I’d love to see Bill on a channel like Holy Koolaid or similar. His lectures are so sharp and insightful but it seems to be a rule to have poor audio/visuals and few views relative to value. His “Seeing Through Christianity” lecture is rock solid. HIGHLY recommend. One of the best I’ve seen- right up there with the best of Bart Herman’s lectures.
I am commenting many years late so you probably will not see this, but I hope you do! First off, I will say I was quite impressed with the video. As an Orthodox Christian studying pressupositionalism, I think you laid out the argument clearly and for the most part correctly. I think you had many good thoughts, but I have multiple critiques as I am finishing this video haha. First off, concerning the question of circularity, the pressupositionalist believes that circularity is unavoidable at the paradigm level. For example, you can't argue against logic without using logic, you can't argue that words don't have meaning without assuming that words have meaning, Godel's incompleteness theorem showed the same thing with mathematics, and there are other examples. What the pressup is saying is that all these things can be explained and cohere in a worldview where God exists. That is the justification for God, who himself is our foundational pressuposition which is self referencing. When you where looking at the foundationalist model, you said "our foundational beliefs aren't arbitrary because everyone holds them." The fact that the consensus says these things exist and are true is irrelevant. When we say you are being arbitrary, we mean this in the sense that you cannot justify those fundamental beliefs. Moreover, the evolutionary account you have in the circular model does not give an account for immaterial invariant abstract objects, or any of the other foundational beliefs. Another flaw I saw was when you where talking about logic being dependent on God, you said "God can change logic if he created it." This is false, because the laws of logic are patterned off him who is unchanging. In the Orthodox Christian view, logic is a created universal pattered off of one of God's logoi (look into St. Maximus the Confessor for this). I have multiple other critiques that I would love to engage with if you see this comment! Overall though, this video was great food for thought! I'm only 18 and just beginning my journey in Christ, and things like this are both edifying and help me grow spiritually and intellectually. God be with you
I especially liked the simplicity of Bill’s two points on the “epistemic circularity” of presuppositionalists’ stance on logic and knowledge “If you need God to justify a logical argument, then you can’t use a logical argument to justify God.” “If you need God to justify knowledge claims, then you can’t make knowledge claims to justify God.” That looks like a refutation to me.
Great talk, Bill. I've definitely come across this a couple of times recently. Of course, it also suffers from the basic issue that even if granted it gets you nowhere in terms of any specific religion. (tricksy word games to do with TAG) -> (Wine changes to blood as we drink it!).
Clearly you don't understand TAG. God doesn't need justifying in TAG because he is presupposed in the argument that's what it's called "Presuppositionalism". The atheist view doesn't account for logic and the God world view does, it's not complicated.
Hi Skyyy Warppp, Thank you for your feedback. I'm always interested in correcting errors if I've made any. But if God can simply be presupposed, then it seems so can logic. Can you be more specific regarding your position vis a vis God and logic? Best regards
@@billzuersher2135 Yeah, the atheists can't just presuppose logic because it's inconsistent with an atheist worldview that requires justifying ones beliefs. In other words, saying the laws of logic "just are" and don't need justifying is being arbitrary and ad hoc. When the theist says "God just is" it's consistent with the theistic world view where something can "just be" without anything needing to justify it.
@@skyyywarppp428 Yea, I think we're in agreement. Many atheists hold themselves and others to a standard that ultimately cannot be met by anyone. There is no non-circular place to stand.
Bill, I am sorry you went down the route you did, but I understand why you may have. Yes, it is true that so many theists and atheists try to turn transcendental arguments into deductive arguments, but transcendental arguments are not deductive arguments. At the end of the transcendental argument for God, there is no, "Therefore: God!" Simply put, you attacked a strawman. The transcendental questions that the transcendental argument seeks to answer are: 1) Is there a cosmology based on intentionalism (i.e. that the universe is intended and designed to be what it is) that allows for the possibility of knowledge? 2) Is there a cosmology based on unintentionalism (i.e. that the universe is what it is accidentally, by happenstance, by chance, without any reason that what it is) that allows for the possibility of knowledge? We ask the same questions of each. Does one, both or neither of these cosmological categories have the necessary and sufficient elements to allow for knowledge? What you did not show in your presentation is that there is any atheist (unintentional) cosmology that allows for the mere possibility of knowledge. Please don't talk about "evolution," which is an article of knowledge, until you first show an atheist cosmology has the elements to support any knowledge at all. Thanks for listening, Bill. G. Brady Lenardos
Bill, I noticed that it has been over two months since you gave this presentation. I talked to Russ, and I know that you know what the real transcendental case for God is and you knew it before presenting your lecture. My question is are you going to go back and share the real argument with those people or are you going to leave them with a false impression of the argument? What happens if they meet someone from Dialog and find out that you intentionally misrepresented the real argument? Yes, Bill, they may never find out about the misrepresentation; but you KNOW that after hearing your lecture they are in a much poorer position to defend their atheism than they were before your lecture. Let me urge you to go back and at least share the real argument with them, so they don't look like fools when talking to and educated Christian about it. Regards, G. Brady Lenardos
Why don’t you share the “real” argument with us here? So all of us who come to this video and peruse the comments are better positioned and don’t look like “fools.”
