Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Presuppositional Apolgetic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Presuppositional Apolgetic

    Hello everyone, I'm new here. I've been lurking the forum ever since this site got crashed a few years back. I missed a lot of the threads back then. There were a lot of good threads that had what I was looking for but can't find it anymore. I guess all the data was lost? But anyway, my special interest is in Presuppositional Apologetic. I have try to defend it a few times but still suck at it. The reason why I am posting this thread is to get some help from those who enjoy defending the argument. Not sure if this section is for Christians only but it would definitely help if you are one who is already defending the argument. And for those who don't know what Presuppositional Apologetic is, it is basically the argument that one cannot know anything or have knowledge without starting from the biblical God. That said, here's my two question or objections I had the most. Thanks for replying.

    1. When you ask the atheist how do he know things to be certain, and he said he doesn't, then he shift the same thing back to you and "neither could you"! How do I respond back?

    2. From my experience debating with atheists, they use proof to mean 'seeing'. In other words, to prove that God exist He must show Himself before my eyes, otherwise He doesn't exist.

    Here is my response: Just because something appears before your eyes and you saw it does not prove that it exist. You (the atheist) could suffer from a hallucination.

    This is his response: Glad you can follow the false logic. Just because you're told God exists from the bible doesn't mean that it does.

    Now, I kind of get the idea that he's shifting his presupposition on me. How do I tackle this?

    Again, thanks for all the help.

    God bless
    Yeng Vg

  • #2
    Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
    Hello everyone, I'm new here. I've been lurking the forum ever since this site got crashed a few years back. I missed a lot of the threads back then. There were a lot of good threads that had what I was looking for but can't find it anymore. I guess all the data was lost? But anyway, my special interest is in Presuppositional Apologetic. I have try to defend it a few times but still suck at it. The reason why I am posting this thread is to get some help from those who enjoy defending the argument. Not sure if this section is for Christians only but it would definitely help if you are one who is already defending the argument. And for those who don't know what Presuppositional Apologetic is, it is basically the argument that one cannot know anything or have knowledge without starting from the biblical God. That said, here's my two question or objections I had the most. Thanks for replying.

    1. When you ask the atheist how do he know things to be certain, and he said he doesn't, then he shift the same thing back to you and "neither could you"! How do I respond back?

    2. From my experience debating with atheists, they use proof to mean 'seeing'. In other words, to prove that God exist He must show Himself before my eyes, otherwise He doesn't exist.

    Here is my response: Just because something appears before your eyes and you saw it does not prove that it exist. You (the atheist) could suffer from a hallucination.

    This is his response: Glad you can follow the false logic. Just because you're told God exists from the bible doesn't mean that it does.

    Now, I kind of get the idea that he's shifting his presupposition on me. How do I tackle this?

    Again, thanks for all the help.

    God bless
    I don't have any answers to your questions now, but the old Theologyweb can be found at the Way back Machine.

    http://web.archive.org/web/201406010...heologyweb.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Presuppitional Apologetics aren't exactly popular around here, but you could try talking to Mr. Black. He's the only one I know that does a presuppositional approach. With my experiences I do lean towards it, but am still undecided.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Premo316 View Post
        I don't have any answers to your questions now, but the old Theologyweb can be found at the Way back Machine.

        http://web.archive.org/web/201406010...heologyweb.com
        Some of the old TWeb can be found.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
          Presuppitional Apologetics aren't exactly popular around here, but you could try talking to Mr. Black. He's the only one I know that does a presuppositional approach. With my experiences I do lean towards it, but am still undecided.
          Seer sort of recently seems to support Mr. Black's Presuppositional statement of belief. This thread got off topic and went through several morphs on the topic. Scroll through the thread until Mr. Black pops up. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...te-Past/page50

          This thread also goes into it, but more on topic of Divine Revelation. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ine-revelation
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Seer sort of recently seems to support Mr. Black's Presuppositional statement of belief. This thread got off topic and went through several morphs on the topic. Scroll through the thread until Mr. Black pops up. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...te-Past/page50

