Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Also, presuppositions can be proved, unlike axioms.
I have often read in discussions of TAG that God is the presupposition of 'X'. But isn't the point of this to prove God's existence?It almost seems oxymoronic to speak of a "proven" presupposition. A presupposition is a "pre" -supposition. Of course, you may be using the term in a different sense than I am. I think of presuppositions as something assumed by which other things are proved, and itself is not proved.
I think you are correct. If I am using proof in such a broad sense (which I am), then it could also apply to axioms. Its just that I don't think people think axioms can be proved, which is no doubt because they are using a narrower definition of proof.One can present arguments for and against certain presuppositions. As to whether or not this constitutes a proof depends on how broadly you are using the term 'proof'. However, if you use it in a broad sense, then one can easily apply this to an argument justifying a certain axiom.
Not strictly. A presuppositional approach assumes the truth of scripture and demonstrates the impossibility of knowledge without this assumption. In presuppositionalism, the internal consistency of Scripture is an assumption, in evidntialism, it is one of the things to be proved. A presuppositionalist might defend the internal consistency of Scripture as a way of defending one of their assumptions, but they wouldn't use this to prove the truth of Scripture, the way an evidentialist might, only to negate an attempt to prove the falsity of scripture. And they would not seek to use external sources to prove the truth of it.
Also, this is my first post in philosophy/ apologetics; pleasee all go easy if I am mistaken.
Do you mean 'is Scripture self-testifying? -does the Bible claim to be God's Word and true?I wasn't thinking of internal consistency as a standard that proves Scripture. I wasn't thinking of external sources that would authenticate the Bible. I was thinking of one part of Scripture proving another part of Scripture.
Do you mean 'is Scripture self-testifying? -does the Bible claim to be God's Word and true?I wasn't thinking of internal consistency as a standard that proves Scripture. I wasn't thinking of external sources that would authenticate the Bible. I was thinking of one part of Scripture proving another part of Scripture.
If I am correct about the pressupositional methodology, one cannot prove scripture. Insted scripture is axiomatic and the reference point for all revelation and truth.
If someone were to say that the Bible proves itself to be the word of God by recording various prophecies and their fulfillment, would this consistent with the presuppositional approach to apologetics?
This would be Clarkian presuppositionalism.If I am correct about the pressupositional methodology, one cannot prove scripture. Insted scripture is axiomatic and the reference point for all revelation and truth. Yes, evidence is important such as the arguments for creation, prophecy, archaeology but ultimately one is relying soly on faith (given by Gods reedeeming grace) and working forward to show that scripture is further reliable with evidence. ...
This would be Bahnsen/Van Til type presuppositionalism - the TAG (Transcendental Argument for God).I think the presuppositionalist argument would say that unless you accept the bible as true you cannot ultimately make sense out of life, ethics, science, or anything. The proof of scripture then involves assuming that the bible is false and finding out whether or not you can make sense out of life, ethics, science, and etcetera given an antibiblical starting point. There are only two choices. If the antibiblical choice fails, you must accept the biblical one.
I believe all presuppositionalist agree that evidence (e.g. prophecy fulfillment and archaeological data, etc) can be used to support Scripture, or to defeat counter arguments. However, evidential arguments are not essential or necessary for presuppositionalism.It would be consistent within a presuppositional approach. God conscends in his word to give us evidence. He speaks, then acts, then speaks again to explain the fulfillment. It would be part of it's self-authentication. But this will not "prove" it is the word of God to an unbeliever. Only the testimony of the Holy Spirit can do that. Note the WCF chapter 1. Both the "evidential" and "presuppositional" arguments are there but they use the evidence in reference to self-authentication.