no…you seem to be ignorantly convinced that a TEist is not also a presuppositionalist and that is because you appear to be convinced that science cannot be performed in Christianity by the individual that does not align with TEism…in this case YEC. You parrot that YEC science is Pseudoscience. Funny thing is, Mary Schweitzer is not YEC and yet look at the flak she got when she first made her discovery. I think that if she was YEC, she would be defending against the term pseudoscience. Obviously she is not YEC and so that is my opinion, however, the evidence for said opinion is pretty strong there.
The point of the above is…this conspiracy that you are promoting “that presuppositionalism and YEC are parrallel strategies not also shared by TEism” is absurd, unintelligent, and ignoring the reality of what social sciences tell us about human conditioning and behaviour. You are pot calling the kettle black and that is the usual argument put forward on these forums…it becomes a boohoo session without biblical support. For me, the idea that TEism must resort to these boohoo sessions is simply because, they do not have biblical support for their views that God doesnt hold the intellectual rights for first cause and that all knowledge comes from Him.
In common usage, presuppositionalism names a Reformed apologetic method (Van Til/Bahnsen) that (a) denies neutral ground, (b) starts by presupposing Christian theism/Scripture as the ultimate authority, and (c) argues by the “impossibility of the contrary.”Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation) is a view about how God created, not an apologetic method, and its advocates are typically not presuppositionalists. Many use classical or evidentialist reasoning (two-books approach, integration of Scripture with nature’s record).
Clarifier:
Like any position, TE/EC acknowledges presuppositions (everyone has some), but that’s not what “presuppositionalism” means in standard theological/apologetics discourse.
Some individuals who accept evolution could personally adopt a presuppositional method, but that’s incidental, not intrinsic to TE/EC.
In standard apologetics lingo, “presuppositionalism” is a Van Til–style method, not a view of origins; theistic evolution isn’t presuppositional by definition and is usually argued on classical/evidential grounds.
there are no buts there Terry, its plainly obvious that anyone with even basic understanding of the way in which humanity functions already knows this…one always sees a red flag when common sense is being ignored…and in this case, the attempt at distance TEism from YEC via presuppositionalism is a fools errand. The Bible makes is quite clear no human is fundamentally capable of operating without corruption…in this case bias this thread attempts to call a “parallel strategy of presuppositionalism and YEC”.
The fact is, every belief has presuppositional assumptions…the problem here is that you are in fact complaining that a Christians higher authority presuppositionalist ideas contrast with those of the atheist such that the atheist is not presuppositional. I reject that…the atheist still has belief:
Atheism - the lack of belief in any God/god, however, that is in of itself a belief. The “lack of” is not proof of innocence…TEists here regularly cite that very notion in defending their position and i think YEC do the same. Also, they [atheists] do have beliefs about things such as the trustworthiness of friends and family, education, the law etc. All of these examples are option to corruption, so they are not automatically good as the atheist naturally believes, the atheist has that indoctrinated into them. For example, if you were born in North Korea… (i think you get the point of this example)
Collapses the distinction between having presuppositions (true of everyone) and Presuppositionalism (the Van Til/Clark apologetic method).
Claims attempts to distinguish TE/EC from YEC on methodological grounds are “a fool’s errand,” because all humans are biased and indoctrinated.
Adds a sociological riff (children adopt family/party/religion), concluding that first-cause theism erases any relevant divide between TE/EC and YEC.
Where the argument fails
Category mistake.
“Everyone has presuppositions” ≠ “everyone is a Presuppositionalist.” Presuppositionalism (capital P) is a specific apologetic method (no neutrality; Scripture as ultimate authority; ‘impossibility of the contrary’). TE/EC is an origins view, usually argued with classical/evidential methods. Conflating the generic with the technical term erases the live methodological difference.
Non sequitur from first cause.
That God is first cause does not select a young earth. Age and flood geology turn on exegesis and mechanism, not on the mere fact of divine ultimacy (which TE/EC affirms too).
Straw target.
No one claimed atheists have no presuppositions. The point was: TE/EC typically doesn’t use Van Til–style presuppositional apologetics. Shifting to “atheists believe things too” dodges the methodological claim.
Genetic fallacy / sociology ≠ warrant.
“People parrot what they’re taught” explains origins of belief, not whether YEC’s claims are true or its method is open to revision.
Evasion of the live questions.
