ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Clete]

What exactly is Presuppositionalism? I have been looking for a clear answer to this question for some time now. Recently Jim Hilston posted some links to a few articles that can be found at www.tgfonline.org, a web site with which he is very heavily involved. I thought that this was really excellent because it was Jim who brought this Presuppositionalism idea to my attention in the first place and so it is his particular brand of Presuppositionalism that I am most interested in figuring out.

I read the articles Jim linked to and a few of the others that they have on the Trinity Grace Fellowship Online website and I found myself agreeing with more than I disagreed with. Basically Presuppositionalism is the idea that one shouldn't argue theology from the standpoint of evidence but rather from the standpoint of presuppositions. One of the main points is that everyone comes to the table with presuppositions of one kind or another, everyone. Genuine neutrality is an illusion and is totally impossible. Thus it is one's faulty presuppositions that lead to false conclusions and therefore should be the Christians main targets in a debate on any issue. It is not only in their view more effective to expose the faulty presuppositions and deconstruct their opponent's positions from the ground up but it is their belief that this is the ONLY Biblical and therefore the ONLY acceptable means of engaging in apologetics. Personally I tend to agree that it is by far the most effective means but I submit that the suggestion that it is the only valid apologetic system is a dramatic overstatement even if it is the only one with Biblical precedent, a point which has not yet been established to my satisfaction.

Further, it seems to me that they argue their theology logically, the same way I do. Jim himself reacts to me as though I base my beliefs on an altogether different set of presuppositions but I don't believe that this is the case. Although, I must admit that perhaps I do! That's the whole point and the question I wish to begin this thread exploring. What exactly are we supposed to presuppose? So far I've figured out that the existence of God and His goodness is presupposed as is the infallibility of the Scripture (in it's original autographs), both of which I agree with. I think that Jim believes that I do not presuppose the existence of God and His goodness based in large part on the subject matter of the last thread I started where I was examining the logic of an argument Bob Enyart made as a resolution to Euthyphro's dilemma. However, while the name of the thread is "Is God Really
Good?", I chose the that title to attract attention to the thread not to convey an accurate description of the actual topic that I wanted to discuss. The actual point of the thread was simply to explore the validity of the logic in Bob's argument with the intent of my future use of the argument in support for the logical necessity of the existence of the Trinity. I do in fact understand that the entirety of existence itself is irrational if God does not exist and that it is equally irrational not to presume that God is, in fact, good. I do not think that those issues can be rationally rejected under any circumstances. What I do reject, however, is the idea that examining those issues logically is disallowed by Scripture which is what it seems to me that the Presuppositionalist is saying. Whether or not the existence of God and His goodness is presupposed or not, it is still factually part of reality and will, therefore, stand up to the rigors of a logical examination. The point is that while many Christians are presuppositionalists and believe that certain things are literally unquestionably true, the fact remains that many unbelievers are not presuppositionalists and find it very easy to question anything and everything including the existence of God. And when the unbeliever presents an apparently valid argument which calls any Christian belief into question, we should be able to meet that challenge head on and deal with it with sound reason. I agree that eventually the discussion will inevitably bump into the unbeliever's presuppositions but I believe we should wait until those issues come up to address them. It seems to me that in this present "scientific" culture that we should do in Rome as the Romans do. We should engage the argument at what ever point the opposition brings the attack. If they want to argue evidence then we can do that, it's not like it's difficult to bring the discussion to an examination of the presuppositions if it comes to that but the point is that not everyone is even in a place emotionally or intellectually where they would even be able to engage the discussion at that level to begin with, so where is the benefit in restricting one's self to the exclusive use of presuppositional arguments? For you archers out there, it would be analogous to having field point and broad-head mounted arrows in your quiver and intentionally restricting yourself to only using the broad-heads even when the field points would be far more appropriate. Why do that? I don't get it!

So to clarify, I wish ask two main questions…

1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.
2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Hilston]

Clete,

I like your approach to this question and I would like to give it more time than I have at my disposal presently. I will try to reply soon, but in the meantime, I'd like to ask some preliminary (and admittedly leading) questions about your summary questions:

Clete asked: 1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.

Do you believe we are allowed to be creative with evangelism? By that I do not mean creative regarding the vehicle or garb through which the gospel is presented, but the content and method. How much latitude do the scriptures give us regarding the content and method of our evangelism?

Clete asked: 2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

I don't think this is the right question. I don't think any topics are invalid for debate, but some topics are absurd, and debate can serve to expose that. Some claims are derived from underlying presuppositions; some claims are presuppositions themselves. All claims, even presupposed ones, can be proven or disproven, although in some cases, not directly.

For further reading on this, here are a couple of threads I started way back when Bob Enyart debated Zakath on the existence of God:
The impossibility of atheism (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8240&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)
Bob Enyart has already lost the debate (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7945)

[Knight]

Man.... :( ya know... it would be so refreshing if just once Jim just responded to a post without stopping the thread turning it around and asking that all participants follow him around in one of his wacky goose chases.

Any other Presuppositionalists out there that can respond to Clete's post?

[Chileice]

Clete,
I find the purpose of this thread very intriguing. I hope that I will have the time to dedicate to a little further study in order to be an active participant in the discussion. On a very casual level, I like what you have said. Most people don't even know what they presuppose. Most have presuppositions pre-programmed from the cultures they live in, the families in which they were raised or the religions to which they have belonged or participated in.

As we encounter more and more diverse world-views in todays society, it will be important for Christians to know what they pre-suppose as well as to be able to draw attention to the presuppositions of others with the end of drawing them to Christ. I hope your thread prospers.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
Clete,

I like your approach to this question and I would like to give it more time than I have at my disposal presently. I will try to reply soon, but in the meantime, I'd like to ask some preliminary (and admittedly leading) questions about your summary questions:
I understand about time constraints! As long as we can have a productive exchange of ideas please feel free to take all the time you need.

Clete asked: 1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.

Do you believe we are allowed to be creative with evangelism? By that I do not mean creative regarding the vehicle or garb through which the gospel is presented, but the content and method. How much latitude do the scriptures give us regarding the content and method of our evangelism?
I either don't understand the question (what you're getting at) or else I simply don't know the answer to the question. I would say, however, that as long as the message we are communicating is accurate then it is allowable. As I said in the opening post, it seems to me that we should fight the battle at the point at which it is brought to us, or put in more offensive terms we should bring the battle to where the enemy is at.

Clete asked: 2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

I don't think this is the right question. I don't think any topics are invalid for debate, but some topics are absurd, and debate can serve to expose that. Some claims are derived from underlying presuppositions; some claims are presuppositions themselves. All claims, even presupposed ones, can be proven or disproved, although in some cases, not directly.
Okay so which issues are presuppositions and which aren't and how do you objectively distinguish the difference? And I put the word objectively in there on purpose because it seems that presuppositionalists don't think it possible to be objective (neutral) and so I'm thinking that what you consider to be a Christian presupposition is itself based upon presuppositions which are in turn based on their own presuppositions and on and on ad infinitum adnausium It's just as if presuppositionalists presuppose presuppositionalism! Which if so, is pretty darn circular! I admit that this seems to ridiculous to be true so I have a feeling that I've missed something but I don't know what it is.

For further reading on this, here are a couple of threads I started way back when Bob Enyart debated Zakath on the existence of God:
The impossibility of atheism (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8240&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)
Bob Enyart has already lost the debate (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7945)
I'll take a look at it. Thanks! :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally posted by Chileice

Clete,
I find the purpose of this thread very intriguing. I hope that I will have the time to dedicate to a little further study in order to be an active participant in the discussion. On a very casual level, I like what you have said. Most people don't even know what they presuppose. Most have presuppositions pre-programmed from the cultures they live in, the families in which they were raised or the religions to which they have belonged or participated in.

As we encounter more and more diverse world-views in todays society, it will be important for Christians to know what they pre-suppose as well as to be able to draw attention to the presuppositions of others with the end of drawing them to Christ. I hope your thread prospers.

A good place to start in order to be on the same page that Jim and I are on would be to read the following...


Pauline Apologetics and Atheism (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF995.htm)
The Matrix & Presuppositional Apologetics (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/matrix.htm)
Pauline Apologetics and Evangelical Religions (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF993.htm)


You could also read just about anything on that web site.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[geralduk]

While you may desire a clear undestanding of this matter.
I would ask though WHY you should want to ?
For there are as many 'ISMS' to day as there are versions of the bible.
and each ISM brings forth the counter ism to which then each 'faction' then fights to the death over and others sub divide the isms into degrees of ISMNESS!
SO THAT THE WAR can last for another few generations while the world runs head long into the mouth of hell.

