A Closer Look at TAG

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Hey, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. My name is Eli Ayala and in today's episode, we're going to be tackling some important and I'm going to have to admit beforehand a little bit more heady questions um surrounding the transcendental argument for the existence of God. Um we're going to be dealing with issues relating to the impossibility of the contrary. So, if you're familiar with transcendental arguments and how we've talked about um that kind of argument for God's existence on this channel, um you'll often hear um hear us say things like the Christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary. We're going to talk a little bit about that.

[00:00:32]And we're going to be talking about issues relating to what we call the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Okay? In other words, um for those of you who don't know what that is, what must be true first in order for something to even make sense.

[00:00:46]Okay? Uh so that's basically that's my kind of a roundabout simple way of defining what's what we know what what we call the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. So many people who are familiar with this channel you'll know that I um defend the transcendental argument for the existence of God. I try to defend the idea that um that the Christian God exists by the impossibility of the contrary. God is uh the one who must exist in order for um anything else to be possible. Um he must exist. His word must be true. um in order for knowledge to be the case, logic to be the case, science, and all the rest. I'm not going to rehearse all of that here, but we're going to be dealing with some more intricate issues relating to that. So, that's what we're going to be talking about. If that's something that interests you, then you are uh at the right uh at the right place. Okay. Well, before I jump into that though, if this is your first time visiting Revealed Apologetics, please uh show some support by liking the video, share it if you think other people might be interested in this kind of topic. I know that there is a big difference between kind of like apologetics like how to answer specific common objections. So, we've done some stuff like that before that I I guess some people might see as more practical. Um but um in this channel we try to do that and also we try to deal with some of the philosophical issues relating to presuppositionalism as a methodology and we talk about philosophy, epistemology and all the rest. So if you like that kind of stuff um we try to strike a balance uh in the middle there. So, I do apologize. This uh today's episode is not for those who are just dipping their toes, so to speak, into apologetics. Um but um I'm assuming that a lot of people have a lot of background knowledge as to the issues surrounding this particular argument for the existence of God. And so, unfortunately, if you're looking for kind of like a straightforward, hey, I want to learn presuppositional apologetics, you've come to the right place. You just might not have come to the right video, if that makes sense.

[00:02:37]Okay. All right. So, with that out of the way, here are the key issues that I'm going to be working through uh in this video. Point one, we're going to be addressing the question, how do we justify the claim that the contrary of Christianity is impossible? In other words, does the does the proposition God does not exist? Is that are we saying that that's a logical contradiction? All right. Um, secondly, if the phrase God does not exist is not logically contradictory, does it make it at least logically possible and therefore undercutting our claim that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary? And then thirdly, do we need an exhaustive list of what we call the necessary preconditions of intelligibility? In other words, what must be true in order for human experience to be intelligible, to be made sense of? So we we talk about the necessary preconditions being like logic, truth, you know, um uniformity of nature, these sorts of things. Does the the defender of the transcendental argument need to provide an exhaustive list of what those things are in order for the argument, the tag argument to get off the ground? So those are the topics that we're going to be covering today. And hopefully this will be useful. Um, specifically if I were to identify the group of people that this video would be helpful for is is probably those those online Christian apologists who maybe um have interactions on like Discord or Clubhouse or what I call the underbelly of the apologetic world where you know you have these kind of um you know underground debates and and things like that. Um I want this video to be a resource for those guys who are working in the trenches. And then of course if you don't do apologetics in that context but you're into some of these more um specific questions that get into some of the more det some some more details then um obviously this is going to be useful to you. So as you can probably tell this is going to be a little bit more philosophical than normal a bit more technical but these kinds of questions uh come up all the time especially when engaging critics of presuppositional apologetics. Dr. Greg Bonson was a renowned Christian apologist, philosopher, and seminary professor, and his life's work is now at your fingertips with Bonsson. Bonsenu aims to bring seminary level education to every Christian, anytime, anywhere, absolutely free. Gain access to over 140 courses covering theology, apologetics, esquetology, and law, featuring sermons, seminary lectures, and more from the legendary Dr. Greg Bonson. Now, if you sign up today at apologiastudios.com and join over 13,000 users already benefiting from this incredible resource, you will not regret it. And soon they're expanding with Bonsson Plus and Bonsenu Live, bringing fresh supplemental learning and real time engagement. Again, go to apologia studios.com and start your journey today.

[00:05:25]Um, by the time I'm recording this video, my first video response to the Christian apologist, evidentialist, and critic of presuppositionalism, David Palman, that my first response would probably have come out by by then. Um, so many of you might be uh might be aware that I'm interacting with objections that he brings up against presuppositionalism and transcendental argumentation, but this episode is going to be related to things that were brought up there. But I want to be very clear, this particular video is not a direct response to David. Um, and it's not going to be included in in what I've mentioned previously that there is this ongoing playlist where my responses to David will be um listed along with David's case against presuppositionalism and transcendental argumentation. So, this topic is related, but it's not a direct response to him. um but rather um what I want to do here is take a step back and give a more expanded careful explanation as to how I would answer those specific questions that David does bring up. Um but that's because the topic is interesting and I know people are wondering about it. So this is not part of my case against David, although it's related. Um but I will intentionally leave this out of the playlist and include it just in the regular stream of videos that I have.

[00:06:36]All right. So think of think of this episode as a deeper dive. um kind of an opportunity to slow down a bit and clarify some key distinctions relevant to the questions that I've listed at the beginning and then hopefully make these issues at least a little bit more accessible and more precise for those who are interested. All right. Okay. All of that out of the way, let's kind of jump into our main uh discussion for today. All right. So, the first issue that we're going to be addressing is is the question, how do we justify the claim that the contrary of Christianity is impossible? and more specifically does that require the proposition or the statement God does not exist to be formally logically contradictory all right and to simply answer that question straightforwardly I think the answer is no right not if we're understanding say like someone like Vanill correctly at least as I as I understand Vanill and um and again I'm not the end- all beall on Vanill um so I'm just sharing my my thoughts here but the issue here is that people often assume that for the contrary of Christianity to be impossible. The statement God does not exist would have to function like a formal contradiction in the abstract.