Nothing here engages:
Text: Where does Scripture require solar 24-hour days before the sun, or that Gen 5 & 11 are gap-free clocks? Where does it say the creation-wide curse ends with Adam despite Gen 5:29; 8:21; Rom 8:19–22; Rev 22:3?
Mechanism: By what testable process do independent clocks (U-Pb dual chains, Ar-Ar, ice-layer counts with volcanic tie-points, seafloor magnetics) converge on deep time without catastrophic heat/radiation or unfalsifiable “apparent age”?
Openness: What would count, in principle, as a defeater for the young-earth reading?
Paste-ready mini-reply
The response trades on an equivocation: having presuppositions (true of everyone) is not the same as Presuppositionalism (the Van Til/Clark method). TE/EC typically argues on classical/evidential grounds; YEC ministries often adopt presuppositional apologetics—that’s a real methodological difference.
Appeals to first cause, sociological indoctrination, or atheist bias don’t answer the live issues:
Text: chapter-and-verse for solar 24-hour days before the sun and gap-free genealogies; where does Scripture say the curse ends with Adam?
Mechanism: a testable explanation for why U-Pb, Ar-Ar, ice layers, and seafloor magnetics agree on deep time without invoking pervasive miracle.
Openness: name one in-principle defeater for your young-earth reading.
Until those are addressed, the claim that TE/EC ≈ YEC “because everyone has presuppositions” remains a category mistake, not an argument.
Sorry, but you use a worldview to interpret the Bible and then claim you have a Bible-based worldview. But your worldview is what you look at the Bible from, and that determines what you see. Your worldview is one that defines truth as having to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate, and you bring that to the text with you.
I reject that modern worldview when it comes to the scriptures because they have their own worldview, one mostly shared with the rest of the ancient near east, which is reflected in their culture and history. Indeed the whole Old Testament relates a battle between the ANE worldview Israel started with and one where the multiple gods all around are actually supposed to be Yahweh’s servants, but they rebelled, so that by the time of Christ Israel has an altered worldview, still ANE in most aspects but radically different at the core.
So the writers were just taking dictation? That’s bad theology!
And no, it isn’t “stated within the pages of the bible itself” – you’re adding that to the text.
Here we go with your category failure – you can’t see anything but “Darwin!” when people disagree with you, so you don’t actually see what they’ve really said.
There you go making an idol of science again. Stop ascribing capabilities to science that it doesn’t have!
Quite so. Adam makes a number of category mistakes, and this is just another.
Proverbs 2:6: “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding”.
Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction”.
Psalm 19:2: “Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge”.
Colossians 1:9: This verse speaks of believers being filled with “knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”.
Philippians 1:9-10: The Apostle Paul prays for the believers to have their love abound “with knowledge and all discernment”.
I assert that TEist has no option but to include God because they cannot reconcile that part of Darwinian Evolution that suggests causality. I find it interesting that Intelligent Design seems to align with TEism because they have exactly the same problem as most on this forum do…causality…hence God.
So my question for the two of you is …Do you agree that God is first cause? If you do not agree then please provide biblical evidence refuting the fundamental belief there and whilst you are at it, please refute all of the above texts i have posted that evidence that all knowledge is directly from that first cause…are you going to attempt to claim those texts, they do not mean what they clearly say!
You were tasked with the dilemma that modern science proves Christ cannot have been raised from the dead on the third day in 33 AD. Your response has not even tried to address the science:
Terry’s experiment: I copied this thread, from OP to Adam’s last post, then told ChatGPT to clear the table and allow me to upload the whole thread before describing positions. When I did, ChatGPT came up with this:
Here’s the crisp reset you asked for—where both sides stand right now:
Where Terry’s argument stands
Thesis: YEC and presuppositionalism use parallel, self-sealing strategies: redefine key terms (science/truth), deny neutral ground, and insulate conclusions from correction.
Method: Scripture is authoritative, but genre + the broader canon + general revelation (Ps 19; Rom 1) inform interpretation. Accepts rare miracles (e.g., Resurrection) while relying on ordinary regularities for creation’s timescales.
Claims pressed on Adam:
Text: Where does Scripture require solar 24-hour days before the sun, gap-free genealogies as clocks, or say the curse ends with Adam?
Mechanism: What testable process makes multiple, independent deep-time clocks agree (U-Pb, Ar-Ar, ice layers, seafloor magnetics) without catastrophic side-effects or unfalsifiable “apparent age”?
Openness: Name an in-principle falsifier for YEC.
