Apparently Rich wants me to stay here as he hasn't removed my ability to post, yet ;-) That's (one reason) why I left here. No self-control with this time suck!

(Note: "ought implies can" = "The Maxim.")

Me too.

Also, meant to tell you another thing I appreciated. Though this isn't unique to you, I appreciated you placing a summum bonum on the knowledge of God. I would disagree with some of what you said and inferred from that, but nevertheless it was fresh to see it mentioned in a contemporary work.

I'll look foreword to your "opening up" of those things. At this time, I guess we just disagree since I am convinced by the (many) arguments against internalism and still haven't seen how ought implies can can (!) work for you. If you haven't already, you may want to contact Andrew Baily (Ph.D. program at Notre Dame) as he is a compatibilist who (is trying to) affirm The Maxim and deny PAP.

I did try to judge it according to that. But, since I am a Van Tillian (and fairly Plantinganian), I also judged it as a critique of Van Til (and Plantinga). And since I love apologetics, I judged it as to how it might work in that regard. And as a Reformed "theologian", I judged it in that regard.

Though I disagree that man has merely the ability to know God rather than the actuality of knowledge, it seems you could say what you wanted to without affirming The Maxim.

Seems to me he'd try to launch an internal critique, thus he can affirm that and profess non-belief in God.

Thus the unbeliever might use this as a reason to not believe since Christianity is internally problematic.

Or, he may try to develop a moral theology whereby if predestination is true, then God is immoral for not regenerating everyone while ordaining them to perdition.

In fact, Arminians argue this all the time against us. You've just stated the problem of evil against Calvinism argument. So, they both believe that God exists and that your faux conversation reveals problems with Calvinism.

Indeed, one of your Arizona colleagues, Victor Reppert, has spent a lot of time (trying to) develop arguments against Calvinism along this line.

Do I think they're bad? Yeah. But they don't. In fact, they're convinced by them. Call Calvin's God a moral monster.

All this to say, the situation doesn't need to be as simplistic as you put it.

I understand that, but I have to side with what I think the best exegesis of Romans 1 is, and I think that it is what I and the majority of Reformed Theologians have said: All men have a knowledge of God.

I agree that whatever idol they worship, they are inexcusable.

But, I think men can have knowledge and supress that knowledge. This can be shown if one takes Audi's analysis of self-deception, or perhaps Brian McLaughlin's notion of "inaccessible beliefs."

So your biggest worry for apologetic systems--how can they affirm inexcusability--seems to be able to be had by the putative Reformed exegesis of Romans 1, as well as using, as servant, some of the insights of analytic philosophy so as to itch burning contemporary philosopher's ears.

I understand why you would hold that position, but to me the situation looks identical.

The only way you could sqeeze any juice out of this example is by butchering the Christian side of the conversation. For example, though I have major disagreements with Bahnsen, I never heard him argue that way against Hinduism. In fact, I've never seen a presuppositionalist argue in apologetic fashion against Hinduism they way you're portrayed it. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen an apologist in general argue against Hinduism in that way.

But for the counter:

You claim that the LNC is universal and invariable. As soon as one denies it, one affirms it.

The dialetheist, though, doesn't agree.

So you give him your proof using explosion (i.e., "appeal to classical logic").

He then denies this proof by appeal to non-classical logic (e.g., paraconsistent).

To continue to appeal to "classical logic" is to "beg the question."

Other than that, I'd like to see your critiques of Hinduism or Buddhism. Usually apologists offer poor critiques based on their understanding of Hinduism or Buddhism that is mixed with Western concepts too, what I call Weasternism. Keith Ward and others have shown that many critiques of the Eastern Religions are simply based on poor study.

For example, it's a lot harder to refute Nagarjuna's transcendental-esk argument found in e.g., “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way,” than most would think.

So as I said, proof is in the pudding. Apologist's claims about what they can do to "all other worldviews" often lack in substance what they don't in zeal. One concer I would want to offer you to take away: Be careful of claiming too much. This was part of Bahnsen's problem. Everyone thought he destroyed unbelief in the Bahnsen/Stein debate, they quickly found out it was much, much harder to argue for and defend Christian theism than they thought. Got embarrased at the colleges and universities. When you make claims like "all Christians should be able to show that God's existence is clear just as easily as they can show 2+2=4" (your paradigm case of something clear), you're setting them up for a fall. Cause it's not. Indeed, your claim about the LNC being an example of "maximum clarity and so maximum inexcusability" seems to have been undercut by the dialetheist (cf. Preist's works). But on my model, none of this matters. That's the advantage of holding to the actual knowledge of God hall men have as that which makes them inexcusable. FWIW.

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix