Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Saturday, April 09, 2005

The battle of worldviews

Some complaints regarding materialism
As presuppositionalism likes to point out, everyone has a worldview and any view must have its set of presuppositions from which it draws. It is the contention of the presuppositionalist crowd that materialists cannot account for a number of their foundational presuppositions like logic, uniformity of nature, ethics etc for all materialist knowledge claims rest upon them.

“Faith with Reason”
I downloaded an e-book from called “Faith with Reason.” I have not spent a lot of time examining presuppositionalism and I thought that this might supply me with a basic knowledge of its underlying arguments. After reading the first three chapters I determined that there is one underlying presupposition to which all presuppositionalists must adhere. After a brief examination of some of our “presuppositions” I will turn my attention to what I think the foundation of presuppositionalism is.

A twisting of "faith"
In order to get the foot in the door the presuppositionalist points to the “faith nature” of every worldview. The tactic of painting logic, uniformity of nature etc as “faith” presuppositions is, in my opinion, disingenuous.The materialist worldview is not where someone starts per se but is rather a destination through observation. One does not need to “prove” these things as existence sets the boundaries. As reasoning beings, we attempt to provide “laws” on how existence operates. In my mind the presuppositionalist strategy drops the context on how we arrive at our “presuppositions” and places a requirement upon materialism that is unwarranted. Faith for the theist has no meaning, no context in which to make its presupposition due to the nature of the objects in question. The materialist’s "faith presuppositions" in this sense has a basis in reality.

We are not concerned with how things "really are"
Let me emphasize that what we as conceptualists are concerned with is not how things “really are” – what we are concerned with is categorization of existence as perceived by the subject. The real questions are not metaphysical in nature but rather epistemological. I will agree with the presuppositionalist that we may never discover how things “really are” but we do not need to and that is a complaint they need to justify. It is their worldview that is creating this “problem” for materialism and we should not have to justify their projection. [Even if we did that would still not be good enough.] What we as conceptualists adhere to metaphysically are temporally strong forms of the laws of non-contradiction and causality, which are tied closely to identity. Existence itself sets these rules not man. As I have pointed out in other places, this is not a subjective view of existence. A subjectivist’s purpose is to subvert reality or force it to conform to some arbitrary views whereas the objective view has the purpose of understanding reality as best can be described and/or categorized – this is not by whim or arbitrary assertion.

The bible as the presuppositionalist base presupposition
In the book “Faith with Reason” the author has a chapter that goes into a whole litany of Christian presuppositions – all of them Bible based. It is my opinion that the entire presuppositionalist approach stems from the idea that the bible is the only valid or “true” presupposition among any and all faith presuppositions. The author explains that:
The Bible clearly teaches God as the highest authority, and depicts His Word as being self-attesting. Those who claim to be Christians should presuppose the whole Bible is God’s Word upon its own authority. There can be no competing sources of authority from which professing Christians can legitimately draw their conceptions of God, man, or the cosmos. Only a biblically-based Christian theology can serve as an authoritative foundation for Christian beliefs because it is upon the authority of the Christian scripture as God’s Word that the church was founded.
Using the Bible to know how things “really are”
If the Bible is the source for knowing how things “really are” then it should also be completely correct about what we know today. In other words, as human knowledge grows the Bible should “transcend” science and ALWAYS be correct in its assertions of material existence.This is only common sense and is doctrinally sound according to the presuppositionalist’s claims.

Testing the Bible
I propose that we give the Bible a test. The Bible should easily pass for it transcends both materially and spiritually.

Upon examining words that are spoken by God himself we learn that a hare chews its cud and that the world is flat with a dome. This dome has windows in it to allow the sun to pass through and the elements to shower down from above. We also learn that insects have four feet and that bats are birds. The creator seems to lack modern scientific facts about nature.

What are we to make of Paul’s "Spirit Filled" reasoning when he commits a blatant logical error in Titus?
Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true.
So, Paul… aren’t you saying that a lying prophets words are true?

