# For Presup's Only....



## kceaster (Aug 31, 2005)

I get so lost in all the jargon surrounding apologetics and philosophy, so if y'all would, could you tell me where I'm wrong.

If I use the Bible alone as interpreted through the lense of the Reformation, and I'm not trying to point to any other evidence than what is evident from Scripture, I know this to be presuppositional. But why must we learn the mechanics behind this? Why get bogged down in philosophical terms? If we're to defend the hope we have, and we use the Bible alone, not answering a fool according to his folly, then haven't we done enough?

The reason I ask is because I am woefully stupid when it comes to philosophy. It makes my head hurt.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 31, 2005)

I would say we use philosophical language in the same way we use theological terminology not found in the Bible--it makes communication more precise. It also allows us to make better (hopefully) theological formulations (think essence, substance, Trinity, imputation).


I could probably be more helpful if you gave an example. I think I know what you are getting at.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 31, 2005)

Even Bahnsen makes the point that the presuppositional arguments, at least with all the big words, are intended to answer those with _intellectual objections_ to the faith, i.e. those who do know alot of philosophy, or at least enough to justify for themselves their doubts about God. You are not going to explain the "preconditions" for understanding knowledge and experience with the average Joe on the street. At least, you won't be using those terms. Obviously, if their objections to the faith are not intellectual, then you will have to adapt the apologetic response to the need of the individual.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 31, 2005)

> If I use the Bible alone as interpreted through the lense of the Reformation, and I'm not trying to point to any other evidence than what is evident from Scripture, I know this to be presuppositional.



True, but I would rework this around another definition of presuppositionalism,

A Presupposing of the Christian worldview (fully come into being at the Reformation) over against various forms of non-Christian (and compromising Christian) worldviews, understanding that a denial of such logically entails philosophical and moral absurdity.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 31, 2005)

Thanks guys for the quick responses.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I get bogged down in the intellectual side of the argument. It would be much simpler for me to understand if I didn't feel as if I need to be prepared to debate a scholar.

I personally think it is a waste of time to debate someone like Russell who will not agree to start at the Bible. Perhaps apologetics is broader than that, but if I were talking to someone who didn't believe the Bible is the starting point and it is the truth and only the truth, then I would probably not engage them further.

But I could answer my own statements with an objection: What about the people who merely need to be convinced that the Bible is to be believed as the truth? Is this apologetics? At that point isn't it really preaching the gospel, not engaging in debate?

How does one prove to someone that they should believe the Bible to be true? Don't they either accept it or reject it based upon the light they've been shown and their own presuppositions?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## crhoades (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> But I could answer my own statements with an objection: What about the people who merely need to be convinced that the Bible is to be believed as the truth? Is this apologetics? At that point isn't it really preaching the gospel, not engaging in debate?
> 
> How does one prove to someone that they should believe the Bible to be true? Don't they either accept it or reject it based upon the light they've been shown and their own presuppositions?
> ...



If they are not wanting to believe in the Bible at all they are declaring themselves as autonomous in God's world. At this point it almost becomes preaching Law to them to drive them to Christ. It is their sinful ignorance/arrogance that leads them into denying God therefore it is upon us to 1. Point out their folly by showing them that without God they cannot have morality, science, reason etc. 2. Show that all of the riches of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. Ultimately the gospel is weaved in throughout all of this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 31, 2005)

> How does one prove to someone that they should believe the Bible to be true? Don't they either accept it or reject it based upon the light they've been shown and their own presuppositions?



Fortunately,
Unregenerate man already believes in God (Romans 1). How do you argue with him and be faithful to the Scriptures at the same time? On one hand you think you can't appeal to the Bible (because he doesn't accept it), yet that is his only hope. But on the other hands we can't appeal to any vague, autonomous reason or brute fact (which doesn't exist). Even worse, for us to assume a neutral position is to be unfaithful to our Lord! We can either be for Christ or agin him. How dare we temporarily assume for a moment that the resurrection did not happen! (fortunately, you do not entertain this thought)

So, what does the Reformed Apologist do? He advances his argument by the impossibility of the Contrary. Assume the unbeliever's position for the moment. Grant him his assumption that the Bible is not true. In doing so, then ask him to faithfully reason in a Chance Universe. Ask him to make meaningful moral decisions in a universe that doesn't believe in morality. Ask him to prove the laws of logic without using the laws of logic.

Very quickly, the unbeliever's worldview is reduced to absurdity. He cannot live in a world where Christian Theism (revealed via Bible) is false. Therefore, Christian Theism is true by impossibility of the contrary.

