[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Traditional Proofs, Traditional Arguments

Greg I was very interested in a number of things you said in reply to Larry,
could you 
make some comments on the following things you said.

Greg said
> I asked him about the alleged ability of the transcendental method to 
> operate apart from subsidiary, traditional-type arguments 
> (Frame's point in AGG). For instance, how could the first premise, "*Only*
> can make logic intelligible" be shown to be true, apart from blind faith? 
> Certainly it could not proven true through a merely inductive analysis of
a finite 
> series of worldviews? Bahnsen said no, but then proceeded to 
> begin just such an inductive analysis! I.e., here is why the Muslim
worldview is 
> internally contradictory, here is why the Mormon worldview is 
> internally contradictory, etc. In other words, he was knocking off these 
> alternate worldviews, these alternate justifications of logic, one by one!
> So, I considered his answer to be a begging of the question. 
> My thoughts were presented to him in writing, and again, I believe, his
> response begged the question, and in addition evidenced a 
> stubbornness to actually formalise TAG as a *transcendental argument*. His

> reply was to the effect that all of these 'one by one' examinations were
> 'illustrations' of TAG.

Unfortunately I have not listened to Bahnsen's tapes - being poor :) however

given that it's generally agreed on this list that both VT and Bahnsen
didn't think
that the TA could be put in formal logic terms; Bahnsen suggesting that so
is a category mistake of reducing it to immanentistic deduction, could
another interpretation
of his procedure above be that 1. There's a TA that is foundational for all
other reasoning and that is
a TA for intelligibility, and then once that is argued ( via justification
from the CTU ) then there's 2. The
application of the TA method which proceeds to point out where each
non-christian ( antitheistic ) worldview
is inconsistent?

I want to suggest that the "non-formalising of the TA" view may need further
investigation, even given David Byron's 
criticisms in Jan 1998 msg00047.htm

Later on Greg writes
> [You may be startled by my forwarding the possibility that a 
> well-formed TAG can only start from a *subset* of the Christian 
> worldview. This depends upon our definition of 'Christian worldview' 
> and/or 'the whole enchilada' , a subject that has also been broached on
this list.]
>  >My perception of your belief of my position is that I am
>  >excluding the propriety of all inductive arguments for
>  >Christian theism and if I were attempting to do this, I am
>  >lacking biblical warrant.
> Right.

Now let me see, Apologetics is the challenge to the unbeliever, the
of reasons for our hope. 1 Peter 3:15; Not an attempt to logically "prove"
our beliefs ( for the 
present allow me to say that here I don't therefore mean that the christian
faith isn't logical - 
in logic which is God honoring hmm there's a thought :-), because the
unbeliever is in 
the position of rejecting such "proof" eg Romans 1 unless God's Spirit works
John 3:5-9

Now my Question is about this subset approach. Could it be in limiting CTU
to a subset
( if I'm right you are suggesting that the unbeliever accepts this subset
from which you now 
argue inductively for Theism using traditional arguments ), is to limit the
"What" by your own authority?
Picking up on VT's "What" must be settled before the "that" so that he
begins with doctine ( bible teaching of Who God is )
and this includes Him being self-authenticating, personal ontological
Trinity. And we as christians
know Christ, His sheep hear His voice etc, ( because transformed 2 Cor 5 etc
) we have His Word, the bible, and it's not
our place to choose what we will accept or reject. Not one jot or tittle
will pass away Jesus said. Thus to limit
the "What" is to ourselves relapse into claiming the place of authority.
Something God's Word rejects ( as VT pointed out ).

Not very well put I'm afraid, but the point is that "Are you by profering
inductive theistic arguments founded on a subset of Christain Theism setting
up man as the arbiter of Truth - ie as assuming the place of Authority ?

On what may be a related thought, Am I correct in understanding VT wasn't
merely concerned with formal logic and what that can show. Thus I wonder if
Formal logic by itself, neglecting such central aspects of VT's though such
as man in rebellion, usurping God's Authority, God as self-authenticating in
His word, Apologetical method and so on, really will do what's asked of it.
And yet that is what this list seems to always fall back on when it comes to
assessing arguments. That is reducing it to formal logic in the analytic
traditon with out having first investigated whether that logic reflects CTU.
hmm - to give an adea of where I'm coming from on that, I recently read Vern
Poythress's article in WTJ i think it was.

to fill this out a bit later on you made the comment

> But the fact that it is an *inductive, one-by-one* critique 
> means that BTAG is not a TAG.

Unless the Inductive approach in form pressuposes the Christian Theistic
Worldview and thus
is not like ( of the kind ? ) immanentistic Induction?

Sorry for rehashing some of these ideas, or if they are completely
missunderstanding VT and Bahnsen, indeed you may already have answered these
but I look forward to being informed in my understanding of the issues.


Gary Wearne

You are currently subscribed to vantil-list as: jamesanderson@xc.org