Why I'm not Presuppositionalist - KingdomCraft
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มิ.ย. 2023
- Lane Tipton's super long but kinda interesting lecture series on Van Til's theology and Presuppositional worldview apologetics:
• Introduction to the Th...
Dr. Jordan B. Cooper explaining why we need classical Greek philosophy when doing theology:
• A Discussion of Curren...
Presuppositionalists aren't claiming that unbelievers can't perceive goodness, truth and beauty. They're claiming that the unbelieving worldviews can't give a coherent justification of the existence of those transcendentals and therefore are self-refuting or incoherent.
I know, I acknowledged that in my video. But in practice, presups end up denying that
@@redeemedzoomer6053 how do they deny that in practice?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 also very confused. what do you mean in practice?
@@redeemedzoomer6053Zoomer unrelated but please those shirts. Of all the shapes that form the cross yk that video pleassseeeee make that shirt!!!! I’d buy like 7 or 700 honestly so make ‘em good quality haha
Thank you as always Soli Deo Gloria
@@iMakz07I don’t want to speak for Zoomer, but in practice means in reality. At least that’s how I define it.
He faithfully dug straight down presupposing he wouldn't fall into lava
I was so anxious watching him do that, but God caught him.
that is Greatest comment in this comment secection. Why does it not have more likes
I had no idea that the Christian message could be spread in such an interesting way. We've come full circle from the "don't swear in my christian minecraft server!" meme, to effectively spreading the gospel and bringing Christians together through Minecraft videos XD
I thank you so much. I'm going to be honest, I don't really watch a lot of the footage. But that's a compliment! Because your rhetoric stands well on its own. And I love to listen to your points. I truly appreciate what you're doing. You give me genuine hope and optimism for our generation.
Told my wife yesterday that if I'm not careful, you might even make a Calvinist out of me 😉
Theres a christian hospital in my home country, Honduras. Its called loma de luz (in balfate, colon) , and it was founded by evangelicals. Its one of the best hospitals here, and people travel from other parts just to go there.
Your quips at the start are amazing 😂
Loving the vids mate, keep em coming ❤️✝️ Sola Deo Gloria
Apologizing for being christian had me rolling 😂😂😂
I wouldn’t call myself a presuppositional apologist but I do think that presuppositionalism can be useful in discussion. That being said I don’t think it’s the only way but I do think it’s useful for pointing out that non Christians really do often borrow from the Christian world view. However I also believe that people are capable of reasonable thought and can be persuaded to believe in God through evidence. I just believe that presuppositionalism is a good polemic.
This man really breaking down the stereotype of nerdy Presbyterians
Breaking down? He’s reinforcing it!
@@gigahorse1475 I was being sarcastic
Tbh this is literally just the exact train of thought I’ve experienced living in the south in particularly poor areas where everyone is Baptist
Presup definitely points out a lot of logical inconsistencies of other world views.
yes!!! keep up the good work
20:41 "JohnTheApostle is no longer AFK" so is that the time where he started writing Revelation?
You have not represented Presuppositionialism aproprietly. You said we deny implicitly that fallen men can perceive goodness, truth and beauty. That is false. No one is claiming that. We are saying they don't have a foundation for why they believe/know those things are that they are. We do deny that fallen men can comprehend the gospel without grace working on them first.
I literally said all that in the video
@@redeemedzoomer6053sorry, this is one of your more uninformed videos. I had to disagree on this point.
Presuppositionalists don't deny that unbelievers can perceive beauty and truth. They just can't justify their beliefs. Yes most people would realize Notre Dame is beautiful. But they can't justify why it is beautiful. While a Christian can justify that it is beautiful because it glorifies God. You claim that while we don't deny it in theory, in practice we do, but you don't further clarify how.
We also don't claim that anything done by a Christian is inherently superior to something done by a non Christian ( maybe some zany protestants claim this but I have never heard anything like this ). Its just that Christians have the better tools to making something good, although those tools are not always used.
Okay but why does Norte Dame glorify God more than a strip mall church. Why is it more objectively beautiful
@@redeemedzoomer6053 i don't think you understand presuppositionalism. the point isn't that we think Notre Dame is more objectively beautiful than a strip mall... no one's claiming that, and i'm not sure where you're getting those questions from. The guy that commented literally said what presupp is: "They can't justify why it is beautiful."
You're a young and smart mate. but you have a lot to learn and you cannot fully understand something with just a few hours of research on the internet. maybe you should pursue a seminary degree and not overestimate your knowledge on theology.
I think I sympathise with the presuppositional view, due to its aggression, which we need more of nowadays. However, I definetely see the holes.
Interesting video. Made me reconsider my use of "by what standard" HAHAHA I disagree on some things, but I agree that presuppositionalism makes us lazy.
My view is this: presuppositionalism is where we end up, but it shouldn't be the start. God, through His revelation in the Word, is indeed our true standard [and you mention this]. But immediately supposing that it is true is lazy--we must work our way into that truth through classical apologetics.
I am not sure if my position is "presuppositionalism" or not. It is based upon my understanding of Francis Schaeffer's position.
