Evidence for God from Science

Those arguements described all only appear to work because you are assuming that your conclusion is correct when you formulate your foundational premises. You are saying that your presuppositions don't apply to other gods because those gods conflict with what you already believe, that is all there is to it. You didn't explain why your beliefs are correct. There is such thing as neutral ground, you've never shown that this is a myth. You haven't confirmed that your beliefs are true yet so you are getting way ahead of yourself in confirming the existence of the Biblical God using that method. For example, you say the deist god can be discounted because one of your presuppositions includes that God must be the moral decider. But one can just as easily say that God is not the source of morality and has nothing to do with it. You have no arguement against it other than assuming that they have no way to reason without God (something you provided no evidence for). They would say the burden of proof lies on the person claiming the Christian God exists to show that God has to be the source of morality, and they would be correct in saying so.

Suppose hypothetically for a second that not all knowledge comes from God and that human experience can be understood without Him. You would still believe the same things that you do and presuppositionalism would seem just as valid to you because the arguement justifies itself in the most circular way possible, whether the premises are actually true or not. This shows that the method does not reflect reality and is not a valid study of ontology. If your conclusion happens to be true, you only got lucky that you happened to hold the correct conclusion, you've done nothing to arrive there using sound arguements. It doesn't do anything to answer the questions that apologetics seek to answer. The premises are entirely hypothetical and have not been confirmed as being true, even though all presuppositionalists insist that they are. It is nothing more than a thought experiment being treated as confirmed reality. Answering an above question, yes I am rather familiar with philosophy and that is why I will never accept the presuppositional method. It has glaring holes and logical fallacies that anyone can see if they don't already subscribe to it. Hasty generalizations, affirming the consequent, begging the question, and more begging the question.

Honestly it disturbs me that this method is being used to try and bring non-believers to Christianity. I cannot imagine a non-believer is not going to see its holes and fallacies, and it is only going to make a laughing stock of Christianity. Even if the presuppositialists are correct in saying that the logic, reason, and evidence have shakey foundations and don't reflect reality (something there is probably quite a bit of truth in), there still would be no reason to believe that presuppositionalism is a valid method of reasoning. I have in fact studied ontology and I realize that there is absolute truth contray to what someone said eariler, but I am saying presuppositionalism is a distraction from it.

Seraph, I am fully familiar with the stock objections you have repeated, yet you have not done anything but asserted them, as so many do. I also notice that you refrained from answering any of the questions I put to you. Also, I was not aware that what I was doing is mounting a full justification of the presuppositional method here, I was answering questions and replying to specific issues.

Your mind seems to be made up anyway, regardless of what anyone may say to you. That is fine, but I would encourage you to keep an open mind too. I would also love to see an example of where you debated an atheist, to see your methodology in action.

Now on to your comments.

Seraph wrote:Those arguements described all only appear to work because you are assuming that your conclusion is correct when you formulate your foundational premises.

That is the nature of deductive arguments. While we are on the topic, what are your foundational premises?

You are saying that your presuppositions don't apply to other gods because those gods conflict with what you already believe, that is all there is to it.

I don't think you read carefully. My response was not why I don't believe in other gods, but why the methodology doesn't work for them. I don't believe in other gods because their belief systems, as with atheism, is internally logically inconsistent. You seem to be very quick to want to put words in my mouth.

You didn't explain why your beliefs are correct.

Maybe you are right, but that was not the point. But I do believe that I repeatedly stated that I believe I am correct because of the impossibility of the contrary. For that matter, you have nowhere stated why your point of view should be regarded as true. Should I then say the same about you? Why don't you tell us why your beliefs are correct then?

There is such thing as neutral ground, you've never shown that this is a myth.

No, there is not. Or is it your position that someone can and cannot believe in God at the same time? Either you believe, or you don't. And you either start from a point believing that God exists, or you don't. If there is an absolute God, it is impossible to stand neutral to Him because then everyone is derived from Him, and stand responsible before Him. There is no neutrality or middle ground, only attempts to be anti-theistic, or in simpler terms, to ignore God. To argue for neutrality is in itself a position, and must be proven or else it is simply question begging. But once again, instead of just asserting, why don't you provide us with an argument for a neutral middle ground?

You haven't confirmed that your beliefs are true yet so you are getting way ahead of yourself in confirming the existence of the Biblical God using that method.

I have confirmed it. I used the existence of transcendental absolute truths and how we come to understand it to prove my argument. Maybe you just missed it. But if you want the more complete version, just ask.

For example, you say the deist god can be discounted because one of your presuppositions includes that God must be the moral decider. But one can just as easily say that God is not the source of morality and has nothing to do with it.

