ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Hilston


Again, a Buddhist can make valid determinations, but he cannot justify them on the basis of his worldview. The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

I think this underestimates the ability of people to live with ambiguity. Mosts Buddhists feel comfortable with the way they have come to look at the world. It may not seem coherent to you, but I am willing to bet 80% of them think it's either coherent or that the incongruities are part of the package. You are judging their worldview based on yours.

Originally posted by Hilston
No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Just a point to clarify. Greek schools of logic developed well outside the scope of Judaism and were certainly well developed before Christianity came to exist. So I don't quite follow. I agree that Christianity tacitly allows for logic and science, but to say that if you use logic you are borrowing from a biblical worldview... that's over the top.

Originally posted by Hilston
Not at all. All things can be questioned, even fundamental presuppositions. The question is whether or not sense can be made of them. The Buddhist cannot make sense of his own presuppositions, holds conflicting premises in tension, and blindly assumes facts of reality and existence without cogent justification.

Having lived many years outside North America, I guarantee you that we are the only ones who have a problem holding conflicting presuppositons. The cogent justification you are looking for is not even an aim for most. Life IS a series of random events incoherently jumbled together and then you die. That is many people's world view. So instead of trying to make sense out of it... they try to manipulate it: witchcraft, the lottery, luck, pal-reading, astrology, some plaster saints, writing prayers in the newspaper... whatever it takes to get along with the confusing world they live in. I'm not saying they are right. I'm just saying that your criticism of them is as invalid as you claim their world-view to be.

 

[Clete]

Balder,

You know, every time I've put something in this forum I've ended up wishing that I hadn't. Please feel free to continue participating despite the fact that you are not a Christian. I think as long as you stay on topic, you won't be violating any rules anyway but even if that's not the case, your exchange with Jim has been so far and hopefully will continue to be a terrific example of the presuppositional apologetic system in action. I really couldn't have asked for anything better!
You, Jim and Chileice were pretty busy last night! I got up this morning and there was like a dozen new posts to read. I have a few things I'd like to respond too but time is going to be really short both today and tomorrow. Hopefully there will be time to post during lunch or something but as always your patience is appreciated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Your comments, such as ... "The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity)." ... are frankly ignorant and uninformed, and so full of presuppositions that it actually would take quite a lot to unpack the prejudice behind them. But to do so would take us too far away from the topic of this thread.

Not at all. Give it your best shot. What kind of Buddhist are you? Mahayana? Theravada? Or the cop-out Madhyamika? Give me your take on the succession of kalpas. Do you believe we're presently in the second kalpa, moving inexorably to the complete dissolution of the world system in the fourth kalpa of the ethereal, radiant world of Brahma? Do you hold to the concept of panna and the doctrine of anatta? Each of these concepts require that things become their opposites. Non-life becomes life. Unconsciousness matter becomes conscious. Self becomes non-self. Lawless chaos become orderly laws.

Balder writes:
On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that Christianity is the real and in fact the only acceptable basis for logic, rationality, the scientific method, morality, etc, then we won't even have to deal with Buddhism or other religions.

You're right. And that is exactly how I'm able to dismiss all other worldviews, including Buddhism, as false. The use of logic requires the existence of universal laws of logic. These only make sense in the biblical worldview in which those laws reflect the nature and character of God Himself. All other worldviews fail to account for these laws. The scientific method depends on the uniformity of nature. Only the Biblical worldview can account for the regularity we see in creation. God's nature and character are reflected in His creation. Morality only makes sense in a worldview in which there are objective standards of morality. Objectivity requires an authority that establishes such a standard. God is that authority. Without God, there is no authority, and thus, no objective morality.

Hilston wrote:
The existence of God and the revelation of His purposes in Scripture gives sufficient justification for our general reliance upon and confidence in discursive reasoning, logic, the scientific method, and mathematics. Furthermore, God and His Word give us objective grounds upon which to understand and apply principles of morality and human dignity. Do you have any other worldviews in mind that can compete with that?

Balder writes:
I can think of several worldviews that can compete with that, and of course Buddhism is one of them.

I'm all ears.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Again, a Buddhist can make valid determinations, but he cannot justify them on the basis of his worldview. The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

Chileice writes :
I think this underestimates the ability of people to live with ambiguity. Mosts Buddhists feel comfortable with the way they have come to look at the world.

Is that standard of truth? What makes us feel comfortable?

Pr 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.

Chileice writes :
It may not seem coherent to you, but I am willing to bet 80% of them think it's either coherent or that the incongruities are part of the package.

That's the point: Incongruities are indeed part of their package. If they want to admit that publicly, let's put it in big bold letters so everyone can see it. And then they don't have to bother showing up for the debate. They lose from the outset. One might claim that logical incongruities are not sufficient grounds to dismiss a view, but they use must logic to even make the statement. They must use logic to comprehend the question. They must use logic to even show up and to get from point A to point B. Logical incongruities are not acceptable, which is attested in every aspect of life. Logical incongruities get people killed, and send people to hell. The logically incongruent worldview loses.

