Antitheism Presupposes Theism

THIS is a very interesting post from JAMES ANDERSON which appears to be an elaboration from THIS PAPER, which was recently released for public viewing.  Those interested in the Transcendental Argument for God's existence and possibly even the Ontological Argument will likely find this post as helpful as I did.

Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Justin Schieber on Yahweh or Myweh

Recently, Sye appeared on Justin's podcast to discuss presuppositional apologetics.  It appeared that this particular episode was arranged in order to discuss Justin's lecture on presuppositional apologetics.  However, while some of this was discussed, the two spent more time debating the issues in general.

I must say that this is one of the best encounters i've heard on this topic; probably as good, if not better, than Sye's first interaction with Paul Baird on unbelievable.  This was a fast paced contrasting of positions in a near hour of non-stop cross examination from both sides.  While I thought that Sye kept his demeanor at a very patient level, I was a bit disappointed with Justin's performance as he seemed annoyed and frustrated throughout the exchange.

Sye has also informed me that Justin's recording was edited.  I have yet to listen to the unedited version, but will make it available once Sye grants permission or posts in publicly.  At the least, there is supposed to be a transcript of the unedited recording forthcoming.

To listen to the "edited" version of the exchange, go HERE.

"What is your evidence for God?" A response to WitchHunter93

A YouTube user by the name of Witchhunter93 left a comment on my Video, to which I respond to below.  I think this sort of approach could prove to be more useful than seeking to respond to all the comments, which I don't have time for anyway.

Revelational Epistemology Defined and Defended: an Introduction to Revelational Epistemology

This is the last video in my series on revelational epistemology.  It is recommended that you watch PART 1 and PART 2 before you view this one.

Revelational Epistemology Illustrated: an Introduction to Revelational Epistemology

This is the second video in a three part series i'm doing on Revelational Epistemology. Though this information is semi-technical, i'm hoping it will be effective in presenting Christians and non-Christians with a solid basis as to how we can know that Scripture is true. I would recommend watching the FIRST VIDEO in this series before this one.

The information presented here must have its full credit given to the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen in his book, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended.

The Self-Sufficient Knower: an introduction to revelational epistemology

The argument i'm presenting was originally proposed by the late GREG BAHNSEN in his book, "PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS: STATED AND DEFENDED".  This video will hopefully be the beginning of a work in progress to provide some illustrations and defenses of revelational epistemology.  Revelational epistemology, biblically speaking, is the idea that one cannot have knowledge without revelation.  In other words, unless you begin with Scripture, you cannot know anything at all.

This video is semi-technical and may be difficult to follow (Try reading Bahnsen on this...oh my!).  But if need be, I may make a simpler version of it depending on what others say in response.  However, i'm hoping the future attempts of this "introduction to revelational epistemology" series will offer further clarity.

Proving the authority of God

Is it true that Scripture posits God as the absolute and ultimate authority?  And would it not follow that, if such is the case, God is the authority over all forms of human reasoning?  The answer to both is obviously, yes.  However, the unbeliever agrees with none of this.  Instead, he asserts that God's very existence needs to be proven, let alone His authority.

Let's say the unbeliever decides to go on an "unbiased" investigation of the existence of God.  In this investigation, he looks at the arguments from both sides and decides that God is real and His revelation is true.  However, something interesting happened along the way.  He went from viewing God as non-existent and non-authoritative to existent and authoritative.  But how can this be?  At some point, this unbeliever had to decide that God was the absolute authority over his reasoning process.  That is, he had to agree that all knowledge is dependent upon God and His revelation (Proverbs 1:7); including the knowledge of unbelievers.  And from this point forward, this former unbeliever will (if he wants to be consistent with Scripture) now present his message to unbelievers as follows: "Since God is the ultimate authority over all things, including man's reasoning, you must repent of your unbelief and give God the glory for your ability to reason; because without God, you couldn't reason at all."

When unbelievers ask for evidence for God, what "god" are they asking about?  The biblical God?  If so, then they are asking about a God who is the ultimate authority.  That is, no evidence or human reasoning is higher than this God. According to the God of the Bible, He is the foundation of all knowledge and reasoning (Colossians 2:3).  If the unbeliever admits that this is the God he is asking about, then he has to consider two options:

1. Believe in this God

2. Assert that such a God is impossible

Most unbelievers would be very hesitant to take option 2 because the burden of proof would be on them to substantiate their view.  To assert that such a God can't exist would be to claim omniscience.  Similarly, most unbelievers will not agree with option 1 either.  The likely response from the unbeliever will be, "Why can't there be a third option; one that asserts that such a God must be proven by evidence and reason?"

