So glad you engaged him. I’ve had several run ins with him on Twitter, and have given direct quotes from Van Til that refute his assertions. I find him to be disingenuous.
Jacob's arguments sound like the philosophical version of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Its hard to believe he doesn't see his reliance on hyperbole, straw-men and the ad hominem posture.
_Claim: Unless X grounds logic you cannot use logic._ But can you prove X with logic? _No, you just can't use logic without X._ So if it's not based in a logical argument, you can just stick anything there...
@@DizernerNope. No one is arguing that unless X grounds logic you cannot use logic. That is not the transcendental argument, nor is it what we are claiming when we use the transcendental argument. There is nothing in your comments here that accurately reflect the transcendental argument or its logical structure. :)
Even if you were to formulate the argument, using the premises implicit in your comments, the premises would be unsound and literally not what we’re arguing.
Now, before anyone can answer that question for you, we have to figure out what it means to "prove" something and what it means for something to be "true" ... any thoughts?
@@Scott_Terry I don't believe in "prove something" except maybe in mathematics or pure logic. I'm a fallibalist. "True" is a property of sentences or propositions. A sentence/proposition is "true" if it comports to reality outside our heads and not just something imaginary. You are just asking questions about basic epistemology. Perhaps a better question is which of our conceptions in our heads comport to things outside our heads and which conceptions don't. Can you think of a conception that probably does not comport to things outside our heads? How about Cerberus the 3 headed dog?
@@gabrielteo3636 Since you don't believe in "prove something", then in what sense are you asking for someone to "prove" presuppositionalism is "true" ? ...and why would any Christian care about doing so? Apologetics is us defending ourselves from you, not us trying to force you to accept truth claims.
@@Scott_Terry What I meant was give evidence the transcendental argument for God probably corresponds to reality outside our heads? As for apologetics, preaching to the choir? I can just presuppose the transcendentals and presuppose you are wrong. There is the presup argument at work.
@@gabrielteo3636You're not thinking very clearly about all this. "...give evidence..." ...that "TAG" ... "probably" and "corresponds to reality" ... and "outside our heads".... let's think about these. "give evidence..." You go from asking for "proof", then waffling to "evidence". Ok, so what is "evidence" ? "...TAG"... Where is "TAG" in Van Til? Why are you talking about something called "TAG"? Can you cite page numbers in any of Van Til's material where he presented a "TAG"? "probably" ...why add probability talk in? That just seems odd. "corresponds to reality..." There's a massive body of philosophy literature on what it might mean for something to "correspond" to "reality". So until you clarify what you mean, this is all but unintelligible. "outside our heads" If I think about "TAG" (whatever that may be), aren't my thoughts "reality" ? Or are thoughts not "reality" ? Just a comedy of confusions here, my guy...
Eli, I have a question about the concept of worldviews in general: In his book "Worldview, A History of a Concept", David Naugle argues that the concept of a worldview is itself worldview-dependent. If we agree that christianity is the only worldview that explains the world (thus: the only rational worldview) we can say it is either christianity or we are left with no rational at all. But what if someone denies the concept of worldview as a whole, as Todd Weir does for example (in its TED-talk)?
I’m not Eli, but I’d say that making the statement of denying the concept of a worldview is different than rationally justifying it. Saying that he denies the concept of a worldview, is in itself a worldview. He is making that statement via a worldview. Nobody is void of presuppositions and a worldview that they filter information through. Anyone claiming the contrary is only deceiving themselves
@@SaltyApologist I think we are at the same page here. It seems to me that people like Todd Weir see that the history of western philosophy has colapsed into the wv-concept and they seem unsatisfied with the result (namely: that only the christian view is defensible in the end). He seems to degrade the concept of wv-thinking to a mere accident of history, that is to say: He does not accept worldview.thinking as the result of western philosophy, but as a one-way street with no escape. In a way his criticism is very similar to the classicalist (aristotelian) against presuppositionalism, namely, that the process of reasoning isn't necessarily tied to a worldview (epistemological speaking), but rather could (in principle at least) be done in a neutral way. But maybe i don't understand him right. Could you invest those 15 minutes and watch his TED-talk? I would be interested in what you have to say about.
