I feel like presup is mostly pointless

Status
Not open for further replies.

jubalsqaud

Puritan Board Freshman
It seems there are only two ways there can be a account of revelation

God reveals to you that there exist a explanation for X but doesnt tell you WHAT the explanation is

or

God reveals to you that there is a explanation of X and also that the explanation for X is Y

If option 1 you know that the laws of logic depend on god but you dont know how.

if 2 you know that the laws of logic depend on god because he told you divine conceptualism is true. (or whatever other answer he gave)

If 1 then the proof is useless apologetically, as its not publicly accessible

if 2 then you should be able prove from the laws of logic that conceptualism is true.

So why even bother with presup?

option 2 is the only useful option and if you have option two you could just prove god exists
 
I’m anti presup but I’m not following. Even classical guys like myself believe logic depends on God in the order of being.
 
The word ‘feel’ in your title is rather revealing when it comes to evidential vs presup.
 
I’m anti presup but I’m not following. Even classical guys like myself believe logic depends on God in the order of being.
Right, but thats not the issue

Presup wants to show "Without God you can't account for X"

These debates usually end with presup people asking "how do you know that" ad nausem until they (non-christian)rely on there mind producing concepts then they say "but you could be wrong ha ha I win"

The problem is this method is not a proof for "Without God you can't account for X"

You the speaker either know the way God accounts for X or you dont

If you dont then your blowing smoke, you don't have the capacity to prove that "Without God you can't account for X"

If 2 then why use the script at all? You literally have proof of god and your not using it
 
My limited experience in discussions concerning presuppositionalism is that lack of a common understanding of what it is leads to unfruitful discussion. I know that Van Til is largely regarded as more or less the father of presuppositionalism, and maybe he is. However, it seems to me that much of what he was saying was said earlier by Abraham Kuyper. At any rate, I find Van Til's writing to be a challenge for a number of reasons. I recommend that if someone is interested in the subject he start by reading "By What Standard" by Rousas Rushdoony. Forget whatever prejudice you may have against his views on Theonomy, Rushdoony's book is a very helpful discussion of the basics of presuppositionalism. As a writer, Rushdoony is much more approachable than Van Til.

One other point that I would like to make is this. I don't think that the "classical" vs presuppositional apologetics debate is very helpful. I think that both sides have something worth saying; both have their place. Personally, I think that presuppostionalism is helpful, not so much for apologetics but for an understanding of Christian epistemology. I find it to be the most Biblically consistent basis for understanding what we know and how we know it.
 
If "you can't account for X without God" was the only part of presup, you might have a point. It isn't. The heart of the method is the "proof is in the pudding" or the impossibility of the contrary argument. Based on unbelief's presuppositions, they cannot build a coherent structure on top. So presup points out the disconnect between the presupposition and the building the unbeliever is attempting to pile on top of his shaky foundation. Then, the Christian shows how the Christian presuppositions allow one to build consistently on top of that foundation. I think you are narrowing down presup to one single issue that is not at the heart of presup.
 
The problem is this method is not a proof for "Without God you can't account for X"

You the speaker either know the way God accounts for X or you dont

I think I see what you are getting at. If I can restate the issue,

You are saying in order for "Without God you can't account for x" to work, one must know the way God accounts for x.

Is that what you are saying?
 
I think I see what you are getting at. If I can restate the issue,

You are saying in order for "Without God you can't account for x" to work, one must know the way God accounts for x.

Is that what you are saying?
Yes.

90% of the time when I encounter presuppositionalist the conversation plays out like this.

Pre-sup "only God can account for x"

Atheist "what's the proof of that"

Presup "how could a non-mind account for it"

Atheist "that's not a proof"

Presup "well first you have to tell me about your worldview"


The presup is mistaken

He should be able to account for the laws of logic without reference to the opponents worldview.

He should be able to say exactly what would be missing from any worldview that denied a mind was ultimate.
 
Yes.

90% of the time when I encounter presuppositionalist the conversation plays out like this.

Pre-sup "only God can account for x"

Atheist "what's the proof of that"

Presup "how could a non-mind account for it"

Atheist "that's not a proof"

Presup "well first you have to tell me about your worldview"


The presup is mistaken

He should be able to account for the laws of logic without reference to the opponents worldview.

He should be able to say exactly what would be missing from any worldview that denied a mind was ultimate.
That is not a problem with presuppositionalism per se. That is a problem, though, for those varieties of presuppositionalism which try to make an impossibility to the contrary argument without reference to Scripture as a or their basis for knowledge claims.