If the unbeliever desires to go this route, he needs to understand a condition; he must believe that God's revelation is false from the outset.  Why?  Because this God is the ultimate authority and says things like, "he who is not with Me is against Me." (Matthew 12:30) Thus, if the unbeliever isn't in a position to accept that he is with Christ, then he is against Him even before his investigation.  Bahnsen says it best:

Thus, the very thing that most unbelievers demand--a neutral and autonomous investigation of the facts to see whether God's word can be recognized as true and authoritative--already precludes the kind of God of which Scripture speaks.  Apologists need to come to grips with this, lest their method of defending the faith betrays the object of their faith (Van Til's Apologetic, p. 97 fn. 23)

Unbelievers must submit their reasoning to the God of Scripture.  Otherwise, they are left in an epistemological bind whereby all knowledge ceases to be knowledge.  Yet, the unbeliever will continue to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18) and deny the God that he knows exists.  

 

Gene Cook Interviews an Atheist

Today I listened to a podcast that took place in early February where Gene Cook interviewed/debated an atheist by the name of Justin Shieber.  If my memory serves me correctly, I recommended that Justin contact Gene to appear on his show after learning that he's sharp, articulate, and knows how to defend his position.

When I spoke to Justin, I had learned of a moral theory called DESIRE UTILITARIANISM, which he was happy to explain to me.  Since this is a unique and non-popular moral theory (as far as I can tell), I was happy to learn that Justin had arranged to appear on Gene's show.

Anyone interested in atheism and Christianity will find this one hour cross examination intriguing.  Moral theory and epistemology are discussed and defended from both positions.

You can listen to the full dialogue HERE

Responding to AbusiveAnthitheist's, "Questions for theists who advocate TAG"

Responding to Dhorpatan's critique of Christian epistemology

You can view the video I am responding to HERE, but the full video is played in the video I did below:

A Presuppositional approach to theistic evidences

Many critics of presuppositional apologetics allege that presuppositionalists do not use evidences.  And though it is true that they don't use evidences in the same way as an evidentialist apologist might, it is not true that they are avoided altogether.  Evidences certainly have their place but can only be appropriated within a biblical framework.  I'd like to see more presuppositionalists use evidences, but at the same time, not compromise their commitment to the Lordship of Christ in the process.  That is, one's theology should drive how they view evidence as opposed to the other way around.

Below, Chris Bolt of CHOOSING HATS provides an excellent SUMMARY of some of the theistic arguments as they could be used in a biblical framework:


              By C.L. Bolt

There are many arguments that Christian tenets are true. For example, we believe that everything that begins to exist has a reason for its coming into being. Intuitively we believe that something cannot come from nothing, and so everything that comes about must have a cause for its coming into being. If there were no conditions to be met through a cause before something could start existing, then it seems that things would pop into being right away and saturate the entire universe with entities of all shapes and sizes. We are impressed by performing arts magicians because they seem to make things come into existence all by themselves and seemingly without cause or at least without their usual causes. We would not be so mystified if it was part of our normal everyday experience to see things popping into being uncaused. The Bible even gives us an indication that things begin to exist because they are caused, as this is God’s world and is an orderly place that He wants us to know in order to come to know Him better.

The Bible also teaches that the universe began to exist. It seems strange to think of a universe that has existed an infinitely long time, since we might wonder how, if there were an infinite number of points in time prior to this point in time, we ever reached this point of time. How long would it take you to count to infinity? Could you do so before tomorrow? Of course not. How long would it take the universe to count to infinity? Could it do so before to tomorrow? So one wonders how we reached this point in time if an infinite number of such points in time came before now. Scientists also tell us that the universe is expanding. Eventually the gravity between entities will weaken so much that orbits will deteriorate and entities will begin moving at higher speeds. Eventually the universe will expand outward so quickly that it reaches a heat death. At least, this is what scientists, theorizing, tell us may happen. But, if there was an infinite amount of time before now in which this heat death could have happened, then it would have already. Yet it has not happened, and so the universe must have had a beginning. Of course, much of this is speculation, and probably not very good argument, but we know that insofar as these things are true and are based upon good argumentation, they support what the Bible teaches, for the Bible teaches that the universe began to exist.

Now if everything which begins to come into being has a cause for its coming into being, and the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause! We know from the Bible that this cause is God. God is the Creator. God created the universe, and He did so at a finite point in the past. The universe has not always existed; it was created by all-powerful God out of nothing. In the case of this particular argument then, we not only have the Bible to tell us the truth about the universe being caused by God, but we have an argument that confirms our belief.

The same is true about design. When we look out around us in the world we see amazing examples of design in our world. The universe is so finely tuned that it permits life, like us, to not only exist, but flourish! The human body is fearfully and wonderfully made, as medical doctors are finding more and more to be the case all the time. There are numerous other instances of incredible design in the natural world; instances of design that indicate someone designed them. There are parts that tiny living things use to propel themselves that look like what humans have built to propel boats. There are parts in creatures like eyes which are completely useless if they are not formed in one fell swoop much like a mousetrap is useless if all of its parts are not together at the same time. However, when there is design that means that there must be a designer, and again we know from the Bible that God not only created the world but designed what He created. So we know that the designer of the world is God, and we can know Him through the evidence of the argument from design in nature.

