It reminds me of what James White said: "The message that is preached is foolishness to the world; and if you ever develop an apologetic methodology where it is no longer foolishness to the world, it is no longer the gospel."
[white]: "The message that is preached is foolishness to the world; and if you ever develop an apologetic methodology where it is no longer foolishness to the world, it is no longer the gospel." Sheesh. So, even White thinks the gospel is foolish regardless of how it's presented / supported. If it's presented in a way that is likely to reach and therefore save more people, you have to lie about it. That's the kind of problem that only a God could create. Ignorant humans are incapable of inventing convoluted logic like that. Good job, God.
You said: "It reminds me of what James White said: "The message that is preached is foolishness to the world; and if you ever develop an apologetic methodology where it is no longer foolishness to the world, it is no longer the gospel."." If that is indeed the case, then stop doing apologetics altogether.
@@dougsmith6793 “so even White thinks the gospel is foolish” No, he said it is “foolishness _to the world.”_ Why would you argue against something he didn’t actually say?🤔
@@PanhandleFrank Ahhh ... so White isn't part of the world, but he's an expert on what foolishness to the world is? White puts himself in the world's shoes, and sees the gospel as foolishness from that viewpoint, and also declares that there's no way to make it NOT foolish from that viewpoint, right? How is White so sure that the "world" is wrong about that? How is he so sure that the "world" is not just seeing it for the foolishness it is ... and only fools think it's not foolish?
@@PanhandleFrank [frank]: "No, he said it is “foolishness to the world.” Why would you argue against something he didn’t actually say? Lol. Not so sure he isn't actually saying that, frank. * John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." * John 12:47 "'If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.'" So, let me get this straight ==> God creates a world. But, in spite of the fact that God is perfect, the world went bad. Now God needs to save it. But the message to save it is foolishness, and there's no way to present that message in a way that is NOT foolishness. That's some crazy kind of God there. No wonder people are looking for answers outside religion. Maybe the "world" is seeing foolishness because it actually is foolishness. Maybe by "world", White really means "anyone who disagrees with me" or "anyone who thinks about it".
Is anyone here in the UK and post-mill? I am looking to meet and gather more post-mill brothers in the UK. Reply to this comment if you are interested in being added to that community.
@@supersmart671 sure he is, so what's your point? Why is reason even possible in a random and chance universe? Why do abstract concepts (i.e. logic) apply to the particulars of nature? Why is their any correlation between the two?
@@supersmart671 Hey superretard. I am using reason just like you. But you're too stupid to understand what I said. I said that you can't JUSTIFY reason from your worldview. How do you know your reason works right? What is right? Where does your reason come from? How do you test it without using reason, because if you use your reason to justify reason that is circular and means that you are dumber than you are pretending to be.
It is painfully obvious that people who oppose presuppositionalism fall into 1 of 2 categories. 1) They don’t understand it. They have no idea that it is the only truly Biblical method and fail to realize that everyone has an ultimate authority and eventually argues in a circle. Everyone, it’s just the ultimate authority that varies. Only presuppositional apologetics has its foundation in the only objective truth, God, and is the only method that can provide the necessary pre-conditions for intelligibility. Everything else just borrows from the Christian Worldview and their systems crumble upon an internal critique. 2) Those who understand presuppositional apologetics just fine but are unwilling to give up human reason as their ultimate authority. They reason in a circle from their own reason instead of from the objective truth from God. They have bought into the myth of neutrality because they mistaken believe it allows them the autonomy they desire.
[david]: "It is painfully obvious..." Sorry about your pain. [david]: "...unwilling to give up human reason as their ultimate authority." You are using your own human reason as the ultimate authority to give yourself permission to give up human reason as your ultimate authority -- your own circular / self-referencing / self-negating argument. That's painfully obvious.
