No neutrality and circular reasoning | Cornelius Van Til
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 тра 2022
- Either God is at the back of possibility, or possibility is at the back of God. If we don't start (presuppose) the God of Scripture, no proof will ever be able to reach up to him and we are stuck with a finite god.
Read more: www.apologeticscentral.org/po...
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) revolutionized the world of apologetics. A 20th -century philosopher and theologian, Van Til attended Princeton Theological Seminary, wherein he received his ThM in 1925 and subsequently his PhD in philosophy in 1927. - Розваги
Very insightful, he knew the main point is that everyone comes to the discussion biased. Who is this guy?
Cornelius Van Til: Father of Presuppositional Apologetics
Is there a full recording of this lecture somewhere?
Van Til was a genius. He saw something nobody else could see. He wasn't always the best at communicating it, but he discovered the only actual proof for God.
Indeed!
He had no proof.
"One weakness in Van Til’s own writings is the lack of specific arguments. Van Til always said that there was an “absolutely certain argument” for Christianity, but he rarely produced an example, except in the barest outline form." Presuppositional Apologist John M. Frame, "Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief", Preface to the First Edition
@Floyd Fp That's because the proof isn't the kind of proof that can be communicated in a single simple syllogism, which is often how atheists falsely think proofs must be communicated.
Proofs exist within logical knowledge & systemic knowledge. Examples of systems are Mathematics, Geometry, Worldviews, etc. Systemic knowledge is something that is necessarily true to anyone who accepts the rules & definitions for a particular system.
Presup begins with a simple, three step syllogism, often put something like this:
1. If X did not exist, Y would not be possible.
2. Y is possible.
3. Therefore, X exists.
X = Christian God
Y = Knowledge
It's expected people will want justification for Premise 1. That justification is provided in the form of a complex systemic-level argument put into a disjunctive syllogism in a logical conjunct:
Either P is true or Q is true
P = Christian system (complete set of propositions)
Q = any non-Christian system (complete set of propositions)
The systemic-level argument is P vs Q, arguing that only the Christian system entails knowledge is possible & any non-Christian system entails knowledge is not possible (which means the system entails contradiction, as it's required to presuppose knowledge is possible to engage in debate in the first place... so the interlocutor is then presupposing knowledge is possible & not possible at the same time).
The comparison of competing systems works against any non-Christian system (there are only about 8 possible starting points we must refute and all the variation among the normative-level beliefs won't matter much as they're contingent on the starting point of the paradigm). In other words, Q is false.
This entails P is true.
The only forms of knowledge used in the entire thing are logical knowledge & systemic knowledge (both of which contain absolute truth). Since deductive arguments have conclusions that necessarily follow, everything about it is certain. The main part is the systemic-level argument where the comparison of competing systems is done, which is systemic knowledge. And since everyone engaging in debate must have a worldview (meaning everyone accepts the rules & definitions of worldview systemic knowledge) this means the conclusion is a proof (absolutely certain) to everyone.
Now, atheists like Jack Angstreich like to attempt to evade engaging in the comparison of competing systems by pretending "my worldview isn't relevant" which is simply incoherent... worldviews are non-contingencies, meaning it's not possible to be neutral or withhold judgment about them. So anyone even just "not accepting" the systemic-level argument is necessarily implicitly disputing it. When it comes to non-contingencies, "not accepting" argument X is an implicit counter-argument of not-X.
So, "not accepting" the justification for Premise 1 necessarily means the interlocutor is arguing not-X (implicit positive claim there IS any non-Christian system entailing knowledge is possible).
Both sides are making conflicting positive claims at that point
Christian: Positive claim the Christian system is the only system entailing knowledge is possible.
Non-Christian: Any non-Christian system entails knowledge is possible.
Those conflicting positive claims can only be resolved via the comparison of competing systems (both sides do internal analysises of each other's systems).
