The Ontological Argument: updated

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
A year or so ago I tried to throw new light on the Ontological Argument, trying to approach it from the angle of what it doesn't attempt to prove. In short, I was countering what I perceived to be nothing more than many equivocations on the argument to try to refute it.

I came across some things that helped me to see some things more clearly, and I left off posting on that topic until I could work things out a bit more.

What I have is what I think to be clear syllogism from which to begin to understand it. It consists of three propositions, the third of which must follow from the first two:

Perfection is a necessary attribute of God;
Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection;
Therefore, Existence is a necessary attribute of God.

This works on the principle: all M is P ; all P is S; therefore all M is S.

Notice:

- that in this arrangement the verb "is" is used in precisely the same way in each proposition, so as not to be mistaken for predicating what is not predicated

- that what is under consideration is only one concept of God, and no other; and that this concept is necessitated upon all who consider God.

- that this is not a reformulation of the Ontological Argument as Anselm gave it, for he said much more than this in a few words; this is merely a beginning of positing the OA. This rendering only applies to the argument that says that it is impossible to think of God as not existing. In other words, arguments that are put forward in opposition to God's existence are nothing more than standing on the platform to refute the platform, and equivocating on the terms to do so.


Anyways, I just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration and discussion. You know, to keep me off the streets at night.

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by JohnV]
 
The ontological argument does work because no one has yet been able to describe or limn the non-existence of a perfect being.
 
Some quick thoughts:

P1. Prove it (why must God be perfect?). Also, what do you mean by perfect?
P2. How can you predicate a predicate? In other words,, you're saying that the predicate of P1 (not the subject) is now the subject in P2 (not the predicate). Is this what you're saying?

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by BrianLanier]
 
Good questions Brian.

I would also like to add that even IF the ontological argument was sound (which it is not) it would not prove a moral god (hence not the God of the Bible) and it would not prove that there is ONE God (hence not the trinity as in the Bible). So what kind of god have you proved even if you get this to work? You have proved an idol.

Secondly, this syllogism makes the fallacy of equivication with the term "exist." To exist in the mind or in theory is not the same to exist in reality.

Thirdly, it is sinful to try to prove the existence of God by rational or empirical means. God himelf tells us not to swear by heaven or earth or any created thing, but we ARE swearing by reason, or empirical evidence when appealing to such forms of "proof."

Heb 6:13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,

Fourthly, why prove the existence of God? The scriptures are clear that every man knows that God exists. Should we believe the athiest when he says otherwise? That's exactly what we do when we try to prove God to them, we say "you're right, you DON'T believe that God exists, let me PROVE it to you." We must not reject scripture to grant this premise.

Lastly, everything exists, the question is "What is it?" Is God a figmant of your imagination? Or is he the God of the Bible? This is why the Westminster Shorter Catechism does not begin with "Does God exist?" But it begins with :

Q4: What is God?
A4: God is a Spirit,[1] infinite,[2] eternal,[3] and unchangeable,[4] in his being,[5] wisdom,[6] power,[7] holiness,[8] justice, goodness, and truth.[9]

1. John 4:24
2. Job 11:7
3. Psa. 90:2
4. James 1:17
5. Exod. 3:14
6. Psa. 147:5
7. Rev. 4:8
8. Rev. 15:4
9. Exod. 34:6

The same goes for scripture itself. It assumes God from the very beginning. "In the beginning GOD!"
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Thirdly, it is sinful to try to prove the existence of God by rational or empirical means. God himelf tells us not to swear by heaven or earth or any created thing, but we ARE swearing by reason, or empirical evidence when appealing to such forms of "proof."

Come on. You're telling me that I'm in sin when I recognize rational proof for the existence of God?

Are you then ready to say that your belief in the existence of God is irrational?
 
:worms:

I probably won't get very far into this one, but as just an initial thought, one of my main problems is with the "Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection" statement. Epistemologically, one must ask how you even know what "perfection" is, or in other words by what standard you are defining it, or how you even have a concept of what that means.

Upon answering that question, it will naturally be asked how you got the standard you answer with, and eventually you'll need to get back to the beginning and end up with a self-validating source.

If at that point it's the biblical God that defines your standard of "perfection," then you're already presupposing God and hence the ontological argument won't be any use unless you justify your presupposition of God by demonstrating that God must be presupposed for anything to make sense - but if you've done that, you don't even need the ontological argument anymore.

