Presuppositional Apologetics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- Presuppositional Apologetics is one of the four main approaches to apologetics, along with classical, evidential, and experiential or narratival apologetics. Each of these approaches places a different emphasis on the roles of reason and special revelation (such as Scripture or miracles) in apologetics.
In this video, Dr. Joshua D. Chatraw explains.
LEARN MORE: zondervanacade...
Presup = Preaching
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
Yep. Just assertions without evidence
This video is a great entry point to presuppositions. I will add my own take on it:
Essentially the believer will invoke the Munchausen Trillemma mercilessly to confuse the opponent. This is effective because "truth" suffice to say, is a difficult thing to construct. The trillemma is quote simple. Truth is:
Axiom- A brute fact that does not need to prove itself. (Dogmatic thinking)
Circular reasoning-"facts" referring to each other in an endless loop.
Infinite Regression- Never ending endless facts to explain itself.
This would mystify those not prepared to deliver an "absolute" truth proof. The believer uses the bible, god, etc as their absolute truth.
Now invalidating other's world view is fine but it does not prove your own world view. Without proving why your view is absolute this is a text book non-sequitur
The bible itself is circular: Bible is the word of god. how? because the bible says so. what if its wrong? it cant be the bible is perfect. how do you know its perfect? because the bible is the word of god? circular fallacy complete (but can be added to such as sacred tradition or additional revelations)
If the bible is an axiom, why cant other people presuppose their own axiom? this is known as special pleading.
Finally some knowledgeable person writing. Take good care of yourself, and have it best
@Kevin Cobb one objection to presuppositionalism I came across is that the Christian has to presuppose that their reasoning is valid in order to read and understand the revelation in the Bible. What do you think about that one?
@Kevin Cobb I like it. Drag them to the edge, to the nihilistic logical conclusion of their worldview and force them to look off. I think Christian apologetics was caught off-guard by the new atheists when they first came on the scene because Christians allowed themselves to be pushed back on the defensive the whole time, while also losing the chance to hit back in the process. This wasn't a good look for Christianity. Maybe presup could be one tool (among others) to balance things out.
The bible is, provably, not the word of a perfect god.
@Kevin Cobb For starters, a perfect book must not contradict itself. Also, it must not promote abhorrent moral ideas.
Presuppositional BEGINS with Presuppositions
The bottom line, presuppositional apologetics just means you're a Christian who's authority and worldview is God and His Word. You begin and end with God. After all, the Bible is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17), the truth of it sanctifies us (John 17:17), and we're called to preach it so by hearing the Word sinners will be saved (Romans 10:14-17). When God and His Word isn't your starting point and you have to go outside God and His Word to "prove" God and His Word, then you'll never get to the gospel. All you will do is get into endless philosophical arguments trying to give "evidence" to the God the Bible already says they know exists, but they hold that truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-23).
Two things; First, you can't let the unsaved person that is under God's judgment put our faith, our Bible, and our God on trial with endless questions (that they don't like the answers to) while they can't explain their own worldview based on their worldview. Second, as Christians, how inconsistent is it to believe the Word of God and God Himself in your worship/teaching/service at church, but you throw it all out the window when you're talking to an unsaved skeptic? In other words, your faith is valid among believers, but your faith needs to be "proven" to the skeptic. You love God's Word in the church, but you think it has no power when answering skeptical questions.
The problem is this presupposes the bible has no mistakes like translation errors. Or the bible has no forgeries (gnostic book as an example)
For example the King James bible has the infamous Johannine Comma addition. Which books are definitively cannon? Catholic book has 7 extra books. The bible even quotes non canonical books from old to new testament.
Not to mention that some concepts cannot be agreed on such as the kenosis and what was exactly emptied. Who then is the authority on what is literal or figurative?
My point is the great commission isnt some contest or debate. And the fruits of the holy spirit is the mark of the elect. not presupposition, not even logic
"When God and His Word isn't your starting point and you have to go outside God and His Word to "prove" God and His Word, then you'll never get to the gospel."
And this is why presup is doomed to fail - it begins "the god of the Bible, therefore..." when non-believer requires it to end with "... therefore, the god of the Bible."
You don't walk into a mathematics conference claiming to have proven Conjecture X and begin with "Assuming Conjecture X..."
