Traditional Arguments Presupped

All right. Hello everyone. My name is Eli Yala. Welcome back to my channel where we're gonna be digging into some issues relating to apologetic methodology super excited about this specific topic the topic that I'll be covering in this video is really a topic that interested me when

I first got into apologetics and became aware of the different issues in apologetic methodology

I remember there was a time where I was very much heavily influenced by the work of classical apologists like dr.

William Lane Craig and others Where I remember studying The cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument all the the basic traditional arguments for God's existence

I remember I was a substitute teacher at a public school and No, I wasn't a sub was it was a permanent sub which means that you know

If you know anything about education and you kind of worked in a school as a substitute teacher You had to wake up early

In hopes that you would get a phone call That someone would say hey, we need you to sub for such -and -such teacher

That's kind of the the lower level grunt Substitute teacher work. I was a permanent sub which meant

I got to go in every day So even if there wasn't a teacher that was absent, they would have me come in and I would

Either sub for a class or they put me outside the bathroom

Checking for hall passes. Okay. Now I did that for a really long time and that was during the period where I was plowing through dr.

William Lane Craig's reasonable faith and I had the I Had the workbook that came with the book you could order you could order the reasonable faith and there was a workbook where you followed along in the chapters and I was plowing through reasonable faith and working my way through the workbook and I was obsessed.

So there was a time where I was very heavily into kind of classical apologetics Now when I got introduced to presuppositional apologetics and that kind of kind of swayed me

I kind of was swayed into it the different apologetic methodology there I would I would kind of like flip back and forth because I saw the practical use of a lot of the traditional arguments

Especially with the conversations that I was having I remember I remember writing the kalam Cosmological argument for God's existence out on a napkin at a party where I was we it was me and this other dude

We had to watch the kids in the living room and we got into a conversation And so I remember writing the the the argument out on a napkin explaining it to someone

So there was some practical uses for the traditional arguments, then I've used them in various context, okay

But You know as I was flipping back and forth between the classical approach and the precept approach

I was really torn because the more I became familiar with a presuppositional approach the more I became convicted that it is that it is

The biblical approach. I know that sounds kind of, you know, highfalutin and lofty But I do believe that not only does the

Bible command us to do apologetics I do believe it actually outlines for us the principles of the sort of apologetic that we should be doing and so But but I always was kind of sensitive to the usefulness the pragmatic usefulness of some of the other arguments and you know

The way I was having certain conversations with people Certain issues would come up and so I grappled with this issue.

How do we how do we find a balanced approach? to a presuppositional method that takes into consideration the insights of a lot of the other traditional arguments and this is a really important because within the presuppositional

Tradition the the kind of along Cornelius Vantill and Greg Bonson It's a common misconception that that for example

Cornelius Vantill rejected the traditional proofs for God's existence And so oftentimes we would be presented with what seems to be kind of a dichotomy you either are a presuppositionalist and reject traditional arguments or You know, you accept the traditional arguments and you're within the kind of the classical framework and that's not quite right

I don't remember the specific quote, but please trust me. He did say this You know

Cornelius Vantill said that he did not reject the traditional proofs for God's existence He only wished that they would be reformulated in ways that were consistent with our

Christian commitments our Christian presuppositions You know the teaching of Scripture and so he believed that the way in which the traditional arguments have been presented

Apologists have allowed categories of neutrality and autonomy to sneak in in the way that the arguments have been traditionally presented especially within the reformed tradition which in historically has used classical arguments and so Vantill pointed out that the reformed use of classical arguments and the way in which they've been traditionally formulated has allowed categories that are inconsistent with our reforms and biblical convictions namely the issue of Autonomy and neutrality in the way that we confront the natural man within the apologetic context

Okay, and so he didn't reject the traditional proofs But he wanted to reformulate them in such a way that was consistent with our biblical presuppositions

Okay, now be that as it may if you know anything about the work of dr. Greg Bonson. Dr. Greg Bonson was very critical of Many of the classical arguments, but I think it's important to recognize that for example, dr.

Bonson's rejection of Say certain formulations of the cosmological argument was not an essential feature of presuppositional ism

But they were rather criticisms that he had of the arguments as he understood them in other words He did not think the various forms of the cosmological argument were were good arguments

He thought that good philosophers can find gaps in them and respond to them sufficiently That's different than saying that the arguments are inconsistent with the presuppositional framework.

Okay. Well, they're not okay And so basically in this video, I want to tackle, you know This kind of misunderstanding and kind of address this question of how to use the traditional arguments for God's existence

You know arguments like the cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument from within a presuppositional framework

We'll talk a little bit about what this might look like when talking about the historical evidence for the resurrection Okay And so you might be wondering like how do we how do these classical arguments these traditional proofs fit within a method?

That pretty much begins with the presupposition that that God exists and that his revelation is the foundation of all truth

Okay, I want you to stick with me you're gonna find out just how we can do this and I think we can do this in a way that we can take the value of some of these arguments and Make them better in terms of firming them up within a consistent

Christian worldview Context. Okay. So so basically We're going to explore how the presuppositional approach doesn't throw away the traditional arguments, but rather Reframes them right basically demonstrating their their true strength and necessity from within a

Christian framework okay, and so we're gonna see how they can be used not as as Neutral starting points, but but basically as tools that reveal the unbelievers

Suppressed knowledge of God. Okay, if we can put it that way All right And that's basically what arguments and evidence are gonna do from a presuppositional framework because what are we doing when we're talking to the unbeliever?