It seesm to me that while men will debate ANYTHING other than DO what the scriptures SAY.
They are UNWILLING to ACCEPT that which is LAID OUT CLEARLY and simply by God in them.
But must rather justyfy themselves by their multitude of words put in such a way that you ned ANOTHER BOOK just to understand what they are writing about.
Im glad therefore and thankfull to God that HIS book is albeit unfathomable in the sense that no man can plumb all ist depths scale all its hights nor cover all the breadths contained therein.
you are STILL able to go up to the ankles(like a young child) up to the loins (like a young man)and there is enough to swim in.
Yet men seem UNABLE or disatisfied with the bread that has come from heaven but must needs have meat from some other scource.
Men may then be able to eat thereof but the meat will bring leaness to thier souls,

This is not a personal critisism but rather a warning to leave those men to thier wranglings and long wearysome contentions.
But rather keep and hold to "the simplicity that is in Christ" and if you need a dictionary or another book to understand what men are talkign about then they are FAR from that simplicity! and it must be said have left thier first love.
For if you know of a truth CHRIST then you should be able to progresivley preach CHRIST! and Him crucyfied and yea risen from the dead"
Rather than ANY ism that brings men to CONFUSION and ERROR rather than "makes men free" and if men call you foolish for doing as such then let themn so call you.
For you will be wise in Gods eyes.
Which is far better than to be wise in the worlds eyes.


Yours in Christ
gerald uk

[Yorzhik]

Thanks Clete, you asked the question so much clearer that I was able.

[Clete]

Originally posted by geralduk
But must rather justyfy themselves by their multitude of words put in such a way that you ned ANOTHER BOOK just to understand what they are writing about.

As far as I am concerned people can publish all the books they like as long as they use a spell checker and an occasional comma.

Feel free to post again when you have something to say that pertains to the topic at hand. I'm not interested in your 'nonismmatism'. That idea has already been explored to death on this web site.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Thanks Clete, you asked the question so much clearer that I was able.

Well thanks for saying so but I can't get past the feeling that I still don't get this Presuppositionalism thing at all. I've got a better handle on it than I did a few weeks ago but it seems so circular that I just have to be missing something important.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Balder]

This is an "Exclusively Christian Theology" room, so if my comments here are not welcome, I'll back out! I just wanted to add something to the mix, for anyone who is interested in exploring the implications, or examining the arguments in the following passages against the Christian presuppositionalist perspective.

The follow excerpt deals with belief, presuppositions, and knowledge, and their relationship to each other as well as their differences from each other:

REPLACING KNOWLEDGE WITH BELIEF

Whenever we need or desire knowledge, we are free to investigate for ourselves the limits of what is already known. Most often, however, we do not choose this course. Instead, we turn to an established authority, adopting the content of a knowing made available in advance. Whether we look to tradition, the instruction of parents, the advice of friends or experts, the guidance of a supernatural power, or perhaps simply the accumulated memories of prior acts of knowing, the outcome is the same: the substitution of a belief for knowledge.

Once adopted, a belief operates in a characteristic way. The mind classifies or labels experience in conformity with the belief and draws conclusions accordingly, perhaps ‘re-presenting' the result as potential content for a new belief. The structure so determined screens out direct knowledge of experience itself.

In establishing this structure, the key step is the acceptance of the content of the belief as trustworthy. Although we 'know' the content of the belief as content, we adopt the belief not because we know its content to be true, but because we accept the authority of its source. It is this acceptance that makes the belief a belief.

The accepting of a higher authority entails no knowledge, only the hope or conviction that the transmitted belief has been safely captured and that it ‘encloses' accurate knowledge. What then is the basis for yielding to the authority of a source whose knowledge we cannot directly verify? We might reply to such a question with specific explanations and arguments intended to establish the 'trustworthiness' of this or that specific authority. More fundamental than any such explanations, however, is another belief: the implicit notion that we ourselves lack knowledge, that someone or something else has greater access to the knowledge we need.

Perhaps it seems that this belief, at least, can be traced to a more direct knowing, for daily experience confirms at every turn that we lack access to the knowledge we need or want. But this lack may reflect the basic belief in our own not-knowing, rather than confirming it. Perhaps we do not know simply because we have forgotten how to make contact with knowledge, or else because we do not make the effort to do so. Perhaps we originally accepted a belief in our own not-knowing for reasons that suited our needs at the time, or have carried it forward unthinkingly from the original state of not knowing that characterized the first years of our lives.

Present knowledge insists that there are fixed limits on our ability to know, such as the physical limits that situate the self in space and limit it in time, or endow the body with specific attributes. Would such fixed limits operate in the same way if conventional belief structures were not in effect? For example, if our belief in the self shifted would new possibilities for knowledge open?

Beliefs as Carriers of Knowledge

If beliefs could truly communicate knowledge, the only thing standing between us and knowing would be correct judgments as to which beliefs were trustworthy. This state of affairs, however, does not seem to apply. Even assuming that beliefs were ‘carriers' for the knowledge we are lacking, there seems to be no way that we could benefit fully from that knowledge.

In the first place, the communication of knowledge through the transfer of beliefs will succeed only to the extent that we have the capacity to understand what is being communicated. Qualities of perception or awareness implicit in the belief will be lost in the course of transmission if they lie beyond the range of our own experience. We will receive from beliefs a knowing that has been leveled down to conform to our own lack of knowledge. In this sense, the belief as we receive it is a projection of the activity of our own mind.

Second, when we rely on beliefs we are accepting a structure that posits our own lack of knowledge and confirms our needs and wants as the basis for all action. The limitations that these presuppositions establish will continue to operate, no matter how subtle and refined the system of beliefs to which we give our allegiance.

Third, beliefs interpose themselves between our own experience and our knowledge of that experience. No matter how comprehensive the belief, it will leave the experience itself unknown.

Finally, even if a belief contains 'true' knowledge, we have no way of knowing whether that knowledge is complete. We could only determine this on the basis of another belief. As long as we 'import’ knowledge from outside our own knowing, we will lack the capacity to determine the depth and the scope of what we know.

In relying on beliefs, we are accepting an imperfect substitute for knowledge. Perhaps this seems necessary if we are to gain access to a vast range of knowledge outside our direct experience, but the result is just the opposite. We choke off knowledge that we might develop on our own, without escaping the limitations of the knowledge we have already adopted.

When beliefs replace knowledge, vision is foreclosed, leading to stagnation. Beliefs may be accurate in their content and useful in their operation, but in being passed from one person to another, they bypass our most fundamental concerns. We touch the true significance of a belief only by discovering for ourselves the knowledge it embodies.
~Love of Knowledge, Tarthang Tulku

Peace,
Balder

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
I either don't understand the question (what you're getting at) or else I simply don't know the answer to the question. I would say, however, that as long as the message we are communicating is accurate then it is allowable.I agree. But aren't there methods of evangelism you disagree with? For example, years ago, I was on an "evangelism team." I was assigned to go door-to-door with a guy I had never worked with before. We visited a woman who was having troubles (money problems, divorce, etc). After she shared her burdens with us, my compadre, John, did most of the talking, and without explaining much of anything about the gospel, asked this woman if she would like to say the sinner's prayer. She agreed. I put a halt to it right away. He was so eager to get someone to say the prayer that it didn't matter to him whether or not the person understood the gospel. Would you agree that this is unbiblical?

Another example: When I worked at a Kinko's in college, I had heard that the women at this local apostolic church would flirt with men to get them to come to church. This was evangelism to them. I took it as a nasty and probably distorted rumor, until I saw it in action with my own eyes. A woman, dressed to kill (for Christ, of course), came into Kinko's to get her church bulletins photocopied. As I was copying her bulletins, I could see and hear her hitting on one of the other customers and inviting him to church. I'm sure you would agree that this is unbiblical, right?

My point in asking these questions is this: If there is a biblical way to evangelize in contrast to unbiblical ways to evangelize, perhaps there is a biblical way of defending the faith in contrast to unbiblical way that can be similarly considered.

Clete writes:
As I said in the opening post, it seems to me that we should fight the battle at the point at which it is brought to us, or put in more offensive terms we should bring the battle to where the enemy is at.I agree with you completely, at least your wording. But I need to know what you mean. Can you give an example or two?

Clete writes:
Okay so which issues are presuppositions and which aren't and how do you objectively distinguish the difference?It changes from person to person. Some people presuppose the uniformity of nature and base their whole worldview on that. Others presuppose the verity of logic and base their whole worldview on that. Most people have presuppositions that they're not even aware of and have never had them challenged.

Clete writes:
And I put the word objectively in there on purpose because it seems that presuppositionalists don't think it possible to be objective (neutral) ...Objective and neutral are not the same. There is objective truth. The question is not whether or not something is objective, but whether or not the grounds for claiming objectivity can be justified.

Clete writes:
... and so I'm thinking that what you consider to be a Christian presupposition is itself based upon presuppositions ...Let me give you one and let's see how circular it is: A Christian presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. What presupposition would you say that is based upon?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by geralduk

This is not a personal critisism but rather a warning to leave those men to thier wranglings and long wearysome contentions.
But rather keep and hold to "the simplicity that is in Christ" and if you need a dictionary or another book to understand what men are talkign about then they are FAR from that simplicity!


One thing is certain, geralduk, when it comes to understanding your posts, I never presuppose.

