This is an article that is an introduction to what I believe the method of Reformed Apologetics that we should use and that should be understood as the best approach.
1. Transcendental Argument:
This is just an introduction to the presuppositionalist argument known as TAG. TAG stands for the transcendental argument for God’s existence. What is a transcendental argument(TA)? They are arguments that deal with preconditions of knowledge and I think it could be expanded to one that deals with the preconditions for ethics. These are truths that are necessary for other truths to make sense. It means that a certain belief is necessary for another belief to be rational. The argument presuppositionalist are presenting is that the Christian God is required for the rationality of any belief whatsoever. That means whether you affirm the Christian God or deny him you presuppose him in all your reasoning. I was recently corrected by a Van Til scholar on the issue of how to formulate TAG. He explained to me that it should be formulated along the lines of Strawson’s Presuppositional semantics. Van Tilians have had a difficulty in formulating TAG and have given different answers to the question of how to formulate it. Here are two proposals on the table(sidenote: X stands for any aspect of human experience):
- Don Collett’s version:
X presupposes G if and only if both 1 & 2:
1. If X then God exists
2. If ~X then God exists
The strength of this formulation is that it accounts for the aspect mentioned above of whether we affirm or deny the Christian God he must exist. The other formulation that I’ve seen is that it takes the form of a deductive argument (Modus Tollens) and operates in presenting Christianity as the necessary precondition for intelligibility.
- Ronald Di Giacomo’s Version:
Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.
Step 2 (~A–> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
Step 3 (~B): There is intelligible experience (Contradiction)
Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)
Step 5 (A): –> God does exist (Law of negation.)
The strength of this formulation is that it uses a reductio showing how unbelief is incoherent. The other option is that of Dr. John Frame is that indirect and direct argument are not actually significantly different. We’ll save that discussion for another time. I just to wish to unpack some of these terms. A Deductive argument is an argument in which the premises necessitate(or entail) the conclusion. This is in contrast to inductive arguments that only make a conclusion most probable. Here are examples of deductive arguments forms:
Modus Ponens:
P1. If p, then q.
P2. P
C. Therefore q
Here is an example of this:
P1. If Paul is a Christian, then he believes the Gospel.
P2. Paul is a Christian.
C. Therefore, Paul believes the Gospel.
Modus Tollens:
P1. If p, then q.
P2. -q
C. Therefore -p
Here is an example of this:
P1. If it rained last night, then the ground is wet.
P2. The ground is not wet.
C. Therefore, it didn’t rain.
Deductive arguments have 2 conditions that distinguish good arguments from bad arguments. Those conditions are Validity and Soundness. Validity only deals with the form of the argument and Soundness deals with the truth of the premises.
P1) The Christian God does not exist. (¬ A)
P2) If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility. (¬ A → B)
P3) There is intelligible experience (¬ B)
C) God does exist ( ∴ A)
2. Revelational Epistemology:
What is epistemology? It is the study of knowledge. It asks questions that deal with issues of what do we know and how do we know it. The Christian operates with God’s word as the ultimate source of truth. Scripture is the infallible testimony of God handed to man that is its own justification. God doesn’t appeal to anything higher to justify his claims(Heb. 6:13). It should also be mentioned that the background of this debate is set against that of an issue in epistemology called Munchausen’s trilemma. The trilemma gives us three options. We either can provide evidence for every claim we ever make. The problem with that is you end up with an infinite amount of beliefs and justifications. How do we avoid the infinite regress? We have two options: Axioms(Arbitrary starting points) or Epistemic Circularity. So, many appeal to a foundationalist or coherentist models. The Revelational Epistemologist chooses to go the Epistemic Circularity route. They would choose their ultimate authority as the God of the Bible and his word.
The Bible tells us that he makes himself known to all of mankind and has made them in his image. They have both immediate and mediate knowledge of God. The world testifies to that fact(Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:16-32).
3. Neutrality:
We often think that we need to find a common basis with unbelievers in notion or intuitions of causality, design, or ethics and argue they imply God’s existence. The Revelational epistemologist can’t argue such a way because he starts with God from the outset of his reasoning. The differences between those methods are that one makes God and entailment of so-called neutral intuitions and the other makes God a presupposition of all reasoning. Those aren’t equivalent:
“Do not confuse presuppositions with entailments. Even though both are implicational relations, they are very different inferences. Entailment indicates logical consequence, i.e., if p is true, then q must be true. Presupposition indicates a background assumption that functions as a precondition, i.e., if p is true or false, then q must be true.”
