The "transcendental argument for the existence of God"

[Ripheus27]

I'm basing my counterargument on Cornelius Van Til's presentation. Moreover, in this OP, I will be going off one form of his presentation. So, in a few short steps...

• 1. Every belief system must have a final point of reference.
• 2. There are only two prima facie possible final points of reference, our reason or God's reason.
• If our reason was the true final point of reference for our belief system, nothing would ultimately mean anything.
• Therefore, God's reason/God is the final point of reference for our ability to have a belief system.

Now, this argument is not strictly deductively valid, but it is valid as long as you are logical enough to fill in the word-gaps on your own. So anyway, my essential objection is to [1]. As I see it, if [1] were true, then the concept of a final point of reference would itself turn out to be the final point of reference as such, which contradicts the conclusion of the argument. It's rather like how Van Til doesn't accept the disquotational scheme for the truth predicate, which is:

"S is P," is true if and only if S is P.
​

But Van Til thinks that "S is P" is true if and only if God decides it's true, not just in particular but even in the abstract.* (Van Til is rather inimical to the notion of "abstract possibility," at least conceived of as a freestanding "thing." Yet I think he could accept the saying that God is the concrete AND abstract cause of all truth.) However, by basing his argument for God on a prior notion of a final point of reference as such, he accidentally proves that God would not be that kind of final point of reference, as such, so that we might as well just jettison the notion of such reference-points and profess our faith in God some other, better way.

*[You might wonder where on Earth he says this. Albeit I have only read A Christian Theory of Knowledge and The Defense of the Faith, yet I do know a passage in the first of those listed books, in which Van Til defines his notion of truth in itself, based on a rejection of the principle behind the disquotational scheme.]

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Every belief system must have a final point of reference.

How about a starting point: Yahweh Says.

What Yahweh Says I believe. (no 'system').

Just like a 3 year old already well knows his own mother's (and father's) voice.

No system needed.

So why , in a belief system, would a "final point of reference" be needed ?

Is a belief system needed for anything ?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Nice post and evidently you're knowledgeable in philosophy and terminology, probably more advanced than myself, which is why, if possible it would be helpful to define and explain more. I am not entirely clear about your objection. But might be interested in some back and forth. I suppose I will respond in part, to an extent.

[1] another word for a belief system is a worldview, and he is correct. Gordon Clark defined an ultimate point of reference as an "axiom", Alvin Plantinga defined the axiom as "properly basic".

[2] ultimately there is one final point of reference, God, our reasoning is dependent, analogous to God's reason.

I do think your analysis is off, especially in trying to pin the disquotational scheme onto Van Til. His position is that God is the source of all truth, God knows everything exhaustively, God is logical, not the author of confusion. Therefore a creature assuming autonomy, has no justification for knowledge, because all knowledge is dependent on the source of all truth. In this, no man has ever had an original thought, for every truth known, the man whether he is regenerate or not is thinking God's thoughts after Him. The unregenerate man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness not giving thanks, that is credit to God for his knowledge, believing the lie that he got it on his own.

God does not "decide" what is truth, He is the embodiment of truth and knows everything exhaustively, as the Creator of every created fact in the universe.

Sorry for an incomplete response, long day.

I'm basing my counterargument on Cornelius Van Til's presentation. Moreover, in this OP, I will be going off one form of his presentation. So, in a few short steps...

• 1. Every belief system must have a final point of reference.
• 2. There are only two prima facie possible final points of reference, our reason or God's reason.
• If our reason was the true final point of reference for our belief system, nothing would ultimately mean anything.
• Therefore, God's reason/God is the final point of reference for our ability to have a belief system.

Now, this argument is not strictly deductively valid, but it is valid as long as you are logical enough to fill in the word-gaps on your own. So anyway, my essential objection is to [1]. As I see it, if [1] were true, then the concept of a final point of reference would itself turn out to be the final point of reference as such, which contradicts the conclusion of the argument. It's rather like how Van Til doesn't accept the disquotational scheme for the truth predicate, which is:

"S is P," is true if and only if S is P.
​

But Van Til thinks that "S is P" is true if and only if God decides it's true, not just in particular but even in the abstract.* (Van Til is rather inimical to the notion of "abstract possibility," at least conceived of as a freestanding "thing." Yet I think he could accept the saying that God is the concrete AND abstract cause of all truth.) However, by basing his argument for God on a prior notion of a final point of reference as such, he accidentally proves that God would not be that kind of final point of reference, as such, so that we might as well just jettison the notion of such reference-points and profess our faith in God some other, better way.

*[You might wonder where on Earth he says this. Albeit I have only read A Christian Theory of Knowledge and The Defense of the Faith, yet I do know a passage in the first of those listed books, in which Van Til defines his notion of truth in itself, based on a rejection of the principle behind the disquotational scheme.]

 

[he-man]

I'm basing my counterargument on Cornelius Van Til's presentation. Moreover, in this OP, I will be going off one form of his presentation. So, in a few short steps...

• 1. Every belief system must have a final point of reference.
• 2. There are only two prima facie possible final points of reference, our reason or God's reason.
• If our reason was the true final point of reference for our belief system, nothing would ultimately mean anything.
• Therefore, God's reason/God is the final point of reference for our ability to have a belief system.

