# If the traditional arguments, which ones?



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2007)

This comes from a broadly Van Tillian. I used to distrust the traditional arguments for the existence of God. I had problems with them, then, on largely logical grounds. I used, for about 3 years, the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. It had much to commend it. However, reading both Frame and recent discussions on the TAG, I could no longer use it with the same confidence. (For what it's worth, I saw it as problematic concerning the "Fristianity" objection). 

That being said, I didn't have much confidence for the traditional arguments. I do kind of like the Ontological argument. However, It presupposes the Christian conception of perfection (for instance, if you are a Buddhist then you would think a most perfect being does not exist, since existence for a Buddhist is sort of a downer). 

If you had to defend the faith today, and had to give a *positive* (for the record, concerning negative internal critiques, I am on the same page as Bahnsen/Frame/Van Til) construction of th Christian claim for the Triune God, how would you do it?


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 1, 2007)

It all depends on how we are conceiving natural theology and thiestic proofs. If we want to think of it as providing a rational foundation for belief in God (pre-dogmatic), then we are probably going to be doomed to failure--no fully persuasive (skeptic proof) theistic argument (demonstration) has been given, and we are not likely to find one soon.

That being said, If we think that belief in God is properly basic (Romans 1) then we can be warranted in our belief. Then we may legitimately use theistic proofs to give further clarification to those beliefs, stirring up if you will that basic belief that is supressed by sin. If you get out of your mind that arguments for God's existence must provide epistemic certainty (something that many TAGsters falsely assume-though one could argue that Bahnsen did not) in order to be useful, then there are not as many problems. There is much, much more that needs to be said, but I am running out of time.

I think a lot of theistic arguments can be useful if used correctly. Craig's Kalaam, Planting's OA, EAAN, Swinburne's material, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2007)

BrianLanier said:


> EAAN,



Evoluationary Argument Against Naturalism?


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 1, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> > EAAN,
> ...



Yes!


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 2, 2007)

I would start with Romans 1 where it teaches that God has revealed Himself in such a way that man has no excuse for not believing in Him. Everyone knows God, but not in saving fashion. As Greg Bahnsen taught, unbelievers live on borrowed capital. Absolute, objective moral values, the laws of logic, consciousness, and the existence of absolute truth presuppose the existence of God. I would show from the Bible that God exists as a Trinity.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 2, 2007)

> If you had to defend the faith today, and had to give a *positive* (for the record, concerning negative internal critiques, I am on the same page as Bahnsen/Frame/Van Til) construction of th Christian claim for the Triune God, how would you do it?



it would have to be "positive" proof(*S*). I don't think anyone claims that *any* of the traditional arguments - taken by themselves - are an argument for the *triune* God. And, even if a triune God exists, why think he revealed himself and that man's only hope is in Jesus? So, we'd have to prove more than *just* a triune God. We'd have to prove the entire package, but as we know, this is nigh impossible by one silver bullet argument.

At best it would be a kind of cumulative case. Perhaps an inference to the best explanation would be the strongest way it could be presented.

Anyway, apologetics is person relative. So, there might not be one "best" positive proof that should be presented for anyone whoever.

And, sometimes people have background assumptions that fill in other work you might need to do with someone else. Say I offer a successful teleological argument - say, its most developed, contemporary version, the fine tuning argument - and they consented. Being Westerners, they might well take it that I have proved the *Christian God.* They don't even think Allah/whatever is an option.

In that case am I going to stop them and say, "Well, you can't agree yet. You should tell me that I haven't proven a *triune* fine-tuner!"?


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 2, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> > If you had to defend the faith today, and had to give a *positive* (for the record, concerning negative internal critiques, I am on the same page as Bahnsen/Frame/Van Til) construction of th Christian claim for the Triune God, how would you do it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I sure wish there was a silver bullet argument though


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 2, 2007)

BrianLanier said:


> I sure wish there was a silver bullet argument though



in one sense there is, but we can't use it. Shoot a non-believer in the head with a silver bullet, and then he'll be able to empirically verify God's existence.


----------