:chuckle:

[Hilston]

Tarthang Tulku writes:
Whenever we need or desire knowledge, we are free to investigate for ourselves the limits of what is already known.Tarthang Tulku's premise is undermined in his very first sentence. As a Buddhist, Tulku has no justifiable grounds on which to determine for himself the limits of what is already known. If you think he does, I'd like to hear what you think it is and how it is justified.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
"... the outcome is the same: the substitution of a belief for knowledge."

Belief cannot be separated from knowledge. Tell me something you or Tarthang Tulku hold as knowledge and I'll show you that belief is inextricably tied to its foundation.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
If beliefs could truly communicate knowledge, the only thing standing between us and knowing would be correct judgments as to which beliefs were trustworthy.This is exactly right!

Tarthang Tulku writes:
This state of affairs, however, does not seem to apply.Oh yes it does! It applies when your knowledge is informed by God's Word.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
Finally, even if a belief contains 'true' knowledge, we have no way of knowing whether that knowledge is complete.Yes we do. If we base our beliefs and our concomitant knowledge on the foundation of God's Word, we can have certainty about our knowledge.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
In relying on beliefs, we are accepting an imperfect substitute for knowledge.How does Tulku know this? Did he determine this in a laboratory? Does he have empirical data that we can all examine? Or is it just a belief?

[Balder]

Hilston,

Tarthang Tulku's premise is undermined in his very first sentence. As a Buddhist, Tulku has no justifiable grounds on which to determine for himself the limits of what is already known. If you think he does, I'd like to hear what you think it is and how it is justified.

First, I would like to hear why you think his being a Buddhist disqualifies him from being able to make any determinations about the limits of knowledge, or I presume from being able to make any valid determinations at all.

I would also like to hear if you accept his definition of belief, or if you would modify it or refine it in any way. That would help me respond to the rest of your letter.

Last, I would be interested in hearing your defense of your contention (an outrageous one, in my opinion) that all valid forms of knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc, derive necessarily from the Biblical/Christian worldview. This would include an explanation of why Christian presuppositions -- and there are many! -- should be regarded as the only valid ones.

My guess is that the basis for your argument will be that knowledge demands a founding set of parameters which cannot be questioned, for any knowledge claims to be able to "stand." And that further, these foundations are in fact built of nothing other than beliefs -- second-hand information which is accepted on the basis of the authority of its presupposed origin. My guess could be wrong, though, so if you would be patient with me and take the time to answer, or at least to point me to relevant passages on other websites, I'll be grateful. I am entering this conversation as a "sideline" participant and an observer, and I do not have time to read all of the links provided so far.

Peace,
Balder

[Hilston]

balder writes:
First, I would like to hear why you think his being a Buddhist disqualifies him from being able to make any determinations about the limits of knowledge, ...I didn't say it disqualified him from making determinations. Just that he has no justifiable grounds on which to base them. I don't doubt for a second that Tulku can balance his checkbook. My claim is that he cannot justify the grounds upon which he does so.

balder writes:
... or I presume from being able to make any valid determinations at all.
Again, a Buddhist can make valid determinations, but he cannot justify them on the basis of his worldview. The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

balder writes:
I would also like to hear if you accept his definition of belief, or if you would modify it or refine it in any way. That would help me respond to the rest of your letter.A state or function of the mind in which confidence is placed in a person or thing.

balder writes:
Last, I would be interested in hearing your defense of your contention (an outrageous one, in my opinion) that all valid forms of knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc, derive necessarily from the Biblical/Christian worldview. This would include an explanation of why Christian presuppositions -- and there are many! -- should be regarded as the only valid ones.No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

balder writes:
My guess is that the basis for your argument will be that knowledge demands a founding set of parameters which cannot be questioned, for any knowledge claims to be able to "stand."Not at all. All things can be questioned, even fundamental presuppositions. The question is whether or not sense can be made of them. The Buddhist cannot make sense of his own presuppositions, holds conflicting premises in tension, and blindly assumes facts of reality and existence without cogent justification.

balder writes:
And that further, these foundations are in fact built of nothing other than beliefs -- second-hand information which is accepted on the basis of the authority of its presupposed origin.Do you believe in the verity of the scientific method, Balder? Or do you know it is truthworthy? In either case, why? And how?

[Balder]

Hilston,

To pursue your (as yet unsupported) assertions that the Buddhist worldview is incoherent would take us too far astray from Clete's intentions for this thread, I'm sure. I certainly would be interested to hear your criticisms, though, and would invite you to post them elsewhere, or on any thread on TOL I start.

No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

You've made this claim elsewhere, and I've asked you to back it up before. I think going into the premises of this claim would not take us too far astray from the central concerns of this thread, so I will ask you again to offer some defense of this very bold (and at this point, totally unsupported) assertion.

Do you believe in the verity of the scientific method, Balder? Or do you know it is truthworthy? In either case, why? And how?

The scientific method appears to be efficient at generating certain types of knowledge, but its presuppositions determine the scope and nature of the knowledge generated.

Peace,
Balder

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Hilston,

To pursue your (as yet unsupported) assertions that the Buddhist worldview is incoherent would take us too far astray from Clete's intentions for this thread, I'm sure. I certainly would be interested to hear your criticisms, though, and would invite you to post them elsewhere, or on any thread on TOL I start.It really isn't all that complicated. How would you finish this sentence? "According to the Buddhist worldview, the verity of the scientific method is based upon __fill in the blank__."

Hilston wrote:
No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Balder writes:
You've made this claim elsewhere, and I've asked you to back it up before. I think going into the premises of this claim would not take us too far astray from the central concerns of this thread, so I will ask you again to offer some defense of this very bold (and at this point, totally unsupported) assertion.Actually, it's right on-topic. Here is the backing to the claim: The existence of God and the revelation of His purposes in Scripture gives sufficient justification for our general reliance upon and confidence in discursive reasoning, logic, the scientific method, and mathematics. Furthermore, God and His Word give us objective grounds upon which to understand and apply principles of morality and human dignity. Do you have any other worldviews in mind that can compete with that?

Hilston wrote:
Do you believe in the verity of the scientific method, Balder? Or do you know it is truthworthy? In either case, why? And how?

Balder writes:
The scientific method appears to be efficient at generating certain types of knowledge, but its presuppositions determine the scope and nature of the knowledge generated.Do you believe in its trustworthiness? Do you know that it is trustworthy, or are you withholding judgment? Do you only trust it "so far"? Do you believe the underlying presuppositions of the scientific method are justified?

[Balder]

Hilston,

Your comments, such as ...

The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

... are frankly ignorant and uninformed, and so full of presuppositions that it actually would take quite a lot to unpack the prejudice behind them. But to do so would take us too far away from the topic of this thread.

On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that Christianity is the real and in fact the only acceptable basis for logic, rationality, the scientific method, morality, etc, then we won't even have to deal with Buddhism or other religions.

The existence of God and the revelation of His purposes in Scripture gives sufficient justification for our general reliance upon and confidence in discursive reasoning, logic, the scientific method, and mathematics. Furthermore, God and His Word give us objective grounds upon which to understand and apply principles of morality and human dignity. Do you have any other worldviews in mind that can compete with that?

I can think of several worldviews that can compete with that, and of course Buddhism is one of them. But let's stick for the moment to Christianity and to the tenets of presuppositionalism. First off, when you say that "only a Biblical worldview" can support and ground these things, can you unpack that a little? What aspects of the Biblical worldview? Specifically, what aspects of the Biblical worldview do this that cannot be found in other theistic religions?

From what I've read on the presuppositionalist websites so far, I am seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors and not a lot of substance. If you can point me to specific cogent arguments that support your thesis, please direct me to them.

Peace,
Balder

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Tulku

In relying on beliefs, we are accepting an imperfect substitute for knowledge. Perhaps this seems necessary if we are to gain access to a vast range of knowledge outside our direct experience, but the result is just the opposite. We choke off knowledge that we might develop on our own, without escaping the limitations of the knowledge we have already adopted.

When beliefs replace knowledge, vision is foreclosed, leading to stagnation. Beliefs may be accurate in their content and useful in their operation, but in being passed from one person to another, they bypass our most fundamental concerns. We touch the true significance of a belief only by discovering for ourselves the knowledge it embodies.



Peace,
Balder

Balder,
I agree with much of what Hilston has said in this thread but not all of it. I will deal with that in a minute. However, what Tulku said sounds plausible on the surface, but when one examines it more deeply, his way of thinking is what chokes off knowledge. Without accepting the advances and learning of previous generations we are unable to advance as a society. I have faith in calculus and have accepted it without contmplating all of the theorems and axioms behind it. Had I to rethink every mathematical proof before accepting it in order to claim I believed it, I would be in a constant state of unknowing and several hundred years behind in my work.

