Presup Apologetics

[Echoside]

Now you are just playing games. But regardless, you carry with you your own assumptions and prersuppositions. You are perfectly "pinned down" in this respect. And until you give an account for your presuppositions you will always be logically inconsistent. So the evasion game doesn't really wash.

Tell me I'm playing games, dodge the train of thought entirely, then reiterate the same statement from a few pages ago. I don't know if I should feel insulted or sorry for you

"I think therefore I am" is where I start. I use logic every day, regardless of it's source I can use it. You can call this a presupposition, but it's a necessary one you've probably had to start with yourself to come to Christianity in the first place.

[DannyM]

Now you are just playing games. But regardless, you carry with you your own assumptions and prersuppositions. You are perfectly "pinned down" in this respect. And until you give an account for your presuppositions you will always be logically inconsistent. So the evasion game doesn't really wash.

Tell me I'm playing games, dodge the train of thought entirely, then reiterate the same statement from a few pages ago. I don't know if I should feel insulted or sorry for you

What train of thought? You cannot even account for your train of thought. No need to feel sorry for me, I'm living by my presuppositions.

"I think therefore I am" is where I start. I use logic every day, regardless of it's source I can use it. You can call this a presupposition, but it's a necessary one you've probably had to start with yourself to come to Christianity in the first place.

You cannot account for logic or reason. Simple. You have no rational foundations whatsoever to trust your logic and reason. This is the point. I have rock solid foundations. I can make sense of the world according to my worldview. According to yours you cannot make sense of the world you are living in. But the very fact that you CAN make sense of the world you live in assumes the truth of the Christian worldview. Practically speaking, you are living by Christian presuppositions, and yet you are attacking the very hand that feeds you. I'd say this is a little ungrateful.

[Seraph]

You cannot account for logic or reason. Simple. You have no rational foundations whatsoever to trust your logic and reason. This is the point. I have rock solid foundations. I can make sense of the world according to my worldview. According to yours you cannot make sense of the world you are living in. But the very fact that you CAN make sense of the world you live in assumes the truth of the Christian worldview. Practically speaking, you are living by Christian presuppositions, and yet you are attacking the very hand that feeds you. I'd say this is a little ungrateful.

!!!

I mean as little disrespect as possible, but do you realize how crazy this sounds? If I were a newcomer looking into Christianity, stuff like this might very well drive me away.

[DannyM]

You cannot account for logic or reason. Simple. You have no rational foundations whatsoever to trust your logic and reason. This is the point. I have rock solid foundations. I can make sense of the world according to my worldview. According to yours you cannot make sense of the world you are living in. But the very fact that you CAN make sense of the world you live in assumes the truth of the Christian worldview. Practically speaking, you are living by Christian presuppositions, and yet you are attacking the very hand that feeds you. I'd say this is a little ungrateful.

!!!

I mean as little disrespect as possible, but do you realize how crazy this sounds? If I were a newcomer looking into Christianity, stuff like this might very well drive me away.

No offence taken. But no I don't see how this sounds crazy. As a Christian speaking to another Christian, I can't really understand how you would see this as crazy talk. Could a presuppositionalist come on and tell me if I have gone wrong here?

[August]

You cannot account for logic or reason. Simple. You have no rational foundations whatsoever to trust your logic and reason. This is the point. I have rock solid foundations. I can make sense of the world according to my worldview. According to yours you cannot make sense of the world you are living in. But the very fact that you CAN make sense of the world you live in assumes the truth of the Christian worldview. Practically speaking, you are living by Christian presuppositions, and yet you are attacking the very hand that feeds you. I'd say this is a little ungrateful.

!!!

I mean as little disrespect as possible, but do you realize how crazy this sounds? If I were a newcomer looking into Christianity, stuff like this might very well drive me away.

Will this be more likely to drive people away, or make them disinterested than saying that you cannot be sure that God exists, like the Dawkins argument?

[Seraph]

You cannot account for logic or reason. Simple. You have no rational foundations whatsoever to trust your logic and reason. This is the point. I have rock solid foundations. I can make sense of the world according to my worldview. According to yours you cannot make sense of the world you are living in. But the very fact that you CAN make sense of the world you live in assumes the truth of the Christian worldview. Practically speaking, you are living by Christian presuppositions, and yet you are attacking the very hand that feeds you. I'd say this is a little ungrateful.

!!!

I mean as little disrespect as possible, but do you realize how crazy this sounds? If I were a newcomer looking into Christianity, stuff like this might very well drive me away.

Will this be more likely to drive people away, or make them disinterested than saying that you cannot be sure that God exists, like the Dawkins argument?