@@SaltyApologist Lol. You're #3 -- the way presuppositionalism is taught at DKU. Someone who understands it, but not its full scope. You're smart enough to talk yourself into it ... just as I did for a short stretch a while back ... but you aren't [yet] smart enough to talk yourself out of it. You can declare all you wish that God is your Ultimate Authority ... but it's always you, the faulty human underneath, that's making that decision. And it's always YOU, the faulty human underneath, who then draws conclusions about what that means with respect to how you interpret life. So you are always your own Ultimate Authority, regardless of how else you may characterize it. It's the central lie / falsehood / self-deception of presuppositionalism that you are somehow giving away your own authority ... there is never a time you are not your own Ultimate Authority. Everything you think you know about God comes through that same error-prone naturalistic mechanism, or your own naturalistic observations -- and you've simply bought into the self-deception that you're infallible about the source of that. That's how psychology becomes theology. It is painfully obvious.
To presupps, human fallibility is elevated to the level of sin, a defect that needs to be corrected, and there's only one way to correct it. If presupps themselves weren't so laughably fallible, they'd have a point. To naturalists, human fallibility (like the fallibility of presupps) is just another fact to deal with, neither sinful nor virtuous, often destructive, revealing the messy, hit-or-miss nature of nature itself -- and so becomes evidence of it. Presupps are arguing psychology, not theology. That's painfully obvious.
[david]: "Everything else just borrows from the Christian Worldview and their systems crumble upon an internal critique." Presupps have to borrow from the naturalistic WV in order to make their case for anything. Every bit of evidence or information they're processing about themselves or God has a naturalistic source ... stuff they see, touch, feel, smell, read ... and they then create a supernaturalistic WV to explain it. It's incoherent -- crumbles upon even a cursory examination. Presupps are incapable of the internal critique necessary to see their own fallibility.
Here's a brilliant presuppositional syllogism for the great Christian thinkers in the comment section. 1)God is necessary for X(where X=logic, morality, truth,math, ham sandwiches, etc...). 2) Ham sandwiches do exist (can't you see the ham sandwich?). 3) Therefore God exist, so thank God for ham sandwiches! A clever reader will notice that you can replace God with anything in this"proof" and it still "works".
This is another one of those issues that too many Christians take to the extremes and argue for one side over the other. Apologetical style arguments should never be an either/or situation; but rather, a both/and situation based upon who you are having a evangelistic conversation with, their religious beliefs (or lack of them) and the context of the conversation you are having with them. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Plus it's highly disrespectful to the unbeliever to dismiss their questions that requires a Classical Apologetic answer. It's quite easy to lead the conversation from a Classical Apologetic conversation to a Presuppositional Apologetic conversation and bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ into the conversation and explain to the unbeliever why they need a saving faith in Jesus Christ to save them from GOD's judgment/wrath and eternal damnation in Hell.
This is true to an extent, but the problem with natural theology or evidential apologetics is that is assumes neutrality; which isn’t real. No person is truly neutral; everyone comes to the table with pre-suppositions, whether realized or not. Only the Christian world view can provide the foundation; the rest borrow from us and then jump back to their conclusions. It’s dialectical tension that makes their reasoning incoherent
@@SaltyApologist I understand brother, but I still hold to the apologetic belief that all forms of apologetics are useful in leading unbelievers to the Gospel of Jesus Christ depending upon the person you are talking to, their world belief system and the context of the conversation you are having with them.
[small]: "Someone tell me why circular reasoning is wrong without using circular reasoning." It's not "wrong", per se. It just has limitations, especially in human minds that have little or no experience with critical thinking. It's how psychology becomes theology.
@@ronaldsmall8847 [small]: "How do you know that?" Personal experience. Someone with undeveloped / unused / corrupted critical thinking skills -- or just a lack of certain kinds of experiences / interests in life -- wouldn't know that, so would ask, "How do you know that?"
@@dougsmith6793 So... You know it because you know it. That's really your epistemology? You're really going with that, and in public? Sorry, but I don't trust your personal experience. How do you know that your senses work properly and only inform you truthfully? And where do you even get absolute truth from? Wow. I have never heard anything so stupid. I know because I know and stuff. Errrr, ugh, me smart and stuff.
