Friday, May 4, 2007

Apologetics Part 4

Objections to the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God listen here

The TAG is just a form of traditional arguments i.e. indirect arguments.
Not so. The TAG does glean from traditional arguments, in particular an indirect argument. But it is much more than that because it seeks to give the preconditions for any possible intelligibility, not just proving Christianity by employing certain rational arguments.

The TAG can’t refute all possible worldviews.
Not relevant since there are only real two worldviews in question; the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview. Plus a worldview needs be objective in nature with an objective source i.e. you can’t just make up worldview because it’s completely subjective. We are dealing with what actually is, not hypotheses.

The TAG does not establish Christianity as the necessary precondition for intelligibility but only a sufficient precondition.
Does not allow for just sufficiency, since in the nature of the case there can only be one transcendental for meaningfulness i.e. only one ultimate authority, and that ultimate authority by nature necessitates complete submission to its claims IOW we can justifiably fall back on the claims of the Christian world. i.e. no sense can be made of such an alternative sufficient worldview, such as a quadrinity, since you first would have to analyze its claims by standing/relying on the Christian worldview.

The TAG only proves the Christianity is only conceptually necessary not ontologically necessary. i.e. Christianity has perfect compatibility with reality but doesn’t necessarily prove that Christianity actually is true.
This assumes that the TAG is only a conceptual scheme with no binding authoritative revelation from the One who is the precondition for intelligibility. The Christian worldview has divine revelation from the Triune God who created everything and He has told us how creation is, and since this objective revelation gives us the necessary precondition for intelligibility for man’s experience, it demonstrates it self to be true!

1 comment:

Master Zap said...

Hi Jonathan! ;)

Anyone who seriously thing the TAG arguments works (and you seem to be of this mistaken assumption along with Gene) really need to read the *entirety* of Dawson Brethrick's site (yes, it's a lot, very very very much, but it pretty much shreds it)