Thanks Paul. Though sometimes drawn into philosophical arguments, I don't put as much trust in them as the power of the anointed Word of God. For that is how I came to Christ. I argued a lot. I don't remember now any of those objections or answers. What I remember was the Scripture. If the passage comes with the Holy Spirit it is like radiation. Even without fully understanding a verse its power has impact if the person is to be saved at all.
It must’ve been about 10 years ago I was working for a guy who is in his 80s and a retired judge and extraordinarily intelligent man, he said the 10 Commandments were just nine good rules, after working for him for about a month or so and taking a beating theologically LOL, I was praying and I said Lord I need something to win this battle for you so on my last day of work I told him thank you very much for the opportunity to work for him and learn from him and I said I’ve got one more thing for you to think about, and keep in mind that no matter what verses or what approach or attack ha ha I tried he literally knew more verses than me and was smarter than me so I said Charlie it’s been a pleasure but I wanna leave one thing with you to think about, if you’re right and I’m wrong I’ve lost nothing I’ve lived my life with a point and a purpose but if I am right and you’re wrong then according to the Bible you’ll spend eternity in hell, pretty much left him speechless, I hope and pray he really turn his heart over to Jesus
The assertion is aka Pascals wager, and it is refuted by the assertion, that the dichotomy "either my god or no god" is false: Gods might be in unknown numbers around us, and IF they act, they are not described-, let alone restrained by the biblical assertions.
"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" - Galatians 3:2 "Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith- just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness?" - Galatians 3:5,6 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Cor 1:18
Hi All, Paul Washer is right in defending his faith, and I do not doubt his sincerity in serving the One True God. Yet, this is not presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics, according to Dr. Greg Bahnsen, is this: "Without God, one cannot prove anything." Presuppositionalism, a Kantian conception, was fine-tuned by Dr. Cornelius Van Til. The final conceptual polish applied to Presuppositionalism was administered by Dr. Bahnsen. The finished product yielded a Transcendental Proof for God's existence (TAG) which atheists had a horrible time defending against. Take care, QP
*Without pixies, one cannot prove anything. without fairies, one cannot prove anything. Without evidence, I can't believe invisible magicians exist.* "The finished product yielded a Transcendental Proof for God's existence (TAG) which atheists had a horrible time defending against." *It's easy to defeat because it's an argument from ignorance. You don't know how something is 'accounted' for, therefore (fill in the blank _______).*
It isn't about which book is "better". It's about who is actually in control of salvation. Rom 1:16 says that "the gospel... ...is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" and Rom 10:17 says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.". So yes. We use the Bible in apologetics as our main and only authoritative source. If you aren't preaching from the Word of God, how can one be saved?
That is why I don’t believe in “ debate “…. Aka James White. I believe as a Christian, I am to “declare” God in words and demonstrate HIM in lifestyle as Holy Spirit empowered…… Paul did not debate God on Mars Hill but declared HIM as the True and Living God who they labeled as “unknown”
He's basicly saying there no nutrality of reason between the wheat and tares, because both are grounded differently....thus sola scriptura, sola Christus, etc.
@xTHExELEVENTHxHOURx I totally agree. Nothing worked as hard on me as the Gospels and that was when I got saved. But I never would have opened God's word to read it if I did not think I could take it seriously. So while an argument will not bring someone to God per se it can open a person up to reading God's word and thereby allow God's Spirit to work.
Not one of the evidential arguments that my Christian work colleague used ever worked on me. But then he handed me a sermon video. That sermon converted me. So I can't argue with the fact that it is the word of God alone that saves.
Paul Washer, this that you claim is "not" an intellectual argument is actually a specific type of intellectual argument. It is where a view is supported by "fitting" with life. But, for a claim to be true you need three tests. 1)Logical Consistency 2)Empirical Adequacy 3)Experiential Relevance
anything i say using logic is proof. Since logic cant be proven without logic which is circular. So the second you accept any " TRUTH " claim you accept logic, but the only way to accept logic is if you believe God has made us capable of using logic. Since logic cant prove logic, as an atheist your stuck in a rut. I however am free to make truth claims because God has created us in his image, thus logic is trustworthy and can tell us truth about reality. You however, still in rut.
i start with premise God exist. Because God exist all laws are constant, universe is orderly, morals exist, meaning exist, purpose exist, and in direct evidence for Gods existence is all around us. The premise God is the only rational premise, since without God you start with logic, which you cant prove without first pre assuming logic, so anything you say is dog munch. We have to have God as starting premise to say anything at all and expect it to have any value. The end
It’s odd watching a video on presuppositional apologetics that has nothing to do with presuppositional apologetics. And attempts to negate 1 Peter 3:15 with a Spurgeon quote…. Maybe someone mislabeled it when they were uploading the video..
I presuppose the laws of logic; the presup presupposes a thing that accounts for the laws of logic. Occam's Razor favours me because mine has the fewer entities.
That's pretty fallacious, don't you think? You need to justify the laws of logic you presuppose, otherwise they have no value or meaning. Logic becomes unreliable, meaningless, and subjective without anything to justify it. To presuppose something objective like the laws of logic within a completely subjective framework (due to lacking justification) makes the laws of logic nonsensical, and its conceptualization could vary between individuals and you would have no consistent methodology to dismiss anyone who uses logic you don't believe is rational. The theist has an entity that justifies all of their rationalizations. A non-theist has absolutely nothing that justifies their own cognitive faculties to rely on the laws of logic to begin with. You will say, "But I do have things that I rely on to make my worldview more consistent!" Which, I know you do. You have MANY things you rely on to support your conceptualization of logic, albeit those concepts entirely circular. A net of interlocking, co-dependent perceptions that you use to justify and rationalize your concept of reality. I'm not here to argue with you about whether or not that is sufficient to make an objective claim, but with that many facets to your justification for the laws of logic, we must readdress Occam's Razor. Which of us *truly* has fewer entities to justify our beliefs in the laws the logic?
TimPowerGamer Sorry but you are presupposing god, that isnt accounting for something. The atheist actually does have Occum's razor on their side, you dont. You are using circular logic which is irrational.
@joshuaHults "objective moral values" is an oxymoron. Values can only be subjective. All normal humans know it is wrong to hurt people, because we value other humans, and feel empathy for them. This is explained by our evolution as a social species. No God needed. And if you need a god to tell you it is wrong to hurt people, then you are not a very moral person.
Since the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, there is no point in trying to argue by our own means. We are to preach the gospel. Not argue whether the Bible is better or not. As Romans 3:11 says that there is none who understand and none who seek for God. We must faithfully preach His Word and His Gospel and leave the rest up to God. That's not saying we preach the Gospel and ignore everything from that person from then on, but as I said faithfully preach His Word.
@PhatLarkin (...Cont) It is simply the METHOD of using logical proofs that makes it distinct. Presuppositionalism recognizes that everyone has worldview commitments, and so when debating worldviews, the only way for anyone to avoid begging the question and getting no where is by acknowledging their starting assumptions and indirectly justifying their usage of those assumptions, through transcendental argumentation. Such argumentation surely makes use of logical proofs!
God is premise A. God is all knowing, all powerful. God has made us in his image, God has given us ability to know the world around us because God has made us in his image. It says God made the stars so that we can SEE his handiwork. Obviously God has given us ability to appreciate his great work, thus logic is reliable. The End
andben... The question is not whether the person referred to is well presented, articulate or any other thing. The question is whether the person is true. The same is true for the Bible. I would suggest you read "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. I had a hard time with the historocity of the Bible as well... This might help.
Guido de Bres wrote the following in 1561 about why we believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God: Article 5: The Authority of Scripture • 'We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith. • And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them-- not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God. For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.' Thank you, Paul! We 'above all' believe the Bible is the Word of God 'because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God'. We therefore believe because of God's grace, and not because of our own smartness.
