@@bgiv2010 I don’t start with an axiom. I start with an ultimate presupposition (Not the same thing; as axioms by definition are indemonstrable). And it is quite easy to do with my ultimate presupposition something you can’t with your axiom. I can actually justify my starting point. Buuttt waaiittt, yoouu caaaannn’t jUstifyyy an axiom, you can’t justify presuPPoSitions!!!; blah blah blah. I have addressed this ad nausium. Presuppositions can be justified. They are justified transcendentally!! Blah, blah, blah (So your saying the Bible is true because the Bible is true)? Nope, that is not what a transcendental argument does.And round and round we go. To think the transcendental argument is simply asserting one’s starting point and that’s all, is to simply not know what a transcendental argument is. Even if in principle, the transcendental argument fails (which I deny of course) it would still be false to think that when the argument is offered, all we are saying is “my axiom can beat up your axiom.” Sorry but your brief comments are not even in the ballpark;) There is a reason why I don’t shake in my boots when someone says “my axiom can beat up your axiom.” It’s because that isn’t even the nature of my argument. SMH 🤦
@@RevealedApologetics You said: "I start with an ultimate presupposition ". There is no such thing as an 'ultimate presupposition". Your "ultimate presupposition" has a presupposition. And your Pre-ultimate presupposition" also has a "Pre-pre-ultimate-presupposition." And of course we are an infinite regression of pre-pre-pre-ultimate presuppositions. Lewis Carroll showed this in his writing "What The Tortoise said to Achilles..". PA fails again.
Well eli failed spectacularly to support your position. Would YOU like to have a go? Is god the precondition of intelligibility? Lol Isn't presupp just a pitiful god of the gaps argument?
Hey, Eli. Great stuff! What would you consider to be the strongest objection to presup? Most, if not all, of the objections I have heard are based on misconceptions or mischaracterizations.
@@RevealedApologetics It'd be great if you could provide a link to this video that dismisses/circumvent's Barry Stroud's objection to ambitious TAs that 'cross the bridge' from a doxastic attitude towards a proposition and the actuality (ontological status) of that proposition.
@@RevealedApologetics The best ‘objection’ to presup is to point out you haven’t justified your claims that your imaginary friend exists. You just end up making an unjustified claim that your imaginary friend ‘revealed’ it to you.
You said: "What would you consider to be the strongest objection to presup?". Forgive me for interfering with your dialog. However, as a Christian man (orthodox and protestant), I'd like your permission to offer what I consider to be the conclusive destruction of presup apologetics. May I?
Randian Objectivists also use presup, they say that non-Objectivist philosophers (especially, but not limited to, postmodernists) are committing the "stolen concept fallacy" by choosing any other axioms except for the Objectivist axioms. Both Christian presup and Objectivist presup are equally wrong.
@@JonDoe-zq2he Because, 1st, it is a question-begging argument at its core. It uses a premise which is just as doubtful as the conclusion, thus proving nothing. And 2nd, for its rhetorical force, it uses underhanded tactics: exploiting unsolved (and probably unsolvable) problems in philosophy to seemingly support one's preferred conclusion. (Oh, and 3rd, who could forget Bahnsen's direct admission that presup is not even an argument, but a tool to "close the mouth of the critic". Because Bahnsen didn't believe in "arguments for God" as even a coherent concept, because "there is no neutral ground", "you must believe first and then you'll understand", etc.)
@@JonDoe-zq2he The only people who are going to give any time of day to the premise "God is the necessary precondition for logic/intelligibility/..." are those who already believe the conclusion "God exists". The premise is just as doubtful as the conclusion. So the argument accomplishes no work.
Great video, like always! When they say "reality" or "existence" I always ask them to clarify which model of reality they're appealing to. The Biblical worldview? Or their particular non-theistic worldview?
I’m not referring to ANY ‘model’ of reality. Both your ‘model’ and my ‘model’ of reality are most likely wrong in some ways, but reality is whatever the actual facts are, irrespective of our ‘models’.
@AsixA6 The moment you affirm or deny anything, you've invoked a model of reality (aka worldview) because you can only affirm or deny propositions within a model or framework for them to be real or exist within. There's no such thing as a context-less fact. The "concept," if it can even be called that, is just gibberish. It's unintelligible.
I'd like to know what your starting point of knowledge is, Mr. Ayala, and by what means are you aware of it? It would be really helpful if you made this clear.
@@Dhorpatan Yeah, I'm guessing we'll never hear. That's allright, I already know what it actually is. Presuppositionalists pose as being all concerned with peoples' "presuppositions" but show a remarkable unawareness of their own.
@@AIiquis No he did not. He did not give us his starting point. The notion of God is not and can not be a starting point for one simple reason: It is not conceptually irreducible. Do you know what that means? It means it is a primary fact that can't be defined in terms of prior knowledge. Just by arguing for his God with TAG he is conceding this since an inference draws upon prior knowledge. A true starting point is something that we are aware of by means of perception. Once we have perceived some things then and only then do we have the material from which to derive more complex knowledge. If God is his starting point and he seeks to infer its existence then his argument is circular. I've already pointed out how TAG is unsound. So that's it for TAG. I already know what his actual starting point is: the fact that existence exists or is he claiming that his God does not exist? He and every other theist want their God to be the irreducible primary but it isn't. It isn't perceptually self-evident, it isn't fundamental (it takes heaps of prior premises to even understand what God is supposed to be), it isn't conceptually irreducible, and most importantly it isn't true. These are all characteristics of a starting point. "God" takes a lot for granted: What is a god? What does all knowing mean? What does omniscient mean? What does the ground of knowledge mean? What does knowledge mean? Blank out. He has to start at the same place that everyone else does: With the fact of existence. But he's not satisfied with that so he essentially steps outside of existence to start with nothing and then propose how existence came to be. But before we can identify WHAT something is we first have to know THAT it is. But Mr. Ayala thinks this is full of problems. So the commenter who spurred this video was absolutely right, he nailed TAG to the wall and it is Mr. Ayala and you who show your profound ignorance. It's amazing to me the lengths apologists will go to defend their God belief, up to and including denying the basic axioms of knowledge. So since I'm dealing with you now, I'd like to know three things: 1. Is it your position that nothing exists? 2. Is it your position that consciousness is conscious of nothing? 3. Is it your position that existents aren't what they are, That A is not A. Be very careful here not to contradict yourself.
It is very easy to find many objections to the presuppositional (transcendental) argument. You have a great deal of work ahead of you, before I could accept your reasoning.
@@kitchencarvings4621 What "stollen" concepts? You're making assertions without any bases. You need to demonstrate what you are saying here. Simply asserting it won't do.
@etics-101 You are right, I didn't give a basis because the stolen concept is so blatant I didn't think I needed to. But let me fix that now. A stolen concept fallacy occurs when one uses a concept apart from its place in the hierarchical structure of knowledge or when a concept is used while a concept in its genetic base is ignored or denied. In the case of the notion of God being the justification or explanation of what exists. Both the concepts "justification" and "explanation" presuppose the concept of "existence". Therefore the concept of "existence" has conceptual primacy and that makes the concepts "justification" and "explanation" stolen. This fallacy renders TAG invalid. Justification of what? Explanation of what? Whenever one use uses the word what one is talking about existence. Blank out. For a little more support, consider that since existence has metaphysical primacy, it also has conceptual primacy, and all further knowledge or any statements about knowledge presuppose it. Therefore any attempt to deny existence exists or statements that existence needs to be justified renders all of one's concepts stolen. Since the major premise of TAG is that you need God to justify reason, logic, knowledge, intelligibility, and even existence itself, this premise is invalid, and therefore the whole argument is invalid. Also, its conclusion entails stolen concepts so it is not valid. Therefore the argument is unsound.
@@apologetics-101 //"You're making assertions without any basis. You need to demonstrate what you are saying here. Simply asserting it won't do."// If you're a presupper, then you've missed a rich slice of irony in saying this, as that is EXACTLY what non-presuppositionalists (theists and atheists alike), have been asking presuppers to do for over half a century!
