I do appreciate the irenic spirit and the thoughtful discussion. I am a little troubled by the title, "A Sound Refutation..." Presuppositionalism was discussed but it certainly wasn't soundly refuted, IMO.
@@jesuscorona3562 Because PSA-ists are hiding between monumental piles of assertions. You know very well that there is very different assertions of PSA, and I challenge you, to boil them down to and verbally condense them in non-ambiguous statements
Norm Geisler always brought the message back to the Gospel in his apologetics talks at Universities. That's what impressed me so much when first hearing him.
@@alyoshaty8823 Why don't you start out with all that you drink and eat, all that is re-making your very SUBSTANCE? Start with the Carbon atom. You know that it is not only the structural model at your body, but also at the paper, where you will find scientic assertions AND religious assertions. A religious assertion !!!CAN!!! be defined as an assertion, where truth=opinion=THOUGHT is asserted to be existing rather than to be imaginary = being fabricated FROM/ABOUT the existing..
"God as the necessary condition is different than the presupposition of God for knowledge." -- Right. "We wouldn't be having this epistemological dispute, if we got the metaphysics right." -- Exactly ;)
This video provided the opposite of what was advertised. A talk about starting points would be interesting. Starting with epistemological principles alone seems silly, seeing as they necessitate some metaphysics. I agree with Richard, such a clean separation of subjects, like metaphysics and epistemology, is dubious.
Some generalities, but as a presuppositionalist, this was the most gracious presentation I've heard. His latter argument on other religious expressions has been dealt with well by Greg Bahnsen focusing on the internal inconsistencies and the impossibility of the contrary arguments.
Using parity of reason, the atheist can justify all of his presuppositions, one by one, claiming the impossibility of the contrary. Presup is a silly game aimed at people who don't know much about ontology and epistemology.
@@lkae4 Your suggestion is the best I found under this video. Substance *(real,* PHYSIS) versus Truth *(imaginary,* PSYCHE) fabricated from/about the *real,* versus assertion *(real,* LOGOS = expression !!!OF!!! Psyche = assertion !!!OF!!! the *imaginary).* Kind regards from GERMANY!
Amazes me how far people go to try and deny presupusitionalism. Twist Acts 2:36 and other places because they don't want to believe that Christians can have certainty. Key word certainty. They do all kinds of gymnastics even trying to make different categories of certainty all because they have the presupusitional intention to defend evidential methodology and they are willing to twist the Bible to do so. Twisting the scriptures , that's what cults do and trying to refute that Christians can have certainty, note, that's what atheists do. And then they'll straw man presupusitionalists and say we don't believe in using evidence. If your methodology causes you to do that, that is repugnant. They want want a space at the table with some of the mainstream academics so they don't take 1 Corinthians to serious or Romans 1:18-32.
@@georgemoncayo8313 The assertion of Presuppositionalism is built on the assertion, that truth, knowledge, logic can be used. ***Sure is, this is not remotely the case.*** Do you know how come, and what you (a Theist, in other words an Idolator) and I (a born-again ATheist, in other words a member of the honorable, babee-eating and C.Darwin- and R.Dawkins. iow the devil worshipping society) ***!!!DO!!! use, on this occasion?!*** Kind regards from GERRRMANY!
I went to one of the apologetics conferences at SES when I was 17, and specifically remember Dr. Howe because of his lecture on the problem of evil. It was as hilarious as it was illuminating.
Always wanted to go n the first years SES was up and running.. what would you say if the best argument for God? im lead to believe the best is the existentially undeniable cosmological argument in Christian Apologetics, but have had to simplify it to be able to use it with others, hence would like to hear any feedback from someone exposed to all that great thinking.
My understanding was that Vantil and even Bahnsen were not absolutely opposed to classical arguments or evidence. They used them in debates or writings. Their point was that without transcendentals exposed for what they are the classical arguments were much weaker than they had to be. And that they could never open up the Scriptures and speak directly about Jesus Christ. They would say that the classical approach gives way too much ground to the Ps 14 fool at the beginning and makes the arguments so much weaker than they have to be.
@@Spinozasghost not sure the point you are driving at but the Scriptures make it clear that all have a general revelation knowledge of God. This is different from a covenant knowledge that comes by saving faith in Christ, but all have various levels of knowledge and they suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness Romans 1:19-23
Many presuppers show that outside the God of the Bible, man cannot know or assert anything with any degree of epistemological certainty. Where do you get your information?
@@mikkellowe1270 "Many presuppers show that outside the God of the Bible, man cannot know or assert anything with any degree of epistemological certainty." They don't show it; they assert it. "Where do you get your information?" By presupposing the laws of logic and induction.
To make sense of reality, presuppositionalism is mandatory. The laws of logic and induction have no reason to exist or even be consistent in a universe which came to be in random chance, so pressupposing this is the only way for reason to make any sense. This being said, God is a necessary precondition because it is impossible for the universe to exist uncaused. The universe has a cause, and the only cause that has been demonstrated to be a possibility is a God. Douglas McNay says due to the possibility of the contrary because the universe cannot exist independently without a necessary thing at the foundation of reality. Let's break this down into a proof. Assuming logical consistency, the following proves the existence of God. 1. Everything depends on one another to exist. The coffee depends on the coffee machine. The coffee machine depends on the parts to make it. The parts depend on us to exist since we made the parts, etc. 2. Reality itself is independent. Whether or not the multiverse exists, all of reality exists exclusively. Reality doesn’t depend on any other physical realm to exist. 3. Even though everything else in the universe is dependent, reality itself is independent, and it is impossible to create a reality that is independent without it depending on something else to exist if the building blocks of reality are dependent on each other to exist. 4. The reason why reality itself is independent but everything inside reality is dependent is because there is an independent cause at the foundation of reality that explains everything else. 5. This independent cause at the foundation of reality must exist forever, because if it had a beginning, then it would fall under the category of dependence, resetting the proposition, and therefore having a creator. 6. A metaphysical being at the foundation of reality solves the problem since this is the only way to have something exist that depends on nothing else in the physical realm. 7. Therefore, God exists. This solves the problem and shows that there must be a necessary precondition at the foundation of reality to explain reality's existence independent of anything else in the physical realm when everything in the physical realm depends on each other to exist. A metaphysical explanation is deemed necessary. Now, since I have demonstrated that God exists, now it is your turn to refute the argument. Please, by all means, point out any major thing that pokes holes in this argument. I am seeking the truth, and if there is no logical inconsistency within this argument, I will have to assume _a_ god exists. This does not prove Christianity, but it's a start.
At 7:40 thank you, thank you! Years ago when I was struggling deeply with my own faith, presuppositionalism made things very frustrated for me. I even attended Reformed Forum and talked with K. Scott Oliphint in person (who I certainly do respect), but I could see in it this equivocation between "the assumption of God" and "God" being the precondition of knowledge. It feels very relieving and actually means a lot to me personally to hear this equivocation called out directly, because recognizing this and giving myself permission to have a non-presuposition epistemology was integral to the rebuilding of my own faith!
@@marialeach8960 One says without God, even if you are ignorant of His existence, you cannot have knowledge. The other says you need positive belief to have knowledge.
I remember sharing the gospel to a chinese man in his late teens who went to the Philippines just to learn English and observe at a factory something like that, and the encounter was very new to me. First off, he was very open and kind, he was friendly because he didn't had many friends especially in our country, so that made him listen to me when I tried to tell him something. I was surprised when he responded to my introduction that he didn't know what religion was, nor understood what a "God" is. I tried sharing the gospel but it was hard to explain since he didn't know about the entities I was talking about. So I had to explain the concept of God to him first. At that moment, I realized pressup was useless and ineffective, and so I immediately used the classical/evidential approach and arguments, and it was fun because each of the arguments' conclusion was like a puzzle piece to let him see the bigger picture of what kind of being I was talking about till He got the idea he never once in his life thought of, said he. And then proceeded to go back to the gospel. Later that night, he said he wanted to know more of Jesus and also wanted him to be his God because I told him about my testimony as well. We prayed for his life and also for his safety since he then flew back to China about 3 days later. I didn't remember his name that quick because Chinese names don't really stick to me as a Filipino, tho it was close to "Chen", he also didn't leave any contact information since he has no social media but I sure do hope he's doing well and is walking on the path of faith and reason. Wherever you are brother, I hope the best for you. God bless!
I think that's a wonderful testimony! However, I hope you give presup a serious examination, since I think you misunderstand it. I'm happy to expand, if you care to listen. I'm curious to know what you think a presupper would have done, in your witnessing encounter above.
@@Enigma49 I did went through a metholodogy with Van Tillian references some time ago, although I admit it's no longer a fresh memory. Also, I used to listen to Durbin, Sye, and White, etc and have been trying to do what they did a couple years ago but now I prefer the classical/evidentialist christians since it has worked a lot for me in terms of reaching out to skeptics, to evangelism to discipling people, it has worked and now I'm ministering same age men who are committed in serving the Lord. Tho I still have respect on Durbin and White for their passion and for White's work on the Trinity, etc. Classical for me, is more engaging and it respects the other person's background by opening up a common point in thinking. I also saw how flawed it is after watching this: ua-cam.com/video/aUKIVV48LOk/v-deo.html VERY BAD debate. I still use the moral argument which by its nature presupposes God, but the approach I use is just the Evids. But still, I'm willing to learn and not want to generalize the pressup position, I could've have had a wrong idea of it. What would you have done?
@@GHanBax Well, my intention isn't to critique your witnessing encounter above, but to help you to understand what PA is and does, since you expressed your opposition to it. There's nothing wrong with giving reasons and evidence from a PA perspective. What do you think a presupper would have done differently, compared to how you evangelized the fellow you mentioned above?
@@Enigma49 I think pressups would do something similar, but that's not what I was critiquing as well, it's more on the pressup approach on grounding. Conversations could differ and may be similar, but the essential reasoning of assuming a preconceived ground from the other person's perspective is quite an arrogant claim that is applicable on any pressup from any view just as the video said. I think it's a highly respected idea to put God or scripture ahead as the ground of reality, yes, metaphysically. But in manifesting this out into dialogue, reasoning, and logic, it would be poor and circular. Since the conclusion is just the first premise. That's why Craig always differentiates knowing christianity to be true and showing christianity to be true.
He actually argued in a circle: God exists and has given us faculties (reason and sense). We then learn truths about reality by which we construct arguments for God's existence.
I don't understand how people can be against either pressup or evidentialist apologetics. They are BOTH tools to be used properly in developing arguments in the defense of the faith. We can present evidence while at the same time understanding that no other worldview can give an account of the facts like Christianity can given our foundation. Francis Schaeffer is a great example of this avenue. Francis always reasoned through worldviews and philosophy all the while knowing what grounds Christianity rationally, philosophically and theologically.
I think presup it's the first step, then comes evidentialist, why even grant the first step. Evidentialist it's not wrong but why even get there when they can't objectively make sense of the first one?
Exactly. A good presuppositionalist will be able to provide evidence to back up his apologetic, he just understands from scripture that men who are dead in their trespasses and sins will never be satisfied by that evidence.
The problem is with presups. They're not open to other apologetic methods. Those who do classical and evidential can also do presup, depending on the type of audience.
@@noynoying That is because presup is first and foremost a theological apologetic and not a philosophical one. I cannot change my apologetic method any more than I could change how I interpret scripture, because my apologetic method comes directly from how I understand scripture.
When will an interview be arranged with John Frame, K. Scott Oliphint, James White, Matt Slick, Vocab Malone and maybe even some of the guys from Reformed Forum on this topic? Seems a bit one sided without allowing the other side to offer their view accurately.
I have always asserted that the presupposition argument demands the impossible; that the lost person start with God; something the one making the demand should know, even as they are making the demand, that it is an impossibility, because of Romans chapters1-3.
I’m curious how anti-presuppositionalists respond concerning Christ’s answer to the rich man in Luke 16. He appears to imply that evidence - even the most miraculous - would not convince the lost, if they have not already believed the Scripture available to them. This principle could only be all the more applicable today, when we have the now complete canon of Scripture available.
Because its not evidence alone... Okay im just going to put it straight, this seems to be a calvinist only approach. It seems as calvinists take verses out and isolate them to put forth their independent view points on certain topics. That being said, you mustn't just take this verse alone, compare it to the rest of Christian cannon and you will find that while you are mostly correct in your interpretation, your conclusion is not justified. We are not saying that the presentation of evidence will convince unbelievers, but may put a burden on their heart so that they will soften their hearts to Jesus and be more open to having a relationship with God. Although, I also believe that it is necessary to have evidence for your faith, hence this is why evidencial apologetics is useful.
I don't think that's what it means. I think those tasked to evangelize unbelievers are not merely the prophets of old but also those of the new--Christians.
@@TimberWulfIsHere You didn't answer the question directly. You indirectly pivoted the question. The only thing you said is that evidence alone won't convince them. That's not what the text says. Jesus Christ says to the Rich Man if their hearts aren't softened by the Gospel (the power of God unto salvation) then they wouldn't be able to be convinced if someone rises from the dead. Evidence is not what the sinner needs, it's the Gospel that's the power of God unto salvation. It's God's work that removes the rebellious sinners heart of stone and grants a heart of flesh. It is absurd to attempt to rationalize and argue for the existence of God using classical and evidential claims, when those very same arguments in and of themselves would be impossible did God not exist. Rather than attempting to convince an unbeliever of the God that must exist for reasoning to even take place, it is better to call them to repentance before the God they already know exists and who they must presuppose exists even before they can deny Him.
@@markstevenpandan890 You gave me your opinion on the text and not an Exegesis. Luke 16:27-31 ESV - And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house- for I have five brothers-so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” It's clear that evidence doesn't play apart in convincing unbelievers. Romans 1:16 ESV - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
@@reformedchristian7751 "You didn't answer the question directly" good observation. "The only thing you said is that evidence alone won't convince them. That's not what the text says." So you are going to ignore what I said and what the rest of the bible says? I cannot find any verse which confirms your claim in Luke 16, with the only similarity being 27-31, but that is not talking about evidence within this context of apologetics. So no, that is not what the text says. Again, you can use evidence along with the gospel (as intended) to help those who need to be saved. "It is absurd to attempt to rationalize and argue for the existence of God using classical and evidential claims, when those very same arguments in and of themselves would be impossible did God not exist" That is kind of the point here? philosophy proves God. Rather than attempting to convince an unbeliever of the God that must exist for reasoning to even take place, it is better to call them to repentance before the God they already know exists and who they must presuppose exists even before they can deny Him. JustJake Reformed Christian "You didn't answer the question directly" good observation. "The only thing you said is that evidence alone won't convince them. That's not what the text says." So you are going to ignore what I said and what the rest of the bible says? I cannot find any verse which confirms your claim in Luke 16, with the only similarity being 27-31, but that is not talking about evidence within this context of apologetics. So no, that is not what the text says. Again, you can use evidence along with the gospel (as intended) to help those who need to be saved. "It is absurd to attempt to rationalize and argue for the existence of God using classical and evidential claims, when those very same arguments in and of themselves would be impossible did God not exist" That is kind of the point here? philosophy proves God. "Rather than attempting to convince an unbeliever of the God that must exist for reasoning to even take place, it is better to call them to repentance before the God they already know exists and who they must presuppose exists even before they can deny Him. " Why go the black and white fallacy here? calling someone to place their faith in God and demonstating his existance is not mutually exclusive, but I see, your argument works only if they were. We are called to be able to defend the faith, it is a command by Jesus, are you denying that?
