TAG article on Wiki

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
As the most common popular objection is the claim that the TAG involves circularity, the defense will be briefly outlined. Proponents of the argument claim that worldview level considerations are supposed to be circular as a sign of internal cohesion. In dealing with the inevitable circularity of worldviews, Bahnsen maintains that two criteria must be met to demonstrate a given worldview as true:

1. Internal consistency — The statements made by the worldview do not contradict one another or otherwise lead to internal contradictions. Logical Positivism fails this test by its claim that “A statement is literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable,” a statement that is not itself verifiable analytically or empirically. Another example is the claim by moral relativists that absolutes do not exist, which is itself an absolute claim.
2. Arbitrariness — The statements must not be believed simply out of convenience, tradition, or prejudice. Mormonism fails this test with its claim that the truth of Mormonism is known due to a subjective, positive feeling — a claim that any adherent of any worldview could make.

In argumentation, apologists will attempt to demonstrate that only the Christian worldview satisfies these conditions and is therefore coherent. However, Van Tillian presuppositionalists also point out that these conditions are applicable only because they themselves presuppose Christianity. To say that Christianity is true because it meets these conditions is to say that a greater standard exists than that of the God of the Bible.

note bolded

This paragraph, starting with "However" and particularly the last line seem to be non sequitur, but it is 3 am and I am not thinking clearly enough to rebut.

Feel free to chew on it.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
As the most common popular objection is the claim that the TAG involves circularity, the defense will be briefly outlined. Proponents of the argument claim that worldview level considerations are supposed to be circular as a sign of internal cohesion. In dealing with the inevitable circularity of worldviews, Bahnsen maintains that two criteria must be met to demonstrate a given worldview as true:

1. Internal consistency — The statements made by the worldview do not contradict one another or otherwise lead to internal contradictions. Logical Positivism fails this test by its claim that “A statement is literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable,” a statement that is not itself verifiable analytically or empirically. Another example is the claim by moral relativists that absolutes do not exist, which is itself an absolute claim.
2. Arbitrariness — The statements must not be believed simply out of convenience, tradition, or prejudice. Mormonism fails this test with its claim that the truth of Mormonism is known due to a subjective, positive feeling — a claim that any adherent of any worldview could make.

In argumentation, apologists will attempt to demonstrate that only the Christian worldview satisfies these conditions and is therefore coherent. However, Van Tillian presuppositionalists also point out that these conditions are applicable only because they themselves presuppose Christianity. To say that Christianity is true because it meets these conditions is to say that a greater standard exists than that of the God of the Bible.

note bolded

This paragraph, starting with "However" and particularly the last line seem to be non sequitur, but it is 3 am and I am not thinking clearly enough to rebut.

Feel free to chew on it.

It fails to take into consideration that the standards are derived from the epistemological authority of Christianity, The Bible. Whoever wrote it doesn't understand the TAG. The preconditions of intelligibility are determined by Scripture.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
As the most common popular objection is the claim that the TAG involves circularity, the defense will be briefly outlined. Proponents of the argument claim that worldview level considerations are supposed to be circular as a sign of internal cohesion. In dealing with the inevitable circularity of worldviews, Bahnsen maintains that two criteria must be met to demonstrate a given worldview as true:

1. Internal consistency — The statements made by the worldview do not contradict one another or otherwise lead to internal contradictions. Logical Positivism fails this test by its claim that “A statement is literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable,” a statement that is not itself verifiable analytically or empirically. Another example is the claim by moral relativists that absolutes do not exist, which is itself an absolute claim.
2. Arbitrariness — The statements must not be believed simply out of convenience, tradition, or prejudice. Mormonism fails this test with its claim that the truth of Mormonism is known due to a subjective, positive feeling — a claim that any adherent of any worldview could make.

In argumentation, apologists will attempt to demonstrate that only the Christian worldview satisfies these conditions and is therefore coherent. However, Van Tillian presuppositionalists also point out that these conditions are applicable only because they themselves presuppose Christianity. To say that Christianity is true because it meets these conditions is to say that a greater standard exists than that of the God of the Bible.

note bolded

This paragraph, starting with "However" and particularly the last line seem to be non sequitur, but it is 3 am and I am not thinking clearly enough to rebut.

Feel free to chew on it.

It fails to take into consideration that the standards are derived from the epistemological authority of Christianity, The Bible. Whoever wrote it doesn't understand the TAG. The preconditions of intelligibility are determined by Scripture.

Any chance you could go "rectify" the entry? :)
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
note bolded

This paragraph, starting with "However" and particularly the last line seem to be non sequitur, but it is 3 am and I am not thinking clearly enough to rebut.

Feel free to chew on it.

It fails to take into consideration that the standards are derived from the epistemological authority of Christianity, The Bible. Whoever wrote it doesn't understand the TAG. The preconditions of intelligibility are determined by Scripture.

Any chance you could go "rectify" the entry? :)

Done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top