How is it coherent for the skeptic to only reference principles of DEPENDENCY, such as those for logic, as being truthful and coherent starting points metaphysically, for their model of reality? Its not! You can't only appeal to dependency regarding the metaphysical principles about the foundational nature of reality, to account for your model of reality generally, and the beliefs therein, regarding *dependent* facts. What I mean more specifically is this. For example, the laws of logic were appealed to by the skeptic here, and that those are truthful starting points. And I'm pointing out how that those pertain to dependency states, and cannot serve as an ultimate starting point. The dependency states described by the laws, presuppose the "ground of being" for the dependency states described by the laws.
So this unbeliever used what I call the "Popeye Argument". Popeye says "I am what I am and that's all I am" This argument then is "It is what it is and that's what it is" lol
The problem with presup is that there is no other conceivable reality where begging the question is a rational way to establish a premise, but because we are asserting God, who is true, that our reasoning is somehow sound? Time and time again, God gives us evidence of His existence, and I see no reason why we cant move from a place of ignorance, to a place of faith, based on the evidence.
Nobody is saying there is no place for evidence, but the transcendental argument goes deeper than just evidence, everything is arguing in a circle when you get to foundational levels.
@@SaltyApologist Faith comes by hearing the word of God. The scripture doesnt say faith comes by getting into philosophical debates with unbelievers. There is a reason atheists hate the sterile, cold and often unchristlike approach from the presup crowd. They do however respond to people who actually portray Christ as Christ intended for His Church. Talk is cheap, gotta walk the walk.
The problem with “evidence” is that all evidence is filtered through a worldview. Any piece of evidence can and will be re-framed to support their presuppositions. It’s critical to attack those directly
@@SaltyApologist that’s why it’s the Gospel that saves, like I said, you can’t bypass the fact that faith comes the hearing of the word. You can try and bypass that with philosophical arguments, but it won’t bring a person to faith. If you want to convert people, you do as the Apostles did, you purpose yourself to preach Christ crucified for the remission of sins. The Gospel names the stakes, and provides the way to eternal life with all sins forgiven by God, all for accepting Gods grace through the shed blood of Christ and faith in Him. That is what converts unbelievers. The Church has amnesia in this regard, and people want to argue on the world’s terms. Name one philosopher with more wisdom than Christ. They don’t even rate with the greats like King Solomon or John the Baptist. There is no greater tool for conversion than the word of God. Don’t take my word for it. 2Tim 2:24-26
@@CryoftheProphetI’ll go ahead and ignore your implicit and misplaced assumptions that I, and other presups don’t “walk the walk” as you say, but the reason why they hate presups is largely because they can’t refute us. You are also assuming that a certain apologetic method is what leads to salvation, sorry bud but that’s the Holy Spirits job. Presup is Biblical, feigning neutrality with the unbeliever and pretending that the natural mind can reason its way to God, is not Biblical. You are also conflating debates with evangelism. There is overlap, but apologetics is a defense of the faith.
No, the concept of "existence" does not presuppose the concept of "justification". This is a blatantly stolen concept. The concept of "justification" is not conceptually irreducible so it can not be implicit in the recognition that existence exists. You say somebody else's worldview might affirm that existence presupposes justification. If this is the case then their worldview is in serious trouble. Errors like this can only invalidate the whole thing and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of concepts and how they work. The difference between my "presuppositions" and presuppositionalism's presuppositions is that mine are demonstratable and theirs are only imaginary. I can point to mine but presuppositionalists have no recourse but to appeal to fallacy. Just by making an argument for the existence of God concedes that its existence is not self-evident. If it was, there'd be no need to argue for it. My starting point is self evidently true. It's impossible to be wrong about these axioms, therefore they provide the "account" that we need to draw upon in all subsequent knowledge. And here is the kicker: Presuppositionalism's starting point assumes mine, the axioms, but they deny my starting point and instead start with non-existence as theirs.
Eli, on my run today, I realized that the laws of logic are just a model that humans have created to describe what we perceive as reality. If a human mind doesn't exist, there are no laws of logic. If we imagine a world with no minds, is a rock still a rock? Asking this question means there is a human mind to even imagine it, so our model comes into use. But with literally no minds, and no mind to create a hypothetical, there are no laws of logic. Then I realized that numbers are just another model to describe what we perceive as reality. With no minds, can there be two rocks? With absolutely no minds, where even the hypothetical didn't exist, there are no numbers.
Since the only alternative to starting with existence is to start with non-existence, what's wrong with starting with the fact of existence???? and to what could one point to to "justify existence" except something that exists? Do you understand what an axiom is now? It's not just a statement that is taken as established. It is a statement that is rationally undeniable. Hmmm... what could people deny since nothing exists to deny. And, how could anyone deny anything since people are not conscious of anything? Oh, and why should anyone deny anything? Can't two people hold two different positions on a subject and both be equally right? There you have them, the axioms, and no this is not an attempt to "justify" them, only a demonstration that the concepts existence, identity, and consciousness are axiomatic.
Classic and evidentialist arguments I find more persuasive to actually convert people. If you just want to debate against atheists and ricochet one assertion against another, presup is the most entertaining. God gave humans the ability to reason, regardless of how a person justifies it. Bad rationale is bad rationale.
@@nickjones5435 no, unless they just become a presup debate bro, but those guys are just jerks hiding behind Christianity. Basically cultural Christians.
I think your refutation of the objection fails miserably. In my opinion, it boils dowm to the Tu quoque fallacy due to your inability to refute the validity of the axioms stated in objection. They have indirectly implied that your God is not necessary for grounding these axioms, or that these axioms do not even require grounding, the onus is on you to explain how your God exists in the first place, and then how he grounds these transcendentals [as you call them], without begging the question, given that you agree in principle that these transcendentals actually exist. I bet you can't do this, and that's why you have to resort to the tu quoque.
Merely stating that the existence of God is demonstrated via the transcendental argument is at the best simply vacuous or at the worst a clever slight of hand, when the premises cannot be justified without begging the question. Also, you indeed committed the tu quoque fallacy from around 31:25..
I love when unbelievers who have no rational basis for universals or conceptual laws in a random, constantly changing universe, accuse people of violating said laws or universals 😂
@@joshcornell8510 Asserting that some "X" is a "rational basis" simply because you have a mere belief that this is the case doesn't do anything! Any fool can *assert* that "My X is the necessary precondition for intelligibility, and any contrary assertion is thus impossible!" but the assertion of a claim does NOT make the claim true. *Modest* transcendental arguments may be moderately plausible (eg - "One must *BELIEVE* that X is the case in order for some mental experience, Y, to be possible"), but that only gets you to a *BELIEF* (a doxastic attitude) that X is the case, which is NOT the same thing as establishing the ontological existence of X! This was pointed out way back in the 1960s, but presuppers prefer to ignore it, as digesting this would be positively harmful to the (fideistic) view they like to promote.
Hey brother! I have some debates coming up with some popular TikTok atheists, would love your help if you can offer any. How can I get in touch with you?
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpwell, concepts are found in minds. For instance, the laws of logic aren't physical, but conceptual. Logic is a necessary precondition to the universe, because nothing illogical can exist, and we can clearly see that the universe is logical, governed by natural laws. If the universe had a beginning, then whatever created it is not a part of it (physical material), therefore, the cause must be immaterial (spiritual) which points to a Mind (consciousness). Hope this helps friend.
