Cornelius Van Til

[[File:Cornelius Van Til.jpg|165px|thumb|"Eureka! If I only use circular reasoning, I can draw attention away from the Bible's contradictions by claiming my argument structure proves internal consistency! Then I can use my theist presuppositions to twist the 'implications of atheism' until they *gasp* become '''''SELF-REFUTING'''''! Then I've proven my magical friend exists! '''''BEGONE, FOOLISH UNBELIEVERS! REPENT! BE SAVED!''''' " (Yes, this is actually how presup works.)]]{{religion}}
'''Cornelius Van Til''' {{lived|1895|1987}} was a [[Netherlands|Dutch]]-[[United States|American]] [[Calvinism|Calvinist]] philosopher and the founder of [[Presuppositionalism|presuppositional apologetics]]. If you're wondering why those annoying [[Sye Ten Bruggencate|Sye]]-clones are screaming [[Damnation|damnation]] at you over the [[Internet]], he's the one to blame.

==Writings==
Van Til wrote over 39 works.<ref>https://www.logos.com/product/3994/the-works-of-cornelius-van-til</ref> These works were instrumental in developing modern presuppositional apologetics. He claimed that a neutral starting point presupposes atheism, an interesting argument that can, in fact, be used to argue for atheism, likely inspired by [[RationalWiki:Annotated Bible/Matthew#Matthew Chapter 12|Matthew 12.30]]. He then used scare tactics and [[Special pleading|special pleading]] to explain why he was allowed to use circular reasononing, all while claiming that teaching childen to have an [[Open mind|open mind]] is [[Psychological projection|somehow]] [[Indoctrination|"indoctrination"]]. However, since Van Til admitted that neutral presuppositions necessarily lead to [[Atheism|atheism]], he, ironically, proved that valid proofs of atheism do, in fact, exist, and that atheism is true, and cannot be denied except by the use of [[Logical fallacy|logical fallacies]].<ref>http://www.the-highway.com/why_I_believe_cvt.html</ref> Van Til similarly engaged in [[Equivocation|redefining]] philosophical terms into ones with wholly new meanings in order for them to [[Argumentum ad dictionarium|support his position]], and was fond of alternatively criticizing and misquoting religious leaders he claimed to follow in the footsteps in, such as [[John Calvin]], for various self-serving reasons.<ref>[https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/christianity-and-van-tillianism-2019-08/ Christianity and Van Tillianism(commentary)]</ref> He deliberately made his writings [[Technobabble|incomprehensible]], likely as an attempt to make them harder to understand and thus to refute. In a similar manner, he deceitfully rebuffed efforts to reduce his arguments to comprehensible [[Syllogism|syllogisms]].<ref>[https://frame-poythress.org/cornelius-van-til/ "Cornelius Van Til"]</ref>  For some reason, this habit of his has actually contributed to his popularity among Christian [[Apologetics|apologists]], likely because they believe that [[Style over substance|any argument that cannot be  refuted is a good one, even if nobody can understand it]].<ref>[http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=33 John W. Robbins, "Cornelius Van Til"]</ref>

==Students and Influence==
Due to Van Til's status as the founder of the discipline, he had an immense influence on presuppositional apologetics. His students, such as {{wpl|Greg Bahnsen}}, were the leaders of the ideology for decades after Van Til's death. He developed the 
viciously
"[[Sye Ten Bruggencate|virtuously]]" circular arguments that form the mainstays of that field.
==Arguments==
Van Til's argument is based off the idea that [[Reasoning|reasoning]] is impossible without God. However, no evidence is given for that position -[[Argument by assertion|it is simply stated]]. When that failed in persuading the [[Skepticism|skeptic]], Van Til turned to [[Argumentum ad nauseam|repeating his claims over and over again]] and repeated [[Circular reasoning|circling]] through logic chains. Van Til's  "evidence" for such a statement is "provided" by the presupper by "assuming the contrary" while not actually doing so.<ref>[https://liberatinglions.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/cornelius-van-til-the-grandfather-of-presuppositional-apologetics/ CORNELIUS VAN TIL: THE GRANDFATHER OF PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS]</ref> It attempts to state that all other ideas are [[Self-refuting idea|self-refuting]], using the exact same framework. However, when anyone inconveniently points out the contradictions inherent in Christianity (generally in the realms of the [[Trinity#Some_attempts_at_formal_logic|Trinity]] and [[Biblical contradictions|Biblical internal consistency]]), the standard presup approach is to refuse to discuss the parts in question.<ref>[https://twitter.com/syetenb/status/1020055174231076867 Sye tweeting on the issue]</ref> In fact, Van Til and his successors reject approaches such as trying to resolve these contradictions as "unbiblical", with one prominent one attempting to use a comparison with a gun to [[Appeal_to_shame#Appeal_to_ridicule|ridicule]] those who do so.<ref>[http://gospelspam.com/oy-vey-maria-why-the-gods-of-ben-shapiro-and-matt-walsh-cant-end-abortion/ OY VEY MARIA! WHY THE “GODS” OF BEN SHAPIRO AND MATT WALSH CAN’T END ABORTION.] Sye, in a good example of this approach, attempting to use an analogy with a gun as an argument </ref> Even the normally batshit crazy pastor Matt Walsh called him out on this.<ref>[https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-bible-matt-walsh WALSH: When Christians Shouldn’t Quote The Bible]</ref><br />
Some additional problems with this analogy are:
*If someone disbelieves in the existence of [[Fun:Weapon of gun|guns]], they will not be dissuaded by the sight of one. In fact, such a situation occurred with primitive peoples encountering European explorers or with {{wpl|Island tameness|animals that had lived for extended periods without predators on islands}}. To push the analogy further, in Sye's case firing the gun is equivalent to letting the [[Sin|sinner]] go to [[Hell|hell]], something Sye [[Bullshit|claims]] not to want.
*Winning an argument is [[Galileo_gambit#.22You_get_the_most_flak_when_you.27re_over_the_target.22|supposed to depend on being right]], [[Argument from censorship|not]] on [[Argumentum ad baculum|force]].
Van Til, on the other hand, would doubtless have applauded that accomplished student of his. In fact, he used a similar argument by claiming that it was [[Special pleading|irrelevant]] that his argument was circular because it was a "[[Worldview|worldview]]" and the arguments of others [[Tu quoque|allegedly were as well]].<ref>[https://defenseofaith.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/van-til-on-the-charge-of-circular-reasoning/ Van Til on the Charge of Circular Reasoning]</ref>

==Ways Van Til actually proved the existence of God==
[[File:Tumbleweed.gif|center]]
==[[Logical validity|Logically valid]] and/or [[Soundness|sound]] [[Argument|arguments]] developed by Van Til==
[[File:Tumbleweed.gif|center]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Van Til, Cornelius}}
[[Category:Fundamentalists]]
[[Category:Apologists and counter-apologists]]
[[Category:Christian apologists]]
[[Category:Creationists]]

Categories: Fundamentalists, Apologists and counter-apologists, Christian apologists, Creationists