Quote:
Originally Posted by JM  How can a truly presuppositional argument use "evidences?" I thought it was a presuppositional argument? [VanTil vs. Clark....  ] |
Who’s to say that a presuppositionalist has to always use presuppositional arguments? This has been unargued for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM I listen to the radio program that told the presuppositionalist to respond to this object with "so what?" |
Do you mean, we should respond to this objection with *more* than just a ‘so what’? Why? It takes care of the objection nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM I know I'm new to the study of philosophy but isn't the TAG argument guilty of the fallacy of induction? Attempting to assert itself as true when it is only true when compared to the worldview in front of it? |
This isn’t what TAG does. If TAG is successful, it not only refutes the philosophy directly opposing it in any given debate, but it also refutes any given philosophy where the presuppositions taken down by TAG are vital to that philosophy. So even if there are many variations of my interlocutors philosophy, TAG takes these down as well. Besides, I reject the strong modal version of TAG. Again, so what?