# difference between Evidential and Presuppositionalism



## Robbie Schmidtberger

What do you think is the key difference between the two methods? 

The two options that I can think of most readily is the role of Scripture and the extent of the noetic effect of sin. (Noetic effect = the extent of sin's twisting upon the human mind.)


----------



## InevitablyReformed

Hi Robbie,

Man, I just don't think I'm qualified to answer your question sufficiently. However, in short, I think that the presuppositionalist denies that man can reason TO God and unlike the evidentialist, the evidence just isn't enough for the unbeliever. 

This is probably oversimplified but hopefully it's not dead wrong.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

Daniel, 
I think you are spot on. Presuppositional apologetics strive to be 100% consistent with Scripture. Those who are reformed and evidential, like RC Sproul, admit that one needs the Holy Spirit to regenerate their hearts, as we apart from Christ cannot save ourselves. They state and argue that we can use science and reason to prove the existence of a god, but that is all we can do. Denny Prutow, of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary here in Pittsburgh, argued that the Westminster Confession taught this. 

But is this it?

PS. Small world - my wife and I attended your congregation on our honeymoon last May. We were in Charleston the same time as Spolleto (spelling?).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

From what I understand presuppositionalist will acknowledge evidence is useful and can lead to understanding but not to conversion. They affirm that all men know there is a God even when he denies it. 

Am I correct?


----------



## Blue Tick

> Daniel,
> I think you are spot on. Presuppositional apologetics strive to be 100% consistent with Scripture. Those who are reformed and evidential, like RC Sproul, admit that one needs the Holy Spirit to regenerate their hearts, as we apart from Christ cannot save ourselves. *They state and argue that we can use science and reason to prove the existence of a god, but that is all we can do. * Denny Prutow, of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary here in Pittsburgh, argued that the Westminster Confession taught this.



I agree. Evidentialism can do a fine job of proving that there is a God, but this will not convince non believers to believe in God. Within evidentialism how is the gospel presented? Presuppositionalists labor to present the gospel and the need to believe in God; which is different from the evidentialist approach which labors to prove that a God exists.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Evidentialist approach extends to more than the existence of God, e.g. including the historicity of Christ and the resurrection.

I see the evidentialist as making the argument that agnostic, atheistic, or philisophical opponents are exercising more of a "blind faith" than they accuse the Christians of -- and in the face of historical evidence. 

 But I'm just shooting from the hip here.

This of course is no suggestion that one may be converted by accepting facts alone. But the HS can use any means he sees fit to work a change in one's heart.


----------



## Answerman

Evidentialists argue for their presuppositions whereas presuppositionalists argue that without Christian presuppositions, arguments would not be intelligible.


----------



## cih1355

Evidentialists present the evidence that is in favor of Christianity. They will use good evidence to prove that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus rose from the dead. Then, they will explain the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

According to presuppositionalists, there is much more than just good evidence that Christianity is true. God has revealed Himself to man in such a way that man has no excuse for not believing in God. Presuppositionalists do not say to unbelievers, "Here is some good evidence in favor of Christianity. You weigh it out." Presuppositionalists argue that unbelievers believe in things that assume God's existence such as absolute moral values, the laws of logic, the existence of evil, and so on. Moreover, unbelievers cannot justify their independence from God. Unbelievers support their commitment to independence from God by arguments founded on their commitment to independence.


----------



## MW

All agree that mere knowledge does not convert. Nor is it a matter of saying sin affects the intellectual ability of man and only the Holy Spirit can convert. The intellectual ability of man is affected morally by sin, not propositionally, so man can know things which pertain to God; and further, when the Holy Spirit converts, He uses intellectual means, and so might use evidential arguments.

The real difference is this: evidential arguments require a starting point which presupposes rationality. Man's rationality is either given by God or possessed autonomously. Where man begins with the belief that he is an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them, the evidence presented to him and the conclusion drawn from it can only reaffirm that presupposition. Hence an evidentialist may in fact be providing the fuel whereby the fire of sinful autonomy is maintained.

Here is an illustration to show why presuppositionalism is important, borrowed from Robert Candlish's commentary on Genesis. A man finds a watch on the beach; from that watch he reasons all kinds of qualities about its maker; but all the while the man is the master of his reasoning, and frames a watchmaker which is in accord with his own biases. Afterwards the watchmaker himself comes to the beach and reveals himself to the man that he is the one who made the watch; he begins to tell the man who he is and what he is like; it is clear that the watchmaker is now the master of the knowledge which the man learns of him. In the former case what we have is phenomenal revelation and man is the creator of the facts; in the latter case we have propositional revelation and man is the receptor of the facts. Presuppositionalism is concerned to show that man must be the receptor of the revelation of God the Creator and Redeemer.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Here is an illustration to show why presuppositionalism is important, borrowed from Robert Candlish's commentary on Genesis.
> 
> A man finds a watch on the beach; from that watch he reasons all kinds of qualities about its maker; but all the while the man is the master of his reasoning, and frames a watchmaker which is in accord with his own biases.


What makes man the 'master' of his reasoning by being able to reason *that* God exists by, say, a design argument from analogy? 



armourbearer said:


> Afterwards the watchmaker himself comes to the beach and reveals himself to the man that he is the one who made the watch; he begins to tell the man who he is and what he is like; it is clear that the watchmaker is now the master of the knowledge which the man learns of him.


Okay, this strikes me as special revelation. 



armourbearer said:


> In the former case what we have is phenomenal revelation and man is the creator of the facts; in the latter case we have propositional revelation and man is the receptor of the facts. Presuppositionalism is concerned to show that man must be the receptor of the revelation of God the Creator and Redeemer.


In the former case we have a man contemplating a design argument for God's existence. In the latter we have special revelation. Is the latter what presuppositionalism amounts to? Why don't we just hit our opponents over the head with a big ol' bible and say, "Read It!!!"?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Well, presuppositionalism never concedes "neutrality" as it concerns Scripture. That is, it presupposes the truth of Scripture, the reasoning of God, over the reasoning of Man, therefore any rationale that does not acknowledge this is deficient.

So, yeah - not only do we say, "Read it!", we also say, "Humble yourself!" in the face of God's Word and not give one inch to another presupposition.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Hi JD, notice I was addressing armourbearer's illustration of presuppositional apologetics. That is all fine and good if presuppositionalism never concedes "neutrality" as it concerns scripture. 



panta dokimazete said:


> That is, it presupposes the truth of Scripture, the reasoning of God, over the reasoning of Man, therefore any rationale that does not acknowledge this is deficient.


How is using the design argument from analogy exaulting the reasoning of Man over the Reasoning of God? What is wrong with classic arguments for the existence of God? Is it that they only yield probability? 



panta dokimazete said:


> So, yeah - not only do we say, "Read it!", we also say, "Humble yourself!" in the face of God's Word and not give one inch to another presupposition.


Okay...but that is not an argument. I was under the impression that we give arguments in apologetics.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> What makes man the 'master' of his reasoning by being able to reason *that* God exists by, say, a design argument from analogy?



He is reasoning his way to God and doing so by making himself the ultimate reference point of his conclusions. E.g., here is a watch; there must be a watchmaker; why? because MAN'S rationality demands it. That is, he is still master of the facts.



Cheshire Cat said:


> Is the latter what presuppositionalism amounts to?



God's self-authenticating revelation is basic for all apologetics, as is clear from reading classical defences as well as presuppositional approaches. The person examining an argument from design to Designer will undoubtedly have an idea of the Designer which has been formed by the knowledge which comes through special revelation. Evidential arguments are simply reasoning their way to the point where the Bible is received as a true revelation from God. A presuppositional approach honestly acknowledges this method and provides the necessary a priori background whereby the movement can be made from interpretation to fact while upholding the Sovereignty of the Revealer.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes man the 'master' of his reasoning by being able to reason *that* God exists by, say, a design argument from analogy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is reasoning his way to God and doing so by making himself the ultimate reference point of his conclusions. E.g., here is a watch; there must be a watchmaker; why? because MAN'S rationality demands it. That is, he is still master of the facts.
Click to expand...

I don't know what it means to be "master of the facts". I take it there is nothing wrong with reasoning one's way to God. The crucial negative aspect must be that he is doing so my "making himself the ultimate reference point of his conclusions". In your example, I assume this is "MAN'S rationality" that is the ultimate reference point. But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it? This is not to say that rationality as such is a blank state, but that even given the noetic effects of sin one should be able to *reason* one's way to a creator. I fail to see how that makes one "master of the facts".


----------



## Cheshire Cat

How is the moral argument for God's existence, or the claim that "In order to make morality intelligible, the Christian God must exist", relevantly different from the design argument in terms of its 'starting point'?


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?



What rationality? Why should a man think that he has it or that it is ultimate for him? These questions reveal that there are a-priori ideas functioning in the background of the rational process which are influencing its outcomes.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rationality? Why should a man think that he has it or that it is ultimate for him? These questions reveal that there are a-priori ideas functioning in the background of the rational process which are influencing its outcomes.
Click to expand...

One must use their rational faculties in reflecting on whether one has it. So that is one reason to think one has it. No doubt reasoning processes can be used as an argument for God's existence, in many different ways. No doubt there are things influencing the rational processes, but why think that these influencing factors overcome and pervert the design argument? Why think that in using one's rational faculties in the design argument, one is making the rational faculties ultimate?


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rationality? Why should a man think that he has it or that it is ultimate for him? These questions reveal that there are a-priori ideas functioning in the background of the rational process which are influencing its outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One must use their rational faculties in reflecting on whether one has it. So that is one reason to think one has it. No doubt reasoning processes can be used as an argument for God's existence, in many different ways. No doubt there are things influencing the rational processes, but why think that these influencing factors overcome and pervert the design argument? Why think that in using one's rational faculties in the design argument, one is making the rational faculties ultimate?
Click to expand...


It is not the design argument per se, but what the design argument is seeking to prove, which makes the reasoning process ultimate; and this is clear from your previous question, where you ask, "But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?" Such a question supposes reason possesses some instrinsic authority which entitles it to "demand." Whence does it derive this authority? The perverting factor is in the use of reason as an authority apart from God in order to discover God. The machine that requires an operator cannot produce the operator.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> It is not the design argument per se, but what the design argument is seeking to prove, which makes the reasoning process ultimate;


The design argument is seeking to prove a designer... How does seeking to prove a designer make the reasoning process ultimate?



armourbearer said:


> and this is clear from your previous question, where you ask, "But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?" Such a question supposes reason possesses some instrinsic authority which entitles it to "demand."


Say rationality as such demands it. By this I mean the conclusion follows by logical inference from the premises, and one ought to grant the premises are true. Why does this suppose reason possesses some intrinsic authority? 



armourbearer said:


> Whence does it derive this authority?


I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument. 



armourbearer said:


> The perverting factor is in the use of reason as an authority apart from God in order to discover God.


I don't see how using our reasoning processes to argue that some feature has been designed and therefore requires a designer is using reason as an authority apart from God. 



armourbearer said:


> The machine that requires an operator cannot produce the operator.


Is this supposed to be similar to saying "the reasoning processes which require God's existence to function cannot lead to God's existence while functioning"? But why suppose that?


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument.



Haven't you here acknowledged that one must presuppose God to be the Author of human rationality in order to affirm the existence of God by a process of reason which argues from design to Designer?


----------



## Iconoclast

Would the difference be that an evidentialist would try to convince the Gaderene demoniac with clever argumentation, and maybe give him a copy of Josh McDowells Evidence that demands a verdict, rather than speak the word of God to him letting God set him free .


> 27And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
> 
> 28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
> 
> 29(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
> 
> 30And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
> 
> 31And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
> 
> 32And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
> 
> 33Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.
> 
> 34When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.
> 
> 35Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
> 
> 36They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed.
> 
> 37Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.
> 
> 38Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
> 
> 39Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.


 Many evidentialists do not believe in a dead Adam, but rather a wounded Adam. Sometimes they rely on clever arguments and wisdom of human words, which the Apostle Paul said he would not do.
Evidential arguments can be used to remove some time wasting obstacles to get the person focus on the reality of their sinful condition as revealed by the Holy law of God.


> 8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
> 
> 9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
> 
> 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


----------



## Pergamum

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> Daniel,
> I think you are spot on. Presuppositional apologetics strive to be 100% consistent with Scripture.



And I am sure that the evidentialists are trying to deny Scripture, huh?


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you here acknowledged that one must presuppose God to be the Author of human rationality in order to affirm the existence of God by a process of reason which argues from design to Designer?
Click to expand...


Could you elaborate on this fine statement?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you here acknowledged that one must presuppose God to be the Author of human rationality in order to affirm the existence of God by a process of reason which argues from design to Designer?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that I would like to read your answers to the questions I posed above, which you haven't answered yet. With that being said, perhaps one could use reasoning processes qua reasoning processes as an indication of God's existence. But I don't see why one can't use the process of reason itself to argue for God's existence either. I don't see how this makes "man the ultimate reference point". This is why I asked why "the reasoning processes which require God's existence to function cannot lead to God's existence while functioning"? 

Anyway, when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

"Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teach`hes libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose his thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""

I have to give props to Paul M. for these last two arguments.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> Keep in mind that I would like to read your answers to the questions I posed above, which you haven't answered yet. With that being said, perhaps one could use reasoning processes qua reasoning processes as an indication of God's existence. But I don't see why one can't use the process of reason itself to argue for God's existence either. I don't see how this makes "man the ultimate reference point". This is why I asked why "the reasoning processes which require God's existence to function cannot lead to God's existence while functioning"?



I don't see any need to answer the other questions as they are encapsulated in this one. To prove God's existence by a reasoning process presupposes that the reasoning process is valid and authoritative. Whence does it derive this authority? Your answer is, "God." So really what you are saying is that the reasoning process does not prove God's existence but merely confirms it for you. The evidentialist argument therefore may be corroborative or elaborative, but it cannot be demonstrative. One must first affirm the presupposition that human rationality has authority before any evidential argument could be useful. Either it is an autonomous self-authenticating rationality, as the unbeliever supposes, or it is a theonomous God-given rationality, as the Christian supposes. Once we accept this either/or, we see that the first issue is one of presuppositions, not evidences.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Could you elaborate on this fine statement?



Basically, I maintain that human rationality is created by God. All rational arguments require a belief in an Absolute Rationality to justify them. If one denies this Absolute Rationality he leaves himself with no basis for making any rational argument.

The machine (human reasoning) is purported to be manufacturing a product (evidence for the existence of God), but for the machine to manufacture any product (rationality of any kind) it requires an operator (God). It seems to me to be a simple matter of arguing back from the machine to the operator rather than using the machine to create a look-a-like product.

Please also see my previous post.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> To prove God's existence by a reasoning process presupposes that the reasoning process is valid and authoritative.


I don't know what you mean by "authoritative", but yes, it does presuppose they are vaild. 



armourbearer said:


> Whence does it derive this authority? Your answer is, "God." So really what you are saying is that the reasoning process does not prove God's existence but merely confirms it for you.


Depends on your definition of proof. I do think it is a good argument for God's existence, depending on your opponent's views (e.g. a naturalist), but one would be hard pressed to *prove* the God of Christianity alone from the Argument From Reason. A cumulative case argument would be needed. 



armourbearer said:


> The evidentialist argument therefore may be corroborative or elaborative, but it cannot be demonstrative. One must first affirm the presupposition that human rationality has authority before any evidential argument could be useful.


It still hasn't been shown why the AFR is demonstrative and the evidentialist argument is not. They are both arguments for God's existence, while the AFR is a metalogical argument and the design argument is not. 



armourbearer said:


> Either it is an autonomous self-authenticating rationality, as the unbeliever supposes, or it is a theonomous God-given rationality, as the Christian supposes. Once we accept this either/or, we see that the first issue is one of presuppositions, not evidences.


False dichotomy. This is using piety to make the argument sound better. It sure sounds good to label your opponents views as "autonomous" and "self-authenticating", but this has yet to be demonstrated. 

To restate the arguments you haven't responded to above, "when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

"Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> To restate the arguments you haven't responded to above, "when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?



The difference is that the text of Scripture is understood by all to be authoritative. What is says, God says, and what God says is final. There is a presupposition that God has spoken and we must submit. In an evidential argument, the reason of man is being appealed to as an authoritative source for determining the issue of God's existence. It is yet to be proved that God exists, and hence human rationality is considered the ultimate authority before which all must bow.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Is there not an argument at different levels happening here?

Epistemologically, one says that proper reasoning leads to X, while metaphysically, one says that God is the foundation of reasoning, logic, etc.

It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.



Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it. Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king? Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it. Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king? Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> To restate the arguments you haven't responded to above, "when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that the text of Scripture is understood by all to be authoritative. What is says, God says, and what God says is final. There is a presupposition that God has spoken and we must submit.
Click to expand...

I realized you might respond with this, which is why right below the paragraph you quoted, I stated, "Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?"" 

Even though it is an exegetical debate, the unbeliever is not granting authority. How do you respond to this? 



armourbearer said:


> [In an evidential argument, the reason of man is being appealed to as an authoritative source for determining the issue of God's existence. It is yet to be proved that God exists, and hence human rationality is considered the ultimate authority before which all must bow.


"Authoritative, ultimate authority"...right. Even when one's gives the AFR or TAG we are supposing the unbeliever can reason through the argument, and when giving these arguments, "it has yet to be proved that God exists".


----------



## Cheshire Cat

ChristianTrader said:


> Is there not an argument at different levels happening here?
> 
> Epistemologically, one says that proper reasoning leads to X, while metaphysically, one says that God is the foundation of reasoning, logic, etc.
> 
> It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.
> 
> CT


I don't think it is at different levels. After all, the design argument for God's existence is a metaphysical argument. For some reason, armourbearer seems to put metalogical arguments for God's existence on a pedestal, and if we don't use the metalogical argument first, then we are being "autonomous", "making man's Reason (note the capital 'R' makes for better effect) master", etc.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> I realized you might respond with this, which is why right below the paragraph you quoted, I stated, "Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""
> 
> Even though it is an exegetical debate, the unbeliever is not granting authority. How do you respond to this?



The unbeliever is stating that he will believe the Bible only on condition that it teaches what is in accord with his reason; hence he is exercising autonomy. When the Bible is accepted as authoritative because of its own self-authenticating witness then the person will believe whatever the Bible teaches, and can then commence the process of understanding by faith, Heb. 11:3.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it.
Click to expand...

Say we grant reasoning processes require God's existence. This would be shown by a metalogical argument for God's existence. Okay, but why do we have to start here in an apologetic dialogue? 
You say:


armourbearer said:


> Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king?


Because if "human" reason can point us to God's existence, I think we should care about it. In fact, you are using "human" reason right now to argue against me. Btw, who died and made metalogical arguments king?



armourbearer said:


> Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.


As if materialistic naturalism is the only opposing philosophy of Christianity...


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> Say we grant reasoning processes require God's existence. This would be shown by a metalogical argument for God's existence. Okay, but why do we have to start here in an apologetic dialogue?



One must use reason in an apologetical dialogue; if the reason being so used does not acknowledge that reason is the gift of God, then it is being used against God. Romans 1:21, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." A biblical apologist should not accredit to natural, fallen reason a neutral integrity which the Bible does not afford it.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> Because if "human" reason can point us to God's existence, I think we should care about it. In fact, you are using "human" reason right now to argue against me. Btw, who died and made metalogical arguments king?



Human reason cannot point us to God's existence because its fallen nature renders it an idol factory. I am using reason informed by Scripture. Jesus died and made His truth king.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realized you might respond with this, which is why right below the paragraph you quoted, I stated, "Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""
> 
> Even though it is an exegetical debate, the unbeliever is not granting authority. How do you respond to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unbeliever is stating that he will believe the Bible only on condition that it teaches what is in accord with his reason; hence he is exercising autonomy. When the Bible is accepted as authoritative because of its own self-authenticating witness then the person will believe whatever the Bible teaches, and can then commence the process of understanding by faith, Heb. 11:3.
Click to expand...


So basically you are saying I couldn't go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism. That is ridiculous. Instead, I *must* start with TAG or AFR or some metalogical argument. Everytime. Realistically the unbeliever is just going to walk off. Yeah, the TAGster "shut the unbeliever's mouth". Now *that* is what I call doing apologetics...


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say we grant reasoning processes require God's existence. This would be shown by a metalogical argument for God's existence. Okay, but why do we have to start here in an apologetic dialogue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One must use reason in an apologetical dialogue; if the reason being so used does not acknowledge that reason is the gift of God, then it is being used against God. Romans 1:21, "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." A biblical apologist should not accredit to natural, fallen reason a neutral integrity which the Bible does not afford it.
Click to expand...

And it hasn't been shown how a biblical apologist using the design argument is accrediting a neutral integrity to natural, fallen reason.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> So basically you are saying I couldn't go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism. That is ridiculous. Instead, I *must* start with TAG or AFR or some metalogical argument. Everytime. Realistically the unbeliever is just going to walk off. Yeah, the TAGster "shut the unbeliever's mouth". Now *that* is what I call doing apologetics...



That is not what I said. I was addressing his natural condition, which you stated was one in which he would not accept the authority of the Bible unless it taught what agreed with his reason. By all means set him straight on what the Bible really teaches; but in doing so you do not address his real problem, which is a refusal to accept the authority of the BIble as divine revelation.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if "human" reason can point us to God's existence, I think we should care about it. In fact, you are using "human" reason right now to argue against me. Btw, who died and made metalogical arguments king?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human reason cannot point us to God's existence because its fallen nature renders it an idol factory. I am using reason informed by Scripture.
Click to expand...

I think CT's point comes into play here. You are conflating epistemic and metaphysical issues. Obviously you grant it can because the unbeliever is using "human" reason when thinking through a metalogical argument such as TAG or the AFR. 



armourbearer said:


> Jesus died and made His truth king.


yes...


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> And it hasn't been shown how a biblical apologist using the design argument is accrediting a neutral integrity to natural, fallen reason.



As already noted, one might very well use the design argument, and it could be used to great effect to confirm the existence of God. But if it is utilised to "prove" the existence of God -- as evidentiary apologetics employ it as a theistic "proof," noting the title of the thread -- then it is supposing a man who does not yet accept the existence of God can neutrally weigh the facts when the Bible teaches otherwise.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are saying I couldn't go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism. That is ridiculous. Instead, I *must* start with TAG or AFR or some metalogical argument. Everytime. Realistically the unbeliever is just going to walk off. Yeah, the TAGster "shut the unbeliever's mouth". Now *that* is what I call doing apologetics...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I said. I was addressing his natural condition, which you stated was one in which he would not accept the authority of the Bible unless it taught what agreed with his reason. By all means set him straight on what the Bible really teaches; but in doing so you do not address his real problem, which is a refusal to accept the authority of the BIble as divine revelation.
Click to expand...

If he accepted the authority of the Bible as divine revelation then I wouldn't even need to have the apologetic dialogue in the first place. In setting him straight on what the Bible really teaches, I am supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid, and he can think through the issues. If this isn't making "man the master of Reason", then why is my supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid when using the design argument any different?


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> I think CT's point comes into play here. You are conflating epistemic and metaphysical issues.



There is no conflation. You maintain that rationality can "demand" something without presupposing the existence of God. You are making it an ultimate authority, but have no "rational" basis for so doing.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> If he accepted the authority of the Bible as divine revelation then I wouldn't even need to have the apologetic dialogue in the first place. In setting him straight on what the Bible really teaches, I am supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid, and he can think through the issues. If this isn't making "man the master of Reason", then why is my supposing his reasoning processes work and are valid when using the design argument any different?



As already noted (please take note), he is only willing to accept what accords with his own reason; therefore he is making himself (autonomously) the ultimate authority. And this is precisely what happens when an unbeliever considers the design argument. He will accept it only insofar as it is something which accords with his own reason -- idolatry; but then what will happen when you bring him to the Bible and ask him to believe something that does not accord with his own reason, and he must accept it on the basis of divine authority alone? He will reject it, because he has never had his underlying presuppoitions challenged.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it hasn't been shown how a biblical apologist using the design argument is accrediting a neutral integrity to natural, fallen reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As already noted, one might very well use the design argument, and it could be used to great effect to confirm the existence of God.
Click to expand...

I was not aware this is already noted. I was under the impression that it was wrong under any circumstance to use, unless the metalogical argument was used before it. 



armourbearer said:


> But if it is utilised to "prove" the existence of God -- as evidentiary apologetics employ it as a theistic "proof," noting the title of the thread -- then it is supposing a man who does not yet accept the existence of God can neutrally weigh the facts when the Bible teaches otherwise.


Practically most philosophers nowadays don't believe in brute facts (e.g. Moreland and Craig don't). It depends on how one defines 'proof', but most view it as an argument for God's existence, and not a proof of the God of Christianity by itself.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I'm done for the night, i'll respond more tomorrow. Cheers.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> I was not aware this is already noted. I was under the impression that it was wrong under any circumstance to use, unless the metalogical argument was used before it.



In my first post (your response to which initiated this discussion) it was noted that a man might find a watch and deduce a watchmaker. That was granted from the outset. But it was noted that he would still continue to be the master of the facts until such time as the watchmaker revealed himself to the individual.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not aware this is already noted. I was under the impression that it was wrong under any circumstance to use, unless the metalogical argument was used before it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my first post (your response to which initiated this discussion) it was noted that a man might find a watch and deduce a watchmaker. That was granted from the outset. But it was noted that he would still continue to be the master of the facts until such time as the watchmaker revealed himself to the individual.
Click to expand...

Okay one last comment, ha. Say an unbeliever is pondering TAG and deduces the 'logicmaker'. I guess here we should note that he would still continue to be the "master of the facts" until such time as the 'logicmaker' revealed himself to the individual. So, using TAG on the unbeliever is presupposing the autonomy of man's reason, just like the design argument. Right...


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> Okay one last comment, ha. Say an unbeliever is pondering TAG and deduces the 'logicmaker'. I guess here we should note that he would still continue to be the "master of the facts" until such time as the 'logicmaker' revealed himself to the individual. So, using TAG on the unbeliever is presupposing that autonomy of man's reason, just like the design argument. Right...



Helping an individual to use his reason in dependence on God does not in the slightest confirm him in his autonomous claim to the right of human reason. From the outset the apologist is addressing the presupposition which underlies his examination of the evidence that is presented to him. It is an honest approach which makes a man admit what he is and what he is not, and doesn't seek to trick him into believing something which is basically contradictory to his natural enmity against God.


----------



## rgreen

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it. Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king? Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.
Click to expand...


Excellent. Well put.


----------



## panta dokimazete

This is a great discussion - wish I had time to more actively participate!


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay one last comment, ha. Say an unbeliever is pondering TAG and deduces the 'logicmaker'. I guess here we should note that he would still continue to be the "master of the facts" until such time as the 'logicmaker' revealed himself to the individual. So, using TAG on the unbeliever is presupposing that autonomy of man's reason, just like the design argument. Right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helping an individual to use his reason in dependence on God does not in the slightest confirm him in his autonomous claim to the right of human reason.
Click to expand...

Your word choice is clever here, but I think it muddles things. Of course if the unbeliever grants TAG then they grant their use of reason is dependent on God in one sense (as they couldn't reason without him existing), but while thinking through the argument they will only grant the conclusion if it accords with their own thinking. They are *not* granting his "authority" from the outset. Only after the conclusion is proved will they grant the conclusion. Even then this says nothing of their hearts toward God. They could still be at enmity with him. Arguments don't convert people, God does. (Of course God could have people use arguments as the process of means to the end, but I think you grasp my main point). 

Presumably, the unbeliever could deduce the 'logicmaker', all the while only accepting it because the conclusion of TAG accords with his own reason. This says nothing as to his heart towards God. 

To quote you from a couple posts ago, 



armourbearer said:


> As already noted (please take note), he is only willing to accept what accords with his own reason; therefore he is making himself (autonomously) the ultimate authority. And this is precisely what happens when an unbeliever considers the design argument. He will accept it only insofar as it is something which accords with his own reason -- idolatry;


Same with TAG, the unbeliever is only willing to accept the conclusion if it accords with his own reason. 



armourbearer said:


> From the outset the apologist is addressing the presupposition which underlies his examination of the evidence that is presented to him.


Yes, this is granted if the apologist is using TAG, AFR, or even arguing against the opponents philosophy (e.g. naturalism). 



armourbearer said:


> It is an honest approach which makes a man admit what he is and what he is not, and doesn't seek to trick him into believing something which is basically contradictory to his natural enmity against God.


Just like the design argument is an honest approach which makes a man admit what he is (a creature dependent on his existence by God) and what he is not (primordial ooz or what have you), "and doesn't seek to trick him into believing something which is basically contradictory to his natural enmity against God".

Btw, I understand it is a jump from designer to God, but it is also a jump from 'logicmaker' to God ;-).


----------



## MW

I still fail to see how calling an individual to use his reason as a gift from God is confirming him in his autonomy, and I can easily see how this differs from presenting evidence for the existence of God which allows him to remain the independent arbiter of the facts. From the outset we are calling him to do what Dr. Calvin has so eloquently stated is necessary for the knowledge of God, namely, the knowledge of ourselves: "we cannot seriously aspire to him before we begin to become displeased with ourselves. For what man in all the world would not gladly remain as he is -- what man does not remain as he is -- so long as he does not know himself, that is, *while content with his own gifts*, and either ignorant or unmindful of his own misery? Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him."