He considered the following positions:
1) The real worldview, which is the world of God's creation, and aligns with the believers' worldview
2) The worldview of the particular unbeliever that he was involved in dicussions with, which is an inconsistent application of his presuppositions.
3) The worldview of the particular unbeliever carried out to its full logical implications if his presuppositions were fully implemented consistently..
Francis Schaeffer's task was to show that the believers' worldview, if implemented to its full logical implications, does not reflect the real world of God's creation.
The unbeliever doesn't hold a consistent worldview based upon his presuppositions and instead he "builds a roof" over his worldview to protect it from t he logical implications of the full implementation of his worldview.
After the unbeliever understands that his worldview is corrupt, then Schaeffer showed him how the Christian worldview is not vulnerable to the inconsistencies of his flawed worldview and he preaches a simple gospel message to him.
I am a big fan of Schaeffer's approach. But, no approach will convert the person. True faith is given from God. Regeneration precedes faith according to the Reformed tradition. Apologetics can be used as a means of convincing the person that his worldview is defective, though, and this may be used as a step in the process.
he logical implications of the full implementation of his worldview.
After the unbeliever understands that his worldview is corrupt, then Schaeffer showed him how the Christian worldview is not vulnerable to the inconsistencies of his flawed worldview and he preaches a simple gospel message to him.
Hey dude! I just found your channel! Instant subscription, you remind me of myself, being incredibly inquisitive and having doubts, you give me great hope for our generation, and hopefully, that the leftist rot entering the Church can be pushed out.
Could you do a video on St. Ignatius of Antioch?
"We would play at prisons, I mean elderly homes"
how do I enter this server?
Hey I just recently joined the server, Im from Finland and belong in the evangelical lutheran church of Finland, but I have been struggling to find a plot in any of the three lutheran towns. Could you make more plots in for example the empty areas around Nuclea? Sorry if im copypasting this comment on multiple videos, but I find the server very interesting, and want to leave my mark there.
how did u join the server my brother in Christ?
What is the backing behind your statement that an eternal infinite mind is prerequisite for the "eternal" nature of mathematics? I've yet to see something for this that doesn't boil down to a presuppositional axiom of the nature/existence of a God.
Could you elaborate on the mathematical argument? Is there anything you recommend to understand is thoroughly? I understand the 5 ways well enough, I think, the ontological argument by Anselm too (and I think it was defeated by Kant), but I've never heard of the mathematical one
Edit
To clarify, I'm a Christian and I think the best argument for God's existence is Thomas Aquinas' argument from being and essence. I just want to hear the mathematical argument in an extensive way to decide if it's good or not
"if you had studied math you would know it's not objective"
Good to know that mathematicians are no longer taught what "objective" means.
@@hypergravitywave7069 " I have a bachelor's in math and am working on my PhD, so I know what I'm talking about."
what part of my comment mkes you think I believe in credentialism? can you point to the exact spot please? IO would like to know where I made the mistake in communicating.
"there are other axioms"
the existence of competing systems has nothing to do with whether any of those systems are objective or not.
"there are other logics"
see above.
"We can't even agree on definitions."
this is exactly what I meant when I said "mathematicians are nolonger taught what objective means"
the word objective has absolutely nothing to do with whether people agree on something or not. this point is, like the other two, absolutely irrelevant to whether something is objective.
"sometimes we make things up"
thank you for demonstrating that I was completely in the right to accuse you of not knowing what this word means.
objective does not mean "everyone agrees"
objective means the thing's truth is in itself. this doesn't require the truth to be obvious, or even knowable. only that the truth is in the thing itself, and not in the observer. things that are "not objective" are only true in reference to something which is not the object being discussed. like your feelings about math. your feelings about math are only true in refernce to you, not to math itself, and thus are not objective. and all the things you brought up are entirely possible discussions to have about an objective topic.
if you want to actually demonstrate that math is not objective, you would need to demonstrate, not just claim or allow, but demonstrate, that all these different axioms logics and stuff you just made up are in some way equally valid in the real world.
something we all know you cannot do. because math is objective, and whether a given formula is true or not is a matter of the formula, not of the observer. even if the formula may follow different rules depending on the exact context, that context is still a part of mathematics.
@@hypergravitywave7069 objective also doesn't mean true.
It's an objective claim that I am a pink bear dancing on the moon. The fact that it's false doesn't make it any less objective.
@@marvalice3455I love how your entire argument is built on a preemptive assumption that math is objective without providing proof for the claim, all the way asking for proof of the opposing. Define mathematics. What an oddly weak argument to make.
Essentially a form of an argument from logic (or truths in general)
We can agree on basic truths like "one plus one equals two " or the law of noncontradiction
These things are best categorized as thoughts or mental entities (the controversial premise) therefore there must be a mind
That thought them into existence Ie god because they exist apart from our own minds (discovered not invented)
His argument follows the Same logic but slightly differently categorizing the infinite amounts of mathematical quantities or results as infinite information that can only be contained in a mind
Therefore infinite mind
because we didn't make up those infinite results
Is the server private, it looks sick?
Learning so much from you! TY
It’s wrong to say that the presuppositionalist believes that the only source of rationality is a biblical Christian worldview. It’s important to recognize the way that Christian thought has been at the center of European history since rome, and this there is some bleed over between biblical Christianity and any school of thought which can be found in the west. Likewise, God has given general revelation of Himself throughout His entire creation such that anyone can understand at least some aspects of His character no matter what their worldview.