The Dark Lord Wilson writes,


> Suppose Smith presupposes A, and Murphy presupposes G. The impossibility of the contrary would be shown by Smith (for example) concerning Murphy, if Smith demonstrated that all who presuppose G must necessarily affirm
> "not G" at some point. This excludes G as a legitimate axiom to start from. And if Smith does this to all the other worldviews around him, but his A cannot be made to reduce to "not A," then he has shown the impossibility of the contrary.



Taken from www.dougwils.com

[Edited on 8--31-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Answerman (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If we're to defend the hope we have, and we use the Bible alone, not answering a fool according to his folly, then haven't we done enough?



KC, don't forget the second half of that verse "answer a fool according to his folly..." that's what the presuppositional view does so effectively.

In Christ,
David


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 1, 2005)

*Transcendentals, for starters*

This is taken from an old Paul Manata thread that I have referred to for help numerous times. I forgot the thread but this is what Paul said elsewhere (check out Mike Butler's essay in The Standard Bearer)

TA's are broad in scope covering *every* aspect of uman experience. Also the *pre-condition* is *always* an a priori. The scientific evidence was a posteriori. The transcendental aregument deals with what must be necessarily presupposed in order to make sense of *anything* whatsoever. Put differently: The proof of Christian theism is that without it you couldn't prove anything. 


The form of a TA generally takes this stucture

X-;Y (because Y is the precondition for X)
X
:.Y


----------



## kceaster (Sep 1, 2005)

*Paul...*



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> What don't you understand?
> 
> Here is a simple illustration: Your friend says that all that matters is drinking bear and getting your jollies off how ever you want to. He later get outraged at a case of child molestation. At this point you can simply say, "but I thought all that mattered was getting drunk and getting your jollies off however you wanted to?" So, this seesm simple to me, how about you?



First off, how do you drink a bear? Sounds scary.

My first reaction to my friend, whom I've probably already shared the gospel, is that I would tell him that this is the depravity of fallen man. I would take him to the Scriptures to show him that this is in the heart of every man. But I'm approaching "his" problem with my worldview. I'm not using his worldview to beat him with.



> "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord and be prepared to give *ANY* man an answer for the hope that lies within."



Knowing that Russell came from a different place, and that he was obstinate in his views, I wouldn't waste my time with him unless he asked me why I have hope. If he invites me for my opinion, I'll give it to him. But to openly debate him when he didn't ask for my opinion is not something I would want to do.




> Why don't you define what you think apologetics is?



Defending the faith before scoffers, and offending those who ask why I believe what I believe.



> How do you evangelize, then?



By preaching the gospel. I don't need to convince anyone their worldview is wrong, the Bible does that all by itself.



> Paul engaged in debate, both with believers and unbeleivers. As an aside, I think presuppositional apologetics is preaching the gospel. I'd recomend "The Intellectual Challenge of The Gospel" by Van Til (probably 5 bucks!).



I do understand that he did this. But I'm not so sure it's as normative as what we would think. And I do agree that he was simply preaching the gospel. And while he made examples of their culture and belief, I see it as a way to contrast his own beliefs. Perhaps this is all apologetics is suggesting, but in practice I see dead people, so to speak. Some people go out of their way to demolish another's world view. The Holy Spirit doesn't really need our help to make someone understand their faulty thinking. We present the Scriptures without compromise, and if the Holy Spirit is working in them, they will see the stark contrast without any beatings from us.



> Well, since this is highly general (in that their may be different arguments or objections, so it's not cookie cutter, in one sense) I'll give a highly general answer: You prove it by showing that if the Bible wasn;t true then they couldn;t prove anything, their very asking for "proof" assumes that the Bible is true."



I understand this, as well. But I think this type of argumentation does not lead us where we want to go. If I come up against a person who does not believe the Bible to be true and asking me for proofs, I would simply tell them that I cannot prove anything by empirical evidence or external authority. I would say that if they don't believe it, that is their prerogative. But the Bible says that they will come to understand the truth, and if it is in death, then it is too late.



> They accept it based soely on the work of the holy spirit.