Anyhow, Imagine walking into a Calc 2 classroom and telling the Professor he had no proof unless it can be communicated in a single syllogism. Proofs don't always work that way... particularly systemic knowledge. It can rarely be communicated in a single simple syllogism when it's complex systemic knowledge like that which is why we have professionals figuring out Mathematics and Geometry, etc. Presup is a proof that requires understanding worldviews systemically pretty well to fully grasp, along with Formal Logic, Epistemology, Metaphysics.
But in the end, it's simply systemically true for any worldview system that if it does NOT have the Christian God as the fundamental metaphysic then it will entail knowledge is not possible, which entails any adherents of that worldview will constantly be engaging in contradiction whenever they assert anything.
It is not just knowledge... the same is true for rational thought, intelligibility, science, morals, and more.
@@lightbeforethetunnel You silly people try so hard. "You atheists just insist on using the rules of critical thinking that apply to every other argument! We expand critical thinking to include everything we need to "prove" the existence of God!" Oh man, thank for supplying us with useful cannon fodder to use in our critical thinking classes!
@bradkelley8732 Can you quote what I said, specifically, that makes you conclude I'm arguing "atheists are using critical thinking skills that apply to every other argument?"
Because, it seems fairly clear to me, based on what I actually wrote, that my post is saying the polar opposite of that.
I literally described how they're engaging in numerous contradictions by affirming any non-theistic worldview, all of which necessarily entail X is not possible.
(X = Knowledge, rational thought, intelligibility, science, etc)
So, you're essentially equating atheists "engaging in numerous contradictions" with "atheists using critical thinking skills that apply to every other argument."
I fail to see how you could possibly think the two are equivalent.
Engaging in contradictions is not equivalent with using critical thinking skills.
Van Til claims that the unbeliever will win you to his conclusion ("a foregone conclusion") if you engage in evidential apologetics, but his claim appears _ipse dixit_ . Indeed, many unbelievers have been converted via evidential apologetics, so his claim appears demonstrably false.
And the fact that all facts are created by God does not imply that said facts do not in themselves point to God. In fact, there are many unbelieving realists who are _inconsistent_ in their realism, which is why they remain unbelievers. Consistent realism points to God, so contra Van Til, it isn't a matter of conversion by stealth or a believer's unguarded inconsistency. Rather, logical analysis of the cosmos will yield the signature of God.
1. God hits straight blows with crooked sticks. People have been converted for many reasons, not all of them because of the soundness of the arguments.
2. All facts do point to God. But to say that the facts “in themselves” point to God means that the facts, divorced from their ultimate context, when analysed by sinners who hate God, can firstly be sufficiently understood and known without recourse to God. These facts, then, can only yield an egocentric conclusion that God probably exists (meaning possibly does not exist). The laws of logic used to analyse these brute facts are themselves “brute facts” and lack justification for use in rational discourse. Ultimately, the creature is elevated, and the Creator-creature distinction is destroyed
@@apologeticscentral You're speaking _ipse dixit_ as well. There is no probability whatsoever in classical theism. The first principles of human thought render irrational skepticism, and an argument isn't unsound merely because you claim it is. The fact that some people have been converted for irrational reasons does not mean that all people were. God convicts a skeptic who seeks answers to the claims of other skeptics and atheists. One of God's servants then utilizes evidential apologetics to convince said person of God's existence. Only an ideologue would see that as a display of man's arrogance.
@@davidcoleman5860 you are speaking ipse dixit. Why are you making these unproven dogmatic statements in the comments? Point is that your hammering on “ipse dixit” is ridiculous. We have to state our beliefs sometimes without immediately proving them (as you are doing as well - as such, your flexing of latin is no help here).
“The fact that some people were converted for irrational reasons does not mean that all were”.
Exactly. But some were converted because of irrational reasons, as you admit, and so you’ve refuted your initial claim. The validity of an apologetic method cannot be determined by the number of converts. If that’s how it works, the Romanist church is winning (or Islam).