[00:07:42]Something like a a square circle or a married bachelor or something like that.

[00:07:46]But again, as as I understand Van Hill, Vanill is is not framing the issue in that way as I understand him. Van Hill is not arguing that the denial of God must be a contradiction and this is key in some neutral, contextless, abstract, logical space. Okay? Rather, I think he's arguing that the denial of God is a selfdefeating itself, it's a self-defeating perspective when it's worked out within the actual operation of a worldview. All right, remember Vantel is dealing with specific systems of thought, not individual philosophical problems, but rather um he's challenging whether a specific philosophical worldview system can answer um you know issues of uh providing a justification for logic, induction, those preconditions. Okay. And I think that distinction is really important.

[00:08:34]Vansel's point is not merely about kind of those isolated propositions taken one piece at a time. He's not a peacemeal apologist if I can use that language.

[00:08:43]His point is about whether a worldview can supply the preconditions of its own intelligibility. So when the unbeliever says u the proposition God does not exist, the presuppositionalist is not required to respond by saying hey you know that sentence there is formally contradictory on the face of it. Okay?

[00:09:01]That's not what we're saying. Okay, the presuppositionalist is going to ask those deeper questions, right? Those foundational questions. Can the person making that denial, okay? God does not exist. They're denying the existence of God. Account for the meaningfulness of predication, okay, predicating, you know, um when we predicate, we we predicate redness to a barn. The barn is red. Okay, this is like basic linguistic stuff. Um which requires intelligible experience. So, can the the the God denier provide a rational justification for predication, logic, knowledge, universal categories? And I understand that there are some people who reject universal. So, that's going to play into whether a worldview that rejects universal categories and whether they can account for those things as well.

[00:09:45]Um, can they account for or um provide a rational justification for rational discourse itself while also denying the Christian God? And of course that's where we do like the internal critique and all the rest. So Van Hill's answer to that question is is no. The anti-theistic position Van Hill would argue cannot make sense of those things on its own assumptions and therefore it's going to collapse into self-contradiction when you press in terms of the details of the system. And um that's the sense in which the contrary of Christianity is impossible.

[00:10:15]So, it's important to kind of understand what we mean by um the contrary to Christianity is impossible because people might ask um and David asked this and and often skeptics might ask when we say that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary, what modal scope are you invoking when you say that the contrary, pardon the contrary of Christianity is impossible? And so, modality [snorts] deals with issues of possibility and impossibility in all the rest. So, I'm going to address that specifically later on, but just to kind of throw that out there. Um, these are the issues that typically come up. And so, um, Cornelius Vanill, I think, explicitly grounds, um, even our understanding, and this is important. He he grounds our understanding of contradiction in God himself. Okay. Van Hill says in um survey of epistemology page 206 he says quote only that is uh only that is self-contradictory which is contradictory to the conception of the absolute self-consciousness of God.

[00:11:15]Okay, now that's very important. Van Hill is not treating, this is so important. Van Hill is not treating the law of contradiction, that second law of logic, as some neutral abstract principle that floats above God determining whether it's possible or impossible for God to exist. Rather for Van Hill and I would argue for from the consistent Christian worldview perspective. Okay. A contradiction itself is understood in relation to God's own nature as the absolute self-conscious being. Those are the words of of Van Hill there. So when the unbeliever denies God while continuing to do things like reason engage in argumentation uh when they make universal claims that unbeliever is operating in a way that depends upon the foundation that he's rejecting argues vanill and argues presuppositionalist in general. So when we say that the contrary of Christianity is impossible, we're not saying that every anti-Christian statement, okay, is formally contradictory in that narrow abstract sense. What we are saying is that a worldview that denies the Christian God cannot be made coherent on its own terms. It can't um account and when I say account I keep using that language but provide a rational justification for the very conditions that make things like rational thought, logic, knowledge and all the rest possible. Okay. So remember the the the the point that Vanill is allergic to is allowing for neutral categories with respect to anything. When we say that neutrality is a myth, we literally mean that there is no even logic itself is not neutral because logic itself is understood from within a particular worldview framework. All right. Um so when we talk about the law of non-contradiction that that principle that law is not an impersonal abstraction that lords over God from the Christian perspective there is nothing higher than God and therefore God is going to be the determiner of what's possible and impossible. Not this impersonal abstract principle. Okay.

[00:13:19]Now, um Van Hill um argues very um I wouldn't say clearly because it is hard to extract what Van Hill is saying in some cases, but um um the all-encompassing necessity of the triune God is made clear and and strongly in Van Hill's writing that he thinks that even to predicate, even to utter the barn is red requires a reality that is grounded in God himself. Van Hill says in a series of articles that he published um I don't know if these were unpublished articles or not but I think uh they were put together by Vanill and a gentleman by the name of Eric Sigward whom I don't know who this person is but this is a quote from a collection of articles that Vanill contributed to.

[00:14:00]Vanill says quote all human predication is intelligible only on the presupposition of the truth of what the Bible teaches about God man and the universe. Okay. So the problem with the statement that we mentioned before, the statement God does not exist, is not merely that it fails some like abstract test of formal contradiction or formal logic. The problem we would argue is deeper than that, right? The claim actually undermines the very preconditions required to make it meaningful in the first place. So when you say for example, God does not exist, there are a whole host of preconditions that are needed to even make that sentence intelligible. Can the unbelieving worldview provide a rational justification for the preconditions that make sense of the statement God does not exist? And we would argue that they they can't. Okay? Now, of course, the unbeliever might argue that they can. Or they might argue they can't, but it doesn't matter. Neither can we. So there are a whole bunch of different responses, but I think that we can for reasons that of course I've laid out, you know, time and time again on this channel and tried to illustrate in various context whether it's uh whether I'm speaking at a conference or even uh in my debate with Dan Barker, I tried to uh demonstrate this point as best I could. So um so no Van Hill does not require the phrase God does not exist to be a formal contradiction in kind of a new this is key a neutral logical space because the law of non-contradiction is not a neutral category. If you think it is, then you're already um going against the position that it's not. Which means the attempt to be neutral is actually an expression of non-neutrality because to say that neutrality is the case with respect to logic, you are implicitly assuming um the opposite of the position that says neutrality is impossible. So you can't escape um you know having a position in regards to this. So so Vantel doesn't require that that statement God does not exist is kind of like in a neutral sense a contradiction.