@@JMUDoc TAG advocates wouldn't describe it that way. To them, they're not "assuming" anything. They are rational because their Creator is rational, and given that God is the creator of all things beginning to exist, it follows that He is the necessary precondition for reason. They are therefore _expressing_ (not assuming) the ontological fact that reason would not be possible without God. Where their argument goes astray is not in assuming; it's in asserting that God is the precondition without demonstrating that God even exists. To assert that God is the precondition of knowledge is to concomitantly assert that God exists, and that renders the first premise of the TAG argument a bald claim. An opponent need not offer any competing claim to the foundation of knowledge. It is sufficient to simply ask for the warrant for said claim. That forces the TAG advocate to either resort to evidential apologetics or concede defeat due to his inability to defend his first premise. All attempts to force further replies from his opponents would be clearly fallacious.
@@mikesmithz Hi, Mike! Since you ask me to go easy on the sauce, I'll provide just a basic answer and expand as necessary. TAG proponents insist that non-believers give an account for the rationality they employ to question God's existence. But if the non-believer must successfully account for the authority of reason, the believer must also account for his asserting God's existence. The believer doesn't get a pass when it comes to accounting.
Against this, the believer may counter that he _has_ accounted for reason in appealing to God, but the non-believer has no recourse because all other options are inherently contradictory. But asserting the existence of God is insufficient. First, there are various theistic paradigms, some of which have rationality as a principle or form standing apart from God. Second, since it is logically possible that a non-theistic template may account for the authority of reason, proposing God is not logically airtight, even if a non-believer cannot specify what the other option is. The fact that one cannot think of an alternative does not remove its logical possibility. Thus, in order for a believer to successfully ground the authority of reason, he is forced to give an account of God which adequately grounds reason, and that account entails justifying the existence of such a being. In short, asserting God does not logically foreclose an alternate, even if that alternate is not known. And that requires a believer to provide evidence that God exists---the very thing the presuppositionalist seeks to avoid.
Since learning that presuppositional apologetics is a thing I've been trying to learn more as it seems to describe most of the flawed or so-bias-they're-blind arguments I've heard. So correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding here
Non-presup:
1. If the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God it won't contain errors
2. The Bible contains errors
3. The Bible is not the divinely inspired word of God
Presup:
1. Assuming the Bible is the inspired word of God
2. We note the Bible contains errors and contradictions
3. God must be confusing us on purpose
4. Explanations in the Bible tell us to trust God anyway
5. God created us with reasoning that allowed us to understand this kind of treatment is called gaslighting, that's is mentally & emotionally harmful
6. Therefore we know only know God is hurting us on purpose, but he wants us to know he's hurting us on purpose.
I think it's like this...
Presup:
1. Assuming the Bible is the inspired Word of God
2. If we find the Bible contains errors or contradictions
3. There may be things we don't yet understand by our human mind.
4. If we don't yet understand them, we seek God for revelation by the Holy Spirit.
5. The Bible is still the inspired Word of God though we may not always have the ability to make sense of them until the Holy Spirit unveils it.
@@felixchien1664 The presupp argument is self-validating. That means it's a logical structure that will equally validate any other noun you care to swap into its circular reasoning. It can be used to equally support literally any other imaginary idea, and so it cannot establish god as non-imaginary. It utterly fails, and is endlessly entertaining for atheists.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Joseph Mitchell is still wrong about his understanding of "Pre-sup" argument though. Joseph's #3 presupposes that our human mind is the ultimate arbitrator and authority. His notion of the Christian "presup" is still coming from his own worldview. I'd like to see what his response to my comment is in light of his own. Regardless of your worldview, there are still things being presupposed.
@@felixchien1664 I'm not sure what you mean by "ultimate arbitrator." But do we perceive, believe, and reason all things using our mind? Yes. I'm not sure why acknowledging that would count as some kind of defeater for any worldview. It's a conclusion everyone reaches by existing and being aware, and unrelated to whether a god exists.
@@weirdwilliam8500 im not saying that is a defeater for your worldview (or any worldview). I mention that just to show that there are things being presupposed in Joseph's comment. In other words, it's not just Christians or theists who are making presuppositions.
Let's assume an atheist is a naturalist. Still that presupposes that all things must be "natural" or that everything must follow consistently from physical laws (ie natural). An idealist or spiritualist can say they understand there is a natural world, but presuppose that there is something beyond the natural world.
At any level, one may be presupposing something. A naturalist may claim that what they are presupposing is based more in what they subjectively experience. But a naturalist cant deny what a spiritualist presupposes which is that they know a spiritual realm that transcends the natural realm.
