Presuppositionalism's Fundamental Error w/ Dr. Richard Howe

In this clip, Dr. Richard Howe defines presuppositionalism and then lays out what in his mind is the fundamental error behind the methodology.

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!

---------------------------------- LINKS ----------------------------------

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #Presupp #Christianity

[nemrodx]

It's impossible not to use presuppositionalism when atheism is almost 100% presuppositionalism.

[DougWarner]

Arguing the existence of the Triune God from the impossibility of the contrary. Love Greg Bahnsen!

[justanother]

Presuppositionalism eventually led me to conclude the foolishness of man thinking he can reason his way to God. I believe logic and reasoning (as we are able to employ them) are fundamentally flawed and are incapable of leading us to truth without God's revelations. Should we still defend our faith with reason? Yes. We ought to point out the inconsistencies of the non-Christian worldviews with respect and gently build up our case. Ultimately, salvation belongs to God.

[Apanblod]

Two words: Darth Dawkins.

If that name doesn't scare you away from presuppositionalism, I don't know what will.. 😱🙉

[quickattackfilms]

Man, hats off to him for being respectful to the presup position in this clip. I usually expect a lot of disdain from non-presup folks.

[panosfillipou]

Pressup is fine . Everybody has pressups . Ultimately every axiomatic truth is circular .Evidences are fine too .

[saintsword]

A basic understanding of Kant destroys the proposition that "God is required for knowledge."

[scottsponaas]

The problem with what this guy said is that the evidential approach says that there are truths that we cannot fail to know and from those truths they try to create an argument for God’s existence.
The problem he has is that God has already told us that His existence is one of those truths, so trying to appeal human reasoning and contingent truths is making human beings the ultimate authority for the evidentialist’s epistemology.

The presuppositional approach merely says that every single person on this planet has an ultimate authority that they appeal to when reasoning (otherwise one would just go on an infinite regress of justifying how they know things). We merely appeal to God Himself as our ultimate authority and He has actually ordered the universe in such a way that if you reject the truth of the Bible, you are reduced to foolishness. You will be left holding views/making statements that are arbitrary, inconsistent, self-refuting, or otherwise illogical. That’s what is meant by the impossibility of the contrary. God has destroyed the “wisdom of the wise.” We take Him at His word and don’t appeal to other sources above His word. I believe every Christian should have enough reverence for the Bible that they don’t point to some other standard outside of it.

Romans 1:19-20
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, [a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

1 Corinthians 1:18-21
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

[lightbeforethetunnel]

The assumption of the Christian God *IS* the necessary pre-condition for knowledge. If you begin with a worldview that doesn't include the Christian God as the metaphysical foundation, you're left with a worldview that's systemically unable to justify predication, rational thought, intelligibility, etc (Munchhausen's Trilemma covers why). In other words, all non-Christian worldviews entail debate would be impossible.

Since both sides of any debate must presuppose predication, rational thought, intelligibility are possible, and all non-Christian worldviews entail all three are not possible... this means all non-Christians cannot engage in debate in the first place.

If they do engage in debate, they're engaging in contradiction in multiple ways. They're presupposing X is possible and X is not possible at the same time.
X = predication, rational thought, intelligibility, and more...

[tonytebliberty]

Also I love RC but I feel like Greg got him in that discussion.

[Apologia]

If Cameron wants to learn or hear a brother speak on Presuppositionalism, then why doesn't he have Presuppositionalist on? He will have Catholics on and all different types of Christians but is he afraid to have a Reformed or Presupp on to discuss some of these things? Why such the bias towards certain camps, isn't it beneficial for viewers to hear two side of the story instead of only certain selected viewpoints?

[thegoosefather]

I would like to you see you Interact with Eli Ayala of Revealed Apologetics to discuss presuppositional apologetics further.

[francislebe]

You seems to confuse Biblical presuppsitionalism and epistemological presupositionalism. Biblical presuppsitionalism assume the existence of God and we prove that there is no other alternative, if reason, truth, logic are invoqued to disprove the GOD OF THE BIBLE.

[dougreformed]

It's more than an assumption. God who is the foundation of all knowledge and all morality has imparted an inate understanding of ethics and logic to all men. All men, believers and unbelievers alike, use reason and judgement in light of this imparted knowledge. We are made in the image of God and thus are created with logic and morality necessary for our existence and coexistence with others.

This is more than mere assumption, it is not only a preposition but disposition. The unbeliever functions with these even though He doesn't assume God as the original or necessary foundation, but He proves the existence of God by demonstrating his inate dependence on their existence, something which cannot be accounted for without God

[Peter-ukpt]

Presuppositionalism is the best argument against what it's presupposing.

[theoglossa]

Perennial mistake: "You'll here them say. 'The assumption of God is the precondition of knowledge.' God is the precondition of knowledge. God is not the same as the assumption of God. Both classical and presuppositions agree that God is the precondition of knowledge."

"The Truth of Christianity is the precondition of knowledge." —Dr. Richard Howe

[kirtonos]

Dr. Howe could learn something from David Hume

[theoglossa]

On point! I am a presup guy and reconsidering classical apologetics. I have to because I am a classical theist. Thanks for your labor.

[johnallen]

One must begin their apologetics with the fear of the Lord, for that is where wisdom begins, says Proverbs. The human heart/mind is deceitful above all things. Why would a Christian place so much value in clarifying their starting point as human logic? This trend, though ancient, is humanistic in origin. It's not the apologetical method displayed by Christ. It's not a divine God that can be grasped by human reasoning.

[oldpossum]

Goodness gracious! I have to say, as a complete outsider, I don’t see what the point of any of this is.
It seems profoundly silly to me. I trust the same argument can be made by any theist who has a Creator god, yes? So there will be presuppositional and classical and Alvin Plantinga-type Pastafarians?
If this is a form of abstruse entertainment for you folks, well great!