ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Chileice]

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!

The question certainly wasn't ignorant. I think it sounds that way, especially the way Hilston presents it. If you want a more consice overview, you might try checking out this site:
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/presup.htm
It may answer more questions. At least it is presented in an easy to read fashion. Hope it helps.

 

[Clete]

Redfin,

I don't think anyone intentionally ignored you, it's just that I don't think anyone knows the answer to your question.

I know that Presuppositionalism does not tolerate viciously circular reasoning but they do acknowledge that circularity to one degree or another is unavoidable when discussing things like the existence of God. I don't pretend to understand why or how they come to that position but I've seen it more than once in a couple of different articles on the subject. The only one here that is probably qualified to give you a direct answer to your question is Jim.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

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

No. Presuppositionalism is another way of saying "Biblical apologetic." Defending the faith biblically. Evidentialism is an anti-biblical apologetic, extra-biblical at best. Some want to argue that "extra-biblical" is OK. That, I think, is the main question Clete has posed. Should the presupp' content and method be the only content and method used for apologetics, or are other contents and methods allowed. That is why I asked about evangelism. Is biblical evangelism the only content and method for evangelism, or are other extra-biblical contents and methods allowed? I would argue the former in both cases.

Clete writes: I know that Presuppositionalism does not tolerate viciously circular reasoning but they do acknowledge that circularity to one degree or another is unavoidable when discussing things like the existence of God.

That's correct.

Clete writes: I don't pretend to understand why or how they come to that position but I've seen it more than once in a couple of different articles on the subject.

I am not sure why you don't see this. You say don't understand why presuppositionalism affirms this view of circularity. Let's take any argument that you think is non-circular and let's have a look at it. K?

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
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.

I admit to having only a superficial, and largely inadequate, understanding (if it can be even called that) of the vast teachings of the myriad Buddhist schools. Heck, I can hardly keep up with Christendom, let alone all the other religions in the world. I've never heard of the Vajrayana school. Does it follow a Mahayana soteriology or a Hinayana? I'm looking for something, anything to sink my teeth into, and you're not helping me, Balder. Assume I know nothing. I've asked you some basic questions and instead you choose to pick on my ignorance of your beliefs. Great. I'm an ignorant jackass. Give me something. Or at least ask me questions, like you said you would.

Balder writes:
... 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 not familiar with that at all. Will you throw me a bone, or do I have to go do my own digging?

Balder writes:
I'm curious why you think Madhyamika is a cop-out, and also why you think Buddhism teaches that life comes from non-life, ...

Then where does life come from, Balder?

Balder writes:
or consciousness comes from unconscious matter. ...

Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Balder writes:
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.

Then let's look at abstract entities. You used the phrase "logically suspect." By that, I assume that contradictions and logical fallacies are disallowed in your view. Why?

 

[Clete]

Jim,

I'm not saying that arguments for the existance of God are not at all circular, I'm just saying that I didn't know that they were and I do not understand how they are. Perhaps you could give an example of how even the best arguments for the excistence of God are circular.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
I'm not saying that arguments for the existance of God are not at all circular, I'm just saying that I didn't know that they were and I do not understand how they are.

Then give me one that you think is not circular and we can look at it.

Clete writes:
Perhaps you could give an example of how even the best arguments for the excistence of God are circular.

Wait a second. Earlier you were criticizing me for circularity. Now you want me to demonstrate circularity? I don't get it. If you want to understand presuppositional argumentation, studying circularity isn't going get you there. It's like saying, "I want to learn about the differences between Aldous Huxley and Rush Limbaugh, so tell me about English grammar."