Chileice writes :
You are judging their worldview based on yours.

Absolutely. And I have a defensible worldview by which to judge. They don't. If my view happens to be correct, then in actuality, there is no other worldview on which to judge anything, which happens to be my claim. If you think you can disprove it, I invite you to bring it on.

Hilston wrote: No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Chileice writes :
Just a point to clarify. Greek schools of logic developed well outside the scope of Judaism and were certainly well developed before Christianity came to exist. So I don't quite follow. I agree that Christianity tacitly allows for logic and science, but to say that if you use logic you are borrowing from a biblical worldview... that's over the top.

If you want to make an argument from antiquity, you still lose. God preceded the Greeks, even Anaximander (!). Whatever truths Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or Anaxogoras happened to attain were all based on and borrowed from the Biblical worldview. The Pythagorean theorem is not true because the Greeks invented logic, but because Pythagoras successfully, albeit unwittingly, recognized the nature and character of God reflected in the natural order and applied those principles to his geometry and mathematics.

Hilston wrote:
All things can be questioned, even fundamental presuppositions. The question is whether or not sense can be made of them. The Buddhist cannot make sense of his own presuppositions, holds conflicting premises in tension, and blindly assumes facts of reality and existence without cogent justification.

Chileice writes :
Having lived many years outside North America, I guarantee you that we are the only ones who have a problem holding conflicting presuppositons.

This is called an ad populum fallacy. There was a time when most people thought the earth was the center of the universe, too. The popular vote doesn't make a claim true.

Chileice writes :
The cogent justification you are looking for is not even an aim for most.

Much to their demise, I'm afraid. Most people will end up in hell. That's why the road to destruction is wide and congested. The road to life is narrow and not well-traveled.

Chileice writes :
Life IS a series of random events incoherently jumbled together and then you die. That is many people's world view.

Sure, and it's an incoherent one. The same order and consistency seen in the laws of logic can be seen in the order and consistency of historical events. It only appears random and incoherent to those of limited sight who presume to autonomously evaluate the complexities of ordered history accordingly. It's like an ant looking at the history of grass growth on his little plot of turf and assuming that it all must be random and incoherent because every so often the grass is suddenly shorter.

Chileice writes :
So instead of trying to make sense out of it... they try to manipulate it: witchcraft, the lottery, luck, pal-reading, astrology, some plaster saints, writing prayers in the newspaper... whatever it takes to get along with the confusing world they live in. I'm not saying they are right. I'm just saying that your criticism of them is as invalid as you claim their world-view to be.

I can see why you would find comfort in that conjecture. Like those to whom you appeal above, you're obviously quite comfortable living with ambiguity and incongruity. You salve any pangs of uncertainty with such baseless statements as the one you just made, thinking that it explains away your accountability before a logical and righteousness and judgmental God who can destroy your body and soul in hell. It is sin to be willfully anti-logical, Chileice, and you will die in it if you do not repent.

 

[Balder]

Chileice (and Hilston & Clete),

Tulku’s “way” of knowledge would indeed be stifling if he were saying that we aren’t allowed to rely on belief or second-hand knowledge in daily life, but that isn’t the case at all. Rather, he is pointing out the anemic and fundamentally incomplete, limiting nature of belief as a form of knowledge. This does not mean that beliefs or presuppositions (e.g., information accepted on faith in external authority) close off all possibility for knowledge or progress, obviously. Like fractals, a few set parameters can generate a profusion of new patterns, new connections, new structures – but the nature and scope of what develops from them will be limited by those parameters. Tulku is not saying, “Don’t do this,” or trying to give a set of prescriptions, but rather is suggesting that attention to the process of knowing and the development of relatively fixed forms of knowledge is helpful in enriching our aliveness and presence to Creation, and in counteracting the dullness, blindness, or rigidity of structure, perception, and behavior that tend to manifest when we establish ourselves on unconscious presuppositions and second-hand knowledge.

The excerpt I posted is from a 6-book inquiry into three fundamental aspects of being: time, space, and knowledge. Space as “that” which allows for the appearance of form, Time as “that” which allows for events, for growth and change, and Knowledge as “that” which forms the fabric of all experience, awareness, contact, communication, etc, are examined in depth precisely to uncover the presuppositions that influence how we inhabit and relate to the world. This is not the place to go into it (unless someone asks), but I believe Tulku presents a coherent and very elegant argument for the inseparability of these three dimensions of existence, not as dry abstractions but as living faces of being – as the dynamism of Spirit and all life and being that flow from it.