The Law
Christianity asserts through the bible that the Law was meant as a foreshadowing and that Jesus literally fulfilled the commands and became the perfect means of atonement. But this blatantly ignores a number of facts regarding these laws:

  1. The Pascal Lamb is not a sin offering.

  2. The Pascal lamb was to be slaughtered and its blood used to mark the doorposts – it was ceremonial in nature and not a “blood sacrifice.”

  3. The lamb was eaten and leftovers burned. Jesus, the alleged Pascal Lamb was neither eaten nor burned.

  4. The Pascal sin offering was a male goat and was not a communal offering.

  5. Human vicarious atonement or human sacrifice is strictly prohibited.

  6. Sin and guilt offerings only atone for sins PRIOR to the sacrificial act.

  7. Sacrificial animals were to be without blemish or defect. Jesus is beaten and underwent circumcision – both rendering him unfit due to his “blemishes.”

  8. Blood and fat must be placed upon the altar and only unintentional sins may be atoned for by blood. In some cases the one who offers must be involved. None of this happened to Jesus..
The Prophets
I do not have time to examine all of the books of the prophets but I would like to render one false in which some of the greatest alleged prophecies concerning the Messiah are contained. Whenever Christian missionaries hit the Jewish forums they seem to think that Isaiah is one of the clearest and best prophets concerning the future messiah. I will not attempt to render the suffering servant passage as invalid nor do I need to. There is a much easier prophecy from Isaiah that clearly shows him a false prophet. Isaiah chapter 17 verses 1-2 state
An oracle concerning Damascus. Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her cities will be deserted forever; they will be for flocks which will lie down and none will make them afraid.
One false prophecy is enough to render Isaiah a false prophet. He has spoken presumption and cannot be used as a source. Any books of the New Testament which use him are now rendered false.

The Bible as a foundational presupposition unwarranted
It is quite clear that Scripture cannot be used as an epistemic foundation for neither materialism nor spiritualism. God himself does not understand his own material creations nor does he abide by his own spiritual laws regarding atonement. The entire Jewish Law is found to be of human origin. The fact that this is so renders Christianity false by default. In addition, any New Testament book that uses Isaiah as a source can be considered false. No matter what Jesus says or the New Testament claims regarding is resurrection. If the foundation is faulty then so is the building above.

When presuppositionalists debate individuals who are materialists they should stand up and confess their knowledge of the material world loudly for the Bible is their sole authority and self-authenticating. To not do this betrays the fact that they think their minds are higher than the Bible's authority.

When they debate matters of biology they should quickly point out that today's scientists are morons and promptly give references where God tells us about cud chewing hares, bats being birds and insects having four legs.

When they get to mathematics they should explain that Pi is not what the mathematician thinks and offer more scripture.

When the subject of cosmology is being discussed we should expect them to tell us about the sun entering the dome through a window in the sky to traverse the land. We should also expect them to explain that snow and rain fall when heavens windows are opened. We should also expect them to explain that stars will one day fall from the sky.

Having sufficiently shown their invaluable knowledge regarding material existence they may turn to the message of Jesus and explain how he literally fulfilled all of the Laws – metaphorically speaking of course. Perhaps we could call it the litphorical approach?

Ethically we should suspect that they will abide by the bible’s social laws for Jesus only meant to fulfill the cultic portion. We can expect them to own slaves and possibly consign themselves to laws about stoning people for sexual preferences and other cultic practices. To do otherwise is to set one’s own thoughts and reasoning above the Bible.

Do presuppositionalists have faith in the authority of their scriptures implicitly or not? Contradictions can’t exist.

Post a Comment


At 4/10/2005 2:39 PM, Anonymous Francois_tremblay declaimed...

Great article CADman. Of course, a really committed Christian would simply answer you that the Bible is right and science is wrong, regardless of how thick the lie ("the Flood was morally justified !"). Such people are lost, and there is little to do for them except hope that they see the light of reason.

At 4/10/2005 8:06 PM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 4/10/2005 8:30 PM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

Of course, a really committed Christian would simply answer you that the Bible is right and science is wrong

Yes some would but their counter-parts are those like Slick etc who attempt to find some kind of "out." These people are even more lost for they can see that their presuppositions are unwarranted and then rationalize the contradiction away. This is not "faith with reason" it is the subversion of it.