[00:15:53]His argument is stronger than that.

[00:15:54]Right? What he would argue is that the denial of God is transcendentally impossible because it destroys the conditions necessary for intelligibility itself. That's what Vantel is arguing.

[00:16:04]And that's why the contrary of Christianity is impossible, right? Not because the sentence God does not exist or Christianity is false or logic can exist without God can't be uttered. Of course, the unbeliever can utter the sentences, but because it can it we argue that it cannot be made coherent apart from the God that it those statements seek to deny. And that's why we will challenge the system out of which the statement is being uttered. We challenge the systems ability to rationally ground the coherence of the statement itself. All right. Okay. Now, saying all this uh you know, simply stating all this doesn't make it true.

[00:16:43]Doesn't make Christianity true.

[00:16:45]Obviously, there's argumentation that's going to that that follows from that, you know, but before anyone kind of jumps into the comments and says, "Well, you're just kind of asserting all that."

[00:16:52]Okay. Again, when someone says the statement does not exist is not contradictory, what we it's important that we need to recognize that the concept of contradiction itself is not some neutral, impersonal, abstract principle on the Christian worldview.

[00:17:08]Now, now it might be treated that way within certain kind of non-Christian frameworks, but again, that simply highlights the fact that we're operating with different conceptions of what a contradiction even is. Okay? So a lot of people will will appeal to logic as though it's kind of this neutral category. The presuppositionalist is going to come along and say, "Well, wait a minute. There are no neutral categories. Not even logical principles." Okay? In other words, you might you might hear in popular parliament, "Logic belongs to God." Now, we're not saying that the unbeliever can't use logic. In fact, he does. But the unbeliever's use of logic is giving evidence of his reliance upon God, we would argue. Okay. Um so the question we're going to press then is on your worldview, Mr. or unbeliever, can you account for the principle of non-contradiction itself? Can you provide a rational justification for it on your own terms? And many people attempt to do that. And of course, those attempts, I would argue, fail. Now, we're not going to survey all of the attempts, but you would imagine there are wide varieties of reasons. It's very interesting. Someone will say, "Well, obviously I can account for logic easy.

[00:18:07]It's simple. Logic is clearly," and then they'll tell me what logic clearly is.

[00:18:11]And of course, they'll give a controversial account of what they think logic is. And when you press that account, um, you will find inconsistencies and problems along the way. Um, and of course, I use Dan Barker as the example because I just debated him. He will say, well, clearly logic is just a function of the brain. That's that's just what it is. It doesn't make sense to talk about logic in the abstract. Well, not everyone holds to Dan's view, right? There are other views of logic as well. So, how do you differentiate your view as being true from someone else's? Okay. And like fashion, how do I, as a Christian, differentiate my view as being true from other people? And that's where the transcendental argument comes in. All right. Now, my point here in this video is not to defend the transcendental argument because I have done that at nauseium in other videos, but these are the sorts of things that I would bring out in trying to address some of these issues. Okay. Now, there isn't just one non-Christian answer to that question of how you make sensitive logic or provide a rational justification. Okay. Some will say that, you know, contradictions can in some sense be true. There are people who hold to that. Okay. Others will um kind of define contradiction, you know, they'll redefine what contradiction is to be consistent with the system they're operating in. Others can treat logic as kind of a human convention. People say, "Oh, it's just derived in human minds. We made it up um you know, for various reasons for communication, all the rest." Um some might say it's grounded in language, there are brain states, there are social agreements, all the rest. Um people will disagree on their account. So when someone says, and this is my advice to Christians, someone says, well, logic is obviously fill in the blank um because you are operating Mr. presuppositionalist on the biblical assumption I would argue and the philosophically necessary assumption that there is no neutrality. Okay. Um you're going to point out that appeals to logic, um modality, um principles of contradiction and all the rest are themselves not neutral. They're going to be governed and defined and understood within the context of someone's worldview. And from the Christian perspective, you want to understand those things in a consistently Christian um way. Namely, that logic is not a principle that exists above God, but rather is a reflection of God. God is metaphysically primary and therefore something like logic um reflects his nature and we operate and think his thoughts after him according to those principles. All right? So when someone appeals to kind of contradiction as though it were neutral, okay, universally agreed upon, okay, what they're actually doing is importing assumptions from within their own system, okay? When they disconnected with God, their understanding of contradiction, their understanding of possibility, impossibility is worldview dependent. Right? That's what we have to understand. Someone says what's possible or impossible, what's contradictory, all of those are dependent upon a particular framework. It's shaped by their underlying philosophical commitments.

[00:20:53]Okay? And the same is true for the Christian, right? Our understanding of contradiction, our understanding of possibility, impossibility, um these things are not kind of impersonal abstractions out there that govern reality for us. These things are grounded in the nature of God himself.

[00:21:09]God as the absolute, as Vanill says, um and I would argue the Bible teaches God as absolute self-consistent self-conscious being. Now, notice what this does and what it does not do. Okay?

[00:21:21]When we say this, it does not mean that because two people have different starting points, therefore we can't adjudicate between them. It does it it does not collapse uh as what some people have argued our view our view of foundations, worldviews, authority and all the rest. It doesn't collapse into kind of relativism or skepticism which we're often accused of. You know, if presuppositionalism is true, it leads to global skepticism. If presuppositionalism is true, you just got religious postmodernism where you can't know what the truth is. No. Okay.

[00:21:52]What it does mean is that at the most fundamental level, there's going to be a kind of circularity at our foundation.

[00:21:58]We have our self-attesting authorities.

[00:22:00]Okay. Whether it's, you know, a Christian foundation or some other foundation, okay? Um, you can't avoid that. Now, I'm not talking about the the uh generic, facious, vicious, logical circularity like the Bible is true because the Bible's true. Okay? atheist, stop embarrassing yourself when you critique the presuppositionalists and you think that's what we're saying or not. Okay? And and the distinction between um vicious circularity and virtuous circularity is not a madeup distinction by presuppositionalists.

