverse as you are making it out to be.
> If I confront every worldview that is not Christianity, they will all be found to be internally conflicting. Only a personal, triune, omnipotent, omniscient, self-existing, omnibenevolent God who became flesh can make rational sense of this world. The universals and particulars are bridged only in the triune ONE in whom one person became flesh.
> 
> Present a worldview other than Christianity that can account for these things.



If I thought I could present another worldview, that could account for those things, I would be banned from board because I couldn't hold to the confessions anymore 

The issue is that worldviews come and go. For example, there are other things running around that Augustine did not run into. (You could make a n argument that the cores have not really changed) but you would have to look at the worldviews of today and then refute and then say, the core has not changed. Doing this would pull you into the infinite worldview game.



> As for scripturalism, (Is that what you mean by Clark?) read Manatas critiques of all knowledge being X on his blog.
> 
> [Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]



When I said, Clark I meant, he went and defeated the unbelieving worldviews that he came into contact with. If what you said, is the case, then there really is no distinctive with Van Til's argumentation vs. Clark.

You just defeat everything you see, and than say, everything that will come up later will look like I just saw. Therefore I win.


----------



## Saiph

> You just defeat everything you see, and than say, everything that will come up later will look like I just saw. Therefore I win.



The impossibility of A being equal to Not-A is never going to change. 
Therefore, since my worldview is the only one that accounts for that law being in existence, and all life depends on it to continue, ANY contrary world-view will always be wrong.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer after you tell me how that someone, call him Clark, *knows* that Christianity is *true* i.e., that there are no other consistent worldviews. I think if you re-read what you wrote you'll see the problem and, therefore, the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, not Clark, would say because the Bible says that it is true. I cannot demonstrate the truth to the exclusion of the infinite number of worldviews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and thats' why many people criticise Clark as a fideist/dogmatist. So, now you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I dont, because what I see is that Van Til is in the same boat, he is just able to avoid the title due to symantics.
> 
> For it would seem that Van Til et al. have to be dogmatic that not being the Christian worldview is what dooms all other perspectives. But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, if Van Til is correct then we have escaped the many-worldviews objection.
Click to expand...


If he is correct, then yes we have. The issue is demonstrating that he is correct. And I dont know how you can do that without, taking on the worldviews one by one.

And if you say you dont need to demonstrate, then I would ask, why do you call it a proof.



> And, we give an argument for logic et al (e.g., needing a personal God, who reveals himself to man, who is universal, imutable, etc.) That worldview provides the preconditions.



Here I would ask, how do you go from shifting the burden of proof to the unbeliever to saying: QED



> At this point the only route I see is the fristian objection.



It always ends with Fristian 

Does this argument have anything to do with the Senate Majority leader?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> You just defeat everything you see, and than say, everything that will come up later will look like I just saw. Therefore I win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The impossibility of A being equal to Not-A is never going to change.
> Therefore, since my worldview is the only one that accounts for that law being in existence, and all life depends on it to continue, ANY contrary world-view will always be wrong.
Click to expand...


Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.

Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A



If you are trying to use the argument as representative of Clark, then I would disagree that he taught that (at least from the books of him that I've read). 

Clark did not accept any proofs for the existence of God, but rather insisted that Scripture must be assumed, and not argued for.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I do not think Christianity, or anything for that matter is true because the Bible says so. Am I a heretic ? ?
> 
> Christianity, or the Christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are my torches
> 
> The issue is demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. I believe that the contrary is impossible, I just have yet to see someone demonstrate it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Saiph

> Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.
> 
> Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.



So what kind of argument would you use ?

And I would tell them, in order to have rational integrity, they might as well believe Christianity until they find that nebulous "other" worldview.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.
> 
> Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what kind of argument would you use ?
> 
> And I would tell them, in order to have rational integrity, they might as well believe Christianity until they find that nebulous "other" worldview.
Click to expand...


Christ didn't present "arguments" in the desert with the devil, but just replied with "It is written." Appeal to the highest authority in heaven and earth, the Word of God. Why start with anything less?

That is our duty.


----------



## Saiph

> Christ didn't present "arguments" in the desert with the devil, but just replied with "It is written." Appeal to the highest authority in heaven and earth, the Word of God. Why start with anything less?
> 
> That is our duty.



So fideism is the only option? Take a leap of faith, as Kierkegaard says.
Believe the scriptures blindly?

In one sense this is where I agree with Augustine, that understanding is the reward of faith. Each person must be awakened by the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit to their existential need for God.

But I like rational proofs when confronting fools. There is nothing wrong with crushing their gods.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why people will just say, we have yet to find the contrary worldview yet. Just like searching for Gold, no one says that gold just appears suddenly underground of certain places. It however takes time to discover. It was always there.
> 
> Which is the problem with inductive arguments. You have to assume that you have seen everything under all conditions. They can turn out wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what kind of argument would you use ?
Click to expand...


Well if you listen to Frame, there really isnt that much difference from Trans and Deductive 

I do know that uses the term "impossible" and inductive argument together, does not work very well.

I have no problem saying, because the Bible says so, to end a debate.



> And I would tell them, in order to have rational integrity, they might as well believe Christianity until they find that nebulous "other" worldview.



I would do a bit better here. I would say that you cannot maintain rationality and reject Christianity. If you have a reason to reject everything that you have seen besides Christianity and you have a reason to accept Christianity, but you refuse, that is just irrational.


----------



## Saiph

> I would do a bit better here. I would say that you cannot maintain rationality and reject Christianity. If you have a reason to reject everything that you have seen besides Christianity and you have a reason to accept Christianity, but you refuse, that is just irrational.



You said that better than I did. In the end it is still Pascal's wager.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> Christ didn't present "arguments" in the desert with the devil, but just replied with "It is written." Appeal to the highest authority in heaven and earth, the Word of God. Why start with anything less?
> 
> That is our duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fideism is the only option. Take a leap of faith, as Kierkegaard says.
> Believe the scriptures.
> 
> In one sense this is where I agree with Augustine, that understanding is the reward of faith. Each person must be awakened by the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit to their existential need for God.
> 
> But I like rational proofs when confronting fools. There is nothing wrong with crushing their gods.
Click to expand...


I dont think it is fair to call it a leap of faith. Its more like its the only train leaving town before a nuclear holocaust.

The only options are to embrace Christianity or embrace, irrationality.

I can't prove everything in the Christian worldview (some stuff I have to just say, God said so, game over) but there really is no other options.


----------



## Saiph

> I can't prove everything in the Christian worldview (some stuff I have to just say, God said so, game over) but there really is no other options.



Even though God said so, He also said, "Come now, let us reason together", he did not leave us stranded to acquiesce into systematic scepticism, and epistemological fog.

If we love Him with all our minds, we will silence the philosophy of fools with our arguments.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k

to Hermonta again.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Scott

> yeah, all you've done here is to say that you can't or haven't shown how every variation fails, *but if every variation assumes ~A (which they do) and if ~A cannot provide for the possibility of knowledge*, then you already know that every variation will fail because every variation is a variation of ~A and ~A is false.



How can you know that every variation of ~A cannot provide for knowledge unless you examine every variation of ~A?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> I can't prove everything in the Christian worldview (some stuff I have to just say, God said so, game over) but there really is no other options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though God said so, He also said, "Come now, let us reason together", he did not leave us stranded to aquiesce into systematic scepticism, and epistemological fog.
> 
> If we love Him with all our minds, we will silence the philosophy of fools with our arguments.
Click to expand...


It's one thing to silence them by destroying their arguments, but to positively try to "prove" the existence of God is not only a waste of time, but is not the biblical approach.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> I can't prove everything in the Christian worldview (some stuff I have to just say, God said so, game over) but there really is no other options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though God said so, He also said, "Come now, let us reason together", he did not leave us stranded to aquiesce into systematic scepticism, and epistemological fog.
> 
> If we love Him with all our minds, we will silence the philosophy of fools with our arguments.
Click to expand...


We do reason, but that doesnt mean that we can reason out God and everything that He does. There are a lot of mysteries that will remain that way, at least on this side of heaven.

Because we cannot drill down to the bottom of a number of issues, does not give us systematic scepticism. The unbelievers have that because they do not acknowledge the God of the Bible.

And as I have been saying, we do silence the fools, however somehow you seem to think we need to do more to silence them?

Being able to leave them with the choice of rationality or irrationality is silencing them.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, all you've done here is to say that you can't or haven't shown how every variation fails, *but if every variation assumes ~A (which they do) and if ~A cannot provide for the possibility of knowledge*, then you already know that every variation will fail because every variation is a variation of ~A and ~A is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you know that every variation of ~A cannot provide for knowledge unless you examine every variation of ~A?
Click to expand...


 That is exactly my question as well, and essentially the only point I still have not been able to grasp of the transcendental approach used by Van Til and Bahnsen, though I understand and fully agree with everything else I have seen in it. Paul, in your statement that Scott quoted above, just how do we specifically go about showing that "~A cannot provide for the possibility of knowledge" and that ~A's antithesis with A is precisely the characteristic of ~A that renders it impossible?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, all you've done here is to say that you can't or haven't shown how every variation fails, *but if every variation assumes ~A (which they do) and if ~A cannot provide for the possibility of knowledge*, then you already know that every variation will fail because every variation is a variation of ~A and ~A is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you know that every variation of ~A cannot provide for knowledge unless you examine every variation of ~A?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because ~A can't. Saying I am ugly is saying the same thing no matter how many languages you say it in.
Click to expand...


