Dear Ozy your my hero, please keep these coming. This is the most clear and articulate video that I have ever seen that hones in with laser precision on the topic at hand.
jon f, Mcdroupout, Ilana Fireflower and I discuss presuppositionalism, the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief, and some common misunderstandings on both these topics within the discourse between theists and atheists.
55:00 Part of the presup strategy entails cornering atheists into a position of radical ignorance so that when/if the atheist tries to question the Christian position, they believe it gives them (presups) license to dismiss any objections made by the atheist as unsure of any of their beliefs and unable to affirm that their own reasoning is sound.
This was very fascinating. I can honestly say that I hadn't heard of any presuppositionalist arguments other than the Sye-clone version. An argument that sounds incredibly weak and childish, even for someone like me with very little philosophical knowledge. Thank you for sharing.
Scott Bowser Thanks Scott. My ambition here was to help we counter-apologists from tilting at windmills...and possibly to get the Sye-Clones to up their game by better articulating their own apologetic. - Ozy
Matt Dillahunty vs Sye is one of the better presup debates. Dillahunty later posted a post debate analysis that help explain some of Sye's errors and his own in the debate. Unfortunately pasting links doesn't work
I think the Presup in the matrix idea (about 1:53) has some merit because the Presup's definition of truth is "that which corresponds with the mind of God". In this sense they are claiming that God (or God's mind) mediates between the human brain and reality, just as the matrix regulates inputs to humans and prevents or replaces direct access to reality.
Be careful not to confuse the popular jargon of some presupper personalities, with orthodox Christian doctrine. As far as I know - there is no one Christian theory of truth that we Christians are obligated to dogmatically defend. The supplied definition of "truth" has theological weaknesses and would need to be qualified before we could accept it as Christians - even if it's used as a popular talking-point by some.
shotgun7174 I agree. That definition of truth also has philosophical issues, but it's explicitly used by folks like Sye Ten Bruggencat and Dustin Segers. It's also helpful to show why they're barking up the wrong tree.
@ ~3:30 there was a question about types of presuppositionalism. Broadly speaking among Christians there's 1. Revelational (authoritarian) Presup. of Cornelius Van Til (2 main camps being those who follow Greg Bahnsen & those who follow John Frame); 2. Axiomatic/Dogmatic/Deductive/Rational Presup. of Gordon Clark; 3. Systematic Coherency/Consistency Presup. of Edward Carnell; 4. Practical Presup. of Francis Schaeffer 5. Abductive Presup. by Ronald Nash (he considered 3 & 4 to fall under #5).
While this may be historically accurate, the fact is - you rarely (if ever) find anyone claiming to be "Presuppositionalists" who are disciples of anyone other than Van Til or Clark. ...and the Clarkians are the rarest of the two.
at 2:33 you talk about the presup pitting Christianity against all other worldviews. Bahnsen attempts to make this a disjunctive syllogism by claiming that all other non-Christian worldviews rely upon human autonomy, and Christianity does not. However, not only is this an unsupported assertion, it is demonstrably false. Brian Bosse (a Christian) wrote a paper about this and how the presup is making an inductive argument which at best only gives them some probability of being right and not the certainty they claim.
Hi! Are you using INDUCTION to make your comment? If so, you are only probably right and probably wrong. What do you know to be true that might be wrong? Your use of induction is based on a CHANCE UNIVERSE that makes induction impossible for knowledge claims. .
Bosse's argument fails to consistently operate within a Christian conceptual framework, and thus, his criticism about the failure of inductive inferences, however relevant to non-Christian systems, is irrelevant to Christianity. Bosse needs to distinguish between an inductive assertion, and an assertion from a relevant authority. For example: If I see a pink flamingo at the zoo and inductively conclude that, therefore, all the flamingos at the zoo are pink ... I would be making an inductive inference. If a zoo keeper says all the flamingos at the zoo are pink, he is not making an inductive inference. This is analogous to the TAG argument, which operates within a Christian paradigm, and as such, makes no inductive inferences; rather, it depends on Revelation from a relevant authority...a fact that Bosse sadly overlooked.
Dan Courtney Well, first - Presuppositionalists acknowledge a wide variety of non-Christian "types" of worldviews, not all of which formally rely on "human autonomy" per se; think of the infamous "Fristian" worldview, for example. So, while there may have been attempts (by some Presuppers) to caricature the entire position as a contrast between "human autonomy" and the Christian position (epistemological reliance on Revelation) ... this isn't the clearest way to express the dichotomy from a non-Christian position. (Within the Christian worldview, all attempts to suppress the truth of God are based on man's doxastic rebellion ...but how he formally works this out, and what system he will use, isn't always expressed in some formal autonomy). ---------------- I agree that in the zookeeper analogy, the zookeeper presupposes some inductive inferences ...but his knowledge that there are no pink flamingos in the park comes from his *de*ductions based on sense experience and (hypothetical) knowledge of the goings-ons in the park. Of course the analogy cannot be perfect ...but it works to show the difference between inductive inferences, and authoritative statements. If I believe X because I've inductively inferred it ... then I believe X "inductively". If I believe X because God told me X should be believed, then I have not believed X "inductively". Bosse (unfortunately) overlooked this ...