Are all people born with an innate knowledge that a god is the foundation of the laws of logic? If this is NOT the case, then no one is justified in their use of the laws of logic when they reasoned their way to believing that god is the foundation of the laws of logic. Therefore, the belief that using the laws of logic is valid is just a presupposition like the atheists. Anyone?
lol. *Ambitious* transcendental arguments have been pretty much dead in the water since the 1960s! The criticism of fideism here is rather ironic, since that seems to be EXACTLY the position the presuppositionalist takes! No one is attacking the *form* of a TA - what they're scrutinizing is the utter lack of support for the major premise in the presuppusitionalist's TA, which states that your specific god is the *necessary* precondition for the possibility of (insert human experience everyone takes for granted here). That's ALL the presupp has to do - support and defend their argument's major premise, but this NEVER happens. Eli was asked to support this premise in *this* discussion 18 months ago: th-cam.com/video/KHivh3u2W9M/w-d-xo.html but despite claiming that there WAS such a supporting argument, it has NOT been presented, and was NEVER made by Van Til, nor Bahnsen, nor any other presupper. Without this support, there's nothing here but a rhetorical sales pitch to make people that ALREADY believe a yarn for fideistic reasons feel a bit more comfortable in their fideism. ANYONE can say "Islam/Hinduism/Zoroastrianism/Voodoo/Atheism is true because that is my worldview, and my worldview says that my worldview is true, and the contrary is impossible". Lol.
What "never happens" is, the presuppositionalist is never given an objective and rational criteria for what counts as "support" for "major premises" ... And it never will happen because the attempt requires creativity and bravery from the anti-presupper, rather than hiding behind presumed and irrational "burden of proof" posturing. It's like Dr. Bahnsen used to say... we can't play ball with someone who insists on sitting in the stands while pretending to be the greatest ball player in the world...come on down and let's play...
@@Scott_Terry Lol. You really don't need anyone else in the room to make your argument or support the premises therein. If you can NOT provide support for a premise that is under scrutiny, then that doesn't magically become your interlocutor's problem! But if you accept bald assertions and don't worry about support, then the interlocutor can simply say "God does not exist, necessarily", and we can leave it there! But I'm guessing you'd probably want that claim to be backed up with some reason, argument or evidence? So how about if the support for "God does not exist, necessarily" is because of "the impossibility of the contrary"? The astute will note that this is NOT support, but a mere repetition of the same *unsupported* claim. If you want to "play ball on the pitch" then there needs to be an agreement on what constitutes "the pitch", and what the *rules* of "the ballgame" are. If you want to say that "my ballgame is the necessary precondition for any ballgame to occur or any pitch to be defined", then you're just hiding behind bald assertions that deny the possibility of anyone else even playing the game. The reason presup doesn't make the grade of 'proper' philosophy is because the presupper is holding an empty sack, but insisting that there's something in it, because their fideistic "worldview" insists this is the case! *Anyone* can do that with *any* "worldview", but saying "My worldview is true, because my worldview IS that my worldview is true" is the sort of thing that most reasonable people would abandon quite early in life! 🤣
@@russellsteapot8779 your swaggering bravado aside - and quite ironically - you realize we must "agree on what constitutes the pitch." This is not an unreasonable demand, nor is it novel in philosophy. Determining what the parameters of rationality are, to begin with, is fairly controversial and many PDFs covering the topic are available on PhilPapers. Consider: if Christianity were true, the best "support" for any claim is if the claim can be deduced from (or explicitly stated in) Scripture. Therefore, if we're assuming Christianity is true (as we presuppers do), then the best support for "premise 1" of our argument would be an exegetical appeal to Scripture. Also, if we assume Christianity is true, we can predict that unbelievers will reject this "standard of reason." Since you're rejecting my view of what counts as rational support for a claim you must provide some alternative. You're not going to be able to as any attempt to do so will end you squarely in absurdity. Talk about "not proper philosophy..."
First time I heard this was from that dude TJump. It’s just random nonsense where at the very best, even if you grant existence, all you get is “how things appear to me” and no language to even communicate it
@@LindeeLove as an atheist you can’t even know that for certain, only how they appear. There are so many assumptions built into even that statement. What is existence? What is thinking? You are assuming logic in language to even communicate “how things appear”. From there you are making claims about how things appear but you have no justification as to whether those beliefs are objectively true or not, just how they appear. Knowledge is a justified true belief. You are left with subjective appearances and no meaningful way to communicate these appearances with any other discrete mind. But of course, this isn’t how atheists actually live their lives. They do in fact make objective truth claims based in logical thought and reasoning and assume that their language has meaning and that other discrete minds can understand and comprehend these statements using the same logical reasoning. This thought experiment is cute, but it doesn’t actually comport with reality. Nobody actually lives this way and there is a reason for that. This epistemology “I think therefore I am” has tons of built in presuppositions and it is not, in reality, divorced from a metaphysical or ethic. Everyone has a worldview. You can segment them out in these little sections in theory, but in practice you can’t divorce one from the others. Using this epistemology and then saying it doesn’t matter what the metaphysic is, I think therefore I am is true in any metaphysic is only partially true. That epistemology takes different forms and means different things depending on the metaphysic. They are all interconnected and one informs the others. There is objective truth. We can know things for certain because God has revealed them. We can use the transcendental properties of reality to obtain justified true beliefs and make sense out of the world around us and communicate with other discrete minds because reality is governed by the creator. I know you don’t like this answer, but it’s coherent and provides the necessary pre-conditions for intelligibility, no other worldview can, the best you can do is Ad Hoc create the Christian God, only called a different name, or you are just left with brute facts and that’s just a retreat from the battlefield. It’s throwing your hands up and saying we don’t know. The Christian God gives us a metaphysic, ethic and epistemology to make sense out of the world. The proof of His existence is the impossibility of the contrary. The nature of the Christian God is that if He exists, no other gods can. You are either left with Him, or incoherence. Or the 3rd option, stealing from Him to make your worldview work and then jumping back to your own and throwing stones. As Van Till said, we are like children sitting on their father’s lap to slap him in the face. Only reason we can do that is because he lifted us up in the first place.
@@SaltyApologist He mentioned it appears to him that he is holding a cup. The cup may not exist, but the fact that he thinks he is holding a cup is knowledge. The knowledge is that he thinks he is holding a cup. Does this make sense. And how could someone have a stream of thoughts and not exist?
@@LindeeLove knowledge is a justified true belief. If he thinks he is holding a cup but is in fact not holding the cup, is that a true belief? I don’t think this gets off the ground. I think it’s a semantic word game and even if we grant appearance as knowledge in this sense, it doesn’t get anyone to anywhere. It says nothing about the world we actually live in and presupposes a ton of things in the process. The best he can do is make subjective statements about how things appear to him, he has abandoned the field of saying anything about the objective world around us and that is really what this is all about, not what Tom thinks he sees personally.
@@SaltyApologist Yes, even if the cup does not exist, his belief is knowledge. It is true that he thinks he is holding a cup. That seems to be where presuppositional apologetics comes in. Since we can't have certainty about the nature of what is true reality, we just have to make presuppositions.
@@LindeeLove I think you misunderstood me, and that’s my fault. I was being condescending towards TJump. That’s my bad, I should have conducted myself better. But imo, I don’t think it’s possible to have a good conversation with TJump, he holds multiple contradictory views at the same time and all in an attempt to use anything possible to avoid progress in a conversation. He knows that he can’t because his worldview can’t handle it so he floods the conversation with non sequiturs and vague language to obfuscate and muddy the waters. He isn’t an honest dealer/ again, just my opinion, maybe he will prove me wrong
I've not gotten more than a few minutes in and already there is a glaring problem: The notion that existence needs to be justified. Existence exists and that's all. Since this notion of existence needing to be justified rests on stolen concepts, it invalidates presuppositionalism from the start. Presumably, this god of yours exists, no? If so then it can not be a justification for existence. If one points to something that exists to "justify" existence then one has not moved toward that justification. I look forward to watching the rest and if I have any more comments I'll be sure to chime in.
Just by calling A is A a logical truth, you are conceding that it is logical and true, so what's the problem. As far as how we know the truth of this statement, it is easy: Sense perception. We know this truth directly from looking at reality.
