Presuppositionalism - Toby Sumpter | Reformed Basics #7
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 бер 2021
- Knowledge is entirely a gift from God. When we acknowledge that and give God thanks, we are making God and His Word our presupposition. As it turns out, in order for us to do that, God must begin that work in us. The real obstacle to faith in Christ is not sufficient evidence or good reasons. The real obstacle is pride. But many a hard heart of pride has been cut down by the sharp grace of Christ crucified. And that is our fundamental presupposition: Christ is all.
Watch on the ChristKirk app: bit.ly/christkirkapp.
Fantastic representation of Presuppositional Apologetics. It was a TON of information for 24 mins...
Yup, what I love most about these Reformed Basics videos is that they cover the most common objections as well!
I appreciate your clear explanation of presuppositionalism. The second foundational claim is cute. Saying it with a straight face is brilliant! It’s like a narcissist wrote down his rules and says that if you don’t comply, that’s not a problem with him, but a glaring problem with you for breaking his…I mean GOD’s rules! This is fabulous!
“Language is a presupposition of life.” This is just getting better! Like that’s all that language is and don’t think too hard about it and let’s move on. This is like pretending to think. It’s adorable!
So, I’m at 7:17 in the video and so far, it’s just words about how everything everywhere works and makes sense because presuppositions. Right on! This is like watching a toddler riding a tricycle slowly into a wall.
“Where did all this come from?” The toddler has spotted the wall. There it is! Everything came from god or chance; the obvious dichotomy! Because WHERE everything comes from somehow matters in the slightest! Look out toddler! You’re about to hit the wall!
8:15 “The non-Christian is not telling the truth”. Bam! The toddler hit the wall and blames big bad non-Christians for his booboo. “The non-Christian is lying”. Oh! Now you read minds! What a clever toddler!
11:08 “This is the most basic presupposition: either acknowledging and thanking god, or else suppressing and resenting god.” Aw, look at the cute little toddler tantrum. Did the non-Christian walk by without paying attention to you? Don’t worry. You’re a cute little Christian toddler even if the meanie non-Christian didn’t give you attention.
Man oh man, I'd love to think i could win every argument with "it's been revealed."
Excellent..
Great topic
thank you for being so clear, just wading into this abstruse topic, tried first with Bahnsen vs Sproul not good!
Wow...
What is the difference between Van Til's first claim and Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover"? How does this ontological approach differ from Platonic idealism?
Good video. I agree that fideism is usually expressed by unbelievers! Same goes with "science vs. religion" - this false dichotomy tends to come from active atheists and sceptics. We all have presuppositions. If Christianity is true (and evidence and the Holy Spirit brings me to conclude that it is), then why shouldn't I believe when scripture says ppl supress truth? If God is real, I should listen to what He says. Since we all have presuppositions, none is neutral, not me nor my unbelieving interlocutor. I'm new to looking at PA. Interested in learning more.
Eventually you must weigh prospective presuppositions against one another by some standard. Anyone can make presuppositions, you have to demonstrate that God is necessarily at the bottom of them all, or that it is the most valid. 14:00 You hinted at the problem, noting that everyone resorts to circular reasoning at the bottom of their worldview, and then you boasted the repertoire of evidence as if to say the circular reasoning backing specifically Christianity is "less vicious" than others. If worldly evidence is your standard for weighing presuppositions against each other, then that's an even playing field for any worldview, and things get a lot more grey instantly. This is the inconvenient reality of presuppositionalism as far as I can tell. But I'm agnostic and very open to understanding this better.
You pretty much nailed my objection to it. Presupposing a particular god is ridiculous and unfalsifiable and all it does is make you look foolish.
excellent, thanks, I shared this with my friends, great animation, what program was used for the animation?
This is excellent! Clear, concise, compelling! Thank you for doing these little videos!
But isn’t the answer to question 9 a double negative? To say “no one” will be “without excuse” is to say that every one will have an excuse, isn’t it? I certainly know what you meant, but I think it was said incorrectly.
Thank you for the explanation of presupposition….. all that being said, I find it to be a clever way shifting the burden of proof, but I disagree that it is out of a disingenuous nature. I think that people who buy into are acting in good faith….. however the only thing it would serve to do is convert a believer to being a presup believer….. it would never convert a non-believer to become a believer because it doesn’t really address why you SHOULD believe, it just basically claims that you do already believe….. which telling an atheist that they believe in a god is insulting you are calling them a liar..
