Multiple worldviews

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul: I like the family analogy.

How would you respond to this analogy. Different computers with different hardware and operating systems can do essentially the same thing, such as run Word. So, how can we in advance know that multiple worldviews cannot do the same thing (make experience intelligible)? If computers can use different and incompatible operating systems to achieve the same end result, why not people?

Scott
 
So, after 146 posts we have established there are not multiple worldviews, but two, and there are many expressions of the single worldview that is Antichrist.



[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]
 
At this point, I'll concede to all of this just for the sake of argument. I just would like to see ~~A demonstrated.

How would you demonstrate ~~A to a non-believer?
 
"So, after 146 postes we have established there are not multiple worldviews, but many expression of the single worldview that is Antichrist."

Depends on how you define worldview. Bahnsen and others often refer to different non-Christian worldviews (plural). Of course well all agree that there are Christians and non-Christians. In terms of an apologetic, as we see from all the work Bahnsen and others did refuting false worldviews, proving the impossibility of the contrary is a long enterprise.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
the family analogy is backed up by Jesus' words that there are only two fathers. Some have the heavenly father as their father, some have satan as their father. Two fathers, two sets of children, two worldviews. Some may have brown hair (buddhists) and some may have blond hair (atheists) and some may have red hair (NPP :) , but they're all the same family!!!

So it comes down that no variation on the non Christian worldview is able to make life intelligible, because Christianity is true not that we can demonstrate that all variations are false. Is that the bottom line?
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Scott
Paul: I like the family analogy.

How would you respond to this analogy. Different computers with different hardware and operating systems can do essentially the same thing, such as run Word. So, how can we in advance know that multiple worldviews cannot do the same thing (make experience intelligible)? If computers can use different and incompatible operating systems to achieve the same end result, why not people?

Scott

In my analogy, "family" stood for "worldview." I was attempting to argue for my two worldview schema which answers the first post nin this thread (yours). I've been trying to stay on track.

But, as far as you're computer analogy goes, you said: " how can we in advance know that multiple worldviews cannot do the same thing (make experience intelligible)?" Before I respond, may I ask if you're at least granting that Christianity is one of those worldviews that can make experience intelligible?

In the words of the TV show, "Lost". "No do not answer that question its a trap ;)" Once you grant Christianity can make experience intelligible, he will reduce it to being the only possible one. Remember only one transcedental allowed.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Paul manata
the family analogy is backed up by Jesus' words that there are only two fathers. Some have the heavenly father as their father, some have satan as their father. Two fathers, two sets of children, two worldviews. Some may have brown hair (buddhists) and some may have blond hair (atheists) and some may have red hair (NPP :) , but they're all the same family!!!

So it comes down that no variation on the non Christian worldview is able to make life intelligible, because Christianity is true not that we can demonstrate that all variations are false. Is that the bottom line?

Well, I don't think that anyone (Bahnsen et alia) have said that we "can" (though we could if we had time, etc), *show* how all the different variations fail, since their are an infinite amount of variations. Note the word "show," though. We know in advance that we can defeat them because ~A is false and we have established A. But, some members of the "family" may have big upper bodies and so we need to take them down by shooting at their legs. So, there may be some member of the "family" who I can kick the snot out of (because I can beat up anyone in "the family") but this particular fellow, say, can only be beaten by ripping his toes off and sticking them in his nose and mouth, thereby suffocating him. I mean, I can beat him, but he may not fall like the others. This is understandable, we can defeat a materialist atheist and a non-materialist atheist, but obviously we can't use the *same* arguments against both.

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Paul manata]

Just so I'm clear, we know ~A is false because we know A is true, right? My issue is with the claim of demonstrating the truth of A by first demonstrating ~~A.
 
Hermonta:

Well put. It does seem to be the long way around. I can accept the syllogism of A and ~A, as opposed to A and B; it makes good sense. And I think that Paul is saying really solid things here. And it makes sense that, if A is true, then all ~A has to be false, whatever form it takes. But it does seem that we're just saying A is true, and because A is true therefore all ~A is false, and that in the framework of A being true all ~A is false therefore A must be true. What we're forgetting is that in the possible framework of ~A it might be that A is false.