@WarrantedFaith You have GOT to be kidding. Presuppositionalism isn't "intellectually rigorous", it's starting and ending every debate with the mindset that Christianity is right and nothing can ever change that. My statement about the Koran is a MIRROR of Paul Washers arguments, except I'm presupposing another position. I did that to point out how obviously flawed and dishonest it is. "Dismiss any opposition, even if it proves you wrong!" "The Bibles right because I KNOW it is"
wow that was sillyness to the maximus as well. You know A because of B, you know B because of C, you know C because of D....... You know blue is blue because of your eyes, you know your eyes are eyes because of your brain, you know your brain is a brain because of ........... your brain, becomes circular really quickly for atheist. You make assumptions before you filter anything at all, thus everything becomes distorted. Nothing can be known. The end
Very Very Very easy. God is Good. So God allows us to not be as God is or be like God is so that we can have free will. If we only had good to choose from, we would be robots, God did not want to make robots. There is no bad without Good. Evil is just doing something good in the wrong way. Take rape for instance, your having sex against someones will. So sex is good, but when you do it badly its rape. Read some CS Lewis
2:22 “ The majestic view that scripture has of the one true God“. So stating your subjective opinion about the way the book you hold to be divinely inspired compares to the way another individual describes their God somehow shows the objective superiority and therefore truthfulness of your position? Please tell me how the words of your book are shown To be objectively majestic and then how majestic translates to a fact of reality.
@WarrantedFaith This conversation has been too muddled to carry on. I meant to say "You believe logic is not the only common ground needed" a few posts back. And my original post about the Koran was direct parody of this video. Except I used the word Koran where Paul Washer would put Bible. Regardless of where you're coming from on the subject, several things Paul washer has said in this video are tragically stupid. For one, telling people to not even consider they're wrong. 5:07 Logic>Faith
@WarrantedFaith A method of logical argumentation would be something like Polysyllogism. If Prepositional apologetics is as you described (people arguing for what they believe to be right), then the term is superfluous. Because apologetics is necessarily arguing for what you believe to be right. Prepositional apologetics is nothing more then starting and ending all debates with believing you're right and refusing to admit you could be wrong. THAT'S WHAT SETS IT APART IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
I am a Christian, but Mr Washer needs to think on this a bit more deeply. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind as whether he has reasons to believe it or not.
1Cor 2:1-5 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Faith is not a mental assent to facts, such as the historicity of Jesus, the accuracy of OT history, etc. Biblical faith is a persuasion of God's love. Cain knew God exists but did not have faith. The demons knows there is a God, but they do not have faith. But instead, when faith comes and we are persuaded of God's love, we naturally are also persuaded of the facts of Scripture which are the testimonies of God's love to us.
Hey Joel, my question was, how would you handle the situation? You are repeating yourself. I am trying to get to the heart of your biblical (expression. Please give me an example of what methods you would use. I already get what you don't like! See I believe Paul did a great job of Presuppositional Appologetics Thanks Joshua. What I am saying is tell me how you would do it! Thanks again.
darwinian evolution if you actually believed in it and followed it to its logical conclusions gives no support for meaning purpose values or morals. So can you please explain to us what the purpose of your comment is ? If you answer with anything besides " nothing " you are logically contradicting your own theory. Thanks for playing
I know something is hot because i touch it, i know i touched it because i felt it, i know i felt it because my logic told me i felt it, i know my logic is correct because my logic told me so. Do you see the problem, assuming logic to prove logic, you have to have an ultimate authority outside of ourselves to account for logic for the argument not to be circular. God is all knowing, all powerful ( definition of Christian God ) so we can rely on our logic because God is the cause for it
@WarrantedFaith to explain life as well as the Bible. Without logically demonstrating that point, then all you have is an assertion. i.e. "The Bible explains everything, because I just know it does." The "intellectually rigorous" parts of presuppositional apologetics is that when someone points this flaw out clear as day, apologists ignore it and say "no no no. This isn't an intellectual argument." Tell me how the Bible more true than the Koran without using an intellectual argument.
How do I know the Koran is the word of God? I have read it. I have felt it's changing power. It's that simple. And don't reply to this with an intellectual argument. Don't try and wrestle with me with man's logic. If you prove my God doesn't exist, I won't throw away my faith in my God. Because I know him, I know him! Praise Allah.
@PhatLarkin "People are arguing logically for what they believe to be true." How does that make the term "presuppositionalism" out to be "useless"? Surely you're not going to claim that there is only one way to argue logically. The mere fact that presuppositionalism uses logical arguments, just as non-presuppositionalists use logical arguments, has no bearing on the "usefulness" of the title. Again, presuppositionalism is a METHOD of logical argumentation. There are numerous such methods.
@PhatLarkin And all you just did was re-state that you believe that there's no such thing as logic at all (See, I can play your game too). If you're going to continue making things up rather than interacting with the actual content of my explanations, then yes, you may as well find something better to do. QUOTE ME where I said that logic is not a common ground. QUOTE ME where I said that faith and emotion are grounds to argue from.
@WarrantedFaith I can sum up the presupposition method in about a paragraph. People realized that logical arguments for the Christian God failed on several levels. So they invented a method of argumentation that begins and ends with them being correct. And the pillars of that argument are very very thin logical arguments. Reductio Ad Absurdum itself relies on objective logical proofs and evidence. You have to logically demonstrate why something is contradictory, or why something else fails *cont
at 3.10, no I don't see what your saying, as it's gibberish, mate. PS according to your book the universe is 6,018 years old and it's really 13.7 billion, quit being silly (or a conman). at 5.26 O its FAITH so you've no interest in the truth...
Well as long as you know it's 13.7 billions years old, then the Bible must be wrong, Jesus isnt real and we'll all die and all this will cease in meaninglessness.. right?
1:25 “ there’s not the power of going to scripture“. That’s because going to Scripture has no power. Until those words are demonstrated to be a true facts in reality, they are worth not much more than the ink on the page, With regards to objective reality anyway.
@WarrantedFaith If that is presuppositionalism , then it is by all means a useless title. All it means, in your definition, is that people are arguing logically for what they believe to be true. DUH HUH! That doesn't need some pseudo intellectual title and people saying its sooo hard to understand. And if your definition is correct, then Paul Washer is the one who needs to familiarize himself with it. Specifically shown by what he says around 5:00. basically, faith trumps all logical arguments
@joshuaHults If logic must come from God, than it must be possible to have an illogical universe, in which objects can be A and not A at the same time, or 1+1 sometimes =2 and sometimes =47. Since even you must admit that such a reality is impossible, than it does not follow that logic requires a god. Logic is just a description of what is real. Outside of that cannot be real, like a round square.
no i do not, but i know God knows everything and God said he made us in his image so i have a reason for believing in logic and that it is accurate. The founders of science knew this as well, they expected order in nature because of God.
OK! Now were getting somewhere. You need to know Jesus to understand this important message. I Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. John 7:17 (Jesus said) If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
Timothy Law Who's the unicorn? Is it the self-sufficient Creator of the universe? If so, then don't you see an issue with you having to embrace theism in order to try to defend atheism? Being unable to defend your worldview from within is a big problem.
Timothy Law You don't understand presuppositional apologetics. The evidence of God's existence is the impossibility of the contrary. Is it impossible for your unicorn to not exist? No, it's not. So how exactly is it a parallel to God?
I never said the word "feeling" once. I am talking about the reality of a life changed by God's redemptive work in Christ Jesus. My life has been absolutely, fundamentally changed from a sinful man who cared less about God's word and His will to a man still sinful, but washed in the blood of Christ and given a new heart, who no longer walks in unrepentant sin or loves the world. Again, you will never know God and His Gospel until you understand your problem is your sin, not your intellect.
