On the futility of evidence-based apologetics

[Tone]

So the best case scenario for you is that you are wrong in your interpretation of Romans 1. The worst case scenario is that you are interpreting it correctly, and it's the Bible itself that is wrong.

Romans 1:20-21
"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened."

I was saying, that, if it were the case that you used to know of His existence, but have since rejected it in unbelief, this would be in line with what the Bible teaches in the verses above.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Romans 1:20-21
"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened."

I was saying, that, if it were the case that you used to know of His existence, but have since rejected it in unbelief, this would be in line with what the Bible teaches in the verses above.

This says nothing at all about something I 'used to know'. If I had forgotten it, that would be an excuse, and I am purportedly 'without excuse'.

Not that it really matters to me if you read it that way. It's still false. Neither you nor Paul are in any position to know the contents of my mind. Only I am. As such, I am 100% certain that either your interpretation is wrong, or the Bible itself is wrong.

If your apologetic requires you to ignore basic, mundane facts about reality - such as, the fact that you do not possess magical mind-reading powers - then you should abandon it.

Or don't. You could continue to make an example of the futility of presuppositional apologetics, here in this thread concerning the futility of evidential apologetics.

 

[RDKirk]

I think evidential apologetics works perfectly fine, but nothing satisfies the die hard skeptic.

The second clause of that sentence obviates the first.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Evidential arguments work only if both parties agree on what *counts* as evidence, and I find that to be rare around here. Sure evidence is an issue, but it’s secondary to epistemology.

I agree, but I don't think that's the problem, most of the time. I think most run of the mill Christians have the same standard of evidence, with regard to extraordinary claims, that I do.

So the real question is, who actually applies that standard consistently?

 

[Tone]

This says nothing at all about something I 'used to know'. If I had forgotten it, that would be an excuse, and I am purportedly 'without excuse'.

Not that it really matters to me if you read it that way. It's still false. Neither you nor Paul are in any position to know the contents of my mind. Only I am. As such, I am 100% certain that either your interpretation is wrong, or the Bible itself is wrong.

If your apologetic requires you to ignore basic, mundane facts about reality - such as, the fact that you do not possess magical mind-reading powers - then you should abandon it.

Or don't. You could continue to make an example of the futility of presuppositional apologetics, here in this thread concerning the futility of evidential apologetics.

We can add Romans 1:28

"Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done."

So, it may be interpreted as a process of rejecting the checks and balances of a Creator given conscience to do what "ought not to be done". I would imagine that "retain[ing] the knowledge of God" implies an inherent memory of the operating system, if you will.

 

[gaara4158]

I agree, but I don't think that's the problem, most of the time. I think most run of the mill Christians have the same standard of evidence, with regard to extraordinary claims, that I do.

So the real question is, who actually applies that standard consistently?

Now that’s something that can be examined productively. Probably none of us, perfectly. The trouble is in recognizing the difference between our own errors and someone else’s when our biases make it look like the errors are always on the other side.

 

[gaara4158]

That’s why I hold to the presuppositional view. I believe what Paul wrote in Romans 1, and see no need to try to “prove” God when the atheist actually knows He exists.

We are called to prove God. He doesn’t even try to prove Himself. We are called to proclaim the good news, and be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us.

Presuppositionalists at least understand that they can’t win with evidence, but they dig themselves an even deeper hole by claiming to know someone else’s mind better than that person knows it themselves. It’s not persuasive, but because it’s so tedious to unravel it does help reassure struggling believers that they’re in the right.

 

[Tone]

Presuppositionalists at least understand that they can’t win with evidence, but they dig themselves an even deeper hole by claiming to know someone else’s mind better than that person knows it themselves. It’s not persuasive, but because it’s so tedious to unravel it does help reassure struggling believers that they’re in the right.

You don't think that there are basic things about people, that every person can know...and also sub-cognitive things that the mind knows, that aren't so obvious?

 

[Tone]

by claiming to know someone else’s mind better than that person knows it themselves

Isn't this the basis of psychology?

 

[Hammster]

Presuppositionalists at least understand that they can’t win with evidence, but they dig themselves an even deeper hole by claiming to know someone else’s mind better than that person knows it themselves. It’s not persuasive, but because it’s so tedious to unravel it does help reassure struggling believers that they’re in the right.

I don’t claim to know someone else’s mind. I only agree with scripture.

 

[gaara4158]

Isn't this the basis of psychology?

Not in the way that presuppositionalists argue. Their main theme is that all knowledge is based on the assumption that God exists and is making the universe knowable to us. Psychology’s approach is more of a study on how the state of “belief” occurs whether that belief is valid or not, not the philosophical arguments buttressing an epistemology.

 

[gaara4158]

You don't think that there are basic things about people, that every person can know...and also sub-cognitive things that the mind knows, that aren't so obvious?

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking.

 

[Tone]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking.

...like a basic template that is common to all humans...conscience, etc...?

 

[gaara4158]

...like a basic template that is common to all humans...conscience, etc...?

Maybe the incorrigibility of subjective experience and certain matters of definition?

 

[gaara4158]

I don’t claim to know someone else’s mind. I only agree with scripture.

Does scripture say anything about what is in other people’s minds?

 

[Tone]

Not in the way that presuppositionalists argue. Their main theme is that all knowledge is based on the assumption that God exists and is making the universe knowable to us. Psychology’s approach is more of a study on how the state of “belief” occurs whether that belief is valid or not, not the philosophical arguments buttressing an epistemology.

I think some are hasty to bridge too wide a gap. The simple thing that I am considering here is that of conscience, which I believe is common to humans and just the small act of not recognizing it as being more than animal instinct (or whatever they're calling it) is the first step to "a depraved mind".

 

[gaara4158]

I think some are hasty to bridge too wide a gap. The simple thing that I am considering here is that of conscience, which I believe is common to humans and just the small act of not recognizing it as being more than animal instinct (or whatever they're calling it) is the first step to "a depraved mind".

Can you say more about what you mean by “conscience?”

 

[Hammster]

Does scripture say anything about what is in other people’s minds?

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. - Romans 1:21

 

[gaara4158]

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. - Romans 1:21

And do you believe this refers to all non-believers?

If so, you are in fact claiming to know what is inside other people’s minds better than they do. Even though the words originate in scripture, you said you agree. So how can you say you don’t claim to know something scripture tells you is true, while also saying you believe scripture is true?

 

[Hammster]

And do you believe this refers to all non-believers?

If so, you are in fact claiming to know what is inside other people’s minds better than they do. Even though the words originate in scripture, you said you agree. So how can you say you don’t claim to know something scripture tells you is true, while also saying you believe scripture is true?

30