Start here. And if you’re so bold, Jay opens the floor for philosophical debates via Twitter and TH-cam frequently. Been some sharp atheists recently but too often it’s very base level argumentations: th-cam.com/video/x6wUqoJXKHs/w-d-xo.html
This argument is weak because you don’t demonstrate how god grounds logic. This guy nails it well. Presupposes need to watch this. Also I have heard philosophers use clock analogy before lol
“So the take away from this argument, is that without God you can’t have logic. But wait a minute; this is a logical argument. If you need God to justify a logical argument, then you can’t make a logical argument to justify God.” I may be wrong, but I think this objection does not work, because someone like Sye Ten Brugencate is not claiming to present a logical argument to justify the existence of God. Rather he is taking the position that both the Christian and the skeptic both already know God exists, and so there is no point in making a logical argument to prove God exists. In fact to attempt to do so is to subject God to the judgement of our logical faculties, which is not treating God as God. Therefore, all the presuppositionalist can do is to point out to the skeptic the untenability of their position. You laid out the argument for presuppositionalism very clearly, and I enjoyed listening to it. One might ask why some presuppositional apologists seemingly can’t lay out their own argument out so well? I think the reason is because they don’t see themselves as laying out an argument. They are rather confronting the untenability of the sceptic’s position to them. This may lead to the odd style of engagement of some presuppositonalists, where they don’t offer any arguments, but rather keep critiquing the skeptic for having a basis for knowledge, and refusing to even listen to what the skeptic has to say until they present one. I think your other objection may work, and I may try to write about that later.
![ค้าง (STILL) - GEMINI [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ftxx3hk5vkU/mqdefault.jpg)
I’d love to see Bill on a channel like Holy Koolaid or similar. His lectures are so sharp and insightful but it seems to be a rule to have poor audio/visuals and few views relative to value.
His “Seeing Through Christianity” lecture is rock solid. HIGHLY recommend. One of the best I’ve seen- right up there with the best of Bart Herman’s lectures.
This is as clear as I've ever seen TAG presented.
I am commenting many years late so you probably will not see this, but I hope you do! First off, I will say I was quite impressed with the video. As an Orthodox Christian studying pressupositionalism, I think you laid out the argument clearly and for the most part correctly. I think you had many good thoughts, but I have multiple critiques as I am finishing this video haha. First off, concerning the question of circularity, the pressupositionalist believes that circularity is unavoidable at the paradigm level. For example, you can't argue against logic without using logic, you can't argue that words don't have meaning without assuming that words have meaning, Godel's incompleteness theorem showed the same thing with mathematics, and there are other examples. What the pressup is saying is that all these things can be explained and cohere in a worldview where God exists. That is the justification for God, who himself is our foundational pressuposition which is self referencing. When you where looking at the foundationalist model, you said "our foundational beliefs aren't arbitrary because everyone holds them." The fact that the consensus says these things exist and are true is irrelevant. When we say you are being arbitrary, we mean this in the sense that you cannot justify those fundamental beliefs. Moreover, the evolutionary account you have in the circular model does not give an account for immaterial invariant abstract objects, or any of the other foundational beliefs. Another flaw I saw was when you where talking about logic being dependent on God, you said "God can change logic if he created it." This is false, because the laws of logic are patterned off him who is unchanging. In the Orthodox Christian view, logic is a created universal pattered off of one of God's logoi (look into St. Maximus the Confessor for this). I have multiple other critiques that I would love to engage with if you see this comment! Overall though, this video was great food for thought! I'm only 18 and just beginning my journey in Christ, and things like this are both edifying and help me grow spiritually and intellectually. God be with you
The impossibility of the contrary argument begs the question, as premise two, Not not-A, is also the conclusion.
I especially liked the simplicity of Bill’s two points on the “epistemic circularity” of presuppositionalists’ stance on logic and knowledge
“If you need God to justify a logical argument, then you can’t use a logical argument to justify God.”
“If you need God to justify knowledge claims, then you can’t make knowledge claims to justify God.”
That looks like a refutation to me.
Tag retard christians getting beat with their own word games
It was evident the tag argument had many fundamental problems
This is the best reply to Sye Ten Bruggencate, Ken Hovind, and other presuppositionalists.
Great talk, Bill. I've definitely come across this a couple of times recently. Of course, it also suffers from the basic issue that even if granted it gets you nowhere in terms of any specific religion. (tricksy word games to do with TAG) -> (Wine changes to blood as we drink it!).
47:27 -- The woman in red has obtained true knowledge.
