# So I am trying to help an Atheist understand TAG...



## Apologist4Him (Mar 15, 2005)

1.) First, I received a private message from an atheist at another messageboard, his message reads as follows:

_"I have yet to draw any conclusions on this topic (in reference to TAG), so if your interested, i'll continue the thread with you. But you can't talk over my head, because i'll be honest, this topic is difficult for me...especially since I have no background at all in philosophy. (in fact, just between us, I didn't even finish high-school)

I'm intrigued by this topic and would like to learn more, so if you want to start anew, lets get on a 101 level.

If you were going to teach the basics of the TAG to someone like me, what questions would you ask first...or what principles would you first address? I do have somewhat of a grasp on the TAG, but for the sake of clarity, let's start from the bottom...and for the record, I don't want a debate, but rather a discussion.

If your concerned about going in circles with other posters, and would rather converse via PM, i'm willing to do that as well."_

2.) My first response to him was the following:

Hi Ray,

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I would be glad to try and help, to be your guide into at least understanding TAG better. Perhaps in the process I will also learn how to explain TAG better.

I suppose the first step would be to provide you with a list of resources. A list of people whom helped me to learn TAG. I learned TAG by listening and reading to:

1. *Dr. Cornelius Van Til*, is considered by many to be the father of presuppositonalism. Which is not to say he created something new, but that he formulated and defined something that was already in the thoughts and words of those before him. Kind of like the names and defintions of such things as trees and birds. In other words,, trees and birds pre-date their technical dictionary definition. I learned the most from Van Til by purchasing the following software which includes more than 50 hours of audio: http://www.logos.com/products/details/517 The Works of Cornelius Van Til CD-ROM really is a most invaluable resource on Dr. Van Til. The best free online Van Til resources which I am aware of are: http://www.vantil.info/ and http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...ius^Van^Til

2. *Dr. Greg Bahnsen* is probably the most well known and gifted student of Van Til. A really nice and short biography of Dr. Bahnsen can be read at: https://host186.ipowerweb.com/~kenneth1/appointed.htm . In my estimation, Dr. Bahnsen furthered Dr. Van Til's formulation and definiton of TAG more than anybody else. More than 100 of Dr. Bahnsen's articles can be read for free at: http://www.cmfnow.com/page.asp?id=8 . If you are interested further, you may want to listen to his series of transcendental Argument lectures: http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod...=207&amp;amp;1=391&amp;amp;2=-1 and or his analysis and refutation of Dr. Michael Martin: http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod...=207&amp;amp;1=408&amp;amp;2=-1 (also available on CD's). If you want to learn and are up to a challenge, I recommend Dr. Bahnsen's material.

3. *Michael Butler* is probably the most well known and gifted student of Greg Bahnsen. He is fairly young (I think he is in his 30's), but he may become the next Van Til/Bahnsen, the Van Til/Bahnsen of our generation. Michael Butler's response to TANG can be read at: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin/pen896.html . You can listen to a few lectures on apologetics given by him at: http://www.newhorizonchurch.ca/conf/audio/apologetics/

4. *TheFiveSolas* (of Tweb, especially his posts in the following thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=145 )

Next, we should probably discuss worldviews and wordview thinking. Questions like, what is a worldview, are important to any discussion of TAG. Perhaps this is where I should learn more about your understanding of worldview thinking. How would you describe a worldview?

I think I will stop here for now, and continue later, I really did appreciate your response.

Kind Regards,

A4H

3.) Next he responded to me with the following message:

_"Thanks for the links...i'll definitely check them out! Oh, and if you'd rather post in the open forum (as it may be easier), I could ask that only you and I be allowed to post. But if you don't mind PM, then I don't either.

A worldview? No one has ever asked me that before...it seems like a vauge question and could be covered by a broad range of responses. But i'll give it a try.

I don't think I have a fixed way of looking at and perceiving the world. Over the years, I have come across information that shattered former views, and other times, I have come full circle to once again embrace a view that I held long ago.

When I say that I am an "atheist", I really don't even know what that means, in that, I get the concept of atheism and agnosticism confused. Currently, I don't subscribe to any beliefs in gods, so I guess that makes me an atheist. But in actuality, I really don't know if gods exist, so I guess that makes me an agnostic. So from a religious standpoint ( although I don't think atheism/agnosticism is a religion per se), I have an atheist/agnostic worldview (and all that that implies.)

I sort of see the world holisticly to. Every person, place, thing and event works in sync like a macro-organism, no matter how evil or good they may appear. It's sort of like the sympathetic and para-sympathetic nervous system. They work against each other in a way, but the constant mutual tension is what keeps them both intact and operable.

Does that help?"_

*N*ow, I am trying to decide where to take the discussion from here. Should I give him the Ronald Nash defintion of a worldview, and go into detail on the antithesis between the Christian worldview and non-Christian worldviews?

Should I also bring objectivism and subjectivism into the discussion by explaing them and how they effect a person's worldview?