Awesome interview. Thanks for exposing me to another facet of the intellectual side of Christian beleif. Would love to see more of Dr. Howe on the channel!
In one of my classes with Dr. Craig a student asked him why he always concluded his debates with an appeal to the resurrection of Jesus as the best evidence for belief in the existence of God. Without any hesitation, Dr. Craig said, “It is purely for evangelistic reasons.” He also frequently refers to the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit” as the best proof for God’s existence. So I believe that classical apologists can easily make the case for God as the God of Christianity, as Dr. Craig illustrates so well.
Jeffrey Osburn, Christianity lives or dies with the truth of the resurrection. When Christ rose, God vindicated Him. All his claims were verified as truth. And no one comes to faith unless they are drawn by the Father. You can argue people into accepting the possibility of God but true faith comes from an intellectual investigation as well as the experiential. Sorry super tired here. Anyway, keep the faith and keep learning about your faith. He is real and He is the Way.
Thinking to maintain neutrality with respect to Scripture, any natural theology that reasons autonomously from logical and/or empirical grounds to God results in an exclusion of revelational necessity and authority endorsing some other imperious philosophy. Knowledge of God must be rooted in His own self-disclosure. Because the clear revelation of God in nature’s and man’s constitution is suppressed in unrighteousness, it is impossible for theology or apologetics to base their efforts in a rebellious understanding of the world or history, independently working up to a verification of God’s written revelation. Faith must necessarily start with the clear, authoritative, self-attesting, special revelation of God in Scripture coordinated with the Holy Spirit’s inner testimony to the regenerated heart. Dr. Greg Bahnsen "Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended"
If you guys just presuppose that God exists and don't bring any logical argument to support this claim, then what stops the atheist from just presupposing the truth of their belief that the universe is all there is without any argument?
Cameron, I really appreciated this interview and I hope that this won't be the last word from you regarding presupp. I know some thing you should have Sye on or someone like him. But I wouldn't recommend it. You really need someone who's more credentialed, because that's what your guests normally are. May I recommend someone like James Anderson of RTS? He's a well educated philosopher and could stand toe to toe with Howe or someone else. And I think he could clarify presupp better than just about anyone. Also, I have to say that your title of the video is very misleading. And I don't even think Howe would feel comfortable with it (correct me if i'm wrong?). I don't think presupp was really "refuted" here. At best, some weaknesses were pointed out that any presupper would love to clarify. And even so, this would be just be the classic Bahnsen-Tillian brand, not the decades worth of development that has taken place in the movement since. Presupp has definitely evolved into a number of sub-brands since then, so it's pretty bold to claim that "presupp" has been refuted. Which brand of presupp? It would be like me offering a critique of WLC's apologetic and then say "Classical apologetics has been soundly refuted." Anyway, I hope you'll read this and lend some consideration to your future dealings on this subject, or at least change the title of this video. And by the way, i'm not a strict presupper myself. I favor a more integrative approach, similar to John Frame with some Plantinga sprinkled in :-)
that was not even a valid argument bro, he's got a false premise there. we don't assume the existence of God and from there we build our case, we prove God from the impossibility of the contrary.
One of the points that I find so helpful from presuppositionalism is to show how the Naturalist cannot argue consistently with their own presuppositions. The main point is that if you claim that all that exists is the natural world or that objective reality consists solely of nature, then the Laws of Logic do not exist. Because these laws are transcendent, immaterial, universal truths, that are not derived from the natural world but govern our understanding of it. Thus, when the Naturalist makes a defense for their position as true, they must abandon their precommitment to Naturalism. For if they wish to provide a valid argument for their position, they must appeal to the Laws of Logic, which are not themselves a part of nature. But the position they are attempting to prove is that there is no God and all that exists is nature, and if your reasons for believing that all that exists is nature is based upon logical laws that do not consist of material or that are not found in the natural world, then they cannot hold to the claim that objective reality consists solely of the natural. Thus, the naturalist appealing to the Laws of Logic in order to prove his or her position has abandoned their precommitment to naturalism. The presuppositionalist is concerned with internal worldview consistency, and claim that the Christian worldview is internally consistent and is not dependent upon beliefs outside of what is taught in Scripture for it to be understood. The Naturalists can't do this. The Relativists can't do this, for they must appeal to objectivity in order to deny it. The Rationalist can't do this, for when they are pressed to show the reliability of their reasoning they will have to use it in argumentation to prove it, and thus they are left in a destructive circle. The Empiricist can't do this for they can't use sense perception to justify the claim that sense perception is the foundation for knowledge. And even the Christians that came to faith via the classical method will have to eventually deny their own epistemic theories that led to their views, For "the Fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge," and "in Christ is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," (Prov. 1:7; Col. 2:3). The Bible itself claims that apart from God we have no basis for knowledge, reason, and intelligibility. As Christians, this must be the basis for our epistemology, and as Paul says, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily." Though I know these two men believe this, the Classical approach requires the apologist to take a mythical neutral position to convince the unbeliever who is not neutral according to Christian belief, in order that they may reason to the conclusion that God exists. Though I believe there are good arguments for God's existences that these two men use, the question is what is our authority? Is it our reasoning at the center point, are we to take the same standards of the world, or is it the Words of the Living God?
"The presuppositionalist is concerned with internal worldview consistency, and claim that the Christian worldview is internally consistent" "Internally consistent" =/= "true".
a summary on how presuppostionalism works : Since Immaterial Pixie Exists, therefore logic exists because it is in the mind of Immaterial Pixie, therefore Immaterial Pixie exists. Is the proposition “immaterial pixie exists” objectively true? Yes. Since, apart from presupposing immaterial pixie we can’t account for valid human experience.”
@@alyoshaty8823 It's worse than that. Like with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Immaterial Pixie itself has qualities that prevent it from being the Truth, so it can't even apply to presupp. You can't put together any old word and throw it in because presupp is about what you shave to presuppose in order to operate within the world in the first place. A pixie doesn't qualify. What you have to presuppose is the Truth, and certain qualities come along with that. All of those qualities add up to a God that is indistinguishable from YHWH. Very basic example. If there was no better or worse, all choices would be equal. We would operate based on that presupposition because logic wouldn't even work. There would be no difference between oppressing and being oppressed, eating and starving, etc. All choices would produce the same result. That's every pantheist religion of you listen to mystics, it's atheism separate from human attempts to make it sound rational, and yet we don't live in that. (In fact, nothing does.) He has to replace the immaterial pixie specifically with the God who corresponds to the presupposition that is required for us to think, live, etc.
@@kborcudi Thats not what im talking about Im referring to what you said about catholics using dr howes classical method is “enough” for you to choose Greg Bahnsens apologetic. Not only is that illogical but if you’re consistent, you should disregard Presupp also because eastern orthodox use presupp aswell.
I appreciated this discussion. I remain a presuppositionalist, but it's an excellent response to presuppositionalism. Is it a sound refutation of presups? That may be a subjective assessment--it certainly made me want to click on the video--but I appreciate the thoughtful Christian spirit here. Whether you're a classical apologist or a presuppositionalist, both are clearly Christians, and, no doubt, both positions have their blindspots.
Isn't one of the benefits of presupp the promise of eliminating blind spots -- since the premise is that rationality comes from God, and therefore can't be blind? Common human psychology, the brain as an input/output machine, explains blind spots much more directly without complication than presupp does.
K Scott Oliphint is one of the most articulate and careful proponents of the presuppositional approach. His arguments might end up being too persuasive...
Sye Ten' s fallacies have since been unpacked by several counter-apologists and he's mostly stopped his method. It only really "destroyed" in the man-on-the-street context with people who weren't familiar with it. Matt Dillahunty's debate (w/ Sye) review video outlines it pretty well and Ozymandias' very detailed video explains it the best.
What fallacies? The debate you refer to clearly was in Sye Ten's favor. The latest debate that sodomite, Dillahunty had ended up with him giving up when his opponent showed him how absurd atheism is when it's (il)logically played out.
You can give reasons and evidence within a presuppositionalist context. Classicalism, however, assumes that persons holding antithetical worldviews can reason on neutral ground. If your interlocutor's lens is tinted "the-God-of-the-Bible-doesn't-exist" (per Rom. 1), then the Christian conclusion is precluded before they take their first glance at your evidences (since they are already being bombarded with God's revelation, Ps. 19). The presuppositional method seeks to demolish their worldview system (which cannot justify knowledge, Pr. 1:7), and present the only alternative; the one which is given by God in his Word. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:4-5
@@Enigma49 It is true presupposition is powerful because it undermines atheistic assumptions about epistemology, thereby negating any argument that precedes from said failed assumptions. Am I right to say that the main contention is that the presuppositionalist refuses to answer an atheist according to his reasoning because to answer accordingly is to agree with him implicitly that reasoning can be done apart from God? In that sense it is very similar to answering a complex statement without first exposing the hidden assumptions, thereby implicitly agreeing with said assumptions simply by answering the question? The problem is however, that such an approach does not address the main concerns that non-believers may have about God. Yes questions like why is there evil and suffering can only be questioned if God is within the paradigm but to ignore the question and go straight for the carotid by destroying their assumptions is to win the argument but lose the person isn't it? Granted against arrogant dismissals of God I believe such a powerful approach is effective, especially to protect the testimony of believers but many times the questioner is actually sincere isn't it? Can we not address the questioner both ways? Tell them that if their conclusion that God does not exist is true their statement is actually logically incoherent and meaningless, then answer their question with God in the paradigm?
@@Enigma49 could it be thats why part of classical apologetics also addresses objections and systemic presuppositions that non believers are carrying into the discussion, a way to clear out the weeds so they can receive the seeds of the truth with respect to sharing evidence for God?
Debating a presuppositionalist is like playing cards with a two-year-old. Whatever cards they happen to be holding is always the winning hand. The rules are what they say they are and you will never convince them otherwise. They think they have found the secret to winning arguments because most people avoid debating them.
@@colinguyan9704 because usually other theistic arguments follow from causal / experiential principles that only work if both people hold the principles in common. Example: "Anything which begins to exist, has a cause for its beginning to exist". The success of the Kalam Cosmological argument relies on both people understanding that principle in exactly the same way. If I say instead that, I conceive of the principle as follows: "Anything which begins to exist at t2, has a cause at t1 for its beginning to exist". Then in order for the Theist to convince me of the Kalam, they'd have to find some common experience and demonstrate that my principle fails to account for these experiences, so I ought to hold the former rather than the latter. If they cannot do that, then I'm within my rights to hold my principle over theirs, and thus the Kalam's conclusion is blocked, since a "sans time cause" cannot be induced out of my principle that requires prior time cause. In every Theistic argument I've studied, there's some common causal principle on which your interlocutor is forced to interact with your experiences to convince you of their worldview. Presuppositionalists attempt to short circuit the hard work be saying that you can't reason your way into any opposing principles unless you can account for reason itself, which happens to be impossible on their worldview. That's an insanely different claim to make than what the usual Theist arguments do. Even my most hated Theistic arguments (Fine Tuning, Kalam, Moral) pale in comparison to the contempt to which I give Presupp "arguments".
@@colinguyan9704 Most Theists want to win a debate using logic and reason... while Presuppositionalists are attempting to change the very foundation of reason so they don't have to debate. Or, to continue the analogy, most Theists want to win the game by the agreed upon rules. Where Presuppositionalists declare victory from the start citing a rule only they accept.
@@logos8312 I fail to see the difference. Kalam is we don't know therefore god it only works if you start with a belief in god. So you just presuppose something different from another group what's the difference?
What brought me to the Lord was not the argument from the presuppositional argument or the classical theistic approach, but rather a good study of Daniel and Revelation.
VERY beautiful and arresting intro. Love the music, well edited. In my opinion, presuppositionalism often boils down to dogmatism. I started reading "The Lie" by Ken Ham and was disgusted with his extremely proud and explicit use of bias and dogma for Christianity rather than the amazingly logical evidentialist faith you see when you read books like, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." Further, I think the idea that Calvinists often require presuppositionalism to operate is a fascinating point, and one that has flashed in my mind lately as an ex-Calvinist. The idea that we are so corrupt we cannot even choose God would go hand in hand with the idea that we are so blind that all knowledge is impossible without God's guiding hand. I'm early in my intellectual journey. A lot of terminology in this video was new to me. Right now just focusing on the YEC vs. Old Universe vs. Theistic Evolution arguments. I'm getting very upset with the dogmatists who I never really vetted for my worldview on Young Earth. Hopeful I can find answers quick to help a friend who is fast falling away. Just glad I got to sit under the tutelage of Dr. Charles Thaxton to center me on something more logically solid.
You see dogmatism because you haven't seen the logic for presuppositionalism, just look for better explanations, for example Dr Jason Lisle who has written books that addresses presuppositionalism and YEC too.
@@Davichoo No, I see dogmatism because I read The Lie, and Ken Ham explicitly called himself dogmatic. He couldn't have used clearer terms to describe himself, saying his "bias" and "dogma" was better dogma than atheist dogma. And he excitedly proclaimed that this was a good thing. Maybe I haven't given Presuppositionialism a fair shake yet. Perhaps it is unfair of me to directly connect Ham to Presupp. But so far I have not seen evidence that this ideology is any good.
@@rationalevidence9095 I may just pick up one of his books! I have been reading a lot about Day-Age Theory on godandscience.org. Ross's "A Matter of Days" is frequently referenced.
One of the main questions presup raises is who is the ultimate deciding authority. Is it the fallen man's autonomous, rebellious reason with which he exchanges God with false idols (namely, himself) or is it God's revealed word in Scripture? Are you relying on your autonomous reason to be the judge of all the facts? If you are an Armenian and want to claim that last deciding push to faith belongs to you, then of course presup is not going to make much sense to you. If you, on the other hand, believe we are dead in our transgressions, that w/o the supernatural saving power of God we cannot come to God, it will make sense.
People are just mad that presuppositionalism is "easy" and cuts through atheistic arguments like a hot knife through butter, while all their "hard work" apologetics gain no ground. They think it's cheating.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib you have to presuppose God for intelligibility. That's the point of a presupposition. Obviously God is necessary to explain everything. God creates and sustains everything. How could a Christian say otherwise?
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Through the use of reason. Now why does reason lead to God? Because God is true. Reason doesn't lead anywhere else. You don't explicitly need to affirm God to use reason. But reason cannot exist without God.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib easy. Reason requires, presupposes, and appeals to truth. Truth is a universal of intention. A universal that must exist in a universal mind. For instance, the only way the law of non-contradiction can be true is if it is maintained as a universal throughout reality, and this requires a mind "above" reality. Universal Truth is God.
It IS cheating. It's incredibly dishonest, disingenuous and ultimately malicious. It makes assertions, insists they can't be wrong and also insists that unless we accept these assertions, we're not allowed to disagree with them. It's vapid apologetics for people who have a pathological need to be right, and to humiliate others.
This is a very brief refutation. I have heard Dr. Howe teach and debate this in detail. R.C. Sproul also refuted presuppositionalism effectively. The presup method is intellectually bankrupt as demonstrated repeatedly by their begging the question, confusing ontology with epistemology, and/or making classical arguments in defense of God unwittingly.
