Presuppositional Apologetics Applied | All-Access Exclusive 

What if we presuppose no Gods exists?

@@AndrewL4me listen to the lectures and find out

@@jeremyjohnson4106 too late, I've already presupposed this is all a simulation

Yes, we xan all presuppose our beliefs and all our beliefs can be true

@AndrewL4me so, if all our beliefs can be true then are you saying there is no absolute truth?

@@dzillahawk yes, if we presuppose our truths like this channel does. Then everyone can tell their own truth

How much is it?

@@AndrewL4me 9.95/month if you pay monthly, or 99/year.

Do you use faith or evidence to get to the truth...or do presuppose you are correct

@@AndrewL4me🩸 Romans 3 KJV 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

@@AlexanderBrown77 how do you know the bible is correct?

@@AndrewL4me ♥️KJV is the 7h bible translated into English. Psalms 12 KJV 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

@@AlexanderBrown77 how does a translation of a book prove its authenticity? We still have no demonstrable evidence for any of the thousands of gods claimed by humans throughout history

Yes

yes

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

​@@caseycockerham3925 it's a joke

@michaelreed6603 You're right! It is a joke. You said preposterous, and I said, "I do not...), in reference to the Princess Bride.

Ya That one the saddest bible verses. Their faith was in their wonderful works to save them instead of the blood of Jesus Christ . ✝️🩸 Romans 4 KJV ♥️ 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 🤔 Faith in what? Romans 3 KJV 🩸 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 1 Corinthians 15 KJV 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Yup, way off bro. Not even close. Presuppositional apologetics typically argues via a transcendental argument, or uses principles that follow the general outline of transcendental reasoning. The logical structure is as follows: For any X to be the case, Y must be the case as Y is the necessary precondition of X. X is the case, therefore Y must the case. If X stands for any fact of human experience, we proceed to ARGUE that Y (Christian Worldview) is the necessary precondition for the fact represented by X. The non-Christian opponent proceeds to disagree that Y (Christian worldview) is not the necessary precondition for X, because perhaps he believes his worldview can provide those conditions. As the non-Christian opponent begins to lay out his case, the presupper critiques the case offered and seeks to show inconsistencies within the opposing worldview. The presupper then invites the unbelieving opponent to do the same, that is, to offer a meaningful internal critique of the Christian worldview and why he or she thinks it fails to provide the necessary preconditions it claims to be able to provide, and hence, rational discourse and argumentation ensues (hopefully, lol). There is nothing intrinsic to presuppositonalism and transcendental argumentation that entails or implies the idea that "there isn't any opportunity for discussion." With respect to the comment that we start from a position that our theology is true (uh, well yeah. Are we supposed to start with the idea that our theology is false, or that we should engage in some form of pretended neutrality)? I don't see how this is an issue. Now, on the other hand, if you are implying that we are engaging in some form of circular argumentation, then I would like to see how the argument form I provided above has the conclusion stated in any of the premises hence making the form logically invalid. You need to make the careful distinction between the presupposition of an argument and the premise of an argument. It is true, that I presuppose my position is true, but I do not fallaciously place the truth of my conclusions in the premises of my argument. Furthermore, presuppositonalism doesn't teach that unbelievers "can't even reason." We argue just the opposite. Unbelievers CAN and DO reason, The problem is, and as we seek to argue, is that the unbeliever cannot ACCOUNT for the reasoning he engages in. That's our claim, and we seek to argue for it throughout the interaction with the opposing side, because obviously, we will receive push back on that claim which is expected. As to your last statement: "because your position (the Christian one) is the means by which reasoning, from anyone, can happen at all. That is just to say that we hold that our worldview provides the necessary precondition for reasoning). Yes, that is what we are ARGUING. -Even though there is disagreement, I hope this clarifies things a little bit:)

​@@RevealedApologetics that is a helpful reply. Thank you. It gives me much to think about. I usually start from 'pretended neutrality' (a position whereby both me and my opponent agree), when I am hoping I might be able to convert my opponent to my position. I assume it's more conversational, to start from a point where we both agree. That's the difference between having a conversation, not me just giving a lecture. When I wrote that, 'there isn't any opportunity for discussion', I guess it's just expressing an opinion that an argument isn't a discussion. An argument is coercion. In contrast, in circumstances whereby I'm not bothered about being winsome, then I will not bother with 'pretended neutrality.' Instead, I simply want to win an argument to ensure that opponent has no basis for controlling me. That isn't a conversation/discussion. That is me shutting the discussion down. Apologetics (today) is often just about manipulation and control. The 'winner' of an argument often gets to control the 'loser' of that interaction, if the loser is intellectually honest enough to admit they haven't successfully defended their position. If transcendental argumentation somehow 'bypasses' a discussion about evidence (and I don't know that it does, it just has often appeared to me to do so), then I fail to see how it can't be anything other than manipulation. If manipulation is a discussion, it's an unfriendly discussion. Presuppositional Apologetics specific to Christianity IMO assumes that a person reading the scriptures is God speaking to that person today. In reality, it's not God speaking to anyone today. God can speak audibly, but he doesn't do that anymore. Instead, reading the scriptures is about me trying to guess what God did say to people long ago is what God would say to me now. Or, how to take what God did speak to people long ago, and apply that in some logical way that is reasonable to assume God would speak to me today, if God did speak to me today. Moses literally heard the voice of God and so did the Israelites at mount Sinai, therefore, we have evidence that God can make audible intelligible utterances. Therefore, it's not arrogant (in my opinion) to hope for a repeat that would verify absolute religious truth. Which religion really is the truth? We need to audibly get a testimony from God today. Apologetics doesn't do that. Therefore, it can't be about discovering absolute religious truth. If God is just, and God chooses to be hidden (that's His right and I certainly can't assume I can tell Him what to do), then it's logical to conclude he will be accommodating when judging people, given there are so many religions and denominations out there ready to persuade people. Imagine if I handed my great grandchild an old letter that made all sorts of demands on them, that I didn't sign, and I refused to talk to them about it. Then, the child is forced to guess. Then, I punish them for guessing incorrectly. I would be being unjust.

​@RevealedApologetics do you presuppose other things in your life, or do you use evidence to come to conclusions?

@@AndrewL4me I think there is some evidence for almost all Christian beliefs, except for the virgin birth of Jesus. So, I suppose you are correct. I make one exception with respect to the virgin birth of Jesus. It's the un-witnessed miracle. I presuppose that is true without any evidence (or with really, really scanty evidence). Did you have something else in mind? Are you referring to everyday living and not faith?

@@Old_Catholic there is no demonstrable evidence for any of the thousands of Gods claimed by humans throughout history.

If it's a different gospel, then he's not a believer.

1 Corinthians 1 KJV ✝️🩸 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

​@caseycockerham3925 It is a different gospel but the same absence of evidence to demonstrate its Gods existence

@@AndrewL4me i have no idea what you're trying to say

@@caseycockerham3925 2 men arguing over the same unverified God