The axiomatic concept "existence" is a plural noun that subsumes everything that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. This is the meaning of the concept of existence. This is the widest of all concepts and all statements presuppose it. In other words, this concept is implicit in all other concepts including invalid ones like "God". This concept serves as the starting point of knowledge. It only tells you that something exists. It does not tell you what all exists. That has to be identified but all identification of facts starts implicitly with this most fundamental recognition that existence exists. So there is no ambiguity or vagueness here, only your lack of understanding of how knowledge and concepts work. If we are going to set about identifying what exists, don't we have to first recognize the fact that something exists? Or do we just go ahead and identify things without recognizing that they exist? If this is what you find fault with, I think you need to think a little more.
Hi Eli, on my run today, I realized that the laws of logic are part of the nature of "I think, therefore I am" epistemology. Now I have to deal with induction. I still can't get past the fact that Yahweh can rewrite physics at any minute, so we really can't rely on physics being the same tomorrow as they are today. Eli, I know you have a low paying job and multiple children and a wife to support. Have you considered going back to school to learn, like maybe computer programming. This hucksterism you are doing trying to get money out of gullible people (Christians) is unethical.
@@LindeeLove Nope. I think, therefore, I am is fallacious as you have “I” both in the premise and conclusion. (You’d have to say something like “Thinking is occurring. But from “Thinking is occurring”, it does not logically follow that therefore “I exist). So an epistemology that starts with Descartes Cogito is fallacious (as others; non-Christian philosophers mind you) have pointed out. Furthermore, you have to clarify what you mean when you say logic is a “part” of I think therefore I am. Apart from the fallacious circularity of Descartes here, logic is a necessary precondition for the intelligibility of the “I.” In other words, logic is logically prior to an intelligible utterance. Hence, you not only have to provide a justification for the “I”, but you also have to provide a justification for the logic that (I think therefore I am ) presupposes. Then you have to account for language as language presupposes truth, logic, etc. Then you have to account for personal identity through time (Is the “I” at the beginning of the thinking process the same “I” at the conclusion; this is the issue of enduring personal identity through time). Now, I am not suggesting you do all this in this thread, but I am simply pointing that there are a whole host of unjustified assumption baked into the cogito, and that is why it is not a good metaphysical starting by itself. To address your second point. I do not work a “low paying job.” I actually get paid quite well. And no, I would not go back to school to accrue more debt. I already have 4 College degrees (Associates: Liberal Arts; Bachelors in Education, with a focus on Historical Studies; Master of Arts in Theological Studies; and a Masters of Divinity with a Theological Emphasis). The idea that I am a huckster is quite silly. Have you ever thought that perhaps I actually believe the things that I teach? Well, I do, otherwise it would be unethical for me to engage in dishonesty, and according to the Christian worldview, dishonesty is a sin. When you refer to what I am doing as “unethical” I wonder by what standard do you assert this? (Yes, this is a valid question to ask). As for selling courses and speaking at various venues; yes, all of that cost my time and effort, and it is costly to do all of the back end things that I do. While I do get paid relatively well, it doesn’t mean I am “Rolling in Cash.” Still got bills to pay. I am sure you understand this basic principle. Even from a biblical perspective “a worker is worth his wages” (1 Timothy 5:18). Lastly, when you ask questions in my comments section, perhaps you would get an answer if you asked your question in such a way that shows some modicum of respect to the person you are asking. Otherwise, the snarky nature of your question and comments will lead me to believe that it is pointless for me to respond as you give evidence that you wouldn’t care how I answer anyway. I am much more apt to answer a question if someone seems to be asking in a genuine fashion. -Just some things to think about. 🙂
@@RevealedApologetics "I" is equal to the thinking. The thinking exists, so therefore, the "I" exists. What is the fallacy in this statement? And regarding logic, someone can presuppose that logic is part of the nature of "I think, therefore I am" just like you can presuppose that logic is part of the nature of God. Right? I wish you would have a better debate with TJump so that you can bring up your objections to his epistemology. Will you contact TJump and continue your conversation. TJump was very nice to you I remember.
@@StephaniePeeleIAm Exactly, I and my set of thoughts are the same thing. So no fallacy here. And "I think, therefore I am" being the foundation of logic is just as solid as the belief that god is the foundation of logic. Gaslighting isn't just for Eli.
@RevealedApologetics You claim you believe what you say. That's a tough one. Yes I think many ill educated, indoctrinated people believe in a god, that's clearly true. However if you have 4 degrees as you claim (However pitiful your subjects were) you cannot possibly believe the non sequitur you ridiculously preach which seems to be atheists can't justify things they have no requirement to justify therefore an unembodied mind with the power to speak universes into existence and simultaneously read the thoughts of everyone in that universe just popped into existence without a cause! That's a non sequitur which is why you have to obscure what you're saying with childish word games. Now please may I humbly request a full list of what you claim the preconditions of intelligibility are? I would suggest there are only 2. Which area common language and common usage of words. If you avoid the question I'll take it as tacit addmission that we have no requirement to justify these things and your whole whole argument is blown .
I can make the refution easier. When an assertion of any kind is made. Ask the individual; is that true? What universal immaterial unchanging objective standard are you referencing? This draws them out of their subjective world and forces them to realize they are makinging a universal metaphysical claim for which the atheist will have no logical justification.
@@bgiv2010 💯! the atheist cannot account for any of their metaphysical pressupositions, most of all objective truth. Proving the God of the Bible is pretty easy. As I will prove here to you, by the impossibility of the contrary. Truth is universal, immaterial, absolute, objective and eternal. Therefore truth must be grounded in an eternal logos/logai. Easily proven using a disjunctive syllogism in case you are not trained in logic. Now we cue the ad hoc arbitrary self refuting contradiction response by the atheist where they reject the claim. Then I ask you if the rejection of the God of the Bible is objectively true and the atheist refutes himself. Atheism is a third grade experiment.
Well, if "universal, immaterial, unchanging, and objective" are the standard then the axiom of existence fills the bill perfectly because as a concept it is universal, applying to everything that exists, and it is conceptual in nature so your requirement that it be "immaterial" is also met. The fact that existence exists is unchanging and since it is a fact that existence exists then it is objective. There you have it. Requirements met.
What universal immaterial objective standard do theists have? You can just assert God, sure, but that assertion has no power. God has to exist for the standard to be valid, and now you're stuck with assuming that existence exists before you even get to a God.
"My axiom can beat up your axiom."
Can it? Do something with yours that we can't with ours. Please! I beg of you! Substantiate anything!
You are exactly, on the money.
@@bgiv2010 I don’t start with an axiom. I start with an ultimate presupposition (Not the same thing; as axioms by definition are indemonstrable). And it is quite easy to do with my ultimate presupposition something you can’t with your axiom. I can actually justify my starting point. Buuttt waaiittt, yoouu caaaannn’t jUstifyyy an axiom, you can’t justify presuPPoSitions!!!; blah blah blah. I have addressed this ad nausium. Presuppositions can be justified. They are justified transcendentally!! Blah, blah, blah (So your saying the Bible is true because the Bible is true)? Nope, that is not what a transcendental argument does.And round and round we go. To think the transcendental argument is simply asserting one’s starting point and that’s all, is to simply not know what a transcendental argument is. Even if in principle, the transcendental argument fails (which I deny of course) it would still be false to think that when the argument is offered, all we are saying is “my axiom can beat up your axiom.” Sorry but your brief comments are not even in the ballpark;) There is a reason why I don’t shake in my boots when someone says “my axiom can beat up your axiom.” It’s because that isn’t even the nature of my argument. SMH 🤦
@@RevealedApologetics You said: "I start with an ultimate presupposition ". There is no such thing as an 'ultimate presupposition". Your "ultimate presupposition" has a presupposition. And your Pre-ultimate presupposition" also has a "Pre-pre-ultimate-presupposition." And of course we are an infinite regression of pre-pre-pre-ultimate presuppositions. Lewis Carroll showed this in his writing "What The Tortoise said to Achilles..". PA fails again.