But that is only the syllogistic formula. It is impossible to show that A is false because ~A must "borrow" from A to do so.

Paul has it right, I think. All non A is rightly named. It isn't that it is B or C or D, etc., but that these all can be reduced to ~A by the way they have to assume the A position in order to deny A.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Paul manata
the family analogy is backed up by Jesus' words that there are only two fathers. Some have the heavenly father as their father, some have satan as their father. Two fathers, two sets of children, two worldviews. Some may have brown hair (buddhists) and some may have blond hair (atheists) and some may have red hair (NPP :) , but they're all the same family!!!

So it comes down that no variation on the non Christian worldview is able to make life intelligible, because Christianity is true not that we can demonstrate that all variations are false. Is that the bottom line?

Well, I don't think that anyone (Bahnsen et alia) have said that we "can" (though we could if we had time, etc), *show* how all the different variations fail, since their are an infinite amount of variations. Note the word "show," though. We know in advance that we can defeat them because ~A is false and we have established A. But, some members of the "family" may have big upper bodies and so we need to take them down by shooting at their legs. So, there may be some member of the "family" who I can kick the snot out of (because I can beat up anyone in "the family") but this particular fellow, say, can only be beaten by ripping his toes off and sticking them in his nose and mouth, thereby suffocating him. I mean, I can beat him, but he may not fall like the others. This is understandable, we can defeat a materialist atheist and a non-materialist atheist, but obviously we can't use the *same* arguments against both.

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Paul manata]

Just so I'm clear, we know ~A is false because we know A is true, right? My issue is with the claim of demonstrating the truth of A by first demonstrating ~~A.

remember the TWO-fold apologetic method?

Maybe ;)

Obviously if I showed that A is true then ~A is false, by definition. Then, let's say that I showed ~~A (say, by showing that autonomy cannot account for experience, i.e., being independant from God and His word). If I show that then I've estalished A.

The issue is how to "show/demonstrate" that autonomy inherently is unable to account for experience vs. showing that a number of members of the family "autonomy" cannot account for experience? I am not able to see how we are able to go beyond laying the burden of proof on the unbeliever to come up with a worldview to saying that such a task has been demonstrated to be impossible.

These things are needed as preconditions:

Creator-creature distinction, trinity, man as God's image, the fall and the noetic affects of sin, the necessity of Christ's redemtpive work for salvation of souls and intellects, the necessity of revelation, etc. So, without an absoute personal being as the foundation of all things there is no possibility of ethics. Without the ontological trinity as the fount fo all being, there is no hope of unifying the particulars, of predication, without man as God's image bearer preciation and thus language is destroyed, without the doctrines of providence and sovereignty there is no ground for science and inductie reasoning, without an all-good God who makes man and tells him to stucy and explore the created natural world, there is no reason to think our senses reliable, etc etc etc.

Unless you have these things then your worldview cannot provide the preconditions required to make experience intelligible. Christianity provides the transcendentals. Since there can only be one ULTIMATE authority (and, therefore, one transcendental), and since Christianity is it, then ~A is the case, which is another way of saying that A is the case.

There can only be one ultimate authority. My issue is demonstrating that Christianity is that ultimate authority vs. telling the unbeliever that they have the burden of proof to produce in order to reject the claims of Christianity and retain rationality.

Said another way, telling the unbeliever "show me your worldview from which you object to Christianity is not the same as demonstrating, it is impossible for such a worldview to exist."
 
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just slow, but I am confused.

Some are saying that we know A to be true while using ~~A as a premise to show that A is true.

Other times, it is we know ~~A to be true while using A as a premise to show that ~~A is true.

It cant' be both ways. Which is it?
 
Originally posted by ChristianTraderThe issue is how to "show/demonstrate" that autonomy inherently is unable to account for experience vs. showing that a number of members of the family "autonomy" cannot account for experience? I am not able to see how we are able to go beyond laying the burden of proof on the unbeliever to come up with a worldview to saying that such a task has been demonstrated to be impossible.

