Talk:Presuppositional apologetics

message: The long Frame quote doesn't seem particularly useful in elucidating the preceding paragraph. Could you shorten it, summarize or paraphrase it, or something?  (Could you also login, so I know who you are? :-) )  --Flex 04:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the Frame quote.  By the way, Flex, I have to congratulate you -- excellent work on this article!  It's very good, so much so that I'm tempted to nominate it as a Wikipedia:Featured article, though I expect they'll find it too technical and unfamiliar a topic for such treatment.  I'll still conisder it seriously, though -- this is so well done.  Thanks for your hard work, Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, after further review, I had to nominate it.  I hope others are as impressed as I was. Jwrosenzweig 23:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I am humbled by your praise, but I cannot take full credit. Some anonymous person made significant additions to what I wrote originally and in the process made the article a lot better.  --Flex 19:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Flex, I think the definition of apologetics might be useful -- since the term is unfamiliar to many (and its spelling often gives people misleading impressions of its denotation), I think it might be nice to have it explained in the text, rather than relying on people to go to another article and return.  Would you accept a return of that brief definition?  Otherwise I like your recent edit, as far as I can see. Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've done so, and I reworked the intro to try to make it all flow more smoothly. Suggestions, criticisms, comments? --Flex 18:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I was hoping the person who inserted that quote would do it, but I just went ahead and changed it. --Flex 13:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I like most of the changes you made, but I don't think presuppositionalists would agree with the last sentence: "Van Tillians blur the distinction between presuppositional apologetics and evidentialist apologetics, and suggest implicitly that the charge of circularity may be too difficult for a purely presuppositional apologist to counter." Frame in particular sees circularity much differently (see his Doctrine of Knowledge of God) and doesn't think it at all vitiates what Van Til was getting at. I'll see if I can come up with some revisions along those lines. --Flex 13:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the anon has some good things to contribute here, but I agree with you that it should be reverted for now. For one, the changes are not written "objectively" enough (e.g., "the critic has missed the point"), and all of his contribution at least needs a bit of reworking to fit better within the whole article, as you indicate. --Flex 15:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll revert, then, and we can chat here about what would be worth introducing -- are there specific ideas you think fit well?  You know this topic far better than I do, so I'm happy to follow your lead. Jwrosenzweig 19:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Will do. --Flex 15:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: From the article: "any opponents of presuppositional apologetics would characterize the presuppositional argument as resting on a belief in the Bible as the source of truth because it is inspired by God, in whom we can believe because the Bible affirms it and the Bible is the source of truth. While some logicians accept tautology as a legitimate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter, since each premise is only acceptable if the other premise is also found acceptable."
The presuppositional argument given is not a tautology. It can not be reduced to a logical form that can shown to be true regardless of the truth of its parts. The actual problem with this argument is that each of its premises is supported solely by the other. This is circular reasoning rather than a tautology. As for tautologies, they are not necessary to counter since they are true regardless of the truth of the individual statements that comprise them and have nothing to do with their acceptability.
I suggest changing the characterization of the argument to one of circular reasoning rather than as a tautology. Comments?
--Sancho McCann 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be in line with what the rest of the article says -- there is an fairly lengthy discussion of the charge of circularity. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be difficult to change the sentence to read, "While some logicians accept circular reasoning as a legitimate...", because I don't think any do accept circular reasoning, and even if any did, I don't have a reference. However, the sentence as it stands "While some logicians accept a tautology ... since each premise is only acceptable if the other...", is actually false. Removing the incorrect description of a tautology to yield, "While some logicians accept tautology as a legitmate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter", doesn't add anything to this article. If there are no objections, I will delete this sentence. --Sancho McCann 09:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have deleted the sentence. If there are objections, revert and discuss. --Sancho McCann 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word tautology 

message: I think we need more refs in the "Circulaity" section which has none at present, and only skates the surface of some profound issues.  Also why on earth is there no mention of Alvin Plantinga who is arguably the greatest living philosopher in this stream NBeale 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that we need more refs throughout, but I think Plantiga is omitted because he is more of the Reformed epistemology school than the Presuppositionalist school, though certainly the two have definite affinities with each other. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More refs and context 

message: As a result of a discussion at WP:FAR initiated by Flex, I went through the article, adding  tags, and then cataloging the tags present.  Below I include a list of all fact tags in the article at present, in order. I'm hoping some folks will resolve a tag or two, and strike them from the list, so we can strengthen the article and comply with WP:ATT.  Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact tags

message: I went through and revamped much of the article: consolidating redundant points, copyedits for clarity or succinctness, and provided a whole slew of citations to eliminate most of the fact tags as per the FAR list (still several in the Clark section -- I'm not overly familiar with Clark so I left those for someone who is). I put a working draft as a subpage of my user page, here. Please comment or correct. » MonkeeSage « 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time right now to do a thorough review, but on cursory inspection, it looks much improved. I would delete the "References" section since "Notes" has superseded it (perhaps then renaming "Notes" to "References"), and I would redact the redundant book info. No need to repeat the publisher, ISBN, etc. for a change in page ( should suffice, for instance, and "p." and "pp." should have a space following them or be omitted altogether.) Thanks for doing the hard work! --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NP! Mabye drop the "References" section and add a "Bibliography" section with ISBN and publication data and all, and then the footnotes can be even more concise and drop the template altogether, e.g., "Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, p. 144". I should have time to work on that tomorrow. » MonkeeSage « 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, you might want to attend to the recent deletion (with a relevant edit summary) of a paragraph from the Circularity section. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: A common criticism of this kind of apologetics is that it employs philosophical rhetoric which is akin to fideism. For instance, you could have the same kind of presuppositional apologetics with Communist ideology, preaching Marx's manifesto as if every one already knew exactly what it was. ADM (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fideism

