# Paul Manata and others, The Closet and Possibility



## austinbrown2

Hello to Paul and to all those interested,

We haven’t talked before, but I have been lurking about. I have appreciated the extended conversations you have been a part of and they have helped me think through certain issues from different angles. 

I’d like to comment on your “coming out of the closet.” First, let me say that I share your concerns about TAG. And I would add that the emotional, as well as intellectual, struggle behind such reflections can be exhausting (As I’m sure you would agree). So I don’t come to you with a dagger, but simply as one who is ever trying to understand these issues more faithfully. 

Allow me to quote you from the Triablogue, “The only threat: thought experiments and made up worldviews which are basically the same as mine.” [Let’s just call this the Great Pumpkin…remember Charlie Brown?].

In this vein, you have raised a host of questions about a quadra-god to illustrate an arbitrary element to TAG. How is it that such things can be knocked down by a Christian TAG? The ability to reductio seems to stand at an impasse, especially if each worldview has justified mystery elements to counter some unknowns or unexplainables. I continue to wrestle with this. It seems difficult to decisively beat this. Nevertheless, I have a few thoughts. I’d be interested in any comments from you or anyone else. 

I think we have to keep a keen eye on where our feet are planted (Hear me out) . Do they stand on the Christian plantation, or do we have one foot firmly placed in the land of autonomy. The significance to this isn’t to point out once again the apparent impasse that arises from TAG wars, but the nature of probability and our knowledge. When we raise thought experiments or toy around with Great Pumpkins I perceive that we are meddling with “What if’s.” Here we have invoked a greater issue than simply the Great Pumpkin itself. We have, idealistically, stepped out into the realm of possibility, which is intimately connected with autonomy. This has dire implications for us with respect to all things, not simply the Great Pumpkin under consideration. The issue becomes, not simply, COULD the Great Pumpkin be true, but COULD X1, X2, X3, ad infinitum, be true? Could we be a brain in a vat that is being stimulated to think this way? Could we be in a sophisticated video game? A Matrix? Could there be multi-verses that have different physics and/or logics? Could there be a quadra-god? A god who is really evil and is simply tricking us with the façade of goodness? Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely. 

As soon as we humans step off of the Christian plantation possibility rises to ascendancy and it becomes ultimate. If possibility is ultimate to us, then chance is ultimate. And those things will reduce human knowledge to probability wars that cannot be resolved. For at any point we think we know X, then there is also possible defeater Y out there or knowledge P that might overturn X. We don’t know everything, so it follows that every X is also facing potential wrongness that cannot be calculated because we don’t know the parameters with which to even calculate the relative rightness or wrongness or probability to the truth claim. I think of this as the probability problem, or the “What if?” problem. 

So when we invoke questions about the Great Pumpkin we are putting one of our feet in the sphere of autonomy, which is a bottomless pit. In that realm there is no hope for getting a foothold. Every finite point requires an infinite point of reference to know anything… or do I know that to be true? 

“But how do I know that the Great Pumpkin isn’t that infinite point?’ You ask. But notice again what kind of question this is. If I seek to answer this question with possibility as ultimate, then I can’t answer it. I can’t answer anything without being aware of its equally ultimate potential failure. 

“Ok, so how do you get to the Triune God?”

The Lord is ultimate, there is no chance. Possibility will not rise to ascendancy if and only if I stand on His sure footing. I will become lost in the “What if” problem if I don’t root my mind in His revelation and the implications of that revelation. He is ultimate, so I cannot appeal to anything outside of that ultimacy to ground that ultimacy. 

“But in light of the Great Pumpkin you are begging the question. Why can’t I say that the Great Pumpkin is ultimate and in him all this chance goes away?” 

Well, you can say that, and God's world does allow for this kind of thinking. But again, by so exercising our minds in this fashion you have stepped out into the realm of possibility. What are you standing on to posit such questions? The question springs from a foundation of “What if.” You could assert that you stand on the ground of the Great Pumpkin, but you really aren’t. You are a Christian, Paul, who is engaging in thought experiments and “What if’s.” By so doing you have one foot outside of the Christian plantation, so as to entertain speculations about ultimate truth. By so doing we loose our footing and get real confused real fast because possibility and our finiteness bite us in the butts- and this leads to frustration. In heaven, our minds will be so fixed and rooted in the truth that both feet will be securely fixed in that truth. Otherwise, think about it, the “what if” problem could just as well plague us there. Maybe heaven is all an illusion. Maybe the Great Pumpkin will burst on the scene and change heaven itself?!? X1, X2, X3, etc. The only way to avoid this now is to be so heavenly minded, by faith, that both feet are firmly planted on that which can deal with the possibility problem. 

Naturally, the onlooker will think the Christian is engaging in the biggest question beg of all time. But as presupp’s well know every worldview does this. The question of circularity and ultimacy pervade all of reality precisely because we do live in Jesus’ universe. And we know that we can’t get to the true God unless He reveals Himself. Given the “What if” problem, revelation is necessary. And given our finiteness which will lead to the “What if” problem, we must have a sensus divinitas. How else might people be held accountable when they couldn’t know for sure? And given our sin, God must effectually draw people to Himself. That is how we come to embrace Christianity. That is how we arrive at the Triune God. God must grant revelation and faith (see footnte 1). It is the world we presently live in and is our current state of affairs. To ask how we know this is going to require these answers on some level. It begs the question big time, but if Christianity is true, then it must beg the question in the ultimate sense. The irony is that people who question this do so from the “What if” plantation and I felt the thorns of that ground in my feet. 

Austin 

Footnote 1: If we ask whether or not the Great Pumpkin might grant faith and revelation to only one person and we are left out, then I have to recognize what I am doing here. I am asking a "What if" question. How do I determine the answer to a "What if" question? Either I do it in accordance with the Christian worldview or I don't. If not according to the Christian worldview I'm at a loss to know how to know anything. The possibility of Great Pumpkin is equally as likely as, say, Matrix and is equally as unlikely as Matrix. How do we quantify Likelihood in these instances? It's impossible... or maybe it's not (who knows). There appears to be a pragmatically equal likelihood and unlikelihood of X1 and X2. 

If I answer it according to my Christian convictions then I resound that the Lord God is the only true God. And if I want to seek to demonstrate that this is true, well, I might just talk about the "what if" problem...

At the end of the day I must stand on the Rock, for other ground is sinking sand.


----------



## panta dokimazete

***         ***!!!!

I have had much experience with the ultimate asking of "What ifs?" over on the Internet Infidels site.

If you weaken your presuppositional stance, it is a pit that will suck you in quickly.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Austin - Thanks for expressing this so clearly. This rationale had also been perculating around in my mind - mind if I edit it slightly and post it on my blog? Will certainly extend credit due!


----------



## austinbrown2

Well thanks jdlongmire, I appreciate your comments and commendation. Sure, feel free to use whatever suits your interests. Give credit to the one who inspired Romans 1:22, however 

Austin


----------



## Cheshire Cat

austinbrown2 said:


> How else might people be held accountable when they couldn’t know for sure?


They do know, by God's general revelation 
Romans 1: 18-21 etc. 

People don't need a tag to be accountable to God. I'm interested to hear the replies.


----------



## Magma2

> As soon as we humans step off of the Christian plantation possibility rises to ascendancy and it becomes ultimate.



 

Am glad to see people coming out of the closet, etc., but isn’t this the inherent problem with TAG since it has been more times than not offered as a proof? in my opinion the whole thing has been oversold, which is why I suppose the closet door has been opened in the first place. 

Also, if the “Christian plantation” is defined as Scripture and all necessary inferences from Scripture (how else might it be defined?), aren’t you left with Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism? Clark at least argued that axioms or starting points are chosen, not proven and that all systems, if they’re going to start, must start somewhere, and that “somewhere” is that system’s unproven and unprovable axiom. Similarly, while axioms are chosen and not proven some axioms can be disproven. Clark argued that logical coherence is the best evidence and defense of the Christian system, which is the only system Christian apologetics should be interested in defending. 

in my opinion that the claims of TAG’s defenders have often put them outside of presuppositionalism properly understood (which, I if I'm understanding you correctly, is the point of your piece), for if TAG could do all that some claim it could, there would really be nothing to presuppose. 

As to the question of hypothetical and competing systems, Frame writes: 



> Clark admits that more than one system of thought could be logically consistent, and that fruitfulness is a relative and debatable question. So Clark’s method is more like an exploration than like a proof. By renouncing proof, he avoids the circularity of having to prove the axiom by means of the axiom.