The presuppositional approach helps men to know themselves, and therefore is not merely an apologetical approach which prepares for evangelism, but one which has already commenced to evangelise the lost, because it leads the unbeliever by the hand so as to find God. Yes, God converts; but He does so by means. It pleases God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Apologetic arguments must confront men in their natural condition and show them their misery without God. This applies as equally to their use of reason as in any of the other gifts of God.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> All agree that mere knowledge does not convert. Nor is it a matter of saying sin affects the intellectual ability of man and only the Holy Spirit can convert. The intellectual ability of man is affected morally by sin, not propositionally, so man can know things which pertain to God; and further, when the Holy Spirit converts, He uses intellectual means, and so might use evidential arguments.
> 
> The real difference is this: evidential arguments require a starting point which presupposes rationality. Man's rationality is either given by God or possessed autonomously. Where man begins with the belief that he is an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them, the evidence presented to him and the conclusion drawn from it can only reaffirm that presupposition. Hence an evidentialist may in fact be providing the fuel whereby the fire of sinful autonomy is maintained.


I think it is best to go back to your original post I initially responded to. I agree with your first paragraph. I think what you are trying to say in the second paragraph, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the evidential arguments (e.g. the design argument) presuppose man is "an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them. The evidence presented to him and the conclusion drawn from it can only reaffirm that presupposition." 

We have to unpack this. For one, it depends on who the design argument is being given to. If it is being used on another believer, it may bolster the other believer's faith. If it is being used on an unbeliever, i'm not sure how it would presuppose man is "an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them". In what sense is 'independent' being used? After all, the conclusion of the design argument is that the unbeliever is designed (created) by God, and therefore is dependent on God for his existence. 

Is 'dependent' being used to say that the unbeliever's reasoning faculties are not dependent on God in order to properly function (or even exist)? The design argument itself doesn't even touch on that topic, so it is hard to see how it could presuppose that. It presupposes one can think through the argument and come to the correct conclusion, but just because its starting point isn't at the metalogical level, it doesn't mean the argument makes a value judgment as to the metalogical state of the unbeliever's reasoning faculties one way or the other. 

Perhaps you mean the unbeliever's attitude is negative and autonomous in how they think through an argument. They won't accept a conclusion unless it agrees with their concepts of truth, validity, etc (which might be the correct one's, they could be psychologically inconsistent). But of course they will have this attitude whether one presents them with TAG or an evidential argument such as the design argument (depending on how 'design' is defined). 

There is no reason in any of these cases to think that evidential arguments such as the design argument presuppose man's autonomy.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> There is no reason in any of these cases to think that evidential arguments such as the design argument presuppose man's autonomy.



In the case of the believer, that is true; hence I say that it is corroborative.

In the case of the unbeliever, his reasoning functions with himself as the ultimate reference point. All that reasoning produces is a reflected image of the self. Any concept of God is by nature idolatrous because the man thinking with reference to himself is making God after his own image. He must be brought to see, first and foremost, that his life is nothing without God. All that is good about his life is the gift of God and all that is bad is the creature's sinful abuse of God's gifts. That is, his rationality must be taught to reason with God as the ultimate reference point.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> In the case of the unbeliever, his reasoning functions with himself as the ultimate reference point.



In TAG, one could *conclude* that the unbeliever's reasoning processes are dependent on God. But the unbeliever isn't going to grant this from the outset. As I have said before, the design argument doesn't start on the metalogical level, but so what? It doesn't make a value judgment one way or the other with respect to the dependence of the reasoning faculties. But it does make a judgment as to whether or not man is designed (created) by God. So God is the ultimate reference point of man's existence, his being designed. It seems you are faulting it with a category mistake. It doesn't even speak on the subject of metalogic. 



armourbearer said:


> All that reasoning produces is a reflected image of the self.



Ah, so it produces a personal intelligent and creative being. What a horrible thing to produce! 



armourbearer said:


> Any concept of God is by nature idolatrous because the man thinking with reference to himself is making God after his own image.



Really, *any* concept of God? Like a personal creative being. Sounds idolatrous to me. 



armourbearer said:


> He must be brought to see, first and foremost, that his life is nothing without God.


Ah, so for example, his existence is dependent on being designed by God. 



armourbearer said:


> All that is good about his life is the gift of God and all that is bad is the creature's sinful abuse of God's gifts. That is, his rationality must be taught to reason with God as the ultimate reference point.



That is, he must be taught to understand he was designed by God, and therefore God is the ultimate reference point of his existence.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that reasoning produces is a reflected image of the self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so it produces a personal intelligent and creative being. What a horrible thing to produce!
Click to expand...


Here is something we might be able to work with. Does the design argument in and of itself ONLY produce an intelligent and creative being when it is being understood by a person who only reasons with reference to himself? What happens when this self-referencing individual looks out at creation and sees another form of evidence in the shape of "evil." Now, thinking himself an authority on all things "God," is he not at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy? Of course he is, and the reason is because he is the master of the facts; and what is worse, the Christian apologist has given him good reason to think so, because afterall, by his own reason he has been able to produce an intelligent and creative being.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Does the design argument in and of itself ONLY produce an intelligent and creative being when it is being understood by a person who only reasons with reference to himself?


I don't follow you on the "reason with reference to himself" part. The design argument in and of itself only produces an intelligent and creative being (designer). 



armourbearer said:


> What happens when this self-referencing individual looks out at creation and sees another form of evidence in the shape of "evil."


I don't know about the "self-referencing" part, but for the rest, okay, he sees evil. 



armourbearer said:


> Now, thinking himself an authority on all things "God," is he not at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy?


Don't see why he would think himself an authority on all things "God". No, he is not "at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy", because he is not in an epistemic position to make that judgment call. 



armourbearer said:


> Of course he is, and the reason is because he is the master of the facts;


No he isn't. In addition, I can make no sense out of the phrase "master of the facts". 



armourbearer said:


> and what is worse, the Christian apologist has given him good reason to think so, because afterall, by his own reason he has been able to produce an intelligent and creative being.


Yeah, just like "by his own reason" he has been able to produce the 'logicmaker' from TAG.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> Don't see why he would think himself an authority on all things "God". No, he is not "at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy", because he is not in an epistemic position to make that judgment call.



After the apologist has given him all epistemic confidence to make the judgment call by means of the design argument, why should he now be forbidden from following through on the logic of the design argument and infer something from the evil that is present in the world? In other words,, why should limitations be placed on human rationality only when the results of human rationality fare badly for the apologist, but otherwise they should be given unlimited scope when the conclusion fares well for the apologist?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> After the apologist has given him all epistemic confidence to make the judgment call by means of the design argument, why should he now be forbidden from following through on the logic of the design argument and infer something from the evil that is present in the world?


The "logic of the design argument", would be that one can come to a correct conclusion about God's existence with one's reasoning processes, *given what the argument is attempting to prove*. 

At first when you said that the unbeliever should be at liberty to use the same process of reasoning to conclude that the Designer of this half-good, half-bad universe is not holy, holy, holy", I thought you were bringing up the problem of evil. But on second thought, it seems you are granting God's existence (say from the design argument), and then asking how God could be all good if evil exists. At this point I would ask the unbeliever (theistic non-Christian lets say) what his standard of morality is? And I would argue God is the standard of morality, and therefore is by definition good (for if evil really does exist there must be a standard to judge it against). So the unbeliever could infer something from the evil that exists in the world, but it wouldn't be valid to claim God isn't all good (as there needs to be a standard to judge evil against).


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> At this point I would ask the unbeliever (theistic non-Christian lets say) what his standard of morality is? And I would argue God is the standard of morality, and therefore is by definition good (for if evil really does exist there must be a standard to judge it against). So the unbeliever could infer something from the evil that exists in the world, but it wouldn't be valid to claim God isn't all good (as there needs to be a standard to judge evil against).



He has used a process which says there is design in the world, therefore there must be a designer; it naturally follows that if there is evil in the world then the evil must be a part of the status quo of his design. The design argument does not lead the reasoner to the sin-hating God of the Bible.


----------



## cih1355

The evidentialist says to the unbeliever, "Here is some good evidence that Christianity is true." The presuppositionalist says, "Unless you assume that Christianity is true, you cannot account for the laws of logic, laws of morality, and the laws of science."


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> He has used a process which says there is design in the world, therefore there must be a designer;


Yes 



armourbearer said:


> it naturally follows that if there is evil in the world then the evil must be a part of the status quo of his design.


"status quo of his design" is very vague. Could you expound on this? 



armourbearer said:


> The design argument does not lead the reasoner to the sin-hating God of the Bible.


It is only one argument, which doesn't address morality, so I think you are faulting it with a category mistake. Either does the 'logicmaker' of TAG if taken alone.
-----Added 11/25/2008 at 06:49:31 EST-----


cih1355 said:


> The evidentialist says to the unbeliever, "Here is some good evidence that Christianity is true." The presuppositionalist says, "Unless you assume that Christianity is true, you cannot account for the laws of logic, laws of morality, and the laws of science."


In what sense are you using the word 'evidence'? What if the "evidentialist" says to the unbeliever, "The existence of objective morality is good evidence that Christianity is true"? Anything wrong with that? 

Does presuppositionalism boil down to TAG?


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> it naturally follows that if there is evil in the world then the evil must be a part of the status quo of his design.
> 
> 
> 
> "status quo of his design" is very vague. Could you expound on this?
Click to expand...


The condition in which he designed it. Evil exists alongside all the beautiful characteristics of the phenomena which natural man observes. Any argument from design must take into account ALL the facts, and not simply those which lead to a preconceived conclusion; otherwise, if preconceived conclusions are permitted, all you have is a hidden form of presuppositionalism, not evidentialism.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> it naturally follows that if there is evil in the world then the evil must be a part of the status quo of his design.
> 
> 
> 
> "status quo of his design" is very vague. Could you expound on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The condition in which he designed it. Evil exists alongside all the beautiful characteristics of the phenomena which natural man observes. Any argument from design must take into account ALL the facts, and not simply those which lead to a preconceived conclusion; otherwise, if preconceived conclusions are permitted, all you have is a hidden form of presuppositionalism, not evidentialism.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it would follow that temporally evil existed from the beginning of creation, if that is what you mean by "the condition in which he designed it". With that being said, I see no problem granting that the capacity for evil was part of the "status quo" in people God designed. But there is a big difference in saying that this is the case, and saying that God is not "holy holy holy" because this is the case. Big jump from one to another, going from factual to normative. At that point one can answer the unbeliever on moral grounds, like I layed out in some of my previous posts.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> I don't see how it would follow that temporally evil existed from the beginning of creation, if that is what you mean by "the condition in which he designed it".



More presuppositions; now the doctrine of creation limits the scope of the design argument. It is better to be honest about presuppositions, and deal with Christianity as a system rather than try to trick people into a belief in God by a partial presentation of the evidence.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it would follow that temporally evil existed from the beginning of creation, if that is what you mean by "the condition in which he designed it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More presuppositions; now the doctrine of creation limits the scope of the design argument.
Click to expand...


How are those "more presuppositions"? Fact is, it doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that evil exists, that it has always been the case that evil exists. As I said before, I see no problem granting that the capacity for evil was part of the "status quo" in people God designed. But there is a big difference in saying that this is the case, and saying that God is not "holy holy holy" because this is the case.

The scope of the design argument is that a designer exists. Once you go beyond that (talking about morality for example) we are no longer discussing the design argument. 



armourbearer said:


> It is better to be honest about presuppositions, and deal with Christianity as a system rather than try to trick people into a belief in God by a partial presentation of the evidence.


Oh, so now the design argument is "tricking" people into the existence of God!  As if evidential arguments are somehow against a sytematic approach to apologetics. This needs to be argued for.

Btw, it is even better to use all the apologetic tools God has given us, evidential arguments included.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> How are those "more presuppositions"?



You have factored in a doctrine of creation which is neither here nor there to the argument from design, seeing as creation is a fact of special revelation, Heb. 11:3.



Cheshire Cat said:


> Fact is, it doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that evil exists, that it has always been the case that evil exists.



Then it doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that design exists that there has always been a designer. You are trying to eat your cake and have it too.



Cheshire Cat said:


> As I said before, I see no problem granting that the capacity for evil was part of the "status quo" in people God designed.



The world does not display a capacity for evil, but the reality of evil. This reality is a part of the phenomena which is included in the design argument.



Cheshire Cat said:


> Oh, so now the design argument is "tricking" people into the existence of God!  As if evidential arguments are somehow against a sytematic approach to apologetics. This needs to be argued for.



I think this thread reveals that evidential arguments only serve to corroborate a belief in God. The many preconceptions you require to validate your argument from design validates the presuppositional approach.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are those "more presuppositions"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have factored in a doctrine of creation which is neither here nor there to the argument from design, seeing as creation is a fact of special revelation, Heb. 11:3.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Creation requires a Creator. Design requires a Designer. See the similarities? 



armourbearer said:


> Then it doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that design exists that there has always been a designer.


True, I never argued that it did. 



armourbearer said:


> You are trying to eat your cake and have it too.


Pudding for me thank you very much. 



armourbearer said:


> The world does not display a capacity for evil, but the reality of evil. This reality is a part of the phenomena which is included in the design argument.


Here you are defining phenomena in a very general sense that includes normative moral claims. But the design argument deals with factual data, not morality. So no, evil is not a part of the phenomena which is included in the design argument. 



armourbearer said:


> I think this thread reveals that evidential arguments only serve to corroborate a belief in God.


No argument by itself is going to prove the God of Christianity. One must take a cumulative case approach. 



armourbearer said:


> The many preconceptions you require to validate your argument from design validates the presuppositional approach.


"validate my argument from design"? Taken alone even presuppositional arguments only prove so much.


----------



## kalawine

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rationality? Why should a man think that he has it or that it is ultimate for him? These questions reveal that there are a-priori ideas functioning in the background of the rational process which are influencing its outcomes.
Click to expand...


And if I'm not mistaken, if we take this rationality "as such" and allow "it" to "demand", that's when we step off into (or at least into the direction of) Rationalism. Am I mistaken?


----------



## MW

I think we could keep going back and forth all day. "Nature" is not in a perfect condition. The moral phenomena must be permitted into the discussion of design because the case for Christianity includes moral demands which the Designer makes on man. But even if these were not permitted, then there are natural mutations which the design argument must account for. One is not at liberty to idealise one part of the phenomena and leave out of view other parts that do not prove the argument. To properly account for all the evidence we need the biblical doctrine of God, together with its distinct message of creation, fall, and redemption. That message provides the only valid answers to the questions raised by natural revelation. On that point I am content to rest my case.
-----Added 11/25/2008 at 08:30:42 EST-----


kalawine said:


> And if I'm not mistaken, if we take this rationality "as such" and allow "it" to "demand", that's when we step off into (or at least into the direction of) Rationalism. Am I mistaken?


----------



## kalawine

armourbearer said:


> I think we could keep going back and forth all day. "Nature" is not in a perfect condition. The moral phenomena must be permitted into the discussion of design because the case for Christianity includes moral demands which the Designer makes on man. But even if these were not permitted, then there are natural mutations which the design argument must account for. One is not at liberty to idealise one part of the phenomena and leave out of view other parts that do not prove the argument. To properly account for all the evidence we need the biblical doctrine of God, together with its distinct message of creation, fall, and redemption. That message provides the only valid answers to the questions raised by natural revelation. On that point I am content to rest my case.
> -----Added 11/25/2008 at 08:30:42 EST-----
> 
> 
> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if I'm not mistaken, if we take this rationality "as such" and allow "it" to "demand", that's when we step off into (or at least into the direction of) Rationalism. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...