Furthermore, my view is that there is only one best argument for God's existence, which is the one used in scripture. There are many modes of apologetic, but only one biblical and best method and content to that argument. All the so-called great apologists, Wm. Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, N. Geisler, Wm. Dembski, Philip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Josh McDowell, et al, use unbiblical arguments. And in their debates, they get slaughtered. Christians leave those debates thinking their guy won, but it's only because they've been duped by faulty, specious and unbiblical concepts that surrender the argument to the so-called atheists before they even leave the starting line. The so-called atheist crowd leaves the debate feeling validated and thinking their guy won the debate. And they're often right.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Then give me one that you think is not circular and we can look at it.

You aren't understanding me. I don't think any of them aren't circular, if you'll forgive the double negative. I believe you when you say that they are, I just don't know what the reasoning process is that makes that conclusion unavoidable or why such circularity is acceptable.

Wait a second. Earlier you were criticizing me for circularity. Now you want me to demonstrate circularity? I don't get it.

I accused you a being viciously circular, which I am assuming is dramatically different than the sort of circularity that you are saying is unavoidable and acceptable. I do not understand what the difference between the two is; I'm asking you to show me.

Furthermore, my view is that there is only one best argument for God's existence, which is the one used in scripture. There are many modes of apologetic, but only one biblical and best method and content to that argument. All the so-called great apologists, Wm. Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, N. Geisler, Wm. Dembski, Philip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Josh McDowell, et al, use unbiblical arguments. And in their debates, they get slaughtered. Christians leave those debates thinking their guy won, but it's only because they've been duped by faulty, specious and unbiblical concepts that surrender the argument to the so-called atheists before they even leave the starting line. The so-called atheist crowd leaves the debate feeling validated and thinking their guy won the debate. And they're often right.

What precisely is that argument then? It seems to me that it amounts to "God exists because the Bible says He does."
If so, why is the Bible true? "Because God wrote/inspired it."
How do you know that God inspired it? "Because the Bible says He did."
I'm sorry Jim but if this is about how it would go, you just don't get any more viciously circular than that! This cannot be a valid argument.

How am I wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

I admit to having only a superficial, and largely inadequate, understanding (if it can be even called that) of the vast teachings of the myriad Buddhist schools. Heck, I can hardly keep up with Christendom, let alone all the other religions in the world. I've never heard of the Vajrayana school. Does it follow a Mahayana soteriology or a Hinayana? I'm looking for something, anything to sink my teeth into, and you're not helping me, Balder. Assume I know nothing. I've asked you some basic questions and instead you choose to pick on my ignorance of your beliefs. Great. I'm an ignorant jackass. Give me something. Or at least ask me questions, like you said you would.

At least we have established that you are dismissing out of hand as incoherent something about which you admittedly have only a superficial understanding. And the brevity of my answers stems only from my pressed schedule; a longer and more substantial post will come this evening.

To answer your questions, Vajrayana is basically Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, which incorporates both Hinayana and Mahayana teachings in developmental fashion. More specifically, the tradition I follow is Dzogchen, which is different from tantra in a number of important respects. I can say more about this later, to give you something to sink your teeth into.

Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Sentience doesn't come from anywhere. Sentience is.

As I said, I'll be able to converse more regularly by this evening. If you have any new questions or comments, I'll get to them then along with a number of other posts I haven't been able to address.

Just in closing, I will offer my understanding of presuppositionalism so far: It is basically the belief that the Bible is the only true source of knowledge, and in fact the only true source of logic. As such, anyone arguing from it can (and should) attack the logical foundations of every other worldview, which necessarily cannot be correct. But as the origin of logic itself, the Biblical worldview is not subject to such analysis, and it should not be defended in the same way. "Proof" of the Biblical worldview demands only reporting whatever the Bible says, and saying, "Like it or not, take it or leave it."

In other words, it is basically a philosophical justification of the famous bumper sticker: "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
At least we have established that you are dismissing out of hand as incoherent something about which you admittedly have only a superficial understanding.

