Evidence for God from Science

How many of you are fans of this? I'm getting into it. In fact, i'm watching "Collision of lives," a debate between Christopher Hitchens/Doug Wilson. (search for it on youtube); it's really interesting. Both are completely different people and I like to watch Hitchens debate, even though I don't like his views. He's a very interesting character. But anyways, how many of you are fans of prepositional apologetics? It's completely different from the evidentalists method of people like William Lane Craig (although I love him, he's an amazing man), and undermines the atheistic reasoning. It's really awesome.

Oh boy...

Hate to say it, and I've voiced this before, but it's complete circular logic. Even though I believe Christianity is true, presuppositional apologetics is not a valid way to prove it. If Christianity were completely false hypothetically, under presuppositional apologetics the arguements would still appear to be just as true to the adherent, regardless of whether or not it is objectively true. It may be an effective way to "hyponotize" yourself (or, rarely, others) into believing Christianity, but it doesn't have grounding in sound logic. I don't really think any nonbeliever would take it seriously or convert and repent as a result of it.

I strongly feel that between the two, evidential apologetics is the way to go.

spartanII wrote:How many of you are fans of this? I'm getting into it. In fact, i'm watching "Collision of lives," a debate between Christopher Hitchens/Doug Wilson. (search for it on youtube); it's really interesting. Both are completely different people and I like to watch Hitchens debate, even though I don't like his views. He's a very interesting character. But anyways, how many of you are fans of prepositional apologetics? It's completely different from the evidentalists method of people like William Lane Craig (although I love him, he's an amazing man), and undermines the atheistic reasoning. It's really awesome.

I think it is sound reasoning, since if the Christian is honest with himself he starts by presupposing God. He might deny this when debating the atheist, but this is just appeasement in my book. Why hide away from your presuppositions? It is also handy for exposing the empty vessel that is atheism. All in all, if you believe in the word of God, it is sound apologetics. Because it is abominable for atheists and some Christians doesn’t negate this one jot. It certainly won’t persuade the atheist, but then no other apologetic will persuade the atheist. As for circularity, that is no criticism at all. All worldviews are circular. Circularity at this level is not a fallacy and is not exclusive to presuppositionalists.

Seraph wrote:Oh boy...

Hate to say it, and I've voiced this before, but it's complete circular logic. Even though I believe Christianity is true, presuppositional apologetics is not a valid way to prove it. If Christianity were completely false hypothetically, under presuppositional apologetics the arguements would still appear to be just as true to the adherent, regardless of whether or not it is objectively true. It may be an effective way to "hyponotize" yourself (or, rarely, others) into believing Christianity, but it doesn't have grounding in sound logic. I don't really think any nonbeliever would take it seriously or convert and repent as a result of it.

I strongly feel that between the two, evidential apologetics is the way to go.

I agree with Danny M, and to me, the problem with evidential apologetics is it gives grounds to neutrality for the atheist. And of course it's circular logic. But it's based on what's ground is better, the atheist or the Christian.
With the atheist, reasoning is really just a natural process so in that case all their brain is, is neuro-chemical wiring in the brain ran off the laws of biology, controlled by the laws of physics; in which case he isn't even "reasoning," he's just giving a natural response to the external world around him. In that case, he can't even justify whether or not he's being logical or just giving a natural response to the external world around him. A great, and hilarious video to watch would be this Bahnsen debate that happened on a talk show, a caller calls in (Max) and tries to tell Bahnsan that TAG is flawed because it's circular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD6UkETe ... re=related

Look around the 8 min mark.

The thing is, Presuppositional Apologetics taken by itself seems to point to logical inconsistencies regarding thought in Atheism, whereas an agnostic or deist might not have the same position. That's why I don't see it as very convincing, Presuppositional Apologists very often dismiss arguments of the evidentialist approach as being logically invalid, yet all they bring to the table is "We reason, therefore Christian God".

I just don't see how the school of thought can stand on it's own, the kind of faith it would take for me to accept God based on that argument rivals the incoherence of the worldviews it criticizes.

I think it is sound reasoning, since if the Christian is honest with himself he starts by presupposing God. He might deny this when debating the atheist, but this is just appeasement in my book. Why hide away from your presuppositions? It is also handy for exposing the empty vessel that is atheism. All in all, if you believe in the word of God, it is sound apologetics. Because it is abominable for atheists and some Christians doesn’t negate this one jot. It certainly won’t persuade the atheist, but then no other apologetic will persuade the atheist. As for circularity, that is no criticism at all. All worldviews are circular. Circularity at this level is not a fallacy and is not exclusive to presuppositionalists.