I'm resting on your case myself!  I'm a Presup...


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are those "more presuppositions"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have factored in a doctrine of creation which is neither here nor there to the argument from design, seeing as creation is a fact of special revelation, Heb. 11:3.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,
Are you implying that creation is only known by special revelation or that it is just confirmed by special revelation?

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Are you implying that creation is only known by special revelation or that it is just confirmed by special revelation?



One of the dictates of reason is, "ex nihilo nihil fit." The causal or cosmological argument depends on it. The biblical doctrine is, "creatio ex nihilo," or, God used nothing but His own powerful word to create phenomena -- the things which are seen, Heb. 11:3. It was a miracle, and cannot be accounted for on the principles of natural reason.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying that creation is only known by special revelation or that it is just confirmed by special revelation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the dictates of reason is, "ex nihilo nihil fit." The causal or cosmological argument depends on it. The biblical doctrine is, "creatio ex nihilo," or, God used nothing but His own powerful word to create phenomena -- the things which are seen, Heb. 11:3. It was a miracle, and cannot be accounted for on the principles of natural reason.
Click to expand...


But that view would only rule out ex nihilo creation if you count God as "nothing". Reason does not imply, Physical World comes from Physical world.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> But that view would only rule out ex nihilo creation if you count God as "nothing". Reason does not imply, Physical World comes from Physical world.



Pantheism teaches creation comes out of God, and I think it can be shown that is where the causal argument might naturally lead without biblical presuppositions to guard against it. Theism teaches that creation is an act of God's will and a work of God's power.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> I think we could keep going back and forth all day. "Nature" is not in a perfect condition.


Agreed. 



armourbearer said:


> The moral phenomena must be permitted into the discussion of design because the case for Christianity includes moral demands which the Designer makes on man.


It must be permitted into apologetic discussion, but it is out of the scope of the design argument. 



armourbearer said:


> But even if these were not permitted, then there are natural mutations which the design argument must account for.


As I said before, evidential arguments are not against a systematic approach. It is not as if the design argument is used in a conceptual vacuum. So yes, a Christian using the design argument could appeal to the fall for the existence of natural mutations. It is not like we are arguing for just any designer, but using the design argument as a cumulative case for the existence of the Christian God. I am a presuppositionalist, so I am not against the "presuppositionalist approach", but I also don't think that using evidential arguments against unbelievers is contrary to the presuppositionalist approach either. 



armourbearer said:


> One is not at liberty to idealise one part of the phenomena and leave out of view other parts that do not prove the argument.


Agreed. But I don't think the existence of mutations is a defeater of the design argument. 



armourbearer said:


> To properly account for all the evidence we need the biblical doctrine of God, together with its distinct message of creation, fall, and redemption. That message provides the only valid answers to the questions raised by natural revelation. On that point I am content to rest my case.


Agreed.


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> I am a presuppositionalist, so I am not against the "presuppositionalist approach", but I also don't think that using evidential arguments against unbelievers is contrary to the presuppositionalist approach either.



The point I have maintained throughout this thread is that the presuppositional approach is required to provide the a-priori framework for rational argumentation. Without it there is no accountability of reason to divine revelation. If that point is accepted, then I don't think we have any disagreement.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

armourbearer said:


> The point I have maintained throughout this thread is that the presuppositional approach is required to provide the a-priori framework for rational argumentation.


And I do not disagree with this point. The point I have maintained throughout this thread is that evidential arguments for God's existence do not presuppose autonomous reasoning, or make man "master of the facts". If *this* point is accepted, then we really have no disagreement. Do you accept this point?


----------



## MW

Cheshire Cat said:


> Do you accept this point?



Where there is no presuppositional framework, evidential arguments are by nature an appeal to autonomous reasoning.


----------



## cih1355

cih1355 said:


> The evidentialist says to the unbeliever, "Here is some good evidence that Christianity is true." The presuppositionalist says, "Unless you assume that Christianity is true, you cannot account for the laws of logic, laws of morality, and the laws of science."


In what sense are you using the word 'evidence'? What if the "evidentialist" says to the unbeliever, "The existence of objective morality is good evidence that Christianity is true"? Anything wrong with that? 

Does presuppositionalism boil down to TAG?[/QUOTE]

I use the word, "evidence", in the sense of that which justifies a belief. 

There is nothing wrong with saying, "The existence of objective morality is good evidence that Christianity is true". It is my understanding that presuppositionalists make a stronger claim by saying that unless God is presupposed, there is no accounting for objective morality. 

I'm not sure if presuppositionalism boils down to TAG.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Thanks for your thoughts cih1355. 




armourbearer said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you accept this point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where there is no presuppositional framework, evidential arguments are by nature an appeal to autonomous reasoning.
Click to expand...

Then you don't agree. We could keep going back and forth, but at this point I think it is best to leave it up to the reader to decide which point has been better argued for.


----------



## Confessor

Caleb, I think I understand the thrust of your argument, but tell me if my recollection of it is a false caricature:
1. In order to understand that God is sovereign over everything, such as reason, our existence, morals, etc., we must reason to that.
2. But if we have to reason to that, then we are using reason in a "neutral" or autonomous fashion; that is, we cannot presuppose that God is necessary for reason's existence before we complete the AFR.
3. .: insofar as presuppositionalism affirms that God must be presupposed at the beginning of all argumentation (including the AFR), presuppositionalism is a faulty method.

Correct me if that is not representative of your argument.

I struggled with this as well, with my problem manifesting itself more so in the fact that I could not avoid the "piecemeal" method, which is present in your method too, seeing as you said that the AFR and the teleological argument cannot prove the existence of the Christian God. The solution that I found seemed to sacrifice the certainty of TAG in rationalistic terms, changing it to certainty in Scriptural terms. Let me explain:

As your argument points out, in the AFR we cannot avoid but _not_ to grant God's existence at the beginning of the argument, for the maintaining of intellectual fairness. Therefore, if we are to accept God at the beginning of the argument, it would not be for rational reasons, but for some other reasons. I termed this type of commitment as one to a _pre-rational authority_.

And what reasons do we accept God as authoritative prior to the AFR? Because we simply know that we ought to do so; it is implanted within us as a _sensus divinitatus_. I think that the doctrine of our sense of deity is the result of a faithful exegesis of Romans 1 as well as an appeal to experience: if we did not have God as a pre-rational starting point (i.e. if we did not have a sense of deity which promoted that we accept God prior to our reasoning processes), then no one could help but remain a non-Christian. If there were no sense of a deity which the Holy Spirit coerced us to embrace as Father, then autonomous reasoning would be rampant across mankind, and with it autonomous philosophies, which lead to the destruction of knowledge as Van Til and other Reformed philosophers have shown. Thus, Christianity/Jehovah is ultimately selected by a pre-rational submission to Scripture, prompted by our regeneration and _sensus divinitatus_.

This helps to avoid the problem of necessary autonomous reasoning, where even TAG would seem only to prove a "piece" of Christianity, and this is what ultimately differentiates presuppositionalism from evidentialism. This demonstrates that we are _not_ required to start with an autonomous basis and that it is perfectly alright to accept the entirety of Christianity as a rational belief without having to build an impermeable apologetic (of which many believers are incapable).

Of course, you might object that this sounds fideistic, which is where the apologetics come in. I would use TAG to demonstrate the absurd inconsistencies of competing philosophies, evincing that without accepting God, nothing makes sense. I need not rationally _prove_ that God is an essential pre-rational authority, but I can rationally prove that every competing system thrown my way is self-destructive and sinful, giving extremely compelling rational reasons to believe in Christianity.

In a word, the sense of deity (and witness of the Holy Spirit) is the _proof_ of Christianity and TAG is the _persuasion_. (This is what I meant when I said that I sacrificed rationalistic certainty for Scriptural certainty; we don't prove God 100% with a rational proof but rather with our sense of deity). Even if we failed in our arguments, Romans 1 would not cease to be truthful; e.g. even with our faulty argument against the philosophical consistency of materialistic atheism, the atheist would stand condemned before God, suppressing his knowledge of God.

I apologize for the length. 

Ben


----------



## panta dokimazete

I summarize presuppositionalism as Man's reason and his ability to discern truth is subordinated to the triune God's reason and His revelation of truth.

In an effort to find "common" or "neutral" ground, evidentialists subordinate God's reason and revealed truth to Man's reason and ability to discern truth.

-----Added 11/27/2008 at 07:37:06 EST-----
Its as if a sighted man agreed to be blindfolded against a blind man in a contest to find a pearl of great price.

-----Added 11/27/2008 at 07:40:27 EST-----
Presuppositionalists reject the blindfold.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> Caleb, I think I understand the thrust of your argument, but tell me if my recollection of it is a false caricature:
> 1. In order to understand that God is sovereign over everything, such as reason, our existence, morals, etc., we must reason to that.
> 2. But if we have to reason to that, then we are using reason in a "neutral" or autonomous fashion; that is, we cannot presuppose that God is necessary for reason's existence before we complete the AFR.
> 3. .: insofar as presuppositionalism affirms that God must be presupposed at the beginning of all argumentation (including the AFR), presuppositionalism is a faulty method.
> 
> Correct me if that is not representative of your argument.


I'm hoping that this summary is not representative because if it is, then I would have to disagree.

1)If one assumes autonomous reason at the onset then one will never be able to reason to something beyond autonomous reason.
2)If you conclude that there is something beyond reason at the end of your reasoning, then you did not assume simply autonomous reason at the onset.

I think a better view is that one is born with concepts of infinity, eternality etc. and spends time searching for what realizes those concepts. At the onset of your search, you should realize that logic/etc does not realize these concepts. If you do this, then it would be possible to get to the end of your search and "discover" something beyond reason, eventhough reason is something necessary to do your searching.

So at the beginning of the argument one should presuppose that the answer to your ontological questions will fulfill certain requirements. At the end of the discussion, one will be able to say, that the answer is the Triune God of the Bible.

If you instead make the ontological assumption that it is logic is able to stand on its own two feet, then you will never be able to crown God as God at a later point.

CT


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> I'm hoping that this summary is not representative because if it is, then I would have to disagree.



No! 



> 1)If one assumes autonomous reason at the onset then one will never be able to reason to something beyond autonomous reason.



That is the thrust of his argument against presup. My reply is that God is necessary prior to reasoning, and therefore we cannot reason to His pre-rational necessity (such a concept is impossible!).



> 2)If you conclude that there is something beyond reason at the end of your reasoning, then you did not assume simply autonomous reason at the onset.



Of course -- I agree that the argument from reason (not used transcendentally) could not consistently yield the surrender of autonomy. But that is not the question at hand: we are pondering how we can logically avoid granting autonomy at the beginning of such an argument while still having a coherent methodology.



> So at the beginning of the argument one should presuppose that the answer to your ontological questions will fulfill certain requirements. At the end of the discussion, one will be able to say, that the answer is the Triune God of the Bible.



And how is this methodology not autonomous? You have declared that the Triune God only appears at the end and not necessarily at the beginning.



> If you instead make the ontological assumption that it is logic is able to stand on its own two feet, then you will never be able to crown God as God at a later point.



Yes, but the argument is that if we are going to determine whether God is necessary for reasoning, we cannot tell the unbeliever to assume that God is necessary for reasoning prior to making the metalogical argument. And if we cannot tell the unbeliever that he ought to assume that, then we are granting validity to an autonomous methodology. I believe that my method avoids this problem by stressing the necessity to accept God _apart from rational argument_, as Romans 1 would seem to indicate.


----------



## ChristianTrader

packabacka said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping that this summary is not representative because if it is, then I would have to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)If one assumes autonomous reason at the onset then one will never be able to reason to something beyond autonomous reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the thrust of his argument against presup. My reply is that God is necessary prior to reasoning, and therefore we cannot reason to His pre-rational necessity (such a concept is impossible!).
> 
> 
> 
> Of course -- I agree that the argument from reason (not used transcendentally) could not consistently yield the surrender of autonomy. But that is not the question at hand: we are pondering how we can logically avoid granting autonomy at the beginning of such an argument while still having a coherent methodology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at the beginning of the argument one should presuppose that the answer to your ontological questions will fulfill certain requirements. At the end of the discussion, one will be able to say, that the answer is the Triune God of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is this methodology not autonomous? You have declared that the Triune God only appears at the end and not necessarily at the beginning.
Click to expand...


God was not brought only at the end. He was there from the beginning. At the beginning He was known as "whom fit certain qualifications and concepts." At the end, we are able to say, "He is whom we were looking for all along". If we had started out autonomously, we could never come to such a conclusion.



> If you instead make the ontological assumption that it is logic is able to stand on its own two feet, then you will never be able to crown God as God at a later point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that if we are going to determine whether God is necessary for reasoning, we cannot tell the unbeliever to assume that God is necessary for reasoning prior to making the metalogical argument. And if we cannot tell the unbeliever that he ought to assume that, then we are granting validity to an autonomous methodology. I believe that my method avoids this problem by stressing the necessity to accept God _apart from rational argument_, as Romans 1 would seem to indicate.
Click to expand...


We can show him a criteria for God that is imprinted (sense of the divine) and that he cannot fill it, therefore autonomy is nonesense.

Also one problem with making the sense of deity the proof, is that you then have to make an argument that it is proof for x as opposed to y.

CT


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Hi Ben, 

I was not arguing against presuppositionalism as presuppositionalism, but only a certain variety of presuppositionalism which is anti-natural theology (e.g. classical arguments for God’s existence). I was trying to flesh out what exactly was meant by ‘autonomous’, and then arguing that it either applied to armourbearer’s position, or was irrelevant and mere pious sounding words. 

Obviously arguments such as the design argument in and of themselves aren’t bad to use, for they could be used to bolster the faith of another Christian. So it must be that they are only “autonomous” when used against the unbeliever. 

In trying to find out just what is meant by “autonomous”, I said,

“Anyway, when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

"Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose his thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""

See, ‘autonomous’ and ‘master of the facts’ sounds bad and all, but we really need to flesh out what this means to see if it really has any grip. Of course it can’t just mean “not arguing at the presuppositional level”, because that is what is under discussion. We need to know *why* arguments that aren’t at the ‘meta’ level are ‘autonomous’, and what ‘autonomous’ really means. 



packabacka said:


> I struggled with this as well, with my problem manifesting itself more so in the fact that I could not avoid the "piecemeal" method, which is present in your method too, seeing as you said that the AFR and the teleological argument cannot prove the existence of the Christian God.


Depends on what you mean by “prove”. I think traditional arguments for God’s existence make God’s existence highly probable. I don’t think one needs to have epistemic certainty to have a proof. 



packabacka said:


> The solution that I found seemed to sacrifice the certainty of TAG in rationalistic terms, changing it to certainty in Scriptural terms.