Some Christians might out of ignorance not follow a Biblical faithful apologetic. God does not save because of our prowess. But, we cannot expect God to honour an apologetic that is deliberately lazy and simply false.
@@apologeticscentral I cannot refute an initial claim that I never made. I didn't know dishonesty was a Christian characteristic. And I could not have been speaking _ipse dixit_ (a common Latin phrase. Just look it up if you're unfamiliar with it (unless, of course, that's an “unchristian” maneuver)). My initial comment was about Van Til's bald assertion. And I never appealed to the _number_ of converts as proof of a method's superiority. You may want to add reading comprehension to your list of necessary to-dos.
Not all Christian apologetics rely on probability. As I said, classical theism does not rely on probabilistic arguments. And, again, since you missed it, God's moving a sinner to conviction can prompt said person to ask questions about the skepticism/atheism he's been taught. And a believer who uses the very thing that God made, which convicts all persons and proves His nature (Ro. 1:20) can only be a demonstration of hubris in the mind of an ideologue. Your characterization of that as an example of human pride is also dishonest. You're more concerned with defending your turf than you are with the facts.
@@davidcoleman5860 all I can say at this point is that you seem to lack a deeper appreciation of the issues at stake. I’m open to dialogue on the matter, but I believe it is clear from our discussion that you’ve entered the discussion unwilling to hear the other side.
Moreover, you’ve failed to see the very apparent reasoning error pointed out to you when you claimed that some Christians were converted via an evidential apologetic (as traditionally understood).
Also, my comment on your use of latin was a bit of a low blow, I digress. But the point I tried to make was that you seem to try and flex some form of superiority in the way you communicate, which you cannot substantiate with the actual content of your comments. You also seem oblivious to the fact that you are guilty of very thing you charge Van Til and myself with.
Rather than dismissing us by claiming we are speaking “ipse dixit”, which is sometimes needed especially on a YT comments section and a 5min video (and given that Van Til has a whole corpus of writings and lectures to substantiate his claims, and given that we have numerous articles on our website diving deeper into the topics which we can only briefly state elsewhere), rather ask a question “why is Van Til saying this?”, or, “what’s your reasons for saying that?”. That would be a more pleasant conversation.
Would it surprise you that I and Van Til both consider ourselves Classical theists? Check out the latest lectures by Lane Tipton on the matter.
It seems like you are conflating classical theism with Thomism. Aquinas’ arguments were absolutely probabilistic. Even if they weren’t though, by placing God at the end of an inductive of deductive argument postulates certain principles that are more fundamental than Gof himself, breaks down the Creator-creature distinction, and ultimately then proves the wrong god. This god himself being subject to brute fact and mystery.
This is what happens when apologets have given up on finding any evidence for whatever god they are peddling. They resort to throw their arms in the air, define a god and then assert it into existence followed by endless word sallads and deepitys with no contents and meaning.
At least these apologists are well-versed in basic spelling and grammar, enabling them to construct these impressive word salads.
When an anti-theist or atheist, makes any kind of statement or truth claim, it presupposes that there is an ultimate truth, but athiests and the anti-theist have no foundation to make any knowledge/truth claims at all, they start with "there is no truth, no God, no absolutes." But then turns around and tries to make absolute truth claims with no foundation or basis to even reason that way at all. So when an athiest says things like "word salad" but his basis for any wording or discussion is rooted on nothing. So, isn't all reasoning, by an athiest or anti-theist all just word salads if they have no basis to make any claims or arguement at all. How would one argue that they aren't just spewing nonsense to even speak this way. For the anti-theist and athiest, they lose before the discussion even starts. They stand up high and proud and say, "I have no basis or foundation for saying anything at all, but I'm going to talk" Sounds asinine.
