Presup Applied to Postmodernism

Apologize, he rewrote the question here. In a metropolitan cultural area where postmodernism seems to reign, how do you bring upon presuppositionalism as a legitimate argument?

Okay, so yeah, I mean, still going back to what I was saying, like presuppositional presents absolute truth, which

I'll be honest, I think using this argument with atheists and postmoderns is the easiest.

Because they have no objective standard for anything. They have no way to justify anything they believe.

It's completely subjective. They say as much, and it's super, super easy just to point to that and just say, look what you're standing on right here.

You're standing on my worldview, and then saying rubbish. So I think it's super easy.

I actually really enjoy talking to a lot of the, especially like the young, we were at LSU about a month ago when we were in Louisiana, and I had a blast.

You know, some of those students were crazy, but I had a blast. It was fun, and I think it's super easy.

I don't know, I think you kind of, I think you said the same thing. So I don't really care if people think it's aggressive.

Like, you know, if you're doing it graciously, like if you think it's aggressive,

I don't really care, because I'm pointing it to the truth, and I'm going to make sure you get the gospel.

I think aggressiveness is not even, it's not, aggressiveness is not the property of a method.

Yeah. It's how you present it. So you can be non -aggressive in how you present presuppositional argumentation, right?

Yeah, yeah. Now the nature of presuppositionalism is that you're cutting right to the foundation, but I wouldn't say that's aggressive.

It's just, you're getting to the point, right? So I think you can present the issues in a gentle, with gentleness and respect, but with postmoderns,

I mean, it's a big old reductio ad absurdum, right? It's, you know, how do you present absolute truth to someone who rejects absolute truth?

You simply point out that in their rejection of absolute truth, they have to presuppose the very thing they're objecting to.

Yeah. And so they could either say, oh, wow, I never thought of that. Or they can say, nah, that's not true.

And then they're making truth claims that are undercut by their own perspective. So at that point, as Bonson says, you give them the microphone, you tell them to speak up so that everyone knows that this is the kind of absurdity one is reduced to when they reject absolute truth, and specifically the absolute truth of the

Christian worldview. That's why I love presupp. What are the reasons? There's a lot of reasons. You know, you could talk in circles all day long with a postmodern atheist about all, you know, about all the evidences and you name it.

All day long. I love presupp because it cuts through the crap like that. You're just like,

I'm not even talking about that. Let's just - That's a good title for a book, Cut Through the Crap. Presupp is a good title.

Like I said, you cut their legs off and give them Jesus. It's like, what?

You know, I don't need to have all this, you know, all these other peripheral conversations.

Like, do I love evidences? Yeah, of course. But like, when I'm talking to atheists, like, let's just get to the point. Like, everything you're saying right now, it doesn't matter because you have nothing to stand on.

So turn and repent. You know? I think Cy did a great job when he says, what's the point of arguing for three hours over the complexity of the eye when the person's going to hell?

Like, it might be important to talk about the complexity of the eye. We're not undermining the importance of the eye. But there needs to be a point where, like as Van Til said, you don't just go on and on about the facts.

You need to get to the philosophy of the facts. What is the worldview? What is the context out of which facts make sense?

And that's where we bring the whole Christian worldview to bear upon the unbeliever, which includes the message of repentance.