TAG doesn’t even prove God’s existence certain in ‘rationalistic’ terms. 



packabacka said:


> As your argument points out, in the AFR we cannot avoid but _not_ to grant God's existence at the beginning of the argument, for the maintaining of intellectual fairness.


Actually we can. My point was that the unbeliever isn’t going to grant it *temporally* at the beginning of the argument. I was more trying to see if the *attitude* of the unbeliever is what was being deemed “autonomous”, though I don’t think that’s what armourbearer was getting at. 


packabacka said:


> Therefore, if we are to accept God at the beginning of the argument, it would not be for rational reasons, but for some other reasons. I termed this type of commitment as one to a _pre-rational authority_.


Can’t say I agree with that. 

With the rest of what you said, I’ll quote armourbearer: 



armourbearer said:


> All agree that mere knowledge does not convert. Nor is it a matter of saying sin affects the intellectual ability of man and only the Holy Spirit can convert. The intellectual ability of man is affected morally by sin, not propositionally, so man can know things which pertain to God; and further, when the Holy Spirit converts, He uses intellectual means, and so might use evidential arguments.





packabacka said:


> In a word, the sense of deity (and witness of the Holy Spirit) is the _proof_ of Christianity and TAG is the _persuasion_. (This is what I meant when I said that I sacrificed rationalistic certainty for Scriptural certainty; we don't prove God 100% with a rational proof but rather with our sense of deity).


Why can’t traditional theistic arguments also be the ‘persuasion’?



packabacka said:


> Even if we failed in our arguments, Romans 1 would not cease to be truthful; e.g. even with our faulty argument against the philosophical consistency of materialistic atheism, the atheist would stand condemned before God, suppressing his knowledge of God.


I agree that even if we failed in our arguments, Romans 1 would not cease to be truthful. You might read this post at T-blog: Triablogue: Probability & Inexcusability


----------



## panta dokimazete

Good link, thanks.


----------



## Confessor

ChristianTrader said:


> God was not brought only at the end. He was there from the beginning. At the beginning He was known as "whom fit certain qualifications and concepts." At the end, we are able to say, "He is whom we were looking for all along". If we had started out autonomously, we could never come to such a conclusion.



That is exactly what the autonomous method entails. We cannot try to start with a blank, see what we have, and then decide that Christianity is the best option -- if we do so, we will never get to Christianity. If we do not follow our sense of deity and affirm Christ before we even try to argue, then we could not possibly make such an argument.



> We can show him a criteria for God that is imprinted (sense of the divine) and that he cannot fill it, therefore autonomy is nonesense.



No, this is still an autonomous methodology, where we try to "neutrally" weigh the evidence and see what we have. Rather than bringing Christianity to the forefront at the beginning, we are trying to feign neutrality and say, "Okay, we've got a sense of deity. Let's see what that leads us to..." which is an inherently autonomous methodology.



> Also one problem with making the sense of deity the proof, is that you then have to make an argument that it is proof for x as opposed to y.



The whole point of the sense of deity argument is that I introspectively know that Christianity is true, by witness of the Holy Spirit. I don't have to know that I know that it is true, or know that I know that I know, _ad infinitum_; God's witness is sufficient.

This is what it means to be self-attesting. If we had to prove that the sense of deity was of the Holy Spirit, then reason would be the ultimate, self-attesting authority.
-----Added 11/28/2008 at 02:49:33 EST-----


Cheshire Cat said:


> I was not arguing against presuppositionalism as presuppositionalism, but only a certain variety of presuppositionalism which is anti-natural theology (e.g. classical arguments for God’s existence).



I honestly don't think there is a variety of presup which is _not_ against natural theology, at least those made in the Thomistic fashion.



> I was trying to flesh out what exactly was meant by ‘autonomous’, and then arguing that it either applied to armourbearer’s position, or was irrelevant and mere pious sounding words.



Just to let you know, I had this exact same problem: I could not see a meaningful difference between the two schools of apologetics; I could not see how to avoid autonomoy, and therefore it either applied negatively to presup (making both schools "trapped" in the mindset) or it was irrelevant (making both schools competent with that mindset).



> Obviously arguments such as the design argument in and of themselves aren’t bad to use, for they could be used to bolster the faith of another Christian. So it must be that they are only “autonomous” when used against the unbeliever.



Well, I would follow Van Til in affirming that they are useless when used in a non-confirmatory sense; that is, if we say, "We know that God exists, and look at this confirming evidence," they are alright, but if we say, "We know there is design in this universe, let's see if it points to a deity," then we are being autonomous. 



> In trying to find out just what is meant by “autonomous”, I said,
> 
> “Anyway, when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?
> 
> "Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose his thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""



In regards to the first, it would simply not be a matter of who is the reference point -- both believers are agreed that God's Word is ultimate, and then they are discerning what exactly God's Word entails. The discussion of an ultimate reference point is irrelevant.

The second question has the same answer. The discussion is simply that the unbeliever does not know what God's Word entails. It'd be similar to a situation where an unbeliever said, "No, I won't become a Christian. The Qur'an has so many contradictions!" He has a false idea of what God's Word is. The question is not whether or not he should accept God's Word, but what God's Word is. The question of autonomy is irrelevant.



> See, ‘autonomous’ and ‘master of the facts’ sounds bad and all, but we really need to flesh out what this means to see if it really has any grip. Of course it can’t just mean “not arguing at the presuppositional level”, because that is what is under discussion. We need to know *why* arguments that aren’t at the ‘meta’ level are ‘autonomous’, and what ‘autonomous’ really means.



Autonomous reasoning would be reasoning that accepts man's reason as ultimately authoritative, over against God's Word. Basically, I am affirming that God's Word must be accepted as authoritative prior to any kind of reasoning which would yield God's Word as authoritative. Even the AFR, under this category, is autonomous.



> Depends on what you mean by “prove”. I think traditional arguments for God’s existence make God’s existence highly probable. I don’t think one needs to have epistemic certainty to have a proof.



Van Til disliked this because it made probability more ultimate than God, giving some credence to the pagan's ultimacy of "chance" rather than providence.

Regardless, I doubt that using consistent reasoning you could even demonstrate with probability that Christianity is true using an evidential approach. Only by inconsistently applying the method could you demonstrate the probability of God's existence. This is not a problem in you, of course; it is a problem with the system.



> TAG doesn’t even prove God’s existence certain in ‘rationalistic’ terms.



That's actually what it tries to do. Van Til and Bahnsen both claimed that we can prove with absolute, complete certainty _via_ rational argument that God exists, and I think they both went wrong there. 



> Actually we can. My point was that the unbeliever isn’t going to grant it *temporally* at the beginning of the argument.



If we, using your approach, attempted to prove God's existence from the AFR, then we could not assume He existed at the beginning. Using your approach, that would be question-begging.



> Can’t say I agree with that.



You don't?! I'm not even saying you have to agree with my pre-rational approach; I was making a statement regarding what presup would have to cover: _if_ we ought to accept God's authority prior to reasoning, _then_ we ought to accept His authority for some reason other than a reasonable argument. You don't have to agree that we ought to accept God's authority prior to reasoning, but if you do then my conclusion certainly follows.



> Why can’t traditional theistic arguments also be the ‘persuasion’?



Because if they were consistent they would not be persuasive. The unbeliever could always interpret things in light of his presupposition (e.g. design is the result of natural causes, known or unknown). You only find the design argument persuasive because you're being faithful to God, but we can't accept the unbeliever to do that -- that is what we're trying to get him to do!



> I agree that even if we failed in our arguments, Romans 1 would not cease to be truthful



Then by what reason do unbelievers stand condemned and suppress the truth? Is it because every person on Earth has understood the teleological argument (with all its subtleties that have evolved over the years), understood that the Christian God is the most likely answer, and then suppressed that? Or is it rather that they have a _sensus divinitatus_?

The former is ridiculous; the latter is the only acceptable doctrine from that chapter. The truth being suppressed must be non-inferential for unbelievers to truly stand "without excuse."

Thanks for the link btw.

Ben


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Quote:
Also one problem with making the sense of deity the proof, is that you then have to make an argument that it is proof for x as opposed to y. 


packabacka said:


> The whole point of the sense of deity argument is that I introspectively know that Christianity is true, by witness of the Holy Spirit. I don't have to know that I know that it is true, or know that I know that I know, ad infinitum; God's witness is sufficient.


How do you know the sense of deity points proves Christianity as opposed to Islam or Judaism? 



packabacka said:


> I honestly don't think there is a variety of presup which is not against natural theology, at least those made in the Thomistic fashion.


Read John Frame. He also has an apologetics course available through Itunes on RTS (Reformed Theological Seminaries) website. 



packabacka said:


> Well, I would follow Van Til in affirming that they [arguments such as the design argument] are useless when used in a non-confirmatory sense; that is, if we say, "We know that God exists, and look at this confirming evidence," they are alright, but if we say, "We know there is design in this universe, let's see if it points to a deity," then we are being autonomous.


The whole being “autonomous” for not arguing at the presuppositional level is what is under discussion. 


Quote:
In trying to find out just what is meant by “autonomous”, I said,

“Anyway, when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

"Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose his thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?"" 


packabacka said:


> In regards to the first, it would simply not be a matter of who is the reference point -- both believers are agreed that God's Word is ultimate, and then they are discerning what exactly God's Word entails. The discussion of an ultimate reference point is irrelevant.


Why assume both people in the first are believers? 


packabacka said:


> The second question has the same answer. The discussion is simply that the unbeliever does not know what God's Word entails. It'd be similar to a situation where an unbeliever said, "No, I won't become a Christian. The Qur'an has so many contradictions!" He has a false idea of what God's Word is. The question is not whether or not he should accept God's Word, but what God's Word is. The question of autonomy is irrelevant.


1. The unbeliever is not accepting God’s authority
2. We assume the unbeliever can reason to the truth of what the bible really says 
3. What the bible really says is under discussion in the debate, for it is an exegetical debate. 
So, we are using his “unaided reason” to show him what the bible says, and he is not granting God’s authority. How is this not “autonomous” in the sense being used against the arguments from natural theology? 


packabacka said:


> Autonomous reasoning would be reasoning that accepts man's reason as ultimately authoritative, over against God's Word.


And how do arguments from natural theology do this? 


packabacka said:


> Basically, I am affirming that God's Word must be accepted as authoritative prior to any kind of reasoning which would yield God's Word as authoritative. Even the AFR, under this category, is autonomous.


Seems like TAG is also “autonomous” under this view. 


packabacka said:


> Van Til disliked this because it made probability more ultimate than God, giving some credence to the pagan's ultimacy of "chance" rather than providence.


I cannot make sense out of the phrase “probability more ultimate than God”. Did you read the triablogue link I posted? 


packabacka said:


> Regardless, I doubt that using consistent reasoning you could even demonstrate with probability that Christianity is true using an evidential approach. Only by inconsistently applying the method could you demonstrate the probability of God's existence.


“I doubt” isn’t an argument. Why think that only by inconsistently applying the method could I demonstrate the probability of God’s existence? 


packabacka said:


> That's actually what it [TAG] tries to do. Van Til and Bahnsen both claimed that we can prove with absolute, complete certainty via rational argument that God exists, and I think they both went wrong there.


I know that is what it tries to do, but I don’t think it succeeds. If you want I can explain why, but that isn’t really relevant to my main point in this thread. 


packabacka said:


> If we, using your approach, attempted to prove God's existence from the AFR, then we could not assume He existed at the beginning. Using your approach, that would be question-begging.


We couldn’t assume it as part of our *argument*, but we could believe it. 


packabacka said:


> if we ought to accept God's authority prior to reasoning, then we ought to accept His authority for some reason other than a reasonable argument.


Then how are we to go about doing apologetics? Appeal to the sense of deity? What if the unbeliever appeals to the sense of deity in defending Islam? 


packabacka said:


> Because if they were consistent they [traditional arguments] would not be persuasive.


You said TAG is the persuasion, which is why I questioned how it is different from the traditional arguments (i.e. couldn’t they be grouped under ‘persuasive arguments’ then). But honestly, even arguing at the presuppositional level is not persuasive. To use the overused phrase, proof is not persuasion. 


packabacka said:


> The unbeliever could always interpret things in light of his presupposition (e.g. design is the result of natural causes, known or unknown).


What, like aliens or something? Perhaps you mean apparent design. 
Btw, I’m not against the concept of a sense of deity. 

Your welcome for the link.


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> How do you know the sense of deity points proves Christianity as opposed to Islam or Judaism?



Because God's witness is crystal clear. If I must pit God's witness against the scrutiny of human reason, then human reason is authoritative over God. You could continue to ask the question: how do you know that that's evidence for Christianity? How do you know that _that_ is evidence for Christianity? etc. If God's Word is not itself self-attesting, then we have no reliable standard. 



> Read John Frame. He also has an apologetics course available through Itunes on RTS (Reformed Theological Seminaries) website.



I don't know if this is just me pulling out the "no true Scot" fallacy, but Frame is not really a presuppositionalist in my book.



> The whole being “autonomous” for not arguing at the presuppositional level is what is under discussion.



It's not that we're arguing too "far" from presuppositions _per se_; it's that evidential apologetics assumes the validity of the autonomous presupposition.



> Why assume both people in the first are believers?



I thought it was implicit in the question. In that case, though, there is no distinction between the questions: we have someone trying to show someone else (who may or may not be an unbeliever) what God's Word entails.



> 1. The unbeliever is not accepting God’s authority
> 2. We assume the unbeliever can reason to the truth of what the bible really says
> 3. What the bible really says is under discussion in the debate, for it is an exegetical debate.



1. The unbeliever needn't accept God's authority to see what the Bible says. E.g. a heathen does not have to accept the Gospel message prior to hearing it -- in fact, he can't.
2. Yes, of course we do.  Autonomous systems are only impossible _in principle_; in practice, everyone borrows from the Christian worldview.
3. I'm not sure what bearing this has on presuppositional or evidential apologetics. Could you please explain?



> So, we are using his “unaided reason” to show him what the bible says, and he is not granting God’s authority. How is this not “autonomous” in the sense being used against the arguments from natural theology?



What is going on in that scenario is that the unbeliever is learning what the Christian worldview believes, what God's Word entails. The unbeliever is simply learning what God's Word is. This is different from reasoning to discern whether or not He exists, which is what apologetics and natural theology are all about.



> And how do arguments from natural theology do this?



The problem with natural theology is that it assumes the possibility that God may not exist. This is averse to what our very being tells us _via_ general and special revelation (_sensus divinitatus_), and can be demonstrated further (but not absolutely) through apologetics, demonstrating that every contrary presupposition descends to absurdity.



> Seems like TAG is also “autonomous” under this view.



The kind of TAG that says, "We've got uniformity of nature; this makes sense given an infinite Mind; therefore God exists" is autonomous under that view; you are correct. Such types of TAG are rationalistic and not faithful to man's sense of deity. The type of TAG I advocated in my first post in this thread avoid this problem.



> I cannot make sense out of the phrase “probability more ultimate than God”. Did you read the triablogue link I posted?



