I feel like presup is mostly pointless

Status
Not open for further replies.
Than thats a methodological disagreement over the argument. I say your subjective preferences are valid, use what you like. I never criticize, as far as I'm aware, classical apologetics. In fact I think I've said many times I favor Frame's critique of Van Til here. For the record I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you defending the faith. We need to get past this infighting and make an effort to understand one another.

I guess since I learned under the older school of presup (Van Til, Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen) that we always said that classical apologetics is autonomous godless reasoning. I'm glad that presups are now moving away from that rhetoric.
 
It seems that classical apologetics can make a constructive argument for God's existence, whereas presuppositionalism continues to show inadequacies in the unbeliever's worldview. Even if an unbeliever concedes defeat on that point, he can (rightly) say, "But you haven't actually proven your God. You've just shown mine is wrong."
How does an indirect argument only show inadequacies in their worldview? When did I ever argue for that? My insistence on reality and states of affairs invalidate that point. I've also gone over the TA multiple times that I see no need need to rehash it here. If your saying that showing an unbeliever that they could not be doing what their doing unless CT is true is not a proof of CT, I'm confused?
 
How does an indirect argument only show inadequacies in their worldview? When did I ever argue for that? My insistence on reality and states of affairs invalidate that point. I've also gone over the TA multiple times that I see no need need to rehash it here. If your saying that showing an unbeliever that they could not be doing what their doing unless CT is true is not a proof of CT, I'm confused?

What I am saying is you haven't proven God's existence.
 
There aren't that many scholarly presups after Frame. Anderson, Welty, and maybe a few others. That was one of the problems with the Stein debate. No one after Bahnsen could really carry his mantle at that level. We often attack pop level presups because that is the norm. Frame is on his way out. Anderson and Welty do good work, but there aren't many like them. Classical apologists, representing the historic position of the church, have more to draw from.
So Edgar and Oliphant don't count? The late Robert Knudsen's work doesn't count? Reformed Forum doesn't count? My point is deal with them not internet trolls. You know as well as i do simply saying historic position is a logical fallacy.
 
I'm confused so your saying that, for the sake of argument, proving the inescability of CT being true in order for state's of affairs to be as we experience them doesn't prove God exists?

I don't concede the epistemological "inescapability of CT being true" as already established. I don't grant the premise (for the sake of the argument).
 
I've never met a human that doesn't. I'm not interested in hypothetical people but actual people.

Alright, shall we go into a hypothetical debate, then? Let me be the Atheist, and you the Presuppositionalist. Maybe this will clear things up, and give a new perspective on things. You probably are able to show me in this way where I am wrong, I have no idea where this will go.

So, you are trying to prove to me the existence of God. I don't believe in God, we live in a random world, we are accidents and nothing really matters. You die and that's the end.

Go ahead.
 
So Edgar and Oliphant don't count? The late Robert Knudsen's work doesn't count? Reformed Forum doesn't count? My point is deal with them not internet trolls. You know as well as i do simply saying historic position is a logical fallacy.

Edgar is good on worldview analysis and arts and culture. I don't really consider him a major apologist or philosopher. And he is closer to Schaeffer than Van til.

Oliphint's theology is damaged goods. He demonstrated he had no real knowledge of Aquinas. Muller dealt with him.

Knudsen is good but he is a Dooyeweerdian. Most presups today aren't. And Knudsen didn't publish that much (I've listened to his course on Dutch philosophy three of our times).

Reformed Forum is good except when they deal with apologetics. I specifically dealt with them in my review of Tipton.

Saying "the historic position" is a logical fallacy is only the case if I say that classical apologetics is true because it is the historic position. I did not say that. I mentioned the historic position that we have more resources to deal with. Presup is really only a century and a half old.
 
From what I have read, Oliphint has an embarrassingly poor grasp of systematic and historical theology as well as philosophy. Just google Muller and Helm's critiques of his writings, whether on the doctrine of God or Thomas Aquinas. Some of the things he has written are shocking for someone of his pedigree. He is also one of the more vocal proponents of the 'Presuppositionalists are the only consistent Calvinists' baloney.
 
My review of Tipton. The Reformed forum guys are interesting. They know of wider streams of Christian thought. They generally avoid the temptation to think that Christian philosophy began in Pennsylvania in the 1930s. That said, their treatments of Thomas Aquinas are still inadequate.
 
Edgar is good on worldview analysis and arts and culture. I don't really consider him a major apologist or philosopher. And he is closer to Schaeffer than Van til.

Oliphint's theology is damaged goods. He demonstrated he had no real knowledge of Aquinas. Muller dealt with him.

Knudsen is good but he is a Dooyeweerdian. Most presups today aren't. And Knudsen didn't publish that much (I've listened to his course on Dutch philosophy three of our times).

Reformed Forum is good except when they deal with apologetics. I specifically dealt with them in my review of Tipton.