            This thread also goes into it, but more on topic of Divine Revelation. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ine-revelation
            Seer just seems to agree with Mr. Black, I don't think he's used to arguing for presup. Mr. Black however seems to at least have some experience, and seems to know of the presup literature out there. That's the main reason I recommended him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
              Hello everyone, I'm new here. I've been lurking the forum ever since this site got crashed a few years back. I missed a lot of the threads back then. There were a lot of good threads that had what I was looking for but can't find it anymore. I guess all the data was lost? But anyway, my special interest is in Presuppositional Apologetic. I have try to defend it a few times but still suck at it. The reason why I am posting this thread is to get some help from those who enjoy defending the argument. Not sure if this section is for Christians only but it would definitely help if you are one who is already defending the argument. And for those who don't know what Presuppositional Apologetic is, it is basically the argument that one cannot know anything or have knowledge without starting from the biblical God. That said, here's my two question or objections I had the most. Thanks for replying.

              1. When you ask the atheist how do he know things to be certain, and he said he doesn't, then he shift the same thing back to you and "neither could you"! How do I respond back?
              This argument (actually it is not an argument from Van Til's perspective) runs into more problems from many different believers not only atheists.

              2. From my experience debating with atheists, they use proof to mean 'seeing'. In other words, to prove that God exist He must show Himself before my eyes, otherwise He doesn't exist.
              Actually atheists appeal to Metaphysical Naturalism that nothing exists that cannot be tested and falsified by scientific methodology. In other words our physical existence is all that exists. On the other hand Methodological Naturalism makes no metaphysical assumptions nor offers answers to metaphysical questions. It simply considers its methods only apply to our physical existence.

              Here is my response: Just because something appears before your eyes and you saw it does not prove that it exist. You (the atheist) could suffer from a hallucination.
              Not an adequate response. If this assumption holds universally and not in a biased selective way, then we are all rabbits named Harvey.

              This is his response: Glad you can follow the false logic. Just because you're told God exists from the bible doesn't mean that it does.

              Now, I kind of get the idea that he's shifting his presupposition on me. How do I tackle this?
              It is a legitimate shift logically the one making the proposition is responsible to offer a resolution without simply putting up a stone wall belief statement. The problem is that Van Til's presupposition does not offer an argument, it simply is a statement of belief, and it claims unless you are a Van Til Christian, ALL other worldviews are irrational and illogical and have no justification for knowledge.

              It makes the assumption that the Bible is the literal Word of God, which is the same as the conclusion. Classic Begging the Question.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-18-2014, 04:36 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                Seer just seems to agree with Mr. Black, I don't think he's used to arguing for presup. Mr. Black however seems to at least have some experience, and seems to know of the presup literature out there. That's the main reason I recommended him.
                That is why I said seems to support (agree?). Seer's view remains a bit foggy on this issue.

                Mr. Black's challenge to all posts is simple to accuse all with Begging the Question, and challenging everyone that they in reality have no justification for having any knowledge.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-18-2014, 04:29 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  That is why I said seems to support (agree?). Seer's view remains a bit foggy on this issue.

                  Mr. Black's challenge to all posts is simple to accuse all with Begging the Question, and challenging everyone that they in reality have no justification for having any knowledge.
                  Sorry, I misread your post.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon
                    I have a feeling jpholding of Tektonics Apologetics Ministries holds a similar view, but too much noise for me. Someone else may feel more qualified to comment.
                    No, JPH isn't a presuppositionalist. I'll have to look for them, but I remember some of his articles being against such an approach.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                      ...my special interest is in Presuppositional Apologetic. I have try to defend it a few times but still suck at it.
                      That must mean you have a soul and all is not lost!