@SaltyApologist No i don't think so. .Arnt the people deceiving themselves the people who try to justify things that don't need any justification with a god of the gaps argument?People who are so dishonest and desperate to TRY to justify what they have just tacitly admitted is unjustifiable by HAVING TO PRESUPPOSE IT that they'll sacrifice their very humanity to do so with pitiful childish transparant word games!
@@OrLy-ut7ro It seems pretty clear to me that there are some things that are not WV-dependent, and logic/reason is one of them. Indeed, all WVs (including the Christian WV) must rely on and presuppose logic/reason. EDIT: Thanks for the TED Talk recommendation. Very interesting.
The rejection of presup by other Christians is just the result of them not having the same blind spot that the committed presupper suffers from. Both Christian and atheist philosophers point this out, but the motivated reasoning of the presupper, and the desire to insulate their view from any criticism, just gets in the way of them seeing it.
Thats ironic - The presup position is that people avoid addressing the actual arguments of the presup position to insulate themselves and protect their blind spots...
@@JP_21M lol. How can a "position" on something be "someone else's avoidance of addressing the arguments of that position on something"? Perhaps you misspoke, but to say "my position on [the price of eggs] is that people avoid addressing the actual arguments I'm making for my position [on the price of eggs]". Maybe give it another go, and perhaps state the actual *argument* the presup is making that represents and supports their 'position'?
49:20 "anti-theism presupposes theism". No way. I get that that's what presups are trying to demonstrate, but the demonstration fails. Take logic, for instance. Since all worldviews (including the Christian one) must depend on logic and not the other way around, then it follows that logic is not worldview-dependent, and this strikes a serious (fatal?) blow to the presuppositional argument.
@@RevealedApologetics You say "not even close", but what exactly is not close? That logic is not dependent on worldview? That this is a blow to presup? That presups are saying _anti-theism presupposes theism?_ What is my error? Kinda cruel to leave me hanging like this :)
It seems like if someone wants to say there are "worldview-independent" facts, they would be committing themselves to some sort of realist epistemology. Like the guy in this particular video with whom Eli is interacting. While this may have worked for Aristotle, Aquinas, or even someone as modern as John Locke (although, it ended up not working for Locke), it doesn't seem warranted for us to believe, given developments in modern science. For example: we don't see objects. Instead, our eyes take in photons which are being emitted from objects, then our eyes send signals to our brains, then our brains, in some mysterious way no one understands, produce odd mental images for us. To be a "realist" and believe in "worldview-independent" facts, you'd have to think our mental images of the world just are directly accessing objects. Instead, our brains send mechanical (neuro-electical) signals to our (soul? mind? fill-in-the-blank...) which presents our consciousness with an experience - but it's an experience that must be conceptualized in order to be intelligible. (This was part of Kant's great insight). When we look at the great pyramid in Egypt, we see a triangle. Fly over it in the chopper tour, look down, it looks like a square. Because of our conceptual-scheme (a "worldview") however, we are able to conceive of it as one object, existing through time, in a complex pyramid shape...instead of just having simplistic empirical beliefs (...I'm now seeing a square. I'm now seeing a triangle... and so on).
...and as a quick addendum (because I think I know how you're thinking Babyfoot), this would even apply to laws of logic. The claim is that even propositions about the laws of logic are conceptually laden and require a scheme of other concepts in order to be made intelligible. First, it's notoriously difficult to accurately state any given logical "law" in a way that isn't controversial among the logicians, so that alone is proof that "laws of logic" can't be conceptually isolated (and are worldview dependent). Secondly: I think, even if we provide an off-the-cuff summation of any of the typical laws of logic (A = A, for example), we might work through it to tease out the underlying conceptual content making it intelligible for us.
