Presup evaluated/integrated by Non-Presuppers

[SShaka]

I wouldn't debate a vegan over the proper way to cook a steak, and I'm not going to spend time on the internet debating the effectiveness of apologetic methodology towards unbelievers with someone who doesn't believe in apologetics towards unbelievers.

I give an objective, internal critique, the same as Sproul, of the presupp-method. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to answer this critique, but rather, because I myself don't believe in apologetics, simply ignore this critique.

When an unbeliever gives a reasonable critique of any biblical passage, I also don't see why I should simply ignore him, rather than answering this good critique that he gives (even if only for myself), just because he is an unbeliever.

I mean, you as a presupp of all people should be happy to step into my worldview and critique and analyze it according to my point of view, shouldn't you? But well, whatever you like.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Sometimes giving evidence to those who are curious can be helpful before showing how their worldview is absurd(reduces to nothing on its own presuppositions without providing the conditions for intelligibility)

You spoke well about giving evidence to those who were curious can be helpful and then you completely turn it around and use it against them so to speak. Actually you're presenting them with hope by destroying theirs.

I want to say just a few words about evidentialism in general. I think when you give any evidence at all for somebody to consider, they often wipe their forehead of the sweat that they were worried about and say, "hey he's on my side after all," he thinks I don't know there's a God, what a relief.

That's the problem with evidentialism the way I see it. I hardly use it at all. Come to think of it, I don't think I've used it at all in 10 or 15 years. I wonder what others think about what I've said?

 

[SShaka]

I wonder what others think about what I've said?

Do we have a command in the Bible to present evidence to unbelievers for the Christian Religion? Or to argue for the Christian Religion? Make it reasonable?

I mean, the whole apologetic approach. I don't see it in the Scripture. I believe 1 Peter 3:15 has been butchered to give credence to apologetics. It simply commands Christians to give Christian responses, to explain the gospel.

My two cents

 

[jwright82]

I don’t see how you can talk about WVs without referring to the world (creation) and experience. I am not even persuaded that classical apologetics is good or biblical, but I think Sproul made a valid point there concerning the presupps.

For all my respect for the late Sproul, he's wrong here. But your response is self contradictory. You acquiesce in your first sentence that WV's are tested against creation and experience, hence not just WV'S competing against one another in some ideal and unconnected realm of ideas (the only place a tie is even possible logically) and then in your final sentence assert agreement with Sproul's point (which is a straw man argument about WV'S competing in some ideal place or realm).
Which side of the fence are you on? The straw man argument or admitting there's a place to adjudicate between WV'S?

 

[SShaka]

You acquiesce in your first sentence that WV's are tested against creation and experience

I don't know what you mean by "tested". I meant to say that WVs don't exist apart from the real world/creation/experience. You tried to make a hard separation from WV and the real world, thus eliminating Sprouls argumentation against Presupps.

And so, that we don't get lost in the weeds, it doesn't make any difference anyway. I could, as an Atheist, simply come to you and say: Haven't your senses, the way you perceive the real world, ever deceived you? The sun seems to move in the sky, and while in a train looking through the window you can see the world outside moving. But that's not the case really. By the same reason, you seem to think that this world needs a Creator, because it seems like it is full of design and beauty. But I tell you, you may simply be deceived again. It just seems like that's the case.

So no matter how you go about it, you will not ever win the argument against a smart Atheist.

There are so many Presupps out there, I don't even know if there is a consensus concerning Van Til. So without referring to specific views, the problem that remains is this: as soon as you give your opponent the opportunity to presuppose anything he likes, it's Game Over. And according to my understanding, this is exactly what presuppositionalism does, in one form or other.

 

[iainduguid]

Because the atheist, according to Sproul, can just assume meaninglessness, and then end up in meaninglessness.

Let's go back to this point. If my friend is willing to admit that his worldview is that everything is meaningless, I've actually won. Because almost no one actually lives like that. He doesn't behave as if there is no difference between Hitler and his kind grandmother. He doesn't really think that there is no morality; everyone lives according to some set of rules, however warped; everyone has a conscience, however seared, because we have been created that way. So to live consistently on the basis that everything is meaningless is very hard to do in the face of a world that cries out the opposite. You have shown him that he is suppressing the truth in order to maintain his worldview. He may continue to do so; unbelief is very stubborn. But his worldview is wildly at odds with the way he actually lives his life.

 

[jwright82]

Because the atheist, according to Sproul, can just assume meaninglessness, and then end up in meaninglessness. That’s the example he gives. But you can go many ways about this. Here in this thread another possibility has been given:



So by assuming I’m always right, I will be always in the right, no matter the conversation or whatever.

The problem I see (as does Sproul) is that as soon as you give the atheist the opportunity to just assume something, you’re in trouble, because then he can assume whatever he likes to “win” (in this case, to tie) the argument. And presuppositionalism, by its very nature, gives your opponent this opportunity.

You're assuming a lot of straw man arguments here about presupp's. Again you're going to have to defend your assumption that the apologetical conversation is happening in this ideal realm you're assuming? Is it Plato's realm of ideas or some mystical place (I'm well aware that there's a lot of religious mysticism in Platonism) but whatever it is it never touches down into creation, experience, and logical analysis?
Because once it did your argument is self defeating. That's that WV'S competing with WV'S cannot be logically analyzed against creation and experience or else you've proven that one can adjudicate between them, hence your point is wrong.
But how many Vantillian's actually believe this? None that I'm aware of. No Vantillian's believe this and it's highly debatable, for all my respect of the late Sproul, that Sproul understood that. So if you like your straw men then stick with them but that's not Van Til, or Clark for that matter who believed that logical analysis could adjudicate between WV'S. I'll defend him on that point.

Argumentation can never be circular reasoning. That’s by nature and definition not an argument, then.

