@@mikemolaro4198 maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I kind of think he sounds mad when he goes on a tirade about how I am a dirty pig-snake. Are you asking where to find that full video on his channel?
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses haha. Wow. I just went and listened. Yeah. Totally absurd and uncalled for on his part. Very strange how there's now a huge part of online Christianity that seems to pride itself on insulting and offending other people.
I normally don't care for these philosophical debates, but i have to admit your approach is pretty enjoyable to see unfold. You make the uninteresting interesting.
This is the best tackle or presup I see. The argument drives me nuts because I felt.like tbe double standard it's using is so clear but I couldn't really express that. Well done.
I love when theists reduce faith down to uselessness just to sneak it into whatever argument they want. Sometimes it seems to mean belief, sometimes confidence, sometimes both. Problem is, if it meant either of those things, there’s already words for that: confidence and belief. Just use those words because by replacing them for faith you’re saying faith must mean something extra that the non-theist didn’t agree to. If the theist is going to be so transparently deceptive with their rhetoric, I have no problem giving a pithy definition for faith like the reason people give when they have no evidence. I see no other utility for the term.
This is the same line of reasoning I laid out in my comment last time. It really throws them off entirely. Thats why I love it. If they agree to these things up front then why are you now saying I cant simply agree with you that these things are the way they are. Not how they are the way they are, just that they are. When they add more than we agree to they are adding to it in a way that you need to justify broooooo!
I'm not aware of any sincere presuppositionalist debater. It's very much a mask someone puts on when they would like to rage at a stranger on the internet, not a method for informing a way of life.
I’m not very educated on philosophy or debate so after watching this video several times I think I understand it. Your explanation in the end about getting admissions from the interlocutor was extremely helpful to understanding it. Thanks!! I’ll have to keep those tips in mind
@@jason335777you just make up a god and pretend that it’s foundational - it’s dishonest and cowardly, just a way to shift the burden of proof, completely pathetic
Presup works every time as follows If I am right, then if anything, I am right Something, therefor I am right. Since I am right, if anything, then I am right, is right. Therefor, something, therefor I am right, is right. Therefor, since something, I am right. Therefor I am right Notice always, when listening to a presuppositionalist, thier real presuppositions are their inferences, which they will attempt to impose upon you dogmatically. And in the end, that is all they have.
Yes, that's pretty much it. Presuppers present an unjustified assertion (a fideistic, mere belief) that a postulated X is the case, and a postulated attribute of this postulated X is that X is the necessary condition for anyone to say or think anything at all. In other words, X *must* exist for you to be able to even question its existence. Any fool can *say* this about their particular "worldview", but there's nothing to back it up, so *reasonable* folk simply don't make these kinds of hopelessly ambitious claims, as said claims are inherently unreasonable. So the presupper's position is unreasonable, and there's no reason to talk to them (unless you just want point out that they're holding an empty sack)! So in the 'philosophical' domain, the onus is on the presupper to support/defend their unsupportable/indefensible claim (which can't be done), so the presup strategy is all about getting the interlocutor to make a positive denial of their claim, and take on the burden that the presupper is unable to meet, and has shifted in your direction. This is in the debate domain (where "debate" is solely a contest about winning or losing - and NOT about exploring the topic, truth-seeking, nor any other noble enterprise). If you're talking to a presupper and suddenly find yourself trying to defend a claim that YOU have made, then something's gone wrong, as via some tactical rhetoric (none of which will be an argument supporting their claim), you've inadvertently ended up with a meal that someone else ordered.
@@jason335777 Do YOU know that *ambitious* transcendental arguments were debunked by Stroud way back in 1968, and only *modest* TAs are considered plausible? For exampe, you might be able to reasonably argue that "unless your *BELIEF* in X obtains, some experience Y would not be possible", but arguing that "unless X *actually exists*, some experience Y is not possible" is a wild overreach that seems unsupportable. Unless of course you want to present your support for the claim that "specific God X is the NECESSARY precondition for intelligibility/logic/knowledge/whatever". No presupper has ever managed this, so good luck with that! 😂
The only valid presupposition I know of is “You cannot put peanut butter on a Cheeto!” That’s what I keep telling my tearful 4 year old grandson who keeps asking! That god thing? There’s no need for it!
I think that is more of an "ought" claim. It's more metaethics than metaphysics... Though I've never tried. I just had this image in my head of the universe twisting around a Cheeto with peanut butter on it, and winking out of existence. Lol.
Thank you so much for showing how to deal with disingenuous interlocutors. So many well educated people get mauled when going up against them and it is delightfully enlightening to see how take their arguments apart
I’m listening to the intro right now. This presuppositionalism somehow reminds me a bit of Descartes (“Cogito Ergo Sum”) considering the notion that in that train of thought you cannot be sure of anything but your own existence.
@@PhysiKarlz The biggest flaw of Descartes was his insistence on god being there. That was also part of what appealed to me when I was in high school. I was taking Catholic religious education and philosophy parallel to each other (which wasn’t a common thing for my school since philosophy was mandatory only for people who had refused religious education after age 14).
Since under his definition one cannot hold any beliefs without some element of faith, not only is there nothing one could not believe based on faith, but there is nothing one could believe based on (sufficient?) evidence; ie: without faith.
If you’re a foundationalist, you build your worldview on top of presuppositions held on faith (belief without evidence), whether you’re a theist or an atheist.