This appears to be a distinct advantage over TAG in particular and Van Tilian apologetics in general. Frame also adds; “But if Christianity is not provable, how can Paul say in Romans 1:20 that the clarity of God’s self-revelation leaves unbelievers without excuse?” Of course, this is not a problem in the slightest for Clark, but it does say something about Frame’s exegetical skills. It seems to me Frame asserts that unless Christianity can be proven no unbeliever can be held to account, however this doesn’t follow nor do I see this as a valid inference from Rom. 1:20. But I digress.


----------



## austinbrown2

I agree. People do not need TAG to be held accountable to God. I think you are misunderstanding the intentions of my original comment.


----------



## austinbrown2

Magma2,

The overarching intention of my post was to interact with Paul Manata and to try and shed some light on those difficulties inherent to TAG when one considers something like an adoption of a quadra-god as their ultimate starting point. I think the move towards such potentialities creates a problem that is similar to, but larger than, the quadra-god question. A movement in that direction will open the door to possibility as ultimate. I personally don't think the "What if" problem trumps a Biblical presuppositionalism, indeed, it serves to illustrate the truthfulness of Christianity. 

As for Clark and axioms and all that stuff, I realy don't want to comment about that here. Suffice it to say that I think Christianity is true and unique. If it is true and unique, then it follows that all those explanations of reality that don't line up with the true interpretation of reality are necessarily false. Hence, those contrary positions will be irrational and frustrating. 

Austin


----------



## Magma2

austinbrown2 said:


> I agree. People do not need TAG to be held accountable to God. I think you are misunderstanding the intentions of my original comment.



That was just me digressing a bit in reply to a criticism by Frame and not anything you wrote. I know it’s not what you intended. Maybe an unintended consequence? For what it's worth I’ve come across a number of folks over the years, more so recently, who have abandoned Van Tilianism in favor of Clark and, in my view, the problems with TAG are just symptomatic. 



> As for Clark and axioms and all that stuff, I realy don't want to comment about that here. Suffice it to say that I think Christianity is true and unique. If it is true and unique, then it follows that all those explanations of reality that don't line up with the true interpretation of reality are necessarily false. Hence, those contrary positions will be irrational and frustrating.



No problems here, but even if you could demonstrate that all contrary position are irrational that would still not prove that the Christian system is true. As I’ve said, TAG has been oversold. OTOH, given Van Til’s view of Scripture, I don’t think it would be difficult for an opponent of the Christian faith to demonstrate Christianity is irrational given Van Til’s analogical view of truth and his contradictory and incoherent doctrine of Scripture. Another reason to abandon Van Tilianism for the Westminister principle advocated and defended by Clark.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Sean, with respect to your last paragraph, if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything at all. This thread is not about Clark vs. Van Til.


----------



## austinbrown2

Magma2,

You obviously have some strong convictions about Clark's deductive presuppositionalism. Fine. I'm not going to squabble. That's not my intention. 

Blessings,
Austin


----------



## ChristianTrader

Paul manata said:


> two quick things:
> 2) Despite the fact that I think you're seriously misrepresenting modal language, or yu're unfamiliar with that modalities, TAG is the one who raised the issue of "impossiblity." When *they* did so, they were saying that there is no *possibility* that another worldview could possibly provide the preconditions, thus making Christianity provide *sufficient* preconditions, but not necessary. My objection isn't a "what if" such and such were real. The quadrune position is false, but it still does the job.



I do not see how the quadrume position does any job. Unless someone claiming something to be true makes it possible to be true, then I still do not see the force.



> Look, it's false that the sky is pink, but it's *possible* that it could be pink. it's *impossible* that it could be blue and pink all over. So, it's false that it's pink, but that doesn't mean that that's another possible color the sky could be.
> 
> Likewise, quadunity (and the other stuff) is false, that doesn't mean that it doesn't sufficiently answer the questions.



A couple questions:

1)If your analogies are going to be illustrative it would seem that the next question is "Is it possible for God to be Four in One and Not Three in One"? If one answers yes, then one has needs to say on what basis they are finding this possibility.

2)Are logical contradictions the only things that we can say are impossible? A counter that I have read is, the square circle. It is impossible (primarily) because it violates laws of space. If those laws were different then is it not possible that a square circle would not be a problem?
[/quote]

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Great post Austin.

One thing I've noticed about JW's or Atheists or Unitarians and a whole host of other unbelievers is that they engage in sinful speculation. Rather than rooting themselves in what the Word teaches them there is a consistent expression of unbelief that "I will not accede to the Truth but stand on my own reasoning."

I'm not at all against using reasoning but when our reasoning ever takes us down speculative trails that all ultimately lead to unbelief.

I certainly appreciate philosophical rigor as a defense of the faith but I'll never understand a Christian, even for purposes of philosophical argumentation, even allowing for the possibility that Jesus is not Lord. 

Those who are actively suppressing the truth will never accept such a simple axiom but neither in didactic teaching nor in historical narrative do I see precedent for moving away from a perspicuous Gospel message that exposes human sin and demands man submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Paul manata said:


> If you don't see how it does any job then I suggest reading my discussion with the guys on Butler's blog. I went through all this in detail. Maybe you can answer some of the questions for them? (btw, who's claiming it's true?)



I will look into your adventures as John Calvin in the near future.

I have spoken to Don, a fellow participant, since the discussion on Butler's blog. That discussion broke down when it came down to what is possible vs. impossible.



> 1) Why, is that necessary for the preconditions of intelligibility to be met or something?



If Four is impossible then how can it be a possible counter for Christianity? Would it not be akin to saying, "It is just like Christianity but there are differences in ways that are impossible."



> 2) Logical contradictions are logically impossible. But, there's other types of possibilties - physical, epistemological, metaphysical and, lastly, logical.



So you accept that there are other forms of impossibilities beyond logical?



> You're square-circle counter is false, I think. It violates definitions, not space.



For your objection here to have teeth, it would seem that you would have to claim that our defining of space came before actual space. If not, then our definitions just recognize what is there.



> My thoughts aren't confined by space, so why can't I *conceive* of a square circle?



Imagine a *Possible* world where everything is the same shade of blue. You grew up in and continue to live in this world. What would happen if I came up to you in this world and asked you to talk to me about the color red.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Paul manata said:


> _"I certainly appreciate philosophical rigor as a defense of the faith but I'll never understand a Christian, even for purposes of philosophical argumentation, even allowing for the possibility that Jesus is not Lord."_
> 
> And this is not the case with what I've done.
> 
> The problem for us, though, is being able to *show* what we *believe.*


I should have been more careful in not ascribing this to anyone in particular Paul. I was not aiming this comment at you. I guess I read Austin's comments as more of an indictment upon speculation and not aimed at you. Admittedly, I did not carefully read the whole post so if I jumped in and implied more than I should then I apologize.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Paul manata said:


> 1) I await the argument for the impossibility of 4 + whatever else you say is necessary for the preconditions (along with the argument that these are indeed necessary preconditions).



I can only give an argument once I understand which premises you accept? Is it possible for God to be Four in One instead of Three in One? I have not yet seen a straight answer for you.

Can a system have the preconditions for intel. while having false statements?



> 2) Of course. It's pretty standard.



Alright, then that is where the fight is.



> 3) I don't see how that's the case.



The definitions concern space. If space is different then the definition would follow. The definitions come after not before. Therefore an appeal to violation of definition is just an implicit appeal to the violation of space that the definition apply to.



> 4) I don't get your position. Do you deny possible worlds? Why appeal to them?



I was just having fun, I do deny possible worlds, but I do not deny counterfactuals. There was no need to use possible worlds. I could just have easily said, what if you had eye issues where everything you saw was the same shade of blue. Now talk to me about red.



> Anyway, (a) you wouldn't be coming up to me and asking me to talk about red, so you can't use your objection,



I never said that I grew up there. I said that you did. I've seen red.



> and (b) I could tell you at least two things about red, it's not blue (by definition) and something couldn't be both red and blue at the same time (by definition).



You call that conception? I can do the same thing with space. "Whatever this thing, I have never experienced is, cannot contradict itself."



> (Lastly, for any one else, if you don't like possible worlds talk I maintain that you cannot make sense out of our use of modalities, or modal notions. See this paper: http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/PhilThesis.html)


[/quote]

And as you said about friend Vincent, there are objections hanging over the head of anyone who uses S5. Until those are addressed, why should anyone care about claims that possible worlds semantics has to be right?

You have called Mr. Choi up, right?

CT


----------



## Civbert

I had to dig around a little to see what the "coming out of the closet" stuff was in reference too. (See the post on Triabologue). Personally, I can only applaud Paul's striving for intellectual honesty. We may not agree on some key points, but his post on hard line TAG was straight forward.

I think talk of staying away from "what if-s" is just pious nonsense. We are called to have an answer to the non-believer, even if the arguments are hypothetical. There is no real danger of a Christian jumping towards human autonomy in doing so, as long as the Christian present God's Word as ultimate (Van Til has said as much). But let us avoid making promises to the un-believer we can not keep. Paul is being brutally honest when he says hypothetically, there is always a "possible" worldview that can match the Christian worldview's ability to answer the desiderata of of a comprehensive and coherent system. It is only hypothetical, but we should be total honest and step outside of the confines of our presuppositions to avoid logical fallacies. It does not damage the strength of the Christian worldview in any way. And that seems to me to be Paul's position. 

The implications of this honest position is not human autonomy - it is the opposite. It requires us to acknowledge that we are total dependence on the grace of God to believe the truth. We can not come to real knowledge apart from the grace of God. That is Christian humility - not human autonomy speaking.


----------



## Civbert

ChristianTrader said:


> I can only give an argument once I understand which premises you accept? Is it possible for God to be Four in One instead of Three in One? I have not yet seen a straight answer for you.
> ...
> CT




I'm sorry CT, but this question completely misses the point. It's not a matter of "could God be Four in One". It a question of whether a worldview that posits a "four in one deity" could be hypothetical as valid as Christianity. 

This is speaking about different definitions of god, not can God have this property or that property. How Christians know God it through revelation. 

If God said to us, by logical implication in his revelation, that there were four persons in the Godhead instead of three - then there is your answer. Hypothetically speaking, God could have revealed such. We only know God is Triune through His revelation - not because we have determined that the triune God is ontologically necessary. 

The argument should not be: by autonomous human reason we have proven that a triune God is necessary for all reason and thought, therefore the God of the Bible is true. Rather we should reason that God has revealed to us in his Word his triune nature, and this triune nature gives us the answer to our ability for reason and knowledge. God's revelation has logical priority.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> ... I would suggest the same principle applies to our worldview. On the basis of the Christian worldview, we have no grounds to suspect impossibilities becoming possible;...



Two problems here. This line of reason can be used by any worldview to defeat another. Presuming any worldview to prove another worldview is impossible circular. It is no more than saying since Christianity is true, than non-Christianity is false. But it is equally valid for the atheist to say since atheism is true, than non-atheism is false. 

Second problem: The statement "...have no grounds to suspect impossibilities becoming possible" is a tautology. It's no more than saying since square circles are impossible, we have no grounds for claiming square circles are possible. You have already assumed the X is impossible, to denying it can not be possible is self evident.


----------



## Civbert

Paul manata said:


> I reject the strong modal TAG and then I agree with what Civbert wrote. Hmmm, are these signs of the end of the world?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Civbert said:


> I'm sorry CT, but this question completely misses the point. It's not a matter of "could God be Four in One". It a question of whether a worldview that posits a "four in one deity" could be hypothetical as valid as Christianity.



Actually your response, misses my objection. I did not define under which definition of possibility that one could use to respond, I left that completely open. If God cannot be three in one then it cannot be hypothetically as valid as Christianity. What is hypothetically valid is based on a person's worldview. There is no base, neutral possibility that can be appealed to.



> This is speaking about different definitions of god, not can God have this property or that property. How Christians know God it through revelation.



Revelation is how we know God because without it without his condescention, we would be up a creek without a paddle. Without his revelation, we would not know Three in one vs. 40 in one.



> If God said to us, by logical implication in his revelation, that there were four persons in the Godhead instead of three - then there is your answer.



Most definitely. So it would/is be impossible for God to be Four in One.



> Hypothetically speaking, God could have revealed such.



Here it is sticky, you either have to take that God could make himself Quadrinity vs. Trinity or you have to accept the reality of God lying. Both I believe to be quite sticky.



> We only know God is Triune through His revelation - not because we have determined that the triune God is ontologically necessary.



I agree to a point. Can we not say that it is necessary because we found out about it due to some form of revelation (Special or General)?



> The argument should not be: by autonomous human reason we have proven that a triune God is necessary for all reason and thought, therefore the God of the Bible is true. Rather we should reason that God has revealed to us in his Word his triune nature, and this triune nature gives us the answer to our ability for reason and knowledge. God's revelation has logical priority.



AGreed


----------



## Magma2

caleb_woodrow said:


> Sean, with respect to your last paragraph, if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything at all. This thread is not about Clark vs. Van Til.



When it comes to presuppositional apologetics, everything is about Clark vs. Van Til.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Magma2 said:


> When it comes to presuppositional apologetics, everything is about Clark vs. Van Til.



Alright, then I might as well ask (to everybody out there), was it Van Til or Bahnsen that set forth the strong modal TAG? (I still have alot of reading to do, which is shown by my asking of the question in the first place. But if it wasn't Van Til that set forth the strong modal version of TAG, then this is more in line with Bahnsen than Van Til.


----------



## austinbrown2

Paul,

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately the thread is getting long and multi-pronged. I was afraid of that. If you are ever willing to have a short discussion over the phone, I would be much obliged. I would seriously like to understand the modal component of your contention more fully. And as I seek to wade through these long discussions (like yours on the Butler site) it is very easy to misunderstand thoughts and intentions. Anyway, email me your phone number if you would be willing to give me 15 minutes of your time so I can better understand this. [email protected].

<<<<<<<<You said >>>>>> Despite the fact that I think you're seriously misrepresenting modal language, or you’re unfamiliar with that modalities, TAG is the one who raised the issue of "impossibility." When *they* did so, they were saying that there is no *possibility* that another worldview could possibly provide the preconditions, thus making Christianity provide *sufficient* preconditions, but not necessary. My objection isn't a "what if" such and such were real. The quadrune position is false, but it still does the job.

Look, it's false that the sky is pink, but it's *possible* that it could be pink. it's *impossible* that it could be blue and pink all over. So, it's false that it's pink, but that doesn't mean that that's another possible color the sky could be.>>>>>>>>>


I may be misrepresenting modal language. Fair enough. I don’t think I am, but maybe I’m wrong here (my exposure is somewhat limited, a bit of Plantinga and Nash here and there.). Again, it may prove most beneficial to simply speak to one another, for my sake anyway, for I am always learning… and have been taught on several occasions to be very humble when talking philosophy.

A few thoughts now: 

When I think of TAG and how it works in my mind, I do think that contrary worldviews are impossible. And I want to assert that it isn’t even possible that other worldviews can provide the necessary preconditions for all of the components for life and intelligibility. As a Christian man who sits here typing, and as a Christian man who takes seriously the absolute nature of my Lord, I believe and understand that if (since) my Lord is who is He is, and if He is the source of all truth and the all conditioner of all things, then anything that deviates from Him and His interpretation of things will necessarily be false. There is no possible counter explanation… especially if all the truth in intimately bound up with itself (I think of James Anderson’s article “If Knowledge then God.” http://www.proginosko.com/writing.html ). This body of Truth, or rather, This One of Truth constrains me. He defines what is possible and what is not possible. Yet, I also live in His world where I can think in terms of counter-factuals and possible worlds. But that mental usage must be brought under His Lordship, lest I slip into the “What if” problem. This is my perspective as I approach your response (I’m saying things this way not to suggest that you don’t agree, it’s just the style I have chosen to adopt here). 

So what about possible worlds and pink skies and potential defeaters? I will readily admit that the sky could have been pink. But I see questions about ultimacy as intimately bound up with these modal experiments. When the quadrune position is advanced as a defeater in the realm of modal logic, as a logical counter to the claim, I cannot separate myself from what really is. The thought experiment, as a created argument to trump the TAG claim, is, I suppose, successful on one level of modal logic. But I cannot compartmentalize my Christianity. When I think about the situation, as you have advanced, the whole of Christianity comes to bear upon this logical enterprise. As such, I perceive that as soon as I start talking about ultimate possibilities on a logical level I am not all that impressed with something which defeats the TAG in principle, narrowly conceived. My modal logic is constrained by the Lord. And there is much more at play than simply whether or not the quadrune does the job. For how does the quadrune do the job? Does it show a potential defeater to the TAG claim, given their own game? Narrowly considered, as on a modal logic level, yes. But broadly considered, I don’t think so. The TAG claim extends to every facet of reality. As such, I recognize that the quadrune does the job on one level, but the assertion of TAG isn’t concerned with simply one stratum. The TAG looks at the modal quadrune example and says, “Well, what do you expect me to think about this? Yes, I get your point, but possibility cannot be separated from the whole exercise. There is an inherent quality or nature to raising the quadrune against my claims. And that quality is to invoke possibility. The possibility enters the picture from the very posture of the mental exercise. And when this posture is adopted, a new set of issues comes into play. The issue simply isn’t modal argumentation. The whole idea of possible worlds is connected with a finite person who is pontificating upon what could be. If I consider the exercise from the perspective of the “What if” problem, then I am not too impressed with toying around with the potentialities of possible worlds, when considered in the ultimate sense. This is to say that I think there is something which stands over modal logic itself and all possible worlds. This One could have made pink skies, but this One could not have been quadrune.”