shotgun7174 Ahem, I would challenge the premise that Christianity is a worldview in the first place. There are hundreds of Christian denominations which constitute mutually exclusive religions. These competing Christian camps disagree on the foundations of what could be considered a worldview. They use different Bibles, they have different opinions on the nature of god, they have different opinions on the divinity of Jesus and they have different interpretations of this or that. This isn't simply an argument between Christians and non-believers, it's an argument between competing Christian religions, all competing internal and external religions, and all competing non-religious worldviews. Their position collapses under the weight of internal inconsistency and an impossible to met burden of proof.
Potter Suppositionalist A worldview deals with 3 things: 1. the true nature of reality 2. how do we know what we know. 3. what is right and wrong behavior. You have made knowledge claims against the CHRISTIAN worldview, so put into a valid syllogism with true premises the FOUNDATION of your knowledge claims . If you have to borrow from the CHRISTIAN worldview to make knowledge claims against that worldview you have proven my worldview.
Wow I was a fundamental Christian for 45 years. I deconverted over time as bricks were taken out of my foundation one by one until I had to admit I was not a Christian. What I didn't expect was that I would go through the stages of grief like my religion was a death in the family. I believe my deconversion process started before I was even aware it started. My morality has not changed much. I didn't go nuts sinning after either. Most Christians think it is like a light switch and you become like a satanist or something. I try to tell them it is more like a dimmer switch slowly turning.
How is it intellectually satisfying to make up a story that, IF true, WOULD give an account for knowledge? And what makes these presuppositionalists think that they are the only ones who can do that? We can come up with any number of stories. And why is it important that we can give an account for our knowledge in the first place? The reason we assume that there really is an objective world out there which we can sense and understand and that there are really other people who have a mind of their own is not because of some silly philosophical consideration, not because we can "give an account for our knowledge". It's because of the way reality presents itself to us, it is very persuasive to think that the things are really the way they appear to be. It is very easy to think that the wall you just bumped into is really there, that your head is really hurting and that the guy next to you is really laughing at you whereas thinking that this is just a computer simulation or that solipsism is true is not. That's why you believe the one and not the other. And whether you can give an account for knowledge or not has no bearing on these beliefs.
To the presuppositionalists: You see, no matter how clever you think you are, you can't outsmart reason. The true nerds will use reason to deconstruct your methodology and see right through it. You can't out-reason those that champion reason.
Good hangout. One thing not discussed is the inconsistent use of the concept of knowledge in the presupp argument. Sye and his Syeclones always say, "If I ask what the speed limit is on the street outside and you say 35 mph but I could be wrong, do you know it?" Sye insiste you don't know it. If I said I don't believe there is a speed limit, he would say I don't know it. But if I say I don't believe there is a God, he says I do know it. One only "knows" things when it suits Sye's purpose.
Can't we just say: "methodological naturalism and has confirmed it so that I can be certain". Then hold up a cup. Ask them what it is. When they say it is a cup, tell them that they just confirmed your world view by abandoning theirs.
Yeah at Presuppositionalism & Knowledge: a discussion I think knowledge doesn't always HAVE to be justified or believed, some knowledge is self attesting, others aren't believed though its true; knowledge needs to be more robust in a debate or at least pointed out when justification isn't necessary to the debate.
I like Ozy's idea of atheist faith, or animal faith in intelligibility. Such faith consists of universally held basc beliefs which no one can practically doubt or disbelieve. These basic beliefs are non-religious and universal, and cannot be further justified, without circularity, except by mute, animal faith. It's a practical, compulsory faith, and the only kind of faith which atheists have. And those who seriously doubt or disbelieve the propositions of animal faith are mentally ill, and will not survive long without help. The neurotic college freshman, terrified that he might be a brain in a vat, needs therapy, not philosophy.
If believe is part of Knowledge then surely we can only ever have 100% of Knowledge. I don't think I have ever believed something I have never heard of, have I?