Hey. All I'm doing is trying to be intellectually honest when I say stuff like that. Many (most?) Christians have doubts just like me. I'm only human and I think it's important to show that rather than pretend I'm enlightened with flawless irrefutable knowledge that nobody else has. I've been a Christian for a long time but I've never come across a way to know with absolute certainty that God exists, and only reasons that He probably does. I've also experienced reasons to think He might not. No need for ad hominems.

But, explaining myself a little better, the issue I have with your post Danny is that it seems to imply that Echoside already believes and recognizes the truth of Christianity and that he ought to be grateful to Christianity for providing him with the foundation of logic itself. We've been debating whether or not Christianity is the only solid foundation of logic, but either way I doubt he sees it that way and it will just seem hostile, and to a person that isn't already a Christian much less a presuppositionalist, crazy.

That's what I mean. Sorry if I seemed out of line.

[DannyM]

But, explaining myself a little better, the issue I have with your post Danny is that it seems to imply that Echoside already believes and recognizes the truth of Christianity and that he ought to be grateful to Christianity for providing him with the foundation of logic itself. We've been debating whether or not Christianity is the only solid foundation of logic, but either way I doubt he sees it that way and it will just seem hostile, and to a person that isn't already a Christian much less a presuppositionalist, crazy.

Echo has already conceded he is being inconsistent. I fail to see how he can object to this, then, with any consistency. The things he takes for granted: reason, laws of logic, intelligible experience, certainty, universals, purpose, coherence, uniformity, etc, he has no rational foundation or justification for doing so, and all presuppose the Christian worldview. And he simply has no grounds for objection. I’m sorry if that sounds hostile. I can assure you there is no hostility on my part.

That's what I mean. Sorry if I seemed out of line.

Not out of line at all.

[Echoside]

You cannot account for logic or reason. Simple.

and? That doesn't mean I can't use it.

I have rock solid foundations.

Did you get these before or after you used logic and reason to evaluate them? Unless you were born with the conclusion in your head that God exists and is logical, you were at one point standing on foundations no different than my own. Using logic is a necessary tool to get anywhere in the first place.

According to yours you cannot make sense of the world you are living in. But the very fact that you CAN make sense of the world you live in assumes the truth of the Christian worldview. Practically speaking, you are living by Christian presuppositions, and yet you are attacking the very hand that feeds you. I'd say this is a little ungrateful.

Untrue, I can make sense of the world just fine, I simply do not know WHY I can.

It does not assume the truth of the Christian worldview. It assumes the truth of the laws of logic, which is found under the umbrella term "Christian worldview". Of course you would claim them as your own and say I'm simply being ungrateful. A concept that fits your theology does not make me guilty of secretly adhering to it as a whole, I'm unsure of that concept's origins in the first place.

[spartanII]

Talking about presups can you guys respond back to my thread about the matt d/matt slick debate in the philosophical discussions? I had some questions that weren't answered.
thanks
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 19&t=36151

[DannyM]

You cannot account for logic or reason. Simple.

and? That doesn't mean I can't use it.

Um, no-one ever suggested otherwise. Is this all you are going to keep coming back with?

I have rock solid foundations.

Did you get these before or after you used logic and reason to evaluate them? Unless you were born with the conclusion in your head that God exists and is logical, you were at one point standing on foundations no different than my own. Using logic is a necessary tool to get anywhere in the first place.

What a muddled question. I most certainly was living inconsistently prior to becoming born again. What's your point?

According to yours you cannot make sense of the world you are living in. But the very fact that you CAN make sense of the world you live in assumes the truth of the Christian worldview. Practically speaking, you are living by Christian presuppositions, and yet you are attacking the very hand that feeds you. I'd say this is a little ungrateful.

Untrue, I can make sense of the world just fine, I simply do not know WHY I can.

Yeah, I know. Do you always read what you are responding to?

It does not assume the truth of the Christian worldview. It assumes the truth of the laws of logic, which is found under the umbrella term "Christian worldview". Of course you would claim them as your own and say I'm simply being ungrateful. A concept that fits your theology does not make me guilty of secretly adhering to it as a whole, I'm unsure of that concept's origins in the first place.

I’m afraid by assuming the validity of laws of logic and reason you are virtually assuming the truth of the Christian worldview. Have you read the last pages through? Logic and reason are only a part of the bigger picture. The creative and providential activity of the Triune God is behind all of man's experiences and intellectual efforts. Without these preconditions we would not be able to make sense of reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, cause, substance, being, purpose, coherence, unity, logic, individuating of facts, unchanging "natures" or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality. Laws of logic and reason are a mere part of the bigger whole. So according to the Christian worldview you DO know God. You know God by his natural law. You USE the tools bestowed on you by God. Hence my rather partisan “ungrateful” comment. I love my God. I’m very protective of my God. I don’t like seeing the amazing tools He has given us turned on Him in unrighteousness. So again, as you have conceded, you simply have no rational foundations to believe in anything law-like without God. That you are actually living and acting contrary to the preuppositions of your worldview is just further evidence that you really do know God. But you’ll fight tooth and nail against this. That Bible, you know, its accuracy is deadly.