Just admit that you don’t understand anything in this video👍🏿
The life of the atheist is riddled with inconsistencies and thus is exposed as being utterly irrational, for instance, an athiest will presuppose human dignity and attend a funeral of a friend or loved one, and then turn around and argue that man has no dignity and is no different then any other product of evolution like a dog, or a snail, or a horse. I don't see how they bring these 2 things together. They will claim that man is no more than a product of biochemical factors controlled by the laws of physics, but then will go home and kiss his wife and kids as if there is something called love that we all share in a family.
The atheist will argue that in sexual relationships there are no moral absolutes, not to impose your views on others, even defending prostitution or homosexuality but then indignantly condemn child molesters or morally repudiate necrophilia, you see the atheist is just a bundle of contradictions and can't bring his worldview in harmony with
Itself, he'll suggest that things that happen in the universe happen randomly and just is that way, arbitrarily..... but then he turns around and looks for regularities and law-like explanations of events, he looks for uniformity and predictability in the things that he studies. But doesn't even have a workable worldview in which to reason in the first place, to argue at all. And exposes this in every turn in his life.... See, You can claim that there is nothing spiritual, nothing
Immaterial, nothing abstract and universal, only concrete particular things exist, you can claim that events are just random,
That there's no personal plan,
Control or purpose in the universe, you can claim that reality amounts to nothing more than matter in motion, but you cannot ACT or REASON in that way, so when you appeal to a theistic worldview by using a theistic mindset, then your not living in your own assertion about the nature of reality.
@@AG-rl5pw you seriously have no idea about just about anything...
Van Til was more of a preacher than a philosopher. I'm not impressed by him.
"One weakness in Van Til’s own writings is the lack of specific arguments. Van Til always said that there was an “absolutely certain argument” for Christianity, but he rarely produced an example, except in the barest outline form." Presuppositional Apologist John M. Frame, "Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief", Preface to the First Edition
You won’t find the argument in a single place. Once you grasp Van Til, you’ll grasp the argument. Check out some interviews with Brant Bosserman. He mentions looking for this “silver bullet” argument, and he grasped it after a third read-through of DoF.
Greg Bahnsen did far more to articulate the presuppositional position than Van Til, but I think that his approach was ultimately as flawed as Van Til's in that asserting God without demonstration is question-begging.
@@davidcoleman5860what is your ultimate presupposition?
@@materialismisforfools Mine is irrelevant to the claim.
Here is a philosophical critique of your perspective:
While the speaker makes some thought-provoking points, your position seems to rely on several problematic assumptions. First, you present a stark dichotomy between "the Christian" and "the non-Christian", as if all people must fall neatly into one of those categories. This ignores the diversity and nuance of human thought. Many people hold views that combine elements from various philosophical and religious traditions.
Second, you assume that there is a single "Christian" starting point, methodology, and conclusion that all Christians must share. But Christianity encompasses a wide range of beliefs and perspectives, often conflicting ones. There is no one definitive "Christian" position.
Third, you suggest that only the Christian perspective is valid and all other views are inherently "absurd". This closes off honest inquiry and discourse between different worldviews. A more philosophical approach would be to engage charitably with different perspectives and examine them based on logic and evidence, not just dismiss them as absurd.
Overall, your critique seems to stem from questionable assumptions about the nature of truth, reason, and diversity of human thought. A more nuanced, open-minded approach may lead to deeper understanding between people with very different views. The heart of philosophy is asking questions, not just asserting the superiority of one perspective.
What you offered is not a philosophical critique though.. it’s a prolonged statement that you don’t like what’s being said 😅.. I’m open to philosophical discussions on the topic. And I don’t think I have to grant your position any sense of legitimacy for that to happen. Bring your metaphorical weapons and I’ll bring mine.
When Van Til speaks of Christianity, he is specifically referring to the Reformed faith as it is captured in the Reformed confessions. In this sense, we are not interested in defending “lesser” forms of Christianity (eg. Romanism, Arminianism) as we believe they compromise on Biblical truth, mainly because they destroy the Creator-creature distinction.
