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. newton: Seems familiar

    How so?

    I’m just glad that Christianity is completely unlike Rumraketism in that regard at least, it’s pretty well known and in the open.

    Inquirers really don’t have to guess as to what Christianity’s tenets are. It’s been around for a couple thousand years and there are plenty of books on the subject if someone is interested in discovering what it is about.

    peace

  2. fifth:

    I’m just glad that Christianity is completely unlike Rumraketism in that regard at least, it’s pretty well known and in the open.

    Inquirers really don’t have to guess as to what Christianity’s tenets are.

    Rumraket chooses to whom he reveals his truths and when. All people are born in a state of rebellion against Him. Only those in whom the Holy Gasket works his magic (did I forget to mention that Rumraket is a Trinity?) are privy to these powerful and incontrovertible truths.

    You are rebelling against Rumraket. Your disobedience has brought shame to you and your fellow heretics. The wrath of Rumraket is upon you. What have you done to deserve revelation from Him? If he chooses to grant it to you, you will receive it. If not, he will withhold it from you. Rumraket is sovereign. Who are you to demand revelation from Him? You are a nothing — a poor, miserable sinner — when compared against the Majesty of His Raketness!

    peas

  3. fifthmonarchyman: I’m just glad that Christianity is completely unlike Rumraketism in that regard at least, it’s pretty well known and in the open.

    It has just been around longer

    Inquirers really don’t have to guess as to what Christianity’s tenets are. It’s been around for a couple thousand years and there are plenty of books on the subject if someone is interested in discovering what it is about.

    So it may just making things up too, but it has been doing it for a long time.Christianity is of many flavors,not always playing nice with others.

  4. newton:

    Christianity is of many flavors,not always playing nice with others.

    Particularly early Christianity.

  5. All this Raketeering has me wondering:

    Rumraket,

    Is your nom de blog a reference to actual rockets, or to the record label, or what?

  6. Rumraket: You are aware that your argument isn’t valid, right?

    The conclusion might be right, but the argument you have constructed here doesn’t lead to it.

    That argument seems valid to me (though not sound, since I think the first premise is false.) What am I missing?

  7. newton: So it may just making things up too, but it has been doing it for a long time.Christianity is of many flavors,not always playing nice with others.

    A cool thing about Christianity is that you can compare the behavior of it’s adherents to Scripture to see if they are living consistently with the creed they claim to embrace.

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman: A cool thing about Christianity is that you can compare the behavior of it’s adherents to Scripture to see if they are living consistently with the creed they claim to embrace.

    Unless it’s Trump or Pence. They’re exempt from that rule.

  9. fifth:

    A cool thing about Christianity is that you can compare the behavior of it’s adherents to Scripture to see if they are living consistently with the creed they claim to embrace.

    But it would be silly to use that to argue that Christianity is true and Rumraketism is false. Don’t you agree?

    peas

  10. walto: Unless it’s Trump or Pence. They’re exempt from that rule.

    What rule is that?

    The ability to compare a professed Christian’s behavior to the standard is not a rule it’s a feature that is available to anyone willing to take a look.

    peace

  11. fifthmonarchyman: What rule is that?

    The ability to compare a professed Christian’s behavior to the standard is not a rule it’s a feature that is available to anyone willing to take a look.

    peace

    Many self-professed evangelicals give them a pass. I take it you don’t concur with their take.

  12. fifthmonarchyman: What rule is that?

    The ability to compare a professed Christian’s behavior to the standard is not a rule it’s a feature that is available to anyone willing to take a look.

    peace

    Self-professed evangelicals give them a pass. I take it you don’t concur with their take.

  13. walto: Self-professed evangelicals give them a pass. I take it you don’t concur with their take.

    I did not vote for Trump because I had suspicions he was a Fascist and I did not vote for Clinton because I thought she was Machiavellian. Instead I chose to throw my vote away.

    I will say that I’m pleasantly surprised in that after a year the republic still stands and not a lot has changed in the day to day grind that is life. Once we get through the midterm elections Trumps danger will have mostly passed.

    Most of the folks I run with either did what I did or held their nose and voted for the Trumpster not because they thought he was one of us but because they thought that he would be less likely to harm us than the alternative.

    He definitely was not the first choice of most of the Christians I know.

    There were lots of debates in the Evangelical world about voting for Some compared him to Cyrus the great a heathen who did not share the worldview of the people of God but was used by God to further their cause. Others went so far as to say that a Christian could not morally vote for such an immoral person. I don’t recall any serious Evangelical arguing that he was one of us.

    When I was younger I was more involved in politics but I have come to think that the way things improve in society has very little to do with what our politicians do and much more to do with how we treat each other. I think my Anabaptist forefathers had the right idea.

    IMO If you want to see a better world pray “Thy kingdom come” and act as if it already has.

    If you are a Democrat and still think that politics is the way to change things I suggest you find candidate that does not scare Evangelicals as much as Hilary Clinton did.

    I know that Jimmy Carter was very popular among folks who believe like I do I think he got 50% of the Evangelical vote. That was very good considering that lots of us Christians are single issue abortion voters and think that one thing “trumps” every other consideration.

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: Premise 1: Presuppositionalism is simply the idea that people might have undiscovered presuppositions.

