difference between Evidential and Presuppositionalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
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-----
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
 
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.
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?

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.

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?""
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
 
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. :cool: 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.

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.

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

Because God's witness is crystal clear.
Really, and it’s not suppressed by sin?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.
 
Because God's witness is crystal clear.
Really, and it’s not suppressed by sin?

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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?

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.
 
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.

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?

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.

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.



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.

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.

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).

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.

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.
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.

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?
 
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).
 
Would you use "evidences" in the same way that evidentialists use them?
I would use the same arguments.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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!
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top