Saying "the historic position" is a logical fallacy is only the case if I say that classical apologetics is true because it is the historic position. I did not say that. I mentioned the historic position that we have more resources to deal with. Presup is really only a century and a half old.
Fair enough on the fallacy thing, my apologies. As far as your assessment of those men your incorrect. Each one was closer apologetically to Van Til than anything else, Frame affirms it about Edgar and Knudsen at least. If you have not read "Roots and Branches" by Knudsen i highly recommend it. You cannot walk away affirming he's primarily Dooyeweerdian, also Frame denies this as well.
Edgar wrote a wonderful piece comparing and contrasting the two where he sides with Van Til. It seems I still don't understand your total position here. Allow me to speculate if you will. Van Til is wrong for various straw man arguments and no interaction with the actual argument. The scholarly students of Van Til are not worth dealing with because their primary allegiance was someone else. So all we have to go with is, I'm speculating here, internet trolls as the best representation of presuppositionalists? Please if I'm wrong correct me but thats how it seems.
 
Reformed Forum is good except when they deal with apologetics. I specifically dealt with them in my review of Tipton.
My review of Tipton. The Reformed forum guys are interesting. They know of wider streams of Christian thought. They generally avoid the temptation to think that Christian philosophy began in Pennsylvania in the 1930s. That said, their treatments of Thomas Aquinas are still inadequate.
Where do you deal with Reformed Forum in the review? Do you have something with more than a few sentences that extensively interacts with presup apologetics?
 
Alright, shall we go into a hypothetical debate, then? Let me be the Atheist, and you the Presuppositionalist. Maybe this will clear things up, and give a new perspective on things. You probably are able to show me in this way where I am wrong, I have no idea where this will go.

So, you are trying to prove to me the existence of God. I don't believe in God, we live in a random world, we are accidents and nothing really matters. You die and that's the end.

Go ahead.
Fair enough, to be honest I despise the term TAG (which you did not use). I'm assuming you believe your making sense right? I mean whats the point otherwise? Also you said we live in a random world, is there anything random about walking out in front of a car or did you just have poor judgment? Also quantum physicists, Brian Greene, admit there's a strange order to the supposed randomness of reality. As well chaos theory proves it.
I'll go back in a sense to this your saying randomness what do you mean by that? Do mean value or true randomness? There two different things.
 
I don't concede the epistemological "inescapability of CT being true" as already established. I don't grant the premise (for the sake of the argument).
So than your saying state's of affairs would be no different if CT weren't true. It would all be the same. Hence you need classical apologetics to give you direct arguments to prove God’s existence, I've been arguing for CT, making the TA irrelevant or wrong. But that assumes logic, science, morality, anything else in existence would be the same whether CT were true.
So those things would be the same regardless of which worldview were true.
 
That makes those things given and therefore ultimate making that idolatry, a la Dooyeweerd.
 
From what I have read, Oliphint has an embarrassingly poor grasp of systematic and historical theology as well as philosophy. Just google Muller and Helm's critiques of his writings, whether on the doctrine of God or Thomas Aquinas. Some of the things he has written are shocking for someone of his pedigree. He is also one of the more vocal proponents of the 'Presuppositionalists are the only consistent Calvinists' baloney.
I completely agree with you. His grasp of Van Til and the TA still stands, listen to his lectures at WTS media archives. Philosophy he's good at, he has given good critiques of Plantinga (whom I believe he studied under, but he does seem to be getting worse).
 
So CT is Christian Theism, TA is Transcendental Argument. Now what is TAG? Still learning...

I'm assuming you believe your making sense right? I mean whats the point otherwise?
Sure, so we can talk. But objectively there is no sense or anything like that.

Also you said we live in a random world, is there anything random about walking out in front of a car or did you just have poor judgment?
Yes, all is ultimately random. It seems like it's not.

Also quantum physicists, Brian Greene, admit there's a strange order to the supposed randomness of reality. As well chaos theory proves it.
I don't care. Others say all is random. And since all is random, they have to be right. Brian Greene made a mistake somewhere.

I'll go back in a sense to this your saying randomness what do you mean by that? Do mean value or true randomness? There two different things.
I mean everything is just a big accident. There is no meaning in anything. We're all atoms in motion.
 
I completely agree with you. His grasp of Van Til and the TA still stands, listen to his lectures at WTS media archives. Philosophy he's good at, he has given good critiques of Plantinga (whom I believe he studied under, but he does seem to be getting worse).
I had no idea he studied under Plantinga. Strange.
 
So than your saying state's of affairs would be no different if CT weren't true. It would all be the same. Hence you need classical apologetics to give you direct arguments to prove God’s existence, I've been arguing for CT, making the TA irrelevant or wrong. But that assumes logic, science, morality, anything else in existence would be the same whether CT were true.
So those things would be the same regardless of which worldview were true.

