I feel like presup is mostly pointless

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Not A is false" is the same thing as saying "A is true"

This is a potentially equivocal statement. The better phrasing would be "A is not false." That reduces the possibility of assuming a fallacious identity.

Meaning 1 (this is a fallacy):
B (is not) A. B is (not A). B is false. Therefore, (Not A) is false. Therefore A is true.

Meaning 2 (this is correct):
Not (A is false). Therefore A is true.

In other words: a negative argument (e.g. "Islam is false") does not imply a positive conclusion (e.g. "Christianity is true").
 
I mean "limit" in the sense that the average presupper has an already limited approach to apologetics. This is the case because Van Til specifically said he was using negative arguments.
Than why is it called an argument? You seem to be reducing the argument to only one of its aspects, the transcendental critique but is simply a straw man argument. I know of not one dingle presupper who would agree.
 
But it's only inconsistent if you take away his assumed atheism and therefore ultimate meaninglessness of life. But you can only do that by proving that there is a God. Until then, he does not live inconsistently, because he assumes his atheism.

So the very approach of presuppositionalism is fatal in this matter, since this actually gives the atheist an excuse.



Are you sure on that? Because I can't remember a single atheist personally, who did not say that you are the one who gives meaning to life. So ultimately, this makes them objective nihilists, since the only meaning is your personal one which you give to life, and not the one which life gives to you - in fact, they all deny such a thing (at least in my experience, and I had some).



Yes, but you can not point this out by sticking to the presuppositionalist approach, because this allows the atheist to stick to his atheism and therefore to the ultimate meaninglessness of life. So you can not point this out because you don't go after his assumptions, which is his only grounds and safety in this matter. You need to attack his assumptions, but the presuppositionalist by definition can not do that.
Why can the presupper "by definition" not do that? There seems to be a lot of straw manning going on in this thread. I have not one single critic of Van Til on here who correctly stated the TA.
 
And the naturalistic atheist would say he doesn't care. That's always been a limiting point in this style of apologetics. You could easily prove to him (though not of all systems) that he is inconsistent. All he has to do is shrug and say, "Perhaps."
Its limiting in every style. So I don't know what presuppositionalism you're referring to. Also you're confusing an apologetical situation with a non one. If an unbeliever said that to me I eould just shrug back and walk away. But I've never had an unbeliever engaged in an apologetical discussion say that to me. They're always interested in hoe rational and logical they are and irrational and illogical the believer is.
 
I'll end by saying this (again): I always leave these conversations so frustrated because I never am satisfied with the representation of presuppositionalism that its critics routinely offer. I told one brother just a moment ago that I cannot recall even a single time where I felt accurately represented in a discussion with a critic of presuppositionalism—not a single one! And that is not an exaggeration. That's why these conversations virtually always end up going around in circles. And I must say, the last two pages of this thread take the cake for some utterly unrecognizable portrayals of the method (not referring to Jacob here).

In the end, I haven't found anything said here even remotely convincing as a critique. I'll simply leave it at that.
I don't want to misrepresent presuppositionalism, but I do admit I find it quite obscure. I will say that part of the reason I think there is a lot of pushback is because presuppositionalism itself was an attack on classical apologetics, with comments such as 'Classical apologetics doesn't work' or 'Presuppositionalism is the only consistent way to be a Calvinist' etc. Of course there's going to be pushback against that.

These points made by the presuppositionalist are of course true:
1. Everyone has assumptions or presuppositions. Nobody disagrees with this.
2. Unbelievers live in a created world under the sovereignty of God. No Christian disagrees with this.
3. Salvation is the work of God's Holy Spirit. Most Christians agree with this, though might differ in terms of the method.
4. Unbelievers are dead in their sins and cannot be brought to salvation by anyone other than God. No Reformed Christian disagrees with this.

The problem is the conclusion drawn by presuppositionalists that giving evidences for the Christian faith is futile. It's futile if an apologist is trying to convert sinners, but that isn't the purpose of apologetics. One can be convinced of the truth that there is a God and yet reject Him. There are many pagans who believe in God though worship him falsely (as seen in Paul's argumentation in Acts 17). The demons know that God exists.

As I said earlier, apologetics works best when equipping Christians with evidences for the faith. I know that has strengthened my faith and given me greater confidence in the hope that I cling to, though my faith is not dependent on it, even if all of those evidences collapsed.