I am not sure I follow. It seems you are saying, because there is uniformity in nature, I can establish uniformity in nature, and I can establish that there is uniformity in nature(at least in a discussion) because the other party has said there is uniformity in nature. It seems to me you are saying: If A then A. The presup says A, therefore I conclude A. But I'm not sure how this resolves the matter, unless I'm misunderstanding what's happening. Because the basis for establishing A seems to be that the presup is saying A, but this is insufficient grounds to establish A. So, how do you establish A?
You let him smuggle certainty into the definition of knowledge. A justification is still fine, even if it doesn’t bring absolute certainty. So, we can have knowledge with uncertainty and with no faith. I’d define faith as unjustified belief.
You cannot claim to know something if you could be wrong about it. That’s not knowledge. Knowledge is justified TRUE belief. If something is true, it cannot be false. Imagine asking a waitress if there are peanuts in the meal you want to order and she says “I can’t be certain, but there are no peanuts in the meal. I could be wrong about that, but to my knowledge there are not.” Would you say she knows whether or not there are peanuts in the meal? Of course not. Truth assumes certainty. If you could be wrong about something then you cannot claim to know it.
The speed limit on the undivided highway that runs near my residential area is 30 mph. By law, that's the long-standing speed limit on all such roads in residential areas in my state. So I can reasonably say, "I know the speed limit on that road near my neighborhood is 30 mph." I'm justified in that belief and I hold it with a high degree of certainty given the evidence available to me. However, there is a very remote possibility that the speed limit on that road could for example be changed to 35 mph at some point without me being immediately aware of that change. It's highly unlikely, but it is within the realm of possibility. So unless I'm on that road looking right at the speed limit sign, I cannot for 100% sure rule out that the speed limit could have changed. Especially if I've been out of state for a few weeks on vacation for example. Despite the lack of absolute certainty, I'm still justified in saying, "I know the speed limit on that road is 30 mph." I don't need 100% certainty to be justified in making that knowledge claim.
@@scottsponaas No one defines knowledge as requiring absolute certainty except for presupps, because they need that definition for their scripted semantic arguments. It’s one of many reasons that no one else finds such arguments persuasive.
Brilliant! Jimbob was given a spin he won't recover from in a long time. He is an inherently dizzy individual, yes, but this little chat forced him to realize it (which made him not very pleased, apparently). Love it!
The law of identity is not mind dependent. To clarify, the statement "A = A" is indeed a statement generated by minds, however the underlying reality upon which that statement is based does not require any minds. A hydrogen atom in a mindless universe would still be whatever it is and not simultaneously and in the same sense what it is not regardless if any minds were around to notice.
I pop in and out throughout the video to do that, but sometimes with a philosophy argument things can be hard to follow. Try looking at the review on my debate regarding the ordering of the fossil record or my review of the "faithless heathen's" debate with Hovind, and see if those are easier to follow.
@@jason335777 Presups are case studies in emotional insecurity; your suggestion that Atheism leads to irrationality is pure projection. To present the ‘Presup Approach’, one must be struggling in the ‘5 stages of Acceptance'; ‘Presup’ is the middle ground between Anger and Bargaining. Presup is not taken seriously in Philosophical/Academic circles. As Alex Malpass as said, “Presup is Garbage.” Grow up kid.
@@jason335777 Presups are case studies in emotional insecurity; your suggestion that Atheism leads to irrationality is pure projection. To present the ‘Presup Approach’, one must be struggling in the '5 stages of 'Acceptance'; ‘Presup’ is the middle ground between Anger and Bargaining. Presup is not taken seriously in Philosophical/Academic circles. As Alex Malpass as said, “Presup is Garbage.” Grow up kid.
@@jason335777 Presups are case studies in emotional insecurity; your suggestion that Atheism leads to irrationality is pure projection. To present the ‘Presup Approach’, one must be struggling in the '5 stages of 'Acceptance'; ‘Presup’ is the middle ground between Anger and Bargaining. Presup is not taken seriously in Philosophical/Academic circles. As Alex Malpass as said, “Presup is Garbage.” Grow up kid.
19:55 it’s an ok definition for “faith” the “faith” I hear from most religious traditions is one of confidence in something you will never see “typical evidence” for in the way one might expect when seeking truth for non supernatural things. I guess if one dislikes that def they should clarify they don’t mean “faith” like “faith” but like this other thing not typically meant by it.
I haven't completed the video yet (currently at the 10 minute mark), so I apologize if this gets covered later, but the conversation is getting fairly close to a line of argumentation I've really enjoyed making on Discord lately, which starts with this question: "Is it possible for God to make an unintelligible world?" This has proven to be very frustrating for the TAG-defenders. If they say yes, then by modus tollens, we can show that God implies both an intelligible and unintelligible world, which is contradictory (or at the very least uninformative). If they say no, then an unintelligible world is logically impossible, and thus intelligibility is necessary (via impossibility of the contrary) and not indicative of a God (or anything). In my most recent discussion presenting this argument, the only real rebuttal I got back was them rejecting modus tollens (contrapositive).
It's an interesting argument. It sounds like a variation of the old "can God create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift it," or "can God lie?" And the typical answer to those sorts of questions is to say that he could, but that he does not and will not because it is not in his nature. How would you respond to that kind of a riposte?
