Presuppositional Apologetics

[allhart]

Has anyone here looked into articulating this type of dialog? I am look at this type of approach. For if people in the forums presuppositions won't allow them to examine without bias the evidence that I present them for God's existence. Their presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to show His existence, They interpret it in a manner consistent with Their presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, They would say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, They would say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, they would say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to Them since their presupposition won't allow it. It is limited. They rationalize every issue to a point of their presupposition. Close minded.

 

[St Francis]

Im not close-minded.
I just know I'm right.

 

[allhart]

Im not close-minded.
I just know I'm right.

Right and wrong, hmm where does that come from? Is it in scripted in your soul, hmmm where does that come from? :help You do have a presupposition on the subject for reasons like, maybe your not willing to give up some type of sin or is it pride? I don't know the reason ,but you close the door in the forum in which is based in apologetic in the first place. Maybe you just like to Quarrel and bicker, but the rest of us feel ,So dialog is limited! There can't be a dialog with your presupposition :biglol

 

[St Francis]

I was just kidding.

But, a Catholic is in a bit of a unique situation. I embraced the Church after studying scripture and history, during which time I did have an open mind. I listened to people from many different walks of life. But, I personally determined that Christ established an infallible Church - the Catholic Church. That is my belief. Once I embraced that belief - especially the belief that the Magisterium of the Church is infallible - that is when I am no longer open to other beliefs. If I were to be, then my core belief would be a farce and a lie. The result of my belief is that all dogma taught by the Church is true. Therefore, anything that counters those teachings is false. But mind you, these are noy MY brilliant doctrines that I formulated, they are the Church's, guided by the Holy Spirit. That is my belief.

There comes a time in a person's searching when they are satisfied with what they have found and stick to it. That is not presupposition, but rather merely being true to one's beliefs. If you are opened minded to the possibilitiy that your beliefs are wrong, then you don't truly believe in them, now do you.

 

[mondar]

Has anyone here looked into articulating this type of dialog? I am look at this type of approach. For if people in the forums presuppositions won't allow them to examine without bias the evidence that I present them for God's existence. Their presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to show His existence, They interpret it in a manner consistent with Their presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, They would say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, They would say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, they would say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to Them since their presupposition won't allow it. It is limited. They rationalize every issue to a point of their presupposition. Close minded.

The Presupp method focuses on epistemology. I watched or read atheists debating Presuppers, the problem is if the atheist and presupper are good, I need a dictionary and a few hours to figure out what they are saying. I have never read VanTil, Greg Bahnsen, or Gordon Clark. While the method is used by non-reformed folk, it had its start among the reformed. It is most commonly used in apologetic against atheism.

I think there are different kinds of Presuppers. Some follow the idea that certain truths are axiomatic, and that all Philosophical systems start with axioms. Other presuppers focus more on the fact that no other philosophical system has logical consistency.

If you go into the IRC and find a room named #apologetics, often you will find a few good presuppers that will also hang around such rooms. It might take a few evenings to bump into one of them, but they will be there. I have been involved with a few presuppers in the undernet and starlink. James White from AOmin.org is a presupper in some of his apologetics. He does not focus much on Athiesm.

 

[St Francis]

I have a question for allhart: Do you believe in God?

I shall assume (if I may) that the answer is "Yes". So let me ask you next: Are you still open-minded to the idea that there is no God? If not, are you "close minded" or simply being true to your beliefs?
See what I mean?

 

[Joshua]

I have a question for allhart: Do you believe in God?

I shall assume (if I may) that the answer is "Yes". So let me ask you next: Are you still open-minded to the idea that there is no God? If not, are you "close minded" or simply being true to your beliefs?
See what I mean?

Very good point. I agree that all people are "close minded" on certain issues.

 

[St Francis]

I have a question for allhart: Do you believe in God?

I shall assume (if I may) that the answer is "Yes". So let me ask you next: Are you still open-minded to the idea that there is no God? If not, are you "close minded" or simply being true to your beliefs?
See what I mean?

Very good point. I agree that all people are "close minded" on certain issues.

Wasn't there some famous person who said if you're too open minded your brains will spill out?

 

[Joshua]

if you're too open minded your brains will spill out.

 

[Veritas]

Here is an illustration and a research point. All other religions try to find or work towards God. As where the Bible is God's way of communicating to us. Reaching out to us and seeking us!

Agreed.

Catholic's, well here are just a few problems they have ,reciting prayer (Hell Mary's).That isn't a personal conversation in a personal relationship, with God.