Aka "Because the Bible says so", right?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, all you've done here is to say that you can't or haven't shown how every variation fails, *but if every variation assumes ~A (which they do) and if ~A cannot provide for the possibility of knowledge*, then you already know that every variation will fail because every variation is a variation of ~A and ~A is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you know that every variation of ~A cannot provide for knowledge unless you examine every variation of ~A?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because ~A can't.
Click to expand...


I think this is the very thing Scott is asking how we show. I think we all agree that if ~A itself is false, then all variations of it are also necessarily false. The confusion seems to be over just how we show that the heart of ~A in and of itself is false.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, all you've done here is to say that you can't or haven't shown how every variation fails, *but if every variation assumes ~A (which they do) and if ~A cannot provide for the possibility of knowledge*, then you already know that every variation will fail because every variation is a variation of ~A and ~A is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you know that every variation of ~A cannot provide for knowledge unless you examine every variation of ~A?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because ~A can't. Saying I am ugly is saying the same thing no matter how many languages you say it in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aka "Because the Bible says so", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this was strictly a logical point, hermonta. If ~A is false than any variation of ~A is false. If they are not false then ~A is not false.
> 
> Now, I didn't say I showed anything but I answered the question, and my answer stands. We're moving too fast in this thread instead of being methodical.
> 
> I also remember discussing this a while ago in the bi-nity thread.
Click to expand...


I think it moved quicker, because we have had previous discussions and have gone and done more reading on our own. We dont have to start at the beginning everytime.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, all you've done here is to say that you can't or haven't shown how every variation fails, *but if every variation assumes ~A (which they do) and if ~A cannot provide for the possibility of knowledge*, then you already know that every variation will fail because every variation is a variation of ~A and ~A is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you know that every variation of ~A cannot provide for knowledge unless you examine every variation of ~A?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because ~A can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is the very thing Scott is asking how we show. I think we all agree that if ~A itself is false, then all variations of it are also necessarily false. The confusion seems to be over just how we show that the heart of ~A in and of itself is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm moving slow...
> 
> Now, Chris, did Scott ask that? He asked me that if ~A was false then why does that mean that every variation of ~A is false? I answered him *on that question,* did I not?
> 
> Also, the heart of ~A is false because the heart is that it rejects Christianity, the procindition for intelligibility. If you don't think that rejecting Christianity reduces to foolishness, then put up your competator.
Click to expand...


Asking someone to put up their competitor means, that we cannot demonstrate the "impossibility of the contrary". If the contrary is "impossible" then I would just put the proof down and walk away. There would be no need for interaction.

I am pretty well convinced that all we can do at this day and age is shift the burden of proof to the unbeliever. This is doing a ton but I think the advertisement is that we could do more and more easily.


----------



## Scott

"If you don't think that rejecting Christianity reduces to foolishness, then put up your competator."

That's this thing. In the end we will need to show that every specific competitor fails. Seems required by the methodology of offering internal critiques.


----------



## Scott

"because ~A can't. Saying I am ugly is saying the same thing no matter how many languages you say it in."

How do you know it can't if you don't internally critique every view?


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "because ~A can't. Saying I am ugly is saying the same thing no matter how many languages you say it in."
> 
> How do you know it can't if you don't internally critique every view?



Give me a break. Not only is every variation of ~A = false (ie. I am ugly), if the variation proves to be somehow contrary to ~A then it follows that "I am no longer ugly". What is so difficult to understand here ?

Ugly is too subjective anyway.

These are boolean values. There is no middle ground.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "If you don't think that rejecting Christianity reduces to foolishness, then put up your competator."
> 
> That's this thing. In the end we will need to show that every specific competitor fails. Seems required by the methodology of offering internal critiques.



You guys are becoming more Clarkian all the time!


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Paul what is the difference between, someone lets call him "Clark" saying, "I cannot demonstrate the defeat of the infinite possible worldviews, but I would if I had infinite time because Christianity is true", and someone we can call him "Van Til" saying, "There are two classes, Christianity and non Christianity. Mr. Unbeliever, you hold to a element of the class non Christianity. I have just defeated you, and I have shown that the class non Christianity does not work. Therefore Christianity".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me answer after you tell me how that someone, call him Clark, *knows* that Christianity is *true* i.e., that there are no other consistent worldviews. I think if you re-read what you wrote you'll see the problem and, therefore, the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I, not Clark, would say because the Bible says that it is true. I cannot demonstrate the truth to the exclusion of the infinite number of worldviews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and thats' why many people criticise Clark as a fideist/dogmatist. So, now you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I dont, because what I see is that Van Til is in the same boat, he is just able to avoid the title due to symantics.
> 
> For it would seem that Van Til et al. have to be dogmatic that not being the Christian worldview is what dooms all other perspectives. But one can never demonstrate this due to not being infinite or having infinite time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, if Van Til is correct then we have escaped the many-worldviews objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is correct, then yes we have. The issue is demonstrating that he is correct. And I dont know how you can do that without, taking on the worldviews one by one.
> 
> And if you say you dont need to demonstrate, then I would ask, why do you call it a proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, we give an argument for logic et al (e.g., needing a personal God, who reveals himself to man, who is universal, imutable, etc.) That worldview provides the preconditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here I would ask, how do you go from shifting the burden of proof to the unbeliever to saying: QED
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point the only route I see is the fristian objection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It always ends with Fristian
> 
> Does this argument have anything to do with the Senate Majority leader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is correct, logically even. There are two fundamental positions, for and against Christ (A or B). If you deny this then you deny Jesus, so what worldview are you satnding in when you do so?
Click to expand...


Okay, the logic is in fact sound. There are two classes, but the issue is can you refute the whole class by refuting only a few instances of it. That you cannot do without appealing to our worldview (which says the whole unbelieving class is doomed).



> I do demonstarte it, but I can't show every example at once, so I'll take your worldview on. I've already shown the argument and said the only response is to come with a theistic worldview exactly like ours.



The issue isn't at once. The issue is ever, (due to our finitude). You have said that the only response is to come with a theistic worldview exactly like ours. But do you go beyond that assertion to demonstration? I can't imagine how you could demonstrate it instead of assert it?



> I don't know if the UB will ever say QED. Your mixing apples and oranges here. The argument is sound whether the UN says Uncle or not.



I didnt say that the Unbeliever had to say, QED. My issue is how can I say that? Now I believe I can say, The Bible says it, QED. But going beyond that is what puzzles me.



> Re fristianity, I still don't know what you mean by that so as it stands it is not a conceivable worldview and the argument is about conceivable worldviews since inconceivable worldviews are not even able to be talked about (because you couldn't conceive it).



Huh. I didnt say anything about Fristianity except a joke and ask about the Senate Majority leader?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "because ~A can't. Saying I am ugly is saying the same thing no matter how many languages you say it in."
> 
> How do you know it can't if you don't internally critique every view?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. Not only is every variation of ~A = false (ie. I am ugly), if the variation proves to be somehow contrary to ~A then it follows that "I am no longer ugly". What is so difficult to understand here ?
> 
> Ugly is too subjective anyway.
> 
> These are boolean values. There is no middle ground.
> 
> [Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]
Click to expand...


The issue is not the truth of the A vs. ~A being exhaustive. It is the demonstration of ~~A without seeing everything and personally refuting things.


----------



## Saiph

1. All triangles have three sides
2. x does not have three sides 
3. Therefore, x is not a triangle

Whatever shape you plug into X, it will be a boolean result True/False.
I do not need to plug in every shape in existence to prove that.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, the heart of ~A is false because the heart is that it rejects Christianity, the procindition for intelligibility. If you don't think that rejecting Christianity reduces to foolishness, then put up your competator.



Here is my current problem: When I hear Van Tillian authors talk about the nature of proof and Christianity's defense, they talk about it like you do in your first sentence here. But whenever I see them actually offering proof and going about defending Christianity, they do it like you do in your second sentence. And I see that theory and practice of the two sentences as inconsistent.

In your first sentence, you are saying that we don't _need_ to critique the various individual forms of unbelief because they are all universally disproven simply by their ~A-ness. But then as soon as I asked you *what* that universal proof against the heart of ~A looked like, your answer seemed to be that the proof is merely that you are able to refute each individual form of ~A that I put forward!

Where is the positive argument that ~A-ness is inherently false, without resorting to, "Because I can disprove each individual form of ~A that you can conceive"? Do you understand where I'm coming from here?


----------



## Saiph

> Where is the positive argument that ~A-ness is inherently false



Mt. 12:30

He who is not with me is against me, and he who is not gathering with me, doth scatter. (YLT)

The logic of Jesus.


----------



## Scott

Chris: That is a good question.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 1. All triangles have three sides
> 2. x does not have three sides
> 3. Therefore, x is not a triangle
> 
> Whatever shape you plug into X, it will be a boolean result True/False.
> I do not need to plug in every shape in existence to prove that.



Oh that proof is great if I accep the premises. If I dont, what good is it.

Here is the claim in your proof format.

1)All non Christian worldviews fail
2)X is a non Christian worldview
3)Therefore X fails.

I challenge you to demonstrate premise 1, then I will accept your proof. The only thing you can do is say, it is true, because the Bible tells me that it is true. (Which I have no trouble with you doing)

The problem is demonstrating 1 without see all non Christian worldviews. 

What we end up doing is shifting the burden of proof to unbelievers, after we have shown their worldview to be corrupt. So it ends up being "To reject Christianity and hold to a contrary worldview, then you must bring forth that worldview". If you cant, then you cannot rationally reject Christianity."

