# Evidence of God



## Hippo (Apr 22, 2008)

I have been attempting to get to grips with presupositionalism and am finding it all very interesting. I am finding Van Til a bit hard to get to grips with but I did find his analysis of mans sin in eating from the tree of knowledge (in "the defence of the faith") to be jaw droppingly good. 

Am I correct in saying that when a non christian says that there is no evidence of a God the presupositional Christian would counter by saying that there is clear proof of God (i.e. creation) but the non Christian does not recognise this evidence due to his own presuppositions?


----------



## Mathetes (Apr 22, 2008)

In a nutshell, the presuppositionalist would say that the greatest proof of the existence of God is the impossibility of the contrary.

edit: and yes, the anti-theist cannot properly recognize the evidence due to his presuppositions, but it's not enough to leave it there. Otherwise, the argument for both worldviews would be at a standstill. Rather, the best question to pose is which worldview can survive an internal critique?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 22, 2008)

Mathetes said:


> In a nutshell, the presuppositionalist would say that the greatest proof of the existence of God is the impossibility of the contrary.


 
This is true. The God of the Scriptures is the best explanation for the world in which we live. All other theories are impossible, and therefore can be shown to lead to contradiction (since man retains the image of God, we can show this by reducing their arguments to absurdity).

Pro 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, 
Lest you also be like him. 
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, 
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.


----------



## danmpem (Apr 22, 2008)

I wish I knew more about presuppositionalism; I am more familiar with the evidential territory.


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2008)

> Am I correct in saying that when a non christian says that there is no evidence of a God the presupositional Christian would counter by saying that there is clear proof of God (i.e. creation) but the non Christian does not recognise this evidence due to his own presuppositions?



I had this discussion this evening my wife. Why doesn't the unbeliever recognize the evidence of God? Two passages come to mind.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 

1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 

The unbeliever is incapable of understanding "the things of the Spirit of God." This would include natural revelation. The unbeliever remains in this state unless God changes the status quo.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 22, 2008)

danmpem said:


> I wish I knew more about presuppositionalism; I am more familiar with the evidential territory.



Check out "Always Ready" by Bahnsen; I have long thought that was a very good presentation of a presuppositionalist approach to apologetics. Frame has a decent book, too - "Apologetics to the Glory of God", which I haven't read - and Pratt's "Every Thought Captive" is a very short introduction to the same. Finally, you have to get "The Defense of the Faith" by Van Til himself. If you really want to dig deeper, get Banshen's "Van Til's Apologetic"


----------



## Mathetes (Apr 23, 2008)

Bahnsen's book on Van Til does a good job of summing up why and how non-Christian philosophy has not been able to harmonize universals with particulars.

At any rate, I feel that the presuppositionalist argument is very strong - the notion that, absent God, the notion of "proof" itself would be impossible. That only the existence of God can explain logic, numbers, minds, universals, particulars, infinites, etc. But I think the presuppositionalist needs to be ready to study their philosophy in-depth - some have been guilty on relying on snappy answers without much depth. So if the unbeliever asks where is the proof that God is the source of logic, abstracts, etc., then you should have an answer ready.


----------



## danmpem (Apr 23, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I knew more about presuppositionalism; I am more familiar with the evidential territory.
> ...



Hmm, are these books talking _about_ apologetics, or are the authors actually apologeticizing in them?


----------



## Mathetes (Apr 23, 2008)

Always Ready displays some interaction with the arguments of unbelievers, but the rest of them are not, as far as I know, debate-oriented.


----------

