Presuppositionalism

After pondering this a few minutes, I tentatively concluded that I might be a presuppositionalist. This is, by the way, the first time I have heard this term used---so I did a quick bit of internet research.First I went to this website: What Is Presuppositionalism?

quote:

---

One of the contenders is presuppositionalism. In its modern form, the pioneers include Abraham Kuyper, H. G. Stoker, Cornelius Van Til, and, in their own manner, Francis Schaeffer, Richard Mouw, John Frame, and Michael Goheen. To begin with, presuppositionalism is not a great word. It implies circular reasoning, or worse, fideism, a leap of faith. A better choice might be covenantal apologetics. The idea is that the apologist begins by frankly acknowledging divine condescension. Unlike the classical approach, which begins with a logical demonstration, or the evidentialist view, which appeals directly to the facts, covenantal apologetics begins (positionally, not in every conversation) with the authority of divine revelation. One of its slogans in that there is no neutrality. If you appeal to logical demonstrations you may be ignoring the doctrine of the notic effects of sin, that is, the fallenness of reason. If you appeal to the empty tomb or to irreducible complexity, you may be ignoring the human tendency to observe the world with prejudice, or what James K. A. Smith calls the fall of interpretation.

---

I find myself believing some of the precepts mentioned here. I most definitely believe in divine revelation so I suppose that is one of my presuppositions.
I suspect that there could be a fallenness of reason in some instances.
I even suspect that there may be a fall of interpretation so my checklist confirms that I am a presuppositionalist. Now what?

Ive got one for you, Tangle-- Skepticism & The Brain

Unless of course belief in and of itself does in fact solve the problem. It may well be that proof is elusive without belief and that evidence is never evident without belief.

Except that God is something (or someOne) that cannot be proven in the scientific meaning of the term. You guys keep demanding evidence and using lack of same to justify your un belief! What else am I supposed to say?Believers--many of them uneducated as to the reality of critical thinking and bias, keep using examples of where God is involved and how He is involved. Science keeps showing how each process does not need God directly involved in order forsuch and such a process to occur. The whole GOD of the Gaps thing. When it comes to reason itself, the bottom line is that God is not reasonable in the strict critical thinking meaning of the term. And if someone feels they dont really need Him anyway, they become much easier convinced--indeed reassured---that God is a myth.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Quite simply you have been lied to. Dont ask me to explain who lied to you....you wouldnt begin to believe it anyway.

Yes, in a way. But didn't you once believe in Jesus as an adult? Very few adults believe in Santa. That's the only real difference.

Of course its not complicated. But first, just as I dont know how you think, you cant say in a blanket statement that you know how atheists think. Surely you all dont think alike, after all. You can only know what YOU think.

Your case only holds water if NO GODS EXIST. This is not a default position. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Essentially, is what you are saying then is that that evidence is the default position rather than belief?I see the logic, but disagree with the idea that belief is by necessity defined as relative.

I didnt invent it though. Culturally I may have had an idea of the construct, but when He met me, I undeniably knew that He was not an invention of my mind or feelings.

I disagree with your assessment. There is no general consensus on thios position at all--except from the atheist/agnostic side. Bigfoot was clearly a story invention. Narnia is clearly a place created in a children's story.
France clearly exists. People don't have to go there to prove it.
And Jesus is a well established belief for many hundreds of years. Science only came advanced enough later to proclaim a construct that evidence was their gold standard.Evidence is not the gold standard among believers. Evidence is not the only standard. The Bible mentions faith/belief as the preferred standard. At best, there are two contrarian positions--each to be given equal consideration. Belief. And Unbelief(or non-belief). No side gets to make up a default position.

And what if there is insufficient evidence? Are you saying belief should then be discouraged? See the problem is that you have taken logic, reason and reality and made human understanding higher than belief. I believe this is a fatal error in human thinking.The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God". It never says that with out evidence it is impossible to prove God nor should that even be mixed with faith/belief. And before the rest of you go trotting out odin, spaghetti monster, and the ridiculous imagined ilk...know that that is entirely different. Quit trying to convince people that they made religion up. This is simply wrong.

Because there is One God that is not created nor imagined. He is the uncaused first cause.All of the rest have been created/imagined. I suppose you will demand evidence....

The arguments are your problem, not mine. You have convinced yourself that God doesn't exist.

Because both of those were inventions of the human mind