+andrew jones You have it backwards. Knowledge (I"m going with the definition of _justified true belief_) is a subset of belief. We act according to what we believe. For most, acting according to justified true belief is a better way to navigate through life. We feel very confident when we act on knowledge. I am simply a person that accepts that hard solipsism has not been solved so on a fundamental/bedrock level, I can never be _absolutely certain_ about anything. This is what the presup jumps on while asserting that their god gives them this absolute certainty....which they refuse to demonstrate....because they can't....because then they would be solving the problem of hard solipsism. What they do instead is ask: "Couldn't an omnipotent being makes a person absolutely certain?" - No "Are you absolutely sure an omnipotent being couldn't?" - Absolutely certain? No. "Then you admit that you cannot know anything." - Nope, never said that. I am absolutely certain that I am not your god because I acknowledge that I am not absolutely certain about anything and your supposed god has absolute certainty. It's much like when Hitchens stated, "Of course I have free will, I have no choice." ....and down the rabbit hole we go! :)
belief is only one condition of knowledge; that the belief reflects the truth is the other. knowledge is not an action or a substance, it's an "if/then" condition; *if* you believe x to be the case, and *if* it is a fact that x is the case, *then* you have knowledge. KEvron
I know I'm a bit late on this, But I'd like to test one thing about the pre sup argument and the so-called "virtuous" circle, I know such a distinction is nonsensical to begin with, but I think this claim hides an internally inconsistent definition of god and I'd like an opinion about it. It goes like this: 1) Presup claim: You either know everything or you know it from someone that does. 2) Therefore even if it is a circular argument, it's made virtuous by the higher authority of god. 3) Presup also claim that god is logical by nature, god cannot and would never do anything illogic because it's against his or her own nature. Therefore saying "X is logically invalid, but god can do it because he is god" is not an acceptable claim in the presup world view. 4) Their virtuous circle is actually the human position in their world view, god cannot appeal to a higher authority to justify his "reasoning", therefore god can only "justify" his own reasoning through his own reasoning, which is what they claim atheist do and define as logically invalid. 5) They will probably answer "no, as I said in the beginning, you either know everything or you get it from someone that does, god is the one knowing everything." 6)Therefore justifying one's reasoning with one's own reasoning is logically invalid, is against the laws of logic... but god can do it because he is god. Which contradicts their claim that god is logic by nature. I'd like an opinion about this. I'm I missing something? Thanks.
I think your argument is logically sound, but it's easier and much more to the point to note that omniscience results in an actually infinite regression. God must know that he knows that he knows, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
Probably grasping at straws, but Ozy, is it possible to contact you? I know you haven’t been active on TH-cam in many years, but i officially exited the Jehovah’s Witnesses earlier this year and I was shocked to hear you mention you also came from a JW upbringing. I know you probably get slammed with messages, but it would mean a lot to me to hear from you. @ozy
I don't understand how an atheist has a burden of evidence, even a very low one. As you say, the person making the claim, negative or positive, has the burden. If the burden is not met, the belief is not warranted. I need make no claim to be an atheist. A need merely acknowledge the theist hasn't met the burden of evidence for theirs. The claim is "God exists". That's where the burden lies. Unless and until the burden is met, disbelief in the claim (atheism) is the default. Sure, if I want to claim "I know no gods exist", then I have a burden, rather a large one. But few atheists would assert that when pressed. If I make the claim "the Christian God doesn't exist" I have a burden of evidence, though one significantly smaller and one which I think can be fairly easily met. But atheism requires neither of these.
+Joe Arnold "there is ONE G-D" and "there is NO G-D" are invalid Gnostic proclamations about the actually unknowABLE. Namely about "number of G-Ds = ?" Both positions are blasphemous assertions about the unknowable number of unknowableS at the origin of the physical world itself. Which we can call G-D, G-Ds or just unknowable number of unknowable uncaused first causes. All THOSE G-Ds that "we know of" were created withIN an already existing physical world. Their origin is the human brain. The question whether they exist can be reduced to and reformulated by "do thoughts exist" in other words they do exist but not outside the human brain in other words not on their own.
+G-D IS A THOUGHT no idea what you're on about. You e practically stated a tautology. If no gods exist in reality then they're ideas in people's minds. Obviously. I'm not sure how this is relevant, except for me to reiterate that few if any thoughtful atheists would assert absolute knowledge that no gods exist
+Joe Tautology Arnold The brain exists in a physical world. The brain and the physical world are CALLED "in [physical] existence" bcz they can be known and be characterized by physical volume, Mass, energy. We know our [own] thoughts too, yet we can not characterize them by volume, mass,. energy (we can merely characterize the physical phaenomerna which lead to the fabrication of thoughts). So, I can rightfully state that IF we akknowledge that a thought exists THEN we also have to akknowledge that thoughts do not exist [physically] and not "on their own" respectively. All those G-Ds which we !!!know about!!! yet cannot be characterized by physical volume, mass, energy are just human thoughts. Quite no tautology here, Dear "Tautology Arnold" friend. !!!Every!!! brain can create its own G-D. Which is a REASONABLE explanation for the multitude of G-Ds which were created during the history of mankind. Did you know that all "Laws" whether logical-, legal-, moral-, and physical-, they are just that: Human thoughts Descriptions. TOOLS that do not physically exist. Contrary to popular opinion, the physical laws are not floating diffusely through the cosmos and submitting the physical world. The behavior of the physical world just reflects that it is as it is and that it will not defy its own identity/nature.