First of all, I don't speak on my own authority. The Bible gives me sufficient grounds to dismiss your view out of hand as incoherent, even if I don't understand it. Second, a superficial understanding is often all that is needed to dismiss a view out of hand, especially when one does not need to dig too deeply to expose the incoherence of it. I don't have to have more than a superficial understanding of atheism to dismiss it as incoherent. It doesn't mean, however, than I'm averse to learning other views and understanding their merits.

Hilston asked: Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Balder writes:
Sentience doesn't come from anywhere. Sentience is.

The word "is" is a transitive verb. It takes a direct object in order to make sense. As it stands, the sentence makes no sense. Sentience is what? Sentience is "in existence"? Sentience is "eternal"? Is there past sentience? Is there future sentience? Can the Buddhist of the Vajrayana school say "sentience was" or "sentience will be"?

Balder writes:
Just in closing, I will offer my understanding of presuppositionalism so far: It is basically the belief that the Bible is the only true source of knowledge, and in fact the only true source of logic.

No. I know all kinds of things that are not found in the Bible. And I did not learn logic from the Bible. My logical faculties were firmly in place before I ever opened the Book.

Balder writes:
As such, anyone arguing from it can (and should) attack the logical foundations of every other worldview, which necessarily cannot be correct.

No. Rather, all other worldviews have no logical foundation. They only pretend to, and do so by borrowing from the biblical worldview. Ultimately, all other worldviews float in the void.

Balder writes:
But as the origin of logic itself, the Biblical worldview is not subject to such analysis, and it should not be defended in the same way.

It is indeed subject to such analysis. Fire away.

Balder writes:
"Proof" of the Biblical worldview demands only reporting whatever the Bible says, and saying, "Like it or not, take it or leave it."

Not at all. I have shown you the proof (if you've read the above posts). I haven't said anything remotely close to "take it or leave it."

Balder writes:
In other words, it is basically a philosophical justification of the famous bumper sticker: "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

The maxim holds for the individual believer. Amongst believers, we debate what the Bible says in order to ascertain or defend what we believe. However, between worldviews, such an argument is neither cogent nor adequate. It's not even an argument. If you want to ask me why I believe what I believe, that's a different question than asking me to prove the verity what I believe.

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
You aren't understanding me. I don't think any of them aren't circular, if you'll forgive the double negative. I believe you when you say that they are, I just don't know what the reasoning process is that makes that conclusion unavoidable or why such circularity is acceptable.

If circularity is not acceptable, then all is nonsense, logic is nothing but a societal convention, there are no laws, there is no intelligibility, all is illusion. If you're going to be a rational person, use logic, and speak coherently, you must allow circularity in your epistemology.

Clete writes:
I accused you a being viciously circular, which I am assuming is dramatically different than the sort of circularity that you are saying is unavoidable and acceptable. I do not understand what the difference between the two is; I'm asking you to show me.

Vicious circularity is this:

The Bible is true because it says it is true. Or the Bible is God's word because God wrote it. Or, logic is trustworthy because I use it everyday. Or, I know my calculator works because it gives me the same answer every time I add up the same two numbers.

A non-vicious circular argument would be: Logic is trustworthy because God's logical nature and attributes are reflected in the created order.

Clete writes:
What precisely is that argument then? It seems to me that it amounts to "God exists because the Bible says He does."

No, that's not it. I gave the argument above. The biblical worldview (which includes God's existence and the verity of the Bible) accounts for all aspects of human existence and provides sufficient grounding for all intelligibility. No other worldview can do that. That is the proof. And it just so happens that this is what the Bible teaches.

Clete writes:
If so, why is the Bible true? "Because God wrote/inspired it."

That's not the argument for the verity of scripture. See above.

Clete writes:
How do you know that God inspired it? "Because the Bible says He did."

Do you realize that this is a separate issue altogether? How I know and how I prove the inspiration of the Bible are completely different questions.

Clete writes:
I'm sorry Jim but if this is about how it would go, you just don't get any more viciously circular than that! This cannot be a valid argument.

