RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 6, 2011 at 7:39 pm
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2011 at 7:40 pm by objectivitees.)
(August 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Sorry Stat, it's not rational whatsoever. Nothing stops Muslims from using the same argument that intelligible thought is impossible without presupposing Allah is the source of all existence. This presupposition argument reeks of desperation and special pleading for the Christian God. I could come up with an infinite different definitions of god that would all be valid under presupposition apologetics by presupposing my definition to be true. It boils down to the fact that the bible cannot be proven to be true, so it must be assumed to be true to prove the Christian point of view.
Actually faith, you cannot come up with an infinite number of definitions for God that would work within this particular form of apologetics.
Any time a definition of God is used that differs from the biblical (or what i prefer to call the ontological definition) description of God, it can be demonstrated that the definition itself is self contradictory. Allah cannot be used (to borrow your example) because Allah is by definition both Good and Evil. (go ahead and ask a devout Muslim) If God is both good and evil, then one must give up all rationality in their argument, a problem not encountered in the presuppositional (and rational) defense of the God of the Bible. It is interesting to note however, Muslims were first to utilize this kind of reasoning in defense of faith with respect to the "existence" of God, with the "Kalaam" cosmological argument, but never applied the same kind of rigorous logic to their own definition of God.
Not to mention... how would you know when you reached an "infinite" number of definitions?