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Those retorts are usually addressing problems with God’s omnipotence. Most presuppers will never let the conversation get that far (in my experience anyway). In this case, we’re focusing exclusively on what can be inferred from this world being intelligible, as they claim God is the necessary precondition, and thus God is necessarily inferred from intelligibility. But if God *could* make an unintelligible world, then logic prevents us from such a necessary inference: If intelligibility, then God. If not intelligibility, then God. If not God, then both not intelligibility and intelligibility (Modus tollens), a contradiction. So they get cornered into either unintelligibility being logically impossible (ie god couldn’t do that), which renders intelligibility necessary on its own and thus doesn’t indicate God, or an unintelligible world could exist without God, which no Tagger would accept. I’m still smoothing some details out, but as far as I can tell, “can god create an unintelligible world,” is a question Taggers need to avoid completely, else any answer puts them in a bind without the “can’t violate his own nature” escape route.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses "and will not because it is not in his nature" I'd ask how they know that. I expect I'd get back some sort of convoluted interpretation of an obscure biblical verse, but the more outlandish the hoops they can be made to jump through the sillier they look.
Before the debate, you told your atheist subs that you think you CAN prove the pre-conditions for science (excitedly). But first thing in the debate, you told Jim Bob that you think you can't actually prove them. Lawyer, indeed.
I admit that Presup does provide a deductive justification that the Biblical God must exist by logical necessity. But here's why I'm still an atheist: Who cares? We don't know that the way everything is resolved in the universe is entirely logical. It's not like we can verify God with science. I don't see God in the current consensus or peer-reviewed papers. And being rational is overrated anyway. Logic isnt all it's cracked up to be. Right guys?
Actually Spanky is the true God that exists by logical necessity. The Biblical God was made up by the incomprehensible forces of evil. Spanky is the truth itself and reveals itself to everyone, but people choose to reject it out of their wickedness and ego. It was revealed to me bro.
Dude you literally defined faith as belief in a God around 15:30 specifically so it can't possibly apply to you when you believe things without justification. that has to be the most absurd example of an appeal to definition fallacy I've ever witnessed.
I think it is arguable that if it is the case that where Good intercedes and violates the laws of nature that he lets us know, by leaving a trace, that we can assume that other than those instances that nature is uniform.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses That's acceptable, and a point I didn't consider before posting. I have been interacting with another presup in comment sections, and a property of their primary metaphysic that they claim as necessary is "secure the uniformity of nature." I argue that if God has the ability to violate nature, then it cannot be considered secure. I just presupposed that this is where JimBob was coming from. Apologies if not.
@@dbt5224 I can't say for sure, but this is typically where I steer my presuppers when I am talking to them. It's kind of a middle ground. They can have thier miracles, but they just have to justify them, so no invisible miracles that have no evidence are allowed, and where there is no evidence of a miracle, naturalistic explanations are preferred.
* A thing is itself and not another thing. That's the principle/law of identity. I didn't expect it here, though I'm grinning that Mr. Anderson deployed it so expertly against presuppositional nonsense. Pointing it out helps put the lie to quite a few arguments or claims that are abstract but unfounded. For example, I'm not an explicit materialist...though I'll give materialism one thing; they can point to what they are discussing. Abstract ideological claims are extra and require justification. Even if hard solipsism is correct, and no material things actually exist, the law of identity remains to understand reality without ideological presuppositions. TAG and other presup arguments are the last defense of theistic apologists; when they run out of other talking points, they have only their heartfelt assertions. William Lane Craig's "witness of the Holy Spirit" to justify believing in the face of contradictions shows another example of apologists actual views; ideology above mere reality.
Since we aren't watching this on his channel, could you please even out the sound levels? It is unpleasant to be assaulted by his voice just so I can hear you properly. Thanks in advance.
I did what I could, especially between the hours clips and mine, I tried to equalize the sound, but within his clips I don't have the tech savvy to do that. There is also nothing I can do now that the video is posted other than take it down and repost, but then I lose all of the views... Sorry.
by means of some presuppositionalist confirms it is true 🤣 - if A is true then A is true - remember? 😂 jimbob confirmed it personally 🤣 ...it was just brilliant
12:50 here you aaserted that "neither one of us can justify our base assumptions." How do you justify this assertion? How could you possibly know the universal positive claim that ALL possible worldviews lack justification for those base assumptions?
Mr Anderson, I think you'd benefit more from these discussions if you begin by identifting what your worldview actually is, at least for Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics. I say this because ive noticed a lot of atheists end up unwittingly engaging in Obscurantism (obscuring what their position actually is to make it impossible for anyone to consistently critique it). I dont think its being done on purpose, i just think that you guys are thinking like this is a scientific debate so you think you can just have a null hypothesis of nothing at all to defend. Thats false. In paradigm-level debates, it's Worldview vs Worldview.
Lance, you have a very tall order. Not only do you have to prove that a creator God exists, and that the Christian God exists, but that the Eastern Orthodox Christian God exists as is the necessary precondition for Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics. Even if you are able to dismantle the Atheist worldview, you also have to dismantle every other challenger to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. So it's not your worldview vs my worldview. It's your worldview vs all other worldviews. So I'll ask you. Why is the Eastern Orthodox Christian God the necessary precondition for Ethics?
I think TAG is a failed argument. But I'm not sure you understood it at the end. TAG proponents admit from the get go everyone has an assumption. So to get JB to admit this is no win, this is often the initial presupper attack, no? It's to say, "we all have to assume logic, time, external world etc...but Christianity is the only worldview that can justify said assumptions"
Well, that's not quite what they think, presuppers go further than that, but even if it was just a normal TAG argument, it would still be devastating because he admitted that NO ONE could justify those assumptions, that they were faith based, and that faith was a belief without evidence, and further that his "faith" was the same as ours when it came to the standard fundamental assumptions, so he would then have a tough job of walking that back, even if he were taking the less extreme position. As it is, he has a monumental hole to climb out of, and if he wants to try and justify his presumptions, he is going to be in defence for some time.