This is a sincere video explaining presuppositional apologetics from someone who believes that Christianity makes the most sense to him. I admire your sincerity. I appreciate the presuppositional position that nobody is without bias. That is true.
However, framing the non-believer as someone who claims neutrality assumes that ALL non-believers claim neutrality. How do presuppositional apologists deal with non-believers that do not claim neutrality? What if neutrality has nothing to do with how they arrived at their non-belief? What if non-belief is the result of an assessment of the evidence and they cannot reconcile contradictions and nobody can explain the contradictions without resorting to subjective and unfalsifiable faith or feelings? Now neutrality is pointless. Now what?
Put simply: person A has evidence. Person B does not have evidence. One of them believes a proposition, the other does not, but they can't tell you which is which. Neither claims neutrality. Who is right?
If I am to believe that my ability to reason outside of my belief in the Christian God is flawed, how can I know that my fallible godless reasoning is not responsible for convincing me that the Christian God is true? Divine revelation could be a result of my flawed godless mind telling me that I have divine revelation when I do not. How could I possibly know that my flawed mind is not lying to me? Further, our brains are subject to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, deception, disabilities and injury. If we are unable to know if we are experiencing something that is real or not, how can we determine accurately if God is communicating with us?
From the presuppositional apologetics perspective, it’s possible that someone has been granted the ability to reason and has not received divine revelation, so they challenge the assumption that God exists without evidence. That is a real possibility. The non-believer may be pointing out accurately that the presuppositional apologist is accepting their belief on evidence that they cannot convey or provide, and the non-believer is right in this belief. It isn't reasonable for the Christian who has divine revelation to expect someone to come to the same conclusions about the existence of God without the same divine revelation. It’s a legitimate question and demand for equivalent evidence. It is incumbent on the presuppositional apologist who is intent on dismissing non-belief to make a case for the existence of God in the absence of personal divine revelation.
Taken further, what if you, the presuppositional apologist has been challenged by God himself through a “non-believer” to prove your belief and your position, and your response is to dismiss God himself, what then? What have you just done? God asked you to explain and you scoffed at his divine test. Now you have failed God and you have mocked God. What is your answer now, Joshua? What are you going to do? It’s your choice, Joshua.
the proof, evidence or whatever label you choose to put on someone to defend their faith is impossible in any physical sense when dealing with the metaphysical. Apologetics is one way a believer can bridge that chasm.
@@nickrich56 I appreciate your comment and agree with it with one condition: "Apologetics is one way a believer can bridge that chasm with no consideration of how someone else has come to an alternative belief."
I feel it's important to add that, since apologetics does not address alternative beliefs in any meaningful way. Apologetics has exactly one blanket response to address ALL alternative beliefs: it's a flaw or fault in the individual.
Have doubts about your faith? Apologists say you aren't seeking faith with conviction, so it's the individual's failing. But you say that you really are seeking faith with absolute conviction? Apologists say you just think you are, but you're not doing it right or you're lazy. It's the same response. Essentially, the apologist's answer to why someone doesn't believe what they believe is that they're either lazy, confused, stupid or lying. What's the evidence? Apparently the only evidence apologists need is that you don't believe what they believe.
Why is blaming the individual inadequate? Because the same criticism applies to the apologist. How do apologists respond to the exact same criticism of the flawed individual? They can't. They just can't. So, all apologist arguments are undone by their own criticisms of alternative beliefs.
Apologists need to do better.
@@dansoelberg doing better is indeed a goal to make. My personal experience with the subject is not in any academic setting but in life. Opening a door of discussion is the key to it. I've always agreed that wherever two or more are gathered in his name he's actually their in the midst. 😊🍿
@@nickrich56 Opening the door of discussion is why I participate. If you're referring to god as "he" when you say "he's actually in their midst", I don't think a skeptic would agree to that claim. Only those who believe in god feel strongly that god is in their midst.
I have discussed questions of belief and non-belief with believers and skeptics alike. The block I hit on both sides is when they seek the "trump card". I can't see the value in this for either side, and I humbly bow out of such discourse.
@@dansoelberg the discourse ends here in this comment thread but continues nonetheless out there in the ether with the next one willing to talk.
"We dont live in a vacuum" an introductory statement made by a very competent prosecutor and jag officer in the us army
I have an open challenge to any presuppositionalist to back up their claims and show their argument is sound and valid.
Don't hold your breath
@@kobe51 I'm, not, challenge still unanswered.
"I have an open challenge to any presuppositionalist to back up their claims and show their argument is sound and valid."