If you do not assume logic is true, then how can you pretend to know any truth at all ? This is a ridiculous argument that you are making. " I do not believe in logic, but i know im right "....... Your so all over the place, this is why we need ground rules if you want to continue talking.
You are confusing evangelism with apologetics. Evangelism is the proclamation of the gospel; apologetics is the defense of the faith. "I believe it because I read it" is actually humanist argument. It places the authority of scripture in you, not it God. You believe the bible because you, as an autonomous intellect, determined that what it says is true.
Then of coarse you have Jesus followers who were with Jesus when he died, If Jesus had not risen from the dead, they would know Jesus was not God, perhaps a good man but not God, however they ALL endured torture and death for the belief that Jesus was God. You can't explain why all of Jesus followers would die for a belief they would have known to be false if it was not the case, that makes 0 sense. Obviously have nothing to gain by being dead. So theres a strong CASE
@WarrantedFaith It's criticized endlessly as anti-intellectual. Who would debate someone who refuses to admit they could be wrong? Usually LOGIC is the COMMON GROUND (presupposed truth) in a debate. If you could convince an atheist logically that God exists, he would admit to it. Whereas if he used the same tactics as your presupposition apologetics, no amount of evidence or logic would convince him because he can't come on the common ground that he COULD be wrong. See why it's a such a joke?
apologetics in general is already an admission of defeat. if you were right, you weren't making up excuses, "apologizing for your shortcomings", or whatever you call backpeddling where you live.
@PhatLarkin You are proving my own statements with your comments my friend. You clearly have no idea what Presuppositionalism really is all about, if you honestly believe it actually amounts to saying "the Bible is right because I know it is." Try reading Van Til's systematic theology, and then come back and tell me this isn't intellectually rigorous stuff. He had students who dedicated much of their writing carriers just to explaining what in the world he was talking about.
Mark 16:18 ... a sign of being a true believer is that he can drink deadly poison and will not be harmed. How strong is your faith? Strong enough to drink a full glass of anti-freeze. This verse by itself proves that the Bible contains some text which can't be from a deity. So how do you distinguish between verses from men and verses from the mind of a deity? If Mark 16:18 is man made, why not Romans 1?
Copper Vann , With particular reference to v. 18, there is no command to pick up serpents or to drink deadly poison; there is merely a promise of protection as found in other parts of the NT (see Acts 28:3-4; This promise was for the Apostles, not for foolish snake handling churches of today. I hope this helps.
@WarrantedFaith All you just did is re-state the prepositional method. That you believe logic is not a common ground. If you refuse to use logic as the common ground, then I have no willingness to talk to you. As logic and evidence isn't enough to sway you. And disagreeing that this prepositional apologetics is "intellectually rigorous" isn't being childish. And who criticizes it? Other Apologists who know Faith and emotion proves nothing, and is not ground to argue from. :/
@PhatLarkin lol criticized "endlessly" by whom? You? I can tell you don't read much pertaining to this debate. Logic is not enough of a common ground, before proof is not the same as persuasion. This is the whole point my friend. Romans 1:18-20. There is the common ground of logic, but that common ground is not neutral ground, first of all, since logic can only be accounted for on the terms of a Christian worldview. Secondly, you can show atheists all the time logical arguments proving (Cont...)
I really like your teaching but one thing I can't and won't believe is that Jesus only died for a certain group of people when the Bible clearly says for God so Loved the word not for God so Loved certain ones he gave his only begotten son that would mean God created the rest of mankind just to throw them away into the fire I always said if you go to hell it's not God's fault it's yours for rejecting so great a gift of salvation
If by doing apologetics I can bring one person to belief in the one true God or stop one person from falling away from the Christian faith it is worth studying. Paul Washer is a great preacher but is very mistaken here. I happen to be one person that was brought to faith with the help of apologetics.
Presuppositionalism isn’t negating Logic. In fact it gives the preconditions for Logic and the ability to have an intelligible living. It gives causality and presupposes a priori knowledge which is required to obtain any other form of knowledge(a posteriori). Do your research before making big claims man!
@@Fernandohernandez-ys4qq you presuppose your god before logic. that's what it means and that's why it negates logic where it conflicts with your feverdream.
@@nanoblast5748 The most ignorant rebuttal I’ve heard by far. Logic is not a mere claim, they are metaphysical universals. The concept of “god” in a deistic sense has no place in Christian epistemology. There is no gap between the Triune God and his creation (creating according to his will). This is Theological in nature, you want to have a sound conversation? Consider your metaphysical worldview first, and answer this question: How do you make sense of universals(laws of logic to say the least) in an Naturalist worldview?
@@fernandohernandez4567 I might as well skip to the good bit. take the 3 fundamental laws of logic, those being the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle and the principle of identity. explain how they are nonsensical in a godless universe and only nonsensical in a godless universe, and you'll have me convinced.
@PhatLarkin Your asserting that you can use the presuppositional method to argue for the Koran as easily as the Bible demonstrates the extent of your ignorance on the matter. Presuppositional argumentation relies on arguments that take a reductio ad absurdium form. That is, the very point of the position is the indirect demonstration of the fact that apart from presupposing the Christian God, you cannot make sense of anything at all. That necessarily excludes the Koran.
Since theres no way to prove the earth is old, or that the earth is young, we must go on odds. What are the odds that matter came from non matter ? What are the odds that life came from non life ? Compared to God creating matter, and LIFE from LIFE. From repeated experience, all data shows that life does not come from non life, and matter does not just create itself. There is no evidence that a God could not have created it all.
"What are the odds that matter came from non matter?" *100%* "What are the odds that life came from non life?" *100% YOU are an example of life from non-life. There is not a single atom in your body that is alive. 'You' are just an illusion created by the interaction of non-living atoms.* "Compared to God creating matter," *0% since you have no evidence a 'god' even exists, never mind evidence it created matter.* "all data shows that life does not come from non life" *Wrong. All data shows every living thing IS life from non-life. AGAIN, not a single atom in your body is alive.*
@PhatLarkin Let me also remind you of the very first thing you said in this conversation: "How do I know the Koran is the word of God? I have read it." Hmmmm. Really? That's it? You just, *ahem*, read it, believe it, and therefore know that it's true? The irony in our discussion is you are accusing me of the very errors which you have made, and refuse to take my position seriously enough to recognize that your accusations misrepresent it. Forum link on my page if you want to discuss further.
WarrantedFaith if the Koran is truth then the Bible is true, if the Bible is true then the Koran is false. Muslim religion and it’s first premise do not seem to correlate. Nor the God of Abraham the same as Allah
hahahaha please prove to me that 2+2 really = 4 past someone saying it just does. I want real proof beyond your personal opinion that 2 + 2 = 4. You can give me 2 rocks + 2 unicorns and say thats 4 items but the only reason i believe it is because i was told that 2 + 2 = 4. Furthermore we could all be getting the wrong answer, theres no way of knowing, we assume everything dude, and to say something is a fact would be plain wrong.
prove logic without using logic, oh wait you cant ? circular reasoning. There is no truth outside of Gods word. Since to know anything for certain you have to know everything there is to know, and since your on youtube leaving comments its safe to assume you do not know everything. Or have someone who does know everything reveal truth to you, this is the only way to know anything for certain. God has revealed truths to us, its called the bible. And yes God knows everything
@JoshuaHults You said "to know anything for certain you have to know everything". Do you know everything? If so, prove it. If not, then you can't know the Bible is God's "revealed truth". By your own claim, you don't know that, or anything. I don't have to "account for logic". It doesn't require a god to create a universe where logic works, because a universe where logic does not work is impossible. How could something be A and NOT A at the same time? Logic is just the description of what real
+Chicken Nuggets *If you personally don't know everything, according to the presup stupidity, you don't know anything, INCLUDING THAT AN ENTITY EXISTS THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING.*
Hey bro, i respect your decision, i am happy you believe in God. The only thing i guess i can say is this, did Jesus rise from the dead ? I think rationally the best explanation for empty tomb is Jesus rising from the dead. If the people who had been with Jesus did not see Jesus rise from the dead, they would have known Jesus was not special, they would have known it all to be a lie, yet every single 1 died for their belief. So they must have really seen Jesus rise again. Please think on it !
