HQ

Transcendental arguments usually seek to demonstrate that human experience (or a particular part of human experience) has, as a necessary condition, the existence of or the belief in something. The form of the argument is simply that “there must be something Y if there is something X of which Y is a necessary condition” 2 Robert Stern maintains that, strictly speaking, transcendental arguments are for a metaphysical precondition. He suggests that there are four common features in the metaphysical kind of transcendental argument. First, the claim is for a metaphysical condition usually arrived at a priori and obtains in every possible world. For example, says Stern, “existence is a condition for thought, as the former is metaphysically required in order to do or be anything at all.” 3 Second, transcendental arguments start with all or an aspect of experience. The argument proceeds from an experience (belief, laws of logic, intuition etc.) and inquires as to what the necessary con...

In the canal of thought between epistemology and apologetics there exists a triad of thinkers who contribute, in different ways, to both disciplines. Yet few have articulated positive relationships between the thought of Cornelius Van Til, John Frame and Alvin Plantinga. Scott Oliphint, a Van Tillian, denounced Plantinga as beginning from an anti-Christian premise. Bahnsen, another Van Tillian, dismisses Frame for not being Van Tillian enough. Plantinga, for his own part, entirely ignores Van Til even though even though he presents very similar lines of argument. And then there are those, like my old prof, John Feinberg, who, though convinced of the success of Plantinga's work, are nonetheless  opposed to Van Til's and Frame's apologetic method. One exception to all this is James Anderson, associate professor of theology and philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte. Anderson is, not uncritically, favorable to...

I have become fascinated by a single thought lately. I began thinking about it last year and have been trying to understand it ever since. The thought is something like this: In order for anyone to know anything, someone must know everything. Expressed more visually: if there is knowledge, there must be KNOWLEDGE. I found the idea in the writings of Cornelius Van Til who writes, “there must be comprehensive knowledge somewhere if there is to be any true knowledge anywhere.” 1 The following, gleaned from something I wrote for a class during my MA, traces some of my thoughts on the matter, in particular, relating the idea to divine foreknowledge and human anxiety. What I want to suggest is that God's exhaustive, comprehensive, complete knowledge of the past, present and future is what makes human knowledge possible. Furthermore, in order for God to know anything, God must know everything, including all future events. Because God knows the future comprehensively, he is able to des...

Just what is a transcendental argument? Well let me attempt to explain. Transcendental arguments usually seek to demonstrate that human experience (or a particular part of human experience) has, as a necessary condition, the existence of or the belief in something. The form of the argument is simply that “there must be something Y if there is something X of which Y is a necessary condition” 2 Robert Stern maintains that, strictly speaking, transcendental arguments are for a metaphysical precondition. He suggests that there are four common features in the metaphysical kind of transcendental argument. First, the claim is for a metaphysical condition usually arrived at a priori and obtains in every possible world. For example, says Stern, “existence is a condition for thought, as the former is metaphysically required in order to do or be anything at all.” 3 Second, transcendental arguments start with all or an aspect of experience. The argument proceeds from an expe...