The Mars Hill Club

Absolutely true.

For Bahnsen, the infinite distance between the Christian world-view and the non-Christian world-view is bridged by nothing less than Decretal theology, whereby a non-Christian must be "regenerated" by sovereign election in order to "see" the truth of Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, that makes all apologetics mere show-for-the-already-convinced.

But what do you think of non-Calvinists who accept some type of presuppositional approach (like Edward Carnell) and how would they meet the "relativist" or "incommensurability" objection to presuppositionalism; namely, presuppositional starting points wed you to a certain way of looking at the world that is completely different than a person who does not accept those starting points and therefore makes argument impossible? At least the Calvinist would have consolation in the idea of election.

And don't you think that TAG must play the presuppositional gambit in order to even make any sense?
In other words, doesn't TAG depend on presuppositionalism?

Hello,

I don't comment much, particularly in the presence of the very few who do comment here because you are all so knowledgeable and intelligent about the subject matter, so I don't know that I can comment intelligently.

But ... you mention the "incommensurability" objection to presuppositionalism (an objection that I think also applies to the theology of Karl Barth and dialectic theology in general). It seems to me that TAG is a rational argument for the existence of God based on the idea that it is the only foundation one can use to accept the validity of the laws of logic, as abstract, invariant and universal laws. In any other world view, such as atheistic world views where all that exists is matter plus time and chance, the validity of anything like the laws of logic is an absurdity.

But -- if TAG is successful, then don't we have an argument that effectively refutes these other non-theistic worldviews, and thereby constructs a path where an autonomous man may reason his way into a belief in the one true God? I.e. he uses something akin to the scientific method, using a minimal set of assumptions that include reason, but not God to find God? Doesn't that refute presuppositionalism? Or, if we insist on presuppositionalism, doesn't that mean that we must believe as Van Til does that non-Christians cam make a consistent interpretation of the "facts" from their starting point and not be formally illogical? That God made it thus in order to damn them as it says in 2 Thessolonians 2:12? that sort of thing? And if non-Christians can be rational in their unbelief, then is not TAG inevitably flawed as a rational argument?

Thank you for a much more condensed analysis than I had given in my initial posting; which included several quotes from Mr. Choi's article as well as some "personal" picks.

The idea of "rationality" is muddy from the presuppositional point of view. It seems that you have to be committed to certain foundational "starting points"/first principles in order to begin an argument. For presuppositionalists, the "starting point" is revelation; the Christian revelation. And why, might we ask, ought we to start with Christian revelation? Well, a Calvinist answer would be along soteriological lines. But if you're an Arminian, the answer would have to lie in an "autonomous" choice on the part of the agent; perhaps a Kierkegaardian "leap" or Pascalian "wager".

To use the analogy of eye-glass lenses: if your lenses are blue then you will see blue. If red, then red. To demonstrate to a "non-believer" a contradiction in his worldview by way of internal critique is to be able to have a meta-worldview perspective of evaluation; for the believer, in that he can "see" and evaluate his opponents views; for the unbeliever, that he can understand the objection to his views and parry them with his own arguments. Both have to relinquish, in the strict sense, their "lenses" in order to do this. They have to agree on something in order to have a debate. Otherwise, you're stuck with mere talking points, foundationless rhetoric and propaganda.

To assume a first principle/starting point outside of revelation is to have abandoned presuppositionalism altogether in favor of some type of evidentialism. The idea of there being a common "first principle" that all men work from then becomes the very foundation and cornerstone that evidentialists and proponents of natural theology use to "reason" with opponents. They furnish a common premise, both epistemically and ontologically. But more than that, these "first principles" make something as mundane as human modes of communication possible. The fact that evidentialists and presuppositionalists, Christian and non-Christian are even able to understand one another by way of self-disclosure and communication (albeit in disagreement), is a prima facie defeater of presuppositionalism.

I agree with you completely, and I see that your original post on this subject does a similar analysis. I did not read it that carefully, but I read enough to clarify my own thinking on the matter. I.e I got my analysis from you. You clarified things for me. My post was in response to this comment:

And don't you think that TAG must play the presuppositional gambit in order to even make any sense?
In other words, doesn't TAG depend on presuppositionalism?

I regard the TAG argument as being another of many arguments from natural theology for the existence of God. If my understanding is correct, then TAG is in reality incompatible with presuppositionalism. Therefore TAG does not need to play the presuppositionl gambit nor does it depend on presuppositionalism. TAG as I understand is an argument along the lines of those given by The Film Doctor (who is happens to be a personal friend of mine by the way).

I have always believed in common first principles that all men believe in as a common ground from which we can reason together. I have never understood how God can be just any other way. I am reminded of Bertrand Russell who, when asked what he would say, if after death he were called account before God, as to why he did not believe in God said, "Insufficient Evidence!" (or something like that). Now, I think that if Russell has reasoned correctly from his starting point which omits any presupposition of God to an rationally adequate and consistent world view, then how could Russell be wrong in his response to God?

Gotta go. Thanks.

Well, I think I might have covered too much....thankfully, your post codified one of my points.

As to my question of whether TAG has to be supplemented by a presuppositional approach, it was a legitimate (vs. rhetorical) question. If Victor Reppert and C.S. Lewis' argument is a form of TAG then I might not have as much difficulty with it. note: I see that my questions look "rhetorical". I sometimes zip through and forget that someone might misunderstand what I have written. Apologies!! I'm not attacking but merely seeking some clarity here.

But I want to offer a quote or two from Kant to offer some clarification on what a "transcendental" argument is and contrast his approach from Van Til:

"I entitle transcendental (emphasis his) 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 our knowledge is to be possible a priori (emphasis mine)....It's purpose is not to extend knowledge, but only to correct it, and to supply a touchstone of the value, or lack of value, of all a priori knowledge. Such a critique is therefore a preparation, so far as may be possible, for an organon; and should this turn out not to be possible, then at least for a canon, according to which, in due course, the complete system of the philosophy of pure reason--be it in extension or merely in elimination of its knowledge--may be carried into execution, analytically as well as synthetically." (Section VII. The Idea and Division of a Special Science, in "Critique of Pure Reason")

Briefly, Kant was attempting to show how any knowledge was possible. He divided statements between "analytic" (statements of which subject and predicate are identical) and "synthetic" (statements whose predicate actually contributes new information to it's subject). But he also had divided the means of knowledge between a priori (not derived from sense perception) and a posteriori (from sense perception). His issue was with how and why it was possible for the "world out there" (objects) to be "ideas in here" (our minds) as well as how "reason", as such, relates independently from and in conjunction with experience. How is it that statements that aren't derived at by experience also have the character of being about experience. He wasn't satisfied with Hume and the empiricist scheme. Nor was Kant satisfied with the a priorist solution, whose "innate" ideas seem to have no bearing on the world of the senses. So he reasoned that though all knowledge had begun in sense experience, not all knowledge arises from there. For, he argued, if you remove all those qualities that exist as perceptions in the mind of objects in the world, you still have two existing realities that are necessarily present as conditions of sensory experience...namely, Time and Space. And he called it the "Transcendental Aesthetic"...and Kant said it was very good (ha, a little Genesis humor). "Aesthetic" being something of sense experience; and of course, I've already quoted his definition of "transcendental". But this only pertains to the empirical "organon" (acquisition and extension of knowledge).

But he also wanted to treat of the nature of reason and it's possibility as a condition for knowledge, separate from what he termed "general logic":

"In expectation, therefore, that there may perhaps be concepts which relate a priori to objects, not as pure or sensible intuitions, but solely as acts of pure thought--that is, as concepts which are neither empirical nor of aesthetic origin--we form for ourselves by anticipation the idea of a science of the knowledge which belongs to pure understanding and reason, whereby we think entirely a priori. Such a science, which should determine the origin, the scope, and the objective validity of such knowledge, would have to be called transcendental logic, because, unlike general logic, which has to deal with both empirical and pure knowledge of reason, it concerns itself with the laws of understanding and of reason solely in so far as they relate a priori to objects." (ibid. Section II in "Transcendental Doctrine of Elements")

The nature of his approach is to explain, and not extend, our knowledge; both on the empirical (a posteriori end) and the rational (a priori end). That the mind has "categories" that are a priori, yet, also are meaningfully related to the world of sense experience. He did not set out to wed rationalist and empirical epistemology's so much as to show that, in order to have any empirical knowledge, certain "a priori" conditions must be present. The upshot is that he ended up doing just that (although not everyone will agree that he was successful).

Pardons for simplicity or oversimplifications (I'm trying to be brief).

Van Til is taking Kantian transcendentalism and utilizing it for his apologetic. But unlike Kant, he doesn't start from "sense experience" but from the "Triune God of the self-authenticating scriptures" (revelation). He then wants to say that only by assuming the existence of the Christian God can you have any knowledge. So the contrast is this: Kant starts from a non-controversial place; the fact of empirical experience. Van Til, on the other hand, starts from the bone of contention; the Triune God (revelation). Kant extrapolates from experience those conditions that will allow for experience itself. Van Til, on the other hand, adopts by fiat some theological axioms and then deduces what the implications of those axioms will be and announces triumphantly "impossibility of the contrary" as the death nail to the opposition. And if it sounds suspect, then too bad (woe is thee, O autonomous man); because the crafty presuppositionalist has a theology-of-the-logical-gaps strategy which immunizes him from any criticism: we are the agents of the evil Dr. Autonomy who wants to vitiate the sovereignty of God!!! So you might make a better go by renting some movies together (like the original "Stepford Wives" or "Manchurian Candidate" remake or something). Be warned if you were to call him out on it, because he might reply with something like: "Your starting from hostile non-Christian presuppositions; a Christian must not submit to the authority of man. Autonomous reason is vomit in the nostrils of God!!!" (ha, a little exaggerative humor...but not far from the mark).