Edit: Modified 4 a bit to add some clarity, as previously I had just left it at 'cannot be brought to salvation'. Of course they can be brought to salvation by God's saving work.
 
Last edited:
I am going to link to 2 articles on the Stanford encylopaedia (which is an excellent free resource for those interested in philosophy) on naturalist philosophy. This is for those who do have a serious interest in philosophy and apologetics to know what you are up against, as this is the dominant view in Western philosophy departments. Otherwise, please don't waste your time reading it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/
 
Why can the presupper "by definition" not do that? There seems to be a lot of straw manning going on in this thread. I have not one single critic of Van Til on here who correctly stated the TA.

Because the presuppositionalist would have to prove that God exists, in order to take away and destroy the Atheists worldview, on which he stands. But you don’t prove that God exists by simply assuming his existence, because then the Atheist is allowed to do just the same and assume the non-existence of God and therefore the ultimate meaninglessness of anything, and therefore he is allowed to stay safe on his seeming inconsistencies.

But then, if the presuppositionalist goes on to prove that God exists, that would be fatal to his own cause and method, since he then is not assuming him anymore. And here he would be inconsistent, which, according to his own worldview, is a real problem. By proving that God exists, or giving reasons for God, he basically acts like one of the classical school of apologetics.

That‘s why.
 
Last edited:
So, it all comes down to this:

Apologist: In a world without God, all you do doesn’t make any sense.
Atheist: Great, but since there is no God, I don’t have to make sense. Neither do you.

Or, in the words of Greg Bahnsen:

Bahnsen: The ultimate proof for the existence of God is, that without God, you couldn’t prove anything.
To which the Atheist simply replies: Great, and since there is no God, I do not prove anything. Neither do you.

You would talk past each other 24/7 because of these two completely exclusive worldviews, they are the polar opposite of each other, and that basically makes the Atheists worldview satanic to it’s core. It’s Gods truth turned upside down and on it’s head on every possible angle. But by the presuppositionalist approach you let the Atheist go away with it. Not ultimately, of course, since God will judge him for that. But in the apologetic contest you lost him, and can’t argue with him, because of your methodology. So God cannot work through your apologetic, he cannot judge nor save by means of it (in this very scenario), because the Atheist has an excuse (not to God, since God himself revealed himself to him by means of creation - but he has an excuse to you personally and to your methodology). And God doesn’t bypass the mind.
 
Than why is it called an argument? You seem to be reducing the argument to only one of its aspects, the transcendental critique but is simply a straw man argument. I know of not one dingle presupper who would agree.

Van Til called it a negative argument throughout Defense of the Faith. I'm simply referring to him. His later students pointed out to him that for all practical purposes he was offering an actual argument.
 
The problem is the conclusion drawn by presuppositionalists that giving evidences for the Christian faith is futile.

I mean, doesn’t Paul himself appeal to that? God proved himself by means of creation (cosmological and teleological argument), by which he includes the moral law written in their hearts (moral argument). So it’s perfectly consistent to use these very arguments, since they are Gods arguments.

And also when it comes to special revelation, he provided Moses, Christ and the Apostles with evidences to accompany their claims to authority. They are basically the beginning and foundation of Gods dealing with his church by means of written revelation.
 
I mean, doesn’t Paul himself appeal to that? God proved himself by means of creation (cosmological and teleological argument), by which he includes the moral law written in their hearts (moral argument). So it’s perfectly consistent to use these very arguments, since they are Gods arguments.

And also when it comes to special revelation, he provided Moses, Christ and the Apostles with evidences to accompany their claims to authority. They are basically the beginning and foundation of Gods dealing with his church by means of written revelation.

We can say it another way. With the exception of Anselm, the traditional arguments are a posteriori. They reason from effect to cause (not unlike Paul saying we can see nature and conclude God's divine power and Godhead). Either reasoning a posteriori is wrong for a Christian or it isn't.

In Rushdoony's By What Standard he says you have to first presuppose God before you can make any sense of miracles. The problem is that is not how miracles works (and basically refutes the standard cessationalist arguments).
 