In the next post, I will be happy to answer Hilston’s questions about Buddhism, if no one objects to that being too much of a tangent. If you all are interested in this, I will “play along” and give Hilston a chance to demonstrate presuppositionalism in action. But if I do that, I will ask of Hilston the courtesy of answering any counter questions about his presuppositions and of providing answers other than the very general, unsubstantiated charges and dismissals that he has been issuing so far.

It may not be until this evening or tomorrow that I can write more, however. I’ve got an appointment tonight (coincidentally, with one of the editors of Tulku’s books) that will keep me busy until fairly late.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder
In the next post, I will be happy to answer Hilston’s questions about Buddhism, if no one objects to that being too much of a tangent. If you all are interested in this, I will “play along” and give Hilston a chance to demonstrate presuppositionalism in action. But if I do that, I will ask of Hilston the courtesy of answering any counter questions about his presuppositions and of providing answers other than the very general, unsubstantiated charges and dismissals that he has been issuing so far.

It would seem to me to be only fair that if Jim is saying that your presuppositions are invalid and his are valid that he should at least be willing to explain why this is true. Like I'm always reminding people, saying it doesn't make it so. Besides, the exercise would go a very long way toward answering the second of the two primary questions I posed in the opening post.

I wish I had time to post more but for now this will have to do.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Tulku’s “way” of knowledge would indeed be stifling if he were saying that we aren’t allowed to rely on belief or second-hand knowledge in daily life, but that isn’t the case at all.

It's not any notion of "stifling" that I object to. My question is this: On what authority does Tulku say anything about a "way of knowledge"? On what grounds or criterion does Tulku say one "way" is superior to another?

Balder writes:
Rather, he is pointing out the anemic and fundamentally incomplete, limiting nature of belief as a form of knowledge.

Who says? In Proverbs, the bibilcal book of wisdom, Solomon states authoritatively:

Pr 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Pr 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

The fear of the Lord is belief in Who He is, His nature, character and attributes. From that belief proceeds knowledge. Belief in the Almighty justifies knowledge, validates knowledge. What does Tulku offer? Platitudes and dubious aphorisms. Stuff you put on refrigerator magnets.

Balder writes:
Tulku is ... suggesting that attention to the process of knowing and the development of relatively fixed forms of knowledge is helpful in enriching our aliveness and presence to Creation, ...

Nothing is more enriching of our "aliveness and presence to Creation" than acknowledging and worshiping the Creator. All other attempts, Tulku's "way" included, are idolatry and will lead you directly to hell (do not pass "go", do not collect $200).

Balder writes:
The excerpt I posted is from a 6-book inquiry into three fundamental aspects of being: time, space, and knowledge. Space as “that” which allows for the appearance of form, Time as “that” which allows for events, for growth and change, and Knowledge as “that” which forms the fabric of all experience, awareness, contact, communication, etc, are examined in depth precisely to uncover the presuppositions that influence how we inhabit and relate to the world.

Each of those "aspects of being" make sense only in a biblical framework. Tulku's way, however eloquent and pithy, are self-refuting and incoherent.

Balder writes:
This is not the place to go into it (unless someone asks), but I believe Tulku presents a coherent and very elegant argument for the inseparability of these three dimensions of existence, not as dry abstractions but as living faces of being – as the dynamism of Spirit and all life and being that flow from it.

I'm asking I'm asking. So far, it's a bucketload of question-begging nonsense. Since knowledge seems to be the primary thrust of his thesis, will you begin with Tulku's view of logic? Are the laws of logic universal, or are they merely societal conventions?

Balder writes:
If you all are interested in this, I will “play along” and give Hilston a chance to demonstrate presuppositionalism in action. But if I do that, I will ask of Hilston the courtesy of answering any counter questions about his presuppositions ...

That's exactly what I expect in a rational exchange of ideas. Start asking.

Balder writes:
... and of providing answers other than the very general, unsubstantiated charges and dismissals that he has been issuing so far.

Balder, perhaps you're not reading what I've written. I've substantiated my claims. You may not agree, but you won't be able to coherently wiggle free from confronting the substance of my claims, and I intend to drive that home for you. It's up to you to show the errors in my argument. Stop talking about them being unsubstantiated and demonstrate what you're talking about.

 

[Chileice]

I've been on the road all day and so wasn't ablle to get back to this. Looks like everyone else has time concerns too, so if we are patient, this could be interesting. I will enjoy watching Balder and Hilston's comments with Clete and I at the sidebar.

Originally posted by Hilston


That's the point: Incongruities are indeed part of their package. If they want to admit that publicly, let's put it in big bold letters so everyone can see it. And then they don't have to bother showing up for the debate. They lose from the outset. One might claim that logical incongruities are not sufficient grounds to dismiss a view, but they use must logic to even make the statement. They must use logic to comprehend the question. They must use logic to even show up and to get from point A to point B. Logical incongruities are not acceptable, which is attested in every aspect of life. Logical incongruities get people killed, and send people to hell. The logically incongruent worldview loses.

