- Dec 22, 2015
- 71
- 24
- 37
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ultimate proof of Creation
- Thread starter dece870717
- Start date
- Feb 13, 2012
- 924
- 206
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Which argument? Can you summarize? I skipped through a bit, heard an argument that information always originates with a mind, which I tend to agree with, then various presuppositional ideas. It is important to examine presuppositions, but presuppositional apologetics is self-contradictory; at least all the versions of it I've seen.
Upvote
0
- Dec 22, 2015
- 71
- 24
- 37
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I wish I could summarize it, there is a lot of information and he goes from one point to point using the previous point so it won't end up making a good case if you skip a chain of the logic. Essentially he shows how the Christian worldview is the only worldview that is consistent within itself while all other ones end up blowing themselves up because of inconsistencies in reasoning/logic and rationality.
He initially starts with a little bit of creation evidence and then goes into how the creation/evolution debate is about worldviews not a debate about the evidence, worldviews tell you how to interpret evidence. When all points are made you will see that the arguments are not fallacious or contradictory in any way.
Upvote
0
- Feb 13, 2012
- 924
- 206
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I've read 'the defense of the faith' by Cornelius Van Til, who is one of the founders of presuppositional apologetics. He may be more extreme than some, but his book was pretty illogical in my opinion. Also the approach is too close to relativism I'd think.
There are some worldviews that are inconsistent, and it's good to point those problems out; there is some value in the approach. But I don't think it works with every wrong worldview. For instance, in what way is Deism self-contradictory?
Upvote
0
- Dec 22, 2015
- 71
- 24
- 37
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well with deism it now becomes a god of our own making. What is the authority behind believing in this god? Your own imagination? Deism without an ultimate authority to base it on is simply making up a god out of the clear blue sky, it have no rational basis, it becomes all the persons imagination, Christianity has a God that has revealed Himself in His word and told us enough to have a completely consistent worldview. The deist worldview will have a different god between all people because everyone will make up a different god, and if everyone is coming up with their own god it becomes a god that doesn't exist.
Have you watched the entire video? I'm just asking because if someone has watched it all and has understood the material, they should be able to use the principles he gives to show the irrationality and inconsistency of ALL worldviews that are not the Christian worldview. I think I watched the entire thing maybe 8 times so that I can try to understand each point the best I can and know how to use those points.
Upvote
0
- Feb 13, 2012
- 924
- 206
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I've listened to it now, and it is pretty much the same as Van Til's approach. It has some validity in refuting atheism, but doesn't refute any other worldviews. He keeps saying it does, but never gives any proof of that claim. There are many worldviews that believe in a god with enough similarity to the true God to be an adequate foundation for obective morality, the laws of logic, and the reality of the external worldview. Sometimes people using this approach even temporarily deny their Christian presuppositions in order to refute other worldviews, as in the post above, where you denied natural revelation show that there is a God by saying there is no authority to believe in God from the worldview of Deism. Also consider that Abraham or Noah didn't have a Bible, yet they could have a consistent worldview.
Lisle says the assumption that the senses are accurate is subordinate to the Bible. But you can't know what the Bible says unless you accept that your senses are accurate. The Bible is really part of the data we have, not the lens by which we view the data. Assuming the Bible is true doesn't automatically give you the ability to interpret it correctly.
It may not be neutral, but there is a lot of common ground. For instance we and atheist both believe in the reliability of our senses and the reality of the external world. Therefore debating using those assumptions is workable and does not require you to give up any of your Christian beliefs.
Assuming what you are trying to prove is fallacious. Lisle used a couple bad analogies to try and disprove that, but it's still true. You can't expect a non-Christian to believe the Bible without presenting evidence that the Bible is the word of God.
Lisle says the assumption that the senses are accurate is subordinate to the Bible. But you can't know what the Bible says unless you accept that your senses are accurate. The Bible is really part of the data we have, not the lens by which we view the data. Assuming the Bible is true doesn't automatically give you the ability to interpret it correctly.
It may not be neutral, but there is a lot of common ground. For instance we and atheist both believe in the reliability of our senses and the reality of the external world. Therefore debating using those assumptions is workable and does not require you to give up any of your Christian beliefs.
Assuming what you are trying to prove is fallacious. Lisle used a couple bad analogies to try and disprove that, but it's still true. You can't expect a non-Christian to believe the Bible without presenting evidence that the Bible is the word of God.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