Here is another angle. The Christian church normally avoided a priori arguments for the existence of God because it seemed to say we can know what God before we can even get to God in the discussion. If the TAG is an a priori type argument, it could have those difficulties down the road.
 
We can say it another way. With the exception of Anselm, the traditional arguments are a posteriori. They reason from effect to cause (not unlike Paul saying we can see nature and conclude God's divine power and Godhead). Either reasoning a posteriori is wrong for a Christian or it isn't.

In Rushdoony's By What Standard he says you have to first presuppose God before you can make any sense of miracles. The problem is that is not how miracles works (and basically refutes the standard cessationalist arguments).

A posteriori is just the natural way for finite human beings to arrive to knowledge. There cannot be anything wrong with that, we are bound to that, since we do not know everything.

I don’t understand what you mean by „refutes the standard cessationalist arguments“. Because, even in classical apologetics, miracles only work and make sense when you presuppose God. But this is what you intend to prove in the first place anyway.
 
I don’t understand what you mean by „refutes the standard cessationalist arguments“. Because, even in classical apologetics, miracles only work and make sense when you presuppose God. But this is what you intend to prove in the first place anyway.

Cessationists say that miracles were a sign in the apostolic church for the truth of the gospel until the canon was closed. So far, so good. The problem is when you have to presuppose what the miracle is trying to prove for the miracle to even function as a sign.
 
Apologist: In a world without God, all you do doesn’t make any sense.
Atheist: Great, but since there is no God, I don’t have to make sense. Neither do you.

I'd consider myself a casual presuppositionalist. It makes a lot of sense to me and I've had good conversations with atheists over the years pointing out the lack of a rational basis.

I've never had an atheist respond how some of the people in this thread are insisting they do/will to presuppositionalism. So I'm really scratching my head at a lot of the objections.
 
Cessationists say that miracles were a sign in the apostolic church for the truth of the gospel until the canon was closed. So far, so good. The problem is when you have to presuppose what the miracle is trying to prove for the miracle to even function as a sign.

I am a little bit confused here. In classical apologetics (speaking for Gerstner and Sproul) we don’t say that miracles prove the truth of the gospel. All that a miracle does is to authenticate a messenger of God, so that what he says, God says.

Now, why is it necessary to presuppose God here? Because, biblically speaking, a miracle is the exception of God working in his ordinary manner. God upholds the universe in an orderly fashion, and so if he wishes to authenticate that someone is speaking for him and in his name, he gives them the power to do miracles, which is nothing else than breaking this orderly fashion, which only God can do.

And this is why Nicodemus could say to Jesus: We know you are a teacher sent from God, since no one could do these things you do, lest God be with him.

I'd consider myself a casual presuppositionalist. It makes a lot of sense to me and I've had good conversations with atheists over the years pointing out the lack of a rational basis.

I've never had an atheist respond how some of the people in this thread are insisting they do/will to presuppositionalism. So I'm really scratching my head at a lot of the objections.

Yeah I understand that, and thank God not all Atheists are that smart and take it to the extreme which I am here presenting. But the truth of the matter is, they could take it to that extreme, and this really reveals the folly of presuppositionalism, and therefore I couldn’t hold to it anymore. And the more rebellious a person is, the closer he gets to that extreme.
 
Yeah I understand that, and thank God not all Atheists are that smart and take it to the extreme which I am here presenting. But the truth of the matter is, they could take it to that extreme, and this really reveals the folly of presuppositionalism, and therefore I couldn’t hold to it anymore. And the more rebellious a person is, the closer he gets to that extreme.

The atheist is going to do that with classical apologetics too. So does that reveal the folly of classical apologetics? No, that reveals the folly of the atheist, which is part of the point of apologetics.
 
Or, in the words of Greg Bahnsen:

Bahnsen: The ultimate proof for the existence of God is, that without God, you couldn’t prove anything.
To which the Atheist simply replies: Great, and since there is no God, I do not prove anything. Neither do you.

The word "since" implies the atheist is, in fact, trying to prove that no one proves anything.
 
Van Til called it a negative argument throughout Defense of the Faith. I'm simply referring to him. His later students pointed out to him that for all practical purposes he was offering an actual argument.
I believe on "Christian Apologetics" he implied there was a positive argument. I don't know what else an argument from predication could mean besides a positive argument. But as you point out for the sake of argument his students correctly pointed out he did have a positive argument.
 
