When the apologist claims he has an objectively certain proof, he is claiming to have a proof that for any and all individuals cannot fail to be true. My critique is that this claim is too much. The apologist fails at several levels - the most serious being the inductive element he introduces into his argument.
You have managed to confuse me, Brian. It seems to me that you are suggesting any apologetic which removes the burden of objective certainty away from the realm of human rationality is a failure. How have you not established autonomy?
Sure you can, and so thought Van Til. It is the basis of his apologetic. His very argument is that the existence of God is necessary because apart from God there could not be rationality. Since there is rationality, then God exists. This is a good argument. This argument is established in a manner that is not objectively certain. That was the point of my critique.
Since me, then mum (or mom). That is objectively certain. It is based on an induction.
Ok, my idea is nonsense. Since you are using this type of rhetoric, then I would submit to you that you do not understand Van Til’s apologetic. In his The Defense of the Faith (Third Edition) on pages 100-101 we find the following…
Clearly, you do not understand Van Til if you think this is “nonsense.”
Not understanding Van Til is always a possibility, and something which doesn't worry me too much as I'm not VanTillian. However, I believe you have quoted VanTil offering a reason why we should argue ad hominem, not in justification of stepping out of our theistic worldview. If all you meant by stepping out of our worldview is that we should argue ad hominem, then that is fine. However, I took you to mean that we should critique according to the dictates of the natural man, who insists he can reason without God. On that basis we would have to rationally prove God exists according to a rationale which reasons independent of God -- an impossibility.
It is funny how a simple request like this simply goes unanswered. I asked you to quote the appropriate portions of my critique where I was wrong and explain how I was wrong. You would not even show me the courtesy of doing this, but yet you would say that my ideas are nonsense. Not only am I beginning to doubt whether you understand Van Til, but I am beginning to wonder if you have actually taken the time to read my critique. The funny thing is that I acknowledge that there probably are errors in my critique. I would welcome a genuine feedback. I just ask you to be specific. Your response to this post will be telling.
I can't remember calling your ideas nonsense. The only thing I have called nonsense is the idea that we should step outside the plane to inspect it whilst it is flying mid-air. I analysed your critique and thought it boiled down to, "If induction, then false." Civbert tells me there is a difference between false and uncertain in a logical argument. I can't see it, but for the sake of discussion I corrected my analysis to, "If induction, then uncertain." My question was, and still is, Why? Now I could rehash everything I've said since then, but I'd only be repeating myself. One question I am inclined to put to you is, Can you prove that man knows anything? and can you prove this without depending on an induction? Blessings!