[00:22:30]Okay? We would make a distinction between say logical circularity and epistemic circularity and and all the rest. Those are those are distinctions that philosophers can acknowledge. Now there are people who don't think that the distinctions are relevant, but again those that's that's an argument. Those are things that we have to argue about.

[00:22:46]Okay. Um we would appeal to transcendental or presuppositional circularity. We would argue that every ultimate authority must in some sense be self attesting at that foundational level. Okay. Now it does not follow from that therefore that all circularities are equally valid or equally defensible.

[00:23:06]Okay. So if someone says, okay, and if I can quote, I hear it's all the time. If you start with the Christian God and you um affirm his authority, that's dumb because if your transcendental argument is correct, we could we could uh replace the transcendental premise with the God of Islam. Okay? I hear this all the time. The problem with the transcendental argument, Eli, is that a Muslim could use it. No, no, no. That's not a problem of the transcendental argument. A Muslim can try to use a transcendental argument. The question is, can the worldview you replace with the Christian one actually pay the bills on the transcendental claim inherent in the argument? And that I would argue no.

[00:23:51]The Muslim has his circle, the Christian has his circle. Not all circles are equal. Okay. Um some circles, non-Christian ones will implode on themselves, okay, upon internal critique. All right?

[00:24:04]So um yes we all start with circular foundations but again which worldview can account for the preconditions of intelligibility not all circles can do that and the transcendental argument tries to argue only the Christian worldview can do that which worldview can make sensitive logic which worldview can make sensitive knowledge rational inference moral normativity these sorts of the uniformity of nature uh you know we don't just assume them can you actually justify them transcendentally okay that's the that's the issue now this is where we would argue that the unbelieving worldview is going to fail And hopefully we've illustrated that to um some degree on this channel.

[00:24:37]Obviously there's going to always be push back. Um you critique atheism, someone's going to say, "Well, that's not my version of atheism or this." Yes, I understand there's diversity of views and all the rest, but hopefully we um on this channel have contributed to kind of give an example of what these kind of critiques would look like. Granted, it's always going to depend on who you're you're speaking with. So, um the issue is not simply whether someone can assert that something is not contradictory.

[00:25:00]Getting back to like that statement uh does god does not exist. The issue is whether their entire worldview system can sustain the very standards that they are appealing to those preconditions and and it's that level. It's at that level which I think presuppositionally transcendentally that's where the debate has to take place. It is system against system. Remember what Vantel uh said when he defined um apologetics. He said that apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life over against the non-Christian philosophy of life. And so Van Hill specifically defines apologetics in such a way that he acknowledges that the dispute between the believer and unbeliever is not a dispute of mere disagreement over a particular fact, but rather it's a disagreement over an entire system of thought, an entire system under which a particular fact would be interpreted and understood in the first place. Okay, facts don't just um convey their meaning just by looking at them. They require an interpretive framework through which one understands and interprets the fact in question. And so Van Hill is saying we need to vindicate the Christian philosophy of fact over against the non-Christian philosophy of fact. We need to vindicate the Christian philosophy of life over against the non-Christian philosophy of life. Okay.

[00:26:14]So now at this point someone someone might argue and object wait a minute the only way to justify a belief or to justify a proposition is by appealing to something independent and non-ircular.

[00:26:31]Okay but again that claim itself needs to be examined. Why? Well, be think about this. The demand for independent non-ircular justification already assumes something very specific. Okay?

[00:26:46]It assumes that there is a neutral standpoint from which all claims can be evaluated. And that is precisely the point that is under dispute. The presuppositionalist is going to reject that because of their commitment to the myth of neutrality. biblically required and philosophically impossible.

[00:27:06]Neutrality is not possible for reasons that we've laid out a little bit in this video here and elsewhere. So from a presuppositional perspective, there's no such thing as neutrality. So if someone insists that just this is important, if they insist that justification needs to be non-ircular and independent, what they're really doing is presupposing a framework that excludes the very position they're trying to critique.

[00:27:29]Okay? namely the position that says neutrality is impossible. Okay. They're presupposing a framework that excludes that. Okay. Um and again that's to beg the question in the other direction which ironically is the very thing that um the presuppositionalist is being accused of. Okay. In other words, the demand for neutrality is not itself neutral. It's theoretically loaded.

[00:27:54]Thank you. Think about that. Okay. It's theoretically loaded to demand neutrality because neutrality itself is not neutral. Okay, it is already bias against the view that says neutrality is impossible. So it takes a stand against any worldview that denies neutrality which means that in the very attempt to be neutral, one has already taken sides.

[00:28:16]Okay. So the irony in all of that is this. The person who insists on neutrality is in fact being non-neutral because they're opposing the view that neutrality is impossible. You get that?

[00:28:28]Okay? And this is why at the most fundamental level we speak of the inevitability of a certain kind of circularity. Okay? Not a vicious facellious circularity where someone simply assumes what they're trying to prove in a trivial way, but a transcendental or ultimate circularity where one's final authority is necessarily self-attesting. And every worldview has an ultimate standard. Even the guy who says, "I don't have an ultimate standard. I don't even know what that is." Even they have an ultimate standard. And that ultimate standard cannot be justified by appealing to something higher without ceasing to be ultimate. Okay. So now of course we still reject surface level circular reasoning the kind that is logically facious in everyday kind of argumentation. I would affirm that. I would reject that. But when we're dealing with ultimate commitments, our most basic starting points, you know, those issues of like fundamental significance, some form of circularity, we would argue, is unavoidable because neutrality is impossible. Okay? So, we're not saying, you know, is your position circular or not? The real question is, is your circle virtuous or vicious? Okay. Are you committing kind of a a a vicious circularity where your circularity undercuts your entire foundation or are you appealing to a self-attesting authority that you take on its own authority and does that authority undercut your position? Okay.

[00:29:52]Okay. And that brings us right back to the transcendental issue, the transcendental argument, because its purpose, the transcendental argument's purpose is not to avoid circularity altogether, because we would say it's it's necessary, but rather to demonstrate that only the Christian worldview provides the kind of foundation where that circularity is not destructive, but necessary and coherent.