@@Scott_Terry Thanks for the substantive response, so much better than the disappointing drive-by from @RevealedApologetics. The claim that there are worldview-independent facts in no way commits me to a realist epistemology (and incidentally I do not hold to one). I will grant that there are vastly many worldview-dependent facts ("such-and-such an object exists and is pyramid-shaped" and so forth), but there are also categories of facts that are not so. Logic is one of them. Now, you claim that logic is conceptually laden, but I think you are making an error. Let me try to tease it out. It looks to me as though you are confounding two things: logic itself, and the application of logic to other concepts. The latter is conceptually laden, the former is not. It's true that we will often mentally map logical and mathematical propositions to concepts in our worldview in order to reason about our world. However, that does not imply that the logic and math is itself bound to the concepts we apply them to. There is a worldview-independent truth contained therein that we are borrowing for practical purposes. Similarly when we map logical and mathematical concepts to our world in order to grasp them and visualize them, we are temporarily borrowing form our worldview in order to explore the abstract realm of logic and math. It's a little like expressing the same thought in different languages. The "physical" embodiment of the thought (i.e. the actual words used to express it) may vary in both form and accuracy, but the thing all of the expressions have in common - the thought itself - remains and is not bound to or dependent on any of its expressions. The various formulations of the "laws of logic" (I strongly dislike that expression) are merely attempts to codify - i.e. express in a language - something deep and abstract that exists outside of any of those attempts. That they are controversial in their degree of success is not surprising, nor is it indicative of any worldview dependency of the thing that the "laws" are trying to codify.
@@Dizerner Luke 24:45 45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, “ this what is written.. would this scripture show PRESUP logic?
@@davidhewitt4568 Unfortunately that proof fails because the contrary is in fact possible. And I agree, were it to succeed it would be a strong proof, but since it doesn't... well as you say, that's what presup is known for.
I think granting Presup as a debatable issue is immoral. Presup is teachable, not debatable. Eli Alaya does a great job teaching it! Keep it up
Insightful
So glad you engaged him. I’ve had several run ins with him on Twitter, and have given direct quotes from Van Til that refute his assertions. I find him to be disingenuous.
Jacob's arguments sound like the philosophical version of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Its hard to believe he doesn't see his reliance on hyperbole, straw-men and the ad hominem posture.
It would be great if you and him could have a discussion. Or even his sidekick Cody, but they never do.
What is Jacob presupposing when he calls Presup immoral?
_Claim: Unless X grounds logic you cannot use logic._
But can you prove X with logic?
_No, you just can't use logic without X._
So if it's not based in a logical argument, you can just stick anything there...
@@DizernerNope. No one is arguing that unless X grounds logic you cannot use logic. That is not the transcendental argument, nor is it what we are claiming when we use the transcendental argument. There is nothing in your comments here that accurately reflect the transcendental argument or its logical structure. :)
Even if you were to formulate the argument, using the premises implicit in your comments, the premises would be unsound and literally not what we’re arguing.
Eli, can you prove the transcendental argument is true or is sound? or do you need to assume it?
Now, before anyone can answer that question for you, we have to figure out what it means to "prove" something and what it means for something to be "true" ... any thoughts?
@@Scott_Terry I don't believe in "prove something" except maybe in mathematics or pure logic. I'm a fallibalist. "True" is a property of sentences or propositions. A sentence/proposition is "true" if it comports to reality outside our heads and not just something imaginary.
You are just asking questions about basic epistemology. Perhaps a better question is which of our conceptions in our heads comport to things outside our heads and which conceptions don't. Can you think of a conception that probably does not comport to things outside our heads? How about Cerberus the 3 headed dog?
@@gabrielteo3636 Since you don't believe in "prove something", then in what sense are you asking for someone to "prove" presuppositionalism is "true" ?
...and why would any Christian care about doing so?
Apologetics is us defending ourselves from you, not us trying to force you to accept truth claims.
@@Scott_Terry What I meant was give evidence the transcendental argument for God probably corresponds to reality outside our heads?
As for apologetics, preaching to the choir?
I can just presuppose the transcendentals and presuppose you are wrong. There is the presup argument at work.
@@gabrielteo3636You're not thinking very clearly about all this.
"...give evidence..." ...that "TAG" ... "probably" and "corresponds to reality" ... and "outside our heads".... let's think about these.
"give evidence..."
You go from asking for "proof", then waffling to "evidence". Ok, so what is "evidence" ?
"...TAG"...
Where is "TAG" in Van Til? Why are you talking about something called "TAG"? Can you cite page numbers in any of Van Til's material where he presented a "TAG"?
"probably"
...why add probability talk in? That just seems odd.