+Joe Tautology Arnold So, does the (physical) brain not fabricate a (non physical thought) and all other follows logically? The brain creates "WHENCE do I come", "WHY am I here", "WHERE will I go" which is the utmost fertile breeding ground for the CREATION of G-Ds. Did you know, that little children manifest a natural inclination, to search for a sort-of-praesupposed idea, meaning, purpose, ZWECK-BESTIMMUNG in the physical world?
I would agree. Nothing I've stated in this video is even offered as a rebuttal of any theism or monotheism, but of a certain style of apologetic. I can't claim to know what 'non-scriptural monotheism' is however. Cheers, - Ozy
Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks for responding. Non-scriptural monotheism is the position that monotheism is true or probable, but that scripture (any body of scripture) either developed totally without inspiration by him, or that he may have inspired parts of it, but humans took those parts and ran far beyond what was intended. A non-scriptural monotheist might believe scripture is totally worthless, or a useful record of man's effort to conform to the will of his assumed Creator.
I dont believe the internalist/externalist dichotomy is accurate. Im a presup Rationalist and as such I believe true reasons for beliefs to be internal in some sense. But so as to not be arbitrary, those reasons must constitute and be grounded in Gods essence. Thus I hold that they are also external in some sense.
@@p00tis Because Jesus is Lord, I am created in His image, He has made this world in such a way that human senses are generally reliable, and the laws of physics and chemistry and such are generally universal and reliable. However, if the universe is such that Jesus is NOT Lord, no such assurances are available and your question is a defeater for any knowledge claim.
i find 2 people very annoying for the same reason, jason burns and sy, i dont find their arguments particularly annoying but i hate the false scene of friendliness particularly in jason.
I'm listening through this ...and found Ozy's first error at around 21 min. in. Up to this point, his characterization of Presuppositional methodology was accurate; but at 21 minutes in, he asserts that the presuppositionalist has this "massive" burden of proof, to demonstrate that all other conceptual schemes that someone might possibly offer, are internally incoherent. While he does acknowledge that there is some discussion in the community over this point, he doesn't address the (so-callled) "orthodox" Van Tillian position as advocated by Dr. Bahnsen. (If Ozymandias was arguing against a Clarkian presuppositionalist, his criticism ... that the Clarkian has a massive burden of proof ... would be accurate). But, a Van Tillian position proceeds thus: *If* Christian theism were true, *then* all the other conceptual schemes are not. The only way to place the "massive" burden of disproving all other conceptual schemes on a Christian, is if Ozy inserts a negation clause in his argument: 2. *assume Christianity were not true* 3. *From 2, then non-Christian conceptual schemes might be true.* Conclusion: Christians must deal with an infinite number of expressible conceptual schemes. ----------- But, as stated, this is formally invalid.
Stephen Sommers Sommers, you do see, though, that there's a difference between doing an "internal critique" of a conceptual scheme, ... and proving the conceptual scheme is true? Ozy's statement about there being a "massive burden of proof" for us presuppers, is a sort of "internal" criticism. So, he's taking Christianity for granted, for the sake of argument, and saying: *if* presuppositional theology were true, then they'd have a massive burden of proof... But, as I've shown, that's nothing more than a blatant and uninteresting denial of the truth of Christianity to begin with.
Confusing . .. belief and knowing I think would deal with agreement. The sky is blue. But not to my Gramps because he was color blind. that would be subjective to Gramps. One cannot prove to Gramps he is wrong because about the sky. In research we use demonsterable,actionable and reliable. While understanding these are conditioal upon ....whatever. your explanation is confusing Ozzy. Can you be more clear?
presuppositional=not factual. so, why talk about an entity which does not exists according to our five senses. is there then a sixth sense by which to know god and the bible? btw, if the bible is the word of god, why has it caused christians to disperse in thousands of feuding, hating, angry sects?
Dear Ozy your my hero, please keep these coming. This is the most clear and articulate video that I have ever seen that hones in with laser precision on the topic at hand.
jon f, Mcdroupout, Ilana Fireflower and I discuss presuppositionalism, the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief, and some common misunderstandings on both these topics within the discourse between theists and atheists.
55:00
Part of the presup strategy entails cornering atheists into a position of radical ignorance so that when/if the atheist tries to question the Christian position, they believe it gives them (presups) license to dismiss any objections made by the atheist as unsure of any of their beliefs and unable to affirm that their own reasoning is sound.
This was very fascinating. I can honestly say that I hadn't heard of any presuppositionalist arguments other than the Sye-clone version. An argument that sounds incredibly weak and childish, even for someone like me with very little philosophical knowledge. Thank you for sharing.
Scott Bowser Thanks Scott. My ambition here was to help we counter-apologists from tilting at windmills...and possibly to get the Sye-Clones to up their game by better articulating their own apologetic.
- Ozy
ya me too ive only come across the sye version of the argument, and before this video was unaware that there was more to it.
World view is the entirety of one's sense perceptions arranged circularly.
What do you mean by arranged circularly please?