However we cannot at any point "demonstrate" the impossibility of the contrary, even though we strongly believe it and have biblical evidence to back the belief.


----------



## Scott

"If ~A is false then ~A is false. That's all I'm saying."

Ok, what is the positive case for A? Christianity is normally presented as being true (at least in Bahnsen's main lectures) because of the "impossibility of the contrary."


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Chris: That is a good question.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 1)All non Christian worldviews fail
> 2)X is a non Christian worldview
> 3)Therefore X fails.
> 
> I challenge you to demonstrate premise 1, then I will accept your proof. The only thing you can do is say, it is true, because the Bible tells me that it is true. (Which I have no trouble with you doing)
> 
> The problem is demonstrating 1 without see all non Christian worldviews.
> 
> What we end up doing is shifting the burden of proof to unbelievers, after we have shown their worldview to be corrupt. So it ends up being "To reject Christianity and hold to a contrary worldview, then you must bring forth that worldview". If you cant, then you cannot rationally reject Christianity."
> 
> However we cannot at any point "demonstrate" the impossibility of the contrary, even though we strongly believe it and have biblical evidence to back the belief.


----------



## Saiph

Hermonta, I think you are borrowing their worldview to challenge premise 1.

We presuppose the Christian worldview, and the syllogism always stands, as you pointed out.

They cannot do this. The great reality is that we know this, yes, from the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit enlightening our minds. Syllogisms will never convert anyone. But they are usefull for revealing the non-christians faulty logic.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the positive argument that ~A-ness is inherently false
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mt. 12:30
> 
> He who is not with me is against me, and he who is not gathering with me, doth scatter. (YLT)
> 
> The logic of Jesus.
Click to expand...


That verse doesnt demonstrate the falseness of ~A. It demonstrates that there are only two global options, For Jesus and Against Jesus.

We cannot demonstrate the truth of For Jesus because we cannot demonstrate the global falseness of Against Jesus because we cannot demonstrate that every instance of Against Jesus fails due to finiteness of man.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?
> 
> Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ..._n_?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.
Click to expand...


Ok, I know I am getting to this late, but I recognize a problem with this reasoning. Essentially the two proofs you´ve given are NO DIFFERENT.

Let me demonstrate. If we substitute B=~A into the second equation, quess what?!! We get the first equation! We can replace it with different symbols, but essentially, they are the same, just with different names.

A or B (~A)

~B (~A)

Therefore A.


----------



## Saiph

> That verse doesnt demonstrate the falseness of ~A. It demonstrates that there are only two global options, For Jesus and Against Jesus.
> 
> We cannot demonstrate the truth of For Jesus because we cannot demonstrate the global falseness of Against Jesus because we cannot demonstrate that every instance of Against Jesus fails due to finiteness of man.



For Jesus = true (A)
Against Jesus = false (!A)

What your asking is similar to someone asking you to prove a triangle has three sides.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> That verse doesnt demonstrate the falseness of ~A. It demonstrates that there are only two global options, For Jesus and Against Jesus.
> 
> We cannot demonstrate the truth of For Jesus because we cannot demonstrate the global falseness of Against Jesus because we cannot demonstrate that every instance of Against Jesus fails due to finiteness of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Jesus = true (A)
> Against Jesus = false (~A)
> 
> What your asking is similar to someone asking you to prove a triangle has three sides.
Click to expand...


That may be his point. The only way we essentially know the "triangle" has three sides is to say "The bible says so."

The same with the second premise (~~A). The only way we can say this is true, is to appeal to the Scriptures.


----------



## Saiph

Just do not conclude from that idea that we can only "know" what is in the scriptures.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Just do not conclude from that idea that we can only "know" what is in the scriptures.



Why not?


----------



## Me Died Blue




----------



## Saiph

Last time I checked my concordance, "Jeff Bartel" was not in the Bible.
So I guess you do not exist.


----------



## Arch2k

John Calvin on Jeremiah 44:1

And I have said that religion ought not to be separated from knowledge; but I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, or what is by diligence acquired, but that which is delivered to us by the Law and the Prophets.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Last time I checked my concordance, "Jeff Bartel" was not in the Bible.
> So I guess you do not exist.



Everything "exists" the question is "What is it?"


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> That verse doesnt demonstrate the falseness of ~A. It demonstrates that there are only two global options, For Jesus and Against Jesus.
> 
> We cannot demonstrate the truth of For Jesus because we cannot demonstrate the global falseness of Against Jesus because we cannot demonstrate that every instance of Against Jesus fails due to finiteness of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Jesus = true (A)
> Against Jesus = false (!A)
> 
> What your asking is similar to someone asking you to prove a triangle has three sides.
> 
> [Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]
Click to expand...


Oh I agree with your characterization as A and !A. But my point is we cannot demonstrate that ~A is impossible which would leave us with only A as an option. Believing and demonstrating are two different things (I mean without changing the meaning of the word demonstrate)

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Last time I checked my concordance, "Jeff Bartel" was not in the Bible.
> So I guess you do not exist.



I think the Clarkian problem is that they do not want to say that the word "know" can take on different senses in different contexts.


----------



## Scott

> That verse doesnt demonstrate the falseness of ~A. It demonstrates that there are only two global options, For Jesus and Against Jesus.
> 
> We cannot demonstrate the truth of For Jesus because we cannot demonstrate the global falseness of Against Jesus because we cannot demonstrate that every instance of Against Jesus fails due to finiteness of man.



I think the parable of building a house on the sand vs. stone would get us where Saiph wants to go.


----------



## Saiph

Jeff, are you being serious ? ?
Did you learn to read english, and then Calvin, and the Bible, from the Bible ? ?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Last time I checked my concordance, "Jeff Bartel" was not in the Bible.
> So I guess you do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Clarkian problem is that they do not want to say that the word "know" can take on different senses in different contexts.
Click to expand...


I can see that. In the strict sense though, I stand!


----------



## Scott

Most presup arguments I see argue from the impossibility of the contrary. They do not argue "A is true" by presenting a positive case for it and then saying well, since this is true, other options are false. Rather, they seem to argue for the correctness of A precisely b/c they believe ~A is impossible.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> 
> That verse doesnt demonstrate the falseness of ~A. It demonstrates that there are only two global options, For Jesus and Against Jesus.
> 
> We cannot demonstrate the truth of For Jesus because we cannot demonstrate the global falseness of Against Jesus because we cannot demonstrate that every instance of Against Jesus fails due to finiteness of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the parable of building a house on the sand vs. stone would get us where Saiph wants to go.
Click to expand...


If by demonstrate, we mean "show scripture that supports the position". But usually the term does not mean that. (I was sloppy when I said that the vs. Saiph appealed to demonstrated the truth of for Jesus and Against Jesus (that didnt need to be demonstrated, it is true by law of non contradiction)


----------



## Scott

"Hermonta, I think you are borrowing their worldview to challenge premise 1."

Frankly, this may the key.


----------



## Saiph

As a programmer, I tend to use "!" instead of "~". 

Is "~" = NOT in logic ? (I asumed so, but Hermontas last post made me wonder)

I only know logic via computers, and a bit of Aristotle. . .


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Last time I checked my concordance, "Jeff Bartel" was not in the Bible.
> So I guess you do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Clarkian problem is that they do not want to say that the word "know" can take on different senses in different contexts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that. In the strict sense though, I stand!
Click to expand...


For example, I think the Bible supports the idea of things that you thought were knowledge turning out to be not knowledge. But until they are shown to be false, we can treat the "fact" as actual knowledge. That is how we should treat science. While the knowledge derived from scripture cannot be falsified by something else.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> As a programmer, I tend to use "!" instead of "~".
> 
> Is "~" = NOT in logic ? (I asumed so, but Hermontas last post made me wonder)
> 
> I only know logic via computers, and a bit of Aristotle. . .



~ = NOT in logic.


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Hermonta, I think you are borrowing their worldview to challenge premise 1."
> 
> Frankly, this may the key.



I think you are making the assumption that there is no God to challenge premise 1.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Hermonta, I think you are borrowing their worldview to challenge premise 1."
> 
> Frankly, this may the key.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are making the assumption that there is no God to challenge premise 1.
Click to expand...


Premise 1, cannot truly be challenged, without rejecting the Christian worldview.

My issue in this discussion is over the issue of demonstration and how little we can actually demonstrate.


----------



## Saiph

Well, an idea can be true and not demonstrable.

ie. the perfect triangle.

That gets into the ontological argument as well, which I know most presups do not like.


----------



## crhoades

This may be sophomoric and simplistic but...

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him. 

This means to show the comprehensive worldview of Christianity in all its glory. Van Til and Bahnsen always pointed out we are defending whole systems and not the blockhouse method. This could be done from a variety of perspectives: systematic/biblical theological/philosophical/historical etc. In fact if the unbeliever had enough time they should hear us out of positively what the Christian worldview is (Gospel included!)

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit. 

This is where we reduce their worldview to absurdity or in other words take on all comers...

So the first one proves the postive of what Christianity is, the second one disproves everything else.

I think too often presuppositionalists want to go for the juggler and knock the unbelievers' worldview down without positing the defense for the hope that we have. Not to mention, my opinion is that if the presuppositional challenge doesn't include the gospel then we are not talking about what Van Til was.

Why I believe in God by Van Til shows both a positive and negative critique in it. 