You can say it, but that would not prove it. If it is a deistic being, then why bother? Our experience is that moral or immoral actions have consequences, so we believe it does matter. But once again, what is your source for moral absolutes? How do you account for a moral framework?

You have no arguement against it other than assuming that they have no way to reason without God (something you provided no evidence for).

That is no assumption. I provided sufficient evidence by showing that it is illogical and irrational to argue for the laws of logic without first assuming them, and given the nature of logic, it shows that it can only come from an absolute and transcendent being. I would be happy to discuss your theory of epistemology here. Please demonstrate how you come to know the meaning of things, and how you acquire knowledge.

Your accusations are getting tiresome, by the way. You really need to read more carefully.

They would say the burden of proof lies on the person claiming the Christian God exists to show that God has to be the source of morality, and they would be correct in saying so.

So? The argument from morality stands, and has been submitted many times. I didn't do it here, but I used another argument.

Suppose hypothetically for a second that not all knowledge comes from God and that human experience can be understood without Him. You would still believe the same things that you do and presuppositionalism would seem just as valid to you because the arguement justifies itself in the most circular way possible, whether the premises are actually true or not.

Two things here...if we want to posit false and/or unproven hypotheticals then we can prove anything we want. Your hypothetical is true only either if God does not exist (prove it), or you are assuming occasionalism (if that is your position, then prove it). Secondly, there are some things that are properly foundational, self-evident truths. Quoting that is not circular reasoning. One can indeed make a sound argument using false premises, but one cannot make a true argument. Reverting to a false hypothetical does not refute presuppositionalism.

This shows that the method does not reflect reality and is not a valid study of ontology.

How on earth does it show that? If I can replace A with ~A in any formal argument at will, of course it will not make sense. But that is irrational and useless. You also need to explain to me how you see this relating to ontology? The ontology of what?

If your conclusion happens to be true, you only got lucky that you happened to hold the correct conclusion, you've done nothing to arrive there using sound arguements.

Lucky? Sorry Seraph, but given that you rely on a false or unproven hypothetical and then accuse me of unsound reasoning and being lucky, your assertion cannot be believed.

It doesn't do anything to answer the questions that apologetics seek to answer.

What questions what those be, in your opinion?

The premises are entirely hypothetical and have not been confirmed as being true, even though all presuppositionalists insist that they are.

Entirely hypothetical? It seems as if you have not read, or not comprehended anything that I, and many others, have written on this topic. You regard morals and logic as hypothetical? Why should we then believe any argument that you attempt to make? You were the one that posited a (false or unproven) hypothetical, and now you wish to include me in your fallacious reasoning?

It is nothing more than a thought experiment being treated as confirmed reality.

Please tell us what you consider reality to be. Also, this is just an assertion, with no proof, and frankly, I would love to see you prove that logic etc are mere thought experiments.

Answering an above question, yes I am rather familiar with philosophy and that is why I will never accept the presuppositional method.

Given the elementary errors you have made I would question how familiar you are with philosophy, and specifically Christian philosophy. I sincerely do not means this as an insult or personal attack, but I did point them out in my previous answer.

It has glaring holes and logical fallacies that anyone can see if they don't already subscribe to it. Hasty generalizations, affirming the consequent, begging the question, and more begging the question.

Yes the normal laundry list of objections. But somehow you have to presuppose a lot to be able to make those objections, presuppositions that you have not accounted for anywhere.

Honestly it disturbs me that this method is being used to try and bring non-believers to Christianity.

No apologetic can do that, only God can.

I cannot imagine a non-believer is not going to see its holes and fallacies, and it is only going to make a laughing stock of Christianity.

Not you, nor any unbeliever, has been able to show holes and fallacies that I have seen. I await with bated breath. I can also tell you that I have debated and used the presuppositional method in practice for many years, against some very educated non-believers, and have yet to come across a defeater. But maybe you know better than all of them, so feel free to posit your worldview and theories of ontology, epistemology and ethics, and arguments that do not rely on unproven hypotheticals for a disprove for discussion.

Even if the presuppositialists are correct in saying that the logic, reason, and evidence have shakey foundations and don't reflect reality (something there is probably quite a bit of truth in), there still would be no reason to believe that presuppositionalism is a valid method of reasoning.

What is your alternative? Do you propose to start from a blank slate, a logical impossibility?

I have in fact studied ontology and I realize that there is absolute truth contray to what someone said eariler, but I am saying presuppositionalism is a distraction from it.

I would be interested in seeing your studies and how you reach your conclusions. How would you define the ontology of man and God?

I don't actually know if it will be fruitful to continue this specific course of discussion. Your mind seems pretty much made up, but maybe you can walk us through your apologetical method, I would be interested to see how you approach it.