Basically, I am going to annoyingly drive things back to the interconnectedness between epistemology and ontology. And when the nature of the connection and the nature of the One who binds that connection together is challenged or inquired into, then I have no choice but to root myself in what that One has revealed, lest I fall into the “What if” problem, which is absolutely destructive to all inquiry. I personally cannot separate the brain in a vat from the evil Being who acts nice from quadrune god. They all, in principle, share a “What if” problem status. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by “strong modal version of TAG.” But this is how I perceive things.

Thanks for you patience,
Austin


----------



## ChristianTrader

Paul manata said:


> CT said,
> 
> "Here it is sticky, you either have to take that God could make himself Quadrinity vs. Trinity or you have to accept the reality of God lying. Both I believe to be quite sticky."
> 
> Though this is a side question of the quadrune question (as it's taken to be a different worldview), first off you've offered a false dilemma. A third option could be that God has always been quadrune but not revealed it to us.



That would only be another option if God has not revealed that he is Triune? If he has then then we only have the two options that I have listed.



> God would only be lying if there was something like this in holy Scripture: "I am only three-in-one, there is not another person I have not chosen to reveal to you as of yet."



Come on now.... Something is not ruled out on scriptural grounds only when it is explicitly denied. The scriptures (and I am starting to lean towards natural revelation as well) reveals that God is truine and not just any integer more than 2.



> At any rate, if it's *possible* that God could be quadrune, but just not revealed it to us yet (and I'd like to see your argument from Scripture that this is the case),



Your the one that needs to make the case that there is any opening in scripture for more than three or (at least one silent partner)



> then I take it that 4-in-1 can "do the job" because if it couldn't, you'd have to say that Christianity doesn't "do the job."



Make your case and then we can deal with the inferences for a successful case.



> (Note well: I believe we are warranted in believing the trinity, I confess the trinity with the rest of the Church, and I believe that God is a trinity.)



That is a relief of some sort. I also believe that we are warranted. The question is if we are warranted to believe that there is a possibility of persons that we do not know about.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

Paul M,
You have the last word, I am out. Until I am prepared to either kill possible worlds or embrace them, there is not much interesting that I believe that I can contribute.

CT


----------



## austinbrown2

>>>>>>>I may call you or email you.<<<<<<<<<<,

Ok. 

>>>>>>>>>.I'm not the one holding to another worldview, I'm telling you about another worldview. I, with you, agree that it's false. But, I'd like to see the internal critique done of it.<<<<<<<<<<<,

Got ya. I’m on the same page. 


>>>>>>>>>>>>I'd like you to reduce it to foolishness for me. I'd like you to tell me how it does not provide sufficient preconditions, thus making ours provide sufficient preconditions. I'd also like you to tell me *what* these preconditions are. If you don't know, then why say only you have it? If you do know, what are they: creation, fall, redemption, trinity? Well, what if you had: creation, fall, redemption, quadrinity? The only thing different is the quadrinity. So, what is it about being 3-in-one that allows for the *necessary* preconditions while 4-in-one does not? What is it about threeness? Now, maybe you'll say it's: creation, fall, redemption, trinity, and X. Well, you'll need to specify what X is, show how it's necessary for intelligibility and how the worldview I told you about doesn't have it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


There is a part of me that must admit that I don’t know what the necessary preconditions are. And there is a part of me that must admit that doing an internal critique of your quadrune, on a certain level, is daunting. And I feel the force of what you are asserting. You are giving a professedly false position to illuminate that a claim of impossibility to contrary must surely be able to explicate why anything and everything else is in fact impossible. And you are hammering on the Triune nature of God, as one example, to force the issue. Fair enough. I see it and feel it. 

Ok, time to think out loud. Do we believe that God is uniquely true? Do we believe that all truth finds its center and meaning in God (ambiguous language, but I think you know what I mean)? Do we believe that truth is intimately bound together- there is an absolute unity and diversity to it? If so, then we must surely say that anything that deviates from this totality of truth will have wrongness, and in principle, the ripple effects of this wrongness overflow in a most unhealthy manner. If we can agree on that, then I think we are constrained to assert TAG is true in principle, right? If God is the true and living God, then the contrary is false necessarily, right? 

There are some problems, however. And I think they reside in our abilities and the extent of our knowledge. I frankly don’t know all of the implications to tri-unity. Good. I’m not God. And I frankly don’t know how a quadrune, when considered narrowly (I stress), would overturn knowledge (I stress here because when the issue is considered broadly, i.e., what has been revealed, the issue is much easier to debunk, as you admit the quadrune is false also). We as Christians must admit to progressive revelation and the infinitude of God, which entails profound mystery for finite creatures. I gladly confess that there is much I do not know and cannot know. But as a Christian, I know to whom I am pointing and trusting in. Is it possible that I do not know these things? If I say yes, then the problem of ultimate possibility overwhelms me. If I say no, then I am walking by faith and I am trusting in the One who is ultimate and who has revealed Himself to me… and this is the most epistemologically sound thing for me to do. It is only by exercising this kind of faith that I am sure of anything. 

In a sense, you are asking for the impossible, humanly speaking. Christianity has mystery and we are finite and God only reveals so much to us. The onlooker can say, “Oh, see, you are no better off than any of us.” No, not at all. These three aspects of Christianity are necessary aspects of Christianity. It doesn’t disprove anything, it just might not comport with out tastes. Mystery doesn’t undermine the fact that God is the uniquely true God. In fact, knowing what I know and having experienced what I have experienced, I am confident that these elements of mystery fit in perfectly and wonderfully with TAG… again, since God is who He is, aren’t we as Christians constrained to agree here? 

I see no way out of HUGE question begging tactics (which is what I smack of). But can we assert anything less? Any other ultimate will prove to be an idol, and idols cannot sustain the weight of absolute status, hence they end up being self-contradictory and frustrating and damaging, which is what other systems of thought entail. I believe they do, even if I can’t demonstrate every aspect to it. That is also why I think the sensus divinitas is absolutely crucial with sovereign grace. These two points only serve to bolster my faith in God. They fit perfectly. 

So again, I can’t say I know how to answer your question about threeness or exactly what all the necessary preconditions for knowledge are, I only know to whom I must look. And what He has revealed in contradistinction to other explanations about reality beats them, but according to the rules outlined within the system. The other systems do have internal problems, as I’m sure you well agree, but isn’t the detection of internal problems, to some extent anyway, dependant upon the rules by which we play? Hence, I’m back to sensus divinitas and sovereign grace. And I’m back to a uniqueness of Christianity that so indulges in such wonderfully ultimate circularity. This fits perfectly with sustaining an ultimate and a God whose chief end is to glorify Himself and enjoy Himself forever. That is the one I love and trust. 

Austin


----------



## ChristianTrader

Paul M,
Concerning the hermeneutics of triune or more, there is a vast difference between reconciling scripture in order to avoid contradictions and scripture leaving something out. Because more than the given number works in one situation does not imply that it, in any way is a valid hermeneutic technique in another.

Concerning natural revelation, I just purchased, a book called, The Secret of the Universe, by Nathan R. Wood, it was recommended by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, and its basic argument is that the Universe reflects the triune nature of God.

I posted a quote from the book here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16574


----------



## ChristianTrader

Paul manata said:


> As far as the argument from nature goes, it's refuted by my pointing out some basic fours.



Proceed.

CT


----------



## Don

> I have spoken to Don, a fellow participant, since the discussion on Butler's blog. That discussion broke down when it came down to what is possible vs. impossible.




If I remember correctly, it broke down when it was *asserted* that the quadrune god was impossible while the triune God was possible. It was not shown that 4 was *impossible*. 

I've seen you use Sean Choi's name quite a bit in support. But is Sean Choi even a presuppositionalist anymore? Not according to his comments on Jeff Lowder's blog a while back. Dropping his name as an argument against modality doesn't do much good in defending VT. Even if he does reject modality, he apparently still rejects the strong VT argument - I could be mistaken though. So I guess it could be commented that I'd love to see the convo b/w you and Choi in regards to VT. 

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for: 

1) what these "preconditions of intelligibility" are?
2) what are the *essential* doctrines of Christianity? and 
3) what makes these *essential* doctrines and them *alone* necessary for intelligibility?