I read the link, and I agree with it, generally speaking (i.e. probability can still condemn), but not specifically speaking (i.e. we do not know only with probability; we know God's existence with certainty as Rom. 1 teaches). When I say that "probability is more ultimate than God," what I mean is that we assume kind of an all-enveloping realm of chance, rather than a God who created the notion of chance. Honestly, I can't explain it much further than that (my apologies), but it's also not crucial to the argument, as I said in the first sentence of this paragraph.



> “I doubt” isn’t an argument. Why think that only by inconsistently applying the method could I demonstrate the probability of God’s existence?



I could play devil's advocate if you wanted. My point is that evidentialism, in principle, could not lead an unbeliever to accept Christ if that unbeliever is remaining rationally coherent with his presupposition. As a common example, even if you demonstrated to him that some deity exists (which I'm not sure you could rationally do, but I digress) and demonstrated to him that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, the unbeliever need not accept Christianity. He could merely leave it up to natural causes, saying that Christ's rising from the dead was an anomaly -- moreover, he is _rationally obliged_ to do so, so long as his presupposition is not challenged.



> I know that is what it tries to do, but I don’t think it succeeds. If you want I can explain why, but that isn’t really relevant to my main point in this thread.



Dude, I agree with you.  The certainty of our faith comes not from some intellectual argument but from the Holy Spirit.



> We couldn’t assume it as part of our *argument*, but we could believe it.



This is not a meaningful distinction: unbelievers (who are the target of apologetics) never do the latter.



> Then how are we to go about doing apologetics? Appeal to the sense of deity? What if the unbeliever appeals to the sense of deity in defending Islam?



By not assuming that we have to build our Christian worldview from the ground up! We can instead tell everyone else why their specific axiom or presupposition is wrong by going through implications and seeing how it is inconsistent, knowing that we are justified in bringing the Bible in its entirety to the argument. This is what I meant when I said that the sense of deity is our proof but TAG is our persuasion.

For your example, we could show them how the Qur'an is inconsistent (due to the Islamic view of revelation), we could show them how the concept of Allah (as opposed to the Trinity) would destroy knowledge, etc. -- we would show absolute, irreconcilable contradictions within their worldview.



> You said TAG is the persuasion, which is why I questioned how it is different from the traditional arguments (i.e. couldn’t they be grouped under ‘persuasive arguments’ then). But honestly, even arguing at the presuppositional level is not persuasive. To use the overused phrase, proof is not persuasion.



Then I'd have to say you're not doing the presup argument right.  But seriously, as I showed above, if the naturalist's presupposition is not challenged, no amount of evidence can overturn his presupposition as even an admission of Christ's rising from the dead would not necessarily have theological implications in his worldview! Presuppositionalism on the other hand is penetrating, showing unbelievers how their reasoning is completely and hopelessly lost without Christ, calling them to repentance.



> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unbeliever could always interpret things in light of his presupposition (e.g. design is the result of natural causes, known or unknown).
> 
> 
> 
> What, like aliens or something? Perhaps you mean apparent design.
Click to expand...


Yes, I mean apparent design; that is all that the teleological argument works with. For the naturalist, evolution is the most common answer. Some other unknown cause, including aliens (panspermia has been a proposed solution for the origin of life in a naturalistic worldview) could work too. The fact is that they are rationally obliged _not_ to accept God as long as they cling to their presupposition.



> Btw, I’m not against the concept of a sense of deity.



I didn't think you were.  I just want to discuss its implications in apologetics.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

packabacka said:


> Cheshire Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the sense of deity points proves Christianity as opposed to Islam or Judaism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because God's witness is crystal clear.
Click to expand...

Really, and it’s not suppressed by sin? 



packabacka said:


> If I must pit God's witness against the scrutiny of human reason, then human reason is authoritative over God.


It’s not a competition between God’s witness and “human” reason. God gave us our minds. In fact, one can’t even interpret what God’s word says without using one’s reason. When we have exegetical debates, this is what we are doing. 



packabacka said:


> It's not that we're arguing too "far" from presuppositions _per se_; it's that evidential apologetics assumes the validity of the autonomous presupposition.


What is the “autonomous presupposition”, and how do evidential apologetics assume it? 



packabacka said:


> What is going on in that scenario is that the unbeliever is learning what the Christian worldview believes, what God's Word entails. The unbeliever is simply learning what God's Word is. This is different from reasoning to discern whether or not He exists, which is what apologetics and natural theology are all about.


And what are we appealing to in showing him what God’s word really says? His reason, for proper exegesis requires proper reasoning. 



packabacka said:


> The problem with natural theology is that it assumes the possibility that God may not exist. This is averse to what our very being tells us _via_ general and special revelation (_sensus divinitatus_), and can be demonstrated further (but not absolutely) through apologetics, demonstrating that every contrary presupposition descends to absurdity.


How does it assume the possibility that God may not exist? For the sake of argument it does that, within the argument, otherwise it would be begging the question. The problem with your approach is that there is no positive apologetic. Tearing down with no building up. Then you appeal to their sense of deity, which isn’t going to do anything as it is suppressed by sin. 



packabacka said:


> When I say that "probability is more ultimate than God," what I mean is that we assume kind of an all-enveloping realm of chance, rather than a God who created the notion of chance. Honestly, I can't explain it much further than that (my apologies), but it's also not crucial to the argument, as I said in the first sentence of this paragraph.


Okay, well that is really vague and hard to understand. 



packabacka said:


> I could play devil's advocate if you wanted. My point is that evidentialism, in principle, could not lead an unbeliever to accept Christ if that unbeliever is remaining rationally coherent with his presupposition. As a common example, even if you demonstrated to him that some deity exists (which I'm not sure you could rationally do, but I digress) and demonstrated to him that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, the unbeliever need not accept Christianity. He could merely leave it up to natural causes, saying that Christ's rising from the dead was an anomaly -- moreover, he is _rationally obliged_ to do so, so long as his presupposition is not challenged.


The problem is that the probability of the occurrence of the resurrection on the unbeliever’s presuppositions is astronomically low. Yeah, he need not accept Christianity, just like I can’t know anything because I could be a brain in the vat! Right…



packabacka said:


> Yes, I mean apparent design; that is all that the teleological argument works with.


Whether that is all the teleological argument works with is what is under discussion in the debate. 



packabacka said:


> For the naturalist, evolution is the most common answer. Some other unknown cause, including aliens (panspermia has been a proposed solution for the origin of life in a naturalistic worldview) could work too. The fact is that they are rationally obliged _not_ to accept God as long as they cling to their presupposition.


The aliens response just pushes the problem back one step. How did the aliens get there? Who designed them? And of course we could debate the evidence over evolution.


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because God's witness is crystal clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, and it’s not suppressed by sin?
Click to expand...


The actual message is not distorted; man's reception is distorted. Subjective distortion does not nullify the fact of objective clarity.



> It’s not a competition between God’s witness and “human” reason. God gave us our minds. In fact, one can’t even interpret what God’s word says without using one’s reason. When we have exegetical debates, this is what we are doing.



I agree that human reason is a _tool_ which we use during exegetical debates, among other things, but the discussion is whether it can be treated as an _authority_ which does not submit to God's Word. Most evidentialists agree with this statement, but they do not carry it out in their apologetical endeavors.



> What is the “autonomous presupposition”, and how do evidential apologetics assume it?



It can take on several forms (resulting in such philosophies as rationalism, empiricism, etc.), but the commonality amongst all autonomous axioms is that they view man's reason as authoritative and God's Word as something to be proved by another authority.

An example of an evidential apologetic assuming this is the following: "It appears that this universe has a god and that a man named Jesus Christ rose from the dead; this seems to best fit the Christian worldview; therefore I will accept it because it seems reasonable to me" rather than "God demands my submission outright without my approval and only in doing this may I make sense of anything."



> And what are we appealing to in showing him what God’s word really says? His reason, for proper exegesis requires proper reasoning.



We are appealing to his reason only as a tool and not as a magisterial authority over God's Word.



> How does it assume the possibility that God may not exist? For the sake of argument it does that, within the argument, otherwise it would be begging the question. The problem with your approach is that there is no positive apologetic. Tearing down with no building up. Then you appeal to their sense of deity, which isn’t going to do anything as it is suppressed by sin.



It assumes the possibility that God may not exist because you are telling the unbeliever to discern whether the existence of apparent design points to a Designer; in doing so, you give far too much leeway to his depravity, with which he can distort the interpretation of the evidence to fit his presupposition. And regarding the question-begging accusation, any discussion involving axioms is circular in this regard. We cannot avoid but to argue for internal consistency and external consistency to undeniable truths which cannot be distorted, due to God's restraining grace on our depravity (e.g. the existence of logic, of ourselves, etc.).

The positive apologetic is that _every single system_ thrown at the apologist is entirely incoherent and disproved. There is no ground upon which for the unbeliever to stand except for the Christian one. (Alternatively, one could use the Reformed Epistemology apologetic as a defense, which I plan on looking into in the near future.)



> The problem is that the probability of the occurrence of the resurrection on the unbeliever’s presuppositions is astronomically low. Yeah, he need not accept Christianity, just like I can’t know anything because I could be a brain in the vat! Right…



You assume some external, common standard of probability that the unbeliever possesses, but even that exists for him in terms of his presupposition. The odds are not astronomically low to him at all, because his presupposition mandates that they can't be.



> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I mean apparent design; that is all that the teleological argument works with.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether that is all the teleological argument works with is what is under discussion in the debate.
Click to expand...


Are you sure? In order to prove actual design, you would have to prove an actual designer, which is what you are trying to prove in the first place. You cannot prove more than apparent design (which is subject to wild distortion and interpretation) without begging the question.



> The aliens response just pushes the problem back one step. How did the aliens get there? Who designed them? And of course we could debate the evidence over evolution.



They can throw the alien explanation to the realm of chance. All that matters is that their explanation coincides with their core presupposition. And, of course, interpreting evidence for evolution is not an objective process in the least, subject to extreme demonstrations of total depravity.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

packabacka said:


> The actual message is not distorted; man's reception is distorted. Subjective distortion does not nullify the fact of objective clarity.


Its distorted for the receiver nonetheless, so I’m not sure how it would function as a proof. 



packabacka said:


> I agree that human reason is a _tool_ which we use during exegetical debates, among other things, but the discussion is whether it can be treated as an _authority_ which does not submit to God's Word. Most evidentialists agree with this statement, but they do not carry it out in their apologetical endeavors.


How do they not carry it out in their apologetical endeavors? 



packabacka said:


> It can take on several forms (resulting in such philosophies as rationalism, empiricism, etc.), but the commonality amongst all autonomous axioms is that they view man's reason as authoritative and God's Word as something to be proved by another authority.


I’m not sure how an argument is an axiom…Anyway, 

The problem must be in trying to use our reason to prove God’s existence. But why suppose this is a problem? Because it sets up reason as authoritative over against God’s word. I think this is a false dichotomy. God gave us our minds, and our reason should be used as a tool (the word you used) to test ideas. We use this tool in exegesis. If God’s word is contradictory, I wouldn’t believe it. If the concept of God is contradictory, I would not believe in God. Am I being autonomous? In Greg Bahnsen’s debate against Stein, he says, “If there were no arguments for the existence of God, I wouldn’t believe in God”, and “Rationally speaking, if there is no basis for believing in the existence of God, I would relinquish that believe”. Was Greg Bahnsen being autonomous? 



packabacka said:


> An example of an evidential apologetic assuming this is the following: "It appears that this universe has a god and that a man named Jesus Christ rose from the dead; this seems to best fit the Christian worldview; therefore I will accept it because it seems reasonable to me"


Okay



packabacka said:


> rather than "God demands my submission outright without my approval and only in doing this may I make sense of anything."


I don’t see how arguing at the presuppositional level is going to make the unbeliever say that any more than a combined approach of evidential and presuppositional arguments would. 



packabacka said:


> An It assumes the possibility that God may not exist because you are telling the unbeliever to discern whether the existence of apparent design points to a Designer; in doing so, you give far too much leeway to his depravity, with which he can distort the interpretation of the evidence to fit his presupposition.


Even TAG can only prove the possibility (albeit high probability). I don’t think it proves impossibility of the contrary. 



packabacka said:


> And regarding the question-begging accusation, any discussion involving axioms is circular in this regard. We cannot avoid but to argue for internal consistency and external consistency to undeniable truths which cannot be distorted, due to God's restraining grace on our depravity (e.g. the existence of logic, of ourselves, etc.).


I never argued that TAG begged the question. 



packabacka said:


> The positive apologetic is that _every single system_ thrown at the apologist is entirely incoherent and disproved. There is no ground upon which for the unbeliever to stand except for the Christian one.


That is still negative apologetics. So, every single system thrown at the apologist is entirely “incoherent” and “disproved”. I suppose this is to show the unbeliever that the Christian view makes better sense out of reality than the non-Christian view. Uh oh! Sounds like your using *autonomous* reasoning to me! Using man’s reason to prove the Christian worldview. Tsk tsk. 



packabacka said:


> You assume some external, common standard of probability that the unbeliever possesses, but even that exists for him in terms of his presupposition. The odds are not astronomically low to him at all, because his presupposition mandates that they can't be.


I thought reason was a tool we share with the unbeliever? Think of probability as a “hammer” within the toolkit. Sure that exists for him in terms of his presupposition, which is why it is so low. Before you said the unbeliever might appeal to something along the line of, “anything can happen in this crazy chance universe”. His presupposition might render the event possible, but the resurrection is still going to be highly improbable on a materialistic worldview. This is why I joked about not knowing anything because I don’t know with certainty I am not a brain in a vat (or in the matrix, etc.). Fact is, its possible, but not very probable, which is why it is so ridiculous to believe. 



packabacka said:


> Are you sure? In order to prove actual design, you would have to prove an actual designer, which is what you are trying to prove in the first place. You cannot prove more than apparent design (which is subject to wild distortion and interpretation) without begging the question.


Actually, in order to prove an actual designer I would have to prove actual design. So whether or not design is apparent or actual is what is under discussion in the debate. 




> The aliens response just pushes the problem back one step. How did the aliens get there? Who designed them? And of course we could debate the evidence over evolution.





packabacka said:


> They can throw the alien explanation to the realm of chance. All that matters is that their explanation coincides with their core presupposition.


I fail to see how “throwing the alien explanation to the realm of chance” would solve the problem I posed.


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> Its distorted for the receiver nonetheless, so I’m not sure how it would function as a proof.



Well, the thing is that it's distorted _by_ the receiver, willfully and sinfully, and therefore it is proof for his condemnation. Not proof which can be used in apologetics, but proof nonetheless.



> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that human reason is a _tool_ which we use during exegetical debates, among other things, but the discussion is whether it can be treated as an _authority_ which does not submit to God's Word. Most evidentialists agree with this statement, but they do not carry it out in their apologetical endeavors.
> 
> 
> 
> How do they not carry it out in their apologetical endeavors?
Click to expand...


