Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
I am aware that only a "trinitarian" PA can account for the preconditions of intelligibility required for truth claims to be valid. Hence the emphasis on Jesus Christ as the LOGOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Please elaborate on this, if you can.
The million dollar question.
Lagtight, the response is typically something like "because of the impossibility of the contrary", which I hope you can agree isn't an actual explanation, but simply expressing the claim again in different form. So...how could someone determine whether out not this is true?
Something I'm particularly interested in asking you about is summed up by your own words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
The role of a presuppositional apologetic is to provide a defeater for non-Christian worldviews.
What I'd like to know is how you, personally, could determine whether or not this apologetic is true. After all, it is not part of Biblical text, but mostly attributed to the likes of Van Til. How do you know that you have not been deceived (or simply mistaken) by mere mortals?
I expect you're familiar with Sye Ten Bruggencate who popularised this apologetic a few years back. In times of surprising honesty, he's admitted that he used to be an evidential apologist but was frustrated with its lack of 'results'. When he discovered presuppose, he described it as a way to shut down discussion. Frankly, this sounds like an admission of failure in having any discussion.
Thx for responding, I think it's interesting to have a self-described fundamentalist Christian like yourself who is, at least in theory, open to discussing their position in the way you often do.