Are all the arguments for existence of God circular?

Question

The only option, Van Til argued, is to adopt a theistic epistemology when
arguing for the existence of God. But that approach seems to be viciously
circular: presupposing God in our epistemology and then using that epistemology
to prove his existence.

Van Til answered the charge of circularity in these ways: (1) every system of
thought is circular when arguing its most fundamental presuppositions (e.g. a
rationalist can defend the authority of reason only by using reason). (2) The
Christian circle is the only one that renders reality intelligible on its own
terms.

In defense of (2), Van Til developed his own transcendental argument. He
maintained that Christian theism is the presupposition of all meaning, all
rational significance, all intelligible discourse. Even when someone argues
against Christian theism, Van Til said, he presupposes it, for he presupposes
that rational argument is possible and that truth can be conveyed through
language. The non-Christian, then, in Van Til's famous illustration, is like a
child sitting on her father's lap, slapping his face. She could not slap him
unless he supported her. Similarly, the non-Christian cannot carry out his
rebellion against God unless God makes that rebellion possible. Contradicting
God assumes an intelligible universe and therefore a theistic one.

But how can we defend the logical move from "intelligible universe" to "theistic
universe?" Van Til rarely articulated his reason for that move; he seemed to
think it was self-evident. But in effect, he reverted at this point to
apologetics of a more traditional type. Apologists have often noted that we
could not know the world at all unless it had been designed for knowledge. If
the world were nothing but matter, motion, time, and chance, we would have no
reason to think that the ideas in our heads told us anything about the real
world. Only if a person had designed the world to be known, and the human mind
to know it, could knowledge be possible. So Van Til at this point reverted to a
traditional teleological argument. He never admitted doing this, and he could
not have admitted it, because he thought the traditional teleological (like the
other traditional arguments) were autonomous and neutral.

If Van Til's transcendental approach is to succeed, however, it must abandon the
assumption that traditional arguments are necessarily autonomous and welcome the
assistance of such arguments to complete the transcendental argument. The
traditional arguments are in fact necessary to establish the existence of God as
a transcendental conclusion. And there is no reason to assume, as Van Til does,
that anyone who uses an argument from design or causality is presupposing a
nontheistic epistemology. On the contrary, people who use these traditional
arguments show precisely that without God the data of our experience suggesting
order and causality are unintelligible.

What, then, does transcendental argument add to the apologist's arsenal, beyond
the traditional arguments? First, it presents a goal for apologetics. The goal
of the apologist is not only to show that God exists, but also who he is: that
he is the source of all meaning and intelligibility in the universe.

Further, it suggests apologetic strategies somewhat neglected in the tradition.
Traditional apologists have often argued that causality (for example) implies
God. A transcendental argument makes a stronger claim: that causality
presupposes God. The difference between "implies" and "presupposes," according
to Peter Strawson and Bas Van Fraasen, is that in the latter case God's
existence is implied either by the assertion or the denial of causality. That
is, not only does the existence of causality imply the existence of God, but
even to deny (intelligibly, if it were possible) the existence of causality
would be to invoke a framework of meaning that presupposes God's existence. Don
Collett argues that the Strawson-Van Fraasen kind of presupposition is identical
with Van Til's. So if creation presupposes God, even the denial of creation
presupposes him, and the atheist is like the little girl slapping her father
while sitting on his lap.

The Bible does make this kind of radical claim, that creation not only implies,
but presupposes God. For God is the creator of all, and therefore the source of
all meaning, order, and intelligibility. It is in Christ that all things hold
together (Col. 1:17). So without him everything falls apart; nothing makes
sense. Thus Scripture teaches that unbelief is foolish (Psm. 14:1, 1 Cor. 1:20).

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_art…

Answer 1

No, every system of thought is not circular at base. Van Til is simply wrong. He presumes we are obliged to use a foundationalist epistemology, which is not the case.

Answer 2

i do no longer. however the great Shrimp Himself thinks that's all very humorous. i might tell the philosophy professor (by potential of ways philosophy replaced into certainly one of my maximum enjoyed matters, I even have sooooo plenty admire for my philosophy prof) besides i might tell the Prof that i comprehend God. Then we would communicate, and that i might in all probability instruct him the needed and sufficient concern for all truths, and then, basically in step with danger, i might talk with the prof's strategies promptly: All he might would desire to do is think of and that i might answer him promptly interior the cadence of a common communique -- to illustrate that minds connect. Then, i might smirk and ask him, "So? What do you think of? Is there a God?" He might in all probability say, "sure." If he suggested, "No." that must be ok too. yet whilst he sneered and mocked the exercising as a sensible trick, i might go away the room. Then Gabriel and Michael might have a communicate with the prof.

Answer 3

No ... the dinner plate behind the head of your avatar is circular.



Your wall of text was so pointless. Chill out.