Back to the fancy squiggles now ([email protected])


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Well, an idea can be true and not demonstrable.
> 
> ie. the perfect triangle.
> 
> That gets into the ontological argument as well, which I know most presups do not like.



Most definitely true, but you sure dont call it a proof when you cant demonstrate it.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> This may be sophomoric and simplistic but...
> 
> Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him.
> 
> This means to show the comprehensive worldview of Christianity in all its glory. Van Til and Bahnsen always pointed out we are defending whole systems and not the blockhouse method. This could be done from a variety of perspectives: systematic/biblical theological/philosophical/historical etc. In fact if the unbeliever had enough time they should hear us out of positively what the Christian worldview is (Gospel included!)
> 
> Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit.
> 
> This is where we reduce their worldview to absurdity or in other words take on all comers...
> 
> So the first one proves the postive of what Christianity is, the second one disproves everything else.
> 
> I think too often presuppositionalists want to go for the juggler and knock the unbelievers' worldview down without positing the defense for the hope that we have. Not to mention, my opinion is that if the presuppositional challenge doesn't include the gospel then we are not talking about what Van Til was.
> 
> Why I believe in God by Van Til shows both a positive and negative critique in it.
> 
> Back to the fancy squiggles now ([email protected])



Scripture in a philosophy thread, how amateurish


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> This may be sophomoric and simplistic but...
> 
> Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him.
> 
> This means to show the comprehensive worldview of Christianity in all its glory. Van Til and Bahnsen always pointed out we are defending whole systems and not the blockhouse method. This could be done from a variety of perspectives: systematic/biblical theological/philosophical/historical etc. In fact if the unbeliever had enough time they should hear us out of positively what the Christian worldview is (Gospel included!)
> 
> Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit.
> 
> This is where we reduce their worldview to absurdity or in other words take on all comers...
> 
> So the first one proves the postive of what Christianity is, the second one disproves everything else.
> 
> I think too often presuppositionalists want to go for the juggler and knock the unbelievers' worldview down without positing the defense for the hope that we have. Not to mention, my opinion is that if the presuppositional challenge doesn't include the gospel then we are not talking about what Van Til was.
> 
> Why I believe in God by Van Til shows both a positive and negative critique in it.
> 
> Back to the fancy squiggles now ([email protected])
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture in a philosophy thread, how amateurish
Click to expand...


The B-I-B-L-E 
Yes that's the book for me!
I stand alone, on the Word of God
The B-I-B-L-E

Jesus love me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so...


Sorry...couldn't resist that one!


----------



## Arch2k

Hermonta,

I am curious, where are you at in all of this? From what I have gathered, you are pressup, but not VanTillian. Are you a brand of Clarkian/VanTillian, mesh?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?
> 
> Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ..._n_?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I know I am getting to this late, but I recognize a problem with this reasoning. Essentially the two proofs you´ve given are NO DIFFERENT.
> 
> Let me demonstrate. If we substitute B=~A into the second equation, quess what?!! We get the first equation! We can replace it with different symbols, but essentially, they are the same, just with different names.
> 
> A or B (~A)
> 
> ~B (~A)
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No logician in the world would say they're the same. That's what you get ofr reading Clark's logic book.
Click to expand...


The comment about Clark's book, helps the discussion how much??? Negative 3 points perhaps?

Symbolically, nothing is wrong with what Jeff said. It is just that in the course of the discussion, B has been infused with the meaning of just one possible worldview, while ~A means every worldview that is not A. (He did make, the typo (I think of ~B = ~~A))

As far as logic books go, anyone can make mistakes, even the exalted Copi.

Case in Point: The idea that an inconsistent argument entails every conclusion.

This just doesnt fly. There are two routes that one can go but neither entails every conclusion.

1)You keep the law of non contradiction, then you are forced to redo the premises until you find a consistent set.

2)You throw out the law of non contradiction and you keep the inconsistent premises. With the law of non contradiction gone, no conclusion would follow because, there would be no such thing as entailment with the law of non contradiction gone.

If people would just avoid Copi, such things would not be repeated


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Hermonta,
> 
> I am curious, where are you at in all of this? From what I have gathered, you are pressup, but not VanTillian. Are you a brand of Clarkian/VanTillian, mesh?



I dont know enough about Clark to say where I stand in relationship to him. As far as Van Til goes, the more I learn about him, the more I have come to agree with him. The only current issue, is that I am more sceptical of "science" and its results than most Van Tillians.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?
> 
> Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ..._n_?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I know I am getting to this late, but I recognize a problem with this reasoning. Essentially the two proofs you´ve given are NO DIFFERENT.
> 
> Let me demonstrate. If we substitute B=~A into the second equation, quess what?!! We get the first equation! We can replace it with different symbols, but essentially, they are the same, just with different names.
> 
> A or B (~A)
> 
> ~B (~A)
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No logician in the world would say they're the same. That's what you get ofr reading Clark's logic book.
Click to expand...


Of course they are the same with my qualifications. BTW, I did not learn logic from Clark (philosophy maybe, but not logic).

If B=all other world views=~A then your arguments are exactly alike. Just semantics.


----------



## Scott

Here is a common issue I encounter in using Van Tillian apologetics with people at work or wherever. You say that Christianity is the only worldview that can make human experience intelligible and they immediately start listing all sorts of worldviews (even ones they don't hold). So even if you disprove their worldview, they want to investigate all the others as well. How do you respond to this? If we argue from the impossibility of the contrary, they want to see every competitor taken down.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Here is a common issue I encounter in using Van Tillian apologetics with people at work or wherever. You say that Christianity is the only worldview that can make human experience intelligible and they immediately start listing all sorts of worldviews (even ones they don't hold). So even if you disprove their worldview, they want to investigate all the others as well. How do you respond to this? If we argue from the impossibility of the contrary, they want to see every competitor taken down.



That's because the Christian worldview is their "last resort" so to speak. I think that the unregenerate man will try to take every course possible before he would every accept our worldview, because it is at enmity with him.

It takes the Holy Spirit to open people's eyes to accept the Christian worldview, and that takes place through the preaching of the gospel.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Here is a common issue I encounter in using Van Tillian apologetics with people at work or wherever. You say that Christianity is the only worldview that can make human experience intelligible and they immediately start listing all sorts of worldviews (even ones they don't hold). So even if you disprove their worldview, they want to investigate all the others as well. How do you respond to this? If we argue from the impossibility of the contrary, they want to see every competitor taken down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the Christian worldview is their "last resort" so to speak. I think that the unregenerate man will try to take every course possible before he would every accept our worldview, because it is at enmity with him.
> 
> It takes the Holy Spirit to open people's eyes to accept the Christian worldview, and that takes place through the preaching of the gospel.
Click to expand...


 Any system of thought that is perceived to be circular reasoning will be held up for comparison to the Christian worldview by the unbeliever as a potential viable alternative. Smash one and another will pop up. Pascal's Wager is not enough to break through the defenses of an unbeliever. That is why the ethical component of apologetics is crucial. People don't want to follow Christ not because of valid alternatives or intellectual reasons but because to do so requires one to pick up his cross first and deny himself. The gospel presses unique ethical claims upon a person that makes choosing one's religion a matter of life or death rather than an intellectual exercise. It's good to zero in on the inherent weaknesses of other systems of thought but such challenges will be presented _ad infinitum_ by those who want to escape the ethical requirements of the Christian gospel.


----------



## Scott

I understand the ethical dimension. It seems to me that presuppositionalism, though, places us in a position that is inherently difficult to defend, because it basically rests on the demolition of all competitors, and there are many. It seems that some of this could be circumvented with a positive argument, as opposed to an argument from the impossibility of the contrary. It seems that the vast majority of presup literature is devoted to dismantling other views rather than constructing the Christian one.

Even most believers are incredulous when you make the claim only Christianity can account for human experience. They also start throwing out all the other options.


----------



## Saiph

Andrew, Paul,

I think both of you are arguing different aspects of the "light" of reason.
I find the following explanation to be lucid.

What do you think of the Dominican's idea ?



