Presuppositionalism, take 27

In which fifthmonarchyman and William J. Murray, undaunted by prior failures, undertake to defend presuppositionalism properly this time.

134 thoughts on “Presuppositionalism, take 27

  1. J-Mac,

    Isaiah 40:22

    He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
    He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

    The whole thing shows that the author thought of the earth as a flat circle on top of which the heavens could be stretched like a tent. You don’t put a tent on top of a sphere, and tents are not stretched continuously. Again, what you’re doing is taking this crap out of context and giving a meaning of your own. That, again, is called eisegesis. Reading the bible like a horoscope. You put the meaning into the bible, rather than taking into account its historical and its grammatical context to try and get what the author is actually saying.

  2. William J. Murray: Obviously, since I’m not a christian, I’m not defending Presuppositionalist Apologetics.

    Me neither,

    I’ve often said I don’t like the term apologetics and don’t consider myself an apologist

    I also don’t like the idea of “schools” of apologetics. As if some ways are correct and some are incorrect.

    Even folks who claim to be apologists and who hold to presupositionalism would not often call what they do Presuppositionalist Apologetics they would call it Covenantal Apologetics

    check it out

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ten-tenets-of-covenantal-apologetics/

    peace

  3. Entropy:
    J-Mac,

    Tents to live in are not continuously “stretched.” You stop “stretching” as soon as you’ve got the tent ready, and the “stretching” has a limit. You’re reading the expansion of the universe into the bible. The crap you’re engaging on is called eisegesis, and it’s the same kind of self-delusion that people fall into when reading their horoscopes.

    The “Tent” is an expression for simple people like keirths who knew what the tent is to understand the laws of physics… and the unfolding of the universe…
    It’s not for people who deny everything but what they are determined to believe…
    These people belong in the world of total denial but what they want to hear…It’s a disorder…

  4. Rich:

    Let’s try and get a beverage on the books when I’m on the west coast this year.

    Yes, definitely. Also, I’m planning to buy a trailer, rent out the house, and go nomadic for a few years, so I’ll be passing through your area during my travels for sure.

    Beers one way or another. And popcorn.

  5. keiths: That’s not what I asked. My question was about Frame’s argument:

    I’ve read a lot of Frame. I don’t know the context of this particular snippet and I don’t think I would concur with it as written in isolation.

    If you want to understand what Frame means when he speaks of the Bible being self-attesting. I would suggest getting it from the horse’s mouth starting here.

    https://frame-poythress.org/the-spirit-and-the-scriptures/

    and here

    https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/John-Frame-Doctrine-of-the-Word-of-God-Excerpt.pdf

    As long as we are looking into what Frame says. You might find his treatments of logic and mathematics to be interesting and relevant

    https://frame-poythress.org/logic/

    and
    https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PoythressVernRedeemingMathematics.pdf

  6. J-Mac:
    The “Tent” is an expression for simple who knew what the tent is to understand the laws of physics… and the unfolding of the universe…

    Performing more eisegesis doesn’t make the first attempts any more convincing.

    J-Mac:
    It’s not for people who deny everything but what they are determined to believe…
    These people belong in the world of total denial but what they want to hear…It’s a disorder…

    The irony. Do you realize you’re talking about yourself there? It’s you who’s performing the eisegesis. It’s you who does so because that’s what you want to believe J. Not me. I’m just reading the crap as it is, not as you wish it to be.

  7. J-Mac: presupposition 3 of 27.
    Tents on circles ? God stretching the heavens ?
    I cant wait for the rest.

    J-Mac: Do you take that stuff seriously ? Or is it a parody of some sort ?

  8. graham2:
    J-Mac: presupposition 3 of 27.
    Tents on circles ?God stretching the heavens ?
    I cant wait for the rest.

    J-Mac: Do you take that stuff seriously ?Or is it a parody of some sort ?

    Do you take the chicken and egg paradox seriously?

  9. J-Mac: Do you take the chicken and egg paradox seriously?

    I don’t know about graham2, but I don’t take that shit seriously. Not only that, I know where you’re going with this: showing some of your ignorance aiming for a god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

  10. J-Mac: But in 1929 it all changed. It was proven that the universe is expanding which confirmed that the universe must’ve had a beginning, just as the bible writer wrote 3500 years ago…

    Curious that the shit you quoted says “in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth,” yet the earth did not appear but billions of years after the beginning.

