I have a hard time understanding how TAG proves the existance of the God of the Bible. A few years ago I listened to the debate between Bahnsen and Stein, it was my first intro to TAG and I was left thinking, "Bahnsen proved the existance of God, just not the God of the Bible."

Anyone else feel this way?

Any help would be great, thanks.

j

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

Hello JM,

I did a series on this in my blog: Critique. This should be helpful. However, when Bahnsen argues that rational inquiry can be accounted for in his worldview, he is thinking that only his worldview can make rational inquiry intelligible. All other worldviews fail including non-Christian theistic worldviews. Of course, this is never demonstrated in any particular apologetic encounter. Rather, all that is demonstrated is that the worldview before him cannot account for some precondition for knowledge while his can.

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

Well in depends if you reject the strong modal TAG, and if one considers hypothetical worldviews as valid in debate. Regardless the TAG doesn't just defend monotheism, but the Triune God of scripture. For example the Triune God accounts for the one and the many in creation. There is no other available worldview to date that does that. Also I would add the TAG posits the God of *scripture* as the precondition for intelligibility not just some conceptual scheme.

VanVos

__________________
Rev Jonathan James Goundry
*Calvinist @ Heart
Missionary with International Christian Institute www.iciministry.org
www.fide-o.com
www.vanvos.blogspot.com
www.unchainedradio.com

Hello VanVos,

If the basis for the apologist's argument is that no other worldviews work, then hypothetical worldviews are valid. At the very least, if they claim to have an objectively certain proof for God's existence, then they are claiming to have a strong modal TAG. What Van Til and Banhsen taught was the strong modal version. The phrase "impossibility of the contrary" says it all.

But this fails to satisfy the "impossibility of the contrary" claim.

The conceptual scheme and the concept of the God of Christianity are both derived from *scripture*. So, in the end TAG is positing "just some conceptual scheme." It is a conceptual scheme where the ground for all being is found in the ontological reality of the triune God.

Brian

The Bible never argues anywhere for the existence of God. What's gone wrong?

__________________
Independent Reformed Baptist Church (NE England, nr. Durham)

Not sure I follow. A conceptual scheme is a paradigm, a pattern of thought on how to know. A conceptual scheme is deaf and mute, where as the christian worldview is based upon divine revelation. The scriptures are authorative and gives us a concrete unified worldview. Does this not set it apart from just being a conceptual scheme?

VanVos

Hello VanVos,

Please forgive me. I was equating a conceptual scheme with a worldview (ontology, epistemology and ethics). It seems you are just equating it with just epistemology.

Brian
P.S. Is a conceptual scheme merely epistemological?

No, you can include all the above. But without divine revelation you can only have a *sufficient* conceptual scheme , whereas the Christian worldview is accompanied with divine revelation therefore making it a *necessary* transcendental for meaningfulness. A conceptual scheme on it own can't do that. Would you agree?

VanVos

Greetings:

No. I do not believe that any "rational argument for the existence of God" can prove that Jesus Christ is God. What they can do is prove that God does indeed exist. The argument then asks, "Which God?" At this point one can stand like Elijah at Mount Carmel and show that the God of the Scriptures is the one and only God who Created all things.

Hope it helps,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

Hello VanVos,

OK.

I do not follow this. If a conceptual scheme is *sufficient*, then I do not not need anything else. It is *sufficient*.

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.

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

I think we agree here. However I do believe the TAG can prove the ontological reality of Christianity, but whether we can hold to a strong modal TAG I'm not as sure of as yet.

VanVos

Can anyone show how the different religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. cannot account for the laws of logic, absolute moral values, and science?

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

Hello Cih1355,

The presuppositional apologetic method is a very flexible method. One does not use the same argument everytime. It depends on the worldview being presented. For instance, as VanVos pointed out, he might use the philosophical argument called the problem of the one and the many when considering Islam. At the same time, he may choose to use the problem of induction with a naturalist. Also, the apologist will have certain arguments that he favors, and will tailor his argument appropriately. It really is a great apologetic in terms of flexibility. One argument I like to use against Mormons is the idea of eternal matter. This is part of the Mormon metaphysic. God did not created ex nihilo but rather organized existing matter into what we see today. The matter always was and always will be. I use an argument that demonstrates the incoherency of this.

Now, I do not want to leave the wrong impression that this apologetic is a slam dunk. You must have your argument down cold (I mean really understand it), and you must have your competitors position down cold. This takes a lot study - esspecially if you are going enter the public arena. However, rest assured that these arguments are very powerful. Just make sure you put the time in to learn the issues, or you will get hammered by an informed opponent.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. I am beginning a debate with the producer of the Internet Infidel Radio Program. I will be using some type of presuppositional apologetic. If anyone is interested, I will give you the link.

To quote butler:

You see that all other available religions fail to provide the preconditions for intelligibility.

VanVos

Yes, please send me the link, or post it on this thread, I would like to read it.

VanVos

Hello VanVos,

Here is the link: Does God Exist?. My opponent's opening statement is due any day.

Brian

Hello VanVos,

Unfortunately, my opponent has failed to present his opening statement in the allotted time and has forfeited the debate.

Brian

Brian, I enjoyed your blog posts, thanks for the link.

Hello JM,

My pleasure.

Sincerely,

Brian

What would you suggest in place of TAG? Or what should presuppositionalists do differently then they have in the past?

Hello JM,

Great question. In the debate where my opponent has forfieted, I am being allowed to post an opening statement. I will link to it on this forum. This statement will illustrate how I use the presuppositional apologetic.

I love the presuppositional apologetic method. I think both Clarkians and Van Tillians have over sold their points. I love their passion, but they allow it to carry them too far. If they reign in themselves, and clearly articulate what they have been able to demonstrate, then their apologetic will be very powerful indeed. For instance, in my critique of Van Til, I argued that they do not provide an objectively certain proof. That was the whole point of my critque. However, what they do provide is a rationally justified reason that is Biblically faithful as to why someone should accept the existence of God. If they dropped the "objective certainty" verbiage and pointed to what they actually did, then they would be in good shape.

Sincerely,

Brian