Difference is we stand firm on our foundation- on the contrary of letting the atheist be the judge of God‘s creation- in which the atheist dismisses all that they’re presented with. We reduce them down to absurdity, to which shows them the bankruptcy of their position. I used to argue evidences- I realized how foolish it was, coming from the fact “all facts entail God, or they don’t” so why would I be foolish enough to argue over pieces.
Did you watch (listen) to the "Bahnsen vs Sproul video on PSA. As somebody said: "Bahnsen wiped the floor with Sproul". Plus, I lost respect for Ligonier ministries when Dr. Sproul's son was still kept on the payroll after doing a few "undesirable" things. Shall we say. And, who was still paying for Sproul's son's salary? Well, none other than the donors to Ligonier Ministries. So, I never gave another cent to that ministry.
@@punishingatheismofficial9790 Except your argument is rooted in equivocation. It's trivially true nothing could exist without God. It's obviously false to say you can't use logic or morality without assuming God's existence. Logic cannot be justified or criticised. Those are activities made possible by standing within a framework of logic. Logic doesn't assume God, it's assumes itself. Likewise attributing a moral command to an omnipotent being does nothing to ground it unless you believe might makes right.
Something in my opinion that distinguishes and elevates the presuppositional approach above the classical approach (based on my study of the two schools) is that the proponents of presuppositional apologetics are almost always more rigorous in their understanding of the Scriptures. One only has to spend 5 minutes reading Van Til, Bahnsen, or John Frame (an oft undermentioned name in these discussion, of the three he is the most clear. see "Apologetics" by John Frame) to see how faithful these men are to the Scriptures. One can see that their first loyalty is to the Word of God, and the Lordship of Christ in all matters, including intellectual. This is a flavor often (though not always) missing in the writings and lectures of "classical" apologists.
In one sense you can't compare presup with classical because those two are completely different approaches. Presup uses the bible from the onset. Classical relies on reason only. But that does not mean classical apologists do not know the bible. Of course they do. Classical apologists are trained in seminary also. They can do exegesis as well. Classical apologists operate within the context of theism in general. Whenever they do classical apologetics, they don't really evangelize. Presup isn't really giving a defense. Presup isn't really reasoning. Presup = Preaching. There is a time to preach, and a time to do classical.
I don't know why people are recommending Dr. Jason Lisle and Sye Ten B lol I think if anyone, the best person to interview would be Michael Butler, Greg Bahnsen's disciple
I think it's because those two are more well known on the internet. I agree with you though. There are some serious contenders more worthy of mention: I think of John Frame (although I know he and Bahnsen had the occasional squabble whilst remining good friends) and K Scott Oliphint (Prof at Westminster). Both of these gentleman are for more winsome, articulate, and knowledgeable in the field.
Oh man. I could write 1,000 pages critiquing this because I know exactly how Bahnsen would have responded to these points. - Instead let me just say that you can’t just presuppose the Coran or whatever for a number of obvious reasons. It makes me think that this guy hasn’t studied pressup very much because this is a beginner misconception. Let me also just advertise that Presupp is far superior in every way to other methods, except that it is difficult to try and explain to an average person. - This host is so enamored with William Lane Craig who is brilliant but his method is so weak. He and everyone here should listen to “The Debate That Never Was.” It is the best distilled and hardest hitting of Bahnsens lectures and debates.
Cameron, I would highly recommend checking out Dr James Anderson's Christian Apologetics lecture series in the RTS(reformed theological seminary) app. He looks at all the major approaches to apologetics and ends up with a type of presup that is unlike what is being critiqued here.
At 5:50 ish CC talks about presuppositionalism being the most effective form of apologetics. One reason this would be true is that if you're not versed in it, it's difficult to address, it takes you unawares.
You need to do an interview with James White or K Scott Oliphint or John Frame. I can see from this video that Dr. Howe has read and studied both Van Til and Bahnsen (and, I assume, Reformed theology more broadly). But the thing you must realise, Cameron, is that presuppositional apologetics is simply Reformed theology in apologetics. When you raise objections about using a presuppositional strategy to defend other religions you reveal that you haven't understood what is being claimed by Van Til et al. Van Til's approach is not a mind-game. You make it seem like it is.
Interviewing James White would be great. As a presuppositionalist, he debates Muslims (which Dr Howe implies can't work), Jehovah Witnesses, Mormans, Unitarians, and occasionally atheists.
I just want to clarify that Reformed Theology is not exclusively Presup. Plenty of confessional Reformed hold to something more along the lines of Thomistic Classicalism
@@jeremiahworkman4563 I didn't mean to present the issue as if Sproul, Warfield et al. are not Reformed. But I would say that presup is the only consistently Reformed apologetic, so that their Thomism was an inconsistency with the principles they so boldy defended and believed from the heart.
I've heard excellent arguments from all sides of apologetics. It's quite fascinating, honestly, that God has provided so many ways of proving what He says, in His word, everyone already knows. Lol. While I understand what's being said here, I find a deep appreciation for presupp in the very fact that it takes the Word of God as the Truth it is. When God's word says man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, it explains why say-- Bart Ehrman can be so solid historically concerning Christ, yet not believe in Him as the resurrected Son of God. I think people like Bart are excellent examples against any other apologetic approach. If indeed, solid, historical evidence were enough to persuade the unbeliever, why isn't he Christian? He remains in his unbelief because of his love for sin, his enmity with his Creator, his unwillingness to submit to God's Law (where do we find God's Law?) Back to the Scriptures boys and girls. Therefore providing a pretty solid basis for presupp. However, someone could then ask, "How do we know the Scriptures are God's Word, infallible, reliable, etc?" and that is where I see a solid basis for the use of classical apologetics. In fact, in Bahnsen's "Reasoning with unbelievers" lecture, he uses tons of what I would call Classical arguments against all other claims of reality/religion. All that being said, God has provided us with beautifully excellent methods of defending His truth and our faith. Use them all! Let us not find yet another reason to divide, let's put whatever argument necessary into practice. At the end of the day, it is up to the Holy Spirit to draw, we must only be faithful. Grace and peace to all my brothers and sisters in Christ!
I dont think this is a sound refutation of presuppositionalism it actually strengthens and supports that method. I think the main thing is understanding these are “argument styles”, and each individual will use the argument style that helps them to defend the truth about God. I have seen great arguments from both methods. Then I think having deep understanding of christianity, the gospel would then be necessary to argue with other faiths as well.
Tracchofyre i’ve seen sye argument style not so much kent hovind, i would say your analyzing the person using that technique rather than the actual technique. Im not a fan Sye, method of how he uses it because he doesnt get anywhere and it feels like he just wants win an argument smh Look into Greg bahnsen, he is the ideal example of a presuppositionalist.
@Tracchofyre Kent Hovind isn't presup, my dudes. I do understand how Sye can appear abrasive in a snappy UA-cam clip, but he is really sharp. Presup can be a lot more thoughtful and patient than I think you've been exposed to. I get that cage-stage newbies shouting "HoW dO yOu KnOw?" Is not convincing, but I hope you'll give the method a fair shake. ua-cam.com/video/anGAazNCfdY/v-deo.html
Cameron your videos are REALLY well produced. I love the music and city footage. You’re going to be the US version of Justin Brierley and Unbelievable.
I presuppose that I am correct, that my world view is the only one that can account for intelligibility. Anyone who doesn't is in denial of truth and thus has no grounds for making truth claims of any kind. What do I win? :)
To all here, I implore you to listen to the Bahnsen v Sproul debate if you have not. Maybe, even listen a few times. As many said, Bahnsen mopped the floor with Sproul. One of the things that has always impressed me about the late Dr. Bahnsen, is he used A LOT of scripture to back up his arguments; whereas his opponents do not. To me, it seems that they use their own humanistic reasoning/knowlege to try to argue against PA. However, in the Psalms godly "understanding" is asked for. During a PA study at our church which one young man did not care for, I mentioned to some one in the study group that you HAVE to start with God. The young man asked, epistemologically or ontologically? The answer is yes, of course. All men must (and in fact do) presuppose the Triune God ontologically, epistemologically, and ethically. Being, knowledge, and living are impossible otherwise. The problem is, they lie and say they don’t presuppose those things. Worse, some well meaning Christians legitimize their lie by agreeing that presupposing God is not necessary.
Perhaps if Cameron wants to learn and present presuppositionalism, he should talk with a presuppositionalist. It seems to me like that would be good apologetics practice. I primarily exercise apologetics in interacting with Mormons, I find it best to get my information from LDS sources themselves. Certainly second-hand sources can be helpful but primary sources are much much better for dialogue. Cameron, I appreciate your ministry, I really do. But I would very much so appreciate it if you were to dialogue with a presuppositionalist instead of doing this stuff.
@@s.e.garcia3635 there is no defense for the presupp position. Its sole focus is what the non-believer can't do. Never once does it defend its claims. it starts with claims and insists they're self-attesting.
Can I please clear this up for everyone in 3 steps? 1. God is the precondition of knowledge 2. Assuming God is the precondition of obtaining that knowledge 3. Living out your assumption of God helps you understand the evidence for God's existence. "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
@Jon Amazes me how far people go to try and deny presupusitionalism. Twist Acts 2:36 and other places because they don't want to believe that Christians can have certainty. Key word certainty. They do all kinds of gymnastics even trying to make different categories of certainty all because they have the presupusitional intention to defend evidential methodology and they are willing to twist the Bible to do so. Twisting the scriptures , that's what cults do and trying to refute that Christians can have certainty, note, that's what atheists do. And then they'll straw man presupusitionalists and say we don't believe in using evidence. If your methodology causes you to do that, that is repugnant. They want want a space at the table with some of the mainstream academics so they don't take 1 Corinthians to serious or Romans 1:18-32.
@@georgemoncayo8313 Presuppsionalism is pseudo-intellectual nonsense-objectively. It tries to essentially posit that Christian doctrine about the Triune God is a priori knowledge. Guess what? That’s factually wrong. Only demons from hell would argue like Presups do. Gaslighting can be effective, but it can also backfire when the rot can be smelt underneath.
@@ManoverSuperman Wow what a strawman, lol we don't believe that the non believers has knowledge of the Trinity with just natural revelation , I noticed most people who are against presupusitional apologetics don't even understand it. We debate with certainty cause the Bible says we can have certainty Acts 2:36. Since that's true then that's presupusitional. And please don't strawman like some and say we don't believe in using evidence.
@@ManoverSuperman Also People have authorities why they believe what they believe but they try to call out Christians for making the Bible their authority. Bahsen points out that when a non believer says you can't make the Bible your authority, you can reply and say yeah I can, just like you are trying to make logic your ultimate authority and still try to be logical. In ultimate questions, circular arguments are necessary for example the use of reason is used to prove the reality of reason and logic is used to prove the constancy of logic. If someone says this is my ultimate authority and you say how can you prove it , an if the person says I'll prove it by appealing to this over here, then the first claim of the persons ultimate authority really wasn't their ultimate authority.
Pressupositionalism is question begging and fallacious. Just ask any presupper to give you their argument in the form of a sylogism. Its like their kryptonite
The thing is presuppers don't actually have an "argument" per se. It's a shell game consisting of asking loaded questions and shrieking "I win" when the questions aren't answered...which they can't be.
I have two points of contention with Prof. Howe's presentation. 1) At about minute 6 Howe mentions apologetics as a defense that is presented for the dialogue partner, let's say, to "consider." It is already at this point that presuppositional apologetics gets to the 'heart of the matter,' because it is the heart that is the problem. Van til and Bahnsen would say the Bible clearly states that the evidence is not the problem, e.g., Ps. 14, Ps. 19, Romans 1, etc. The act of 'considering' already entails the presupposition of the Triune God of the Scriptures. The unbelieving hearer 'considering' is a rebel against God, maintaining that he or she is reasoning autonomously within a worldview that is either idolatrous (false God centered) or materialistic (and as chance-centered also does not allow for reason, abstraction, etc. Van Til gave the interesting illustration of the girl sitting on her father's lap on the train to Philadelphia, and due to the fact that she was on her father's lap she was able to slap her father in the face. That is what we do when we 'reason autonomously' - we use God to deny him. 2) Later in the discussion, at approximately minute 17 or so, Prof. Howe speaks of using presuppositionalism as a Muslim. Presuppositionalism in such a context does not work as Howe explains. Bahnsen did a segment on Islam and pointed out that there is an internal critique to conduct on the Koran. Therefore, it is not just a matter of saying 'Koran' as if that does not need explication or 'Koran' as if the content of the Koran is irrelevant. The content of the Bible is also not irrelevant. Bahnsen points out that the Koran itself refers to the gospel and the Bible and is therefore self-contradictory. Admittely, Bahnsen has more to say, but that is at least one salient point, I maintain. It is extremely important not to use the Bible as s straw man. The Bible has content which, of course, is important.
@@dkeeks I had a long discussion (including an explanation of Presup) in another comment thread that I’ll link below. It shouldn’t be too hard to find my comment since it has 41 replies. Let me know if you have any questions. ua-cam.com/video/-3ld1Jv-hU0/v-deo.html
@@dkeeks It’s criticized because it presupposes what, by definition, cannot be presupposed: a whole worldview. The classic way presupps try to avoid all criticism is by simply stating as a matter of fact that everyone who critiques it simply doesn’t understand it. But this is not true. If you ask them to elucidate, they either send you packing to Kant or Vantil, or else (again) state you do not understand it. But if you take the statements one at a time, and think about the essential difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, the failures of the approach appear quite clearly.
@@ManoverSuperman follow, perhaps if you were to give a dialogue example between a presup vs. classical. What would that look like?? What are the distinguishing attributes between the two?
@@dkeeks If you read the other comment thread you’ll see I argued with this^ guy before and I don’t feel the need to respond to his comments here because the other thread proves his woeful ignorance on the subject. You need to spend at least a few hours studying presup, if not reading the primary sources, before you can offer thoughts that even reflect a basic understanding of the philosophy, which this^ person hasn’t done. It’s telling that he even charges presuppositionalists with stating you don’t understanding (which is true for most people) since despite his bold confidence, he hasn’t understood.
Being intellectually corned would annoy anyone, but its not about being "convinced" you can't convince someone of something they don't want to believe, you can only make them think.
While both systems can and do get to the gospel. I believe the presup position to be more consistent with the scriptures. This is incredibly relevant when seen in debate. For example, the greatest objections from atheists become mute when confronted by reformed epistemology. See the stark contrast in action with the debate of James White vs. David Silverman & Frank Turek vs Silverman. The holes Silverman punches in the position of Turek are just not possible in his debate with White. The classical approach holds too strongly to human autonomy. Love your content. These are ultimately secondary issues, but still incredibly important.
Why must the arguments of the classical approach be seen as separate and not merely parts of a cumulative case? And why can’t presuppositionalism and the classical approach be considered to be on the same team like a soldier who has a pistol and a rifle?
Iron Cross - From your comment, it seems like you have concluded Christianity is “the truth” and will accept anything that leads that direction, whether reasonable or not. Have you put the cart before the horse?
Some Christian Guy - I’m criticizing his approach based on what he has said here. He’s more than welcome to clarify or update his statements if I’ve misrepresented or misinterpreted them, I’ve asked him to. And so are you, if you see anything wrong with what I have said there.
Good convo and nice positive vibes...but they didn't show how classical is more biblical/logical and they unfortunately misrepresented presup in a way that sounds like they don't understand it... especially with the Islam analogy. Presup involves a Trinitarian epistemology that provides grounding for love, one/many amongst other things, etc etc etc One thing I see in classicists and I could be wrong but seems like they love intellectualism and presup is just too simple and straightforward for them
Amazes me how far people go to try and deny presupusitionalism. Twist Acts 2:36 and other places because they don't want to believe that Christians can have certainty. Key word certainty. They do all kinds of gymnastics even trying to make different categories of certainty all because they have the presupusitional intention to defend evidential methodology and they are willing to twist the Bible to do so. Twisting the scriptures , that's what cults do and trying to refute that Christians can have certainty, note, that's what atheists do. And then they'll straw man presupusitionalists and say we don't believe in using evidence. If your methodology causes you to do that, that is repugnant. They want want a space at the table with some of the mainstream academics so they don't take 1 Corinthians to serious or Romans 1:18-32.
My problems with Van Tillianism ( those who use this particular presuppositional method ) is 1. It opposes a straw man when it concludes the Classical/Evidentialist apologist " joins the non-believer in the juror seat, and puts God on trial ". No Biblical Classical Reformed apologist I have ever heard or read has ever stated that they are placing God on trial. 2. It makes a demand of the unregenerate that is impossible for the unregenerate to meet; start with God. In 1 Corinthians 2:14, we learn that the lost man has no desire or ability for the things of God. We futher know that a lost person is a dead person, and spiritually dead people can only start with what the Word has said they can start with; general revelation. No one can " start with " God , but God Himself, as R.C. Sproul has stated in the past. Both the regenerate and the unregenerate can only start with what God has chosen to reveal to either group.
I disagree on 2. Commands man to repent condemns them in error. Let God be true and every man is a liar. Commands to repent are binding on men but depend on God.
@@Contagious93812 Nope. Didn't help at all. Both presuppose things they have no basis for unless you presuppose the Christian God. Logic for one. Thanks though. It's an irrefutable position and has been shown to be by everyone who has debated it.
@@1689solas Can you use logic? What is logic, per se? I assert that logic presupposes a BRAIN, deer friend. Brains can be found, your idol (your god that is) NO-WHERE.
@@kleenex3000 Yes it does presuppose a brain, obviously. But just because it presupposes a brain, doesn't mean it doesn't presuppose a specific God. The Eastern Orthodox worldview as expressed by Dumitru Staniloae in "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" has been demonstrated via S5 modal logic. The form you often see used with TAG. And, no I can't give you a full demonstration of that. I don't think it would be humanly possible to do so in less than 200 pages.
It was note of an introduction video. I wish we could have heard more about the actual motivations for presup. Like the noetic effect of sin, autonomous reason etc... Also now, because of that, presup are going to come and say "you don't understand presup". Which is their classical (pun intended) response to any video critiquing presup.
Indeed. But we'll explain why. A classic response doesn't equal an invalid response. Presuppositionalism is not an "assumption". In fact, a presupposition is not even an assumption. So yeah... he doesn't understand it.
Cameron has a pretty big audience. I'm sure he'd be able to get someone more serious (i.e. has published extensively on the question) on his channel. I'd love to see him interact with John Frame or Scott Oliphint
@@tylerpedersen9836 I totally agree with that Cameron NEEDS to have John Frame and Scott Oliphant on since they are both published seminary professors.
Are presuppositional usually used by Calvinists? This seems to be the trend in the apologetics debates I've watched and in the atheist/Christian debates.
Reformed Baptist here yes presup dominates the reformed mind. Mainly because Van Til was reformed and in his writings sets out to actually develop an apologetic thats is specifically reformed. I've been trying to combat vantillian presup in the reformed church its a problem. A very few of us reformed folk are classicalists like myself.
Reminder that even if a worldview must have God as its foundation in order to be consistent, that WOULD NOT VINDICATE THE PRESUPPOSITIONALIST METHOD. Presuppositionalists ALWAYS miss this point. There is a world of difference between making a transcendental argument to the effect that "if there is no God, we could not reason > but we can reason > therefore there is a God" and stating that "we cannot know anything without PREVIOUSLY PRESUPPOSING the existence of God". The second begs the question, is irrational and doesn't work. Presuppositionalists are not just defending the argument that our *ontology* must ultimately include God in order to make sense of things; they are arguing that our *epistemology* requires an appeal to God before we can even justify beliefs, which is crazy, invalid, and ridiculous. I look forward to the day when presuppositionalism is dead and gone, like other irrationalist nonsense such as YEC.
But how can we trust our epistemology if we weren't made to reason? The only way to justify knowing our reason and experience are trustworthy without God is to use our own reason and experience which is circular and no justification at all. I would disagree with the presuppositionist in that we must consciously presuppose God before we can know anything, but I believe when we presuppose our ability to reason and the trustworthiness of our experience we innately know that God exists because of this. To know something is to assume the reason and experience that lead you to that knowledge is trustworthy. To reasonably assume that trustworthiness necessitates the epistemological grounding for that assumption isn't from that assumption itself nor can it be from your own experience or reason. God must be the source of you knowing that you can know. Trusting your reason and experience innately assumes God's existence
Nathan Nicholson again, presuppositionalists don't understand the difference between making a transcendental argument for God from reason, and the question-begging and insane idea that we must presuppose theistic belief in order to justifiably believe in other things. If you wanna make a transcendental argument to the effect that without God we could not have reliable intuitions and cognitive faculties, you are free to do so. I am not in principle opposed to that sort of argument. The problem is, again, that presuppositionalists don't do that: they instead conflate the two ideas and say that we must presuppose God exists if we are to even know something like the principle of non-contradiction (which is a self-evident principle). That would make presuppositionalism question-begging in a logically invalid manner, since they would be unable to justify their own reasoning in that case. It's pure nonsense, and all because of the confusion I just mentioned. You'll notice that presuppositionalists ALWAYS make the mistake of conflating transcendental arguments for a theistic ontology with the insane idea that our epistemology requires a presupposition of theism.
@@mordec1016 you didn't address what I said. I don't disagree that conscious knowledge of God is not necessary to know anything, but an innate knowledge that everyone has is necessary. I'm not talking about an argument for God. Without knowing that the methods that lead you to knowledge can actually do so, you cannot know anything. The only way you know that you can know is if God made you to know. You dont have to presuppose God consciously but you do innately
Nathan Nicholson 1- what does it mean to "presuppose God innately without conscious knowledge of Him"? 2- I know the principle of non-contradiction is true with 100% certainty. I know this because it is self-evident to me: when I understand the meaning of the terms, I understand the principle to be true. In what way would this knowledge require any knowledge at all of a proposition such as "God exists"? If I reject that God exists, would I magically become unable to know PNC is true? Of course not. In other words: what does it mean to "innately presuppose God exists without conscious knowledge of Him", and why and how would this psychological state affect the capacity of a person to know and justifiably believe in a self-evident proposition?
Yeah, I’ve seen presupps refuted - no, literally laughed at by the Atheist Experience. Their hosts literally will call out the presupp as running ‘a script’ as the presupp is doing his argumentation and get called out for the circularity and then ultimately called to the mat to then demonstrate that a God exists. It’s brutal. I agree that it has to evolve to incorporate other pathways, because the wall is going up the minute an atheist is sensing a presuppositional apologist before them.
Circularity is unavoidable at a paradigmatic base level. The atheist experience is a bunch of sophists who rarely engage in good faith and mostly just bash callers who oppose their worldview. They want empirical proof for immaterial things. It's nonsense. They wouldn't be convinced even if Jesus Christ himself rose from the earth in front of their very eyes. That's the thing. The Christian is taught to "test all things". The atheists are the dogmatists.
This is so embarrassingly wrong....This needs to be retitled to: "The Unsound Refutation of Presuppositionalism." I'm not so much triggered about setting out to refute presup as I am cringing that there are a group of people here who think the premises of this argument are sound. They're blatantly wrong, and both have proven they've done little or inadequate study of presup.
@@theoskeptomai2535 How do you know you are a person with a will or a biological robot given your beliefs. Google Isaiah 53. It's in Old Testament. Even liberal scholars agree it was written hundreds of years before Jesus. Who is this prophecy about?
@@milkshakeplease4696 I am a person with a will. I know this to be true because I impose my will upon the phenomena surrounding me. I am familia with Isaiah. I have read the Old Testament in its entirety 9 times. I have also read the new Testament in its entirety more than 30 times. You are looking for the answer that Isaiah is prophesizing Christ. And in one sense, you are correct. Paul's fictional protagonist of Jesus is based upon the Christ figure portrayed in Isaiah (also later in Psalms and Jonah). And yes, every biblical scholar that I know, and as a biblical scholar myself, recognize that the book of Isaiah to have been written 6 to 8 centuries before Paul fictionalized Christ.
I’m Catholic and imo presupp is far superior to classical apologetics. I think a lot of Catholics tend to gravitate away from presupp is because it was mostly developed from Presbyterians like Van Til and Bahnsen. I’m currently reading Always Ready by Dr Bahnsen, should be required reading for anyone getting into Apologetics. Also How To Answer The Fool
@@BreRMatt240 referring to non-believers as fools immediately demonstrates the malicious, disingenuous nature of presuppositionalism. Instead of sharing the gospel in an effort to spread Christianity, it starts with insulting those who need to be convinced of God's existence. Merely telling them they already believe, but they're suppressing it will do zero good. Insulting them makes the matters worse. I can't understand why anyone would think this approach is a good idea.
@@dutchchatham1 God has no problem calling people/unbelievers fools, I will follow Gods instructions over yours, not sure how you determined you’re better than him. Hope that helps! I get you thinking the hippie, “Jesus loves all” approach might be superior because it sounds nicer, but trying to be nice (“you’re doing your best! Jesus loves you! Just have faith!”) to someone who’s driving towards a cliff won’t be as effective as telling them they’re foolish and logically explaining why they need to turn around. Unbelievers are presuppositionally opposed to Christianity from the start, they’re already at odds with God. Trying to be friendly to them is a useless endeavor. Showing them why their worldview cannot make sense and has to borrow from ours to justify it is a lot more useful, especially since most unbelievers boast of their “intellectual superiority.” And presupp is not telling them they actually really do believe but suppress that belief. Sounds like you don’t really know enough about presupp to have an opinion on it.
@@BreRMatt240 You guys never once offer an argument for your claims. You just assert assert assert. Do you expect to convince anyone or, is presuppositionalism intended only to insult the non-believer?
I do appreciate the irenic spirit and the thoughtful discussion. I am a little troubled by the title, "A Sound Refutation..." Presuppositionalism was discussed but it certainly wasn't soundly refuted, IMO.
I think he meant “rebuttal.” You’ll always sound a but overconfident if you accidentally say “refutation.”
exactly, it i ALWAYS TEH CASE that people that are against presup apologetics don't understand the argument.
@@jesuscorona3562 Because PSA-ists are hiding between monumental piles of assertions. You know very well that there is very different assertions of PSA, and I challenge you, to boil them down to and verbally condense them in non-ambiguous statements
@@jesuscorona3562 Does truth exist?
@@kleenex3000 Maybe, depending on the context and theory of truth.
Norm Geisler always brought the message back to the Gospel in his apologetics talks at Universities. That's what impressed me so much when first hearing him.
They all do that
Presuppers start out *and* finish with the Gospel. We literally presuppose it like the Bible does.
@@alyoshaty8823 Why don't you start out with all that you drink and eat, all that is re-making your very SUBSTANCE? Start with the Carbon atom. You know that it is not only the structural model at your body, but also at the paper, where you will find scientic assertions AND religious assertions. A religious assertion !!!CAN!!! be defined as an assertion, where truth=opinion=THOUGHT is asserted to be existing rather than to be imaginary = being fabricated FROM/ABOUT the existing..
"God as the necessary condition is different than the presupposition of God for knowledge." -- Right. "We wouldn't be having this epistemological dispute, if we got the metaphysics right." -- Exactly ;)
This video provided the opposite of what was advertised. A talk about starting points would be interesting. Starting with epistemological principles alone seems silly, seeing as they necessitate some metaphysics. I agree with Richard, such a clean separation of subjects, like metaphysics and epistemology, is dubious.
@Johnathon Morris Go get em Liger.
@@alyoshaty8823 Can you explain your suggestion?!
@@alyoshaty8823 What do you mean by "go get em Liger"?!
@@alyoshaty8823 Why don't you answer a simple question?
Some generalities, but as a presuppositionalist, this was the most gracious presentation I've heard. His latter argument on other religious expressions has been dealt with well by Greg Bahnsen focusing on the internal inconsistencies and the impossibility of the contrary arguments.
Precisely
Richard is using presuppositional philosophy to dismiss presuppositional philosophy.
Using parity of reason, the atheist can justify all of his presuppositions, one by one, claiming the impossibility of the contrary. Presup is a silly game aimed at people who don't know much about ontology and epistemology.
Your video skills are incredible! Love Dr. Howe!
When is your next video coming out?
What about stuff like truth and substance?
@@lkae4 Your suggestion is the best I found under this video.
Substance *(real,* PHYSIS) versus
Truth *(imaginary,* PSYCHE) fabricated from/about the *real,* versus
assertion *(real,* LOGOS = expression !!!OF!!! Psyche = assertion !!!OF!!! the *imaginary).*
Kind regards from GERMANY!
Amazes me how far people go to try and deny presupusitionalism. Twist Acts 2:36 and other places because they don't want to believe that Christians can have certainty. Key word certainty. They do all kinds of gymnastics even trying to make different categories of certainty all because they have the presupusitional intention to defend evidential methodology and they are willing to twist the Bible to do so. Twisting the scriptures , that's what cults do and trying to refute that Christians can have certainty, note, that's what atheists do. And then they'll straw man presupusitionalists and say we don't believe in using evidence. If your methodology causes you to do that, that is repugnant. They want want a space at the table with some of the mainstream academics so they don't take 1 Corinthians to serious or Romans 1:18-32.
@@georgemoncayo8313 The assertion of Presuppositionalism is built on the assertion,
that truth, knowledge, logic can be used.
***Sure is, this is not remotely the case.***
Do you know how come,
and what you (a Theist, in other words an Idolator)
and I (a born-again ATheist, in other words a member of the honorable,
babee-eating and C.Darwin- and R.Dawkins. iow the devil worshipping society)
***!!!DO!!! use, on this occasion?!***
Kind regards from GERRRMANY!
Dr. Howe! As an alumni of the philosophy program at SES, I say this is a nice grab!
I went to one of the apologetics conferences at SES when I was 17, and specifically remember Dr. Howe because of his lecture on the problem of evil. It was as hilarious as it was illuminating.
@@micahscanz He has a way of doing that!
Always wanted to go n the first years SES was up and running.. what would you say if the best argument for God? im lead to believe the best is the existentially undeniable cosmological argument in Christian Apologetics, but have had to simplify it to be able to use it with others, hence would like to hear any feedback from someone exposed to all that great thinking.
My understanding was that Vantil and even Bahnsen were not absolutely opposed to classical arguments or evidence. They used them in debates or writings. Their point was that without transcendentals exposed for what they are the classical arguments were much weaker than they had to be. And that they could never open up the Scriptures and speak directly about Jesus Christ. They would say that the classical approach gives way too much ground to the Ps 14 fool at the beginning and makes the arguments so much weaker than they have to be.
The fatal blow to classical and evidential apologetics is they cannot give certainty of God, only probability.
Vantil and Bahnsen’s pressuppositional apologetics isn’t philosophically sound. It can’t get high probability, nonetheless, certainty.
yes! the classical approach gives the fool too much to start his case!