On the other hand, if it's something other than the biblical God that ultimately and initially defines your standard of "perfection," then there's obviously an even bigger problem.

:2cents:
 
Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Come on. You're telling me that I'm in sin when I recognize rational proof for the existence of God?

I am saying one can not prove God by rationalism. All attempts have been shown to be futile.

1Co 1:19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Co 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
1Co 1:27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
1Co 1:29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
1Co 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God; and righteousness and sanctification and redemption;
1Co 1:31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the LORD."


1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
1Co 2:8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1Co 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";
1Co 3:20 and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."


Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Are you then ready to say that your belief in the existence of God is irrational?

Of course not. I am not against using logic. Logic comes from the Scriptures. That does not mean that proving God by rational or empircal means is a good thing. God needs no proof, and furthermore, cannot be proved. He must be presupposed.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
:worms:

I probably won't get very far into this one, but as just an initial thought, one of my main problems is with the "Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection" statement. Epistemologically, one must ask how you even know what "perfection" is, or in other words by what standard you are defining it, or how you even have a concept of what that means.

Upon answering that question, it will naturally be asked how you got the standard you answer with, and eventually you'll need to get back to the beginning and end up with a self-validating source.

If at that point it's the biblical God that defines your standard of "perfection," then you're already presupposing God and hence the ontological argument won't be any use unless you justify your presupposition of God by demonstrating that God must be presupposed for anything to make sense - but if you've done that, you don't even need the ontological argument anymore.

On the other hand, if it's something other than the biblical God that ultimately and initially defines your standard of "perfection," then there's obviously an even bigger problem.

:2cents:

:up:
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Of course not. I am not against using logic. Logic comes from the Scriptures. That does not mean that proving God by rational or empircal means is a good thing. God needs no proof, and furthermore, cannot be proved. He must be presupposed.

Jesus seemed to think proof was important:
1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs , being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Just because unbelievers refuse to believe the evidence doesn't mean God can't be proven. The problem is with their rebellion and blindness, not with reason or logic.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Just because unbelievers refuse to believe the evidence doesn't mean God can't be proven. The problem is with their rebellion and blindness, not with reason or logic.

+1

Christ performed miracles to validate His identity. The Pharisees were condemned because they denied His deity in the face of undeniable proof.

EDITED TO CORRECT FORMATTING

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by mgeoffriau]
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Of course not. I am not against using logic. Logic comes from the Scriptures. That does not mean that proving God by rational or empircal means is a good thing. God needs no proof, and furthermore, cannot be proved. He must be presupposed.

Jesus seemed to think proof was important:
1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs , being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Just because unbelievers refuse to believe the evidence doesn't mean God can't be proven. The problem is with their rebellion and blindness, not with reason or logic.

Are you really suggesting that Christ was trying to prove his own existence by his appearing after his resurrection?

Geneva Study Bible:

(b) He called those things infallible proofs which are otherwise termed necessary: now in that Christ spoke, and walked, and ate, and was felt by many, these are sure signs and proofs that he truly rose again.

Nobody is arguing against proofs for things in general, but proofs for the existence of God.

If proofs for the existence of God (either rational or empirical) are sound and valid for use in the Christian life, what is one? All historical arguments have been shown to be logical fallacies.
 
Jeff, help me understand here. Maybe I reading you wrong. You say:

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I am saying one can not prove God by rationalism. All attempts have been shown to be futile.

Of which I agree. :up:

But then you say:

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Of course not. I am not against using logic. Logic comes from the Scriptures. That does not mean that proving God by rational or empircal means is a good thing. God needs no proof, and furthermore, cannot be proved. He must be presupposed.

1) It seems that you are saying rational proof = rationalism. Of course there is a big difference.
2) When you say that God 'cannot be proved', are you including in that statement transcendental proof? Or are you just saying that upon autonomous reasoning, whether rational or empirical, God cannot be proven. If you suppose a Christian framework or epistemology then of course there is rational and empirical evidence that points to the proof of God's existence, i.e. general revelation.

I am probably just reading you wrong, but those were my thoughts after reading your posts.
 
Originally posted by BrianLanier
1) It seems that you are saying rational proof = rationalism. Of course there is a big difference.

Rationalism is specifically what I am arguing against. If you are speaking of the VanTillian contruction, see next comment.

Originally posted by BrianLanier
2) When you say that God 'cannot be proved', are you including in that statement transcendental proof? Or are you just saying that upon autonomous reasoning, whether rational or empirical, God cannot be proven. If you suppose a Christian framework or epistemology then of course there is rational and empirical evidence that points to the proof of God's existence, i.e. general revelation.

