Why Presuppositional Apologetics Alone is Insufficient

We Christians are expected to give evidence of our faith with good reason. Scripture tells us that we should be prepared to explain to others why we have faith in Jesus Christ:

1Peter3[15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Christian faith is not blind, nor is it based upon presupposition. None have been converted by God without the witness of the Holy Spirit. Without having actually experienced the Holy Spirit, none has come to Christ. Christian faith is substanciary and evidentiary:

Hebrews 11[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


What are we to say then to those who inquire of us? Are we to say that we believe because the Bible says that we must have faith in Him? While that may be true enough, and satisfactory for a relationship with God, by itself it will not provide reason for those who have no experience with God directly to come to Christ. Notice the passage says, “a reason of the hope”.  If we plug this passage into the definition of Christian faith provided by God’s Word, we see that scripture is commanding us to be prepared to give solid (substantive) evidence for the unseen God.

1Peter3[15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Hebrews11[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If anyone asks you, “What is the reason that you believe in chocolate?” would it be better to simply say that chocolate exists, or to explain to them how you know that chocolate exists?

Jesus himself pointed out that if someone will not believe testimony and witness of earthly things with earthly evidence, nor will they believe testimony of heavenly things as evidence:

John3[11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify (martureō) that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness (marturia).[12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

martureō; to be a witness, that is, testify (literally or figuratively): - charge, give [evidence], bear record, have (obtain, of) good (honest) report, be well reported of, testify, give (have) testimony, (be, bear, give, obtain) witness.

marturia; evidence given (judicially or generally): - record, report, testimony, witness.

Acts4[20] For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

The fact that Christ himself referred to providing substanive evidence in the form of testimony demonstrates that while presuppositional apologetics is  useful and based upon the truth of God, it is not how we are called to testify for our faith in Him because it provides only an empty claim unless it refers to things which can be substanciated with evidence. In the Christian, such evidence may exist in various forms. Evidence from a Christian’s life could be how God has worked within them to bring about a change in their thinking or behavior. It may also be good works for which the motivation is the gracious good which God has shown unto them, which has caused them wish to do good for others. In relation to God’s creation, one may also provide evidence of God as Creator and Designer by showing scientific evidence that His creation possesses the evidence of His divine genius and power, such as the evidence for the balance of the forces of nature which testify to His design of the universe, or the astonishing complexity and information properties of genetics as evidence of His design of living things. Regardless of what form it takes, testimony is not convincing unless it can be backed up with some type of evidence. Nobody is motivated to change their views on whether or not God exists, or whether or not Jesus Christ is the one true God manifest in the flesh simply because you say he is.

If God were to convict us of sin, would it be only because he has told us that sin makes us guilty, or would it be because he has told us so and the evidence of our infractions is seen in what we have done? Presuppositional apologetics can be used to provide the framework for apologetics and even help someone to see that their nonbelief is based upon their own presuppositions. Beyond that point evidence of some nature is necessary to substantiate the testimony they are given. However, presuppositional apologetics by itself will never convince anyone to find Jesus Christ or change their thinking. It is evidentialism that we are called to employ by scripture to give an account for our faith, not presuppositionalism. It is evidence which convicts us of our sins in this world and in God's courtroom, not an argument that reveals the ignorance of the accused. Presuppositional apologetics fails to meet the requirements set forth in scripture as the appointed method of apologetics. Evidentialism is necessary to make a case. That is why scripture and Jesus Christ both employ evidentialism.

I could of course provide far more passages to make my case, I and I an certain that I am not providing the majority of the best passages which make my case.

Jesus:
John5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify (martureō) of me.

Jesus:
John7[7] The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify (martureō) of it, that the works thereof are evil.

Acts10[42] And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify (diamarturomai) that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

diamarturomai; to attest or protest earnestly, or (by implication) hortatively: - charge, testify (unto), witness.

Acts26[4] My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;[5] Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

Eye-witness testimony as evidence is found throughout scripture. Here John uses his witness testimony as evidence that God has sent his Son to save us:

John 4[14] And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Works is evidence of salvation. Paul told us to be like Christ, and this will be a testimony of evidence to Him that has saved us, here:

Ephesians 4
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
[15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
[16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.[17] This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
[18] Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
[19] Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
[20] But ye have not so learned Christ;
[21] If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
[22] That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
[23] And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
[24] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
[25] Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
[26] Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
[27] Neither give place to the devil.
[28] Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
[29] Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
[30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
[31] Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
[32] And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

The Fountains of the Deep

In the Book of Job, God inquires of Job, “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?”

I have not. Neither have you. Neither has anyone. The pressure of the waters in the ocean becomes quite considerable in only a few hundred feet of it’s depth. At many thousands of feet of depth, the pressure is approximately 64,000 psi - great enough that a military submarine would implode like an empty soda can in the hand of a man. Only since the advent of modern equipment have we been able to search the ocean floors and see what is actually down there.