"corresponds to reality..."
There's a massive body of philosophy literature on what it might mean for something to "correspond" to "reality". So until you clarify what you mean, this is all but unintelligible.
"outside our heads"
If I think about "TAG" (whatever that may be), aren't my thoughts "reality" ? Or are thoughts not "reality" ?
Just a comedy of confusions here, my guy...
Eli, I have a question about the concept of worldviews in general:
In his book "Worldview, A History of a Concept", David Naugle argues that the concept of a worldview is itself worldview-dependent. If we agree that christianity is the only worldview that explains the world (thus: the only rational worldview) we can say it is either christianity or we are left with no rational at all.
But what if someone denies the concept of worldview as a whole, as Todd Weir does for example (in its TED-talk)?
I’m not Eli, but I’d say that making the statement of denying the concept of a worldview is different than rationally justifying it. Saying that he denies the concept of a worldview, is in itself a worldview. He is making that statement via a worldview. Nobody is void of presuppositions and a worldview that they filter information through. Anyone claiming the contrary is only deceiving themselves
@@SaltyApologist I think we are at the same page here. It seems to me that people like Todd Weir see that the history of western philosophy has colapsed into the wv-concept and they seem unsatisfied with the result (namely: that only the christian view is defensible in the end).
He seems to degrade the concept of wv-thinking to a mere accident of history, that is to say: He does not accept worldview.thinking as the result of western philosophy, but as a one-way street with no escape.
In a way his criticism is very similar to the classicalist (aristotelian) against presuppositionalism, namely, that the process of reasoning isn't necessarily tied to a worldview (epistemological speaking), but rather could (in principle at least) be done in a neutral way.
But maybe i don't understand him right.
Could you invest those 15 minutes and watch his TED-talk? I would be interested in what you have to say about.
@SaltyApologist No i don't think so. .Arnt the people deceiving themselves the people who try to justify things that don't need any justification with a god of the gaps argument?People who are so dishonest and desperate to TRY to justify what they have just tacitly admitted is unjustifiable by HAVING TO PRESUPPOSE IT that they'll sacrifice their very humanity to do so with pitiful childish transparant word games!
I think eli is scared of everyone including me!
@@OrLy-ut7ro It seems pretty clear to me that there are some things that are not WV-dependent, and logic/reason is one of them. Indeed, all WVs (including the Christian WV) must rely on and presuppose logic/reason. EDIT: Thanks for the TED Talk recommendation. Very interesting.
The rejection of presup by other Christians is just the result of them not having the same blind spot that the committed presupper suffers from. Both Christian and atheist philosophers point this out, but the motivated reasoning of the presupper, and the desire to insulate their view from any criticism, just gets in the way of them seeing it.
Thats ironic - The presup position is that people avoid addressing the actual arguments of the presup position to insulate themselves and protect their blind spots...
@@JP_21M lol. How can a "position" on something be "someone else's avoidance of addressing the arguments of that position on something"? Perhaps you misspoke, but to say "my position on [the price of eggs] is that people avoid addressing the actual arguments I'm making for my position [on the price of eggs]".
Maybe give it another go, and perhaps state the actual *argument* the presup is making that represents and supports their 'position'?
This all sounds more like trolling than anything else.
49:20 "anti-theism presupposes theism". No way. I get that that's what presups are trying to demonstrate, but the demonstration fails. Take logic, for instance. Since all worldviews (including the Christian one) must depend on logic and not the other way around, then it follows that logic is not worldview-dependent, and this strikes a serious (fatal?) blow to the presuppositional argument.
@@babyfoot- 😂😂😂 Not even close. Keep swinging.
@@RevealedApologetics You say "not even close", but what exactly is not close? That logic is not dependent on worldview? That this is a blow to presup? That presups are saying _anti-theism presupposes theism?_ What is my error? Kinda cruel to leave me hanging like this :)
It seems like if someone wants to say there are "worldview-independent" facts, they would be committing themselves to some sort of realist epistemology. Like the guy in this particular video with whom Eli is interacting.
While this may have worked for Aristotle, Aquinas, or even someone as modern as John Locke (although, it ended up not working for Locke), it doesn't seem warranted for us to believe, given developments in modern science.