We're not talking to someone who does not know does not have a knowledge of God All right We believe the Bible teaches that all men have a knowledge of God such that he is on Apologetus right without an apologetic without an excuse.

Okay, and so when we use something like a cosmological argument with a presuppositional

Kind of thrust or context we're doing that not to add information to an otherwise ignorant person

But to expose the knowledge of God that the individual has. Okay, and this is what scripture

What I would assert that scripture teaches. All right, so I hope that makes sense and by way of introduction

And and and after that we'll kind of cover some summary questions And I'll share my my thoughts on these questions

Summarizing kind of the basic things that I'll be working through in this video, and I hope this is helpful

Both whether you're a believer or an unbeliever you're just learning about presuppositional apologetics and kind of what what are my thoughts on the relationship between the

Presuppositional method and the traditional arguments for God's existence. Hopefully this will be useful to you

Okay, so if this is your first time listening in be sure to subscribe to reveals apologetics You can check out I have a blog as well.

I'm gonna be adding a lot more to the blog my I'm a teacher So my summer vacation is coming up And so I'll have a lot more time to add more articles and content and things like that And I'm looking forward to a very fruitful content filled summer schedule

Because I'll have the time to do more videos more frequently But I want to I want to produce content that is useful for folks and allowed this channel to be a resource for people who?

really want to get into Presuppositional apologetics and things like that. So also real quick before I jump in I mentioned this in a previous video that I that I did that I completed recording my new course

Okay, basically there are five five lectures along with the full PowerPoint presentations on Presuppositional apologetics applied and basically

I talk about presup Well first I have a lecture on how to navigate apologetic conversations

How to apply presuppositional apologetics to atheism Roman Catholicism how to apply presupp to presuppositional

Eastern Orthodoxy and how to apply presuppositional apologetics to the cults Okay, I recorded a shorter version of that course for apologia

But I've actually recorded a longer versions with visuals and everything else For folks to if they want to dive deeper into that that will be available soon

Those who are on my emailing list I will get that information out as soon as possible and folks can sign up for that great way to support revealed apologetics and to kind of dive into Kind of a deeply into the practical application of presuppositional apologetics.

I even kind of created these Did not debate but kind of conversation dialogues where you can kind of see how the application looks like in conversation

So, you know when you order the courses all that will go to you and hopefully it will be useful

For all of your educational purposes. Okay. All right Just just a heads up if if I sound weird, okay a few days ago.

I got teeth pulled out Okay, and so I'm on painkillers So if it wears off you might you might hear the difference in my voice and you know

My face might be like, oh, you know, so all right. So there you go

K s stingray If you email me at reveals apologetics at gmail .com

I will try to get you on the email list and when all that information goes out. I will send that out to you.

Okay? So, there you go. All right. Let's see here Okay, so Let's jump right in so we're gonna begin with the cosmological argument

Okay now first a little bit about the cosmological argument sometimes we tend to think of the cosmological argument as like a specific argument like Whatever begins to exist as a cause the universe began to exist.

Therefore the universe has a cause. Okay, that's the famous the popular Kalam cosmological argument that is defended by Many apologists but more first and foremost by William Lane Craig that has been kind of his main argument that he has worked a lot on and we want to make a distinction between say the

Kalam cosmological argument, which is a specific kind of cosmological argument and cosmological arguments in general so Cosmological arguments there are a family of arguments of which you have different versions of the cosmological argument

This is important to know because when someone criticizes a particular variety or a particular kind of cosmological argument

That does not mean that you have adequately criticized all Versions of cosmological arguments.

All right, so so just want to keep that in mind So we're just going to be using specific examples But you want to understand that some of these arguments that I'm going to be going to cosmological to like teleological and all that kind Of stuff.

These are broad categories. Okay. All right. So let's let's walk through this So as a presuppositional list, okay taking a look at the cosmological argument

Okay, the Kalam or whatever. Okay, we're gonna want to approach if you want to look in terms of how do we see this?

Within a presuppositional context. We're gonna want to approach the cosmological argument in a manner that is rooted in a pre

Suppositional framework. Okay, basically emphasizing the necessity of Starting with the

Christian worldview. Okay, this is super super important All right, because everything that we do everything that we argue

Okay, when we argue transcendentally, for example We're arguing that it is only within the

Christian worldview context that those things make sense And so we cannot we cannot offer any other sub argument like cosmological teleological or moral

Independent of the only framework that can make sense out of any argument whatsoever Okay, so we're gonna want to talk about the cosmological argument from within a consistent

Presuppositional framework emphasizing the necessity of starting with the Christian worldview context okay, unlike the classical formulation of the cosmological argument, which

Pretty much begins with observations of the universe to infer the existence of God as the first cause

I'm gonna argue that such a method when we do that when we when we start with observation and make inferences to reach a conclusion what we're doing when we present the argument that way is that we are allowing categories of Autonomy with respect to human reason and observation to sneak into our methodology and that's going to be inconsistent with our

Biblical commitments. Okay. I do not want to present the issues of causation and these sorts of things cause and effect

I mean using cosmological argument from first cause all these sorts of things. I don't want to speak of causation as though They're neutral categories, okay, so that's good.