Even thinking of God leads us to believe that God exists. If God is the most perfect being as it appears that the Bible indicates, then there is nothing greater than God! But if we think of a god in this way who also exists when our God does not, then our God is no longer the greatest possible being or most perfect being, the other being is. Think through it again; it is greater for something to exist than not to exist. For example, a unicorn in our minds can be very nice, but the unicorn that only exists in our minds is not more real than the unicorn which actually exists. The unicorn which actually exists is greater than or more perfect than the unicorn that does not exist.

If we think of God as the most perfect being, He is only the most perfect being if He exists. If another perfect being is thought of but thought of as not existing, then there is a more perfect being, namely, the one that might exist. So then the perfect being, by definition, must exist. The unicorn does not exist because it is not a most perfect being. A unicorn can be the most perfect unicorn ever in our thoughts, but that is very different from thinking about a completely perfect being. So God exists.

Finally, we know that Jesus lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. We have historical testimonies outside of the Bible that tell us this. The Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman official Tacitus both tell us this, for example. We infer from the accounts of crucifixion in those days that Jesus was really and truly put to death. We know that He was then buried. He was buried in the tomb of a prominent figure whom people would have known about. Yet, the body of Jesus was found missing from the tomb. The Jewish authorities who were opposed to Jesus wanted people to go around and say that the body of Jesus had been stolen. But the only reason for them to make this story up is if they needed to try and explain why there was no body there! We know that there was no body in the tomb of Jesus, because the Jews were making up stories to cover up the fact that the body of Jesus was not there in the tomb. The body and tomb would have been right there in Jerusalem for anyone to go check out to see whether or not the body was really still there or was really gone, but no one ever turned up information that the body was still in the tomb. There is also a testimony concerning three women who were some of the first to find the empty tomb. Women in that society were much less trusted as witnesses by society. The authors of the Gospels would not have included this testimony of the empty tomb of Jesus had they of not actually told of their experience. Not only were there reports and evidence of a death and empty tomb, but there were appearances of the Lord Jesus to the disciples and many others as well. The Bible tells us plainly what happened; Jesus was crucified for our sins, buried, and raised again on the third day in accordance with the Word of God.

There are many more arguments like these for the truth of the Christian worldview, but we should not expect others to accept them, especially since they do not share our presuppositions which make these proofs so appealing and seemingly obviously sound.

Logic and Child Development: a response to Paul Baird

After my initial RESPONSE to Paul's criticism of my VIDEO, I was expecting something equally thoughtful to what he first WROTE.  But I must say I was quite disappointed with his NON-RESPONSE, which could be summed up as, "You're stupid and i'm smarter than you."  And if you think i'm exaggerating, read it for yourself.

I suppose it was that "made in the image of God" thing (which Paul directly denies but indirectly affirms) that made Paul realize that such a response was disrespectful.  Therefore, Paul decided to not "give up" on what did not "warrant a response" (per his own words) by taking a STAB at my rebuttal.  Though Paul didn't respond to all of what I said, he at least provided some insights on his "expertise" in the matter since he's, "been a single father, taking a two year sabbatical, raising children from under 5 into their teens, so I know just a little bit about child development, and Mike's analysis is so naive as to not warrant a response."

I'm going to ignore some of his insulting words and respond only to what he said of substance.  But feel free to read his response for YOURSELF to get the full context.

First Paul cites from a PAPER to highlight the following:

Deductive reasoning involves making inferences on the basis of some given premises. Making logical inferences is one of the key components of advanced thinking in humans. In fact, it could be argued that the ability to make inferences whose truth value depends entirely on the supposed truth of given, and possibly arbitrary, premises is one of the clearest examples of a cognitive capacity that differentiates human from nonhuman species. The distinctiveness of the processes involved in logical reasoning is sufficiently striking to have prompted some researchers to suppose that inference rules may have been biologically built into the human cognitive architecture (Braine, 1978; Cohen, 1981; MacNamara, 1986). However, while human reasoners often show the ability to make logical deductions in the classic sense, studies on reasoning also clearly show that inferential performance can also be highly variable and subject to a variety of influences. One of the major challenges of any theory of reasoning is to account for both the capacity to make inferences that are logically valid and at the same time to explain variation in reasoning performance due to both developmental and situational variables. While many forms of reasoning exist, one in particular, conditional reasoning, has been studied enough both in adults and developmentally to provide a set of empirical results substantial enough to provide a serious test for any theory of reasoning.

