Question for presups...

[mark kennedy]

It seems to me that you haven't really solved the problem at hand. On naturalism we do have some reason to doubt our senses and our reason, I agree. On theism you can make a case that God doesn't suffer from these problems but I don't see how the problem of human subjectivity is solved. In other words maybe it is the case that God exists and knows things for certain and without error, but it seems to me that irregardless of this, humans still interpret the world and their experiences through the same flawed senses and reason matrix that was problematic on naturalism. How do you solve that tension as a presup of indeed you would happy to be described that way.

Presuppositional apologetics doesn't claim you are incapable of understandingbthebthings of God, it assumes that you already have enough evidence of God's divine attributes and eternal nature to be held responsible. The concept of presuppositional logic is whay you call a priori (without prior), in other words your presuppositions precede evidential or experiential input. Very often presuppositionalist forego arguments for God's existence. Intelligent Design and cosmological arguments they believe are mostly fruitless.

Now there is an influence of sin that effects our ability to reason coscienciously. That called the notice effects of sin. Presuppositional logic doesnt insist that you incompetent or somehow disabled, quite the opposite, it says you've recieved God's revelation and if you reject that you'll reject the gospel, absorbing the apologist of any respondibility.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Okay. But adding gods still doesn't actually explain this fact any more than adding elves or splunge does.

I'm afraid 20th century revelations of elves from the mind of J.R.R. Tolkien are nowhere near the antiquity nor scope nor explanatory power of the Sacred Scriptures, despite the creation of fascinating elvish language and a detailed world. Love the Peter Jackson movies based on those novels, definitely high on my favorites list.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm afraid 20th century revelations of elves from the mind of J.R.R. Tolkien are nowhere near the antiquity nor scope nor explanatory power of the Sacred Scriptures

Elves are much older than Tolkien, not that antiquity is any guarantee of truth.

As for explanatory power, if you have a sharp pain, and there's no obvious physical cause, then obviously you've been shot by an elf. Can't explain that without elves!

Oh and they also explain consciousness, because clearly elves are conscious.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Elves are much older than Tolkien, not that antiquity is any guarantee of truth.

As for explanatory power, if you have a sharp pain, and there's no obvious physical cause, then obviously you've been shot by an elf. Can't explain that without elves!

Oh and they also explain consciousness, because clearly elves are conscious.

Here is where I would explain the uniqueness of the Sacred Scriptures and how your suggestion is an equivocation fallacy considering there is no basis for believing elves are anything but fiction. This is something that tires me, bait and switch games exchanging a word for another word and pretending there is no real difference between the two.

 

[essentialsaltes]

there is no basis for believing elves are anything but fiction.

They are in medieval medical texts (not fiction) and there are many believers today, particularly in Iceland.

 

[Eudaimonist]

They are in medieval medical texts (not fiction) and there are many believers today, particularly in Iceland.

Elves mess with highway construction.

https://www.icenews.is/2016/07/15/construction-disrupted-by-elves-or-hidden-people-in-iceland/

Elves are even on the map.

https://www.citylab.com/design/2016...n-icelands-proposed-new-national-park/474216/


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Athée]

Presuppositional apologetics doesn't claim you are incapable of understandingbthebthings of God, it assumes that you already have enough evidence of God's divine attributes and eternal nature to be held responsible. The concept of presuppositional logic is whay you call a priori (without prior), in other words your presuppositions precede evidential or experiential input. Very often presuppositionalist forego arguments for God's existence. Intelligent Design and cosmological arguments they believe are mostly fruitless.

Now there is an influence of sin that effects our ability to reason coscienciously. That called the notice effects of sin. Presuppositional logic doesnt insist that you incompetent or somehow disabled, quite the opposite, it says you've recieved God's revelation and if you reject that you'll reject the gospel, absorbing the apologist of any respondibility.

That's what I thought too. I mean, obviously I disagree with that position as well, but I couldn't understand what the point of the radical skepticism was. As you point out, on the presup world view, I do know things and I can trust the evidence of my senses and reason, I'm just suppressing the results of those things.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's what I thought too. I mean, obviously I disagree with that position as well, but I couldn't understand what the point of the radical skepticism was. As you point out, on the presup world view, I do know things and I can trust the evidence of my senses and reason, I'm just suppressing the results of those things.

