Presuppositional Aplogetics

[Guest]

Here is an MP3 of a formal debate between a brother named Paul Manata (a presuppositionalist) and Dan Barker (an atheist). It is hosted and "moderated" by the Infedel Guy Reggie Finley who everyone knows from Steve's appearance on his show.

Mr. Manata is using a presuppositional approach.

[Guest]

I haven't read ANY pre-suppositional literature.

My guess, however, is that they are using the word "pre-supposition" as one would use the word "assumption". If there are no assumptions or axioms with which we begin, then we can never have any knowledge whatever, or come to any conclusions by argument.

For example, nearly everyone agrees that there is other persons like himself who think, have emotions, and possess the five senses. The solipsist believes he is the only person in existence, and all others only seem to him to be like himself. There are some things that can never be argued with a solipsist because he doesn't start with the assumption that there are other people like himself.

Without having read any of the literature, I wonder if some of the statements regarded as "pre-suppositions" are really axioms at all. Perhaps they are statements that do have to be proved from more basic pre-suppositions.

For example, if one pre-supposes that the Bible is the Word of God, he is not starting far enough back. This statement, if true, has to be shown to be true by a logical argument which rests upon basic axioms with which virtually everyone agrees.

[Guest]

For example, if one pre-supposes that the Bible is the Word of God, he is not starting far enough back. This statement, if true, has to be shown to be true by a logical argument which rests upon basic axioms with which virtually everyone agrees.

A presuppositionalist would say that an unbeliever can't rationally use logic. To do so is to borrow from the Christian worldview which can account for logic.

They would say that an unbeliever has to presuppose God's existance to even argue against Him. Like someone arguing that there is no such think as air while all the time breathing it in.

They would say that there is no common ground between the unbeliever and believer in which to reason that the bible is the word of God. That the cross is foolishness to them, and their worldview foolishness to us.

So we don't really "agree" on any starting point "far enogh back" that we can reason from in principle. They have to presuppose logic and reason without the justification for it. They have to say basically that logic and reason are mere conventions if they want to use them without God. We on the other hand believe that logic and reason reflect the thinking of God.

The presuppositionalist says we have a "self-attesting" authority in the word of God.

While this is a type of circular reasoning, it is much more complex than "the bible is the word of God because its the word of God". They say that all argumentation is circluar eventually, and that the way to argue is to show the impossibitly of the other worldview within it's "circle".

Anyway, I highly recommend checking out the explanation of it in the link above. I cannot do it justice. I am new to this sort of thing. It's not that long, but I understand if you don't feel like it. I rarely read the links that are posted, wishing rather to hash it out here. But I am not qualified for said hashing so you might want to check with the link.