:ditto:

In the same boat.
 
The issue is how to "show/demonstrate" that autonomy inherently is unable to account for experience vs. showing that a number of members of the family "autonomy" cannot account for experience?

Because there can only be one autonomous being. It is metaphysically impossible to have more than one autonomous being. The existence of another autonomous being would pose a restriction on the original being's autonomy. There can only be ONE autonomous being, and infinite contingent beings. Since ALL expressions of the Antichristian worldview are contingent, and also dependant upon the Christian worldview, they will infinitely be wrong.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Hermonta and Jeff,

It appears that my positive argument as well as my specific argument give for Jeff has been ignored. At this point I'll take it that I showed it, unless something other than "I don't get it" is brought up.

I gave an argument for a *worldview* with the specific details of Christianity being the transcendental. It seems to me at this point you can deny that Christianity can provide the transcendnetals or go the fristian route.

You are correct, those are the only routes, which I dont think (or never intended to deny).
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
At this point, I'll concede to all of this just for the sake of argument. I just would like to see ~~A demonstrated.

How would you demonstrate ~~A to a non-believer?

I'm dealing with Scott but I'll briefly address you:

I'm assuming I can be brief since many background premises you accept, so here's one form a transcendental proof would take (obviously you know we can't talk about everything at once and so must focus on specific points. Also, TAs are anti-skeptical arguments. They take what the skeptic takes for granted (which may be different depending on the particular skeptic) and then argues from that accepted premise. Therefore, I may not use this exact one with, say, a zen buddhist).

If logical laws are possible then God exists because God is a pre-condition for logic.

Logical laws are possible.

Therefore God exists because God is a pre-condition of logic.

As recognized by almost everyone, this follows the form of a TA (i.e., modus ponenes), but as the literature on TAs also reckognizes, the form is not important but the scope or subject matter.

Anyway, these arguments have been laid out in various places (other exampels are the uniformity of nature argument from Genesis 8. etc., and the morality arguments, from the personal, immutable, holy God). I'm surprised that people in this thread who claim familiarity with the arguments seem to not even know that there are positive arguments.

Under this form of argumentation, you are battling possibly an infinite number of worldview, since the zen buddhist as you say, would not accept this argument.

Also, with this arguement, you have to argue that God is the precondition for logic to exist, and eventually, you will get to a place that the unbeliever will not accept the premise, and you will not have gained anything.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just slow, but I am confused.

Some are saying that we know A to be true while using ~~A as a premise to show that A is true.

Other times, it is we know ~~A to be true while using A as a premise to show that ~~A is true.

It cant' be both ways. Which is it?

Ok

No, I was just showing the nature of the debate. *If* one shows ~~A then A is the case, logically. Likewise, *if* someone showed A as the case then, logically, ~A is also the case (i.e., it is the case that the denial of A is false).
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
There can only be one ultimate authority. My issue is demonstrating that Christianity is that ultimate authority vs. telling the unbeliever that they have the burden of proof to produce in order to reject the claims of Christianity and retain rationality.

I just tried to do that thing directly above where you wrote this.

You should read up on the "two-fold" method again. Both have value, i.e., the positive and the reductio.

My point is that if you actually demonstrated that Christianity is the ultimate authority, then when all you would do is give them a type written copy of the demonstration and say "game over". We cannot do that, the best we can do is present the Christian worldview and say, in order to reject it, you must have a counter worldview. But lack of counter worldview is not demonstration that such is impossible. We know that such is impossible, the issue is the demonstration.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Paul manata
Hermonta and Jeff,

It appears that my positive argument as well as my specific argument give for Jeff has been ignored. At this point I'll take it that I showed it, unless something other than "I don't get it" is brought up.

I gave an argument for a *worldview* with the specific details of Christianity being the transcendental. It seems to me at this point you can deny that Christianity can provide the transcendnetals or go the fristian route.