Now, of course, if the world is created by God then whatever belief system knows God best will be able to understand God’s creation best. That’s the point, not that rationality can only be found in a triune Christian worldview.
Your steel-man argument shows where you’re a bit syncretized with human rationality. Man will never get a real picture of God starting from his head, (or his heart either, you can only get that from God’s choosing to reveal Himself).
It sounds like there's a double standard for you: you like your own denomination for what it believes on paper, but then dislike other denominations for what they believe in practice.
For example: you say the PCA has a low view of the sacraments. No they don't, not on paper; they have the same view of the sacraments that all truly reformed denominations have. It just seems less because in practice their pastors don't communicate it well.
Presuppositionalists on paper don't deny classical apologetics or general revelation. But in practice they do. (Not defending presuppositionalism, just using an example.)
It seems wrong to say those are bad because of their practices, but then say your denomination is ok because of their beliefs on paper, ignoring their practice.
Thanks for all the great videos! Super encouraging and thought-provoking.
I think all the denominations ought to start acting more like their "on paper" version. Even when I disagree with it, it's easier to talk through our disagreements when people aren't sweeping them under the rug
17:40 More than 20 years of being a Catholic, still have not seen a single saint worshiper
Yeah where are they? Protestants seem to have an easy time time finding them.
im pretty sure in the US catholics are very moderate but in the rest of the world they’re not xd, in my country we have holidays celebrating saints, people have candles with their faces, they offer money to them, pray directly to them, carry necklaces with their faces, etc. in south america catholicism is just plain and simply idolatry, not even a slight of repentance or knowledge of the Bible, just going to mass on sundays and praying TO saints and mary and angels the rest of rhe week
@@catholicusmaan this is still idolatry. You only pray to Jesus.
@@bonbondurjdr6553is asking other people to pray for you, idolatry?
@@Sosarchivesthey are dead…they can’t pray for you.
I love how zoomer has a sarcastic subliminal beef with the baptist denomination
I'd be jealous too if my denomination didn't practically believe a single word of the Bible
@@notnotandrewyes we know baptists are very jealous for this reason. :)
Bro, i love your videos! Can i make portuguese versions of them?
Yes, you absolutely may!
This video is good by any standard.
You tried but you still are not understanding presup correctly and can't explain it correctly
Can you explain for us then?
I'm interested in that Argument from Mathematics mentioned early in the video. Do you have a video talking more about it?
It's pretty much this
th-cam.com/video/JgqcjV8a69g/w-d-xo.html
I disagree with the conclusion of this video, but it's something outside of the argument itself. I don't want to make objections to polytheism now. Hope I helped you
@@lorenzo8208
Thank you very much!
Yeah, neither do I agree with the polytheistic conclusions and pretentions of the video.
I kinda like the thesis that the intelligible truths and principles of things must be grounded in the existence of an Eternal and Necessary Intellect, however, the way it was justified in the video felt a bit messy and not so logically airtight.
Nonetheless, thank you for the video. It was very helpful!
@@k4tloqu3nd07 thank you for appreciating it! I do think this video was pretty much perfect, besides the disagreements. That guy is pretty open to opinions and arguments, so I think he's a really good philosopher. Nevertheless I still haven't fully understood that argument so I should rewatch that another 3 times lol
Hey brother, have you heard of Kevin Thompson? at “Beyond the fundamentals”
He has Alota good videos on Calvinism.
Love your videos. 😊
Can you make a video on all reasons to believe Christianity I am trying to convince my friend but I need some help because we are both 13 and it’s hard to understand ST. Thomas Aquinas’s reasons to believe an oversimplified version would be helpful
Bro you be scoping out those diamonds
I think both are useful. I think Pre sup is a literal knock out but I would only use it if opposition is being nasty or not accepting solid evidences . Then you Pre sup them with a transcendental argument.
Presup is kindergarten apologetics. It only turns non believers further away.
Saying you're right because your imaginary friend says so is the most intellectually bankrupt position one can hold
Great video man. Can you make a video about justified war/justified killing? I'm struggling to explain this part to my unbelieving friends.
I think the best explanation about justified war/justified killing is understanding Moses Law, rather the definition of 'Law'.
'Law' is a agreed upon contract between each individual within a society to ensure peace, justice and stability. 'One shall not kill' is not only a law, but is a agreed upon contract between an individual and his community and God.
Killing in peacetime is a sin, but killing to uphold the law is justified as long as you had exercise all possible means for peace. For example: if you see a man robbing a innocent lady at gunpoint (threating death over material valuables) and you're at a position where shooting the man is the best option to save you and the lady then take the shot. Your goal is to stop the man from commit a crime, if the man is wounded and still alive then you must do your best to save that man's live regardless of the crime he committed, this is both law and grace at play, strength and mercy.