Amen and Amen.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Don said:


> If I remember correctly, it broke down when it was *asserted* that the quadrune god was impossible while the triune God was possible. It was not shown that 4 was *impossible*.



My premise here is that the Bible leaves no room for the possibility of a fourth or more members of the God head. That kills the possibility of the situation.

That would mean that you would be asking to show that the Bible is true, which I do not believe to be a proper question.



> I've seen you use Sean Choi's name quite a bit in support. But is Sean Choi even a presuppositionalist anymore? Not according to his comments on Jeff Lowder's blog a while back.



I have seen the same comments and believe that at best he has moderated his stance concerning VanTillian Presup. But if you have followed the thread, you would have seen that I was not using him as support for VT or anything close to that. I was using him because he is close to Prof. Salmon, who has written against S4 and S5 versions of modal logic. If those are not valid for possible world semantics, then a great deal of possible worlds stuff becomes problematic because they assume these levels of modal logic.



> Dropping his name as an argument against modality doesn't do much good in defending VT.



Again, we have left Van Til and pretty much left TAG on the sideline for a little bit. The question is the validity of the Quadrune claim to be possible. One can despise Van Til and still could answer that such is impossible.



> Even if he does reject modality, he apparently still rejects the strong VT argument - I could be mistaken though. So I guess it could be commented that I'd love to see the convo b/w you and Choi in regards to VT.



I do not have anything to discuss with him concerning Van Til




> In the meantime, I'm still waiting for:
> 
> 1) what these "preconditions of intelligibility" are?
> 2) what are the *essential* doctrines of Christianity? and
> 3) what makes these *essential* doctrines and them *alone* necessary for intelligibility?
> 
> Amen and Amen.



Since I am not currently defending TAG but instead attacking Quadrinity, it might be a while.

 

CT


----------



## Don

> My premise here is that the Bible leaves no room for the possibility of a fourth or more members of the God head. That kills the possibility of the situation.
> 
> That would mean that you would be asking to show that the Bible is true, which I do not believe to be a proper question.



and this is the contextual fallacy that was discussed. 




> I have seen the same comments and believe that at best he has moderated his stance concerning VanTillian Presup. But if you have followed the thread, you would have seen that I was not using him as support for VT or anything close to that. I was using him because he is close to Prof. Salmon, who has written against S4 and S5 versions of modal logic. If those are not valid for possible world semantics, then a great deal of possible worlds stuff becomes problematic because they assume these levels of modal logic.
> 
> Again, we have left Van Til and pretty much left TAG on the sideline for a little bit. The question is the validity of the Quadrune claim to be possible. One can despise Van Til and still could answer that such is impossible.



I know how you were using him. I also asked him a few questions on Vic Repperts blog about the claim that there are no atheists. He thought *this* claim was dependent on Bahnsens impossibility of the contrary, which he thought was not successful. 

You stated in the other thread that Paul Manata was six months behind you and once he denied Possible World Semantics, he'd be 'right back in the camp'. My point is that that is not the only option as one can apparently deny PWs and still not be in the camp. So if you want to name drop Sean Choi or Nathan Salmon in regards to PW, then your interlocutor can name drop them in regards to VT - which is the primary subject at hand.




> Since I am not currently defending TAG but instead attacking Quadrinity, it might be a while.


 
and my point was that the Quadrinity is not really necessary to defeat TAG - or to defeat a certain claim made by TAGsters.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Don said:


> and this is the contextual fallacy that was discussed.



There is no fallacy anywhere. If God has said that "I am a trinity", then you have him being a liar for then being four in one but saying that he is three in one or you have him being able to just change himself into four, when he was once three.

Both are problematic. If you think I have missed something then you can talk to Paul because he has missed the same issue.

The end game is to show that one has to go to some other source of possibility contrary to what God has specifically revealed to His creatures.



> I know how you were using him. I also asked him a few questions on Vic Repperts blog about the claim that there are no atheists. He thought *this* claim was dependent on Bahnsens impossibility of the contrary, which he thought was not successful.



Fair enough, and irrelevant concerning the issue with Dr. Salmon.



> You stated in the other thread that Paul Manata was six months behind you and once he denied Possible World Semantics, he'd be 'right back in the camp'. My point is that that is not the only option as one can apparently deny PWs and still not be in the camp.



I said that in a playful way, there are plenty of ways to be outside of the camp.



> So if you want to name drop Sean Choi or Nathan Salmon in regards to PW, then your interlocutor can name drop them in regards to VT - which is the primary subject at hand.



According to this reasoning, one could never reference an unbeliever with regard to some philosophical argument because someone could just say, "well they are an atheist, deist etc. so why not accept them over there as well".

The primary subject is what we are discussion right now, which is a Quadrune God. Will we get back to Van Til and TAG, Definitely. But that is not the question at hand.

At this point we are analogous to a discussion of arguments that Presupps should not use against other schools of apologetics. Even if we believe the other schools are wrong, we have to fight them properly and not strawman them to death.



> and my point was that the Quadrinity is not really necessary to defeat TAG - or to defeat a certain claim made by TAGsters.



I am not saying that it is necessary or that something else cannot defeat it. The point in discussion is should we move on to something else to potentially defeat TAG.

CT


----------



## Don

I said, "So if you want to name drop Sean Choi or Nathan Salmon in regards to PW, then your interlocutor can name drop them in regards to VT - which is the primary subject at hand." 



> According to this reasoning, one could never reference an unbeliever with regard to some philosophical argument because someone could just say, "well they are an atheist, deist etc. so why not accept them over there as well".



I'll respond to the rest later. But this doesn't follow. If you want to name drop according to one subject, then your interlocutor can name drop the *same* ppl in regards to the primary subject. How that entails that one could "never reference an unbeliever with regard to some philosophical argument" is beyond me.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Don said:


> I said, "So if you want to name drop Sean Choi or Nathan Salmon in regards to PW, then your interlocutor can name drop them in regards to VT - which is the primary subject at hand."
> 
> 
> 
> I'll respond to the rest later. But this doesn't follow. If you want to name drop according to one subject, then your interlocutor can name drop the *same* ppl in regards to the primary subject. How that entails that one could "never reference an unbeliever with regard to some philosophical argument" is beyond me.



Um, this is akin to saying the primary subject of a apologetic encounter is Christianity and not sub argument in favor of some aspect (resurrection etc.) So if I reference an unbeliever in reference to the resurrection one can just reference them in their rejection of Christianity as a whole, because that is the primary subject.

CT


----------



## Don

ChristianTrader said:


> Um, this is akin to saying the primary subject of a apologetic encounter is Christianity and not sub argument in favor of some aspect (resurrection etc.) So if I reference an unbeliever in reference to the resurrection one can just reference them in their rejection of Christianity as a whole, because that is the primary subject.
> 
> CT



You miss the point yet again. If you want to name drop to obtain justification for your rejection of modality, then I'll name drop the *same* ppl (or different) in order to obtain justification for my position - and make the same type of smarty pant comments. And I'm still not exactly sure how all this entails that I can't quote unbelievers? Or am I breaking "Van Tillian" debate rules if I do while it's ok if you do it?


----------



## Don

ChristianTrader said:


> Um, this is akin to saying the primary subject of a apologetic encounter is Christianity and not sub argument in favor of some aspect (resurrection etc.) So if I reference an unbeliever in reference to the resurrection one can just reference them in their rejection of Christianity as a whole, because that is the primary subject.
> 
> CT



oh and by 'primary subject' I did not mean 'Christianity as a whole' but *TAG* and *Van Tillianism* - or at least the right wing version of it.


----------



## Civbert

ChristianTrader said:


> My premise here is that the Bible leaves no room for the possibility of a fourth or more members of the God head. That kills the possibility of the situation.
> 
> That would mean that you would be asking to show that the Bible is true, which I do not believe to be a proper question.
> 
> ...
> 
> CT



Why would one need to show the quadrune God from the Scripture which presents the triune God. We are talking worldviews.

The quadrune god is hypothetical, and would be an element of a hypothetical worldview religion. It would be equivalent to Christianity in _all_ ways except it would have four persons in the Godhead. The quadrune God would have revealed himself so a chosen people, there would be a some holy text, would involve election, redemption, etc. 

Meet Joe. He's a evangelist for the God, the quadrune God. How does Joe know God is Quadrune - Joe's has it right here in the Word of the Quadrune God. Read for yourself.

Now you can't say - "prove it to me from the Scriptures of Christianity". 

"That's silly" says Joe. "God has revealed himself in _my _Bible, not yours." 

