We are excited to bring to you this six part series on Presuppositional Apologetics presented by our friend Eli Ayala. If you have learned and enjoyed this episode you can get all 6 through Apologia All-Access. Go to apologiastudios.com.
The most important thing in life is sincerity. I truly and sincerely think man made god up, and this closes the matter for me. Presuppositional apologetics is the lowest of the low. It is an admission that "we have nothing, therefore we are just going to declare our conclusions as fundamentally true and discourage testing."
Actually, there have been educated people who have changed their views starting with evidence-based arguments. Evidence-based argumentation can often open the door to those who are struggling intellectually with Christianity.
@Exitnextright2 we have to be able to do both when appropriate. What's with people having this "my method is the only method" mentality. Depending on the person you're correct it isn't really an evidence issue but an emotional one. However there are people who will honestly contend with those facts and look into the Faith deeper. For more hardened people you have to be able to contend with their overall worldview. Spitting facts at that kind of person will do nothing. They'll just deny deny deny.
A presupposition is functionally equivalent to a scientific hypothesis -- a "trial" explanation, a guess, for the purpose of wringing out its implications, predictions, strong and weak points. So t's not the presupposition itself that's a problem, but rather how well or poorly the hypothesis accounts for the phenomena it's trying to account for. If God exists, there's no reason whatsoever for a naturalistic presupposition / hypothesis to be as successful as it is. That explanatory coherence and success of the naturalistic narrative is not just a coincidence. Either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator. Presupps have no special evidence or insight or connection that no one else has. They must ultimately borrow from the naturalistic WV in order to have any case at all -- everything the presupps know about anything (including God) comes through naturalistic evidence, mechanisms, and processes. The presupp WV is fundamentally incoherent -- using all the same naturalistic evidence that everyone else has, the presupps conclude super-naturalism. I see no compelling reason that supernaturalism is the "logical" or "necessary" or "unavoidable" inferred conclusion from naturalistic evidence.
Presup as described here and elsewhere appears to be rather carefully crafted in order to *avoid* actual engagement with the skeptic. It isn't debate. It boils down to the presup saying "you can't even discuss this with me unless you accept my unsupported assertions about a deity". It's just exquisitely boring. 🙄
It's not about a script that has been crafted It is about being intellectually honest about the objective nature of reality and how one can consistently account for it based off of their own personal worldview. It often frustrates the atheist because if they are being intellectually honest it forces them to come face to face with their own presuppositions and the absurdity of them, and therefore they tend to throw this very assertion out as a way of trying to act as if they have some intellectual superiority.
@@acts-me8xr I don't have intellectual superiority, nor do I claim to have a connection with anything infallible....because I'm not a theist. Until a Christian can explain to me how this divine understanding of the "nature of reality" gets into their brain, (other than using reason, which is fallible) I'm going to remain skeptical.
@@keithcoulston6150 You're right--I DON'T understand how claiming victory or superior reasoning a priori can signify anything at all, IF a person's aim is to exchange ideas....but I don't think that's the aim of someone employing presuppositional apologetics. I'm absolutely ready to admit my presuppositions can't be ultimately proven. I accept that I must live by the "rules" imposed by the limits of my own brain.
Eli does a fantastic job. Not only is this easy to understand from a foundation of logic but a skill that he has developed in teaching. If I'm not mistaken he is a teacher of middle schoolers which works for me. Apologia has made a great decision in who will teach apologetics and confidence in the word of God
@nickjones5435, and now we know you like to use fallacious argumentation to make your points. Seems you don't truly understand the system. If you did, you wouldn't have typed what you did.
The issue with pressupositional apologetics is explicitly that, you have to pressuposes the neutral ground by which you would make suck a "neutral" claim. Thus you don't really solve the ontological problem, wow a Christian flirts with metaphysics, and then it turns out to just be Christianity. What a surprise
All ultimate truth claims must be self authenticating in a Godless world. Ours allows an escape: you either have all knowledge... or are given it by someone who does. Boom.
@@Exitnextright2 [exit]: "All ultimate truth claims must be self authenticating in a Godless world." Lol. There's enough ambiguity in the terms "ultimate truth claims" and "self-authenticating" to drive whole religions through. [exit]: "Ours allows an escape: you either have all knowledge... or are given it by someone who does." Haha. You're escaping from ... what? Ignorance? So you invent a God to get there? Sheesh. That's how psychology becomes theology. [exit]: "Boom." Dud.
Wait wait... there's someone on Earth who still thinks the presuppositional apologetic actually works? Oh my. Well there are still Flat Earthers so I guess I shouldn't be THAT surprised.