Agreed that TAG is a failed argument. I take it as a more sophisticated variation of "look at the trees!". Once untangled, it falls apart. Mr. Anderson pointing out that the law/principle of identity applies -- and that the presupposationalist agrees -- shows that the presupposationalist claims can be reviewed without just asserting they are true, and the burden goes back to the presupposationalist.
@@Mr.AndersonCrossesWith respect, I still think you're missing the point. Not saying you're dense but I'm Orthodox and have been 5 years listening to presuppers. Yes, Orthodox have faith as does everyone. But the single Orthodox Presup is Divine Revelation. Once we Presup God and only God every other presupposition is now "justified" because God makes logic, time, laws etc all comprehensible and consistent for man. Whereas the atheist or non believer has "faith" but his faith does not end up justified. He has no justification or foundation for knowledge, truth, laws etc... So no. I'm not sure JB has to walk anything back. I think he simply needs to clarify. Now again, I don't think Presup works, but don't think your current line of argumentation at the end is the knockout punch.
@@mikemolaro4198 I do understand all of that, but what JimBob agreed to in the video is that the level of justification for knowledge under both worldviews is the same. Because everything the presuppers say are "justified" by God are just the same unjustified assumptions dressed up as aspects of God's character. Without the assumption that the God they believe in necessitates those things, the belief in God justifies nothing. Fundamentally it's the same base assumptions in a different set of clothes. I don't know how you walk that back, and with that admission, I don't know how you can do presup.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses @Mr.AndersonCrosses Appreciate the clarification. But presuppers adhere to Coherentism. It's not about "proving" things against another, it's about how the overall worldview looks in terms of coherency. They say, "yes, we assume God, but once we do that we get everything justified and a completely coherent worldview that accounts for knowledge, Truth, Love, Time etc... whereas the non-theist (or any other worldview) may have faith in logic, knowledge, time etc, and assume various things... however, even with their faith and assumptions their worldview still fails to JUSTIFY said things. The Triune Orthodox God justifies all the Transcendental categories, no other worldview does, therefore, the impossibility of the contrary proves the Orthodox position. Without God, knowledge is impossible."
If you debate someone who can’t debate, you should expect to win. Anyone that thinks science is above logic and reason doesn’t understand that science cannot stand without logic and reason. Use science to prove True is True. A much more interesting question is Free Will. By definition, there can be no Free Will in a universe where there is only the physical. That is a far more interesting discussion.
1. Existence exists. (There is something rather than nothing.) 2. Consciousness perceives existence. (Consciousness is consciousness of something.) 3. A = A. (To exist is to be. And to be is to be something.) These axioms are conceptually irreducible identifications of fundamental/primary facts about reality. As such, they are implicit in all other knowledge and facts. Even attempts to deny these axioms performatively affirm them. These axioms are not proven as though they were the premises to an argument, because without them, you couldn't prove anything - let alone form the concept of proof in the first place (or any other concepts such as justification, knowlege, uniformity, causality, etc.). The axioms are inescapable. They provide the grounds for intelligibility. You can coherently deny the existence of a god, but you cant deny the existence of existence. No god is required.
Sure, you've heard of the TAG argument... P1: There is knowledge P2: The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of knowledge C: Therefore, God exists ...but have you heard of the TAG-back argument? P1: There is knowledge P2: The nonexistence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of knowledge C: Therefore, God doesn't exist
There seems to be some type of correlation between people who use TAG and people who do not like to be wrong. It's so strong, in fact, that the venn diagram is a circle. 😂
Justified true belief as a definition of knowledge is a bit dated. Not only did Gettier point out some really wonky edge cases, but its greatest weakness is the truth part. Time and time again "knowledge" has been proven wrong, which should have been impossible (as it is supposedly true). And even today you can't really be certain that what you believe is actually true. If you debate on that basis, prepare to have the floor ripped out under you.
I'm aware of the gettier exceptions. Again, this is his definition, not mine, so he has no basis for attacking it, and I have no desire, as the definition should suit my purposes just fine. If he wanted to be more careful with his definitions, he should have been more careful with his definitions. It's kind of disingenuous for him to raise objections with them at this point.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses I've seen presups go "knowledge is justified, true belief" -> "you can't be sure you have the truth" -> "I have the word of god, therefore I am sure"->"checkmate, atheist!" It's kinda like a bad conclusion follows from a wrong premise. Sorry if I came across as talking down to you.
20:13 I disagree, Mr. Anderson. You must be either an atheist or a theist. You are either convinced or you are not. If you are not one, you are definitionally the other. A common misconception is that an "atheist" knows that there is no god or at the least claims that knowledge, but that's not the claim of the atheist, that's gnosticism. To be more accurate, a lot of theists are agnostic theists and a lot of atheists are agnostic atheists. They don't know, but they are or are not convinced. But if you were just saying that to fit into JimBob's layman philosophy definitions, that makes sense.
Or you could simply take the position that neither position matters as neither can be proven objectively true so why even worry about it. Most atheists I know just simply don't care what theists think and have no conviction one way or the other. The most useful position in this argument is "I don't know". Theists think they know. Atheists know there is no absolute knowledge.
Atheism is the proposition that no god concept exists. Agnostics claim neutrality that you can know one way or the other. But upon examination, that claim of neutrality will be shown to collapse into an implicit position of atheism.