To be fair, most of the presups I encounter freely admit that presup is not _intended_ to convert.
(But then, they all tend to be Reformed, and exhort non-believers to repent... which makes no sense, since they believe that whether or not I repent is their god's decision, not mine.)
But they are liars.They are thieves and adulterers. They are haters of God. What is the problem with calling a spade a spade?
Nobody said that the presuppositional apologist has to STATE that the unbeliever is suppressing the truth. E.g., respectfully showing an unbeliever (during a discussion they've chosen to partake in) that they have no foundation to JUSTIFY their morality, invites them to look again at where that moral compass comes from.
Good points. When I realized the evidentialist case failed and this was the only way to defend Christianity I walked away. It's pure sophistry.
@@HaroldZwingley you're a clown. If the god you believe in actually existed it should be comically easy to provide tangible evidence and all you have to offer is 287 words rationalizing why you can't provide anything substantial.
Presupp is a joke and so is your "Faith". Your position is the place reason goes to die when a believer doesn't have the guts to face the fact the faith of their fathers is hot garbage.
If all you have to present the unbeliever with is assertions with no evidence to back them up, which is what presupp is, then you are to be pitied above all men because your faith is in vain.
I **grate** at the description of what “non-Christians” supposedly say- it is a gross misrepresentation of the epistemology of any and all of the examples given including the big-bang theory and evolution.
Okay- so my question for presups with a “regenerate mind.” You’d consider my mind (I’m not a presupp) to be ‘dim.’ So my question then is about how you engage with statistics in your interpretation of reality and what reality is.
Try this: The statistical distribution (that is- the ordering of …as they are discovered - fossils buried, genetic markers in ask life forms) suggest an inherited relationship among all life forms and a gradual change over time.
This is noncontroversial. That is to say- the statistical spread of these evidences can be found and verified by anyone.
RC Sproul 👊
14:02
Case closed
"Things are what they are." Is not logical identity. "A is identical to A." is logical identity. Logic does not deal with objects. But with STATEMENTS about objects.
Bruh, it doesnt matter. Everyone knows things exist and we dont need technicality to state the obvious.
@@johnx140 Yeah, Bruh, it does matter. It matters when we differentiate between talking about objects and talking about logic.
15:10 yes actually it is. 😂
"language is a basic building block of life"? Was there no life before language? Do animals that have no language lack the building blocks of life?
"Where did all of these things come from?" The Christian answer and the non-Christian answer are the same. From humans' encounter world the world around us. Even our knowledge of God, comes from our physical world around us.
I just don't get it. As a Christian, obviously I believe that God is prior to logic, and I temper my reason with faith in God...but that isn't an argument for God.
Perhaps at the end of a long debate I would tell someone to "try Christianity on", try seeing the world through that lense and see how much more sense it makes...is that the argument?
This video, ironically, pressuposes that everyone understands that the only way for the universe to be the way it is is because God exists.
It does a terrible job because it shouldve explained how it is impossible for the universe to exist by accident and only possible with God. Or how logic and reason come from God and what is God exactly in this context.
The quote from Hebrews 4:12 would have benefited from a better translation.
13:35
Logic doesn't allow us to speak about things truthfully. All logical can do is tell us if a conclusion is necessarily drawn from premises (deductive), or not necessarily drawn from the premises (induction). If there is any truth in the conclusion, it is logically trivial.
I liked it. May God bless you abundantly. Long live and win too many to God's kingdom.
A quick correction and a thought about the relationship of evidence and presupposition.
Correction: In question 9 you state that no one is without excuse. I think you meant everyone is without excuse.
I find the ideas of presupposition are very useful however I think the struggle between the two camps is unnecessary as God Himself uses both concepts. He clearly provided evidence (the heavens declare... etc.) and will judge based on our response to it (..so that they are without excuse...).
So then God provides evidence but the presuppositions of fallen man due to his unwillingness to be accountable (we shall not have this man to rule over us) are manifest in unbelief in spite of the evidence.
I don't think it is an either/or. Where the presup camp has a very valid point is that by over dependence on evidence we can easily miss the importance of the suppression of the truth in unrighteousness. I think both have to be brought to bear.