Thank you in advance for your input and help. 

In Christ,

A4H


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 15, 2005)

First, did he give you permission to post his messages elsewhere? We do not want to openly critique messages from other boards here without their authors' permission, _especially_ private messages. If he in fact does not want you posting it elsewhere, this thread should probably be deleted - but the Admins will decide that at the applicable time.



> _Originally posted by Apologist4Him_
> I sort of see the world holisticly to. Every person, place, thing and event works in sync like a macro-organism, no matter how evil or good they may appear. It's sort of like the sympathetic and para-sympathetic nervous system. They work against each other in a way, but the constant mutual tension is what keeps them both intact and operable.



I would start by simply asking him on what basis he claims for knowledge of that worldview. The Christian claims God's revelation in Scripture as the basis for theirs, and points to the biblical worldview as providing the necessary framework for intelligible living and thinking. What corresponding basis does he claim for knowledge of his worldview?

It also seems to me that what he stated is simply a small part of a worldview, since there are so many areas of life it does not even touch. For instance, since he seems that the antithesis between "good" and "evil" is an illussion, and that everything actually works together without any intrinsic nature of "good" or "evil," what basis is there for refraining from things such as murder, and for even maintaining logical arguments, since that assumes that one _ought_ to seek truth...and by the way, what is truth, and by what standard is it measured? The Christian has answers for such questions, but the "worldview" presented above seems to not.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> First, did he give you permission to post his messages elsewhere? We do not want to openly critique messages from other boards here without their authors' permission, _especially_ private messages.



No, however his messages are not copyrighted and I purposely left out his username. 



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_If he in fact does not want you posting it elsewhere, this thread should probably be deleted - but the Admins will decide that at the applicable time.



He has not stated either way. I did not ask nor did he give permission to post his non-copyrighted material. Actually, his first response was posted on an open forum, and then because I did not respond, he sent me a copy via PM, and I decided to respond. If I have violated board decorum, I would prefer to have the OP edited with his comments in italics removed from the post without deleting the entire thread.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_ _Originally posted by Apologist4Him_
> I sort of see the world holisticly to. Every person, place, thing and event works in sync like a macro-organism, no matter how evil or good they may appear. It's sort of like the sympathetic and para-sympathetic nervous system. They work against each other in a way, but the constant mutual tension is what keeps them both intact and operable.



Please do not misquote me. I did not say the words you quoted with my name. 



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_I would start by simply asking him on what basis he claims for knowledge of that worldview. The Christian claims God's revelation in Scripture as the basis for theirs, and points to the biblical worldview as providing the necessary framework for intelligible living and thinking. What corresponding basis does he claim for knowledge of his worldview?



I have not touched on axioms or properly basic beliefs. My objective is not to argue TAG with him, but to explain TAG. I would like to leave him with something to think about...rather than droping the anvil on him. His tone is friendly, and believe me, that is rare among atheists on the internet. Perhaps he is leading me on, and at some point his tone will change, but I will take the discussion step by step. Anyway, I suspect that his basis for knowledge is empiricism...his subjective senses.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_It also seems to me that what he stated is simply a small part of a worldview, since there are so many areas of life it does not even touch.



It's quite possible that he is not all that familar with worldview thinking. Which is why I would like to provide him with a better understanding, a more comprehensive understanding of what a worldview is. The major components of a worldview are...

1. A belief about God
1. A metaphysical view of ultimate reality. 
2. A theory of knowledge (epistemology)
3. A theory of ethics
4. A theory of the nature of human beings

In other words,, a worldview is formed by beliefs about God, ultimate reality, knowledge, ethics, and human beings.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_For instance, since he seems that the antithesis between "good" and "evil" is an illussion, and that everything actually works together without any intrinsic nature of "good" or "evil," what basis is there for refraining from things such as murder,



Yes, I agree, apart from the objective existence of God, apart from an objective good and evil, morality is completely subjective like flavors of ice cream. If he believes "good and evil" are an illusion, I am inclined to think he is a "spiritual atheist" like a buddhist. In which case, I am doubtful the logical weight of TAG will burdon him.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_and for even maintaining logical arguments, since that assumes that one _ought_ to seek truth...and by the way, what is truth, and by what standard is it measured? The Christian has answers for such questions, but the "worldview" presented above seems to not.



Atheists tend to complain about TAG with "God did it" or "God of the gaps" remarks. I think the better we can explain TAG, the more riduculous those remarks will be.

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Apologist4Him]


----------



## SRoper (Mar 15, 2005)

What is TAG?

"No, however his messages are not copyrighted and I purposely left out his username."

Every message is copyrighted as soon as it is created. The question is whether he owns the copyright. Generally the message board owns the copyright. Regardless, you shouldn't be concerned only about what is allowed, but what is proper. There was at least one fact that he wanted to be kept private.