Right, that is what I meant. If they believe, they believe because the light has been "turned on" by the Holy Spirit. If they believe not, they are just the same as I was in my trespasses and sins.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I like apologetics in practice, but not in theory. Now, when I go to practice apologetics, I think there is a sense in which the discourse is ordered by the Lord. True, if I am a novice, God will have to work harder through my apology. At the same time, God has a purpose in the encounter. He either wants the seed to be planted, the seed watered, or the seed sprouted. In planting, only God knows what soil it's fallen upon. In watering, there is some semblance of that person desiring truth. They may still be obstinate or they may be coming around. But the seed is no longer dormant, and I believe has not fallen on the rocky soil, but on soil in which some growth (hopefully the good soil) can occur. In sprouting, that person has a good foundation by which they can start prolonged growth, but again, their soil may not be the good soil.

At the point where real, genuine growth happens, I don't know that there is need for apologetics any more, except where the "new plant" needs to be apologetic themselves. But the faith shouldn't have to be defended anymore with a person who is growing. At that point, discipleship teaches them and they learn, but they are no longer opposed to the truth of God's Word.

If all this is true, then I'm like the race horse who hates to practice, because there is no other horse to run against, but who loves to race because of the competition. The horse like this is a racehorse in practice, but not in theory. I think that's the kind of apologete I am.

The thing I keep going back to is that the Bible teaches us to be disciples. Now if disciples, do we have to endure the mechanics of apologetics? The average disciple, no. We who desire to teach others must endure it. But even in this type of training, I wonder if the mechanics will help or hurt. In my case, I'm hurting because philosophy is hard for me. Logic is not much easier. But in the case of Jesus' sending out the 72, I don't believe He gave them an extended course in apologetics, although they would have been going to people who by and large, shared the same worldview and presuppositions. Perhaps that is why we see a different tact when it comes to Paul who was the apostle to the gentiles.

I am merely uncomfortable with formal apologetics in the mechanics of the thing. Perhaps that just means I'm lazy. What is my problem?

I need help figuring this out.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Answerman_
> KC, don't forget the second half of that verse "answer a fool according to his folly..." that's what the presuppositional view does so effectively.
> 
> In Christ,
> David



Right, and isn't the answer to the fool the Scriptures? In other words, do we have to show him through mechanics and logic how faulty his argument is? Or, do we simply contrast his folly with the wisdom of the Bible and let the Holy Spirit work?

I'm not saying that God can't work through apologetic mechanics and logic, but I'm wondering if it is because of the argument, or inspite of the the argument?

Wouldn't we say that to cast pearls before swine is to answer a fool according to his folly? We don't want to folly when it comes to evangelism and apologetics. So, discretion comes into play when we know that the fool is a fool, why he's a fool, and how his argument is foolish, but we do not cast our pearls, if this man is indeed, a swine, do we?

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 9-1-2005 by kceaster]


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Answerman_
> ...



Why dichotomize it? The answer is both. Proverbs 26:4 tell us:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. 

BUT 

Proverbs 26:5 tells us:
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. 

Is the Scripture contradictory here? I think not. I think verse five tells us to assume, for the sake of the argument, the fool's worldview, and show it to be stupid. I had written earlier:

Fortunately,
Unregenerate man already believes in God (Romans 1). How do you argue with him and be faithful to the Scriptures at the same time? On one hand you think you can't appeal to the Bible (because he doesn't accept it), yet that is his only hope. But on the other hands we can't appeal to any vague, autonomous reason or brute fact (which doesn't exist). Even worse, for us to assume a neutral position is to be unfaithful to our Lord! We can either be for Christ or agin him. How dare we temporarily assume for a moment that the resurrection did not happen! (fortunately, you do not entertain this thought)

So, what does the Reformed Apologist do? He advances his argument by the impossibility of the Contrary. Assume the unbeliever's position for the moment. Grant him his assumption that the Bible is not true. In doing so, then ask him to faithfully reason in a Chance Universe. Ask him to make meaningful moral decisions in a universe that doesn't believe in morality. Ask him to prove the laws of logic without using the laws of logic.

Very quickly, the unbeliever's worldview is reduced to absurdity. He cannot live in a world where Christian Theism (revealed via Bible) is false. Therefore, Christian Theism is true by impossibility of the contrary.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 21, 2005)

What role does evidentialism play...natural law. 

Also, I have heard the phrase "Pre-evangelism" tossed around a lot lately (i.e. Norm Giesler and others).

What think ye of these matters?

Also, I truly believe that there are no true atheists. Everone knows that there is a God. They suppress and hold down the truth - they arenot totally ignorant of it.

This seems to be what presuppositionalism states as well. Yet, how would I ever tell an atheist, "You really know that you believe in God" when he insists thathe doesn't?