Not all arguements are circular, just bad ones. The apologetics field is supposed to be an effort to defend the truthhood of Christianity. One's own subjective personal beliefs don't have anything to do with it, it's supposed to deal with objective truthhood. Your presuppositions have no bearing on objective truthhood, so they they shouldn't be used as some kind of attempt to prove it so. To me "Yes, I'm biased with presuppositions and I'm not going to believe any differently" is a pretty pathetic way to prove that God objectively exists.

Seraph wrote:

I think it is sound reasoning, since if the Christian is honest with himself he starts by presupposing God. He might deny this when debating the atheist, but this is just appeasement in my book. Why hide away from your presuppositions? It is also handy for exposing the empty vessel that is atheism. All in all, if you believe in the word of God, it is sound apologetics. Because it is abominable for atheists and some Christians doesn’t negate this one jot. It certainly won’t persuade the atheist, but then no other apologetic will persuade the atheist. As for circularity, that is no criticism at all. All worldviews are circular. Circularity at this level is not a fallacy and is not exclusive to presuppositionalists.

Not all arguements are circular, just bad ones. The apologetics field is supposed to be an effort to defend the truthhood of Christianity. One's own subjective personal beliefs don't have anything to do with it, it's supposed to deal with objective truthhood. Your presuppositions have no bearing on objective truthhood, so they they shouldn't be used as some kind of attempt to prove it so. To me "Yes, I'm biased with presuppositions and I'm not going to believe any differently" is a pretty pathetic way to prove that God objectively exists.

Then your own arguments in defence of your faith must be bad ones.

On that basis I'll leave the rest of your post.

Echoside wrote:The thing is, Presuppositional Apologetics taken by itself seems to point to logical inconsistencies regarding thought in Atheism, whereas an agnostic or deist might not have the same position.

Actually, presuppositionalists argue that every other worldview is incoherent, not just atheism.

That's why I don't see it as very convincing,
Presuppositional Apologists very often dismiss arguments of the evidentialist approach as being logically invalid, yet all they bring to the table is "We reason, therefore Christian God".

They are sceptical of the evidentialist argument because the evidentialist wants to start from a position of imagined neutrality and argue from there. That’s one of the reasons at least.

Echoside wrote:I just don't see how the school of thought can stand on it's own, the kind of faith it would take for me to accept God based on that argument rivals the incoherence of the worldviews it criticizes.

Well, then I guess you won’t be a fan anytime soon

Then your own arguments in defence of your faith must be bad ones.

?
Such as?


Sorry, the fact of the matter is that valid arguements are not circular, and not all arguements are circular. Presuppositional apologetics is circular, as well as a terrible arguement.

Actually, presuppositionalists argue that every other worldview is incoherent, not just atheism.

Yet they make no effort to prove this. And then they try to sell a worldview.

They are sceptical of the evidentialist argument because the evidentialist wants to start from a position of imagined neutrality and argue from there. That’s one of the reasons at least.

It's not "imagined neutrality" it's recognizing that their own personal beliefs do not necessarily reflect reality, and that they have to argue that something is true, regardless of whether they or anyone else believes it or not.

Seraph wrote:Such as?

For example, if you choose to argue for the existence of God using reason then you are presupposing reason as a valid tool with which to prove God‘s existence. But how can you escape it?

Sorry, the fact of the matter is that valid arguements are not circular

Yes they are.

Presuppositional apologetics is circular, as well as a terrible arguement.

Well, then it might be an idea for you to show how it is a bad argument rather than just asserting so.

Actually, presuppositionalists argue that every other worldview is incoherent, not just atheism.

Yet they make no effort to prove this.

Have you looked into this properly? Presuppositionalists go to great lengths to demonstrate this. You might not like the methods used, but please don’t try to tell me that they make no effort to prove this.

And then they try to sell a worldview.

How do they do this?

They are sceptical of the evidentialist argument because the evidentialist wants to start from a position of imagined neutrality and argue from there. That’s one of the reasons at least.