@@materialismisforfools I didn't present it as an argument, only an observation. Also: Although everyone presupposes something that they believe, it's false to say everyone is a presupper. There is a large percentage of the population that doesn't presuppose anything, and therefore aren't presuppers. If you're trying to say anyone who has any beliefs which aren't justified is automatically a presupper, that ignores the small issue of whether or not they could justify what they presuppose if they were so inclined. A presupper, as the term us commonly used, refuses to justify what they believe. That also doesn't apply to most people
Can't someone make a presupposition that something we are not aware of is the explanation for the origin of our universe? How is this less valid than presupposing Yahweh?
It isn’t. The difference is that presupposing Yahweh gives you certainty, while the other doesn’t. You and I know it doesn’t logically follow, but it’s not the logic of the position the presups find persuasive, it’s the feeling of certainty they like.
I do not get the emphasis on "Worldview". I do not know how someone can know all about what someone believes about other things, once they know what a person believes about the existence of a god. I am an agnostic/atheist and my thoughts on different things other than God are diverse and differ from other atheists, so how can someone know my "Worldview" without asking me specific questions?
Yeah, so a simple statement to give a context could be this: Knowing what your core beliefs are will give sufficient though not exhaustive knowledge about and the basis for the rest of your “Worldview”. For example: Presuppositions, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and ethics are the 3 most definitional or core beliefs. If you are a materialist (metaphysic) then though you come to conclusions, if you were to re evaluate your base assumptions and variables it could give no rise or basis for using immaterial realities such as Gravity, Magnetism, or Laws Of Logic. Those are all immaterial realities that Govern the material world.
Therefore even if you gave more exhaustive and specific explanations it wouldn’t change your outcome. Kinda like linear Mathematical equations if your familiar.
@@reyleon2602 Seems like reading my palm or fortune telling. I personally do not know if a god exists or not, so do not presuppose anything. I do not believe one does, but that could change rather quickly if I encountered evidence that persuades me. So, what things can a person know about my views on other issues when I say I am an agnostic/atheist? If someone tells me they are a Christian, does that tell me what they think about eschatology? Are they pre trib, mid trib, post trib rapture? Do they have their own unique view? Do they believe in aliens from other planets? How would I know without asking them?
@@brooklynloutheskeptic Actually you do believe in a god and revelation. The distinction is that you don't believe it is anything external to your physical brain and faculties. Notice this presupposition, you asked for "Evidence" . You presuppose the Uniformity of Nature, that Reason and Logic are valid existences, and that evidences are a valid epistemology. That is the only ground by which one would even ask for evidence. However in Atheism, I'm assuming you are, you are a materialist and not a supernaturalist. Meaning that the only things that exist have to have physical properties. That is your "self-evident" Metaphysic or more simply said, "A presupposition". That rules out Laws of Logic, Gravity, Magnetism, etc. All that I just listed are conceptual or Immaterial Realties that Govern your fallible faculties Infallibly. Thus even if hypothetically atheism was true you could never know it to be true nor anything at all. An infinite regress because you set yourself as the beginning point of knowledge and epistemology. Now the latter end of your comment. I agree and I would suggest you re-read my first response. I stated that knowing your core beliefs gives sufficient knowledge for the rest of the other claims you might have. Sufficient is not Exhaustive. Your concerned about exhaustive, were speaking about Sufficiency. If the presupposition of someone is that there is no Objective Truth, They contradict themselves and provide no meaningful basis for all the other knowledge or ethical claims made in an exhaustive manner. But remember I agree, However pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib are non essentials and are only seen by how one views the core beliefs.
@@reyleon2602 " Actually you do believe in a god and revelation. " This is a ridiculous claim and not very convincing because I know for a FACT I do not. You are here, telling me what I believe and again, I suppose this is a type of mind reading? OF COURSE, I may build upon some things I am pretty sure of and use these things as one factor as to what I think about something else. That is quite reasonable for anyone to do, but I do not start with something unprovable and let that be considered a FACT I can count on for all of my other beliefs. The whole Pre-Supposing something that is NOT a verifiable truth in the first place, in order to build some sort of a "Worldview" is not a good way to determine TRUTH. In order to build upon a presupposition, we need to verify first that it is proven to be true, otherwise we may be completely wrong about not only the presupposition, but also other issues we draw conclusions on using it as bedrock to establish what we think about these other things in what you call a "Worldview".
To all our atheist visitors: Welcome to the Department of Religion for the Natural Sciences. We are glad to have you here. Prerequisite: An unwavering, though not necessarily stated, conviction of and commitment to the absolute, immaterial, binding, and universal nature of laws and their foundational role in making anything rational or intelligible. Our basic course offerings: RNS-001: Logic RNS-002: Mathematics We sincerely hope you will be edified while in transit to the next level: RNS-201: The Case Against Universals and Absolutes RNS-202: Defending our Faith in an Absolutely and Exclusively Material Universe.
@@therick363 , my apologies for the confusion. It was sarcastic to point out the areas where atheists exercise their faith without hesitation, but then turn around and argue against God on the basis of the "lack of proof" for the existence of such prerequisites.
