# How is the contrary impossible?



## B.J. (Jul 28, 2006)

I am new to the Puritan Board, and I checked the last 5 pages of post to see if this was ever discussed. I did not see anything on it so I thought I would ask a few questions about the popular Presuppositionalist cliche known as _"The impossibility of the contrary."_


I know where it appears in CVT's writings, and I understand how it was used by Bahnsen and others. In fact, I myself have used it in discussions with unbelievers only to have them give me this look and gasp of breath, like, _what the heck did you just say._ Anyway, I have been thinking about the "scope" that this cliche implies to people when it is said. I am also familiar with the Sproul/Bahnsen debate where Sproul ask Bahnsen "how do you know the contrary is impossible?" To which Bahnsen responds by giving a brief lecture on the Rationalist, Empiricists, and Kant. However, I think that what Sproul might have meant is this. 

Given "all" the worldviews out there, and even the ones that have yet to be formulated (or made up...like Fristianity, or any cult), how is it possible to preclude that they cant compete, or counter ours? I know this is roughly stated. It sounds like the common objection that Bahnsen has dealt with in some tapes series' I have about Transcendental Arguments, but he never dealt with a worldview that might say something like this:

B.J: Hi, how are you?

Whoever: Fine thanks. Hey may I tell you about my religion? You can read about it God's word she revealed to me. 


Now Bahnsen at this point would say something like," you must just simply ask the person to start talking about their view and they would eventually hang themselves" (Transcendental argument seminar tape series). I assume that he means they will contradict themselves, or just not be able to have an answer that we will accept. But suppose I point out something about their system that seems contradictory to us, and we point it out to them. They respond by saying, "Oh...thats not a contradiction its only an apparent paradox." They then continue in their defense by saying, "what you should have done is to show that on our conception of this God their is a contradiction, or basically assume the truth of my worldview then show a contradiction."

Most of you should be picking up on this by now. It is a reversal of CVT's demand that we argue from the impossiblity of the contrary. I guess my question is...Can another worldview "reverse" the cliche, and avoid all the tough questions that can be mounted against their said worldview by claiming "its only an Apparent Paradox?"

Please dont try to bog my question down with some statement like...well they have to show how logic, science, and morality are possible in their worldview. I am past that in the since that presummablly they have accounted for it insofar as they can, and where we might push the question further, they then claim...well, thats a BIG mystery and it is an Apparent Paradox. Kinda like when an unbeliever asks us to expalin the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Soviernty/ Freedom.,etc... and all we do is say its a mystery.

Last, let me say that I am not a Van Tillian scholar, and I dont really have a grasp of the Clark/CVT deal. I am merely a interested party with questions. I hunt deer and fish. I watch NASCAR...so yes I am pretty much your sterotypical South Georgia REDNECK who loves Christ. That said I do consider myself "somewhat" learned in the BAhnsen tradition of Presuppositionalism. I have many tapes and books by him so I think I have heard him speak enough on the subject of Philosophy and Apologetics to not get lost.

He is Risen,
B.J.


----------



## B.J. (Jul 29, 2006)

Paul, thanks for the insight. 

I guess I am just a little hung up on the way the cliche's are used in explainig CVT, or in debate. I mean, what does "Anti- theism presupposes theism" really mean? Does it mean theism in general? No. CVT meant Christian theism, right? How do we knoe that "anti-thiesm doesnt presuppose Judiuism? or Islam? or Mormanism? or Catholicism?etc....

Forgive me brothers for being a little hung up on this "old" objection, but I dont feel Bahnsen said enough on it. It just seems to me that CVT did most of his work in refuting Atheism when there are other views out there. Should'nt CVT, if he thought he really had created this unrefutable apologetic appraoch have said, "Anti- Chrisitianity presupposes Christianity?" Furthermore, when Bahnsen claims that when we run up against other world religions we should examine the content of the truth claim offered by said religion (Transcedental Argument tape series-Objections), doesnt he mean we should resort back to Evidentialism? That is to say, argue over evidence in hope that our evidence, or argument against their evidence is more probably correct? I know I am not alone on this....I know of a well known Presuppositionalist who debates all the time that has said CVT's TAG does not work against other world religions. I assume said person meant in the form it has been popularized by Bahnsen in public debates.


