Quote:
Originally Posted by Vytautas  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. |
Ah, okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vytautas 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. |
That's what is meant by morality. The other views do not make sense of morality, so it is not possible if their views are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vytautas 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. |
In one sense we do. In practice, I don't see the difference between William Lane Craig giving the moral argument for God's existence and someone giving TAG using the moral argument. We argue that our opponents view is wrong, and that a Christian theistic viewpoint is right. Even when someone gives the cosmological argument for God's existence, we are dealing with different presuppositions of the nature of causality and time. It doesn't matter whether the cosmological argument or something like it doesn't prove God's existence with certainty. Neither does TAG. So I don't see the need to argue *only* indirectly.