Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Trying to Understand Analytical Presentation on Transcendental Argument (TAG)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trying to Understand Analytical Presentation on Transcendental Argument (TAG)

    I've been looking for resources to understand better the details of Van Til's pressuppositionalism and TAG. Most of the articles I've read make assertions on the impossibility of logic without God without providing the explanation on why it's the case, and what type of argument would positively show how God is the precondition of logic.

    I found from http://www.vantil.info a link to a paper that I think provide the argument I was looking for. The title is An Analytical Presentation of Cornelius Van TilÂ’s Transcendental Argument from Predication. Here's the link https://hcommons.org/deposits/object...ONTENT/content

    Here's the argument in page 21:

    [...] the discussion will now present the analytical formulation of Van TilÂ’s Transcendental Argument from Predication as: (1) That there is a possibility of assigning truth values to propositions presupposes that the Bible is entirely correct on all metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical teachings; (2) There is a possibility of assigning truth values to propositions; therefore, (3) The Bible is entirely correct on all metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical teachings.
    The paper makes it clear that the entire argument rests on premise 1. In page 25 to 28, the paper provides possible counter arguments for premise 1. But none of them questions the premise 1 itself.

    My question:

    1. Doesn't premise 1 already presuppose that it is possible to assign truth values to propositions (premise 2)? Without premise 2, then the argument wouldn't exist at all. Removing premise 2, we're left with only premise 1 with no further explanation on the precondition. Or am I missing something here?

    2. Are there other resource you can recommend on this topic? Preferably articles, not books :)

  • #2
    This probably should be on the Philosophy board.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      What needs to be understood every argument, no matter what side of the argument is on, has presuppositions. One starts with known truth. Christians know God. So technically God does not need to be proved. And Christians who know God also would know that the written word of God as given by God, a truth from it merely needs to be asserted.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        What needs to be understood every argument, no matter what side of the argument is on, has presuppositions. One starts with known truth. Christians know God. So technically God does not need to be proved. And Christians who know God also would know that the written word of God as given by God, a truth from it merely needs to be asserted.
        The existence of a deity and the bible being the "word of God as given by God" are not "known truths" they're beliefs...beliefs that many of us consider to be culturally inculcated delusions.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          The existence of a deity and the bible being the "word of God as given by God" are not "known truths" they're beliefs...beliefs that many of us consider to be culturally inculcated delusions.
          Ok.

          Here is what I need from you. A former Christian who can explain the gospel of grace [not prayer regeneration etc.], and how he overcame his delusion. And a step by step how to overcome it.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Ok.

            Here is what I need from you. A former Christian who can explain the gospel of grace [not prayer regeneration etc.], and how he overcame his delusion. And a step by step how to overcome it.
            Yet again you are assuming that your personal, unsubstantiated beliefs in a supernatural entity are true. You're entitled to believe this stuff if you want to but there is no good reason for me to believe you.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              What needs to be understood every argument, no matter what side of the argument is on, has presuppositions. One starts with known truth.
              Presuppositions, yes. Known truths, not necessarily. Nothing is necessarily true just because you presuppose it.

              The only necessary truths are those that, if denied, affirm or entail a contradiction. For everything else, you have to think it possible that you are mistaken in believing it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                Presuppositions, yes. Known truths, not necessarily. Nothing is necessarily true just because you presuppose it.
                Belief does not cause anything to be true. Presumably a thing is believed because it is true.

                The only necessary truths are those that, if denied, affirm or entail a contradiction. For everything else, you have to think it possible that you are mistaken in believing it.
                Christianity has a set of beliefs which are essential things that must be true for Christianity to be true. Knowing God. The gospel of grace. Which entails the story and teachings found in the Christian New Testament along with the Jewish Hebrew holy scriptures. The resurrection claim.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Presumably a thing is believed because it is true.
                  I believe Christianity is a bunch of nonsense. You don't think I believe that because it's true, do you?

                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Christianity has a set of beliefs which are essential things that must be true for Christianity to be true.
                  That is a trivial observation. Those beliefs are what Christianity is, so of course the truth of one is equivalent to the truth of the other.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                    I believe Christianity is a bunch of nonsense. You don't think I believe that because it's true, do you?
                    My question then is why do you believe the teachings of Christianity is nonsense? Give your reasons step by step so I can at the very least follow your thinking.
                    That is a trivial observation. Those beliefs are what Christianity is, so of course the truth of one is equivalent to the truth of the other.
                    Either a thing is true or it is not true. The law of the excluded middle. Importance of truths indeed vary in degree of importance. Christianity, it is argued, stands and falls on the truth of the resurrection. Furthermore, in genuine Christianity, Christians through faith in God's grace obtain personal knowledge of God through Christ, a changed life, and by it possess eternal life, with the yet future hope of physical immortality.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      What needs to be understood every argument, no matter what side of the argument is on, has presuppositions. One starts with known truth. Christians know God. So technically God does not need to be proved. And Christians who know God also would know that the written word of God as given by God, a truth from it merely needs to be asserted.
                      I understand that everybody has presuppositions. But in Transcendental Argument, the ability to use logic itself is questioned. Let me repeat again the first premise:

                      That there is a possibility of assigning truth values to propositions presupposes that the Bible is entirely correct on all metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical teachings;
                      This sentence presupposes that it is possible to assign a truth value to itself. Without this presupposition, this sentence wouldn't exist at all.