the tomb was empty because the romans desposed of the corpses of conviced criminals in mass graves. there never was a tomb involved, just a rotting pile of dead flesh.
im saying unless you start with God as premise A in order to give grounds for believing in rationality, there simply cant be any grounds for believing in rationality. It actually does not take much faith to believe in God, it takes an understanding that if you want to say something meaningful, there has to be a God as premise A. This does not prove God, this proves that you assume God because you assume what your saying is meaningful.
there you go throwing around words with no grounding to do so. You assume life has value, For something to have value it really has to be worth something, for it to really be worth something it has to objectively be worth something. hmmmmmm sounds familiar " And while we were yet sinners Christ died for us " " For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only son " this is where human worth comes from, our creator God values us, which makes us objectively valuable
@PhatLarkin (...Cont) God's existence, and most of the time they won't buy into it, due to an EMOTIONAL commitment to their position, not an intellectual one. So the "common ground" of logic is not enough. They must be shown that the worldview they hold to cannot account for their belief in logic, and hence they operate on terms of the Christian worldview unknowingly. That is what presuppositoinalism demonstrates, logically.
@marvy1118 Most atheists don't even know what objective truth means, they think it means by only looking at logic (presupposed) and reason (presupposed) that they have objective truth, but it is still based upon the things they learned about how the world works, objective truth is only possible for God since he is also outside of what we can see
look at you go, presupposing your god before your own experience. what can you trust if not your brain? trick question, because you can trust WITH your brain.
and you hide behind scientist who never give both sides of the story. As far as science is concerned however, all men interpret the data using logic, and logic is in-material. An atheist just assumes it exist, but there is no way to prove it exist, so you to believe that invisible entities can make sense of the world around us, just as long as its not God Almighty. Because that would mean your not god, and that is enough to make an atheist like you weep. Get over yourself pal, your not IT
@marvy1118 Most atheists use their own presuppositions to argue their premises for why God doesn't exist, they just don't realize this, or don't want to acknowledge it.
you made a statement and assume it to be true. How can you say your statement is true since your statement itself is in-material. You used bad logic to form a statement about reality. However forgetting that the bad logic you used, cant be proved to even exist, any claim about reality outside of God is opinion. So for your statement to mean anything at all, you have to believe in the invisible entity logic, that it exist and that it is accurately explaining reality.
The point is of course that the logic for to justify faith doesn't convince you when people of other faiths use the same argument.The Quran is a scripture. 2:14, interesting. The majestic view? I guess it depends which part of scripture u read. Sermon on the mount is inspiring. The genocide oft the canaanites isn't.
I believe in Brick. Brick is a very cool God, or hot. It just depends on the ambient temperature. But Brick the one and only God. Brick’s relatives, who are not gods, live all around us. You will find many of them in buildings. Unlike many other gods you can actually see Brick. Brick has mass and being a physical, actually has measurable dimensions. He and his relatives were created by man, for man, to look after us. Brick has also made me write a book. It’s called The Holy Bible. It has one page. On that page, the holy, sacred words of scripture are written “Trevor is always right!”. Belief in Brick means I can have certain knowledge of everything. It gives me a foundation for belief because everything is in the mind of Brick. It also gives me certainly and not believing in Brick means you can have no certainty and no understanding. Because without certainly and understanding, how do you know what it true? Denying the existence of a Brick means you are being untrue to yourself because you know Brick exists. And being more way more powerful than than Sye Ten Bruggencate and Jeff Durbin’s imaginary god, Brick’s miraculous physical effects can be determined in advance. I wonder if you would like to meet the real the God, see and feel Brick’s presence and deny Brick’s existence?
@PhatLarkin So what you are saying is that your god basically amounts to a personal feeling? That's a subjective experience, not a relationship with a real Person.
actually if you bothered reading anything i wrote you would see that i allowed your actions to prove God exist. Since there is no way to live as if there is no meaning, no morals, no truth, and you proved that by debating here which means you think it was the RIGHT thing to do, there was a PURPOSE to it, and that you have the TRUTH and theist do not, all 3 areas you pre assumed God. You cant build a house in the sky, all of your arguments rely on God existing for them to have meaning, the end
You see there is no such thing as proof, proof changes meaning depending on who you are talking to. You must 1st define proof so we can set a definite ground for a debate, if this word is not defined then any PROOF i supply you will simply change the definition of PROOF to avoid it. This is the problem with atheist, " heads i win tails you loose " . You do not realize you do this but it gets old and is quite childish my friend. If you want a REAL debate contact me and we will do it correctly
No, the other person would say that you would see the majesty and truth in the writing of their one true God. You still have done nothing to show not only thst there isva god...you've done nothing to showvitbis yours and not Allah or Odin or Zeus or Vishnu, or any other of the thousands of god claims.
if something is worth believing in, 1 should not be afraid of another personals point of view. I educate myself on atheist theology so that i can school you atheist on your own theology. Its funny how you do not realize you loose the second you stand up to debate, since you imply a purpose in doing so, and if there is no God there is no purpose, so you admit to there being purpose in the universe, which then demands a God. Its so simple, so easy to see your faults. Repent from sim
all truth value meaning purpose derives from God, you pre suppose a meaning in debating, thus you also believe in God, i do not even have to say anything i just let you speak and make my case for me. We know God exist because its impossible to live life as if morals truth were truly subjective. Somethings really are wrong, and some things really are true. Thus God exist.
"A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument." -Leonard Ravenhill
A man without an argument is not justified in spreading hateful doctrines.
A man with an argument is never at the mercy of a man with an experience. -asix
I also have no way to prove to the man in the insane asylum that he is delusional because he is too irrational to understand. What is your point?
+FG *Who are you talking to?*
Born a catholic in a family of catholics catholic for so long cannot be tripped by a man with a Bible
Did anyone else see that paper appear and then disappear on his desk at 2:16?
Joshua Woodall probably a camera glitch
Several things appear and disappear on his desk. 😧
Video is cut here and there. No big deal
Along the lines of.. "I came to you not with wisdom of speech that your faith may not be in wisdom of man but the power of God"
why do I read that as "don't bother thinking for yourself, I'll damn you if you do"?
"Since I'm right, you can't be."
-Presuppositionalism
This was so surprisingly good I'm shocked. I'm so glad I stumbled on this video.
Thanks Paul. Though sometimes drawn into philosophical arguments, I don't put as much trust in them as the power of the anointed Word of God. For that is how I came to Christ. I argued a lot. I don't remember now any of those objections or answers. What I remember was the Scripture. If the passage comes with the Holy Spirit it is like radiation. Even without fully understanding a verse its power has impact if the person is to be saved at all.
It must’ve been about 10 years ago I was working for a guy who is in his 80s and a retired judge and extraordinarily intelligent man, he said the 10 Commandments were just nine good rules, after working for him for about a month or so and taking a beating theologically LOL, I was praying and I said Lord I need something to win this battle for you so on my last day of work I told him thank you very much for the opportunity to work for him and learn from him and I said I’ve got one more thing for you to think about, and keep in mind that no matter what verses or what approach or attack ha ha I tried he literally knew more verses than me and was smarter than me so I said Charlie it’s been a pleasure but I wanna leave one thing with you to think about, if you’re right and I’m wrong I’ve lost nothing I’ve lived my life with a point and a purpose but if I am right and you’re wrong then according to the Bible you’ll spend eternity in hell, pretty much left him speechless, I hope and pray he really turn his heart over to Jesus
If your employer had never heard of Pascal's Wager, he wasn't as smart as you think he was.