Now this is a very fair point and deserves a response. You're correct circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. Now it's just a matter of history that Van Til chose to call his method circular but he did distinguish between vicious circularity (the fallacious kind) and broad circularity (or just transcendental reasoning).
This type of reasoning was well known by his time. Although it's assumed Kant developed it but I've read other places where people argue that there were prior embryonic uses of it (see John Frame's book on Van Til, even though Don Collet pointed out how wrong he was on how it's different from a deductive argument but not it's pedigree per se).
It fell out of use in philosophy for probably a number of reasons but to simplify for anyone not conversant with the "nerdy" history of philosophy that I just love, the biggest reason in my opinion was the critical reaction to Idealism in America and Britain. Transcendental reasoning and arguments were an Idealist thing so we don't want that.
That's the simple answer but how much Analytic philosophy and Pragmatism actually used some Idealism (given that that's what they were taught by their professors) is another "nerdy" philosophy thing. I've got a book on John Dewey's philosophy, that takes excerpts from his works with introductory material and comments by John McDermott (sure I spelled that last name incorrectly). John is one of the foremost authorities on Dewey's philosophy and I believe is/was director of some kind of Dewey center or something.
In the earliest piece selected from when Dewey was a student on "Kant's Philosophical Method" the other John comments on how much Idealism influenced his (Dewey's) philosophy in the concepts and arguments he used.
Now with Pragmatism and Analytical Philosophy displacing Idealism for whatever reason and Logical Positivism becoming the reigning champ in universities it just went away.
But thanks to the later Wittgenstein's work on ordinary everyday language (again this is a very simplified history but the "nerdy" kind I love) Transcendental Arguments came back into the discussion especially through the work of P.F. Strawson.
What's the point of this very "nerdy" history lesson (other than that I can't help myself, it's a problem I know but there's no medication to fix it) it provides the context for Van Til's unfortunate use of circular.
Transcendental Arguments take a piece of experience and "circle back" to what must be true for it to be as it is. If I tell you the truth that I'm divorced then you can "circle back" to the precondition that at one time I was married or that statement makes no sense.
I think he used "circular" as a bad analogy to how the method actually works in practice. If anything I said in this "nerdy" rambling doesn't make sense to you or anyone else then I'll be happy to clarify. In fact anyone is welcome to PM me if that's more comfortable to them.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

other than that I can't help myself, it's a problem I know but there's no medication to fix it

I feel this statement deeply. If you find the medication, my family would appreciate you sending it our way.

 

[jwright82]

I don't know what you mean by "tested". I meant to say that WVs don't exist apart from the real world/creation/experience. You tried to make a hard separation from WV and the real world, thus eliminating Sprouls argumentation against Presupps.

That's the context of Sproul's argument, by invoking it I assumed you agreed. My apologies but what I mean by tested is once creation, experience, and logical analysis comes in then that disproves Sproul's argument. Because by the nature of reasoning you now have a field (for lack of a better word) to adjudicate between WV'S, game over for Sproul.

And so, that we don't get lost in the weeds, it doesn't make any difference anyway.

But it does, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you agree with Sproul and end up the same place he does or you admit that one can adjudicate between WV'S.

I could, as an Atheist, simply come to you and say: Haven't your senses, the way you perceive the real world, ever deceived you? The sun seems to move in the sky, and while in a train looking through the window you can see the world outside moving. But that's not the case really.

Well without getting into the technical philosophical aspects of this, for one no serious philosopher I'm aware of doubts their senses (too many arguments against it). Your examples actually get into Einstein a bit but let's assume for the sake of argument your limiting the applicability of Van Til's method to the average person (probably some college though in my experience).
That's still only a slice out of the whole pie of people to make your argument stick. There's a logical fallacy out there (the name escapes me) about taking a piece of something and applying it to the whole.
All you've proven if anything is this may be true for this slice of people. Nothing more and it's debatable that you even proved that much.

By the same reason, you seem to think that this world needs a Creator, because it seems like it is full of design and beauty.

I'm not making the Teleological Argument, but a Transcendental Argument (that may or may not involve design). At that point I'd simply point out that we're not talking about the same thing and it it's probably true that they're arguing against non-existent straw men out there but not me.

But I tell you, you may simply be deceived again. It just seems like that's the case.

So no matter how you go about it, you will not ever win the argument against a smart Atheist.

I don't know how you're defining "winning" here. The success of any apologetics of any method is always in the hands of God's Spirit for the ultimate "win" of the Spirit's regeneration of the unbeliever. But one could not be used at that time by God for the building of the Kingdom but still win by strengthening the faith of the believer who doesn't know how to answer the skeptic, done this many times and it's a real blessing from God to see.
I can't answer this but God has provided (an unworthy and odd choice of people in my case) individuals who can. He truly is great and loving to his people. That's generally the look you get from people like that and it's very humbling and reassuring to say the least. To God be the glory regardless.
But you could also be used by God to "win" by silencing the mouth of the naysayers. In this case it may not be the Atheist that is the purpose of this divinely appointed discussion but the observers (who have no skin in the game).
Those are both other ways to "win" and I have a pretty good track record of, especially the latter two.

There are so many Presupps out there, I don't even know if there is a consensus concerning Van Til. So without referring to specific views, the problem that remains is this: as soon as you give your opponent the opportunity to presuppose anything he likes, it's Game Over. And according to my understanding, this is exactly what presuppositionalism does, in one form or other.

No it doesn't mean "game over". This discussion proves that wrong. I've (and others) been subjecting your arguments to logical analysis even though you've (probably unintentionally) assumed whatever you wanted about Presuppositionalist's and shown the problems with your assumptions.
Now you could "win" by simply doubling down and eventually withdrawing from the conversation but human nature is still human nature and I think you'd try to reargue the case later in which case you'd be right back where you started. But regardless every Apologetics is susceptible to that. If you think Apologetics is useless because of that than fine but you're not actually talking about Apologetics historically, another straw man.
One last thing, if you're admitting you don't know about Vantillian's enough to know what most are saying then is it possible that you're wrong?