Matt Dillahunty vs Sye is one of the better presup debates. Dillahunty later posted a post debate analysis that help explain some of Sye's errors and his own in the debate.
Unfortunately pasting links doesn't work
I think the Presup in the matrix idea (about 1:53) has some merit because the Presup's definition of truth is "that which corresponds with the mind of God". In this sense they are claiming that God (or God's mind) mediates between the human brain and reality, just as the matrix regulates inputs to humans and prevents or replaces direct access to reality.
Be careful not to confuse the popular jargon of some presupper personalities, with orthodox Christian doctrine. As far as I know - there is no one Christian theory of truth that we Christians are obligated to dogmatically defend.
The supplied definition of "truth" has theological weaknesses and would need to be qualified before we could accept it as Christians - even if it's used as a popular talking-point by some.
shotgun7174 I agree. That definition of truth also has philosophical issues, but it's explicitly used by folks like Sye Ten Bruggencat and Dustin Segers. It's also helpful to show why they're barking up the wrong tree.
Dan Courtney It seems good enough for an apologetic talking-point ... they would just have to add caveats if ever formally presenting a truth theory.
@ ~3:30 there was a question about types of presuppositionalism. Broadly speaking among Christians there's 1. Revelational (authoritarian) Presup. of Cornelius Van Til (2 main camps being those who follow Greg Bahnsen & those who follow John Frame); 2. Axiomatic/Dogmatic/Deductive/Rational Presup. of Gordon Clark; 3. Systematic Coherency/Consistency Presup. of Edward Carnell; 4. Practical Presup. of Francis Schaeffer 5. Abductive Presup. by Ronald Nash (he considered 3 & 4 to fall under #5).
While this may be historically accurate, the fact is - you rarely (if ever) find anyone claiming to be "Presuppositionalists" who are disciples of anyone other than Van Til or Clark.
...and the Clarkians are the rarest of the two.
at 2:33 you talk about the presup pitting Christianity against all other worldviews. Bahnsen attempts to make this a disjunctive syllogism by claiming that all other non-Christian worldviews rely upon human autonomy, and Christianity does not. However, not only is this an unsupported assertion, it is demonstrably false. Brian Bosse (a Christian) wrote a paper about this and how the presup is making an inductive argument which at best only gives them some probability of being right and not the certainty they claim.
Hi! Are you using INDUCTION to make your comment?
If so, you are only probably right and probably wrong.
What do you know to be true that might be wrong?
Your use of induction is based on a CHANCE UNIVERSE that makes induction impossible for knowledge claims.
.
Bosse's argument fails to consistently operate within a Christian conceptual framework, and thus, his criticism about the failure of inductive inferences, however relevant to non-Christian systems, is irrelevant to Christianity.
Bosse needs to distinguish between an inductive assertion, and an assertion from a relevant authority.
For example:
If I see a pink flamingo at the zoo and inductively conclude that, therefore, all the flamingos at the zoo are pink ... I would be making an inductive inference.
If a zoo keeper says all the flamingos at the zoo are pink, he is not making an inductive inference.
This is analogous to the TAG argument, which operates within a Christian paradigm, and as such, makes no inductive inferences; rather, it depends on Revelation from a relevant authority...a fact that Bosse sadly overlooked.
Dan Courtney
Well, first - Presuppositionalists acknowledge a wide variety of non-Christian "types" of worldviews, not all of which formally rely on "human autonomy" per se; think of the infamous "Fristian" worldview, for example.
So, while there may have been attempts (by some Presuppers) to caricature the entire position as a contrast between "human autonomy" and the Christian position (epistemological reliance on Revelation) ... this isn't the clearest way to express the dichotomy from a non-Christian position. (Within the Christian worldview, all attempts to suppress the truth of God are based on man's doxastic rebellion ...but how he formally works this out, and what system he will use, isn't always expressed in some formal autonomy).
----------------
I agree that in the zookeeper analogy, the zookeeper presupposes some inductive inferences ...but his knowledge that there are no pink flamingos in the park comes from his *de*ductions based on sense experience and (hypothetical) knowledge of the goings-ons in the park.
Of course the analogy cannot be perfect ...but it works to show the difference between inductive inferences, and authoritative statements.
If I believe X because I've inductively inferred it ... then I believe X "inductively".
If I believe X because God told me X should be believed, then I have not believed X "inductively".
Bosse (unfortunately) overlooked this ...
shotgun7174 Ahem, I would challenge the premise that Christianity is a worldview in the first place. There are hundreds of Christian denominations which constitute mutually exclusive religions. These competing Christian camps disagree on the foundations of what could be considered a worldview. They use different Bibles, they have different opinions on the nature of god, they have different opinions on the divinity of Jesus and they have different interpretations of this or that. This isn't simply an argument between Christians and non-believers, it's an argument between competing Christian religions, all competing internal and external religions, and all competing non-religious worldviews. Their position collapses under the weight of internal inconsistency and an impossible to met burden of proof.
