Van Tillian Presuppositionalism

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

Van Tillian Presuppositionalism

Postby maps » Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:43 pm

Hi all,

I was hoping you guys could expand the page on Van Tillian Presuppositionalism. Someone recently used this argument on me and had me on the defensive for a long time with Hume's problem of induction before I realized the proposed christian "solution" was what needed to be attacked.

The current ironchariots page on Van Tillian Presup is IMHO philosophically dense and doesn't really have a clear "this is where the argument fails" or "this is how to respond" section. I am not a philosopher, I was hoping there'd be a dumbed-down version that just went through the problems with the argument.

Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 pm

Postby DjVortex » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:32 am

I don't even understand what the argument is. It looks to me like:

1) We start with the assumption that the Bible is true.
2) Hence we conclude that the Bible is true.

Sounds like circular logic to me. It isn't even arguing anything. It's just making the assumption that the Bible is true.
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Re: Van Tillian Presuppositionalism

Postby Lausten » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:17 am

If you're still checking in 'maps', the guys over at Reasonable Doubts recently had a go at this topic. They did it in two shows. I find them entertaining. Here are a few hot tips:

There are legitimate problems with philosophy and epistemology. We definitely haven't figured everything out and they see that as a weakness. Don't let them put you on the defensive. “I don’t grant that premise” is a good response to some of the places they will begin their logic. Keep them on the defense, their strategy is offensive. They will transform an unresolved issue into an unresolvable issue, then resolve that you should put your trust in God. The counter is, we can have probable knowledge, unproven knowledge. Don’t let TAG arguments take control, remind them that just because naturalistic arguments can’t provide explanations, it doesn’t follow that God can.

I'm not sure how to handle this suggestion, but they said, emotional appeal is not off the table. Like saying their reasoning is immoral. They view you as a self-deceived enemy so no need to try to get on their good side or try to gain their trust. Play the emotional poker game.
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest