Legitimate use of Classical and Evidential apologetics within Van Tillian presuppositionalism?

[Me Died Blue]

I've been thinking about apologetics as of late, and have typically viewed Classical and Evidential apologetics as unbiblical and erroneous, due to their divorced nature from one's theology, versus presuppositionalism's consistency with the rest of Reformed systematic theology, including man's depravity, the Creator-creature distinction, special knowledge of God and regeneration, universal knowledge of God as set forth in Romans 1, the fear of the Lord as the beginning (not the end result) of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), all hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3), and other issues.

And I am still an ardent presuppositionalist, and believe the Classical and Evidential approaches as a whole as employed by men like Aquinas and Lee Strobel are unbiblical. But what do other presuppositionalists - who are committed to standing against neutrality, and not standing on the foolishness of unbelief on the so-called "neutral" level of the unbeliever - think of the possibility of legitimate use of certain Classical and Evidential arguments as particular parts to Proverbs 26:5, answering a fool according to his folly, by taking his perspective for the sake of argument?

In other words, after making our ultimate commitment to Christ as the beginning and source of all true knowledge, and stating that we will not surrender that in our apologetical discussion with the unbeliever, and presenting the Christian worldview and how it explains life around and within us, once we also begin to answer a fool according to his folly, could we not in that part say something to the effect of, "OK, and for the sake of argument, taking your assumptions that reason and science can be neutral or objective with regard to the question of the Christian worldview, here's how even that perspective of yours (employing "neutral" philosophy in the Classical arguments, and "neutral" science in the Evidential arguments) only points toward the reasonableness of Christianity, rather than the doubtfulness."

Of course we also still have to answer the fool according to his folly by showing him that his view logically leads to utter absurdity and chaos in all spheres of reason, experience and life (e.g. showing the impossibility of laws of logic and uniformity of nature without the Christian worldview), but could not these arguments also serve as additional points in the "reason" and "experience" categories in that regard? Some presuppositionalists may say that doing so would render the most basic demonstrations of Christianity's necessity as "insufficient," but that is hardly the case any more than the fact that we use arguments about logic and science being impossible with autonomy, for as Dr. Bahnsen well noted in his "Challenge to Unbelief" lectures, we are in effect done once we have shown even one of those as being impossible - yet showing several of them as such on many levels is part of answering a fool according to his folly, as he always raises many objections of many types.

 

[Saiph]

Frame talks about the legitimate uses in "Apologetics To The GLory Of God".



What a pity if philosophers, who are expected to be the chief seekers and lovers of the truth and to see as much of it as can be seen by man, should decide after all that truth cannot be discovered. How they should then grieve that their studies have been all in vain.

-St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[RamistThomist]

I have my thoughts, but I am about to go to class.

I will use evidence, provided the following conditions are agreed on by both sides:

1) I get to determine what counts as valid evidence.
2) My worldview, not yours, determines what counts as valid standards for evaluating evidence.

 

[Saiph]

Is not presuppositionalism really a christian response to Kant ?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Saiph
Is not presuppositionalism really a christian response to Kant ?

Only to the degree when it reflects upon Kant's claims. We abhor the autonomy which Kant claimed, but find his transcendental method to be very useful.

 

[Arch2k]

Chris,

I hope that I am not overstepping my bounds in this thread, being that I am more Clarkian than VanTillian. But that being said, i agree with VanTil on many things, and it is ever interesting to me how the reasoning between the two is the same...to a point.

I cannot pretend to tell you what VT would say on the subject, but what I can tell you is what I believe (although I am interested to hear more presupps on this thread).

To answer a fool according to his folly does not mean that we can give positive proof for the existence of God. When you ask the question if we can use evidential arguments to "point to the reasonableness of Christianity rather than doubtfulness" frankly, I think that this is precisely what VT/GHC are trying to prevent. Even if one tries to approach this tactic from a Christian worldview, in essence, they have to deny God in order to use it. To try to prove the existence of God, is to deny him first.

Secondly, even ignoring the fact that all "proofs" are fallacious, one could theoretically only "point to the reasonableness of Christianity" by probablity, not absolutely (inductive vs. deductive reasoning). Remember, we are not trying to reason people's way into the kingdom, but we are "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5).

It is also interesting to note that the examples of apologetic encounters are ones that either argue to absurdity, or ones that use scripture. If one can find an example cases other than these, I would be interested to know them.

Lastly, it is also interesting to note that the only offensive weapon given us by God is the most important, the Word of God. If we believe that everything necessary for faith and life (including apologetics) is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from it, then it only makes sense that God would give us everything necessary to combat antichristian worldviews.

Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Eph 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
Eph 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

My long

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Chris,

I hope that I am not overstepping my bounds in this thread, being that I am more Clarkian than VanTillian. But that being said, i agree with VanTil on many things, and it is ever interesting to me how the reasoning between the two is the same...to a point.

I cannot pretend to tell you what VT would say on the subject, but what I can tell you is what I believe (although I am interested to hear more presupps on this thread).

To answer a fool according to his folly does not mean that we can give positive proof for the existence of God. When you ask the question if we can use evidential arguments to "point to the reasonableness of Christianity rather than doubtfulness" frankly, I think that this is precisely what VT/GHC are trying to prevent. Even if one tries to approach this tactic from a Christian worldview, in essence, they have to deny God in order to use it. To try to prove the existence of God, is to deny him first.

Secondly, even ignoring the fact that all "proofs" are fallacious, one could theoretically only "point to the reasonableness of Christianity" by probablity, not absolutely (inductive vs. deductive reasoning). Remember, we are not trying to reason people's way into the kingdom, but we are "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5).

It is also interesting to note that the examples of apologetic encounters are ones that either argue to absurdity, or ones that use scripture. If one can find an example cases other than these, I would be interested to know them.

Lastly, it is also interesting to note that the only offensive weapon given us by God is the most important, the Word of God. If we believe that everything necessary for faith and life (including apologetics) is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from it, then it only makes sense that God would give us everything necessary to combat antichristian worldviews.

Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Eph 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
Eph 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

My long

Evenutally I will want to spar with you on giving a positive "proof" for God, but this was a good summary on the insufficiency of evidentiary approaches. To borrow a phrase from Bahnsen, we can't just say we will use "evidence" (whatever that is) for or against the faith, we must ask what *kinds* of evidence are to be allowed.

Also, the nature of proof itself is problematic. If there is "some" evidence for God's existence, then there must be "some" evidence *against* God's existence.

 

[Saiph]

Also, the nature of proof itself is problematic. If there is "some" evidence for God's existence, then there must be "some" evidence *against* God's existence.

??

What evidence against God's existence would there be ?

The minute you offer anything seemingly rationally viable, you admit to being a fool.

Psa 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

 

[Saiph]

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by Saiph]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Saiph

Also, the nature of proof itself is problematic. If there is "some" evidence for God's existence, then there must be "some" evidence *against* God's existence.

??

What evidence against God's existence would there be ?

The minute you offer anything seemingly rationally viable, you admit to being a fool.

Psa 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

That's only a problem if one engages in inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning can only render probable conclusions. Thus, if it renders some evidence for God, to be logically consistent, one must admit that given the standards of reasoning employed, there must be some, albeit small, evidence against God's existence.

Of course, I repudiate any such reasoning in apologetics. Rather, I would assume a transcendental approach and render inescapable evidence for God's existence.

 

[Saiph]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sounds like a famaliar struggle I have been having.

Paul, Chris, and Jacob did help me out significantly.

They don't deny evidence but put it in it's place.

Why not Both?

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by puritancovenanter]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Sounds like a famaliar struggle I have been having.

Paul, Chris, and Jacob did help me out significantly.

They don't deny evidence but put it in it's place.

Why not Both?

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by puritancovenanter]

Right. I will try to kill two birds with one stone. There is no such thing as an "uninterpreted fact." Everything has a context (I can go deeper later). This means we must engage in "worldview" thinking.

Why is it that almost all evangelicals get excited about the arguments for the resurrection right at first? They sound pretty good. According to us, what's not to deny? The problem is they work because they are already true. We have the proper worldview in which they make sense. We already have the proper context.

Secondly, a corpse resuccitating doesn't prove Christianity. An atheist can accept the fact that Christ rose from the dead and not be a Christian. In a chance universe, strange things happen. The Christian must challenge not only his *facts* but his *philosophy* of facts.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

An empiricist would never find presuppositionalism to be worth a hill of beans, just as they would not find the Ontological arguments of Anselm to be "arguments" per se. However, a rationalist would be forced to concede many points of presuppositionalism (just as they would with Anselm) if the argument was logically sound.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
An empiricist would never find presuppositionalism to be worth a hill of beans, just as they would not find the Ontological arguments of Anselm to be "arguments" per se. However, a rationalist would be forced to concede many points of presuppositionalism (just as they would with Anselm) if the argument was logically sound.

empiricism is a naive philosophy. JW Montgomery has long tried to silence presupps. Still forthcoming...