> *Whether without grace man can know any truth?*
> 
> 
> 
> *Objection 1:* It would seem that without grace man can know no truth. For, on 1 Cor. 12:3: "No man can say, the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost," a gloss says: "Every truth, by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost." Now the Holy Ghost dwells in us by grace. Therefore we cannot know truth without grace.
> 
> 
> *Objection 2:* Further, Augustine says (Solil. i, 6) that "the most certain sciences are like things lit up by the sun so as to be seen. Now God Himself is He Whom sheds the light. And reason is in the mind as sight is in the eye. And the eyes of the mind are the senses of the soul." Now the bodily senses, however pure, cannot see any visible object, without the sun's light. Therefore the human mind, however perfect, cannot, by reasoning, know any truth without Divine light: and this pertains to the aid of grace.
> 
> 
> * Objection 3: *Further, the human mind can only understand truth by thinking, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7). But the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:5): "Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God." Therefore man cannot, of himself, know truth without the help of grace.
> 
> 
> *On the contrary*, Augustine says (Retract. i, 4): "I do not approve having said in the prayer, O God, Who dost wish the sinless alone to know the truth; for it may be answered that many who are not sinless know many truths." Now man is cleansed from sin by grace, according to Ps. 50:12: "Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit within my bowels." Therefore without grace man of himself can know truth.
> 
> 
> * I answer that*, To know truth is a use or act of intellectual light, since, according to the Apostle (Eph. 5:13): "All that is made manifest is light." Now every use implies movement, taking movement broadly, so as to call thinking and willing movements, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 4). Now in corporeal things we see that for movement there is required not merely the form which is the principle of the movement or action, but there is also required the motion of the first mover. Now the first mover in the order of corporeal things is the heavenly body. Hence no matter how perfectly fire has heat, it would not bring about alteration, except by the motion of the heavenly body. But it is clear that as all corporeal movements are reduced to the motion of the heavenly body as to the first corporeal mover, so all movements, both corporeal and spiritual, are reduced to the simple First Mover, Who is God. And hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by God; but this motion is according to the plan of His providence, and not by necessity of nature, as the motion of the heavenly body. Now not only is every motion from God as from the First Mover, but all formal perfection is from Him as from the First Act. And thus the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.
> 
> 
> Now every form bestowed on created things by God has power for a determined act, which it can bring about in proportion to its own proper endowment; and beyond which it is powerless, except by a superadded form, as water can only heat when heated by the fire. And thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light, which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses. Higher intelligible things of the human intellect cannot know, unless it be perfected by a stronger light, viz. the light of faith or prophecy which is called the "light of grace," inasmuch as it is added to nature.
> 
> 
> Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act. But he does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his natural knowledge. And yet at times God miraculously instructs some by His grace in things that can be known by natural reason, even as He sometimes brings about miraculously what nature can do.
> 
> 
> * Reply to Objection 1: *Every truth by whomsoever spoken is from the Holy Ghost as bestowing the natural light, and moving us to understand and speak the truth, but not as dwelling in us by sanctifying grace, or as bestowing any habitual gift superadded to nature. For this only takes place with regard to certain truths that are known and spoken, and especially in regard to such as pertain to faith, of which the Apostle speaks.
> 
> 
> * Reply to Objection 2:* The material sun sheds its light outside us; but the intelligible Sun, Who is God, shines within us. Hence the natural light bestowed upon the soul is God's enlightenment, whereby we are enlightened to see what pertains to natural knowledge; and for this there is required no further knowledge, but only for such things as surpass natural knowledge.
> 
> 
> *Reply to Objection 3:* We always need God's help for every thought, inasmuch as He moves the understanding to act; for actually to understand anything is to think, as is clear from Augustine (De Trin. xiv, 7).




[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> It takes the Holy Spirit to open people's eyes to accept the Christian worldview, and that takes place through the preaching of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, that's confusing reasons -vs- causes for belief.
Click to expand...


That's presupposing there are *reasons* for belief. I believe the Bible preaches the only means that people are convinced of the truth is the gospel, not mere argumentation. The gospel enlightens people's minds, and that is what the Bible preaches.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> anyway, Jeff, you said earlier that "everything exists, what exists is the question" which is a paraphrase of Clark. My question: how do you KNOW that claim? Where is that claim deducable from Scripture? It's not. Clark's system is dead and rotting in the grave. It can't provide an apologetic, it refutes itself.



I am simply defining the term "exist" which I have a right to do. I am not trying to gain "knowledge" in the strict sense of the term by making this claim, but simply laying the foundation.

Anyway, if you didn't see my earlier post, I agree with Hermonta that *knowledge* can be used in different senses, and here I can see improvment over Clark.

As for your statement that "Clark's system is dead and rotting in the grave." that is the question at hand, and has yet to be proven. I might also consider that one of the abusive ad hominems I have seen on this and other threads. They don't help.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> As far as the many-worldviews objections go, I tried to systematicaslly deal with them but it appears that some have their mind made up and don't even understand some of my answers and keep chanting, but you haven't examined every alternative.
> 
> I gave an argument which showed that there are only two alternatives, if everyone agrees then we can move on, if not then you have issues with Jesus. If my arument stands (which it does) then the "many worldviews" is now a dead issue. We can then *move* on.



I still disagree that there are only two worldview. I believe that there are two categories or groups of worldviews, but that does not mean that there are only two. And maybe we are defining "worldview" differently. I prefer this definition of worldview. Here is an excerpt:



> It [worldview] refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it.





> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> But people shouldn't act haughty because I didn't address everything in my posts. I don't have the time to write a lengthy post anticipating every objection.



I don't blame you. Thanks for you interaction as well.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?
> 
> Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ..._n_?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I know I am getting to this late, but I recognize a problem with this reasoning. Essentially the two proofs you´ve given are NO DIFFERENT.
> 
> Let me demonstrate. If we substitute B=~A into the second equation, quess what?!! We get the first equation! We can replace it with different symbols, but essentially, they are the same, just with different names.
> 
> A or B (~A)
> 
> ~B (~A)
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No logician in the world would say they're the same. That's what you get ofr reading Clark's logic book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are the same with my qualifications. BTW, I did not learn logic from Clark (philosophy maybe, but not logic).
> 
> If B=all other world views=~A then your arguments are exactly alike. Just semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in logic, B does't = ~A.
> 
> Anyway, even if your missunderstanding is correct, I've still proven it. I don't need to refute many systems, just B. So, there are only two worldviews, and therefore I have proven the first major part in my argument. Since I've done that then the title of this thread is defeated. The question was about how we defeat an infinite number of systems, but I've proven that that is a false question.
Click to expand...


My problem is that I still see B (or ~A) as defined by a multitude of worldviews. Just because you symbolically lump them together does not mean that you've shown refutation to them.

The problem is demonstrating ~~A (or ~B).


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> According to presuppositionalism, in principle only one worldview can be right. While we often show that the Christian view is true by disproving other views (internal critiques), is there a way to avoid having to critique all other worldviews by showing positively that in principle only one worldview can be correct? How would someone defend this idea?
> 
> Paul Manata, I am looking for help here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where Clark fails because he cannot refute an infinite number of worldviews. Van Til's brilliance is that there are only *two* worldviews; those for and those against Christ. So, atheism and Buddhism alike are just different ways of saying the same thing: "in Christ are *not* hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
> 
> So, the argument doesn't look like this:
> 
> A or B
> 
> ~B
> 
> Therefore A
> 
> because then the opponant will say, "what about C, D, E, ..._n_?"
> 
> Rather, the formulation looks like this:
> 
> A or ~A
> 
> ~~A.
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I know I am getting to this late, but I recognize a problem with this reasoning. Essentially the two proofs you´ve given are NO DIFFERENT.
> 
> Let me demonstrate. If we substitute B=~A into the second equation, quess what?!! We get the first equation! We can replace it with different symbols, but essentially, they are the same, just with different names.
> 
> A or B (~A)
> 
> ~B (~A)
> 
> Therefore A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No logician in the world would say they're the same. That's what you get ofr reading Clark's logic book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are the same with my qualifications. BTW, I did not learn logic from Clark (philosophy maybe, but not logic).
> 
> If B=all other world views=~A then your arguments are exactly alike. Just semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in logic, B does't = ~A.
> 
> Anyway, even if your missunderstanding is correct, I've still proven it. I don't need to refute many systems, just B. So, there are only two worldviews, and therefore I have proven the first major part in my argument. Since I've done that then the title of this thread is defeated. The question was about how we defeat an infinite number of systems, but I've proven that that is a false question.
Click to expand...


The issue comes down to not being able to demonstrate that after some number X of variations of non Christian worldviews has been shown to be incoherent etc., all other variations of the unbelieving worldview will also fall.

I also see this argument as 6 vs. half a dozen. If someone says infinite worldviews and somone else says infinite variations on one worldview, in practice there is no difference. One cannot demonstrate the defeat of an infinite anything, even when we know that the all of the infinite instances are wrong.


----------



## Saiph

> One cannot demonstrate the defeat of an infinite anything, even when we know that the all of the infinite instances are wrong.



Why the focus on demonstration if, as you just said, we can KNOW they will always be wrong ?

Do I have to demonstrate that pi never ends to KNOW that by mathematical law it actually doesn't ? ?

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> It takes the Holy Spirit to open people's eyes to accept the Christian worldview, and that takes place through the preaching of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, that's confusing reasons -vs- causes for belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's presupposing there are *reasons* for belief. I believe the Bible preaches the only means that people are convinced of the truth is the gospel, not mere argumentation. The gospel enlightens people's minds, and that is what the Bible preaches.
Click to expand...


Every reason on earth is a reason for belief. The issue is that man suppresses his reasons due to his wickedness. The Holy Spirit 'causes' us to belief due to changing our hearts, but the reasons were always there.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> One cannot demonstrate the defeat of an infinite anything, even when we know that the all of the infinite instances are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the focus on demonstration if, as you just said, we can KNOW they will always be wrong ?
Click to expand...


We know the truth of the statement because the Christian worldview is true. The issue is what to say to the person who does not want to accept that.

So the argument ends up going: "A is true because the Christian worldview is true and ~A is false because the Chrstian worldview is true." People tend not to like to hear such.

The big issue is that the argument is usually framed as being able to demonstate ~~A. I dont think it can be done. But truth can not always be demonstrated.



> Do I have to demonstrate that pi never ends to KNOW that by mathematical law it actually doesn't ? ?
> 
> [Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]



What do you say to a person that does not accept that law?

There is also the issue of Inductive and Deductive proofs relying on God, so that to prove Him by them would be difficult.


----------



## Scott

Jacob sent me the email below regarding my initial question and said it would be ok to post it. I think it addresses some of the issues. 