I am saying that autonomous reasoning cannot prove the existence of God. The transcendental argument does not "prove" the existence of God in the common usage of the term. When people want "proof", they want autonomous visible or rationalistic syllogisms.

I think that the transcendental argument has holes in it. I believe it is impossible to prove the impossbility of all other worldviews, and therefore I deny the second premise in VanTil's contruction.

See this thread for more.
 
Still wondering if your belief is irrational or not...

Also, if you are arguing from a presuppositional position, then is it not true that one cannot simply presuppose the existence of God, but one must presuppose the Christian God of Scripture? Including, therefore, the Messiah Jesus Christ as the only Son of God?

Seems to me that the example of Jesus verifying His identity through miracles is not relying upon a presupposition that He was God; rather, He assumed that His audience had generally reliable senses, memory, and rational abilities, and could observe the miracles and come to a conclusion. Their failure to do this is what led to their condemnation (ie for the unforgivable sin, not their condemnation in general for sin).
 
Jeff, I agree with you that there is one sense in which the only "proof" that can be biblically offered for God's existence is the simple presupposing of it - and I would say that is what Proverbs 26:4 is referencing. But you seem to stop there, whereas I would say that the "transcendental proof" that Van Tillians use is simply taking the second step and heeding Proverbs 26:5 as well, since it is merely trying to show the unbeliever that none of their Christ-less worldviews can make sense of anything, even themselves - which is merely answering the fool according to his folly, for the sake of argument.
 
Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Still wondering if your belief is irrational or not...

How can I convince you? :)

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Also, if you are arguing from a presuppositional position, then is it not true that one cannot simply presuppose the existence of God, but one must presuppose the Christian God of Scripture? Including, therefore, the Messiah Jesus Christ as the only Son of God?

Agreed. Not only must the existence of God be presupposed, but Scripture as well.

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Seems to me that the example of Jesus verifying His identity through miracles is not relying upon a presupposition that He was God; rather, He assumed that His audience had generally reliable senses, memory, and rational abilities, and could observe the miracles and come to a conclusion. Their failure to do this is what led to their condemnation (ie for the unforgivable sin, not their condemnation in general for sin).

The devil performed miracles. So did Pharoah's sidekicks. Lazarus rose from the dead, and during the time of Christ MANY people rose from the grave. Are these people Christ simply because they rose from the dead?
 
Though it has nice symmetry, the ontological argument will never work with an atheist, I know I was one. Why? Because of the scandal of the cross. What you must realize with a true atheist is that fundamentally they do not believe (ascend to the idea) there is a God at all. And this they've done to justify themselves. Read Fredrick N. Thus, when they begin to explore the possibility they will start with all the attributes of God that are what we call His frontal glory that is not approachable except in wrath; sovereignty, omniscience, eternality, singularity even holiness, perfection, absolute justness and so on.

Once the atheist has these set up when shown the cross he will immediately stumble and see it as foolishness for it contradicts these other ideas of God's "frontal glory". "How and why would a holy God crucify Himself for evil men?" And if it contradicts these then "there must not be a God, at least not the Christian God". The atheist will then have to arrive back where he was OR some other deistic position but never at Christianity.

Many atheist just stay pure atheist. Myself I arrived at there might be a God but Christ as Christ never made sense to me, reason cannot go there or arrive at the cross of God the Son suffering. But unless the atheist becomes a Christian he will not be able to sustain his other god or deistic position very long for he will have to continue to justify himself. Thus, seeing only a purely just and holy God he will again have to deny God altogether - he can survive no other way.

L
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
The devil performed miracles. So did Pharoah's sidekicks. Lazarus rose from the dead, and during the time of Christ MANY people rose from the grave. Are these people Christ simply because they rose from the dead?

I disagree strongly. What, if not validation, was the purpose of Jesus' miracles?

Jesus performed fiat (not the car) miracles that displayed His godly power. No one else created or transformed matter, no one else raised the dead (except possibly those given the power by Jesus), and certainly no one else raised themselves from the dead.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Jeff, I agree with you that there is one sense in which the only "proof" that can be biblically offered for God's existence is the simple presupposing of it - and I would say that is what Proverbs 26:4 is referencing. But you seem to stop there, whereas I would say that the "transcendental proof" that Van Tillians use is simply taking the second step and heeding Proverbs 26:5 as well, since it is merely trying to show the unbeliever that none of their Christ-less worldviews can make sense of anything, even themselves - which is merely answering the fool according to his folly, for the sake of argument.