Although I agree with what you say in this passage, your next to the last statement is again a jump to hyper-space. There have been thousands, even millions of Christians who didn't know the first thing about logic but who were saved. Millions have come to simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and been saved whether they ever did another "logical" thing in their lives or not.

Originally posted by Hilston
Absolutely. And I have a defensible worldview by which to judge. They don't. If my view happens to be correct, then in actuality, there is no other worldview on which to judge anything, which happens to be my claim. If you think you can disprove it, I invite you to bring it on.

Here is where Clete may be seeing the circular logic of presuppositionalism. If you presuppose your view to be right, it will exclude all other views and since all other views are excluded, your view is right so your view is the only right one.

Originally posted by Hilston
If you want to make an argument from antiquity, you still lose. God preceded the Greeks, even Anaximander (!). Whatever truths Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or Anaxogoras happened to attain were all based on and borrowed from the Biblical worldview. The Pythagorean theorem is not true because the Greeks invented logic, but because Pythagoras successfully, albeit unwittingly, recognized the nature and character of God reflected in the natural order and applied those principles to his geometry and mathematics.

This is a type of isogetical analysis that the communists used for generations. They took the current situation and reinterpretted the current event s they saw in terms of their dialectic. How can you, in good consciounce say early Greek thinkers borrowed from the Jews? Can you show me one demonstrable evidence that they actually borrowed from early Judaism to begin teaching logic? I love the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, but some intellectual integrity is needed if others are going to accept our efforts to evangelize as genuine.

Originally posted by Hilston
This is called an ad populum fallacy. There was a time when most people thought the earth was the center of the universe, too. The popular vote doesn't make a claim true.

Much to their demise, I'm afraid. Most people will end up in hell. That's why the road to destruction is wide and congested. The road to life is narrow and not well-traveled.

I am fully aware that this ad populum fallacy is a constant threat to every religion and society. The majority is USUALLY wrong, I would say. But, again, most people won't end up in hell because they aren't logical, but rather because they are faithless. There are many rational people who are logical but will not put their faith in Christ.

Originally posted by Hilston
I can see why you would find comfort in that conjecture. Like those to whom you appeal above, you're obviously quite comfortable living with ambiguity and incongruity. You salve any pangs of uncertainty with such baseless statements as the one you just made, thinking that it explains away your accountability before a logical and righteousness and judgmental God who can destroy your body and soul in hell. It is sin to be willfully anti-logical, Chileice, and you will die in it if you do not repent.

YOU have made a pretty big supposition here. You suppose I agree with them. In general, I don't. I do think that logical cosequence is of great importance for my own comfort if for nothing else. I'm uncomfortable with ambiguity. But I will say that I have learned that it exists... even in the Bible and yet, by faith, I trust that the lack of logical sequence in my own mind is the fault of the reasoner rather than with the Creator.

I will be very interested to see both of your proofs... yours for Christianity (or your version of it) and Balder for Buddhism (or his version of it). It might be of some interest to hear which flavors of said religions you subscribe to.

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Balder

Like fractals, a few set parameters can generate a profusion of new patterns, new connections, new structures – but the nature and scope of what develops from them will be limited by those parameters.

This is an interesting analogy. However, none of us are truly given the opportunity to write our own equations. By the time we are old enough to know it, we have some givens that must be dealt with. And for most of us, those givens have been woven together in such a form that life is pretty liveable unless something really rocks our world. Living with someone else's equation, no matter how interesting the result, is a scary process.

But I think we have to look beyond the equations, the givens and presuppositions unto the final product. Is what we see in the end what we really want? If I do not want anhililation or do not want to be assumed into so eternal nothingness, will I really take the chance? I don't think so.

In some ways Hebrews 13.7 is very instructive:
Hebrews 13
7 Remember your leaders who have spoken God's word to you. As you carefully observe the outcome of their lives, imitate their faith.

I think we look to the outcome of the way of life lived by people of faith. I know I have. Many don't, I realize, but when I look to the end of a godly Christian compared to others I have known, it only reinforces my desire to get to the end of life that same way.

So I don't WANT to reinvinte all the wheels. I am not attracted to all the other possible fractals in the world. The designs I see at the end of the eqation I chose as a teen are still what I want as an old man.

 

[billwald]

1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.

All the Presups I know are also OPCs and/or Reconstructionalists. see www.frebooks.com



2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

The presups are Young Earth Creationism plus VanTil/Rushdoony/North/Bahnsen theology.

Only true, real . . . Christians - people who agree with them - can know the truth. Nothing is TRUE unless confirmed by them.

For example, Einstein's theories or quantum mechanics may be true but can't be TRUE unless confirmed by an OPC/Theonomist "scientist."

 

[billwald]

www.freebooks.com

 

[Hilston]

Chiliece writes:
Although I agree with what you say in this passage, your next to the last statement is again a jump to hyper-space.