Paul cites this portion in order to ask the following:

"How does Presuppositional Apologetics deal with that variation?"

If I understand the cited portion correctly, the author is asking why some people reason in an underdeveloped manner verses one who is mature in their reasoning capabilities?  The first problem is that of sin and how it darkens the mind to think sinfully and irrationally:

“So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” (Ephesians 4:17-18)

While it is true that humans who come into this world are made in the image of God and able to think as God thinks, their minds are darkened by sin because they are a son of Adam.  So only in this sense is there a need for child development.  When Adam and Eve came into the world, they weren't provided with courses in philosophy and formal logic.  Instead, they were without sin and held the fullest potential in thinking rationally.

But how do Christians deal with variation?  We, "bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4) by teaching them that in Christ, "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and, "YHWH gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding." (Proverbs 2:6)  Thus, the Christian has a reason for expecting his or her children to reason logically:

1. They are made in God's image

2. Having trustworthy reasoning faculties requires the truth of God's Word.

Can Paul provide a basis by which children should be expected to reason logically?  On what basis could Paul tell his kids, "Let me show you why X is logical and Y is not."  Is it because Paul says so?  What if his kids ask, "Daddy, how do I know that your reasoning process is right?  Why can't I just come up with my own reasoning process?"  Would Paul answer, "Well, its because this is what your daddy learned in school and its what my dad taught me to do as well, just as I am teaching you."  But this assumes that Paul's Father as well as his school system reasons logically.  The regress could be pushed as far back as one could go, to the very first humans who began to reason about reality.

If proper reasoning is dependent upon what one's father or school system has taught them, then it would have to assume the proper reasoning abilities of the one who first decided to reason and impart his knowledge to others.

Another problem would be in the development of logic itself.  Were those first humans able to develop a perfectly valid logical system from the outset?  Or did logic develop?  And how does Paul know that the logic he uses is in the correct stage of development?  If Paul thinks that such is absurd to suggest, would not the first proponents of reason think that their stage of logical development is the correct and final stage?  And this is the problem; every human who reasoned assumed the reliability of his reasoning faculties.  But they did so without basis, just as Paul does and teaches his kids to do the same.

One could go on and on with the problems in Paul's child development epistemology, but the conclusion is this: neither Paul or his kids know that their reasoning faculties are truthful and produce reliable results about reality.  Instead, they arbitrarily assume these things.  Even Paul's children; though Paul may think that they are ignorant about all things philosophical in early stages of development, they have to assume their own reasoning faculties in order to interpret their Father's epistemological conclusions about reality.  And the question I have for Paul is this: how and why do children assume their reasoning faculties from the outset? 

My point was that reasoning does have situational and developmental influences, as well as logic, and to move on from there to state that this shows that the absence of logic from some decision making and reasoning processes highlighted an issue with the Presuppositional Apologetic in that if logic was evidence of, or a gift from, God then why did humans not use it all of the time?

I've already answered this, and Paul should know better anyway if he has had so many discussions with Sye.  Humans do not use logic all the time because of their sinful state, as the Bible clearly articulates.  As I highlighted above, the idea of developmental logic is an epistemological mess for the atheist.

Piaget's theory of cognitive development also undermines the Presuppositional Apologetic in that it confirms the sceptics view of the justification for the basis of logic in humans.

But what is it that is actually justified? That humans will reason in accordance with what their parents teach them as well as their schools? Such says absolutely nothing as to whether one's reasoning is truthful.  In addition, such is arbitrary in that Paul would have no basis in disagreeing with the system of learning that one would have in being raised and educated in a Christian home.  After all, its what their parents have taught.  And if what parents and educated determines truth, then why would Paul be disagreeing with it? Its as if Paul thinks that this developmental theory actually determines the truthfulness of one's reasoning process.

Logic is not a God given set of laws that a human intuitively knows because they were created in God's image.

And Paul knows this how? Again, i'm amazed at the closed-mindedness and assurance of a self-proclaimed "free thinker." I'd like to ask Paul the following: is it possible that, if God exists, he can enable man to reason like Him in virtue of being created in His image? If its not possible, then i'd like to hear how Paul knows this.

Logic and reasoning are learned as the baby grows into a child and then an adult. Indeed there are recognised developmental stages.

This is certainly true as far as it goes (since man is sinful and must be pointed to Christ to have a trustworthy epistemology), but it doesn't answer the question: how does Paul know that the logic and reasoning he has learned is correct and trustworthy?  And how can Paul explain the phenomena that children all around the world, even in societies separated from modern philosophical thought, able to reason like everyone else?  Why is it that those in a secluded country like North Korea reason like those in the U.S.?  And if they did live consistently with a hopelessly irrational worldview, then on what basis could Paul call their reasoning process right or wrong?  At the most, he could only describe them as "different."  They would simply be the product of a particular stage of evolutionary development.