For example: we don't see objects. Instead, our eyes take in photons which are being emitted from objects, then our eyes send signals to our brains, then our brains, in some mysterious way no one understands, produce odd mental images for us.
To be a "realist" and believe in "worldview-independent" facts, you'd have to think our mental images of the world just are directly accessing objects.
Instead, our brains send mechanical (neuro-electical) signals to our (soul? mind? fill-in-the-blank...) which presents our consciousness with an experience - but it's an experience that must be conceptualized in order to be intelligible. (This was part of Kant's great insight).
When we look at the great pyramid in Egypt, we see a triangle.
Fly over it in the chopper tour, look down, it looks like a square.
Because of our conceptual-scheme (a "worldview") however, we are able to conceive of it as one object, existing through time, in a complex pyramid shape...instead of just having simplistic empirical beliefs (...I'm now seeing a square. I'm now seeing a triangle... and so on).
...and as a quick addendum (because I think I know how you're thinking Babyfoot), this would even apply to laws of logic. The claim is that even propositions about the laws of logic are conceptually laden and require a scheme of other concepts in order to be made intelligible.
First, it's notoriously difficult to accurately state any given logical "law" in a way that isn't controversial among the logicians, so that alone is proof that "laws of logic" can't be conceptually isolated (and are worldview dependent).
Secondly: I think, even if we provide an off-the-cuff summation of any of the typical laws of logic (A = A, for example), we might work through it to tease out the underlying conceptual content making it intelligible for us.
@@Scott_Terry Thanks for the substantive response, so much better than the disappointing drive-by from @RevealedApologetics.
The claim that there are worldview-independent facts in no way commits me to a realist epistemology (and incidentally I do not hold to one). I will grant that there are vastly many worldview-dependent facts ("such-and-such an object exists and is pyramid-shaped" and so forth), but there are also categories of facts that are not so. Logic is one of them.
Now, you claim that logic is conceptually laden, but I think you are making an error. Let me try to tease it out. It looks to me as though you are confounding two things: logic itself, and the application of logic to other concepts. The latter is conceptually laden, the former is not.
It's true that we will often mentally map logical and mathematical propositions to concepts in our worldview in order to reason about our world. However, that does not imply that the logic and math is itself bound to the concepts we apply them to. There is a worldview-independent truth contained therein that we are borrowing for practical purposes. Similarly when we map logical and mathematical concepts to our world in order to grasp them and visualize them, we are temporarily borrowing form our worldview in order to explore the abstract realm of logic and math.
It's a little like expressing the same thought in different languages. The "physical" embodiment of the thought (i.e. the actual words used to express it) may vary in both form and accuracy, but the thing all of the expressions have in common - the thought itself - remains and is not bound to or dependent on any of its expressions.
The various formulations of the "laws of logic" (I strongly dislike that expression) are merely attempts to codify - i.e. express in a language - something deep and abstract that exists outside of any of those attempts. That they are controversial in their degree of success is not surprising, nor is it indicative of any worldview dependency of the thing that the "laws" are trying to codify.
WHAT IS PRESUP ❓
Presuppositional apologetics
@@Dizerner
what is
Presuppositions apologetics
@@artistart55 It's a method some Christians try to argue that you need God first to make logic possible, so they avoid normal kinds of logical proofs.
@@Dizerner
Luke 24:45
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, “ this what is written..
would this scripture show PRESUP logic?
@@Dizerner Wuutt! A transcendental argument is a type of proof. It is not an “abnormal proof” as opposed to normal proofs.
presupposition isn't immoral, it simply fails since if you can't show your premises are true, all of your claims end up as worthless nonsense.
You claim it fails and then fail to give any reason as to WHY it fails, which is in itself a fail.
The impossibility of the contrary through transcendental argument is the strongest proof possible, and it is what presuppositionalism is known for.
Tell me you don't understand presupp without telling me you dont understand...
@@davidhewitt4568 Unfortunately that proof fails because the contrary is in fact possible. And I agree, were it to succeed it would be a strong proof, but since it doesn't... well as you say, that's what presup is known for.
@@babyfoot-of course, I disagree completely. It is true, as only the Christian worldview accounts for the necessary preconditions of intelligibility.