----------



## Herald (Nov 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I get so lost in all the jargon surrounding apologetics and philosophy, so if y'all would, could you tell me where I'm wrong.
> 
> If I use the Bible alone as interpreted through the lense of the Reformation, and I'm not trying to point to any other evidence than what is evident from Scripture, I know this to be presuppositional. But why must we learn the mechanics behind this? Why get bogged down in philosophical terms? If we're to defend the hope we have, and we use the Bible alone, not answering a fool according to his folly, then haven't we done enough?
> ...



Kevin - don't dumb yourself down. I have always believed that the true philosophers are the one's who share the day to day human experience. They are not locked away in a tower theorizing the meaning of life. You may be more of a philosopher than you know.


----------



## gwine (Nov 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> 
> This seems to be what presuppositionalism states as well. Yet, how would I ever tell an atheist, "You really know that you believe in God" when he insists that he doesn't?



I remember reading a title from a website that made the statement "We are all worshipers." It's just that most (almost all, sadly) people worship something or someone other than God.

The apostle Paul when he was speaking on Mars Hill told them that they were a very worshipful people because they not only had all those gods but they even had one 'to the unknown god.' That was where he started from, that they did worship, but they worshipped the wrong god.

Perhaps you can begin in a similar way, by noting that not only are they a worshiper, but who or what they worship is not the true Lord and Creator of the universe.


----------



## Josh (Nov 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Ask him to prove the laws of logic without using the laws of logic.


I may be totally missing something, but how could a Christian (or anyone, for that matter) prove anything (especially logic) without using logic?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Josh_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



You can't. That is the whole point.

You cannot give a *reason* to prove logic doesn't exist, because the very use of a *reason* requires that logic DOES exist. Therefore, if a person were to assert that logic didn't exist, and then proceeded to give *reasons* why it doesn't exist, they would be contradicting themselves at every point. Every reason they give would actually be a reason to reject their anti-logic position. --- This is a good example of presuppositional thinking.

Arguing presuppositionally about Christianity works the same way. A person says he doesn't believe in the God of the Bible. But the very foundation of the unbeliever's worldview is necessarily theistic. They cannot give an account for why they are unbelievers, without appealing to theistic truths. Therefore, just like the person giving reasons for disbelieving in logic, the so-called atheist ends up pulling the rug out from under himself. The atheistic worldview is necessarily self-contradictory.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Josh_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Josh:

In a way you do it all the time. Just think of it for a moment. You're sitting there, in your living room with your child nearby, and you're wanting to teach her some things. You see her react to the sound of a car going by. You say to her, "That's a car." You find a picture book with a picture of a car in it, and show her the car, and then wait for another car to go by. There's another one, and she says, "That's a car." 

Now both of you have proven to you, when you hear the sound of a car going by, that it signifies a car going by. What causes that is the sound of it. You know it before you prove it. Logic comes afterward. You showed by your authority, not by proof. 

And that is quite normal for a lot of things. You somehow know it before you work it out logically. That is the nature of excellence. Because you are created in the image of God, you recognize excellence when it crosses your path. You somehow know truth when you hear it; you know the good when you hear it. And often you work out the details of the logic afterward. You do that because inside you know its right.

Think of Moses on the mountain; and Elijah on that same mountain; and then Saul of Tarsus on that same mountain again. They had things proven to them by show and by command. It was not logic that persuaded them, but authority. And that authority was overwhelming, even overwhelming their discursive thought. For they could never have thought these things into existence themselves. It was after the truth had been revealed to them that they were able to reason well and persuasively.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Josh_
> ...



John, your observations are good, but I think you are confusing epistemology with proof. They are two different things.

You can know something without proving it. You can know something without using logic to acquire that knowledge. From what I can tell, that is the point to your post above. And it is quite true.

However, you cannot *prove* something without proving it . . . You cannot *prove* something without using logic.

Proof requires logic.

But not all ways of acquiring knowledge require logic.

They are two different things.


Now, in the original question, you will see that he was asking how you can *prove* something without logic, not how you can *know* something without logic. The former is impossible, but the later is not.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 22, 2005)

Joseph:

My point was that men of God had things proven to them by authority, not logic. I'm not saying that logic cannot or does not follow. Of course it does. But some things we know as true, proven in our minds, before we do the logic on them to show whether our intuitive responses are correct.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Joseph:
> 
> My point was that men of God had things proven to them by authority, not logic. I'm not saying that logic cannot or does not follow. Of course it does. But some things we know as true, proven in our minds, before we do the logic on them to show whether our intuitive responses are correct.



Ok, I think I follow you now. 