> If I can show that all available non-christian worldviews are faulty, does that mean that the Christian worldview is necessariliy true? Perhaps. This is tricky. In his Van Til reader Bahnsen knew that this was teh least developed aspect of CVT's thought. Both Michael Butler (sympathetic) and John Frame (more critical) have improved upon it. In the Festscrift to Bahnsen--The Standard Bearer--Butler gives a phenomenal essay on TAG. It is worth the price of hte book (and the other articles are good, too). John Frame's works on the Doctrine of God (Not the doctrine fo the knowledge of God, necessarily) and Apologetics to the Glory of God, while perhaps wrongly critiquing CVT, at least make you aware of the issues.
> 
> I am avoiding the central issue, at the moment, I know that. Bear with me for a while. Here is the thrust of the matter:
> 
> In the nature of the case, no two transcendentals can be equally valid. Even non-Christian philosophers grant this point.
> For example, it cannot be logically true that the Christian worldview and X worldview both provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Before we even point out and say, "Of course, law of non-contradiction," I want to press the question, "Why is it the law of non-contradiction is even valid?" For that to be the case, what must first happen? See where I am going?
> 
> Let me sum up the objections for the moment, for you raise a good point. Page numbers are referenced to Butler's essay in The Standard Bearer.
> 
> Objection 1: The Nature of Tag: It basically reduces to some traditional form of argumentation. This is Frame's objection. However, TAG's seek what the precondition of intelligibility is. Traditional argumentation does not. The cosmological argument seeks to show God as the first Cause. It assumes causality outright. It does not ask the crucial questions (77-79)
> 
> Objection 2: The Uniqueness Proof for the Conclusion of TAG: Does the conclusion that God exists necessarily follow from the argument (Montgomery)? If the unbeliever says that Christianity can account for human experience, true, but possibly an another worldview will as well, so what? This does him little good. People live and die in terms of REAL worldviews, not hypothetical ones. If someone makes this claim, ask him to show the worldview in specific terms. If he does not, ballgame. If he does, proceed to demolish the worldview (9 times out of 10 he cannot). Let's move on with this objection: The TAG says that the non-Christian worldview cannot give an account of human experiences, NOT that an infinite number of possible worldviews cannot do this. See it as A (Christianity) or ~A. I can develop this point in another email, gladly, if you would like. There are a few other things I would like to mention, though.
> 
> Objection 3: The Mere Sufficiency of the Christian Worldview: Does demonstrating the sufficiency of the Christian worldview neccesitate the Christian worldview? In doing this we need to see the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. More on this later.
> 
> There are more objections, quite arcane in nature, that Butler deals with. If you have found this helpful and think it will benefit the brethren on PB, by all means post it. I have some more thoughts but this should be sufficient for now. Sorry I couldn't give more. I am between class and work but I will definitely be thinking of you. Also, one of my comrades in arms here in Jackson was a philosophy major who did VanTillian critiques of Nietsche and Kierkegaard. He is much more intelligent on these issues than I am. I will forward him the thrust of this email and see what he thinks.


----------



## Saiph

Hermonta,

What would you say are the proofs God has provided by creation and conscience ?

(ie. He has made it evident to them as Paul said)


----------



## Scott

I think it would be helpful to flesh out this from Jacob's email:



> In the nature of the case, no two transcendentals can be equally valid. Even non-Christian philosophers grant this point.
> 
> For example, it cannot be logically true that the Christian worldview and X worldview both provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Before we even point out and say, "Of course, law of non-contradiction," I want to press the question, "Why is it the law of non-contradiction is even valid?" For that to be the case, what must first happen? See where I am going?



Has anyone (Paul?) read any writings of transcendental philosophers (outisde of Christian presuppositionalists) that discuss this point? Might be a useful line of discussion with unbelievers to be able to discuss how in principle only one transcendental position can be right and that even secular philosophers recognize this.


----------



## Saiph

I still think unbelievers "know" Christianity is the only viable world-view.
They simply do not like it. Christianity is the only worldview that can allow for the laws of logic. Islam cannot. Judaism cannot. Neither of those bridge the gap between universals and particulars.

Didn't the apostle Paul defend the truth of Christianity with the fact of the resurrection, based on the impossibility of the contrary ?


----------



## Scott

> tell them that there are only two competators. that answer, logically, takes away the force of their objection.
> 
> Sorry you don't like it, but that was Bahnsen's and Van Til's answer. Why don't you deal with it?



In practice I have just not seen it work. The challenge is that the presuppositional methodology demands demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. The number of variations of "the" non-Christian position" are many. To show the impossibility of the contrary of eastern religion involves a different analysis of showing the impossibility of the contrary of materialism. Both fail for lack of Christ but they fail in different ways. Those differences are the problem.

Paul, do you have any good analogies that could help people grasp the point you are making? I am very interested in learning ways to clearly communicate these concepts to ordinary people (non-philosophers).


----------



## Scott

"Christianity is the only worldview that can allow for the laws of logic."

Ok, how would you explain to your average Walmart shopper that only Christianity can support the laws of logic? I am asking for a explanation understandable to the ordinary guy, as opposed to someone with training in philosophy.


----------



## Saiph

> Ok, how would you explain to your average Walmart shopper that only Christianity can support the laws of logic? I am asking for a explanation understandable to the ordinary guy, as opposed to someone with training in philosophy.



Scott, as I read that I had to laugh.

You are right. This is all academic stuff. I usually present the gospel the way you would to a child. I have only had 1 or two philosophical debates on worldview with unbelievers in my entire life.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Hermonta,
> 
> What would you say are the proofs God has provided by creation and conscience ?
> 
> (ie. He has made it evident to them as Paul said)



That is a good question. I am not sure how to answer that. Whatever they are, it makes their acceptance of all non christian religions excuseless.


----------



## Scott

How do we deal with someone who tries to flip the two worldview argument? In other words A is [THEIR WORLDVIEW OF CHOICE] and ~A is [ALL OTHER WORLDVIEWS, INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY].


----------



## Saiph

I agree Paul. 2 worldviews. 2 Seeds (serpent/woman) 2 fathers (satan/YHWH) 2 Kingdoms (God/Man) 2 paths (broad/narrow)

Could we say the heathen are diversified in their singular worldview against Christ ?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 1. You just admitted that there are no *reasons* for belief in God. Not only is Clark's system dead, it now is smelling up the entire graveyard. (Not to mention, the Bible does teach that, but that doesn't mean there are not reasons for belief, your answer begged the question.



Whatever *reason* you provide does not do justice to the biblical view In my humble opinion. 

Under the axiom view of Clark, asking for a reason to believe Christianity is as absurd as asking an empiricist why he believes what he sees is really there. "Why do you believe what you see is really there are not an illusion?" Response: "Well....uhhh...uhh...because I do..."



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 2. Jeff, I asked how you know that "everything exists, what matters is what is it?" Jeff, how do you know you're a man? Jeff, how do you know that Clark's system is correct?



I know that everything exists because of the definition of exist. Not because I see it if that is what you are getting at. Although like I said previously, for all practical purposes I have no problem with saying we can "know" things that we see. In this respect, I have no problem with saying that I know I am a man.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 3. I specifically mentioned Clark's SYSTEM, and as such, it is not an "abusive ad-hominem, unless of course, you consider *systems* to be *men?*



ok, so instead of "against the man" what is the latin for "against the system"? 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 4. Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me." Was he wrong? Two worldviews. Anyway: "It [worldview] refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it." Yes, all non-Christian systems interpret the world autonomously. They deny that Jehovah and His interpretation of the world is required to understand the world, rather they interpret the world via their god-hating and Lord-supressing systems and categories of thought. There, two worldviews.



I agree with Jesus. He was not wrong. 

"He who is not with me" (Christ's worldview) is against me (all other worldviews). I see two different classifications of worldviews given here; right and wrong, not one worldview vs. another.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I agree Paul. 2 worldviews. 2 Seeds (serpent/woman) 2 fathers (satan/YHWH) 2 Kingdoms (God/Man) 2 paths (broad/narrow)
> 
> Could we say the heathen are diversified in their singular worldview against Christ ?



It is clear from reading these last few posts that there are two different definitions of "worldview" going on here.


----------



## Scott

Paul: Can you give any analogies for the necessity of one worldview (say to mathematical axioms or something like that)?


----------



## Scott

"By definition, and ULTIMATE authority is just that, ultimate. If you ahve two transcendentals then you have an irresolvable dualism, and no unity/coherence in your worldview. There can only be one unifying transcendental."

Can you explain why this is so? This is resonating more with me. Also, what are arguments from non-Christian transcendental philosophers for the necessity of one transcendental view?


----------



## Saiph

Scott,

One cannot have two equal and opposite transcendentals.

If one is ALL good, and the other is ALL evil ? Then one of those must be deficient. One of those cannot be ALL good or ALL evil.

Satan, is not the opposite of God, he is the opposite of Michael.

God has no opposite.


----------



## Scott

"It is clear from reading these last few posts that there are two different definitions of "worldview" going on here."

I think this is a problem too. Bahnsen sometimes defined a presupposition, or worldview, to be "the most basic level of one's network of beliefs." And then Bahnsen, Van Til, et al usually define different presuppositions in terms of the various options out there. For example, Bahnsen would outline the elements of an empiricist worldview. He would speak of multiple non-Christian worldviews. So, to define worldview simply as "the non-Christian view" seems to be using worldview in a different way.


----------



## Scott

"One cannot have two equal and opposite transcendentals."