[neo-x]

Hey guys, jumping in late but

Echo, I think (and I may be wrong) you are against being labeled, I think that is what is at the heart of the issue. You are not denying God, but not accepting God via a standard and since you question all standards, you deduct that God may or may not exist because you do not know how to extract a result.

What August and Danny were referring to is quite detailed and I cant go into all that. but somewhere along the line someone gave the example of a sculpture. you would know by looking at it that the artist exists. Then saying that you can't be sure how to trace out the artist, does not mean you think there is no artist.

Let me say something, although brothers like, August, Danny, Jilay have covered the topic pretty much.

There is a leap which every christian has to take, the leap of faith. You can't know the other side unless you get there, but you won't be there if you won't step up. There comes a point where every reason, logic becomes useless. What you call, 95% certainty, is all reason and logic, the rest of the 5% will take faith. You can smell a cake a million times and still don't taste it because you do not know what flavor is it, and whether you will like the flavor or not. Staying out of the ground and watching people play will not equate you to someone who is actually playing. This does not mean that you can't analyze, I am only saying, you have to play to know what you are analyzing.

I am not saying why are using logic or reason and do you know how you get them. I am simply saying, even if you get to the beautiful or horrifying truth face to face, you will need to believe. When Peter walked on the water with Jesus, he was defying reason and logic and even natural laws. Yet the gap he filled was with his faith. I hope you find something which is 100% true about God, but let me tell you even at the face of it, you would need faith to accept what you saw.

Saying that you do not know because you can't know is a bit stretched. If God came to you, you might say it is an illusion, delusion, hallucination, whatever but as you say, you can't really know he was there, even if your five senses affirm to the fact.

Please this is not an insult, merely an illustration but how do you know your parents are your biological parents, you could say, you have testimonies, that is not enough as you would conclude. Again you could go have a biological test. yes you could, and it will certainly affirm, but how do you know that the guy who did the test wasn't drinking or there was something wrong with the machine which calculated the results. How would you know that? In fact how would you go about answering these questions or you would simply believe the report just because the lab and the doctor says they there is nothing wrong with it. You might conclude that the report is real enough based on the lab or doctor's repute - still this can be wrong, you have no way to know if what they are saying is true or not. Since you were not there first hand to see and monitor the process.

I am not talking about the obvious of course but how do you relate to such questions? are they even questions for you? or do you decide where you would accept the results even though you can not be sure that they are 100% percent real by your own powers of reason and observation; and where you plan to stop and not be sure 100%.

My main question is, any proof can be shown to somehow not be 100%; how would you get past this obstacle?
You are open but at the same time your filter doesn't let anything pass as well. so even if the truth hit you like a train you would simply not be sure of what hit you despite the apparent reference, because you can always question it.

There is no higher force keeping you , no laws of logic are bounding you, it is merely doubt against an absolute. just because you can not know for sure doesn't mean you do not believe. How does a father know that his child will grow out to be Einstein or Charles Manson, when a teenager goes on a destructive lifestyle, would you stop trying to get him back just because you can't know or let me push it a but forward, would you decide in your own mind that since it is impossible to know that your child would turn out be Hitler or Gandhi, it is best not to do anything about him or his education, provision etc etc. I am sure you will not agree with the last line, no sound person will. But again how would you be sure? and since you are not, how do you think you will proceed, and being sure or unsure at the same time, would it affect your action at the moment? You will of course proceed like all else do. You will see for signs in your child and act accordingly, but the crucial moments have passed and common sense would dictate that you acted on hope, believe, faith, may be a thought, something. Something that did not have a concrete material evidence, yet it did exist in your mind.

And we come to the question, is a thought real, does it exist in reality? if we are to go with the OBVIOUS five sense method then, no of course not. They are electrical signals, but my image of a thought in my mind is not of a electric signal at all. So can we really say that a thought, an idea exists? Yet it does fail the 5 sense protocol. How do we know what we are thinking is the right way for the brain to think, if it applies to the theist and the atheist, it most certainly applies to the one who may or may not be sure.

This is not a rhetoric sarcasm thrown back at you, it is where your position brings me, an ABSOLUTE UNCERTAINTY about logic and reason itself, it can't be objective anyway, not even in the most subtle ways. If something is flawed how do we know it is not flawed on a certain level and not till the root.

My apologies for the long post.