----------



## CharlesG (Sep 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> I am new to the Puritan Board, and I checked the last 5 pages of post to see if this was ever discussed. I did not see anything on it so I thought I would ask a few questions about the popular Presuppositionalist cliche known as _"The impossibility of the contrary."_
> 
> 
> ...



I believe that Bahnsen has responded to terms like 'fristianity' (proposed by David Byron I believe) by asking for a historical tie. Full apologetics always invovles evidences from history. Bahnsen, Van Til, et at, always used evidences in apologetics, but laid the groundwork first by asserting worldview qualifications. 

Regards,

Charles


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> Paul, thanks for the insight.
> 
> I guess I am just a little hung up on the way the cliche's are used in explainig CVT, or in debate. I mean, what does "Anti- theism presupposes theism" really mean? Does it mean theism in general? No. CVT meant Christian theism, right? How do we knoe that "anti-thiesm doesnt presuppose Judiuism? or Islam? or Mormanism? or Catholicism?etc....
> ...



I comes down to an issue of authority. The God of Scripture claims exclusive authority and existence. There are no other gods. Jesus claimed that he alone was the way of eternal life. There is no other Savior. There is no other Creator. Either the Bible is true or it is not. That is the challenge you are left with. The Bible informs us of two general worldviews, believers and unbelievers. 

Beilevers trust the revelation that God gave us. They accept the declaration of God that this is His world made for His glory. We are creatures made in His image, and called to think God's thoughts after him. We as beleivers are to interpret all reality in light of this framework. Anyone who denies this, the Bible calls unbelievers. It doensn't matter what form their unbelief takes, they are still rejecting God's revelation and replacing it with a lie, created and adopted in their own imagination (Rom. 1, etc.) 

But just because you refuse to believe in the one true God, doesn't mean you cease to be part of God's world. You still exist as His creature in a world that constantly testifies to His existence. All men are implanted with a knowledge of the one true God, even though they supress this knowledge. 

But take any unbeleiving world view: they can't account for their most foundational assumptions about reality. creation/evolution? Conscious thought? Laws of nature? Inductive reasoning? Laws of logic? All these and many more, they just assume to be true in order to make sense of their world. They have no objective basis for those beliefs other than their own independent choice (what Van Til and Bahnsen call 'autonomous reasoning'). "It's that way because I say so!" is basically what they are left with. 

In order to make sense of this world, God's world, they have to borrow from the Christian worldview. They have to eventually acknowledge some of the truths about God's world in order to live in it and make any sense of reality. They concede laws of nature borrowing from the Christian truth of providence for example. They assume laws of logic in their thoughts and interactions, borrowing from the Christan idea of man made in the image of God as a rational creature. 

This is what impossibility of the contrary means. No unbelieving worldview can account for all these assumptions they make. They must borrow from the Christian worldview (reality as it actually is) in order for their pipedreams to make any sense. The fact they must borrow from the Chrisitan worldview then testifies to it's absolute truth contrary to the basic presuppositions of unbelieving worldviews.

With Catholicism, Jusaism, Islam, etc. the problem is still the same. They will include some of God's special revealtion in their assumptions, but they contradict other parts. So for them, it's a matter of consistency. They independently decide which parts of God's word they will accept or not, thus not submitting to God at all. They accept enough of the Christian worldview to maintain some sense of the world but still hold on to their sin and unbelief. But the fact they must run back to the Christian worldview for help in fortifying their unbelief testifies to the absolute truth of Christianity again. 

It's like a college student who claims to live alone, but still runs back home to mom to do his laundry every weekend. 

Hope that helps you understand it.


----------



## B.J. (Sep 6, 2006)

> This is what impossibility of the contrary means. No unbelieving worldview can account for all these assumptions they make. They must borrow from the Christian worldview (reality as it actually is) in order for their pipedreams to make any sense. The fact they must borrow from the Chrisitan worldview then testifies to it's absolute truth contrary to the basic presuppositions of unbelieving worldviews.