Although I agree that we should be more concerned with discovering for ourselves what knowledge entails (hence my participation here and in the astronomy club, for example), I cannot spend my whole life trying to prove Copernicus was right, or Kepler or Luther or Zwingli or my own pastor as a child. Of course I must not walk blindly behind them unaware that they COULD be wrong. My radar is up to gain knowledge which might better my own life experience, but I am also enjoying "knowing " some things that I didn't have to go through life trying to figure out. I suppose those things, religious and non-religious (if there is such a thing) are my suppositions.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Hilston


Again, a Buddhist can make valid determinations, but he cannot justify them on the basis of his worldview. The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

I think this underestimates the ability of people to live with ambiguity. Mosts Buddhists feel comfortable with the way they have come to look at the world. It may not seem coherent to you, but I am willing to bet 80% of them think it's either coherent or that the incongruities are part of the package. You are judging their worldview based on yours.

Originally posted by Hilston
No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Just a point to clarify. Greek schools of logic developed well outside the scope of Judaism and were certainly well developed before Christianity came to exist. So I don't quite follow. I agree that Christianity tacitly allows for logic and science, but to say that if you use logic you are borrowing from a biblical worldview... that's over the top. :confused:

Originally posted by Hilston
Not at all. All things can be questioned, even fundamental presuppositions. The question is whether or not sense can be made of them. The Buddhist cannot make sense of his own presuppositions, holds conflicting premises in tension, and blindly assumes facts of reality and existence without cogent justification.



Having lived many years outside North America, I guarantee you that we are the only ones who have a problem holding conflicting presuppositons. The cogent justification you are looking for is not even an aim for most. Life IS a series of random events incoherently jumbled together and then you die. That is many people's world view. So instead of trying to make sense out of it... they try to manipulate it: witchcraft, the lottery, luck, pal-reading, astrology, some plaster saints, writing prayers in the newspaper... whatever it takes to get along with the confusing world they live in. I'm not saying they are right. I'm just saying that your criticism of them is as invalid as you claim their world-view to be.

[Clete]

Balder,

You know, every time I've put something in this forum I've ended up wishing that I hadn't. Please feel free to continue participating despite the fact that you are not a Christian. I think as long as you stay on topic, you won't be violating any rules anyway but even if that's not the case, your exchange with Jim has been so far and hopefully will continue to be a terrific example of the presuppositional apologetic system in action. I really couldn't have asked for anything better!
You, Jim and Chileice were pretty busy last night! I got up this morning and there was like a dozen new posts to read. I have a few things I'd like to respond too but time is going to be really short both today and tomorrow. Hopefully there will be time to post during lunch or something but as always your patience is appreciated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Your comments, such as ... "The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity)." ... are frankly ignorant and uninformed, and so full of presuppositions that it actually would take quite a lot to unpack the prejudice behind them. But to do so would take us too far away from the topic of this thread.Not at all. Give it your best shot. What kind of Buddhist are you? Mahayana? Theravada? Or the cop-out Madhyamika? Give me your take on the succession of kalpas. Do you believe we're presently in the second kalpa, moving inexorably to the complete dissolution of the world system in the fourth kalpa of the ethereal, radiant world of Brahma? Do you hold to the concept of panna and the doctrine of anatta? Each of these concepts require that things become their opposites. Non-life becomes life. Unconsciousness matter becomes conscious. Self becomes non-self. Lawless chaos become orderly laws.

Balder writes:
On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that Christianity is the real and in fact the only acceptable basis for logic, rationality, the scientific method, morality, etc, then we won't even have to deal with Buddhism or other religions.You're right. And that is exactly how I'm able to dismiss all other worldviews, including Buddhism, as false. The use of logic requires the existence of universal laws of logic. These only make sense in the biblical worldview in which those laws reflect the nature and character of God Himself. All other worldviews fail to account for these laws. The scientific method depends on the uniformity of nature. Only the Biblical worldview can account for the regularity we see in creation. God's nature and character are reflected in His creation. Morality only makes sense in a worldview in which there are objective standards of morality. Objectivity requires an authority that establishes such a standard. God is that authority. Without God, there is no authority, and thus, no objective morality.

Hilston wrote:
The existence of God and the revelation of His purposes in Scripture gives sufficient justification for our general reliance upon and confidence in discursive reasoning, logic, the scientific method, and mathematics. Furthermore, God and His Word give us objective grounds upon which to understand and apply principles of morality and human dignity. Do you have any other worldviews in mind that can compete with that?

Balder writes:
I can think of several worldviews that can compete with that, and of course Buddhism is one of them.I'm all ears.

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Again, a Buddhist can make valid determinations, but he cannot justify them on the basis of his worldview. The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

Chileice writes :
I think this underestimates the ability of people to live with ambiguity. Mosts Buddhists feel comfortable with the way they have come to look at the world.Is that standard of truth? What makes us feel comfortable?

Pr 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.

Chileice writes :
It may not seem coherent to you, but I am willing to bet 80% of them think it's either coherent or that the incongruities are part of the package.That's the point: Incongruities are indeed part of their package. If they want to admit that publicly, let's put it in big bold letters so everyone can see it. And then they don't have to bother showing up for the debate. They lose from the outset. One might claim that logical incongruities are not sufficient grounds to dismiss a view, but they use must logic to even make the statement. They must use logic to comprehend the question. They must use logic to even show up and to get from point A to point B. Logical incongruities are not acceptable, which is attested in every aspect of life. Logical incongruities get people killed, and send people to hell. The logically incongruent worldview loses.

Chileice writes :
You are judging their worldview based on yours.Absolutely. And I have a defensible worldview by which to judge. They don't. If my view happens to be correct, then in actuality, there is no other worldview on which to judge anything, which happens to be my claim. If you think you can disprove it, I invite you to bring it on.

Hilston wrote: No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Chileice writes :
Just a point to clarify. Greek schools of logic developed well outside the scope of Judaism and were certainly well developed before Christianity came to exist. So I don't quite follow. I agree that Christianity tacitly allows for logic and science, but to say that if you use logic you are borrowing from a biblical worldview... that's over the top.If you want to make an argument from antiquity, you still lose. God preceded the Greeks, even Anaximander (!). Whatever truths Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or Anaxogoras happened to attain were all based on and borrowed from the Biblical worldview. The Pythagorean theorem is not true because the Greeks invented logic, but because Pythagoras successfully, albeit unwittingly, recognized the nature and character of God reflected in the natural order and applied those principles to his geometry and mathematics.

Hilston wrote:
All things can be questioned, even fundamental presuppositions. The question is whether or not sense can be made of them. The Buddhist cannot make sense of his own presuppositions, holds conflicting premises in tension, and blindly assumes facts of reality and existence without cogent justification.

Chileice writes :
Having lived many years outside North America, I guarantee you that we are the only ones who have a problem holding conflicting presuppositons.This is called an ad populum fallacy. There was a time when most people thought the earth was the center of the universe, too. The popular vote doesn't make a claim true.

Chileice writes :
The cogent justification you are looking for is not even an aim for most.Much to their demise, I'm afraid. Most people will end up in hell. That's why the road to destruction is wide and congested. The road to life is narrow and not well-traveled.

Chileice writes :
Life IS a series of random events incoherently jumbled together and then you die. That is many people's world view.Sure, and it's an incoherent one. The same order and consistency seen in the laws of logic can be seen in the order and consistency of historical events. It only appears random and incoherent to those of limited sight who presume to autonomously evaluate the complexities of ordered history accordingly. It's like an ant looking at the history of grass growth on his little plot of turf and assuming that it all must be random and incoherent because every so often the grass is suddenly shorter.

Chileice writes :
So instead of trying to make sense out of it... they try to manipulate it: witchcraft, the lottery, luck, pal-reading, astrology, some plaster saints, writing prayers in the newspaper... whatever it takes to get along with the confusing world they live in. I'm not saying they are right. I'm just saying that your criticism of them is as invalid as you claim their world-view to be.I can see why you would find comfort in that conjecture. Like those to whom you appeal above, you're obviously quite comfortable living with ambiguity and incongruity. You salve any pangs of uncertainty with such baseless statements as the one you just made, thinking that it explains away your accountability before a logical and righteousness and judgmental God who can destroy your body and soul in hell. It is sin to be willfully anti-logical, Chileice, and you will die in it if you do not repent.

[Balder]

Chileice (and Hilston & Clete),

Tulku’s “way” of knowledge would indeed be stifling if he were saying that we aren’t allowed to rely on belief or second-hand knowledge in daily life, but that isn’t the case at all. Rather, he is pointing out the anemic and fundamentally incomplete, limiting nature of belief as a form of knowledge. This does not mean that beliefs or presuppositions (e.g., information accepted on faith in external authority) close off all possibility for knowledge or progress, obviously. Like fractals, a few set parameters can generate a profusion of new patterns, new connections, new structures – but the nature and scope of what develops from them will be limited by those parameters. Tulku is not saying, “Don’t do this,” or trying to give a set of prescriptions, but rather is suggesting that attention to the process of knowing and the development of relatively fixed forms of knowledge is helpful in enriching our aliveness and presence to Creation, and in counteracting the dullness, blindness, or rigidity of structure, perception, and behavior that tend to manifest when we establish ourselves on unconscious presuppositions and second-hand knowledge.