And then Joe points out all the relevant verses like Duke 4:12 and 2 Bob 3:1-8. And the God of the quadrinity sent his only begotten son, Jimmy, to die on a tree for the sins of the elect. 

So, there it is. The religion of the Quadrune God is contrary Christianity, but provides all the same categories and conditions of Christianity. It is contrary worldview because both can not be true at the same time.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

CT, unless you can defeat possible worlds, I don't see how you are getting anywhere in this thread.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Don said:


> oh and by 'primary subject' I did not mean 'Christianity as a whole' but *TAG* and *Van Tillianism* - or at least the right wing version of it.



Oh I know but my analogy still holds, the issue is that I do not have to talk about everything at once. The point currently in front of me (or was in front of me) was to attack the potential for a 4 member Godhead. If I need to do more than that to defend TAG from all comers is absolutely fine. But once this is settled then we can move on to something else.

Your counter is akin to saying, Christianity still dies regardless of how I defend the resurrection (because it fails elsewhere). Let me at least address this point and then we can see if it all comes down somewhere else.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

Civbert said:


> Why would one need to show the quadrune God from the Scripture which presents the triune God. We are talking worldviews.



I know exactly what we are talking about. No worldview makes everything possible or nothing possible. So every worldview has a source to tell them that X or Y is possible.

With Christianity we have possibility being an idea in God mind, a creature that God has made or something in that vicinity.

Now if someone wants to counter with a possibility that is not in God's mind because they have another source of possibility then that is perfectly fine. However if they want to do that, they do not have the right to attempt to appeal to some neutral possibility. You either have God as the source or something else.



> The quadrune god is hypothetical, and would be an element of a hypothetical worldview religion.



It is a hypothetical using what non neutral source of possibility?



> It would be equivalent to Christianity in _all_ ways except it would have four persons in the Godhead. The quadrune God would have revealed himself so a chosen people, there would be a some holy text, would involve election, redemption, etc.



Okay how is this any different then asking about a world where the laws of logic do not exist?



> Meet Joe. He's a evangelist for the God, the quadrune God. How does Joe know God is Quadrune - Joe's has it right here in the Word of the Quadrune God. Read for yourself.



I would be happy to read it, but he wont let me read it because there is a different doctrine of providence in this other worldview.



> Now you can't say - "prove it to me from the Scriptures of Christianity".



I would be happy to say prove it to me from their own worldview with the different providence. I would be happy to have him explain his source of possibility etc.



> "That's silly" says Joe. "God has revealed himself in _my _Bible, not yours."



I would be happy to fight him over all the differences between his Bible and mine. God does not lie, right? So while the imposter was raining down fire in support of Elijah, where was he at?



> And then Joe points out all the relevant verses like Duke 4:12 and 2 Bob 3:1-8. And the God of the quadrinity sent his only begotten son, Jimmy, to die on a tree for the sins of the elect.



I love to hear him talk about his God because now he is giving me rope to hang him. The only trouble is when he refuses to talk.

So when the imposter Triune God was having his revelation put forward, where was Quad?



> So, there it is. The religion of the Quadrune God is contrary Christianity, but provides all the same categories and conditions of Christianity. It is contrary worldview because both can not be true at the same time.



I would love to see just how Providence is not completely altered, let alone other things that will come up as Joe tells me about his bible.

CT


----------



## VanVos

I too have difficulties with the Hypothetical quadrinity worldview. How could it give the necessary preconditions for intelligibility? Here’s Bulter's comments:



> But the Fristian worldview, which is, ex hypothesis, identical to Christianity in every other way, asserts that its god is a quadrinity. But if Fristianity is otherwise identical to Christianity, the only way for us to know this would be for Fristian god to reveal this to us. But there is a problem with this. Supposing Fristianity had inspired scriptures (which it would have to have since it is all other ways identical to Christianity), these scriptures would have to reveal that the Fristian God is one in four. But notice that by positing a quadrinity, the Fristian scriptures would be quite different from the Christian Scriptures. Whereas the Christian Scriptures teach that, with regard to man's salvation, God the Father ordains, God the Son accomplishes and God the Spirit applies, the Fristian scriptures would have to teach a very different order. But exactly how would the four members of its imagined godhead be involved in man's salvation? More fundamentally, whereas in the Christian Trinity we read that the personal attribute of the Father is paternity, the personal attribute of the Son is filiation and the personal attribute of the Spirit is spiration,[91] what would be the personal, distinguishing attributes of the members of the Fristian quadrinity? What would their relationship be to each other? Further questions flow out of this. How would the quadrinity affect the doctrine of man and sin? How would redemptive history look different? What about eschatology? This all needs to be spelled out in detail. This illustration reveals a general problem. One cannot tinker with Christian doctrine at one point and maintain that other doctrines will not be affected. It does no good for the proponent of Fristianity to claim that the only difference between his worldview and the Christian worldview is over the doctrine of the Trinity. Christian doctrine is systemic and a change in one area will necessarily require changes in others. It is necessary, therefore, that the advocate of Fristianity to spell out how this one change in doctrine affects all other doctrines. But once this is done, there is no guarantee that the result will be coherent.



Would not a Quadrinity cast a shadow on God’s unity and self-sufficiency? Could we not say that God by necessity is Triune? This gives us the one and many (that is more than two). So a fourth person in the Godhead is unnecessary and therefore not possible for God, who is by definition, a self-sufficient being. 

Hope that makes sense VanVos


----------



## Don

ChristianTrader said:


> Oh I know but my analogy still holds, the issue is that I do not have to talk about everything at once. The point currently in front of me (or was in front of me) was to attack the potential for a 4 member Godhead. If I need to do more than that to defend TAG from all comers is absolutely fine. But once this is settled then we can move on to something else.
> 
> Your counter is akin to saying, Christianity still dies regardless of how I defend the resurrection (because it fails elsewhere). Let me at least address this point and then we can see if it all comes down somewhere else.
> 
> CT



Nothing in my name dropping counter implies that you have to talk about everything at once. That is irrelevant. My particular counter to *this tactic* has to do with your *name dropping* and attempting to obtain justification from that. If you want to play this name game, then we can do that, and this is what I was doing. Saying that it may be off-subject or whatever misses the point. I was simply trying to get you to go further. Even if your analogy holds (which I don't think it does as it misses my point), I still fail to see how it matters. Your analogy is akin to saying "I can name drop on 'side issues' but you can't name drop on the 'wider issue'. That's a foul and therefore illegal." That's ridiculous - what logical law is that derived from. Anyway, this is a side issue that perturbed me especially when I saw it in the other thread.

I may address the rest of your statements next week as I'm exhausted from shoveling all day, am particularly busy and tired of this subject. In the meantime, meditate on those questions I asked earlier that you dismissed and try to sufficiently state TAG instead of having an assertion party.


----------



## VanVos

Paul manata said:


> All of this was debated in his thread. Read through it, first.
> 
> The quadrune god would would be unified in his 4-and-oneness.
> 
> You could *say* whatever you want. Proving it is another matter.
> 
> The one-and-many is had by more than 1, not more than 2. The fact that something is unnecessary, does not mean it's impossible. It's unnecessary for me to have size 15 shoes, that doesn't mean it's impossible.
> 
> Anyway, read the thread I linked to and also note that Butler said there that his article "was not intended to be the last word." I think even he knows the case hasn't been made.



Okay I will read the thread when I have time, because I really want understand your argument here. However I do have some questions based upon your response here. Would not Binitarianism be insufficient, since it would lack an objective testator to the reciprocal communion that exists within the persons of the Godhead? Also is not God exempt from the unnecessary/impossibility argument since God by definition is perfect and is therefore incapable of doing or being something unnecessary?, therefore making both Quaditarianism and Binitarianism impossible.

VanVos


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Paul, Perhaps it is your new found liberty having come out of the closet, but on the one hand you are saying that you are only informing me of another worldview, on the other hand you are expressing some security in the fact that a WSC professor is telling you God could possibly be four in one. Do you believe this nonsense yourself, or not?
> 
> May I suggest you pick up Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics and read the reformed consensus on God *necessarily* willing Himself to be Triune. Four persons is not possible in a reformed worldview.
> 
> I think this quadrune worldview requires development before being presented for critique. 1 John 5 provides us with the Trinitarian basis of revelation and salvation.



Rev. Winzer, it seems to me the assertion out there in “la-la land” is the idea that one can prove Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary. The key word here is “prove.” TAG has been oversold by Van Til and his followers and the fact that some Van Tilians, like Paul, are beginning to realize this, I think is a good thing. 

I can’t help thinking you have completely missed his point. We know that God is a Triunity because that’s what the Scriptures teach. Paul is not saying Four persons IS possible in a Reformed worldview. all he’s doing is pointing out a (glaring) weakness in TAG.