Chris,

I agree with Proverbs 26:5 as well. I think that I would apply it similarly to VanTil. But destroying one's autonomous worldview does not disprove ALL worldviews. There are in infinite number of worldviews to destroy, and we must battle them all using the Word of God as our sword.

If this is VanTil's syllogism (Transcendental) with A being the Christian worldview, and ~A being all other worldviews:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

I don't see how using Proverbs 26:5 can ever get you to ~~A without disproving all of the infinite worldviews out there that are against Christ.
 
Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
The devil performed miracles. So did Pharoah's sidekicks. Lazarus rose from the dead, and during the time of Christ MANY people rose from the grave. Are these people Christ simply because they rose from the dead?

I disagree strongly. What, if not validation, was the purpose of Jesus' miracles?
This objection simply is not enough. You must deal with the objections. Other people did the same miracles that Christ performed. That does not *prove* that they are Christ does it?

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Jesus performed fiat (not the car) miracles that displayed His godly power. No one else created or transformed matter,

I agree that no one else created. But was anyone there to witness creation and therefore use it as a *proof* of his existence or validity? How do we know that he created?

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
no one else raised the dead (except possibly those given the power by Jesus),
Ah, but this does not get you out of the problem. The apostle's raised people from the dead, and even the witch of Endor summoned Samuel's spirit.

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
and certainly no one else raised themselves from the dead.

But once again, nobody was there to see if Christ rose himself from the dead. How do you know that he rose himself from the grave?

The only way we know that Christ rose himself from the dead, and created all things is by Scripture.
 
The primary purpose of Christ's miracles were not His power as God. We see this in the penultimate miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The primary purpose of the miracles were as signs pointing to redemption.

Thus, Christ said to Mary, "I am the ressurection." In this miracle it was not His power as God to show "power per se", but that He, Jesus would have be the justice allowing Lazarus to rise again - that is Christ would pay the price of justice due, death, for sin and thus He would have the power to reverse the death sentance all the way back at Gen. 3:15.

Because we must ask why is there death, misery, sickness and so forth. And the answer is the fall. Christ's miracles where not so much shows of power but signs pointing to the judicial justification that He alone would purchase with His blood.

Analogy: If a friend of mine was justly convicted of a crime and in a local jail. And if I had the US Army at my disposal and no hinderance to my commands, then I could easily exercise raw power to free my friend and no local yokal sheriff could resist the power of the US Army. Thus, I could free my friend by raw display and naked use of power. But would I be justified in doing so? No.

Lazarus's raising for example was not a display of raw power per se but pointing to the justice to be fulfilled by Christ Himself at Calvary - hence He said not, "I show you how I will resurrect." but rather "I AM the resurrection."
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Jeff, I agree with you that there is one sense in which the only "proof" that can be biblically offered for God's existence is the simple presupposing of it - and I would say that is what Proverbs 26:4 is referencing. But you seem to stop there, whereas I would say that the "transcendental proof" that Van Tillians use is simply taking the second step and heeding Proverbs 26:5 as well, since it is merely trying to show the unbeliever that none of their Christ-less worldviews can make sense of anything, even themselves - which is merely answering the fool according to his folly, for the sake of argument.

Chris,

I agree with Proverbs 26:5 as well. I think that I would apply it similarly to VanTil. But destroying one's autonomous worldview does not disprove ALL worldviews. There are in infinite number of worldviews to destroy, and we must battle them all using the Word of God as our sword.

If this is VanTil's syllogism (Transcendental) with A being the Christian worldview, and ~A being all other worldviews:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

I don't see how using Proverbs 26:5 can ever get you to ~~A without disproving all of the infinite worldviews out there that are against Christ.

I suppose we're basically in the same place right now then. Van Til's apologetic has been by far the most consistent one I have seen, save that remaining mystery. In fact, though there is a lot of talk about the universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement, even when Bahnsen, Butler and the like defend the faith against non-atheistic unbelievers, they always seem to go down the worldview-by-worldview route in doing so. :chained:
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by BrianLanier
1) It seems that you are saying rational proof = rationalism. Of course there is a big difference.

Rationalism is specifically what I am arguing against. If you are speaking of the VanTillian contruction, see next comment.