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Why is it that almost all evangelicals get excited about the arguments for the resurrection right at first? They sound pretty good. According to us, what's not to deny? The problem is they work because they are already true. We have the proper worldview in which they make sense. We already have the proper context.

Not only that (which I agree with your line of reasoning here), but the arguments themselves are fallacious. Just because one agrees (and wants to defend) the conclusion of an argument, doesn´t mean he should accept the method of argumentation.

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Secondly, a corpse resuccitating doesn't prove Christianity. An atheist can accept the fact that Christ rose from the dead and not be a Christian. In a chance universe, strange things happen. The Christian must challenge not only his *facts* but his *philosophy* of facts.

This is true. In fact, the resurrection doesn´t *prove* anything. There were many people resurrected in the gospel accounts, not to mention we ALL will eventually be resurrected on that great day.

C.H. Spurgeon

The bible is like a Lion. It needs no defense. Let it out of it´s cage, and it will defend itself.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
An empiricist would never find presuppositionalism to be worth a hill of beans, just as they would not find the Ontological arguments of Anselm to be "arguments" per se. However, a rationalist would be forced to concede many points of presuppositionalism (just as they would with Anselm) if the argument was logically sound.

Unless you can convince the empiricist that he is a presuppositionalist in a sense - that is, he can not prove his empiricism presupposition - that knowledge comes from sensation.

 

[Saiph]

Classical arguments are fine for most people not sufficiently educated in philosophy. No one is converted by any apologetic other than the Spirit and the word.

So, What is evidence according to the Bible ? Is the TA evidence ?
Must a rational person have evidence or reasons for all his beliefs ? Or does their worldview rather need to provide a foundation for their beliefs being viable ? Is a person justified in believing a proposition only if it can be inferred inductively or deductively from the assumed incorrigible sensory data ? And what about propositions considered to be common sense and accepted by everyone.

I believe Jacob owns at least one firearm. Other people on this discussion board do as well. Because we have seen pictures of him holding one. Do we need to prove that by visiting his house and seeing the said weapon and resgistration form in his name ? Maybe he did not register it, and paid cash for it. Is his word enough ? These are difficult epistemological dilemmas. However, scripture is clear, that all men know God. So if classical arguments work on those who supress that knowledge to point out how inconsistently they are living as atheists, then use them. If they do not, bring out the TA.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Saiph
Classical arguments are fine for most people not sufficiently educated in philosophy. No one is converted by any apologetic other than the Spirit and the word.

So, What is evidence according to the Bible ? Is the TA evidence ?
Must a rational person have evidence or reasons for all his beliefs ? Or does their worldview rather need to provide a foundation for their beliefs being viable ? Is a person justified in believing a proposition only if it can be inferred inductively or deductively from the assumed incorrigible sensory data ? And what about propositions considered to be common sense and accepted by everyone.

I believe Jacob owns at least one firearm. Other people on this discussion board do as well. Because we have seen pictures of him holding one. Do we need to prove that by visiting his house and seeing the said weapon and resgistration form in his name ? Maybe he did not register it, and paid cash for it. Is his word enough ? .

I don't have to answer these do I? I plead the fifth.

 

[Saiph]

That answers it for us Jacob. :bigsmile:


Evidence that will not hold up in court however.

 

[Civbert]

Is the TA a valid proof?

 

[Saiph]

Yes.

So is their own conscience condemning them.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Saiph
Yes.

So is their own conscience condemning them.

If TA is a valid proof, then wouldn't we have the power to believe the Gospel by our own reason?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Saiph
That answers it for us Jacob. :bigsmile:


Evidence that will not hold up in court however.

And speaking of court, this sure explains a lot for me.

 

[Saiph]

If TA is a valid proof, then wouldn't we have the power to believe the Gospel by our own reason?

Proof of His existence and attributes, not His plan for salvation. The faith that leads to repentance is a gift.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Saiph

If TA is a valid proof, then wouldn't we have the power to believe the Gospel by our own reason?

Proof of His existence and attributes, not His plan for salvation. The faith that leads to repentance is a gift.

Could you point me to a good article that presents and defends TA? I've heard it presented before, but I've always found it to be circular. Not only did it fail to prove the God of Scripture, but it did not prove any kind of supreme being. But maybe it was poorly given.

 

[Saiph]

Well Kant came up with it. And Jacob may know a good Bahnsen or Van Til link.

Here is a site with Frame's articles: http://www.frame-poythress.org/

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by Saiph]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Saiph
Well Kant came up with it. And Jacob may know a good Bahnsen or Van Til link.