The cliche "impossibility of the contrary," as Bahnsen used it, was naive. Frame points this out, as well as Sproul. To argue from the impossibility of the contrary is an impossibility if you are human. No one can just dimiss out of hand all opposing worldviews. I mean you can, but it sounds silly. As Frame points out, and it isnt hard to see why, you have not examined all worldviews with the _reductio ad absurdum _ . Therefore, to conclude before you have completed this task is naive. I know the Bahnsen responses to Frame, and I cant say I agree with Frame or Bahnsen at every turn. On this however, Frame is right. The only way you can pull of the impossibility of the contrary argument is to say...The Bible tells me this is the case so I am justified in my position outright, because the Bible is Gods word. So in case someone may ask you how you know the contrary is impossible, as Sproul did Bahnsen, the only answer that should be coming forth is "because the Bible says so." Not some long conversation about how your worldview allows for x, y, and z and everybody else is borrowing. Now I firmly believe that is the case, but only because I believe the Bible is Gods word. Not because I proved it by arguing. Once you start down that road you will never stop. I am still open to discuss these things. Perhaps I am missing something. I just dont see it.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 6, 2006)

A helpful read is Michael Butler's chapter on Transcendental Argumens in The Standard Bearer. He touches on these things. Sometimes presuppositions are used just as information that one presupposes in an argument. Other times it is used as a transcendental. There can be only one ultimate transcendental. That is the beginning of Bahnsen's reasoning and where Butler takes it. I don't have the time or the acumen to get involved at levels deeper than this...tolle lege!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> 
> 
> > This is what impossibility of the contrary means. No unbelieving worldview can account for all these assumptions they make. They must borrow from the Christian worldview (reality as it actually is) in order for their pipedreams to make any sense. The fact they must borrow from the Chrisitan worldview then testifies to it's absolute truth contrary to the basic presuppositions of unbelieving worldviews.
> ...



As I said before, it is ultimately an issue of authority. Do you believe God or do you believe your own fantasies? Bahnsen did not make up the idea that no other worldviews were possible. God did. Paul articulates it well in Romans 1. Man rejects the truth of God in natural revelation (i.e. the Christian worldview, absolute truth, etc.) and worships the creature rather than the Creator. Paul makes the blanket statement. Bahnsen is simply articulating it in philisophical terms. You either intepret the world as God say to, or you rebel and interpret it yourself. There is no other option.


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Sep 6, 2006)

> This is what impossibility of the contrary means. No unbelieving worldview can account for all these assumptions they make. They must borrow from the Christian worldview (reality as it actually is) in order for their pipedreams to make any sense. The fact they must borrow from the Chrisitan worldview then testifies to it's absolute truth contrary to the basic presuppositions of unbelieving worldviews.



But what the real issue is, if I read this thread right, is how capable a transcendental, presuppositional argument is to establish that this is the case.

Ever since I was introduced to VanTil, Bahnsen, and Frame, I have spent much time thinking about this matter, and have come to conclude that the Christian faith - in its whole - cannot be established by transcendental argument alone. 

I think TAG establishes exactly what Romans 1 is talking about - knowledge of God and His attributes, and the moral law. But this is only general revelation. It does not take us to the Christian faith of covenant, salvation history, and gospel. You need special revelation for that. But the content of special revelation deals with historical events and other particulars which are not transcendentally necessary. For instance, the fact that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate, and not under Bill Clinton, is not a necessary precondition of intelligibility or knowledge. TAG (from induction, or morality, or any formulation) cannot establish the impossibility of the contrary of such a particular.

[Edited on 9-7-2006 by DaveJes1979]

[Edited on 9-7-2006 by DaveJes1979]


----------



## MW (Sep 6, 2006)

May I add to Paul's fine observations that what the transcendental (though I prefer "foundational") argument does provide, is a theoretical basis upon which to show the divine authority of special revelation. It does not prove it per se, but Scripture is made "provable" because foundationalism has established the reasonableness of it. Afterall, it is the supernaturalism of Christianity, in both nature and grace, which is such a scandal to the naturalist mind.


----------



## B.J. (Sep 6, 2006)

> Asking *how* the contrary is impossible is the wrong question, I think, B.J.