What if Christianity was ultimately wrong and you concluded that anyone who doesn’t believe it were simply lying and suppressing the “truth”? How would that be any different from a world like this one where god provides absolutely no verifiable demonstration of his existence? What you have is a recipe for intractable stubbornness and a vilification of nonbelievers which only serves to further alienate religious communities into insular tribalistic enclaves.
Except I can book a plane ticket to New York City, I can’t go see the angel you claim was in the driveway regardless of whatever anecdotal testimony you produce
Also the first claim is a circular argument
And you don’t presuppose gravity (cat analogy)
I love this type of apologetics. The unbeliever has no real defense and answer for it. They are helpless to defend their foolishness.
@Paul Dubya We presuppose that our minds are created by the one true, eternal, non-changing God. All other presuppositions are illogical.
@Paul Dubya The Holy Word of God. The Word that is forever, eternal, inerrable and unchanging. What are you using for your presumptions?
@Paul Dubya My brain is NOT reliable. Only the Word of God of the living God is. That's how I KNOW I'm correct. "Trust in the LORD with all thy heart, and lean not on thy own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths" Prov 3:5-6
@Paul Dubya The Word of God. What are you using, Paul?
@Paul Dubya Of course I'm using my brain. So are you. The brain God created, leads us to His Word- the ultimate truth. My fallen brain cannot be trusted, neither can yours.
The exact image of delusion.
Thanks for watching, James!
@@ChristKirk I did as much as I could
Literally. I’m going to start a cult. Our beliefs are “Isidore is god. Give him all your money and feed him grapes. We all know this. Anyone who disagrees is a liar”. I’ll raise some young people to believe it from a young age. Then they will teach their children, then, I’m set!
"A and Not A." is a contradiction. Again logic deals with statements not objects.
Presupps don't seem to understand that a presupposition is functionally equivalent to a scientific hypothesis -- a "trial" explanation, a guess, for the purpose of wringing out its implications, predictions, strong and weak points. It's not the presupposition itself that's the problem, but rather how well or poorly the hypothesis accounts for the phenomena it's trying to account for. If God exists, there's no reason whatsoever for a naturalistic presupposition / hypothesis to be as successful as it is. That explanatory coherence and success of naturalistic explanations is not just a coincidence. Either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator.
Presupps have no special evidence or insight. They must ultimately borrow from the naturalistic WV in order to have any case at all -- everything the presupps know about anything (including God) comes through naturalistic evidence, mechanisms, and processes.
22:58 Circular reasoning just means that you include the conclusion of your argument in the premise of your argument. If you do this, you have made a bad argument.
Claiming that your argument for Christianity should not need to adhere to this basic principle of reason is a fatal flaw in your argument. The fact that your entire argument is built upon this fatally flawed reasoning is positive reason to believe that you are not acting in good faith.
First my comment buddy you must know that all fundamental claims are necessarily circular. It depends on itself to make that claim. And second every world view is circular, including yours
@@creamycold1681 If you have a claim that crucially relies on an argument where the conclusion is in the premise, you don’t have a justification with which to adequately support your claim.
By admitting that his argument for the existence of the Christian god relies crucially on a circular argument, he is admitting that he lacks justification to support the existence of the Christian god.
Nothing more needs to be said.
@@MarkLeBay Actually a lot needs to be said my comment buddy. A circular argument of a kind is unavoidable when you argue for an ultimate standard of truth.
Christian presuppositionalism is circular. But so is every other worldview. And you objecting to this because of it being circular shows me you haven’t looked at your own beliefs systems circularity.
The proof of this apologetic is that without the Christian God you can’t prove anything. He alone lays the foundation for all rational thought, morality, purpose and destiny in the universe.
The presup "argument" is not an argument; it is an assertion - "my god is the necessary foundation for the laws of logic" - and a demand that the interlocutor provide an alternative.
What justifies the assumption that the laws of logic _need_ a foundation? Why can't I presuppose that the laws of logic "just are" the way that you presuppose that your god "just is"?
Also, there is no point telling a non-Chrisitian that they know your god is real unless you are prepared to prove it to them. Just FYI.
If the laws of logic have no foundation then we can just refer to them as personal logic or majority logic. They are laws because they are universal.
@@zambroa "If the laws of logic have no foundation then we can just refer to them as personal logic or majority logic. They are laws because they are universal."