Hello folks. It's been a while. A couple more items regarding presuppositionalism:

First, it must be noted that ALL arguments are circular on the metaphysical level, because all arguments are based upon unproven first principles. The narrowly circular argument is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Most people in the west, for example, will accept Descartes, "I think, therefore I am", though it is clearly a circular argument. (Eastern thought is a different animal altogether). It is the broadly circular argument that is the fallacy, where we adopt the conclusion as part or all of the premise, ie. "Women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, therefore abortion should be legal". In this case, the premise and the conclusion are identical, and is the very issue being debated, ignoring that there are alternative possibilities.

In 1 Peter 3:15, before we are commanded to defend the faith, we are commanded to "in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy”. This is the Christian's metaphysical presupposition. As August already pointed out, there is no neutral territory, and even if there was, Scripture forbids that approach. In the case of Christian presuppositions, we hold that there are no other alternatives when it comes to knowledge, science, ethics, logic, free will, human dignity, personal identity over time, etc. None of these items can be rationally justified outside of the Christian worldview. For example, the argument for God that I use most often puts unbelieving epistemologies on trial:

P1: If the human mind may obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition for human knowledge.
P2: The human mind may obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.

The beauty of this argument is that

1.) It is biblical (Col. 2:3).
2.) It is true, and logically sound.
3.) Unlike the evidential method, it actually offers proof for God's existence as opposed to subjective evidence.
4.) It adopts the apologetic methods of Scripture, putting unbelief on trial as opposed to God.

Now the unbeliever may or may not accept the argument, but that doesn't make the argument invalid. The logic is sound, and the premises may be proven true by Modus Tollens. In order to refute the argument, however, the unbeliever will have to disprove one of the premises. If he attacks P1, then he will have to offer up an alternative epistemology to the Christian's "revelational" epistemology. The problem that he will have is that all known secular epistemologies are either self defeating (Idealism, Empiricism) or lead to genetic and epistemological determinism (Realism). Of course, another method would be to reject P2 and adopt pure skepticism, but once he does that, he loses any basis for forming an argument. The evidential method (as well as unbelief) assumes that the human mind is capable of meaningful activity outside of the creative attributes and providence of God, and that is something that we must make the unbeliever justify.

The best case for the presuppositional method as opposed to alternatives can be summarized by this statement by Cornelius Van Til.

“The traditional method...is based on the assumption that man has some measure of autonomy, that the space-time world is in some measure "contingent" and that man must create for himself his own epistemology in an ultimate sense...The traditional method was concessive on these basic points on which it should have demanded surrender! As such, it was always self-frustrating. The traditional method had explicitly built into it the right and ability of the natural man, apart from the work of the Spirit of God, to be the judge of the claim of the authoritative Word of God. It is man who, by means of his self-established intellectual tools, puts his "stamp of approval" on the Word of God and then, only after this grand act, does he listen to it. God's Word must first pass man's tests of good and evil, truth and falsity. But once you tell a non-Christian this, why should he be worried by anything else that you say. [sic] You have already told him that he is quite alright just the way he is! Then Scripture is not correct when it talks of "darkened minds," "wilful ignorance," "dead men," and "blind people"! With this method the correctness of the natural man's problematics is endorsed. That is all he needs to reject the Christian faith." (Cornelius Van Til)

Sorry for the long post, but hopefully this clears up the position.

Welcome back, prodigal PuritanLad! Good to see you!

Thank You.

A voice from the grave... Welcome back PL.

Hey PL, good to see you here.

August,

Thanks for your response. I'll make a brief response, but if you ultimately conclude that I'm not educated enough to understand your argument at this point, please feel free to not respond. But at least recommend me some literature on the topic.

August wrote:
Noah, that is a great question. Fundamentally, the Christian God differs from all other gods.

The deist can be eliminated: One of the presuppositions that we hold to is the thinking of God's thoughts after him, accepting the authority necessary to make moral decisions and make the world intelligible, which requires a personal God, a God that reveals grace, wisdom and knowledge through Scripture and verified with personal Spiritual interaction. That is the position we take to start with, and which we defend in a presuppositional apologetic.

And how are those presuppositions any more justified than the deist's? As I asked in my last response, is the presupposition arbitrary or can you demonstrate why one should prefer the Christian's presupposition over that of the deist, the Jew, or the Muslim?

If the latter is true, then, how exactly is your approach different than the evidentialist's? If the former, then, again, I don't see why other religions cannot make the same argument.