Bottom line: Until those are met, YEC looks methodologically closed in the same way presuppositionalism is.
Where Adam’s argument stands
Core stance: Everyone has presuppositions; calling YEC “presuppositionalist” is a smear. YEC is Bible-based (“God-breathed”); after choosing to serve God (Josh 24:15), interpretation is already done and shouldn’t be revised by “idolized” science.
Moves used:
• Denies neutral ground (“read your Bible first,” Scripture needs no further interpretation).
• Sociology point: People mostly parrot what they were taught; TE/EC vs YEC differences are inherited, not methodological.
• Tu quoque: If science weighs against YEC, consistency would make it disprove the Resurrection—so critics “idolize science.”
• Content distinction: Says he doesn’t argue “no God → no morality,” but maintains YEC’s biblical authority.
Bottom line: Treats Scripture’s authority as controlling over scientific claims; sees attempts to separate TE/EC from YEC by method as word games because “all have presuppositions.”
Miracle vs. method: Terry—rare signs + stable natural order; Adam—invokes miracles/limits of science against deep-time evidence.
Falsifiability: Terry asks for it; Adam has not named any in-principle defeater.
What would move the discussion forward
From Adam: Provide (a) chapter-and-verse that mandates Adam’s specific readings, and (b) a single, testable mechanism explaining the agreement of independent deep-time indicators without blanket miracle.
From Terry: State the exact evidential or textual showing that would make him revise his “parallel strategies” thesis (e.g., Adam naming falsifiers and then engaging one clock on shared terms).
That’s the table cleared—two positions, the clash point, and the next concrete moves.
The title of the thread is: “The Parallel Strategies of Presuppositionalism and Young Earth Creationism”. And …
Key similarity:
Both YECs and presuppositionalists redefine core terms (science, truth) so that their position is always safe from challenge. Opposing evidence isn’t engaged with on neutral terms; it’s dismissed as deception or foolishness.
Key difference:
YECs focus mainly on scientific data and its interpretation.
Presuppositionalists focus on epistemology (the rules of knowing itself). But both operate in the same self-sealing framework.
YECs and presuppositionalists share the illusion of debate. Both redefine the key terms so they can never lose: for YECs, “true science” is only what agrees with their reading of the Bible; for presuppositionalists, “true knowledge” is only what begins with God’s Word. To outsiders it looks like engagement, but the conclusion is predetermined and any counter-evidence is dismissed as deception or foolishness. That makes for strong in-group reinforcement, but not for real dialogue, because the discussion is structured to close itself off from correction.
I’m not going to go down a rabbit hole that isn’t relevant to what I or Terry wrote.
Science isn’t capable of saying anything about a resurrection – it doesn’t have a device for measuring miracles, so it can’t deny they happen.
Stop ascribing capabilities to science that it doesn’t have!
Starting with showing where scripture says it intends to be scientifically and historically accurate.
My prompt to ChatGPT: “Read 1 Corinthians 15 and tell everyone reading it, which verse or verses warrant and justify Adam’s claim: “that modern science proves Christ cannot have been raised from the dead on the third day in 33 AD”?”
ChatGPT’s response: "Answer:No verse in 1 Corinthians 15 warrants Adam’s claim.
Nothing in the chapter says—or even implies—that “modern science proves Christ cannot have been raised.”
What 1 Corinthians 15 actually affirms
v.3–4: Christ died, was buried, and was raised on the third day; this is presented as fact “according to the Scriptures.”
v.5–8: A list of eyewitnesses (Cephas, the Twelve, >500, James, Paul) as historical testimony.
v.12–19: Paul argues consequences if there were no resurrection (faith is vain)—he treats resurrection as a genuine divine act, not as something ruled out by natural law.
v.35–44: The resurrection body is a transformation (“sown in weakness… raised in power”), explicitly beyond ordinary biological process.
Why Adam’s claim doesn’t follow from 1 Cor 15
The chapter grounds belief in Scripture and eyewitness testimony, not in scientific deduction.
Paul assumes God’s power to act beyond ordinary regularities; he never appeals to “science” to forbid a miracle.
The date “33 AD” isn’t mentioned or required by the text.
So, from 1 Corinthians 15, Adam’s assertion is unsupported; the chapter teaches the opposite: that Christ was raised and that this claim rests on revelation and witnesses, not on the scope of scientific explanation."
