Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Ryft]

Do you feel that you have a refined version of TAG that avoids the fallacies of equivocation, division, false dichotomy, and special pleading?

Do you feel that you have a refined critique of the TAG that avoids the fallacies of begging the question, straw man, ad lapidem, and red herring? See, while this sort of poisoning the well might score rhetorical points—for either side of the dispute—it does nothing to promote understanding or move the conversation forward. Unsubstantiated rhetorical snipes from the peanut gallery has its place and can be entertaining, but at the end of the day that is all it is: entertaining. But hey, it's good for the giggles and the choir loves it.

I am not inclined to seek another version of the TAG until something can be found wrong with the one advanced by the likes of Van Til, Bahnsen, Oliphint, Butler, et al. I would say feel free to demonstrate the errors you allege, but that would require something resembling an argument—and those just don't have the entertainment value that peanut gallery rhetoric does. And as a preemptive note, I have been studying the theology and philosophy of this methodology for over five years, from both its proponents (Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, etc.) and opponents (Martin, Loftus, Dillahunty, etc.) so hopefully we can forgo assuming any ignorance on my part.

Speaking more specifically to presuppositionalism, do you feel that there can be any grounds for debate when the demand is made at the outset that one assume that your position is completely correct before debate can begin?

This is a strange question. Any rational debate requires assuming this or that for the sake of argument. In order to perform an internal critique of X you have to assume the truth of X and proceed to show its inconsistency or incoherence. If I am going to refute view X, I am going to do so under its own terms; it would be question-begging for me to do so under not-X terms.

Does accepting a false presupposition invalidate logic entirely?

This is likewise a strange question. First, logic cannot be invalidated, since invalidating is a logical function; i.e., how do you invalidate logic without using logic? Second, given the axiomatic nature of presuppositions (in our present context), how do you identify a presupposition as false without begging the question?

Couldn't I leverage presuppositionalism to successfully prove any false statement true?

So this would require the initial condition of the statement being identified as "false," right? But if the statement is identified as false under presupposition X, then how under that same presupposition is the statement to be proven true? That is incoherent.

Wouldn't any presupposition that makes the fewest assumptions... [snip rest]

A presupposition is an assumption. Ergo, you just asked me, "Wouldn't any assumption that makes the fewest assumptions..."

If we were to compare presuppositions, and the conclusions that follow, would it be unreasonable to then ask ourselves which of these conclusions seems to match observed reality to a more accurate degree?

That is precisely the presuppositional method. First we compare John's conclusion P with his presuppositional starting point X and check for coherence and consistency, and then we compare how he thinks and acts (observed reality) with his conclusions and presuppositions and check for consistency there. Where there are inconsistencies there are problems.

So then good is arbitrary?

No, that does not follow. If the nature and character of God is what defines good, then good is not arbitrary for God's nature and character is not.

Never mind the the fact that attempting to argue God into existence is dripping with comedy...

We are not solipsists. We do not argue God into existence.

However, if there were no minds in existence to conceive of the number 4...

Question-begging; it assumes God out of existence. From there being no human minds in existence, it does not follow that there would be no minds at all in existence—unless one has assumed God out of existence from the outset. That was the problem with Dillahunty's attempted rebuttal.