@@Spinozasghost not sure the point you are driving at but the Scriptures make it clear that all have a general revelation knowledge of God. This is different from a covenant knowledge that comes by saving faith in Christ, but all have various levels of knowledge and they suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness Romans 1:19-23
@@michaelmannucci8585 And presup gives neither.
Dr. Howe and I are of the same generation. I was saved at a Josh McDowell talk, and yes, I had a large collection of Josh McDowell cassettes.
The problem with presup is that it _asserts_ a god as the necessary precondition, but does not _demonstrate_ it.
Impossibility of the contrary.
@@douglasmcnay644 Demonstrate - don't just assert - the "impossibility of the contrary".
Many presuppers show that outside the God of the Bible, man cannot know or assert anything with any degree of epistemological certainty. Where do you get your information?
@@mikkellowe1270 "Many presuppers show that outside the God of the Bible, man cannot know or assert anything with any degree of epistemological certainty."
They don't show it; they assert it.
"Where do you get your information?"
By presupposing the laws of logic and induction.
To make sense of reality, presuppositionalism is mandatory. The laws of logic and induction have no reason to exist or even be consistent in a universe which came to be in random chance, so pressupposing this is the only way for reason to make any sense. This being said, God is a necessary precondition because it is impossible for the universe to exist uncaused. The universe has a cause, and the only cause that has been demonstrated to be a possibility is a God. Douglas McNay says due to the possibility of the contrary because the universe cannot exist independently without a necessary thing at the foundation of reality. Let's break this down into a proof.
Assuming logical consistency, the following proves the existence of God.
1. Everything depends on one another to exist. The coffee depends on the coffee machine. The coffee machine depends on the parts to make it. The parts depend on us to exist since we made the parts, etc.
2. Reality itself is independent. Whether or not the multiverse exists, all of reality exists exclusively. Reality doesn’t depend on any other physical realm to exist.
3. Even though everything else in the universe is dependent, reality itself is independent, and it is impossible to create a reality that is independent without it depending on something else to exist if the building blocks of reality are dependent on each other to exist.
4. The reason why reality itself is independent but everything inside reality is dependent is because there is an independent cause at the foundation of reality that explains everything else.
5. This independent cause at the foundation of reality must exist forever, because if it had a beginning, then it would fall under the category of dependence, resetting the proposition, and therefore having a creator.
6. A metaphysical being at the foundation of reality solves the problem since this is the only way to have something exist that depends on nothing else in the physical realm.
7. Therefore, God exists.
This solves the problem and shows that there must be a necessary precondition at the foundation of reality to explain reality's existence independent of anything else in the physical realm when everything in the physical realm depends on each other to exist. A metaphysical explanation is deemed necessary. Now, since I have demonstrated that God exists, now it is your turn to refute the argument. Please, by all means, point out any major thing that pokes holes in this argument. I am seeking the truth, and if there is no logical inconsistency within this argument, I will have to assume _a_ god exists.
This does not prove Christianity, but it's a start.
At 7:40 thank you, thank you! Years ago when I was struggling deeply with my own faith, presuppositionalism made things very frustrated for me. I even attended Reformed Forum and talked with K. Scott Oliphint in person (who I certainly do respect), but I could see in it this equivocation between "the assumption of God" and "God" being the precondition of knowledge. It feels very relieving and actually means a lot to me personally to hear this equivocation called out directly, because recognizing this and giving myself permission to have a non-presuposition epistemology was integral to the rebuilding of my own faith!
The assertion OF god is indeed real, but the asserted god is imaginary (says the Materialist) and is a matter of faith (says the theist).
Honestly, I don't see the difference. I think it's a distinction without a difference.
@@marialeach8960 One says without God, even if you are ignorant of His existence, you cannot have knowledge.
The other says you need positive belief to have knowledge.
I remember sharing the gospel to a chinese man in his late teens who went to the Philippines just to learn English and observe at a factory something like that, and the encounter was very new to me. First off, he was very open and kind, he was friendly because he didn't had many friends especially in our country, so that made him listen to me when I tried to tell him something. I was surprised when he responded to my introduction that he didn't know what religion was, nor understood what a "God" is. I tried sharing the gospel but it was hard to explain since he didn't know about the entities I was talking about. So I had to explain the concept of God to him first. At that moment, I realized pressup was useless and ineffective, and so I immediately used the classical/evidential approach and arguments, and it was fun because each of the arguments' conclusion was like a puzzle piece to let him see the bigger picture of what kind of being I was talking about till He got the idea he never once in his life thought of, said he. And then proceeded to go back to the gospel. Later that night, he said he wanted to know more of Jesus and also wanted him to be his God because I told him about my testimony as well. We prayed for his life and also for his safety since he then flew back to China about 3 days later. I didn't remember his name that quick because Chinese names don't really stick to me as a Filipino, tho it was close to "Chen", he also didn't leave any contact information since he has no social media but I sure do hope he's doing well and is walking on the path of faith and reason.
Wherever you are brother, I hope the best for you. God bless!
I think that's a wonderful testimony! However, I hope you give presup a serious examination, since I think you misunderstand it. I'm happy to expand, if you care to listen. I'm curious to know what you think a presupper would have done, in your witnessing encounter above.
@@Enigma49 I did went through a metholodogy with Van Tillian references some time ago, although I admit it's no longer a fresh memory. Also, I used to listen to Durbin, Sye, and White, etc and have been trying to do what they did a couple years ago but now I prefer the classical/evidentialist christians since it has worked a lot for me in terms of reaching out to skeptics, to evangelism to discipling people, it has worked and now I'm ministering same age men who are committed in serving the Lord. Tho I still have respect on Durbin and White for their passion and for White's work on the Trinity, etc. Classical for me, is more engaging and it respects the other person's background by opening up a common point in thinking. I also saw how flawed it is after watching this: ua-cam.com/video/aUKIVV48LOk/v-deo.html VERY BAD debate.
I still use the moral argument which by its nature presupposes God, but the approach I use is just the Evids.
But still, I'm willing to learn and not want to generalize the pressup position, I could've have had a wrong idea of it. What would you have done?
@@GHanBax
Well, my intention isn't to critique your witnessing encounter above, but to help you to understand what PA is and does, since you expressed your opposition to it. There's nothing wrong with giving reasons and evidence from a PA perspective. What do you think a presupper would have done differently, compared to how you evangelized the fellow you mentioned above?
@@Enigma49 I think pressups would do something similar, but that's not what I was critiquing as well, it's more on the pressup approach on grounding. Conversations could differ and may be similar, but the essential reasoning of assuming a preconceived ground from the other person's perspective is quite an arrogant claim that is applicable on any pressup from any view just as the video said.
I think it's a highly respected idea to put God or scripture ahead as the ground of reality, yes, metaphysically. But in manifesting this out into dialogue, reasoning, and logic, it would be poor and circular. Since the conclusion is just the first premise.
That's why Craig always differentiates knowing christianity to be true and showing christianity to be true.
@@Enigma49 I sure hope you'd explain how a pressup would do so in a similar situation. I would gladly wait and listen.
He actually argued in a circle:
God exists and has given us faculties (reason and sense). We then learn truths about reality by which we construct arguments for God's existence.
I don't understand how people can be against either pressup or evidentialist apologetics. They are BOTH tools to be used properly in developing arguments in the defense of the faith. We can present evidence while at the same time understanding that no other worldview can give an account of the facts like Christianity can given our foundation.
Francis Schaeffer is a great example of this avenue. Francis always reasoned through worldviews and philosophy all the while knowing what grounds Christianity rationally, philosophically and theologically.
@Enrique Berrios I think I agree with this, no need to poo poo either way.
I think presup it's the first step, then comes evidentialist, why even grant the first step. Evidentialist it's not wrong but why even get there when they can't objectively make sense of the first one?
Exactly. A good presuppositionalist will be able to provide evidence to back up his apologetic, he just understands from scripture that men who are dead in their trespasses and sins will never be satisfied by that evidence.
The problem is with presups. They're not open to other apologetic methods. Those who do classical and evidential can also do presup, depending on the type of audience.
@@noynoying That is because presup is first and foremost a theological apologetic and not a philosophical one. I cannot change my apologetic method any more than I could change how I interpret scripture, because my apologetic method comes directly from how I understand scripture.
When will an interview be arranged with John Frame, K. Scott Oliphint, James White, Matt Slick, Vocab Malone and maybe even some of the guys from Reformed Forum on this topic? Seems a bit one sided without allowing the other side to offer their view accurately.
Also check out presupper Dr. Eric "The Norwiegan Nous" Sorem's video and essay "An Orthodox Theory of Knowledge".
Matt slick is the worst
Cameron, aside for the great educational content, I want to commend you for the amazing camera work. Looks great brother! God Bless
I have always asserted that the presupposition argument demands the impossible; that the lost person start with God; something the one making the demand should know, even as they are making the demand, that it is an impossibility, because of Romans chapters1-3.
I’m curious how anti-presuppositionalists respond concerning Christ’s answer to the rich man in Luke 16. He appears to imply that evidence - even the most miraculous - would not convince the lost, if they have not already believed the Scripture available to them. This principle could only be all the more applicable today, when we have the now complete canon of Scripture available.
Because its not evidence alone... Okay im just going to put it straight, this seems to be a calvinist only approach. It seems as calvinists take verses out and isolate them to put forth their independent view points on certain topics.
That being said, you mustn't just take this verse alone, compare it to the rest of Christian cannon and you will find that while you are mostly correct in your interpretation, your conclusion is not justified.
We are not saying that the presentation of evidence will convince unbelievers, but may put a burden on their heart so that they will soften their hearts to Jesus and be more open to having a relationship with God. Although, I also believe that it is necessary to have evidence for your faith, hence this is why evidencial apologetics is useful.
I don't think that's what it means. I think those tasked to evangelize unbelievers are not merely the prophets of old but also those of the new--Christians.
@@TimberWulfIsHere You didn't answer the question directly. You indirectly pivoted the question. The only thing you said is that evidence alone won't convince them. That's not what the text says. Jesus Christ says to the Rich Man if their hearts aren't softened by the Gospel (the power of God unto salvation) then they wouldn't be able to be convinced if someone rises from the dead. Evidence is not what the sinner needs, it's the Gospel that's the power of God unto salvation. It's God's work that removes the rebellious sinners heart of stone and grants a heart of flesh.
It is absurd to attempt to rationalize and argue for the existence of God using classical and evidential claims, when those very same arguments in and of themselves would be impossible did God not exist. Rather than attempting to convince an unbeliever of the God that must exist for reasoning to even take place, it is better to call them to repentance before the God they already know exists and who they must presuppose exists even before they can deny Him.
@@markstevenpandan890 You gave me your opinion on the text and not an Exegesis.
Luke 16:27-31 ESV - And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house- for I have five brothers-so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
It's clear that evidence doesn't play apart in convincing unbelievers.
Romans 1:16 ESV - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
@@reformedchristian7751 "You didn't answer the question directly" good observation.
"The only thing you said is that evidence alone won't convince them. That's not what the text says." So you are going to ignore what I said and what the rest of the bible says?
I cannot find any verse which confirms your claim in Luke 16, with the only similarity being 27-31, but that is not talking about evidence within this context of apologetics.
So no, that is not what the text says.
Again, you can use evidence along with the gospel (as intended) to help those who need to be saved.
"It is absurd to attempt to rationalize and argue for the existence of God using classical and evidential claims, when those very same arguments in and of themselves would be impossible did God not exist"
That is kind of the point here? philosophy proves God.
Rather than attempting to convince an unbeliever of the God that must exist for reasoning to even take place, it is better to call them to repentance before the God they already know exists and who they must presuppose exists even before they can deny Him.
JustJake
Reformed Christian "You didn't answer the question directly" good observation.
"The only thing you said is that evidence alone won't convince them. That's not what the text says." So you are going to ignore what I said and what the rest of the bible says?
I cannot find any verse which confirms your claim in Luke 16, with the only similarity being 27-31, but that is not talking about evidence within this context of apologetics.
So no, that is not what the text says.
Again, you can use evidence along with the gospel (as intended) to help those who need to be saved.
"It is absurd to attempt to rationalize and argue for the existence of God using classical and evidential claims, when those very same arguments in and of themselves would be impossible did God not exist"
That is kind of the point here? philosophy proves God.
"Rather than attempting to convince an unbeliever of the God that must exist for reasoning to even take place, it is better to call them to repentance before the God they already know exists and who they must presuppose exists even before they can deny Him.
"
Why go the black and white fallacy here? calling someone to place their faith in God and demonstating his existance is not mutually exclusive, but I see, your argument works only if they were.
We are called to be able to defend the faith, it is a command by Jesus, are you denying that?
Awesome interview. Thanks for exposing me to another facet of the intellectual side of Christian beleif. Would love to see more of Dr. Howe on the channel!
That was an awesome opening man.
In one of my classes with Dr. Craig a student asked him why he always concluded his debates with an appeal to the resurrection of Jesus as the best evidence for belief in the existence of God. Without any hesitation, Dr. Craig said, “It is purely for evangelistic reasons.” He also frequently refers to the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit” as the best proof for God’s existence. So I believe that classical apologists can easily make the case for God as the God of Christianity, as Dr. Craig illustrates so well.
Jeffrey Osburn, Christianity lives or dies with the truth of the resurrection. When Christ rose, God vindicated Him. All his claims were verified as truth. And no one comes to faith unless they are drawn by the Father. You can argue people into accepting the possibility of God but true faith comes from an intellectual investigation as well as the experiential. Sorry super tired here. Anyway, keep the faith and keep learning about your faith. He is real and He is the Way.
@@michaelbrickley2443 How did you come to conclude that this Jesus you've mentioned rose from the dead?
In this world full of deception and lies, I think both approaches are useful for different reasons.
YEAH-YUH!!!
SOLI DEO GLORIA
(To The Glory of God Alone)
Father, Son & Holy Spirit
-Ronnie
Thinking to maintain neutrality with respect to Scripture, any natural theology that reasons autonomously from logical and/or empirical grounds to God results in an exclusion of revelational necessity and authority endorsing some other imperious philosophy. Knowledge of God must be rooted in His own self-disclosure. Because the clear revelation of God in nature’s and man’s constitution is suppressed in unrighteousness, it is impossible for theology or apologetics to base their efforts in a rebellious understanding of the world or history, independently working up to a verification of God’s written revelation. Faith must necessarily start with the clear, authoritative, self-attesting, special revelation of God in Scripture coordinated with the Holy Spirit’s inner testimony to the regenerated heart.
Dr. Greg Bahnsen
"Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended"
If you guys just presuppose that God exists and don't bring any logical argument to support this claim, then what stops the atheist from just presupposing the truth of their belief that the universe is all there is without any argument?
@@anonymousperson1904 we don't just presuppose God. We offer an objective proof that God exists.
@@joshuaolson3645 "We offer an objective proof that God exists."
What is this proof?
@@anonymousperson1904 that unless God did exist, human experience would be unintelligible
@@joshuaolson3645 Okay, that's a claim, but what's the actual argument?
I like the fact that the Gospel is the goal of conversation.
Love the introduction and the conversation: great shots and content!
Presup is closer to the argument from ignorance and circularity. It assumes the premise without proving the premise.
