Yes, Presuppositionalism is “fallaciously” circular. No, reason is not.

Gentleman, though I know that this (somewhere) has been addressed previously, I simply want to come back to a foundational point in regard to where we would part ways with the (PS) presuppositionalists (in fact, it is *the* foundational point).

I am, by absolutely no means, a professional philosopher. As well, I am, most likely, not a very ‘good’ one. However, I do have an M.A. in philosophy, and I do want to point out that I am simply, and utterly, unconvinced, that the PS understand the notion of circularity and begging the question. And, of course, this stands in direct relation to the difference between what is SELF-EVIDENT, and what is a CIRCULAR argument.

That is to say, the PS seems to always come full-circle (no pun intended) when we charge them with basing their system on the “fallacy” of begging the question. Their response? You guessed it: “All reason is circular. You have to “presuppose” the Laws of Logic in order to use them.. See, reason is also circular.”

This is utterly, and forgive my bluntness, ridiculous – which leads to the thrust of my post:

There is an important distinction between what is truly SELF-EVIDENT – and what is CIRCULAR.

That is to say, one is not arguing in a circle by employing the first principles of reason (the laws of logic), as one simply points out that in order to deny them, one must employ them: Hence, the inoculator immediately realizes the nature of self-evident’ness.’ He uses the same principles that he tries to deny – within his very own argument – and he can “see” this as it supplies its own evidence i.e it provides evidence unto itself (self-evident).

And this is the distinction, when the PS claims that “the Bible must be presupposed in order to argue against it” there is, by anyone being intellectually honest, absolutely no way that one can “see” this claim as SELF-EVIDENT; the claim does not, as any can see, provide “evidence unto itself,” and this is important, *in the same way* that the first-principles provide ample evidence unto themselves i.e. must be employed in one’s very denial of them. Anyone, in honesty, can see this distinction.

Two examples: A woman claims that she “does *not* believe in the law of noncontradiction.” You then state the contradiction of that very claim back to her, “So you *do* believe in the law of noncontradiction?” If she is lively, she immediately realizes her contradictory position (or, perhaps, you may have to point it out). She employs, in immediacy, that which she denies – which provides evidence unto itself.

Now, taking the same example: A woman claims that she “does *not* believe in the Christian holy texts.” Must the opposite claim be true (I *do* believe in the Christian Holy texts) – in the *same* way – as the above example, for her claim to make sense? Of course not.

That is, this latter statement does not “provide evidence unto itself.” You cannot point to her claim, by stating the opposite, revealing that she is immediately contradicting herself. There must be *outside* evidence for that claim.

But for the PS to try and claim that she must ‘presuppose’ that the Bible is true (when it is not self-evident, as has been shown) is merely to commit a text-book example of begging the question. And, the point of this post, is to radically confuse that which is truly Self-Evident with a Circular argument.

This is why we can simply respond to the PS by stating (in an appropriate manner, of course) – “No. You do not understand the difference between making a “fallacious” circular argument and that which is Self-Evident pertaining to the principles of all philosophical inquiry. There is a radical difference between the concepts of what it means to be circular, and what it means to be self-evident. PS is fallaciously circular, while reasoning, built on First-Principles, is self-evident.

**I am putting the above thoughts ‘down’ simply because I believe that the PS method is just simply bad philosophy. It has nothing to do as to if I “prefer one method over another – we should simply allow others to choose their own method (as in choosing¬†flavors).” Of course, there are many areas in which that may be true – but it just will not work here; the PS system is built on a faulty and fallacious foundation – and that will simply do harm to the Kingdom. Again, it is absolutely not about choosing methods – it is about true and false systems.