@@ronaldsmall8847 [small]: "So... You know it because you know it. That's really your epistemology?" Lol. There's more to it than that, of course, but the rest of it is over your head. [small]: "You're really going with that, and in public? Sorry, but I don't trust your personal experience." Lol. Everyone trusts their personal experience, and they do it in public. That's what you're doing right now -- it's pretty much the entire basis of the presupp's argument, though they try to sanitize it, but that's just a type of denial. [small]: "How do you know that your senses work properly and only inform you truthfully?" Repeated testing, and practice ... something you have no experience with, so couldn't possibly know. [small]: "And where do you even get absolute truth from?" What do I need absolute truth for? I find likelihoods -- well-supported narratives -- to be entirely satisfactory. It's a lot of work ... but you couldn't possibly know that. [small]: "Wow. I have never heard anything so stupid." It's very common for humans to characterize things they don't understand as "stupid". You must live a very sheltered, protected life if presuppositionalism is the stupidest thing you've ever heard. It's just another one of many human conceits, not the only one. You need to get out more. That lack of experience certainly helps explain why you believe as you do. [small]: "I know because I know and stuff. Errrr, ugh, me smart and stuff." Hehehe. So you're calling the presupps' arguments stupid? Cool. Maybe you're smarter than you appear so far.
Presuppositionalism explains the basis for human reasoning and the intelligibility of the universe. When I first heard about it, a couple decades ago, I tried it on for size, because it seemed like the "breakthrough" in logic / reasoning that I had been looking for. But the naturalistic narrative for not just why humans make at least some sense of the universe, but especially why humans make as many mistakes as they do, is far more coherent. There is no way I could have known that without understanding a whole bunch of different sciences, got a workable engineering background, and began to see the simple common themes that tie the naturalistic explanation together. It's not nearly as much about the presupposition of naturalism itself -- other than as a hypothesis to test its explanatory scope -- as it is about the coherence and explanatory scope / depth / elegance of the naturalistic explanation. This is impossible for presupps to understand.
Presuppositional apologetics is the weakest of Christian apologetic methodologies. It is based upon many inaccurate understandings. It falls apart very quickly when you start asking serious questions like: "What is a Christian worldview?", "How do we determine when something "explains the basis for human reasoning and the intelligibility of the universe" and something else fails to do so (what is the criteria)? Presuppositional apologetics has an inaccurate understanding of the nature logic and what it can accomplish. This is the very short list of Presuppositional apologetic failures. Let me know if you want more.
The great Cornelius Van Til, nevertheless, explained away the circular reasoning of presuppositional apologetics: "The whole of philosophy is circular reasoning". (Classical Apologetics", by R.C. Sproul, John Gertsner and Arthur Lindsley
Every argument is circular. Every single one. You can't make a single argument that isn't circular. The thing is, can your worldview justify reasoning at all? Can your circular reasoning end an infinite regress? The Christian worldview can. No other worldview can.
Read that quote again. It’s about philosophy, not presuppositionalism. If it’s false, then presup is not circular and you shouldn’t have a problem with it. If it’s true, then the evidentialist/classicalist is also circular, and if you still have a problem the problem is with yourself.
The point is that everyone eventually drills down to circular argumentation. Whatever your ultimate authority is, you will argue in a circle from that point. Difference is that only one ultimate authority provides the necessary pre-conditions for intelligibility, the rest fall apart upon internal critique
@@hudjahulosthe problem with classical/evidentary isn’t that it’s circular, is that it assumes neutrality and has no foundation for the reason and logic it uses. It just assumes them and has no foundation for them. They assume that man can be neutral, but he cannot
On what basis though? The presuppositional is a transcendental argument; *what are the pre conditions necessary for knowledge to be possible * ...any knowledge. What is basis for rationality?
The whole reason presuppositional apologetics falls apart is because it is blatantly circular. At best you get to tell the non-believer that they hold onto presuppositions also. Presup works if your interlocutor is already a Christian. Even then it is frustrating to engage with people that dig their heads in the sand. It is existential at heart, as is Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism. Presup doesn't answer the big question like evolution,young earth creationism, and Noah's flood. Science has made these presup stances laughable. The Christian loses credibility.
@mattdoyle6871 how do you answer my last big questions? There are Christians that believe that Noah's flood happened, evolution is wrong, and the Earth is 6k years old. Presuppositional apologetics aren't always helpful.