message: Surely something so influential on Christian thought should have been roundly criticized by some pretty respected philosophers, but I see no section on this.  I read through the article (rather quickly, I admit), but didn't find criticisms buried within the parts of the sections, either.
Anyone have the knowledge to fill in this gap?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a short criticism section on this article could be relevant. That doesn't seem to be what you are looking for however, which seems to be the inclusion of your own personal bias against the Christian worldview. I think you're a bit confused about how wikipedia works. Ischus (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ischus, please WP:AGF.  I'm well aware of how Wikipedia works (at least as far as POV/NPOV applies), as well as my own limitations, which is exactly why I didn't rewrite the criticism section, and instead solicited a revision of the criticism section here, on the talk page.  Also, if epistemology and its limitations are to be recognized here, I can assure you any NPOV criticism section would not be short.  I'll give you a list of possible criticism topics below.  I'm not simply soliciting somebody else to do the grunt work for me, I'm simply asking that somebody a little more well-versed in philosophy than me take a look at this and see how to write a more edifying criticism section:
1.  The problem of hard solipsism.  To my knowledge this well recognized problem in epistemology has yet to be solved, yet Presuppositional Apologists (PAs for short) seem to think they've found the solution.  Somebody must address this in order to have a functioning, quality wikipedia page on PA.
2.  The problem of other minds.  See above
3.  Objective reality.  Does it exist, how can you know for sure?  See above.
4.  Absolute truth.  Does it exist, what does it mean, are there more definitions that need treatment?
5.  Logical absolutes.  What are they, do they exist, what do they refer to, etc.
This list is, of course, just a few of the issues and ideas PA attempts to solve/prove/justify.  I've yet to hear anything close to a satisfying treatment of these issues/ideas by PA (other than "They exist and I know this because of Yahweh" or something to that effect).
Also, as for my "own personal bias against the Christian worldview,"  I don't think it adequate to call it a "bias."  I simply have never heard or seen (or otherwise encountered) any evidence to support the notion that the Christian worldview is indeed the correct one, and "God did it" is (or should be) insufficient to sway any person on this issue.  Then of course, there is a difference between my being unconvinced by any arguments (generally) for the Christian worldview, and the PA argument specifically.  One could say I am biased against this argument, inasmuch as I find it intellectually insulting and dishonest to simply assert that Yahweh exists and accuse everybody else of "borrowing from the Christian worldview by using reason, logic and empirical evidence.  Thomists and evidentiary apologists aren't dishonest to the degree of PA.  PAs don't argue or have debates, they simply take a few ideas from any Epistemology 101 course book, assert that Yahweh provides an adequate foundation, and accuse any naysayer of "borrowing" logic and empirical sensations from their worldview.  The current criticism portion of this page is inadequate, as there are many fallacies inherent in PA, and begging the question is just one.  I find it reasonable to infer, Ischus, that you haven't considered or contemplated PA to the fullest extent (and I mean no offense when I say this, as most people are not well versed in epistemology (which, incidentally, is why PA seems so satisfying at first glance, but when examined more fully, it is not simply insufficient, but intellectually insulting)), but, like all inferences, I could be wrong.  I respectfully request that you research and consider the underlying concepts of PA before shrugging off anybody noting inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty by suggesting that they are blinded by their bias.  I think you'll find PA less satisfying when you do.  I also request somebody more fully versed in epistemology (and philosophy in general) than myself to ponder PA and weigh in with any possible criticism.  My bias against PA is clear in its origin:  PA is sophistry (mostly consisting of assertions, equivocation, and evasion), nothing more, nothing less.  This fact doesn't preclude the existence of any deity, and I find it reasonable to think that most Christians would be appalled by PA, but again, this is just an inference, and I could be wrong about it.Skberry889 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: Without starting an actual discussion on the subject matter in this comment's title, I feel that this article would be more illuminating if it contained examples of how non-Christians behaved as if Christianity were true.  The uniformity of nature example seems a bit weak, and I'd wager that there are more concrete examples since Van Til is considered a notable philosopher.  Is there a subject matter expert out there that could elaborate on this tenet? Erik Carson (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Van Til is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a notable philosopher.  He was a quack theologian.  The only reason he is discussed today is because the christians have no other way to persuade than to simply claim that they created logic.  Also, there is no such thing as an "expert" in quackery (which wholly includes presuppositionalism) any more than there is an "expert" in "creation science."Skberry889 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Christians implicitly assume Christianity? 

message: Is there something wrong with the second paragraph? It seems to contradict itself. Misty MH (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there something wrong with the second paragraph