"As 2010 draws to a close, it seems hard to believe that it has been 25 years since Greg Bahnsen’s presuppositional apologetic first laid waste to atheistic philosophy in his debate with Gordon Stein. It was in that debate that Bahnsen referred to Van Til’s presuppositional approach as the "Transcendental Argument for God" or TAG. The short sloganized version of the argument is Van Til’s statement that the Christian God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Since that time there has been plenty written about TAG – a lot of it more noise and confusion based on a total misapprehension of the issues involved in the argument..."
...(Read More)
*Note to all:
Thanks for the support, thanks for the discussions, thanks for time spent getting to know one another. I am humbled to how much I have learned in this short year. I appreciate you helping me understand more about you. Thank you all, for an interesting 2010. Personally, I am looking forward to another new year of Debunking Atheists.
Yep, the debunking atheists will continue to be here. I'll be here to debunk you, too. But, unfortunately, you don't seem to have learned much. You should know that Presuppositional Baloney is just that, baloney. Is christianity really so dishonest that you feel the need to use such tactics to support it?
ReplyDeleteAsked and answered.
ReplyDeletefunny you didnt mention Bahnsen's debate with GEORGE H. SMITH. why would you leave that one out? ; ]
ReplyDelete...*jeopardy theme plays*...
dont worry, all the atheists already know why. ; ]
AJ,
ReplyDelete>>funny you didnt mention Bahnsen's debate with GEORGE H. SMITH. why would you leave that one out? ; ]
>>...*jeopardy theme plays*...
Let's make this a true Daily Double.
What is this post, Alex.
Don't atheists often argue from emotion and pretend they are logical? I think they their emotion belies their deeply held faith in naturalist science or faith in mankind.
ReplyDeleteThere's an example of projection if there ever was one...
ReplyDeleteBibleBob, do I know you? Have I posted to your blog? Don't answer those questions, they were asked rhtorically :)
Instead, what I'm curious about is this: can you demonstrate why faith in naturalism leads to an emotional reaction? Try not to explain this in terms that have already been applied to theists, if you can; doing so will prevent further accusations of projection...
Dan:
ReplyDelete"What is this post, Alex."
It's a post where you conceded that you hadn't bothered to inspect the links you put forward and just assumed they supported your position. Perhaps you would like to re-read my first comment on that thread. Or maybe you're just hoping no one will bother to read the comments on that thread.
haha ok, daily double,
ReplyDeletehere's George H. Smith vs. Bahnsen.
AJ,
ReplyDelete>>here's George H. Smith vs. Bahnsen.
Erm...that's what I said.
yes but your link on that video is conveniently broken, hence this comment on that video:
ReplyDelete"Incidentlly, the link to the Youtube video for this post is broken."
also it didnt play when I tried it, hopefully, the one I posted works! haha not sure why you would post that debate on your site though! haha
thanks Dan! hey let me know if that link doesnt work : ]
AJ,
ReplyDelete>>yes but your link on that video is conveniently broken
Erm...no it isn't. Is it for you? Wem has had issues before like that though, I think its operator error myself. Anyway, I listened to the debate again (from the link I provided), and I feel that Bahnsen made superior points that Smith was at a loss with. Smith has yet to account for his own reasoning.
I think you need to go back and listen to it again, but this time with critical thinking skills sharpened and ready. Start with point of view, Specifically, "How am I looking at this situation? Is there another way to look at it that I should consider? What exactly am I focused on? And how am I seeing it? Is my view the only reasonable view? What does my point of view ignore? Have you ever considered the way others view this? Which of these possible viewpoints makes the most sense given the situation? Am I having difficulty looking at this situation from a viewpoint with which I disagree? What is the point of view of the author of this story? Do I study viewpoints that challenge my personal beliefs?"
The transcendental argument for god doesn't work because it is a bare assertion that god is the basis for transcendental logic. It is just stated outright with no justification, and appears to me to be yet another "god of the gaps" argument (transcendental logic exists, I don't know how this is possible, therefore god).
ReplyDeleteWithout proving that god exists, and that god has a mind, and is absolute, the argument is meaningless.
Christopher,
ReplyDelete>>Without proving that god exists, and that god has a mind, and is absolute, the argument is meaningless.
The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!
>>The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic.
ReplyDeleteProving a negative is an inelegant, laborious process in logic. The simpler, elegant solution is to shift the burden of proof onto the one making the positive claim. Of course, there is no such proof for god, it is merely assumed. That was my first point: he made a bare assertion that god exists and is the basis for transcendental logic. He has to prove it.
>>You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!
Making a claim that something is the basis of transcendental logic has an unannounced, implied claim that god exists. This must be proven and is subject to the standard rules of logic.
TAG, as you call it, is yet another attempt to fill the nooks and crannies of our reasoning with a dead-weight concept called god.
Christopher,
ReplyDelete>>The simpler, elegant solution is to shift the burden of proof onto the one making the positive claim. Of course, there is no such proof for god, it is merely assumed.
And How do you know that? "there is no such proof for god" is indeed a POSITIVE claim. Same with Atheism of "No God" these are all positive claims. To stand off on the side and claim that you "do not know" says two things. One that you are dishonest in your worldview, and two that you are not an Atheist.
We hall have our presuppositions and depending on what they are will direct our look at things. Also Christopher, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.