Is Presup Connected to Postmodernism? Nope!

[@mattkenny7974]

Your presentation is really top-notch. I will pray for this ministry. It's awesome. You're a great communicator!

[@RevealedApologetics]

Thank you for those kind words :-) blessings!

[@jordanh1635]

I haven't watched the presentation yet, but I will give my thoughts why I think Presuppositional apologetics is connected to Postmodernism 1. Both endorse the myth of neutrality as core to their doctrines Presup has a great similarity to authors like Lyotard in the book on the Postmodern condition because they both presuppose that there is a myth of neutrality as Bahnsen calls it. The distrust of metanarratives is situated for Lyotard in similar notions that there isn't any bridging principles between different worldviews. In order for TAG to succeed, like the postmodern condition, presups argue that there can't be any common epistemic ground between worldviews because the Christian worldview is the one only true worldview, even if they might agree on certain facts. Both postmodernism and presup critique the classical evidential conception of knowledge for not recognizing the implicit assumptions people make. The only main difference is that for Lyotard the myth of neutrality results in a pervasive skepticism of our ability to know, while for Bahnsen it means only the Christian worldview can guarantee the presuppositions for knowledge. 2. The reliance on coherentism is present in both presup and postmodernism When we look at Rortys coherentism in the mirror of nature we see this is one of the big reasons he thinks the notion of objective mind independent knowledge should be abandoned. Like the presup, he thinks that classical foundationalism is a pit of ruin like with Descartes or Aristotle when they adopt self evident principles that are given to us. The destruction of these self evident principles are the link that connect Rorty's postmodern philosophy with the Presup. The presup thinks there can't be these principles like the inherent givenness of the self because that would give leverage to autonomous epistemology and fail to recognize that each belief is interconnected to each other and not simply given. This is another reason why the myth of the given and Sellars is so widely used in presup philosophy. They need something like that critique to demolish foundationalism and self evident principles in order to destroy the preconditions of knowledge on the autonomous epistemologist worldview!

[@fatalisticsandwich7789]

This is an incredible summary

[@michaelsowerby8198]

A master class in misrepresentation.

[@k7stingray]

They both start with the letter P.😂

[@RevealedApologetics]

😂😂😂

[@k7stingray]

@RevealedApologetics When you get a chance, if you haven't already, check out Flowers' response to the recent White/Breda debate. He blames White's failure to understand Breda's position on White's adherence to Presuppositionalism. I'm not sure where he is getting his ideas about Presup, but I think he is confused.

[@RevealedApologetics]

@@k7stingray can you give me a link?

[@k7stingray]

@@RevealedApologetics kzbin.infoVzaftkWBCbs?si=NGLZQyl0ioEwOCyD

[@k7stingray]

​@@RevealedApologeticsHere's another more recent comment he made earlier tonight in a debate response video. kzbin.infoUgkx-niGz3XXIqqRss78w3FtDcdD2x0_9rOb?si=OGt-4MmE_eXG7025

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

I think Johnson's critique of worldview language is spot on. I don't think any two people share the same "worldview" as the term is most naturally taken to mean. We all have different noetic structures filled with different beliefs.

[@theologymatterspodcast7568]

Worst misrepresentation of pre-sup EVER!!! 😂😂

[@christopherjames1160]

@revealedapologetics Hey man, love your channel. I was wondering if there was a way i could get in touch with you to ask several questions regarding apologetics et al. Is there a way we could make that happen?

[@RevealedApologetics]

Sure. Email me at [e-mail] Then we can connect and perhaps discuss your questions over the phone.

[@christopherjames1160]

@@RevealedApologetics will do!

[@jason335777]

Eli, this helped me so much, thank you. My brother, a unitarian unfortunately, has been completely critical of my presup views, that we start with God and His word. He gave me the criticism that I am confusing arguments with argumentation. I have been trying to figure out what he meant by that. So hearing you lay out Van Til's answer to confusing ontology and epistemology gave me insight on how to answer him. It seems to me, that it is very much the same criticism.

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

I think one the confusion stems also from the fact that different schools name themselves "presuppositional" but differ greatly. There is the somewhat hybrid Schaeffer. And there is the fideistic stream of Naugle and Sire. There is the vantillian and the clarkian side. And all are called presuppositional.

[@kyoto8911]

voetius i love you

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

@@kyoto8911 Well, good to hear! 😀

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Thanks for what you do, Eli! I've been sending atheists who are interested in learning more about Presup your way. You do a great job, especially with remaining respectful. There are lots of atheists who are interested in learning more about Presup - I think more than openly say so!