“A presuppositionalist is a Christian who specializes in refusing to admit that the fundamental assumptions of science are justifiable. So we're gonna try and prove those things and justify those things to somebody whose whole shtick is denying them.” Based on our prior interactions, you usually seem to engage in good faith so I don’t think you intentionally meant to mischaracterize presuppositionalists here but you did. We don’t deny that the fundamental assumptions of science are justifiable; we deny that any worldview besides Christianity can account for or justify them. The thing you’re missing here is that from your own worldview you’ve admitted that you can’t justify them. If we live in a universe that isn’t guided by intelligence, and everything is just happening as a result of an unintended cosmic accident, then any attempt at justifying the assumption that the future will be like the past is going to be completely circular. From the Christian worldview however, we have revelation from the Creator of the universe who designed it for a purpose and has promised to maintain it until a planned time. That right there is our justification. You might not like that justification but the onus would be on you to provide your own justification which you have admitted you can’t do. We both assume the regularity of nature, but only one our worldviews can provide a foundation for doing so. You can’t believe on one hand they the universe randomly came into being during the Big Bang for no reason, life randomly appeared for no reason, and then began evolving into more and more complex life forms for no reason, but then also claim that you believe in the regularity of nature. That’s inconsistent. If you’re going to subscribe to the ideas of naturalism, you would therefore have to conclude that you have no idea what to expect in the future because accidents happen all of the time they drastically change things. Induction, along with things like human value, free will, laws of logic, objective truth, objective morality, certainty, and the original of the universe and life, are only justifiable by the Christian worldview and you actually gave a demonstration of this by admitting you can’t do it (other than to ask JimBob if nature is regular and then to piggyback off of that.)
Well said brother, now if only we could get them to understand why its not just arbitrary to demand of them that they demonstrate an epistemic foundation for their worldview. I have yet to see a presupper get a materialist over this intellectual hurdle
the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore cannot deceive me, it permeates the universe, so information goes direct to my brain via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, amd you are suppressing the truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven.
Presups don't deny the pre-conditions for science. They just argue that only the Biblical worldview justifies them such that the system entails science is possible.
There is no such thing as the "Biblical worldview". You have several different denominations. So one of those denominations being right would necessitate all the others being wrong. Not only do you have to have a defeater for the Atheists and Non-Christian worldviews, you must have a defeater for every Christian denomination opposed to yours. That's a very tall order.
And actual science has demonstrated that the Bible presents pseudoscience about the physical world, which is what you would expect people pre-science would write.
@@nogoodusernames100 Biblical worldview, when Presups argue for is, just means the Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics taught in the Bible. Specifically, this means: For Metaphysics: The Creator-creature Distinction For Epistemology: Revelatory Epistemology For Ethics: Biblical Ethics
Faith is just what he called a fundamental presumptions. I find that as long as the definitions are clear it is often best not to sweat that sort of thing. Imagine if we had gotten sidetracked int that issue and then not gotten the major admissions with respect to the acceptance of the universal nature of standard fundamental assumptions. The juice would not have been worth the squeeze in that situation (in my opinion).
@Mr.AndersonCrosses Just before 25:34 you were talking about all the forms of faith-- by his definition-- you share, then added he *also* has faith in a deity. This is usually where theists equivocate: "My faith in God is the same as your faith in your presuppositions." I believe they operate differently. Also, in their case, God is the presupposition that undergirds the others. So I don't think it's an article of faith in the same category, but a far weightier one. Except it has less explanatory power than the presuppositions they claim it supports.
@@cseggerman but it doesn't undegird any of the others, they just become properties they assume were created by God. You still have to presuppose Good made them that way
@Mr.AndersonCrosses Yeah, they say it does, bit that's just an assertion. And it undergirds the others because it *has to*. And why? Because God is God and that's what he does. Yeah, nope.
8:35 this wasn’t the gotcha that you apparently think it was, my friend. JimBob is affirming the regularity of nature based on an epistemic foundation of the universe being created and having revelation from its Creator. If you’re appealing to JimBob as your proof then you accept his epistemology as well. 🤦🏻♂️ If you reject his epistemology, then you’re right back to needing to justify why you assume the future will be like the past.
29:36 Against presupps you always want to be on the aggressive and you can be even more aggressive here. Once the theist says that worldviews which are unsubstantiated cannot make claims you can instantly put them on the backpedal. Just say, "hey, if only substantiated worldviews can make points then before you can make claims about my or any other worldview you must first substantiate your own worldview." Their own rules have now shifted the burden of proof onto them and you can just hold them down like this until they find a way out. Fun bonus, all ways out of this will force them to accept your ability to account for your worldview. So either they apply their own unreasonable standards to themselves and are trapped forever, or they can't subvert your worldview. Either way they lose. You did put JB on the defensive and were able to get a winning position out of it, which is what you should do, but this is a more direct way of funneling presupps into that line of argumentation. Plus it just gives you more control over the conversation. For example, those "pointless jabs" you were talking about, aren't really pointless under this framework. You can also at any time just put the conversation on hold, saying both sides are considered accounted for until this point is sorted out, for example, if you want to move onto other topics. The amount of breathing room you give yourself with this line can't be understated. Also, your point about using his worldview to account for logic is a bit inefficient. Just say, "hey if you think logic is an acceptable tool for evaluating and finding truth, then I should be able to use the tool too to make valid conclusions" Accomplishes the same thing, but doesn't give them veto powers over your logical conclusions. However, I would again encourage you and others not to interact with JB. He's clearly not here in an entirely honest intent. Getting involved further is just stooping down to his level where he'll beat you with experience eventually. It's not worth it.
Dude, presup is the argument that they DO have justification for their worldview; it’s literally about showing how their worldview is justifiable. Your KO tactic is to lean into the punch lol
@@Noetic-Necrognosis Getting the theist to admit that presupps are valid ways of accounting for worldviews, is part of the strategy. Once the theist admits such, it can now be argued that godless axioms, which are presupps, are just as valid as god based ones. In order to argue otherwise, the theist is going to have to uniquely prove otherwise. Which is to say they now have to prove their god. Thus rendering their presupp argument redundant. This is how "leaning into the punch" as you put it, actually works.