 

[jwright82]

Do we have a command in the Bible to present evidence to unbelievers for the Christian Religion? Or to argue for the Christian Religion? Make it reasonable?

I mean, the whole apologetic approach. I don't see it in the Scripture. I believe 1 Peter 3:15 has been butchered to give credence to apologetics. It simply commands Christians to give Christian responses, to explain the gospel.

My two cents

"Always be ready to give the reason (Apologia) for the hope that is within you" 1 Peter 3:15. Apologetics comes from the Greek word "apologia" meaning to give (as I understand it) a reply to the naysayers. Even Tertullian understood this even though his method was critical of using Greek Philosophy, "what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?"
I really find it hard to believe that the church messed up the call to engage in apologetics from the very beginning. William Edgar and K Scott Oliphant edited a two volume work on reading's in the history of apologetics going all the way back to the beginning.
Also biblically speaking, what was Paul doing in Acts when he debated Greek philosophers in Athens? You can't debate people that your unfamiliar with their philosophy, it doesn't work trust me.

 

[SShaka]

Let's go back to this point. If my friend is willing to admit that his worldview is that everything is meaningless, I've actually won. Because almost no one actually lives like that. He doesn't behave as if there is no difference between Hitler and his kind grandmother. He doesn't really think that there is no morality; everyone lives according to some set of rules, however warped; everyone has a conscience, however seared, because we have been created that way. So to live consistently on the basis that everything is meaningless is very hard to do in the face of a world that cries out the opposite. You have shown him that he is suppressing the truth in order to maintain his worldview. He may continue to do so; unbelief is very stubborn. But his worldview is wildly at odds with the way he actually lives his life.

You always win according to your worldview, because you presuppose there is a God, meaning etc., you live according to that. I do not dispute that you win, but you win only according to your worldview. But your worldview is not my worldview. You do not win according to my worldview, you even lose according to my worldview. I win according to my worldview.

Let's say I am the one who assumes meaninglessness. You say I don't live like that. Let's say I agree that I live as if there is a meaning. But, so what? Me living according to as if there is a meaning in life, doesn't all of the sudden transform this objectively meaninglessness of life into a meaningful life. I just live in direct contradiction to the objective meaninglessness of life. So what? Life is still meaningless, even me living in contradiction to this meaningless life is a meaningless thing in itself, because life is meaningless.

I hope you see my point. It's just that, if I am allowed to simply assume meaninglessness, then I in a 100% of the time end up in meaninglessness, because that's my assumption anyway, my presupposition. Life is meaningless because life is meaningless.

It's the same with the other example. If I am allowed to simply assume that I am always in the right, then I am always right, no matter how smart or dumb I sound. Why? Because upon my presupposition that I'm always right, I inevitably am always right. You can not do anything about it.

So you can prove me wrong according to your worldview, but not according to mine. And there's the tie, there's the fundamental problem I see with it, as does Sproul.

@jwright82 You seem to be saying that what I just wrote is not true. You seem to be saying that I as an Atheist am not given the opportunity to simply assume my own worldview. May I ask, since I don't get it now, why you say that? Why am I not allowed to simply assume my worldview? I don't see it at the moment. I don't know where to start to quote all your writing, so I keep it as a simple question like this one for now.

One last thing, if you're admitting you don't know about Vantillian's enough to know what most are saying then is it possible that you're wrong?

But how many Vantillian's actually believe this? None that I'm aware of.

Van Til I don't know that much about, other than many Reformed people disagreeing as to what exactly he meant. So can I be wrong? Surely I can. Not going to dispute that.

But I listened to some Presupps, and their argumentation for many years. And it seems to me that I am not strawmanning them. For example, James White, the Apologia Guys, and I forgot the name of the other guy who had a debate with a famous atheist on Youtube, and later got caught in some kind of fornication I think (I don't know if it proved true or not), and he had a movie on Youtube about his presuppositional method; maybe he has it still.

Furthermore, I listened to some lectures from Greg Bahnsen concerning this topic, and therefore again, I do not believe I am strawmanning them. If you think so, that may be because I just force this line of reasoning to it's extreme, and by that showing it's necessary consequence as being a tie against the unbeliever. It sounds like my hypothetical debates here (me being the Atheist) don't represent the truth, according to you. Again, I'd like to know why. Because I really believe that your methodology allows me, assuming to be an Atheist, to argue the way I argue, to presuppose the way I am presupposing.

So maybe you can clarify.

 

[SShaka]

Let me give this one example, so you understand why I don't think I am misrepresenting:

Bahnsen says at one point (I can't remember where, but he definitely says it):

"The proof that God exists is that without God, you can not prove anything"

So, by that statement I deduce that without God (that is, without the presupposition that God exists) proving is impossible. Bahnsen says we need to work upon the presupposition that God exists. Otherwise, we can't prove anything.

So here you see, that's a simple presupposition he suggests. We have to work upon the assumption that there is a God. That is what he is saying. You dispute that?

And so, according to this saying, I can assume my own worldview of meaninglessness, or that I am always right. Bahnsen allows me to do exactly that. So, now me assuming my own worldview, I kindly answer back to Bahnsen:

Bahnsen, you just said that "The proof that God exists is that without God, you can not prove anything". Dear Bahnsen, that may be true, but it is only true if we presuppose your own worldview. If you presuppose my worldview, it is not true. And so I presuppose my worldview, and prove you wrong.

There's the tie. It's really simple.

 

[jwright82]

You always win according to your worldview, because you presuppose there is a God, meaning etc., you live according to that. I do not dispute that you win, but you win only according to your worldview. But your worldview is not my worldview. You do not win according to my worldview, you even lose according to my worldview. I win according to my worldview.

Let's say I am the one who assumes meaninglessness. You say I don't live like that. Let's say I agree that I live as if there is a meaning. But, so what? Me living according to as if there is a meaning in life, doesn't all of the sudden transform this objectively meaninglessness of life into a meaningful life. I just live in direct contradiction to the objective meaninglessness of life. So what? Life is still meaningless, even me living in contradiction to this meaningless life is a meaningless thing in itself, because life is meaningless.