They do not carry it out in their endeavors because they view reason/science/historical data as magisterial authorities rather than ministerial tools.



> I’m not sure how an argument is an axiom…Anyway,



You asked for description of an autonomous presupposition, and I used the word "axiom" in my response. Seeing as they're basically synonymous, I'm not sure what the problem is here. I do not believe I equated any type of argument with an axiom.



> The problem must be in trying to use our reason to prove God’s existence. But why suppose this is a problem? Because it sets up reason as authoritative over against God’s word. I think this is a false dichotomy. God gave us our minds, and our reason should be used as a tool (the word you used) to test ideas. We use this tool in exegesis. If God’s word is contradictory, I wouldn’t believe it. If the concept of God is contradictory, I would not believe in God. Am I being autonomous? In Greg Bahnsen’s debate against Stein, he says, “If there were no arguments for the existence of God, I wouldn’t believe in God”, and “Rationally speaking, if there is no basis for believing in the existence of God, I would relinquish that believe”. Was Greg Bahnsen being autonomous?



I understand that God's Word cannot be contradicted, nor can it contradict itself, and that God's Word would always pass such tests with flying colors. But that doesn't mean that everyone who tries to understand the Bible or TAG or what have you will conclude that God exists. Why? Because _people easily err_. This is culminated most obviously when people think of reason in the wrong way (e.g. as some random entity which happens to exist in a naturalistic world) and proceed from there. Presuppositionalism exposes these problems in all their ludicrousness

Regarding Bahnsen's comment, of course we would not believe in Christianity if it weren't rational. But that doesn't mean that it's the _primary_ reason we believe in it. This is somewhat analogous to _sola fide_: we believe that no one can enter heaven without good works, but we also believe that no one enters heaven by good works.



> I don’t see how arguing at the presuppositional level is going to make the unbeliever say that any more than a combined approach of evidential and presuppositional arguments would.



If you argue evidentially, using the piecemeal method -- building from the ground up -- you will inevitably never reach the whole of Christianity (either with probability or with certainty). You can prove that a deity exists if the unbeliever allows it, etc., and as I said you can even prove that a man named Jesus Christ rose from the dead (if the unbeliever lets you get that far without imposing his standards), but you _cannot_ prove to him Christ's deity, the Trinity, the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, or any other specific doctrine or story from the Bible unless you prove its theological implications to him. All I can say regarding that is, "Good luck crossing Lessing's ditch."

(I'm aware the typical argument for this is that Christ proved He was the Son of God by rising from the dead, and He said that the entirety of the Bible is true, and God/the Son of God cannot lie, etc. -- but that explanation requires a huge number of metaphysical jumps for the unbeliever to make, none of which he is required to do as long as his presupposition is held tightly.)

The alternative is to offer Christianity as a cohesive unit as a starting point, and argue that all other starting points fail -- even to deny Christianity he must presuppose Christianity. This is a battle of whole worldviews, not bits and pieces here and there.



> Even TAG can only prove the possibility (albeit high probability). I don’t think it proves impossibility of the contrary.



It can prove the impossibility of any currently existing worldview, and in case you need even more persuasion than that, it disproves the skeptical methodology of trying to autonomously "start from scratch" -- therefore any atheist who tries to feign humility in claiming that "he doesn't know but will still search in the future" is pulling out hope for an objectively impossible task.



> I never argued that TAG begged the question.



Ah, yes, my apologies. You were arguing that presupposing God's existence in natural theology begged the question. I would agree, because natural theologians (in the Thomistic/evidentialist vein at least) do not accept God as axiomatic, the propriety of which is the topic of discussion.



> That is still negative apologetics. So, every single system thrown at the apologist is entirely “incoherent” and “disproved”. I suppose this is to show the unbeliever that the Christian view makes better sense out of reality than the non-Christian view.



Well, the apologist can still show the unbeliever Christianity's internal consistency and external consistency with other undeniable/axiomatic truths (the existence of objective laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc.) -- such beliefs which are possessed by any person, in practice that is.



> Uh oh! Sounds like your using *autonomous* reasoning to me! Using man’s reason to prove the Christian worldview. Tsk tsk.



I do believe that a statement such as "Please explain how this is not autonomous reasoning" would be more proper, edifying, and wholesome for discussion or even debate. (Alternatively, I apologize if this is not how you were planning to come across; I also apologize if I delivered the same tone elsewhere.)

Regarding the actual substance of your comment, I am still not using reason to establish God's authority. TAG does not establish the truthfulness of Christianity. The Bible's truth is already established by the Bible itself, as a self-attesting authority. It is proof of itself. TAG is merely an elaboration of what Scripture says, used for persuasion.



> I thought reason was a tool we share with the unbeliever? Think of probability as a “hammer” within the toolkit. Sure that exists for him in terms of his presupposition, which is why it is so low. Before you said the unbeliever might appeal to something along the line of, “anything can happen in this crazy chance universe”. His presupposition might render the event possible, but the resurrection is still going to be highly improbable on a materialistic worldview. This is why I joked about not knowing anything because I don’t know with certainty I am not a brain in a vat (or in the matrix, etc.). Fact is, its possible, but not very probable, which is why it is so ridiculous to believe.



But who is to tell the materialist what is probable and what is improbable? And further, who is to tell him that such an improbable event (if it can be proved to be improbable by his standard) somehow leads to metaphysical or theological significance? The upshot is that he has no rational coercion, as long as his presupposition is unchallenged, to actually cite a bodily resurrection from the dead as the Resurrection of the Christ. You have to attack the source, his sinful presupposition.



> Actually, in order to prove an actual designer I would have to prove actual design. So whether or not design is apparent or actual is what is under discussion in the debate.



My point is that you could not prove _actual_ design at the downfall of other options without proving the explicit existence of the Designer himself; hence the traditional teleological arguments are necessarily question-begging.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. How else would you prove actual design rather than apparent design?



> I fail to see how “throwing the alien explanation to the realm of chance” would solve the problem I posed.



Well, how much would have to be known about the aliens for them to be a plausible explanation -- and, too, by what standard could you make such a claim? In fact, what reason would the naturalist have to explain anything about them, besides the fact that the aliens dropped life off here on Earth? There could be some ridiculously efficient (and abiogenetic) super-evolution process on another planet which we know nothing about. We don't have to know the aliens entirely to posit them as candidates for a naturalistic origin of life.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

packabacka said:


> Well, the thing is that it's distorted _by_ the receiver, willfully and sinfully, and therefore it is proof for his condemnation. Not proof which can be used in apologetics, but proof nonetheless.


I agree it merits condemnation. So do other things, like original sin. I agree with you that it is not a proof in apologetics, although I think I would qualify that to *positive* apologetics.



packabacka said:


> They do not carry it out in their endeavors because they view reason/science/historical data as magisterial authorities rather than ministerial tools.


This seems more an *attitude* to me than a method. For example, I think one’s theology should determine their philosophy, not the other way around. Of course they influence each other, but I think you get the idea. Sometimes people will think the text says one thing, but science says another, so they go with science. That would be autonomous in my book. But I don't see how an argument as such is an attitude. 



> If God’s word is contradictory, I wouldn’t believe it. If the concept of God is contradictory, I would not believe in God. Am I being autonomous? In Greg Bahnsen’s debate against Stein, he says, “If there were no arguments for the existence of God, I wouldn’t believe in God”, and “Rationally speaking, if there is no basis for believing in the existence of God, I would relinquish that believe”. Was Greg Bahnsen being autonomous?





packabacka said:


> Regarding Bahnsen's comment, of course we would not believe in Christianity if it weren't rational. But that doesn't mean that it's the _primary_ reason we believe in it.


I agree, and I don’t see how the use of traditional arguments for God’s existence presuppose rationality is the primary reason for believing in God either. 



> I don’t see how arguing at the presuppositional level is going to make the unbeliever say that any more than a combined approach of evidential and presuppositional arguments would.





packabacka said:


> If you argue evidentially, using the piecemeal method -- building from the ground up -- you will inevitably never reach the whole of Christianity (either with probability or with certainty). You can prove that a deity exists if the unbeliever allows it, etc., and as I said you can even prove that a man named Jesus Christ rose from the dead (if the unbeliever lets you get that far without imposing his standards), but you _cannot_ prove to him Christ's deity, the Trinity, the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, or any other specific doctrine or story from the Bible unless you prove its theological implications to him. All I can say regarding that is, "Good luck crossing Lessing's ditch.”



Right, well I didn’t advocate using just the piecemeal method, I advocate a cumulative case argument which uses presuppositional *&* evidential arguments. 





packabacka said:


> Ah, yes, my apologies. You were arguing that presupposing God's existence in natural theology begged the question. I would agree, because natural theologians (in the Thomistic/evidentialist vein at least) do not accept God as axiomatic, the propriety of which is the topic of discussion.


No problem. I should clarify that using “God exists” as a premise in the argument would beg the question, but I don’t even think TAG does this. 



packabacka said:


> I do believe that a statement such as "Please explain how this is not autonomous reasoning" would be more proper, edifying, and wholesome for discussion or even debate. (Alternatively, I apologize if this is not how you were planning to come across; I also apologize if I delivered the same tone elsewhere.)


I was just using some sarcasm. Lighten up buttercup ;-). I apologize if you found it offensive, but that wasn’t my intent. 



packabacka said:


> Regarding the actual substance of your comment, I am still not using reason to establish God's authority. TAG does not establish the truthfulness of Christianity. The Bible's truth is already established by the Bible itself, as a self-attesting authority. It is proof of itself. TAG is merely an elaboration of what Scripture says, used for persuasion.


You are using reason to establish God’s authority if by demonstrating the falsity of other worldviews you are arguing that Christianity makes better sense out of reality. I also am skeptical of TAG being used as persuasion. In fact I think atheists find it very unpersuasive (although I think the argument is sound). 



packabacka said:


> But who is to tell the materialist what is probable and what is improbable? And further, who is to tell him that such an improbable event (if it can be proved to be improbable by his standard) somehow leads to metaphysical or theological significance?


For the sake of argument we could see what follows from the unbelievers presuppositions, given a claim or sample of evidence. As to the second question, if the unbelievers presuppositions lead to an astronomically low probability of an event occurring, but the event fits in nicely (to state the least!) with the Christian worldview, and the event actually did occur, I don’t see why it wouldn’t have metaphysical or theological significance. Surely it would. 



packabacka said:


> The upshot is that he has no rational coercion, as long as his presupposition is unchallenged, to actually cite a bodily resurrection from the dead as the Resurrection of the Christ. You have to attack the source, his sinful presupposition.


Of course it might not persuade him, if that is what you mean by rational coercion. But it should give him good reason to “actually cite a bodily resurrection from the dead as the Resurrection of the Christ.


packabacka said:


> My point is that you could not prove actual design at the downfall of other options without proving the explicit existence of the Designer himself; hence the traditional teleological arguments are necessarily question-begging.
> 
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. How else would you prove actual design rather than apparent design?


Say the argument in a terribly brute form goes, 
1. If Design, then God
2. Design, 
Therefore, God. 
This is a valid modus ponens argument (If P, then Q. P, therefore Q), so I don’t see how it is necessarily question begging. The crucial premise to prove is that the design is actual and not just apparent. 
The the moral argument for God’s existence as an example. 
1. If objective morality, then God
2. Objective morality,
Therefore, God. 
The crucial premise to prove in this argument is that objective morality is actual and not just apparent (or illusory, whatever). Hope that helps. 


> I fail to see how “throwing the alien explanation to the realm of chance” would solve the problem I posed.





packabacka said:


> Well, how much would have to be known about the aliens for them to be a plausible explanation -- and, too, by what standard could you make such a claim? In fact, what reason would the naturalist have to explain anything about them, besides the fact that the aliens dropped life off here on Earth? There could be some ridiculously efficient (and abiogenetic) super-evolution process on another planet which we know nothing about. We don't have to know the aliens entirely to posit them as candidates for a naturalistic origin of life.


If they are beings like us, and we were designed, it is curious they would be brought about by evolution and not us. Again, it’s possible, but what other evidence would make it probable? Besides just stating we were designed by them, I don’t see any. Anyway, this is irrelevant to my main point. 
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I have other things on my mind lately, and debating apologetic methodology on an internet forum is not my highest priority.

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 08:44:34 EST-----

bump

-----Added 12/5/2008 at 11:38:58 EST-----

packabacka, it seems that on the one hand you want to say that arguments *for* the Christian God's existence (the Christian worldview basically) set up reason as an authority over God, but on the other hand you want to use TAG (for "persuasion"). In using TAG, you are arguing against non-Christian worldviews. 

Say the Christian worldview is P. The set of all non-Christian worldviews is ~P. In using TAG, you are arguing ~~P (not not P). The problem is (for you) ~~P is the same as P, so in arguing against the non-Christian worldviews, you are arguing *for* the Christian God's existence. In other words, Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of reality, ethics, etc. So, you can either give up TAG because it is an argument using reason *for* the Christian worldview, or you can keep TAG and give up your presumption that arguments *for* the Christian wordview using reason set up reason as an authority over God. But, if you give up the latter, then this undercuts your argument against natural theology, or at the very least your argument against positive apologetics.


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> This seems more an *attitude* to me than a method.



Well...it's not. When people use reason, science, or historical data as if they were independent from God and could justify belief in His existence _solely on their terms_, then it is a method and not merely an attitude. One cannot treat God as authoritative when studying His Word and then treat other things as authoritative when arguing with nonbelievers.



> I agree, and I don’t see how the use of traditional arguments for God’s existence presuppose rationality is the primary reason for believing in God either.



That's not the problem with traditional arguments. In fact, the topic of this part of the post was whether presup has an autonomous methodology.



> Right, well I didn’t advocate using just the piecemeal method, I advocate a cumulative case argument which uses presuppositional *&* evidential arguments.



Would you mind going through your methodology with that? As far as I can see, there is no coherent way to merge evidentialism as you have promoted and presuppositionalism. I also don't see how a cumulative case apologetic could get the unbeliever to embrace all of Christianity without previously accepting Christian presuppositions ("Why should I accept this verse? Why this verse?" etc.).



> I was just using some sarcasm. Lighten up buttercup ;-). I apologize if you found it offensive, but that wasn’t my intent.



Cool.



> You are using reason to establish God’s authority if by demonstrating the falsity of other worldviews you are arguing that Christianity makes better sense out of reality. I also am skeptical of TAG being used as persuasion. In fact I think atheists find it very unpersuasive (although I think the argument is sound).



No, God's authority is established by the mere fact of His authority. God clearly exists to all men (Rom. 1), and the Bible is clearly God's Word. God's Word is proof of itself. When I use TAG, then, I am merely elaborating on a claim which the Bible makes (i.e. that God is sovereign over everything and demands our submission). Atheists should believe in God not because of TAG but because of the Bible's self-attestation. And apologetics can be an avenue for regeneration so that the atheist's eyes may be opened to God's Word.

Regarding persuasion, I'm not saying that in the sense that it's the most persuasive of all arguments ever, but merely that that is the role it serves. Telling an atheist that the Bible is God's Word because it is -- while it would be absolutely correct -- is not rationally persuasive.



