No neutrality and circular reasoning | Cornelius Van Til

Either God is at the back of possibility, or possibility is at the back of God. If we don't start (presuppose) the God of Scripture, no proof will ever be able to reach up to him and we are stuck with a finite god.

Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) revolutionized the world of apologetics. A 20th -century philosopher and theologian, Van Til attended Princeton Theological Seminary, wherein he received his ThM in 1925 and subsequently his PhD in philosophy in 1927.

[mrc]

Very insightful, he knew the main point is that everyone comes to the discussion biased. Who is this guy?

[lightbeforethetunnel]

Van Til was a genius. He saw something nobody else could see. He wasn't always the best at communicating it, but he discovered the only actual proof for God.

[dawsonmurray]

Is there a full recording of this lecture somewhere?

[davidcoleman]

Van Til claims that the unbeliever will win you to his conclusion ("a foregone conclusion") if you engage in evidential apologetics, but his claim appears _ipse dixit_ . Indeed, many unbelievers have been converted via evidential apologetics, so his claim appears demonstrably false.

And the fact that all facts are created by God does not imply that said facts do not in themselves point to God. In fact, there are many unbelieving realists who are _inconsistent_ in their realism, which is why they remain unbelievers. Consistent realism points to God, so contra Van Til, it isn't a matter of conversion by stealth or a believer's unguarded inconsistency. Rather, logical analysis of the cosmos will yield the signature of God.

[johndoe]

This is what happens when apologets have given up on finding any evidence for whatever god they are peddling. They resort to throw their arms in the air, define a god and then assert it into existence followed by endless word sallads and deepitys with no contents and meaning.

[FloydFp]

Van Til was more of a preacher than a philosopher. I'm not impressed by him.

"One weakness in Van Til’s own writings is the lack of specific arguments. Van Til always said that there was an “absolutely certain argument” for Christianity, but he rarely produced an example, except in the barest outline form." Presuppositional Apologist John M. Frame, "Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief", Preface to the First Edition

[Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of your perspective:

While the speaker makes some thought-provoking points, your position seems to rely on several problematic assumptions. First, you present a stark dichotomy between "the Christian" and "the non-Christian", as if all people must fall neatly into one of those categories. This ignores the diversity and nuance of human thought. Many people hold views that combine elements from various philosophical and religious traditions.

Second, you assume that there is a single "Christian" starting point, methodology, and conclusion that all Christians must share. But Christianity encompasses a wide range of beliefs and perspectives, often conflicting ones. There is no one definitive "Christian" position.

Third, you suggest that only the Christian perspective is valid and all other views are inherently "absurd". This closes off honest inquiry and discourse between different worldviews. A more philosophical approach would be to engage charitably with different perspectives and examine them based on logic and evidence, not just dismiss them as absurd.

Overall, your critique seems to stem from questionable assumptions about the nature of truth, reason, and diversity of human thought. A more nuanced, open-minded approach may lead to deeper understanding between people with very different views. The heart of philosophy is asking questions, not just asserting the superiority of one perspective.