I feel like presup is mostly pointless

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

Here is where I see the difference. I would point out to the atheist that he has already conceded the law of causality in everyday life. Given that, he must now show where causality fails in the ontological argument. I maintain he cannot do that. I do not worry about whether he can make sense of all of reality. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. I don't really care. My point is that he cannot show where my argument is wrong.
 
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?

It's called sin. R.C. Sproul wrote a whole book on it (The Psychology of Atheism). While I have huge problems with Tim Keller, he had it right on this one: sure, you might be logically right but I want to continue having sex with my girlfriend. That's what I want the most.

That's where the Holy Spirit comes in to persuade him.
 
How would you classical apologists go about proving the Trinity, for example?

That's a good question. Thomas Aquinas seemed to think the Trinity was above reason. Augustine came close to proving it with reason with his psychological analogies. William GT Shedd followed Augustine on this point.
 
Here is where I see the difference. I would point out to the atheist that he has already conceded the law of causality in everyday life. Given that, he must now show where causality fails in the ontological argument. I maintain he cannot do that. I do not worry about whether he can make sense of all of reality. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. I don't really care. My point is that he cannot show where my argument is wrong.

Excellent but how does the presup fail when the atheist doesn't care about inconsistencies in his worldview? That connection you asserted has never landed in any of your points as far as I can tell.
 
Augustine came close to proving it with reason with his psychological analogies. William GT Shedd followed Augustine on this point.

From my memory, I do not recall Augustine as having "come close" to proving the Trinity with reason but it has been far too long.

Shedd I am unaware of. Can you clarify or simply direct me to sources for further investigation? Thank you for all you do
 
Excellent but how does the presup fail when the atheist doesn't care about inconsistencies in his worldview? That connection you asserted has never landed in any of your points as far as I can tell.

Okay. I see what you are saying. I was thinking ahead. The presup's argument usually boils down to the fact that atheists cannot prove the consistency of their worldview. They can say, as John Frame pointed out to Bahnsen, that the atheists's inconsistency does not actually prove God exists. By contrast, because I use the cosmological and other arguments, I can do that.
 
That's a good question. Thomas Aquinas seemed to think the Trinity was above reason. Augustine came close to proving it with reason with his psychological analogies. William GT Shedd followed Augustine on this point.

If you can't prove the Trinity, of what advantage is classical apologetics to an oppressor of Christianity who is not an atheist?
 
From my memory, I do not recall Augustine as having "come close" to proving the Trinity with reason but it has been far too long.

Shedd I am unaware of. Can you clarify or simply direct me to sources for further investigation? Thank you for all you do

I'm not endorsing Shedd's argument. I think it is way too complicated.

While “self-consciousness” is not how we define a divine person, there is an analogical way to speak of it in terms of the Godhead. On a human level,

  1. The I must behold itself as an objective thing. In doing so, there is now a distinction between the subject-ego and the object-ego.
  2. The finite ego must perceive the subject-ego and the object-ego are one and the same essence. “This second act of perception completes the circle of self-consciousness” (366).
  3. There is no need for a subsequent factor because the first moment perceived the self as object but the last moment perceived an act.
  4. Of course, this would only apply to the divine once we remove categories of time and degree. In which case,
  5. The subject-ego (Father) is perpetually beholding itself as object-ego (The Son) and the third distinction (The Holy Spirit) is intermittently perceiving the essential unity and identity of the subject-ego and object-ego (Father and Son).
  6. If this seems too speculative, rest assured that Jonathan Edwards did something similar.
 

I'm not endorsing Shedd's argument. I think it is way too complicated.

While “self-consciousness” is not how we define a divine person, there is an analogical way to speak of it in terms of the Godhead. On a human level,

  1. The I must behold itself as an objective thing. In doing so, there is now a distinction between the subject-ego and the object-ego.
  2. The finite ego must perceive the subject-ego and the object-ego are one and the same essence. “This second act of perception completes the circle of self-consciousness” (366).
  3. There is no need for a subsequent factor because the first moment perceived the self as object but the last moment perceived an act.
  4. Of course, this would only apply to the divine once we remove categories of time and degree. In which case,
  5. The subject-ego (Father) is perpetually beholding itself as object-ego (The Son) and the third distinction (The Holy Spirit) is intermittently perceiving the essential unity and identity of the subject-ego and object-ego (Father and Son).
  6. If this seems too speculative, rest assured that Jonathan Edwards did something similar.

Thanks!
 
If you can't prove the Trinity, of what advantage is classical apologetics to an oppressor of Christianity who is not an atheist?

Not all classical apologists would say you can't prove the Trinity. In any case, these arguments are praeambula fidei
 
Not all classical apologists would say you can't prove the Trinity. In any case, these arguments are praeambula fidei

I asked "If you can't prove the Trinity, of what advantage is classical apologetics to an oppressor of Christianity who is not an atheist?" I don't quite understand the answer.

If you think it can be proved, I would like to see the proof.

By the way, these questions have been as intended as much for Apologia Christou as for you, if not more so.
 