    Premise 2: I often discover presuppositions that I did not know I had

    Conclusion: Presuppositionalism is a valid idea

    BTW, I still don’t see why Rum claimed this argument is invalid. Though, of course, Presuppositionalism is NOT simply the idea that people might have undiscovered presuppositions (unless one pumps an entire theory into the term “presuppositions.”) Anyhow, as written, both premises are empirical claims, and the inference seems clearly valid to me.

  15. walto: both premises are empirical claims, and the inference seems clearly valid to me.

    I don’t know why anyone would disagree it seems pretty straightforward and uncontroversial.

    I swear that some folks would balk at the idea that the sky is blue if a Christian presented it.

    walto: Presuppositionalism is NOT simply the idea that people might have undiscovered presuppositions (unless one pumps an entire theory into the term “presuppositions.”)

    I don’t think Presuppositionalism is a “theory” unless you mean the theory that people have undiscovered and unexamined presuppositions.

    If you want more to chew on than that, earlier in the thread I linked to a list of 10 tenents of Covenantal Apologetics. It’s not exactly presupositionalism but it’s closely related

    peace

  16. Now have read those. It’s your philosophy in a nice nutshell, FMM. It seems absolutely opposed to any revision, for whatever reasons. I’m surprised at your interest in science, which requires allowing for revisions.

    I wonder whether the “male or female” was itself a revision, however. Do you know if the original apologetics were intended to be universal in that way?

  17. walto: It’s your philosophy in a nice nutshell, FMM.

    not exactly. It’s narrowly concerned with apologetics.

    For me presuppositionalism is much broader than apologetics and presuppositionalism is only a small part of my “philosophy”.

    walto: It seems absolutely opposed to any revision, for whatever reasons.

    I’m not sure why you would say that.

    These tenets are simply the best understanding of a particular individual at a particular time when it comes to a particular topic.

    Revision would of course happen when more complete understanding or more information become available to him.

    Christians often construct summaries like this and they all have the implicit caveat that since they are not scripture they therefore are necessarily incomplete and possibly entirely mistaken.

    Some times the caveat is explicit. I especially like this one from the 1644 LBCF

    quote;
    Also we confess, that we know but in part, and that we are ignorant of many things which we desire and seek to know; and if any shall do us that friendly part to show us from the word of God that which we see not, we shall have cause to be thankful to God and them
    end quote;

    walto: I’m surprised at your interest in science, which requires allowing for revisions.

    When a scientist makes revisions he is fulfilling his covenant obligations by endeavoring to bring his understanding more in line with that of Gods.

    He is doing exactly what we should do. What is expressed in tenet 5

    Thinking God’s thoughts after him is the name of the game in science whether we wish to realize it or not.

    walto: I wonder whether the “male or female” was itself a revision, however.

    not exactly a revision here is the relevant text.

    quote:
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
    (Gen 1:27)
    end quote:

    hope that helps

    peace

  18. Well I was actually referring to the reference to ‘man’ in the link. It’s ‘clarifies’ there to include females. But when did that happen? Did it once exist without that?

  19. walto: Well I was actually referring to the reference to ‘man’ in the link. It’s ‘clarifies’ there to include females. But when did that happen? Did it once exist without that?

    I have no idea, I was completely unaware of the list until I googled Covenantal Apologetics a day or so ago in response to this thread.

    I would bet (male and female) were there from the beginning because as I showed they are in the verse that serves as the primary basis for this tenet.

    peace

  20. Presupposition 5 out of 27
    Genetic information for the development of an embryo.

    Ps 139:16

    “Your eyes looked upon my embryo, and everything was recorded in your book. The days scheduled for my formation were inscribed, even though not one of them had come yet.”

    How did bible writer known about the information written in a book needed for the SCHEDULED development of a living organism 3000 years ahead of scientific discovery?
    There is just no way that he could have guessed that…
    Never doubt the bible, if your belief is contrary to its statements on science!

    NEXT: proof scientists will never be able to recreate life.

  21. J-Mac: Never doubt the bible, if your belief is contrary to its statements on science!

    Except that the information is not written in a book. Apart from that minor detail, it’s perfectly accurate.

  22. J-Mac: NEXT: proof scientists will never be able to recreate life.

    Proof something is not possible? How exciting. Have you made a full determination of the laws of physics that you can come to such a conclusion?

    Also where does it mention “quantum” in the bible. You are a big fan of the “quantum”, but I’m afraid as it is never mentioned in the bible it simply does not exist.

  23. J-Mac: Presupposition 5 out of 27
    Genetic information for the development of an embryo.

    Ps 139:16

    “Your eyes looked upon my embryo, and everything was recorded in your book. The days scheduled for my formation were inscribed, even though not one of them had come yet.”

    Wow, it’s like telling us all about how genes interact during development.

    Well, without the genes or any information about development.

    But it does seem to recognize that life develops. No one had noticed that previously!

    Glen Davidson

  24. Presupposition 6 out of 27

    God is the source of life, which means that nobody will ever be able to even to recreate life…

    I can bet all the money I have…Anybody would like to make it interesting?
    Ps 36:9
    “With you (God) is the source of life”

    Life always comes from life no doubt about it… Let science change that …

  25. J-Mac:

    Anybody would like to make it interesting?

    Yes, somebody please take over for J-Mac and make this interesting.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.