The excerpt I posted is from a 6-book inquiry into three fundamental aspects of being: time, space, and knowledge. Space as “that” which allows for the appearance of form, Time as “that” which allows for events, for growth and change, and Knowledge as “that” which forms the fabric of all experience, awareness, contact, communication, etc, are examined in depth precisely to uncover the presuppositions that influence how we inhabit and relate to the world. This is not the place to go into it (unless someone asks), but I believe Tulku presents a coherent and very elegant argument for the inseparability of these three dimensions of existence, not as dry abstractions but as living faces of being – as the dynamism of Spirit and all life and being that flow from it.

In the next post, I will be happy to answer Hilston’s questions about Buddhism, if no one objects to that being too much of a tangent. If you all are interested in this, I will “play along” and give Hilston a chance to demonstrate presuppositionalism in action. But if I do that, I will ask of Hilston the courtesy of answering any counter questions about his presuppositions and of providing answers other than the very general, unsubstantiated charges and dismissals that he has been issuing so far.

It may not be until this evening or tomorrow that I can write more, however. I’ve got an appointment tonight (coincidentally, with one of the editors of Tulku’s books) that will keep me busy until fairly late.

Peace,
Balder

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder
In the next post, I will be happy to answer Hilston’s questions about Buddhism, if no one objects to that being too much of a tangent. If you all are interested in this, I will “play along” and give Hilston a chance to demonstrate presuppositionalism in action. But if I do that, I will ask of Hilston the courtesy of answering any counter questions about his presuppositions and of providing answers other than the very general, unsubstantiated charges and dismissals that he has been issuing so far.

It would seem to me to be only fair that if Jim is saying that your presuppositions are invalid and his are valid that he should at least be willing to explain why this is true. Like I'm always reminding people, saying it doesn't make it so. Besides, the exercise would go a very long way toward answering the second of the two primary questions I posed in the opening post.

I wish I had time to post more but for now this will have to do.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Tulku’s “way” of knowledge would indeed be stifling if he were saying that we aren’t allowed to rely on belief or second-hand knowledge in daily life, but that isn’t the case at all.It's not any notion of "stifling" that I object to. My question is this: On what authority does Tulku say anything about a "way of knowledge"? On what grounds or criterion does Tulku say one "way" is superior to another?

Balder writes:
Rather, he is pointing out the anemic and fundamentally incomplete, limiting nature of belief as a form of knowledge.Who says? In Proverbs, the bibilcal book of wisdom, Solomon states authoritatively:

Pr 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Pr 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

The fear of the Lord is belief in Who He is, His nature, character and attributes. From that belief proceeds knowledge. Belief in the Almighty justifies knowledge, validates knowledge. What does Tulku offer? Platitudes and dubious aphorisms. Stuff you put on refrigerator magnets.

Balder writes:
Tulku is ... suggesting that attention to the process of knowing and the development of relatively fixed forms of knowledge is helpful in enriching our aliveness and presence to Creation, ...Nothing is more enriching of our "aliveness and presence to Creation" than acknowledging and worshiping the Creator. All other attempts, Tulku's "way" included, are idolatry and will lead you directly to hell (do not pass "go", do not collect $200).

Balder writes:
The excerpt I posted is from a 6-book inquiry into three fundamental aspects of being: time, space, and knowledge. Space as “that” which allows for the appearance of form, Time as “that” which allows for events, for growth and change, and Knowledge as “that” which forms the fabric of all experience, awareness, contact, communication, etc, are examined in depth precisely to uncover the presuppositions that influence how we inhabit and relate to the world.Each of those "aspects of being" make sense only in a biblical framework. Tulku's way, however eloquent and pithy, are self-refuting and incoherent.

Balder writes:
This is not the place to go into it (unless someone asks), but I believe Tulku presents a coherent and very elegant argument for the inseparability of these three dimensions of existence, not as dry abstractions but as living faces of being – as the dynamism of Spirit and all life and being that flow from it.I'm asking I'm asking. So far, it's a bucketload of question-begging nonsense. Since knowledge seems to be the primary thrust of his thesis, will you begin with Tulku's view of logic? Are the laws of logic universal, or are they merely societal conventions?

Balder writes:
If you all are interested in this, I will “play along” and give Hilston a chance to demonstrate presuppositionalism in action. But if I do that, I will ask of Hilston the courtesy of answering any counter questions about his presuppositions ...That's exactly what I expect in a rational exchange of ideas. Start asking.

Balder writes:
... and of providing answers other than the very general, unsubstantiated charges and dismissals that he has been issuing so far.Balder, perhaps you're not reading what I've written. I've substantiated my claims. You may not agree, but you won't be able to coherently wiggle free from confronting the substance of my claims, and I intend to drive that home for you. It's up to you to show the errors in my argument. Stop talking about them being unsubstantiated and demonstrate what you're talking about.

[Chileice]

I've been on the road all day and so wasn't ablle to get back to this. Looks like everyone else has time concerns too, so if we are patient, this could be interesting. I will enjoy watching Balder and Hilston's comments with Clete and I at the sidebar.

Originally posted by Hilston


That's the point: Incongruities are indeed part of their package. If they want to admit that publicly, let's put it in big bold letters so everyone can see it. And then they don't have to bother showing up for the debate. They lose from the outset. One might claim that logical incongruities are not sufficient grounds to dismiss a view, but they use must logic to even make the statement. They must use logic to comprehend the question. They must use logic to even show up and to get from point A to point B. Logical incongruities are not acceptable, which is attested in every aspect of life. Logical incongruities get people killed, and send people to hell. The logically incongruent worldview loses.
Although I agree with what you say in this passage, your next to the last statement is again a jump to hyper-space. There have been thousands, even millions of Christians who didn't know the first thing about logic but who were saved. Millions have come to simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and been saved whether they ever did another "logical" thing in their lives or not.

Originally posted by Hilston
Absolutely. And I have a defensible worldview by which to judge. They don't. If my view happens to be correct, then in actuality, there is no other worldview on which to judge anything, which happens to be my claim. If you think you can disprove it, I invite you to bring it on.
Here is where Clete may be seeing the circular logic of presuppositionalism. If you presuppose your view to be right, it will exclude all other views and since all other views are excluded, your view is right so your view is the only right one.


Originally posted by Hilston
If you want to make an argument from antiquity, you still lose. God preceded the Greeks, even Anaximander (!). Whatever truths Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or Anaxogoras happened to attain were all based on and borrowed from the Biblical worldview. The Pythagorean theorem is not true because the Greeks invented logic, but because Pythagoras successfully, albeit unwittingly, recognized the nature and character of God reflected in the natural order and applied those principles to his geometry and mathematics.

This is a type of isogetical analysis that the communists used for generations. They took the current situation and reinterpretted the current event s they saw in terms of their dialectic. How can you, in good consciounce say early Greek thinkers borrowed from the Jews? Can you show me one demonstrable evidence that they actually borrowed from early Judaism to begin teaching logic? I love the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, but some intellectual integrity is needed if others are going to accept our efforts to evangelize as genuine.

Originally posted by Hilston
This is called an ad populum fallacy. There was a time when most people thought the earth was the center of the universe, too. The popular vote doesn't make a claim true.

Much to their demise, I'm afraid. Most people will end up in hell. That's why the road to destruction is wide and congested. The road to life is narrow and not well-traveled.

I am fully aware that this ad populum fallacy is a constant threat to every religion and society. The majority is USUALLY wrong, I would say. But, again, most people won't end up in hell because they aren't logical, but rather because they are faithless. There are many rational people who are logical but will not put their faith in Christ.


Originally posted by Hilston
I can see why you would find comfort in that conjecture. Like those to whom you appeal above, you're obviously quite comfortable living with ambiguity and incongruity. You salve any pangs of uncertainty with such baseless statements as the one you just made, thinking that it explains away your accountability before a logical and righteousness and judgmental God who can destroy your body and soul in hell. It is sin to be willfully anti-logical, Chileice, and you will die in it if you do not repent.

YOU have made a pretty big supposition here. You suppose I agree with them. In general, I don't. I do think that logical cosequence is of great importance for my own comfort if for nothing else. I'm uncomfortable with ambiguity. But I will say that I have learned that it exists... even in the Bible and yet, by faith, I trust that the lack of logical sequence in my own mind is the fault of the reasoner rather than with the Creator.

I will be very interested to see both of your proofs... yours for Christianity (or your version of it) and Balder for Buddhism (or his version of it). It might be of some interest to hear which flavors of said religions you subscribe to.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Balder

Like fractals, a few set parameters can generate a profusion of new patterns, new connections, new structures – but the nature and scope of what develops from them will be limited by those parameters.

This is an interesting analogy. However, none of us are truly given the opportunity to write our own equations. By the time we are old enough to know it, we have some givens that must be dealt with. And for most of us, those givens have been woven together in such a form that life is pretty liveable unless something really rocks our world. Living with someone else's equation, no matter how interesting the result, is a scary process.

But I think we have to look beyond the equations, the givens and presuppositions unto the final product. Is what we see in the end what we really want? If I do not want anhililation or do not want to be assumed into so eternal nothingness, will I really take the chance? I don't think so.