I hope you see my point. It's just that, if I am allowed to simply assume meaninglessness, then I in a 100% of the time end up in meaninglessness, because that's my assumption anyway, my presupposition. Life is meaningless because life is meaningless.

It's the same with the other example. If I am allowed to simply assume that I am always in the right, then I am always right, no matter how smart or dumb I sound. Why? Because upon my presupposition that I'm always right, I inevitably am always right. You can not do anything about it.

So you can prove me wrong according to your worldview, but not according to mine. And there's the tie, there's the fundamental problem I see with it, as does Sproul.

@jwright82 You seem to be saying that what I just wrote is not true. You seem to be saying that I as an Atheist am not given the opportunity to simply assume my own worldview. May I ask, since I don't get it now, why you say that? Why am I not allowed to simply assume my worldview? I don't see it at the moment. I don't know where to start to quote all your writing, so I keep it as a simple question like this one for now.

You're right but this hypothetical situation doesn't really meet reality. Sure it's very true that people can just say that they live as if life has meaning but they know they have only a meaningless view to go from. Albert Camus basically said this.
How I would engage him I can hypothetically work out later, going to work. But at that stage the apologetical situation is over, that's all you have proven. Sproul acknowledges that over and over.
So I don't see the problem, every Apologist ever recognized that. So it's a nonstarter.

Van Til I don't know that much about, other than many Reformed people disagreeing as to what exactly he meant. So can I be wrong? Surely I can. Not going to dispute that.

But I listened to some Presupps, and their argumentation for many years. And it seems to me that I am not strawmanning them. For example, James White, the Apologia Guys, and I forgot the name of the other guy who had a debate with a famous atheist on Youtube, and later got caught in some kind of fornication I think (I don't know if it proved true or not), and he had a movie on Youtube about his presuppositional method; maybe he has it still.

Furthermore, I listened to some lectures from Greg Bahnsen concerning this topic, and therefore again, I do not believe I am strawmanning them. If you think so, that may be because I just force this line of reasoning to it's extreme, and by that showing it's necessary consequence as being a tie against the unbeliever. It sounds like my hypothetical debates here (me being the Atheist) don't represent the truth, according to you. Again, I'd like to know why. Because I really believe that your methodology allows me, assuming to be an Atheist, to argue the way I argue, to presuppose the way I am presupposing.

So maybe you can clarify.

Yeah internet guys are not the best to really learn how it works. Greg Bahnsen is in a different class but I've never listened to White so I don't know about him. I recommend the lecture series I posted on William Edgar and James Anderson intro to apologetics somewhere on here many times.
Don't have time to find them but I'll repost them later. Sorry also for the volume of writing but I write like I do apologetics/evangelism to the possible benefits of anyone reading/listening. Can't help myself I guess (still need that medication).
But I have to go to work. I have enjoyed our conversation and look forward to engaging further with you later if you feel like it. God bless, got to earn money to pay bills and all that.
[automerge]1768683570[/automerge]

Apologetics

Dr. James Anderson

subsplash.com

Nevermind my ride's late. Here's Anderson's intro to apologetics lectures.

 

[jwright82]

William Edgar

Professor of apologetics at Westminster as well as professeur associé at the Faculté Jean Calvin in Aix-en-Provence, France.

wm.wts.edu

Here's Edgar's intro class. This one you'll have to find them in the scroll and they're all out of order sorry.

 

[Knight]

Bahnsen, you just said that "The proof that God exists is that without God, you can not prove anything". Dear Bahnsen, that may be true, but it is only true if we presuppose your own worldview. If you presuppose my worldview, it is not true. And so I presuppose my worldview, and prove you wrong.

1) If what Bahnsen says is true - which you seem to grant - it is true irrespective of whether one presupposes Bahnsen's worldview. The truth of the statement is not contingent on whether one presupposes a particular worldview. Truth is not contingent on what Bahnsen, you, or I believe. That statement doesn't become true in virtue of our believing it (or some presupposition).

You may be conflating truth with knowledge. I'm not sure.

2) If Bahnsen's statement is true, then your attempt to "prove [him] wrong" ironically implies you are actually presupposing God exists... which is Bahnsen's point.

 

[SShaka]

1) If what Bahnsen says is true - which you seem to grant - it is true irrespective of whether one presupposes Bahnsen's worldview. The truth of the statement is not contingent on whether one presupposes a particular worldview. Truth is not contingent on what Bahnsen, you, or I believe. That statement doesn't become true in virtue of our believing it (or some presupposition).

You may be conflating truth with knowledge. I'm not sure.

2) If Bahnsen's statement is true, then your attempt to "prove [him] wrong" ironically implies you are actually presupposing God exists... which is Bahnsen's point.

No that’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying this:

1) Bahnsen makes an obvious presupposition (“God exists”)

2) That allows me to make a presupposition, too (for example, “God does not exist”)

3) There you have a tie again

My whole point, all the time, is simply this: by arguing in a circle (which is what he does), I am allowed to do the same. And so I just presuppose whatever I like. And so he will never win the “argument” (if one wants to call it that) against me. There really is no argument. It’s circular reasoning. Two people in their own circles, forever.

 

[Knight]

No that’s not what I’m saying.

Yes, that was what you said. You said:

"Dear Bahnsen, that may be true, but it is only true if we presuppose your own worldview. If you presuppose my worldview, it is not true."

Your statement here implies you think that truth contingent on which worldview one presupposes. To repeat, the truth of a matter is not contingent on whether Bahnsen, you, or I believe/presuppose it. I suggest you go back and reread Cornelius Van Halen's post #26, where he corrected you on this. Particularly:

Also, I don't assume I'm always right. I stand on the foundation of God's Word, which is always right, whether or not an atheist believes it.

That's a major difference. I'm wrong quite often. God's Word is never wrong.