Excellent job Eli...this objection is always the most ridiculous and foolish one I will ever hear.
Well eli failed spectacularly to support your position. Would YOU like to have a go?
Is god the precondition of intelligibility? Lol
Isn't presupp just a pitiful god of the gaps argument?
@@nickjones5435 k
Hey, Eli. Great stuff! What would you consider to be the strongest objection to presup? Most, if not all, of the objections I have heard are based on misconceptions or mischaracterizations.
The best attempt is the Stroudian objection to transcendental arguments. But it ultimately fails. Got a video on it on my channel. :)
@@RevealedApologetics
It'd be great if you could provide a link to this video that dismisses/circumvent's Barry Stroud's objection to ambitious TAs that 'cross the bridge' from a doxastic attitude towards a proposition and the actuality (ontological status) of that proposition.
@@RevealedApologetics The best ‘objection’ to presup is to point out you haven’t justified your claims that your imaginary friend exists. You just end up making an unjustified claim that your imaginary friend ‘revealed’ it to you.
@@RevealedApologeticsI looked for your refutation of the Stroud objection and couldn't find it. Could you give the link?
You said: "What would you consider to be the strongest objection to presup?". Forgive me for interfering with your dialog. However, as a Christian man (orthodox and protestant), I'd like your permission to offer what I consider to be the conclusive destruction of presup apologetics. May I?
Is this from objectivist, ayn rand objectivism
Randian Objectivists also use presup, they say that non-Objectivist philosophers (especially, but not limited to, postmodernists) are committing the "stolen concept fallacy" by choosing any other axioms except for the Objectivist axioms. Both Christian presup and Objectivist presup are equally wrong.
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н why are Christian presups wrong?
@@JonDoe-zq2he Because, 1st, it is a question-begging argument at its core. It uses a premise which is just as doubtful as the conclusion, thus proving nothing. And 2nd, for its rhetorical force, it uses underhanded tactics: exploiting unsolved (and probably unsolvable) problems in philosophy to seemingly support one's preferred conclusion.
(Oh, and 3rd, who could forget Bahnsen's direct admission that presup is not even an argument, but a tool to "close the mouth of the critic". Because Bahnsen didn't believe in "arguments for God" as even a coherent concept, because "there is no neutral ground", "you must believe first and then you'll understand", etc.)
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н how is it question begging ?
@@JonDoe-zq2he The only people who are going to give any time of day to the premise "God is the necessary precondition for logic/intelligibility/..." are those who already believe the conclusion "God exists". The premise is just as doubtful as the conclusion. So the argument accomplishes no work.
Great video, like always! When they say "reality" or "existence" I always ask them to clarify which model of reality they're appealing to. The Biblical worldview? Or their particular non-theistic worldview?
I’m not referring to ANY ‘model’ of reality. Both your ‘model’ and my ‘model’ of reality are most likely wrong in some ways, but reality is whatever the actual facts are, irrespective of our ‘models’.
@@AsixA6 How can you have facts without a model of reality for them to exist within?
@AsixA6 The moment you affirm or deny anything, you've invoked a model of reality (aka worldview) because you can only affirm or deny propositions within a model or framework for them to be real or exist within.
There's no such thing as a context-less fact. The "concept," if it can even be called that, is just gibberish. It's unintelligible.
@@AsixA6 So you are actually affirming a model of reality (aka worldview), implicitly, but the issue is that you're not consciously aware of it.
@@lightbeforethetunnel I never claimed you could have facts without a model of reality for them to exist in.
Very helpful
Thanks brother
I'd like to know what your starting point of knowledge is, Mr. Ayala, and by what means are you aware of it? It would be really helpful if you made this clear.
(sarcastically) He did a great job answering you.
@@Dhorpatan Yeah, I'm guessing we'll never hear. That's allright, I already know what it actually is. Presuppositionalists pose as being all concerned with peoples' "presuppositions" but show a remarkable unawareness of their own.
He essentially answered this in the video, and yet you still made this comment ?😂 once again, your ignorance shines through brilliantly 👏
@@AIiquis No he did not. He did not give us his starting point. The notion of God is not and can not be a starting point for one simple reason: It is not conceptually irreducible. Do you know what that means? It means it is a primary fact that can't be defined in terms of prior knowledge. Just by arguing for his God with TAG he is conceding this since an inference draws upon prior knowledge. A true starting point is something that we are aware of by means of perception. Once we have perceived some things then and only then do we have the material from which to derive more complex knowledge. If God is his starting point and he seeks to infer its existence then his argument is circular. I've already pointed out how TAG is unsound. So that's it for TAG.
I already know what his actual starting point is: the fact that existence exists or is he claiming that his God does not exist? He and every other theist want their God to be the irreducible primary but it isn't. It isn't perceptually self-evident, it isn't fundamental (it takes heaps of prior premises to even understand what God is supposed to be), it isn't conceptually irreducible, and most importantly it isn't true. These are all characteristics of a starting point. "God" takes a lot for granted: What is a god? What does all knowing mean? What does omniscient mean? What does the ground of knowledge mean? What does knowledge mean? Blank out.
He has to start at the same place that everyone else does: With the fact of existence. But he's not satisfied with that so he essentially steps outside of existence to start with nothing and then propose how existence came to be. But before we can identify WHAT something is we first have to know THAT it is. But Mr. Ayala thinks this is full of problems. So the commenter who spurred this video was absolutely right, he nailed TAG to the wall and it is Mr. Ayala and you who show your profound ignorance.
It's amazing to me the lengths apologists will go to defend their God belief, up to and including denying the basic axioms of knowledge. So since I'm dealing with you now, I'd like to know three things:
1. Is it your position that nothing exists?
2. Is it your position that consciousness is conscious of nothing?
3. Is it your position that existents aren't what they are, That A is not A.
Be very careful here not to contradict yourself.
It is very easy to find many objections to the presuppositional (transcendental) argument.
You have a great deal of work ahead of you, before I could accept your reasoning.
Name one!
@@apologetics-101 The fact that the notion of God rests on stollen concepts. That's all anyone needs to put TAG to rest.
@@kitchencarvings4621 What "stollen" concepts? You're making assertions without any bases. You need to demonstrate what you are saying here. Simply asserting it won't do.
@etics-101 You are right, I didn't give a basis because the stolen concept is so blatant I didn't think I needed to. But let me fix that now. A stolen concept fallacy occurs when one uses a concept apart from its place in the hierarchical structure of knowledge or when a concept is used while a concept in its genetic base is ignored or denied. In the case of the notion of God being the justification or explanation of what exists. Both the concepts "justification" and "explanation" presuppose the concept of "existence". Therefore the concept of "existence" has conceptual primacy and that makes the concepts "justification" and "explanation" stolen. This fallacy renders TAG invalid. Justification of what? Explanation of what? Whenever one use uses the word what one is talking about existence. Blank out.
For a little more support, consider that since existence has metaphysical primacy, it also has conceptual primacy, and all further knowledge or any statements about knowledge presuppose it. Therefore any attempt to deny existence exists or statements that existence needs to be justified renders all of one's concepts stolen. Since the major premise of TAG is that you need God to justify reason, logic, knowledge, intelligibility, and even existence itself, this premise is invalid, and therefore the whole argument is invalid. Also, its conclusion entails stolen concepts so it is not valid. Therefore the argument is unsound.
@@apologetics-101
//"You're making assertions without any basis. You need to demonstrate what you are saying here. Simply asserting it won't do."//
If you're a presupper, then you've missed a rich slice of irony in saying this, as that is EXACTLY what non-presuppositionalists (theists and atheists alike), have been asking presuppers to do for over half a century!
How is it coherent for the skeptic to only reference principles of DEPENDENCY, such as those for logic, as being truthful and coherent starting points metaphysically, for their model of reality? Its not! You can't only appeal to dependency regarding the metaphysical principles about the foundational nature of reality, to account for your model of reality generally, and the beliefs therein, regarding *dependent* facts.