                      I would suggest if you insist on chasing this rabbit, that you go to the source rather than Van Til's egocentric spin on it. What presuppositional apologetics is is a contorted regurgitation of Dutch Reformed theology which is itself a kind of hyper-Calvinism. Herman Dooyeweerd, Abram Kuyper, and Alvin Plantinga are some early theologians and philosophers who helped form the modern evolution of this brand of hyper-Calvinism. You should also be aware that this particular worldview gave rise to the system of Apartheid in South Africa. By reducing everything to what are called Normative States, one can systematically order all of human life into that which is lawful and that which is unlawful (obedient vs. disobedient). I used to be a devotee of this philosophy, that is why my user name is Norm A. Tive - this is a composite of the "ideal" person who has correctly reduced all of life to fit into the presuppositional worldviews also known as Cosmonomic Theory. It claims that all of reality can be embodied within 15 spheres of law.

                      People afflicted with this disease tend to be very obstinate in their belief system, rejecting all others as inferior. Mr. Black embodies this quite well.

                      NORM
                      When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                        Hello everyone, I'm new here. I've been lurking the forum ever since this site got crashed a few years back. I missed a lot of the threads back then. There were a lot of good threads that had what I was looking for but can't find it anymore. I guess all the data was lost? But anyway, my special interest is in Presuppositional Apologetic. I have try to defend it a few times but still suck at it. The reason why I am posting this thread is to get some help from those who enjoy defending the argument. Not sure if this section is for Christians only but it would definitely help if you are one who is already defending the argument. And for those who don't know what Presuppositional Apologetic is, it is basically the argument that one cannot know anything or have knowledge without starting from the biblical God. That said, here's my two question or objections I had the most. Thanks for replying.

                        1. When you ask the atheist how do he know things to be certain, and he said he doesn't, then he shift the same thing back to you and "neither could you"! How do I respond back?

                        2. From my experience debating with atheists, they use proof to mean 'seeing'. In other words, to prove that God exist He must show Himself before my eyes, otherwise He doesn't exist.

                        Here is my response: Just because something appears before your eyes and you saw it does not prove that it exist. You (the atheist) could suffer from a hallucination.

                        This is his response: Glad you can follow the false logic. Just because you're told God exists from the bible doesn't mean that it does.

                        Now, I kind of get the idea that he's shifting his presupposition on me. How do I tackle this?

                        Again, thanks for all the help.

                        God bless
                        Only if the universe is created could anything appearing before your eyes possibly be an illusion, but if the universe is eternal then your eyes and anything appearing before your eyes must needs be real. Now, perhaps God exists and created a real world in which all you experience is real, or perhaps he created the illusion of one in which both yourself and your experiences are an illusion, but if the world of our experience is eternal, then there is no alternative other than that it is real.
                        The presuppositionalist argues just the opposite, that only if the world is created by a creator within the which our cognitive abilities are grounded, could we be sure that what we experience is not an illusion.
                        Last edited by JimL; 10-20-2014, 06:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Not an adequate response. If this assumption holds universally and not in a biased selective way, then we are all rabbits named Harvey.
                          The reason I said this is because the fact is in atheism, there is no reason to believe anything is certain. If atheism is true, your minds are simply robots, you don't think, you only reacts. There are no absolutes to preserve what is, they just have chance and accident. Therefore Atheism is not logically consistent. To say otherwise is self-refuting.

                          I'm not saying the atheist doesn't know things to be certain. I'm saying that if he really live consistently with his worldview, he cannot know anything - even if it were true.


                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          It is a legitimate shift logically the one making the proposition is responsible to offer a resolution without simply putting up a stone wall belief statement. The problem is that Van Til's presupposition does not offer an argument, it simply is a statement of belief, and it claims unless you are a Van Til Christian, ALL other worldviews are irrational and illogical and have no justification for knowledge.
                          Not according to his worldview, no. How can the atheist who admitted he doesn't know any thing to be certain, one who deny knowledge turn around and said the same thing about me? I don't share the same worldview has him. Logical fallacy imo.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          It makes the assumption that the Bible is the literal Word of God, which is the same as the conclusion. Classic Begging the Question.
                          It's quite simple, unless God exists, there is no rationality.
                          Yeng Vg

