Random discussions on Theology, Evangelism and Apologetics.
"Unbelievers charge this argument as fallacious. They say given enough time they will be able to provide a foundation for human thought and experience without Christianity. However centuries have passed and unbelievers are still without a foundation for human thought and experience. To resist Christianity with hope to find an alternative foundation is blind faith. Consequently, by admitting Christianity provides the foundation for human thought and experience unbelievers acknowledge defeat" i will take this as an admission that you cannot disprove all worldviews with TAG, it is not blind faith even if what you said was true about non Christians because TAG argues that only Christianity can provide us with reasoning and logic, so it is NOT illogical to wait until you disprove all worldviews..oh thats right YOU CANT because your not omniscient, so even if god did reveal to you all other worldviews are wrong you will never make good on that claim because YOU cannot disprove all worldviews to show the non-christian that your god must have a 100% chance of existing. Besides Christianity cannot provide us with intelligible experiance because it lacks concept theory
I think you are reconstructing my argument as follows:(1) Human experience presupposes logic.(2)Logic presupposes the Christian worldview.(3) Therefore human experience presupposes the Christian worldview.P->QQ->R P->RYou deny premise (2) on the grounds that all other world views have not been examined that "might" also satisfy the sufficient conditions to make sense of logic and human experience. You say all other world views must be refuted before premise (2) can be established. But the problem with such criticisms is that they are not attacking my argument. My argument is not merely a deductive syllogism it is a disjunctive syllogism. Certainly there are different formulations of TAG but mine is the one in question here. I am saying:Either Christianity or (a type of token that is) Non ChristianityNot-Not ChristianityTherefore Christianity.P v -P--PPSo I think you have set up a straw man in the place of my argument. Moreover, if God is all knowing and reveals the Bible is true and is the only foundation for logic and human experience that is undeniable proof of His existence. It is the same type of proof as logic. You cannot deny logic without affirming it. The same goes for God. You say Christianity cannot make sense of concepts? Sure it can. Let's take the concept of equality. 2 is equal to 1 plus 1. This equality would exist even logically prior to the beginning of the universe. Unless you deny this and affirm concepts can only exist in a human mind or concrete referent. If so empiricism is latent in your theory of concepts. But empiricism is self-refuting. So were do you turn to make sense of concepts? I make sense of them simply because God made all man in His image with innate knowledge of these concepts. I'd encourage you to read up on these articles:http://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdfhttp://www.proginosko.com/docs/No_Dilemma_for_TAG.pdf
wakawakwaka,Btw thank you for engaging me! It once again allows me to be more clearer in my arguments.
"Moreover, if God is all knowing and reveals the Bible is true and is the only foundation for logic and human experience that is undeniable proof of His existence"this begs the question you havent even PROVEN beyond a reasoniable let alone a shadow of a doubt this god even exists! Anyone one can claim anything this is just a baseless assertion
You fail to understand the logical entailment of the argument I offered. It shows that all other worldviews, that are not identical with the Christian worldview, are baseless. You object to my view because you claim it begs the question and is baseless. However you cannot object to my worldview unless you can make sense of logic and truth in your own worldview to use against mine. But as I have been arguing, you cannot do this without borrowing from my worldview. By logically arguing against my worldview, you prove my worldview since logic presupposes God. If you disagree, please logically demonstrate why I am wrong. "if God is all knowing and reveals the Bible is true and is the only foundation for logic and human experience that is undeniable proof of His existence"My comment above is not the argument per se, it is merely a point I wished to make on the logical extent of the argument.
"It shows that all other worldviews, that are not identical with the Christian worldview, are baseless."no it doesnt its just a baseless assertion"But as I have been arguing, you cannot do this without borrowing from my worldview. By logically arguing against my worldview, you prove my worldview since logic presupposes God." you have not proven this at all only more baseless assertions that logic presupposes your god and only your god"However you cannot object to my worldview unless you can make sense of logic and truth in your own worldview to use against mine" special pleding
"no it doesnt its just a baseless assertion"Really? Why? I think Michael Butler captures your complaint, quite well, and argues what you must prove to demonstrate my argument as merely arbitrary. He writes,"TAG argues for the impossibility of the contrary (the non-Christian worldview) and not the impossibility of an infinite number of possible worldviews. TAG does not establish the necessity of Christianity by inductively refuting each and every possible non-Christian worldview (as finite proponents of TAG, this is an impossible task), but rather contends that the contrary of Christianity (any view that denies the Christian view of God) is shown to be impossible. And if the negation of Christianity is false, Christianity is proved true. In other words, the structure of the argument is a disjunctive syllogism. Either A or -A, -- A, therefore, A.At this point the clever opponent will simply deny the first premise. He will contend that it should not be construed as a disjunction of a contradiction, but a simple disjunction. The argument should thus be restated along the following lines: A or B, -B, therefore, A. And once this move is made he will then contend that while the argument is valid, the first premise involves a false dilemma. That is, he will grant that given A or B and the negation of B, A does indeed follow, but nevertheless maintain that the argument is unsound because the first premise (A or B) is not true. The reason being that there are more possibilities than just A and B. Given a true first premise, A or B or C or D ... n, the negation of B merely entails that A along with the disjunction of other propositions besides B (C, D,...n) follows.In order for this to be successful, it is incumbent upon the opponent of TAG to defend two claims. First, he must defend the contention that the original first premise is not the disjunction of a contradiction and, second, he must show that there are other possible disjuncts besides B (what we can call the view that is opposed to the Christian worldview).""you have not proven this at all only more baseless assertions that logic presupposes your god and only your god." Really? Why? I offered an argument and I have not seen one premise refuted. I have merely seen you claim my argument is arbitrary. Please demonstrate which premise is false. I have argued elsewhere, the laws of logic possesses the properties of incorporeality, normativity, necessity, immutability, and conceptuality. All these properties make sense in the Christian worldview. God is logical and created man in His image to be logical. Thus all these properties come from the logical God who created us to mirror His rationality. If you deny the Christian worldview, the alternative position to make sense of the laws of logic is, what? Please offer a worldview that can make sense of the laws of logic. Skepticism or Nihlism are the only alternatives I have encountered, but neither have been shown to account for logic. "special pleding"Thank you for proving my point. -----------------------------Butler, Michael. The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen (Covenant Media Press: Nacogdoches, 2002) p.85. www.butler-harris.org/tag/
Post a Comment