It's called sin. R.C. Sproul wrote a whole book on it (The Psychology of Atheism). While I have huge problems with Tim Keller, he had it right on this one: sure, you might be logically right but I want to continue having sex with my girlfriend. That's what I want the most.

That's where the Holy Spirit comes in to persuade him.

Perhaps I was unclear. I was asking if you could approximately relate what the atheist says when he both says you have proved the existence of God, and yet he isn't persuaded that God exists, because I would find that interesting.
 
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.

My point is that presuppositionalism, by definition, is circular. And because of that, you allow anyone else, even the Atheist, to be circular aswell, and get away with it. You may cloth that circularity as much as you want, let it be a glorious and golden circle, but nonetheless, it’s a circle.

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?

The problem is the circularity, because the other side can then do the same thing. How exactly (with or without evidence) one apologist argues doesn’t really matter. If it’s circular, then it’s a problem.

My job is to prove objectively, so that I see it, God sees it, the church sees it, and even the world may see it. If the only way out of the Atheist is to neglect the laws of logic, for example, then I’m fine with that, and leave him alone. Because all we want to show in classical apologetics is, that if you’re acting reasonably, then you will not only conclude that there is a God, but that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore Christianity is true. And so, if you neglect the laws of logic, you’re not acting according to reason, and I’m fine with that. Go your way.

I know that the presuppositionalist is trying to show that the unbeliever has no rational basis, but again, your very methodology is the way out for the Atheist, since in an atheistic worldview there is no real rationality. So I act as if there is a God, or meaning, or anything, even though I know there is no God. Who cares. It’s just useful to act this way, and I benefit from it.

And the two examples you gave: God doesn’t work in the first one, he does in the second. Why? Because the unbeliever has an excuse in the first one, and not in the second. Also the church doesn’t get comfort and security by a faulty argument (which the first one is, since the Atheist just turns the table), and you can be sure that no one will get converted in the first one, but maybe in the second.

How would you classical apologists go about proving the Trinity, for example?

Classical apologetics is in two steps, you prove:

1) the existence of God
2) that the Bible is the word of God

Once you did that, the rest is simple exegesis.

John Gerstner once said in allusion to presuppositionalism: Once you have proven that the Bible is the word of God, then you presuppose it.

This is the way.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I was unclear. I was asking if you could approximately relate what the atheist says when he both says you have proved the existence of God, and yet he isn't persuaded that God exists, because I would find that interesting.
He said cuss words at me
 
I asked "If you can't prove the Trinity, of what advantage is classical apologetics to an oppressor of Christianity who is not an atheist?" I don't quite understand the answer.

If you think it can be proved, I would like to see the proof.

By the way, these questions have been as intended as much for Apologia Christou as for you, if not more so.
My response would largely depend on the specific oppressor. John of Damascus witness in Islamic society could be illustrative
 
Please prove 2).

In a nutshell (since this takes up some time, and I am on my iPad right now, I don’t like to write here), this is done basically in three steps:

1) you show that the Bible is basically historically reliable
2) that it contains inspired messengers
3) that these inspired messengers actually prove the Bible to be more than historically reliable, but actually the very word of God

If I may, for a useful introduction, refer you to this video from Ligonier, featuring Gerstner and Sproul:

 
My point is that presuppositionalism, by definition, is circular. And because of that, you allow anyone else, even the Atheist, to be circular aswell, and get away with it. You may cloth that circularity as much as you want, let it be a glorious and golden circle, but nonetheless, it’s a circle.



The problem is the circularity, because the other side can then do the same thing. How exactly (with or without evidence) one apologist argues doesn’t really matter. if it’s circular, then it’s a problem.

My job is to prove objectively, so that I see it, God sees it, the church sees it, and even the world may see it. If the only way out of the Atheist is to neglect the laws of logic, for example, then I’m fine with that, and leave him alone. Because all we want to show in classical apologetics is, that if you’re acting reasonably, then you will not only conclude that there is a God, but that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore Christianity is true. And so, if you neglect the laws of logic, you’re not acting according to reason, and I’m fine with that. Go your way.

I know that the presuppositionalist is trying to show that the unbeliever has no rational basis, but again, your very methodology is the way out for the Atheist, since in an atheistic worldview there is no real rationality. So I act as if there is a God, or meaning, or anything, even though I know there is no God. Who cares. It’s just useful to act this way, and I benefit from it.

And the two examples you gave: God doesn’t work in the first one, he does in the second. Why? Because the unbeliever has an excuse in the first one, and not in the second. Also the church doesn’t get comfort and security by a faulty argument (which the first one is, since the Atheist just turns the table), and you can be sure that no one will get converted in the first one, but maybe in the second.



Classical apologetics is in two steps, you prove:

1) the existence of God
2) that the Bible is the word of God

Once you did that, the rest is simple exegesis.

John Gerstner once said in allusion to presuppositionalism: Once you have proven that the Bible is the word of God, then you presuppose it.