What you are describing is why I find Gordon Clark's foundationalist approach more attractive than what you're describing, i.e. {my former impression of} Van Til's transcendental argument. I agree with Ron Digiacomo, however, who thinks Bahnsen synthesized transcendental arguments with acknowledging Scripture as our foundation for knowledge.
 
I do sympathize with you, however. I've had similar experiences when talking about transcendental arguments with those are more so in the Van Til camp of presuppositionalism:

 
I do sympathize with you, however. I've had similar experiences when talking about transcendental arguments with those are more so in the Van Til camp of presuppositionalism:


I read through some of your links and I agree with some concerns you raised. If I understand some of the things you have said, it seems that the Scriptures are a fifth wheel for TAG. In other words, and this is from my own observations, it's not clear why a Romanist or EO can't say, "Unless you presuppose our tradition, you can't make sense of the Scriptures."
 
These objections have all been answered many times on the Reformed Forum and in VT's own writings. Presup accounts for the laws of logic quite simply: they come from God. Bahnsen said this in his debate with Stein. What is always missing from any form of unbelief is consistency between presupposition and worldview built on top of the presuppositions. That is always exactly what is missing. Lots of strawmen being erected on this thread.
 
These objections have all been answered many times on the Reformed Forum and in VT's own writings. Presup accounts for the laws of logic quite simply: they come from God. Bahnsen said this in his debate with Stein.
As a classical apologist, I agree. Logic depends on God in the order of being.

That said, I've never met a human being who found the need to "account for logic" to be a rather pressing one. I'm aware of the scholarly literature on the topic.
 
@RamistThomist all these talk here reminds me of Fesko's Reforming Apologetics which you reviewed..

Oh boy. Had Van Tillians simply said that we start with God in the order of being but logic in the order of knowing, all would have been fine. I don't think TAG is a good argument, and the average unbeliever will have no idea what I am talking about, but I don't attack it anymore.

And had Van Tillians simply said that axioms do not have to be proven within a system, which everyone since Aristotle already knew, they could have saved themselves a lot of grief.
 
That said, I've never met a human being who found the need to "account for logic" to be a rather pressing one.
Most human beings have never found the need to have their sins atoned for a rather pressing one, either. So do we just stop preaching the gospel?
 
Most human beings have never found the need to have their sins atoned for a rather pressing one, either. So do we just stop preaching the gospel?

That assumes the two are similar, and they are not. As I showed in a recent discussion on justifying our beliefs, even on Bahnsen's account of knowledge as JTB (Van Til: Readings & Analysis 178), I can know something truly without having to give a justification for how I know it. The act of knowing is akin to an achievement of sorts. I can meet all the conditions for knowing x without accounting for how I know x.
 
I read through some of your links and I agree with some concerns you raised. If I understand some of the things you have said, it seems that the Scriptures are a fifth wheel for TAG. In other words, and this is from my own observations, it's not clear why a Romanist or EO can't say, "Unless you presuppose our tradition, you can't make sense of the Scriptures."
My point has less to do with parity of reasoning arguments non-Christians may make in response to a TAG and more to do with what certain Christian apologists fail to answer when making certain, strong knowledge claims.

That is, the OP is correct in that it has also been my experience that when an atheist, say, asks for a TAG user to explain how he knows that "only the Christian God accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility" (or some such phrasal), all too often, we see TAG users respond with a deflecting question in which they ask about the atheist's worldview. Such questions/responses do not answer how the Christian himself actually knows that "only the Christian God accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility."
 
That assumes the two are similar, and they are not. As I showed in a recent discussion on justifying our beliefs, even on Bahnsen's account of knowledge as JTB (Van Til: Readings & Analysis 178), I can know something truly without having to give a justification for how I know it. The act of knowing is akin to an achievement of sorts. I can meet all the conditions for knowing x without accounting for how I know x.
Link?
 
Oh boy. Had Van Tillians simply said that we start with God in the order of being but logic in the order of knowing, all would have been fine. I don't think TAG is a good argument, and the average unbeliever will have no idea what I am talking about, but I don't attack it anymore.
I don't think the traditional classical arguments are convincing to a non-believer, because logic is not the problem: rebellion is.
And had Van Tillians simply said that axioms do not have to be proven within a system, which everyone since Aristotle already knew, they could have saved themselves a lot of grief.
VT says that axioms cannot be proven within a system. They are presumed. I am not sure where you are getting this, but it isn't from Van Tillians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top