Waging War is the same thing but at a larger scale. Instead of a man it is another country and instead of a lady it's your own country/community. But when it comes at time of war you must remind yourself and your people that you all are waging a war, not an extermination or a complete defense. The key objective is to stop the other country from destroying or conquering your country, and the solution to that is either peace treaty or extermination, but you must once again excise grace and offer peace at all steps before having to come to the decision that you sadly have to completely wipe out their military/government if they won't stop fighting you, like Imperial Japan in WW2. (if they give you no peace, give them no rest until they want peace)
*believes in objective beauty*
*doesn't use C418's Minecraft soundtrack*
hey could you make a video on the different between the soul and spirit from a reformer view?
for someone who doesn't actually really care to be or not to be religious, this is extremely informative and i loved it. thank you
Hey Zoomer. I'm a big fan of your channel and agree with many aspects of your theology. One thing I just would like to ask is your view on James 2:26? I was baptised and confirmed Anglican (Episcopal) but have a view on converting to Roman Catholocism and believe that salvation is through faith AND works. I just want to know your reformed, calvinist interpretation of James 2:26. Thank you very much. This (and evolution) is the only area where I disagree with your theology but I find you and your channel very informative and interesting.
I believe James is saying, like how Abraham was already justified before God but his sacrifice of Isaac justified him before men, so too we should do works as a sign of our faith before men.
So, when are you guys on the server going on a crusade? :D
Not till the cathari join
Amen🎉
can you make a video on why the muslim god, jewish god and God are not the same?
This is going to depend on how you parse things.
We all seek to worship the One True God, but between rabbinic Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the disagreements on what that means are so vast that if we say they are all the same we may as well bring some of the Hindus and monotheistic tribal peoples in too.
I'd actually be fine saying that a monotheistic tribal group worships the One True God I'm the same sense that a Muslim does (badly)
While there is certainly more of a historical connection between these three traditions, that history is one characterized by division. Not by unity.
Modern rabbinic Judaism exists mostly as a reaction against Christianity, and Islam is born of Christian heresies.
I think a presuppositionalist view of God is the natural conclusion of all the evidentiary classical arguments because if God created everything then there's no standard to appeal to above God, but creation does show his hand and thus his existence. But I'm definitely in the camp of there's no neutrality, I'm also not a calvinist 😂
Also Pre-Mill, and I do think that there can be common ground in values in worldly matters but I don't think that there's a basis for the common ground other than the Christian worldview
same thoughts
Im very attracted to presuppositionalism, but Im a but too self aware to go full on with it
Just came to ask you some christian study motivation! I know the bible takes deals on that in many verses but I know that you could come up with good ideas and other people's thoughts
I much prefer classical apologetics. You can argue for God from common data and poke holes in the atheists worldview at the same time. What is stupid is presenting Christianity completely and showing how it explains things better. Most people aren’t convinced by this, because they think God was imagined by people to explain everything. It’s very hard to convince someone without entering into the common conversation!
The point isn’t to convince people…
Can you make a video about what order you think you should read the Bible? I’ve read the gospels and half of acts and then I will read the letters and revelation but I don’t know what order I should read the Old Testament
Read the Old Testament in the order it’s already in lol. Every three chapters or so read a psalm. End each study session that way and pray over it and ask for understanding of its meaning.
@@David-bh7hs should I skip Leviticus and save for last? It’s mostly rules that Christians don’t have to follow
Do you think that any Christian who's been baptized can baptize someone else do you believe you need to be a priest/pastor/ordained in some way?
You don't need to be ordained to perform baptism. Though as a Catholic I believe you should be. But things don't always line up that way.
Is there something in the middle, where you do a mix of a classical argument and a presuppositionalist argument, which disproves other worldviews whilst proving Christianity?
Most entertaining theology lesson I've ever heard.
I cannot accept presuppositionalism as a valid position. To me, it strikes a bit towards fideism; and fideism is horrific. I've read a book by Tom Holland on Christianity; boy were the early Church fathers some intellectual titans. In the 1000's, while the saraceans were raiding, Christians were spending time doing philosophy, doing science, writing exquisite literature and much more. I highly recommend "Dominion: the Making of the Western Mind" by Tom Holland (not Spiderman)
Presuppositionalist here. I think there's a difference between fideism and presuppositionalism, if by fideism you mean that faith is either opposed to reason or without reason. If you mean this, that all knowledge is dependent on faith, then you arrive at what I believe is a biblical concept. The bible teaches two things: 1) The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge, and 2) That unbelievers knew God, but suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. That means that all knowledge flows from a belief in God, and all deceit flows from suppression of that belief, ergo a suppression of knowledge.
Notice that, even if my position is wrong, it is a perfectly reasonable and rational position, assuming that all knowledge comes from God and that all unbelief is a suppression of knowledge. So to claim that presuppositionalism is irrational like traditional fideism is unfair, because we do have a rational (perhaps wrong in your estimation) belief.
We also (generally) believe that all evidence eventually leads to the truth because any evidence that exists is created in the world that God made, and thus points to Him. So we are not opposed to the substance of evidentialism, since all evidence points to God; we merely oppose the evidence-FIRST approach, because we believe that the Bible teaches us to start with belief (fear) of the Lord, and we are concerned with neither putting God to the test nor presiding as judge over Him. (The presuppositionalist posits that refusing to believe until the evidence proves it is to judge or test Yahweh, as Thomas did by saying "Unless I see with my eyes and feel with my hands, I will not believe." He was the first evidentialist! ;P)
A good presuppositionalist (I recommend the astrophysicist Jason Lisle) uses a HEAVY amount of evidence in His exposition of the Word of God. We just use evidence as corroboration, not foundation. Christ is the foundation, the evidence is the corroboration (or the building blocks that confirm the foundation that is already there.)
