# Attn Van Tillian Presups. -Re:Epistemology



## Dan.... (Apr 20, 2007)

From Wikipedia


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
> 
> *Foundationalists* respond to the regress problem by claiming that some beliefs that support other beliefs do not themselves require justification by other beliefs. Sometimes, these beliefs, labeled "foundational", are characterized as beliefs that one is directly aware of the truth of, or as beliefs that are self-justifying, or as beliefs that are infallible. According to one particularly permissive form of foundationalism, a belief may count as foundational, in the sense that it may be presumed true until defeating evidence appears, as long as the belief seems to its believer to be true.[citation needed] Others have argued that a belief is justified if it is based on perception or certain a priori considerations.
> 
> ...



Is Van Tillian view of knowledge foundationalist, coherentialist, a combination of both, or neither? Please explain.

(If you are Clarkian, do not reply to this thread. I made another thread specific to the Clarkian apologetics).


----------



## Civbert (Apr 20, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> (If you are Clarkian, do not reply to this thread. I made another thread specific to the Clarkian apologetics).



Oh come on. Pleeeez?!?  

OK. I'll refrain.


----------



## VanVos (Apr 20, 2007)

Vantil presup is transcendental in nature. Therefore it gleans from or overlaps with both foundationalism and coherentism. Foundational in the sense that it posits the triune God of scripture as the precondition/foundation for the intelligibility of man's experience. Coherent in that it is Christianity alone that can account for human knowledge. 

VanVos


----------



## JohnV (Apr 20, 2007)

Dan:

There's a thread to which Clarkians may answer, but not VanTillians, a thread VanTillians may answer but not Clarkians, but no thread to which "other" may answer but not VanTillians or Clarkians. I'm not asking for one, but wondering if "other" has any standing around here? 

Or if not "other", maybe "neither".


----------