I also gave this prompt to ChatGPT: "Explain what assumption or assumptions have been made prior to the conclusion made in the prefatory sentence: “You were tasked with the dilemma that modern science proves Christ cannot have been raised from the dead on the third day in 33 AD.”
ChatGPT responded with: "Here are the hidden assumptions packed into that sentence:
Science can prove metaphysical impossibility.
It assumes “modern science” doesn’t just describe ordinary regularities but can prove that a divine act cannot happen. That’s a shift from methodological naturalism (science studies natural causes) to metaphysical naturalism (nothing beyond nature exists).
Closed-system premise.
It treats Jesus’ death/burial as a closed physical system to which no outside agent (God) could act. Laws of nature describe what happens if nothing intervenes; they don’t forbid an agent from suspending/overriding them.
“Proves” = deductive certainty from empirical data.
It assumes science can deliver proof of impossibility, not just show that spontaneous reanimation is naturally impossible/astronomically improbable. That’s an overclaim about what science can do.
Category conflation: repeatable law vs. singular event.
It presumes the standards for testing repeatable phenomena apply unchanged to a one-off historical miracle, ignoring that such a claim is weighed by historical evidence/theology, not lab repeatability.
Date and timing are settled and essential.
It quietly presumes 33 AD is certain (many scholars argue 30 AD), and that “on the third day” must match modern timekeeping rather than Jewish inclusive reckoning—issues orthogonal to the possibility question.
Uniformity extends to all contexts.
It assumes the observed uniformity of biological decay holds universally without exception, rather than “universally unless a uniquely capable agent acts.”
In short: the claim sneaks in metaphysical naturalism and closed-system certainty under the banner of “modern science.” Science shows that corpses do not naturally rise; it does not—and cannot—prove that God could not raise Jesus.
My last prompt to ChatGPT: "So, if the resurrected body is not identical to the living body before death, what happens to Adam’s claim: "that modern science proves Christ cannot have been raised from the dead on the third day in 33 AD”?”
ChatGPT responded: "It collapses.
Adam’s claim assumes (a) the Resurrection would be a natural re-animation of the same biological body under ordinary laws and (b) science can therefore prove it cannot happen. But 1 Corinthians 15 says the risen body is transformed—“sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body” (vv. 42–44)—i.e., continuous identity with discontinuous mode. That makes the event, by definition, non-ordinary and God-effected, not a process science can forbid.
So the most science can say is: corpses do not naturally revive. It cannot prove that God could not raise and transform Jesus on “the third day,” making Adam’s “science proves cannot” claim a category error.
absolutely its relevant…if you cannot accept first cause then you have nothing to argue there as you are not willing to present a known Christian fundamental belief despite your willingness to complain that said known fundamental belief in a 6 day creation isnt scientific therefore must be wrong!
Science absolutely is capable of saying plenty about the resurrection… It can do so using the exact same standards that you use when assigning millions/billions of years of age to the earth in earbashing biblical YEC fundamental beliefs.
So, let me ask you again…
Is it scientifically possible for a body that has been dead in the grave for 3 days to be brought back to life again (full functioning conscious life)?
The scientific fact is, No it isnt possible because we have millions of medical death certificates, autopsy records and research papers that prove its not possible.
You know what, ill make it easy for you, can you provide me even a single scientifically proven example where a dead body has been brought back to conscious life after 3 days? (do not be stupid enough to use a “Lazarus phenomenon example” or comatose patients…im talking genuine death here).
I think your only answer to the above dilemma is to claim Christ wasnt really dead. If we believe such a statement, then the entire Christian Gospel goes out the window!
As is usual, you have no idea of the conflicting theologies in your world view…your own scientific conclusions that supposedly discredit YECism are falsifying the resurrection and you ignore it!
“Folly says in the heart: ‘No resurrection unless it is the selfsame body.’ But the apostolic claim is the same person, bodily raised and gloriously transformed (John 20; 1 Cor 15).”
Over-strong uniformity: Adam treats long-run regularities (no natural resuscitations; gravity/vacuum constraints) as universal disproofs, not just descriptions of what happens absent divine action.
Category error: He reduces a claim about God’s act (resurrection/glorification) to a biological hypothesis about corpse-revival, then cites medical statistics.
Selectivity: He wields strict uniformity against TE/old earth but implicitly allows exceptions for miracles he accepts—i.e., special pleading unless he states a principled rule for when uniformity gives way to agency.