He is correct. One more thing:

I’m saying this:

1) Bahnsen makes an obvious presupposition (“God exists”)

2) That allows me to make a presupposition, too (for example, “God does not exist”)

3) There you have a tie again

My whole point, all the time, is simply this: by arguing in a circle (which is what he does), I am allowed to do the same. And so I just presuppose whatever I like. And so he will never win the “argument” (if one wants to call it that) against me. There really is no argument. It’s circular reasoning. Two people in their own circles, forever.

This language of "allows" seems to match what your earlier statement that presuppositionalists "give your opponent the opportunity to presuppose anything he likes." I don't think any presuppositionalist here thinks that everyone has the moral or epistemic right to believe whatever presupposition they please, if that is what you are suggesting by "allows" or "opportunity."

Now, you (or an atheist) might state that you (or they) have a different presupposition that I do. But that doesn't put you (or they) on equal, epistemic footing.

By the way, I would agree that beliefs/presuppositions are not epistemically justified by circular reasoning. But that doesn't mean one's defense of his beliefs cannot be self-referential. You seem to be conflating truth, knowledge, and/or apologetics.

 

[jwright82]

No that’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying this:

1) Bahnsen makes an obvious presupposition (“God exists”)

2) That allows me to make a presupposition, too (for example, “God does not exist”)

3) There you have a tie again

My whole point, all the time, is simply this: by arguing in a circle (which is what he does), I am allowed to do the same. And so I just presuppose whatever I like. And so he will never win the “argument” (if one wants to call it that) against me. There really is no argument. It’s circular reasoning. Two people in their own circles, forever.

You're arguing against straw men again. And Knight is 100% correct in his assessment. Look you've been gently corrected over and over again. That's not how it works no matter how much you want it to. You keep asserting the same stuff even after being gently corrected.
I suspect, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you want this to be true so you have an easy target to dismiss.

 

[SShaka]

Yes, that was what you said. You said:

"Dear Bahnsen, that may be true, but it is only true if we presuppose your own worldview. If you presuppose my worldview, it is not true."

By that statement of mine I meant to say that Bahnsen is in the right if we presuppose his worldview (“God exists”). In other words, if there is a God, then there is reason (to prove anything), morality, design etc.

To repeat, the truth of a matter is not contingent on whether Bahnsen, you, or I believe/presuppose it.

Of course it’s not, I would never claim such a thing. If I presuppose a unicorn, that doesn’t make the unicorn objectively true.

You (and the other guy whose answer you repeated and quoted) seem to misunderstand me, here. Have you read my response to his?

Let me try to be clear: it’s not that simply presupposing something makes that something to be true, objectively. OBVIOUSLY, I would never say such a stupid thing… I hope we all agree here BUT, what it is all about is the debate per se. You can win a debate even if you’re objectively not in the right. So, again, what I am saying all along in this thread is, that you can never win a debate against an Atheist. And that’s the problem! Why can you never win a debate? Because the presuppositionalist allows you to presuppose anything you like (even the most stupidest and immoral thing in the world, like “God does not exist”). I never claimed that the thing the Atheist presupposes is true. But the route he takes, that is, simply presupposing anything he likes, is allowed and accepted (I must say, allowed and accepted in the eyes of God, because the two debaters are judged upon the same rules, and so, what one is allowed to do the other is, too) because the Presuppositionalist does the very same thing.

Was I clear now? I hope so!

I don't think any presuppositionalist here thinks that everyone has the moral or epistemic right to believe whatever presupposition they please, if that is what you are suggesting by "allows" or "opportunity."

Well, that’s great. But in my estimation (and Sprouls etc.) that’s exactly what is being done by presupposing God. Here we may disagree. But this point here is exactly what creates all the problem I am writing about. If the Presupp is allowed to presuppose God, I am allowed to presuppose, too. Presupposing by definition is not based upon argumentation, linear thinking and reasoning. It’s just that, presupposing. You have that very name in your definition of the method of apologetics. “Presuppositionalism”. THAT is the problem. THAT allows me, as an Atheist, to have my unicorn.

I suspect, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you want this to be true so you have an easy target to dismiss.

I couldn’t care less about apologetics per se. You might have gathered I am against apologetics anyway, Sproul and Bahnsen. But the thing I am writing about doesn’t only apply to apologetics, but to argumentation and proving or reasoning in general. That’s an interest of mine, sound reasoning.

So no, I don’t believe I am stubborn or anything, I just want to explain what I mean, express why I think this method of apologetics is faulty at the core, without being offensive. I think we just don’t understand each other at this point. Maybe the above clarifies!

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Presupposing by definition is not based upon argumentation, linear thinking and reasoning

Scripture itself, which is our only infallible rule for life and faith, presupposes that God exists. We are told by His infallible revelation what He has done and what is required of us as his creation.

Atheists can presuppose that God does not exists. But look at the results of that in Romans 1. Claiming to be wise they became fools. No man needs to have God's existence proved to him, he already knows and is deceiving himself when he denys it.

All apologetic discussions need to be done through the lense of scripture. And scripture never validates the Atheist or Agnostic worldview.

The rest of this discussion is out of my depth. But I thought this was important to keep in mind.

 

[Ed Walsh]

All apologetic discussions need to be done through the lense of scripture. And scripture never validates the Atheist or Agnostic worldview.

Right!
It is totally impossible for a man to step outside of the world that God created and use his mind independently to try to think his way up to Faith. I don't remember who said this, but he said, (I'm sure I will botch this up) The most atheistically-minded person who hates the very idea of God still has to climb up on God's lap to slap Him in the face. "For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord." Everything, the laws of logic, our emotions, everything is dependent upon God. There Is no escape from Him, "for in him we live, and move, and have our being."

 

[SShaka]

Scripture itself, which is our only infallible rule for life and faith, presupposes that God exists. We are told by His infallible revelation what He has done and what is required of us as his creation.

Atheists can presuppose that God does not exists. But look at the results of that in Romans 1. Claiming to be wise they became fools. No man needs to have God's existence proved to him, he already knows and is deceiving himself when he denys it.

