Evidence for God from Science

Why in the world would a Christian, set the Bible asside in trying to defend or contend for it? It makes no sense. Anything other than presup makes the assumption that there is neutral ground. The non-believer or atheist is NOT on neutral ground, regardless of how they spin it. Think about this, The Christian says, "let's assume for a minute God doesn't exist." Why would you do that?

Because it's a hypothetical thought experiment. You aren't actually ceasing to believe in God for a minute. You're arguing within the framework of their worldview and pointing out why it wouldn't work. Doing that is a valuable logical tool. You have to at least understand the arguement they're trying to make if you want to try and argue against it.

Example of a valid circular argument.
1. Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
While this argument is circular, it is a non-fallacious use of circular reasoning. Since we couldn’t prove anything apart from the laws of logic, we must presuppose the laws of logic even to prove they exist. (From Jason Lilse at AIG)

I don't see why the arguement is circular, since the premises don't suppose that the conclusion is true. Yes, you presume logic in order to formulate or debate the arguement, but the it isn't being assumed in the premises themselves that there are laws of logic. Premise 1 is essentially a necessary truth since arguements require logic by their definition, so you're basically only saying that logical laws would be required to make an arguement at this point but you haven't yet assumed that there is logical laws. Premise 2 is an observation rather than an assumption that there are laws of logic, since all you're doing is taking note that people do make arguements, regardless of whether or not they're using logic. If #2 was worded as "We use laws of logic to make arguements" then it would be circular and fallacious.

Now it seems to me that presuppositional apologetics makes the following arguements:

1. Human reason is unreliable because it involves the presupposition that it can be trusted.
2. Atheists use human reason to try and disprove the God of the Bible.
2. Therefore, Atheists attempts to use reason to disprove the God of the Bible are self-defeating.

and

1. The Bible says that all true knowledge is a revelation from God.
2. The Bible says that the Bible is a revelation from God.
3. Believers in the Bible (Christians) have knowledge that others don't.
3. Christians believe that the Bible is true.
4. Therefore Christianity and the Bible are true.

From my discussions with presuppositionalists it seems this is more or less the presuppositional arguement, though correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, the first arguement seems somewhat valid, but I disagree with it since I personally think that human reason can be trusted most of the time due to the major advancements that humans have made using it. Our ability to go to the moon using mathematics and logic shows that we must be doing something right. So I think that people should trust human reason but I say that human reasoning doesn't suggest that God does not exist like Atheists say. I think we should use our reasoning to offer support for the existence of God rather than undermine it altogether. Because of this though, I don't think it can be said that Atheists are wrong because they use human reasoning, so there have to be other reasons. So thats where I disagree with presuppositionalists so far, but I see their point.

The second arguement is where it gets very circular. The conclusion assumes that the Bible is telling the truth in premises 1 and 2, but hasn't done anything to prove so, other than that the Bible itself makes the claim, the very thing we're trying to prove the truthfulness of. It seems to me that if we should doubt human reasoning because it presupposes its own truthfulness, then we should doubt the Bible as well. To me it seems the presuppositional method should result in a person being a hardcore skeptic of everything they experience, because even if it does succeed in tearing down all worldviews, it doesn't built up the Christian worldview aside from using the arguement above that I believe uses a very fallacious line of reasoning, even though I believe the conclusion.

If the argument were reworded you will quickly see it is circular and valid.

1 There must be laws of logic or we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic.

That is most certainly circular. And valid. There are plenty of other non-religous examples that demonstrate that circular arguments can be valid. You said they can't. Evidence has been provided to the contrary.

it seems this is more or less the presuppositional arguement, though correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, I will correct you. It seems to me that you are speculating what the position is rather than correctly stating it. You then compose your thoughts about why it's wrong, but it's rooted in your speculation. That is called a strawman.

I think we should use our reasoning to offer support for the existence of God rather than undermine it altogether.

This implies another fautly assumption. Just where does the presuppositional position support not using reason? Ludicrous. There is no point in trying to convince (reason) you of presup apologetics if you insist on misrepresenting the position over and over.

1 There must be laws of logic or we could not make an argument.
2. We can make an argument.
3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic.