You're right and the way you've laid it out is not a valid argument at all. I hope you now see the difference between your scenario and the biblical apologetic.

 

[Chileice]

Wow, Hilston, I am a very intelligent man but you are talking in circles. You break up the other people's quotes enough to make it LOOK like you aren't. But if you refer "to the things written above" or the "previous Proof", they are very circular and DO amount to what Clete has stated. As you have stated it, you do not have a valid argument. How can the way one knows and the way one proves something be that radically different unless all of your knowledge is just pure intuition?

 

[Clete]

I can see that I will have to take this one step at a time. I don't understand your resistance to fleshing out the arguments for your own position.

Logic is trustworthy because God's logical nature and attributes are reflected in the created order.

On what basis do you make the claim that God's nature is logical?

 

[Hilston]

Chileice writes:
Wow, Hilston, I am a very intelligent man but you are talking in circles.

Did you intelligently read that article you linked to above? It happens to be a good one.

Chileice writes:
You break up the other people's quotes enough to make it LOOK like you aren't. But if you refer "to the things written above" or the "previous Proof", they are very circular and DO amount to what Clete has stated.

Show me where you think I've been circular. I want to know what you're referring to.

Chileice writes:
As you have stated it, you do not have a valid argument.

Show me where it is invalid.

Chileice writes:
How can the way one knows and the way one proves something be that radically different unless all of your knowledge is just pure intuition?

I'm not talking about all of my knowledge. I'm talking about how I know versus how I prove the inspiration of the Bible. I get the feeling that you're not even trying, Chileice.

Clete writes:
I can see that I will have to take this one step at a time. I don't understand your resistance to fleshing out the arguments for your own position.

Do you not understand that a presuppositional argument defends and attacks presuppositions? If you don't give me one to attack, you're going to be disappointed. By the way, I've used this on you many, many times.

Hilston wrote:
Logic is trustworthy because God's logical nature and attributes are reflected in the created order.

Clete writes:
On what basis do you make the claim that God's nature is logical?

I claim it based on the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience.

Do you realize that this kind of a question isn't going to get you anywhere, Clete? There are no imaginary opponents with biblical apologetic. If you are arguing that God's nature is not logical, I will be happy to flesh out the attack against you. If you yourself are not making that argument, then you will be disappointed. The scriptures require that I attack presuppositions, Clete, not logs.

Karate Kid (looking at a promotional poster of guy chopping a log in half with his open hand): Mr. Miyagi, can do that?
Mr. Miyagi: Don't know. Never attacked by tree.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
Do you not understand that a presuppositional argument defends and attacks presuppositions? If you don't give me one to attack, you're going to be disappointed. By the way, I've used this on you many, many times.

If you attack everyone else's presuppositions then you have to be prepared to put other presuppositions in place of the one's you've destroyed by whatever means. I want to know what specifically are those presuppositions and why are they the only logically coherent one's to hold.
And yes of course I know you've used this on me countless times. The problem is that you never bother to explain what you are doing or why and so no one ever gets what you are trying to say which inevitably results in the conversation circling the same barn 40,000 times until someone gets so frustrated that they blow their stack. This is a (not the) major reason I want to get to understand this stuff, so that I can get to understand you and that way our discussions can be more productive.

I claim it based on the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience.

How do you know that the contrary is impossible?
How do you know that all other worldviews are unable to account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience?"

(I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm asking how you know these things.)

Do you realize that this kind of a question isn't going to get you anywhere, Clete?

No I don't! Why do you ask such questions? Why don't you explain what you're getting at instead of making me ask for the explanation? It's so frustrating and somewhat insulting. Please stop playing games. Surely it is clear enough what it is that I'm after here isn't it?

There are no imaginary opponents with biblical apologetic. If you are arguing that God's nature is not logical, I will be happy to flesh out the attack against you. If you yourself are not making that argument, then you will be disappointed. The scriptures require that I attack presuppositions, Clete, not logs.