The assertion is aka Pascals wager, and it is refuted by the assertion, that the dichotomy "either my god or no god" is false: Gods might be in unknown numbers around us, and IF they act, they are not described-, let alone restrained by the biblical assertions.
"Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" - Galatians 3:2
"Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith- just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness?" - Galatians 3:5,6
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Cor 1:18
Hi All, Paul Washer is right in defending his faith, and I do not doubt his sincerity in serving the One True God. Yet, this is not presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics, according to Dr. Greg Bahnsen, is this: "Without God, one cannot prove anything." Presuppositionalism, a Kantian conception, was fine-tuned by Dr. Cornelius Van Til. The final conceptual polish applied to Presuppositionalism was administered by Dr. Bahnsen. The finished product yielded a Transcendental Proof for God's existence (TAG) which atheists had a horrible time defending against. Take care, QP
*Without pixies, one cannot prove anything. without fairies, one cannot prove anything. Without evidence, I can't believe invisible magicians exist.*
"The finished product yielded a Transcendental Proof for God's existence (TAG) which atheists had a horrible time defending against."
*It's easy to defeat because it's an argument from ignorance. You don't know how something is 'accounted' for, therefore (fill in the blank _______).*
It isn't about which book is "better". It's about who is actually in control of salvation. Rom 1:16 says that "the gospel... ...is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" and Rom 10:17 says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.". So yes. We use the Bible in apologetics as our main and only authoritative source. If you aren't preaching from the Word of God, how can one be saved?
looks like the pulpit commentary, macarthur, calvin, lloyd jones on romans, and the expositor's as near as i can tell
That is why I don’t believe in “ debate “…. Aka James White. I believe as a Christian, I am to “declare” God in words and demonstrate HIM in lifestyle as Holy Spirit empowered…… Paul did not debate God on Mars Hill but declared HIM as the True and Living God who they labeled as “unknown”
Is this really a presupp. topic? I heard no mention of it and it seems vaguely relevant.
I don't think Paul Washer was familiar with presuppositional apologetics at the time of the recording of this clip.
+John O'Donnell and this recording seems irrelevant to presupp. as well.
He's basicly saying there no nutrality of reason between the wheat and tares, because both are grounded differently....thus sola scriptura, sola Christus, etc.
@xTHExELEVENTHxHOURx I totally agree. Nothing worked as hard on me as the Gospels and that was when I got saved. But I never would have opened God's word to read it if I did not think I could take it seriously. So while an argument will not bring someone to God per se it can open a person up to reading God's word and thereby allow God's Spirit to work.
Not one of the evidential arguments that my Christian work colleague used ever worked on me. But then he handed me a sermon video. That sermon converted me. So I can't argue with the fact that it is the word of God alone that saves.
Paul Washer, this that you claim is "not" an intellectual argument is actually a specific type of intellectual argument. It is where a view is supported by "fitting" with life. But, for a claim to be true you need three tests. 1)Logical Consistency 2)Empirical Adequacy 3)Experiential Relevance
anything i say using logic is proof. Since logic cant be proven without logic which is circular. So the second you accept any " TRUTH " claim you accept logic, but the only way to accept logic is if you believe God has made us capable of using logic. Since logic cant prove logic, as an atheist your stuck in a rut. I however am free to make truth claims because God has created us in his image, thus logic is trustworthy and can tell us truth about reality. You however, still in rut.
i start with premise God exist. Because God exist all laws are constant, universe is orderly, morals exist, meaning exist, purpose exist, and in direct evidence for Gods existence is all around us. The premise God is the only rational premise, since without God you start with logic, which you cant prove without first pre assuming logic, so anything you say is dog munch. We have to have God as starting premise to say anything at all and expect it to have any value. The end
It’s odd watching a video on presuppositional apologetics that has nothing to do with presuppositional apologetics. And attempts to negate 1 Peter 3:15 with a Spurgeon quote…. Maybe someone mislabeled it when they were uploading the video..
Great Video! Love it! Awesome!
I presuppose the laws of logic; the presup presupposes a thing that accounts for the laws of logic.
Occam's Razor favours me because mine has the fewer entities.
That's pretty fallacious, don't you think?
You need to justify the laws of logic you presuppose, otherwise they have no value or meaning. Logic becomes unreliable, meaningless, and subjective without anything to justify it. To presuppose something objective like the laws of logic within a completely subjective framework (due to lacking justification) makes the laws of logic nonsensical, and its conceptualization could vary between individuals and you would have no consistent methodology to dismiss anyone who uses logic you don't believe is rational.
The theist has an entity that justifies all of their rationalizations. A non-theist has absolutely nothing that justifies their own cognitive faculties to rely on the laws of logic to begin with. You will say, "But I do have things that I rely on to make my worldview more consistent!" Which, I know you do. You have MANY things you rely on to support your conceptualization of logic, albeit those concepts entirely circular. A net of interlocking, co-dependent perceptions that you use to justify and rationalize your concept of reality. I'm not here to argue with you about whether or not that is sufficient to make an objective claim, but with that many facets to your justification for the laws of logic, we must readdress Occam's Razor. Which of us *truly* has fewer entities to justify our beliefs in the laws the logic?
TimPowerGamer Sorry but you are presupposing god, that isnt accounting for something. The atheist actually does have Occum's razor on their side, you dont.
You are using circular logic which is irrational.
Shawn H how exactly does Occam's razor Aid The Atheist in accounting for the laws of logic?
Michael Reichwein You are adding more assumptions. Occums razor doesnt support the options with more assumptions.
@@shawn870 why is Occum's razor the standard of truth?
@joshuaHults "objective moral values" is an oxymoron. Values can only be subjective. All normal humans know it is wrong to hurt people, because we value other humans, and feel empathy for them. This is explained by our evolution as a social species. No God needed. And if you need a god to tell you it is wrong to hurt people, then you are not a very moral person.
Since the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, there is no point in trying to argue by our own means. We are to preach the gospel. Not argue whether the Bible is better or not. As Romans 3:11 says that there is none who understand and none who seek for God. We must faithfully preach His Word and His Gospel and leave the rest up to God. That's not saying we preach the Gospel and ignore everything from that person from then on, but as I said faithfully preach His Word.
@PhatLarkin (...Cont) It is simply the METHOD of using logical proofs that makes it distinct. Presuppositionalism recognizes that everyone has worldview commitments, and so when debating worldviews, the only way for anyone to avoid begging the question and getting no where is by acknowledging their starting assumptions and indirectly justifying their usage of those assumptions, through transcendental argumentation. Such argumentation surely makes use of logical proofs!
God is premise A. God is all knowing, all powerful. God has made us in his image, God has given us ability to know the world around us because God has made us in his image. It says God made the stars so that we can SEE his handiwork. Obviously God has given us ability to appreciate his great work, thus logic is reliable. The End
andben... The question is not whether the person referred to is well presented, articulate or any other thing. The question is whether the person is true. The same is true for the Bible. I would suggest you read "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. I had a hard time with the historocity of the Bible as well... This might help.
Guido de Bres wrote the following in 1561 about why we believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God:
Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
• 'We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
• And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them-- not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.
For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.'
Thank you, Paul!
We 'above all' believe the Bible is the Word of God 'because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God'.
We therefore believe because of God's grace, and not because of our own smartness.
@WarrantedFaith You have GOT to be kidding. Presuppositionalism isn't "intellectually rigorous", it's starting and ending every debate with the mindset that Christianity is right and nothing can ever change that.