Cameron, I really appreciated this interview and I hope that this won't be the last word from you regarding presupp. I know some thing you should have Sye on or someone like him. But I wouldn't recommend it. You really need someone who's more credentialed, because that's what your guests normally are. May I recommend someone like James Anderson of RTS? He's a well educated philosopher and could stand toe to toe with Howe or someone else. And I think he could clarify presupp better than just about anyone.
Also, I have to say that your title of the video is very misleading. And I don't even think Howe would feel comfortable with it (correct me if i'm wrong?). I don't think presupp was really "refuted" here. At best, some weaknesses were pointed out that any presupper would love to clarify. And even so, this would be just be the classic Bahnsen-Tillian brand, not the decades worth of development that has taken place in the movement since. Presupp has definitely evolved into a number of sub-brands since then, so it's pretty bold to claim that "presupp" has been refuted. Which brand of presupp? It would be like me offering a critique of WLC's apologetic and then say "Classical apologetics has been soundly refuted."
Anyway, I hope you'll read this and lend some consideration to your future dealings on this subject, or at least change the title of this video. And by the way, i'm not a strict presupper myself. I favor a more integrative approach, similar to John Frame with some Plantinga sprinkled in :-)
that was not even a valid argument bro, he's got a false premise there. we don't assume the existence of God and from there we build our case, we prove God from the impossibility of the contrary.
One of the points that I find so helpful from presuppositionalism is to show how the Naturalist cannot argue consistently with their own presuppositions. The main point is that if you claim that all that exists is the natural world or that objective reality consists solely of nature, then the Laws of Logic do not exist. Because these laws are transcendent, immaterial, universal truths, that are not derived from the natural world but govern our understanding of it.
Thus, when the Naturalist makes a defense for their position as true, they must abandon their precommitment to Naturalism. For if they wish to provide a valid argument for their position, they must appeal to the Laws of Logic, which are not themselves a part of nature. But the position they are attempting to prove is that there is no God and all that exists is nature, and if your reasons for believing that all that exists is nature is based upon logical laws that do not consist of material or that are not found in the natural world, then they cannot hold to the claim that objective reality consists solely of the natural.
Thus, the naturalist appealing to the Laws of Logic in order to prove his or her position has abandoned their precommitment to naturalism. The presuppositionalist is concerned with internal worldview consistency, and claim that the Christian worldview is internally consistent and is not dependent upon beliefs outside of what is taught in Scripture for it to be understood. The Naturalists can't do this. The Relativists can't do this, for they must appeal to objectivity in order to deny it. The Rationalist can't do this, for when they are pressed to show the reliability of their reasoning they will have to use it in argumentation to prove it, and thus they are left in a destructive circle. The Empiricist can't do this for they can't use sense perception to justify the claim that sense perception is the foundation for knowledge.
And even the Christians that came to faith via the classical method will have to eventually deny their own epistemic theories that led to their views, For "the Fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge," and "in Christ is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," (Prov. 1:7; Col. 2:3). The Bible itself claims that apart from God we have no basis for knowledge, reason, and intelligibility. As Christians, this must be the basis for our epistemology, and as Paul says, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily." Though I know these two men believe this, the Classical approach requires the apologist to take a mythical neutral position to convince the unbeliever who is not neutral according to Christian belief, in order that they may reason to the conclusion that God exists. Though I believe there are good arguments for God's existences that these two men use, the question is what is our authority? Is it our reasoning at the center point, are we to take the same standards of the world, or is it the Words of the Living God?
"The presuppositionalist is concerned with internal worldview consistency, and claim that the Christian worldview is internally consistent"
"Internally consistent" =/= "true".
a summary on how presuppostionalism works : Since Immaterial Pixie Exists, therefore logic exists because it is in the mind of Immaterial Pixie, therefore Immaterial Pixie exists. Is the proposition “immaterial pixie exists” objectively true? Yes. Since, apart from presupposing immaterial pixie we can’t account for valid human experience.”
Just replace "Pixie" with a specific God and you would be exactly right.
@@alyoshaty8823 It's worse than that. Like with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Immaterial Pixie itself has qualities that prevent it from being the Truth, so it can't even apply to presupp. You can't put together any old word and throw it in because presupp is about what you shave to presuppose in order to operate within the world in the first place.
A pixie doesn't qualify. What you have to presuppose is the Truth, and certain qualities come along with that. All of those qualities add up to a God that is indistinguishable from YHWH.
Very basic example. If there was no better or worse, all choices would be equal. We would operate based on that presupposition because logic wouldn't even work. There would be no difference between oppressing and being oppressed, eating and starving, etc. All choices would produce the same result. That's every pantheist religion of you listen to mystics, it's atheism separate from human attempts to make it sound rational, and yet we don't live in that. (In fact, nothing does.)
He has to replace the immaterial pixie specifically with the God who corresponds to the presupposition that is required for us to think, live, etc.
The thing I really appreciate about presups is they give something concrete for atheists and thinking theists to unite and have a laugh about.
So true
Ramen
As a Catholic, I very much agree with Dr. Howe and how he approaches these matters.
@@kborcudi Many Eastern Orthodox christians use Greg Bahnsen type apologetics soo…
@@kborcudi Thats not what im talking about
Im referring to what you said about catholics using dr howes classical method is “enough” for you to choose Greg Bahnsens apologetic.
Not only is that illogical but if you’re consistent, you should disregard Presupp also because eastern orthodox use presupp aswell.
I appreciated this discussion. I remain a presuppositionalist, but it's an excellent response to presuppositionalism. Is it a sound refutation of presups? That may be a subjective assessment--it certainly made me want to click on the video--but I appreciate the thoughtful Christian spirit here. Whether you're a classical apologist or a presuppositionalist, both are clearly Christians, and, no doubt, both positions have their blindspots.
Isn't one of the benefits of presupp the promise of eliminating blind spots -- since the premise is that rationality comes from God, and therefore can't be blind? Common human psychology, the brain as an input/output machine, explains blind spots much more directly without complication than presupp does.
Why wouldn't you do an interview with K. Scott Oliphint from Westminster Seminary to have both sides?
K Scott Oliphint is one of the most articulate and careful proponents of the presuppositional approach. His arguments might end up being too persuasive...
Or Dr. James Anderson from RTS, or Dr. Michael Kruger from the same?
Or Dr James White from "the internet"
Jason Lisle
There is a video with Oliphint, Lisle, and Howe discussing Presup (debate?) available on UA-cam
Richard is a good friend of mine. Great guy! I'm so glad you interviewed him on this!
Sye Ten' s fallacies have since been unpacked by several counter-apologists and he's mostly stopped his method. It only really "destroyed" in the man-on-the-street context with people who weren't familiar with it. Matt Dillahunty's debate (w/ Sye) review video outlines it pretty well and Ozymandias' very detailed video explains it the best.
What fallacies? The debate you refer to clearly was in Sye Ten's favor. The latest debate that sodomite, Dillahunty had ended up with him giving up when his opponent showed him how absurd atheism is when it's (il)logically played out.
Thanks for that, some interesting comments!
You should interview Dr. Jason Lisle to get the presupp point of view.
He isn't a philosopher
@@LogosTheos
Everyone is a philosopher.
@@Enigma49 No. Sorry.
Then you couldn't misrepresent the position and attack straw men. That's no fun.
@@LogosTheos yes. Sorry.
My husband has taken some of his classes. :) He’s funny and easy to listen to in his lectures.
The classical approach isn't mutually exclusive with presuppositionalism is it? Why is this debate important then? Why not use both?
You can give reasons and evidence within a presuppositionalist context. Classicalism, however, assumes that persons holding antithetical worldviews can reason on neutral ground. If your interlocutor's lens is tinted "the-God-of-the-Bible-doesn't-exist" (per Rom. 1), then the Christian conclusion is precluded before they take their first glance at your evidences (since they are already being bombarded with God's revelation, Ps. 19). The presuppositional method seeks to demolish their worldview system (which cannot justify knowledge, Pr. 1:7), and present the only alternative; the one which is given by God in his Word.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5
@@Enigma49 It is true presupposition is powerful because it undermines atheistic assumptions about epistemology, thereby negating any argument that precedes from said failed assumptions. Am I right to say that the main contention is that the presuppositionalist refuses to answer an atheist according to his reasoning because to answer accordingly is to agree with him implicitly that reasoning can be done apart from God?
In that sense it is very similar to answering a complex statement without first exposing the hidden assumptions, thereby implicitly agreeing with said assumptions simply by answering the question?
The problem is however, that such an approach does not address the main concerns that non-believers may have about God. Yes questions like why is there evil and suffering can only be questioned if God is within the paradigm but to ignore the question and go straight for the carotid by destroying their assumptions is to win the argument but lose the person isn't it?
Granted against arrogant dismissals of God I believe such a powerful approach is effective, especially to protect the testimony of believers but many times the questioner is actually sincere isn't it?
Can we not address the questioner both ways? Tell them that if their conclusion that God does not exist is true their statement is actually logically incoherent and meaningless, then answer their question with God in the paradigm?
@@Enigma49 could it be thats why part of classical apologetics also addresses objections and systemic presuppositions that non believers are carrying into the discussion, a way to clear out the weeds so they can receive the seeds of the truth with respect to sharing evidence for God?
Short interview, but awesome content!
Btw, that’s the first time i understood Cameron’s haircut.
Debating a presuppositionalist is like playing cards with a two-year-old. Whatever cards they happen to be holding is always the winning hand. The rules are what they say they are and you will never convince them otherwise. They think they have found the secret to winning arguments because most people avoid debating them.
Well said
How does that differentiate them from all other theists?
@@colinguyan9704 because usually other theistic arguments follow from causal / experiential principles that only work if both people hold the principles in common.
Example:
"Anything which begins to exist, has a cause for its beginning to exist".
The success of the Kalam Cosmological argument relies on both people understanding that principle in exactly the same way.
If I say instead that, I conceive of the principle as follows:
"Anything which begins to exist at t2, has a cause at t1 for its beginning to exist".
Then in order for the Theist to convince me of the Kalam, they'd have to find some common experience and demonstrate that my principle fails to account for these experiences, so I ought to hold the former rather than the latter. If they cannot do that, then I'm within my rights to hold my principle over theirs, and thus the Kalam's conclusion is blocked, since a "sans time cause" cannot be induced out of my principle that requires prior time cause.
In every Theistic argument I've studied, there's some common causal principle on which your interlocutor is forced to interact with your experiences to convince you of their worldview. Presuppositionalists attempt to short circuit the hard work be saying that you can't reason your way into any opposing principles unless you can account for reason itself, which happens to be impossible on their worldview. That's an insanely different claim to make than what the usual Theist arguments do.
Even my most hated Theistic arguments (Fine Tuning, Kalam, Moral) pale in comparison to the contempt to which I give Presupp "arguments".
@@colinguyan9704 Most Theists want to win a debate using logic and reason... while Presuppositionalists are attempting to change the very foundation of reason so they don't have to debate.
Or, to continue the analogy, most Theists want to win the game by the agreed upon rules. Where Presuppositionalists declare victory from the start citing a rule only they accept.
@@logos8312 I fail to see the difference. Kalam is we don't know therefore god it only works if you start with a belief in god. So you just presuppose something different from another group what's the difference?
What brought me to the Lord was not the argument from the presuppositional argument or the classical theistic approach, but rather a good study of Daniel and Revelation.
How did you come to the conclusion that this 'Lord' you've mention exists?
VERY beautiful and arresting intro. Love the music, well edited.
In my opinion, presuppositionalism often boils down to dogmatism. I started reading "The Lie" by Ken Ham and was disgusted with his extremely proud and explicit use of bias and dogma for Christianity rather than the amazingly logical evidentialist faith you see when you read books like, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict."
Further, I think the idea that Calvinists often require presuppositionalism to operate is a fascinating point, and one that has flashed in my mind lately as an ex-Calvinist. The idea that we are so corrupt we cannot even choose God would go hand in hand with the idea that we are so blind that all knowledge is impossible without God's guiding hand.
I'm early in my intellectual journey. A lot of terminology in this video was new to me. Right now just focusing on the YEC vs. Old Universe vs. Theistic Evolution arguments. I'm getting very upset with the dogmatists who I never really vetted for my worldview on Young Earth. Hopeful I can find answers quick to help a friend who is fast falling away.
Just glad I got to sit under the tutelage of Dr. Charles Thaxton to center me on something more logically solid.
You see dogmatism because you haven't seen the logic for presuppositionalism, just look for better explanations, for example Dr Jason Lisle who has written books that addresses presuppositionalism and YEC too.
I got lost
@@Davichoo No, I see dogmatism because I read The Lie, and Ken Ham explicitly called himself dogmatic. He couldn't have used clearer terms to describe himself, saying his "bias" and "dogma" was better dogma than atheist dogma. And he excitedly proclaimed that this was a good thing.
Maybe I haven't given Presuppositionialism a fair shake yet. Perhaps it is unfair of me to directly connect Ham to Presupp. But so far I have not seen evidence that this ideology is any good.
@@rationalevidence9095 I may just pick up one of his books! I have been reading a lot about Day-Age Theory on godandscience.org. Ross's "A Matter of Days" is frequently referenced.
One of the main questions presup raises is who is the ultimate deciding authority. Is it the fallen man's autonomous, rebellious reason with which he exchanges God with false idols (namely, himself) or is it God's revealed word in Scripture? Are you relying on your autonomous reason to be the judge of all the facts? If you are an Armenian and want to claim that last deciding push to faith belongs to you, then of course presup is not going to make much sense to you. If you, on the other hand, believe we are dead in our transgressions, that w/o the supernatural saving power of God we cannot come to God, it will make sense.
People are just mad that presuppositionalism is "easy" and cuts through atheistic arguments like a hot knife through butter, while all their "hard work" apologetics gain no ground. They think it's cheating.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib I guess you simply don't understand
@AnonYmous-yj9ib you have to presuppose God for intelligibility. That's the point of a presupposition. Obviously God is necessary to explain everything. God creates and sustains everything. How could a Christian say otherwise?
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Through the use of reason. Now why does reason lead to God? Because God is true. Reason doesn't lead anywhere else. You don't explicitly need to affirm God to use reason. But reason cannot exist without God.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib easy. Reason requires, presupposes, and appeals to truth. Truth is a universal of intention. A universal that must exist in a universal mind. For instance, the only way the law of non-contradiction can be true is if it is maintained as a universal throughout reality, and this requires a mind "above" reality. Universal Truth is God.
It IS cheating. It's incredibly dishonest, disingenuous and ultimately malicious. It makes assertions, insists they can't be wrong and also insists that unless we accept these assertions, we're not allowed to disagree with them. It's vapid apologetics for people who have a pathological need to be right, and to humiliate others.
I and many others who are and have been presuppositionalists for many years would love a chance to engage discussion on this topic.
How do you know that you and others want to engage in discussion?
This is a very brief refutation. I have heard Dr. Howe teach and debate this in detail. R.C. Sproul also refuted presuppositionalism effectively. The presup method is intellectually bankrupt as demonstrated repeatedly by their begging the question, confusing ontology with epistemology, and/or making classical arguments in defense of God unwittingly.
They also confuse internal/external criticisms rather often in my experience.
Difference is we stand firm on our foundation- on the contrary of letting the atheist be the judge of God‘s creation- in which the atheist dismisses all that they’re presented with. We reduce them down to absurdity, to which shows them the bankruptcy of their position. I used to argue evidences- I realized how foolish it was, coming from the fact “all facts entail God, or they don’t” so why would I be foolish enough to argue over pieces.
