All arguments have presupposed truth or truths. It is when these presupposed truth or truths are different, including logic to be used, different conclusions are drawn.
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Presuppositional apologetics
Collapse
X
-
. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
-
No problem with the mistakes 37818, I'd be a hypocrite if I expected perfection of people.
All arguments have presupposed truth or truths. It is when these presupposed truth or truths are different, including logic to be used, different conclusions are drawn.
And people can reach different different positions simple on the basis of one person having more information than the others. Very, very few beliefs, even granting a foundationalistic, or presuppositionalistic (even the Van Tillian-Calvinistic-Reformed-Theology-Is-A-Presupposition kind of presuppositional) view of the world, are presuppositional (or foundational if you prefer the term).
Most of our beliefs consists of mundane observations. And since two people can have a different exposure to the facts, they can both reach different conclusions for entirely the right reasons.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostNo problem with the mistakes 37818, I'd be a hypocrite if I expected perfection of people.
You and I still disagree about the existence of presuppositions that's can be demonstrated, I know this is your position, there's no reason to repeat it.
And people can reach different different positions simple on the basis of one person having more information than the others. Very, very few beliefs, even granting a foundationalistic, or presuppositionalistic (even the Van Tillian-Calvinistic-Reformed-Theology-Is-A-Presupposition kind of presuppositional) view of the world, are presuppositional (or foundational if you prefer the term).
Most of our beliefs consists of mundane observations. And since two people can have a different exposure to the facts, they can both reach different conclusions for entirely the right reasons.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostHow would you define a presupposition?
A premise is the fundemental unit of any deductive piece of logic, its a statement that's taken to be true and from which other truthes are deduced. A premise can either be a presupposition, derived from a presupposition, or can be based on other things such as natural observations or divine inspiration.
So while all presuppositions are premises, not all premises are presuppositions.
That I'm sitting in a bed, is a belief I have, its based on my current experience. Since I know (again from experience) that beds are soft, and that I'm comfy, and that sitting in soft things often gives a comfy feeling, I can deduce that the bed is a cause of that sensation. However since you can't claim to know that I'm sitting in a bed, and its not required for you to be able to reason, this chain of logic is not foundational, or presuppositional.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI would define a presupposition as an implicit assumption needed in order to be able to argue for anything, but which in turn cannot itself be justified by reference to anything else. Its a belief that is true, and without which reasoning becomes impossible.
A premise is the fundemental unit of any deductive piece of logic, its a statement that's taken to be true and from which other truthes are deduced. A premise can either be a presupposition, derived from a presupposition, or can be based on other things such as natural observations or divine inspiration.
So while all presuppositions are premises, not all premises are presuppositions.
That I'm sitting in a bed, is a belief I have, its based on my current experience. Since I know (again from experience) that beds are soft, and that I'm comfy, and that sitting in soft things often gives a comfy feeling, I can deduce that the bed is a cause of that sensation. However since you can't claim to know that I'm sitting in a bed, and its not required for you to be able to reason, this chain of logic is not foundational, or presuppositional.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Did you mean that logic itself is not a presupposition? That's a fairly vague statement, the application of logic is not a presupposition. Do you mean the axioms of something like formal logic? The law of negation, and the law of excluded middle?
Earlier in this conversation I already pointed out to you where those come from.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostDid you mean that logic itself is not a presupposition? That's a fairly vague statement, the application of logic is not a presupposition. Do you mean the axioms of something like formal logic? The law of negation, and the law of excluded middle?
Earlier in this conversation I already pointed out to you where those come from.
You argued that all premises are not necessarily presuppositions, did you not? From my point of view you just made premise/presupposition, that all premises are not necessarily presuppositions.
From my point of view all premises are presuppositions. They cannot not be.Last edited by 37818; 11-11-2014, 02:01 PM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostI hold that logic, the use of logic makes logic is presuppositional.
You argued that all premises are not necessarily presuppositions, did you not? From my point of view you just made premise/presupposition, that all premises are not necessarily presuppositions.
From my point of view all premises are presuppositions. They cannot not be.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI hold that logic, the use of logic makes logic is presuppositional.I hold that logic, the use of logic makes logic presuppositional.
How do you figure that? I explained my view, and then I gave some sketchy arguments for them. Those arguments are themselves not presuppositions, or if you take even arguments to be presuppositions, then you've stretched the word far beyond any kind of presuppositionalist philosophy I've ever heard about. I have a feeling you're slightly confused about the term.
What do you call the method of arguing which does this?
Why?. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostLogic, its mere use involves the presupposition of the logic to be valid.
What do you call a truth that is assumed to be true without first providing its proof?
What do you call the method of arguing which does this?
If presupposed truths are not presuppositions, then what are they?
Only a very small subset of premises could be presuppositions.
Here is a premise: There is a pencil on the table in front of me. This statement happens to be true (at the very least I'm very sure that it is). And you can derive other truthes from it, at the very least the trivial truth that the following sentence is false: "There isn't a pencil on the table in front of me." However the knowledge of this premise is based upon other things, such as my experience of there being a pencil on the table, which is based on me knowing what a pencil looks like and what a pencil is, which has an explanation in all the encountes I've had with pencils in my life.
However I don't use that premise in any other place. Unlike, for instance, the validity of logic, I don't need to invoke the premise-of-the-pencil in order to explain those things.
That is unlike the presuppositions (if they exists), which can't themselves be discovered to be true by natural means, can't be based on other truthes we already know, and can't be dispensed with without making the world unintelligible.
Comment
-
Leonhard,
Can you accept the concept some have accepted truths prior to accepting or rejecting another's ideas or arguments?. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
-
Would you agree or disagree that those making the arguments promoting a view do the same thing behind making the arguments promoting a view?Last edited by 37818; 11-29-2014, 07:42 PM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWould you agree or disagree that those making the arguments promoting a view do the same thing behind making the arguments promoting a view?
If you mean whether the very act of making arguments require premises, then yes, for instance the laws of logic.
It would be very weird to make the claim that you have a worldview without premises, that is, without actually claiming anything. I have definitely not defended that here. I've only defended that only a very small number of premises could possible be counted as presuppositional, and tried to explain to you that not all premises are presuppositional.
If you're making the mistake of thinking that presuppositional apologetics is about examining the premises of a worldview, and attacking those. Then I'm sorry, but you're not doing presuppositional apologetics as such. That's very much in line with classical evidentialistic apologetics.Last edited by Leonhard; 11-30-2014, 02:23 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
166 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
|
4 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 04:26 PM | ||
Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
|
10 responses
119 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by mikewhitney
03-13-2024, 06:38 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
|
14 responses
71 views
3 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 09:15 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
|
13 responses
59 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 07:26 AM
|
Comment