Which one? "Logical incongruities are not acceptable, which is attested in every aspect of life"? Don't just assert, Chiliece. Prove your claims. Give me an example of an acceptable incongruity in life.

Chiliece writes:
There have been thousands, even millions of Christians who didn't know the first thing about logic but who were saved.

You're wrong. If one has faith in Christ, they know quite a bit about logic. To know the Logos is to know logic.

Chiliece writes:
Millions have come to simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and been saved whether they ever did another "logical" thing in their lives or not.

Where are you getting this stuff? Everyone lives according to logic. Line up 1,000 people. How many of those people question whether or not their sofa will hold them up every time they go to sit in it? Very few if any. That is logic in action. They've made a logical inference based on past experience and the uniformity of nature. We all do this, even Buddhists. The question is not whether or not we can be logical, but how do we account for its existence and justify our reliance upon it.

Hilston wrote:
Absolutely. And I have a defensible worldview by which to judge. They don't. If my view happens to be correct, then in actuality, there is no other worldview on which to judge anything, which happens to be my claim. If you think you can disprove it, I invite you to bring it on.

Chiliece writes:
Here is where Clete may be seeing the circular logic of presuppositionalism. If you presuppose your view to be right, it will exclude all other views and since all other views are excluded, your view is right so your view is the only right one.

Do you believe the Bible, Chiliece? If so, do you agree with the Bible that says all who dismiss God's word are fools? If so, then what is your point? I've debated many other views and attacked their presuppositions. They've countered by attacking mine. I can show that their presuppositions are incoherent based on their own premises, via their own espoused tenets. But they could not do that to mine. I've had atheists and Buddhists admit to me that they could not argue against my presuppositions and they had to admit to their own arbitrariness where their presuppositions were concerned.

I invited you to bring it on. Are you going to bring it on so we can get it on? Or are we going to just talk about getting it on? Because it ain't "on" now and "on" is where I want to get it.

Chiliece writes:
This is a type of isogetical analysis that the communists used for generations. They took the current situation and reinterpretted the current event s they saw in terms of their dialectic.

It doesn't do you or this discussion any good to diabolize me with references to marxist revisionism. Either put up or shut up. Prove me wrong.

Chiliece writes:
How can you, in good consciounce say early Greek thinkers borrowed from the Jews?

You're not reading what I wrote. I never said such a thing. The early Greek thinkers borrowed from God. When Cain lit a fire, he used the principles of logic he borrowed from the biblical worldview believed by righteous Abel to do so. This is what the Bible teaches. The enemies and haters of God knew Him. They understood the created order and the principles that governed it. But they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. And even those who do not have God's law do, by nature, the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts all the while accusing or else excusing one another. This is what you're doing, Chiliece, but kicking against the Scripture. You are excusing the gainsayer.

Chiliece writes:
Can you show me one demonstrable evidence that they actually borrowed from early Judaism to begin teaching logic?

Sure. Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God." There is enough logic in those four words to keep the Greek mind busy for kalpas.

Chiliece writes:
I love the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, but some intellectual integrity is needed if others are going to accept our efforts to evangelize as genuine.

First of all, I don't give a flying Fallujah what others think about my efforts to evangelize. That's between me and God. Second, where is the lack of intellectual integrity to say that God's Word is supreme and no other worldview can compete with it?

Chiliece writes:
But, again, most people won't end up in hell because they aren't logical, but rather because they are faithless.

That's incorrect. And you have it exactly backward. People who are faithless are illogical. Hell will be filled with illogical people. Every person in hell is illogical because they were faithless.

Chiliece writes:
There are many rational people who are logical but will not put their faith in Christ.

That's incorrect. Give a biblical apologist five minutes alone with anyone who rejects Christ and the gainsayer's irrationality will be fully exposed.

Chiliece writes:
YOU have made a pretty big supposition here. You suppose I agree with them. In general, I don't. I do think that logical cosequence is of great importance for my own comfort if for nothing else. I'm uncomfortable with ambiguity.

Then there's hope for you.

Chiliece writes:
But I will say that I have learned that it exists... even in the Bible and yet, by faith, I trust that the lack of logical sequence in my own mind is the fault of the reasoner rather than with the Creator.

You just contradicted yourself. Either you believe there is ambiguity in the Bible or you believe your own reasoning is faulty and not the Creator. Which is it? I hope it's the latter.

Chiliece writes:
I will be very interested to see both of your proofs... yours for Christianity (or your version of it) and Balder for Buddhism (or his version of it). It might be of some interest to hear which flavors of said religions you subscribe to.

I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

 

[Hilston]

Billwald,

I'm a presuppositionalist. But I'm not OPC. I'm not a Theonomist. I'm not a Reconstructionist. I'm an Acts 9 dispensationalist.