----------



## john_Mark (Mar 15, 2005)

*Andrew, good seeing you here.*

I get confused about the whole copyright and the internet too. It seems that as long as one is siting their source from a public rather than private domain that all should be well. Current board rules withstanding. If not, then how could we ever quote published books and write about those issues, etc.?

Anyways, here is something I found.

http://www.legal-database.com/copyright-laws-internet-law.htm




> Works put on the Internet are considered "œpublished" and therefore qualify for copyright protection. A work put on the Internet is not considered public domain simply because it was posted on the Internet and free for anyone to download and copy. You need permission from the site owner to publish any materials, including photographs, music, and artwork from the site.
> 
> The best way to enforce Internet copyright is through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 is designed primarily to limit the liability of Internet service providers for acts of copyright infringement by customers who are using the providers' systems or networks. The DMCA was enacted both to preserve copyright enforcement on the Internet and to provide immunity to service providers from copyright infringement liability for passive, automatic actions in which a service provider's system engages through a technological process initiated by another without the knowledge of the service provider.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Apologist4Him_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_ _Originally posted by Apologist4Him_
> ...



I thought it was clear from my post that I was knowingly quoting _him_ as reported by you, since my very next sentence asked what basis _he_ claims for knowledge of it. But in any case, sorry for the misunderstanding.



> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> What is TAG?



Transcendental Argument For the Existence of God. You can do a search on this site for it, or take a look at some of Dr. Bahnsen's articles at cmfnow.com. I would also recommend listening to his debate with atheist Dr. Gordon Stein, which can be found here.

In very brief terms, Dr. Bahnsen summarized the TAG as such:



> In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> What is TAG? *knowing I'm going to slap myself after getting the answer*



...especially if the answer's right above your post!


----------



## Robin (Mar 15, 2005)

My Dear Andrew....

For heaven's sake....please don't burden this soul with all the apologetics-techniques stuff!

LISTEN to his heart....he's a pantheist - NOT an athiest...so there's a great opportunity to educate him as to how his worldview works rather than what it IS.

Sometimes, it's best to simply listen and draw-him out with questions like "tell me why you hold to xxxxx?" "why do you think xxx?" "does your point of view make sense?" or "how do you know that?" Then sit back, and CARE about understanding what brought this person to the point they are at. Please do that first, OK? Pray that the Lord give you a heart of compassion --- so that you may, indeed care for them. Then and only then, will you win a hearing....and at that point, lose the techniques and go to Acts 17 a la Paul.

I know some here would not agree with me --- but I've done apologetics for 30 years....my old teacher, Walter Martin always taught us to never "win the argument and lose the soul while doing it". Don't complicate matters with the debate over evidential/presuppositionalisim. Please.

The Reformed Faith gives us wonderful freedom and simplicity....while Ron Nash is great....it sounds like this person is not there yet....

Francis Schaeffer wrote about "pre-evangelism" being the act of removing barriers to faith. Sometimes, it's as simple as explaining what Christianity IS and is not. Sometimes it means explaining history; the problem of evil and what our Faith has to say about that, etc. But, most importantly, it means that frequently you might not ever see a conclusion to your dialog with the person. You might not ever get them to "say the prayer" or "make a commitment"...at least in the timing you're hoping for.

'Nuff said.....



Robin


----------



## Robin (Mar 15, 2005)

PS.

I have no idea what TAG is.....I don't think Jesus or Paul's "techniques" incorporated it....but in my mind, these men were the best apologists the world has ever seen! It's probably best to use their "techniques."

R.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by john_Mark_
> I get confused about the whole copyright and the internet too. It seems that as long as one is siting their source from a public rather than private domain that all should be well. Current board rules withstanding. If not, then how could we ever quote published books and write about those issues, etc.?
> 
> Anyways, here is something I found.
> ...



Hey Mark, it's good to see you...err read you too.  Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I had not read that before, and yeah, it is kind of confusing (like so many other man-made laws within jurisdictions).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 15, 2005)

Andrew, I don't mean to put down presuppositionalism by any means, but this is an opportunity of greater importance than apologetic arguments. You have here an open door to give the gospel in it's full form and beauty. That is what TAG is grounded in after all right??? Simply go through the biblical understanding of man, the Fall, it's effects, and God's means of restoration. Gen. 1-3, John 1-3, Rom. 1-3. Keep it simple. Then, not only have you answered his question, but you've opened the door for salvation by planting seeds and hopefully God will cause them to grow.

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Robin (Mar 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Andrew, I don't mean to put down presuppositionalism by any means, but this is an opportunity of greater import than apologetic arguments. You have here an open to to give the gospel in it's full form and beauty. That is what TAg is grounded in after all right??? Simply go through the biblical understanding of man, the Fall, it's effects, and God's means of restoration. Gen. 1-3, John 1-3, Rom. 1-3. Keep it simple. Then, not only have you answered his question, but you've opened the door for salvation by planting seeds and hopefully God will cause them to grow.
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------