Okay...Perhaps...I just cant think of any other way to ask "how" the speaker, in this case Bahnsen, can make that bold assertion (conclusion). Unless he/or anyone who say it, follows it up with "because the Bible tells me so." That would be fine with me because thats my worldview. However, an opponent to my worldview has the "right", intellectually speaking, to ask me how I arrived at this conclusion to which I "must" say either...because thats my worldview, or because the Bible says so. Which is the same thing. I am ok with that. The alternative for the unbeliever is to maintain " I dont think so" or something like that. This is where they appeal to themselves ( "I" as the knower) which is subjective. In my position, I appeal to God. Which is above human categories, and the only escape route I have.



> The simple answer to that query is that if a position is *necessary* then the denial of that position is necessarily false.



I agree...the hard part is answering "What" is necessary. I know this gets into interpretation and becomes very difficult for me. CVT argues for the "concreteness" of the Christian worldview. As I understand him he means every doctrine we have today that are *essentials.* Creation, Fall, and Consumation. This brings up a difficult issue. 

We didnt have a complete canon until the Reformation, so by CVT's assesment of what we should be doing, it would have been impossible to argue in his Worldview scenario the necessity of Christianity if you were a Old Testament Jew. Now they could have argued from the Scriptures they had, but a completely *Objective* argument for the *necessity* of Christianity would have been impossible up until the Reformation. But this is another rabbit trail I was thinking about...maybe its wrong.



> That's *how* the contrary is impossible. Notice, it's *the* contrary. That is, *one* contrary, i.e., ~A.



I think I am following you Paul. You mean Jesus' law of excluded middle? There are only 2 worldviews, agreed. My point, if it is in fact a point, is that it comes from the Bible. So when an unbeliever asks me how I conclude that there are only 2, I answer by saying because thats a foundational principal of my worldview, or the Bible told me so. Is that not what I am stuck with having to say?


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Third, when the Christian worldview is presented, it's the entire worldview.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the interaction, Paul. It has been good to read you, and the other T-bloggers, over the last year.

I think your point here about counterfactuals is pivotal. This is the same response, in my mind, that Butler gave to the "Fristianity" problem (what if we throw out Jude from the canon?) in Bahnsen's Festschrift. Perhaps this exposes a distinction in proving the Christian faith (my words) and the Christian worldview (your term). I can admit that TAG proves the Christian "worldview" in general, but this would still leave me without the content of saving faith. The Christian faith has more content than that - it would include the propositions in the Apostle's Creed (as a summary), for instance.

You have admitted that "under Pontius Pilate" is not transcendentally necessary in your assertion that there are conceivable counterfactuals to such a historical particular. But if the Christian faith (and saving faith in particular) includes this sort of content, then TAG can only get us a Christian "worldview", not the Christian faith.

This is why I must side with Frame here. TAG needs supplemental arguments.



> Fourth, since God decreed that Jesus would die under Pontious Pilate is *is* necessary, in one sense.


Fully agreed.

[Edited on 9-7-2006 by DaveJes1979]


----------



## B.J. (Sep 7, 2006)

Paul, 
A few things....


> Well, one way would be if you showed that the Christian worldview provided the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of experience. That is, the transcendentals. If you showed something like: If knowledge, then God.



That is what I am getting at. Sproul asked Bahnsen that very question, and instead of showing that the Christian worldview provides the preconditions of intelligibility Bahnsen proceded to start refuting positions like Rationalism and Empiricism, and not that all contrary positions are impossible. He didnt even show which part of Christian theism are the *Transcedentals* and why them. He may argue Creation, Fall, and Redemption (by the way...I said Consumation because thats the word he uses in his DVD series) and I would agree. However, I know he would also argue that Paedo Baptism, Theonomy, Partial Preterism, Post Millinualism also are the Transcendentals, or else we are suppressing the truth. He says it in the tape series you mentioned above. Are we to do a reductio ad absurdum at every point for every doctrine?

