Thoughts on Presuppositional Apologetics, Part 2

I have a couple questions about presuppositional apologetics. First, what is the reason why every other worldview, aside from the Biblical worldview, illogical? I have heard or read explanations for why some worldviews are illogical (materialism says only material things exist yet logic and reason are non-material, empiricism says only things that can be tested can be true yet it is impossible to test the preconditions of intelligibility), but there are lots of worldviews and probably many more possible worldviews that have not yet, or may never be articulated.

As an analogy, compare the Biblical worldview to a curve described by a single equation. Logic, reason, uniformity, and reliance on senses can be points on the curve. These points are going to be used (or will attempted to be used) by other worldviews, since any worldview will have some structure to it, and that structure will incorporate the preconditions of intelligibility. Now, it is possible to take several points from one curve and create a different curve that fits those exact same points. It is true that the more points that are borrowed from the original curve, the more complex the equation for the second curve becomes.

Might a similar thing work for worldviews? Any other worldview will borrow points from the Biblical worldview (namely, the various preconditions of intelligibility), but wouldn’t it be possible to construct a worldview that fits those points, even if it is a convoluted, complicated worldview? If it is possible for another worldview to fit the preconditions of intelligibility, then this worldview would not be inconsistent or hold to the preconditions of intelligibility arbitrarily, which are the two critiques presuppositional apologetics makes of all worldviews aside from Christianity.

My second question is, if logic, reason, uniformity, and the reliability of senses are derived from an understanding of God, even if that understanding of God is suppressed, wouldn’t it be possible to start with those things and work toward a demonstration of the validity of the Biblical worldview? Now, I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be constructed from an autonomous foundation of logic and reason. What I am suggesting is using logic and reason, which come from God whether it is acknowledged or not, to show how the world and history conform to the Biblical worldview. For instance, how can it be demonstrated that the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is true? From my understanding of presuppositional apologetics, some would claim that the only legitimate way that does not question God’s authority would be to accept the Bible as the Word of God and then demonstrate its consistency.

But what about another method? Historical documentation shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document whose text has not been changed since its original writing. So the Bible can not be rejected as a recently constructed fable. The question still remains, how can the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God be demonstrated? Well, as the Bible was being written, many of the human authors of the Bible demonstrated their claim to be the mouthpiece of God by performing miracles. For instance, Moses demonstrated that God was working through him by turning Aaron’s rod to a serpent (Ex. 7:8-10) and Elijah showed he was a prophet of the true God by the showdown at Mt. Carmel (I Kings 18:36-37). Even Jesus demonstrated His authority by using miracles (Matt. 9:1-8, particularly verse 6). There may not be prophets today whom God is speaking through and using to perform miracles, but there is a record of these events in the Bible, and if the Bible is a reliable historical document, then these events, and others recorded therein, can be used as a credible witness to the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I want to point out that I am not suggesting that the Biblical worldview be independently verified. Rather, I am suggesting that a remnant of general revelation (the preconditions of intelligibility) granted by God applied to demonstrations of God’s power (miracles recorded in the historically reliable Bible) can be used to demonstrate that God truly is God. I do not see this as subjecting God to a human test, I see it as God confirming Himself, insofar as humans assume the preconditions of intelligibility (whether it is rational or irrational, the assumption comes from general revelation), and we can use those preconditions of intelligibility to look at history (the Biblical record) to determine that God is God.