Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Presuppositional apologetics vs. atheism.

Right or wrong, I have, for a number of years now, embraced many of the aspects of the apologetic method developed by the Reformed philosopher/theologian Cornelius Van Til, known as presuppostionalism and/or TAG (transcendental argument for the existence of God).

Van Til’s most erudite disciple, the late Greg L. Bahnsen, is now being represented via YouTube. His debates with two prominent atheists, STEIN, and SMITH (along with many other items) are available for all to take in, and reflect upon. ENJOY!!!

Grace and peace,



Samuel Skinner said...

I love the transcendental argument- it is so overwhelming ridiculous! Why? Simply substitute in the color red instead of logic- after all, it too has an independent existence. However, people don't believe the existence of the ability to discern colors requires a creator, even though it is the same problem.

Why? Because the color red is based on something physical, which it describes. The same goes with logic.

Anonymous said...

Samuael Skinner confesses:
I love the transcendental argument-it is so overwhelming ridiculous!

Filter Boy observes:
Is disagreement a synonym for ridiculous?

Until I began to peruse the internet I had understood that to be merely ridiculous a proposition had to sink to a level of stupidity that could only be held by the intoxicated or mentally retarded. So what Samuel Skinner means by the expression "overwhelming ridiculous" I have difficulty imagining.

Did Cornelius Van Til master the ABC's? Could he even count to ten? At some point doesn't stupidity become less worthy of rididule and more worthy of sympathy, as being so manifestly stupid as to pose no credible possibility of gaining adherents?

I don't find Samuel Skinner's argument against our host's position or the teacher who promoted that which is allegedly "overwheming ridiculous" to be the least instructive or convincing. Rather, it appears to me to be gratuitous hyperbole from the typical internet hotshot who never respects anything with which he disagrees.

Never in my experience have wrong ideas held by more than a dozen educated people who are neither drunk nor handicapped proved to be worthy of ridicule, to say nothing of "overwhelming ridiculous" (whatever superextraordianary phenomenon that might be). I don't know that I agree with TAG. But I know I have nothing but disrespect for the modern habit of proposing that everything which is wrong is worthy of ridicule...and that is as I said, to say nothing of whatever some disdainful child of the internet conceives to be "overwhelming ridiculous".

Filter Boy