It's not "imagined neutrality"

Yes it is, and it is a fallacy, since nobody is neutral in the debate.

it's recognizing that their own personal beliefs do not necessarily reflect reality, and that they have to argue that something is true, regardless of whether they or anyone else believes it or not.

No it’s not. Whenever you argue for your belief your belief is presupposed by you. Simple. Of course, the evidentialist commits the fallacy of pretended neutrality, but that doesn’t weaken the arguments he is offering. I’m just saying that a pretended neutrality is an appeasement because some theists are sensitive to their arguments being called circular. It can also be seen as self-deception since the theist is sometimes eager to escape and deny the implications of his presuppositions.

I actually like presuppositional apologetics a lot. The reason? Because we all start out with presuppositions anyway. In fact, without making certain assumptions about the world and the universe discussions can be completely useless. I see this again and again in debates between atheists and Christians- because of the worldview each side has already accepted, people talk over each other and are arguing and even thinking on different levels.

This is where presuppositional apologetics comes in handy. It also points out inconsistencies in a worldview like atheism. I don't think presup is the one and only form of apologetics that should be used, but I firmly believe that it has a place in discussion and debate (I also think it deserves a bigger part than it has gotten in some cases). Let's say that presup apologetics showed that atheism is internally inconsistent and incoherent. If you can fairly safely discard that worldview, what are the other alternatives? If you evaluate worldviews internally AND examine evidence, I think you really start to get somewhere.

narnia4 wrote:I actually like presuppositional apologetics a lot. The reason? Because we all start out with presuppositions anyway. In fact, without making certain assumptions about the world and the universe discussions can be completely useless. I see this again and again in debates between atheists and Christians- because of the worldview each side has already accepted, people talk over each other and are arguing and even thinking on different levels.

This is where presuppositional apologetics comes in handy. It also points out inconsistencies in a worldview like atheism. I don't think presup is the one and only form of apologetics that should be used, but I firmly believe that it has a place in discussion and debate (I also think it deserves a bigger part than it has gotten in some cases). Let's say that presup apologetics showed that atheism is internally inconsistent and incoherent. If you can fairly safely discard that worldview, what are the other alternatives? If you evaluate worldviews internally AND examine evidence, I think you really start to get somewhere.

^^

Even if presuppositional apologetics manages to expose all other worldviews as false (which it doesn't, it only takes credit for doing so. Even if it requires faith to believe in logic, there's no reason not to trust in logic since there isn't much alternative for making sense of anything). I still don't see how it offers evidence for Christianity to a non-believer. From their perspective, faith in the Bible could be just another of the failed presuppositions mentioned by the apologists, since they haven't offered evidence that the Bible is a revelation from God. It would only work if the opponent of Christianity in the debate was already a Christian since you need to have the presuppositions from the start.

The main points boil down to "If you believe Christianity, Christianity will be true!". Of course, people can substitute Christianity with anything using that line of thinking.

Presup is the only honest view a believer can have.

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?

ALL and I repeat ALL positions when broken down to their core, are circular in some form. What makes the argument valid is not the truth of its premises, but whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is a fact of circular reasoning, that the method can be VALID. Of course, that doesn't make the conclusion true. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy only when it is arbitrary, proving nothing beyond what it assumes.
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)

Presup apologetics is not the absence of evidential arguments. No one can examine any evidence without presuppositions. We presuppose that our minds are capable of knowing things. We presuppose that there are methods of logic and reasoning by which we can discover causes.
The believer knows why logic and reason exists. The atheist has no grounds to establish anything as being true. Because there is no reason for reason.

Even if it requires faith to believe in logic, there's no reason not to trust in logic since there isn't much alternative for making sense of anything

Totally arbitrary. I could say, there's no reason to trust logic sense it isn't material. Of course I have to use reason and logic to make a statement about it not being trustworthy. Logic and reason is a giant fingerprint of an intelligent creator.

The main points boil down to "If you believe Christianity, Christianity will be true!".

That is most certainly NOT the position of Presup apologetics. Ridiculous. If it were that, I'd reject it too.

Great post, J

jlay wrote:

Even if it requires faith to believe in logic, there's no reason not to trust in logic since there isn't much alternative for making sense of anything

Totally arbitrary. I could say, there's no reason to trust logic sense it isn't material. Of course I have to use reason and logic to make a statement about it not being trustworthy. Logic and reason is a giant fingerprint of an intelligent creator.

I totally agree.