FYI, presuppers don't argue on the basis of: "You know what? I'm going to just assume God. No need to argue!"
How do you respond to this response to a TAG?
- Thread starter Confessor
- Start date
- Status
FYI, presuppers don't argue on the basis of: "You know what? I'm going to just assume God. No need to argue!"
steven-nemes
Puritan Board Sophomore
What makes scripture a presupposition and all those things necessary for a worldview not?
I never said that...
I never said that...
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
What's the intrinsic characteristic of nature in the future? Uniformity? If so, how do you know this?
Brian Withnell
Puritan Board Junior
Several have stated something akin to what I'm going to post, but I want to add just a little of math and the fundamentals of logic to the mix.
Presuppositions are those thing that one takes as true without proof. They can be from having observed things and then assumed true, and they become the starting point for all other thought.
While Christians have an externally imposed presuppositional system imposed upon them from "outside" (i.e., the Spirit illuminating the word to the heart so the sinner is regenerated, convicted of sin, repents, turns to Christ and trusts him for salvation and life) we still have a presuppositional system. It cannot be proven in the sense of taking evidence and showing it is true.
Other presuppositional systems exist, but they are inherently false (the only world that can exist is the world that God created -- thanks CVT!). But within that world we learn that those that reject it do so despite the evidence to the contrary (Rom 1:18 and following ... for the next 9 chapters!
). Regardless of what we want to do, you cannot argue a person into believing. Don't try. Understand that if someone is extreme in their antagonism they aren't going to change in a day. The best argument would be to live a righteous life before them which points them to Christ.
Presuppositions are those thing that one takes as true without proof. They can be from having observed things and then assumed true, and they become the starting point for all other thought.
While Christians have an externally imposed presuppositional system imposed upon them from "outside" (i.e., the Spirit illuminating the word to the heart so the sinner is regenerated, convicted of sin, repents, turns to Christ and trusts him for salvation and life) we still have a presuppositional system. It cannot be proven in the sense of taking evidence and showing it is true.
Other presuppositional systems exist, but they are inherently false (the only world that can exist is the world that God created -- thanks CVT!). But within that world we learn that those that reject it do so despite the evidence to the contrary (Rom 1:18 and following ... for the next 9 chapters!
). Regardless of what we want to do, you cannot argue a person into believing. Don't try. Understand that if someone is extreme in their antagonism they aren't going to change in a day. The best argument would be to live a righteous life before them which points them to Christ.
steven-nemes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well I imagine a typical presuppositionalist conversation (and I've had a few myself) runs something like this:
Johnny Presup: How do you explain the fact that nature is uniform, that objective moral imperatives exist, and that the laws of logic exist and the universe operates according to them, according to your atheism?
Max Atheist: I don't know, how do you explain them?
Johnny Presup: Well I presuppose the existence of God, and those things are merely consequences of that presupposition.
Why not...
Max Atheist: I just presuppose the uniformity of nature and the laws of logic and objective moral values, that's why I can engage in scientific inquiry and write philosophy papers and go to political protests.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
As I said, this is a category error. Presupposing the proposition "science is intelligible" does not make science is intelligible, for you have to explain how it is. Not any proposition can be a presupposition. For instance:
Presupper -- Given my worldview, which presupposes God as the ultimate transcendent authority, I can make sense of science, for I have a good reason to believe that nature is uniform [because of a sovereign and immutable God who controls all of nature uniformly], that an objective universe exists [because a single God actually created it, per Gen. 1], that our senses our reliable [because they were created by a trustworthy God], etc. Scripture tells me all this.
Atheist -- Well, I just presuppose all those things by themselves without invoking God.
Presupper -- Those propositions which you are claiming to presuppose are corollaries of other propositions, and consequently they are provable or disprovable [since they can either be implied by something else or not]; therefore, they cannot be presuppositions, since presuppositions by definition cannot be proven or disproven by some other proposition other than themselves. Moreover, those propositions do not logically imply each other (e.g., "Nature is uniform" does not logically entail "Moral values exist"), and therefore each of those propositions cannot be a presupposition, lest you want to have several worldviews, all of which are incomplete. This is absurd. [That is the "floating pillars" fallacy.]
Atheist -- Well, why does God count as a presupposition, then? I have seen several disproofs of Him.
Presupper -- Some arguments attempt to disprove an immanent god, different from the God of the Bible. Such arguments try to show evidence of evolution which contradicts Genesis, but that only works because of a pre-established materialistic consistency. The only arguments which are not prima facie illegitimate are ones which attempt to disprove God by positing a logical inconsistency in Him (e.g. this), and that is because God is transcendent. Therefore, in order to have a true presupposition, you must have one which can only be destroyed from the inside.
Atheist -- Alright, sign me up.
By the way, the last response of the presuppositionalist is not at all inconsistent with the other article I provided ("The Necessity of External Consistency in Apologetics"), for I am not positing external consistency with some "neutral" facts which we acquire apart from our presuppositions. Rather, what I am positing is some undeniable facts which simply cannot be disbelieved (surely by God's common grace/providential benevolence), and therefore which are necessarily contained within a presupposition. Thus, the "undeniable facts" which I spoke about are not facts by themselves which we start with and then work our way towards a presupposition -- that is not the method at all -- rather, these facts are so undeniable that whatever worldview we have must include such facts as part of it, and that is how we point we out internal inconsistencies.
steven-nemes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well I don't know about your definition of a presupposition--what could an atheist or a Buddhist or a Jew possibly hold as a presupposition?
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
If the atheist were an empiricist, he could start with everything he sees and use that as his starting point (i.e., his ultimate starting point) of information. In other words,, his presupposition is simply perception.
A Buddhist and Jew could both start with their own holy texts, although both of them would probably hold an atheistic presupposition, such as empiricism (many Christians do this too, such as evidentialists, albeit inconsistently). If a Jew were to presuppose the Torah, the conversation would immediately become theological rather than purely philosophical as we show him the natural implication of Christianity which arises from consistent Judaism.
- Status
Similar threads