That's the general idea, you're thinking is rational enough, the problem is the focus shifts from the Creator to the creature. Presup is relatively modetn, kind of a reaction to modrtn skepticism. Classic apologetics featured argiments for God's existance; cosmological, teleplogical, the argument from governance etc. Even Aristotle spoke at length of God in Metaphysics. Now there is more of a polarized mindset, the presup will start with the definition of God and go from thete. They seem to habe lost patience with evangelical and fundsmentalist thinking being treated as if it were defectibe or overly simplistic, they're Calvinist which is an attempt at reform, generally reclaiming the core biblical teachings of the Apostolic church. I like an evidecial approach but they tend to think it falls on deaf ears.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

They are in medieval medical texts (not fiction) and there are many believers today, particularly in Iceland.

Looks like I'll have to explain it. I believe in many creatures, animals that I have only seen in pictures, photos, through television, etc. However that belief is not equivalent to my belief in my wife and son who live with me. My belief in those things which I have never experienced firsthand are not even a fraction as important to me nor relevant to my day to day living. Belief in God is even more important and relevant, it is properly basic to my entire worldview, to my outlook and interpretation of other beliefs.

To equivocate belief in elves, big foot, loch ness, etc. with belief in God is to suggest a worldview can be, indeed should be centered around that belief. Hence it is an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That's the general idea, you're thinking is rational enough, the problem is the focus shifts from the Creator to the creature. Presup is relatively modetn, kind of a reaction to modrtn skepticism. Classic apologetics featured argiments for God's existance; cosmological, teleplogical, the argument from governance etc. Even Aristotle spoke at length of God in Metaphysics. Now there is more of a polarized mindset, the presup will start with the definition of God and go from thete. They seem to habe lost patience with evangelical and fundsmentalist thinking being treated as if it were defectibe or overly simplistic, they're Calvinist which is an attempt at reform, generally reclaiming the core biblical teachings of the Apostolic church. I like an evidecial approach but they tend to think it falls on deaf ears.

Taking into consideration Christianity is a worldview based on Scripture, and Reformed Christianity is the most accurate expression of Scripture, the Reformed defense of Christianity should be most faithful to Scripture and with that taking into consideration the nature of man, the differences between a non-believer and a believer and the assumptions of both, one assuming man is autonomous, the other assuming the Lordship of Christ over everything in everything to the glory of God alone.

Typically the covenant apologist argues transcendentally so far as positive proof is concerned, however people like me prefer the methodology and an offense approach, including the offense of the Gospel. This coming from someone who used to spend hours as a classical apologist arguing with atheists/agnostics over who has the burden of proof. As a covenant apologist, I have no qualms with assuming the burden of proof, but also with no obligation to defend positions which are not my own.

As I've stated though in other discussion, what interests me the most, is an integrative approach, that acknowledges all of the tools in the shed, from dull to sharp. I am not so sure anymore there is a one size fits all approach, but there is a one size fits all methodology, and it's found in the likes of Calvin, Plantinga, Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Schaeffer, and many others.

The evidential approach is actually quite popular, far moreso than presuppositional methodolgy, than Reformed epistemology. I could rattle off a slew of names, organizations, resources etc. devoted almost entirely to the evidential approach, some of them harshly ridiculed, mocked, for as long as I can remember.

 

[mark kennedy]

Taking into consideration Christianity is a worldview based on Scripture, and Reformed Christianity is the most accurate expression of Scripture, the Reformed defense of Christianity should be most faithful to Scripture and with that taking into consideration the nature of man, the differences between a non-believer and a believer and the assumptions of both, one assuming man is autonomous, the other assuming the Lordship of Christ over everything in everything to the glory of God alone.

Typically the covenant apologist argues transcendentally so far as positive proof is concerned, however people like me prefer the methodology and an offense approach, including the offense of the Gospel. This coming from someone who used to spend hours as a classical apologist arguing with atheists/agnostics over who has the burden of proof. As a covenant apologist, I have no qualms with assuming the burden of proof, but also with no obligation to defend positions which are not my own.

As I've stated though in other discussion, what interests me the most, is an integrative approach, that acknowledges all of the tools in the shed, from dull to sharp. I am not so sure anymore there is a one size fits all approach, but there is a one size fits all methodology, and it's found in the likes of Calvin, Plantinga, Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Schaeffer, and many others.

The evidential approach is actually quite popular, far moreso than presuppositional methodolgy, than Reformed epistemology. I could rattle off a slew of names, organizations, resources etc. devoted almost entirely to the evidential approach, some of them harshly ridiculed, mocked, for as long as I can remember.

