Tag: transcendental arguments
I saw the following questions left for me elsewhere on the Internet so I will take a moment to briefly respond.
1. “Van Til and Bahnsen claim that TAG is neither inductive nor deductive. Do the other things they say about TAG also imply this, and if so, how?”
To my knowledge, Van Til and Bahnsen never use the acronym ‘TAG,’ although Bahnsen repeats the phrase ‘Transcendental Argument for God.’ Searching this site reveals a fair amount of rather heated discussion and evidence regarding Van Til and Bahnsen’s claims to the effect that transcendental argument is neither inductive nor deductive.…
The charge that presuppositionalism is “circular” must be one of the dumbest objections I have ever heard.
No really. Think about it for just a moment.
You hear the accusation again and again that presuppositional apologetics are “circular.” The implication is that the charge of circularity in view here constitutes an objection against presuppositional apologetics. A fatal objection, even. So a logical point is being made. A fallacy is in view.
Presuppositional Apologetics Can’t Be Circular
But it should be noted right away that “presuppositional apologetics” can never be circular. Neither the label “presuppositional apologetics” nor the discipline the label …