Now, there is also a distinction that we must keep in mind, which is the distinction between principle and practice. In practice, we fail to live up to the ideals of our worldviews. Christians fall into sin and act like unbelievers, and unbelievers act / reason in a way that is more consistent their place as image bearers of God rather then their professed belief that they are mere matter in motion.
I do suggest that only the Christian worldview is valid. By even suggesting that other views are possible, I would have to deny that God is who He says He is. He is the sole determiner of possibility and impossibility. Frankly, if you deny Him, then you replace Him with an abstract principle of Chance. That’s the gist of the argument against non-Christian views.
@@apologeticscentralhow did you rule out all other non-theistic worldviews?
@@Enigmatic_philosopher I already alluded to lesser, in my view, indefensible forms of Christianity. They are indefensible because they destroy the Creator-creature distinction.
Other theistic views, e.g. deism, Islam, Hinduism are equally indefensible for other reasons.
Briefly…
Hinduism most obviously because the plethora of gods are themselves dependent on brute fact.
In Islam, very briefly, because their doctrine of God’s transcendence makes revelation about God impossible, making all the words about Allah meaningless. Moreover, Allah is ‘n unitarian god, which makes him dependent on creation in order to be who he is. This destroys the Creator-creature distinction.
Whenever the Creator-creature distinction is destroyed, knowledge of any kind becomes impossible and everything turns to absurdity.
@@apologeticscentral You're presenting a strong assertion about the validity of the Christian worldview while dismissing other religious perspectives. However, it is important to critically examine your position and engage in a philosophical critique.
Firstly, you claim that only the Christian worldview is valid and that suggesting other views are possible would deny the nature of God. This argument seems to rely on a particular interpretation of God's sovereignty and the belief that God determines all possibilities. However, this perspective neglects the diversity of human beliefs and the existence of different religious and philosophical traditions throughout history. Philosophically speaking, it is crucial to acknowledge and respect the plurality of worldviews that individuals hold, even if you personally disagree with them.
Furthermore, you argue against other religious perspectives such as Romanism, Arminianism, deism, Islam, and Hinduism, labeling them as "lesser" or "indefensible." It is important to approach such claims with caution, as they may reflect personal biases and lack of understanding or appreciation for the complexities and philosophical arguments within these traditions. Merely dismissing these worldviews without engaging with their philosophical foundations does not constitute a rigorous critique.
For instance, your criticism of Hinduism based on the belief in multiple gods being dependent on brute fact oversimplifies a complex religious tradition. Hinduism encompasses diverse beliefs, philosophies, and practices, including monistic and pantheistic interpretations that do not necessarily rely on brute facts. Similarly, your critique of Islam based on the idea that God's transcendence makes revelation impossible overlooks the rich history of Islamic theology and the philosophical discussions surrounding divine revelation within the Islamic tradition.
Furthermore, your claim that the destruction of the Creator-creature distinction leads to the impossibility of knowledge and the descent into absurdity requires further examination. While the Creator-creature distinction may be significant within certain religious frameworks, it is not a universally accepted concept across all philosophical and religious perspectives. Many philosophical traditions explore alternative ways of understanding the relationship between humans and the divine without invoking this specific distinction. Therefore, dismissing all non-Christian perspectives based on this argument alone is intellectually limiting.
In conclusion, your statement lacks a comprehensive and nuanced philosophical critique of the mentioned religious perspectives. Engaging in a genuine philosophical discussion requires a willingness to explore and understand diverse viewpoints, rather than dismissing them outright. It is essential to approach such discussions with intellectual humility, recognizing the complexity and diversity of human beliefs and philosophical traditions.
@@Enigmatic_philosopher I’ve spent my fair share working with LLMs to discern when I’m chatting with a person that’s overly reliant on a bot.
I’d be very curious to see the way you prompted the bot, as that would reveal your own bias.
Even if parts of the above weren’t LLM produced, it lacks any deeper substance that would justify a reply to its content from my side.