----------



## Civbert

I'm curious also about the concept "impossibility of the contrary". I've not seen this in formal logic or in reference to anything other than Christian apologetics. I've always assumed it was a common phrase in logical analysis. Can someone point me to a reference explaining the concept of "impossibility of the contrary"?


----------



## Civbert

VanVos said:


> I too have difficulties with the Hypothetical quadrinity worldview. How could it give the necessary preconditions for intelligibility? Here’s Bulter's comments:
> 
> 
> 
> .... But notice that by positing a quadrinity, the Fristian scriptures would be quite different from the Christian Scriptures. Whereas the Christian Scriptures teach that, with regard to man's salvation, God the Father ordains, God the Son accomplishes and God the Spirit applies, the Fristian scriptures would have to teach a very different order. ...
Click to expand...


Necessarily different. And if so, would it be so different as to insure it necessarily does not supply the preconditions for intelligibility?

Could not the forth person be conceived as one similar in character and nature to one of the other three person. The fourth person could be obtained dividing the functions of the Holy Spirit into two persons. One could serve only to instill faith into the elect, or maybe would be function to cause sanctification in believers. There are many possibilities. As many possibilities as there are different angels.



VanVos said:


> Would not a Quadrinity cast a shadow on God’s unity and self-sufficiency? Could we not say that God by necessity is Triune? This gives us the one and many (that is more than two). So a fourth person in the Godhead is unnecessary and therefore not possible for God, who is by definition, a self-sufficient being.
> 
> Hope that makes sense VanVos



I think Paul addressed this. A fourth person may not be necessary - but that does not mean it is impossible. Is there some proof that the Godhead could not possibly have had any more persons than necessary? And I'm assuming that 3 persons are the minimum necessary. 

And please note again, I'm not saying this is possible within the reformed or Christian worldview. This is a whole other worldview. Just as adding an additional side two a three sided figure turns a triangle into a quadrangle. Both are valid shapes. A four sided triangle is impossible only by definition of triangle. It's not an impossible shape. A four person Godhead is impossible _within _the Christian worldview - does not imply it is an impossible worldview. 

There are many worldviews. While only one worldview can be true (sound), there are possible worldviews that are formally valid. We can check the validity of a worldview even while assuming our own. However, we can not prove which worldview is sound. If we assume one worldview, all others will appear unsound necessarily. But any formally valid worldview will appear sound if one assumes it first. 

Are we all using the same definition of worldview? A worldview is not merely a way of looking at the world. Your worldview defines everything you think you know and believe true. It dictates what appears to be true, untrue, or uncertain. Your worldview is determined by your presuppositions regarding epistemology, ontology, and/or metaphysics. The axioms of a worldview take logical priority over all other propositional truths.


----------



## VanVos

Paul manata said:


> 1. Is an "objective testator" *necessary* for intelligibility? If so, prove it.
> 
> 2. The apologist for this worldview can appeal to mystery or paradox, just like you do.
> 
> 3. Why can't one of the two person's "objectively testify?"
> 
> 4. Who said the fourth member was "unneccessary?" How much would you have to know to know *that?*




I understand yon need take a break from debate, I know how exhausting it can be. But I will attempt answer the questions here

1. I would argue yes. An objective testator gives objective knowledge to the communion that exists between the persons of Godhead. In creation every case is establish by two or more witnesses (Matt 18:16) It's a precondition for proof of any given relationship. 

2. A paradox with trinitarianism is allowable because it gives the necessary preconditions for intelligibility; I still don't how any alternative does.

3. See 1

4. Again trinitarianism sufficiently gives us the preconditions for intelligibility therefore 4th member of the God head is unnecessary, and since God is perfect He can not be or do something unnecessary.

VanVos


----------



## VanVos

Thanks for the comments Civbert. But in my thinking, I still say it is valid to argue from the impossibility of the contrary. Also I think you will agree with me here; that in the nature of the case there can be no other worldview, there can be only be one transcendental for the meaningfulness of man's experience, and the one we have says there are no others. Plus you lose uniformity if you have two possible worldviews, and then you would need a third worldview to judge the two proposed worldviews. So guess, what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that we should give up on the impossibility of the contrary argument formulation.

VanVos


----------



## B.J.

I guess I constitute the "others" of the thread topic. I to had to come to grips some time ago with the now obvoius fact that the "contrary" can never be shown to be impossible. CVT's TAG is bankrupt. It can't prove what it so boldly claims. Paul and I discussed this at some length in a previous thread where he slammed me for questioning what he now affirms. So my only question for Presuppers like myself, who have been stripped of their Bahnsneian rhetoric and Van Tillian cliches', is...What now? The bomb has been dropped on the playground of Presuppositionalism and we must salvage anything that can be of use.


----------



## Civbert

B.J. said:


> I guess I constitute the "others" of the thread topic. I to had to come to grips some time ago with the now obvoius fact that the "contrary" can never be shown to be impossible. CVT's TAG is bankrupt. It can't prove what it so boldly claims. Paul and I discussed this at some length in a previous thread where he slammed me for questioning what he now affirms. So my only question for Presuppers like myself, who have been stripped of their Bahnsneian rhetoric and Van Tillian cliches', is...What now? The bomb has been dropped on the playground of Presuppositionalism and we must salvage anything that can be of use.



That doesn't mean we don't have an effective defense of Christianity. It only removes one questionable tool (TAG) from the arsenal.

And we can defeat every _known _worldview. The only thing that matches (but can not defeat) Christianity, is a hypothetical worldview that seems to have no real-world example. The hypothetical is only hypothetical as has as it is humanly possible for us to know. It means we can not, an an absolute sense, rule out all possible worldviews.

But we can (through an internal critique) rule out: empiricism, rationalism, mysticism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Humanism, Atheism, etc, etc, etc. I know Gordon Clark has done this in his apologetics. I think Bahnsen may have knocked down a few himself.

Basically, we can knock out all non-theistic worldviews, and all known religions in short order. There's not much left apart from Christianity. If that's not an effective defense/offense, then what is? 

And although not an absolute proof of Christianity, we can still use the evidential and historical arguments.


----------



## Don

I would not call TAG itself questionable but rather the *claim* of proving the impossibility of the contrary using TAG.


----------



## B.J.

> [But we can (through an internal critique) rule out: empiricism, rationalism, mysticism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Humanism, Atheism, etc, etc, etc. I know Gordon Clark has done this in his apologetics. I think Bahnsen may have knocked down a few himself.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Heres another monkey wrench for you. Not only can possible worldviews not be ruled out, but also worldviews we dont know of such as a possible tribe of jungle people with there own worldview. You act as though all the above worldviews cant do an internal critique of Christianity. Oh yeah, I forgot...we appeal to mystery when push comes to shove. Why cant all the others appeal to mystery. At best, when an internal critique is done on said worldview, you can say is that you have shown a contradiction within their worldview. Can they not say that it is only an apparent contradiction to us because we have not started with the Truth of the system? This apparent contradiction can be called a mystery, right? Does not every Orthodox doctrine of the Reformed worldview end in mystery?


----------



## Magma2

> Heres another monkey wrench for you. Not only can possible worldviews not be ruled out, but also worldviews we dont know of such as a possible tribe of jungle people with there own worldview. You act as though all the above worldviews cant do an internal critique of Christianity. Oh yeah, I forgot...we appeal to mystery when push comes to shove. Why cant all the others appeal to mystery. At best, when an internal critique is done on said worldview, you can say is that you have shown a contradiction within their worldview. Can they not say that it is only an apparent contradiction to us because we have not started with the Truth of the system? This apparent contradiction can be called a mystery, right? Does not every Orthodox doctrine of the Reformed worldview end in mystery?



Great point, and, I might add, a decisive one! This, in my mind, is the real death knell for Van Tilian apologetics. “They” can and should say all those things you say they should.  I’m just continually surprised that so few do. What was that P.T. Barnum said?


----------



## B.J.

Paul,
I didnt mean anything negative by the phrase "slammed me." I hope this is clear to everyone. It was just an expression. I guess I watch to much WWE.


----------



## Civbert

Don said:


> I would not call TAG itself questionable but rather the *claim* of proving the impossibility of the contrary using TAG.




Fair enough. I only object to the presentation of TAG that goes "_only _Christianity provided the necessary preconditions for intelligibility". That is, I object to the term "only". The only support for the "only" is by the impossibility of the contrary.


----------



## Civbert

B.J. said:


> Paul,
> I didnt mean anything negative by the phrase "slammed me." I hope this is clear to everyone. It was just an expression. I guess I watch to much WWE.