@@TheAnimeAtheist I think you still don’t understand the argument. We all have presuppositions. The difference is the theist affirms a rational/Intelligible reality, personhood, value, free will and ethics on the basis of God as the precondition for these metaphysical categories; the atheist just arbitrarily grants himself metaphysics because he needs them to make arguments. TAG is the logical proof for God, as God is the only coherent account for the preconditions for knowledge. The atheist needs to provide grounding and justification for metaphysics from a naturalist/materialist framework (Protip: you can’t).
@@Noetic-Necrognosis No, I understand the argument just fine. A theist's presupp is just as circular as any other. In order to account for the divine one needs to account for reality, which is accounted for with the divine, which is accounted for with reality, ect. It's just as circular. Atheist axioms are doing the same thing just with different concepts. So the methodology is all the same, just the details are different. The only way the theist can say this difference matters is to show the details as relevant. Which is to say, they need to prove the divine as the source of all, else you're just asserting "arbitrarily". So the theist will need to prove their god's existence at the very least before they can claim any high ground here. And if the theist can't do this, then they just admit that all presupps are just as grounded as each other, divine or not. At which point the atheist can just ask for proof of God should they want. So either way the theist maintains the burden of proof for god, making the presupp argument redundant.
@@TheAnimeAtheist No, this isn't the presup position. It isn't on the theist to account for the Divine, that knowledge is given by Divine revelation and God IS the account for reality (in the theist worldview). Our presuppositions are justified because God made the world to be intelligible and created us with intellective capacities. The atheist just grants his own presuppositions because he needs to in order to make arguments. The former position is rationally coherent, the latter is ad-hoc/arbitrary. As a theist, I'm under no obligation to prove my God to you. Everyone has presuppositions so it goes both ways. I can grant atheism entirely and you still have no argument against theism, because you can't ground/justify your presuppositions. Both our positions would be equally groundless, making no position more/less valid than another. In either case, you need to justify your presuppositions before you can make universal truth claims like what constitutes evidence, what types of things exist, how we can know things, etc. Even if God doesn't exist, materialism still makes this impossible and all I have to do is point that out at every turn and your arguments against God are rendered totally impotent.
The Atheist mind is fascinating. Andersen knows the preconditions of knowledge like truth, logic, time, free will, predication, and uniformity in nature, etc. must have a singular concrete ground. And that ground must be eternal, absolute, and ultimate. When presented with the argument that this must be the triune God, Andersen will not accept it because of his unbelief. Instead, he twists words, meanings, and logic in order to refute what he already knows is true. Man, I hope I'm never in court and being prosecuted by such a person using sophistry to wrongly convict.
@@twcnz3570 Sure. You need one singular ground for the preconditions required for human intelligible experience and knowledge. The triune God grounds all these like logic, ethics, time, etc. But especially the other things that ONLY a triune God can ground. Such as love, relationality, and predication. Because only the triune God is one and many in equal ultimacy.
Nature or not, he doesn't have to. He only has to show that the presuppositionalist takes it as true that the law of identity is true. If someone wants to show that a thing is ***not*** itself, then they have their work ahead of them.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses "it does combined with the fact of that natural forces are constant" That is just a tautology. Literally begging the question. "Constant forces are constant because they are constant."
@@cygnusustus but, if I got him to agree to the premise that nature had uniformity, and if it had uniformity, then it has uniformity, then it seems to me that it follows that it has uniformity. Accordingly, I've proved uniformity. Remember, he didn't agree that he BELIEVED nature had uniformity, he said that it DID. And if so, and if that is objectively true, it's true for me too.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses philosophy bros are so conceited. get over yourself, your navel gazing isn't hard to decipher. translation; you're wrong because you disagree with me! hmph!
The uniformity of nature is/was true IS NOT THE SAME as the uniformity of nature WILL BE, nor is it a justification that it will be. You’ve already been educated on this distinction
JimBob, come on. We talked about the presumption that the future will resemble the past and the present will resemble both. You know that this is what the "uniformity of nature" is. Don't be silly. Also, it doesn't matter because you admitted that you believe that nature both is uniform AND will be uniform, so there is no point to your distinction. Also also, you agreed that all of the traditional "presuppositions" that you object to for Athiests apply equally to you, and that you accept them without proof, so there is only one presupposition that we need to debate--the one we don't share--your presupposition about the existence of God. The rest of them it is clear have been granted. That why this was so devastating to your presuppositionalist apologetics argument.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses”it doesn’t matter because you admitted that I believe it will maintain” What do you mean, what doesn’t matter? Do you think two people holding the same position about the future suddenly means their justification for the assertion need not be put into question?
In the context of an argument there are matters at issue. In order for a matter to be at issue, there must be a difference of opinion with respect to that matter. So, definitionally, where we are arguing something, the only things we are arguing about are the things about which we disagree. That's the definitional side. From a logical side, if you want to simultaneously hold two contrary opinions, one being that you agree with me, and one being that you don't agree with me, that is not a valid premise from which to make an argument. From a practical side, a person who deliberately and actively advances a position they know to be untrue, is not acting in good faith. Metaphysically, you are considering epistemology and ontology. I'm not asking you whether or not I can KNOW whether the future resembles the past, I'm asking you if it DOES, and you either know the answer or you don't. If you don't, then we are in the same boat and we either assume it does it doesn't together. If you do know, then kindly tell the rest of us what the answer is. There is more, but you get the idea.