Presuppositionalism is relativism by any other name. If there were in fact but a single "default" perspective, from which all others could be traced back to or tested against, why suppose anything else? But relativism is false and the only perspective that matters is God's, who is Himself, no presuppositionalist, because He assumes nothing and neither should we.
Christianity is the only worldview that provides justification of objective truth, morality, logic, reason, and knowledge. Therefore, Christian presuppositionalism cannot be relative. It is the only viewpoint that isn't relative. That's the whole point. You can't get to objectivity by any other means. Within the Christian worldview, God is objective. He is the only objective source for truth. You are seriously confused and completely lost and incapable of grasping this topic.
@@ronaldsmall8847 Christianity does indeed do all those things, objectively. Presuppositionalism, a unbiblical doctrine, does not. Oh and your projecting again.
@@tsuich00ipre-suppositionalism is the only truly biblical apologetic. Classical and evidence based imposes the totally unbiblical stance that man is neutral and doesn’t come with his own pre-suppositions. Why is this so hard for Christians to understand? It’s self autonomy running riot again. It’s the bane of human existence. Thinking that man is higher than he is.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
It reminds me of what James White said: "The message that is preached is foolishness to the world; and if you ever develop an apologetic methodology where it is no longer foolishness to the world, it is no longer the gospel."
[white]: "The message that is preached is foolishness to the world; and if you ever develop an apologetic methodology where it is no longer foolishness to the world, it is no longer the gospel."
Sheesh. So, even White thinks the gospel is foolish regardless of how it's presented / supported. If it's presented in a way that is likely to reach and therefore save more people, you have to lie about it.
That's the kind of problem that only a God could create. Ignorant humans are incapable of inventing convoluted logic like that.
Good job, God.
You said: "It reminds me of what James White said: "The message that is preached is foolishness to the world; and if you ever develop an apologetic methodology where it is no longer foolishness to the world, it is no longer the gospel."." If that is indeed the case, then stop doing apologetics altogether.
@@dougsmith6793 “so even White thinks the gospel is foolish”
No, he said it is “foolishness _to the world.”_
Why would you argue against something he didn’t actually say?🤔
@@PanhandleFrank
Ahhh ... so White isn't part of the world, but he's an expert on what foolishness to the world is? White puts himself in the world's shoes, and sees the gospel as foolishness from that viewpoint, and also declares that there's no way to make it NOT foolish from that viewpoint, right?
How is White so sure that the "world" is wrong about that? How is he so sure that the "world" is not just seeing it for the foolishness it is ... and only fools think it's not foolish?
@@PanhandleFrank
[frank]: "No, he said it is “foolishness to the world.” Why would you argue against something he didn’t actually say?
Lol. Not so sure he isn't actually saying that, frank.
* John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
* John 12:47 "'If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.'"
So, let me get this straight ==> God creates a world. But, in spite of the fact that God is perfect, the world went bad. Now God needs to save it. But the message to save it is foolishness, and there's no way to present that message in a way that is NOT foolishness.
That's some crazy kind of God there. No wonder people are looking for answers outside religion.
Maybe the "world" is seeing foolishness because it actually is foolishness. Maybe by "world", White really means "anyone who disagrees with me" or "anyone who thinks about it".
Is anyone here in the UK and post-mill? I am looking to meet and gather more post-mill brothers in the UK. Reply to this comment if you are interested in being added to that community.
Sounds great, count me in ✝️🏴
Yes please
Venture a decisive act. Indeed!
OK, if this weren't who it was, and you just showed it to Webbon in the abstract, does he *really* approve of the pink jacket and flowery shirt?
Dr. Boot has the best suit jackets. I met him when he spoke near my town while he was wearing his sky blue jacket.
The Kierkegaard quote caught me off guard.
Hes the preVan Til, Van Til
Kierkegaard was a Christian existentialist. Van TIl was a Calvinist Idealist. They could not be more different.
So... I think you just used logic and reasoning to tell me why I should not use logic and reasoning. Did I get that right?
I am using my reason to prove presuppositionalism....i don't know how to come out of the circle.
Reason doesn't prove jack. You are extremely confused. You have to be able to justify reason from your presupposed worldview, or you can't use reason.