Clearly you don't understand TAG. God doesn't need justifying in TAG because he is presupposed in the argument that's what it's called "Presuppositionalism". The atheist view doesn't account for logic and the God world view does, it's not complicated.
Hi Skyyy Warppp, Thank you for your feedback. I'm always interested in correcting errors if I've made any. But if God can simply be presupposed, then it seems so can logic. Can you be more specific regarding your position vis a vis God and logic? Best regards
@@billzuersher2135 Yeah, the atheists can't just presuppose logic because it's inconsistent with an atheist worldview that requires justifying ones beliefs. In other words, saying the laws of logic "just are" and don't need justifying is being arbitrary and ad hoc. When the theist says "God just is" it's consistent with the theistic world view where something can "just be" without anything needing to justify it.
@@skyyywarppp428 Yea, I think we're in agreement. Many atheists hold themselves and others to a standard that ultimately cannot be met by anyone. There is no non-circular place to stand.
@@billzuersher2135 Correct. Eventually you will hit a final authority in your worldview and some degree of circularity is unavoidable.
Can god change his mind and make 2+2 equal 5? Why does logic need grounding?
It's a case of "My epistemic circularity is better than your epistemic circularity."
If logic is as you say, it would pertain no matter the worldview.
Bill, I am sorry you went down the route you did, but I understand why you may have. Yes, it is true that so many theists and atheists try to turn transcendental arguments into deductive arguments, but transcendental arguments are not deductive arguments. At the end of the transcendental argument for God, there is no, "Therefore: God!" Simply put, you attacked a strawman. The transcendental questions that the transcendental argument seeks to answer are: 1) Is there a cosmology based on intentionalism (i.e. that the universe is intended and designed to be what it is) that allows for the possibility of knowledge? 2) Is there a cosmology based on unintentionalism (i.e. that the universe is what it is accidentally, by happenstance, by chance, without any reason that what it is) that allows for the possibility of knowledge? We ask the same questions of each. Does one, both or neither of these cosmological categories have the necessary and sufficient elements to allow for knowledge? What you did not show in your presentation is that there is any atheist (unintentional) cosmology that allows for the mere possibility of knowledge. Please don't talk about "evolution," which is an article of knowledge, until you first show an atheist cosmology has the elements to support any knowledge at all. Thanks for listening, Bill. G. Brady Lenardos
Are you saying then that the transcendental argument dies not prove God?
Bill, I noticed that it has been over two months since you gave this presentation. I talked to Russ, and I know that you know what the real transcendental case for God is and you knew it before presenting your lecture. My question is are you going to go back and share the real argument with those people or are you going to leave them with a false impression of the argument? What happens if they meet someone from Dialog and find out that you intentionally misrepresented the real argument? Yes, Bill, they may never find out about the misrepresentation; but you KNOW that after hearing your lecture they are in a much poorer position to defend their atheism than they were before your lecture. Let me urge you to go back and at least share the real argument with them, so they don't look like fools when talking to and educated Christian about it. Regards, G. Brady Lenardos
Why don’t you share the “real” argument with us here? So all of us who come to this video and peruse the comments are better positioned and don’t look like “fools.”
@@brentmattox8933 No word after 3 months. It does seem that the *real* transcendental argument is protected from criticism by not being stated.
Start here. And if you’re so bold, Jay opens the floor for philosophical debates via Twitter and TH-cam frequently. Been some sharp atheists recently but too often it’s very base level argumentations: th-cam.com/video/x6wUqoJXKHs/w-d-xo.html
This argument is weak because you don’t demonstrate how god grounds logic. This guy nails it well. Presupposes need to watch this. Also I have heard philosophers use clock analogy before lol
“So the take away from this argument, is that without God you can’t have logic. But wait a minute; this is a logical argument. If you need God to justify a logical argument, then you can’t make a logical argument to justify God.”
I may be wrong, but I think this objection does not work, because someone like Sye Ten Brugencate is not claiming to present a logical argument to justify the existence of God. Rather he is taking the position that both the Christian and the skeptic both already know God exists, and so there is no point in making a logical argument to prove God exists. In fact to attempt to do so is to subject God to the judgement of our logical faculties, which is not treating God as God. Therefore, all the presuppositionalist can do is to point out to the skeptic the untenability of their position.
You laid out the argument for presuppositionalism very clearly, and I enjoyed listening to it. One might ask why some presuppositional apologists seemingly can’t lay out their own argument out so well? I think the reason is because they don’t see themselves as laying out an argument. They are rather confronting the untenability of the sceptic’s position to them. This may lead to the odd style of engagement of some presuppositonalists, where they don’t offer any arguments, but rather keep critiquing the skeptic for having a basis for knowledge, and refusing to even listen to what the skeptic has to say until they present one.
I think your other objection may work, and I may try to write about that later.
Clever guy but makes a lot of assumptions without realising. Could definitely use some training about scientific reasoning.