They can't.
Which is why they come back with "how can you have soundness or validity without (my) god?"
I have an open challenge to any [PERSON_THAT_HAVE_A_WORLDVIEW] to back up their claims and show their argument is sound and valid. Ask this to anyone, no only presuppositionalist, and see what you get.
@@josevega1592 I do challenge others when they offer claims and arguments, but presupps are particularly dishonest and fallacious, hence the challenge.
They all fail and yet pretend they haven't.
I had an argument with a presuppositional apologetic. He asserted a definition for knowledge that required god. I could only respond with "I don't know anything". I still haven't been convinced that I can know anything.
How do you know/are aware of that you don’t know anything. The assertion you don’t know anything and when you say there is no truth is a truth statement in itself and is an illogical argument because you are throwing away knowledge then grabbing it back again to say there isn’t. It’s completely ludicrous to say there is no truth because that in itself is self defeating because you are saying what you said about there being no truth is true. And then that in itself is also being intellectually dishonest because truth does exist, you just believe what you desire and push to fulfill those desires.
Let me tell you a story. A man who says he is dead and is convinced he is dead won’t listen to anybody when they tell him he is alive, so they take him to the doctor, the doctor asks the man if dead man bleed, the man says of course dead men don’t bleed their heart isn’t pumping blood. The doctor then takes a needles and pricks the man’s finger and the man starts bleeding, the man then says “oh ho ho ho would you look at that! Dead men do bleed.” Atheists are stuck in that.
It's not illogical. I was postulating that I don't know anything. I am not certain of that either. They asserted that knowledge requires certainty, so I responded with an assertion the no knowledge has certainty. The concept of knowledge requires that you trust your mind. The mind is tricky and must be continually questioned. If you have ever seen a magic trick then your mind has been fooled. This means it is important to put thought and experience into question at all times, therefore, there is no absolute certainty. You can't know that you know. I am not even certain that I exist. Descartes is a moron.
@@voiceinthewild8385 I didn't say that. I said that there is no certainty. Some truth exists but all of it is unattainable because the mind is imperfect and can't be trusted.
Knowledge: awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
The part I am contesting is experience. There is no way to prove the validity of an experience, therefore all observations have uncertainty, therefore all knowledge is resting on assumption.
This is an ancient philosophical argument. I present to you the 5 modes of Agrippa, proposed 1st century CE
1 Dissent - The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
2 Progress ad infinitum - All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity, i.e., the regress argument.
3 Relation - All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
4 Assumption - The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
5 Circularity - The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.
What's the opposite of presuppositional apologetics classical? What's the difference between them both sounds more philosophical ramblings to me. It makes me think of titus 3: 9-10. I don't like the approaching with a high and mighty presents. In order to help others you must think your self below the one your helping by your testimony to show your no better or actually worst. It's simple by the fruit you'll no and if it don't line up with the word then it's a false Gospel and all these makes me think of titus 3 9-10 alot. For instants if a person had 1 subscriber and was doing apologetics vs another that had 1 million. Some of that 1 million naturally is going to go to the guy with one subscriber telling the most blatant lies with truth attached like a 🚃 train. Anyways I believe God work good threw any situation but sometimes who is really helping who with all these groups now in days they all end up working together in debates and act like great friends. Before long it all seems like they apart of the matrix take the good spit the bad. It's like these people have to be taught or over heard by someone what's a bad word in order to use a bad word in some cases but naturally are hearts are evil and no man is Good. I think just like being taught whatever the world is accepting accept it. The world gets more acceptable and christians do to of worldly ways as the world evolves. Things in your past use to be wrong is not wrong anymore and vice versa in some instances. Man's hearts are wicked and they we never all colors be truly for each other in brotherly love for one another because money greed jealousy list goes on and on. God gave us a choice it's called free will you have the right to choose to live how you want otherwise We would be robots and God never wanted that he wants us to choose who you serve because you can't serve two masters the bible says. Anyways I got off track. I just wanted ask top question because seems like you possibly understand it or have information to shed more light on the basic bible belief differences between them both. I grew up in an Atheist side and christian side family. So naturally I was not believer at first but I believed in a God as higher power something must created us right only logical explanation in my mind.
Presup in a nutshell:
"I have AN account for , you don't, therefore any time you appeal to , you validate my account for them."
Anybody who thinks ^this is sound reasoning needs to give their head a serious shake.
JMUDoc is it valid reasoning?
@@ozredneck22 No.
1. Having _an_ answer doesn't make you right, even if it's currently the only answer on the table.
2. My use of something you *claim* is yours doesn't validate that claim.
JMUDoc Valid in the sense, as presuppers say “the impossibility of the contrary”.
You start with God as the necessary precondition for intelligibility and without Him you only have absurdity. In other words a dichotomous position.
@@ozredneck22 Then the presup's presupposition is not that their god exists, but that their god is the necessary precondition.
They fail to show that there *is* a necessary precondition - what if the laws of logic/induction "just are" they way they think their god "just is"?
And what if the universe really _is_ what they call "absurd"?
@@JMUDoc Excellent response. The fact that theism may be a sufficient answer does not mean that it is the _necessary_ answer. And the fact that competing claims fail merely, at best, render the claim superior to others, but not absolutely true. Thus, the certainty TAG proponents profess is really just a probability (again, at best), and that places it on par with the competing apologetic systems they reject.
By the way, I'm a theist who isn't at all impressed by the TAG argument.
Apologetics appear to be arguing yourself into insanity.
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
We all need to focus on the Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ, not overcomplicate things with subjective arguments.
what more is philosophy than that
@@lucasthurston6109 lul
@@goodshorts Impressive. Its rare to see believers take this stance. there is tremendous pride in believers that must prove skeptics wrong or they must win the argument. But the great commission is not a competition to vanquish your foes.
The fruits of the holy spirit is the only proof of god. If there are humans blessed with such goodness perhaps the world can be saved.
Starting from a conclusion is a logical fallacy.just like presuppositionalist .
unless it's true!
@@sha0071972 not everyone knows that though, so we should start from where they stand, even if they’re professing that there is no God. We need to give the reason why we believe the Bible, we can’t just automatically start with our presuppositions, be fair
"The presuppositionalist asserts that the authority of the Bible should be the assumed starting point in apologetic discourse. Thus the goal of this apologetic approach is to undermine a non-Christian's world view by demonstrating that without the Christian God, they cannot consistently claim meaning, truth, or logic and that, to the extent that they do use such things, they are only borrowing capital from Christianity."
This is a problem which keeps me from calling myself a presuppositionalist. It is a position which seems to undermine the foundation of presuppositionalism.
If I, as a Christian, recognize that the Bible teaches that man cannot believe except that God quicken his heart, then no apologetic approach can prove, in the naturalist courtroom, that God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God.
All the presuppositionalists I've seen engaging in an apologetic discourse with a non-Christian seem to begin by quoting Jesus in John 8:43. "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word." And they seem to refer to Romans 1. It is understood that man cannot believe until God gives him an ear to hear and eyes to see.
However, then the apologist seems to lose his mind and begin engaging in a debate with the lost person, supposedly proving their argument wrong.
What's more, most of these apologists are pretty snarky and rude. And yes, they seem to employ circular reasoning.
I do hold that a man cannot come to know God unless He sees the self-evident truth that God exists, that He is knowable, and that the Bible is God's Word.
No amount of arguing can bring a man to this point. What must happen is the truth must be paraded before the man's heart relentlessly, and fervent, effectual, faith-quickened prayer must be constantly employed.
You preach the gospel and you pray. You don't argue about or prove that it is true. You proclaim it.
I will say that you can most certainly undermine a person's worldview by showing that one or more of their presuppositions is self-contradictory or that two or more of them are mutually exclusive.
However, you cannot prove your own presuppositions.
A presupposition cannot be proven. To prove a presupposition is to show that it is not actually a presupposition but a logical conclusion of some other presupposition.
A presupposition must be recognized as self-evidently true, or assumed arbitrarily.
The only "proof" of the elect is the fruit of the holy spirit. The great commission isnt a contest to win. salvation isnt a monopoly. Sin has tainted everything including religion.
On the other hand reading from a teleprompter makes this video annoying
Works better if he read it a few times first so he'd stumble less and have some life in those dead bulging eyes.
PA is not a Christian phenomenon: There have been presuppositionalists preaching since before Moses was born.
Gee, I wonder why your arguments come off as circular?
This lunacy can only possibly make any sense if you have already drunk the kool-aid. Which kind of defeats the purpose of Apologetics.
A presuppositionalist would say that every worldview is fundamentally circular. It's unavoidable, epistemically. Thus, apologetics becomes a matter of comparing worldviews as a whole.
@@ALLHEART_ Well, a presuppositionalist would be WRONG about that, like they are wrong with pretty much everything else.