I would like to see this point developed more. One can have, for example, two different kinds of computers with different guts and operating systems. Yet they can do basically the same thing (run a word processor like Word, for example). So how would you explain to a non-presuppositionalist that in principle there can only be one worldview?

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Saiph

Scott,

Think of it in terms of omnipotence then. The existence of two omnipotent beings is impossible right ? That would mean in fact that one of those beings was not all powerful.

The breakdown of Dualism is that if there exists a universal transcendant good, then there cannot exist a universal transcendant evil. That would mean that the good, is not universal after all.

There are two world-views. However, the anti-God worldview is diversified in its many expressions.

Satan may paint evil many different ways. But to transgress the law in one point is to transgress it in all points.

Or, many antichrists, but one spirit of Antichrist.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I agree Paul. 2 worldviews. 2 Seeds (serpent/woman) 2 fathers (satan/YHWH) 2 Kingdoms (God/Man) 2 paths (broad/narrow)
> 
> Could we say the heathen are diversified in their singular worldview against Christ ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear from reading these last few posts that there are two different definitions of "worldview" going on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you left out where I argued for the single and binding worldview perspective of non-Christians.
Click to expand...


If that is how you would like to define worldview, that is your right. I stand that you are stating a "classification" of a worldview that contains many within it.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Jesus. He was not wrong.
> 
> "He who is not with me" (Christ's worldview) is against me (all other worldviews). I see two different classifications of worldviews given here; right and wrong, not one worldview vs. another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let A = "for Him [Jesus]"
> 
> If what Jesus said is the case, then all non-Christians are: "_not_ for Jesus.".
> 
> This can be translated, then, as ~A. Therefore, there are only TWO positions, since Jeff agreed then I have proven my point and we can move on.
> 
> QED
Click to expand...


I am tired of arguing over these semantics, so just to get to the point, I'll concede for the sake of argument.

Now. Prove ~~A.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> I know that everything exists because of the definition of exist. Not because I see it if that is what you are getting at. Although like I said previously, for all practical purposes I have no problem with saying we can "know" things that we see. In this respect, I have no problem with saying that I know I am a man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm critiquing the view that you can only know propositions directly stated in Scripture and those dedusible from said propoisitions. On this view, how do you KNOW the definition for "exists?" I'm critiquing the heart of Clark. If you don't like this view, fine. But don't say people are sounding Clarkian in this thread and that Clark is in any way superior to Van Til. If Clark's apologetic methodology were true, you couldn't know that it was true.
Click to expand...


Ultimately, wheather we are Clarkian or VanTillian doesn't matter does it? The goal is to be biblical.

I repent if I have said "I am of Apollos" so to speak.


----------



## Scott

"you left out where I argued for the single and binding worldview perspective of non-Christians."

It seems that there is equivocation in the use of the term.


----------



## Scott

Paul: I like the family analogy.

How would you respond to this analogy. Different computers with different hardware and operating systems can do essentially the same thing, such as run Word. So, how can we in advance know that multiple worldviews cannot do the same thing (make experience intelligible)? If computers can use different and incompatible operating systems to achieve the same end result, why not people?

Scott


----------



## Saiph

So, after 146 posts we have established there are not multiple worldviews, but two, and there are many expressions of the single worldview that is Antichrist.



[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k

At this point, I'll concede to all of this just for the sake of argument. I just would like to see ~~A demonstrated. 

How would you demonstrate ~~A to a non-believer?


----------



## Scott

"So, after 146 postes we have established there are not multiple worldviews, but many expression of the single worldview that is Antichrist."

Depends on how you define worldview. Bahnsen and others often refer to different non-Christian worldviews (plural). Of course well all agree that there are Christians and non-Christians. In terms of an apologetic, as we see from all the work Bahnsen and others did refuting false worldviews, proving the impossibility of the contrary is a long enterprise.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the family analogy is backed up by Jesus' words that there are only two fathers. Some have the heavenly father as their father, some have satan as their father. Two fathers, two sets of children, two worldviews. Some may have brown hair (buddhists) and some may have blond hair (atheists) and some may have red hair (NPP  , but they're all the same family!!!



So it comes down that no variation on the non Christian worldview is able to make life intelligible, because Christianity is true not that we can demonstrate that all variations are false. Is that the bottom line?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Paul: I like the family analogy.
> 
> How would you respond to this analogy. Different computers with different hardware and operating systems can do essentially the same thing, such as run Word. So, how can we in advance know that multiple worldviews cannot do the same thing (make experience intelligible)? If computers can use different and incompatible operating systems to achieve the same end result, why not people?
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my analogy, "family" stood for "worldview." I was attempting to argue for my two worldview schema which answers the first post nin this thread (yours). I've been trying to stay on track.
> 
> But, as far as you're computer analogy goes, you said: " how can we in advance know that multiple worldviews cannot do the same thing (make experience intelligible)?" Before I respond, may I ask if you're at least granting that Christianity is one of those worldviews that can make experience intelligible?
Click to expand...


In the words of the TV show, "Lost". "No do not answer that question its a trap " Once you grant Christianity can make experience intelligible, he will reduce it to being the only possible one. Remember only one transcedental allowed.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the family analogy is backed up by Jesus' words that there are only two fathers. Some have the heavenly father as their father, some have satan as their father. Two fathers, two sets of children, two worldviews. Some may have brown hair (buddhists) and some may have blond hair (atheists) and some may have red hair (NPP  , but they're all the same family!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it comes down that no variation on the non Christian worldview is able to make life intelligible, because Christianity is true not that we can demonstrate that all variations are false. Is that the bottom line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think that anyone (Bahnsen et alia) have said that we "can" (though we could if we had time, etc), *show* how all the different variations fail, since their are an infinite amount of variations. Note the word "show," though. We know in advance that we can defeat them because ~A is false and we have established A. But, some members of the "family" may have big upper bodies and so we need to take them down by shooting at their legs. So, there may be some member of the "family" who I can kick the snot out of (because I can beat up anyone in "the family") but this particular fellow, say, can only be beaten by ripping his toes off and sticking them in his nose and mouth, thereby suffocating him. I mean, I can beat him, but he may not fall like the others. This is understandable, we can defeat a materialist atheist and a non-materialist atheist, but obviously we can't use the *same* arguments against both.
> 
> [Edited on 10-28-2005 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...


Just so I'm clear, we know ~A is false because we know A is true, right? My issue is with the claim of demonstrating the truth of A by first demonstrating ~~A.


----------



## JohnV

Hermonta:

Well put. It does seem to be the long way around. I can accept the syllogism of A and ~A, as opposed to A and B; it makes good sense. And I think that Paul is saying really solid things here. And it makes sense that, if A is true, then all ~A has to be false, whatever form it takes. But it does seem that we're just saying A is true, and because A is true therefore all ~A is false, and that in the framework of A being true all ~A is false therefore A must be true. What we're forgetting is that in the possible framework of ~A it might be that A is false. 

But that is only the syllogistic formula. It is impossible to show that A is false because ~A must "borrow" from A to do so. 

Paul has it right, I think. All non A is rightly named. It isn't that it is B or C or D, etc., but that these all can be reduced to ~A by the way they have to assume the A position in order to deny A.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the family analogy is backed up by Jesus' words that there are only two fathers. Some have the heavenly father as their father, some have satan as their father. Two fathers, two sets of children, two worldviews. Some may have brown hair (buddhists) and some may have blond hair (atheists) and some may have red hair (NPP  , but they're all the same family!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it comes down that no variation on the non Christian worldview is able to make life intelligible, because Christianity is true not that we can demonstrate that all variations are false. Is that the bottom line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think that anyone (Bahnsen et alia) have said that we "can" (though we could if we had time, etc), *show* how all the different variations fail, since their are an infinite amount of variations. Note the word "show," though. We know in advance that we can defeat them because ~A is false and we have established A. But, some members of the "family" may have big upper bodies and so we need to take them down by shooting at their legs. So, there may be some member of the "family" who I can kick the snot out of (because I can beat up anyone in "the family") but this particular fellow, say, can only be beaten by ripping his toes off and sticking them in his nose and mouth, thereby suffocating him. I mean, I can beat him, but he may not fall like the others. This is understandable, we can defeat a materialist atheist and a non-materialist atheist, but obviously we can't use the *same* arguments against both.
> 
> [Edited on 10-28-2005 by Paul manata]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so I'm clear, we know ~A is false because we know A is true, right? My issue is with the claim of demonstrating the truth of A by first demonstrating ~~A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> remember the TWO-fold apologetic method?
Click to expand...


Maybe 



> Obviously if I showed that A is true then ~A is false, by definition. Then, let's say that I showed ~~A (say, by showing that autonomy cannot account for experience, i.e., being independant from God and His word). If I show that then I've estalished A.



The issue is how to "show/demonstrate" that autonomy inherently is unable to account for experience vs. showing that a number of members of the family "autonomy" cannot account for experience? I am not able to see how we are able to go beyond laying the burden of proof on the unbeliever to come up with a worldview to saying that such a task has been demonstrated to be impossible. 



> These things are needed as preconditions:
> 
> Creator-creature distinction, trinity, man as God's image, the fall and the noetic affects of sin, the necessity of Christ's redemtpive work for salvation of souls and intellects, the necessity of revelation, etc. So, without an absoute personal being as the foundation of all things there is no possibility of ethics. Without the ontological trinity as the fount fo all being, there is no hope of unifying the particulars, of predication, without man as God's image bearer preciation and thus language is destroyed, without the doctrines of providence and sovereignty there is no ground for science and inductie reasoning, without an all-good God who makes man and tells him to stucy and explore the created natural world, there is no reason to think our senses reliable, etc etc etc.
> 
> Unless you have these things then your worldview cannot provide the preconditions required to make experience intelligible. Christianity provides the transcendentals. Since there can only be one ULTIMATE authority (and, therefore, one transcendental), and since Christianity is it, then ~A is the case, which is another way of saying that A is the case.