All apologetic discussions need to be done through the lense of scripture. And scripture never validates the Atheist or Agnostic worldview.

The rest of this discussion is out of my depth. But I thought this was important to keep in mind.

Of course Scripture presupposes God exists, just as I presuppose that God exists when writing here at this board. And that's not a problem, because we have common ground. We're not debating the existence of God.

But here you make a fatal mistake, as do many presuppositionalists. Let me explain.

When it comes to the existence of God, or that the Bible is the word of God (let's take these two examples), presuppositionalists seem to think that we have to presuppose it to prove it. So here the question is exactly the debate about the existence of God, or that the Bible is the word of God. But what does the Bible say? And what do the classical Reformers and Puritans say? Do we have to presuppose it, in a debate about the truthfulness of it?

No! What they say and teach is not that we have to presuppose the existence of God, or that the Bible is the word of God. But this is what presuppositionalism does. So what do they teach? The Bible, the Reformers and Puritans? They all teach that creation proves the existence of God, and that the Bible proves itself to be the word of God. In other words: It is self-evident that there is a God, it is self-evident that the Bible is the word of God!

Now, self-evidence has nothing to do with presupposing. It has to do with proving. Because evidence is being used to prove something. It's linear, not circular. Presuppositionalism here is at odds with our classical heritage.

So the creation itself proves there is a God, and the Bible proves itself to be the word of God. There is evidence within creation and the Bible which results in the inevitable conclusion that there is a God, and that the Bible is the word of God.

I hope that helps!

 

[SShaka]

Maybe now you understand also why I am against classical apologetics, the thing proposed by Sproul, Gerstner etc., also all the philosophical apologists. They try to prove by arguments the existence of God unto unbelievers. You know, cosmological, teleological etc., all these classical arguments for the existence of God. But Scripture tells us God does it himself, he proves himself to all men by what he has made. It's self-evident. He doesn't need our help. We need to tell those people to repent, and not to prove to them the existence of God. It's about authority, not reason. The problem is moral, not intellectual.

I believe apologetics is still useful, but it is not to be aimed at the unbeliever, but unto the believer. Apologetics, in my estimation, is for the relief of the believer, and not for persuading the unbeliever. If you aim at the unbeliever, do so with the intent to shut his mouth, so that the believer has relief in his doubts. The unbeliever needs to be told to come to church, and hear the gospel, it's conditions, to repent, believe & be saved.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Of course Scripture presupposes God exists, just as I presuppose that God exists when writing here at this board. And that's not a problem, because we have common ground. We're not debating the existence of God.

But here you make a fatal mistake, as do many presuppositionalists. Let me explain.

When it comes to the existence of God, or that the Bible is the word of God (let's take these two examples), presuppositionalists seem to think that we have to presuppose it to prove it. So here the question is exactly the debate about the existence of God, or that the Bible is the word of God. But what does the Bible say? And what do the classical Reformers and Puritans say? Do we have to presuppose it, in a debate about the truthfulness of it?

No! What they say and teach is not that we have to presuppose the existence of God, or that the Bible is the word of God. But this is what presuppositionalism does. So what do they teach? The Bible, the Reformers and Puritans? They all teach that creation proves the existence of God, and that the Bible proves itself to be the word of God. In other words: It is self-evident that there is a God, it is self-evident that the Bible is the word of God!

Now, self-evidence has nothing to do with presupposing. It has to do with proving. Because evidence is being used to prove something. It's linear, not circular. Presuppositionalism here is at odds with our classical heritage.

So the creation itself proves there is a God, and the Bible proves itself to be the word of God. There is evidence within creation and the Bible which results in the inevitable conclusion that there is a God, and that the Bible is the word of God.

I hope that helps!

I was saying I don't have to prove anything. Romans 1 says that men already know that God exists. It's the common ground of all men to acknowledge God's existence. Anyone who denies that God exists is a liar.

 

[jwright82]

By that statement of mine I meant to say that Bahnsen is in the right if we presuppose his worldview (“God exists”). In other words, if there is a God, then there is reason (to prove anything), morality, design etc.



Of course it’s not, I would never claim such a thing. If I presuppose a unicorn, that doesn’t make the unicorn objectively true.

You (and the other guy whose answer you repeated and quoted) seem to misunderstand me, here. Have you read my response to his?

Let me try to be clear: it’s not that simply presupposing something makes that something to be true, objectively. OBVIOUSLY, I would never say such a stupid thing… I hope we all agree here BUT, what it is all about is the debate per se. You can win a debate even if you’re objectively not in the right. So, again, what I am saying all along in this thread is, that you can never win a debate against an Atheist. And that’s the problem! Why can you never win a debate? Because the presuppositionalist allows you to presuppose anything you like (even the most stupidest and immoral thing in the world, like “God does not exist”). I never claimed that the thing the Atheist presupposes is true. But the route he takes, that is, simply presupposing anything he likes, is allowed and accepted (I must say, allowed and accepted in the eyes of God, because the two debaters are judged upon the same rules, and so, what one is allowed to do the other is, too) because the Presuppositionalist does the very same thing.

Was I clear now? I hope so!



Well, that’s great. But in my estimation (and Sprouls etc.) that’s exactly what is being done by presupposing God. Here we may disagree. But this point here is exactly what creates all the problem I am writing about. If the Presupp is allowed to presuppose God, I am allowed to presuppose, too. Presupposing by definition is not based upon argumentation, linear thinking and reasoning. It’s just that, presupposing. You have that very name in your definition of the method of apologetics. “Presuppositionalism”. THAT is the problem. THAT allows me, as an Atheist, to have my unicorn.



I couldn’t care less about apologetics per se. You might have gathered I am against apologetics anyway, Sproul and Bahnsen. But the thing I am writing about doesn’t only apply to apologetics, but to argumentation and proving or reasoning in general. That’s an interest of mine, sound reasoning.

