29. What’s up with Presup?

>>>Episode 29 – “What’s up with Presup?” – CLICK HERE TO LISTEN!<<<
(Right click and “save as” to download)

Or listen in iTunes.

Andy and Ben take a look at a video God or Absurdity posted that demonstrates what they call “an excellent summary of presuppositional apologetics”.

G or A
The video is a splice of two episodes of “On the Box” featuring Mark Spence answering the question: “What is presuppositional apologetics and how is it used?”  In the process of answering this question, Mark discredits the use of evidential apologetics.   He does this because he says the nonbeliever will discredit all evidence that is presented for the existence of God.

Andy and Ben disagree with Mark Spence on some of his points about evidential apologetics and they agree with him on some of his points about presuppositional apologetics.  Together, they make a case for using both presuppositional and evidential apologetics when sharing and defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Show Links:

God or Absurdity

“On the Box” Video on Presuppositional Apologetics

“Martyrs Read Joel Osteen Tweets” Video

God or Absurdity – “Other Religions” Page Featuring Contradict!

2 thoughts on “29. What’s up with Presup?

  1. Dear Andy and Ben,

    Here’s a clever video showing the absurdity of the Presuppositional argument:

    There are simpler, shorter arguments that show the same. To give one quick example: if the laws of logic are ‘universal, timeless and unchanging’, and these are a reflection of God’s nature, how do we explain miracles?

    Miracles like water changing into wine and the dead returning to life obviously violate the law of non-contradiction. Dead animals and people, by definition, cannot not return to life. Perhaps they were just ‘almost dead’ or ‘mostly dead’? Water, H2O, by definition, cannot miraculously ‘transform’ into another liquid.

    If miracles are possible, and did in fact happen by the will of God, how can we base logic on God’s nature? Logic would then be contingent on God’s whim, and not ‘universal, timeless and unchanging’ as presuppositionalists claim.

    The Presuppositional argument is (virtuously?! haha) circular, and is also based on a false dilemma, the idea that you have to be ‘absolutely certain’ of a thing to ‘know’ it and make sense of reality. Just because you could be wrong doesn’t mean you ARE wrong, and not all assumptions which are merely approximations, not based on ‘absolute truth’, will lead to practical problems making your way around, and making sense of, the world.

    That’s not to say I necessarily think God doesn’t or can’t exist, just that Presuppositional Apologetics is super weak and self-refuting. At the end of the day, what’s wrong with just having and proudly professing faith?

    Regards,

    Matt.

  2. Pingback: 55. David Pratt on Apologetics | Andy Wrasman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s