There can only be one ultimate authority. My issue is demonstrating that Christianity is that ultimate authority vs. telling the unbeliever that they have the burden of proof to produce in order to reject the claims of Christianity and retain rationality.

Said another way, telling the unbeliever "show me your worldview from which you object to Christianity is not the same as demonstrating, it is impossible for such a worldview to exist."


----------



## Arch2k

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just slow, but I am confused.

Some are saying that we know A to be true while using ~~A as a premise to show that A is true.

Other times, it is we know ~~A to be true while using A as a premise to show that ~~A is true.

It cant' be both ways. Which is it?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_The issue is how to "show/demonstrate" that autonomy inherently is unable to account for experience vs. showing that a number of members of the family "autonomy" cannot account for experience? I am not able to see how we are able to go beyond laying the burden of proof on the unbeliever to come up with a worldview to saying that such a task has been demonstrated to be impossible.





In the same boat.


----------



## Saiph

> The issue is how to "show/demonstrate" that autonomy inherently is unable to account for experience vs. showing that a number of members of the family "autonomy" cannot account for experience?



Because there can only be one autonomous being. It is metaphysically impossible to have more than one autonomous being. The existence of another autonomous being would pose a restriction on the original being's autonomy. There can only be ONE autonomous being, and infinite contingent beings. Since ALL expressions of the Antichristian worldview are contingent, and also dependant upon the Christian worldview, they will infinitely be wrong.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Hermonta and Jeff,
> 
> It appears that my positive argument as well as my specific argument give for Jeff has been ignored. At this point I'll take it that I showed it, unless something other than "I don't get it" is brought up.
> 
> I gave an argument for a *worldview* with the specific details of Christianity being the transcendental. It seems to me at this point you can deny that Christianity can provide the transcendnetals or go the fristian route.



You are correct, those are the only routes, which I dont think (or never intended to deny).


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> At this point, I'll concede to all of this just for the sake of argument. I just would like to see ~~A demonstrated.
> 
> How would you demonstrate ~~A to a non-believer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dealing with Scott but I'll briefly address you:
> 
> I'm assuming I can be brief since many background premises you accept, so here's one form a transcendental proof would take (obviously you know we can't talk about everything at once and so must focus on specific points. Also, TAs are anti-skeptical arguments. They take what the skeptic takes for granted (which may be different depending on the particular skeptic) and then argues from that accepted premise. Therefore, I may not use this exact one with, say, a zen buddhist).
> 
> If logical laws are possible then God exists because God is a pre-condition for logic.
> 
> Logical laws are possible.
> 
> Therefore God exists because God is a pre-condition of logic.
> 
> As recognized by almost everyone, this follows the form of a TA (i.e., modus ponenes), but as the literature on TAs also reckognizes, the form is not important but the scope or subject matter.
> 
> Anyway, these arguments have been laid out in various places (other exampels are the uniformity of nature argument from Genesis 8. etc., and the morality arguments, from the personal, immutable, holy God). I'm surprised that people in this thread who claim familiarity with the arguments seem to not even know that there are positive arguments.
Click to expand...


Under this form of argumentation, you are battling possibly an infinite number of worldview, since the zen buddhist as you say, would not accept this argument.

Also, with this arguement, you have to argue that God is the precondition for logic to exist, and eventually, you will get to a place that the unbeliever will not accept the premise, and you will not have gained anything.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I'm sorry, maybe I'm just slow, but I am confused.
> 
> Some are saying that we know A to be true while using ~~A as a premise to show that A is true.
> 
> Other times, it is we know ~~A to be true while using A as a premise to show that ~~A is true.
> 
> It cant' be both ways. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> No, I was just showing the nature of the debate. *If* one shows ~~A then A is the case, logically. Likewise, *if* someone showed A as the case then, logically, ~A is also the case (i.e., it is the case that the denial of A is false).
Click to expand...


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> There can only be one ultimate authority. My issue is demonstrating that Christianity is that ultimate authority vs. telling the unbeliever that they have the burden of proof to produce in order to reject the claims of Christianity and retain rationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just tried to do that thing directly above where you wrote this.
> 
> You should read up on the "two-fold" method again. Both have value, i.e., the positive and the reductio.
Click to expand...


My point is that if you actually demonstrated that Christianity is the ultimate authority, then when all you would do is give them a type written copy of the demonstration and say "game over". We cannot do that, the best we can do is present the Christian worldview and say, in order to reject it, you must have a counter worldview. But lack of counter worldview is not demonstration that such is impossible. We know that such is impossible, the issue is the demonstration.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Hermonta and Jeff,
> 
> It appears that my positive argument as well as my specific argument give for Jeff has been ignored. At this point I'll take it that I showed it, unless something other than "I don't get it" is brought up.
> 
> I gave an argument for a *worldview* with the specific details of Christianity being the transcendental. It seems to me at this point you can deny that Christianity can provide the transcendnetals or go the fristian route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, those are the only routes, which I dont think (or never intended to deny).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, so since I don't think you want to deny that Christianity can *sufficiently* provide the transcendental, I assume you are all worked up because TAG has problems with made up worldviews? Or, does it have such problems?
> 
> My response right now to fristian is that it is not a conceivable conceptual scheme and my argument is that Christianity is the only conceivable conceptual scheme that does the job. It is nonsense, as Davidson points out (The STandard Bearer, 117-120), to argue for inconceivanle comceptual schemes.
Click to expand...


One question and then I must run, when you use the term "made up" are you including them in the infinite variations on unbelieving worldviews"? Or is this a new class?


----------



## Saiph

> My point is that if you actually demonstrated that Christianity is the ultimate authority, then when all you would do is give them a type written copy of the demonstration and say "game over". We cannot do that, the best we can do is present the Christian worldview and say, in order to reject it, you must have a counter worldview. But lack of counter worldview is not demonstration that such is impossible. We know that such is impossible, the issue is the demonstration.



I have never used the TAG, because most people look at me like this when I explain it. 

I usually go for the ethical argument. It is easier.


----------



## Saiph

> Oh, so you use the ethical version of TAG



Good point.


----------



## Saiph

What exactly is Fristianity ? It is not on Wikipedia.


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> What exactly is Fristianity ? It is not on Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a counter to TAG saying that a worldview with everything the same as Christianity, except for a quadrinity in place of a trinity, can provide a transcendental.
Click to expand...


Interesting, something new to tackle.


----------



## Scott

> I have never used the TAG, because most people look at me like this when I explain it.





Even people friendly to it have a hard time understanding it.

Bahnsen did once (at least once) say that Lewis' ethical argument is Mere Christianity was Lewis at his best.


----------



## Scott

Is nobody able to explain the arguments non-Christian transcendental philosophers use to say there can be only one transcendental?


----------



## Saiph

Paul, does the bridge between universals and particulars necessitate a trinity ? 

Really though, the point is that Christianity is the only religion with One being 3 (multiple) persons.

So to invent a new one, 1 being, 4 persons, not based on revelation is absurd.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> There can only be one ultimate authority. My issue is demonstrating that Christianity is that ultimate authority vs. telling the unbeliever that they have the burden of proof to produce in order to reject the claims of Christianity and retain rationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just tried to do that thing directly above where you wrote this.
> 
> You should read up on the "two-fold" method again. Both have value, i.e., the positive and the reductio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that if you actually demonstrated that Christianity is the ultimate authority, then when all you would do is give them a type written copy of the demonstration and say "game over". We cannot do that, the best we can do is present the Christian worldview and say, in order to reject it, you must have a counter worldview. But lack of counter worldview is not demonstration that such is impossible. We know that such is impossible, the issue is the demonstration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> demonstartaion, I think, is person relative. As I said earlier, you have a weird view of total depravity. I doubt there will ever be an argument which makes every unbeleiver say, "Oh, you demonstarated God's existence." Usually, they look at the argument and say, "what! I can account for those things, watch me." To which I say, "name that tune." Or, we can give the negative and then when they say, "well, you can't account for logic, science, math, language, universals, et al," then I say, "name that tune."
Click to expand...


My question is not what will make the unbeliever cry uncle. My concern is only getting to a point where he either says it has been demonstrated, or I can start calling him funny names  like irrational etc.

I think I see my question is the issue of conceivability. And how you can differentiate from "oh I didnt think that could happen but hey it can"; from "that is just impossible given the way the world is"


----------



## Scott

"No, Bahnsen said that "Lewis' self-refutation of the naturalist" in Miracels was "Lewis at his best" (cited in "Martin Under The Microscope")"

He also said something like that about Lewis' transcendental argument for morality.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Paul, does the bridge between universals and particulars necessitate a trinity ?
> 
> Really though, the point is that Christianity is the only religion with One being 3 (multiple) persons.
> 
> So to invent a new one, 1 being, 4 persons, not based on revelation is absurd.



Hence the reason we dont take kindly to Fristianity


----------



## Scott

Does anyone know if this book is any good?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Does anyone know if this book is any good?



Not sure but if you are interested in transcendental arguments I would get the Standard Bearer with Bulter's article in it. Start there then move outwards.


----------