I had a book for a long time that had a presupposition view, a Reformed a classic and an evidential. Classic apologetics appear to to be very rationalistic, as is the classic, they have a simular step wise logic. The evidential approach appealled to me because of the ad hominem approach. Gary Habermas argued that since no one is challenging Paul's authorship of Galations, use the rational for accepting that, apply it to other Scriptures. I have always did something like that with Creationism, I won't quote AIG, I'll go to their source material. Got most of my arguments from Nature magazine actually.the universal common ancestor is a priori, that presuppositional. Fossils and genomics are evidential and an exegesis is classic reform you know, all the tools.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Looks like I'll have to explain it. I believe in many creatures, animals that I have only seen in pictures, photos, through television, etc. However that belief is not equivalent to my belief in my wife and son who live with me. My belief in those things which I have never experienced firsthand are not even a fraction as important to me nor relevant to my day to day living. Belief in God is even more important and relevant

I sense an inconsistency. Gods never appear in pictures, photos, or on television. Why is your belief in one or more gods more "important and relevant" than your belief in binturongs or aardvarks (or your wife and child)?

 

[cvanwey]

So I ran into this in a conversation earlier today. My conversation partner was a presupositional apologist and was arguing that because I have to rely on potentially flawed senses and cognition, that I can't claim to know the things I think I know.

While i think i can tell a reasonable story about evolutionary reliablism in this instance I chose to point out my other worry about this line of argument.

It seems to me that this move applies equally for the theist. He argued that God could instil that knowledge in him such that he could know for certain and I asked him if he came to that conclusion using reason or the evidence of his senses. When he feels a piece of knowledge is from God how does he verify this, does the process include reason or senses? You see what I'm getting at.

So the question to any presups out there is simply, what am I missing? How is it that your knowledge claims are unassailable? How do you hold any of them without at any point using reason, senses or experience? This seems obviously impossible on the face of it and I am worried that I missed his point.

Help a heathen out?

I've posed a similar concept to many theists, and have yet to receive a 'satisfying' answer....

In regards to consciousness, as each and every thought 'pops' into one's brain, how might one distinguish thoughts from your own brain, (versus) 'God given'?.?.?. I mean, are ALL cognitive thoughts 'God given', or, are some naturalistic thought processes, as our brain also controls many non-cognitive functions as well (i.e. - breathing, organ function, etc....)

How might one distinguish a 'God given thought' from a 'non-God given thought'? If all knowledge is only grounded, with the presupposition that such thoughts are supplied by God, where becomes the dividing line between God (vs) no God?

Example:

A mother claims she received word from God to sacrifice her own child...

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I had a book for a long time that had a presupposition view, a Reformed a classic and an evidential. Classic apologetics appear to to be very rationalistic, as is the classic, they have a simular step wise logic. The evidential approach appealled to me because of the ad hominem approach. Gary Habermas argued that since no one is challenging Paul's authorship of Galations, use the rational for accepting that, apply it to other Scriptures. I have always did something like that with Creationism, I won't quote AIG, I'll go to their source material. Got most of my arguments from Nature magazine actually.the universal common ancestor is a priori, that presuppositional. Fossils and genomics are evidential and an exegesis is classic reform you know, all the tools.

Sounds like the book "Five Views on Apologetics" featuring Cowan, Craig, Habermas, Frame, Clark, and Feinberg. I've always kind of preferred ICR to AIG, but I also like to keep tabs on the Discovery Institute and RTB. YEC and OEC, but TE not so much. I think it's frustrating to sort through, especially as a non-Scientist, maybe even for Scientists without access to the proper equipment to conduct experiments and such. I remember in college, asking a Science professor if he had ever used an electron microscope, to which he replied; "nope". I think it would neat to visit an observatory, used to spend some time just looking at photos from NASA's online archives...beautiful, haunting, intimidating, and wondrous to just spend some time observing Orion Nebula.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I sense an inconsistency. Gods never appear in pictures, photos, or on television. Why is your belief in one or more gods more "important and relevant" than your belief in binturongs or aardvarks (or your wife and child)?

Maybe look into the big questions of philosophy? For starters belief in aardvarks adds nothing to the meaning of life. God has always been an important and relevant concept to philosophy (even going back to the ancient Greek philosophers), and since philosophy deals with the mind and how and why we think the way we think, which in turn shapes our attitudes and behavior among other things, yeah I'd say belief in God is much more important and relevant than belief in aardvarks. As a man thinks, so he is.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I've posed a similar concept to many theists, and have yet to receive a 'satisfying' answer....

In regards to consciousness, as each and every thought 'pops' into one's brain, how might one distinguish thoughts from your own brain, (versus) 'God given'?.?.?. I mean, are ALL cognitive thoughts 'God given', or, are some naturalistic thought processes, as our brain also controls many non-cognitive functions as well (i.e. - breathing, organ function, etc....)