@@ronaldsmall8847 what are you using now to prove your point? Is it a reasonable statement?
@@ronaldsmall8847what are you using to write this statement? Reason or something else?
@@supersmart671 sure he is, so what's your point? Why is reason even possible in a random and chance universe? Why do abstract concepts (i.e. logic) apply to the particulars of nature? Why is their any correlation between the two?
@@supersmart671 Hey superretard. I am using reason just like you. But you're too stupid to understand what I said. I said that you can't JUSTIFY reason from your worldview. How do you know your reason works right? What is right? Where does your reason come from? How do you test it without using reason, because if you use your reason to justify reason that is circular and means that you are dumber than you are pretending to be.
It is painfully obvious that people who oppose presuppositionalism fall into 1 of 2 categories. 1) They don’t understand it. They have no idea that it is the only truly Biblical method and fail to realize that everyone has an ultimate authority and eventually argues in a circle. Everyone, it’s just the ultimate authority that varies. Only presuppositional apologetics has its foundation in the only objective truth, God, and is the only method that can provide the necessary pre-conditions for intelligibility. Everything else just borrows from the Christian Worldview and their systems crumble upon an internal critique. 2) Those who understand presuppositional apologetics just fine but are unwilling to give up human reason as their ultimate authority. They reason in a circle from their own reason instead of from the objective truth from God. They have bought into the myth of neutrality because they mistaken believe it allows them the autonomy they desire.
[david]: "It is painfully obvious..."
Sorry about your pain.
[david]: "...unwilling to give up human reason as their ultimate authority."
You are using your own human reason as the ultimate authority to give yourself permission to give up human reason as your ultimate authority -- your own circular / self-referencing / self-negating argument. That's painfully obvious.
@@dougsmith6793 which one are you? Number one or two? Try again bud
@@SaltyApologist
Lol. You're #3 -- the way presuppositionalism is taught at DKU. Someone who understands it, but not its full scope. You're smart enough to talk yourself into it ... just as I did for a short stretch a while back ... but you aren't [yet] smart enough to talk yourself out of it.
You can declare all you wish that God is your Ultimate Authority ... but it's always you, the faulty human underneath, that's making that decision. And it's always YOU, the faulty human underneath, who then draws conclusions about what that means with respect to how you interpret life. So you are always your own Ultimate Authority, regardless of how else you may characterize it. It's the central lie / falsehood / self-deception of presuppositionalism that you are somehow giving away your own authority ... there is never a time you are not your own Ultimate Authority.
Everything you think you know about God comes through that same error-prone naturalistic mechanism, or your own naturalistic observations -- and you've simply bought into the self-deception that you're infallible about the source of that. That's how psychology becomes theology. It is painfully obvious.
To presupps, human fallibility is elevated to the level of sin, a defect that needs to be corrected, and there's only one way to correct it. If presupps themselves weren't so laughably fallible, they'd have a point.
To naturalists, human fallibility (like the fallibility of presupps) is just another fact to deal with, neither sinful nor virtuous, often destructive, revealing the messy, hit-or-miss nature of nature itself -- and so becomes evidence of it.
Presupps are arguing psychology, not theology. That's painfully obvious.
[david]: "Everything else just borrows from the Christian Worldview and their systems crumble upon an internal critique."
Presupps have to borrow from the naturalistic WV in order to make their case for anything. Every bit of evidence or information they're processing about themselves or God has a naturalistic source ... stuff they see, touch, feel, smell, read ... and they then create a supernaturalistic WV to explain it.
It's incoherent -- crumbles upon even a cursory examination. Presupps are incapable of the internal critique necessary to see their own fallibility.
Here's a brilliant presuppositional syllogism for the great Christian thinkers in the comment section.
1)God is necessary for X(where X=logic, morality, truth,math, ham sandwiches, etc...).
2) Ham sandwiches do exist (can't you see the ham sandwich?).
3) Therefore God exist, so thank God for ham sandwiches!
A clever reader will notice that you can replace God with anything in this"proof" and it still "works".