That's super important to keep in mind Okay, so we're gonna want to reformulate the cosmological argument by first asserting the truth of the

Christian worldview as the necessary foundation for all reasoning Including this is key

Including the reasoning about causes and effects themselves Okay, so the

Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of cause and effect itself

Okay, and so we're gonna want to argue that without the presupposition of the God of Scripture any discussion about causality is ultimately meaningless because the unbelieving worldview cannot account for things like the

Uniformity of nature and the laws of logic that are pretty much required to make sense out of causality itself

Okay, this is super important. Now. I could say these things. Okay, I'm gonna say these things

Okay, and I'm going to clarify this Saying this for example when

I say that unbelieving worldviews cannot account for the uniformity of nature Unbelieving worldviews cannot account for the laws of logic and causality

Saying that does not prove it. Okay. I this is

I'm helping people who are using the presuppositional approach We have to be very careful that when we say the unbelieving world you cannot account for these things

Saying that they cannot account for it is not the same as proving that they cannot account for it and so while I'm kind of going through this just to show you what it looks like how we kind of frame these things within a presuppositional

Framework, you need to also be ready to defend those assertions Okay So if I say that the unbeliever cannot account for logic and then they say hold up before you get into the rest of your

Argument I can account for logic Okay, then you're gonna have to interact with that and you're gonna have to pay the bills on that claim

Okay Want to be very careful because presuppositional lists are often accused of simply making bare authority claims and that's not what we're doing

Although some presuppositional apologists do that Okay, so we don't want to We don't want to do that.

Okay. So basically this approach is not trying to prove God's existence Okay, merely as the first cause in a long chain of events

But basically as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of any event or cause whatsoever

And so when we when we reframe things in this way right the emphasis is not on proving

God through a series of kind of logical steps that Could be debated or refuted on the basis of some empirical or philosophical grounds rather words

We're asserting the cosmological argument within the context that the cause is cause and effect and causation all these sorts of things they require the

Christian God and the Christian worldview for their coherence and intelligibility Okay and so the idea that without God we can't make sense of the very causal relationships we observe is basically to take the cosmological argument and Place a transcendental thrust to it.

So we're not moving from observation and then inferring a conclusion we're saying what are the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of cause and effect or Causation or these sorts of things.

That's basically what we are trying to do here and so that's what it looks like to kind of set a cosmological sort of argument within a

Within a presuppositional framework Okay, I want to unpack this a little bit more because when we talk about Causation and these sorts of things it kind of relates to other issues like issues like the uniformity of nature

Okay, which is a very important aspect of this discussion as well. Okay All right.

I Have some comments here. Let's see here on the side Frank says seriously, why has no one done this before Bonson himself once gave examples of what it would look like This is why

I'm doing it man, I wish I wish this was done basically when I do content on my channel I Try to do content that I'm like, hey when

I first got started not that I'm you know, the grand poomba presuppositional ism

But when I first got started these were the questions I had so I try to address topics that I know I struggled with Making it interesting for me to talk about and hopefully it's useful for people.

So yeah, hope it's hope it's helpful Okay Let's see here

See if changing finite beings exist. It follows an unchanging infinite being also exists. So so so so basically what we're saying is that the whole issue of causation

Requires pre it has preconditions and that precondition is going to be the Christian God. That's basically what we're trying to argue for.

Okay. All right Let's see here. Did it to do? Okay.

I thought those were questions their comments. That is perfectly fine Okay, so So keeping that in mind so we we move from we talked about the cosmological argument

Within a presuppositional framework basically is going to argue that the Christian God God of Christianity Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for the very concept of causation itself

Okay, and we're gonna assert I'm not gonna argue here But we would make the argument that non Christian worldviews cannot account for causation cause and effect causal relationships these sorts of things

The uniformity of nature all of these things are connected. Okay, and the uniformity of nature is kind of a big deal as well

This is this was this was brought out in. Dr. Bonson's debate with Edward Tabash.

So if I take a moment real quick to make a distinction between Greg Bonson's debate with Gordon Stein and his debate with Edward Tabash He uses a transcendental kind of argument in both debates

But with a different emphasis which kind of is related to what I'm trying to do here in the debate with Gordon Stein he tried to show dr.

Bonson tried to show that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for logic Okay, so logic was kind of a big point of discussion in that debate with with Stein but in his debate with Edward Tabash the focus was

Induction right the uniformity of nature these sorts of things the basis for for science

Okay and so this is very much when we're taking a look at things like the causality and The expectation of the future being like the past these sorts of things all comes into play in these sorts of discussions

Dr. Bonson often used, you know kind of ordinary examples To kind of make this point, right?

So he had what he called the toothpaste proof for God's existence And that's not a formal argument, right?

You're not gonna see it in like a philosophy textbook, but he often Used ordinary examples like the act of brushing one's teeth to demonstrate the necessity of presupposing a sovereign

Providential God for the reliability of induction. So the argument that kind of basically goes like this but in terms of induction, so induction is

Is a reasoning process used to make generalizations right based on specific observations So for example, every time you squeeze a tube of toothpaste toothpaste comes out

Okay, and so from this you could infer that whenever you squeeze a tube of toothpaste in the future

The toothpaste is gonna come out again. Okay now Enter philosophical skepticism, right, you know enter

David Hume, right? This is this is the point of David Hume made not specifically to toothpaste But basically he questions why we should expect the future to resemble the past Okay Just because toothpaste has always come out of the tube in the past when we squeeze it does not in itself

Guarantee that it's gonna happen again tomorrow Okay, and so basically this position Hume would challenge the basis of all inductive

Reasoning now Bonson and his toothpaste proof here. He argues that inductive reasoning Requires a foundation remember everything comes back to the context, right?