In some ways Hebrews 13.7 is very instructive:
Hebrews 13
7 Remember your leaders who have spoken God's word to you. As you carefully observe the outcome of their lives, imitate their faith.

I think we look to the outcome of the way of life lived by people of faith. I know I have. Many don't, I realize, but when I look to the end of a godly Christian compared to others I have known, it only reinforces my desire to get to the end of life that same way.

So I don't WANT to reinvinte all the wheels. I am not attracted to all the other possible fractals in the world. The designs I see at the end of the eqation I chose as a teen are still what I want as an old man.

[billwald]

1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.

All the Presups I know are also OPCs and/or Reconstructionalists. see www.frebooks.com



2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

The presups are Young Earth Creationism plus VanTil/Rushdoony/North/Bahnsen theology.

Only true, real . . . Christians - people who agree with them - can know the truth. Nothing is TRUE unless confirmed by them.

For example, Einstein's theories or quantum mechanics may be true but can't be TRUE unless confirmed by an OPC/Theonomist "scientist."

[billwald]

www.freebooks.com

[Hilston]

Chiliece writes:
Although I agree with what you say in this passage, your next to the last statement is again a jump to hyper-space.Which one? "Logical incongruities are not acceptable, which is attested in every aspect of life"? Don't just assert, Chiliece. Prove your claims. Give me an example of an acceptable incongruity in life.

Chiliece writes:
There have been thousands, even millions of Christians who didn't know the first thing about logic but who were saved.You're wrong. If one has faith in Christ, they know quite a bit about logic. To know the Logos is to know logic.

Chiliece writes:
Millions have come to simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and been saved whether they ever did another "logical" thing in their lives or not.Where are you getting this stuff? Everyone lives according to logic. Line up 1,000 people. How many of those people question whether or not their sofa will hold them up every time they go to sit in it? Very few if any. That is logic in action. They've made a logical inference based on past experience and the uniformity of nature. We all do this, even Buddhists. The question is not whether or not we can be logical, but how do we account for its existence and justify our reliance upon it.

Hilston wrote:
Absolutely. And I have a defensible worldview by which to judge. They don't. If my view happens to be correct, then in actuality, there is no other worldview on which to judge anything, which happens to be my claim. If you think you can disprove it, I invite you to bring it on.

Chiliece writes:
Here is where Clete may be seeing the circular logic of presuppositionalism. If you presuppose your view to be right, it will exclude all other views and since all other views are excluded, your view is right so your view is the only right one.Do you believe the Bible, Chiliece? If so, do you agree with the Bible that says all who dismiss God's word are fools? If so, then what is your point? I've debated many other views and attacked their presuppositions. They've countered by attacking mine. I can show that their presuppositions are incoherent based on their own premises, via their own espoused tenets. But they could not do that to mine. I've had atheists and Buddhists admit to me that they could not argue against my presuppositions and they had to admit to their own arbitrariness where their presuppositions were concerned.

I invited you to bring it on. Are you going to bring it on so we can get it on? Or are we going to just talk about getting it on? Because it ain't "on" now and "on" is where I want to get it.

Chiliece writes:
This is a type of isogetical analysis that the communists used for generations. They took the current situation and reinterpretted the current event s they saw in terms of their dialectic.It doesn't do you or this discussion any good to diabolize me with references to marxist revisionism. Either put up or shut up. Prove me wrong.

Chiliece writes:
How can you, in good consciounce say early Greek thinkers borrowed from the Jews?You're not reading what I wrote. I never said such a thing. The early Greek thinkers borrowed from God. When Cain lit a fire, he used the principles of logic he borrowed from the biblical worldview believed by righteous Abel to do so. This is what the Bible teaches. The enemies and haters of God knew Him. They understood the created order and the principles that governed it. But they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. And even those who do not have God's law do, by nature, the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts all the while accusing or else excusing one another. This is what you're doing, Chiliece, but kicking against the Scripture. You are excusing the gainsayer.

Chiliece writes:
Can you show me one demonstrable evidence that they actually borrowed from early Judaism to begin teaching logic?Sure. Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God." There is enough logic in those four words to keep the Greek mind busy for kalpas.

Chiliece writes:
I love the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, but some intellectual integrity is needed if others are going to accept our efforts to evangelize as genuine.First of all, I don't give a flying Fallujah what others think about my efforts to evangelize. That's between me and God. Second, where is the lack of intellectual integrity to say that God's Word is supreme and no other worldview can compete with it?

Chiliece writes:
But, again, most people won't end up in hell because they aren't logical, but rather because they are faithless.That's incorrect. And you have it exactly backward. People who are faithless are illogical. Hell will be filled with illogical people. Every person in hell is illogical because they were faithless.

Chiliece writes:
There are many rational people who are logical but will not put their faith in Christ.That's incorrect. Give a biblical apologist five minutes alone with anyone who rejects Christ and the gainsayer's irrationality will be fully exposed.

Chiliece writes:
YOU have made a pretty big supposition here. You suppose I agree with them. In general, I don't. I do think that logical cosequence is of great importance for my own comfort if for nothing else. I'm uncomfortable with ambiguity.Then there's hope for you.

Chiliece writes:
But I will say that I have learned that it exists... even in the Bible and yet, by faith, I trust that the lack of logical sequence in my own mind is the fault of the reasoner rather than with the Creator.You just contradicted yourself. Either you believe there is ambiguity in the Bible or you believe your own reasoning is faulty and not the Creator. Which is it? I hope it's the latter.

Chiliece writes:
I will be very interested to see both of your proofs... yours for Christianity (or your version of it) and Balder for Buddhism (or his version of it). It might be of some interest to hear which flavors of said religions you subscribe to.I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

[Hilston]

Billwald,

I'm a presuppositionalist. But I'm not OPC. I'm not a Theonomist. I'm not a Reconstructionist. I'm an Acts 9 dispensationalist.

So your gross generalization doesn't apply. And if you thought your blanket assumptions would give you grounds to dismiss presuppositionalism and excuse you from having to confront its claims upon your reason, you were wrong.

[Redfin]

While everyone's pausing here, a question:

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

Thanks!

[Chileice]

Hilston,
Part of your problem in being an apologist is that you come across as crass, cocky and arrogant. One can be right without shutting others down before they have a chance to be heard.

Hilston said:
I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

That is NOT a PROOF. People make sense of their lives without the Bible every day. This proof makes sense to you because you believe it. But if you were dealing with a true unbeliever, you saying it was true would be no more proof than him saying it wasn't.

The challenge to you would be to prove by process of elimination that it was true. You would literally have to take on every world system, prove them wrong and then say... see, I told you.

I also agree that it is the best system to explain the world as it is. But to say that makes it a proof steps totally outside the rules of logic which you are so swift to defend.

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
My point in asking these questions is this: If there is a biblical way to evangelize in contrast to unbiblical ways to evangelize, perhaps there is a biblical way of defending the faith in contrast to unbiblical way that can be similarly considered.
Well yes, of course we should not do evil that good may result but that is a far cry from suggesting that there is only one single way to do evangelism. No one is suggesting that any and all conceivable means of preaching the Gospel are appropriate but you are suggesting that there one way and one way only. I believe that while the examples you gave are on one far side of the spectrum, you have gone too far to the other.

I agree with you completely, at least your wording. But I need to know what you mean. Can you give an example or two?
Responding to Euthyphro's dilemma with logic is one excellent example. While I agree that when Bob Enyart was confronted with Plato's logic puzzle that he could have chosen to attack it exclusively from a presuppositional point of view and that it would perhaps have been a stronger argument than the one he used, but, again, that is not to say that the argument he used was therefore invalid or ineffective and it certainly wasn't Biblically prohibited.
Bob answered the dilemma from the same grounds upon which it was presented. Zakath was arguing from a decidedly extra-biblical position and Bob answered him from the same extra-Biblical ground upon which the argument stood. In other words Euthyphro's dilemma doesn't present a problem for the Christian either way. Whether one comes at it with Platonic world-view or a Biblical world-view the argument Zakath made does no damage to the Christian position. It isn't necessary in order to defeat this argument to dismantle the Platonic world-view at its foundation. You might find it preferable but I do not see how you could say it was demanded by Scripture.

It changes from person to person. Some people presuppose the uniformity of nature and base their whole worldview on that. Others presuppose the verity of logic and base their whole worldview on that. Most people have presuppositions that they're not even aware of and have never had them challenged.
Yes, I know that unbelievers have all sorts of presuppositions, most of which they are completely unaware of, that's not what I am asking about. What I'm asking is what is it that we Christians are supposed to presuppose, or in other words, which presuppositions are the correct ones to hold and why is it logically absurd to question them?

Objective and neutral are not the same. There is objective truth. The question is not whether or not something is objective, but whether or not the grounds for claiming objectivity can be justified.
Very well then, by what means are they justified?

Let me give you one and let's see how circular it is: A Christian presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. What presupposition would you say that is based upon?
That God exists for one.
That God can communicate meaningfully to us for another.
That God did in fact write or at least inspire the writing of the Bible.
These three things at least would need to be established before the inerrancy fo the Bible could be presupposed, there are perhaps more.