This is another one of those issues that too many Christians take to the extremes and argue for one side over the other. Apologetical style arguments should never be an either/or situation; but rather, a both/and situation based upon who you are having a evangelistic conversation with, their religious beliefs (or lack of them) and the context of the conversation you are having with them. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Plus it's highly disrespectful to the unbeliever to dismiss their questions that requires a Classical Apologetic answer. It's quite easy to lead the conversation from a Classical Apologetic conversation to a Presuppositional Apologetic conversation and bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ into the conversation and explain to the unbeliever why they need a saving faith in Jesus Christ to save them from GOD's judgment/wrath and eternal damnation in Hell.
This is true to an extent, but the problem with natural theology or evidential apologetics is that is assumes neutrality; which isn’t real. No person is truly neutral; everyone comes to the table with pre-suppositions, whether realized or not. Only the Christian world view can provide the foundation; the rest borrow from us and then jump back to their conclusions. It’s dialectical tension that makes their reasoning incoherent
@@SaltyApologist I understand brother, but I still hold to the apologetic belief that all forms of apologetics are useful in leading unbelievers to the Gospel of Jesus Christ depending upon the person you are talking to, their world belief system and the context of the conversation you are having with them.
Someone tell me why circular reasoning is wrong without using circular reasoning.
[small]: "Someone tell me why circular reasoning is wrong without using circular reasoning."
It's not "wrong", per se. It just has limitations, especially in human minds that have little or no experience with critical thinking. It's how psychology becomes theology.
@@dougsmith6793 How do you know that?
@@ronaldsmall8847
[small]: "How do you know that?"
Personal experience. Someone with undeveloped / unused / corrupted critical thinking skills -- or just a lack of certain kinds of experiences / interests in life -- wouldn't know that, so would ask, "How do you know that?"
@@dougsmith6793 So... You know it because you know it. That's really your epistemology? You're really going with that, and in public? Sorry, but I don't trust your personal experience. How do you know that your senses work properly and only inform you truthfully? And where do you even get absolute truth from? Wow. I have never heard anything so stupid. I know because I know and stuff. Errrr, ugh, me smart and stuff.
@@ronaldsmall8847
[small]: "So... You know it because you know it. That's really your epistemology?"
Lol. There's more to it than that, of course, but the rest of it is over your head.
[small]: "You're really going with that, and in public? Sorry, but I don't trust your personal experience."
Lol. Everyone trusts their personal experience, and they do it in public. That's what you're doing right now -- it's pretty much the entire basis of the presupp's argument, though they try to sanitize it, but that's just a type of denial.
[small]: "How do you know that your senses work properly and only inform you truthfully?"
Repeated testing, and practice ... something you have no experience with, so couldn't possibly know.
[small]: "And where do you even get absolute truth from?"
What do I need absolute truth for? I find likelihoods -- well-supported narratives -- to be entirely satisfactory. It's a lot of work ... but you couldn't possibly know that.
[small]: "Wow. I have never heard anything so stupid."
It's very common for humans to characterize things they don't understand as "stupid". You must live a very sheltered, protected life if presuppositionalism is the stupidest thing you've ever heard. It's just another one of many human conceits, not the only one. You need to get out more. That lack of experience certainly helps explain why you believe as you do.
[small]: "I know because I know and stuff. Errrr, ugh, me smart and stuff."
Hehehe. So you're calling the presupps' arguments stupid? Cool. Maybe you're smarter than you appear so far.
Presuppositionalism explains the basis for human reasoning and the intelligibility of the universe. When I first heard about it, a couple decades ago, I tried it on for size, because it seemed like the "breakthrough" in logic / reasoning that I had been looking for. But the naturalistic narrative for not just why humans make at least some sense of the universe, but especially why humans make as many mistakes as they do, is far more coherent. There is no way I could have known that without understanding a whole bunch of different sciences, got a workable engineering background, and began to see the simple common themes that tie the naturalistic explanation together. It's not nearly as much about the presupposition of naturalism itself -- other than as a hypothesis to test its explanatory scope -- as it is about the coherence and explanatory scope / depth / elegance of the naturalistic explanation. This is impossible for presupps to understand.