Man, it seems that, you don’t like being corrected. That’s the same nonsense of Tjump “reality is reality” and then “see I just made it”. You are assuming the very thing is in question dude! 😤 He has a justification for A=A. You don’t in an atheist worldview. Then you say that he’s moving the goals post. Hahaha not at all! Has been the goalpost from the start. You are taking from his worldview to prove yours. Man! 🙄
I didn't assume anything other than that I could trust my senses, and trust my interlocutor. Everything else I needed, he told me. That's the problem you have with this approach. Accusing me of unwarranted assumptions doesn't work. I didn't make any other assumptions. So the only assumptions you have to attack are either that my senses were lying to me, or he was. And you're kind of right that I'm taking from his worldview. More accurately, I showed that under his worldview, the assumptions that ground my worldview are reasonable. So I have effectively bootstrapped the presumptions, and done the impossible. His trying to hold contradictory positions was what allowed that feat of magic. Pretty cool wasn't it?
"He has a justification for A=A. You don’t in an atheist worldview." 'A=A because my God wills it!' is not a justification. A=A because we have no examples of A≠A on the other hand.
@@CrowManyClouds access to an all knowledge and trascendental mind is my justification. You are assuming a universal principle without universal knowledge. From your limited epistemology you don’t have examples of A not being A.
@@GodID7 you have access to an all knowledge and trascendental mind? COOL! So, you'll have no problem telling me how much cash is in my wallet and what color that wallet is, correct?
@@CrowManyClouds Sorry, you are straw manning. God is the justification for knowledge. Doesn’t follow He gonna tell me secrets about you. Justification is the issue here.
I should clarify that at the end I say that this is why he is mad, and I don't know that for sure, it's just my opinion.
When you ask about god and the answer is questioning reality....
Pigs and snakes. The two things the Bible hates the most. Congratulations Mr Anderson, my hat goes off to you.
Where is he mad? Are these convos paywalled or am I just missing them?
@@mikemolaro4198 maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I kind of think he sounds mad when he goes on a tirade about how I am a dirty pig-snake. Are you asking where to find that full video on his channel?
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses haha. Wow. I just went and listened. Yeah. Totally absurd and uncalled for on his part. Very strange how there's now a huge part of online Christianity that seems to pride itself on insulting and offending other people.
I normally don't care for these philosophical debates, but i have to admit your approach is pretty enjoyable to see unfold. You make the uninteresting interesting.
That's the nicest thing you have ever said to me. ❤️
Neither do I because I don’t care for verbal and mental trickery and manipulation. But Mr Anderson here is ok 👍
I think we need you to teach a course in argumentation. We could call it Pig Snake Tactics 101. In a loving way.
I love the pig Snake, so I'm all for it, but in fairness this whole channel is basically that course...
not the snake and donkey show?
@@HarryNicNicholas where did the donkey come from? I feel like I'm taking friendly fire!
I would sign up for that course in a heartbeat lmao
This is the best tackle or presup I see. The argument drives me nuts because I felt.like tbe double standard it's using is so clear but I couldn't really express that. Well done.
Pigs and snakes. The two things the Bible hates the most. Congratulations Mr Anderson, my hat goes off to you.
Really, I thought it was women and babies and all other living creatures, including plants🤣
@@tsolum4126 Especially if they’re gay shrimp-eaters
@@lancetschirhart7676 Don't foget those who wear mixed fabrics🤣
Lesbian, shrimp-eating, mixed fabric wearers? That also like ham?
Actually, women and trees are a god phobia. Refer the "groves of Asherah".
Jim bob is a slippery one. Jim bob’s philosophy is “I’m right and I will not let convince me otherwise
It’s all a show. And he’s the guy in the cape and black hat
Clearly didn’t understand the arguments
I love when theists reduce faith down to uselessness just to sneak it into whatever argument they want. Sometimes it seems to mean belief, sometimes confidence, sometimes both. Problem is, if it meant either of those things, there’s already words for that: confidence and belief. Just use those words because by replacing them for faith you’re saying faith must mean something extra that the non-theist didn’t agree to. If the theist is going to be so transparently deceptive with their rhetoric, I have no problem giving a pithy definition for faith like the reason people give when they have no evidence. I see no other utility for the term.
This is the same line of reasoning I laid out in my comment last time. It really throws them off entirely. Thats why I love it. If they agree to these things up front then why are you now saying I cant simply agree with you that these things are the way they are. Not how they are the way they are, just that they are. When they add more than we agree to they are adding to it in a way that you need to justify broooooo!
I'm not aware of any sincere presuppositionalist debater. It's very much a mask someone puts on when they would like to rage at a stranger on the internet, not a method for informing a way of life.
I think Eli Ayala is the only sincere presup debater
This is so true, I’ve yet to find one Honest presup, they’re dishonest in some way or another
It's an inherently disingenuous approach to discourse. It doesn't aim to convince, only to humiliate. It's malicious by design.
I’m not very educated on philosophy or debate so after watching this video several times I think I understand it. Your explanation in the end about getting admissions from the interlocutor was extremely helpful to understanding it. Thanks!! I’ll have to keep those tips in mind
We argues with such confidence, but the fact is his entire argument is based on a non-existent supernatural entity. It's got no foundation at all.
Thats ironic. Let me ask you. What is eternal and foundational, that can ground any fact in your atheist worldview?
@@jason335777 Let me ask you. What do you mean by grounding and what do you mean by fact?
@@jason335777 in order to know that it's actually god giving you revelation, you need revelation.
presup falls flat in the first sentence.