So if thats how we do it, we better get started refuting any and every worldview that comes down the pipe like Bahnsen started doing. Now I suspect Bahnsen started down that path because he realized that Sproul nailed him and he had to come up with something to buy him some time, but thats just my opinion. The point is..we can not take on the task of refuting every worldview (Frame). So we must say that there are *ultimately 2* worldviews, Christian theism and non- Christian theism (Jesus). That said, we can argue from the impossibility of the contrary *not* because we have reduced every position to an absurdity, rather the Bible says so, or thats a feature of our worldview. In that case, I dont even need an argument per say, just the authority of God speaking is enough to claim that.



> If you did, so the argument goes, you'd exclude any other competator. If you showed that the Christian worldview was *necessary* for knowledge then the denial of Christianity, in its various forms, would be refuted.



Okay...I dont mind discussing conflicting positions, or inconsistencies with unbelievers. I believe the denial of Christianity is absurd, but not because I show it to be so, rather its my worldview.




> The real interesting question I think is, can we show that Christianity is *necessary* for knowledge, or, just *sufficient.*



Indeed, as Hoover points out. Here is another interesting question...Is the Christian doctrine of Jesus being God incarnate (redeemer, hypostic union, etc..) necessary for knowledge? It seems that if it is..than Moses could not have argued Transcedentally, nor any OT figure. They also could not have answered the problem or universals and particulars...a.k.a..the problem of the one-n-many becuase they where not Trinatarian.



> "The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into the New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as give by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation an authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, evidence of slowness of "canonization" of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself."



I guess I misspoke. I always thought that Luther and the other Reformers took away from the Catholic Bible. I also heard that Luther wanted to delete "James" from the Bible for its seemingly contradictory teaching on Justfication. Is this not so?



> a) Bahnsen argues that Paul argued transcendentall in Acts 17:



I know....I will read the essay you posted. I think all Paul is doing is *dismissing positions* on the authority of God. By the way...Paul also had a distinctly Christian worldview. Much different than Moses.(Judiuism) As I mentioned above...OT figures did not have the same worldview as Christians. I have heard Bahnsen argue that its all the same worldview, but it isnt. They arent even remotely the same. One is Triune, the other is monotheistic. Both have different views of redemption as well as eschatologies. Grant it...Jews are suppressing the truth about Christ, but Bahnsen acts like Judism turned into Christianity as one big paradigm shift and the transcedentals carried right along with it (which if they were transcedentals they could not have changed as revelation changed). I know in a sense ithere was a paradigm shift because individual Jews were converted, but Judisam still remained. Think about it...A Jewish presuppositionalist could argue that Christiananity is borrowing from their worldview. To which we would respond...NO! you cant account for the one and the many, because God is Triune. Its in that case that no Jew could have argued transcedentally before the canon was closed. Anyway...i am tired of typing.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> I know....I will read the essay you posted. I think all Paul is doing is *dismissing positions* on the authority of God. By the way...Paul also had a distinctly Christian worldview. Much different than Moses.(Judiuism) As I mentioned above...OT figures did not have the same worldview as Christians. I have heard Bahnsen argue that its all the same worldview, but it isnt. They arent even remotely the same. One is Triune, the other is monotheistic. Both have different views of redemption as well as eschatologies. Grant it...Jews are suppressing the truth about Christ, but Bahnsen acts like Judism turned into Christianity as one big paradigm shift and the transcedentals carried right along with it (which if they were transcedentals they could not have changed as revelation changed). I know in a sense ithere was a paradigm shift because individual Jews were converted, but Judisam still remained. Think about it...A Jewish presuppositionalist could argue that Christiananity is borrowing from their worldview. To which we would respond...NO! you cant account for the one and the many, because God is Triune. Its in that case that no Jew could have argued transcedentally before the canon was closed. Anyway...i am tired of typing.



A Jewish presuppositionalist would be a Christian. But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. You think that OT religion as revealed in the OT was a different religion than Christianity? OT Judaism is Christianity. They trusted in Jesus Christ just like we do (Romans 4, Hebrews 11). The Judaism that rejected Jesus (Rabbinic Judaism) did not share the same presuppositions for sure. They rejected the one true God revealed to them in exchange for a lie. But Moses and the prophets believed and trusted the same God. It was Jesus they preached though in types and shadows. Their revelation was less clear. But the presuppositions were the same. They articulated that God created this world, and us in His image, and that all sinful thought is vanity and foolishness. Ecclesiastes gives us a great illustration of this. Even the early Church didn't know how to articulate the Trinity. Would you consider them non-Christian as well? If I am misunderstanding you then forgive me.