My statement about the Koran is a MIRROR of Paul Washers arguments, except I'm presupposing another position. I did that to point out how obviously flawed and dishonest it is. "Dismiss any opposition, even if it proves you wrong!" "The Bibles right because I KNOW it is"
wow that was sillyness to the maximus as well. You know A because of B, you know B because of C, you know C because of D....... You know blue is blue because of your eyes, you know your eyes are eyes because of your brain, you know your brain is a brain because of ........... your brain, becomes circular really quickly for atheist. You make assumptions before you filter anything at all, thus everything becomes distorted. Nothing can be known. The end
Amen~ let Truth bear witness of Truth.
Very Very Very easy. God is Good. So God allows us to not be as God is or be like God is so that we can have free will. If we only had good to choose from, we would be robots, God did not want to make robots. There is no bad without Good. Evil is just doing something good in the wrong way. Take rape for instance, your having sex against someones will. So sex is good, but when you do it badly its rape. Read some CS Lewis
Amazing grace 🙏🏻🙌🏻
2:22 “ The majestic view that scripture has of the one true God“. So stating your subjective opinion about the way the book you hold to be divinely inspired compares to the way another individual describes their God somehow shows the objective superiority and therefore truthfulness of your position? Please tell me how the words of your book are shown To be objectively majestic and then how majestic translates to a fact of reality.
Amen my brother Paul!!
@WarrantedFaith This conversation has been too muddled to carry on. I meant to say "You believe logic is not the only common ground needed" a few posts back. And my original post about the Koran was direct parody of this video. Except I used the word Koran where Paul Washer would put Bible.
Regardless of where you're coming from on the subject, several things Paul washer has said in this video are tragically stupid. For one, telling people to not even consider they're wrong. 5:07
Logic>Faith
@WarrantedFaith A method of logical argumentation would be something like Polysyllogism. If Prepositional apologetics is as you described (people arguing for what they believe to be right), then the term is superfluous. Because apologetics is necessarily arguing for what you believe to be right.
Prepositional apologetics is nothing more then starting and ending all debates with believing you're right and refusing to admit you could be wrong. THAT'S WHAT SETS IT APART IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
Yeah ... why bother arguing when one can just assume his own infallibility, assert what he believes to be true, and avoid all those pesky arguments?
Amen brother!!! Praying for speedy recovery in JESUS Name this day and going forward........
I am a Christian, but Mr Washer needs to think on this a bit more deeply. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind as whether he has reasons to believe it or not.
1Cor 2:1-5 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
very good
Faith is not a mental assent to facts, such as the historicity of Jesus, the accuracy of OT history, etc.
Biblical faith is a persuasion of God's love.
Cain knew God exists but did not have faith. The demons knows there is a God, but they do not have faith.
But instead, when faith comes and we are persuaded of God's love, we naturally are also persuaded of the facts of Scripture which are the testimonies of God's love to us.
Hey Joel, my question was, how would you handle the situation? You are repeating yourself. I am trying to get to the heart of your biblical (expression. Please give me an example of what methods you would use. I already get what you don't like! See I believe Paul did a great job of Presuppositional Appologetics Thanks Joshua. What I am saying is tell me how you would do it! Thanks again.
Anybody got the full video?
darwinian evolution if you actually believed in it and followed it to its logical conclusions gives no support for meaning purpose values or morals. So can you please explain to us what the purpose of your comment is ? If you answer with anything besides " nothing " you are logically contradicting your own theory. Thanks for playing
I know something is hot because i touch it, i know i touched it because i felt it, i know i felt it because my logic told me i felt it, i know my logic is correct because my logic told me so. Do you see the problem, assuming logic to prove logic, you have to have an ultimate authority outside of ourselves to account for logic for the argument not to be circular. God is all knowing, all powerful ( definition of Christian God ) so we can rely on our logic because God is the cause for it
"Do you see the problem, assuming logic to prove logic,"
*You defeat your own argument since you assume a 'god' to prove a 'god'.*
if that's all the proof you need for a god, then you don't care WHICH god. heretic.
@WarrantedFaith to explain life as well as the Bible. Without logically demonstrating that point, then all you have is an assertion. i.e. "The Bible explains everything, because I just know it does." The "intellectually rigorous" parts of presuppositional apologetics is that when someone points this flaw out clear as day, apologists ignore it and say "no no no. This isn't an intellectual argument." Tell me how the Bible more true than the Koran without using an intellectual argument.
How do I know the Koran is the word of God? I have read it. I have felt it's changing power. It's that simple.
And don't reply to this with an intellectual argument. Don't try and wrestle with me with man's logic.
If you prove my God doesn't exist, I won't throw away my faith in my God. Because I know him, I know him!
Praise Allah.
@PhatLarkin "People are arguing logically for what they believe to be true."
How does that make the term "presuppositionalism" out to be "useless"? Surely you're not going to claim that there is only one way to argue logically. The mere fact that presuppositionalism uses logical arguments, just as non-presuppositionalists use logical arguments, has no bearing on the "usefulness" of the title. Again, presuppositionalism is a METHOD of logical argumentation. There are numerous such methods.
@PhatLarkin And all you just did was re-state that you believe that there's no such thing as logic at all (See, I can play your game too). If you're going to continue making things up rather than interacting with the actual content of my explanations, then yes, you may as well find something better to do. QUOTE ME where I said that logic is not a common ground. QUOTE ME where I said that faith and emotion are grounds to argue from.
@WarrantedFaith I can sum up the presupposition method in about a paragraph. People realized that logical arguments for the Christian God failed on several levels. So they invented a method of argumentation that begins and ends with them being correct. And the pillars of that argument are very very thin logical arguments. Reductio Ad Absurdum itself relies on objective logical proofs and evidence. You have to logically demonstrate why something is contradictory, or why something else fails *cont
at 3.10, no I don't see what your saying, as it's gibberish, mate. PS according to your book the universe is 6,018 years old and it's really 13.7 billion, quit being silly (or a conman). at 5.26 O its FAITH so you've no interest in the truth...
Well as long as you know it's 13.7 billions years old, then the Bible must be wrong, Jesus isnt real and we'll all die and all this will cease in meaninglessness.. right?
1:25 “ there’s not the power of going to scripture“. That’s because going to Scripture has no power. Until those words are demonstrated to be a true facts in reality, they are worth not much more than the ink on the page, With regards to objective reality anyway.
@WarrantedFaith If that is presuppositionalism , then it is by all means a useless title. All it means, in your definition, is that people are arguing logically for what they believe to be true. DUH HUH! That doesn't need some pseudo intellectual title and people saying its sooo hard to understand.
And if your definition is correct, then Paul Washer is the one who needs to familiarize himself with it. Specifically shown by what he says around 5:00. basically, faith trumps all logical arguments
@joshuaHults If logic must come from God, than it must be possible to have an illogical universe, in which objects can be A and not A at the same time, or 1+1 sometimes =2 and sometimes =47. Since even you must admit that such a reality is impossible, than it does not follow that logic requires a god. Logic is just a description of what is real. Outside of that cannot be real, like a round square.
no i do not, but i know God knows everything and God said he made us in his image so i have a reason for believing in logic and that it is accurate. The founders of science knew this as well, they expected order in nature because of God.
OK! Now were getting somewhere. You need to know Jesus to understand this important message.
I Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
John 7:17 (Jesus said) If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
@WarrantedFaith and yeah, I have a couple friends that live up in Boone. Mountains are beautiful, I'm right off in the foothills.
There is only one God, and we all belong to him.
How do I know that the bible is true?
Because without it, the question wouldn't make sense.
r0baa is correct.
+John O'Donnell How do I know that the unicorn is true? Because without it, the question wouldn't make sense.
Timothy Law Who's the unicorn? Is it the self-sufficient Creator of the universe? If so, then don't you see an issue with you having to embrace theism in order to try to defend atheism? Being unable to defend your worldview from within is a big problem.
