Originally posted by puritansailor
I studied epistlemology a long time ago. It is not an easy subject. I do know that words have definition. Some things are concrete. That is something to work from. Redifining words is how we end up with Liberal Theologians. i.e. N.T. Wrights definition of the righteousness of God.
Randy, you also have to keep in mind that even though these words have a basic meaning which you may find in the dictionary, they can take on more nuance and specific applications in the various communities in which they are used. Presuppositionalism is fighting in the community of philosophy, hence the more philosophical spin on their words.
Let's take for example the word "format."
For computer folks, it becomes a verb indicating the rearranging of your disk, or a noun as the layout of a program.
For philosophers it is the structure of debate and discussion.
For publishers, it is the structure and layout of the printed text.
The same basic meaning, but difference applications within the community it is used.
If you want to understand Bahnsen and VanTil, you have to do more than just read the dictionary, but understand the context in which they are arguing. If you tried to read a technical manual for the electrical system of a nuclear powered steam turbine, you would be thrown for a loop because the words would seem foreign, and the dictionary would not help you one bit. You would have to first learn the vocab use in that tech field.
This, I think is one of the main obstacles to Evidentialists and Presuppositionalist coming to agreement over many things. Evidentialism tends to have a larger following among the laymen and speak in more simple language. They try to read Vantil (if they've even heard of him) and it's a completely foreign language. But a philosophy student would know exactly what VanTil is saying.
All this to say, that we all need to exercise more caution and patience to ensure we understand what the other is saying before we jump to incorrect conclusions and strain fellowship with brothers who would otherwise agree if we understood each other better.
I understand that. I even understand that you define a word in context also. But I am sure that my point still stands valid. I wasn't necessarily trying to understand Van Til or Bahnsen. I was asking some questions about Presup based upon common knowledge which is the level most people operate on. I have heard the charges between Clark and Van Til. I read about them years ago. I have forgotten so much. When Chris asked me what I thought of the quotes I read I said I agreed with what I read. I am sure others could bring out other things that they disagree with concerning Van Til that I may find rather existential in nature.
My main concern in my original question was why don't we get on the same page and acknowledge that evidence is important as well as a persons presuppositions.