[August]

Hey. All I'm doing is trying to be intellectually honest when I say stuff like that. Many (most?) Christians have doubts just like me. I'm only human and I think it's important to show that rather than pretend I'm enlightened with flawless irrefutable knowledge that nobody else has. I've been a Christian for a long time but I've never come across a way to know with absolute certainty that God exists, and only reasons that He probably does. I've also experienced reasons to think He might not. No need for ad hominems.

Seraph, I apologize if my statement insulted you, it was not my intent at all. I appreciate your passion and the way you conduct yourself in our discussion.

I thought my point was factual though. If you listen to Dawkins, his argument is that he cannot prove that God does not exist, but there is a high probability that He does not. The arguments proposed by classical and evidential apologists, of which there are many in the reformed camp where I am, does the same. In fact, RC Sproul, whom I greatly admire, takes the same approach, saying that he cannot prove beyond any doubt that God exists.

That does not, however, relieve him or anyone else of the burden of proof for their argument, and how it does not devolve into infinite regression or skepticism. We are also told in the Bible what our faith is, in Hebrews 11. In addition to that, there are many who give up everything, including their lives, for their faith. It does seem to be a bit radical to do that for something that you cannot be 100% sure of.

I appreciate your position, and your doubts, however small. Of course doubts cross my mind too sometimes, and that is why it is important to have that fallback of an argument that sets my mind at ease in the absence of supernatural experience, just like you mentioned before.

What I honestly don't understand, and again, this is genuinely curious and not meant as an insult, is why you won't give presuppositional argumentation a bit more consideration? It is my impression, and I may be totally wrong here, that you don't quite get the intricacies of the argument. It is not a simple argument, and it does take some study and a working understanding of Christian philosophy. I have been studying it for 7 years now, and still learn new things about it.

In my experience, evangelizing and debating for the last 20 years, it is the fastest way to disarm non-Christians, and to get people thinking. You may not win over the person you are debating, but especially online, there is a large silent audience and many times I receive positive feedback from them.

[jlay]

Echo, let me ask again.

If you see a sculpture, is the existence of the artist obvious?

With the info you have, do you think that a creator god exist?

Eventually this gets down to intellectual honesty. Are you going to sit on the fence or make a decision with the evidence you have. A refusal to respond to the evidence is still a response. No one can make you respond. But personally, I see it as more than a little trite to say, "I can't account for logic and reason," yet say, 'using logic is a necessary tool.' How do you conclude something is necessary? You are in fact making a claim about logic with no philosophical position to do so. You have to smuggle in Christianity to do such. I think that is the issue that is itching at some. There are plenty of people who ignorantly use logic, morality, etc. But you can't exactly use that defense sense you are engaged in a conversation about that very thing. If your worldview can't account for logic and knowledge, perhaps it's time to abandon that worldview, instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying, 'oh well.'

I mean as little disrespect as possible, but do you realize how crazy this sounds? If I were a newcomer looking into Christianity, stuff like this might very well drive me away.

Serpah, perhaps it could have been worded a little more soft handed, but it doesn't answer whether this claim is true or not. In fact Echo conceded that he has no way to account for logic in his worldview. I could look at Jesus' encounter with the RYR and say the same thing that you said to Danny. Maybe Jesus just needed some evidential apologetics. We should never try to intentionally offend anyone. But the reality is that the truth will and does offend. If we stand for truth, we will offend others. Period.

I've been a Christian for a long time but I've never come across a way to know with absolute certainty that God exists, and only reasons that He probably does.

And that in my opinion is the ultimate failure of evidential only apologetics. I agree that no evidential argument can help one know with absolute certainty that God exists. It is probabilities. And how much of a percentage does an unbeliever need to reject an argument? 10%? .00001%? I would hope that no one claiming to be a Christian has based their decision on a preponderance of the evidence. That is not the foundation of the Gospel.

[Byblos]

And that in my opinion is the ultimate failure of evidential only apologetics. I agree that no evidential argument can help one know with absolute certainty that God exists. It is probabilities. And how much of a percentage does an unbeliever need to reject an argument? 10%? .00001%? I would hope that no one claiming to be a Christian has based their decision on a preponderance of the evidence. That is not the foundation of the Gospel.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask how exactly does presuppositional apologetics 'help one know with absolute certainty that God exists'. Note I'm not asking what you're presupposing (that God exists), I'm asking for the proof of certainty in that presupposition.

[jlay]

Don't misunderstand, I don't think presup in and of itself can answer that question. My point was that in areas of evidentialism the failure is that it never gets beyond probabilities. Not that the arguments are useless.

I do think Presup confirms beyond any doubt that the Christian worldview is consistent regarding logic, morality, etc. That there is a creator God who upholds all things.