----------



## B.J. (Sep 7, 2006)

> A Jewish presuppositionalist would be a Christian. But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. You think that OT religion as revealed in the OT was a different religion than Christianity? OT Judaism is Christianity. They trusted in Jesus Christ just like we do (Romans 4, Hebrews 11). The Judaism that rejected Jesus (Rabbinic Judaism) did not share the same presuppositions for sure. They rejected the one true God revealed to them in exchange for a lie. But Moses and the prophets believed and trusted the same God. It was Jesus they preached though in types and shadows. Their revelation was less clear. But the presuppositions were the same. They articulated that God created this world, and us in His image, and that all sinful thought is vanity and foolishness. Ecclesiastes gives us a great illustration of this. Even the early Church didn't know how to articulate the Trinity. Would you consider them non-Christian as well? If I am misunderstanding you then forgive me.



I was giving an illustation of a hypothetical situation between Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean that *today* the religions are teaching two different Gods. One is triune the other is monotheistic. Basically the Trinity and Jesus are the 2 main points of contention. My point was that Moses could not have dealt with the problem of the one & the many of experience as CVT does via the doctrine of the Trinity, and since that is the main criticism raised when Christian Presuppositionalist debate with other theistic religions, be it monotheistic or polytheistic, it cant be held that OT Jews could have made an aduquete attempt at the TAG proposed by Bahnsen prior to the revealing of Christ in history. Also it should be noted that the Trinity is paramount for CVT in his system. It is the crux of his position. I hope this helps.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Sep 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> I mean that *today* the religions are teaching two different Gods. One is triune the other is monotheistic.


Sorry to interrupt but stop saying that! The Christian God is monotheistic. ONE triune God. One. Mono. One. I know what you are trying to get at, but still...


----------



## B.J. (Sep 8, 2006)

> But this was covered in the lectures. So, why don't you give his answer to what you just raised.



Your right....I forgot about the football team analogy he used. My mistake.



> Anyway, what's the argument here? It sounds like you're just ranting.



I guess in one sense I am ranting. Sorry. However, all that has been said so far is because of my intial question_..how is the contrary impossible?_ So I am not really wanting to argue rather I was wanting to learn more.



> Sprould didn't nail him and Sproul's performance was not very good.





Well thats your assesment, and a perfectly reasonable one. From what I remember though he was humble insofar as he admitted that he might be missing something and let Bahnsen explain the postion. Just answer this for me and I will let it go, maybe..Why did Bahnsen, when asked how the contrary is impossible, begin refuting *positions* contrary to Christianity?




> No, and this beggs the question against the two-worldview approach.



Okay...I am missing something. The two-worldview approach comes from the mouth of Christ, not a reductio ad absurdum argument, right?



> Is God's authority an argument for something? In that case, you do need one, per se.
> 
> 
> > What? All I am saying is that I accept it (Christianity) on Gods authority. Bahnsen says that.
> ...


----------



## B.J. (Sep 8, 2006)

Paul, 
Maybe you could come up with a blog that was like that.._you might be an atheist_ post you did once. I think you did them. Or a quiz like Josh & Angela have on their blogs that places a person under a particular method to apologetics.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 8, 2006)

B.J
Is not showing how the contrary is impossible something similar to showing that 2+2=4. If someone wants to reject such, then there is not much that I can do besides pointing out how they accept this fact several times a day in regular life. I can also point out how 2+2=5 doesnt work 2+2=6 doesnt work etc. but the fact that 2+2=4 is not actually known by some sort of induction. My opponent will just have to "see" it for himself.

CT


----------



## B.J. (Sep 8, 2006)

Paul, 
O.K. Better yet, I might just fly out there me, you , and Josh can go get a beer and cigar.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> Paul,
> A few things....
> 
> ...



Good thread - good points.

I'm still waiting for the argument that show the Christian worldview is the only "necessarily true" worldview. 