So your gross generalization doesn't apply. And if you thought your blanket assumptions would give you grounds to dismiss presuppositionalism and excuse you from having to confront its claims upon your reason, you were wrong.

 

[Redfin]

While everyone's pausing here, a question:

Does Presuppositionalism amount to a justification of or apologetic for certain forms of circular reasoning (and why or why not)?

Thanks!

 

[Chileice]

Hilston,
Part of your problem in being an apologist is that you come across as crass, cocky and arrogant. One can be right without shutting others down before they have a chance to be heard.

Hilston said:
I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

That is NOT a PROOF. People make sense of their lives without the Bible every day. This proof makes sense to you because you believe it. But if you were dealing with a true unbeliever, you saying it was true would be no more proof than him saying it wasn't.

The challenge to you would be to prove by process of elimination that it was true. You would literally have to take on every world system, prove them wrong and then say... see, I told you.

I also agree that it is the best system to explain the world as it is. But to say that makes it a proof steps totally outside the rules of logic which you are so swift to defend.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
My point in asking these questions is this: If there is a biblical way to evangelize in contrast to unbiblical ways to evangelize, perhaps there is a biblical way of defending the faith in contrast to unbiblical way that can be similarly considered.

Well yes, of course we should not do evil that good may result but that is a far cry from suggesting that there is only one single way to do evangelism. No one is suggesting that any and all conceivable means of preaching the Gospel are appropriate but you are suggesting that there one way and one way only. I believe that while the examples you gave are on one far side of the spectrum, you have gone too far to the other.

I agree with you completely, at least your wording. But I need to know what you mean. Can you give an example or two?

Responding to Euthyphro's dilemma with logic is one excellent example. While I agree that when Bob Enyart was confronted with Plato's logic puzzle that he could have chosen to attack it exclusively from a presuppositional point of view and that it would perhaps have been a stronger argument than the one he used, but, again, that is not to say that the argument he used was therefore invalid or ineffective and it certainly wasn't Biblically prohibited.
Bob answered the dilemma from the same grounds upon which it was presented. Zakath was arguing from a decidedly extra-biblical position and Bob answered him from the same extra-Biblical ground upon which the argument stood. In other words Euthyphro's dilemma doesn't present a problem for the Christian either way. Whether one comes at it with Platonic world-view or a Biblical world-view the argument Zakath made does no damage to the Christian position. It isn't necessary in order to defeat this argument to dismantle the Platonic world-view at its foundation. You might find it preferable but I do not see how you could say it was demanded by Scripture.

It changes from person to person. Some people presuppose the uniformity of nature and base their whole worldview on that. Others presuppose the verity of logic and base their whole worldview on that. Most people have presuppositions that they're not even aware of and have never had them challenged.

Yes, I know that unbelievers have all sorts of presuppositions, most of which they are completely unaware of, that's not what I am asking about. What I'm asking is what is it that we Christians are supposed to presuppose, or in other words, which presuppositions are the correct ones to hold and why is it logically absurd to question them?

Objective and neutral are not the same. There is objective truth. The question is not whether or not something is objective, but whether or not the grounds for claiming objectivity can be justified.

Very well then, by what means are they justified?

Let me give you one and let's see how circular it is: A Christian presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. What presupposition would you say that is based upon?

That God exists for one.
That God can communicate meaningfully to us for another.
That God did in fact write or at least inspire the writing of the Bible.
These three things at least would need to be established before the inerrancy fo the Bible could be presupposed, there are perhaps more.

And I wish to address one thing that you said that seems to be at the crux of things so far in the discussion.
You said...

I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

While I do not disagree that you are correct in what you said, I think that the point everyone is trying to get you to see is that without having done the work to establish this all you are really saying amounts to "I'm right and your wrong and you can't prove otherwise." Surely you can see that this just will not do! You've jumped to the conclusion without telling the story. You've told the 'what' without saying anything about the 'why'.
In order for you to establish this it would be necessary to walk through at least part of this one logical step at a time and clearly show how the opposing world-view is logically incoherent. Just declaring that it is incoherent isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
This in effect was what Zakath was attempting to do to the Christian world-view when he brought up Euthyphro's dilemma. Had Bob not been able to rebut the argument Zakath's point would have had a lot more impact than it did because it would have displayed a major problem with a primary presupposition of Christianity, that being the goodness of God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This is all I have time for right now. More to come later!

 

[Hilston]

Chiliece writes:
Hilston,
Part of your problem in being an apologist is that you come across as crass, cocky and arrogant. One can be right without shutting others down before they have a chance to be heard.

If crassness, cockiness and arrogance is all it takes to shut someone down, then maybe they don't have much to offer the discussion. Besides, it's merely perceived arrogance from where you're sitting. Anyone can argue presuppositionally, and you don't have to be a genius to do it. So there's nothing to be arrogant about. The Word of God does not need us to defend it, but we're called to do so anyway.