A final note: the greatest strength of presuppositionalism is that is addresses the universal philosophical problem: all reasoning is circular in SOME manner.
Some examples:
Q: Why should I believe in reason? A: Because of this or that reason. (Notice a reason is given to justify using reason.)
Q: Why should I be logically consistent? A: Because I will either be logically consistent or contradict myself. (The either/or logical statement is being used to justify the use of logic.)
More common is a string of questions that ends up coming full circle: (Note that this is just an arbitrary string of thought for the sake of illustration. Some people have a much more complicated string of thoughts with fewer leaps in logic, but it ends up still being circular, just with a bigger circle.)
Why be rational? Because it is logical. Why be logical? Because it reflects reality. Why should I care about reflecting reality? Because it is good to do so. Why should I care about doing good? Because doing good benefits the man doing good. Why should a man benefit himself? Because it is rational.
Our claim is that the Christian standpoint is ALSO circular, meaning it begins and ends with God, but it is the ONLY worldview that is both internally and externally consistent.
So to sum up, we hold to a presupposition that God is who he says in the word of God, and we hold to it RATIONALLY, meaning we have good reason for believing it, unlike the fideist. Here's a good book by Jason Lisle if you want to also listen to our side of things: www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Proof-Creation-Jason-Lisle/dp/0890515689
Here's a lecture by him for the Free-to-Players out there, (although I HIGHLY recommend the book, which is more full orbed): th-cam.com/video/aQ_UxcV-xcM/w-d-xo.html
As a bonus aside, Jason Lisle uses the mathematical argument that redeemed zoomer loves presuppositionally here, which is a great way to see that presuppositionalism is not anything like fideism and that proper presuppositionalism uses evidence: th-cam.com/video/kEyPWJVYp84/w-d-xo.html
@@davidwever6451 I will reply to this next week, providing I pass the exams and get my degree
@@davidwever6451Do you consider it circular to reason that if X is bigger than Y, and Y is bigger than Z, then X will be bigger than Z?
Reason, to me, just seems to be a byproduct of having a genuine grasp of what words mean. Now, there’s an interesting line of argument against atheistic materialism here I think, but I don’t see how “reasoning is circular.”
Justification may ultimately be circular, in the sense that you rely on your senses to justify trusting your senses, but that’s not the same thing as reasoning being circular.
@@davidwever6451
Additionally, considering my example. If you told me to justify my belief that X is bigger than Z, I’d just say because “I understand what the word ‘bigger’ means in the English language.”
I think Presuppositionalists are good at pointing out how atheists suck at cohering any of their actions/beliefs within the metaphysical system they accept, but I don’t know if their epistemological arguments are all that convincing.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 Good question there. I am not sure how the first question is relevant to what I said. I don't find it circular to say X is bigger than Y, and Y is bigger than Z, then X will be bigger than Z, but I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.
And I don't disagree with your assessment of what reason is, but there is in your statement a presupposition - that words have a genuine meaning that can be grasped - which is, of course, reasonable.
The fact that reason is circular is very easy to see: If a man asks me why he should be reasonable, I won't respond to him by saying "Man, I could really use a jelly donut right now!" I would give him a reason to be reasonable. So I am using reason to prove reason. Now as a Christian, this makes sense, because a Christian believes in the God who never changes His mind (consistent) and who does not deny himself (non-contradicting). This is my reason for being reasonable.
To disprove my claim that reason is inherently circular, I simply ask you to prove reason without using reason to do it.
It can't be done. You must assume reason to prove reason. And I simply argue that reason is not a good enough reason to be reasonable. The fear of Yahweh IS a good enough reason to be reasonable.
Now as an aside, a good presuppositionalist ALWAYS shows how the Christian worldview consistently answers the flaw that the other worldview has internally. So a position of presuppositionalism that only tears down the opposing worldview and does not demonstrate the consistency of the Christian worldview is much closer to the dreaded fideism.
As a Presuppositionalist, I really appreciated this video!
Can you do a video on Christian Nationalism?
Christian nationalism is when I put a cross on the flag.
o7
The presuppositionalists oddly remind me of “lack of belief”atheists.
Bro, you broke the first commandment of Minecraft: never dig down 😵💫😖
You mentioned presuppostionalism and classical apolgetics as if they are the only two views, but they really aren't.
I'm highly non-classical evidencialist. While I don't think the classical approach is singul like the presuppostionalists do, I do think that arguing for a generic god is largely a waste of time.
GIving specific arguments for god based on mathematics or whatever seems like a completely unneccessary step; especiailly with how abstract it is compared to the hisotrical evidence of the ressurrection or pointing to christian miracles. Thise are good evidence for god on their own, they don't need supplements from arguments used by deists.. Also it feels like the classical apologetic approach overestimates how many naturalist athiests there are, when you actually talk to people you find theists, and athiests who neverthless believe in supernatural forces are a lot more common.