[@douloschristus1475]

The greatest problem with giving a criticism of another view or method is the lack of understanding of the view. It’s very obvious here. I love RC Sproul but really don’t believe he fully understood presuppositional apologetics.

[@coffeeman_andrew]

🤔 When he said presup is "anti reason" maybe he meant to say that it is anit rationalism...? Just trying to be charitable. God bless brother Eli!

[@Jollyswagman7]

Hey Eli I watched this amazing Christian testimony that I wanted to share with you. It’s on the KZbin channel called touching the afterlife and the title is I went to Hells worst chamber but first I came face to face with Jesus. Don’t worry it’s not all about hell, it’s for the heaven part that I think would be a blessing to you. Hope everything is going well. God bless.

[@piage84]

Hi there, I have a question. Has any presuppositional apologist ever defended/justify P1: god is the necessary precondition for intelligibility? I see all presup apologists online asserts thats the case and run from it. If P1 of TAG is not true, how can TAG demostrate that god exists?

[@alyssascott5154]

YOU SEE EIl can predict the future😂

[@RevealedApologetics]

😂

[@fndrr42]

My thoughts on the ontology/epistemology thing that we never seem to get passed. If you’re not confusing them and using them properly. What is the beef with classical apologetics a la Aquinas?

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

As I understand it classical apologetics in the flavour of Thomas "grant" some metaphysical assumptions to everyone. They begin txpically with three tenets: basic reliabilty of sense perception, the validity of the law of contradiction, and causality. That is to say that they begin with an epistemology built on the thinnest ontology possible. After that, they compare worldviews and see which one can hold up those three assumptions coherently. PA on the other hand sees a problem with granting the unbeliever a somewhat neutral ground as if the reliability of sense perception, logic and so on possible in any given worldview. They hold that you could only operate on those assumptios if the christian worldview is true in the first place. PA go direct to the heart of the matter. In a sense, both classicalists and PA are saying that the epistemological assumptions are possible only if the christian worldview is true. But the starting point is different.

[@fndrr42]

@@Gisbertus_Voetius - the argument is that the first principles are unavoidable though. Simply asserting they are not first principles requires the use of laws of identity, excluded middle, non contradiction. Just as to argue against sense perception being reliable is inherently self refuting. It's not an ontological possition so I am not sure what you mean by "thinnest ontology possible". We aregue that first principles are pre-worldview - required for any worldview to be examined and therefore not dependent on a worldview.

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

@@fndrr42 Thanks for some clarification. It sounds like phenomenology what you are puuting forward, and I don't think that a sharp distinction between pre-theoretical and theoretical is possible. And we are speaking of the logical priorities here. The important point is not that we all use logic (we do) but to define their bearing power. An epistemology without any reference to ontology is not possible. But I am not here to defend these points, that had been done better by others. Have a good week!

[@fndrr42]

@@Gisbertus_Voetius - I appreciate the interaction as well. For the record I am very much against phenomenology and the modern critical philosophical project in general. I think this is what hangs up much of these debates though. Van Til was a product of idealist philosophy and I very much agree with him that it needs to be dismantled. Our argument is that there was already the correct position available and one that disposes the use of transcendental idealism in the first place.

[@russellsteapot8779]

Postulating a correlation between presup and post-modernism does seem to be a tenuous, fringe view, though in terms of 'worldviews' and 'paradigms', I guess there's some sort of a scratch to itch, even though it seems way too vague as a basis for building a case of any substance. Presup seems to have emerged from the general inability of classical and evidential apologetics to make their case, and provides an all-guns-blazing alternative! But the all-too-frequent appeals to an interlocutor's 'lack of understanding' never helps its case. Presenting the 'argument' that is often referred to (but never made), and demonstrating the hugely ambitious claim that presuppers assert would be the way to avoid this supposed lack of understanding, but since this never happens, it seems destined to be an apologetic that just makes its subscribers feel better, rather than something that will ever escape its echo chamber. The dogged denial of any common ground with those who disagree is a surefire way to maintain this isolation, as it's the perfect way to prevent any possibility of productive discussion. Since it's so thoroughly unconvincing to a non-believer, and the authotitarian aim is just to 'shut the mouth of the unbeliever', is the *actual* agenda of presup simply to 'convert' existing (non-presup) apologists to this "method"? If that is the case, it doesn't seem to make any sense, as pulling people away from gentler classical/evidential approaches to indulge in something that's even LESS effective at 'spreading the word' seems rather short sighted?

[@bobatl4990]

you two need to inteact with each other...it would be good to hear brothers in Christ enage in a respectful manner.

[@TheoSkeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never encountered any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@jeffdowns1038]

I'm sorry, but this guy is just "out to lunch" and sadly, causes me caution on purchasing his book on the Trinity.