[00:30:13]Because why? We argue that the Christian worldview provides the necessary precondition for knowledge and intelligible experience. Okay? And and how do we know this? Well, we give the Christian metaphysical and epistemological and ethical position and show that our worldview actually does provide those things that knowledge and intelligible experience require, those preconditions that we often refer to.

[00:30:35]All right. Okay. So, hopefully that made sense and I wish I had a cup of water, but unfortunately I don't. And my only access to water is all the way downstairs. I'm upstairs in my house.

[00:30:46]So, we're just going to have to deal with continuing this video with a dry throat. I am so sorry. All right.

[00:30:53][snorts] Okay. So, question number two that we're going to address, okay, that's related to the first the first one. Okay. If the phrase God does not exist is not logically contradictory, does that make it logically possible?

[00:31:09]And if so, does that undercut the transcendental argument? Okay. So, someone might say, all right, maybe the statement God does not exist. Okay, is not formally contradictory. But if it's not contradictory, someone will argue then it must be logically possible. And if it's logically possible, then the contrary of Christianity is not impossible. So doesn't that undermine the transcendental argument. I hope that that is a good attempt at a steelman of the the sorts of people who ask that kind of question. Okay. Now, I think the question rests on a very important assumption and we need to challenge that assumption. And this is what the beauty of presuppositional uh reasoning is that we we tend to correctly identify or if we don't correctly identify we try to correctly identify the foundational issue upon which the objection itself is issuing forth from. Okay. So I would I would argue that the the the objection assumes that logical possibility can be determined in a neutral abstract independent of God sort of way. In other words, it assumes, okay, that we can step back into some kind of neutral logical space and then evaluate what is possible or impossible without reference to any ultimate metaphysical foundation.

[00:32:29]But again, to teach you here, guys, right? From a presuppositional standpoint, that's precisely what we deny. And so, the real issue here is not simply whether a proposition is formally non-contradictory. The real issue is going to be this. This is so important.

[00:32:45]And Vantel speaks about this all over his writings. Okay. And this is where ne neutral categories are are trying to get seeped into the discussion. Okay. What determines the very standards of possibility and impossibility in the first place? Okay. Vanil addresses this directly. He explains that the disagreement between the believer and the unbeliever is not merely about isolated propositions but about the foundation. Check this out. the foundation of possibility itself. As he himself um says in page on page 38 of an introduction to systematic theology, Vansel says, quote, "The question is whether possibility is independent of God or dependent upon God." The theist says that possibility is what it is because of God. The non-theist says that God is what he is because of possibility. All right? And again, again, I think that's the heart of the issue. So when someone says, you know, it's logically possible that God doesn't exist, they're not making a neutral observation at that point, right?

[00:33:46]They're operating within a framework, watch this, where possibility itself is treated as something independent of God and then evaluating God in light of that standard. Okay? But from a Christian perspective, that gets things backwards.

[00:34:02]Okay? Possibility for the Christian, this is so important, guys. Possibility for the Christian is not prior to God.

[00:34:10]Okay? God is prior to possibility. Now, I'm not talking about like chronological priority and all the rest. I don't want to get uh off topic, but you get what I'm saying. Possibility is not prior to God. It's not above God. And God uh but rather we would say that God is prior to possibility. Okay? What is possible or impossible is determined by the nature of God and his decree. So that the unbeliever's appeal to logical possibility is already functioning within a framework that the Christian rejects. Hence neutrality is a myth. Right? Even when talking about possibility and impossibility, those characters uh those character um not the characters, those principles are understood within a framework. Okay? And this is why the transcendental argument doesn't proceed by granting that framework and then trying to win the argument within that framework that we're supposed to be rejecting because it's it's contrary to the Christian framework. All right. And so again, is this proposition logically possible in abstraction? That's not what we're asking. rather which worldview can account or what I mean by accounting provide a rational justification for logic possibility and impossibility themselves and rational discourse altogether and this is where vanill presses the point even further and he emphasizes that the unbeliever's very ability to raise objections presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview as he says in uh on page 10 of survey of Christian epistemology vanill writes quote when you tell your opponent that unless there were an absolute God, their own questions and doubts would have no meaning at all. There is no argument in return. Okay. Now, the unbeliever wants to say that it's possible that God doesn't exist. But in order to make that claim, he needs to he needs to rely on the laws of logic, meaningful predication, rational inference, all of which on Van Hill's view only make sense within the Christian framework. Now, of course, if the unbeliever thinks they can make sense out of those things, then right, name that tune, right?

[00:36:12]Demonstrate it. Okay? Now, Vantel makes his point even more explicit um um with respect to his epistemological framework. He says um in that series of articles with Eric uh Sigward, I hope I'm pronouncing his name right. He says, quote, "All human predication is intelligible only on the presupposition of the truth of what the Bible teaches about God, man, the universe, and all the rest." Okay, so the transcendental argument is not undermined by the claim of quote unquote logical possibility because that claim itself is is not neutral. As we pointed out, it presupposes a particular understanding of logic and possibility that's already in dispute. Right? So, we don't want to grant the unbeliever's view of what's possible or impossible because that's actually a very important point as to why we disagree. We're not going to grant um their ability to define those categories or at least they think they can define those categories and provide a rational justification that we're going to ask them to do so. And the Christian is going to also have to be ready to do so when asked by the unbeliever. So I don't want to give the impression that the way we interact with um the unbeliever is say hey you need to provide a justification for your view and I don't have to do anything. No.

[00:37:20]Okay. I would say that um we should be willing as Christians to get into the details but not at the uh not by excluding the unbelievers um responsibility for getting into the details as well. Right? When they say we all we just all have the burden of proof again burden of proof is a principle. um which worldview grounds that principle?