At 4/11/2005 12:20 AM, Blogger Michael A. Rodriguez declaimed...

Gah!! You beat me to the Damascus failed prophecy example that I'm using in my article!!!

heh - no worries. I don't mind emphasizing failures in the Bible twice. Could help to have it stick in the theist's head better. =)

Cool article, CAD.

At 4/11/2005 6:35 AM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

Of course, a really committed Christian would simply answer you that the Bible is right and science is wrong

To add to my previous comments:
...but we are dealing with a very specific doctrine here. One that says that the bible is self-authenticating and is self-attesting. Of course they could do as you say but not without looking stupid - in a debate that is.

I did have some questions as to what is meant by those terms. Do they actually mean what it appears to mean or are they equivocating and/or projecting their doctrines into the Bible and then saying that it is self-authenticating. What I mean is that the reformed faith is fairly "logical" in its doctrines - its one of the things that attracted me to it... the way that it starts with a particular premise and then creates a logical theological view on top of it. My own Arminian theology seemed more loose and the ideas less connected or logical.

Also, you will recall in the Bahnsen Stein debate where Stein asks Bahnsen where he gets the laws of logic or uniformity of nature - something like that - from. Bahnsen quickly replies "The Bible." Stein then wants to ask a few questions about the Bible - I seem to recall he asks one where the Bible is contradictory but perhaps I am wrong - the point is that Stein attempts to turn to Bahnsen's "source." Bahnsen quickly says "The Bible is not what we are debating tonight." or something like that. Bahnsen was correct in his response but I think he knew that if the Bible were to be put under the microscope his argument - or has been pointed out in the SA forum by Bethwick... the lack of argument - was DEAD.

Sorry MR. Sorry... :( Like I said - I used it because it is from Isaiah and its effect upon the rest of the New Testament is devastating.

At 4/11/2005 4:34 PM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

Of course, a really committed Christian would simply answer you that the Bible is right and science is wrong

Again, I quote you Franc due to a discussion I am having...

"Faith" is "trust/confidence".

The other thing to keep in mind is that trust/confidence does not develop due to logic and/or feelings. It's actually only an inner knowing.

CAD response:
2. What is the difference between "inner knowing" and "feelings."

The difference between "inner knowing" and "feelings" is the scientific fact that the stomach has a brain (where your inner knowing is located), so it's your second brain (it's basically your unconcious thoughts). When I mentioned "logic" earlier, I was referring to the thoughts that the first brain goes through, not the second brain. Now in regards to "feelings": that would easily be defined as things like "goose bumps", or having your spine tingling, etc.

I should listen a little more closely next time Franc...

...the SCIENTIFIC FACT that STOMACHS have BRAINS... ... what the hell... I think my head is spinning...

At 4/11/2005 7:41 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Unbelievable. Gotta give it up for the Christians, they make up the most outrageous shit.

At 2/15/2016 12:07 PM, Blogger kobinme declaimed...

The Guilt Offering was similar to the sin offering. The procedure and purpose was much the same, however the guilt offering was a special kind of sin offering. The life of the suffering victim was accepted as a substitute for the life and guilt of the offender. It would appear that the common thread running through the guilt offering was an offense that caused loss to either God or man. The animal made expiation before God for the individual. Restitution was in addition to the sacrifice of the animal. Not only did the offerer have to make restitution, but he had to pay a penalty equal to a fifth part of the value. The worshiper made a personal confession of specific sin that he had committed (5:5). This knowledge brought about a deep sense of guilt and humiliation. Because of his personal knowledge of sin he must obtain forgiveness and make restitution.

Jesus Christ's death on the cross was the full and final sin offering.

(Quoted from

Jesus' shed blood is also painted on the door posts of a Christians heart. Causing the angel of death to pass by thereby saving the Christian from all sins

At 2/15/2016 12:10 PM, Blogger kobinme declaimed...

This comment has been removed by the author.



Create a Link

<< Home