Here is a site with Frame's articles: http://www.frame-poythress.org/

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by Saiph]

hmmmm...Here are some old Paul Manata quotes on it.

The finest summary of the transcendental argument is by Michael Bultler in The Standard Bearer: A Festrchrift to Greg Bahnsen. Here is the summary of it

In the nature of the case, no two transcendentals can be equally valid. Even non-Christian philosophers grant this point.
For example, it cannot be logically true that the Christian worldview and X worldview both provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Before we even point out and say, "Of course, law of non-contradiction," I want to press the question, "Why is it the law of non-contradiction is even valid?" For that to be the case, what must first happen? See where I am going?
Let me sum up the objections for the moment, for you raise a good point. Page numbers are referenced to Butler's essay in The Standard Bearer.
Objection 1: The Nature of Tag: It basically reduces to some traditional form of argumentation. This is Frame's objection. However, TAG's seek what the precondition of intelligibility is. Traditional argumentation does not. The cosmological argument seeks to show God as the first Cause. It assumes causality outright. It does not ask the crucial questions (77-79)
Objection 2: The Uniqueness Proof for the Conclusion of TAG: Does the conclusion that God exists necessarily follow from the argument (Montgomery)? If the unbeliever says that Christianity can account for human experience, true, but possibly an another worldview will as well, so what? This does him little good. People live and die in terms of REAL worldviews, not hypothetical ones. If someone makes this claim, ask him to show the worldview in specific terms. If he does not, ballgame. If he does, proceed to demolish the worldview (9 times out of 10 he cannot). Let's move on with this objection: The TAG says that the non-Christian worldview cannot give an account of human experiences, NOT that an infinite number of possible worldviews cannot do this. See it as A (Christianity) or ~A. I can develop this point in another email, gladly, if you would like. There are a few other things I would like to mention, though.
Objection 3: The Mere Sufficiency of the Christian Worldview: Does demonstrating the sufficiency of the Christian worldview neccesitate the Christian worldview? In doing this we need to see the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. More on this later.
There are more objections, quite arcane in nature, that Butler deals with.

-------------------------------------------------------

here are some old email correspondences I've done on it;

"That A or ~A = A or B." This is not true, at least as the Presupps (should) define their terms.
A = Christian Theism
B = a non-Christian worldview
~A = all non-Christian worldviews.

See the difference? If I refute B, so what? All I do is show that Islam, for example, is wrong. If I refute, ~A, then I show--theoretically--that all non-Christian religions are wrong.

But can I make the claim for ~A being false? If I am going to do this--and this is where a knowledge of the history of philosophy (which I don't have) becomes valuable--I must show that non-Christian worldviews (~A) is internally schizophrenic. I sent out an email where Van Til showed that non-Christian religions suffer greatly from internal critiques.

By definition, and ULTIMATE authority is just that, ultimate. If you ahve two transcendentals then you have an irresolvable dualism, and no unity/coherence in your worldview. There can only be one unifying transcendental.

---------------------------------------

this is what manata wrote a long time ago

TA's are broad in scope covering *every* aspect of uman experience. Also the *pre-condition* is *always* an a priori. The scientific evidence was a posteriori. The transcendental aregument deals with what must be necessarily presupposed in order to make sense of *anything* whatsoever. Put differently: The proof of Christian theism is that without it you couldn't prove anything.


The form of a TA generally takes this stucture

X-;Y (because Y is the precondition for X)
X
:.Y

A transcendental argument is simply a form of deduction, with the typical pattern: Only if p then q; q is true; therefore, p is true. As this form of argument appears in philosophy, the interest, and the difficulty, reside not in the movement from premises to conclusions, which is routine, but in the setting up of the major premises-that is, in the kinds of things that are taken as starting points. For example, Immanuel Kant tried to prove the principle of causality by showing that it is a necessary condition of the possibility of making empirically verifiable statements in natural science. (philosophical encyclopedia)


Michael Butler wries: TA's generally take this form X-->Y (because Y is a precondition for X). X. Thereofre, Y. (That is in his chapter on TA's in "The standard bearer. He writes it out, I just shortend it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Greg Bahnsen wrote,

The
Christian, perhaps thinking that his argument with the non-Christian
is simply over a fact such as Christ's resurrection from the dead, may
set out to prove from history that this event occurred, but he soon realizes
(if he is at all thoughtful) that the two of them also disagree over
the proper character of historical research, reasoning, and evaluation.

Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til: Readings and Analysis, 101.