Because the clear and simple fact is that NO, NOT all worldviews are equally circular.
The presuppositionalist is just projecting the flaws of his worldview onto the rest of the world.
So, we have logical fallacies compounded on top of other logical fallacies, resulting in a whole that is more fallacious than the sum of it's parts.
"Fractal Fallaciousness," of you will ...
The ancient Greeks who formulated the laws of logic must have had a hard time, since they weren’t Christians or even monotheists and couldn’t think logically?
No me of Bahnsen really?
Not all humans are sinful.
"Go and sin no more."
-- Jesus Christ
Limit Amen-Ra to what? The Sun is the Son and is light giving force, the truth, the light, and the way. Can you destroy the Sun?
Ok I get it now. That other video on this made it sound waaaay too complicated
Didn't Zondervan publish a book called the Late Great Planet Earth that predicted Jesus would return no later than 1988. Yeah, you can go get the book on ebay. Wrong then, wrong now. ouch.
@Bigtombowski And Hal Lindsey who was totally wrong and misled millions of people that Jesus was returning never apologized and is living with wife number 4 in luxury getting drunk every night on fine wine. Yeah, I'm the bad guy. Wake up.
@Bigtombowski Today it's all good. After 30 years in the evangelical church I finally got enough courage and sanity to realize there is no invisible sky god. I am now FREE at Last. I"m free and have never felt better.
@Bigtombowski Emotionally I fee great sadness for those who still believe there is a God full knowing they have never been shown any evidence at all. Delusion is a very sad emotion.
@Bigtombowski The selling proposition is that real Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus. I've had relationships in my life. And my 30 year relationship with Jesus, as YOU know was......pretty NOTHING. But hey, just like a personal relationship with Santa Claus, it's hard to have a personal relationship with something that doesn't exist. IF it did- then I could tell you about what an awesome relationship we have had. Sad that people fall for this scam. I did, but not anymore. But hey Big Tom, tell me what you and Jesus did the other day that was so cool. hahahaha
@Bigtombowski I did find peace- when I stop believing the lie of religion. You never did tell me about your wonderful personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Could you give me an example of something very personal you two did? yeah, thought so. Wake up and live a meaningful life before it's too late.
"But you could be a brain in a vat." - every presuppositional apologist. Yes, and your god could be a brain in a vat. Welcome to non-sequitur tangents.
"And you're _not_ a brain in a vat?"
"No."
"How do you know that?"
"My god revealed it to me."
"And how did you rule out that the vat is making you think it was a revelation?"
Basically, it's "I'm not in the Matrix because (I think) a god told me I'm not."
I've never heard a presuppositionalist say that. Ever.
@@ALLHEART_ Sye Ten Bruggencate says nothing BUT this.
@@ALLHEART_ for me it's actually how I got exposed to this thing
@@mihailmilev9909 Interesting. Well, the main progenitors of this method in the modern period, Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til, have not been heard saying that, as far as I know.
I know God is real because he healed my roids!
Which “god” was it???
@@jerardosc9534 The Raging Roid God of Anus.
@@dmimcg blood must be spilled in his name! Lest his brown gaze falleth upon us and the anus of those found wanting be likend to grapes, left out in the sun, oozing of pus and impurities!
There is only one God, and he is not a Christian.
The loooonnnggggg words in this script you can hear him struggling. Lol but fascinating to learn
Presup is the best method for apolgetics.
"Presup is the best method for apolgetics."
As an atheist, I quite agree - it is the least likely to succeed.
@@JMUDoc As an "atheist" you really have no say in the matter, nor much in anything else.
@@kylec8950 That's funny - I thought atheists (why the inverted commas?) were a primary target of apologetics... if anybody is qualified to tell you what won't convince us, it's us.
@@JMUDoc If you are still an atheist after hearing different modes of apologetics than how can this one be the "worst"? None of them have "convinced" you. You have simply chosen death over life.
@@kylec8950 >>>You have simply chosen death over life.
Presuppositional apologetics is the weakest form of Christian apologetics.
On the contrary, its by far the strongest and most Biblical.
@@kylec8950 Presuppositional apologetics is based upon 3 fallacies; begging the question, shifting the burden of proof, and the vicious circle fallacy. Without those, it is nothing at all. Far from being Biblical, it is based upon Platonic philosophy of ideals. And just as Platonic philosophy of ideals failed miserably, so does Presuppositional apologetics for the same reasons. Oh yeah, also, presuppositional apologetics is based upon a misunderstanding of logic and what logic can and cannot do.