And I wish to address one thing that you said that seems to be at the crux of things so far in the discussion.
You said...
I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.
While I do not disagree that you are correct in what you said, I think that the point everyone is trying to get you to see is that without having done the work to establish this all you are really saying amounts to "I'm right and your wrong and you can't prove otherwise." Surely you can see that this just will not do! You've jumped to the conclusion without telling the story. You've told the 'what' without saying anything about the 'why'.
In order for you to establish this it would be necessary to walk through at least part of this one logical step at a time and clearly show how the opposing world-view is logically incoherent. Just declaring that it is incoherent isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
This in effect was what Zakath was attempting to do to the Christian world-view when he brought up Euthyphro's dilemma. Had Bob not been able to rebut the argument Zakath's point would have had a lot more impact than it did because it would have displayed a major problem with a primary presupposition of Christianity, that being the goodness of God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This is all I have time for right now. More to come later!

[Hilston]

Chiliece writes:
Hilston,
Part of your problem in being an apologist is that you come across as crass, cocky and arrogant. One can be right without shutting others down before they have a chance to be heard.If crassness, cockiness and arrogance is all it takes to shut someone down, then maybe they don't have much to offer the discussion. Besides, it's merely perceived arrogance from where you're sitting. Anyone can argue presuppositionally, and you don't have to be a genius to do it. So there's nothing to be arrogant about. The Word of God does not need us to defend it, but we're called to do so anyway.

Hilston said: I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

Chiliece writes:
That is NOT a PROOF. People make sense of their lives without the Bible every day.No they don't, especially when they're pressed to account for matters of a foundational and ultiimate nature. Most people float along in willful ignorance, keeping themselves a safe distance from such confrontations. That's what the Bible says. Most people don't go around thinking about where the laws of logic came from. Rarely is anyone pressed on that issue in their mundane experience. But just because they're not forced to consider these matters, doesn't mean they can blithely claim to make sense of their lives.

Chiliece writes:
This proof makes sense to you because you believe it.Not true. It makes sense to those who don't believe it as well.

Chiliece writes:
But if you were dealing with a true unbeliever, you saying it was true would be no more proof than him saying it wasn't.Then prove it wrong, Chiliece. Stop talking about its inadequacy as a proof and disprove it.

Chiliece writes:
The challenge to you would be to prove by process of elimination that it was true. You would literally have to take on every world system, prove them wrong and then say... see, I told you.It's the Bible's claim. Not mine. Since God wrote the Bible, I take His word on it. And guess what? God has been right every time so far. Every worldview I've come up against hasn't been able to hold a candle to the scriptures. I have it on good authority (i.e., God's) that every world system has been proved wrong.

Chiliece writes:
I also agree that it is the best system to explain the world as it is. But to say that makes it a proof steps totally outside the rules of logic which you are so swift to defend.Show me where the laws of logic have been bent or abused.

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote:
My point in asking these questions is this: If there is a biblical way to evangelize in contrast to unbiblical ways to evangelize, perhaps there is a biblical way of defending the faith in contrast to unbiblical way that can be similarly considered.

Clete writes:
Well yes, of course we should not do evil that good may result but that is a far cry from suggesting that there is only one single way to do evangelism.I don't think I'm being very clear. You would agree that there is such a thing as biblical evangelism, which would be ascertained according to the content and method employed by the evangelist, correct? That's all I'm saying about the biblical apologetic. The content and the method must be biblical.

Clete writes:
No one is suggesting that any and all conceivable means of preaching the Gospel are appropriate but you are suggesting that there one way and one way only.Yes, and that is what I call "biblical evangelism." There are many modes of evangelism that are legitimate but not found in scripture, but the content and method must be biblical. Do you agree?

Clete writes:
I believe that while the examples you gave are on one far side of the spectrum, you have gone too far to the other.It may be that I haven't been clear. I'm hoping to remedy that.

Hilston wrote:
I agree with you completely, at least your wording. But I need to know what you mean. Can you give an example or two?

Clete writes:
Responding to Euthyphro's dilemma with logic is one excellent example. While I agree that when Bob Enyart was confronted with Plato's logic puzzle that he could have chosen to attack it exclusively from a presuppositional point of view and that it would perhaps have been a stronger argument than the one he used, but, again, that is not to say that the argument he used was therefore invalid or ineffective and it certainly wasn't Biblically prohibited.It is prohibited because it is illogical.

Clete writes:
Bob answered the dilemma from the same grounds upon which it was presented. Zakath was arguing from a decidedly extra-biblical position and Bob answered him from the same extra-Biblical ground upon which the argument stood.No, he didn't. That would have required Bob to take Zakath's extra-biblical assumptions about logic, and show how they do not comport with his own view of reality.

Clete writes:
In other words Euthyphro's dilemma doesn't present a problem for the Christian either way.It does if one argues in Enyartian fashion.

Clete writes:
Whether one comes at it with Platonic world-view or a Biblical world-view the argument Zakath made does no damage to the Christian position.Bob's position wasn't the Christian position. The reason Zakath's argument is impotent is because Zakath cannot provide sufficient grounds in which to even ask the question. He can't get out of the starting blocks because he has a self-refuting worldview. To grant Zakath any footing whatsoever is to feed him a untruth. To continue arguing as if Zakath has any footing is to perpetuate that untruth. Zakath becomes wiser in his own conceit, fulfilling Prov 26:5

Clete writes:
It isn't necessary in order to defeat this argument to dismantle the Platonic world-view at its foundation. You might find it preferable but I do not see how you could say it was demanded by Scripture.I don't see it as a preference issue. I see it as the difference between arguing truthfully/honorably and arguing untruthfully/disingenuously.

Hilston wrote:
It changes from person to person. Some people presuppose the uniformity of nature and base their whole worldview on that. Others presuppose the verity of logic and base their whole worldview on that. Most people have presuppositions that they're not even aware of and have never had them challenged.

Clete writes:
Yes, I know that unbelievers have all sorts of presuppositions, most of which they are completely unaware of, that's not what I am asking about. What I'm asking is what is it that we Christians are supposed to presuppose, or in other words, which presuppositions are the correct ones to hold and why is it logically absurd to question them?See below.

Hilston wrote:
Objective and neutral are not the same. There is objective truth. The question is not whether or not something is objective, but whether or not the grounds for claiming objectivity can be justified.

Clete writes:
Very well then, by what means are they justified?Objective truth is justified by means of God's Word.

Hilston wrote:
Let me give you one and let's see how circular it is: A Christian presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. What presupposition would you say that is based upon?

Clete writes:
That God exists for one.
That God can communicate meaningfully to us for another.
That God did in fact write or at least inspire the writing of the Bible.
These three things at least would need to be established before the inerrancy fo the Bible could be presupposed, there are perhaps more.I agree with you, Clete. Those are well thought out and I would say these answer your question above (re: which presuppositions Christian should hold). Do you view this as circular?

Clete writes:
And I wish to address one thing that you said that seems to be at the crux of things so far in the discussion.
You said...

Hilston wrote:
I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it.

While I do not disagree that you are correct in what you said, I think that the point everyone is trying to get you to see is that without having done the work to establish this all you are really saying amounts to "I'm right and your wrong and you can't prove otherwise."No, I'm saying the Bible is right, exclusively, and everyone else is wrong, and anything that anyone happens to be right about (2+2=4, for example) is the result of borrowing from the Biblical worldview. Further, I am not only saying that no one can prove otherwise, but that all other worldviews are summarily dismantled by the biblical worldview, without exception, based on the claims of the bible and actual experience.

Clete writes:
Surely you can see that this just will not do! You've jumped to the conclusion without telling the story. You've told the 'what' without saying anything about the 'why'."Why" about what? "Why does God exist?" It's an absurd question. The answer is "I don't know and it doesn't matter that I don't know. He exists, and now we must deal with it." Or "Why can't any other worldview compete with the Biblical worldview?" The answer is because God created reality, and no other claims upon reality can compete with that which has been revealed by its Creator. Or "why is the Biblical worldview superior and true to the exclusion of all others?" The answer is because God is the Creator, and His creation reflects His nature, character and attributes. This alone accounts for the foundational necessities of logic, consciousness, morality, human dignity, etc. All other attempts by Godless worldviews to do so are shown to be fraught with question-begging and logical fallacies.

Clete writes:
In order for you to establish this it would be necessary to walk through at least part of this one logical step at a time and clearly show how the opposing world-view is logically incoherent. Just declaring that it is incoherent isn't going to convince anyone of anything.Of course. That is I will happily do if someone, anyone, would offer an opposing worldview. I'm still waiting for something from Balder to sink my teeth into.

Clete writes:
This in effect was what Zakath was attempting to do to the Christian world-view when he brought up Euthyphro's dilemma. Had Bob not been able to rebut the argument Zakath's point would have had a lot more impact than it did because it would have displayed a major problem with a primary presupposition of Christianity, that being the goodness of God.(a) Bob did not rebut the argument. He merely deflected it using a specious argument.