No, the unicorn is not the creator. So, the rest of your argument is nonsensical.
Timothy Law You don't understand presuppositional apologetics. The evidence of God's existence is the impossibility of the contrary. Is it impossible for your unicorn to not exist? No, it's not. So how exactly is it a parallel to God?
Come and join us in the Sonlight. Jesus is the Word, the truth and the life.
I never said the word "feeling" once. I am talking about the reality of a life changed by God's redemptive work in Christ Jesus. My life has been absolutely, fundamentally changed from a sinful man who cared less about God's word and His will to a man still sinful, but washed in the blood of Christ and given a new heart, who no longer walks in unrepentant sin or loves the world. Again, you will never know God and His Gospel until you understand your problem is your sin, not your intellect.
If you do not assume logic is true, then how can you pretend to know any truth at all ? This is a ridiculous argument that you are making. " I do not believe in logic, but i know im right "....... Your so all over the place, this is why we need ground rules if you want to continue talking.
You are confusing evangelism with apologetics. Evangelism is the proclamation of the gospel; apologetics is the defense of the faith.
"I believe it because I read it" is actually humanist argument. It places the authority of scripture in you, not it God. You believe the bible because you, as an autonomous intellect, determined that what it says is true.
xcuse me, you got apologetics wrong. it literally means making up excuses. get it straight next time.
Then of coarse you have Jesus followers who were with Jesus when he died, If Jesus had not risen from the dead, they would know Jesus was not God, perhaps a good man but not God, however they ALL endured torture and death for the belief that Jesus was God. You can't explain why all of Jesus followers would die for a belief they would have known to be false if it was not the case, that makes 0 sense. Obviously have nothing to gain by being dead. So theres a strong CASE
@WarrantedFaith It's criticized endlessly as anti-intellectual. Who would debate someone who refuses to admit they could be wrong? Usually LOGIC is the COMMON GROUND (presupposed truth) in a debate. If you could convince an atheist logically that God exists, he would admit to it. Whereas if he used the same tactics as your presupposition apologetics, no amount of evidence or logic would convince him because he can't come on the common ground that he COULD be wrong.
See why it's a such a joke?
apologetics in general is already an admission of defeat. if you were right, you weren't making up excuses, "apologizing for your shortcomings", or whatever you call backpeddling where you live.
@PhatLarkin You are proving my own statements with your comments my friend. You clearly have no idea what Presuppositionalism really is all about, if you honestly believe it actually amounts to saying "the Bible is right because I know it is." Try reading Van Til's systematic theology, and then come back and tell me this isn't intellectually rigorous stuff. He had students who dedicated much of their writing carriers just to explaining what in the world he was talking about.
Mark 16:18 ... a sign of being a true believer is that he can drink deadly poison and will not be harmed. How strong is your faith? Strong enough to drink a full glass of anti-freeze. This verse by itself proves that the Bible contains some text which can't be from a deity. So how do you distinguish between verses from men and verses from the mind of a deity? If Mark 16:18 is man made, why not Romans 1?
Copper Vann , With particular reference to v. 18, there is no command to pick up serpents or to drink deadly poison; there is merely a promise of protection as found in other parts of the NT (see Acts 28:3-4;
This promise was for the Apostles, not for foolish snake handling churches of today. I hope this helps.
@WarrantedFaith All you just did is re-state the prepositional method. That you believe logic is not a common ground. If you refuse to use logic as the common ground, then I have no willingness to talk to you. As logic and evidence isn't enough to sway you. And disagreeing that this prepositional apologetics is "intellectually rigorous" isn't being childish.
And who criticizes it? Other Apologists who know Faith and emotion proves nothing, and is not ground to argue from. :/
@PhatLarkin lol criticized "endlessly" by whom? You? I can tell you don't read much pertaining to this debate. Logic is not enough of a common ground, before proof is not the same as persuasion. This is the whole point my friend. Romans 1:18-20. There is the common ground of logic, but that common ground is not neutral ground, first of all, since logic can only be accounted for on the terms of a Christian worldview. Secondly, you can show atheists all the time logical arguments proving (Cont...)
I really like your teaching but one thing I can't and won't believe is that Jesus only died for a certain group of people when the Bible clearly says for God so Loved the word not for God so Loved certain ones he gave his only begotten son that would mean God created the rest of mankind just to throw them away into the fire I always said if you go to hell it's not God's fault it's yours for rejecting so great a gift of salvation
If by doing apologetics I can bring one person to belief in the one true God or stop one person from falling away from the Christian faith it is worth studying. Paul Washer is a great preacher but is very mistaken here.
I happen to be one person that was brought to faith with the help of apologetics.
you are aware that apologetics literally means making up excuses, right?
@@nanoblast5748 It literally means defense. I'm betting you knew that but wanted to make a snarky comment anyway.
Presuppositionalism: when you have no arguments, so you throw logic out the window and make assertions.
Presuppositionalism isn’t negating Logic. In fact it gives the preconditions for Logic and the ability to have an intelligible living. It gives causality and presupposes a priori knowledge which is required to obtain any other form of knowledge(a posteriori). Do your research before making big claims man!
@@Fernandohernandez-ys4qq you presuppose your god before logic. that's what it means and that's why it negates logic where it conflicts with your feverdream.
@@nanoblast5748 The most ignorant rebuttal I’ve heard by far. Logic is not a mere claim, they are metaphysical universals. The concept of “god” in a deistic sense has no place in Christian epistemology. There is no gap between the Triune God and his creation (creating according to his will). This is Theological in nature, you want to have a sound conversation? Consider your metaphysical worldview first, and answer this question: How do you make sense of universals(laws of logic to say the least) in an Naturalist worldview?
@@fernandohernandez4567 you want to do this? right, here we go.
the universe exists. also there are statements that can't not make sense.
@@fernandohernandez4567 I might as well skip to the good bit. take the 3 fundamental laws of logic, those being the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle and the principle of identity. explain how they are nonsensical in a godless universe and only nonsensical in a godless universe, and you'll have me convinced.
@PhatLarkin Your asserting that you can use the presuppositional method to argue for the Koran as easily as the Bible demonstrates the extent of your ignorance on the matter. Presuppositional argumentation relies on arguments that take a reductio ad absurdium form. That is, the very point of the position is the indirect demonstration of the fact that apart from presupposing the Christian God, you cannot make sense of anything at all. That necessarily excludes the Koran.
Since theres no way to prove the earth is old, or that the earth is young, we must go on odds. What are the odds that matter came from non matter ? What are the odds that life came from non life ? Compared to God creating matter, and LIFE from LIFE. From repeated experience, all data shows that life does not come from non life, and matter does not just create itself. There is no evidence that a God could not have created it all.
"What are the odds that matter came from non matter?"
*100%*
"What are the odds that life came from non life?"
*100% YOU are an example of life from non-life. There is not a single atom in your body that is alive. 'You' are just an illusion created by the interaction of non-living atoms.*
"Compared to God creating matter,"
*0% since you have no evidence a 'god' even exists, never mind evidence it created matter.*
"all data shows that life does not come from non life"
*Wrong. All data shows every living thing IS life from non-life. AGAIN, not a single atom in your body is alive.*
Love this. God bless!
@PhatLarkin Let me also remind you of the very first thing you said in this conversation:
"How do I know the Koran is the word of God? I have read it."
Hmmmm. Really? That's it? You just, *ahem*, read it, believe it, and therefore know that it's true?
The irony in our discussion is you are accusing me of the very errors which you have made, and refuse to take my position seriously enough to recognize that your accusations misrepresent it.
Forum link on my page if you want to discuss further.