Hilston said: I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

Chiliece writes:
That is NOT a PROOF. People make sense of their lives without the Bible every day.

No they don't, especially when they're pressed to account for matters of a foundational and ultiimate nature. Most people float along in willful ignorance, keeping themselves a safe distance from such confrontations. That's what the Bible says. Most people don't go around thinking about where the laws of logic came from. Rarely is anyone pressed on that issue in their mundane experience. But just because they're not forced to consider these matters, doesn't mean they can blithely claim to make sense of their lives.

Chiliece writes:
This proof makes sense to you because you believe it.

Not true. It makes sense to those who don't believe it as well.

Chiliece writes:
But if you were dealing with a true unbeliever, you saying it was true would be no more proof than him saying it wasn't.

Then prove it wrong, Chiliece. Stop talking about its inadequacy as a proof and disprove it.

Chiliece writes:
The challenge to you would be to prove by process of elimination that it was true. You would literally have to take on every world system, prove them wrong and then say... see, I told you.

It's the Bible's claim. Not mine. Since God wrote the Bible, I take His word on it. And guess what? God has been right every time so far. Every worldview I've come up against hasn't been able to hold a candle to the scriptures. I have it on good authority (i.e., God's) that every world system has been proved wrong.

Chiliece writes:
I also agree that it is the best system to explain the world as it is. But to say that makes it a proof steps totally outside the rules of logic which you are so swift to defend.

Show me where the laws of logic have been bent or abused.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote:
My point in asking these questions is this: If there is a biblical way to evangelize in contrast to unbiblical ways to evangelize, perhaps there is a biblical way of defending the faith in contrast to unbiblical way that can be similarly considered.

Clete writes:
Well yes, of course we should not do evil that good may result but that is a far cry from suggesting that there is only one single way to do evangelism.

I don't think I'm being very clear. You would agree that there is such a thing as biblical evangelism, which would be ascertained according to the content and method employed by the evangelist, correct? That's all I'm saying about the biblical apologetic. The content and the method must be biblical.

Clete writes:
No one is suggesting that any and all conceivable means of preaching the Gospel are appropriate but you are suggesting that there one way and one way only.

Yes, and that is what I call "biblical evangelism." There are many modes of evangelism that are legitimate but not found in scripture, but the content and method must be biblical. Do you agree?

Clete writes:
I believe that while the examples you gave are on one far side of the spectrum, you have gone too far to the other.

It may be that I haven't been clear. I'm hoping to remedy that.

Hilston wrote:
I agree with you completely, at least your wording. But I need to know what you mean. Can you give an example or two?

Clete writes:
Responding to Euthyphro's dilemma with logic is one excellent example. While I agree that when Bob Enyart was confronted with Plato's logic puzzle that he could have chosen to attack it exclusively from a presuppositional point of view and that it would perhaps have been a stronger argument than the one he used, but, again, that is not to say that the argument he used was therefore invalid or ineffective and it certainly wasn't Biblically prohibited.

It is prohibited because it is illogical.

Clete writes:
Bob answered the dilemma from the same grounds upon which it was presented. Zakath was arguing from a decidedly extra-biblical position and Bob answered him from the same extra-Biblical ground upon which the argument stood.

No, he didn't. That would have required Bob to take Zakath's extra-biblical assumptions about logic, and show how they do not comport with his own view of reality.

Clete writes:
In other words Euthyphro's dilemma doesn't present a problem for the Christian either way.

It does if one argues in Enyartian fashion.

Clete writes:
Whether one comes at it with Platonic world-view or a Biblical world-view the argument Zakath made does no damage to the Christian position.

Bob's position wasn't the Christian position. The reason Zakath's argument is impotent is because Zakath cannot provide sufficient grounds in which to even ask the question. He can't get out of the starting blocks because he has a self-refuting worldview. To grant Zakath any footing whatsoever is to feed him a untruth. To continue arguing as if Zakath has any footing is to perpetuate that untruth. Zakath becomes wiser in his own conceit, fulfilling Prov 26:5

Clete writes:
It isn't necessary in order to defeat this argument to dismantle the Platonic world-view at its foundation. You might find it preferable but I do not see how you could say it was demanded by Scripture.

I don't see it as a preference issue. I see it as the difference between arguing truthfully/honorably and arguing untruthfully/disingenuously.

Hilston wrote:
It changes from person to person. Some people presuppose the uniformity of nature and base their whole worldview on that. Others presuppose the verity of logic and base their whole worldview on that. Most people have presuppositions that they're not even aware of and have never had them challenged.

Clete writes:
Yes, I know that unbelievers have all sorts of presuppositions, most of which they are completely unaware of, that's not what I am asking about. What I'm asking is what is it that we Christians are supposed to presuppose, or in other words, which presuppositions are the correct ones to hold and why is it logically absurd to question them?

