Why not both?

Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by PuritanCovenanter, Sep 1, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. crhoades

    crhoades Puritan Board Graduate

  2. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Paul is that like showing them there is no basis for their view of morality since they have nothing to point to for it's basis? And then showing them I have a basis of morality based upon a Creator?

    Addition to post.....
    I asked this before reading your last post and looking at the threads. I have been doing the above for years. Looks like we are in agreement.Humanity the Moral Standard?

    [Edited on 9-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]
  3. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    I think this is part of my problem. Only part. I didn't undertand the differences between the uses of evidences and evidentialism. I still don't understand the relationship between the need or needlessness of evidences. There is obviously a need. Or we couldn't come to any logical conclusions.
  4. Robin

    Robin Puritan Board Junior

    Translation: don't use Josh McDowel's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (or things like it...???)


  5. biblelighthouse

    biblelighthouse Puritan Board Junior


    Presuppositionalism is NOT blind faith.

    And Presuppositionalism is NOT "based on evidence", per se.

    Rather, Presuppositionalism is a manner of analyzing one's presuppositions to see whether or not they jive with already agreed upon facts.

    Here is a simplistic illustration:

    Some guy says, "I don't believe in logic."
    Then you say, "Why not?"
    Then he starts giving you reasons why he doesn't believe in logic.

    What is the best reponse at this point? Simply point out to him that, if logic doesn't exist, then there can't be any "reasons" for anything. Thus, his "reasons" for the nonexistence of logic are self-defeating. You both agree that reasons should be given. But his very use of "reasoning" is proof that he believes in logic.

    Thus, you point out that his worldview does not jive with his actual beliefs. His presuppositions do not account for his actions.

    Similarly, and atheist and I already agree that 2 + 2 = 4. But his atheistic presuppositions cannot account for the existence or dependability of mathematics. (This can philosophically be shown to be true regarding non-christian theistic religions, as well.) The Christian's triune God is the ONLY valid presuppositional foundation for mathematics (or anything else, for that matter).

    Make sense?

    [Edited on 9-6-2005 by biblelighthouse]
  6. biblelighthouse

    biblelighthouse Puritan Board Junior

    My understanding is that we look at both. We look at the unbeliever's presups, and demonstrate that reality would be unintelligible according to them. Then we look at our presups, and demonstrate that reality is perfectly accounted for by them. Thus, we show the other person that he is unwittingly living and acting according to beliefs hijacked from the Christian worldview. The Triune God is the only One who can make the world make sense.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page