Hello VanVos,
Quote:
|
No, you can include all the above.
|
OK.
Quote:
|
But without divine revelation you can only have a *sufficient* conceptual scheme...
|
I do not follow this. If a conceptual scheme is *sufficient*, then I do not not need anything else. It is *sufficient*.
Quote:
|
...whereas the Christian worldview is accompanied with divine revelation therefore making it a *necessary* transcendental for meaningfulness.
|
If this is the case (and I believe it to be the case), and if the apologist is attempting to demonstrate this in any apologetic encounter, and if the apologist claims he has an objectively certain proof, then he must deal will all possible worldviews - even the hypothetical ones. The Van Tillian argument as esposed by Bahnsen and others fails to provide this kind of proof.
Quote:
|
A conceptual scheme on it own can't do that. Would you agree?
|
No conceptual scheme provides the ontological basis for knowledge. However, a conceptual scheme on its own may provide justification for knowledge. My guess is that we are saying the same thing.
Wait a minute, I think this may clarify matters. The Christian Worldview is a conceptual scheme that posits divine revelation. Divine revelation is part of the conceptual scheme and not something in addition to it.
Sincerely,
Brian