What I mean more specifically is this. For example, the laws of logic were appealed to by the skeptic here, and that those are truthful starting points. And I'm pointing out how that those pertain to dependency states, and cannot serve as an ultimate starting point. The dependency states described by the laws, presuppose the "ground of being" for the dependency states described by the laws.
So this unbeliever used what I call the "Popeye Argument". Popeye says "I am what I am and that's all I am"
This argument then is "It is what it is and that's what it is" lol
😂
@@RevealedApologetics Popeye said "I yam what I yam.."
😂😂
Sounds like straigth out of Ayn Rand.
I am a Christian man. My theology is orthodox and Protestant. Presuppositional apologetics is the weakest apologetic methodology.
The critique he reads is very weak. I would be glad to destroy presuppositional apologetics. If you wish.
Eli great response 👍🏻
The problem with presup is that there is no other conceivable reality where begging the question is a rational way to establish a premise, but because we are asserting God, who is true, that our reasoning is somehow sound?
Time and time again, God gives us evidence of His existence, and I see no reason why we cant move from a place of ignorance, to a place of faith, based on the evidence.
Nobody is saying there is no place for evidence, but the transcendental argument goes deeper than just evidence, everything is arguing in a circle when you get to foundational levels.
@@SaltyApologist Faith comes by hearing the word of God.
The scripture doesnt say faith comes by getting into philosophical debates with unbelievers.
There is a reason atheists hate the sterile, cold and often unchristlike approach from the presup crowd.
They do however respond to people who actually portray Christ as Christ intended for His Church.
Talk is cheap, gotta walk the walk.
The problem with “evidence” is that all evidence is filtered through a worldview. Any piece of evidence can and will be re-framed to support their presuppositions. It’s critical to attack those directly
@@SaltyApologist that’s why it’s the Gospel that saves, like I said, you can’t bypass the fact that faith comes the hearing of the word.
You can try and bypass that with philosophical arguments, but it won’t bring a person to faith. If you want to convert people, you do as the Apostles did, you purpose yourself to preach Christ crucified for the remission of sins.
The Gospel names the stakes, and provides the way to eternal life with all sins forgiven by God, all for accepting Gods grace through the shed blood of Christ and faith in Him.
That is what converts unbelievers.
The Church has amnesia in this regard, and people want to argue on the world’s terms.
Name one philosopher with more wisdom than Christ. They don’t even rate with the greats like King Solomon or John the Baptist.
There is no greater tool for conversion than the word of God.
Don’t take my word for it.
2Tim 2:24-26
@@CryoftheProphetI’ll go ahead and ignore your implicit and misplaced assumptions that I, and other presups don’t “walk the walk” as you say, but the reason why they hate presups is largely because they can’t refute us. You are also assuming that a certain apologetic method is what leads to salvation, sorry bud but that’s the Holy Spirits job. Presup is Biblical, feigning neutrality with the unbeliever and pretending that the natural mind can reason its way to God, is not Biblical. You are also conflating debates with evangelism. There is overlap, but apologetics is a defense of the faith.
GOD bless
No, the concept of "existence" does not presuppose the concept of "justification". This is a blatantly stolen concept. The concept of "justification" is not conceptually irreducible so it can not be implicit in the recognition that existence exists. You say somebody else's worldview might affirm that existence presupposes justification. If this is the case then their worldview is in serious trouble. Errors like this can only invalidate the whole thing and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of concepts and how they work.
The difference between my "presuppositions" and presuppositionalism's presuppositions is that mine are demonstratable and theirs are only imaginary. I can point to mine but presuppositionalists have no recourse but to appeal to fallacy. Just by making an argument for the existence of God concedes that its existence is not self-evident. If it was, there'd be no need to argue for it. My starting point is self evidently true. It's impossible to be wrong about these axioms, therefore they provide the "account" that we need to draw upon in all subsequent knowledge.
And here is the kicker: Presuppositionalism's starting point assumes mine, the axioms, but they deny my starting point and instead start with non-existence as theirs.
Eli, on my run today, I realized that the laws of logic are just a model that humans have created to describe what we perceive as reality. If a human mind doesn't exist, there are no laws of logic. If we imagine a world with no minds, is a rock still a rock? Asking this question means there is a human mind to even imagine it, so our model comes into use. But with literally no minds, and no mind to create a hypothetical, there are no laws of logic.
Then I realized that numbers are just another model to describe what we perceive as reality. With no minds, can there be two rocks? With absolutely no minds, where even the hypothetical didn't exist, there are no numbers.
Very informative
TOAST!
😎👍🏽
Since the only alternative to starting with existence is to start with non-existence, what's wrong with starting with the fact of existence???? and to what could one point to to "justify existence" except something that exists? Do you understand what an axiom is now? It's not just a statement that is taken as established. It is a statement that is rationally undeniable. Hmmm... what could people deny since nothing exists to deny. And, how could anyone deny anything since people are not conscious of anything? Oh, and why should anyone deny anything? Can't two people hold two different positions on a subject and both be equally right? There you have them, the axioms, and no this is not an attempt to "justify" them, only a demonstration that the concepts existence, identity, and consciousness are axiomatic.
Classic and evidentialist arguments I find more persuasive to actually convert people. If you just want to debate against atheists and ricochet one assertion against another, presup is the most entertaining.
God gave humans the ability to reason, regardless of how a person justifies it. Bad rationale is bad rationale.
I don't think any atheist has ever or WOULD ever be convinced to be a Christian by presupp.
Do you know of any?
@@nickjones5435 no, unless they just become a presup debate bro, but those guys are just jerks hiding behind Christianity. Basically cultural Christians.
I think your refutation of the objection fails miserably. In my opinion, it boils dowm to the Tu quoque fallacy due to your inability to refute the validity of the axioms stated in objection. They have indirectly implied that your God is not necessary for grounding these axioms, or that these axioms do not even require grounding, the onus is on you to explain how your God exists in the first place, and then how he grounds these transcendentals [as you call them], without begging the question, given that you agree in principle that these transcendentals actually exist.
I bet you can't do this, and that's why you have to resort to the tu quoque.
Merely stating that the existence of God is demonstrated via the transcendental argument is at the best simply vacuous or at the worst a clever slight of hand, when the premises cannot be justified without begging the question.
Also, you indeed committed the tu quoque fallacy from around 31:25..
I love when unbelievers who have no rational basis for universals or conceptual laws in a random, constantly changing universe, accuse people of violating said laws or universals 😂
@@joshcornell8510
Asserting that some "X" is a "rational basis" simply because you have a mere belief that this is the case doesn't do anything! Any fool can *assert* that "My X is the necessary precondition for intelligibility, and any contrary assertion is thus impossible!" but the assertion of a claim does NOT make the claim true.
*Modest* transcendental arguments may be moderately plausible (eg - "One must *BELIEVE* that X is the case in order for some mental experience, Y, to be possible"), but that only gets you to a *BELIEF* (a doxastic attitude) that X is the case, which is NOT the same thing as establishing the ontological existence of X!
This was pointed out way back in the 1960s, but presuppers prefer to ignore it, as digesting this would be positively harmful to the (fideistic) view they like to promote.
@joshcornell8510 man living in the random constantly changing universe sounds fun. Too bad I'm stuck in the boring, mostly consistent universe. :(
@@alphachicken9596 While the universe is constantly changing, it is not random. All changes are governed by the law of identity.
Hey brother! I have some debates coming up with some popular TikTok atheists, would love your help if you can offer any. How can I get in touch with you?
Sure, I’d love to help. Email me at revealedapologetics@gmail.com. Then I can give you my number and we can talk:)
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpwell, concepts are found in minds. For instance, the laws of logic aren't physical, but conceptual. Logic is a necessary precondition to the universe, because nothing illogical can exist, and we can clearly see that the universe is logical, governed by natural laws. If the universe had a beginning, then whatever created it is not a part of it (physical material), therefore, the cause must be immaterial (spiritual) which points to a Mind (consciousness). Hope this helps friend.