You are correct, those are the only routes, which I dont think (or never intended to deny).

yeah, so since I don't think you want to deny that Christianity can *sufficiently* provide the transcendental, I assume you are all worked up because TAG has problems with made up worldviews? Or, does it have such problems?

My response right now to fristian is that it is not a conceivable conceptual scheme and my argument is that Christianity is the only conceivable conceptual scheme that does the job. It is nonsense, as Davidson points out (The STandard Bearer, 117-120), to argue for inconceivanle comceptual schemes.

One question and then I must run, when you use the term "made up" are you including them in the infinite variations on unbelieving worldviews"? Or is this a new class?
 
My point is that if you actually demonstrated that Christianity is the ultimate authority, then when all you would do is give them a type written copy of the demonstration and say "game over". We cannot do that, the best we can do is present the Christian worldview and say, in order to reject it, you must have a counter worldview. But lack of counter worldview is not demonstration that such is impossible. We know that such is impossible, the issue is the demonstration.

I have never used the TAG, because most people look at me like this when I explain it. :eek:

I usually go for the ethical argument. It is easier.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Saiph
What exactly is Fristianity ? It is not on Wikipedia.

it's a counter to TAG saying that a worldview with everything the same as Christianity, except for a quadrinity in place of a trinity, can provide a transcendental.

Interesting, something new to tackle.
 
I have never used the TAG, because most people look at me like this when I explain it.

:lol:

Even people friendly to it have a hard time understanding it.

Bahnsen did once (at least once) say that Lewis' ethical argument is Mere Christianity was Lewis at his best.
 
Is nobody able to explain the arguments non-Christian transcendental philosophers use to say there can be only one transcendental?
 
Paul, does the bridge between universals and particulars necessitate a trinity ?

Really though, the point is that Christianity is the only religion with One being 3 (multiple) persons.

So to invent a new one, 1 being, 4 persons, not based on revelation is absurd.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Paul manata
There can only be one ultimate authority. My issue is demonstrating that Christianity is that ultimate authority vs. telling the unbeliever that they have the burden of proof to produce in order to reject the claims of Christianity and retain rationality.

I just tried to do that thing directly above where you wrote this.

You should read up on the "two-fold" method again. Both have value, i.e., the positive and the reductio.

My point is that if you actually demonstrated that Christianity is the ultimate authority, then when all you would do is give them a type written copy of the demonstration and say "game over". We cannot do that, the best we can do is present the Christian worldview and say, in order to reject it, you must have a counter worldview. But lack of counter worldview is not demonstration that such is impossible. We know that such is impossible, the issue is the demonstration.

demonstartaion, I think, is person relative. As I said earlier, you have a weird view of total depravity. I doubt there will ever be an argument which makes every unbeleiver say, "Oh, you demonstarated God's existence." Usually, they look at the argument and say, "what! I can account for those things, watch me." To which I say, "name that tune." Or, we can give the negative and then when they say, "well, you can't account for logic, science, math, language, universals, et al," then I say, "name that tune."

My question is not what will make the unbeliever cry uncle. My concern is only getting to a point where he either says it has been demonstrated, or I can start calling him funny names ;) like irrational etc.

I think I see my question is the issue of conceivability. And how you can differentiate from "oh I didnt think that could happen but hey it can"; from "that is just impossible given the way the world is"
 
"No, Bahnsen said that "Lewis' self-refutation of the naturalist" in Miracels was "Lewis at his best" (cited in "Martin Under The Microscope")"

He also said something like that about Lewis' transcendental argument for morality.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Paul, does the bridge between universals and particulars necessitate a trinity ?

Really though, the point is that Christianity is the only religion with One being 3 (multiple) persons.

So to invent a new one, 1 being, 4 persons, not based on revelation is absurd.

Hence the reason we dont take kindly to Fristianity ;)
 
Originally posted by Scott
Does anyone know if this book is any good?

Not sure but if you are interested in transcendental arguments I would get the Standard Bearer with Bulter's article in it. Start there then move outwards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top