I thought it was intended as a compliment to Paul. Kind of like saying the Chess Master killed me in last game.


----------



## Civbert

B.J. said:


> [But we can (through an internal critique) rule out: empiricism, rationalism, mysticism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Humanism, Atheism, etc, etc, etc. I know Gordon Clark has done this in his apologetics. I think Bahnsen may have knocked down a few himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heres another monkey wrench for you. Not only can possible worldviews not be ruled out, but also worldviews we dont know of such as a possible tribe of jungle people with there own worldview.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is possible. 



B.J. said:


> You act as though all the above worldviews cant do an internal critique of Christianity.


Anyone can do an internal critique of Christianity. But a critique of Christianity shows it is fully valid and sound worldview, providing all the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. 



B.J. said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot...we appeal to mystery when push comes to shove. Why cant all the others appeal to mystery.


Who's "we". I don't. And who says they can't? They can, but it would be to their detriment.




B.J. said:


> At best, when an internal critique is done on said worldview, you can say is that you have shown a contradiction within their worldview. Can they not say that it is only an apparent contradiction to us because we have not started with the Truth of the system?


An internal critique starts by assuming the worldview in question is true. Based on that assumption (assumed for the sake of argument), one can show that most worldviews falls apart. Empiricism, atheism, and rationalism, (really all non-theistic worldviews) can be shown to be incapable of producing epistemicly justifiable knowledge. It's a devastating technique. 



> This apparent contradiction can be called a mystery, right? Does not every Orthodox doctrine of the Reformed worldview end in mystery?


Only in irrational formulations of Christianity. The reformed worldview does not have to appeal to mystery (unless one takes the neo-orthodox perspective). If it does, Christianity too will fall apart.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> As I suggested yesterday, if the discussion is going to move along, it will have to be applied to something that is not "necessary" to God, a possible world where God could have done something different than create, reveal, and redeem, and thus produce a religion substantively different to Christianity.


It would only be necessary for it to contradict one doctrine (e.g. the Trinity). 



armourbearer said:


> The impossibility of the contrary emerges from the ontological argument that a greater being than God cannot be conceived.


A God proven by the force of a man-centric argument is not the God of Scripture. The argument is circular to boot. It proves God by first assuming God exists. 



armourbearer said:


> On that premise the contrary IS impossible, and there can be no possible world where God does not exist, or where another God exists instead.


 The God of the ontological argument is poorly defined, and certainly does not need to be the God of Scripture. The God of Islam also works. 




armourbearer said:


> As all "foundationalist" arguments for the existence for God are ontological, you either deny foundationalism or you accept the impossibility of the contrary.


A foundational argument should be epistemological, not ontological. Knowledge requires a foundation. Existence is undefinable everything and nothing. 



armourbearer said:


> Also, Paul, it is perhaps the case that your experience with modal arguments derives from acquaintance with Plantinga, and is more positive. My experience comes through Hartshorne and process theology, where the goal is to disprove an actus purus, and establish a becoming God. I would be open to learn a more positive use of the modal argument, but I would only allow it to pertain to properties, not entitites.


Me too! I can always learn more. I might even find out I'm wrong about somethings.    I day I'm not learning something or being corrected about something is not much of a day. Plantinga is on my must- read list.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Can anyone point to works on how to determine what is an impossible world or just how to determine if something is impossible?


----------



## Peter

I remember we had this discussion on the PB a little while ago only the roles were reversed and Mr Manata was defending TAG against Binity / Quadinity.

I can't pretend to understand half the issues going on in this debate and I tend to lean towards the anti-TAG side on this but I think a word can be said for TAG in the area of the doctrine of the necessity of the Trinity according to the scriptures. The number of persons constituting the Godhead is something hidden from the light of nature. Believing God is three in one is entirely a matter of faith known only by special revelation. In the Bible God reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit. To believe this _and more_ is to add to God's revelation and commit idolatry (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Rev 22:18). I think Sola Scriptura and the RPW makes a quadinity impossible.


----------



## austinbrown2

My own concluding thoughts on this post.

1.	Paul considers my responses a good expression of piety. Well, thanks. That’s a good thing, right? 

2.	In the midst of these technical discussions one thing becomes extremely apparent to me: man is a finite being that is ever prone towards error and confusion. Some of this is due to ignorance and some of it is due to sin and some of it is due to conditioning. The fact that this little band of Christians cannot agree on methods, etc., surely points to the truth of this assertion. Therefore, I move towards (3).

3.	In a sense, all of this talk is superfluous. The Roman Empire did not get turned on its head because of sophisticated argumentation. It was a result of Christians, through the power of the Holy Spirit, preaching the Word to lost sinners. We know Christ and Him crucified. Sure, apologetics is good and required of us, but it must not be divorced from the Lordship of Jesus Christ nor the cross and the resurrection. If we cannot agree on that, then I dare say the apologetic task is futile. As I have interacted with the uneducated to the educated they both share one blatantly clear thing in common (if you probe a bit) they love their sin. This reality colors everything, no matter how pious the apparent intellectual struggle appears. 

4.	In this vein we talk a lot about “proof” and “impossibility,” but the fact remains that these categories are bound up with each man’s own autonomous standards. If there isn’t sovereign grace and if there isn’t common grace and if there isn’t the sense of deity in man, then the apologetic task is futile. Autonomous man is the measure of all things. This is patently obvious. Ever talked with a non-believer anyone? 

5.	This raises my final concern. I am uncomfortable with people saying that made up worldviews are our only threat. This is all the threat that is necessary. Possibility is all-consuming from my perspective. Paul, you want me to tell you what the necessary preconditions are… well, you tell me what the preconditions are! Is it possible that the Triune God does not exist? Answer me that. If we say that it is possible, then we are answering the question from the standpoint of autonomy. Man wasn’t made to operate in this fashion. And when we do, possibility rises to ultimacy and it swallows everything. I repeat, the likelihood of possible X and possible Y are equally likely and unlikely given our ignorance of potential factors P and Q which may or may not effect the truthfulness of X and Y. Every probability has an equal ultimacy of ultimate unknowability. The absolute Lord of Abraham is the only One who can rule over this “What if” problem. If someone disagrees with this, then I simply ask you the Christian if Jesus Christ is absolutely Lord. If so, why such contention here? Do we want this absolute claim to be more palatable to non-Christians? Do we think that something less will solve the problem? But granted, I’m all for utilizing arguments that comport with Christianity and don’t dishonor the Lord. In fact, I will go so far as to say that everything points to Christianity. Thus, everything can be used as evidence. That’s how far-reaching my apologetic, yes, TAG arguments goes. As Christians we must not sacrifice God on the alter of chance. Hopefully we can agree on this. 

Blessings,
Austin


----------



## austinbrown2

P.S. I posted this before I knew some peace was arrived at. I am glad to see that the tension has dropped significantly. May the Lord bless all of our efforts, done through our own unique contributions.

Austin


----------



## VanVos

VanVos said:


> I understand yon need take a break from debate, I know how exhausting it can be. But I will attempt answer the questions here
> 
> 1. I would argue yes. An objective testator gives objective knowledge to the communion that exists between the persons of Godhead. In creation every case is establish by two or more witnesses (Matt 18:16) It's a precondition for proof of any given relationship.
> 
> 2. A paradox with trinitarianism is allowable because it gives the necessary preconditions for intelligibility; I still don't how any alternative does.
> 
> 3. See 1
> 
> 4. Again trinitarianism sufficiently gives us the preconditions for intelligibility therefore 4th member of the God head is unnecessary, and since God is perfect He can not be or do something unnecessary.
> 
> VanVos



Just wanted to add that it would have been better for me to use the language of objective testifier rather than objective testator. I hope my argument is now more intelligible.


----------



## austinbrown2

I do understand the implications of the quadrune issue... but I think it doesn't have teeth. Now we are at a stand-off. That's the nature of argumentation and person variable apologetics and knowledge acquisition. Hence, imago dei and sovereign grace are vital. 

>>>>>>>All you're saying is that you *believe* that P, but you can't *show* that P.<<<<<<<<<<<,

None of us can show P when we are dealing with a person who plays by their own rules. How do you prove P? You can't even convince me, a Christian, that my method is false  Are you going to prove P by inductive arguments? A-priori deductive arguments? Probability arguments? I use all of these in real life apologetics, so long as I firmly set apart Christ Jesus as Lord as I do so.

And while I get your point about the Muslim thing, we do call people to faith and repentance. I think we Christians who are steeped in philosophy forget this point. We preach Christ crucified. I tell you the truth, Ravi Zacharius and John Piper have been more effective in preaching the Gospel than any philosophical argument. 

Cheers,
Austin


----------