Potter Suppositionalist A worldview deals with 3 things:
1. the true nature of reality
2. how do we know what we know.
3. what is right and wrong behavior.
You have made knowledge claims against the CHRISTIAN worldview, so put into a valid syllogism with true premises the FOUNDATION of your knowledge claims .
If you have to borrow from the CHRISTIAN worldview to make knowledge claims against that worldview you have proven my worldview.
This is just an amazing talk!!!
Wow I was a fundamental Christian for 45 years. I deconverted over time as bricks were taken out of my foundation one by one until I had to admit I was not a Christian. What I didn't expect was that I would go through the stages of grief like my religion was a death in the family. I believe my deconversion process started before I was even aware it started. My morality has not changed much. I didn't go nuts sinning after either. Most Christians think it is like a light switch and you become like a satanist or something. I try to tell them it is more like a dimmer switch slowly turning.
How is it intellectually satisfying to make up a story that, IF true, WOULD give an account for knowledge? And what makes these presuppositionalists think that they are the only ones who can do that? We can come up with any number of stories. And why is it important that we can give an account for our knowledge in the first place? The reason we assume that there really is an objective world out there which we can sense and understand and that there are really other people who have a mind of their own is not because of some silly philosophical consideration, not because we can "give an account for our knowledge". It's because of the way reality presents itself to us, it is very persuasive to think that the things are really the way they appear to be. It is very easy to think that the wall you just bumped into is really there, that your head is really hurting and that the guy next to you is really laughing at you whereas thinking that this is just a computer simulation or that solipsism is true is not. That's why you believe the one and not the other. And whether you can give an account for knowledge or not has no bearing on these beliefs.
Memo: externalism as opposed to internalism at about 1:16:00.
To the presuppositionalists: You see, no matter how clever you think you are, you can't outsmart reason. The true nerds will use reason to deconstruct your methodology and see right through it.
You can't out-reason those that champion reason.
But you could be wrong correct?
ChessArmyCommander just because they “could be wrong” doesn’t show that they are, in fact, wrong or that the other position is then correct.
fun discussion -- i heard ideas and concepts that i have never heard before
ty for putting this up :3
Very educational. And did you say 'Sye and the syeclones'? Love that one.
Good hangout. One thing not discussed is the inconsistent use of the concept of knowledge in the presupp argument. Sye and his Syeclones always say, "If I ask what the speed limit is on the street outside and you say 35 mph but I could be wrong, do you know it?" Sye insiste you don't know it. If I said I don't believe there is a speed limit, he would say I don't know it. But if I say I don't believe there is a God, he says I do know it. One only "knows" things when it suits Sye's purpose.
Can't we just say: "methodological naturalism and has confirmed it so that I can be certain". Then hold up a cup. Ask them what it is. When they say it is a cup, tell them that they just confirmed your world view by abandoning theirs.
so aftrer is all is said and done...what is the outcome of this conversation.....? What has been resolved. whats the take away?
Outstanding talk
I saw that one. As I recall, Sye did not hang up. The interviewer kicked him off the call.
Yeah at Presuppositionalism & Knowledge: a discussion I think knowledge doesn't always HAVE to be justified or believed, some knowledge is self attesting, others aren't believed though its true; knowledge needs to be more robust in a debate or at least pointed out when justification isn't necessary to the debate.
Ozy: You and your father certainly have a unique name!
I like Ozy's idea of atheist faith, or animal faith in intelligibility. Such faith consists of universally held basc beliefs which no one can practically doubt or disbelieve. These basic beliefs are non-religious and universal, and cannot be further justified, without circularity, except by mute, animal faith. It's a practical, compulsory faith, and the only kind of faith which atheists have. And those who seriously doubt or disbelieve the propositions of animal faith are mentally ill, and will not survive long without help. The neurotic college freshman, terrified that he might be a brain in a vat, needs therapy, not philosophy.
If believe is part of Knowledge then surely we can only ever have 100% of Knowledge. I don't think I have ever believed something I have never heard of, have I?
+andrew jones You have it backwards. Knowledge (I"m going with the definition of _justified true belief_) is a subset of belief. We act according to what we believe. For most, acting according to justified true belief is a better way to navigate through life. We feel very confident when we act on knowledge. I am simply a person that accepts that hard solipsism has not been solved so on a fundamental/bedrock level, I can never be _absolutely certain_ about anything. This is what the presup jumps on while asserting that their god gives them this absolute certainty....which they refuse to demonstrate....because they can't....because then they would be solving the problem of hard solipsism.
What they do instead is ask: "Couldn't an omnipotent being makes a person absolutely certain?"
- No
"Are you absolutely sure an omnipotent being couldn't?"
- Absolutely certain? No.
"Then you admit that you cannot know anything."
- Nope, never said that. I am absolutely certain that I am not your god because I acknowledge that I am not absolutely certain about anything and your supposed god has absolute certainty. It's much like when Hitchens stated, "Of course I have free will, I have no choice."
