Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
A TAG looks like this:
For x to be the case, y must first be the case because y must be the necessary precondition of x.
X is the case;
Therefore, y is the case.
Let x = logic; y = the existence of God
For logic to be the case, God must exist because logic must have a worldview or a network of assumptions that make it valid.
Logic is possible
God exists
In the nature of the case, no two transcendentals can be equally valid. Even non-Christian philosophers grant this point. For example, it cannot be logically true that the Christian worldview and X worldview both provide the preconditions of intelligibility.
http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16963
Jacob, since you summed this up in such a succint and focused way, I thought I'd take the opportunity to hopefully gain some insight and generate discussion specifically on the portion of your statements above that I put in bold.
This is the (single but key) stepping stone of Van Tillian apologetics and the transcendental argument I have never been able to fully grasp as far as its necessary validity, biblically or logically. I understand and agree with the demonstration of Christianity in providing the preconditions of intelligible reasoning and experience, and for that matter of being able to show that a finite number of other worldviews do not provide that as such.
But in terms of making the jump from making that finite number of demonstrations to making the universal claim that no other worldview can provide the preconditions as such, the explanation I always hear is essentially what you mentioned above regarding the nature of "transcendentals," and how it is logically impossible even in a hypothetical sense for two systems to provide preconditions of that sort. The thing is, I have never been able to get a really good explanation and defense of why (or how) that is logically the case. To that question, I've had people say, "Because that's the definition of a transcendental," which really does nothing but get us where we started, as it doesn't then go on the explain why philosophers would even agree on that definition, and why it's really the case.
[Edited on 2-28-2006 by Me Died Blue]