Now, this argument is not strictly deductively valid, but it is valid as long as you are logical enough to fill in the word-gaps on your own. So anyway, my essential objection is to [1]. As I see it, if [1] were true, then the concept of a final point of reference would itself turn out to be the final point of reference as such, which contradicts the conclusion of the argument. It's rather like how Van Til doesn't accept the disquotational scheme for the truth predicate, which is:

"S is P," is true if and only if S is P.
​

But Van Til thinks that "S is P" is true if and only if God decides it's true, not just in particular but even in the abstract.* (Van Til is rather inimical to the notion of "abstract possibility," at least conceived of as a freestanding "thing." Yet I think he could accept the saying that God is the concrete AND abstract cause of all truth.) However, by basing his argument for God on a prior notion of a final point of reference as such, he accidentally proves that God would not be that kind of final point of reference, as such, so that we might as well just jettison the notion of such reference-points and profess our faith in God some other, better way.

*[You might wonder where on Earth he says this. Albeit I have only read A Christian Theory of Knowledge and The Defense of the Faith, yet I do know a passage in the first of those listed books, in which Van Til defines his notion of truth in itself, based on a rejection of the principle behind the disquotational scheme.]

Transcendentalism a belief in the essential unity of all creation a theological system, Unitarinism, which replaced Calvinism. ©2018 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Contary to Unitarinism, The Bible states that the belief system only exists for those in John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.　an John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.　

 

[Ripheus27]

another word for a belief system is a worldview, and he is correct. Gordon Clark defined an ultimate point of reference as an "axiom", Alvin Plantinga defined the axiom as "properly basic".

But this is what I expressly deny. There aren't worldviews or perspectives or whatever. There are just sets of beliefs per person, or better, sets of thoughts. Some thoughts are had as an effect of other thoughts, so there are subsystems, but the notion that all thoughts get put together into a system grounded in a single axiom is false. (Besides which, saying so would do no good for Van Til's argument, since, "There is an ultimate axiom," would itself turn out to be the axiom in question, not, "God is the source of all true axioms," or suchlike.)

I do think your analysis is off, especially in trying to pin the disquotational scheme onto Van Til.

He didn't accept the DS, at least not on my gloss of his quotation of the RCC officer who complained about the member of another church on the grounds that, "He believes everything that we do for the entirely irrelevant reason that he thinks our beliefs are true," or however that passage goes (I wish I had either of my Van Til books still).

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

But this is what I expressly deny. There aren't worldviews or perspectives or whatever. There are just sets of beliefs per person, or better, sets of thoughts. Some thoughts are had as an effect of other thoughts, so there are subsystems, but the notion that all thoughts get put together into a system grounded in a single axiom is false. (Besides which, saying so would do no good for Van Til's argument, since, "There is an ultimate axiom," would itself turn out to be the axiom in question, not, "God is the source of all true axioms," or suchlike.)

But what do we call "sets of beliefs per person", or "sets of thought"? And what do we called shared sets of beliefs or shared sets of thought? Also, not all sets of belief or individuals thoughts are equally crucial or important or impact other beliefs and thoughts to the same extent or degree. I think the following is helpful to this point.

Important basic questions to a worldview:

Basic Questions

If a worldview can be expressed in propositions, what might they be? Essentially, they are our basic, rock-bottom answers to the following questions:

1. What is prime reality—the really real? To this we might answer: God, or the gods, or the material cosmos. Our answer here is the most fundamental. It sets the boundaries for the answers that can consistently be given to the other six questions. This will become clear as we move from worldview to worldview in the chapters that follow.
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?Here our answers point to whether we see the world as created or autonomous, as chaotic or orderly, as matter or spirit; or whether we emphasize our subjective, personal relationship to the world or its objectivity apart from us.
3. What is a human being? To this we might answer: a highly complex machine, a sleeping god, a person made in theimage of God, a naked ape.
4. What happens to a person at death? Here we might reply: personal extinction, or transformation to a higher state, or reincarnation, or departure to a shadowy existence on "the other side."
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all? Sample answers include the idea that we are made in the image of an all-knowing God or that consciousness and rationality developed under the contingencies of survival in a long process of evolution.
6. How do we know what is right and wrong? Again, perhaps we are made in the image of a God whose character is good, or right and wrong are determined by human choice alone or what feels good, or the notions simply developed under an impetus toward cultural or physical survival.
7. What is the meaning of human history? To this we might answer: to realize the purposes of God or the gods, to make a paradise on earth, to prepare a people for a life in community with a loving and holy God, and so forth.
8. What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview?

James Sire - source​

How we answer these question will have an impact on our network of thoughts. How the first question is answered, will effect how the other questions are answered. This of course does not mean that individuals are consistent to their network of thoughts, because individuals may be irrational and illogical on account of various reasons including human nature in Adam. In answer to the first question, the finite individual identifies with a shared belief about what is ultimate in the universe. It is not a creative question to reinvent the wheel. Answers may fall under one of these categories:


Theism

Monotheism

Polytheism

Deism

Pantheism

Panentheism

Atheism

Each of these are axioms to what is called a worldview. The answers which follow to the most important questions in life are effected or informed by the starting point in the network, the system of thoughts and thought patterns. Again, people are inconsistent, they are not always "faithful" to their starting point as already noted, however a false assumption of autonomy is at the root of it.