WarrantedFaith if the Koran is truth then the Bible is true, if the Bible is true then the Koran is false. Muslim religion and it’s first premise do not seem to correlate. Nor the God of Abraham the same as Allah
hahahaha please prove to me that 2+2 really = 4 past someone saying it just does. I want real proof beyond your personal opinion that 2 + 2 = 4. You can give me 2 rocks + 2 unicorns and say thats 4 items but the only reason i believe it is because i was told that 2 + 2 = 4. Furthermore we could all be getting the wrong answer, theres no way of knowing, we assume everything dude, and to say something is a fact would be plain wrong.
prove logic without using logic, oh wait you cant ? circular reasoning. There is no truth outside of Gods word. Since to know anything for certain you have to know everything there is to know, and since your on youtube leaving comments its safe to assume you do not know everything. Or have someone who does know everything reveal truth to you, this is the only way to know anything for certain. God has revealed truths to us, its called the bible. And yes God knows everything
@JoshuaHults You said "to know anything for certain you have to know everything".
Do you know everything? If so, prove it. If not, then you can't know the Bible is God's "revealed truth". By your own claim, you don't know that, or anything. I don't have to "account for logic". It doesn't require a god to create a universe where logic works, because a universe where logic does not work is impossible. How could something be A and NOT A at the same time? Logic is just the description of what real
+Chicken Nuggets *If you personally don't know everything, according to the presup stupidity, you don't know anything, INCLUDING THAT AN ENTITY EXISTS THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING.*
Hey bro, i respect your decision, i am happy you believe in God. The only thing i guess i can say is this, did Jesus rise from the dead ? I think rationally the best explanation for empty tomb is Jesus rising from the dead. If the people who had been with Jesus did not see Jesus rise from the dead, they would have known Jesus was not special, they would have known it all to be a lie, yet every single 1 died for their belief. So they must have really seen Jesus rise again. Please think on it !
the tomb was empty because the romans desposed of the corpses of conviced criminals in mass graves. there never was a tomb involved, just a rotting pile of dead flesh.
im saying unless you start with God as premise A in order to give grounds for believing in rationality, there simply cant be any grounds for believing in rationality. It actually does not take much faith to believe in God, it takes an understanding that if you want to say something meaningful, there has to be a God as premise A. This does not prove God, this proves that you assume God because you assume what your saying is meaningful.
there you go throwing around words with no grounding to do so. You assume life has value, For something to have value it really has to be worth something, for it to really be worth something it has to objectively be worth something. hmmmmmm sounds familiar " And while we were yet sinners Christ died for us " " For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only son " this is where human worth comes from, our creator God values us, which makes us objectively valuable
I love this man! God bless him, humble and faithful. Glory be to God alone!
@PhatLarkin (...Cont) God's existence, and most of the time they won't buy into it, due to an EMOTIONAL commitment to their position, not an intellectual one. So the "common ground" of logic is not enough. They must be shown that the worldview they hold to cannot account for their belief in logic, and hence they operate on terms of the Christian worldview unknowingly. That is what presuppositoinalism demonstrates, logically.
@marvy1118 Most atheists don't even know what objective truth means, they think it means by only looking at logic (presupposed) and reason (presupposed) that they have objective truth, but it is still based upon the things they learned about how the world works, objective truth is only possible for God since he is also outside of what we can see
look at you go, presupposing your god before your own experience. what can you trust if not your brain? trick question, because you can trust WITH your brain.
Presuppositionism vs, Evidential vs classical apologetics...have never persuaded people about God...the Holy Spirit does the persuading...
oh boy here we go. You assume a lot of things to make your argument, i only assume 1 thing, that God exist.
I no longer assume that. if he really does exist, then that should be appearant. the cancer in my sister's children convinced me of his absence.
and you hide behind scientist who never give both sides of the story. As far as science is concerned however, all men interpret the data using logic, and logic is in-material. An atheist just assumes it exist, but there is no way to prove it exist, so you to believe that invisible entities can make sense of the world around us, just as long as its not God Almighty. Because that would mean your not god, and that is enough to make an atheist like you weep. Get over yourself pal, your not IT
@marvy1118 Most atheists use their own presuppositions to argue their premises for why God doesn't exist, they just don't realize this, or don't want to acknowledge it.
you made a statement and assume it to be true. How can you say your statement is true since your statement itself is in-material. You used bad logic to form a statement about reality. However forgetting that the bad logic you used, cant be proved to even exist, any claim about reality outside of God is opinion. So for your statement to mean anything at all, you have to believe in the invisible entity logic, that it exist and that it is accurately explaining reality.
The point is of course that the logic for to justify faith doesn't convince you when people of other faiths use the same argument.The Quran is a scripture. 2:14, interesting. The majestic view? I guess it depends which part of scripture u read. Sermon on the mount is inspiring. The genocide oft the canaanites isn't.
I believe in Brick. Brick is a very cool God, or hot. It just depends on the ambient temperature. But Brick the one and only God. Brick’s relatives, who are not gods, live all around us. You will find many of them in buildings. Unlike many other gods you can actually see Brick. Brick has mass and being a physical, actually has measurable dimensions. He and his relatives were created by man, for man, to look after us. Brick has also made me write a book. It’s called The Holy Bible. It has one page. On that page, the holy, sacred words of scripture are written “Trevor is always right!”. Belief in Brick means I can have certain knowledge of everything. It gives me a foundation for belief because everything is in the mind of Brick. It also gives me certainly and not believing in Brick means you can have no certainty and no understanding. Because without certainly and understanding, how do you know what it true? Denying the existence of a Brick means you are being untrue to yourself because you know Brick exists. And being more way more powerful than than Sye Ten Bruggencate and Jeff Durbin’s imaginary god, Brick’s miraculous physical effects can be determined in advance. I wonder if you would like to meet the real the God, see and feel Brick’s presence and deny Brick’s existence?
@PhatLarkin So what you are saying is that your god basically amounts to a personal feeling? That's a subjective experience, not a relationship with a real Person.
actually if you bothered reading anything i wrote you would see that i allowed your actions to prove God exist. Since there is no way to live as if there is no meaning, no morals, no truth, and you proved that by debating here which means you think it was the RIGHT thing to do, there was a PURPOSE to it, and that you have the TRUTH and theist do not, all 3 areas you pre assumed God. You cant build a house in the sky, all of your arguments rely on God existing for them to have meaning, the end
my friend, if you want proof, pray to God directly and find out for yourself that God exist.
wait for a hallucination? why would anyone who want's proof search for it in a mentally exhausted state where clear thinking is impaired?
You see there is no such thing as proof, proof changes meaning depending on who you are talking to. You must 1st define proof so we can set a definite ground for a debate, if this word is not defined then any PROOF i supply you will simply change the definition of PROOF to avoid it. This is the problem with atheist, " heads i win tails you loose " . You do not realize you do this but it gets old and is quite childish my friend. If you want a REAL debate contact me and we will do it correctly
No, the other person would say that you would see the majesty and truth in the writing of their one true God.
You still have done nothing to show not only thst there isva god...you've done nothing to showvitbis yours and not Allah or Odin or Zeus or Vishnu, or any other of the thousands of god claims.
if something is worth believing in, 1 should not be afraid of another personals point of view. I educate myself on atheist theology so that i can school you atheist on your own theology. Its funny how you do not realize you loose the second you stand up to debate, since you imply a purpose in doing so, and if there is no God there is no purpose, so you admit to there being purpose in the universe, which then demands a God. Its so simple, so easy to see your faults. Repent from sim
all truth value meaning purpose derives from God, you pre suppose a meaning in debating, thus you also believe in God, i do not even have to say anything i just let you speak and make my case for me. We know God exist because its impossible to live life as if morals truth were truly subjective. Somethings really are wrong, and some things really are true. Thus God exist.
lol an ubermensch would disagree.