So no, I don’t believe I am stubborn or anything, I just want to explain what I mean, express why I think this method of apologetics is faulty at the core, without being offensive. I think we just don’t understand each other at this point. Maybe the above clarifies!

Fair enough. I too love sound reasoning, I'm glad you love that. But you're not reasoning soundly at all. I've pointed that out many times. So you must forgive me (and I mean no offense) if I'm a little suspicious that someone who loves reasoning in general seems to prefer logical fallacies to sound logical analysis.
I don't think you're stubborn honestly. If I'm being honest the reason we're "talking past each other" is because you're not describing Presuppositionalist thinking of any stripe I'm aware of (Vantillian's, Van Til, Clark, Clarkians, etc). You seem to have invented a non-existent apologetics and you're criticizing that.
Which is fine but it's a logical fallacy. I think you need to do more study to clean up your reasoning.

 

[Knight]

By that statement of mine I meant to say that Bahnsen is in the right if we presuppose his worldview (“God exists”). In other words, if there is a God, then there is reason (to prove anything), morality, design etc.

There is no "if." There is God - the God of the Bible. There is no possibility that He does not exist. Your saying "if there is a God" is the problem. As Van Til says in one lecture, you are "making possibility - abstract possibility - back of God." On the contrary, "God is the source of possibility."

Of course it’s not, I would never claim such a thing. If I presuppose a unicorn, that doesn’t make the unicorn objectively true.

Well, you did claim such a thing: you said that it may be true that "without God, you can not prove anything... but it is only true if we presuppose your own worldview. If you presuppose my worldview, it is not true." On the contrary, "it" is not only true if one presupposes a particular worldview, for what we presuppose does not determine what is or is not true.

You (and the other guy whose answer you repeated and quoted) seem to misunderstand me, here. Have you read my response to his?

I did.

Let me try to be clear: it’s not that simply presupposing something makes that something to be true, objectively. OBVIOUSLY, I would never say such a stupid thing… I hope we all agree here BUT, what it is all about is the debate per se. You can win a debate even if you’re objectively not in the right. So, again, what I am saying all along in this thread is, that you can never win a debate against an Atheist.

Cornelius Van Til and jwright already answered this too:

Finally, while arguments have a purpose, they don't create Christians. The Spirit does.

I don't know how you're defining "winning" here. The success of any apologetics of any method is always in the hands of God's Spirit for the ultimate "win" of the Spirit's regeneration of the unbeliever.

God causes growth (1 Corinthians 3:6). All we can do is water. You're setting a standard for apologetics ("winning") that should not be set and then further judging presuppositionalism against that standard.

And that’s the problem! Why can you never win a debate? Because the presuppositionalist allows you to presuppose anything you like (even the most stupidest and immoral thing in the world, like “God does not exist”). I never claimed that the thing the Atheist presupposes is true. But the route he takes, that is, simply presupposing anything he likes, is allowed and accepted (I must say, allowed and accepted in the eyes of God, because the two debaters are judged upon the same rules, and so, what one is allowed to do the other is, too) because the Presuppositionalist does the very same thing.

I already said that presuppositionalism does not "allow" that people have a moral or epistemic right to presuppose whatever they want. You'll have to be more clear what you mean by "allow," if you mean something else than that.

Now, people may state they presuppose foolish things. But 1) they do that irrespective of what presuppositionalists "allow," and 2) their foolishness is not on equal footing with the wisdom of God.

If the Presupp is allowed to presuppose God, I am allowed to presuppose, too.

You're within moral and epistemic rights to presuppose God and His word, not whatever you feel like. Where are you coming up with the idea you're "allowed" to presuppose whatever you want?

Presupposing by definition is not based upon argumentation, linear thinking and reasoning. It’s just that, presupposing. You have that very name in your definition of the method of apologetics. “Presuppositionalism”. THAT is the problem. THAT allows me, as an Atheist, to have my unicorn.

It is impossible to base every knowledge claim on argumentation, thinking, or reasoning. That doesn't mean argumentation, thinking, or reasoning is fruitless - but fruit can only be borne from a fruit-bearing source. Atheists have no such source.

 

[jwright82]

By that statement of mine I meant to say that Bahnsen is in the right if we presuppose his worldview (“God exists”). In other words, if there is a God, then there is reason (to prove anything), morality, design etc.

Not even close to the Transcendental Argument. This has been pointed out to you already I believe but I could be wrong, so my apologies if I am.
It's not that you "prove anything", it's that you prove that only in Christian Theism does the things in our experience have intellengability. In Atheism (or any other WV) the things of experience that we take for granted have no intellengability.
That's how Transcendental Reasoning works, so please if you're going to critique it then at least describe it correctly. Bahnsen had a PhD in Epistemology, I think he knows what he's talking about. That may be why you misunderstood him (no offense intended) because you seem unaware of philosophy in general. Not trying to insult you brother.

Of course it’s not, I would never claim such a thing. If I presuppose a unicorn, that doesn’t make the unicorn objectively true.

You (and the other guy whose answer you repeated and quoted) seem to misunderstand me, here. Have you read my response to his?

Let me try to be clear: it’s not that simply presupposing something makes that something to be true, objectively. OBVIOUSLY, I would never say such a stupid thing… I hope we all agree here BUT, what it is all about is the debate per se. You can win a debate even if you’re objectively not in the right. So, again, what I am saying all along in this thread is, that you can never win a debate against an Atheist. And that’s the problem!

Not true. I think you're equivocating on "win" and "true". Again not to offend but a better familiarity with Philosophy would help you out here.

Why can you never win a debate? Because the presuppositionalist allows you to presuppose anything you like (even the most stupidest and immoral thing in the world, like “God does not exist”). I never claimed that the thing the Atheist presupposes is true. But the route he takes, that is, simply presupposing anything he likes, is allowed and accepted (I must say, allowed and accepted in the eyes of God, because the two debaters are judged upon the same rules, and so, what one is allowed to do the other is, too) because the Presuppositionalist does the very same thing.