This is the way.
All points of view are circular. You have presuppositions that you reason by about states of affairs. Van Til and his disciples, of which I'm one, have always maintained a difference between viscous circularaty and reasoning by presupposition. The classical apologist assumes logic etc to go about with their apologetics why can't we? But we reason about states of affairs.
 
All points of view are circular. You have presuppositions that you reason by about states of affairs. Van Til and his disciples, of which I'm one, have always maintained a difference between viscous circularaty and reasoning by presupposition. The classical apologist assumes logic etc to go about with their apologetics why can't we? But we reason about states of affairs.
We don’t think first principles function the same as presuppositions
 
Here is where I see the difference. I would point out to the atheist that he has already conceded the law of causality in everyday life. Given that, he must now show where causality fails in the ontological argument. I maintain he cannot do that. I do not worry about whether he can make sense of all of reality. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. I don't really care. My point is that he cannot show where my argument is wrong.
Its not just that he/she can't make sense of reality but also that they presuppose the truths of CT in order to have an argument at all. Argumentation would not be possible unless CT is true.
 
In a nutshell (since this takes up some time, and I am on my iPad right now, I don’t like to write here), this is done basically in three steps:

1) you show that the Bible is basically historically reliable
2) that it contains inspired messengers
3) that these inspired messengers actually prove the Bible to be more than historically reliable, but actually the very word of God

If I may, for a useful introduction, refer you to this video from Ligonier, featuring Gerstner and Sproul:


The Bible is composed of different propositions.

Do you think that if you can provide proof for statements in the Bible that pertain to the past, one can thereby prove future predictions in the Bible, such as that that Jesus Christ will return?

Do you think that if you can provide proof for the biblical report Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again, one can thereby prove faith in Him takes away sins?

That is, do you consider inductive reasoning as a valid method of proof? Or is there another method you had in mind for how a classical apologist can prove prophetic and redemptive claims?

Because Muslims are theists, he would focus on issues like the Trinity. Muslims already believe in God
Did he try to prove the Trinity to them? If so, do you think his proof was successful?
 
Is it a strong or modest approach? How do you get around either way Godel's incompleteness theorems which apply to all axiomatic systems? The point is by definition in order to account for the richness required to have a foundation for our knowledge how is having a provable incomplete and inconsistent foundation better than a presuppositional basis?
 
All points of view are circular. You have presuppositions that you reason by about states of affairs. Van Til and his disciples, of which I'm one, have always maintained a difference between viscous circularaty and reasoning by presupposition. The classical apologist assumes logic etc to go about with their apologetics why can't we? But we reason about states of affairs.

I don’t see how all points of view are circular? For example, the cosmological argument:

1) every effect must have a cause
2) the world is an effect
3) therefore, the world must have a cause

Where is it circular? And yes, having some working assumptions is not the same as arguing in circles. They provide you with the necessary tools to make meaningful argumentation possible in the first place.

The Bible is composed of different propositions.

Do you think that if you can provide proof for statements in the Bible that pertain to the past, one can thereby prove future predictions in the Bible, such as that that Jesus Christ will return?

Do you think that if you can provide proof for the biblical report Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again, one can thereby prove faith in Him takes away sins?

That is, do you consider inductive reasoning as a valid method of proof? Or is there another method you had in mind for how a classical apologist can prove prophetic and redemptive claims?


Did he try to prove the Trinity to them? If so, do you think his proof was successful?

I am not sure if I am following. All you do is proving the Bible to be the word of God, and from there doing simple exegesis to arrive at the doctrines.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how all points of view are circular? For example, the cosmological argument:

1) every effect must have a cause
2) the world is an effect
3) therefore, the world must have a cause

Where is it circular? And yes, having some working assumptions is not the same as arguing in circles. They provide you with the necessary tools to make meaningful argumentation possible in the first place.



I am not sure if I am following. All you do is proving the Bible to be the word of God, and from there doing simple exegesis to arrive at the doctrines.
That particular argument isn't circular but the overall method is. If your arguing for the truth of CT you assume logical faculties, reliability of senses, uniformity of nature, etc. Those things would not exist without CT being true. Unless the truth or falsity of CT has no bearing on the existence of those things. Metaphysicaly/epistemologically CT must be true in order for you to construct any argument whatsoever hence a form of circularity is inevitable. You can never get around the fact of CT as a prerequisite for argumentation to be possible. So that fact is one you have to admit to to be orthodox regardless.
Now if the only difference here is a matter of method than fine we can discuss that but until you answer yes or no to my original question we cannot move forward.
 
I am not sure if I am following. All you do is proving the Bible to be the word of God, and from there doing simple exegesis to arrive at the doctrines.

For example, in your Sproul-Gerstner video, Gerstner claims at the outset he would provide irrefutable proof of biblical inspiration. Yet from 14:17-15:45, when Sproul challenges him that he is not providing irrefutable evidence, Gerstner admits the point and shifts the burden of proof to his interlocutor. He seems to be suggesting that "if one believes biblical reports in some instances, he should believe biblical reports that Jesus did miracles." This certainly appears to be inductive reasoning. Is this not an accurate portrayal of what is happening?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top