Did you watch (listen) to the "Bahnsen vs Sproul video on PSA. As somebody said: "Bahnsen wiped the floor with Sproul". Plus, I lost respect for Ligonier ministries when Dr. Sproul's son was still kept on the payroll after doing a few "undesirable" things. Shall we say. And, who was still paying for Sproul's son's salary? Well, none other than the donors to Ligonier Ministries. So, I never gave another cent to that ministry.
@@punishingatheismofficial9790 Except your argument is rooted in equivocation. It's trivially true nothing could exist without God. It's obviously false to say you can't use logic or morality without assuming God's existence. Logic cannot be justified or criticised. Those are activities made possible by standing within a framework of logic. Logic doesn't assume God, it's assumes itself. Likewise attributing a moral command to an omnipotent being does nothing to ground it unless you believe might makes right.
Something in my opinion that distinguishes and elevates the presuppositional approach above the classical approach (based on my study of the two schools) is that the proponents of presuppositional apologetics are almost always more rigorous in their understanding of the Scriptures. One only has to spend 5 minutes reading Van Til, Bahnsen, or John Frame (an oft undermentioned name in these discussion, of the three he is the most clear. see "Apologetics" by John Frame) to see how faithful these men are to the Scriptures. One can see that their first loyalty is to the Word of God, and the Lordship of Christ in all matters, including intellectual. This is a flavor often (though not always) missing in the writings and lectures of "classical" apologists.
Well, not in Romans 1 or acts 14 and 17.
In one sense you can't compare presup with classical because those two are completely different approaches. Presup uses the bible from the onset. Classical relies on reason only.
But that does not mean classical apologists do not know the bible. Of course they do. Classical apologists are trained in seminary also. They can do exegesis as well.
Classical apologists operate within the context of theism in general. Whenever they do classical apologetics, they don't really evangelize.
Presup isn't really giving a defense. Presup isn't really reasoning. Presup = Preaching.
There is a time to preach, and a time to do classical.
This was excellent. Good work!
I don't know why people are recommending Dr. Jason Lisle and Sye Ten B lol
I think if anyone, the best person to interview would be Michael Butler, Greg Bahnsen's disciple
I think it's because those two are more well known on the internet. I agree with you though. There are some serious contenders more worthy of mention: I think of John Frame (although I know he and Bahnsen had the occasional squabble whilst remining good friends) and K Scott Oliphint (Prof at Westminster). Both of these gentleman are for more winsome, articulate, and knowledgeable in the field.
@@tylerpedersen9836 yes, I agree. I hope Cameron sees our comments haha
This is where classicalism shines 13:07. As Sproul also believed this, as well as myself. Highly recommend “classical apologetics” by R.C Sproul.
Oh man. I could write 1,000 pages critiquing this because I know exactly how Bahnsen would have responded to these points. - Instead let me just say that you can’t just presuppose the Coran or whatever for a number of obvious reasons. It makes me think that this guy hasn’t studied pressup very much because this is a beginner misconception. Let me also just advertise that Presupp is far superior in every way to other methods, except that it is difficult to try and explain to an average person. - This host is so enamored with William Lane Craig who is brilliant but his method is so weak.
He and everyone here should listen to “The Debate That Never Was.” It is the best distilled and hardest hitting of Bahnsens lectures and debates.
Cameron, I would highly recommend checking out Dr James Anderson's Christian Apologetics lecture series in the RTS(reformed theological seminary) app. He looks at all the major approaches to apologetics and ends up with a type of presup that is unlike what is being critiqued here.
Also it would be good to see someone talk about the transcendental arguement
Sick video aesthetics!
also love that the outro is back
Love this interview, also love the intro music.
Interesting discussion, I wouldn't call it a "sound refutation", more of him giving some objections
At 5:50 ish CC talks about presuppositionalism being the most effective form of apologetics. One reason this would be true is that if you're not versed in it, it's difficult to address, it takes you unawares.
You need to do an interview with James White or K Scott Oliphint or John Frame. I can see from this video that Dr. Howe has read and studied both Van Til and Bahnsen (and, I assume, Reformed theology more broadly). But the thing you must realise, Cameron, is that presuppositional apologetics is simply Reformed theology in apologetics. When you raise objections about using a presuppositional strategy to defend other religions you reveal that you haven't understood what is being claimed by Van Til et al. Van Til's approach is not a mind-game. You make it seem like it is.
Interviewing James White would be great. As a presuppositionalist, he debates Muslims (which Dr Howe implies can't work), Jehovah Witnesses, Mormans, Unitarians, and occasionally atheists.
I just want to clarify that Reformed Theology is not exclusively Presup. Plenty of confessional Reformed hold to something more along the lines of Thomistic Classicalism
@@jeremiahworkman4563 I didn't mean to present the issue as if Sproul, Warfield et al. are not Reformed. But I would say that presup is the only consistently Reformed apologetic, so that their Thomism was an inconsistency with the principles they so boldy defended and believed from the heart.
I've heard excellent arguments from all sides of apologetics. It's quite fascinating, honestly, that God has provided so many ways of proving what He says, in His word, everyone already knows. Lol. While I understand what's being said here, I find a deep appreciation for presupp in the very fact that it takes the Word of God as the Truth it is. When God's word says man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, it explains why say-- Bart Ehrman can be so solid historically concerning Christ, yet not believe in Him as the resurrected Son of God. I think people like Bart are excellent examples against any other apologetic approach. If indeed, solid, historical evidence were enough to persuade the unbeliever, why isn't he Christian? He remains in his unbelief because of his love for sin, his enmity with his Creator, his unwillingness to submit to God's Law (where do we find God's Law?) Back to the Scriptures boys and girls. Therefore providing a pretty solid basis for presupp. However, someone could then ask, "How do we know the Scriptures are God's Word, infallible, reliable, etc?" and that is where I see a solid basis for the use of classical apologetics. In fact, in Bahnsen's "Reasoning with unbelievers" lecture, he uses tons of what I would call Classical arguments against all other claims of reality/religion.
All that being said, God has provided us with beautifully excellent methods of defending His truth and our faith. Use them all! Let us not find yet another reason to divide, let's put whatever argument necessary into practice. At the end of the day, it is up to the Holy Spirit to draw, we must only be faithful. Grace and peace to all my brothers and sisters in Christ!
I dont think this is a sound refutation of presuppositionalism it actually strengthens and supports that method. I think the main thing is understanding these are “argument styles”, and each individual will use the argument style that helps them to defend the truth about God. I have seen great arguments from both methods. Then I think having deep understanding of christianity, the gospel would then be necessary to argue with other faiths as well.
Tracchofyre is this your experience?? It is an “argument style” its actually reasoning from the scriptures and using that as the starting point.
Tracchofyre i’ve seen sye argument style not so much kent hovind, i would say your analyzing the person using that technique rather than the actual technique. Im not a fan Sye, method of how he uses it because he doesnt get anywhere and it feels like he just wants win an argument smh Look into Greg bahnsen, he is the ideal example of a presuppositionalist.
@Tracchofyre
Kent Hovind isn't presup, my dudes. I do understand how Sye can appear abrasive in a snappy UA-cam clip, but he is really sharp. Presup can be a lot more thoughtful and patient than I think you've been exposed to. I get that cage-stage newbies shouting "HoW dO yOu KnOw?" Is not convincing, but I hope you'll give the method a fair shake.
ua-cam.com/video/anGAazNCfdY/v-deo.html
Tracchofyre Read Bahnsen or Van Til if you want an accurate & historical view of the Presuppositional apologetic methodology.
@@ironcross1252 You can’t reason from something that requires a posteriori knowledge to understand. In this case, the Scriptures.
Cameron your videos are REALLY well produced. I love the music and city footage. You’re going to be the US version of Justin Brierley and Unbelievable.
I presuppose that I am correct, that my world view is the only one that can account for intelligibility. Anyone who doesn't is in denial of truth and thus has no grounds for making truth claims of any kind.
What do I win? :)
Making sense the truth.
I like it... I love it.... I want some more of it!!! Great talk!
I'm still waiting for that SOUND refutation...
Did you watch?
@Agnish Roy right on, not to mention most of what they believe a pressuper actually believe is strawmaned by them.
You have to come with certain presuppositions to arrive at that conclusion.... Wait.....
False, possibly clickbait title. Did you watch?
To all here, I implore you to listen to the Bahnsen v Sproul debate if you have not. Maybe, even listen a few times. As many said, Bahnsen mopped the floor with Sproul. One of the things that has always impressed me about the late Dr. Bahnsen, is he used A LOT of scripture to back up his arguments; whereas his opponents do not. To me, it seems that they use their own humanistic reasoning/knowlege to try to argue against PA. However, in the Psalms godly "understanding" is asked for.
During a PA study at our church which one young man did not care for, I mentioned to some one in the study group that you HAVE to start with God. The young man asked, epistemologically or ontologically? The answer is yes, of course. All men must (and in fact do) presuppose the Triune God ontologically, epistemologically, and ethically. Being, knowledge, and living are impossible otherwise. The problem is, they lie and say they don’t presuppose those things. Worse, some well meaning Christians legitimize their lie by agreeing that presupposing God is not necessary.
Yeeaah. No.
Some really interesting stuff in this conversation!
Have you interacted publicly with presuppositionalists on the topic?
As far as I know there are no serious discussions with any presuppositionalists on this channel
Dr Howe has, though I think he has much to learn, especially reading Scott Oliphint, and the importance of the Trinity
Perhaps if Cameron wants to learn and present presuppositionalism, he should talk with a presuppositionalist. It seems to me like that would be good apologetics practice. I primarily exercise apologetics in interacting with Mormons, I find it best to get my information from LDS sources themselves. Certainly second-hand sources can be helpful but primary sources are much much better for dialogue.
Cameron, I appreciate your ministry, I really do. But I would very much so appreciate it if you were to dialogue with a presuppositionalist instead of doing this stuff.
@@skylergerald3546 I agree, at least he should first bring one on to explain it more accurately, and then critique it.
You can watch Howe's debate with a presuppositionalist (Ham) on SES's site, so yes, he has.
After watching this you should watch "Reformed Apologetics" critique of Howe's comments in this video.
Can we hear a defense for the presup position
If you would like one look up heff durbin presuppositionalism, or hames white presuppositionalism
@@doomerquiet1909
Lmbo I love Jeff and James
@@s.e.garcia3635 there is no defense for the presupp position. Its sole focus is what the non-believer can't do. Never once does it defend its claims. it starts with claims and insists they're self-attesting.
Can I please clear this up for everyone in 3 steps?
1. God is the precondition of knowledge
2. Assuming God is the precondition of obtaining that knowledge
3. Living out your assumption of God helps you understand the evidence for God's existence.
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Evidentialist: Just look at the sky for the evidence of God's existence!
Greg Bahnsen: Am I a joke to you?
@Jon wrong.
@Jon Amazes me how far people go to try and deny presupusitionalism. Twist Acts 2:36 and other places because they don't want to believe that Christians can have certainty. Key word certainty. They do all kinds of gymnastics even trying to make different categories of certainty all because they have the presupusitional intention to defend evidential methodology and they are willing to twist the Bible to do so. Twisting the scriptures , that's what cults do and trying to refute that Christians can have certainty, note, that's what atheists do. And then they'll straw man presupusitionalists and say we don't believe in using evidence. If your methodology causes you to do that, that is repugnant. They want want a space at the table with some of the mainstream academics so they don't take 1 Corinthians to serious or Romans 1:18-32.
@@georgemoncayo8313 Presuppsionalism is pseudo-intellectual nonsense-objectively. It tries to essentially posit that Christian doctrine about the Triune God is a priori knowledge. Guess what? That’s factually wrong. Only demons from hell would argue like Presups do. Gaslighting can be effective, but it can also backfire when the rot can be smelt underneath.
@@ManoverSuperman Wow what a strawman, lol we don't believe that the non believers has knowledge of the Trinity with just natural revelation , I noticed most people who are against presupusitional apologetics don't even understand it. We debate with certainty cause the Bible says we can have certainty Acts 2:36. Since that's true then that's presupusitional. And please don't strawman like some and say we don't believe in using evidence.
@@ManoverSuperman Also People have authorities why they believe what they believe but they try to call out Christians for making the Bible their authority. Bahsen points out that when a non believer says you can't make the Bible your authority, you can reply and say yeah I can, just like you are trying to make logic your ultimate authority and still try to be logical. In ultimate questions, circular arguments are necessary for example the use of reason is used to prove the reality of reason and logic is used to prove the constancy of logic. If someone says this is my ultimate authority and you say how can you prove it , an if the person says I'll prove it by appealing to this over here, then the first claim of the persons ultimate authority really wasn't their ultimate authority.
Pressupositionalism is question begging and fallacious. Just ask any presupper to give you their argument in the form of a sylogism. Its like their kryptonite
@My Bad They are trying to say that first principles need a singular first principle behind them.
The thing is presuppers don't actually have an "argument" per se. It's a shell game consisting of asking loaded questions and shrieking "I win" when the questions aren't answered...which they can't be.
James White left the chat.
john david why
@@kevindrake714 cause he's a presup
You childish 😂😭😂
If this is a problem for presupp, it would seem to be a problem for Bahnsenite presupp but not probably not Framean presupp.
I don’t think I heard any refutation of presup... 🤔
@bic boi
Boo! 😛
There are no gods. Now you have.
@bic boi how?
@@theoskeptomai2535 prove it
I have two points of contention with Prof. Howe's presentation.
1) At about minute 6 Howe mentions apologetics as a defense that is presented for the dialogue partner, let's say, to "consider." It is already at this point that presuppositional apologetics gets to the 'heart of the matter,' because it is the heart that is the problem. Van til and Bahnsen would say the Bible clearly states that the evidence is not the problem, e.g., Ps. 14, Ps. 19, Romans 1, etc. The act of 'considering' already entails the presupposition of the Triune God of the Scriptures. The unbelieving hearer 'considering' is a rebel against God, maintaining that he or she is reasoning autonomously within a worldview that is either idolatrous (false God centered) or materialistic (and as chance-centered also does not allow for reason, abstraction, etc.
Van Til gave the interesting illustration of the girl sitting on her father's lap on the train to Philadelphia, and due to the fact that she was on her father's lap she was able to slap her father in the face. That is what we do when we 'reason autonomously' - we use God to deny him.
2) Later in the discussion, at approximately minute 17 or so, Prof. Howe speaks of using presuppositionalism as a Muslim. Presuppositionalism in such a context does not work as Howe explains. Bahnsen did a segment on Islam and pointed out that there is an internal critique to conduct on the Koran. Therefore, it is not just a matter of saying 'Koran' as if that does not need explication or 'Koran' as if the content of the Koran is irrelevant. The content of the Bible is also not irrelevant. Bahnsen points out that the Koran itself refers to the gospel and the Bible and is therefore self-contradictory. Admittely, Bahnsen has more to say, but that is at least one salient point, I maintain. It is extremely important not to use the Bible as s straw man. The Bible has content which, of course, is important.
Not even five minutes in and he’s already misrepresented presuppositional apologetics.
Respectfully, what is presuppositional apologetics? I’m truly seeking trying to understand what this approach is and why it’s criticized.