Which presuppositions would those be exactly and why are yours better than anyone else’s? I totally get it that presuppositionalism teaches to attack presuppositions and presuppositions only. What I do not get is how? So far despite your protestations to the contrary all you’ve said so far is "I'm right and you're wrong and you can't prove otherwise, nana-nana boo-boo! :nananana:" And that's not a valid argument!
I know, I know, you say that this isn't what you are doing but you won't explain how your argument is any different! It all seems to me that at the end of the day your argument boils down to “the Bible is true because the Bible says so.”

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Redfin]

Thanks everyone, for the responses. I am intrigued. :thumb:

(I also feel like my question knocked loose a pebble that started an avalanche, but I believe I've learned more from the subsequent posts than the previous ones.)

Originally posted by Hilston

"The biblical worldview (which includes God's existence and the verity of the Bible) accounts for all aspects of human existence and provides sufficient grounding for all intelligibility. No other worldview can do that."

Balder, if you'll recall, this was basically my premise in a dialogue that we once began elsewhere, though I probably didn't state it quite as concisely. I was coming more from an intuitive sense of the premise though, and I sort of petered out as I tried to work it out.

I'm looking forward to discovering whether this approach can actually fill in some of my "gaps." :think:

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
If you attack everyone else's presuppositions then you have to be prepared to put other presuppositions in place of the one's you've destroyed by whatever means.

I agree. The Bible does that.

Clete writes:
I want to know what specifically are those presuppositions and why are they the only logically coherent one's to hold.

You listed them, and I agreed, remember? God exists. God communicates to man in an intelligible manner. The Bible is God's Word. Etc.

Clete writes:
And yes of course I know you've used this on me countless times. The problem is that you never bother to explain what you are doing or why ...

This simply isn't true. If I ask a question and you don't know its relevance, you can ask: "Why is this relevant?" However, if you've already called me a stupid blithering idiot who doesn't know Shinola™ from a hole in the ground, then don't expect much cooperation from me, especially if I've already gotten the answer I was looking for.

Clete writes:
... and so no one ever gets what you are trying to say which inevitably results in the conversation circling the same barn 40,000 times until someone gets so frustrated that they blow their stack.

Have you ever had an experience where the things that are unsaid tell you more than the things that are said? That's what 40,000 times around the barn does for me. Everytime around the barn might seem the same to others, but not to me. I get I better data, more information, and clearer insights for defeating opposing worldviews every time around. Whether or not my opponents understand that is irrelevant. I'm seeking the truth for myself; not for my opponents, the incorrigible intransigent ones in particular.

Clete writes:
This is a (not the) major reason I want to get to understand this stuff, so that I can get to understand you and that way our discussions can be more productive.

I appreciate that, and I hope this is being helpful. If it's not, I'll just keep trying. Did you read Chileice's link? It's a good article.

Hilston wrote:
I claim it based on the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience.

Clete writes:
How do you know that the contrary is impossible?

There's a difference between knowing and proving. I know because it has been revealed to me by the Spirit; the scriptures say so, and that comports with my experience of reality. But again, asking me how I know something is true is different than asking me to prove it. The reason for my Hope is Christ, God and His Word. I know these things because they've been revealed to me, not by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. But I don't argue or debate on those terms because they apply only to me and other believers. If you want to know how I prove the contrary is impossible, you have to give me another allegedly "possible" explanation and I'll try to show you how it isn't possible at all.

Clete writes:
How do you know that all other worldviews are unable to account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience?"

Again, there's a difference between how I know and how I prove. I know because it has been revealed to me that the Bible is true, and that is what the Bible says. That's not how I prove it. I prove it by attacking whatever alternate view is shoved at me, and I supplant the alternate view with the testimony of scripture.

Hilston wrote:
Do you realize that this kind of a question isn't going to get you anywhere, Clete?