Just watched a man who built a cathedral dig straight down. Jesus take the wheel indeed
And going mining without armor!
You're not understanding Presuppositionalism in a way that's very common.
Presuppositionalists aren't arguing "non-Christians can't debate, can't perceive beauty, can't do science, etc."
We are arguing everyone CAN. But the fact that they can contradicts their non-Christian worldviews (all of which necessarily entail those things are not possible), so they're demonstrating their own worldview is false.
"Presuppositionalist Mafia" is my new band name.
Also, 1.20 server update when?
Wheaton grad here. Don’t say we’re academically on the same level as your local state school. Don’t be ridiculous
I would say that presup is very good against atheists and classical apologetics is very good against other religions, because we have more in common with other believers than atheists. At least they accept the metaphysical. That is atleast how I argue with people. I would say that a soft form of presup is ok but there are some prsuppositionalists who say they can prove there specific christian denomination with this method and that is in my opinion an overreach.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib How is questioning ones presuppositions gibberish? Are you a theist or an atheist?
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Wait, since you brought up the münchhausen trilemma I already think I know were our misunderstanding is. I am not a foundationalist (and not an infinitist), I am a coherentist and I use presup to change people's viewpoint from foundationalism to coherentism. That leads to the neccessary conclusion that God exists. We have a fundamental circularity in every world view. All worldviews are based on metaphysics (you have atleast one non-physical category, truth because every worldview makes truthclaims even the relativist ones), epistemology (you claim some way of knowledge even in the relativist ones) and ethics (there are shoulds and/or shouldn'ts even in the relativist ones). If you use metaphysics, epistemology or ethics you imply the other two. Knowledge not existing is self-refuting because if it didn't, you wouldn't know that. It could be that knowledge doesn't exist but if you believe that then your only orientation on the existence of God would be Pascal's Wager. A nihilist is not able to debate (because there has to be atleast the should of "you should follow my argument") nor has he a reason to care. No atheist lives according to their presuppositions and when they realize that most overthink their position. Of course there are way more transcendental categories than the three I mentioned but those three are sufficient to explain my point of view. So in the end I have to presuppose God in the sense that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib It also goes the other way. For there to be intelligibility, God has to exist.
Edit: Ok I think I know were the problem lies. Yes, presup is about presuppositions. It's about the inplications of your presuppositions. Every person who enters a discussion presupposes intelligibility but what does that imply: God exists.
"I'm going to prove to you why you're wrong." That's my kind of study🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
amazing
I just want you to know that I appreciate your videos, even if you do use your scroll wheel to navigate the hotbar.
Zoomer I don't like your "in practice" argument... It fails to address the core principle of presups and borders on a strawman. I think you should address ideas based on what the idea's proponents actually say the idea is, not what you perceive it to be in practice (perhaps there are some exceptions to this rule, but I think generally its a rule I like to follow). I don't think it would be any more fair for me to say: "Sure, on paper PCUSA is part of the Reformed Christian tradition, but in practice they are basically heretics"
No, PCUSA has some serious issues that need addressing, but the denomination is still Christian.
That's a very good point
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Yeah I can understand the impulse to use that argument... Presups can have a tendency of behaving as if believers can know nothing, and retreating to abstraction when challenged on that idea. So I get it. But I just think its better to address the core of the idea rather than how its utilized, at least most of the time.
Question. Do you believe in predestination?
Yes
@@redeemedzoomer6053 So you do believe that God is a dictator that damns people at his own will. yes?
@@mr.snoman4113I think he said something like he believes some people are predestined to be saved but others have choice? (I am not sure which video of his I heard that idea in.)
@@Red_emp_tion but if certain people are pre destined to go to heaven than can they go around and kill people and still go to heaven.
@@mr.snoman4113 Well, if God sets someone apart to serve Him and live for Him, I doubt they are going to be doing a bunch of evil things intentionally..
I don't believe in predestination (at least my understanding of the definition) but I think God chooses certain people to call and they can accept or reject Him. Yeah, He "chose" them so it isn't totally "free choice" but they have a choice on whether to follow Him or not.
(But look at Jonah. God said do something, Jonah refused at first and God kinda let him go off and almost die, and then Jonah "chooses" to go do what God asked.)
You should do a video on messianic judaism/Torah observant Christianity
What even is that?
Its heretical. Kyle made a great refutation of it.
@@iMakz07Would you mind linking that? I am wondering if a Jew should drop everything "Jewish" if they accept Yeshua/Jesus?
(That sounds wrong to me.)
I think messianic Judaism is fine enough, but Torah observant Christians are just judaizers
I wonder if RZ has any Dutch or Scottish ancestry given that he’s Presbyterian.
That’s an interesting thought I found out that the Methodist church had Anglican roots but was a transitional thing to revivalist stuff and Pentecostalism and my mom is from the UK and my parents hyper charismatic but I went to a Methodist Church in middle school which seemed random but later seemed almost like she subconsciously picked it… my mother in law has Scottish heritage and after being raised southern Baptist found some suss churches doctrine wise when she moved north, and later found Presbyterian stuff during the satanic panic where Tim Keller was using culture to explain about Christianity, and she got triggered about him mentioning Harry Potter but eventually came around. It’s just interesting coincidence not really anything solid. Something less subconscious is that she’s interested in the Huguenots because they’re French and she married someone French.