....and down the rabbit hole we go! :)
belief is only one condition of knowledge; that the belief reflects the truth is the other. knowledge is not an action or a substance, it's an "if/then" condition; *if* you believe x to be the case, and *if* it is a fact that x is the case, *then* you have knowledge.
KEvron
____m/oo\m_____ Kilroy Was Here ... and ... yeah, what Christina BlackFeather said.
I know I'm a bit late on this, But I'd like to test one thing about the pre sup argument and the so-called "virtuous" circle, I know such a distinction is nonsensical to begin with, but I think this claim hides an internally inconsistent definition of god and I'd like an opinion about it. It goes like this:
1) Presup claim: You either know everything or you know it from someone that does.
2) Therefore even if it is a circular argument, it's made virtuous by the higher authority of god.
3) Presup also claim that god is logical by nature, god cannot and would never do anything illogic because it's against his or her own nature. Therefore saying "X is logically invalid, but god can do it because he is god" is not an acceptable claim in the presup world view.
4) Their virtuous circle is actually the human position in their world view, god cannot appeal to a higher authority to justify his "reasoning", therefore god can only "justify" his own reasoning through his own reasoning, which is what they claim atheist do and define as logically invalid.
5) They will probably answer "no, as I said in the beginning, you either know everything or you get it from someone that does, god is the one knowing everything."
6)Therefore justifying one's reasoning with one's own reasoning is logically invalid, is against the laws of logic... but god can do it because he is god. Which contradicts their claim that god is logic by nature.
I'd like an opinion about this. I'm I missing something? Thanks.
I think your argument is logically sound, but it's easier and much more to the point to note that omniscience results in an actually infinite regression. God must know that he knows that he knows, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
Probably grasping at straws, but Ozy, is it possible to contact you? I know you haven’t been active on TH-cam in many years, but i officially exited the Jehovah’s Witnesses earlier this year and I was shocked to hear you mention you also came from a JW upbringing.
I know you probably get slammed with messages, but it would mean a lot to me to hear from you. @ozy
Thanks again, on that topic I've sent a p.m, Cheers
Thanks Thiago. I got your PM. I'll be responding to it. I'm just trying to work my way though a backlog of messages. Sorry for the delay.
- Ozy
Thank you very much, no rush though.
I don't understand how an atheist has a burden of evidence, even a very low one. As you say, the person making the claim, negative or positive, has the burden. If the burden is not met, the belief is not warranted. I need make no claim to be an atheist. A need merely acknowledge the theist hasn't met the burden of evidence for theirs.
The claim is "God exists". That's where the burden lies. Unless and until the burden is met, disbelief in the claim (atheism) is the default.
Sure, if I want to claim "I know no gods exist", then I have a burden, rather a large one. But few atheists would assert that when pressed. If I make the claim "the Christian God doesn't exist" I have a burden of evidence, though one significantly smaller and one which I think can be fairly easily met. But atheism requires neither of these.
+Joe Arnold "there is ONE G-D" and "there is NO G-D" are invalid Gnostic proclamations about the actually unknowABLE. Namely about "number of G-Ds = ?" Both positions are blasphemous assertions about the unknowable number of unknowableS at the origin of the physical world itself. Which we can call G-D, G-Ds or just unknowable number of unknowable uncaused first causes. All THOSE G-Ds that "we know of" were created withIN an already existing physical world. Their origin is the human brain. The question whether they exist can be reduced to and reformulated by "do thoughts exist" in other words they do exist but not outside the human brain in other words not on their own.
+G-D IS A THOUGHT no idea what you're on about. You e practically stated a tautology. If no gods exist in reality then they're ideas in people's minds. Obviously.
I'm not sure how this is relevant, except for me to reiterate that few if any thoughtful atheists would assert absolute knowledge that no gods exist
+Joe Tautology Arnold
The brain exists in a physical world. The brain and the physical world are CALLED "in [physical] existence" bcz they can be known and be characterized by physical volume, Mass, energy. We know our [own] thoughts too, yet we can not characterize them by volume, mass,. energy (we can merely characterize the physical phaenomerna which lead to the fabrication of thoughts). So, I can rightfully state that IF we akknowledge that a thought exists THEN we also have to akknowledge that thoughts do not exist [physically] and not "on their own" respectively. All those G-Ds which we !!!know about!!! yet cannot be characterized by physical volume, mass, energy are just human thoughts. Quite no tautology here, Dear "Tautology Arnold" friend. !!!Every!!! brain can create its own G-D. Which is a REASONABLE explanation for the multitude of G-Ds which were created during the history of mankind. Did you know that all "Laws" whether logical-, legal-, moral-, and physical-, they are just that: Human thoughts Descriptions. TOOLS that do not physically exist. Contrary to popular opinion, the physical laws are not floating diffusely through the cosmos and submitting the physical world. The behavior of the physical world just reflects that it is as it is and that it will not defy its own identity/nature.