    The money on research was well spent. Leaving it to biblical verses and waiting for some idiot to perform some eisegesis would have never lead anywhere. You have to know about the scientific results before you can put the desired meaning into the bible.

  11. fifth:

    I’ve read a lot of Frame. I don’t know the context of this particular snippet and I don’t think I would concur with it as written in isolation.

    I bought the Kindle book last night. The argument appears equally stupid in context:

    Habermas, however, evidently thinks also that there is no truth at all in the narrowly circular argument. He says that of the two statements, (1) The Bible is the Word of God, and (2) the Bible says it is the Word of God, that both are true, but (1) is not true because of (2). I respectfully disagree. Let us formulate the argument a bit more formally:

    Premise 1: Whatever the Bible says is true.
    Premise 2: The Bible says it is the Word of God.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

    Both premises are true from an evangelical viewpoint, and they do imply the conclusion validly. So the conclusion is true because the two premises are true. We believe that the Bible is the Word of God because it says that it is the Word of God (granted premise 1, which is also an evangelical truism). Moreover, for Christians, the argument expresses an important truth: As our supreme standard, Scripture is self-attesting. There is nothing higher than God’s Word by which God’s Word may be validated.

    So here’s my question again:

    Fifth, do you actually buy that circular shit, or do even you have certain standards?

  12. keiths: Fifth, do you actually buy that circular shit,

    Frames argument here seems to be that his syllogism is true and valid in a Christian worldview that by definition already accepts that the Bible is God’s word.

    I would agree on that point but in the absence of more context it seems to be merely a truism.

    Maybe that is why he brings it up, truisms are after all true just uninteresting.

    peace

  13. Frames argument here seems to be that his syllogism is true and valid in a Christian worldview that by definition already accepts that the Bible is God’s word.

    No, fifth. That the Bible is the word of God is the conclusion of the argument, not a premise:

    Premise 1: Whatever the Bible says is true.
    Premise 2: The Bible says it is the Word of God.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

    So Frame is stupidly presupposing that whatever the Bible says is true, then concluding that it is the word of God.

  14. keiths: The stupidity of Frame’s argument brought to mind the Gospel of Rumraket:

    In the Rumraketian worldview what the the gospel of Rumraket says would be true.

    My question to a Rumraketian would be

    1) Does his worldview make sense of reality?
    2) Does he live out his worldview consistently?

    Incidentally those would be my same questions to an atheist.

    peace

  15. keiths: That’s the conclusion of the argument, not a premise:

    The argument is made in the context of an Evangelical worldview where the truth of Scripture is a premise. A presupposition if you like

    did you miss this part of the comment?

    quote;
    (granted premise 1, which is also an evangelical truism).
    end quote:

    keiths: So Frame is stupidly presupposing that whatever the Bible says is true, then concluding that it is the word of God.

    NO,
    unless I’m mistaken what Frame is doing is showing that a circular argument can be true.
    That’s all

    peace

  16. fifth:

    My question to a Rumraketian would be

    It’s ‘Rumraketeer’, not ‘Rumraketian’. Your mistake is as offensive as calling a Christian a ‘Christite’.

    1) Does his worldview make sense of reality?

    Of course.

    quote:
    Rumraket is truth.
    (Gospel of Rumraket 1:4, Danish to English Translation)
    end quote:

    peas

  17. 2) Does he live out his worldview consistently?

    You certainly don’t, so why should that be your question for a Rumraketeer?

    peas

  18. keiths: Of course.

    We would need to know some details of the worldview before we could make that judgement.

    My guess would be that the better it maps to reality the closer it mimics Christianity

    peace

  19. keiths: You certainly don’t, so why should that be your question for a Rumraketeer?

    If I am an inconsistent Christian that means I have work to do to be more Christlike. My sanctification is not complete.

    I certainly want to be more Christlike. In fact it’s the single overarching goal of my existence.

    I would certainly expect someone holding any worldview would similarly want to be as consistent as possible.

    peace

  20. fifth:

    We would need to know some details of the worldview before we could make that judgement.