Was I clear now? I hope so!

Not remotely clear. Since I'm responding to a response to Knight, I'll just say this. In my interactions with him and reading his fantastic blog (you should check it out) he knows his stuff. Despite our many disagreements.
But despite that you're again not describing how Transcendental Reasoning works. You really should take a step back and familiarize yourself with how it works. Not trying to offend brother but look at it from our perspective.
Since what you're describing isn't even true about Van Til (who I'm a fan of) or in this case Clark (who last time I checked Knight is a fan of) can you blame us for not understanding? I mean at least get your descriptions accurate. We're all of us are trying to gently correct your erroneous views brother.

Well, that’s great. But in my estimation (and Sprouls etc.) that’s exactly what is being done by presupposing God. Here we may disagree. But this point here is exactly what creates all the problem I am writing about. If the Presupp is allowed to presuppose God, I am allowed to presuppose, too. Presupposing by definition is not based upon argumentation, linear thinking and reasoning. It’s just that, presupposing.

Not even close and Sproul is wrong here, may that great and important man rest in peace. You have already been corrected by me on the distinct logical formula of TA and arguing by way of presuppositions. You seem to not really know what you're talking about, no offense intended brother.
It's not that we don't agree with you, per se, but you don't agree with reality (Presuppositionalist, history, logic, or reason) and we're just trying to show you.

You have that very name in your definition of the method of apologetics. “Presuppositionalism”. THAT is the problem. THAT allows me, as an Atheist, to have my unicorn.

I get what you're saying here and to lightly point out (tounge and cheek) Atheists don't believe in unicorns. But Presuppositionlism means more than what you're allowing.
I have to ask a slightly personal question, if you don't mind, and that's as a Ukrainian (I checked out your page here) do you speak and/or write in English? I mean no offense but if not then I wonder if the disagreements might be over us all being "lost in translation". Or maybe certain phrases in Ukrainian and American English aren't translating that well through an app or whatever.
You know certain colloquial sayings can't be translated that well or whatever. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here brother.

I couldn’t care less about apologetics per se. You might have gathered I am against apologetics anyway, Sproul and Bahnsen. But the thing I am writing about doesn’t only apply to apologetics, but to argumentation and proving or reasoning in general. That’s an interest of mine, sound reasoning.

So no, I don’t believe I am stubborn or anything, I just want to explain what I mean, express why I think this method of apologetics is faulty at the core, without being offensive. I think we just don’t understand each other at this point. Maybe the above clarifies!

 

[SShaka]

Well I guess we have foundational differences even when it comes to logic, it’s hard for me to specifically even answer some of the points @Knight has made, or @jwright82 too. I don’t know where to start, or how to explain any better what I’ve already written. So I just leave it at that for now.

I have to ask a slightly personal question, if you don't mind, and that's as a Ukrainian (I checked out your page here) do you speak and/or write in English? I mean no offense but if not then I wonder if the disagreements might be over us all being "lost in translation". Or maybe certain phrases in Ukrainian and American English aren't translating that well through an app or whatever.
You know certain colloquial sayings can't be translated that well or whatever. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here brother.

You apologized approximately 1000x in your post, there is no need for that. I don’t get offended easily, and you didn’t offend me anyway. I don’t see why you would apologize that often for nothing..

But no, I really don’t think it’s language bareer here, but some fundamental differences of communication and logic, as I said. It’s really hard to describe, sometimes, and very time/strength consuming. And frankly, I am not that interested in the topic. I think you see the same in Sproul and Bahnsens debate, and anyway, in many debates when it comes to that topic. It’s understandable, since the two approaches (linear/circular) are so different.

 

[MW]

Isaiah's polemic against the idols is one of the clearest biblical precedents for the transcendental critique of other worldviews. Isaiah does not say, "You have your presuppositions, I have mine, it's a tie." He says your gods cannot do the things that must be true for them to be gods. Only Jehovah can account for the world as it is. He repeatedly challenges the idols to explain or account for reality -- to declare what has been and what is to come. It is not a contest of competing presuppositions but a challenge to provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Can your gods explain the past? Can they predict the future? Can they interpret history? Can they ground meaning? In chapter 44 he shows that idols collapse into absurdity. A man cuts down a tree, half becomes firewood, half becomes a god, and then he prays to it for deliverance. The worldview destroys the possibility of worship, meaning, and rationality. It collapses under the weight of incoherence. The presupposed god cannot speak, cannot act, cannot explain, cannot save. The idolatrous worldview is not merely different; it is nonfunctional. It does not and it cannot function in the real world.

 

[jwright82]

Well I guess we have foundational differences even when it comes to logic, it’s hard for me to specifically even answer some of the points @Knight has made, or @jwright82 too. I don’t know where to start, or how to explain any better what I’ve already written. So I just leave it at that for now.

Well I don't think it's foundational. If one wants to wade into the pool of logic and philosophical ideas then one ought to know what they're talking about. You can't blame us for pointing that out. It's not unreasonable to point out misunderstanding in someone's views.

You apologized approximately 1000x in your post, there is no need for that. I don’t get offended easily, and you didn’t offend me anyway. I don’t see why you would apologize that often for nothing..

Fair enough but I was still not sure on the language barrier.

But no, I really don’t think it’s language bareer here, but some fundamental differences of communication and logic, as I said. It’s really hard to describe, sometimes, and very time/strength consuming. And frankly, I am not that interested in the topic. I think you see the same in Sproul and Bahnsens debate, and anyway, in many debates when it comes to that topic. It’s understandable, since the two approaches (linear/circular) are so different.

There's no difference in logic but the right application vs wrong applications. Linear might describe the Classical approach but not the circular accusation of presup. You have already been corrected on that multiple times.
I painstakingly showed how the argument works and it's not circular the way you're using it. It's not "hard to describe" unless you're unfamiliar with the territory but that begs the question of perhaps you should approach a topic you by admission don't understand with more humility.