[00:37:40]Okay. Um is the burden of proof understood as a neutral category? If so, then it's implicitly not neutral against the Christian position. If it is worldview dependent, then why are we granting the unbelievers worldview uh context under which burden of proof is understood? You see, I don't have a problem justifying the burden of proof principle, but I'm not going to talk about the burden of proof principle as though it's independent of worldview commitment. So even to appeal to burden of proof and any other logical principle is going to implicitly express the taking of sides in terms of a person's worldview. All right. So very very very very important. So the claim okay the so I would say no that the claim that uh the phrase God does not exist is logically possible does not undercut the transcendental argument. Okay. What it does, I think it actually reveals the very point the argument is making, namely the point that the unbeliever is relying on borrowed capital. They're using categories that only make sense within the Christian worldview, the very worldview he's trying to deny. Now, saying that doesn't prove it. You need to kind of flesh that out and show that on their own view, they can't justify those principles. On your view, they are justif uh those principles are justified. And so, the unbeliever is actually taking from your worldview even while arguing against it. that's wrapped up in the whole Van Hill line of you know a child sitting on the father's lap um to slap the father in the face and the only reason why the child is able to reach the father's face is because the child is sitting on the father's lap okay um so again vantel had all sorts of little uh diddies like that and all the rest okay so if you'll remember a moment ago what I just I just said on the Christian view um possibility is not prior to God is prior to possibility that is just a roundabout way of saying God is not governed by an impersonal abstract notion of possibility rather God is the one his nature is decree sets the standard of possibility and uh and impossibility okay and again don't get off topic you more philosophically minded people prior here I'm not talking about chronologically logical pri I'm just making a general statement to illustrate the point that I was getting at okay now let's turn all this around what happens if that's not the case what happens if on a non-Christian view, possibility is treated as more fundamental than God, you know, as some kind of abstract impersonal principle.

[00:39:57]Okay. And well, here here's where things get interesting, I think, because if possibility is ultimate, okay? If possibility is not grounded in God's nature or his decree, then we need to ask these questions. Okay? Um, and these aren't word salad questions. They are questions that force the unbeliever to give a rational justification for the things they're taking for granted. What determines the limits of possibility?

[00:40:21]Why is one thing possible and another thing impossible on their view? Okay.

[00:40:25]And this is where I think issues emerge.

[00:40:27]If possibility is just a kind of abstract impersonal kind of backdrop, something like a um a brute fact, then there's no deeper explanation for why certain things fall within the realm of possibility and others don't. The distinction begins to look, again, here's this thing that creeps up everywhere. It begins to look arbitrary.

[00:40:46]Now, of course, many non-Christian systems will try to impose some kind of structure here, right? They might appeal to logical consistency or, you know, conceptual coherence or the nature of reality as as they understand it. But again, the question is going to be um is going to be repeated, right? What grounds those specific constraints, right? Why should logical consistency, for example, have the authority that it does? Why should contradictions be excluded? And on what basis? These are fundamental questions. And if those standards aren't grounded in the nature of a self-consistent absolute personal god that we as we would argue, then they risk uh becoming brute facts, unexplained features of reality, which again is throwing a a monkey wrench into the system. Okay? So once you go that route, you really haven't solved the problem, right? If you're going to appeal to brute factuality, just pushing things back because now possibility itself becomes something like an ultimate given, something that simply just is without any deeper explanation.

[00:41:42]And at that point, the distinction between possibility and impossibility is no longer anchored in anything ultimate or necessary. It becomes at best um a stipulation within a system rather than something that is metaphysically grounded. In other words, the unbeliever wants to say certain things are possible and certain things are not. But if possibilities not grounded in God, then the question the question we're going to say is why are those why those specific boundaries and not others? you if you want to appeal to something as a brute fact, then I'm just going to turn around and just assert, you know, well, if if that's just the way things are, then God exists. That's just the way things are, and you don't move the ball forward. And no, just in case anyone uh wants to write this in the comments, well, isn't God a brute fact in your system?

[00:42:23]Actually, no, he's not. I have a whole video explaining why he's not. Um, he's not a brute fact because a brute fact is something that is is without a fact without internal external explanation.

[00:42:34]Um, and God does not have an external explanation. His existence is not explained by something outside of himself, but rather God exists out of a necessity of his own nature. Okay? So there is an explanation for for God.

[00:42:44]Okay? So he's not a brute fact in that bare sense. So um there's no special pleading on here, but I do I do unpack that and anticipate objections and all the rest in another video. All right.

[00:42:54]All right. So once again, I really wish I had water. Okay. So I'm going to take a quick break right here. I'm not going to leave the camera, but because I'm explaining all these things and talking for so long, you guys can do me a solid and take a moment to like this video. If you haven't liked this video yet, what are you waiting for? If you don't like this video, like the video because at least I'm giving you something to think about and you disagree with. Okay.

[00:43:17][laughter] Um, so like, share, subscribe if this is your first time. If if you're saying, "Hey, I don't agree with you, but this is somewhat interesting." That's helpful, too, right? Um, I understand that not everyone is going to agree with everything that I say and that's perfectly uh fine. Um, now I do I do ask though that people behave in the comments though. Um, if you do have a question for me that you'd like me to address, [snorts] pardon. Um, I'd be happy to do so. Uh, just make sure you ask nicely and respectfully. Um, and um, I'll try my best to interact. Although I don't typically interact with the comments since there's too many for me to interact with. But if you want me to kind of deal with a specific issue or question, you could always email me at [email protected].

[00:43:56]I do check my email. And so, um, you could reach out to me there if there's something in this video that inspires a, uh, a question or something along those lines. All right. All right. [snorts] That out of the way. All right. Uh our third question that we're going to um you know uh discuss is do we need an exhaustive list of necessary preconditions of intelligibility okay for tag to work and if we don't provide that list does that weaken the transcendental argument all right so someone might be thinking all right Eli you keep talking about these necessary preconditions pardon things like logic morality induction rationality and all the test but you haven't given me an exhaustive list. So how can you claim that Christianity uniquely accounts for all of them? Now um that question itself I don't think um it it that question itself expresses a misunderstanding of what the transcendental argument is is trying to get at. Okay. So the transcendental argument is not an inductive argument. Okay? Where we gather a list of preconditions one by one and we check them off and then we conclude, oh my goodness, Christianity explains them better than other views.

[00:45:10]That's not that's not what the transcendental argument um is doing.

[00:45:14]Rather, the argument is and this is important. It is systemic. Okay? And by systemic I mean that it's addressing the entire structure of a worldview as a whole rather than evaluating isolated pieces of that worldview kind of independently. All right. It's asking whether a given worldview taken on its own terms can provide the what we call the necessary preconditions for intelligibility across the board. Right?