This still isn't circular. The premises still are not affirming that the conclusion is true by themselves, even though the wording seems seems that way at first glance. The premises say that there must be laws of logic in order to be able to make an arguement but it never says that there ARE laws of logic until the conclusion. Thus it isn't circular. Meanwhile the premises in the second arguement in my last post have the underlying assumption that the Bible is true, even though that is what the conclusion is setting out to prove. It isn't in a "if the Bible is true then..." setting, it is implying "The Bible is true" right in the premises even though it's the point of the conclusion.

Circular arguements can have true conclusions, but that doesn't mean the arguement itself is valid reasoning. Circular reasoning is listed as a common logical fallacy for a reason.

OK, I will correct you. It seems to me that you are speculating what the position is rather than correctly stating it. You then compose your thoughts about why it's wrong, but it's rooted in your speculation. That is called a strawman.

This implies another fautly assumption. Just where does the presuppositional position support not using reason? Ludicrous. There is no point in trying to convince (reason) you of presup apologetics if you insist on misrepresenting the position over and over.

Well then I'd like to know where I'm misrepresenting the presuppositional position because I haven't really read anything that suggests I'm building a strawman in that arguement writeout.

Seraph wrote:Because it's a hypothetical thought experiment. You aren't actually ceasing to believe in God for a minute.

Exactly. Your presuppositions are still there. You are just pretending to dispense with them.

You're arguing within the framework of their worldview and pointing out why it wouldn't work.

The presuppositionalist will show the atheist why his worldview cannot even account for reason and logic, among many other things. It does this in a much more emphatic way.

Doing that is a valuable logical tool. You have to at least understand the arguement they're trying to make if you want to try and argue against it.

Don’t you know, you’re just dancing around the issue here. They have no argument to understand. The worldview is utterly incoherent, yet you want to cede an imaginary neutrality to them. This is merely foreplay when you could be getting on with exposing them.

Now it seems to me that presuppositional apologetics makes the following arguements:

1. Human reason is unreliable because it involves the presupposition that it can be trusted.
2. Atheists use human reason to try and disprove the God of the Bible.
2. Therefore, Atheists attempts to use reason to disprove the God of the Bible are self-defeating.

Misrepresentation.

Human reason is not unreliable at all, and no-one but you is saying this. The point is that in an atheistic world there is no human reason. The atheist cannot account for the existence of human reason. How can we trust human reason to correspond with reality in an atheistic world? The fact the atheist uses human reason proves he is being logically inconsistent with his worldview.

1. The Bible says that all true knowledge is a revelation from God.
2. The Bible says that the Bible is a revelation from God.
3. Believers in the Bible (Christians) have knowledge that others don't.
3. Christians believe that the Bible is true.
4. Therefore Christianity and the Bible are true.

From my discussions with presuppositionalists it seems this is more or less the presuppositional arguement, though correct me if I'm wrong.

But your above omit’s the main point here. Presuppositionalists prove their position via the impossibility of the contrary. Atheism is dismissed without breaking a sweat, then other religions, like eastern religions, say, are taken
and shown to be incoherent.

Now, the first arguement seems somewhat valid, but I disagree with it since I personally think that human reason can be trusted most of the time due to the major advancements that humans have made using it.

Human reason can only be trusted and used consistently if you presuppose the Christian worldview. How? By the impossibility of the contrary.

How can you grant that the atheist can trust his human reason given his worldview?

How can YOU trust human reason if you want to pretend you are excluding from proceedings the assumption of God and replacing Him with a pretended neutrality?

Without God, your whole methodology fails completely. However, you know deep down that you (Seraph) are NOT excluding God but are merely appeasing your opponent with this pretended neutrality. Granting the atheist a level playing field is to grant the atheist a rational worldview when in fact we all know the opposite is true.

Our ability to go to the moon using mathematics and logic shows that we must be doing something right.

And there’s that uniformity and logic which the atheist has no rational foundation for believing in and adhering to.

So I think that people should trust human reason but I say that human reasoning doesn't suggest that God does not exist like Atheists say.

How can an atheist, in an atheistic worldview, trust his human reasoning? Perhaps this is the kind of question you could answer if we are to get to the point here.

I think we should use our reasoning to offer support for the existence of God rather than undermine it altogether.

But if you are claiming to hold no presuppositions then please justify reason using your reasoning if you are to be granted this. Why would you trust your reasoning when you are claiming to throw out all of your assumptions? Give me a reason to trust your reason.