It requires a foundation that could only be provided by the Christian God this is what what Bonson argued and so he basically posited that the uniformity of nature which

Underpins our expectations that the future is going to resemble the past, you know Toothpaste will come out of the two when we squeeze it cannot be consistently explained by atheistic or naturalistic worldviews

Okay, so on atheism in a world Sound and fury signifying nothing

There is no reason to expect order to expect the future to be like the past and that is kind of an undergirding principle

Of all of science. Okay, so within the Christian worldview, we have a sovereign and providential God Okay, Bonson would argue that it's

God's sovereign control and providential ordering of the universe that guarantees the uniformity of nature And because God is consistent.

He's unchanging. He governs all things the behavior of various Phenomena and experience that we have including the simple act of toothpaste being dispensed from a tube is also going to be consistent

Okay, so from within a Christian worldview that makes sense So from within a

Christian context, it makes sense to expect that the future will be like the past Why on a non -christian conception of reality?

Should we expect the future to be like the past? That's the question if you can't account for the uniformity of nature that undercuts even your concepts of causality

Right, isn't that right? Okay, so within a Christian metaphysical framework

God's promises and then and and his very nature Basically ensures that the physical world operates in a regular orderly fashion.

Okay, and in a way that is knowable and is predictable So this worldview within the

Christian worldview it provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience scientific Investigation which basically pretty much relies on inductive reasoning, right?

so so Bonson uses in this example toothpaste in the context of induction to illustrate even how

Mundane and normal everyday actions rest on underlying philosophical assumptions about how the world works okay, and so basically he argues that only the

Christian worldview with its assertion of a Sovereign God a providential God can adequately justify those basic assumptions that we take for granted okay, so all of this is kind of related in terms of causation and all these other things because when we understand cause and effect that what is related to that are issues of induction and uniformity and all these sorts of things and with the

Transcendental context we're asking that fundamental question What world do you make sense out of these things we take for granted what world do you make sense out of Cause and effect and uniformity and logic all the things that are required

Pardon for intelligible experience. And of course, we're gonna argue. It's a Christian worldview. Okay.

All right, so All right. So let's move on to the the teleological argument. Okay is the argument from design again?

So the teleological argument is gonna be kind of a family of arguments Okay, so when we take the teleological argument from within a presuppositional framework, okay

And we understood what we understand the teleological argument commonly understood as the argument from design

When we put it within a presuppositional framework things take on a more transcendental thrust. Okay, so traditionally this argument specific argument observes

Observes that there is apparent design. Okay and purpose in the universe and so from that we infer a

Designer, okay And so this is again, this is interesting when we talk about it infers a designer even the first argument

We talked about the cosmological argument when we say, you know cause and effect You know, whatever begins to exist as a cause universe has a cause therefore the you know,

I'm sorry whatever begins to exist as a cause the universe began to exist there for the universe as a cause and then from that conclusion you

Philosophically reflect on what it means to be the cause of the universe and then we get the characteristics of God to be very careful

The word God is not defined It's defined in a very weak sense in that it is a cause of the universe

There's no other content added to that There's another thing is that when we put these arguments within a presuppositional framework

It highlights the importance of the fact that we're arguing specifically for a God that has content. Okay, same thing here with the proof with the

Teleological argument we're not talking about a designer We're talking about the designer the designer the only designer that exists the designer of the

Bible Okay, so within a presuppositional framework Okay this argument the teleological argument starts fundamentally with the acknowledgement of the

Christian God as the necessary precondition for intelligibility including The very concepts of design and purpose themselves.

Okay, so we're saying that he is the precondition now in reworking the teleological argument a

Presuppositional apologist is gonna want to assert that the very ability to recognize and discuss design

Presupposes a universe governed by a coherent purposeful order which itself can only be accounted for it within a

Christian worldview And so the argument would emphasize that non -christian worldviews fail to provide a basis again comes again for the uniformity of nature and the laws

Of logic that are necessary to even recognize patterns and designs in the first place. And so this is not merely about Observing complexity or design in nature, but about how such observations are even possible and Meaningful.

Okay, so I hope you see the undergirding thrust of this We're moving beyond simple observation and asking what must be true in order for all those other things to make sense

Okay and so the presuppositional teleological argument would proceed by challenging the unbeliever to account for the regularity and orderliness of the universe without reference to the

God of Scripture and so it posits that without the Christian God concepts like order design purpose they become inexplicable and arbitrary and so the existence of a designed and purposeful universe is not merely evidence suggesting a designer but rather a

Demonstration of the truth of the Christian worldview which alone makes sense of these these things that we're talking about here okay, and so basically this approach does not when we take the teleological argument from within a

Presuppositional framework this approach doesn't attempt to move from a neutral observation.

This is important we do not attempt to move from a neutral observation of nature to a conclusion about God's existence or a

God's existence instead It begins by affirming the truth of the Christian worldview and demonstrate that any attempt to argue or reason about design

Inherently presupposes this truth. Okay, and so hopefully you get the transcendental flavor

To all of these arguments so you want to presuppositional eyes the traditional arguments you add a transcendental thrust to them

And I think that would that's very helpful to that end All right Let's continue on here.