Clete writes:
No I don't! Why do you ask such questions? Why don't you explain what you're getting at instead of making me ask for the explanation? It's so frustrating and somewhat insulting. Please stop playing games. Surely it is clear enough what it is that I'm after here isn't it?

No. You're asking me to attack a tree. I can't do it.

Hilston wrote:
There are no imaginary opponents with biblical apologetic. If you are arguing that God's nature is not logical, I will be happy to flesh out the attack against you. If you yourself are not making that argument, then you will be disappointed. The scriptures require that I attack presuppositions, Clete, not logs.

Clete writes:
Which presuppositions would those be exactly and why are yours better than anyone else’s?

I attack the presupposition of logical laws in a God-less worldview. I attack the presupposition of morality in a God-less universe. I attack the presupposition of intelligibility in a universe that derives from chaos. The list is as endless and as varied as the opponents I face. My presuppositions (i.e., biblical presuppositions) are better because they are intelligible, uniquely and exclusively coherent, and account for every aspect of human experience.

Clete writes:
I totally get it that presuppositionalism teaches to attack presuppositions and presuppositions only. What I do not get is how?

I've told you how, and I've shown you how. And I will continue, if that's what it takes. Did you get the links to my debate with Aussie Thinker and the rest? There you have examples of opposing anti-biblical presuppositions being exposed and dismantled. Ask Jefferson about this. It seems he has studied it for quite a while.

Clete writes:
So far despite your protestations to the contrary all you’ve said so far is "I'm right and you're wrong and you can't prove otherwise, nana-nana boo-boo! "

I have not said that. Not. Once. I'm a liar. I'm a manipulator. I'm a selfish and egotistical person. I'm a nothing. A worm. A sinner deserving of eternal hellfire. What I defend is the scriptures. Sometimes badly. But the biblical method of defense is powerful. Man-made methods suck. That's all I'm saying, and all I'm trying to communicate.

Clete writes:
I know, I know, you say that this isn't what you are doing but you won't explain how your argument is any different! It all seems to me that at the end of the day your argument boils down to “the Bible is true because the Bible says so.”

Explain where you get this idea, especially when I have never said anything like that. If you explain what leads you to that conclusion, maybe then I can figure out where lies the miscommunication on my part.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Redfin
I'm looking forward to discovering whether this approach can actually fill in some of my "gaps." :think:

Boy, am I glad you said this!
This is precisely what I'm trying to get across to Jim and have been having a hard time finding the right words. There are big gaps that need filling in for me to buy into this Presuppositionalism thing. It seems that Jim and other Presuppositionalists that I've read (there aren't many) answer basic questions with grand declarations of truth but then resist explaining how they come to those conclusions which leaves a huge gap that's needs bridged before one can ascertain the validity of their position.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that if they do go into an explanation of those conclusion that they will either end up being terribly circular or else will end up arguing their position the same way that they say is invalid. For now, I see no other alternatives but as I said, I could be wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
This is precisely what I'm trying to get across to Jim and have been having a hard time finding the right words. There are big gaps that need filling in for me to buy into this Presuppositionalism thing.

Clete, that's not what Redfin is saying.

Clete writes:
It seems that Jim and other Presuppositionalists that I've read (there aren't many) answer basic questions with grand declarations of truth ...

Funny, that's what the Bible does. And presuppositionalists claim to use Biblical methods of argumentation. So it seems fitting that presupp arguments declare and defend truth in a biblical manner.

Clete writes:
... but then resist explaining how they come to those conclusions which leaves a huge gap that's needs bridged before one can ascertain the validity of their position.

There is no resistance to explanation. Every explanation you've requested has been given. If there's a gap, then please explain what you mean. I'm trying very hard to help out, and I'm very sorry that my communication skills are lacking. I'm trying to improve.

Clete writes:
I could be wrong but it seems to me that if they do go into an explanation of those conclusion that they will either end up being terribly circular or else will end up arguing their position the same way that they say is invalid.

