PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS

[steven84]

Presuppositional apologetics is relatively new in my vocabulary. I never really understood how it worked but after watching this clip I saw just how effective it could be.

I then got to thinking, why doesn't someone like William Lane Craig implement this style of apologetic?

Does anyone know of any mainstream apologist using this technique?
What are the "ins" and "outs" to this argument? Are there any weaknesses in it or does it really work as well as things seemed to turn out in the clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA-aZVu2v0s

[Zzyzx]

.
Apologetics is defined as: “the systematic defense and exposition of the Christian faith addressed primarily to non-Christians�. Adding the qualifier “presupposition� identifies a philosophical branch of Apologetics.

If I understand correctly, the “presupposition� is -- the “Christian worldview� (whatever that may mean) is superior to all other “presuppositions� and that “ALL human thought presupposes the existence of the god of the bible�.

Apologists who follow Van Til earned the label "presuppositional" because of their central tenet that the Christian must at all times presuppose the supernatural revelation of the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error in order to know anything. Christians, they say, can assume nothing less because all human thought presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible. [16] They claim that by accepting the assumptions of non-Christians, which fundamentally deny the Trinitarian God of the Bible, one could not even formulate an intelligible argument. Though Van Tillians do, at one point, "put themselves in the shoes" of the opponent, "for the sake of argument", to demonstrate where that position would lead, they claim that they can only do so because this is actually God's world, and man is actually God's creature, made in God's own image, and as such can never completely shut God out (in living or thinking) — hence there is always a common basis for dialog, even though it is, in the presuppositionalist's view, a basis which the opponent is not usually willing to acknowledge and which is decidedly biased rather than neutral.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Presuppositional_apologetics

If the above is representative, “presuppositional apologetics� is inappropriate as a basis for debate in this sub-forum – the Forum Rules and Guidelines for which specifically state that Christianity is NOT to be considered true and that the bible is NOT to be considered any more authoritative than any other book.

However, “presuppositional apologetics� may be appropriate in Theology, Doctrine and Dogma, Philosophy, or Holy Huddle sub-forums.

If my understanding of the term "presuppositional apologetics" is amiss, perhaps others might clarify.

[McCulloch]

Presuppositional apologetics

Can anyone explain why this is not an oxymoron?

[Flail]

.
Apologetics is defined as: “the systematic defense and exposition of the Christian faith addressed primarily to non-Christians�. Adding the qualifier “presupposition� identifies a philosophical branch of Apologetics.

If I understand correctly, the “presupposition� is -- the “Christian worldview� (whatever that may mean) is superior to all other “presuppositions� and that “ALL human thought presupposes the existence of the god of the bible�.

Apologists who follow Van Til earned the label "presuppositional" because of their central tenet that the Christian must at all times presuppose the supernatural revelation of the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error in order to know anything. Christians, they say, can assume nothing less because all human thought presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible. [16] They claim that by accepting the assumptions of non-Christians, which fundamentally deny the Trinitarian God of the Bible, one could not even formulate an intelligible argument. Though Van Tillians do, at one point, "put themselves in the shoes" of the opponent, "for the sake of argument", to demonstrate where that position would lead, they claim that they can only do so because this is actually God's world, and man is actually God's creature, made in God's own image, and as such can never completely shut God out (in living or thinking) — hence there is always a common basis for dialog, even though it is, in the presuppositionalist's view, a basis which the opponent is not usually willing to acknowledge and which is decidedly biased rather than neutral.

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Presuppositional_apologetics

If the above is representative, “presuppositional apologetics� is inappropriate as a basis for debate in this sub-forum – the Forum Rules and Guidelines for which specifically state that Christianity is NOT to be considered true and that the bible is NOT to be considered any more authoritative than any other book.

However, “presuppositional apologetics� may be appropriate in Theology, Doctrine and Dogma, Philosophy, or Holy Huddle sub-forums.

If my understanding of the term "presuppositional apologetics" is amiss, perhaps others might clarify.

Presuppositions are a necessary component of Christianity. It gets Christians past the problems of evidence without any critical analysis or questioning and right into the dogma and ritual practices. It obviously has no place in debate as you aptly explained.

Presumptions are used in law as 'rules of evidence' to satisfy burdens of going forward with the evidence and to shift that burden to the other side...but the burden of proof remains unchanged. In DUI cases for instance, it is presumed that one is intoxicated if the scientific tests demonstrate one's blood alcohol was over a certain percentage at the time of driving.(in Kansas it is .08) The defendant then has the burden of going forward with evidence to demonstrate that he was not impaired or that the scientific test or testing equipment etc was faulty. The presumption is 'justified' by the proven accuracy and reliability of the scientific testing as to alcohol intoxication and it's affect on reaction times and coordination. Presuppositional Christianity (all of Christianity), in comparison is not based upon anything verifiably reliable or accurate but on concocted dogma alone. It makes no sense to shift the burden of going forward with evidence when there is not one iota of reliable evidence in the first instance. A rational presumption cannot based upon dogma alone.

[EduChris]

...Presuppositions are a necessary component of...

...every aspect of disciplined human endeavor and structured human thought.

[Flail]

...Presuppositions are a necessary component of...

...every aspect of disciplined human endeavor and structured human thought.

The presupposition of the existence of ...('BibleGod') is a necessary component of all Christianity. The absence of credible evidence requires presupposition.

[Zzyzx]

.

...Presuppositions are a necessary component of...

...every aspect of disciplined human endeavor and structured human thought.

Let's see if that holds true. The Earth that I inhabit exists. I have no need to "prove" to myself or others that it does. As I experience a rock falling and fire being painful if handled, I learn about the Earth. From there I go on to other experiences of the environment to learn. I also learn from the experiences of others (and don't shoot myself in the head to determine if doing so can be fatal).

What "presuppositions" are required?

Although EduChris may be unwilling or unable to respond, perhaps other sophistic, "presuppositional Apolegetic" believers may try to explain.

[McCulloch]

Presuppositions are a necessary component of...

...every aspect of disciplined human endeavor and structured human thought.

Yet, it is a useful philosophical and scientific exercise to layer by layer remove as many suppositions as possible to seek the deeper truth.

[bjs]

Yet, it is a useful philosophical and scientific exercise to layer by layer remove as many suppositions as possible to seek the deeper truth.

Can I tweak that statement a little? Could we instead say that it is useful to examine as many suppositions as possible to seek the deeper truth?

I don’t think that we can remove our suppositions, at least not without instantly replacing them with a new set of suppositions. I am all for examining our suppositions, and examining possible alternate suppositions. But I don’t think we can function in any practical way without some suppositions. Even the act of examining or attempting to remove our suppositions requires its own set of suppositions.

[Flail]

Yet, it is a useful philosophical and scientific exercise to layer by layer remove as many suppositions as possible to seek the deeper truth.

Can I tweak that statement a little? Could we instead say that it is useful to examine as many suppositions as possible to seek the deeper truth?

I don’t think that we can remove our suppositions, at least not without instantly replacing them with a new set of suppositions. I am all for examining our suppositions, and examining possible alternate suppositions. But I don’t think we can function in any practical way without some suppositions. Even the act of examining or attempting to remove our suppositions requires its own set of suppositions.

Presuppositions are acceptable and even necessary, but when we call them 'truths' and parade them around as if from 'Gods' they become divisive and potentially dangerous for everyone. IMO, we waste too much time presupposing 'BibleGod' with rituals, dogma and worship; time we could spend assisting 'each other'. Isn't it dishonest and immoral to couch presuppositions about BibleGod and KoranGod as truths? Guessing at 'Gods' has evolved into a dangerous world affair.