What if they _have_ no foundation because they ARE the foundation?
"If the god has no foundation, we can just refer to it as a personal or majority god"?
@@JMUDoc But who says that they are the foundation?
@@rockycomet4587 "But who says that they are the foundation?"
Who says is?
@@JMUDoc God says that He is. Now please answer my question.
10:12 If the Christian God exists, does the Christian God have the ability to reason and think? Who does the Christian God thank for the gifts of thinking and reasoning? How does the Christian God account for reason and logic?
@@HaroldZwingley I assume that the Christian God is either constantly thanking the one who gave Him all those gifts …
Or is lying to Himself and pretending He doesn’t know where they came from and suppressing the truth in His unrighteousness.
Or at least, if the argument of this apologist is right and applied consistently without special pleading, that must be the case. An ability to think is like a fancy sports car - it can’t possibly exist without there being a gift giver. Or was it just luck that God exists with such tools?
Presuppositional apologetics is a way for Christians to say “heads I win, tails you lose.” It’s a circular embarrassment to the human intellect.
It's worse than that.
"Qxf7 - checkmate."
"... do you know how the rules of chess came about?"
"No."
"Then you can't win."
@@JMUDoc And yet the rules of chess had to be made by someone.
Obviously presup goes over your head.
@@lucasbrandon723 it’s a circular fallacy. Easily dismissed.
What is teh difference between claim #2, and Prisca Sapientia? How is it not a Gnostic claim?
Assuming the Holy Spirit flutters above an Arminian and a Calvinist during their prayerful disagreement about God's sovereignty, why doesn't the person who is wrong notice their error? Is the Holy Spirit not talking loud enough? Is the person in the wrong not smart enough notice their error?
The "laws" of identity and contradiction vary from logical system to logical system. and only have been meaning within a meta-logical structure. Thus, they are not universal, unchanging, nor transcendent.
4:30 what a pitiful strawman you made there
All presuppositions have a presupposition. Thus, a pre-presupposition. And of course, a pre-pre-supposition has a pre-pre-pre-supposition.. Into an infinite regress. There is no "Ultimate presupposition" (to quote Frame).
No one presupposes Gravity. It is a force you feel no matter where you go in relation to the gravitational well caused by a mass. Gravity is an effect we all perceive. Newton didn’t “invent” gravity. He developed a method for describing his observations of the effect of gravity. Einstein developed an explanation for the cause of that effect. This is all under a metaphysical naturalism which I feel more adequately explains our universe and our ability to understand it. I trust science because I have learned and done science and understand the methods I was taught. No one understands god unless they understand that god was the explanation mankind gave when they did not yet have a better explanation
We do all presuppose that gravity will always exist on the earth. Hence why it is a law.
Exactly, couldn’t have said it better myself… not even close really…. We can test gravity all the time….gravity isn’t a catch all explanation like God is, and presup is nonsense
@@stevesand8845 How so?
@@rockycomet4587 it’s nonsense because it’s not a rational line of thought. It starts with its desired conclusion. God is real. Then says “everyone else is just lying”. It’s an assumption that one’s highly culturally relative beliefs about the world presuppose everything. Which they don’t. Religious minds are simply brainwashed that way from a young age.
@@isidoreaerys8745 It starts with the knowledge of God because that knowledge is inherent in every human. It's as ubiquitous as gravity or light. Therefore, it is nonsensical to try to describe anything without keeping in mind that from whence it came.
You were on to the Trans religion before it became unrelenting 😐
There is a flaw in your concept. It isn't whether we believe in god. It is whether we believe the bible is true, and the inspired word of god. So your argument falls flat right away, because the bible was written by men and only men, therefore a hoax.
The presupposed standard (quality) of the bible is too high. It cancels itself out because it simply doesn't have the quality of an all knowing, all powerful, all wise being. The bible kind'a sucks. There are better writers and better books.
