The nature, truth-value and co-validity of transcendentals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Don
I see no problem with actually granting the unbeliever logic, induction, et al., so long as it is not autonomous logic, induction, et al.

Don,

Not taking theh unbeliever to task for using logic, induction, et al. would be to "œgrant" them to him. However, you said you grant them to him solong as it is not along autonomous grounds. Basically, if you were debating an atheist, you´d end up saying, "œI grant you the use of logic, induction, et al. so long as you don´t do so autonomously"?

In other words, you grant him the use of logic, induction, et al. so long as he submits his autonomous thinking to God. . . .
 
Originally posted by Ron
I am rambling so you can take or reject whatever you wish :)

CT,

I'm not sure there's a whole lot in your post I can interact with. Maybe you're thinking out loud? :lol:

Ron

I was, I was pressed for time and wanted finished before going to class. ;)

I put something else together later.

CT
 
Originally posted by Ron
I am rambling so you can take or reject whatever you wish :)

CT,

I'm not sure there's a whole lot in your post I can interact with. Maybe you're thinking out loud? :lol:

Ron

Alright, I can put a question forward: How much certainty can be derived by an argument? (And the term argument implies all sorts of arguments, not just deductive)

I understand certainty to go beyond the form of the argument. It has more to do with how tightly one holds the premises to be true. It seems that some VT's say that the TAG is an objectively and infallibly certain proof. Presenting a sound proof, does not seem to get one to that point. (Our level of certainty about the truth of Christianity does not come from argumentation)

Am I objecting to an actual claim (did I misread or mishear) or would you just define certainty differently.

CT

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by ChristianTrader]
 
Ron,

As for David Byron... well, I'll leave you to wonder.


........ I've been hoping for quite some time that an 'orthodox' Van Tillian would come along and answer his and many other people's objections (I mean this seriously as I used to hold to Bahnsen's view).


Brett,

Don,

Not taking theh unbeliever to task for using logic, induction, et al. would be to "œgrant" them to him. However, you said you grant them to him solong as it is not along autonomous grounds. Basically, if you were debating an atheist, you´d end up saying, "œI grant you the use of logic, induction, et al. so long as you don´t do so autonomously"?

In other words, you grant him the use of logic, induction, et al. so long as he submits his autonomous thinking to God. . . .


This comment was actually more in line with the use of the traditional arguments and how they remain silent on the matter. i kinda just threw that in as I felt as though I needed to give a statement of my beliefs so I wouldn't be known as a 'humanist'. :) Oftentimes I have problems articulating myself - as if that isn't obvious!. I should've taken more time to explain myself, but I've been quite busy and posting in between tasks.

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Don]

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Don]

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Don]
 
How much certainty can be derived by an argument? (And the term argument implies all sorts of arguments, not just deductive)

CT,

Arguments are either sound or unsound. People are certain or uncertain. No certainty can come from induction. Deduction can be a means to certainty but not all who are exposed to the same argument will necessarily become certain of the conclusion.

It seems that some VT's say that the TAG is an objectively and infallibly certain proof.

Most who claim to be Van Tillian don't appreciate what proof even is. Let's talk epistemology and not about people, o.k.? :handshake:

Presenting a sound proof, does not seem to get one to that point. (Our level of certainty about the truth of Christianity does not come from argumentation)

The Bible presents arguments. Your point, I believe, is that we do not reason in the flesh in order to come to faith. Rather, God grants faith and then we can begin to defend what we know to be true.

Ron
 
I've been hoping for quite some time that an 'orthodox' Van Tillian would come along and answer his and many other people's objections (I mean this seriously as I used to hold to Bahnsen's view).

Don,

Why do you suppose that my interaction with DB's critique of CVT would be profitable since what I believe to be refutations of your objections will not suffice?

As for my being an "orthodox" Van Tillian, I'm sure I don't know what you mean. Did CVT ever put forth a formal argument that could be interacted with? Didn't CVT believe that indirect arguments are different than direct ones? Did CVT ever distinguish between a necessary condition and a necessary pre-condition? I won't even get into his views of apparent contradiction, which I find absurd. As for analogical knowledge, I don't think he was always wrong but rather often confused or at least contradictory. Having said that, I believe the man was a profound thinker in may respects and one whom I've profited greatly from.

Don, you might do well not to pigeon hole me. We might get further than we have.

Blessings brother,

Ron

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Ron]
 
Originally posted by Ron
How much certainty can be derived by an argument? (And the term argument implies all sorts of arguments, not just deductive)

CT,

Arguments are either sound or unsound. People are certain or uncertain. No certainty can come from induction.

I see this statement as absurd, unless you have an unorthodox definition of either certainty or induction.

Deduction can be a means to certainty but not all who are exposed to the same argument will necessarily become certain of the conclusion.