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                            Hello everyone, I'm new here.
                            Hello to you too. Here’s what you don’t understand:

                            All religions ‘of the book’ are hindered by the fact that language and books are limited only by the author’s imagination. Books are not necessarily grounded in reality even though some people and places and events mentioned, may be or are real. The difficulty for some people is in sorting out what is real and what is myth, legend or fable. For the presuppositional apologist, the existence of God and His magical powers is axiomatic. But that is not where a modern rational person would begin because nature has been discovered (quite recently in human history) to be non-miraculous and therefore nothing happens to and around us that requires a hidden magical being to explain it.

                            Children, being very impressionable (and not knowing much except how to fill their chubby little faces), are taught at a young age that the gods are real and as they grow older they find it very difficult to detach themselves from their invisible (meaning imaginary) friend. Religion is a type of therapy for people who have this left over from childhood cognitive dissonance. Presuppositionalists have a particularly malignant form of the disorder.

                            The consequences of religion are that sufferers do not know what they are (I mean that they do not know what a human being is) and they do not know where they are (they have a distorted view of their relationship to the Universe). Whether this really matters or not depends on your attitude to truth. Plenty people would rather have their god than face the truth about their existence because they have been taught the lie that reality is frightening and spoilt.
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by AkByR64 View Post
                              The reason I said this is because the fact is in atheism, there is no reason to believe anything is certain. If atheism is true, your minds are simply robots, you don't think, you only reacts. There are no absolutes to preserve what is, they just have chance and accident. Therefore Atheism is not logically consistent. To say otherwise is self-refuting.
                              Problem assumption here, If atheism is true, your minds are simply robots, which is oft repeated by traditional theists. The scientific world view that atheists believe does not relate at all to this foolish robotic notion. The concept you use, chance and accident, by definition is an outdated Theist layman foolishness.

                              The Nature of our physical existence is determined by Natural Law and the physical nature of our existence and not 'chance and accident. Accidents would be an unexpected outcome in a given situation. Chance? not even in Las Vegas. Chaos determines the variability we witness, read Chaos by Gleick, not the foolish notion of chance.

                              No the atheist view is not logically inconsistent nor self refuting, but your argument presented here is, because it has nothing to do with what atheists nor what science believes.

                              I'm not saying the atheist doesn't know things to be certain. I'm saying that if he really live consistently with his worldview, he cannot know anything - even if it were true.

                              Not according to his worldview, no. How can the atheist who admitted he doesn't know any thing to be certain, one who deny knowledge turn around and said the same thing about me? I don't share the same worldview has him. Logical fallacy imo. It's quite simple, unless God exists, there is no rationality.
                              First, atheists DO NOT claim that they do not know things for certain.

                              By simple observation, rationality exists regardless of whether God(s) exists or not. The existence of rationality can be verified objectively. The existence of God cannot. Can you present an objective verified world comparison where on world exists without God(s) and rationality, and another world exists with God(s) and rationality.

                              Confusing and irrational. rift with irrational logical fallacies.

                              The following most definitely reflects Van Til's world view

                              The problem is that Van Til's presupposition does not offer an argument, it simply is a statement of belief, and it claims unless you are a Van Til Christian, ALL other worldviews are irrational and illogical and have no justification for knowledge.

                              Please note your response to atheism. It is a statement of belief on your part, and not an effective argument, nor does it reflect what atheists actually believe.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-16-2015, 07:21 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Today, 12:35 PM
                              0 responses
                              8 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by seer, 04-10-2021, 08:55 PM
                              35 responses
                              215 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post siam
                              by siam
                               
                              Started by Machinist, 04-07-2021, 07:41 AM
                              82 responses
                              469 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Machinist  
                              Started by seer, 04-02-2021, 01:25 PM
                              58 responses
                              364 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Started by seer, 03-26-2021, 07:30 AM
                              169 responses
                              1,130 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X