                      We can simplify the sentence into: This sentence wouldn't exist unless X. Where X is the proposition that the Bible is entirely correct on all metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical teachings. We can replace X with any proposition, including the existence of God. But the proposition that this sentence exists is self-evident. So, what's left to argue about is the causality, which is still missing from presuppositionalist argument.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by nihilnihil View Post
                        I understand that everybody has presuppositions. But in Transcendental Argument, the ability to use logic itself is questioned. Let me repeat again the first premise:



                        This sentence presupposes that it is possible to assign a truth value to itself. Without this presupposition, this sentence wouldn't exist at all.

                        We can simplify the sentence into: This sentence wouldn't exist unless X. Where X is the proposition that the Bible is entirely correct on all metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical teachings. We can replace X with any proposition, including the existence of God. But the proposition that this sentence exists is self-evident. So, what's left to argue about is the causality, which is still missing from presuppositionalist argument.
                        Stop right there. The statement ". . . the existence of God. . ." has a fundamental problem. Existence is the basis of anything being self evident. In that statement God is not the existence. Uncaused existence needs no God. Unless one has the understanding that God is the uncaused Existence, because any arguments for the "existence of God" is fundamentally self defeating, the arguement is lost.
                        Last edited by 37818; 05-16-2018, 08:10 AM.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          Stop right there. The statement ". . . the existence of God. . ." has a fundamental problem. Existence is the basis of anything being self evident. In that statement God is not the existence. Uncaused existence needs no God. Unless one has the understanding that God is the uncaused Existence, because any arguments for the "existence of God" is fundamentally self defeating, the arguement is lost.
                          I mentioned "... the existence of God" to show that the only part of the proposition "This sentence wouldn't exist unless X" that is self-evident is "This sentence exists." :)

                          Again, quoting your statements:

                          Uncaused existence needs no God. Unless one has the understanding that God is the uncaused Existence.
                          Okay, so Christians (or theists in general) presuppose the existence of God as the origin of all other types existence, including laws of logic. In this case, has the argument shifted from Transcendental (presuppositional) to Cosmological (classical)?

                          I think the difference can be summarized as:
                          • Transcendental argument: Non-theists cannot and should not use laws of logic because using laws of logic requires belief in God
                          • Cosmological argument: Non-theists cannot explain where laws of logic come from


                          Please correct me if I'm wrong. But from here, my suspicion is either:
                          1. Transcendental argument is a variation of Cosmological Argument but worded differently, causing confusion - or -
                          2. Transcendental argument is not Cosmological Argument. But we are still left with a gap on how to explain why using laws of logic requires belief in God



                          Note: I'm using the word "laws of logic" as if they're things (Platonism). I think this is open for debate, but it's outside the scope of my original question.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by nihilnihil View Post
                            I mentioned "... the existence of God" to show that the only part of the proposition "This sentence wouldn't exist unless X" that is self-evident is "This sentence exists." :)

                            Again, quoting your statements:

                            Uncaused existence needs no God. Unless one has the understanding that God is the uncaused Existence.
                            Okay, so Christians (or theists in general) presuppose the existence of God as the origin of all other types existence, including laws of logic. In this case, has the argument shifted from Transcendental (presuppositional) to Cosmological (classical)?

                            I think the difference can be summarized as:
                            • Transcendental argument: Non-theists cannot and should not use laws of logic because using laws of logic requires belief in God
                            • Cosmological argument: Non-theists cannot explain where laws of logic come from


                            Please correct me if I'm wrong. But from here, my suspicion is either:
                            1. Transcendental argument is a variation of Cosmological Argument but worded differently, causing confusion - or -
                            2. Transcendental argument is not Cosmological Argument. But we are still left with a gap on how to explain why using laws of logic requires belief in God



                            Note: I'm using the word "laws of logic" as if they're things (Platonism). I think this is open for debate, but it's outside the scope of my original question.
                            The laws of logic require Existence. God being that Existence. (Exodus 3:14-15; Acts 17:28).
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              The laws of logic require Existence.
                              No they don't. The Law of Identity states that something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature. For example, an apple is that apple, and a rock is that rock. In other words, whatever is, is.

                              God being that Existence. (Exodus 3:14-15; Acts 17:28).
                              Why would one believe man-made myths and folk-lore?
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              185 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              132 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              428 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              305 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,517 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X