Because of this though, I don't think it can be said that Atheists are wrong because they use human reasoning, so there have to be other reasons. So thats where I disagree with presuppositionalists so far, but I see their point.

Atheists know how to use reason. They just have no rational grounds to trust their reason. Yet you are granting them a rational ground. Shame on you.

The second arguement is where it gets very circular. The conclusion assumes that the Bible is telling the truth in premises 1 and 2, but hasn't done anything to prove so, other than that the Bible itself makes the claim, the very thing we're trying to prove the truthfulness of.

Can God swear by anyone other than Himself? Or by anything or anyone above Himself?

It seems to me that if we should doubt human reasoning because it presupposes its own truthfulness, then we should doubt the Bible as well.

No-one’s doubting human reason.

To me it seems the presuppositional method should result in a person being a hardcore skeptic of everything they experience, because even if it does succeed in tearing down all worldviews, it doesn't built up the Christian worldview aside from using the arguement above that I believe uses a very fallacious line of reasoning, even though I believe the conclusion.

The argument coming from presuppositionalists actually tears down all other worldviews by showing that they are incoherent and inconsistent. Correct. But what do you think it does all the while it is tearing down these worldviews? It, to use your words, builds up the Christian worldview. The presuppositionalist doesn’t merely tear down his opponent, he tears him down while simultaneously showing that the God of Christianity can be the only foundation for logic, uniformity in nature and science, rationality, morality, ethics, epistemology etc. The presuppositionalist is ready and willing to debate hard on showing these things. And he does so using, not only the Bible, but by using rational argument to expose the absurdity of the other position.

This still isn't circular.

I guess you need to take that up with the phd that I quoted it from. Just google valid circular arguments.

The premises say that there must be laws of logic in order to be able to make an argument but it never says that there ARE laws of logic until the conclusion.

Pickin nits.

1. Human reason is unreliable because it involves the presupposition that it can be trusted.
2. Atheists use human reason to try and disprove the God of the Bible.
2. Therefore, Atheists attempts to use reason to disprove the God of the Bible are self-defeating.

For one, premise 1 doesn't even make any sense. I would agree with the conclusion, but you've hardly stated presup apologetics.

1. The Bible says that all true knowledge is a revelation from God.

Where does the Bible say that?

1. The Bible says that all true knowledge is a revelation from God.
2. The Bible says that the Bible is a revelation from God.
3. Believers in the Bible (Christians) have knowledge that others don't.
3. Christians believe that the Bible is true.
4. Therefore Christianity and the Bible are true.

I would say all of that, as you have compiled it, is NOT representative or presup apologetics.

Circular arguements can have true conclusions, but that doesn't mean the arguement itself is valid reasoning.

Have you studied logic? Do you know what determines the validity of an argument?

High five to Danny!!

Fallacy of neutral ground

I still don't think this is a thing. I think one can try as best as they can to be objective by trying to see things outside of their assumptions and that they aren't commiting a fallacy by doing so.

The presuppositionalist will show the atheist why his worldview cannot even account for reason and logic, among many other things. It does this in a much more emphatic way.

The point is that in an atheistic world there is no human reason. The atheist cannot account for the existence of human reason. How can we trust human reason to correspond with reality in an atheistic world? The fact the atheist uses human reason proves he is being logically inconsistent with his worldview.

Does one need to know the origin of human reason in order to use it? Also does one need to know that God gave people reason in order to use it properly and does an Atheist need to believe that logic has no value if they don't know where it came from? I would say no to all of those.

Also, in the Atheistic worldview there is an explanation for human reason. They (and I) would say that the part of the brain capable of reasoning developed through evolutionary processes like all other parts of the brain. For billions of years, there were no species capable of reasoning but eventually as species "upgraded" over time, the brain's "blueprints" encoded in our genetic code eventually developed the ability to reason. They would also say that we can trust that it's somewhat accurate because we've been able to make predictions and advancements in civilization using it. The point though is that Atheists have more of an answer in their worldview for the origin of reason aside from just "*shrug*".

Human reason can only be trusted and used consistently if you presuppose the Christian worldview. How? By the impossibility of the contrary.

