Apologetics to the Glory of God

Search results for: “"transcendental argument"”

  • What is Meant by Transcendental?

    Transcendental arguments pertain to the transcendent, but only in the sense that there are beliefs which serve as the basic or foundational beliefs for others and in that sense cannot be denied. These beliefs are preconditions for intelligible experience, transcendental beliefs, and are only in that sense transcendent, philosophically speaking.

    CH INTRO: Transcendental Argumentation
    CH INTRO: Nature of the Transcendental
    CH: A Brief Word on the Transcendental Argument
    CH: An Introduction to the Transcendental Premise and Alleged Problems

    Return to FAQ…

  • What is the Impossibility of the Contrary? (IotC)

    It is impossible, or absurd, to say that one can both not exist and affirm one’s non-existence; the one affirming non-existence would have to exist in order to affirm one’s non-existence. Likewise, we may argue for logic by the impossibility of the contrary or absurdity of the opposite; in denying logic one is affirming it.

    By “contrary” here we simply mean the denial of whatever is in view. Contrary is being used in an informal and conversational way, and not in its philosophical sense. In the philosophical or logical sense contraries cannot both be true but they can both be …

  • Is There an Argument Made by Presuppositionalism?

    The most common argument employed will be a “transcendental argument” – an argument which deals with the preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. You will most typically see the “Transcendental Argument for the existence of God”, or TAG, employed for this purpose. As a whole, however, Presuppositionalism is an argument on the worldview level; and per the Christian worldview, there are two worldviews – Christianity, and not-Christianity. The denial of Christianity necessitates the affirmation of it’s antithesis, or it’s opposite.
    As such, we deal with concepts such as “The impossibility of the contrary”, or “internal critique”, which serve to …

  • The Covenantal Apologetic: Principles to Practice

    It cannot be sufficiently stressed that the covenantal apologetic is first and foremost a Reformed apologetic.  Consistently, a practitioner will be Confessional, therefore Covenantal and Calvinistic.  These are sometimes called the “3 Cs.”  This is not being stressed for a subjectivistic “purity’s” sake, nor for controversialism’s sake.  It is being stressed for the sake of consistency.  First and foremost in Reformed theology is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.  From Scripture, we also have revealed the doctrine of God, and all of the other doctrines we believe and hold to.  Consistent with these doctrines, we preach, and we …

  • On Proper Analysis – Scott Terry and VanTillianFire

    The author, Aaron Dale, at the blog “Van Tillian Fire,” has written a critique of my much-critiqued “Dear Sye” post.  For reasons unbeknownst to me, he neglected to read the post of the following day, “The Shattered Stained Glass Window”, as well as the post “A Necessary Distinction.”   Why is this important, you ask?  It is important because these were written several months ago – and written specifically to provide specifics about issues I left unstated, or merely referred to in general terms in the initial post.  Why did I leave them unstated? I left them …

  • A Necessary Distinction

    In the midst of the turmoil which controversy creates, it is always refreshing to encounter an irenic, yet firm response in the midst of a variety of hasty and conjectural surmises.  That irenicism was, of course, the response of Mike Robinson, who many will know from his books and posts on a variety of subjects related to apologetics. When his response was brought to my attention, I was excited to see that he had commented on the situation.  Unfortunately, his post was in response only to the initial statement, which was intentionally designed to bring attention to the general …

  • The Shattered Stained Glass Window

    A lot of people seemed upset when I posted an encouragement and admonishment to Sye Ten Bruggencate yesterday.  The fallout seems to consist of either those praising me for doing so, or vilifying me for same.  I’m no stranger to controversy, obviously, so I have been watching the general trend of commentary.  The fallout from my detractors, on the main, seems to have missed the central meat of the post.  Sure, I mentioned several things only in general, but most of our regular readers know what I was referring to.  I’ve said the same things I am saying now over …

  • Return of the Presuppositionalist: A counter-critique of a critique of presuppositionalism.

    phantommenace-300x225-150x150I was sent a link to view (a 4 part series) which ended in a critique of presuppositionalism. The full article can be found here:

    Revenge of Objectivity: Preunderstanding, Presuppositions, and First Principles (Part 4)

    Feel free to read the whole 4 part series.

    So, lets get started:

    “Naturally, the same problems with any representationalist epistemology are also embedded in the representationalism found within the presuppositional system.”

    Presuppositionalism runs on a revelatory epistemology, not a representationalist epistemology.

    “While the Thomist would certainly agree that God is the ultimate cause of all reality other than Himself and that the universal forms …

  • Infallibilism, Knowledge, Attenuated Presup and Unwitting Clarkianism

    So, I was involved in a bit of a dustup with some folks yesterday. Essentially, the bone of contention was concerning knowledge. The position of our antagonists, essentially, was that knowledge, to be knowledge, must be “infallible.” There are a variety of issues with this stance, but chiefly, my concern is from theology proper, as we will explore; although we will address a few other issues along the way as well.

    My response is first to the notion of infallibility being applied to “knowledge” in the first place. Fallibility, obviously, means an ability to fail. Well, to fail, one has …

  • To TAG or Not To TAG?

    How strongly did Van Til feel about using TAG when arguing for God?

    Now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument.

    Quite strongly. It’s not that there aren’t other arguments – they just don’t hold any water when arguing for the kind of God revealed in the Bible – an absolute God. If we are totally dependent upon God (as is the case if God is absolute), then we are necessarily dependent upon God as our starting point in reasoning. If we aim to show that this kind of God exists, we must …