Good stuff (excellent refutation of the refutation)! Soli Deo gloria
Are all people born with an innate knowledge that a god is the foundation of the laws of logic? If this is NOT the case, then no one is justified in their use of the laws of logic when they reasoned their way to believing that god is the foundation of the laws of logic. Therefore, the belief that using the laws of logic is valid is just a presupposition like the atheists. Anyone?
No we're not. The dishonest Christians merely claim that B.S. because they're indoctrinated, but can never support their ridiculous dishonest claim!
lol. *Ambitious* transcendental arguments have been pretty much dead in the water since the 1960s! The criticism of fideism here is rather ironic, since that seems to be EXACTLY the position the presuppositionalist takes! No one is attacking the *form* of a TA - what they're scrutinizing is the utter lack of support for the major premise in the presuppusitionalist's TA, which states that your specific god is the *necessary* precondition for the possibility of (insert human experience everyone takes for granted here).
That's ALL the presupp has to do - support and defend their argument's major premise, but this NEVER happens.
Eli was asked to support this premise in *this* discussion 18 months ago: th-cam.com/video/KHivh3u2W9M/w-d-xo.html but despite claiming that there WAS such a supporting argument, it has NOT been presented, and was NEVER made by Van Til, nor Bahnsen, nor any other presupper.
Without this support, there's nothing here but a rhetorical sales pitch to make people that ALREADY believe a yarn for fideistic reasons feel a bit more comfortable in their fideism. ANYONE can say "Islam/Hinduism/Zoroastrianism/Voodoo/Atheism is true because that is my worldview, and my worldview says that my worldview is true, and the contrary is impossible". Lol.
What "never happens" is, the presuppositionalist is never given an objective and rational criteria for what counts as "support" for "major premises" ...
And it never will happen because the attempt requires creativity and bravery from the anti-presupper, rather than hiding behind presumed and irrational "burden of proof" posturing.
It's like Dr. Bahnsen used to say... we can't play ball with someone who insists on sitting in the stands while pretending to be the greatest ball player in the world...come on down and let's play...
@@Scott_Terry
Lol. You really don't need anyone else in the room to make your argument or support the premises therein. If you can NOT provide support for a premise that is under scrutiny, then that doesn't magically become your interlocutor's problem! But if you accept bald assertions and don't worry about support, then the interlocutor can simply say "God does not exist, necessarily", and we can leave it there!
But I'm guessing you'd probably want that claim to be backed up with some reason, argument or evidence? So how about if the support for "God does not exist, necessarily" is because of "the impossibility of the contrary"?
The astute will note that this is NOT support, but a mere repetition of the same *unsupported* claim.
If you want to "play ball on the pitch" then there needs to be an agreement on what constitutes "the pitch", and what the *rules* of "the ballgame" are. If you want to say that "my ballgame is the necessary precondition for any ballgame to occur or any pitch to be defined", then you're just hiding behind bald assertions that deny the possibility of anyone else even playing the game. The reason presup doesn't make the grade of 'proper' philosophy is because the presupper is holding an empty sack, but insisting that there's something in it, because their fideistic "worldview" insists this is the case!
*Anyone* can do that with *any* "worldview", but saying "My worldview is true, because my worldview IS that my worldview is true" is the sort of thing that most reasonable people would abandon quite early in life! 🤣
@@russellsteapot8779 your swaggering bravado aside - and quite ironically - you realize we must "agree on what constitutes the pitch."
This is not an unreasonable demand, nor is it novel in philosophy. Determining what the parameters of rationality are, to begin with, is fairly controversial and many PDFs covering the topic are available on PhilPapers.
Consider: if Christianity were true, the best "support" for any claim is if the claim can be deduced from (or explicitly stated in) Scripture. Therefore, if we're assuming Christianity is true (as we presuppers do), then the best support for "premise 1" of our argument would be an exegetical appeal to Scripture.
Also, if we assume Christianity is true, we can predict that unbelievers will reject this "standard of reason."
Since you're rejecting my view of what counts as rational support for a claim you must provide some alternative.
You're not going to be able to as any attempt to do so will end you squarely in absurdity. Talk about "not proper philosophy..."
First time I heard this was from that dude TJump. It’s just random nonsense where at the very best, even if you grant existence, all you get is “how things appear to me” and no language to even communicate it
Well, what else can you know for absolutely certain?
@@LindeeLove as an atheist you can’t even know that for certain, only how they appear. There are so many assumptions built into even that statement. What is existence? What is thinking? You are assuming logic in language to even communicate “how things appear”. From there you are making claims about how things appear but you have no justification as to whether those beliefs are objectively true or not, just how they appear. Knowledge is a justified true belief. You are left with subjective appearances and no meaningful way to communicate these appearances with any other discrete mind. But of course, this isn’t how atheists actually live their lives. They do in fact make objective truth claims based in logical thought and reasoning and assume that their language has meaning and that other discrete minds can understand and comprehend these statements using the same logical reasoning. This thought experiment is cute, but it doesn’t actually comport with reality. Nobody actually lives this way and there is a reason for that. This epistemology “I think therefore I am” has tons of built in presuppositions and it is not, in reality, divorced from a metaphysical or ethic. Everyone has a worldview. You can segment them out in these little sections in theory, but in practice you can’t divorce one from the others. Using this epistemology and then saying it doesn’t matter what the metaphysic is, I think therefore I am is true in any metaphysic is only partially true. That epistemology takes different forms and means different things depending on the metaphysic. They are all interconnected and one informs the others. There is objective truth. We can know things for certain because God has revealed them. We can use the transcendental properties of reality to obtain justified true beliefs and make sense out of the world around us and communicate with other discrete minds because reality is governed by the creator. I know you don’t like this answer, but it’s coherent and provides the necessary pre-conditions for intelligibility, no other worldview can, the best you can do is Ad Hoc create the Christian God, only called a different name, or you are just left with brute facts and that’s just a retreat from the battlefield. It’s throwing your hands up and saying we don’t know. The Christian God gives us a metaphysic, ethic and epistemology to make sense out of the world. The proof of His existence is the impossibility of the contrary. The nature of the Christian God is that if He exists, no other gods can. You are either left with Him, or incoherence. Or the 3rd option, stealing from Him to make your worldview work and then jumping back to your own and throwing stones. As Van Till said, we are like children sitting on their father’s lap to slap him in the face. Only reason we can do that is because he lifted us up in the first place.
@@SaltyApologist He mentioned it appears to him that he is holding a cup. The cup may not exist, but the fact that he thinks he is holding a cup is knowledge. The knowledge is that he thinks he is holding a cup. Does this make sense. And how could someone have a stream of thoughts and not exist?
@@LindeeLove knowledge is a justified true belief. If he thinks he is holding a cup but is in fact not holding the cup, is that a true belief? I don’t think this gets off the ground. I think it’s a semantic word game and even if we grant appearance as knowledge in this sense, it doesn’t get anyone to anywhere. It says nothing about the world we actually live in and presupposes a ton of things in the process. The best he can do is make subjective statements about how things appear to him, he has abandoned the field of saying anything about the objective world around us and that is really what this is all about, not what Tom thinks he sees personally.
@@SaltyApologist Yes, even if the cup does not exist, his belief is knowledge. It is true that he thinks he is holding a cup. That seems to be where presuppositional apologetics comes in. Since we can't have certainty about the nature of what is true reality, we just have to make presuppositions.
HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH TJUMP rather than talking about him when he is not here.
TJump is laughable
@@SaltyApologist Some people laugh out of a feeling of awkwardness.