How might one distinguish a 'God given thought' from a 'non-God given thought'? If all knowledge is only grounded, with the presupposition that such thoughts are supplied by God, where becomes the dividing line between God (vs) no God?

Example:

A mother claims she received word from God to sacrifice her own child...

The answer involves Holy Scripture, since it involves authority, it involves Sola Scriptura what it is and what it is not. It also involves differences between general revelation and special revelation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sounds like the book "Five Views on Apologetics" featuring Cowan, Craig, Habermas, Frame, Clark, and Feinberg. I've always kind of preferred ICR to AIG, but I also like to keep tabs on the Discovery Institute and RTB. YEC and OEC, but TE not so much. I think it's frustrating to sort through, especially as a non-Scientist, maybe even for Scientists without access to the proper equipment to conduct experiments and such. I remember in college, asking a Science professor if he had ever used an electron microscope, to which he replied; "nope". I think it would neat to visit an observatory, used to spend some time just looking at photos from NASA's online archives...beautiful, haunting, intimidating, and wondrous to just spend some time observing Orion Nebula.

Yep, thats the book, it's was essay style discussions, an interesting contrast. My favorite was There for Stand by Wilbor Smith. It had an abundance of quotes attesting to the history of the resurrection.

Anyway, one of the things about creationism is that there is such an abundance of comparative genomics out there. The contrast between chimpanzee and human DNA is staggering. Appeal to fossil evidence is nearly nonexistent. I've basically lost interest to be honest, it's like arguments for the historicity of the resurrection, it's generally met with sheer silence. Bible study is a more fruitful pursuit although the little excursions into intellectual topics can be engaging.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Maybe look into the big questions of philosophy? For starters belief in aardvarks adds nothing to the meaning of life.

But giving your life meaning is not a reason to believe in something. You criticized the evidence in favor of these animals, but you don't even have that much for gods. And yet, apparently because it is important to you that gods exist, that is a reason to accept their existence? It seems to me that one should be even more careful about claims that are appealing to us, rather than less careful.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Yep, thats the book, it's was essay style discussions, an interesting contrast. My favorite was There for Stand by Wilbor Smith. It had an abundance of quotes attesting to the history of the resurrection.

What are your thoughts on Professor Frame's tri-perspectivalism?

Anyway, one of the things about creationism is that there is such an abundance of comparative genomics out there. The contrast between chimpanzee and human DNA is staggering. Appeal to fossil evidence is nearly nonexistent. I've basically lost interest to be honest, it's like arguments for the historicity of the resurrection, it's generally met with sheer silence. Bible study is a more fruitful pursuit although the little excursions into intellectual topics can be engaging.

I'm guessing the Jesus Seminar is basically dead now? Or the conversation has evolved and reshaped through critics like Ehrman? Seems like Montgomery, Craig, Habermas, and Wright are among the more famous modern defenders for the historicity of the resurrection. Yeah, I've been more interested in Biblical theology for some time now, rather use intellectual pursuits hashing out expositions of Scripture and opposing views. Other stuff gets kinda dry after awhile, like eating saltine crackers with nothing to drink afterwards.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

But giving your life meaning is not a reason to believe in something. You criticized the evidence in favor of these animals, but you don't even have that much for gods. And yet, apparently because it is important to you that gods exist, that is a reason to accept their existence? It seems to me that one should be even more careful about claims that are appealing to us, rather than less careful.

Since you're arguing for truth, might I ask what truth is outside of your personal existence? Do you not think the Descartes problem applies to your worldview? In my worldview, Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. There is a sense in which He embodies truth, He exists outside of my person, yet communicates, reveals Himself to me. So there is a sense in which God is objective truth, and being made in His image, having a point of contact with truth outside of self. Otherwise there is no point of contact with objective truth, that is truth outside of self interpretation. Christianity is a revealed religion, where God has condescended to man, revealing Himself to men throughout history, preserving in writing accounts of His interactions with men.

Although you have a point, the problem with it is simply this, take the account of Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, he was a Pharisee of Pharisees, he believed in God, and thought he was serving Him, he was not searching for meaning or searching for reasons to believe in Christ, quite the contrary, he thought he had it and would do a service for Judaism to rid the Jewish world of Christianity, but Jesus Christ knocked him off his horse and blinded him, Christ revealed Himself to Saul/Paul, and the rest is as they say history.

One other thought, giving life meaning as a reason is kind of a non sequitur, because all of our lives have meaning in the final analysis of things, and your position would seem to assume that ultimately life is not meaningful. And there are many reasons to believe, chiefly because of the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration instantanously convinces a person, but like I said earlier about regeneration...