I think this is false. Atheists have possible explanations for the origin of reason.

Without God, your whole methodology fails completely. However, you know deep down that you (Seraph) are NOT excluding God but are merely appeasing your opponent with this pretended neutrality. Granting the atheist a level playing field is to grant the atheist a rational worldview when in fact we all know the opposite is true.

I think many Atheists DO have a rational worldview, regardless of whether or not they are actually true. I can understand how a person can rationally believe that God does not exist. I also understand how a person can rationally believe that God does exist. Truthfully, there are good arguements on both sides of the debate so it isn't as cut and dry as "one has a rational worldview, the other does not".

How can an atheist, in an atheistic worldview, trust his human reasoning? Perhaps this is the kind of question you could answer if we are to get to the point here.

Shown above.

But if you are claiming to hold no presuppositions then please justify reason using your reasoning if you are to be granted this. Why would you trust your reasoning when you are claiming to throw out all of your assumptions? Give me a reason to trust your reason.

Maybe you should first prove why your presuppositions are the RIGHT presuppositions. All you guys have argued for so far is that everyone has presuppositions. I would agree that everyone has their beliefs, but I would not agree that everyone has presuppositions to the point where they are incapable of seeing some validity in the other sides arguements, or considering other viewpoints. If everyone had unshakable presuppositions, how come anyone ever changes their beliefs?

It is possible to consider that you could be wrong in your beliefs without discarding your beliefs.

Atheists know how to use reason. They just have no rational grounds to trust their reason. Yet you are granting them a rational ground. Shame on you.

Again, I think they do.

Can God swear by anyone other than Himself? Or by anything or anyone above Himself?

I'm not sure why that shows that the arguement isn't circular.

The presuppositionalist doesn’t merely tear down his opponent, he tears him down while simultaneously showing that the God of Christianity can be the only foundation for logic, uniformity in nature and science, rationality, morality, ethics, epistemology etc. The presuppositionalist is ready and willing to debate hard on showing these things. And he does so using, not only the Bible, but by using rational argument to expose the absurdity of the other position.

I still don't see why God can be the ONLY explanation for the foundation of those things. I think it is possible for logic, reason, and knowledge to have naturalistic, even atheistic origins. Objective morality not so much, but Nihilism isn't an impossible truth. I think a lot of other explanations get dismissed due to a fallacy of appealing to consequences.

For one, premise 1 doesn't even make any sense. I would agree with the conclusion, but you've hardly stated presup apologetics.

Maybe I didn't word it very well, but the jist of the first premise is that an Atheist has no rational grounds for reason so their worldview is incoherrent.

1. The Bible says that all true knowledge is a revelation from God.

Where does the Bible say that?

I don't think it does actually, but it's an idea that is asserted by you guy's previous posts. At the very least, you guys have asserted that God is the only explanation for logic and that people have to recognize this in order to have a coherrent worldview, which is pretty much the same idea.

Have you studied logic? Do you know what determines the validity of an argument?

Yes. I'm guessing you think I'm confusing the validity of an arguement vs the soundness of an arguement.

All I'm saying is that presuppositional apologetics requires you to already believe that the Bible is true from the start. I can understand why you feel that you shouldn't need to throw aside your beliefs to argue with non-believers, but if you are to convince an Atheist that the Bible is true (that is, after showing that their worldview is incoherrent), I think it should be done in a way that considers that they don't yet accept the Bible as true, which includes offering at least some evidence for the Bible's truth that is outside of the Bible itself.

Seraph:

I can understand how a person can rationally believe that God does not exist. I

Scripture: "Only a fool says in his heart there is no God." Psalm 14:1

Therefore, fools are rational.

I think it should be done in a way that considers that they don't yet accept the Bible as true, which includes offering at least some evidence for the Bible's truth that is outside of the Bible itself.

Again, exactly how does that not work with presuppositional apologetics? It doesn't say you can't use evidence outside the Bible. Presuppositional is not mutually exclusive to evidential arguments.

It's all moot. You can't even be convinced that a circular argument can in fact be valid.

Does one need to know the origin of human reason in order to use it?