Those opposed to the Word of God or his truth have angst against the Bible. Because of their emotional opposition to God, they ridicule the Bible, making the absurd claim that the Bible is merely the mythological writings of ancient sheep or goat herders. The childishness of this absurdity is seen in the fact that none of the penmen of the scriptures were herders. However, the Bible puts all nay-sayers in their place. Amongst the many other proofs it possesses that it is the inspired Word of God, it also possesses knowledge of things which man did not know at the time of the writing, but more important, these things could not have known because there was no means for their discovery until the 20th century.

One example of this foreknowledge is the existance of the mid-oceanic trenches and ridges on the ocean floors and the hydrothermal vents which run along side them. These features run around the earth like the seam of a baseball. Below is an illustration of the ridge between North America and Africa. These ridges are cracks in the ocean floors from which the waters which the waters of the Noachian Flood (Noah’s Flood) came forth.

These cracks were not discovered until the 20th century because the technology did not exist until then to paruse the ocean floors.  Yet the Bible mentions these, and it mentions also the hydrothermal vents which run along side them from which exceedingly hot water is coming forth.

Scripture tells us in the Book of Genesis (written ~1,400 B.C) that God broke up the ocean floors to allow this internal water to burst forth and flood the earth:

Genesis7[11] In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Scripture also tells us about them in the Book of Psalms, which is a collection of writings from between 1,410-450 B.C:

Proverbs3[20] By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew. The hydrothermal vents which line these ridges were not discovered until 1977. The Book of Job (~1,400 B.C.) mentions them in a lesson of humility that we could all learn from. God humiliates Job by asking him questions to which he knows Job does not have the answer. God knew that Job could not have traversed the ocean floors to see these springs (bursting forths) of water on the ocean floors.

Job 38
[16] Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
[17] Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
[18] Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

Examining this passage in the original language is revealing. The passage is God asking Job if he had walked the ocean floors searching them for knowledge of what God has done.
Job 38[16] Hast thou entered into the springs (nay-bek) of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth (teh-home)?

nay-bek: to burst forth; a fountain: - spring.

teh-home: an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water supply): - deep (place), depth.

The passage makes it clear that these springs are not in shallow waters where man could have gone. It uses the word teh-home, which means abyss. This refers to the very depths of the sea, a place exceedingly deep, dark, ultimately deep places of the sea, the very bottom.

In fact, the Book of Job possesess a number of passages which discuss geological features of the earth, atmospheric processes, the expansion of the universe, particle physics, and other things. None of them could have been known or understood in 1,400 B.C. The means to know of the existance of most of these did not exist until the 20th century. It would take a number of pages of writing to provide all of them and their explaination.

So the next time someone tells you the Bible is just a collection of mythological writings of ancient Hebrew sheep or goat herders, you can have yourself a chuckle, a whimsical grin, and take pleasure in knowing that God cares enough about us to show us even with his imspired Word that he truly is the master and creator of all things.

       Atheists believe there is no such thing as God, of course. Because this, they by default believe that all things are a product of random, undirected natural processes. Let's put their belief into a nutshell:

       With this simple analogy, we do not need to invoke the atheist's magical powers of time. Naturally (pun intended), they believe that time is the hero and makes the implausible and even the impossible, not only possible, but inevitable. In a nutshell, atheists must believe (do they really?) that matter simply obeying the laws of nature ultimately results in Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Michaelangelo's statue of king David, cell phones, genetic information, and the space shuttle. When asked in debate why they believe it is rational to believe such a thing, and what observable example of anything known to be of ever-increasing and self-designing complexity, the atheist simply ignores the question and typically turns their sights on the Bible to criticize it. This is understandable, since it is not rational to believe such a thing and no physical evidence supports such an absurdity. Angered by the question, they turn on the Bible. I understand their frustration well.

 

 

       Last night I was debating some atheists in a PalTalk chat room. When I entered, one of them was on the microphone telling the room how evolution is a scientific fact and providing a few scanty details of why this is so. I got into the debate, and asked how their claim was evidence of evolution. When it was their turn to use the microphone in the chat room, they were unwilling to explain how it was evidence of evolution, but instead put forth a 2 minute diatribe of how ignorant and non-scientific creationists are because they deny the obvious fact of evolution. A few others in the chat room did exactly the same thing - make a claim, such as that changes to allele frequency over time is evolution, then when asked how it is evidence or a mechanism for evolution, they provide no explanation and instead provide a 2 minute long diatribe of how evolution is true and creationists are ignorant. After 30 minutes of this repeated failure of the evolutionists to support their claims, they got tired of being cornered for their inability to do so, and asked me for evidence of my "invisible magic man" having created life. So, I explained to them a single example of Irreducible Complexity of the many which could be provided - the fact that the machinery that decodes the genetic information in the DNA to produce proteins is itself encoded in the DNA.