Presuppositional apologetics is the weakest of Christian apologetic methodologies. It is based upon many inaccurate understandings. It falls apart very quickly when you start asking serious questions like: "What is a Christian worldview?", "How do we determine when something "explains the basis for human reasoning and the intelligibility of the universe" and something else fails to do so (what is the criteria)? Presuppositional apologetics has an inaccurate understanding of the nature logic and what it can accomplish. This is the very short list of Presuppositional apologetic failures. Let me know if you want more.
@@manager0175presuppositional apologetics is the strongest and most biblical of all apologetics methods
The great Cornelius Van Til, nevertheless, explained away the circular reasoning of presuppositional apologetics: "The whole of philosophy is circular reasoning". (Classical Apologetics", by R.C. Sproul, John Gertsner and Arthur Lindsley
Have you listened to the debate between Greg Bahnsen and R. C. Sproul? Worth listening
Every argument is circular. Every single one. You can't make a single argument that isn't circular. The thing is, can your worldview justify reasoning at all? Can your circular reasoning end an infinite regress? The Christian worldview can. No other worldview can.
Read that quote again. It’s about philosophy, not presuppositionalism. If it’s false, then presup is not circular and you shouldn’t have a problem with it. If it’s true, then the evidentialist/classicalist is also circular, and if you still have a problem the problem is with yourself.
The point is that everyone eventually drills down to circular argumentation. Whatever your ultimate authority is, you will argue in a circle from that point. Difference is that only one ultimate authority provides the necessary pre-conditions for intelligibility, the rest fall apart upon internal critique
@@hudjahulosthe problem with classical/evidentary isn’t that it’s circular, is that it assumes neutrality and has no foundation for the reason and logic it uses. It just assumes them and has no foundation for them. They assume that man can be neutral, but he cannot
If I presuppose I'm always right and you're always wrong, I always win the debate.
By what standard does someone win?
That's not how it works.
That's not how presuppositionalism works. That's a strawman.
On what basis though? The presuppositional is a transcendental argument; *what are the pre conditions necessary for knowledge to be possible * ...any knowledge. What is basis for rationality?
@@chrisrush9878 Based on some guy's from the bronze age of course. They can't be wrong.
The whole reason presuppositional apologetics falls apart is because it is blatantly circular. At best you get to tell the non-believer that they hold onto presuppositions also. Presup works if your interlocutor is already a Christian. Even then it is frustrating to engage with people that dig their heads in the sand. It is existential at heart, as is Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism.
Presup doesn't answer the big question like evolution,young earth creationism, and Noah's flood. Science has made these presup stances laughable. The Christian loses credibility.
Such a statement only reveals your complete ignorance of what you are criticizing.
@mattdoyle6871 how do you answer my last big questions? There are Christians that believe that Noah's flood happened, evolution is wrong, and the Earth is 6k years old. Presuppositional apologetics aren't always helpful.
@@crisgon9552yes, we exist. 😊
Any claims to absolute authority is circular. However, there are weaknesses in presuppositionalism...
Your reasoning is circular, too. Guaranteed. But you can't end an infinite regress with justification for reason itself.
Presuppositionalism is relativism by any other name. If there were in fact but a single "default" perspective, from which all others could be traced back to or tested against, why suppose anything else?
But relativism is false and the only perspective that matters is God's, who is Himself, no presuppositionalist, because He assumes nothing and neither should we.
Nonsense
Christianity is the only worldview that provides justification of objective truth, morality, logic, reason, and knowledge. Therefore, Christian presuppositionalism cannot be relative. It is the only viewpoint that isn't relative. That's the whole point. You can't get to objectivity by any other means. Within the Christian worldview, God is objective. He is the only objective source for truth. You are seriously confused and completely lost and incapable of grasping this topic.
@@ronaldsmall8847 Christianity does indeed do all those things, objectively. Presuppositionalism, a unbiblical doctrine, does not.
Oh and your projecting again.
@@tsuich00ipre-suppositionalism is the only truly biblical apologetic. Classical and evidence based imposes the totally unbiblical stance that man is neutral and doesn’t come with his own pre-suppositions. Why is this so hard for Christians to understand? It’s self autonomy running riot again. It’s the bane of human existence. Thinking that man is higher than he is.
@@ronaldsmall8847again, spot on. You got it bud