Originally posted by BrianLanier
2) When you say that God 'cannot be proved', are you including in that statement transcendental proof? Or are you just saying that upon autonomous reasoning, whether rational or empirical, God cannot be proven. If you suppose a Christian framework or epistemology then of course there is rational and empirical evidence that points to the proof of God's existence, i.e. general revelation.

I am saying that autonomous reasoning cannot prove the existence of God. The transcendental argument does not "prove" the existence of God in the common usage of the term. When people want "proof", they want autonomous visible or rationalistic syllogisms.

I think that the transcendental argument has holes in it. I believe it is impossible to prove the impossbility of all other worldviews, and therefore I deny the second premise in VanTil's contruction.

See this thread for more.

Remember though, the transcendental argument is not made from a neutral, autonomous standpoint. It has already presupposed the Christian worldview. The bible says that Christ is the only way and therefore is exclusive. Now, if the the Christian worldview provides the transcendentals for intelligble experience, then it can be the only one, hence the impossiblity of the contrary. Think about it. The Christian worldview could not provide the transcendentals if it contained error and internal contradictions. According to the Bible, it is either A v ~A (for Christ or against Christ) and that ALL wisdom is deposited in Christ. So if there was even a possibility of another worldview providing the trancendentals, then the Christian worldview would have internal contradictions and fail to provide them.
 
Originally posted by BrianLanier
Remember though, the transcendental argument is not made from a neutral, autonomous standpoint. It has already presupposed the Christian worldview. The bible says that Christ is the only way and therefore is exclusive. Now, if the the Christian worldview provides the transcendentals for intelligble experience, then it can be the only one, hence the impossiblity of the contrary. Think about it. The Christian worldview could not provide the transcendentals if it contained error and internal contradictions. According to the Bible, it is either A v ~A (for Christ or against Christ) and that ALL wisdom is deposited in Christ. So if there was even a possibility of another worldview providing the trancendentals, then the Christian worldview would have internal contradictions and fail to provide them.

I understand this reasoning. But why the complicated syllogism then? I could come up with MANY proofs for the existence of God using all of my premises from Scripture.

For example:

Premise 1: The Bible is true
Premise 2: The Bible says that God exists
Conclusion God exists

This is in essence the transcendental argument all widdled down. If you call this a proof, so be it. I see it as practically useless for the unbeliever. They will never accept this type of reasoning, so why try it? When the unbeliever wants *proof*, they want visible or rationalistic convincing. I agree that we cannot (and should not) give this to them. However, the transcendental argument is merely presupposing scripture and the existence of God from the get-go. I guess I just don't see any value in this and it seriously doubt it will convince anyone.

Preach the gospel, you will have much better results!
 
Originally posted by BrianLanier
The bible says that Christ is the only way and therefore is exclusive. Now, if the the Christian worldview provides the transcendentals for intelligble experience, then it can be the only one, hence the impossiblity of the contrary. Think about it. The Christian worldview could not provide the transcendentals if it contained error and internal contradictions. According to the Bible, it is either A v ~A (for Christ or against Christ) and that ALL wisdom is deposited in Christ. So if there was even a possibility of another worldview providing the trancendentals, then the Christian worldview would have internal contradictions and fail to provide them.

This is the single point I have never been able to completely "come home" on with Van Til's apologetic; perhaps I'm just not hearing it correctly. Let me try and unpack my thought on it:

I see how from the Proverbs 26:4 side, the "there are only two worldviews, if ours provides it that proves there are none others that do" argument works. Furthermore, presupposing Scripture, there are no contradictions in our worldview, even if there may appear to be at times.

But what I do not see is how that argument continues to consistently apply once we move into the Proverbs 26:5 side. I mean, from their perspective ("according to his folly"), we haven't done anything whatsoever to show that there are only two worldviews, or that Christianity necessarily doesn't have any internal contradictions. How would you go about that?

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Me Died Blue]
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Jeff, I agree with you that there is one sense in which the only "proof" that can be biblically offered for God's existence is the simple presupposing of it - and I would say that is what Proverbs 26:4 is referencing. But you seem to stop there, whereas I would say that the "transcendental proof" that Van Tillians use is simply taking the second step and heeding Proverbs 26:5 as well, since it is merely trying to show the unbeliever that none of their Christ-less worldviews can make sense of anything, even themselves - which is merely answering the fool according to his folly, for the sake of argument.

