Changes

[[Greg Bahnsen]] wrote:

[[Greg Bahnsen]] wrote:

{{Cquote|Presuppositional apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til urges the Christian to argue with unbelievers in an “indirect” fashion, doing an internal analysis of the unbeliever’s worldview (his fundamental assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics) and comparing it to the worldview revealed in the Bible. Many students of apologetics have come to see the strength of this apologetical challenge when it is applied to the various kinds of views advocated by atheists or materialists. Given the presuppositions of the atheist, he could not make sense out of adherence to the laws of logic (as I tried to show in my public debate with [[Gordon Stein]]), nor could he make sense out of the principles and procedures of science itself (as I tried to show in my public debate with [[Eddie Tabash|Edward Tabash]]). The atheist cannot give a rational account of the fundamental assumptions of ethics, either. [[Atheism]] is philosophically unable to argue ethically, scientifically, or logically against the Christian faith.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/presuppositional-reasoning-with-false-faiths/ Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths] by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen  on April 8, 2009</ref>}}

{{Cquote|Presuppositional apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til urges the Christian to argue with unbelievers in an “indirect” fashion, doing an internal analysis of the unbeliever’s worldview (his fundamental assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics) and comparing it to the worldview revealed in the Bible. Many students of apologetics have come to see the strength of this apologetical challenge when it is applied to the various kinds of views advocated by atheists or materialists. Given the presuppositions of the atheist, he could not make sense out of adherence to the laws of logic (as I tried to show in my public debate with [[Gordon Stein]]), nor could he make sense out of the principles and procedures of science itself (as I tried to show in my public debate with [[Eddie Tabash|Edward Tabash]]). The atheist cannot give a rational account of the fundamental assumptions of ethics, either. Atheism is philosophically unable to argue ethically, scientifically, or logically against the Christian faith.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/presuppositional-reasoning-with-false-faiths/ Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths] by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen  on April 8, 2009</ref>}}

The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Jason Petersen wrote:

The [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Jason Petersen wrote:

{{cquote|The [[atheism|atheist]]’s [[Atheism and irrationality|foundation for reasoning]] must be [[Principle of induction|inductive]]. The reason being is because in the atheist worldview there is no ultimate starting point for knowledge. It has to be induced. If atheism is true, there can be no universal values - nature is all there is. But nature itself provides no benefit for knowledge. Nature itself is not knowledge. Thus, because there would be no ultimate universal standard for reasoning , there would be no starting point for knowledge. When humans came into existence in an atheist worldview, there wasn’t an embodiment of knowledge in which they could deduce the possibilities, rather, they had to build possible inferences while starting from nothing.

{{cquote|The [[Atheism and irrationality|atheist’s foundation for reasoning]] must be [[Principle of induction|inductive]]. The reason being is because in the atheist worldview there is no ultimate starting point for knowledge. It has to be induced. If atheism is true, there can be no universal values - nature is all there is. But nature itself provides no benefit for knowledge. Nature itself is not knowledge. Thus, because there would be no ultimate universal standard for reasoning , there would be no starting point for knowledge. When humans came into existence in an atheist worldview, there wasn’t an embodiment of knowledge in which they could deduce the possibilities, rather, they had to build possible inferences while starting from nothing.

Most atheists agree that their foundation for reasoning is inductive. However, what a lot of people are unaware of is that inductive reasoning does NOT deal in absolutes. It only deals with what is possible or what is probable. This means that given that all of the premises in an inductive argument are true, the conclusion can still be false.

Most atheists agree that their foundation for reasoning is inductive. However, what a lot of people are unaware of is that inductive reasoning does NOT deal in absolutes. It only deals with what is possible or what is probable. This means that given that all of the premises in an inductive argument are true, the conclusion can still be false.