Explanation of what conclusion? That the Bible is God's word? That God exists? You've been given the explanations. It's now on you to disprove them, if you're so inclined.

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Boy, am I glad you said this!
This is precisely what I'm trying to get across to Jim and have been having a hard time finding the right words. There are big gaps that need filling in for me to buy into this Presuppositionalism thing. It seems that Jim and other Presuppositionalists that I've read (there aren't many) answer basic questions with grand declarations of truth but then resist explaining how they come to those conclusions which leaves a huge gap that's needs bridged before one can ascertain the validity of their position.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that if they do go into an explanation of those conclusion that they will either end up being terribly circular or else will end up arguing their position the same way that they say is invalid. For now, I see no other alternatives but as I said, I could be wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Here is an example: Hilston writing to you, Clete

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
"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.

OK Hilston, let's face this statement Here is what I think you are saying and how it will sound like to the atheist you are trying to reach:

Hilston- "He exists, and now it must be dealt with."

Atheist- "Says who? Says the Bible? So what?"

Hilston- "I'm tellling you what. It doesn't matter what you believe... it's true, so deal with it." "My worldview is superior, it has to be because it's the only one that explains the world as I see it."

Atheist- "Maybe not everyone sees the world like you, O omnipotent one (not that I think you are god of course... he doesn't exist)"

Hilston- "He exists because it is illogical that he doesn't as I have proved to you above."

Atheist- "Where did you prove THAT, may I ask."

Hilston- "In my forst statement, if you were listening. Now deal with it! Prove me wrong if you can. You can't so you are wrong, and I've just proved the logical fallacy in your world view."

Atheist- "You are talking in circles."

Hilston- "I'm only accepting the circular reasoning to prove the presupposition and not the knowledge and without circular reasoning the world is illogical. Therefore, if you accept logic, you are borrowing from the biblical worldview and your own worldview cumbles without it."

Atheist- "My worldview isn't based on the Bible." I don't even believe the Bible. I trust logic."

Hilston- "Well then you are either lying, because you can't trust logic without trusting God, or you are not really an atheist because you are trusting logic therefore you are trusting God. So as I said, atheism is absurd, because you can't be an atheist and be logical. That's illogical."

Atheist- "DUH! Say what? I am like totally confused and you are like... a nut case. Either that or I'm a Christian... who would have thunk it?

Hilston- "All right. I just won another argument. Never fails. His worldview is beaten into submission."

Now, without tearing this dialouge apart piece by piece, tell me in a consice overarching statement or two how I have misrepresented what you are saying, if indeed I have. I am trying. Believeme I am. But I think Clete and Redfin and Balder and I are all just a bit befuddled. So this is my attempt to see what you would do to nail an atheist.



:help:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Clete, that's not what Redfin is saying.

Yes, I know but the word 'gap' is an excellent way of communicating at least part of the problem I'm having with this methodology.

Funny, that's what the Bible does. And presuppositionalists claim to use Biblical methods of argumentation. So it seems fitting that presupp arguments declare and defend truth in a biblical manner.

This sounds exactly like "The Bible is true because it says it is true." How am I wrong?

There is no resistance to explanation. Every explanation you've requested has been given. If there's a gap, then please explain what you mean. I'm trying very hard to help out, and I'm very sorry that my communication skills are lacking. I'm trying to improve.

You've explained nothing! All you've done is declare conclusions without explaining how you came to those conclusions. You now seem to be saying that it is unbiblical to make such explanations but that there is no resistance to explanation. :dizzy:

Explanation of what conclusion? That the Bible is God's word? That God exists? You've been given the explanations. It's now on you to disprove them, if you're so inclined.

No I haven't been given any such thing. All you've said is that the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary which would be an excellent first line of a well thought out argument but on its own it amounts to your word against the skeptic's. What is your opponent supposed to do, take your word for it?

Resting in Him,
Clete