@@therick363, then you missed the point I was trying to make. This is not a case of a Mexican standoff where both claims are equally valid; I recommend you watch the video and re- read my post again to see why this is so. As a Christian I can make sense of the use of the laws of logic and nature, and the practice of science. My thesis is that an atheist who believes that everything that exists is just matter in motion cannot account for his reliance on the principle of induction, which is the basis of all science. Hume certainly recognized the problem and was content with going back to dining and playing backgammon rather than continue thinking further about this and risk bending his knee in worship before his Maker.
@@RoamFree1866 you didn’t make the point clearly. Hence the clarification by me. You can only make sense of those things if you presuppose a god though right? We can try and do our best to account for things. No one had proven or given good enough reason to evidence for a maker. Indeed when we study, use logic, use science and see nature…what we find are natural phenomena, causes, events and explanations. No maker needed.
Thank you so much for this much needed series! I have been a follower of presuppositional apologetics for years, as set forth by Van Til and his most notable student, Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. It has been a mystery to me why committed Bible-believing evangelists are so inclined to settle for evidentialism and the mere higher "probability" of the Christian faith in the market of ideas, and in the process concede to the unbelievers so much terrain when they have absolutely no basis to account for their ability to reason at all.
@@RoamFree1866 Because it’s not obvious that an ultimate, certain justification for knowledge is required. We can provisionally justify it experientially, which is as far as you can go without getting into a vicious circularity.
@@diogeneslamp8004 , there is a lot to unpack here, but let's just focus on a couple of issues if we preclude the presupposition of a transcendent, uniform, and binding framework that is necessarily ultimate: Without presupposing the principles of order, regularity, subject/object distinctions, relationships, and meaning, what can we call "obvious" and what makes it possible? How about that which we call "experiential"? Why do you "feel" the need to "justify" anything, even provisionally? Is "vicious circularity" something bad? If so, is it just your opinion or is there an "ultimate" reason for that?
@@diogeneslamp8004 , there is a lot to unpack from what you said, but sure, an ultimate justification is not obvious as we are used to the exercise of our foundational beliefs, or presuppositions, without challenging them. Just consider the core beliefs about immaterial but transcendent things that are required to make sense of what you stated in your short post, that you appear to just assume without giving them a second thought, namely: the uniformity of nature, without which knowledge is not even possible; the law of non-contradiction, so that acquired knowledge cannot be true and false, at the same time and in the same sense; the law of causality, which connects a cause to an observable effect; the basic reliability of sense perception, without which we cannot reasonably call anything an "experience" and connect events to feed our repository of knowledge; meaning and the analogical use of language, without which we cannot even have an intelligible conversation. Now, as a Christian, I can make perfect sense of all of these immaterial, invisible, but real and powerful notions, because I start with my foundational belief in the ultimate Being that exhibits, unifies, and projects such attributes into His creation. He is the One and Only God who created and sustains the universe by the power of His will, and connects and keeps all things working in an orderly manner as a reflection of His transcendent mind. (Col 1:17, 1 Cor 8:6). My question to you is: if you take away this ultimate foundation (or that of any of the enumerated assumptions), how do you make sense of your exercise of knowledge, experience, or your implied rejection of "vicious circularity"?
John ch.3:13NIV"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man. e " So does this mean that everyone who lived and died in the 4,000 years prior to Christ sacrifice is enduring eternal conscious torment.
Why not just use apologetics to strengthen other Christians in their faith instead of using it to argue with non-believers? Isn't that a false conversion which leads to death?
Precisely because that's what we are commanded to do, as Eli quoted, in 1 Peter 3:15: to answer anyone who asks for a reason of the hope that is in us. This includes both unbelievers and new believers. But you are correct in that reason alone cannot save anyone, that is the work of the Holy Spirit turning our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. While it is the Holy Spirit's job to bring conviction, it is the job of the apologist to leave the unbeliever without an excuse for their unbelief.
@@chrisp9500 Yes, preach the Good News on the tops of ever mountain!! But saving can only be done by God. If men say that they can save or not then they are belittling the work on the cross and glorify themselves.
@@RoamFree1866 As long as we don't tell them they're heathen, going to hell unless they say the sinner's prayer, which is not good news, then I say teach them the truth, because its good for everyone.
@@diogeneslamp8004 I'm not trusting >any< revelation. I'm trusting only those revelations Jesus verified as true. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, he said, and since he resurrected the dead and got resurrected himself and therefore verified that he actually rules over life and death, he might be trustworthy in every regard. So, how do I know? Because Jesus said so. Why is it forbidden for pond scum molecules to base the own epistemology on an old book like the Bible?
@@clay8546my Bible says that only the fool believes in his heart that God doesn't exist. Is it foolish for pond scum molecules to trust in an old book?