G-D IS A THOUGHT Oh you're trying to have your own conversation.
Do it with someone else. And try and make sense, maybe.
+Joe Tautology Arnold So, does the (physical) brain not fabricate a (non physical thought) and all other follows logically?
The brain creates "WHENCE do I come", "WHY am I here", "WHERE will I go" which is the utmost fertile breeding ground for the CREATION of G-Ds.
Did you know, that little children manifest a natural inclination, to search for a sort-of-praesupposed idea, meaning, purpose, ZWECK-BESTIMMUNG in the physical world?
Presuppositionalism is, in modern parlance, "trolling."
Very good, Ozy. I'm a non-scriptural monotheist. I don't see anything in what you said that is incompatible with monotheism per se. Disagree?
I would agree. Nothing I've stated in this video is even offered as a rebuttal of any theism or monotheism, but of a certain style of apologetic. I can't claim to know what 'non-scriptural monotheism' is however.
Cheers,
- Ozy
Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks for responding. Non-scriptural monotheism is the position that monotheism is true or probable, but that scripture (any body of scripture) either developed totally without inspiration by him, or that he may have inspired parts of it, but humans took those parts and ran far beyond what was intended. A non-scriptural monotheist might believe scripture is totally worthless, or a useful record of man's effort to conform to the will of his assumed Creator.
+Cary Cook "Mono" is for itself a Gnostic position from the physical [source-of-]information aka "Holy scripture".
I dont believe the internalist/externalist dichotomy is accurate. Im a presup Rationalist and as such I believe true reasons for beliefs to be internal in some sense. But so as to not be arbitrary, those reasons must constitute and be grounded in Gods essence. Thus I hold that they are also external in some sense.
Presupp here, listening 8 years later! Y'all have made several errors but still it is a really good discussion, sincerely. I am 2 hours in so far.
How do you know they made errors?
@@p00tis Because I listened and noticed the errors.
@@Rhology How do you know your ears were reporting accurate sense data?
@@p00tis Because Jesus is Lord, I am created in His image, He has made this world in such a way that human senses are generally reliable, and the laws of physics and chemistry and such are generally universal and reliable.
However, if the universe is such that Jesus is NOT Lord, no such assurances are available and your question is a defeater for any knowledge claim.
@@Rhology "He has made this world in such a way that human senses are generally reliable"
And how do you know that?
i find 2 people very annoying for the same reason, jason burns and sy, i dont find their arguments particularly annoying but i hate the false scene of friendliness particularly in jason.
I'm listening through this ...and found Ozy's first error at around 21 min. in.
Up to this point, his characterization of Presuppositional methodology was accurate; but at 21 minutes in, he asserts that the presuppositionalist has this "massive" burden of proof, to demonstrate that all other conceptual schemes that someone might possibly offer, are internally incoherent.
While he does acknowledge that there is some discussion in the community over this point, he doesn't address the (so-callled) "orthodox" Van Tillian position as advocated by Dr. Bahnsen. (If Ozymandias was arguing against a Clarkian presuppositionalist, his criticism ... that the Clarkian has a massive burden of proof ... would be accurate).
But, a Van Tillian position proceeds thus:
*If* Christian theism were true, *then* all the other conceptual schemes are not.
The only way to place the "massive" burden of disproving all other conceptual schemes on a Christian, is if Ozy inserts a negation clause in his argument:
2. *assume Christianity were not true*
3. *From 2, then non-Christian conceptual schemes might be true.*
Conclusion: Christians must deal with an infinite number of expressible conceptual schemes.
-----------
But, as stated, this is formally invalid.
Of course, there''s absolutely no evidential basis on which to assume Christianity is true, which renders the "If" condition irrelevant.
Stephen Sommers
Sommers, you do see, though, that there's a difference between doing an "internal critique" of a conceptual scheme, ... and proving the conceptual scheme is true?
Ozy's statement about there being a "massive burden of proof" for us presuppers, is a sort of "internal" criticism. So, he's taking Christianity for granted, for the sake of argument, and saying: *if* presuppositional theology were true, then they'd have a massive burden of proof...
But, as I've shown, that's nothing more than a blatant and uninteresting denial of the truth of Christianity to begin with.
Confusing . .. belief and knowing I think would deal with agreement. The sky is blue. But not to my Gramps because he was color blind. that would be subjective to Gramps. One cannot prove to Gramps he is wrong because about the sky. In research we use demonsterable,actionable and reliable. While understanding these are conditioal upon ....whatever. your explanation is confusing Ozzy. Can you be more clear?
presuppositional=not factual. so, why talk about an entity which does not exists according to our five senses.
is there then a sixth sense by which to know god and the bible?
btw, if the bible is the word of god, why has it caused christians to disperse in thousands of feuding, hating, angry sects?
I don't believe in fairies and I have a burden of proof to prove they don't exist? Nonsense.
Damm who cares or I don't know how we can know trouth about the universe ar certanty.