So the moral argument Okay so within a presuppositional framework the moral argument for God's existence is not merely an inference from moral facts to the necessity of a

Moral lawgiver right but rather it is a demonstration of the impossibility of morality without the presupposition of the

Christian God And so traditionally the moral argument posits that if objective moral values and duties exist, then

God must exist as their foundation However within a presuppositional context this argument is basically transformed to assert the very concept of morality

Presupposes the truth of the Christian worldview. Okay So firstly the presuppositional approach to the moral argument begins by affirming that all attempts to discuss morality are grounded in a worldview

That must account for the universality and objectivity of moral norms, okay

And so non -christian worldviews we would argue fail to provide a basis for why anything particularly moral laws should be obligatory or universally binding

Okay, I know people disagree with that, but that's what we would be arguing and then we'd have to be willing to back that up I know there are other theories out there of ethics and people think they can ground things

I understand that we're gonna have to interact with those but I'm just as a basic outline Okay, I do believe that they struggle to you know

Atheistic perspective and things like they struggle to avoid reducing morality to social conventions or personal preferences

Which are you know, basically boiling down to subjectivity. Okay, so So there you go

Okay Now that's firstly now secondly The presuppositional moral argument would place a great emphasis on the fact that the

Christian worldview uniquely provides the preconditions Necessary for objective morality. Okay, and so these preconditions include the character of God is the ultimate standard of goodness

Okay His creation of human beings and his image with intrinsic value and moral responsibility and his revelation of moral laws of scripture now without these

Any discussion of morality becomes incoherent and inconsistent. That's that's what I'd be arguing Okay, so the existence of a coherent binding moral framework is not just evidence suggesting a divine lawgiver

But rather a demonstration of the truth of the Christian worldview Okay It asserts that apart from the presupposition of the

Christian God one can't coherently affirm the existence of objective Moral values and duties and so this basically of shifts the focus from proving

God's existence as a conclusion derived from moral facts to asserting the impossibility of the contrary without the

Christian God the very discussion of morality loses its meaning and Coherence. Okay. I hope that makes sense

Let me see here Give me a second. I will get to some of the questions on the chat there.

I see some good questions here. I Think I accidentally unplugged myself

Okay All right. So let's see here.

Did it to do? So we have a question from Belushi prove

Prevalone Eli, could you explain the difference between the virtuous circle and vicious circle again in light of the cosmological argument?

Okay. All right, so Vicious circularity is also known as begging the question or the petitio principi and this occurs when an arguments conclusion is assumed

Within its premises, okay leading to a form of reasoning that basically fails to provide any external support for the conclusion okay, so an example of Vicious circularity would be something like the

Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible, right? And that's not what we are arguing here.

That's not the nature of the presuppositional Argument that's not the nature of presuppositional circularity

Okay Now virtuous circularity on the other hand is a term used within this context to describe a form of reasoning where one's

Foundational beliefs or presuppositions are used to justify themselves in a coherent and consistent way and so within a presuppositional framework

We acknowledge that we all have kind of fundamental starting points and The starting point that the

Christian worldview is beginning with we presuppose it Not in a fallacious circular way, but arguing that without the specific presupposition that we're asserting

All intelligibility is lost So the nature of our starting point is that if it is denied it undercuts the intelligibility of anything whatsoever and so on the one hand one is engaging in vicious circularity in which the conclusion is in one of the premises and in virtuous circularity

We make a distinction between the presupposition of our argument the truth of the Christian worldview as the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and the premise of an

Argument namely a step in a deductive argument So why is why is it the case that the presupposition list is not engaging in vicious circularity?

The answer to that is in just my mic here is that there is no presuppositional argument that has premise premise

Conclusion and the conclusion is stated in the premise. There's just did you never you're not gonna find it

That's not what we're arguing and that's why I make the distinction between the presupposition of an argument and the premise of an argument

Okay, so virtuous circularity. We're dealing with the preconditions of intelligibility

If you deny the presupposition of the Christian worldview logic knowledge intelligible experience is undermined

That's not the same as saying that I'm starting with God exists in my argument and then a premise and then conclusion

God exists That's not what we're doing. Okay, so that would be that would be the difference there I hope that hope that makes sense.

Okay, and and this isn't This isn't some weird idiosyncratic like presuppositional thing.

Like this is this is like an actual logic thing Okay, this is not so like some weird thing that presupposition list talk about.

All right, so there you go Hope that's helpful a little bit. Okay Let's see here

So God is more important than logic in the presuppositional approach Eli. Is that right?

Well God is more important God is the necessary precondition For logic logic is a reflection of God's mind is got

God's God's thoughts, right? So God is the metaphysical grounding for abstract conceptual laws of thought.

So I think that's if that's what you mean, okay Yeah, there we go, yep, so God is the ultimate standard of goodness and then floods the earth

Yes, so think about what you're saying. Okay When you put floods in all capital

You are assuming something Without an ultimate standard, right? So that I get the sarcasm in the all caps.

God is the ultimate standard of goodness Which would then logically follow if he is the ultimate standard of goodness that it was good and right for him to flood the earth for the

Purposes for which he flooded the earth within the context of the account in Genesis. That's right

You don't get to Consistently say that God can't be the standard of goodness because he does something that you deem to be not good

For if you deem the flooding of the earth not good Then that presupposes an ultimate standard if that ultimate standard is

God Then you have to assert the flood was good If your ultimate standard is your opinion, then your opinion is not the ground and standard of what is defined as goodness, right?