    I quoted Scripture to you.

    quote:
    Rumraket is truth.
    (Gospel of Rumraket 1:4, Danish to English Translation)
    end quote:

    Rumraket is truth, so of course Rumraketism makes sense of reality.

    Rumraket said it; I believe it; that settles it.

    peas

  21. fifth:

    I certainly want to be more Christlike. In fact it’s the single overarching goal of my existence.

    No, it isn’t. God is truth, according to you. Yet you actively fight the truth, as I demonstrated in the other thread. By the lights of your own worldview, you’ve turned your back on God.

    peas

  22. keiths: I quoted Scripture to you.

    is that all there is to Rumraketeer scripture?

    If so then it seems that Rumraketeerism doesn’t mean anything at all, it’s just a single silly truism. No harm or benefit to anyone.

    If Rumraketism want’s to aspire to be an actual worldview it needs some actual content………Like Christianity

    peace

  23. keiths: God is truth, according to you. Yet you actively fight the truth, as I demonstrated in the other thread.

    Which thread is that keiths? keeping up with your accusations is rather difficult.

    I can’t think of too many folks here who you haven’t accused of something or other

    peace

  24. keiths:

    God is truth, according to you. Yet you actively fight the truth, as I demonstrated in the other thread. By the lights of your own worldview, you’ve turned your back on God.

    And since Rumraket is truth, according to the Gospel of Rumraket (as opposed to the heretical scriptures of your puny god), you have turned your back on Rumraket.

    You’re doomed, fifth.

    peas

  25. keiths: You’re doomed, fifth.

    It’s a good thing then that according to my worldview salvation is based on God’s Grace and not my merit. 😉

    peace

  26. fifth:

    Which thread is that keiths? keeping up with your accusations is rather difficult.

    Getting a little cranky, fifth? It’s unpleasant to see the stupidity of presuppositional Christianity through the lens of Rumraketism, isn’t it?

    Which thread is that keiths?

    Here’s a link.

    peas

  27. fifth:

    is that all there is to Rumraketeer scripture?

    Of course not! That is just the Gospel of Rumraket. There is much more to His Holy Word.

    You know nothing of Rumraketism, yet in your heathen rebellion you presume to criticize it.

    Face it, fifth: It’s either Rumraket or absurdity.

    peas

  28. fifth:

    Frames argument here seems to be that his syllogism is true and valid in a Christian worldview that by definition already accepts that the Bible is God’s word.

    keiths:

    No, fifth. That the Bible is the word of God is the conclusion of the argument, not a premise:

    Premise 1: Whatever the Bible says is true.
    Premise 2: The Bible says it is the Word of God.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

    fifth:

    The argument is made in the context of an Evangelical worldview where the truth of Scripture is a premise. A presupposition if you like

    Right. As I said:

    That the Bible is the word of God is the conclusion of the argument, not a premise:

    Your mistake was to confuse the conclusion with one of the premises.

    did you miss this part of the comment?

    quote;
    (granted premise 1, which is also an evangelical truism).
    end quote:

    You’re confused again. It’s the premise that Frame is calling a truism. You thought it was the syllogism:

    I would agree on that point but in the absence of more context it [his syllogism] seems to be merely a truism.

    Frame is communicating, but you aren’t listening. You need to actually read his words in order to grasp his meaning. There’s no shortcut, fifth.

    peas

  29. keiths:

    So Frame is stupidly presupposing that whatever the Bible says is true, then concluding that it is the word of God.

    fifth:

    NO…

    YES. He even labeled things for you. See the label ‘Premise 1’? See what comes after it? See the word ‘Conclusion’? See what comes after it?

    Premise 1: Whatever the Bible says is true.
    Premise 2: The Bible says it is the Word of God.
    Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

    fifth:

    …unless I’m mistaken what Frame is doing is showing that a circular argument can be true.
    That’s all

    No, he’s making an argument and concluding that the Bible is the Word of God. He tells you that himself:

    Habermas, however, evidently thinks also that there is no truth at all in the narrowly circular argument… I respectfully disagree…Both premises are true from an evangelical viewpoint, and they do imply the conclusion validly. So the conclusion is true because the two premises are true. We believe that the Bible is the Word of God because it says that it is the Word of God (granted premise 1, which is also an evangelical truism).

    It’s an inane argument, and you seem to be embarrassed by it. That’s good!