@@LindeeLove I think you misunderstood me, and that’s my fault. I was being condescending towards TJump. That’s my bad, I should have conducted myself better. But imo, I don’t think it’s possible to have a good conversation with TJump, he holds multiple contradictory views at the same time and all in an attempt to use anything possible to avoid progress in a conversation. He knows that he can’t because his worldview can’t handle it so he floods the conversation with non sequiturs and vague language to obfuscate and muddy the waters. He isn’t an honest dealer/ again, just my opinion, maybe he will prove me wrong
I've not gotten more than a few minutes in and already there is a glaring problem: The notion that existence needs to be justified. Existence exists and that's all. Since this notion of existence needing to be justified rests on stolen concepts, it invalidates presuppositionalism from the start.
Presumably, this god of yours exists, no? If so then it can not be a justification for existence. If one points to something that exists to "justify" existence then one has not moved toward that justification.
I look forward to watching the rest and if I have any more comments I'll be sure to chime in.
Just by calling A is A a logical truth, you are conceding that it is logical and true, so what's the problem. As far as how we know the truth of this statement, it is easy: Sense perception. We know this truth directly from looking at reality.
The axiomatic concept "existence" is a plural noun that subsumes everything that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. This is the meaning of the concept of existence. This is the widest of all concepts and all statements presuppose it. In other words, this concept is implicit in all other concepts including invalid ones like "God". This concept serves as the starting point of knowledge. It only tells you that something exists. It does not tell you what all exists. That has to be identified but all identification of facts starts implicitly with this most fundamental recognition that existence exists. So there is no ambiguity or vagueness here, only your lack of understanding of how knowledge and concepts work.
If we are going to set about identifying what exists, don't we have to first recognize the fact that something exists? Or do we just go ahead and identify things without recognizing that they exist? If this is what you find fault with, I think you need to think a little more.
It seems you are just as ignorant as the person who originally commented
Hi Eli, on my run today, I realized that the laws of logic are part of the nature of "I think, therefore I am" epistemology. Now I have to deal with induction. I still can't get past the fact that Yahweh can rewrite physics at any minute, so we really can't rely on physics being the same tomorrow as they are today.
Eli, I know you have a low paying job and multiple children and a wife to support. Have you considered going back to school to learn, like maybe computer programming. This hucksterism you are doing trying to get money out of gullible people (Christians) is unethical.
@@LindeeLove Nope. I think, therefore, I am is fallacious as you have “I” both in the premise and conclusion. (You’d have to say something like “Thinking is occurring. But from “Thinking is occurring”, it does not logically follow that therefore “I exist). So an epistemology that starts with Descartes Cogito is fallacious (as others; non-Christian philosophers mind you) have pointed out. Furthermore, you have to clarify what you mean when you say logic is a “part” of I think therefore I am. Apart from the fallacious circularity of Descartes here, logic is a necessary precondition for the intelligibility of the “I.” In other words, logic is logically prior to an intelligible utterance. Hence, you not only have to provide a justification for the “I”, but you also have to provide a justification for the logic that (I think therefore I am ) presupposes. Then you have to account for language as language presupposes truth, logic, etc. Then you have to account for personal identity through time (Is the “I” at the beginning of the thinking process the same “I” at the conclusion; this is the issue of enduring personal identity through time). Now, I am not suggesting you do all this in this thread, but I am simply pointing that there are a whole host of unjustified assumption baked into the cogito, and that is why it is not a good metaphysical starting by itself.
To address your second point. I do not work a “low paying job.” I actually get paid quite well. And no, I would not go back to school to accrue more debt. I already have 4 College degrees (Associates: Liberal Arts; Bachelors in Education, with a focus on Historical Studies; Master of Arts in Theological Studies; and a Masters of Divinity with a Theological Emphasis). The idea that I am a huckster is quite silly. Have you ever thought that perhaps I actually believe the things that I teach? Well, I do, otherwise it would be unethical for me to engage in dishonesty, and according to the Christian worldview, dishonesty is a sin. When you refer to what I am doing as “unethical” I wonder by what standard do you assert this? (Yes, this is a valid question to ask). As for selling courses and speaking at various venues; yes, all of that cost my time and effort, and it is costly to do all of the back end things that I do. While I do get paid relatively well, it doesn’t mean I am “Rolling in Cash.” Still got bills to pay. I am sure you understand this basic principle. Even from a biblical perspective “a worker is worth his wages” (1 Timothy 5:18). Lastly, when you ask questions in my comments section, perhaps you would get an answer if you asked your question in such a way that shows some modicum of respect to the person you are asking. Otherwise, the snarky nature of your question and comments will lead me to believe that it is pointless for me to respond as you give evidence that you wouldn’t care how I answer anyway. I am much more apt to answer a question if someone seems to be asking in a genuine fashion. -Just some things to think about. 🙂
@@RevealedApologetics "I" is equal to the thinking. The thinking exists, so therefore, the "I" exists. What is the fallacy in this statement? And regarding logic, someone can presuppose that logic is part of the nature of "I think, therefore I am" just like you can presuppose that logic is part of the nature of God. Right? I wish you would have a better debate with TJump so that you can bring up your objections to his epistemology.
Will you contact TJump and continue your conversation. TJump was very nice to you I remember.
@@StephaniePeeleIAm Exactly, I and my set of thoughts are the same thing. So no fallacy here. And "I think, therefore I am" being the foundation of logic is just as solid as the belief that god is the foundation of logic. Gaslighting isn't just for Eli.
@RevealedApologetics You claim you believe what you say. That's a tough one. Yes I think many ill educated, indoctrinated people believe in a god, that's clearly true. However if you have 4 degrees as you claim (However pitiful your subjects were) you cannot possibly believe the non sequitur you ridiculously preach which seems to be atheists can't justify things they have no requirement to justify therefore an unembodied mind with the power to speak universes into existence and simultaneously read the thoughts of everyone in that universe just popped into existence without a cause!
That's a non sequitur which is why you have to obscure what you're saying with childish word games.
Now please may I humbly request a full list of what you claim the preconditions of intelligibility are?
I would suggest there are only 2. Which area common language and common usage of words.
If you avoid the question I'll take it as tacit addmission that we have no requirement to justify these things and your whole whole argument is blown .
It feels too much like munchausens trilemma to me.
This is a basic argument with in objectivism. Nothing new.
Ahaha!! Your presup argument doesn’t need to be ‘refuted’ because you haven’t established the premises as true.
Justify your assertion that he hasn't.
@@lightbeforethetunnel WT…? Just stating premises doesn’t establish those premises as true.
Tjump
I can make the refution easier. When an assertion of any kind is made. Ask the individual; is that true? What universal immaterial unchanging objective standard are you referencing? This draws them out of their subjective world and forces them to realize they are makinging a universal metaphysical claim for which the atheist will have no logical justification.
Yeah... Which is why we avoid assertions. This is supposed to be a refutation of the atheist position?
@@bgiv2010 💯! the atheist cannot account for any of their metaphysical pressupositions, most of all objective truth. Proving the God of the Bible is pretty easy. As I will prove here to you, by the impossibility of the contrary. Truth is universal, immaterial, absolute, objective and eternal. Therefore truth must be grounded in an eternal logos/logai. Easily proven using a disjunctive syllogism in case you are not trained in logic. Now we cue the ad hoc arbitrary self refuting contradiction response by the atheist where they reject the claim. Then I ask you if the rejection of the God of the Bible is objectively true and the atheist refutes himself. Atheism is a third grade experiment.
Well, if "universal, immaterial, unchanging, and objective" are the standard then the axiom of existence fills the bill perfectly because as a concept it is universal, applying to everything that exists, and it is conceptual in nature so your requirement that it be "immaterial" is also met. The fact that existence exists is unchanging and since it is a fact that existence exists then it is objective. There you have it. Requirements met.
What universal immaterial objective standard do theists have? You can just assert God, sure, but that assertion has no power. God has to exist for the standard to be valid, and now you're stuck with assuming that existence exists before you even get to a God.
@@kitchencarvings4621 put it into a dysjunctive syllogism and atheism is over.