@@manager0175 It does not fail miserably. It has worked for decades and has helped me grasp an understanding on the world. Also a many atheist and non-christians have been utterly stumped and some even repent of their sins and admit their own shortcomings. Any mode that can be used for that is a success in my book.
@@kylec8950 flatly asserting you're right means you're right?
BROWNIES ARE GOD! WITHOUT BROWNIES YOU CAN'T HAVE LOGIC AS ALL THINGS DERIVE AND DEPEND UPON BROWNIES!
Perfect.
In PA, God is the starting point, not the Bible.
Van Till brought the argument to us a century ago. The heathens converted by his methods probably have no concept or care about words used in seminaries or cloistered Abbie's. If a man's heart can be softened by conviction of sin by the Holy Ghost why limit God's power by chasing doctrine like the scribes and Pharisees. Presumption is something I had before I watched this video. Thanks @zondervan
Yep and hes been laughed at ever since!
Why do you think he started this gibberish? Isnt it because he knew he couldnt provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence?
@@nickjones6651 evidence that demands a verdict in the courtroom of ideas. Do you suppose your arguments stand the test of time?
@@nickrich56 My only argument is that i reject CHILDISH claims of a god until credible evidence is supplied. And yea, that has stood the test of time.
Why did you run from my questions? They're genuine question! Not rhetorical!
@@nickjones6651 unfortunately you've made no arguments whatsoever. Had you done so initially this convo could be conducted with some degree of civil discourse. That is not likely to happen when one side has presupposed their views without a willingness to mull over facts.
@@nickrich56 I think i made the only necessary argument above. However prior to that i very civilly asked a question.
Is there any reason why you ignored it?
Presuppositional apologetics is an oxymoron.
The practical problem with PA is that is so unconvincing. Not to mention annoying. Let's take the hardest problems in philosophy, claim that Christianity solves them, and if you don't adopt my view then you can't even reason. None of this of course is supported, just claimed. I wonder, has PA ever converted anyone to Christianity?
Nope!
@@esteban5663 I don't think it's about conversion. All of the people who I've seen using it appear to match the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. I think it appeals to their deep need to feel superior and shut down any criticism with a liberal use of abusive gaslighting.
@@weirdwilliam8500 agreed!
Presuppositionalist are just grasping at straws and try get you with gotcha because it's impossible to prove hard solipsism and try to push a Christian God. Why a Christian God is beyond me.
If you dont believe than you are sailing your ship into a rock. Goodluck friend.
You cannot argue with a presuppositionalist. They lack reasoning skills.
presupp = doing the will of god [whatever it is]
Gordon Clark > Cornelius Van 'Til
That is the most sickeningly stupid and arrogant argument I have yet heard.
What a load of bs that is. It is because you say it is, ROFL.
I know the bible is true, because it gives me really super natural directions on how to treat my slaves.
If that was your takeaway then I feel sorry for you
"Reasoning doesnt lead to god so clearly reason is the problem" ah how wonderfully sane religion is. Maybe the next time you are hit by a car you should just reject that event being real, presuppose it didn't hit you or something
We could do it under your comment. cu
@@Gisbertus_Voetius sure, so i believe it was your turn to reply picking up from the previous thread
@@Gisbertus_Voetius reposting here so its available to reference
the reason i was questioning how you conclude that is to get to what your unjustified axioms are so they can be measured against those of a godless worldview to see which makes fewer.
As to using god to justify the existence of other minds how do you verify god without your senses? If you use the bible you have to trust your eyes to read (senses), those who printed it to have been honest (probably historical consistency), and that the people who initially wrote it were correct and honest about what they wrote or correct by accident. At that point you already have the two main axioms that justify the scientific method so why bother with god?
@@jeice13
I was looking forward toward our interaction. Let me please say that I praise you for even bothering with those topics. It seems that nowadays people are less and less interested in thinking about those things. Especially here in Europe, where I live. The States have always been much more versatile in that regard.
Methodology:
I think you are asking the right questions, that is: you ask what my unjustified axioms are. Then you seem to hold to Ockhams razor as instrumental. The problem, however, lies in the question which propositions are necessary. This, I think, is already worldview-dependent. The more interesting point I see is this: How can we know which proposition is necessary? What is our instrument for that? I am not sure yet if we could define reason for that task. But lets do another thing at this moment.
Please be assured that I am not here for a debate but for an interaction where both of us could profit from each other.
I will first anwer your questions then make a proposal.
