The basis of proof

Since the subject of creation is intimately connected to the question of God, I want to take a brief look at it. Some Christians have claimed that there is a proof (or proofs) for God. One of the most interesting (at least to me) is the one given by Cornelius Van Til.

Quotes and comments;

A. "The absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed, there is no proof of anything." [1.]

- The basic idea behind this proof is that if you deny the truths of Christianity, you have no foundation for believing anything.

- What then is this Truth that men presuppose? They assume we have a universe (and not a multiverse), they assume order, they assume uniformity in space and time, they assume man is rational, they assume man can know things, they assume such a thing as reality exists, they assume that man is the same everywhere, they assume the validity of language, they assume the validity of language, they assume the future will be like the past, etc.

Van Til's point is that only Christianity gives men a basis (a solid foundation) for believing these things to be true. The non-Christian can (and does) assume them to be true, but he has no basis for doing so. Since he has no foundation for these presuppositions (and all of our knowledge is dependent upon them) he can't prove they are true. He may feel they are necessary 'fundaments' of knowledge, but he has no reason to believe they're true.

- Because of our culture, and because of the style and content of our education, most people take these presuppositions for granted. Taking these things for granted leads to a diminishment of the Faith, a falling away from biblical Christianity. In our day we have atheist apologists who tell us (e.g. Michael Shermer) that there is no need for religion in the modern age. They're able to say this because they fail to see any need to account for their own presuppositions. (Philosophical pragmatism leads to agnosticism and then to atheism.)

- The only real escape hatch people have for this argument is to plead the reliability of common sense. (This was the tack taken by Lenin.) I don't think this works, as the person who adopts this stance has no basis for believing it. About all he can say is; ''well, common sense works... and that's good enough for me." Okay; but what does 'it works' mean? By what standard do you judge whether or not it works? Do you rely on your feelings about it? Apparently.

- My point here is not just to rebuke non-Christians for making use of biblical presuppositions without giving credit, but to point out that their project leads inevitably to intellectual and scientific (not to mention spiritual) error. The long list of the truths of Christianity isn't exhausted by the ones I gave.

The Truth of Christianity includes the idea of a creator god and a personal universe. If men deny God they end up with shallow and false ideas of reality. e.g. the view of man provided by the impersonal model (of materialist science) is vastly different than the view of man given to us by the Personal model of Christianity. An impersonal view of the universe leads to an impersonal view of man. (And so we get man as animal, man as machine, man as chemicals, man as illusion, etc.)

Summary; does this argument provide a proof for the existence of God? Is it a strong argument or a weak argument? You'll have to decide for yourself. (I don't personally think that there are any conclusive proofs for the existence of God; but having said that, I think this argument has a lot to say for it.)

Notes;
1. Christian theory of knowledge - Cornelius Van Til p.224
2. Some have said that there are valid proofs for the existence of God; the only reason that men reject them is that they're fallen, and thus unwilling to acknowledge the veracity of the arguments. (This is one reason for the fact the arguments are rejected, but I'm not sure it's the only one.)