# The supernatural and presuppostional arguments



## VanVos (May 25, 2004)

I've been reading some of Bahnsen's articles on skeptic view of the supernatural and he seems to use a presuppostional apologetic to refute naturalism. But I don't quite understand how one could argue that the natural world presupposes the supernatural. Is it some how related to Paul's argument in Rom 1:18-20 that God power is seen by the things that are created?

I'm a presuppostionalist but I would like little insight on how it applies to this issue.

VanVos


----------



## VanVos (May 25, 2004)

Maybe I misunderstood him, but here's an article I was reading.

The Problem of Knowing the &quot;Super-Natural&quot;

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa107.htm

I was reading his argument for the reality of the metaphysics

What is glaringly obvious, then, is that the unbeliever rests upon and appeals to a metaphysical position in order to prove that there can be no metaphysical position known to be true! He ironically and inconsistently holds that nobody can know metaphysical truths, and yet he himself has enough metaphysical knowledge to declare that Christianity is wrong!

Is this presupposing something supernatural??? (something beyond the natural)

VanVos

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by VanVos]

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## VanVos (May 26, 2004)

*Is this presupposing something supernatural??? (something be*

In other words inorder to say the is no supernatural it would require supernatural knowledege because man's mind is finite and can not have infinite knowledge on all things. You most first presupposes the supernatural (which only consistently found in Christian Theism) in order to say the supernatural can't happen. 

VanVos


----------



## Preach (May 26, 2004)

&quot;Anti-Theism presupposes Theism&quot;. I wish Van Til would have said &quot;Anti-Christianity presupposes Christianity&quot;. But in the context and times Van Til was arguing, it worked.


----------