       The fact that the machinery which translates the genetic information to produce proteins is itself comprised of proteins is a game-ender for evolution theory. Since the machinery is a product of it's own translation, the DNA, the codes for proteins, and the environment of the cell which includes all of the rest of the features of the cell, must exist in order for the translation of protein codes to take

place. The components must already exist, fully-formed and fully functional, for any of them to exist. This is interdependency which cannot be broken, and therefore Irreducible Complexity. The components could not have evolved piecemeal. Let's imagine that the DNA is like a book coded in a specific digital language (DNA code is digital by the way). Encoded in that book is the machinery which is able to decode the book. In order to decode the book, you must retrieve the information which allows you to produce the decoder machine. The problem is, that since this information is encoded in the book, you cannot translate the code to produce this machinery unless the decoding machinery already exists outside of the source of information which produces the decoder!

 

       What this means in short is that not only did the components exist together in the beginning, but the entire cell did as well because these components require the cell to exist. Since the cell exists all together and fully functioning, and since the cell contains the genome for the entire organism, it follows that the entire organism existed, fully-formed and fully functional in the beginning with no transition or intermediary steps involved whatsoever. One might as well say that the cow came into existence at once, eating grass, swishing it's tail, completely unaware of the fact that it did not exist a nanosecond ago. This is Special Creation, and science has provided empirical evidence of it.

Having provided this single example of Irreducible Complexity which also evidences Special Creation, the evolutionists in the chat room were unable to even address the issue, and simply got on the microphone, one after another, and claimed I had not provided evidence of creation, and insisted that I do so. They would not even discuss my example. I suppose their only defence was to outright dismiss my example, claim I had provided nothing, and demand that I did. I suspect this is because they were both unable to discuss the subject for lack of knowledge about it biologically, and also because they were dumbfounded that such evidence actually exists. The humorous aspect the the failure of every atheist in the room to actually debate evidences is that they actually go to chat rooms, bring up evolution, claim it is a science fact, and mock you for believing in creation.

       Apparently, Sky Daddy must have something going, if someone like myself, who has no formal education in biology, is capable of acquiring enough knowledge of it on my own that prevents atheists, even genuine biologists, from being able to debunk what He has created with their pseudo scientific fantasy.

       The proponents of evolution and it's necessary brother, uniformitarianism, must concoct some pretty bizarre ideas, even geological processes, to explain the folded mountains and strata of the earth. Take a look at these mountains in British Columbia. They are severely folded like an accordion. This can only be because the mountain was soft sedimentary material when it was rapidly uplifted. Being soft and moist, the horizontal pressure of the continent squeezed the material so that it rose as a fully uplifted mountain before gravity could drain the water out of it and the material concrete into stone! Gravity would have no problem removing the majority of the water from this mountain in a matter of months, much less hundreds or even millions of years. Moreover, these folded strata are littered with fossils of rapidly buried creatures which are not distorted by or like the stone, meaning their bones are not bent like the strata, which verifies that the material had not concreted into stone before the strata were folded and the mountain was uplifted.

       You may also notice that the top of the mountain in the center of the image has had it's top sheared off. This is because while the mountain was still soft material being uplifted, it was under water at the time, and it's top encountered a high speed current of water near or at the surface of the ocean which ate away the top of the mountain - another feature of these mountains that could only happen if the mountain were soft sediments while it was being uplifted. In fact, the majority of mountains still have some or much loose sedimentary material upon them, which could not exist if the mountains were millions of years old. In only thousands, there should be no loose material on the top of any mountain, since the continents are eroding into the seas at a rate of 280 billion tons annually.

 

       To explain such mountains, and there are many, uniformitarianists must argue for absurdities. They must claim that the mountains were squeezed up out of the earth "fully formed" with folded strata in place. This means they must (if they stick to their own claims) believe that the stone was bend by pressure and heat of 300C (about 500F) or more and uplifted, fossils in place and all. I've even had evolutionists make this very claim to me during debate. This requires them to believe a number of things have occurred not only for which there is no evidence, but also which the evidence refutes. Consider: If the folding took place deep in the earth with fossils in place, the fossil bones would be bent like the stone, but they are not. I have yet to see a single fossil which has bones bent by heat and pressure. If any exist, they must be so rare that nobody bothers to discuss them. More absurd than this, the uniformitarian must believe that there is some mystical geological process which causes massive volumes of sedimentary strata to be pulled down into the earth to a depth where the temperature could be great enough for the stone to be folded without crumbling, then pushed up to become a mountain rising thousands of feet into the atmosphere.
 

       It does not take a genius to see the absurdity of believing this has taken place in all of the earth's mountain ranges. We do have areas which have been pushed down, and we have places where the continents have been pushed up. This is to be expected during the movement of the continents during the Noachian Flood. However, the idea that this material was "pushed" down to such depth and then up again is stretching the imagination to say the least. The best, and only logical explanation for folded mountains is that they were uplifted during the Noachian Flood while their material was still soft and malleable. The Noachian Flood is a geological certainty, evidenced in a great many ways. To believe ready-made mountains were pushed up out of the earth with folded strata and non-bent fossils is a fantasy that even uniformitarianists should scoff. I somehow believe they do scoff at themselves at times, but shrug their shoulders and satisfy their disbelief in their own ideas by simply saying to themselves, "Oh well. It happened anyway."

Neph