@@dkeeks I had a long discussion (including an explanation of Presup) in another comment thread that I’ll link below. It shouldn’t be too hard to find my comment since it has 41 replies. Let me know if you have any questions.
ua-cam.com/video/-3ld1Jv-hU0/v-deo.html
@@dkeeks It’s criticized because it presupposes what, by definition, cannot be presupposed: a whole worldview. The classic way presupps try to avoid all criticism is by simply stating as a matter of fact that everyone who critiques it simply doesn’t understand it. But this is not true. If you ask them to elucidate, they either send you packing to Kant or Vantil, or else (again) state you do not understand it. But if you take the statements one at a time, and think about the essential difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, the failures of the approach appear quite clearly.
@@ManoverSuperman follow, perhaps if you were to give a dialogue example between a presup vs. classical. What would that look like?? What are the distinguishing attributes between the two?
@@dkeeks If you read the other comment thread you’ll see I argued with this^ guy before and I don’t feel the need to respond to his comments here because the other thread proves his woeful ignorance on the subject. You need to spend at least a few hours studying presup, if not reading the primary sources, before you can offer thoughts that even reflect a basic understanding of the philosophy, which this^ person hasn’t done. It’s telling that he even charges presuppositionalists with stating you don’t understanding (which is true for most people) since despite his bold confidence, he hasn’t understood.
The problem with pressup is how it only annoys atheists and does not convince anyone.
Being intellectually corned would annoy anyone, but its not about being "convinced" you can't convince someone of something they don't want to believe, you can only make them think.
It's not meant to explain, convince, or sway. It's meant to shut mouths. And yes, I imagine that would be annoying.
if a person is Presuppositionalism it means that God is their authority and has the cares for the word. Romans 1 and psalm 14:1
And the same is true of an evidencialist.
@@thomasfryxelius5526 sola scripture. Hebrews 4:12
@@ernestourrutia3009 I believe in Sola Scriptura. I don't think presuppositionalism is biblical.
While both systems can and do get to the gospel. I believe the presup position to be more consistent with the scriptures. This is incredibly relevant when seen in debate. For example, the greatest objections from atheists become mute when confronted by reformed epistemology. See the stark contrast in action with the debate of James White vs. David Silverman & Frank Turek vs Silverman. The holes Silverman punches in the position of Turek are just not possible in his debate with White. The classical approach holds too strongly to human autonomy. Love your content. These are ultimately secondary issues, but still incredibly important.
Why must the arguments of the classical approach be seen as separate and not merely parts of a cumulative case? And why can’t presuppositionalism and the classical approach be considered to be on the same team like a soldier who has a pistol and a rifle?
Agreed, i dont see why one can’t support the other, i think they blend nicely and i support all forms of argumentation that lead to the truth.
Look up Orthodox fathers and youll see that this is precisely how it used to be done, and is still done in orthodoxy today.
Iron Cross - From your comment, it seems like you have concluded Christianity is “the truth” and will accept anything that leads that direction, whether reasonable or not. Have you put the cart before the horse?
@@questionasker8791
I reckon you're putting horse in his mouth.
Some Christian Guy - I’m criticizing his approach based on what he has said here. He’s more than welcome to clarify or update his statements if I’ve misrepresented or misinterpreted them, I’ve asked him to. And so are you, if you see anything wrong with what I have said there.
Good convo and nice positive vibes...but they didn't show how classical is more biblical/logical and they unfortunately misrepresented presup in a way that sounds like they don't understand it... especially with the Islam analogy. Presup involves a Trinitarian epistemology that provides grounding for love, one/many amongst other things, etc etc etc
One thing I see in classicists and I could be wrong but seems like they love intellectualism and presup is just too simple and straightforward for them
Amazes me how far people go to try and deny presupusitionalism. Twist Acts 2:36 and other places because they don't want to believe that Christians can have certainty. Key word certainty. They do all kinds of gymnastics even trying to make different categories of certainty all because they have the presupusitional intention to defend evidential methodology and they are willing to twist the Bible to do so. Twisting the scriptures , that's what cults do and trying to refute that Christians can have certainty, note, that's what atheists do. And then they'll straw man presupusitionalists and say we don't believe in using evidence. If your methodology causes you to do that, that is repugnant. They want want a space at the table with some of the mainstream academics so they don't take 1 Corinthians to serious or Romans 1:18-32.
My problems with Van Tillianism ( those who use this particular presuppositional method ) is
1. It opposes a straw man when it concludes the Classical/Evidentialist apologist " joins the non-believer in the juror seat, and puts God on trial ". No Biblical Classical Reformed apologist I have ever heard or read has ever stated that they are placing God on trial.
2. It makes a demand of the unregenerate that is impossible for the unregenerate to meet; start with God. In 1 Corinthians 2:14, we learn that the lost man has no desire or ability for the things of God. We futher know that a lost person is a dead person, and spiritually dead people can only start with what the Word has said they can start with; general revelation. No one can " start with " God , but God Himself, as R.C. Sproul has stated in the past. Both the regenerate and the unregenerate can only start with what God has chosen to reveal to either group.
I disagree on 2. Commands man to repent condemns them in error. Let God be true and every man is a liar. Commands to repent are binding on men but depend on God.
I've watched this twice. Still waiting on that sound refutation.
yeah me too.
Amazing how badly it’s misrepresented here.
@@Contagious93812 Nope. Didn't help at all. Both presuppose things they have no basis for unless you presuppose the Christian God. Logic for one. Thanks though. It's an irrefutable position and has been shown to be by everyone who has debated it.
@@1689solas Can you use logic? What is logic, per se? I assert that logic presupposes a BRAIN, deer friend. Brains can be found, your idol (your god that is) NO-WHERE.
@@kleenex3000 Yes it does presuppose a brain, obviously. But just because it presupposes a brain, doesn't mean it doesn't presuppose a specific God. The Eastern Orthodox worldview as expressed by Dumitru Staniloae in "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" has been demonstrated via S5 modal logic. The form you often see used with TAG. And, no I can't give you a full demonstration of that. I don't think it would be humanly possible to do so in less than 200 pages.
Love your content!!
You should make an interview with Dr. James White. Presuppositionalism is the way to go in apologetics.
Yes, because it is intellectually bankrupt and lazy.
It was note of an introduction video. I wish we could have heard more about the actual motivations for presup. Like the noetic effect of sin, autonomous reason etc...
Also now, because of that, presup are going to come and say "you don't understand presup". Which is their classical (pun intended) response to any video critiquing presup.
Yeah, he doesn't understand presuppositionalism
Indeed. But we'll explain why. A classic response doesn't equal an invalid response.
Presuppositionalism is not an "assumption". In fact, a presupposition is not even an assumption.
So yeah... he doesn't understand it.
A straw man is a straw man.
@@TheDeathInTheAir And yet no religious teaching can be presupposed by definition. To assert otherwise is folly epitomized.
@@ManoverSuperman Correct, It must be revealed by its source.
Cameron, you need to have a whole interview with just Sye Ten B.
I don’t think Sye likes Cameron for whatever reason
@@ThatReadingGuy28 Sye has VERY thin skin. Especially if you go off his script.
Cameron has a pretty big audience. I'm sure he'd be able to get someone more serious (i.e. has published extensively on the question) on his channel. I'd love to see him interact with John Frame or Scott Oliphint
Sye Ten B is not the kind of guest CC wants on the channel. Only charitable and patient guests are selected.
@@tylerpedersen9836 I totally agree with that Cameron NEEDS to have John Frame and Scott Oliphant on since they are both published seminary professors.
Are presuppositional usually used by Calvinists? This seems to be the trend in the apologetics debates I've watched and in the atheist/Christian debates.
The Eastern Orthodox use a form of presupposionalism, but it seems to me be more philosophically rigorous.
Reformed Baptist here yes presup dominates the reformed mind. Mainly because Van Til was reformed and in his writings sets out to actually develop an apologetic thats is specifically reformed. I've been trying to combat vantillian presup in the reformed church its a problem. A very few of us reformed folk are classicalists like myself.
The only presup guy I know is Sye Bruggencate.. Need to do some research..
James White is a presup.
Others are White, John Frame, Scott Oliphant, Bill Roach (I think)
You don't know Greg Bahnsen? Also look up Michael Butler's intro lectures on presup.
ua-cam.com/video/anGAazNCfdY/v-deo.html
Very helpful video! Thanks for posting.
Reminder that even if a worldview must have God as its foundation in order to be consistent, that WOULD NOT VINDICATE THE PRESUPPOSITIONALIST METHOD. Presuppositionalists ALWAYS miss this point. There is a world of difference between making a transcendental argument to the effect that "if there is no God, we could not reason > but we can reason > therefore there is a God" and stating that "we cannot know anything without PREVIOUSLY PRESUPPOSING the existence of God". The second begs the question, is irrational and doesn't work. Presuppositionalists are not just defending the argument that our *ontology* must ultimately include God in order to make sense of things; they are arguing that our *epistemology* requires an appeal to God before we can even justify beliefs, which is crazy, invalid, and ridiculous.
I look forward to the day when presuppositionalism is dead and gone, like other irrationalist nonsense such as YEC.
But how can we trust our epistemology if we weren't made to reason? The only way to justify knowing our reason and experience are trustworthy without God is to use our own reason and experience which is circular and no justification at all. I would disagree with the presuppositionist in that we must consciously presuppose God before we can know anything, but I believe when we presuppose our ability to reason and the trustworthiness of our experience we innately know that God exists because of this.
To know something is to assume the reason and experience that lead you to that knowledge is trustworthy. To reasonably assume that trustworthiness necessitates the epistemological grounding for that assumption isn't from that assumption itself nor can it be from your own experience or reason. God must be the source of you knowing that you can know. Trusting your reason and experience innately assumes God's existence
Nathan Nicholson again, presuppositionalists don't understand the difference between making a transcendental argument for God from reason, and the question-begging and insane idea that we must presuppose theistic belief in order to justifiably believe in other things. If you wanna make a transcendental argument to the effect that without God we could not have reliable intuitions and cognitive faculties, you are free to do so. I am not in principle opposed to that sort of argument. The problem is, again, that presuppositionalists don't do that: they instead conflate the two ideas and say that we must presuppose God exists if we are to even know something like the principle of non-contradiction (which is a self-evident principle). That would make presuppositionalism question-begging in a logically invalid manner, since they would be unable to justify their own reasoning in that case. It's pure nonsense, and all because of the confusion I just mentioned. You'll notice that presuppositionalists ALWAYS make the mistake of conflating transcendental arguments for a theistic ontology with the insane idea that our epistemology requires a presupposition of theism.
@@mordec1016 you didn't address what I said. I don't disagree that conscious knowledge of God is not necessary to know anything, but an innate knowledge that everyone has is necessary. I'm not talking about an argument for God. Without knowing that the methods that lead you to knowledge can actually do so, you cannot know anything. The only way you know that you can know is if God made you to know. You dont have to presuppose God consciously but you do innately
Nathan Nicholson 1- what does it mean to "presuppose God innately without conscious knowledge of Him"? 2- I know the principle of non-contradiction is true with 100% certainty. I know this because it is self-evident to me: when I understand the meaning of the terms, I understand the principle to be true. In what way would this knowledge require any knowledge at all of a proposition such as "God exists"? If I reject that God exists, would I magically become unable to know PNC is true? Of course not.
In other words: what does it mean to "innately presuppose God exists without conscious knowledge of Him", and why and how would this psychological state affect the capacity of a person to know and justifiably believe in a self-evident proposition?
fun related point, Howe is YEC
Presupp alone can be refuted, but it must not be tossed aside. We must incorporate it in the staircase that is Apologetics.
Yeah, I’ve seen presupps refuted - no, literally laughed at by the Atheist Experience. Their hosts literally will call out the presupp as running ‘a script’ as the presupp is doing his argumentation and get called out for the circularity and then ultimately called to the mat to then demonstrate that a God exists. It’s brutal. I agree that it has to evolve to incorporate other pathways, because the wall is going up the minute an atheist is sensing a presuppositional apologist before them.
Circularity is unavoidable at a paradigmatic base level. The atheist experience is a bunch of sophists who rarely engage in good faith and mostly just bash callers who oppose their worldview. They want empirical proof for immaterial things. It's nonsense. They wouldn't be convinced even if Jesus Christ himself rose from the earth in front of their very eyes. That's the thing. The Christian is taught to "test all things". The atheists are the dogmatists.
The way Sye does it IS the Vantillian way.
Very thought provoking. I tend to really dislike presuppositional apologetics. I must do more research
This is so embarrassingly wrong....This needs to be retitled to: "The Unsound Refutation of Presuppositionalism." I'm not so much triggered about setting out to refute presup as I am cringing that there are a group of people here who think the premises of this argument are sound. They're blatantly wrong, and both have proven they've done little or inadequate study of presup.
The music at the end of this is such a banger
Presuppositional apologetics is usually the last kind of defence that I use when people are clearly denying God on the basis of selfishness.
May I ask, how did you come to the conclusion that this god you've mentioned exists?
Why dont you START with that?
@@theoskeptomai2535 How do you know you are a person with a will or a biological robot given your beliefs. Google Isaiah 53. It's in Old Testament. Even liberal scholars agree it was written hundreds of years before Jesus. Who is this prophecy about?
@@milkshakeplease4696 I am a person with a will. I know this to be true because I impose my will upon the phenomena surrounding me.
I am familia with Isaiah. I have read the Old Testament in its entirety 9 times. I have also read the new Testament in its entirety more than 30 times.
You are looking for the answer that Isaiah is prophesizing Christ. And in one sense, you are correct. Paul's fictional protagonist of Jesus is based upon the Christ figure portrayed in Isaiah (also later in Psalms and Jonah).
And yes, every biblical scholar that I know, and as a biblical scholar myself, recognize that the book of Isaiah to have been written 6 to 8 centuries before Paul fictionalized Christ.
It should be your first line of defense, and then go from there.
I’m Catholic and imo presupp is far superior to classical apologetics. I think a lot of Catholics tend to gravitate away from presupp is because it was mostly developed from Presbyterians like Van Til and Bahnsen. I’m currently reading Always Ready by Dr Bahnsen, should be required reading for anyone getting into Apologetics. Also How To Answer The Fool
Presup is weak
Presup is loony tunes
@@BreRMatt240 referring to non-believers as fools immediately demonstrates the malicious, disingenuous nature of presuppositionalism. Instead of sharing the gospel in an effort to spread Christianity, it starts with insulting those who need to be convinced of God's existence. Merely telling them they already believe, but they're suppressing it will do zero good. Insulting them makes the matters worse. I can't understand why anyone would think this approach is a good idea.
@@dutchchatham1 God has no problem calling people/unbelievers fools, I will follow Gods instructions over yours, not sure how you determined you’re better than him. Hope that helps! I get you thinking the hippie, “Jesus loves all” approach might be superior because it sounds nicer, but trying to be nice (“you’re doing your best! Jesus loves you! Just have faith!”) to someone who’s driving towards a cliff won’t be as effective as telling them they’re foolish and logically explaining why they need to turn around. Unbelievers are presuppositionally opposed to Christianity from the start, they’re already at odds with God. Trying to be friendly to them is a useless endeavor. Showing them why their worldview cannot make sense and has to borrow from ours to justify it is a lot more useful, especially since most unbelievers boast of their “intellectual superiority.”
And presupp is not telling them they actually really do believe but suppress that belief. Sounds like you don’t really know enough about presupp to have an opinion on it.
@@BreRMatt240 You guys never once offer an argument for your claims. You just assert assert assert. Do you expect to convince anyone or, is presuppositionalism intended only to insult the non-believer?