So so yes, God floods the earth because he is a righteous judge. That's right I didn't flood the earth filled with innocent little people that were like, oh, what is he doing?

This is obviously a result of sin and God has the right to judge you might not like that You might not think that that's you know, that's good

But it's irrelevant as to what you think is good If God is the standard what he does is good because he's the standard.

So there you go All right. Let me see here Did it to do and there's a lot of other stuff there

Okay Okay, a lot of comments there

Did you precept the ontological are No, we have not precept the ontological we're getting there.

We're getting there. We'll talk about we'll talk about the ontological argument. Yeah, I Love the question.

It was phrased as good Let's see here Yeah, I don't see how okay

I don't see how this is this is difficult Eli God floods the earth what's good there What's good?

Is that God executes his justice? It is good that God brings judgment his judgment issues from his righteous character

If the Christian story is correct, then his judgment is good. It was good that he judged

I Don't I don't see how that's a within the Christian system That's perfectly consistent.

If I were to agree with the implication of your question, I would have to say that God the

Bible asserts that God does good. He's the standard but he flooded the earth and that's bad So God can't be that that doesn't that makes no sense

Right if God is good then by definition his flooding of the earth was a good thing to do given the context in which it

Occurred that doesn't mean it was good for the people who experienced it But it was right and righteous for God to bring judgment because God is the only one in the position to bring judgment

Appropriately, so okay. So, all right. Thank you for that. Let's see here

We'll go one more and then we'll jump right back into where we left off. Okay, so Turk by call says

Revealed apologetics. What should I already learn before I get into theology and presuppositional apologetics? For example, should

I learn logic before metaphysics before epistemology before ethics? What you want to learn first is

Theology. Okay, the Bible master the Bible the Bible gives us a system of thought it creates the foundation

Pardon for our worldview. Okay, the Bible the narrative story of the Bible gives us our metaphysic

It gives us our epistemology and it gives us the our ethic, right? So for example, um in the beginning

God created the heavens and the earth That's Genesis 1 1 in the beginning God, there's the

Creator Created there's the creation. That's the fundamental basic metaphysical assumption within our worldview that we call it

Well van Til called this the creator creature distinction. Okay epistemology

God is a god of knowledge, right? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and in Christ is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge right so these are

Epistemological statements, okay, it's not giving us a full -throated of philosophy But the principles of our metaphysics or epistemology, you know be holy for I'm holy

Our ethics is right there in Scripture master scripture the system of Scripture And then of course we do that in tandem with philosophical categories as well that help us kind of think about those things in an orderly

Way, okay, but theology I think is the foundation out of which our philosophy flows. So I think they go hand in hand

Alright. Okay. Thank you for those questions. I got lots to cover So I have to move along.

I'm say, sorry. Let's see. He All right. So did we talk about what do we where did

I leave off you guys threw me off? Okay, so the resurrection of Jesus Let's talk about the resurrection.

We'll get to the ontological I I have some questions that that I was sent and it covers it covers that so we'll talk about that I haven't

I haven't forgotten Okay Let's see here Okay, so the resurrection of Jesus we talk about evidence for the resurrection these sorts of things and this this deals with issues of historical

Analysis and study and these sorts of things and again when we study history and we study the facts of history

That's not done independent of worldview. All right, so we have to continually bring this point across okay, so within a presuppositional framework the argument for the resurrection of Jesus is fundamentally different From the approach taken by the classical apologist the evidential apologist, right?

it doesn't start by examining, you know historical evidence for the resurrection as this is key as Isolated facts to be assessed neutrally.

Okay Now the classicalists and evidentialists are not going to say well the historical facts are just these neutral facts

But you'll often say you'll have to hear them say we all have bias But we have to try our best to look at the data in an as in as much as possible in an unbiased way

I don't I don't know how you actually do that. Okay, they all acknowledge you can't do it neutrally

But then what do they do? They they proceed to do it neutrally, right? So so basically that's not what we're saying

We're not saying that we look at historical facts concerning the resurrection in you know in an isolated neutral fashion

Okay Rather we begin with the acknowledgment again to remind us at the beginning that all reasoning and interpretation of facts occur within a worldview and That the

Christian worldview is the only coherent foundation for understanding reality including historical facts

Okay, so the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for the meaningfulness of historical facts

Okay, so the presuppositional approach asserts that the very ability to engage in historical reasoning recognizes causes and effects

Understanding testimony trusting our cognitive faculties all of these presuppose the truth of the Christian worldview

And so this worldview posits a rational orderly universe created by God and governed by his providence where history has meaning and direction

Okay, that is the context in which history has meaningfulness Now within this particular framework the scriptures are held as the divinely inspired and authoritative revelation of God And the biblical accounts of the resurrection.

This is important They are not merely Historical texts they are the self attesting word of God And so therefore the truth of these accounts is accepted on the basis of the authority of Scripture itself.