What role does apologetics play in assisting a person with faith? Answer: none. Only God's meticulous sovereign action will allow a person to replace non-Christian presuppositions with Christian ones (via "regeneration"). Rational argument or none needs apply. End of story.

Sorry if I had misconstrued another poster's points on TAG. Hope this helps.

I don't know anything about Bahnsen's TAG beyond what I've picked up from everyone's posts, so I can't comment on it. However, I thought I would share some thoughts on theological argument in general, which has also been a subject in this discussion.

I accepted Jesus when I was 14 because a church elder asked me one simple question: "Did Jesus rise from the dead, or didn't He?" I had given it some thought, so I was ready to say that He did. That elder then told me it was time for me to decide what I was going to do about it.

Since that was the road which Christ took me on, I tend to follow that same approach with people who are seriously wrestling with the question of what to believe and why. I have always felt that the firmest grounds that God provides for faith in His Son is to "be found in historical reasoning, even if I'm dealing with someone who doesn't particularly trust the Bible. That is, even without the assumption of Biblical inerrancy or infallibility, there is still the historical fact of the Jewish people, an utterly unique set of promises in their literature, and the record of a few Jews about 2,000 years ago that all those promises were fulfilled in an utterly impossible event that (they claim) really happened. Scoffers, of course, can easily scoff at all this if they want to, but the serious-minded (like C. S. Lewis) can find a lot to chew on.

The challenge, however, is getting people to take the subject seriously. The Gospel is so easy to belittle that even the kids in the remedial program in my junior high could do a pretty good job of it. In college (no, I did not go to Bible college) people's defensive walls were even thicker. Personally, I have found that a person who's a "seeker" (is dissatisfied with the superficial life and really wonders what it's all about) is three-fourths of the way to Christ, even if he checks out other belief systems in his search. Most people I meet are not seekers; therefore, I would say that the first step in witnessing is to get them to question their settled world-views. I would even say that in Acts 17, Paul did that very thing with the Athenians. He did not preach from the Prophets; he directed them to a truth about God they already knew but did not practice and offered them that same Truth.

Thus, while the argument from morality and the argument from design at best establish Theism (and not Christianity), I am a big fan of both of them. They may not convince anyone that YHWH is God and Jesus is His Son, but I have waved the Mandelbrot set in front of a habitual Darwinist and asked him to tell me if it was a design. He admitted that it was, and he was too smart to deny that such a design implies a designer. It didn't convert him, but it got him questioning. That's the first step.

I am led, therefore, to a few conclusions about presuppositions. 1) I agree that the gap between the Christian world-view and that of the worldling is so great that the Holy Spirit must do a miraculous work to bring someone from one to the other. However, the miracle does not necessarily come out of the blue nor does it always happen all at once. The process may begin by making someone question the adequacy of the world's answers to the big questions. 2) Therefore, the moral argument, the argument from design and presumably Bahnsen's TAG do not have to prove the existence of the God of the Bible to be useful (good thing, too!). They just have to help a person stop scoffing and start thinking--though I have also found that they only do that once a Christian's life has earned the right for his arguments to be heard. 3) The moral argument and the argument from design are able to point a person in the right path precisely because they do not depend on specifically Christian presuppositions. Rather, their bases are pretty commonly shared--a design implies a designer, and moral right requires an absolute standard, or it's not right. Reasoning from analogy, then, I would assume that Bahnsen's TAG also, to be useful at all, must depend on some equally common assumptions. Plato used the nature of human reason to argue for the existence of the soul in the Phaedo, and I have always found that particular part of the dialogue to be pretty powerful. I wonder if the TAG is similar. I could certainly see a connection to be made. While I'm digressing, John Baskette (I think) mentioned Bertrand Russell's remark that he would tell God he didn't believe on the grounds of "insufficient evidence." You know, at that point the ghost of ol' Bert might just have been handed a mirror. A man who has as strong (though unChristian) a sense of right and wrong as Russell did but derives it from such shaky grounds as he did need not expect much sympathy. 4) Finally, once the arguments have done their work and the Holy Spirit has created a seeker out of a worldling, I would read a Gospel with that person in the hopes that his hunger will be aroused. Then, once we've reached the end, I'd ask that seeker the same question Skip Samford asked me: Did Jesus rise from the dead, or didn't He? If we ask it without going through the whole process, though, a person is likely to respond, "So what?" Something must be done to make the question matter. The Holy Spirit has to do it. However, I do believe arguments from natural theology can be a tool in His hands.
Whew! Long-winded as usual. Comes with the name, I guess.