He didn't accept the DS, at least not on my gloss of his quotation of the RCC officer who complained about the member of another church on the grounds that, "He believes everything that we do for the entirely irrelevant reason that he thinks our beliefs are true," or however that passage goes (I wish I had either of my Van Til books still).

DS? If you can provide a title, chapter, and subsection, I could look it up, along with context. I have my doubts about the quote, and context is always helpful.

 

[Ripheus27]

DS? If you can provide a title, chapter, and subsection, I could look it up, along with context. I have my doubts about the quote, and context is always helpful.

DS = disquotational scheme.
I don't remember whether it was in A Christian Theory of Knowledge or Defense of the Faith. It was prefaced by some question like, "So does it turn out that the Catholic teaching subordinates autonomous reason to God?" and the answer included a phrase like, "He believes everything that we do, but for the entirely irrelevant reason that he thinks they are true." IIRC it was near the middle of the book. Beyond that I don't remember :/

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

DS = disquotational scheme.
I don't remember whether it was in A Christian Theory of Knowledge or Defense of the Faith. It was prefaced by some question like, "So does it turn out that the Catholic teaching subordinates autonomous reason to God?" and the answer included a phrase like, "He believes everything that we do, but for the entirely irrelevant reason that he thinks they are true." IIRC it was near the middle of the book. Beyond that I don't remember :/

I think that bit of context helps. What VT is driving at is the traditional RC methodology of rationalism, a (pure) rationalism which attempts to autonomously reason to theonomous truth. In other words, it is like arguing from pure relativism to a universal objective truth...it's just not gonna happen. I think his point of "he thinks they are true" without context etc. could be that while what he thinks is true, his basis for holding it true is assumed to come from independent human reasoning. One of the strong points of VT's method, and something one realizes after much time spent debating agnostic and atheists is, they cannot be reasoned into the faith. On the basis of human reasoning, assumed as a "neutral" "common ground" will not bring them to Christ, will not cause God the Holy Spirit to regenerate them into the faith, resurrecting their dead faith into a living faith. Human reasoning as the method of defending the faith, unless it is postulated as a Christian reasoning, meaning the Christian rationalist assumes God from the start, is assuming dead reasoning which cannot resurrect itself. True you may laugh afterwards, pat each other on the shoulders and have a beer, and feel good knowing you both consider the other to be gifted intellectually, it is not so offensive in that way, but looking unto God, is He pleased?

 

[FireDragon76]

But this is what I expressly deny. There aren't worldviews or perspectives or whatever. There are just sets of beliefs per person, or better, sets of thoughts. Some thoughts are had as an effect of other thoughts, so there are subsystems, but the notion that all thoughts get put together into a system grounded in a single axiom is false. (Besides which, saying so would do no good for Van Til's argument, since, "There is an ultimate axiom," would itself turn out to be the axiom in question, not, "God is the source of all true axioms," or suchlike.)
.

Reformed Neo-Calvinism simply doesn't stand up to postmodernism unscathed. It assumes an internally consistent worldview is inherently attractive, when the history of ideas shows us very often to be wary of totalizing narratives and transcendence.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Reformed Neo-Calvinism simply doesn't stand up to postmodernism unscathed. It assumes an internally consistent worldview is inherently attractive, when the history of ideas shows us very often to be wary of totalizing narratives and transcendence.

To be on a similar page, VT spent a great deal time and effort towards analyzing, critiquing, responding with criticism to Neo-Calvinists like Karl Barth. VT's method/approach/defense stands up to modernism and postmodernism. Some have improperly labeled it "fideism" a popular method with Lutherans (or so I have read in the past), because at the end of the day, it is about preaching the Gospel. In other words we do not want to destroy a worldview and just leave the person in misery, but in "casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God", removing obstacles with hope clearing the way for hearing of the Gospel. We know and agree without monergistic rengeration, the wheels spin going nowhere, but we have hope the Word of God will not return void, we have hope He will give growth to seeds planted.

 

[he-man]

But this is what I expressly deny. There aren't worldviews or perspectives or whatever. There are just sets of beliefs per person, or better, sets of thoughts. Some thoughts are had as an effect of other thoughts, so there are subsystems, but the notion that all thoughts get put together into a system grounded in a single axiom is false. (Besides which, saying so would do no good for Van Til's argument, since, "There is an ultimate axiom," would itself turn out to be the axiom in question, not, "God is the source of all true axioms," or suchlike.)
He didn't accept the DS, at least not on my gloss of his quotation of the RCC officer who complained about the member of another church on the grounds that, "He believes everything that we do for the entirely irrelevant reason that he thinks our beliefs are true," or however that passage goes (I wish I had either of my Van Til books still).

1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

G4100 πιστεύω From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

G4102 πίστις From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

 

[Ripheus27]

OK he-man, thanks for the dictionary lesson but...