Chris,

I agree with Proverbs 26:5 as well. I think that I would apply it similarly to VanTil. But destroying one's autonomous worldview does not disprove ALL worldviews. There are in infinite number of worldviews to destroy, and we must battle them all using the Word of God as our sword.

If this is VanTil's syllogism (Transcendental) with A being the Christian worldview, and ~A being all other worldviews:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A.

I don't see how using Proverbs 26:5 can ever get you to ~~A without disproving all of the infinite worldviews out there that are against Christ.

I suppose we're basically in the same place right now then. Van Til's apologetic has been by far the most consistent one I have seen, save that remaining mystery. In fact, though there is a lot of talk about the universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement, even when Bahnsen, Butler and the like defend the faith against non-atheistic unbelievers, they always seem to go down the worldview-by-worldview route in doing so. :chained:

I feel you here Chris. This used to bother me for a long time as a Van Tillian until (see my above post). The 'universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement' is simple: anti-theism presupposes theism. As you know you can't talk about every worldview at once, but when some one says, "hey my world view has the transcendentals necessary", you can say, "really, show me." Then you can demonstrate your general, broad argument by using the form Av~A, ~~A :. A
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by BrianLanier
The bible says that Christ is the only way and therefore is exclusive. Now, if the the Christian worldview provides the transcendentals for intelligble experience, then it can be the only one, hence the impossiblity of the contrary. Think about it. The Christian worldview could not provide the transcendentals if it contained error and internal contradictions. According to the Bible, it is either A v ~A (for Christ or against Christ) and that ALL wisdom is deposited in Christ. So if there was even a possibility of another worldview providing the trancendentals, then the Christian worldview would have internal contradictions and fail to provide them.

This is the single point I have never been able to completely "come home" on with Van Til's apologetic; perhaps I'm just not hearing it correctly. Let me try and unpack my thought on it:

I see how from the Proverbs 26:4 side, the "there are only two worldviews, if ours provides it that proves there are none others that do" argument works. Furthermore, presupposing Scripture, there are no contradictions in our worldview, even if there may appear to be at times.

But what I do not see is how that argument continues to consistently apply once we move into the Proverbs 26:5 side. I mean, from their perspective ("according to his folly"), we haven't done anything whatsoever to show that there are only two worldviews, or that Christianity necessarily doesn't have any internal contradictions. How would you go about that?

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Me Died Blue]

I not sure I completely follow you here. It seems to me that the prov. 26:4 side is where we would say antitheism presupposes theism or give the argument, then the 26:5 side would be to demolish their own particular worldview.
 
Originally posted by BrianLanier
I not sure I completely follow you here. It seems to me that the prov. 26:4 side is where we would say antitheism presupposes theism or give the argument, then the 26:5 side would be to demolish their own particular worldview.

I'm basically talking about verse 4 as presenting the Christian worldview and showing how it accounts for logic and human experience. Then verse 5 is the part that consists in showing them that their view cannot account for anything without presupposing ours, since it is answering them according to their folly, or starting with their premises for the sake of argument and showing where they lead without God - and we know where we can be lead with God because of the former step.

P. S. For clarification to all readers, I would like to say that the presuppositional method does not prescribe a "Four Spiritual Laws approach," as Dr. Bahnsen once pointed out. Rather, one can really start anywhere, as long as he gets to all the essential elements eventually in whatever order works in the conversation.
 
Originally posted by BrianLanier

I suppose we're basically in the same place right now then. Van Til's apologetic has been by far the most consistent one I have seen, save that remaining mystery. In fact, though there is a lot of talk about the universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement, even when Bahnsen, Butler and the like defend the faith against non-atheistic unbelievers, they always seem to go down the worldview-by-worldview route in doing so. :chained:

I feel you here Chris. This used to bother me for a long time as a Van Tillian until (see my above post). The 'universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement' is simple: anti-theism presupposes theism. As you know you can't talk about every worldview at once, but when some one says, "hey my world view has the transcendentals necessary", you can say, "really, show me." Then you can demonstrate your general, broad argument by using the form Av~A, ~~A :. A [/quote]

I agree with you here. There are not an infinite amount of unbelieving worldviews. There is one unbelieving worldview with several different vocabularies. They are all man's autonomous reason living in rebellion. That is where presuppositionalism comes in handy. No matter what the vocabulary the unbeliever uses to describe his worldview (i.e. atheism, hinu, muslim, etc.) they all build it the same way, presupposing the truth of the Christian worldview in order to rebel against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top