Careful, you're talking with Catholics that probably know more about Catholicism and what they believe than we think they believe. I had this problem too. I don't agree with all of the doctrine, but they are certainly Christian.

They have interceding saints Jesus is the only one. The way truth and the light. They believe in purgatory. There are probably degrees to which punishment is for each individual ,like Hitler, but you are in Heaven or Hell. They believe you can get to heaven by your merit or works. Not as God's grace a free gift in faith.

Not any devoted Catholic I have spoken to believe you can get to heaven by your own work.

Confession in a box to a priest, along with the Pope gives man to much authority in which they don't possess and is it repentance in a change of mind. When man can't see your thoughts as God can. Ect. There is more to say ,but I will see to your response! Your logical thinking is limited to your presupposition. Your facts change as the facts come to light.You should make sure you base your facts on logical thinking not your feelings.

I think we, as Christians, really need to stick together sometimes even though we disagree on a few points. Or at least discuss with those of a certain denominations exactly what it is they believe before we assume we know what they believe.

 

[St Francis]

Thanks for the supportive words, Veritas.

 

[mondar]

I have a question for allhart: Do you believe in God?

I shall assume (if I may) that the answer is "Yes". So let me ask you next: Are you still open-minded to the idea that there is no God? If not, are you "close minded" or simply being true to your beliefs?
See what I mean?

Very good point. I agree that all people are "close minded" on certain issues.

If I can restate this in presuppositional terms, there are no people that do not approach the issue of the existence of God without presuppositions. The question is not do we have presuppositions, but are those presuppositions defensible. Nevertheless, the concept of an open mind is a fable.

I am not philosopher, and I know that, but I would suggest the scriptures teach that the suppression of the knowledge of God is a natural thing for men to do.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

The word for hinder (καÄεÇονÄÉν) is at times translated suppress. The scriptures tell us that the truth of God is found in nature. Verse 20 tells us more specifically what revelation of God is found in nature.

20 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:

The "everlasting power and divinity" is what can be seen through creation. Who can watch the proverbial thunderstorm and not see the power of God. Who can study the expanse of the universe and not think about God's attributes of deity? The answer is those who suppress the revelation of God back in verse 18.

The suppression of the knowledge of God from verse 18 is elaborated upon in verse 21-22.

21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Vanity of reasoning then starts with a presupposition that there is no God.

The whole discussion of evolution is filled with presuppositions, and circular reasoning. Evolutionist see dinosaur bones, and they say Ahh, proof of evolution. Creationist see dinosaur bones and say "ahh, proof of the flood." The same evidence is used, but two different conclusions are drawn for that same evidence. Why? Presuppositions! The only axiomatic truth is that those dinosaur bones exist. We really dont know how they got there. What observer was there when that dinosaur died?

What happens when one starts with the wrong presuppositions?

24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Our philosophers can shake their angry fists in Gods face and deny God. They do this with presuppositions that start with the demand for scientific evidence that God exists, like we can put the almighty God in a test tube and do repeated experiments with him. Science is one way to truth, but science is not all truth. (Can a scientist put that last proposition in a test tube and test it?) The end result of atheistic presuppositions is that God will give them over to the cultural results of their philosophy. Look around, the sovereign ruler of the universe has given us over.

 

[Poster]

I think that if one wanted to argue that there is no 'God', one way to do it would be to suggest that what we mean by 'God' is not what a workable use of the word.

For instance, if i said, "I believe that I have Q marbles in my pocket."

You ask me, 'Do you have more than 17 marbles?"

I say, "No."

You ask me, "Do you have less than 18 marbles?"

If at this point I say, "No." Then my asserting that I have "Q" marbles is problematic, if not logically false.

I have heard arguments against our notion of "God" on this basis.

Pro God:
"Since the universe is obviously here, and since it is beyond our understanding, then there must be a foundation or cause for the Universe. Therefore, it must be 'God'."

Question:
"How did God found or cause the Universe?"

Pro God:
"I have no idea."

Complaint:
"Merely saying that 'God' founded or caused the universe did not in anyway add to our understanding of how the universe came to be. I am no closer to understanding the method of creation than when we started. Hence, the answer "God did it" is empty of meaning, just like saying that I have Q marbles.


Poster (me) :
The difference in the Q example, however, is that in the Q example, Q is excluded logically. I don't myself see that the lack of adding to our understanding of how the universe was founded excludes "God" by definition, hence the argument above saying that God founds the universe is not fallacious, in contrast to the Q example.



Or so it seems to me.