Not solely on external Verification. Okay, very very important now the presuppositional approach

Challenges the unbeliever to account for their ability to trust historical knowledge or to seek meaning in history in historical events

Without a basis in the Christian worldview, how do you make sensitive history independent of a Christian worldview? it argues basically that apart from the presupposition of a biblical

God one is left with relativistic or chaotic view of history where the very concept of a historical fact becomes incoherent and so the resurrection of Jesus is

Not Presented merely as a historical event that happened right but as an event that is meaningful and knowable

Because it fits within the God -ordained pattern of redemptive history. This is super important because When we come at history from a neutral perspective and we look at the evidence for the resurrection if we prove anything

What do we prove? We prove that a man came back from the dead Now, I know some apologists will say well

And I won't say who said this maybe you'll recognize it But as well if someone comes back from the dead, I listen to whatever they say, okay

That's a kind of a popular thing that some apologists say That's not gonna work if we're gonna press for consistency here

Okay If we take the facts neutrally and we conclude that someone rose from the dead that tells us nothing about the meaning of that event

And so that event comes with no authority Okay, this is super important So the resurrection is not presented as a bare historical fact that just happened.

It just Happens and that's it okay, when we take a look at history within the context of a

Christian worldview and then we assess the meaningfulness of Historical data in the first place and we proclaim the resurrection of Jesus It comes with power because the fact of the resurrection is not isolated

But it also comes with the package deal of its meaning and interpretation provided by the

Christian worldview Okay, and so this is super important Okay, the resurrection of Jesus is not presented as a historical fact that just happened

But as an event that is meaningful and knowable because it fits within the God -ordained pattern of redemptive history

It's seen as the vindication of Christ's claim to divinity the fulfillment of prophecy and the cornerstone of our hope as Christians and so the resurrection is both historically grounded and theologically necessary Okay now

That's how I think we should look at the historical data I know a lot of people say let's treat the the documents as regular historical documents, even if you do it that way

It's in our favor, but the dangers of assuming categories of neutrality and autonomy with respect to history.

I think it's inconsistent. Okay now a Question might arise now.

Let me take some water. Oh my goodness be nice in the comments I'm not it's hard for me to follow a multitask going on here

Okay, oh my goodness I'm losing my voice. Whoo All right.

Let's see here So now with respect to history here When I was thinking about this this popped in my head and I feel like if I am a critic listening to me talk

This is a question that I asked How do I know the

Bible as history? Okay Without having knowledge of the

Bible in order to function as the intellectual backdrop for understanding history I'm gonna say that again.

Okay. Sorry. I'm having trouble Swallowing one second. I have to be careful because I have to teach tomorrow.

So if I lose my voice here Then I got to be silent in front of my students. You see what I do for you people

I'm just kidding. So here's a question. How do I know I'm gonna talk. I'm gonna talk soft more softly now

How do I know I get that deep radio voice I will try this How do I know?

The Bible is history without having knowledge of the Bible in order to function as the intellectual backdrop for understanding history

Okay, that's a good question. I Know it's a good question because I thought of it That's the one

I was like that's the one if I were if I were on the other side of the screen Maybe I'd ask that question if the biblical

God must be presupposed to have a meaningful foundation of history in the first place, right? Then how do we respond to the challenge that someone might not recognize the

Bible as history if they don't know the presuppositions? It provides for understanding history.

Okay, I'm gonna say that again If the biblical God must be presupposed to have a meaningful foundation of history in the first place

Then how do we respond to the challenge that someone might not recognize the Bible as history if they don't know the presuppositions?

It provides for understanding history History, okay Hopefully that makes sense my throat.

I don't want to lose my voice Well in answering that question,

I think it's important to recognize okay and gets back to the beginning Everyone interprets facts through a set of foundational beliefs for presuppositions, right?

And so in the presuppositional apologetic framework The Bible serves as the revelation of God and thus provides us with the epistemological framework necessary for understanding all aspects of reality including history

The Christian world he maintains internal consistency in its historical understanding because it grounds all events in God's sovereign plan and Providence Without this framework.

We argue history lacks ultimate meaning and purpose and coherence and Romans 1 18 through 20 psalm 19 1 through 4 affirms that God makes himself known to all through both general

Revelation we also call natural revelation and special revelation So even if people lack explicit knowledge of the

Bible's presuppositions They are inherently aware of God's existence and his moral law which informs their understanding of the world including history

But due to sin people suppress that truth as highlighted in other places in Scripture And so to summarize the point the presuppositional apologetic response is that the

Bible is the foundational basis for historical? Understanding because it provides a coherent framework through God's revelation and this allows us to interpret history

Meaningfully and so for those who don't have the Bible God's revelation in nature provides sufficient knowledge of God so as to begin to make sense of history, however

History does not make sense because the unbelievers unbelieving presuppositions are true or accurate Rather they can make sense of history

Because what they believe in their heart of hearts the suppressed truth is actually in conflict with what they say with their mouths

And so they can make sense of history precisely because they're inconsistent with what they say They believe about the world and so they can make sense of history because the

Christian world is true Regardless if they have a Bible or not Okay, the biblical truth that all men know

God and are without excuse is true whether someone has a Bible or not and Just as it is true that God exists regardless if someone had the

Bible to tell him this right he exists regardless if they have The Bible all right, so those are a key points to keep in mind

Now let me get to some of my questions here that were sent to me, and I know someone

Asked about the ontological argument we'll we'll get there We'll get there some of these are kind of summary points of things that I addressed

But hopefully they'll be helpful as we kind of draw things to a close here all right Okay, so first question here

It's kind of straightforward But I'll answer it here so number one. How does the cosmological argument fit into a presuppositional framework well again?