See below.

Hilston wrote:
Objective and neutral are not the same. There is objective truth. The question is not whether or not something is objective, but whether or not the grounds for claiming objectivity can be justified.

Clete writes:
Very well then, by what means are they justified?

Objective truth is justified by means of God's Word.

Hilston wrote:
Let me give you one and let's see how circular it is: A Christian presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. What presupposition would you say that is based upon?

Clete writes:
That God exists for one.
That God can communicate meaningfully to us for another.
That God did in fact write or at least inspire the writing of the Bible.
These three things at least would need to be established before the inerrancy fo the Bible could be presupposed, there are perhaps more.

I agree with you, Clete. Those are well thought out and I would say these answer your question above (re: which presuppositions Christian should hold). Do you view this as circular?

Clete writes:
And I wish to address one thing that you said that seems to be at the crux of things so far in the discussion.
You said...

Hilston wrote:
I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

While I do not disagree that you are correct in what you said, I think that the point everyone is trying to get you to see is that without having done the work to establish this all you are really saying amounts to "I'm right and your wrong and you can't prove otherwise."

No, I'm saying the Bible is right, exclusively, and everyone else is wrong, and anything that anyone happens to be right about (2+2=4, for example) is the result of borrowing from the Biblical worldview. Further, I am not only saying that no one can prove otherwise, but that all other worldviews are summarily dismantled by the biblical worldview, without exception, based on the claims of the bible and actual experience.

Clete writes:
Surely you can see that this just will not do! You've jumped to the conclusion without telling the story. You've told the 'what' without saying anything about the 'why'.

"Why" about what? "Why does God exist?" It's an absurd question. The answer is "I don't know and it doesn't matter that I don't know. He exists, and now we must deal with it." Or "Why can't any other worldview compete with the Biblical worldview?" The answer is because God created reality, and no other claims upon reality can compete with that which has been revealed by its Creator. Or "why is the Biblical worldview superior and true to the exclusion of all others?" The answer is because God is the Creator, and His creation reflects His nature, character and attributes. This alone accounts for the foundational necessities of logic, consciousness, morality, human dignity, etc. All other attempts by Godless worldviews to do so are shown to be fraught with question-begging and logical fallacies.

Clete writes:
In order for you to establish this it would be necessary to walk through at least part of this one logical step at a time and clearly show how the opposing world-view is logically incoherent. Just declaring that it is incoherent isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

Of course. That is I will happily do if someone, anyone, would offer an opposing worldview. I'm still waiting for something from Balder to sink my teeth into.

Clete writes:
This in effect was what Zakath was attempting to do to the Christian world-view when he brought up Euthyphro's dilemma. Had Bob not been able to rebut the argument Zakath's point would have had a lot more impact than it did because it would have displayed a major problem with a primary presupposition of Christianity, that being the goodness of God.

(a) Bob did not rebut the argument. He merely deflected it using a specious argument.

(b) Zakath's point would have had a lot more impact if he had stuck to his guns. He caved too easily. Since Bob had already surrendered the use of logic to Zakath (itself an unbiblical thing to do), Zakath was fully equipped to nail Bob with it, but either chose not to, or didn't know how.

 

[Balder]

Hi, amigos,

I don't have time for more than a short note tonight. There's a lot to catch up on! I'll just answer one of Hilston's questions for now.

Not at all. Give it your best shot. What kind of Buddhist are you? Mahayana? Theravada? Or the cop-out Madhyamika? Give me your take on the succession of kalpas. Do you believe we're presently in the second kalpa, moving inexorably to the complete dissolution of the world system in the fourth kalpa of the ethereal, radiant world of Brahma? Do you hold to the concept of panna and the doctrine of anatta? Each of these concepts require that things become their opposites. Non-life becomes life. Unconsciousness matter becomes conscious. Self becomes non-self. Lawless chaos become orderly laws.

You have used a number of Buddhist terms, but the way you've used them and the claims you've made about them make me think that you do not understand them very clearly.

To classify myself, I would say the best descriptor is Western Buddhist -- meaning those Buddhists in the West who have been able to study from multiple traditions. I have studied with Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana teachers, but if I were to choose one traditional Buddhist school with which I am most strongly associated in terms of both practice and belief, it would be Vajrayana.

I'm curious why you think Madhyamika is a cop-out, and also why you think Buddhism teaches that life comes from non-life, or consciousness comes from unconscious matter. Buddhism criticizes materialism (both ancient Indian materialism and modern Western materialism) for precisely these reasons: such claims are incoherent, or at the very least, logically suspect.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Redfin]

Originally posted by Redfin

While everyone's pausing here, a question:

Does Presuppositionalism amount to a justification of or apologetic for certain forms of circular reasoning (and why or why not)?

Thanks!

Was the question too "ignorant" to merit a reply?

A nutshell answer would be sufficient.