Quote:
Originally Posted by caleb_woodrow  Quote:
Originally Posted by Vytautas
It seems to me that if the first premise is true, then there is a proof from what is possible to the Christian worldview or the Christian God. If something is possible, then it is sufficent to demonstate the worldview. But those things must be revealed and cannot be reasoned to by knowing what is possible. I would think from the Christian worldview we can make sense of what is possible from the worldview. Hence, I think of the TAG as an indirect argument.
| According to presuppositionalism, such truths can be attained by reason because of the point of contact (General revelation and the image of God, etc). Now, the dirty part is in arguing that x is possible (or the case). It seems to me that is where the direct argumentation comes in. So, in my view, even if the argument form itself is indirect, the premises are argued for in a direct manner.
Take morality as an example of 'x'. We might give a reductio that undercuts our opponents viewpoint, but we also are going to argue directly that our view of morality is the correct view to take. So there is direct argumentation within the indirect argument. In other words, our argument for the premise is not merely negative, but also positive. |
When I say 'those things that must be revealed', I had in mind the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. I did not mean what was common to all men such as morality. The 'dirty part' is not proving that morality is possible, since mostly all men would agree that is true. It is the idea that the Christian worldview accounts for morality, since unbelievers would disagree with that. You said we 'argue directly that our view of morality is the correct view to take'. It is if morality is possible, then Christianity. Which seems to argue from natural revelation to special revelation, but that seems backwards to me. But I think you have a different take on the matter, that we argue indirectly with non-Christianity.