    Now please demonstrate that you have at least some standards by publicly rejecting it.

    peas

  30. keiths: Of course not! That is just the Gospel of Rumraket. There is much more to His Holy Word.

    Cool then,

    Since you now have publicly rejected atheism we can begin to compare and contrast the worldviews of Rumraketism with Christianity.

    It behooves you to share your scripture with the world so we begin that process.

    I fully expect you to argue from Rumraketism premises from now on here as TSZ.

    If you ever slip back in to arguing from the perspective that God’s existence is not evident to you then you will have shown that both Rumraketism and Atheism are deficient worldviews.

    peace

  31. fifth:

    Since you now have publicly rejected atheism we can begin to compare and contrast the worldviews of Rumraketism with Christianity.

    There is no need. The choice is binary. It’s either Rumraketism or absurdity.

    peas

  32. It behooves you to share your scripture with the world so we begin that process.

    The Gospel of Rumraket is available to all. The rest of the Holy Writ is revealed by Rumraket only to believers. It may not be shared with the heathen.

    peas

  33. keiths: It’s an inane argument, and you seem to be embarrassed by it. That’s good!

    The argument is not inane from the perspective of Rumraketism. Your newly adopted faith also presupposes the truth of scripture.

    You have just publicly abandoned your atheism and now you are already attempting to return to arguing from atheist principles.

    It’s impossible to have a discussion with someone who contradicts his entire worldview in the space of two comments. We can’t dialogue when core premises are both true and not true for you at the same time and in the same respect

    I’ll give you some time to sort out what you believe and remove the glaring contradictions.

    Once you let me know you have done that by posting a summery of the worldview you actually embrace or list of the things you reject we can continue.

    peace

  34. I fully expect you to argue from Rumraketism premises from now on here as TSZ.

    His Raketness encourages us to feign atheism as a way of confusing the enemies of our faith. It is one of our highest duties and one that we cannot refuse.

    If you ever slip back in to arguing from the perspective that God’s existence is not evident to you then you will have shown that both Rumraketism and Atheism are deficient worldviews.

    Blasphemy! That is the babbling of someone under the noetic influence of sin, someone blind to the truth. Rumraket is truth. It says so in the Gospel of Rumraket, which we infallibly presuppose to be true. There can be nothing deficient about the truth and nothing deficient about Rumraket. He is perfect by definition.

    Declaring Rumraketism “deficient” is not only blasphemous, it is logically absurd. There are only two choices: Rumraketism or absurdity.

    peas

  35. Entropy: “in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth,” yet the earth did not appear but billions of years after the beginning.

    Good question!
    How did the bible writer know that the heavens were created BEFORE THE EARTH?

    Can you imagine what would happen if he had written:
    ‘In the beginning God created the earth and then the heavens? ‘

    I have been over this many, many other issues like that many times…
    The bible contains a hidden wisdom beyond human abilities to even make them up… it’s impossible…

    One of the scholars told me this fact:

    “The Bbible, while not a science text book, whenever it comments on scientific matters, it is always right. If you are not sure of some scientific claim and the bible comments on it directly or indirectly, always go with the bible, because whoever made sure the bible is scientifically correct has superior wisdom to humans. You will never, ever prove it wrong”

    I’ve tried… didn’t work…

  36. Hey All,

    It’s not often we see a conversion happen in real time.

    Since the rules of this site require us to take him at his word as to what he believes we should not question Keiths statements in this regard

    In order to allow keiths time to understand his newly professed faith and remove the residual contradictions with his former atheist worldview I am placing him on ignore for a while. This will also insure that I don’t say anything to him that he could construe as doubt on my part as to the genuineness of his profession.

    This is the least I can do to assure him that I am reacting as if he is posting in good-faith when he claims to now be a proponent of Rumraketism.

    I will count on you all to let me know when he has posted a summary of his new beliefs or a list of the things associated with atheism that he now rejects that he formerly embraced.