No. Nor does one need to know the origin of objective morality to act morally. That isn't the claim. It is that they have no basis to adhere to it. The atheist has no justifiable reason to submit to reason or logic. If, as you say, logic could be the result of evolution, then logic is actually an illusion. That being, without evolution logic wouldn't exist. That means until humans came along, logic wasn't. If logic came with human evolution, then it is evolving, and we should be suspicious of it now, because obviously it will evolve and what we are using is destined to be obsolete. Of course the problem is that logic is abstract. You can't measure it, or hold it in any material way. We can tell when a person is acting illogical, yet if logic is simply part of human evolution then how could we say a person is acting illogical? Maybe they've just evolved to a new level of logic. You see, for the atheist to argue, he has to trespass onto a different worldview. The presuppositionalist simply shows him that he is trespassing, and that his own worldview has no foundations. If you think that logic and reason are not independent laws outside the human mind, then create far more problems than you solve.

Maybe you should first prove why your presuppositions are the RIGHT presuppositions. All you guys have argued for so far is that everyone has presuppositions.

The burden of proof is on those who have a worldview that can not rightly account for logic and reason.

I think it is possible for logic, reason, and knowledge to have naturalistic, even atheistic origins.

Would you mind sharing some ideas on how?

Maybe I didn't word it very well, but the jist of the first premise is that an Atheist has no rational grounds for reason so their worldview is incoherrent.

Ok. I would say that an atheist has no grounds for a universe to exist where logic and reason can govern an independent mind.

Does one need to know the origin of human reason in order to use it?

No, just as one doesn’t need to know the origin of morality to be moral. They are just being inconsistent.

Also does one need to know that God gave people reason in order to use it properly

Same question really. No.

and does an Atheist need to believe that logic has no value if they don't know where it came from? I would say no to all of those.

Oh they believe it has value alright. These aren’t the issues.

Also, in the Atheistic worldview there is an explanation for human reason. They (and I) would say that the part of the brain capable of reasoning developed through evolutionary processes like all other parts of the brain.

That is the only answer they can give. And it is patently false. So you’re saying that reason grew naturally? If reason is the product of evolutionary processes, then how do you explain abstract, universal and invariable laws of logic? This is an absolute contradiction.

For billions of years, there were no species capable of reasoning but eventually as species "upgraded" over time, the brain's "blueprints" encoded in our genetic code eventually developed the ability to reason.

You see, this here is just assertion and something I would expect from an atheist. Please show me how reason can arise naturally, without applying the fantastical Darwinian metaphor. You’re really trying to convince me that reason arose through the genetic code? Then please explain laws of thought.

They would also say that we can trust that it's somewhat accurate because we've been able to make predictions and advancements in civilization using it.

This is begging the question and totally arbitrary.

The point though is that Atheists have more of an answer in their worldview for the origin of reason aside from just "*shrug*".

They have no valid answers I’m afraid.

I think this is false. Atheists have possible explanations for the origin of reason.

As we’ve seen, they have no plausible explanations at all.

I think many Atheists DO have a rational worldview, regardless of whether or not they are actually true.

Eh?

I can understand how a person can rationally believe that God does not exist. I also understand how a person can rationally believe that God does exist. Truthfully, there are good arguments on both sides of the debate so it isn't as cut and dry as "one has a rational worldview, the other does not".

How can an atheistic worldview be regarded as rational when it cannot even justify reason within its own worldview?

Maybe you should first prove why your presuppositions are the RIGHT presuppositions.

As Jlay said, the burden of proof here is on the one who cannot account for logic and reason. I’m living by my presuppositions and I’m accounting for laws of thought.

All you guys have argued for so far is that everyone has presuppositions. I would agree that everyone has their beliefs, but I would not agree that everyone has presuppositions to the point where they are incapable of seeing some validity in the other sides arguments, or considering other viewpoints. If everyone had unshakable presuppositions, how come anyone ever changes their beliefs?

1. We’ve argued that atheism cannot justify and account for logic and reason. The argument is sound.

2. If atheists are capable of seeing your side of the argument, with all the stacks of evidence you present, all this evidence which is so obvious to us, then why aren’t they converting in droves? Presupps.

It is possible to consider that you could be wrong in your beliefs without discarding your beliefs.

Of course I could be wrong. But I don’t pretend to step outside of my worldview to acknowledge this.

Atheists know how to use reason. They just have no rational grounds to trust their reason. Yet you are granting them a rational ground. Shame on you.