I think you and I are on the same page here.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 22, 2005)

Sometimes its pretty hard to tell when the only view of the book with the pages is from the back.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 22, 2005)

"We are all worshipers." 

Good point.


----------



## Civbert (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I get so lost in all the jargon surrounding apologetics and philosophy, so if y'all would, could you tell me where I'm wrong.
> 
> If I use the Bible alone as interpreted through the lense of the Reformation, and I'm not trying to point to any other evidence than what is evident from Scripture, I know this to be presuppositional. But why must we learn the mechanics behind this? Why get bogged down in philosophical terms? If we're to defend the hope we have, and we use the Bible alone, not answering a fool according to his folly, then haven't we done enough?
> ...



Hi KC, 

Let me try to help you out. The bad news is you will need to learn some philosophy. The good news is philosophy ain't so hard to understand. You just need to learn some basic concepts so that when you defend Christianity using presuppositional methods, you use terms that are familiar and understandable to those with opposing world-views. To put a spin on a bad clichÃ© - world-views are like belly-buttons, everyone has got one - whether they have or not they have picked their lint out or not.

Pressuppositionalism is essentially a philosophical defense of the faith. Although it makes your head hurt, it is not really too difficult.

One of the first questions of philosophy is "how do we know" what we think we know. And the standard philosophical definition of knowledge is "justified true belief."

The answer to this question is our "epistemology" - a.k.a. our theory of knowledge. It is to say how we justify the truth of our beliefs to distinguish beliefs we "know" from beliefs we merely "believe".

A study of all "reasonable" world-views (a.k.a. philosophical systems) show that all of them require the adoption of some axioms (also called first principles). These are truths that must be assumed true in order to "justify" what we know. 

Logic comes in to play here. In order to say we know X, we need give an account of X. The best way to account for X is to deduce X from prior truths. Truths that are deduced are "necessarily" true if the prior premises are true. And if the prior premises are to be justified true, they should be proven from prior true propositions. This clearly could go on forever. Since we are not capable of going on forever, we say enough is enough and assume some axioms to serve as the starting point from which our knowledge will follow. 

Some will deny the need for axioms - but their defense will be circular. In other words - the reasoning of their world-view will be "proven" internally - within their system. They are presume their system is true in order to prove it is true. This is nothing more than "begging the question". It is more honest to present your axioms rather then hiding them within the defense of your world-view and pretending you have proven it. 

One world-view is "empiricism". The axiom of empiricism is that all knowledge is grounded on sensory experience. We know only what we have seen, smelled, heard, etc. Knowledge is gained soley by "experience". One problem with this axiom is it does not explain how one takes physical sensations and turns them into propositions. (Propositions are statements which have true/false values - if you can not say something is true or false, you can not say it is a true or false belief, much less justify it is true or false.) The point I want to emphasize is that for any world-view, to account for what is can "know", must start with axioms. 

The presuppositional world view has one main axiom - that is that "Scripture alone is the Word of God". By assuming this is true - it follows that all the propositions of Scripture are true. And it further follows that all of those things that we can deduce from Scripture are also true. Thus the extent of the Presuppositionalists knowledge is the propositions of Scripture and those propositions we can deduce from Scripture.

Now the unbeliever is going to say they do not believe the axiom. The answer is - "of course not". "I'm not asking you to believe my axioms. But my axioms are the grounds for a world view that is:

comprehensive
coherent
provides moral guidance
objective
And this is what the Presuppositionalists is trying to demonstrate. Greg Bahsen would say the only the Christian (presuppositional) world-view gives one the necessary requirements for "intelligibility". I can almost agree. But I can certainly agree that no other world-view meets the list of requirements for a sound, comprehensive, coherent, and morally objective world-view. We do not necessarily prove Christianity - but we can give a solid, even devastating defense of it. If nothing else, a reasonable man will agree that Christianity is perfectly reasonable, and maybe even more reasonable than many other world-views. He may not _believe_ it, but that is the job of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives one the belief in the truth of Scripture.


So the want for an understanding of philosophy is so that one can compare and contrast other world-views with Christianity. One need not know them all, it is enough to know the major schools like Empiricism, Rationalism, Logical Positivism, Pantheism, and Mysticism. A basic knowledge of their "epistemologies" will reveal the strengths and weakness of each. Some can not give an account for knowledge, some are more subjective. 