The argument of the impossibility of the contrary A and the necessity of A are equivalent. Both are based on the form of argument:

A -> B
~B
.: A
while ignoring the question does A imply B. 

Like Bahnsen, Gordon Clark also demolished empiricism and rationalism and all other popular worldly philosophies. The only difference was he did not make the claim that one could demonstrate the Christianity was logically necessary. He reinforced that we are fully dependent on God for making us believe the truth. Many atheist would agree and simply assert we do not know the truth. One or the other is true, and if God is true, then only by his grace can we hope to know the truth.


----------



## CharlesG (Sep 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by B.J._
> 
> 
> > This is what impossibility of the contrary means. No unbelieving worldview can account for all these assumptions they make. They must borrow from the Christian worldview (reality as it actually is) in order for their pipedreams to make any sense. The fact they must borrow from the Chrisitan worldview then testifies to it's absolute truth contrary to the basic presuppositions of unbelieving worldviews.
> ...



A response to Frame would be that one would not have to examine all worldviews to have this knowledge. According to the law of non-contradiction, only one eternal, infinite and unchangeable entity can exist in reality. How can two or more entities have these attributes at the same time in spacial and ontological dimensions? 

Using induction to justify competing worldviews is unecessary or irrational. We don't have to examine all worldviews, as there can't be an infinite number of such, given that the holders of such views are limited. We all use starting points as Frame points out in his apologetics book, 'Apologetics to the Glory of God'. That is, we always reference truth or concepts of reality in regards to our starting point or worldview axioms. If we use induction or anything else to prove these starting points, then that body of evidence becomes our new ultimate reference point. It leads to an infinite regression of proofs. 

One can assume that the contrary view is false by appeal to their starting point. I assert that the Bible is the final appeal for truth. Nothing has to prove this, otherwise it takes the place of the Bible and becomes my new ultimate authority. This is not circular reasoning, as it is inescapable for all persons. 

Regards,

Charles

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by CharlesG]


----------



## CharlesG (Sep 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DaveJes1979_
> ...



To state that something like TAG is 'successful' or otherwise assumes that the recepient of the argument is the final authority for success. The holy spirit exclusively determines success, irrespective of the argument style, etc. TAG does categorically fit into rational argumentation, but references abstract and transcendental concepts. I would ask that which constitutes 'success'. One can have success by their argument being more accepted by the masses. Or one can have success by comparing the logical parameters of such, etc. Success, from a Biblical point of view is to establish God's name in a reverential manner and obey Him in all areas of life. This involves a clear presentation of the Gospel, as well as application of His law in all areas of life. 

Regards,

CharlesG


----------



## CharlesG (Sep 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> B.J
> Is not showing how the contrary is impossible something similar to showing that 2+2=4. If someone wants to reject such, then there is not much that I can do besides pointing out how they accept this fact several times a day in regular life. I can also point out how 2+2=5 doesnt work 2+2=6 doesnt work etc. but the fact that 2+2=4 is not actually known by some sort of induction. My opponent will just have to "see" it for himself.
> 
> CT



That is an excellent association! Math and laws of logic are two abstract and transcendental concepts that are true, irrespective of empirical observation. They are the foundation of such inquiry. They must be founded upon a personal and absolute entity. Only one entity can occupy the dimension of absoluteness. The Christian God is both personal and absolute, thus no other competitors fulfill. If they are presented as such, one simply asks for the historical tie within experience. TAG and evidentialism do hand-in-hand during a discussion of apologetics. 

Regards,

CharlesG


----------



## Civbert (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Oops, made an error. It should be:

*A -> B
~B
.: ~A*

For the impossibility of the contrary, we could say "without CWV there is no intelligibility". 

*A->B* where A is The CWV is not true. And B is there is no intelligibility.

*~B* but of course there is intelligibility.

and *.:A* therefore the CWV is true.

*A->B* is also another way of say "if and only if the Christian Worldview is true is there intelligibility.


Again I say this it the big assumption of the TAG - one that I have never seen addressed. 

The second assumption is there is intelligibility (or more difficult, that there is 'intelligible experience'). I'm not sure we can make that claim either.