[00:45:41]things like logic, knowledge, morality, meaning, rational discourse, all the things that we talked about, not in a peacemeal fashion, but as an integrated coherent system. Remember, um, presuppositional apologetics is a worldview apologetics. It is system against system as we understand that that is the nature of the dispute. It is not disagreeing over individual facts.

[00:46:01]Okay? And we're asking that fundamental question, that transcendental question.

[00:46:05]What must be true in order for anything to be intelligible at all? what are the necessary preconditions of intelligibility? Okay. And Van Till's answer is not a partial or peacemeal answer, but rather his answer is quite comprehensive consistent with his notion that um we're dealing with systems of thought, okay, not individual facts.

[00:46:25]Vanil says in his a series of articles um with Eric Sigward, okay, um I don't know the specific page, so I do apologize, but I I got the quote here.

[00:46:34]He says that all human predication, I mentioned this before, all human predication is intelligible only on the presupposition of the truth of what the Bible teaches about God, man, and the universe. Now, notice the scope of that statement though. Vanil says all human predication. And that's not a limited claim, right? That's not saying, you know, some things make sense if Christianity is true. That's not what we're saying. It's more uh ambitious.

[00:46:57]Okay? It's saying that anything that's meaningful, anything that can be known, anything that can be rationally affirmed or denied for that matter presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview.

[00:47:07]And so the demand for an exhaustive list on the point on on the point of um someone objecting to the argumentation really is missing the point because the argument is not here's the complete inventory of every precondition. That's not the argument. Okay? The argument is whatever the necessary preconditions are, whatever must be true for intelligibility, those things are grounded in the Christian worldview.

[00:47:31]Okay. Now, here's where the objection I think is is wrong-headed. The unbeliever again is still thinking within his own framework. Okay? Because he's asking he's asking for a list because he wants to what what does he want to do by asking for the list? He wants to evaluate Christianity from a supposedly neutral standpoint. Standing outside of it as it were and then checking whether it meets the certain criteria. Okay. But from a presuppositional perspective, there is no such neutral criter uh uh foundation or criteria as we mentioned earlier. And Van Hill addresses this move when he explains that if one grants that man can interpret reality correctly while making himself and this is the language Van Hill uses making himself the um the final reference point then there's no principled reason to uh deny that same autonomy in the realm of religion. Okay. Now what do I mean by that? Once neutrality is granted, okay, and we we I don't believe neutrality is possible, but if we were to grant it in principle in debate, we would argue the debate is already lost at that ultimate level. So again, the demand for an exhaustive list is actually part of a broader attempt to shift the discussion back into a framework where the unbeliever sets the terms of evaluation.

[00:48:42]And that's precisely what the transcendental argument is challenging.

[00:48:45]The Christian is not required to produce an exhaustive catalog of preconditions in order to make the argument work. The argument doesn't require that. Okay.

[00:48:53]What's required is to show this is important that the unbelieving worldview cannot account for the very things it presupposes while the Christian worldview can. As Vantel captures this, I think beautifully um in an analogy he uses. He says, "The scripture offers itself as the sun by which alone men can see their experience in its true setting." Okay? And notice that you don't prove the sun by shining a flashlight on it. As the saying goes, you prove the sun by the fact that without it, you couldn't see anything at all. And that's exactly how the transcendental argument functions. Okay, if we can kind of simplify it a little bit, obviously there needs to be more teased out there. Um, so it's not about listing all of the preconditions, okay?

[00:49:30]It's about demonstrating that without the Christian God, there is no intelligible context in which any precondition could even operate. Okay?

[00:49:37]So again, they're going to disagree with that. They're going to be like, "Well, wait a minute. My worldview can account for those things." And that's where the that's where the um the heart of the dispute is going to occur between the Christian who is to use Van Till's wording epistemologically self-conscious and the unbeliever who is epistemologically self-conscious. He's aware of his worldview and his foundations and the Christian is aware of his worldview and his foundations and the clash comes. That's the level that the discussion is going to happen. Okay?

[00:50:08]And that's why we need to, as Van Hill says, um, help the unbeliever make, uh, help the unbeliever become epistemologically self-conscious. All right. All right. So, in light of everything I've just said, I really [snorts] need water.

[00:50:23]I apologize. Okay. In light of everything that I that I've just laid out here, I want to address one more thing that comes up all the time, especially um, in the underbelly of the internet, Discord discussions, uh, clubhouse rooms. And if you guys are into all that and sometimes it comes up in the YouTube uh comments as well. This this specifically is for my online presuppers, okay? Those who are in the trenches and they hear this stuff all the time. Okay. Um if you are hanging out on Discord or Clubhouse, eventually you will hear actually hear two things.

[00:50:52]Okay. This is what I'll hear if I if I even visit Clubhouse. Okay. [laughter] Okay. Ready? Have you defended your first premise yet? Okay. Uh those who know no. Okay. Um yes that I did a whole video on that like two years ago. So um people keep asking me it's there and and people are uh not looking. It's there. I literally have defending the first premise. Okay. But that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about here is this is what you'll often hear on the Discord uh servers and the clubhouse stuff. When we argue that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary. Okay.

[00:51:28]What modal scope are you invoking when you say that the contrary of Christianity is impossible? Okay, now you want to keep this in mind, my online presupper friends. Okay, that question, and hopefully you've gotten this, but listening this far into the video, that question itself is not being asked um from a neutral standpoint. Okay? Because built into that question is the assumption that there is some neutral modal framework namely some independent standard of possibility and impossibility that both the believer and unbeliever can appeal to in order to evaluate Christianity and from a presuppositional standpoint. That's what we deny the neut we deny a neutral category of anything. So here's here's the key point. every objection, okay, every question, every push back from the unbeliever is going to in some way, shape or form try to smuggle in categories of neutrality. Whether it's an appeal to, you know, independent justification or non-ircular reasoning or non-ircular foundations or they're going to appeal to the objective evidence, the clear objective evidence, right? All of these are going to be philosophically loaded with assumptions that we're going to want to challenge.

[00:52:43]um philosophical assumptions that um concerning how knowledge itself works.

[00:52:48]Okay. Um so um you want to be able to challenge those assumptions. Okay. And so we're going to we're going to ba basic presuppositional principle. We reject the very possibility of neutrality. Now that doesn't mean that simply because neutrality is rejected on our part that Christianity is is proven.