There is much more that can be said about pressuppositionalism - in defense of Christianity - but I think that covers the basics of it.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Civbert]

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Civbert]


----------



## Vytautas (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> One world-view is "empiricism". The axiom of empiricism is that all knowledge is grounded on sensory experience. We know only what we have seen, smelled, heard, etc. Knowledge is gained soley by "experience". One problem with this axiom is it does not explain how one takes physical sensations and turns them into propositions. (Propositions are statements which have true/false values - if you can not say something is true or false, you can not say it is a true or false belief, much less justify it is true or false.) The point I want to emphasize is that for any world-view, to account for what is can "know", must start with axioms.
> 
> The presuppositional world view has one main axiom - that is that "Scripture alone is the Word of God". By assuming this is true - it follows that all the propositions of Scripture are true. And it further follows that all of those things that we can deduce from Scripture are also true. Thus the extent of the Presuppositionalists knowledge is the propositions of Scripture and those propositions we can deduce from Scripture.



You attempt to give a brief overview of empiricism without any explanation of how sensations are turned into propositions. If all knowledge is grounded on since experience, then that should entail how propositions are inherited from experience because for something to be considered knowledge it needs to be stored as a sentence. A better criticism of empiricism is that its axiom fails to meet its own demands. If sense experience is all that is known then is the axiom of empiricism known by sense experience? The empiricist, if he wants to be consistent, would say that his axiom is grounded in experience. However, what sort of thing is empiricism? Is it something to be sensed? It is a theory of knowledge which means that it is an idea. Can you hear or smell an idea? Where do ideas come from? The empiricist would say that ideas are abstractions from experience. The mind operates on sense data and arranges them into forms. Forms are the abstractions from sense data.

You then give a brief overview of Scriptualism. Not all presuppositionalists hold to that view of knowledge. They would trust the senses, intuition, or authority on some manners of knowledge. What you provided was the content of knowledge namely the words of Scripture. But how is the Bible to be known? In other words, how do you know what the Bible says about anything? Is it by sensation? If it is so, then the Bible is an extension of the mind. What we sense is things that are perceptible only to the mind. If it is of the mind that we sense things, then the things sensed are part of the mind. Sensation can never give us knowledge of an external word of sense objects. Anyone who doubts this would need to deal with Berkeley´s argument:

It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding, But, with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this Principle may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For, what are the aforementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? And what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? And is it not plainly repugnant that any of these, or any combination of them should exist unperceived? 

What he argues is that houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are things we perceive by sense. Whatever we perceive are our own ideas or sensations. Then, houses, mountains, rivers, etc., 
are out own ideas or sensations. None of our ideas or sensations, or any combination of them, can exist unperceived. Then, the belief that houses, mountains, rivers, etc., have an existence distinct form their being perceived is a contradiction. There cannot be an objective reality.


----------



## Civbert (Dec 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...You attempt to give a brief overview of empiricism without any explanation of how sensations are turned into propositions. ......



I do not disagree - you said it better than I. 

I was trying for a quick overview and may have faulted on a few points. Mainly my point is to say that presuppositional apologetics requires some knowledge of philosophical concepts and views - but it is not too hard to learn.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 3, 2005)

Civbert, please click on the "Signature Requirements" link in my signature and update your signature.


----------



## Civbert (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Civbert, please click on the "Signature Requirements" link in my signature and update your signature.





(Is there a blushing/embarrassed smilely?)

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by Civbert]


----------



## Ken S. (Jan 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I get so lost in all the jargon surrounding apologetics and philosophy, so if y'all would, could you tell me where I'm wrong.
> 
> If I use the Bible alone as interpreted through the lense of the Reformation, and I'm not trying to point to any other evidence than what is evident from Scripture, I know this to be presuppositional. But why must we learn the mechanics behind this? Why get bogged down in philosophical terms? If we're to defend the hope we have, and we use the Bible alone, not answering a fool according to his folly, then haven't we done enough?
> ...




you never pray to God in theological jargons afterall. And afterall, words in the holy scripture is so vivid, down-to-the-earth, nonsophisticated, sometimes uneducated and peasants-style for all those PhD.s. We talk to God in spoken language afterall, during both the most wonderful and painful times. So don't get lost in jargons. Always remind yourself that the basis for all those theological jargons is the holy scripture, and knowing better the word of God is always the first step to getting to know what all those jargons mean. If you don't know how to do simple plus and minus Maths, you won't be able to truly understand advanced Maths such as differentiations. Don't get lost in college level differectiations when you couldn't even understand primary school level Maths. Have the basics understood and taken from God first before moving on. A complete understanding of the word of God is essential to learning theology.

[Edited on 13-1-2006 by Ken S.]

[Edited on 13-1-2006 by Ken S.]


----------