Again, I think they do.

We’ve seen they don’t.

I'm not sure why that shows that the argument isn't circular.

I’m not saying it isn’t. If God created all reality outside of Himself, and if God has sovereign authority over all creation, then how could He turn to a greater authority to authenticate His own existence? Would you call God circular and fallacious?

I still don't see why God can be the ONLY explanation for the foundation of those things.

Then you should be able to provide a coherent explanation of another possible foundation for logic, reason, ethics, love, meaningful knowledge, morality, altruism, scientific rationality and intelligibility.

This is not to mention Revelation.

I think it is possible for logic, reason, and knowledge to have naturalistic, even atheistic origins. Objective morality not so much, but Nihilism isn't an impossible truth. I think a lot of other explanations get dismissed due to a fallacy of appealing to consequences.

No fallacies here. We deny the consequent. We prove our position by the absurdity of the contrary. You’re on safe ground, Seraph, enjoy it.

Nice post Danny. I hesitate to go as far as jlay but personally I do feel best about using the presuppositional method. Imo those who utilize it often do a better job of exposing inconsistencies in secular worldviews. SO many times I see atheists invoke morality, "purpose", heck even reason and consciousness itself and be let off the hook as far as answering how these concepts actually fit into their worldview. They don't have to answer any questions, they're allowed to be comfortable and free to be on the attack while Christians defend with evidence.

So what are the potential problems with presuppositional apologetics? Well, I suppose it could make one overly "cautious" in evaluating evidence contrary to the position they already hold.

narnia4 wrote:Nice post Danny. I hesitate to go as far as jlay but personally I do feel best about using the presuppositional method. Imo those who utilize it often do a better job of exposing inconsistencies in secular worldviews. SO many times I see atheists invoke morality, "purpose", heck even reason and consciousness itself and be let off the hook as far as answering how these concepts actually fit into their worldview. They don't have to answer any questions, they're allowed to be comfortable and free to be on the attack while Christians defend with evidence.

So what are the potential problems with presuppositional apologetics? Well, I suppose it could make one overly "cautious" in evaluating evidence contrary to the position they already hold.

The thing is, there is a huge difference between an atheist attacking Christianity and someone like me. I don't hold to Atheism, I don't necessarily have any life philosophies in the sense of a major worldview. Do I have presups? Sure, But It's quite insulting to hear "oh you are just denying obvious facts and projecting your worldview and presups to the issue". Aside from Calvinism, there is NO REASON for me to not be able to see past them, other than my own foolishness. I'm quite past that hurdle, I realise Christianity is on some levels quite a good guess for the explanation of (apparent) reason and logic, among other things.

Do I have some well devised theory on the origins of the universe that can account for logic and existence? No, It's quite possible that that information is well outside anything I, or all of humanity might ever experience. And i'm fine with that, I don't know where logic comes from (assuming naturalism false in which case it doesn't actually exist), but I do know I use it every day, and I can use it to evaluate claims about it.


This is why I don't see ultimate persuasion in presup apologetics. You claim God is the cause of all the mysteries of the universe, I say Good Guess! You are going to need to give me a little more than demonstrating that other worldviews cannot account for (apparent) logic. The absurdity of other worldviews doesn't demonstrate Christianity true, all it does is demonstrate Christianity as more satisfying for the problem.

Evidential apologetics on some level needs to be able to defend Christianity. If Christianity is the only worldview we have in the category of "satisfying" for the requirements of logic then it cannot be logically false, the law of non contradiction says so. If Christianity cannot be shown to be logically consistent outside of the ideals of presuppositional apologetics, then logic must have a source no worldview has quite grasped in it's entirety. And I'm fine with that, I'm not here to defend an ideology.

Well I was talking about atheism and ways to show that atheism is inconsistent. If you don't hold with atheism, then its a different conversation isn't it?

Personally, I do have respect for the agnostic position. It certainly seems to me that its a more common sense position than atheism and often I can have good discussions with agnostics (although a fair share of frustrating ones as well).