[00:53:03]We don't prove Christianity by simply rejecting neutrality, right? That's not the argument. Okay. What it does show is that neither side is neutral. So to point this out, it's to show that the the request for um a modal scope is not a neutral request. Everyone is reasoning from within an ultimate authority. For the Christian, that authority is going to be God and his revelation. For the unbeliever, it might be some form of attempted autonomous reasoning, maybe some form of like empirical verification or appeals to logic or um some standard of independent justification. But again, the point is this. We are all starting from somewhere. And so when someone asks what modal scope are you invoking?

[00:53:43]Here's I think a consistent presuppositional way to answer that.

[00:53:47]Okay, we are not appealing to neutral abstract framework of possibility. All right, remember possibility itself is not a neutral category. We reject that outright because we reject neutrality.

[00:54:00]Okay, the modal scope we're invoking is grounded in the nature of God himself.

[00:54:04]Possibility and impossibility are not independent standards by which God is measured.

[00:54:10]Right? On the Christian worldview, they are determined by God as the ultimate self-consistent and absolute reference point. Okay? So when we say that the contrary of Christianity is impossible, we're not merely making a claim about formal logical contradiction righty in some neutral system of logic. We are making a transcendental claim that on any intelligible account of reality, the denial of the Christian God undermines the very conditions that make judgments about possibility and impossibility meaningful in the first place. And this is why the question as it is often asked is not a neutral question. So when someone asked the question, you be like that's not that's not a neutral question. Okay, where is neutrality being assumed in even the asking of the question? Okay, it's not neutral. It assumes that there is some shared independent framework of modality possibility and impossibility that we can step into and evaluate Christianity from uh from within that framework. But again there is no outside the framework.

[00:55:12]Okay. So uh rather than granting that assumption what are we going to do as presuppositionalists? We're going to challenge those assumptions and we're going to bring the discussion back to the fundamental issue. I've repeated it multiple times. Which worldview can actually account for the very concepts like possibility, impossibility, logic, rationality, right? Which worldview can provide a justification and accounting for those things being used as points of objection against the Christian worldview? And that's where the transcendental argument does its work.

[00:55:40]Okay. What modal scope are we invoking?

[00:55:42]Well, to be perfectly honest and to be perfectly blunt, we're invoking a Christian theistic modal framework. for on Christianity, it's God who determines what's possible and impossible. Okay, that's the Christian position. And um ironically, uh that's not some weird kind of uh side position. Everyone who has a worldview will have some view of what constitutes possibility and impossibility. And so as Christians, we're going to challenge the unbeliever's notion of possibility and impossibility. Um because those categories are not neutral. All right?

[00:56:14]All of the categories within our worldview as Christians belong to Christ. And so we do not grant neutral categories. If you want a neutral category, you're going to have to take that assumed neutrality and then justify it within your own worldview. And at that point, the Christian is going to engage in the internal critique and welcome the non-Christian engaging in the internal critique of the Christian system. All right? So it goes both ways.

[00:56:37]Um, unfortunately because of many presuppositionalists online, okay, in my experience, this is my experience now, have typically been associated with a particular kind of personality that can be very very difficult to interact with.

[00:56:52]And so many unbelievers will automatically think that when we challenge assumptions that what we're doing is we're playing some kind of game, right? The the word salad appeal, right? Yeah. Every time someone says, "Well, that's word salad." If you're a presuppositionist, know you're on the right track, okay? Unless you're actually speaking word salad, right? Um you want to make sure you're making sense when you say stuff. But um a lot of people will just automatically try to psychoanalyze you be like, "Oh, you're just being disingenuous, right?" Um and re and the reason why they say that is um you know, you can't possibly believe this stuff, Mr. Unbeliever. Uh and of course um we want to kindly respond. I'm not using words salad. I disagree with you. Here are the reasons why I'm asking those fundamental questions. And if you are getting into a discussion in a dispute with a person who is asking questions and raising objections in good faith, then you could actually go somewhere and they could actually kind of move the discussion. But I think there's kind of a natural distrust between kind of like presuppositionalists online and like atheists and skeptics that they interact with and everyone's kind of quote unquote defending their integrity of their view uh that the discussion doesn't move along. And that's why I tell people and I encourage people, you want to be very careful how you express yourself. uh you don't want to come off as obnoxious. Now, granted, many of you people might think, "Well, Eli, you're you're very respectful and you try to be kind and whatever, but even with my uh my the way that I present myself, I still have people who think that I come off arrogant and mean, so I can't help those people because I'm trying my best not to." But uh um you're always going to have someone who's going to say, "Hey, you're dishonest." Or, "Hey, you're disingenuous." or you know my favorite someone said I was on a live stream my last live stream that I did previous to this video with uh Messenger of truth um it was the last the last comment that someone made uh they said that I am an insidious liar okay um so again okay I mean if that's if that's what some people think I can't I can't help that I can't remedy that if I tell you I promise you I'm not lying this is my position and I if you don't want to believe me that that's your choice I can't like see you face to face and like reason with you on that Um, so I try to put my views out there. Um, obviously I understand unbelievers are going to disagree. Sometimes Christians disagree and that's why we have kind of like meaningful discourse and whether it's in this in the comments or video responses or if I know the person we talk about it and stuff like that. Um, that's just the nature of the beast. But uh, nevertheless, okay, so I hope that this is helpful. I know that this was a little bit more detailed and like specific in terms of issues that maybe the average person might not be familiar with, but hopefully um it made sense uh to the degree that people will find this helpful. Okay? And I and I certainly love talking about these things, which is an extra plus uh because uh this could be uh completely and utterly boring for some people. So, um hopefully it's not for you. All right. All right.

[00:59:35]Well, that concludes uh my presentation here. Um if you like this video, um like the video. If you've enjoyed the video, like the video and share if you think it's going to be useful um to other people. Okay, if you've um been with me for all of this time thus far, thank you so much for giving me your time um and lending me your ear, so to speak. I hope that this has been useful to you. All right, well until next time, guys. Uh that's all I've got for today. Uh take care and God bless. Bye-bye.