I of course do not believe that there is any reason to see Islam as valid. The origins and nature of its scriptures are too questionable. For the sake of argument though, for the Muslim wanting to use a similar argument, the problem arises from both the revelation and ontology of Allah. The revelation is at least partly, and affirmed internally, inspired by evil (the satanic verses), which leads one to question why any of the rest of it cannot also be of that nature?

Here, again, it seems that you are basically doing the same thing the evidentialist does: using reason to show why one should prefer Christianity over other religions. If you were arbitrarily presupposing that the Bible is true, all it would suffice to say is "You are wrong because the Bible says you are".

Allah is also not ontologically triune, and if we are to believe that we have personal spiritual interaction with a Holy Spirit as well as the grace, leadership and authority of Christ which makes revelation possible and logical, then what Allah is cannot reach it.

Here it seems the Muslim can also make a similarly circular argument. For, the Muslim believes that he has a personal spiritual interaction with Allah. He can then make a circular argument that this would not be possible if Allah did not exist. So how is your argument any better?

wow, welcome back!!

Noah1201,

The presuppositional method deals with other religions the same way that it deals with atheism, perform an internal critique on the items forementioned. For example...

"can you demonstrate why one should prefer the Christian's presupposition over that of the deist, the Jew, or the Muslim?"

Yes. As I mentioned in another thread, Deism is self-defeating. If deism were true, then we would have no way of knowing it to be true, since the deistic god does not get involved with his creation, and thus does not reveal himself and cannot meet the requirements for being the precondition of knowledge in my argument above. Regarding Judaism, there are many schools of Judaism, but if you are referring to orthodox OT Judaism (which really doesn't exist anymore), it is faced with the problem that its Messiah did not come at the appointed time (Daniel 9:24-27). Islam faces a similar problem with deism, in that their doctrine of "tanzih" (transcendence) says that Allah cannot be described by human language, which is self-defeating on a number of fronts, but most notably in regards to the value of the Quran in revealing Allah. Only the Christian God can be the precondition of human knowledge.

But you are essentially the same thing the evidentialist does - using reason and logic to show other worldviews to be wrong. How is that avenue different than the evidentialist's?

Moreoever, let's say that you've successfully shown deism, Judaism and deism to be incoherent (which I don't necessarily agree with). How about this random religion I've just made up: "Christianity + 1". It's the same as Christianity except murder and theft are not sinful. How is your presupposition any more justified than mine?

Both evidentialists and Presuppositionalists use reason and logic. The difference is that the presuppositionalist works under the Lordship of Christ in his apologetics. The evidentialist tries to establish that Lordship by other means, some other authority. The problem is that the evidentialist cannot justify the authority of those means that he is willing to subject God to. Logic and reason are not autonomous, but can only be justified in a Christian worldview. A non-believer, therefore, must assume certain truths about the Christian worldview in order to even argue against it.

In other words, the presuppositionalist establishes God's existence by the absurdity of his non-existence. Without God, we cannot know anything. The evidentialist, on the other hand, tries to establish God's existence by logic, science, ethics, reason, etc. But in doing so, he assumes that these entities actually make sense apart from God. In evidential apologetics, no matter how you slice it, man in the judge, and God is on trial. That is backwards. The unbeliever needs more than just additional information about his natural world. He needs new life, and a totally new way of thinking. He needs to be born again.

Logic and reason are not autonomous, but can only be justified in a Christian worldview.

Why? Why not Islam, or Christianity +1?

Now before you say "because they are not true, as per the Christian presuppositionalist's presupposition", explain why the Muslim or the proponent of my hypothetical religion could not say the same thing.

A non-believer, therefore, must assume certain truths about the Christian worldview in order to even argue against it.

Only if you equate "unbeliever" with "atheist" (even this I find questionable, but let's say)

Anyhow, if you don't feel like wasting your time explaining, please refer me to some literature or preferably internet resources on presuppositionalism.

Noah1201,

My previous post dealt with Islam and one of the main reasons why it fails as a worldview. Once the worldviews of unbelief, whether they be rank atheism or false religions, are subject to an internal critique, they are found to be indefensible in terms of consistency regarding knowledge, ethics, uniformity in nature, etc.

As for the hypothetical alternatives such as the "Christianity + 1" that you mentioned, we would need to know something about this worldview to perform such a critique. What is the source of revelation of this religion, since all knowledge must be based upon divine revelation? On what authority will it's claims be supported?

Two resourced that immediately come to mind are James Sires's "The Universe Next Door" and Greg Bahnsen's "Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended". I will post a longer list of resources on my blog soon. It's undergoing a makeoever. I'll post a link soon.

Regards,

PL

August wrote:Hey PL, good to see you here.

Wow!The old gang is back ladies and gentlemen, look out. Welcome back PL, great to hear from you again.