> For the sake of argument we could see what follows from the unbelievers presuppositions, given a claim or sample of evidence. As to the second question, if the unbelievers presuppositions lead to an astronomically low probability of an event occurring, but the event fits in nicely (to state the least!) with the Christian worldview, and the event actually did occur, I don’t see why it wouldn’t have metaphysical or theological significance. Surely it would.



Don't underestimate total depravity. My point is that unbelievers need not accept that the resurrection is so astronomically low, but even if they did, they would not have to accept that God exists. Why? Because they have already presupposed that His existence is _impossible_! Even with extremely low chances of a materialistic resurrection, Christianity is lower on the atheist's list. This entire problem stems from autonomous reasoning, where the unbeliever may simply make his own standard of what is probable and improbable and go from there. You're assuming some neutral or fair standard which all men accept, but that does not exist. The fact that some people will come to different interpretations given the same event should be evidence enough that people have different standards of probability, among other things.



> Of course it might not persuade him, if that is what you mean by rational coercion. But it should give him good reason to “actually cite a bodily resurrection from the dead as the Resurrection of the Christ.



I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. If he is not persuaded to be a Christian, then he would not identify the resurrection as being the resurrection of the Christ -- by that I mean he won't accept the theological implications.



> Say the argument in a terribly brute form goes,
> 1. If Design, then God
> 2. Design,
> Therefore, God.
> This is a valid modus ponens argument (If P, then Q. P, therefore Q), so I don’t see how it is necessarily question begging. The crucial premise to prove is that the design is actual and not just apparent.



Besides the question of logic existing in a framework outside of God, I'll get into what I see as begging the question: both premises. (1) Assumes that God must be the explanation of design. Why not a magic rabbit in the sky? Why not some extremely complex naturalistic mechanism (evolution)? Why not aliens? The possibilities are quite large, and God is far from being a top candidate. What is obvious from the premise is your biblical presuppositions. If the Bible did not exist, or if you had never read the Bible, would you create that first premise? I highly doubt that you would.

Second, the problem is, as you said, proving that design is actual and not apparent. How can one _possibly_ go about proving actual design? Whenever we prove actual design on this planet, we always point to some past example of an actual designer making an actual design (e.g. a watchmaker and a watch). The only way to prove actual design in this universe would be to point to some precedent of a universe designer, in which case you would already have won the argument. Actual design cannot be established without precedent, and therefore no unobservable designer can be induced from a perception of design.

The same problems occur with the argument from morality, although I think that actual morality can be proven (since God by His common grace has restrained men from destroying their consciences completely). I just don't think we can prove any sort of god, or any god resembling our God, from the argument.



> If they are beings like us, and we were designed, it is curious they would be brought about by evolution and not us. Again, it’s possible, but what other evidence would make it probable?



(1) Who says they're like us? Why is carbon-based life so significant? (2) Probable according to whose standard?



> packabacka, it seems that on the one hand you want to say that arguments *for* the Christian God's existence (the Christian worldview basically) set up reason as an authority over God, but on the other hand you want to use TAG (for "persuasion"). In using TAG, you are arguing against non-Christian worldviews.



No, arguments which use reason outside of the Christian framework are establishing reason as authoritative over God. Using reason is not immoral _per se_, far from it.

Further, I am not trying to justify belief with TAG -- to do so would make human reason superior to God. Belief in God (or rather, belief in the Bible as God's Word) is due to God's Word's self-attestation, and TAG is an elaboration of what the Bible already authoritatively says, yet with more persuasion.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

> Right, well I didn’t advocate using just the piecemeal method, I advocate a cumulative case argument which uses presuppositional *&* evidential arguments.





packabacka said:


> Would you mind going through your methodology with that? As far as I can see, there is no coherent way to merge evidentialism as you have promoted and presuppositionalism.


The methodology would be that theology determines one’s philosophy, and not vice versa. Arguments for God’s existence do not have to be only at the presuppositional level. Evidences can be used. 


packabacka said:


> I also don't see how a cumulative case apologetic could get the unbeliever to embrace all of Christianity without previously accepting Christian presuppositions ("Why should I accept this verse? Why this verse?" etc.).


The cumulative case argument would include presuppositional arguments. 


> You are using reason to establish God’s authority if by demonstrating the falsity of other worldviews you are arguing that Christianity makes better sense out of reality. I also am skeptical of TAG being used as persuasion. In fact I think atheists find it very unpersuasive (although I think the argument is sound).





packabacka said:


> When I use TAG, then, I am merely elaborating on a claim which the Bible makes (i.e. that God is sovereign over everything and demands our submission). Atheists should believe in God not because of TAG but because of the Bible's self-attestation. And apologetics can be an avenue for regeneration so that the atheist's eyes may be opened to God's Word.


Okay, then when I use traditional arguments for God’s existence, I am merely elaborating on a claim which the bible makes (viz. that God exists). 


packabacka said:


> My point is that unbelievers need not accept that the resurrection is so astronomically low, but even if they did, they would not have to accept that God exists. Why? Because they have already presupposed that His existence is impossible!


On Naturalistic assumptions surely the probability of such an event as the resurrection would be low. Things like that don’t happen very often (to say the least!). By itself they need not accept that God exists from the argument, but the event taken by itself has a much higher probability on the Christian worldview than it does on a non-Christian worldview. I think the argument should be used in conjunction with other presuppositional arguments. 


packabacka said:


> Besides the question of logic existing in a framework outside of God, I'll get into what I see as begging the question: both premises. (1) Assumes that God must be the explanation of design.


Yes, I should have stated the argument as, 
If design, then a Designer. 
Design. 
Therefore, a Designer. Properly stated, the design argument gets by your first objection. 


packabacka said:


> Second, the problem is, as you said, proving that design is actual and not apparent. How can one possibly go about proving actual design? Whenever we prove actual design on this planet, we always point to some past example of an actual designer making an actual design (e.g. a watchmaker and a watch).


Okay, so an argument from analogy, like you proposed. 



packabacka said:


> No, arguments which use reason outside of the Christian framework are establishing reason as authoritative over God.


How do traditional arguments use reason outside of a Christian framework?


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> The methodology would be that theology determines one’s philosophy, and not vice versa. Arguments for God’s existence do not have to be only at the presuppositional level. Evidences can be used.



Would you use "evidences" in the same way that evidentialists use them?



> Okay, then when I use traditional arguments for God’s existence, I am merely elaborating on a claim which the bible makes (viz. that God exists).



Traditional arguments do not do that. They argue from causation or design or morals to God. They do not start with God's existence in the least. You are not elaborating on any claim in Scripture; you are trying to prove it from outside Scripture.



> On Naturalistic assumptions surely the probability of such an event as the resurrection would be low. Things like that don’t happen very often (to say the least!). By itself they need not accept that God exists from the argument, but the event taken by itself has a much higher probability on the Christian worldview than it does on a non-Christian worldview. I think the argument should be used in conjunction with other presuppositional arguments.



Now, you arbitrarily connected two statements here: "a bodily resurrection is improbable in a naturalistic worldview" and "a bodily resurrection is more likely in a Christian worldview." While it is true that a naturalist will give a low chance to a bodily resurrection, his presupposition necessitates that he give _zero_ chance to anything with theological significance. You make it sound as if the Christian worldview is some type of addition to the naturalistic worldview rather than a complete repentance.

Put another way -- the naturalistic worldview is entirely false, because it believes that _everything_ exists apart from God's sovereign hand. Therefore, to say that any part of it is true is wrong. Therefore, to say that one ought to accept the resurrection on naturalistic presuppositions is wrong, because it would presume that some part of the naturalistic worldview is true.

I know, you've said that you'll offer both presuppositional and evidential arguments, but...that's not really possible. You would be contradicting yourself, telling him that on one hand his presuppositions are entirely acceptable and on the other hand they are offensive to a holy God.



> Yes, I should have stated the argument as,
> If design, then a Designer.
> Design.
> Therefore, a Designer. Properly stated, the design argument gets by your first objection.



The correction makes it logically coherent, but not much more. By changing "God" to "Designer," you have weakened it to the point where it doesn't take a single step towards God. Why not evolution, or aliens, or some natural cause? Why a supernatural designer?



> Okay, so an argument from analogy, like you proposed.



The reason I proposed analogies is because they are often (falsely) brought up as ways to "prove" cosmic design. The only way to prove actual design rather than apparent design is by precedent, which is impossible given we don't have a precedent for creating the universe. _That_ is why I brought up the analogy.



> How do traditional arguments use reason outside of a Christian framework?



They assume that the Christian framework is not necessary when they use reason. E.g. "Hey, atheist, you like logic and I like logic too! Let's see if given logic, God exists as a corollary!" In doing so, they are not finding common ground; they are granting the atheist that his presupposition is correct (i.e. that God is not sovereign, especially over human reasoning).


----------



## Cheshire Cat

packabacka said:


> Would you use "evidences" in the same way that evidentialists use them?


I would use the same arguments. 


packabacka said:


> Traditional arguments do not do that. They argue from causation or design or morals to God. They do not start with God's existence in the least. You are not elaborating on any claim in Scripture; you are trying to prove it from outside Scripture.


What do you mean by “start with God’s existence”? TAG doesn’t start with God’s existence, in the sense that “God exists” is a premise in the argument. 


packabacka said:


> Now, you arbitrarily connected two statements here: "a bodily resurrection is improbable in a naturalistic worldview" and "a bodily resurrection is more likely in a Christian worldview." While it is true that a naturalist will give a low chance to a bodily resurrection, his presupposition necessitates that he give zero chance to anything with theological significance.


They were not arbitrarily connected. Suppose the argument shows a bodily resurrection occurred (given your “even if it was proved” hypothetical). The Christian worldview makes perfect sense out of this event given its context, whereas the naturalistic view does not at all. So that is reason to accept the Christian worldview, so it has theological significance. 


packabacka said:


> I know, you've said that you'll offer both presuppositional and evidential arguments, but...that's not really possible. You would be contradicting yourself, telling him that on one hand his presuppositions are entirely acceptable and on the other hand they are offensive to a holy God.


No, one argument would be on the presuppositional level and one would not. The use of the arguments as such says nothing as to whether the unbeliever’s presuppositions are “acceptable or offensive to a holy God”. 


packabacka said:


> The correction makes it logically coherent, but not much more.


Even before the ‘correction’ it was not logically incoherent. It took the form of a modus ponens. Ya know, If P, then Q. P, therefore, Q. Nothing logically incoherent about that. 


packabacka said:


> By changing "God" to "Designer," you have weakened it to the point where it doesn't take a single step towards God. Why not evolution, or aliens, or some natural cause? Why a supernatural designer?


Yes, it would take a big step towards God, as God is a designer. Evolution is not design. It’s possible that it could be aliens from the design argument alone, but then we would have to analyze the aliens and see if they are entities which display design. If so, it pushes the problem back a step. 
I think you have an unrealistically high view of what a argument should be. “If it doesn’t prove every aspect of the entity 100%, then it proves nothing”!. Here is news for you, no philosophical argument will do that. 


packabacka said:


> The reason I proposed analogies is because they are often (falsely) brought up as ways to "prove" cosmic design.


What is wrong with an argument from analogy for design? 


> How do traditional arguments use reason outside of a Christian framework?





packabacka said:


> They assume that the Christian framework is not necessary when they use reason. E.g. "Hey, atheist, you like logic and I like logic too! Let's see if given logic, God exists as a corollary!" In doing so, they are not finding common ground; they are granting the atheist that his presupposition is correct (i.e. that God is not sovereign, especially over human reasoning).


Nice, so TAG is outside the Christian framework according to your criteria. “Hey atheist, take some fact of experience, logic. Let’s see if given logic, God exists!” Poor Tagsters, they didn’t even know they were being Anti-Christian!


----------



## Confessor

Cheshire Cat said:


> What do you mean by “start with God’s existence”? TAG doesn’t start with God’s existence, in the sense that “God exists” is a premise in the argument.



TAG shows that the Bible as a starting point makes life, knowledge, facts, etc. coherent and intelligible. All other starting points do not. So yes, it does have "God exists" as a premise of the argument. When we show that others do not work, we start with "God does not exist" and show that how that destroys any kind of knowledge whatsoever.



> They were not arbitrarily connected. Suppose the argument shows a bodily resurrection occurred (given your “even if it was proved” hypothetical). The Christian worldview makes perfect sense out of this event given its context, whereas the naturalistic view does not at all. So that is reason to accept the Christian worldview, so it has theological significance.



My point is that it still fits perfectly in the naturalistic worldview. They can deem it a natural, though uncommon, event. Then you said that it is "more probable" in a Christian worldview, but this presupposes some external standard of probability (separate from our core axioms) which doesn't honestly exist.



> No, one argument would be on the presuppositional level and one would not. The use of the arguments as such says nothing as to whether the unbeliever’s presuppositions are “acceptable or offensive to a holy God”.



TAG is based on the fact that the unbeliever's presuppositions are absolutely false and antitheistic. Evidential arguments are based on the fact that unbeliever's presuppositions are neutral and acceptable. These are not reconcilable propositions. You would be confusing the unbeliever if you did this. (I think you might be confusing TAG with the argument from reason or from morals or something, possibly.)



> Even before the ‘correction’ it was not logically incoherent. It took the form of a modus ponens. Ya know, If P, then Q. P, therefore, Q. Nothing logically incoherent about that.



Well, it was unsound (not invalid) which is what I was getting at. The premise that God exists because there is (actual) design in the universe is a _non sequitur_.



> Yes, it would take a big step towards God, as God is a designer. Evolution is not design. It’s possible that it could be aliens from the design argument alone, but then we would have to analyze the aliens and see if they are entities which display design. If so, it pushes the problem back a step.
> I think you have an unrealistically high view of what a argument should be. “If it doesn’t prove every aspect of the entity 100%, then it proves nothing”!. Here is news for you, no philosophical argument will do that.



"It's possible that it could be [God] from the design argument alone, but then we would have to analyze [God] and see if they are entities which display design."

And evolution absolutely is a designer, in theory of course. People believe that there was a primordial soup, out of which came all life forms. That certainly constitutes a designer. Of course, I think that it is ridiculous, but evolution is nonetheless a designing concept. And it can be cosmological, geographical, biological, you name it -- materialists love to put everything in context of some type of evolution.



> What is wrong with an argument from analogy for design?



Because all the analogies you offer have some type of precedent (e.g. all watches we know are made by watchmakers). There is no precedent on the cosmic level -- no one has observed other universes which were not designed and can tell the difference between an actually designed one and another. In fact, the only way one could know of actual design is if the Designer told him, more proof that we should start _from_ the Bible.



> Nice, so TAG is outside the Christian framework according to your criteria. “Hey atheist, take some fact of experience, logic. Let’s see if given logic, God exists!” Poor Tagsters, they didn’t even know they were being Anti-Christian!



It's not. I acknowledge that God has to exist for my argument to function from the get-go.


----------