(b) Zakath's point would have had a lot more impact if he had stuck to his guns. He caved too easily. Since Bob had already surrendered the use of logic to Zakath (itself an unbiblical thing to do), Zakath was fully equipped to nail Bob with it, but either chose not to, or didn't know how.

[Balder]

Hi, amigos,

I don't have time for more than a short note tonight. There's a lot to catch up on! I'll just answer one of Hilston's questions for now.

Not at all. Give it your best shot. What kind of Buddhist are you? Mahayana? Theravada? Or the cop-out Madhyamika? Give me your take on the succession of kalpas. Do you believe we're presently in the second kalpa, moving inexorably to the complete dissolution of the world system in the fourth kalpa of the ethereal, radiant world of Brahma? Do you hold to the concept of panna and the doctrine of anatta? Each of these concepts require that things become their opposites. Non-life becomes life. Unconsciousness matter becomes conscious. Self becomes non-self. Lawless chaos become orderly laws.

You have used a number of Buddhist terms, but the way you've used them and the claims you've made about them make me think that you do not understand them very clearly.

To classify myself, I would say the best descriptor is Western Buddhist -- meaning those Buddhists in the West who have been able to study from multiple traditions. I have studied with Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana teachers, but if I were to choose one traditional Buddhist school with which I am most strongly associated in terms of both practice and belief, it would be Vajrayana.

I'm curious why you think Madhyamika is a cop-out, and also why you think Buddhism teaches that life comes from non-life, or consciousness comes from unconscious matter. Buddhism criticizes materialism (both ancient Indian materialism and modern Western materialism) for precisely these reasons: such claims are incoherent, or at the very least, logically suspect.

Peace,
Balder

[Redfin]

Originally posted by Redfin

While everyone's pausing here, a question:

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

Thanks!

Was the question too "ignorant" to merit a reply?

A nutshell answer would be sufficient.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Redfin

While everyone's pausing here, a question:

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

Thanks!

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

[Clete]

Redfin,

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

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

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Hilston]

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

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

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

That's correct.

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

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

[Hilston]

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

Balder writes:
... if I were to choose one traditional Buddhist school with which I am most strongly associated in terms of both practice and belief, it would be Vajrayana.I'm not familiar with that at all. Will you throw me a bone, or do I have to go do my own digging?

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

Balder writes:
or consciousness comes from unconscious matter. ...Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Balder writes:
Buddhism criticizes materialism (both ancient Indian materialism and modern Western materialism) for precisely these reasons: such claims are incoherent, or at the very least, logically suspect.Then let's look at abstract entities. You used the phrase "logically suspect." By that, I assume that contradictions and logical fallacies are disallowed in your view. Why?

[Clete]

Jim,

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

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
I'm not saying that arguments for the existance of God are not at all circular, I'm just saying that I didn't know that they were and I do not understand how they are.Then give me one that you think is not circular and we can look at it.

Clete writes:
Perhaps you could give an example of how even the best arguments for the excistence of God are circular.Wait a second. Earlier you were criticizing me for circularity. Now you want me to demonstrate circularity? I don't get it. If you want to understand presuppositional argumentation, studying circularity isn't going get you there. It's like saying, "I want to learn about the differences between Aldous Huxley and Rush Limbaugh, so tell me about English grammar."

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

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

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

Wait a second. Earlier you were criticizing me for circularity. Now you want me to demonstrate circularity? I don't get it.
I accused you a being viciously circular, which I am assuming is dramatically different than the sort of circularity that you are saying is unavoidable and acceptable. I do not understand what the difference between the two is; I'm asking you to show me.

Furthermore, my view is that there is only one best argument for God's existence, which is the one used in scripture. There are many modes of apologetic, but only one biblical and best method and content to that argument. All the so-called great apologists, Wm. Lane Craig, R.C. Sproul, N. Geisler, Wm. Dembski, Philip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Josh McDowell, et al, use unbiblical arguments. And in their debates, they get slaughtered. Christians leave those debates thinking their guy won, but it's only because they've been duped by faulty, specious and unbiblical concepts that surrender the argument to the so-called atheists before they even leave the starting line. The so-called atheist crowd leaves the debate feeling validated and thinking their guy won the debate. And they're often right.
What precisely is that argument then? It seems to me that it amounts to "God exists because the Bible says He does."
If so, why is the Bible true? "Because God wrote/inspired it."
How do you know that God inspired it? "Because the Bible says He did."
I'm sorry Jim but if this is about how it would go, you just don't get any more viciously circular than that! This cannot be a valid argument.

How am I wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Balder]

Hilston,

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

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

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

Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Sentience doesn't come from anywhere. Sentience is.

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

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

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

Peace,
Balder

[Hilston]

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

Hilston asked: Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Balder writes:
Sentience doesn't come from anywhere. Sentience is.The word "is" is a transitive verb. It takes a direct object in order to make sense. As it stands, the sentence makes no sense. Sentience is what? Sentience is "in existence"? Sentience is "eternal"? Is there past sentience? Is there future sentience? Can the Buddhist of the Vajrayana school say "sentience was" or "sentience will be"?

Balder writes:
Just in closing, I will offer my understanding of presuppositionalism so far: It is basically the belief that the Bible is the only true source of knowledge, and in fact the only true source of logic.No. I know all kinds of things that are not found in the Bible. And I did not learn logic from the Bible. My logical faculties were firmly in place before I ever opened the Book.

Balder writes:
As such, anyone arguing from it can (and should) attack the logical foundations of every other worldview, which necessarily cannot be correct.No. Rather, all other worldviews have no logical foundation. They only pretend to, and do so by borrowing from the biblical worldview. Ultimately, all other worldviews float in the void.

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

Balder writes:
"Proof" of the Biblical worldview demands only reporting whatever the Bible says, and saying, "Like it or not, take it or leave it."Not at all. I have shown you the proof (if you've read the above posts). I haven't said anything remotely close to "take it or leave it."

Balder writes:
In other words, it is basically a philosophical justification of the famous bumper sticker: "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."The maxim holds for the individual believer. Amongst believers, we debate what the Bible says in order to ascertain or defend what we believe. However, between worldviews, such an argument is neither cogent nor adequate. It's not even an argument. If you want to ask me why I believe what I believe, that's a different question than asking me to prove the verity what I believe.

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
You aren't understanding me. I don't think any of them aren't circular, if you'll forgive the double negative. I believe you when you say that they are, I just don't know what the reasoning process is that makes that conclusion unavoidable or why such circularity is acceptable.If circularity is not acceptable, then all is nonsense, logic is nothing but a societal convention, there are no laws, there is no intelligibility, all is illusion. If you're going to be a rational person, use logic, and speak coherently, you must allow circularity in your epistemology.

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

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

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

Clete writes:
What precisely is that argument then? It seems to me that it amounts to "God exists because the Bible says He does."No, that's not it. I gave the argument above. The biblical worldview (which includes God's existence and the verity of the Bible) accounts for all aspects of human existence and provides sufficient grounding for all intelligibility. No other worldview can do that. That is the proof. And it just so happens that this is what the Bible teaches.

Clete writes:
If so, why is the Bible true? "Because God wrote/inspired it."That's not the argument for the verity of scripture. See above.

Clete writes:
How do you know that God inspired it? "Because the Bible says He did."Do you realize that this is a separate issue altogether? How I know and how I prove the inspiration of the Bible are completely different questions.

Clete writes:
I'm sorry Jim but if this is about how it would go, you just don't get any more viciously circular than that! This cannot be a valid argument.You're right and the way you've laid it out is not a valid argument at all. I hope you now see the difference between your scenario and the biblical apologetic.

[Chileice]

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

[Clete]

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

Logic is trustworthy because God's logical nature and attributes are reflected in the created order.
On what basis do you make the claim that God's nature is logical?

[Hilston]

Chileice writes:
Wow, Hilston, I am a very intelligent man but you are talking in circles.Did you intelligently read that article you linked to above? It happens to be a good one.

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

Chileice writes:
As you have stated it, you do not have a valid argument.Show me where it is invalid.

Chileice writes:
How can the way one knows and the way one proves something be that radically different unless all of your knowledge is just pure intuition?I'm not talking about all of my knowledge. I'm talking about how I know versus how I prove the inspiration of the Bible. I get the feeling that you're not even trying, Chileice.

Clete writes:
I can see that I will have to take this one step at a time. I don't understand your resistance to fleshing out the arguments for your own position.Do you not understand that a presuppositional argument defends and attacks presuppositions? If you don't give me one to attack, you're going to be disappointed. By the way, I've used this on you many, many times.

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

Clete writes:
On what basis do you make the claim that God's nature is logical?I claim it based on the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience.

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

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

[Clete]

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

I claim it based on the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience.
How do you know that the contrary is impossible?
How do you know that all other worldviews are unable to account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience?"

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

Do you realize that this kind of a question isn't going to get you anywhere, Clete?
No I don't! Why do you ask such questions? Why don't you explain what you're getting at instead of making me ask for the explanation? It's so frustrating and somewhat insulting. Please stop playing games. Surely it is clear enough what it is that I'm after here isn't it?

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