Maybe they would be the same. Maybe they wouldn't. That was not my argument. My argument is that you have only proven that worldview x can't make sense of a, b, and c. That says nothing about worldviews y, z, and n. Moreover, it says nothing about whether CT is true or not. That was Frame's criticism of Bahnsen.
 
So CT is Christian Theism, TA is Transcendental Argument. Now what is TAG? Still learning...


Sure, so we can talk. But objectively there is no sense or anything like that.


Yes, all is ultimately random. It seems like it's not.


I don't care. Others say all is random. And since all is random, they have to be right. Brian Greene made a mistake somewhere.


I mean everything is just a big accident. There is no meaning in anything. We're all atoms in motion.
Good response. TAG is the transcendental argument for God. I don't like that because we argue transcendentally for the truth of Christian theism, CT.
If there's no sense than how are you talking? You seem to survive so randomness doesn't play that much of a part.
Are others as smart as Brian Greene or chaos theory on this issue alone?
So its meaning or value you have in mind? What do you value? What has meaning?
 
Van Til is wrong for various straw man arguments and no interaction with the actual argument.

Among other things, yes. He misrepresented much of the Christian tradition on philosophy. I also think he is wrong on his apologetics as well.
The scholarly students of Van Til are not worth dealing with because their primary allegiance was someone else.

I don't see them as primarily philosophers like Anderson, Welty, Frame, and Bahnsen. Their strengths are in other areas.
So all we have to go with is, I'm speculating here, internet trolls as the best representation of presuppositionalists?

Internet trolls might be too strong a word. But I do have in mind guys like James White, Sye, and others.
 
Maybe they would be the same. Maybe they wouldn't. That was not my argument. My argument is that you have only proven that worldview x can't make sense of a, b, and c. That says nothing about worldviews y, z, and n. Moreover, it says nothing about whether CT is true or not. That was Frame's criticism of Bahnsen.
Since we live in this creation by God it is only this creation we have to go off of. Saying it may be the same makes Van Til's criticism of traditional apologetics applicable. Your assuming things like logic and such are self existent they would be the same no matter what. Thats idolatry and autonomous thinking. I'm repeating Dooyeweerd and Van Til.
 
Since we live in this creation by God it is only this creation we have to go off of. Saying it may be the same makes Van Til's criticism of traditional apologetics applicable. Your assuming things like logic and such are self existent they would be the same no matter what. Thats idolatry and autonomous thinking. I'm repeating Dooyeweerd and Van Til.

Fair enough. Sproul and classicists said that God's being is ontologically prior. So it wouldn't be the same. On the other hand, and this is where CVT attacks classical guys, we say that logic is epistemologically prior for us.
 
Here is the bottom line in a nutshell:

Presuppositionalism seeks to first convince the unbeliever of skepticism and then go from there.

Classical apologists avoid that difficulty and say, "Granted you live by the law of causality, consider...."
 
Among other things, yes. He misrepresented much of the Christian tradition on philosophy. I also think he is wrong on his apologetics as well.


I don't see them as primarily philosophers like Anderson, Welty, Frame, and Bahnsen. Their strengths are in other areas.


Internet trolls might be too strong a word. But I do have in mind guys like James White, Sye, and others.
So Knudsen and Edgar are not philosophers? Frame or Oliphant are not philosophers? Your equivicating on all these terms to make your point but its still equivocation. Edgar is an expert in postmodernism and contemporary continental philosophy. Knudsen was an expert Existentialism. How is that not philosophy?
Oliphant never did philosophy, despite him hating it for some reason (but his critiques of Plantinga show he understands the landscape). Frame with multiperspectivelism isn't philosophical, Poythress would be mad? But Poythress is another name to throw into the mix, he wrote books on many philosophical ideas.
 
So Knudsen and Edgar are not philosophers?

Sure. They are. Very few presups today are really using Knudsen. Bahnsen is the big gun, not Knudsen.
Frame or Oliphant are not philosophers?

I specifically said Frame was a philosopher. Oliphint is trained in philosophy, but I am leaving him aside since much of his stuff is just bad from a Reformed perspective.
Edgar is an expert in postmodernism and contemporary continental philosophy.

I don't dispute that. I grant Edgar is a good thinker, but he is not what people have in mind when they talk about presuppositionalism.
Poythress would be mad?

Are you asking a question. Poythress got his PhDs in Math and Theology. He has some good philosophical ideas, but he is primarily a mathematician and New Testament theologian.
 
Here is the bottom line in a nutshell:

Presuppositionalism seeks to first convince the unbeliever of skepticism and then go from there.

Classical apologists avoid that difficulty and say, "Granted you live by the law of causality, consider...."
That is not Van Til. Stop bringing in internet (whater you want to call them) please its just complicating. I've gone over the TA so many times I don't know what else to say. We judge worldviews by reality and state's of affairs as we experience them. Since CT is true that's the only option that works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top