Hey Charlie. Not sure how you got from "bible was written by men and only men" to "therefore a hoax". I am curious if you watched this entire video OR if you've truly read the Bible and understand it. Not questioning intelligence. It just seems as though you haven't really honestly considered. I speculate this as I was you for 38 years. As someone mentioned above, I was definitely blind, but in retrospect I always knew, but was suppressing it. I would NEVER have admitted that - nor would I likely have said it that way if asked, even if I was being completely honest. I would say something more along the lines of, "I'm not sure I've seen adequate evidence". That's fair. But that does not result in "it's not true", but "I need to study this sincerely". Just some thoughts. I fully KNOW now that it's all true. You likely think that's impossible to fully know, but that is because you are still in the dark about this. Again, I get it. But it's not an intellectual thing anymore, although that is how it began for me... Anyway, just some thoughts, if you're truly seeking absolute Truth. Take care and I will be praying for you (I mean that).
@@gregdean2378 You're not sure how I got there? There is no evidence of the supernatural. Therefore anyone who claims they have a book or books that are the actual word of a god is perpetrating a hoax. Very simple.
Honestly considered what? I've read the bible, it is a bad, nasty joke.
And you "KNOW now that it's all true," now you are perpetrating a fraud. So Noah really lived to 950 years old? Sarah was 90 years old when she gave birth to Isaac, really?
Then there the disgusting belief system: Jesus is ok with you beating your slave? God really lusts for worship and glory? It is a farce. No way around it.
@@Lombokstrait1 There is no evidence of the supernatural? According to whom? Have you personally examined all the purported evidence of the supernatural? If not, how is it possible for you to say that? You personally just haven't seen any. Noah lived for 950 years. What is so unbelievable about that? It is impossible only if God does not exist. If he does exist, why couldn't he make that happen? Again, you can only say that by presupposing that God does not exist. What is wrong with beating your slave in your worldview? According to evolution, we are just rearranged stardust. Why couldn't I do whatever I want with a pile of stardust?
@@PlavitPOi90 950 years old... is beating someone wrong?.. No evidence of the supernatural. Evolution. If the god of the bible is false, then bedlam.
@@PlavitPOi90 "Noah lived for 950 years. What is so unbelievable about that? It is impossible only if God does not exist."
Or the Noah story isn't true...
"What is wrong with beating your slave in your worldview?"
My worldview is not the issue - if it's wrong to beat a slave in YOUR worldview, YOU need to account for why your holy book says it was once premissible.
15:10 You claim that the information contained in The Bible is of God. But a plain literal reading of The Bible leads millions of sincere Christians to conclude things that contradict a plain literal reading of God's very own creation.
The Bible is written by men claiming to speak for God. Can there be a more prideful assertion to make than to assert that the words of men claiming to speak for God are right, but the revelation of God's own creation is wrong?
And yet it is still here ...
@@toolegittoquit_001 What is still there?
Arguing what you saw in the physical world versus a supposed vision of something that does not exist does not make sense. Presuppositionalism is a ridiculous position to hold. VanTill was not a good philosopher.
Says who? You, an internet pseudo-intellectual who has provided zero coherent arguments. Let alone a coherent worldview to counter Christianity’s. According to what standard is it ridiculous? Go troll somewhere else.
@@gch8810 presup is stupid
@@gch8810 existentialism, absurdism and humanism are all certainly better than the Christian worldview
@@gch8810 there is objective evidence of this as all the most violent and backwards countries are highly religious and the most peaceful and prosperous are mostly atheistic
@@kirkmarshall2853 🤡
Presuppositional apologetics... the most dishonest debate move ever invented.
you're just mad because it's check mate
@@jayfrei What do you mean by "mad" and by "check mate"? Can your wordview account for "being just mad"? Are you denying that naturalism is "the source of all possibility"? How did you establish that? You know what, you're just "suppressing the truth" (that we invent gods to cope with reality). Deep inside you know it's all bullshit, but you're in rebellion and accepting atheism is your only hope, otherwise one day you will know you just fooled yourself and wasted your life believing a fantasy. Repent for the age of reason has come near.
Maybe now you got how dishonest it's.
@@piano9433 No, because your worldview still cannot account for dishonesty or our knowing what the truth is.
@@gch8810 Why can't my wordview account for it? And why does Christianity account for it better than, say, Stoicism or Buddhism? Tell me how christianity can account for it by something other than claiming it does.
@@piano9433 Sorry, but when you make a claim such as "presuppositional apologetics is the most dishonest debate move ever", it is incumbent upon you to back up that claim. I merely pointed out that it is funny how you call it dishonest, yet your worldview has no objective standard for which we can appeal to to determine dishonesty.