But those who utilize presup apologetics, they are open to positive evidence supporting a certain worldview and interpretation of evidence. In fact that's part of the entire process. And as I mentioned before, if a "presupper" succeeded in showing atheism to be incoherent... what are the other options? If "There is no God" is false, then presumably the idea that "There is a God" has merit. You can always say "I don't know" or "I can't know" of course, but for myself I've found the evidence to be strong enough.

narnia4 wrote:Imo those who utilize it [the presuppositional method] often do a better job of exposing inconsistencies in secular worldviews. SO many times I see atheists invoke morality, "purpose", heck even reason and consciousness itself and be let off the hook as far as answering how these concepts actually fit into their worldview. They don't have to answer any questions, they're allowed to be comfortable and free to be on the attack while Christians defend with evidence.

I know, shocking. Ask them to justify logic and you get, ‘Here we go, so because I can’t “explain” something then your God must be the answer.” Well, no, that is not the point. Of course God IS the answer, but no-one expects the atheist to understand that. The point really is to show them that they simply cannot provide a rational foundation for these things given their worldview; the point is to expose the nakedness of their position. And it is effective to the point of being deadly.

So what are the potential problems with presuppositional apologetics? Well, I suppose it could make one overly "cautious" in evaluating evidence contrary to the position they already hold.

I’d say the only ‘problem’ seems to be that the presuppositional method is revolting to the atheist (and some theists)… they holler that it is viciously circular. But their position is no less circular. That they can’t admit this, and probably cannot even SEE it, shows they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. So this ’problem’ is not a problem in any real sense since the objection is frankly bogus and cannot be held up without being hypocritical. Oh happy days…

If you are interested in Presuppositional apologetics, then this is good: The concept of self-deception

http://www.fortifyingthefamily.com/Apol ... ogies.html

Scroll down to this linked: The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics

I was spending an afternoon reading some different works (scientific and theological) in the library, and it reminded me again how important presuppositions are. You simply have to expose atheistic inconsistencies and mistaken presuppositions or you're just playing the game on their terms. It doesn't necessarily mean that evidentialists can't point out these types of errors, but because of this supposed neutral ground that the atheist is allowed to stand on... it makes it more difficult than it needs to be.

A couple of examples that made me think of this-

I was reading one book, and I was really flabbergasted. I believe it was an atheistic scientist trying to explain fine-tuning. And he said there were two explanations, special creation, man was created to glorify God... or complex processes. The author said (paraphrasing but I'm not missing his point at all), "I find the second option more complex and more interesting, so let's dismiss the first option". And just like that he moved on. God was mentioned in other places as well, but serious treatment of Him? No, it was all remarkably flippant. So many atheists simply presuppose there is no God. I harp on this sometimes but I think its absolutely true, for some people literally NO evidence would be sufficient. If you don't get this sort of stuff pointed out, then there is no reason to debate these people. That's where evidential apologetics fail.

Another example is on this forum, I was reminded of an earlier post with a couple of posts Steve made again. On the "Laws of an Atheist Utopia thread"-

How do you figure atheists got their morals from you? Nearly all societies with vastly different backgrounds have similar morals. Even social animals have similar morals and they have no religion at all. Your religion picked up what everyone already knew the be right and wrong and someone just wrote it in a book and called it the word of God.

He really blundered into the exact argument that theists would use! Of course theists would be only too happy to say that just about everyone (perhaps even animals?) knows right from wrong, leading you to the obvious conclusion that objective morality exists. I know some atheists try, but once you admit that objective morality exists... its pretty much checkmate. I did bring this up on the other thread but unfortunately Steve didn't respond, but funny that he set up his own trap and it would take major backtracking to get out of it.

My point is, if you don't address things like presuppositions and basic beliefs, the skeptic can get off the hook. In reality an atheistic worldview is so empty and hollow... but so often atheists don't even have to think about it. I think evidentialist argumentation WORKS, but I don't find it quite as effective.

And nice read by Bahnsen, Danny.

That is a good read Danny.

made me think of something in Seraph's earlier post.

I think one can try as best as they can to be objective by trying to see things outside of their assumptions and that they aren't committing a fallacy by doing so.

First he misunderstands the fallacy.
One can try to be objective. But it is a fallacy to think the other person is being objective. Therefore the fallacy isn't trying to be objective, it is the thought that your opponent is standing on neutral ground.
In fact, trying to be objective is a presupposition. Is presupposes that objectivity is the higher ground. "We should be objective." That statement is only serving to prove the point it intends to undermine.