    Here is hoping this time will let him work through the remaining inconsistency he is experiencing.

    thanks

    peace

  37. J-Mac: What are you talking about? What new found faith?

    keiths now says he is a proponent of something called Rumraketism

    peace

  38. As the prophets foretold:

    quote:
    In those days there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the frantic clicking of Ignore buttons; but it will be too late: His Raketness shall not be denied. The evil forces of the presuppositionalist Christians shall go down in defeat, their asses pink from spanking and shame. Rumraket’s praises shall be sung throughout the land, and his blessings showered upon the faithful; world without end, Amen.
    end quote:

    peas

  39. J-Mac: What is it?

    I’m not sure exactly.

    He says that most of it’s scripture is secret so we can’t just read about it from the original source material. That is one reason why it’s so important for him to provide a list of his newly embraced beliefs before we can interact with him on the subject.

    peace

  40. Rumraket reveals only to the Chosen; the heathens with their vile heresies shall not partake of his Glory. So it was prophesied, and so it shall be.

    peas

  41. J-Mac: Good question!

    It was not a question, it was a remark.

    J-Mac: How did the bible writer know that the heavens were created BEFORE THE EARTH?

    It doesn’t say that. The word connecting those two “events” is “and,” it doesn’t say in the beginning god created the heavens and much much much much much later the earth. It’s saying that both things were created in the beginning. You’re reading what you want it to mean, not what it says. You’re fooling yourself.

    J-Mac: Can you imagine what would happen if he had written:
    ‘In the beginning God created the earth and then the heavens? ‘

    Yeah. You’d have a harder time putting what you want it to mean into what’s actually written, but surely you’d find a way. For example, you’d say that the word “and” is transitive in the original language, that it didn’t imply order of events, just that those events happened, that the words “in the beginning” really meant “some unspecified time after the beginning.” You’d find a way to make it work at least for you. Just as you’re doing right now, despite it’s obvious that the texts talks about the beginning involving both, the heavens and the earth, which, even if the “and” implied order of appearance, is a mistake, since the earth did not make it into the scene but much later into the history of the universe. Far away from the beginning.

    J-Mac: I have been over this many, many other issues like that many times…

    Never considering that you were putting your preferred meaning into the bible instead of reading it with some healthy skepticism. So you went about it many times over without considering what you were actually doing. How surprising that you never noticed what you were actually doing: eisegesis. Shit, the word is prominently used in the context of biblical studies by theologians themselves, and you’ve never considered it. You cannot even imagine that such is what you’re doing.

    J-Mac: The bible contains a hidden wisdom beyond human abilities to even make them up… it’s impossible…

    It’s very easy to read whatever you want into those texts. All it takes is taking a piece out of context, and then making it mean whatever you want.

    J-Mac: One of the scholars told me this fact:

    “The Bbible, while not a science text book, whenever it comments on scientific matters, it is always right. If you are not sure of some scientific claim and the bible comments on it directly or indirectly, always go with the bible, because whoever made sure the bible is scientifically correct has superior wisdom to humans. You will never, ever prove it wrong”

    Two eisegetists don’t make an eisegete right. They tend to work towards reinforcing each other’s eisegetes, rather than challenging them.

    J-Mac: I’ve tried… didn’t work…

    I’ve seen that in action myself. One of the eisegetists tells the other that there’s a problem here, because the context says this and that. The other eisegetist starts thinking and then, “what if what this really means is this, and not that? What if this is hiding this other piece of wisdom?” Since both want the bible to say what they wanted it to say, they agree quickly. Then they find a problem to what they just proposed, so they come with another ad hoc excuse, and so on and so forth, and finally conclude that there’s no errors whatsoever. That the bible truly contain loads of wisdom.

    That procedure works with everything. I have seen people doing that with their favourite charlatans’ texts. They’re never wrong those snake-oil salespeople. At least according to their fans.

  42. fifthmonarchyman: He says that most of it’s scripture is secret so we can’t just read about it from the original source material.

    He thinks they are encrypted and only the chosen ones can understand it…

    Based on what would the chosen one be given the understanding of the scriptures?

  43. J-Mac: Based on what would the chosen one be given the understanding of the scriptures?

    He hasn’t said AFAIKT.

    If I didn’t accept he was posting in good-faith about his professed beliefs I would probably assume he was making it up as he went along.

    peace

  44. fifthmonarchyman: He hasn’t said AFAIKT.

    If I didn’t accept he was posting in good-faith about his professed beliefs I would probably assume he was making it up as he went along.

    peace

    Seems familiar

Leave a Reply