I've been looking for resources to understand better the details of Van Til's pressuppositionalism and TAG. Most of the articles I've read make assertions on the impossibility of logic without God without providing the explanation on why it's the case, and what type of argument would positively show how God is the precondition of logic.
I found from http://www.vantil.info a link to a paper that I think provide the argument I was looking for. The title is An Analytical Presentation of Cornelius Van Tils Transcendental Argument from Predication. Here's the link https://hcommons.org/deposits/object...ONTENT/content
Here's the argument in page 21:
The paper makes it clear that the entire argument rests on premise 1. In page 25 to 28, the paper provides possible counter arguments for premise 1. But none of them questions the premise 1 itself.
My question:
1. Doesn't premise 1 already presuppose that it is possible to assign truth values to propositions (premise 2)? Without premise 2, then the argument wouldn't exist at all. Removing premise 2, we're left with only premise 1 with no further explanation on the precondition. Or am I missing something here?
2. Are there other resource you can recommend on this topic? Preferably articles, not books :)
I found from http://www.vantil.info a link to a paper that I think provide the argument I was looking for. The title is An Analytical Presentation of Cornelius Van Tils Transcendental Argument from Predication. Here's the link https://hcommons.org/deposits/object...ONTENT/content
Here's the argument in page 21:
[...] the discussion will now present the analytical formulation of Van Tils Transcendental Argument from Predication as: (1) That there is a possibility of assigning truth values to propositions presupposes that the Bible is entirely correct on all metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical teachings; (2) There is a possibility of assigning truth values to propositions; therefore, (3) The Bible is entirely correct on all metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical teachings.
My question:
1. Doesn't premise 1 already presuppose that it is possible to assign truth values to propositions (premise 2)? Without premise 2, then the argument wouldn't exist at all. Removing premise 2, we're left with only premise 1 with no further explanation on the precondition. Or am I missing something here?
2. Are there other resource you can recommend on this topic? Preferably articles, not books :)
Comment