I'd recommend anyone advocating that logic and reasoning is not developed in this fashion goes and spends some prolonged time at any pre-school parent and toddler groups and tries to guess the age of the child by their reasoning ability through play and social interaction.

Has the pre-school toddler had a revelation from God to justify their logic and reasoning? Really?

I'd suggest not, and I'd also suggest that the absence of such a revelation does not mean that the worldview of the toddler is absurd. I'd like to see the Presuppositional Apologetic arguments about Child Development that suggest otherwise.

Yes, really.  And in the absence of revelation, its not that one could say with certainty that their worldview is "absurd."  Only the Christian can do that.  I can call another's worldview absurd on the objective basis of God's Word.  The atheist would have no grounds to refer to another as "absurd" or "perfectly logical."  They could only do so with an objective standard.  The most Paul could say is, "I don't know whether this child is absurd or perfectly rational.  All I can say is that I reason like X and he reasons like Y.  To each his own."

Responding to Paul Baird

I meant to respond to THIS a few days ago but my busy schedule got the best of me. In this post, Paul offers a critique of my video, ARE ATHEISTS ARBITRARY IN THEIR REASONING?. I don't know how far i'll want to go with this, but i'll at least provide an initial response to offer some clarification.

Mike has also posted this on Youtube and I wanted to record the transcript because Mike meanders in his commentary.

I listened to it it several times, mainly to proof the transcript and I was surprised that someone was actually advocating worse line for Presuppositional Apologetics than Sye.
.
So, what is the underlying proposition - without God how can a non-Theist (Mike, like Sye interchanges a generic God and the specific Christian God) 'justify' their use of logic.

It's such a stupid line of argument that I'm genuinely surprised to see it being advanced.

When a child is born it is not given a bottle, a nappy (a diaper to our US cousins) and primer in logic. Reason and logic are things that a child discovers as part of growing up in his or her interactions with the world.

And why is that? Why would one expect a child to come into the world and begin to reason correctly as he/she "figures out" the world? In other words, how can the atheist account for such a phenomenon? Is there anything prescriptive within Paul's worldview whereby this should be expected by all humans who come into the world (i.e. a raw material universe producing rational beings)? Why couldn't it be the case that humans come into this world with an irrational mind that continues to function as such?

You see, the Christian can account for this. All humans come into this world as being made in God's image and thus can be expected to think as God thinks. That is, logic is hard-wired. In Paul's worldview, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of this; unless he resorts to arbitrary reasoning.

If the 'reason' being employed fails in it's purpose then it is discarded.
How does it fail it's purpose ?
When it is tested and we do that every minute of every hour everyday and it does not produce the expected result.

I'd like to know how Paul has such confidence in such "testing." What test did Paul implement in order to know that such a test is the manner in which one determines the reliability of their reasoning faculties? But there is a much bigger problem at hand; it begs the question. What the Christian is trying to figure out is how the unbeliever can account for the reliability of his reasoning process. But when they resort to such "testing," they have to assume their reasoning faculties in order to interpret the results of the test; whether that be repeatability, external feedback, etc.

We are not passive actors in our own lives. We do not accept that how things are is how things will be, but what we do do is to make calculated assumptions based on past experience and accept that sometimes we can get it wrong. We use our experience to calculate risk and then act accordingly.

I see. So based on probability calculations, how would you determine the future based upon past experience concerning, let's say, your immortality? As far as I know, you haven't died. So it would seem that you should have a one hundred percent probability that, based upon past experience, you will not die. The reality is, calculating probabilities on the past can only tell you one thing: the past happened in the way that it did. This serves as no guarantee for future uniformity. And as you well know, the Christian can account for the future operating like the past:

““While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.””
(Genesis 8:22)

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”
(Hebrews 1:3)

We do not need a God (generic or specific) to justify our use of reason.

If this God is the only precondition for the intelligibility, then yes, you do. But i'd like to know how Paul knows that "we don't need a God to justify our use of reason?" Is Paul discounting even the possibility of the necessity of revelatory epistemology? I must admit that I appreciate such admissions by unbelievers because it further confirms the following:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
(Romans 1:18–22)

Finally, Mike has the same problem as Sye in claiming that revelation is the source of his justification.

@Kwinnky yes, I learned about God through my senses. But through God and His revelation, I can now account for the reliability of my reasoning faculties. And since you cannot even begin to account for the reliability of your senses, you are actually borrowing from my worldview in postulating such.

I find it interesting that you can't "prove it either way." This shows that your trusting in your senses is a completely arbitrary claim; something that is believed without any basis.
theapologeticfront 1 day ago

How can Mike be sure that the source of his 'revelation' is the Christian God and not another God (Loki would be a good candidate), Satan, or a mental aberration caused by disease, injury, drink or drugs ?