You can watch the rest at the beginning of the video, but basically to kind of summarize the cosmological argument

Posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause at least this version of it and since the universe began to exist

This is the clam. It must have a cause okay, so traditionally understood We understand the cause to be

God okay. You know you hear dr. Craig Argue along this line whatever begins to exist as a cause the universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause and then when

You philosophically reflect on what it means to be the cause of the universe it has all the characteristics of God Okay now

From a presuppositional perspective this argument is reformulated to emphasize that the very concept of causality and the intelligibility of the universe itself

Presuppose a rational orderly creator So rather than using the cosmological argument to lead one to the existence of God the presuppositional approach points out that the existence of God Is the necessary foundation for the cosmological argument to make sense in the first place and so without God the concept of causality lacks?

It's grounding. Okay, and so that's basically the transcendental thrust to the cosmological argument

Okay, and the same goes for the teleological argument as well. All right. Give me a second.

Oh Boy, I don't know How much longer I could last my throat is killing me.

I'm so sorry Okay, so can the teleological argument be used within a presuppositional framework.

Yes. Okay. We talked about that already So the teleological argument observes design and purpose in the universe and then infers the existence of a designer, right?

We can put this within a presuppositional framework We basically are arguing the very ability to recognize design and purpose presupposes an orderly and purposeful

Creator, right? And so the presuppositional approach is gonna focus on the notion of design in nature It only makes sense because we live in a world created by God.

Okay, and so We kind of you know, rinse wash and wash rinse and repeat, okay now same thing for the moral argument as as well

Let's take a look here There was one on the train on the ontology. There's an ontological one.

Give me a sec Let's see here.

I see there's some there's some debates. There's some debates in the comments Oh, really like Bible difficulty stuff

Okay, I mean I'm not even gonna take the bait there.

All right Okay, let's just let's just continue. I can't I can't I have to focus on what

I want to get through today So I see some interesting kind of side debates. I mean you're gonna have to cut

Kaiju Kaiju, I don't know say the name if you're gonna come in this comments act you could feel free to Say whatever you'd like, but I mean if you're gonna have to bring heavier guns then like your

Bible difficulties 101 I'm just saying anyway. I hope you guys have fun in the comments there.

Just be respectful. Okay? I don't have time to address those but if if he brings up You know scriptures and things like that if someone wants to give a point them to some resources

You know do that that might be useful for him. Okay. All right. Let's see here

I think I'm gonna cover one more question because I think my throat is gone. I'm like losing my voice

Here is the last ones on to lie I give I prom made a promise I have to do this one Okay, so how can the ontological argument be utilized within a presuppositional framework?

Okay, the on till everyone loves the ontological and I'm just kidding Who defends the ontological argument now is

I know there's a Alvin Planting a defended defended it in his work I don't know who defends it now

It's been a while but anyway, the ontological argument Basically puts forth the idea of the very concept of a maximally great being

Implies its existence, right so we can we can take this within a presuppositional framework the presuppositional approach

Emphasizes the human ability to conceive of a maximally great being presupposes an ultimate standard of greatness

Which can only exist if God exists. So instead of using the ontological argument to move from concept to reality

We could argue that our conceptual framework itself is grounded in the reality of God And so the argument highlights the necessary precondition of God's existence for coherent thought about greatness and being

Okay, God, basically all of these arguments we add a transcendental thrust to them.

Okay thus maintaining kind of a consistency with our presuppositional framework and Theological commitments too.

We want to move away as much as possible from categories of Neutrality and autonomy and those sorts of things.

All right. Well, I wish I can keep going for crying out loud My throat is killing me.

I'm so sorry But I hope this is helpful. Um, I mean, I'm not The gram poomba of all this stuff

But these are the sorts of things that I used to think about and these are kind of just me getting my thoughts as I At least if I fumbled over something or didn't explain something clearly

I hope it's a little helpful in terms of at least beginning how we might use some of the traditional arguments within a kind of Presuppositional context.

Okay, so hope it's helpful. All right Okay, so I have to stop my throat is gone.

Thank you so much guys. I promise. Okay Let's see here. Let me see you so so let's see here earth says

So the presuppositional approach is an apologetics about what makes Apologetics possible to begin with in the first place.

Is that fair to say? Okay. So so the presuppositional approach is an apologetic method But one of the main arguments it uses is what's called a transcendental argument and transcendental argument is not unique to presuppositionalism

It is a form of argumentation. You have kind of deductive arguments abductive arguments inductive argument

You have transcendental arguments and transcendental arguments historically Sought to be Anti -skeptical arguments and so it basically argues what must be the case in order for something else to be possible

So we're asking what are the preconditions for the possibility of something else? We're arguing that the precondition for the possibility of anything is the

Christian worldview context The Christian God is revelation these sorts of things. So that's basically what we're doing

So in a rough and loose and rough and dirty way, I suppose but I would kind of ferret that out a little bit.

Okay Alright Thank you great answer for the ontological argument. Okay good.

I'm glad that was helpful. Hope your voice holds up Yes, I hope my voice holds up too because I have a full week of work

To this week and a lot of talking. So guys, thank you so much for listening in Whether you're a

Christian or a non -christian, I hope your discussions are being respectful Christians Please if there is an unbeliever asking questions

If you have the time point them just point them to some good resources or another video or an article You know, don't don't be too hard on them if they have questions

But other than that guys until next time That's it for this live stream. I'm sorry for the abrupt ending.

My my voice is about to die So until next time guys, take care and god bless