Because the presuppositionalist would have to prove that God exists, in order to take away and destroy the Atheists worldview, on which he stands. But you don’t prove that God exists by simply assuming his existence, because then the Atheist is allowed to do just the same and assume the non-existence of God and therefore the ultimate meaninglessness of anything, and therefore he is allowed to stay safe on his seeming inconsistencies.

But then, if the presuppositionalist goes on to prove that God exists, that would be fatal to his own cause and method, since he then is not assuming him anymore. And here he would be inconsistent, which, according to his own worldview, is a real problem. By proving that God exists, or giving reasons for God, he basically acts like one of the classical school of apologetics.

That‘s why.
Why would the only way to "prove" God's existence have to be direct why can't it be indirect? Also worldviews by definition are about the world, its not simply assumptions vs assumptions in a vacuum. Thats a misunderstanding and why I insisted on "state's of affairs" which is reality.
 
The atheist is going to do that with classical apologetics too. So does that reveal the folly of classical apologetics? No, that reveals the folly of the atheist, which is part of the point of apologetics.

The Atheist is going to do what with classical apologetics? The Atheist, against presuppositionalism, can do what he does, and hiding himself behind the bushes of his own extreme atheistic worldview, because presuppositionalism allows him to do just that, by doing the very same thing. You just assume what you would need to prove. The Theist assumes his God, the Atheist his non-God. The argument is over at this very point, since nothing has to make sense in the Atheists worldview, whereas everything has to make sense in the Theists worldview. So all the Atheist has to do against every seeming objection is to hold up his own worldview and say: But there is no God.

When arguing against classical apologetics, which first of all proves the existence of God, the Atheist can still say: But there is no God. But, before Gods eyes, and before the eyes of the world, he isn’t justified by just presupposing his atheistic worldview, because the other side proved the existence of God, whereas he just assumes the non-existence of God. So God can judge him in this instance, the world can see his folly, and the church can get comfort, because the Atheist doesn’t act rationally, whereas the Theist does. In this instance the Atheist would have to prove the non-existence of God.

The word "since" implies the atheist is, in fact, trying to prove that no one proves anything.

The word since implies nothing, and the Atheist isn’t trying to prove anything. All he does is assuming his atheism, and he does this all the time, against all seeming objections, and presuppositionalism let’s him go away with it.

Why would the only way to "prove" God's existence have to be direct why can't it be indirect? Also worldviews by definition are about the world, its not simply assumptions vs assumptions in a vacuum. Thats a misunderstanding and why I insisted on "state's of affairs" which is reality.

As long as you assume the existence of God, the Atheist can just assume the non-existence of God, and be justified in it, and go unpunished by it. This is the very thing you don’t want to end up with in apologetics.
 
When arguing against classical apologetics, which first of all proves the existence of God, the Atheist can still say: But there is no God. But, before Gods eyes, and before the eyes of the world, he isn’t justified by just presupposing his atheistic worldview, because the other side proved the existence of God, whereas he just assumes the non-existence of God. So God can judge him in this instance, the world can see his folly, and the church can get comfort, because the Atheist doesn’t act rationally, whereas the Theist does. In this instance the Atheist would have to prove the non-existence of God.

You've actually gotten atheists to admit that you've proved the existence of God? I have never seen that happen in any debate or conversation, because they don't accept your premise...which is the entire point of presuppositionalism: to show they have no valid foundation for not accepting your premise, is it not?

I guess you're happy you won the debate but the atheist goes away not even for one moment conceding you've won. He denies any of your proof and believes himself to be perfectly rational in that and you to be simply deluded. He thinks he stands on solid ground and the job of the presuppositionalist is to show him that he doesn't even have that ground.

Are we dealing with actuals or theoreticals here? Because I do feel like you're attacking theoretical strawmen and situations that don't actually exist in the wild.
 
The atheist is going to do that with classical apologetics too. So does that reveal the folly of classical apologetics? No, that reveals the folly of the atheist, which is part of the point of apologetics.

No. The point of classical apologetics is to remove blocks to the faith. Van Til made claims that philosophy and apologetics were essentially the same thing, only approaching the problem from a different angle. That is part of his criticism of Schaeffer's seeing apologetics as "pre-evangelism." As much as I don't like Schaeffer's approach, he was closer to the historic position on this.
 