Nope. My ancestry is just Catholic and Jewish lolol
@@redeemedzoomer6053 On which side, respectively?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Why is nearly every major TH-camr who talks about Christian stuff ethnicity jewish? 😳
Your apologetic methodology needs to be redeemed: read/listen to Dr Bahnsen ( Van Til ‘s prodigy) regarding Presuppositionalism; listen to Dr. Bahnsen’s debate at UCI Irvine CA, Does God Exist…etc.
Thank for for respecting my Baptist faith by pronouncing 12:05 correctly. Have a great day, ive got to get ready for a potluck.
I find that in terms of evangelizing unbelievers, if we hold to the sovereignty of God in election, then a somewhat “presuppositionalist” approach of just getting to the gospel knowing that God must open the nonbeliever’s eyes helps keep God central. But I do think that all Christians must be armed with classical apologetics - not so much to convince the nonbeliever to convert to believing (which again, as a Calvinist, it’s by no human quality that we are saved, not even our rationality) but to defend their own faith when put into contact with the world.
As a UCC member, help me
Yeah I don’t know what presupps you are listening too. All of your objections aren’t relevant because you aren’t objecting to presupp.
10:30 Me: "NO NO NO NO NOOO NOOO STOP! STOP! AH! NO!
The problem with classical apogetics is that while it can prove the existance of God, it can't prove christianity.
Amen
God's will is not for both Christians and non-Christians to rule the earth with the same power and harmony.
God's will is for Christians to rule the earth exclusively.
The most common argument I hear from protestants pertaining to the topic of beautiful churches/architecture is, "Well the building is not important", or "What would God care about how the building looks?". And while it may be true that God would care about the hearts of the worshippers over the structure of the building, the design of the churches does factor in it's display of self-worth, attractiveness, and respect to a world of non-believers. This alone can inspire a non-believer to be curious and intrigued and, therefore, take interest and possibly convert. And all because beauty sparked interest. What Christian would not desire that?
God is one, invisible, spirit, unheard, not approachable, not temptable, not a man.
Personally, I'm not really a big fan of Presuppositional Apologetics; I prefer a more classical or evidential approach, wherein the apologist tries to convince the unbeliever that Christianity is true, valid and reasonable using evidence, logic and reason. But I think that presuppositional apologetics can be very useful in certain situations. For example, when an atheist says that the God of The Bible is evil, mean, cruel and immoral because He allowed slavery and killed a lot of people, I would respond to his argument by saying that he's an atheist who doesn't even believe in God, and if there is no God, then there are no objective moral values; for if there is no God, then there are no objective moral values. For the atheist to assert that the God of The Bible is evil, mean, cruel and immoral, he must first establish a foundation for objective morality that not only transcends man, but also transcends God; a being that infinitely transcends man under an atheistic worldview, which is impossible. Therefore, his argument against God is invalid; since under an atheistic worldview, there are no objective moral values.
Objective morals aren't required to assess god as evil. Hello question begging.
@@thejabberwocky2819 If there are no objective moral values; if moral values are merely subjective and relative opinions and preferences, like the statement "I like ice cream", then the words "Good", "Evil", "Just", "Unjust", "Loving" and "Unloving" are obsolete, futile and meaningless; like the word "Abracadabra!". If there is no God, by what standard do you judge good and evil, just and unjust? You will say to me: "We are moral because of our emotions. Like, we don't normally murder other people because we have sympathy and empathy for members of our fellow species". However, this explanation is problematic because of three reasons. First, this explanation only explains why we *are* moral; but it doesn't actually explain why we *ought* to be moral. This explanation only explains why we don't normally go out and kill people; but it doesn't actually explain why we ought not to go out and kill people. Second, our emotions can be very subjective and therefore, are not a good standard or foundation for objective moral values and laws. What one person may think is moral according to his emotions, another person may think is immoral. Third, moral values cannot be based on anything human; for human beings are too flawed and changing for a flawless, changeless law to be based upon anything in us. Moreover, there must be a being that transcends and surpasses us; a being way above any human opinions, beliefs or views to matter or bear any significance. Now, you will say to me: "Morality is determined by effects on human society. An action is either good or evil depending on whether it benefits human society or is detrimental to human society. If an action is beneficial for human society, it's moral. But if an action is detrimental to human society, it's immoral. Therefore, objective morality can exist apart from God". However, this explanation is still flawed. First, this explanation is grounded in the assertion or the notion that human life is somehow valuable and ought to be protected, preserved and benefited. The assertion "Human life ought to be protected, preserved and benefited" is itself a moral assertion, and a moral assertion cannot be made without a moral foundation; therefore, it cannot be a moral foundation. Under an atheistic worldview, human beings are no different from animals and micro-organisms; we are just the accidental byproducts of nature; clumps of cells who exist without any meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Therefore, for the atheist to make this assertion, he must first demonstrate that human life is intrinsically valuable under an atheistic worldview; which is impossible. Second, an action's effects on human society alone cannot determine whether the action is moral or immoral. Under this logic, anything can be moral as long as it benefits human society; including murder, rape, torture etc.