 

[Civbert]

X-;Y (because Y is the precondition for X)
X
:.Y

This is Modus Ponens:

• X -> Y
• X
• :. Y

But unless "X -> Y" is an immediate inference such as A(xy) -> I(xy), then it needs to be proven. And if it is asserted, the argument begs the question.

I have not seen the argument that can prove that only Christianity provides the preconditions for rationality: first, what are the preconditions of rationality?; second, even a hypothetical worldview that can provide the "preconditions of rationality" would invalidate "X -> Y". For if a hypothetical worldview works, then to assert X -> (Y and ~Z ) is really the fallacy of asserting the consequence.

Rationality (X) implies Christianity (Y) {"because Y is a precondition for X"}, but then it is also true that X -> ( Y or Z). Rationality implies that either Christianity is true, or some other worldview is true.

X -> ( Y or Z)
(X -> Y) or (X -> Z) this statement is true if either part is true.

so to assert

(X -> Y) and ~(X->Z) without making it explicate that both implications are necessary is begging the question.


For B to be a precondition of A, B must be logically prior to A. Now what are the preconditions of "intelligibility"? What is logically prior to reason? The question is hard to contemplate because the answer must be reasonable before we can be reasonable.

I found this article by Frame: Transcendental Arguments. It appears the question begging began with Kant:

All of us, he argued, must concede that knowledge is possible.

and then Van Til:

But how can we defend the logical move from "œintelligible universe" to "œtheistic universe?" Van Til rarely articulated his reason for that move; he seemed to think it was self-evident. But in effect, he reverted at this point to apologetics of a more traditional type.

and includes also:

Only if a person had designed the world to be known, and the human mind to know it, could knowledge be possible. So Van Til at this point reverted to a traditional teleological argument. He never admitted doing this, and he could not have admitted it, because he thought the traditional teleological (like the other traditional arguments) were autonomous and neutral.

This is nothing more than Intelligent Design. It may be persuasive, but it does not prove God exists or that he created the universe. The only proof we have that God created the universe is that He revealed this in his Word, and only if we assume that truth of Scripture axiomatically.

All through the transcendental argument in this article, assumptions are made that are nothing less than the conclusion that it is attempting to prove. It assumes "knowledge" and "order" exists then that only if some sort of supreme being caused it, and no other possible answer accounts for it. While a supreme being is one possible answer to the order of the universe we "observe", this answer is inductive - it does not follow necessarily and can only be assumed or opined true. It assumes both the necessity of the supreme being, and that our observation of order is infallible correct. It also assumes that there is such a thing as the "preconditions of reason".

And Van Til's TAG argument was supposed to show more than a supreme being exists, but that only the supreme being of the Bible exists. And nothing in this argument makes that connection. In fact, it resorts to the traditional arguments that Van Til found invalid.

First:

Like Kant, Van Til was unhappy with empiricism and rationalism, and with traditional ways of combining reason and sense experience such as that of Aquinas. Kant found these approaches to knowledge logically invalid. But for Van Til they were also wrong in a distinctively theological way.

then second:

If Van Til´s transcendental approach is to succeed, however, it must abandon the assumption that traditional arguments are necessarily autonomous and welcome the assistance of such arguments to complete the transcendental argument. The traditional arguments are in fact necessary to establish the existence of God as a transcendental conclusion.

The traditional arguments are based on rationalism and/or empiricism. These were rejected by Van Til as false. He developed TAG, and then found he needed to include the things he said were false, which things prompted him to develop TAG, which can not be "completed"without them, but they are false, and ... so the circle remains.

It looks like Frame has made the same error here:

The Bible does make this kind of radical claim, that creation not only implies, but presupposes God. For God is the creator of all, and therefore the source of all meaning, order, and intelligibility.

This implies that when God created the universe, he created "meaning, order, and intelligibility". Which means that before creation, there was no knowledge. Without meaning, order, and intelligibility, there can be no knowledge. I do not think Frame meant to make this implication - but there it is. Or it means that God is the source of reason and order, but that would not implied that God is the precondition of reason and order. In fact, I think our observation of meaning, order, and intelligibility in the universe are evidence that, if God exists, then these are characteristics of God.

The TAG is not a valid proof of God. It may be a strong argument for a supreme being, but it is not proof that one necessarily exists. It begs the question by assuming the unity and existence of "transcendentals" which in effect are the God it attempts to prove. And the TAG in itself does not support the God of the Bible, but it does evidence the God that even demons believe exists, and tremble.

The best evidence for the God of the Bible is God's revelation. Again, it is not a proof - but a strong argument. We should admit that we can not prove God or Christianity - but we can give a solid defense. In the end, only God makes one believe the Gospel.