You've actually gotten atheists to admit that you've proved the existence of God? I have never seen that happen in any debate or conversation, because they don't accept your premise...which is the entire point of presuppositionalism: to show they have no valid foundation for not accepting your premise, is it not?

Are we dealing with actuals or theoreticals here? Because I do feel like you're attacking theoretical strawmen and situations that don't actually exist in the wild.

You make a mistake here. Your job is to prove, and not to persuade. Calvin made that point aswell. Persuasion is up to God. God hardens and saves through your apologetic, but it has to be sound - because otherwise, God doesn’t make use of the instrumentality of your apologetics. God does not bypass the mind.

If you reason soundly, then the Atheist cannot simply „not accept your premises“ or anything, but he has to interact with your arguments. And if he does not, well then you make him shut his mouth, so that he doesn’t oppress the church in this way anymore.
 
The Atheist is going to do what with classical apologetics? The Atheist, against presuppositionalism, can do what he does, and hiding himself behind the bushes of his own extreme atheistic worldview, because presuppositionalism allows him to do just that, by doing the very same thing. You just assume what you would need to prove. The Theist assumes his God, the Atheist his non-God. The argument is over at this very point, since nothing has to make sense in the Atheists worldview, whereas everything has to make sense in the Theists worldview. So all the Atheist has to do against every seeming objection is to hold up his own worldview and say: But there is no God.

When arguing against classical apologetics, which first of all proves the existence of God, the Atheist can still say: But there is no God. But, before Gods eyes, and before the eyes of the world, he isn’t justified by just presupposing his atheistic worldview, because the other side proved the existence of God, whereas he just assumes the non-existence of God. So God can judge him in this instance, the world can see his folly, and the church can get comfort, because the Atheist doesn’t act rationally, whereas the Theist does. In this instance the Atheist would have to prove the non-existence of God.



The word since implies nothing, and the Atheist isn’t trying to prove anything. All he does is assuming his atheism, and he does this all the time, against all seeming objections, and presuppositionalism let’s him go away with it.



As long as you assume the existence of God, the Atheist can just assume the non-existence of God, and be justified in it, and go unpunished by it. This is the very thing you don’t want to end up with in apologetics.
I'm still getting the impression that you're assuming the presuppositionalist is merely arguing worldview to worldview with no reference to states of affairs. You can keep saying that but its not true.
 
You make a mistake here. Your job is to prove, and not to persuade. Calvin made that point aswell. Persuasion is up to God. God hardens and saves through your apologetic, but it has to be sound - because otherwise, God doesn’t make use of the instrumentality of your apologetics. God does not bypass the mind.

If you reason soundly, then the Atheist cannot simply „not accept your premises“ or anything, but he has to interact with your arguments. And if he does not, well then you make him shut his mouth, so that he doesn’t oppress the church in this way anymore.

Hmmm, do you think presuppositionalists don't use evidence or try to prove as well?

The way I see it, your approach is to prove, to your satisfaction, that God exists. If the atheist doesn't accept your arguments as proof then that's not your problem.

But the presuppositionalist tries to show the atheist that he has no rational basis for denying proof that God exists. He tries to show the atheist that his very epistemology is faulty.

I'm baffled because you make statements like this to show presuppositionalism is faulty:
"Apologist: In a world without God, all you do doesn’t make any sense.
Atheist: Great, but since there is no God, I don’t have to make sense. Neither do you."

But then seem to think the following is perfectly acceptable:
"Apologist: God exists because of proofs x, y, and z"
Atheist: I don't have to accept those as proofs and neither do you."

All these show is the foolishness of the atheist, not the faultiness of the argumentation used with him, and yet the atheist's response in the one is a fault of the method but not in the other?
 
Hmmm, do you think presuppositionalists don't use evidence or try to prove as well?

Depends. Even though I am not young-earth, I do commend young-earth presups for using evidence. As a general rule, though, the earlier presups eschewed evidence. Van Til's book on evidences said little to nothing about actually using evidence.
 
Often with the cosmological argument. Proof isn't persuasion.

The atheists you've dealt with have admitted it was proof that there was a God but they weren't persuaded there was a God? How does that work? Could you approximate what their response has been?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top