He can't. Therefore, at best, he has no better 'justification' for trusting his reason and logic than anyone else.

I can't? Again, Paul's confidence is noteworthy; especially for a self-professing "free thinker." I'm sure Paul will get a kick out of the following question: is it possible, if God exists, that He could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain? If Paul answers "no," i'd like to know how he can know for certain that I can't know for certain that God's revelation is His own?

Furthermore, my justification is not just better than that of others; its the only justification. How do I know its not from Satan? Because God has told me that its His own and He can't lie (Hebrews 6:18). I'm sure Paul will be quick to dismiss this, but it goes back to the question of Paul's certainty and how he knows that revelational epistemology is impossible.

Nonetheless Mike demonstrates the line of argument that Sye will no doubt be taking again in our next debate, so I'm looking forward to hearing it again, although no doubt better articulated.

No doubt, Sye is far more articulate and experienced in his apologetic than me. I'm not sure if this was a personal shot at me, but I know Sye and myself could both care less who is presenting the sharpest arguments. I can probably speak for Sye in that what we care about is our Lord and Savior being glorified through the proclamation of His Word.

Who's being rational? Atheists or Christians?

Are Atheists Arbitrary in their Reasoning?

Atheism and the preconditions of intelligibility

Atheists are not neutral

Finally. I've begun making videos in dealing with atheism and unbelief. Here's the first of what I hope turns into many:

Fail again? A response to Paul Baird on Presuppositional Apologetics

I really do like PAUL. He is a very witty and likable fellow. His "fail again" remarks make me smirk a little when I read it.

To those who are new to Presuppositional Apologetics, I hope you're catching on to how this can be used in an encounter. If not, please contact me and we can discuss the details further. If you're new to this discussion, i'd recommend looking at my first RESPONSE to Paul as well as his REBUTTAL, to which i'm responding below:

2) PA advocates ARE trying to defend their position - it's why Sye goes around the net like a demented evangelist posting on blogs, and forums. I can send you links to these if you need some evidence. If he is not engaged in a defence of the PA worldview then I'd like your definition of what he is actually doing, and also what you are doing now in reponding to my points.

I think there is some confusion here. Where did I deny that PA's aren't defending their position? You continue to repeat the allegation that our argument is, "Christianity must be true because all other worldviews must be false." As Sye has asked for, i'd like to see a copy-and-paste of where either one of us has said such. Of course, we do agree that all others are false. But this is not the basis for PA. PA affirms that logic, math, science, etc. begin with the Christian God. This is our presupposition. And from there, using the Bible, we refute all other worldviews that we might come across. What you are suggesting is completely backwards from what we are actually arguing, that is, unless you can demonstrate with a copy-and-paste.

If PA is right then it should simply be a dead hand in poker game, unbeatable and serene.

Given that Christianity is the only worldview which can provide the preconditions for intelligibility, then yes, its unbeatable.

3) This is slam dunk stuff - from Syes own website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php

"What Christians need to do is challenge the 'presuppositions' of other worldviews and, in the most loving way possible, reduce them to absurdity."

and http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/other-worldviews.php

"Since it is only by the grace of God that one can see the illogic of their own competing worldview, a more reflective, rather than argumentative approach will be undertaken to refute them. The competing worldview will be briefly defined and then questions will be posed to expose their arbitrariness, INTERNAL inconsistencies, illogical consequences, or lack of support for rationality. Although for interests' sake some competing worldviews may have more than one question posed, quite often only one is required to dismantle it."

Amen. I couldn't have said it better myself.

4) Mike, this is patent nonsense and simply gainsaying.

Remember, I make many of my statements only because I assume that you already know the reasoning behind them. I'm happy to provide more details when I say things like, "Without Christianity, you can't know anything at all." Put simply, we are made in the image of God (who is logical by nature) and will think His thoughts after Him.

I do not need your worldview because I do not need the laws of logic to be absolute

Oh, so you do need them to be absolute? Or perhaps you do don't want them to be absolute at the same time and in the same place? Perhaps the laws of logic made a quick change without telling you ;-)

I just need them to be valid during my conscious lifetime.

Paul, who determines this? You? Society? Or could it be that I determine what is valid and what isn't in your lifetime? How do you know and how could you know? Did you run a test whereby it proved that you, "only need them to be valid during your conscious lifetime?"

I do not need morality to be absolute (but more on that later). I do not need truth to be absolute. The laws of maths that Sye states are absolute are based on observation and experience - we can make assumptions to uniformitarianism to assert that they hold absolutely but we cannot prove that they are.

As you know, it only begs the question when it is "based on observation and experience." That is, do you not have to assume the laws in order to make observations about them? And furthermore, are the assumptions by which you make these observations absolute or relative?