The problem with this method is that it takes for granted the idea that we have a “common ground” with unbelievers. The fact of the matter is that anyone that isn’t a Christian presupposes that Christianity is false and Non-Christianity is true. Nobody is neutral on issues of ultimate commitments. The problem of method arises, that being methods are not separate from what they verify and disqualify. What method is right to verify a claim is entirely dependant on the epistemology we present. If you think you can rid yourself of your epistemology to figure out which epistemology is best, then all you’ve done is erect an epistemology to confirm itself. That entails we all can never be purely neutral on issues of ultimate matters. Either everything is a created fact of God or it isn’t.
4. The impossibility of the Contrary:
The fact of the matter is that every other possible worldview is not actually possible. The Christian God has revealed that he exists and that no other god exists. The Christian God is a Metaphysically necessary being and could not non-exist. This is why we know Christianity is true and every other worldview is false and incoherent. At base, there truly exist only two worldviews at base, the Christian, and Non-Christian worldviews.
5. Transcendental Critique:
We demonstrate this truth in a critique of specific instantiations of non-Christianity. These will show that the Non-Christian cannot make sense out of knowledge, Logic, science, and ethics on their worldview. The last thing one should do is ask the unbeliever to step into the Christian worldview and see how it can make sense out these things. This easy to state, but a demonstration will show you the effectiveness of this system:
A Naturalist Atheist believes that God does not exist and that everything is reducible to matter and energy. The universe came into being by chance and that man is a product of this evolutionary process.
Logic:
If this were true, why think that this chance reality will follow laws of logic? These are universal, abstract(immaterial), and invariant(unchanging) truths. How could an atheist know these are true and that they exist? An Atheist would need to be omniscience to know that all the facts of the universe cohere with what his mind is telling him. We don’t have universal experience and we don’t know whether reality will just change tomorrow. Some have said that logic is just a social convention. The problem is that they would lose their universality and their invariance. We could just adopt laws of logic that just state that you are always right and then no rational debate could ever be had.
Others have thought that logic is just a product of human minds. The problem with that is that people have different minds and our minds aren’t universal. If someone has different laws, then we couldn’t reason with each other. Each would have their own laws and standards of reasoning. This means logic is itself reduces to just how humans think and they are the product of an evolutionary process not directed at the truth. If we can’t establish the truth of logic apart from experience, then they become contingent truths. They simply worked in past experiences with no reason to think they would work in further or in places we have not experienced.
Some think that logic reduces to merely are linguistic conventions. The problem is that language are just culturally relative. That means logic is useless in a conversation between different cultures and they are just human conventions.
Another attempt is to say we know they are true because they are self-evident. The problem with that is nobody agrees about that which is self-evident. The other problem is why suppose the world and the truths in your mind? Why suppose that in the realm of contingent experience will reflect these truths in our mind?
Sense Perception:
If evolution is true, then why should we trust our cognitive faculty? Evolution has produced both people that are geniuses and those that suffer from mental retardation. We have no way to distinguish whether we have a mind that can tell us about the world or not.
Science:
The problem of induction is one of the most famous problems in philosophy and it is one of the most difficult problems in the philosophy of science. This problem arises on the question of what justifies any inductive inference? Induction is from moving from particular experiences to general conclusions. The famous example is this: We know the sun will rise because it has always risen in the past. The problem of induction is why should we infer that future experiences will be like past experiences? If you respond it was always that way in the past, then you are using an inductive argument to prove induction. That is a fallacious move of circular reasoning. Atheism provides no answer to this problem since it only presents this world as matter in motion with no design or purpose. Why would that worldview account for induction?
Morality:
How does an atheist account for objective moral norms and obligations? We are dealing with the ontology of the foundation of these claims, not how we come to know these things are wrong. If we are simply matter in motion, then what are we obligated to and what ground these norms? The only thing that exists are descriptive facts and you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. You can’t move from purely descriptive facts to a normative conclusion. I can tell you what acts harm individuals, but from those facts, I can’t tell you we ought not to harm people.
Christian Superiority:
Christianity can account for these things. God imposes logic on the world and he has designed the world to be orderly and uniform. God has created our minds and the world to correspond to one another and he has given his commands that we are obligated to follow because he is holy and righteous.
Recommendations:
The Council 