# "Presup Apologist, can you envision anything that will change your mind on the topic?



## yoyoceramic (Mar 24, 2011)

...if not, then this is not a discussion!"

PBers, how would you respond in a debate or argument where the first question that was asked of you from an atheist was:

"Can you envision anything that will change your mind on the topic?"

If our ultimate presupposition and commitment is to the existence of God, and that our view of reality, knowledge, and ethics are all informed by the Holy Scripture we must answer "No".

However, at that point the unbeliever could say, "Then I'm not interested in talking to you, this is not a discussion." 

*How would you respond?*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

I am not an Evidentialist but Evidences can play a role. History is replete with questions and answers. I would eventually turn on the foundation of where their morals come from though. What basis for ethics and morals does their foundation have? That is another question I would direct at them. And then I would say that Hitler had a foundation. What says his foundation for his morals is right or wrong?

BTW, what defines a discussion? I thought a discussion was the sharing of ideas and communication. Just because someone is staunch and firmly fixed doesn't mean a discussion can't take place.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 24, 2011)

Your atheist seems rather closed minded and thinks he can only enter into a discussion with someone who thinks like he does, or he thinks he can convert to his way of thinking. I tend to think a discussion is a sharing of thoughts and views, rather than a wrestling match.

But, tell him, "Yes, if you can prove there is no God." Then when he says that one cannot prove a negative, you have him already engaged in a discussion about logic.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 24, 2011)

I'd say no: Christianity is the only worldview that is consistent with itself.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 24, 2011)

I'd turn the question around and grill him as to whether there was _really_ anything that could convince _him_. (There isn't, apart from God's Spirit.)

If not, then by his own standards, he can't enter into a discussion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 24, 2011)

In the well-known Bahnsen-Stein debate (if not, it was the Bahnsen-Tabash debate), Bahnsen was dealt this question, and his response went something like this (not exactly):

"If you were able to present a cogent argument in favor of your position which I was unable to defeat, and at the same time undermined the rationality of mine, then naturally I'd reconsider my position."

There is absolutely nothing in what Bahnsen said (actually) in answer that rendered his own position or confidence in it less firm, or a prevarication.


----------



## yoyoceramic (Mar 24, 2011)

Ahh thanks for the Bahnsen anecdote, Bruce.

I can see why this opening question is such a powerful show stopper. A Christian who answers "yes" may unknowingly surrender his ultimate presupposition.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 24, 2011)

The atheist believes that any possible "God" that might be there is contingent and not absolute and necessary for reason. So it is easy for him to look "open-minded" and say that he is willing to change his mind on the subject without meaning it.

He believes in a different foundation for reason than the God of the Bible, even although his foundation is all to pot e.g. a brain that has been assembled by trial and error by an irrational and impersonal universe.

Indeed it is "easy" for him to change from being an atheist to being a deist, or theist of a non-biblical stripe, as you don't need saving grace for that.

You don't even need saving grace to believe in the God of the Bible formally. Though atheists maybe instinctively find it safer to be atheists in their hiding from God than being another type of unbeliever, and that is why they are so "stuck" on atheism.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 24, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with "formaly" saying yes to any of those questions. I have never personaly had an atheist, or anyone else, pose the discussion in this way. They do tend to assume these things, that is why I have dedicated years to the study of logic to show them that ussually they are not following their own rules by violating it. The presupossitionalist beleives that reason is a God given tool to understanding his creation so admiting to obeying the rules of rational discourse does not mean the christian is now making reason autonomous and his or her most basic presupossition by formally agreeing to this. 

I would challenge the question of proof or evidence, from a presupossitional point of view, as to what they thought adequite proof or evidence was, what Van Til called a theory of facts? I would point out that contemporary philosophy is obessed with this very question with regards to beleifs. Is the beleif in question being fairly treated by the standered of proof being demanded by the skeptic? That is to say on a personal level that the beleif that one's spouse is cheating on you is not always "proven" in the sense that you catch them or they admit to it but that you have enough good evidence to conclude this beleif. No you not abolutly proven this by catching them or them admiting it but you "know" they are guilty. For instance if 12 different unrelated people give you evidence that your spouse is cheating and they swear that all those people are lying is it really unrational to assume that it is more likley that one person is lying than 12? Obviously not so you would be warranted in beleiving that your spouse was guilty of adultery without catching them or getting them to admit it. 

This is a hypothetical example of where contemporary philosophy is in regards to individual beleifs and the proper standered of proof for them. For instance, although I believe very firmly in Van Til's method of proof, is the standered of proof being applied to the beleif in God also being applyed to the beleif in no God? Can they meet their own standered of proof? This is where I like Plantinga in this respect, he rightly calls into question the idea that the beleif in God should be held to a stricter burden of proof than many of our most central, he uses basic and I disagree with that, beleifs (ourselves, other minds, the existance of the world around, etc...). But Van Til has shown us a method of argumentation that objectivly proves our worldview. 

So that is only my own caveat to add. That is where I would challenge them on their questions but again formally speaking there is nothing wrong with saying yes to those questions.


----------