So, why do I need your worldview in order to make sense using mine ? I don't.

Of course, you aren't going to admit to "needing" my worldview, because then you wouldn't be a "freethinker."

5) That is a welcome admission, however I'm not sure you appreciate the depth of the importance of that admission. PA needs to establish a position. It is a fallacy to state that it does not, otherwise any other faith/non-faith position could legitimately make the same claims. This is part of the parlour trick of PA.

But haven't we established the position over and over again? Its not like i'm simply stating things without backing it up. I can provide as many Bible verses as you like to defend my position. But I don't hear you asking.

6) Sorry, Mike, but unless you can establish your own independent position then I can only assume that your position is based on Syes and that's been debunked.

I admit to not having a unique position. If it has been debunked, then i'll leave that for the audience to decide.

7) This is truly misguided. Almost gloriously misguided. Did I use the absolute laws of logic or the relative laws of logic ? LOL. I used the laws of logic as contained in any modern book on the subject. Are you proposing that those laws are any less applicable today than yesterday because they are not absolute (and please remember what the definition of absolute is) ? If so then please explain your reasoning.

This is interesting. Are Philosophy textbooks your "Bible?" In essence, you'd be claiming that the Philosophers are all "gods" in that they are the beholders of all that is logical and rational. This may not be what you are saying, but it is certainly how it comes across to me. Of course, how do you determine which philosophical laws, as contained in the textbook, are valid? Isn't this where you assume that man is the authority in determining "truth?" And how do you know that man is the one who is supposed to be determining truth? Maybe it is supposed to be a bottle of Dr. Pepper that determines truth, once it is shaken up and opened?

As Sye would say, this all seems grossly circular to me.

But to answer your last question: no, the laws are completely absolute and eternally valid. And keep in mind; i'm not the one arguing that they are not absolute. My point is that the laws of logic are not only absolute; they are objective. That is, apart from me or any other human being, the laws of logic hold true because God is, by nature, logical and absolute. I've seen no reason to believe that the atheist has any such basis.

8) At last the old, old, old, old example for justifying the existance of the absolute laws of morality. Is this the only one Christians know of ? I've heard it from Sye, David Robertson and now you. Ok, so what is the rebuttal ? Brit Milah. That's the Jewish practice of taking a very sharp knife to the genitals of a male baby under six days old. Now is that ok because of the motivation, custom or common practice and would it be wrong if it was simply done for fun ?

If it is morally the right thing to do then you are supporting the notion of unnecessary medical procedures being carried out on minors ? Is that the sort of thing you're supporting ? So, you'd be ok with female circumcisions too ?

If it is not morally the right thing to do then are you supporting the notion that Jesus was sexually abused as a child, as indeed were all male Jewish children ?

You see the problem ? The minute you cite an example of something you believe demonstrates an absolute standard you need to be very sure of your ground. As before with Sye (his response was quite frankly pathetic) and David Robertson (he's simply declined to respond at all) what appears at first to be a black and white issue is actually quite grey.

Paul, you asked me for an example of absolute morality and I provided one. In your worldview, why would it be wrong to eat your mother for breakfast? You provided no rebuttal, but instead, provided several example of what you might call "immoral." Why not deal with the example I provided?

10) I am so looking forward to another debate with Sye - you can come along too. :-)

Depending on when this takes place, I might actually take you up on that. But Paul, I hope you know that none of this is mere intellectual stimulation for me. I have the joy and privilege of glorifying my God through proclamation of His truth. But also, it is because I genuinely care about you and would be overjoyed to see you repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

Response to Paul Baird on Presuppositional Apologetics

PAUL BAIRD, who DEBATED SYE TENBRUGGENCATE, has posted a RESPONSE to some of my comments that can be found HERE. Up to this point, i've been a bit hesitant to be discussing this issue outside of the comment sections. Though I find this apologetic to be most consistent with the Bible, I still have a lot of reading that I would like to get done before delving into this more fully. However, I feel the necessity to address some of Paul's arguments, which I hope to do in a cautious way. My old comments will be in BOLD, with Paul's words following:

Mike, you've made many mistakes in your 'rebuttal', which is only to be expected as it's your worldview that you're seeking to defend so by definition it must be true.

Worldviews are not established in this way. That is:

X is my worldview and I am defending it; therefore, X is true.

I don't think anyone would argue in this way. And to represent Presuppositional apologetics (now referred to as "PA") in this way is to display simplistic ignorance.

If you listen to the debate again, or even read the threads on Premier, Sye again and again makes the assertion that Christianity must be true because all other worldviews must be false. He even has an entire page on his website dedicated to refuting 10 other worldviews - so that part of your rebuttal is a fail I'm afraid.

