# I need answers to these stupid questions.



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 19, 2005)

1. What is Presuppositionalism?

2. What should be the Christian position on it?


----------



## Poimen (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 1. What is Presuppositionalism?
> 
> 2. What should be the Christian position on it?



http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/presup.html


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2005)

Presuppositionalism is the method of defending that presupposes Christian theism as the only viable worldview. This appears to be circular reasoning, but that charge is groundless because ALL worldviews are circular. As such, its method of attack will be indirect, rather than direct. It will argue for Christianity via the impossibility of the contrary; that is, without the Christian God, knowledge would be impossible.

Christians should accept it.

More can be elaborated if necessary.

[Edited on 8--19-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 19, 2005)

Draught can you expand a little more, on why all worldviews are inherently presuppositional?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 19, 2005)

Presuppositional Apologetics 

Presuppositionalism is the best approach, In my humble opinion, to destroying the myth of neutrality.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Draught can you expand a little more, on why all worldviews are inherently presuppositional?



Take rationalism, for example. How can it explain the laws of logic without using the laws of logic (to avoid begging the question)? It presupposes them from the outset of the debate. Now, I maintain that such a worldview cannot account for the laws of logic.

Or for a more inductive bent, how do you account for the uniformity of nature? 

Etc.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Take rationalism, for example. How can it explain the laws of logic without using the laws of logic (to avoid begging the question)? It presupposes them from the outset of the debate. Now, I maintain that such a worldview cannot account for the laws of logic.
> 
> ...


roger that. thanks a lot.

thank you also Dan and Andrew. Now I can read Paul Manta's blog without being befuddled


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Paul's first blog entry on aphroditism is quite helpful.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 19, 2005)

just read it. it was very lucid.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Presuppositionalism is the method of defending that presupposes Christian theism as the only viable worldview. This appears to be circular reasoning, but that charge is groundless because ALL worldviews are circular. As such, its method of attack will be indirect, rather than direct. It will argue for Christianity via the impossibility of the contrary; that is, without the Christian God, knowledge would be impossible.
> 
> Christians should accept it.
> ...



The Ontological Argument makes the same claim, only uses different words. It can be summarized by saying that, whether one affirms or denies God, one must assume God: so one can't deny God. Presuppositionalism, in its place, does the same thing, only from the epistemological perspective rather than the ontological one. That is, then, that the Presuppositional approach puts into practice what the Ontological argument asserts. 

What should the Christian position be on it? I think we have to remember what it is and what it is not. Make too much of it, and you lose credibility. It is a matter of liberty of conscience; you don't have to have a favourite apologetic approach, much less think that only one is right to have a position. So you certainly are not compelled to hold to it. The proper position, as I see it, is to always hold it in subjection to further illumination, whether or not you are in agreement with it. Because it is only a theoretic, not a commandment.

( I write this freely thinking that this is not for debate, but to gather opinions. )


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Have you ever read WGT Shedd on the Ontological argument? He gives an interesting spin on it. I enjoyed reading the relevant section in his Dogmatic Theology. Can't say that I am convinced by what he wrote, but it was better than most of the "traditional arguments" I have read.

I didn't want to debate either.


----------