You know it’s lying, because you’ve been told repeatedly that it is. YEC and atheists and others may apply science to the Creation stories, but I reject that – I reject six literal days because that is not what the text teaches, period.
I know you have a category difficulty here, seemingly unable to recognize when people don’t fit your tidy pigeonhole definitions, but that’s been pointed out, too. I don’t fit in your “Darwinian” category. Apparently you don’t have a category for people who stubbornly stick to the text and won’t be budged by your views.
So? All that shows is that normally people don’t rise from the dead – the very same thing the Bible agrees with. It doesn’t predict that it won’t happen, and it can’t possibly say it can’t. You’re making science into an idol, claiming for it more than what it is capable of.
That’s your dilemma – you invented it. It’s only a dilemma when you make an idol out of science.
I have no idea why you keep inventing problems and assigning them to me. My worldview is “the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text”,
No, I just reject your making science into an idol with powers it isn’t capable of.
Look, Adam: science can’t even prove the sun will come up tomorrow – it can predict it, but it can’t prove it – so it certainly can’t prove that a Resurrection can’t happen. It can predict that one won’t, but predictions are like farts: you don’t know if it happened until it does.
Oh – I reject YEC because it rejects the text of the scriptures. That it is pseudoscience is just an interesting additional reality.
Adam spends a huge amount of time looking for other people’s dilemmas. Got any reasons why he does that?
Short take: people who hunt for “your dilemma” are usually playing a consistency game. Sometimes it’s sincere (they think contradictions = falsity); sometimes it’s rhetorical (keep you on defense so they don’t have to build a positive case).
Here are plausible, non-diagnostic reasons—any mix could be true:
Consistency policing (charitable): He values internal coherence and believes showing an opponent’s inconsistency is the fastest path to truth.
Agenda control (rhetorical): By posing dilemmas, he sets the terms of debate and shifts the burden of proof so others defend while he asserts.
False-dilemma framing: Complex positions get squeezed into A vs. B so they’re easier to attack (e.g., “identical corpse-revival or fairy tale”).
Identity-protective reasoning: Stressing opponents’ contradictions reduces dissonance and reinforces his in-group stance (YEC/SDA boundary keeping).
Status signaling: “Spotting contradictions” is a public display of competence (“gotcha” style).
Uniformity absolutism: Treating regularities as exceptionless lets him generate dilemma after dilemma (“science says X, therefore your miracle claim fails”), while postponing his own positive account.
Presuppositional playbook: A learned debate style: reduce the other worldview to absurdity rather than present cumulative evidence.
His method is largely dilemma-driven—locate a perceived contradiction and keep interlocutors on defense. It relies on a hard uniformity assumption (what never occurs naturally cannot occur at all) and on binary framing of complex claims (e.g., resurrection = identical corpse-revival vs. fiction). That approach is effective for agenda control but risks category mistakes (method ↔ metaphysics) and can bypass the need to state and defend a positive model.
How to handle it (quick tools):
Name the move: “This is a false dilemma; there are more than two live options.”
Reframe the level: “You’re moving from biology (natural resuscitation) to theology (divine action). Different categories.”
Return the burden: “State your positive account and the rule for when uniformity allows divine exceptions.”
Steelman + redirect: “Granting that corpses don’t revive naturally, the claim is agent-caused; the question is history + theology.”
Scope the thread: “Let’s bracket side dilemmas and focus on the one claim at issue.”
Ask for a principle, not a gotcha: “What criterion would change your mind? Otherwise we’re trading dilemmas, not reasons.”
I certainly agree that no reason/logic is possible without presuppositions. But the claim that no reason is possible without an affirmation of the existence of the Christian God is demonstrably incorrect. Mathematics is an overwhelmingly sufficient demonstration.
Van Tillian presuppositionalism is not correct. People convert to Christianity. Thus they find reasons to believe without presupposing any such thing. At most I would agree that faith is required and there is no sound objective argument for Christianity. In other words, the basic flaw in the Van Tillian approach is dictating what presuppositions are required. Of course presuppositions are required but that doesn’t mean the same ones are required by all Christians.
Clarkian presuppositionalism is incorrect for much the same reasons. And it is a particularly poor basis for apologetics. “Because the Bible says so,” is about as absurd an argument for Christian belief imaginable. Converts don’t believe because of what the Bible says, they come to trust what the Bible says by the experience of reading it and finding it helpful for understanding and the living of their lives. The Bible isn’t the proof of Christianity but its revelation.