Joy in Jesus to All.

Personally, I don't advocate "traditional" arguments for God nor do I accept the "presuppositionalist" line of thought. And this is for a number of reasons:

1. I had "mystical" or "experiences from the heart" that were prior to, and more convincing than, any proffered "argument".

2. Speculative reason and philosophy are not prerequisites to knowing God (1 Corinthians 1:26 "not many of you were wise according to human standards...." and Matthew 5:8 "blessed are the pure in heart....)

3. Neo-Platonism, particularly present in St. Augustine's thought, has been the bane of Latin Theology; I refer you to Charles Taylor's "The Secular Age" and Jonathan Hill's "A History of Christian Thought" and "Zondervan's Handbook of Church History" as starting places for thinking about this.

4. Human mental activity cannot contain "thoughts" of the infinite. Theology and philosophical terminology are inadequate to the task of capturing precisely what the "infinite" is. There is no "analogy" between the "created" and the "uncreated".
We cannot say that God is like water..or rock..or air..or space..or sun..ect. That's absurd. We can only say that He is not like these things. Like the scriptures say "He dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen nor can see".

5. Like C.S. Lewis said, and I paraphrase "in the end, I don't want my ideas of God; I want God Himself".

Some of my comments are meant to be light hearted attempts at humor. I apologize if I have come off as mean or what not.

It does require "presupposing" my sense of humor. With that "starting-point", one will clearly see the punchline. And of course, hilarity will ensue. It's the "impossibility of the contrary".

I just joined--exactly what, I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me if I'm in the right place. Since I have a fabulous memory, but can't recall a blamed thing, at the moment my means of discovering y'all escapes me. Had something to do with "Judgment vs. Judgmentalism ... and there goes that stupid spell check again.

Okay, the light glows dimly. I used the word "judgmentalism" in my e-Sword verse-note, and though I'd assumed it was a valid word, the spell check wouldn't go for it. So I Googled the word and found Bruce Paolozzi's blog post. Intrigued, I joined the forum to see what trouble I could stir up.

I am NOT an intellectual, so if such abstract thought is required of members I am definitely in the wrong place. I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who understands the Great Commission's primary--though necessarily inferred--injunction is to emulate our Lord, growing into the holiness that is uniquely His.

And finally--believe it or not--an afterthought disclaimer. I chose this specific post as the vehicle for my introduction because its subject is humor, and perhaps such association will suggest the spirit with which some of my content must be received. One of my less sterling characteristics is my inability to disassociate humor from serious thought. So if something I say seems off-the-wall, some tongue-in-cheek intent is probable.

Jim in Montana
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Eternal, Self-Existent One's witness

i had pleasure to read your post.it offers some information that nobody could give.thanks for great work.keep it!
email extractor

great site increase semen volume
Why choose Volume Pills
What can VolumePills do for me
How VolumePills works
Volume Pills, no question too difficult
Hormones, the environment and your sex drive
VolumePills and your lifestyle – how to get that maximum effect
Low testosterone levels or testosterone deficiency
Sperm Increase
Increase Semen Production
What are Drlizen™ and Solidilin™
Does Weight Affect Sperm Quality
How to Increase Your Sperm Production through Volume pills
Legends behind semen
How to get boost in bedroom
Volume Pills
Diet and semen production – VolumePills
What is semen made of
What Environmental Factors Can Affect Impotence
Ingredients of VolumePills and their explanations
Get Ready for Longer Lasting Erections and Bigger, Better Orgasms
Review of Volume Pills
Bigger Loads and Stronger Orgasms with the Help of a Tiny Pill.
How do Volume Pills Actually Work
Enjoy Sexual Control and Kiss Premature Ejaculation Goodbye
Nourish your Male Reproductive System with Volume Pills
Everything you Need to Increase, Size, Frequency, and Quality of your Ejaculations, Erections, and Orgasms
Volume Pills Produced from 100% Natural Formulation
Do women like a lot of cum
How VolumePills increase sperm count
How VolumePills help erection hardness
Reasons for the Increase or Decrease of Sperm Production
Threats to Male Fertility
Male Infertility
Your Semen and You
The Sperm Cell: An Overview
Worried about infertility? Try Zinc.