So is this leading to an answer?

It seems that some VT's say that the TAG is an objectively and infallibly certain proof.

Most who claim to be Van Tillian don't appreciate what proof even is. Let's talk epistemology and not about people, o.k.? :handshake:

But understanding what is the standard view and what is not the standard view as well as your view is not a trivial aside. My question is if the statement I gave is the standard view or not. If not, then the rest of the post loses punch.

Presenting a sound proof, does not seem to get one to that point. (Our level of certainty about the truth of Christianity does not come from argumentation)

The Bible presents arguments. Your point, I believe, is that we do not reason in the flesh in order to come to faith. Rather, God grants faith and then we can begin to defend what we know to be true.

Ron

Not quite because I think that there are levels or degrees of certainty. It is not a 1 or 0 type of deal. There is a certain level of certainty gained by having every worldview that you can think of defeated. There is a different level reached after regeneration etc. Then perhaps another when you reach the infallibly certain stage at a later point.

CT
 
Ron Stated: Arguments are either sound or unsound. People are certain or uncertain. No certainty can come from induction.

CT Stated: I see this statement as absurd, unless you have an unorthodox definition of either certainty or induction.

CT,

I trust that you agree that arguments are sound or unsound. So, I trust that what you find absurd is my view that no certainty can come from induction. Epistemic certainty requires maximal warrant. Maximal warrant comes from propositions we can know to be true, either by God´s word or deduction. Since induction always requires the fallacy of asserting the consequent, it of course cannot provide maximal warrant. Therefore, the warrant one can get from induction as opposed to deduction is not merely a matter of degree but a matter of kind! (This is rather basic.) Accordingly, it is most appropriate to distinguish between epistemic certainty and rational inference. CT, none of what I just said entails an "unorthodox" view of certainty or soundess as it pertains to proof. If you allow for rational inference to correspond to certainty, then you either must allow for one to be certain yet wrong, or else you must allow for one to be certain without knowing that he is certain! I can show you this if you like but I think it would only contribute to a greater derail of this thread than we are already experiencing.

Presenting a sound proof, does not seem to get one to that point. (Our level of certainty about the truth of Christianity does not come from argumentation)

No certainty, either psychological or epistemic, will come from proof if the one presented the proof will not abandon his presuppositional commitment to atheism. Moreover, only an Arminian apologist would present a proof with the hope of giving more added information so that the unbeliever might "reason" his way to God. That's not the reason the Reformed apologist presents his "proof." The Reformed apologist already knows without question that the ubeliever knows that God exists! The purpose of a Reformed apologetic is to reduce the unbeliever to absurdity before God and a watching world and to, also, show to the same audiance that without God there can be no intelligible experience.

Grace,

Ron
 
Originally posted by Don
Brett,

Don,

Not taking theh unbeliever to task for using logic, induction, et al. would be to "œgrant" them to him. However, you said you grant them to him solong as it is not along autonomous grounds. Basically, if you were debating an atheist, you´d end up saying, "œI grant you the use of logic, induction, et al. so long as you don´t do so autonomously"?

In other words, you grant him the use of logic, induction, et al. so long as he submits his autonomous thinking to God. . . .


This comment was actually more in line with the use of the traditional arguments and how they remain silent on the matter. i kinda just threw that in as I felt as though I needed to give a statement of my beliefs so I wouldn't be known as a 'humanist'. :) Oftentimes I have problems articulating myself - as if that isn't obvious!. I should've taken more time to explain myself, but I've been quite busy and posting in between tasks.

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Don]

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Don]

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Don]

Don,

That's fine. Believe me, I know it can be frustrating when we don't articulate ourselves as well as we´d like. I would, though, still like to see your argument for the truth of Christianity.

Also, by way of clarification: by argument, I mean a proof. I think we've been using "argue" in two different ways on this thread. I'm trying to distinguish between an argument/proof (noun) and engaging in arguing (verb).

Obviously, when we argue (verb), this entails presentation, replies to criticisms, sub arguments, persuasion, and so forth. However, when we do argue, we [Bahnsenites] give only one argument/proof.

Now, we may very well have days when we argue better than others, but that doesn't mean our argument/proof changes. I'm sure Bahnsen argued for the truth of Christianity better at age 40 than he did at age 23. It's not the case, however, that he was offering a different argument. I think this gets us back to our discussion of proof vs persuasion.

Hopefully this will aid in our discussion.

grace,
Brett
 
Brett,

I'd rather not continue on as I have lost my composure during this thread. There are several others who have stated their objections much better than I can state mine (on the VT Lists and other places). I think that I have spent more time than I need to on this internet forum over the past few weeks. These discussion forums seem to take up so much time and I have many other duties that tend to get neglected.



Ron,

Check your U2U.

Don



[Edited on 3-3-2006 by Don]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top