A Reformed non-presuppositionalist? First I'm hearing of it.
I mean, technically all Reformed people before Van Til came along in the 1900s were non-presup
RC Sproup was an evidentialist
Presuppositionalism exists in Islam as well, trust me, it is not a good method
I agree the presup position is wrong, but I think your being inconsistent,
Because of your calvinism.
If your a Calvinist it doesn’t matter if you use presup or classical apologetics the same amount of people will be saved
So whatever argument you use it doesn’t matter.
You should do a video on calvinism vrs Arminianism. That would be very interesting.
I think most of Calvinism is silly. But, as I get more trad I start to understand it more. Not agree with it, but understand it
@@marvalice3455 💯
you digging straight down stresses me out😭
what about Islam
I don't think you have given it a far shake
Presupperositionalism is catholic, I would say :) We love coming to faith with logic and rationalism. Long list of Philosophers and Theologens
🤨?
Presuppositionalism is not Catholic. It came out of the reformed tradition. Most Catholic apologists are classical apologists.
So, there are aspects of presuppositionalism which are very Catholic, but the structure as a whole is not.
While we can agree with some of the first principles a presuppositionalist holds, they go way off the rails
You should enchant your gear
Everyone has the ability to know true beauty but according to Calvinism nobody has the ability to know of God or anything good by nature?
“These are the two main forms in the reformed tradition”
Literal Reformed Epistemologists: 😢
31:42 :D
Presuppositionalists: It's good because it's Christian.
Moviegoers: No, Kirk Cameron movies are terrible!
Presuppositionalists: By what standard?
Moviegoers: Basic filmmaking standards...?
*Human Depravity Confirmed*
There's a point where you're saying "christians are supposed to impress the world with goodness, truth and beauty" but that seems to run contrary to the command. The commnand was spread the word. To impress misdirects focus from God to all these pathetic humans with theur ridiculous wants and fantasies. To have goodness we would've needed more fearless brethren to bulwark against many ideological threats, but we only ever had few bulwarks; we cannot get any true value out of our numbers. And to have beauty? Whose beauty? Literally whose? I could preach till Hell froze over how a woman is more beautiful with her deeds than her clothes or makeup, but I can't find one zealous or self confident enough to live by such thought. And among the men? Drunkenness, laziness, fat, greed, cowardice.
Nevermind beauty. We fight each other because we make each other vomit. We look in the mirror and we want to vomit.
What bloody "goodness, truth and beauty"? Too many infants left like fruit rotting at the roots of the tree which bore it. Can't even enjoy many little ones growing in the Lord. Can't even get a sinner to die right. Can't rely on people for any goodness at all.
Catholics have a distinction between dulia and latria. Having a minority of poorly educated people twist the good practice of giving dulia to the saints by giving latria to the saints as bases against the practice doesn’t make much sense. All good practices, if one isn’t vigilant or ignorant, can be twisted. Doesn’t mean that we should stop the doing good practices.
I’m an atheist. I’ve had many conversations with believers over the years. But pressups were always the least pleasant and least productive. All the seem to want to do is make gotcha points. They want to gatekeep the very ideas of truth and morality.
as a catholic i will say, alot pf us do end up worshiping marry and the saints. You make greate videos zoomer, keepp it up. God bless you
Never seen this but go off
@hamontequila1104 🤨? Maybe it’s that way where you’re from, but I certainly wouldn’t say “alot of Catholics.”
as an Orthodox, I find that hard to believe. The only way people "worship" Mary and the saints is if they have no understanding of the difference between worship and veneration.
@@hippiosI am willing to believe at least one person has made an idol of the saints. But I think a lot of protestants are far more turned off by veneration than they ought to be.
Excuse me I'm maltese, I did not grief.
The more and more I watch yours video the more I believe your not Calvinist and actually a fellow Provisionist.
I was a Calvinist in the beginning of my walk with God because I love RC Sproul and my Dad is a pastor who is reformed. It seems to me your reject quite a few things that Calvinist claim to be true.
Have you spent anyone listening to Leighton Flower or Tozer?
No, I assure you I’m completely Calvinist. What made you think otherwise?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Well in a previous video i commented on you said that Jesus died for the world which isn't aline with the doctrine Limited Atonement at all unless your a Universalist. ( which i doubt you are one because you seem intelligent).
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I've heard you in other videos say you believe in free will. How does human free will and responsibility fit into Calvinism?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 also every Calvinist I've met has been a Presuppositionalist. but obviously this is anecdotal.
Or consider the reality that Leighton Flowers caricatures and misrepresents Calvinism so frequently and so often that the idea you have in your mind of what Calvinism is, is completely distorted and false.
RZ is most definitely not a provisionist.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 if you’re going to make an allegation about someone like that I suggest providing evidence. and I promise you I completely understand Calvinism I grew up in a reformed church, and I was a Calvinist till very recently. In fact most Calvinist I run into are only calvinists when it comes to salvation not other places in theology.(also, my favorite theologian is RC Sproul.)