So all together, the TAG argument really begs the question. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 1. The debate hasn't gone to the level of showing the necessity of the CWV.



Sure it has. That what the "impossibility of the contrary means" - that it is impossible that the CWV be false if there is intelligibility.




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 2. If it can be shown it would be shown *transcendentally* and *not deductively.* We argue there's another kind of proof out there.



Apples and oranges. The only alternative to a deductive argument is an inductive argument - and even that is debatable. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 3. Then general gist of the argument is that the CWV must be presupposed in order to make experience intelligible.



Exactly. You have two premises - one regarding the truth of the CWV and one regarding intelligibility of experience; A and B.




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 4. You have the wrong stricture in mind, rather, it should be:
> 
> A v ~A
> ...



See my comments above. It's *A -> B*. If you somehow make it into an *A v ~A*, then you have a tautology. *A v ~A* is the "law of excluded middle". 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 5. The only difference was that Clark said we must dogmatically choose our axioms, ergo, fideism.



More like ergo dogmatism or ergo foundationalism. Fideism does not fit the situation.






[Edited on 9-12-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...
> 3. It's not apples and oranges. Of course if you want to throow out the entire history of philosophy since Kant, you're welcome to think that a TA is not a *distinctive* type of argument (see Stern, Transcendnetal Arguments, Oxford).
> ...



You also said


> If it can be shown it would be shown *transcendentally* and *not deductively.*



The apple was "transcendentally" and the orange was "deductively". Transcendental arguments _are_ deductive arguments, not distinctive _from_ deductive arguments. All arguments are either inductive or deductive. There is not a third category called transcendental that is neither inductive or deductive. You can not show something by "transcendental" methods without either employing deduction or induction. 

I'm not saying that arguments can not be transcendental, but that the category transcendental is not in the same domain as deductive, but rather a sub-domain. 

Phil 101


----------



## Civbert (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> *"They are also distinct from standard deductive and inductive forms of reasoning.* Where a standard deductive argument looks for what we can deduce from the fact of X, and a standard inductive argument looks for what we can infer from experience of X, a transcendental argument looks for the necessary prior conditions to both the fact and experience of X. Thus, "I entitle transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects in so far as this mode of knowledge is to be possible a priori." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction, VII)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God



I see the source of the confusion. The author is speaking about standard argument _forms_, not _types_ of arguments. Deductive (type) arguments are not limited to "what we can deduce from the fact of X". In fact, Aristotle said that deductive thinking one often starts with the conclusion, and then tries to determine if it could be deduced from prior truths in a valid manor. This is the direction of the TAG - looking for the "prior conditions" neccessary for knowledge. TAG reverse the antecedent and consequent of the "standard" deductive form such that it says Y if and only if X. Where the standard deductive "form" is X implies Y. These are essentially the same, except that the later does not preclude that Z implies Y also, were the former says *only* X implies Y. 

And this "form" itself (Y iff X) does not make an argument a "transcendental" and you can see the argument remains a kind of deductive reasoning. The "transcendental" comes from the fact that it argues about the requirements for knowledge by positing certain conditions being necessary for knowledge to follow. See "Transcendence" in modern philosophy 

Again, there are only deductive and inductive arguments (types). This is Phil 101. The transcendental form of argument is a kind deductive argument, no matter which way you slice it. And it is not an inductive argument. Deductive and inductive cover the whole universe of possible sound arguments. If an argument is neither inductive or deductive, then it's necessarily unsound or invalid.

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ... Yeah, it's philosophy 101 yet I've not met ONE philosopher who agrees with you. Anthony. Hmmm, could it possibly be that you're wrong here?
> ...



That's easy - anyone can be wrong. Even me!  

But it would not be reasonable to conclude I'm wrong based on the testimony of the philosophers you've personally met. Did you actually ask each one how many kinds of arguments there are? 

And since most Introductory Logic books (that I've read) agree with me, and by the law of excluded middle, an argument can only be deductive or inductive (an argument with a conclusion that can not be deduced from the premises must be inductive), then I'm gonna bet I'm right on this one. 

Makes me wonder what kind of "philosophers" you've been hanging out with! :O 

That my opinion and I'm sticking to it!


----------