I admit to not having followed all the threads, and don't really have the time to sort through them all. Perhaps you could quote Sye if he has ever made this claim. If he has, then i'm going to have to disagree with him. But i'll leave it up to Sye to defend his position on this...if you are representing him accurately.

My position would be that if Christianity is the only worldview that can provide an objective basis for epistemology, then this would be the only true religion. After all, if no other worldview could account for the concept of "truth," then there would be no basis for truth and falsity.

Here is the challenge: we stand on our claim that without the Christian God, you can't know anything. If you have another worldview claim, bring it forward and let's discuss it.

The first part has been thoroughly debunked on the forums and the second part is irrelevant (but also debunked on the forums) - you need to prove your worldview.

The proof for my worldview is that without it, you cannot prove anything. And as long as you are unable to account for "proof," then why should I believe that your worldview is true? This was certainly discussed on the interaction with Sye, but I failed to hear anything of substance or consistency in your position.

However, did you notice what you just offered to do ? Prove your worldview by disproving mine - that would be proof of my first point don't you think ? So, fail again.

I never said such. All disproving your worldview does, in and of itself, is disprove your worldview. This comment of yours completely neglects the positive case PA makes for its position. That is, PA establishes itself apart from having to disprove any other worldview.

The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation.

No it is not, but if you repeat that statement enough times then you might start to believe it.

I state this without detail because you already know the arguments behind this. It would be one thing for me to assert this with no previous qualification. But you know full well that my statement is backed up; even though you don't agree with the explanation.

I don't need the Laws of Logic to be absolute (note the difference between needing the laws of logic and needing them to be absolute, there is a difference) - so fail there, I don't need Morality to be absolute - so fail there

Are you absolutely sure about that? Or are you just kinda convinced that this is the case? If you don't need them to be absolute, then how do you know that you need them? Did you use the "absolute laws of logic" to determine this? Or the "relative" laws of logic?

(out of interest - name one thing that you believe is absolutely morally wrong, and remember my line of argument on this is battle hardened (Sye could't refute it and neither could David Robertson who wrote the Dawkins Letters)).

How about molesting babies for fun? Or someone raping, murdering, and eating your mother for breakfast?

So what you're left with is exactly the same as every other God seller. They make the same claims, and your claims is no more valid than anyone elses. Your parlour trick is to erect a strawman, "Ooooh, you have to use our worldview to reject our worldview"

Again, it is completely fallacious to claim that PA is "exactly the same as every other God seller." If this is not what you're claiming, then please correct me. If you can't see a stark contrast between evidentialism and PA, then i'm not sure what else I could say. Also, how is your borrowing from my worldview a strawman? Obviously, PA's realize that the atheist isn't going to admit that they are "borrowing," or else they wouldn't be atheists!

So,what am I waiting for ? The second round of the debate with Sye. Last time I was not as well prepared as I thought I was. Now I am. I've investigated this PA in depth, particularly Syes advocation of it, and I've found the holes in his argument (none of which he has been able to refute).

I will be looking forward to this. And I suppose I can't blame you for not being prepared, unless of course, you knew about Sye's position and refused to look into it. I'd also be curious to know what works of PA you've read?

Thank you for your willingness to interact.

Another great presuppositional debate

In a recent DEBATE, two presuppositionalists went up against two atheists. This was a very high paced debate that I would highly recommend listening to; especially those who are unfamiliar with the presuppositionalist position.

From the atheist side, I was very unimpressed. For some reason they felt the carpet bombing debate technique would work. That is, they thew out every objection under the sun while refusing to go into any level of depth. To be honest, The Davinci Code has more substantive arguments than these guys. By displaying their surface-level (mis)understanding of issues such as textual criticism, they showed they had done almost no reading on the issue. Furthermore, they were grossly ignorant of the presuppositional apologetic. I suppose I can't fault them too much for this since this position is not very popular. At any rate, I believe much better representatives could have and should have been found. Debates are hardly useful when they aren't focused. Perhaps atheistic ethics has no other concern than to disprove Christianity, even if the arguments are bad?

On the Christian side, I believe they did an overall excellent job. While Sye focused his attention on the presuppositional issues, Dustin dealt with some of the specific arguments leveled at them. However, I really felt that they should have spent more time dealing with their arguments. And as James White aptly demonstrates in his debates with unbelievers (whether atheists or liberals), you can be a presuppositionalist and still deal with the specific objections. For instance, if a skeptic argues, "How can you trust the Bible when all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies?" the presuppositionalist can remain consistent and still respond to the specific claim. Instead, presuppositionalists may respond with, "How can you talk about trusting the Bible when you have no rational basis for trusting your rationality?" I do not think this is always necessary. In fact, I believe it can be counterproductive at times. Again, overall these men did a great job and will serve as another testimony to this God-glorifying apologetic.