_As to using god to justify the existence of other minds how do you verify god without your senses?_
This question makes only sense if you presuppose that God could be suspect to your sense. However, in the christian worldview, He can’t. He is invisible. So it was never my intention to make an argument that I could verify God with my senses.
_If you use the bible you have to trust your eyes to read (senses), those who printed it to have been honest (probably historical consistency), and that the people who initially wrote it were correct and honest about what they wrote or correct by accident._
a) We always have to use our sense first. But we are not interested in mere discription of that what we see but of the explanation of that what we see. I will make this point clearer. In that sense, senses enjoy a temporal priority but not a logical. Put in other words: What we see is a thing now. But what this thing is is another question.
b) You are right that the christian must presuppose the validity of Scriptures. He does because God tells that He will preserve His word. That does not exclude critical interrogations about the origin or formation of the Bible. The christian presupposes that the Bible is the word of God and on that ground he starts to interrogate.
_At that point you already have the two main axioms that justify the scientific method so why bother with god?_
I’d say I have much more. Let us see why.
Proposal
1. If we try to think (I almost said: with the phenomenologists) presuppositional-less all we can say, at least, is that we have a complete actual experience. That is: Our experience „is“. With that nothing is said about the „what“. All we can say is „that“ we experience.
Otherwise expressed we can say that we begin with the validity of human knowledge. We begin without presuppositions. Everything we experience moves and changes. Here is our bit of temporal reality called the world.
2. We use our reasoning faculty upon those experiences experience to see what presuppositions it implies.
2a. There are people who think that reasoning about our experiences is worthless, a waste of time. They, in other words, hold to a position where reasoning is thought of meaningless.
This however goes against our very nature. In our natures there is the urge to rationality and system; that is we need not have comprehensive knowledge ourselves but the nature of knowledge seems to demand that there be a system somewhere.
2b. If we agree that a „that“ without a „what“ is meaningless, then we can ask: What is is, that I experience?
We now can hold to three different position:
Idealism: The world I experience is not outside of me. It cannot exists without me.
Realism: Existence exists (as Ayn Rand says).
Christianity: God as Absolute exists outside of the world.
3. This is what van Til means when he says that we must presuppose God. This presupposition, however, is not rational-less.
Which of the three position is actually justified is another thing I want to talk about later.
Are we on the same page here?
Or what do you think?
@@Gisbertus_Voetius first off if you can manage to fully justify a worldview without any presuppositions im pretty sure you basically win however keep in mind that requires the worldview you justify to cover similar things to the secular world view it is being measured against (probably obvious but worth stating for explicit clarity). Now the problem with concluding things from philosophy alone doesnt seem to actually be that its not worth thinking about thing (that seems to be an example of sloppy wording) but rather that purely philosophical proof for external things in the real world always has one or more steps where the logic breaks down from what i have seen. For example saying a maximally great being must exist in the real world because conceptually something existing is "greater" than not existing despite the fact that "maximally great" is very poorly defined without some specified standard and purpose laid out and that arguably "maximal" greatness means regardless of what standard you use whatever being is closest to the conceptually greatest being could easily be something as minor as the fastest bacteria on my ass. If instead you say perfect then you probably are simply describing a being that doesnt exist until proven otherwise. The point is purely philosophical proofs tend to have these types of failures embedded in their reasoning as it allows you to skip proving things as long as no one notices.
CRT has adopted this technique too
It's what the Bible says that matters. Everyone already knows God exists. That is biblical. We need to point that out. That's where presuppositional apologetics comes in.
Chris Keen what verse? Where in the Bible is that (genuine question)
*Everyone already knows God exists. That is biblical.*
Yes, it's Biblical. But unless you can prove it to be TRUE it has no place in conversations with atheists (or, what you would call "professing" atheists). Your telling me I already believe in your god accomplishes NOTHING unless you're prepared to prove it.
If you're not prepared to prove it, get out of my face - you don't get to tell me the contents of my own mind based on the say-so of a book you're not prepared to evidence.
Jacob M
Hey Jacob. Romans 1 speaks about everyone knowing God.
@@tylercrown6354 Yes, it does. But saying that to somebody who tells you they DON'T know, accomplishes nothing,
JMUDoc
I wasn’t attempting to defend presup I was just answering his question. I am personally intrigued by presup but still have issues of my own.
Presuppositional apologetics:" I'm RIGHT COS I PRESUPPOSE IT"!. MAKES LIFE SIMPLE!!
Basically