@@jason335777you just make up a god and pretend that it’s foundational - it’s dishonest and cowardly, just a way to shift the burden of proof, completely pathetic
Presup works every time as follows
If I am right, then if anything, I am right Something, therefor I am right. Since I am right, if anything, then I am right, is right. Therefor, something, therefor I am right, is right. Therefor, since something, I am right. Therefor I am right
Notice always, when listening to a presuppositionalist, thier real presuppositions are their inferences, which they will attempt to impose upon you dogmatically.
And in the end, that is all they have.
Yes, that's pretty much it. Presuppers present an unjustified assertion (a fideistic, mere belief) that a postulated X is the case, and a postulated attribute of this postulated X is that X is the necessary condition for anyone to say or think anything at all. In other words, X *must* exist for you to be able to even question its existence.
Any fool can *say* this about their particular "worldview", but there's nothing to back it up, so *reasonable* folk simply don't make these kinds of hopelessly ambitious claims, as said claims are inherently unreasonable. So the presupper's position is unreasonable, and there's no reason to talk to them (unless you just want point out that they're holding an empty sack)!
So in the 'philosophical' domain, the onus is on the presupper to support/defend their unsupportable/indefensible claim (which can't be done), so the presup strategy is all about getting the interlocutor to make a positive denial of their claim, and take on the burden that the presupper is unable to meet, and has shifted in your direction. This is in the debate domain (where "debate" is solely a contest about winning or losing - and NOT about exploring the topic, truth-seeking, nor any other noble enterprise).
If you're talking to a presupper and suddenly find yourself trying to defend a claim that YOU have made, then something's gone wrong, as via some tactical rhetoric (none of which will be an argument supporting their claim), you've inadvertently ended up with a meal that someone else ordered.
Nice straw man. Do you know what a transcendental argument is?
@@jason335777 Do YOU know that *ambitious* transcendental arguments were debunked by Stroud way back in 1968, and only *modest* TAs are considered plausible?
For exampe, you might be able to reasonably argue that "unless your *BELIEF* in X obtains, some experience Y would not be possible", but arguing that "unless X *actually exists*, some experience Y is not possible" is a wild overreach that seems unsupportable. Unless of course you want to present your support for the claim that "specific God X is the NECESSARY precondition for intelligibility/logic/knowledge/whatever".
No presupper has ever managed this, so good luck with that! 😂
@@jason335777 Yes, of course I do. Do you know what a fallaciously complex question is?
"if i can be right i must be right because if god can be conceived then god is actualised by the unlikelyhood of the opposite and fish paste.
The only valid presupposition I know of is “You cannot put peanut butter on a Cheeto!” That’s what I keep telling my tearful 4 year old grandson who keeps asking! That god thing? There’s no need for it!
I think that is more of an "ought" claim. It's more metaethics than metaphysics... Though I've never tried. I just had this image in my head of the universe twisting around a Cheeto with peanut butter on it, and winking out of existence. Lol.
It’s like going back in time to meet yourself. It’s just not done!
According to my sincerity held worldview, that is exactly what will happen once peanut butter touches Cheeto!
And your thoughts on pineapple on pizza?? 😇
@@alexanderingraham8255the romans don't know what they were missing when it comes to pineapple on pizza.
Presups are the absolute worse. They are the real life version of the smug dillholes from south park who love the smell of their own farts.
Thank you so much for showing how to deal with disingenuous interlocutors. So many well educated people get mauled when going up against them and it is delightfully enlightening to see how take their arguments apart
… pig snake.
I’m listening to the intro right now. This presuppositionalism somehow reminds me a bit of Descartes (“Cogito Ergo Sum”) considering the notion that in that train of thought you cannot be sure of anything but your own existence.
Except that the presups try to say you cannot even be sure of that without their god-thing.
@@PhysiKarlz The biggest flaw of Descartes was his insistence on god being there. That was also part of what appealed to me when I was in high school. I was taking Catholic religious education and philosophy parallel to each other (which wasn’t a common thing for my school since philosophy was mandatory only for people who had refused religious education after age 14).
@@RealPumpkinJaythe biggest flaw? LMAO brother that’s how he saves the cogito in the first place. 😊
I know, I'll propose a completely theoretical notion of the universe and then I'll say it could've been that, but instead it's this.
JimBob: "Every conceivable thing that has and will exist is god."
Is there anything one could not believe based on "Faith"?
Since under his definition one cannot hold any beliefs without some element of faith, not only is there nothing one could not believe based on faith, but there is nothing one could believe based on (sufficient?) evidence; ie: without faith.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses So it sort of sounds tautological on his part, which does not surprise...
If you’re a foundationalist, you build your worldview on top of presuppositions held on faith (belief without evidence), whether you’re a theist or an atheist.
I am not sure I follow. It seems you are saying, because there is uniformity in nature, I can establish uniformity in nature, and I can establish that there is uniformity in nature(at least in a discussion) because the other party has said there is uniformity in nature.
It seems to me you are saying: If A then A. The presup says A, therefore I conclude A. But I'm not sure how this resolves the matter, unless I'm misunderstanding what's happening. Because the basis for establishing A seems to be that the presup is saying A, but this is insufficient grounds to establish A. So, how do you establish A?
You let him smuggle certainty into the definition of knowledge. A justification is still fine, even if it doesn’t bring absolute certainty.
So, we can have knowledge with uncertainty and with no faith. I’d define faith as unjustified belief.
You cannot claim to know something if you could be wrong about it. That’s not knowledge. Knowledge is justified TRUE belief. If something is true, it cannot be false.
Imagine asking a waitress if there are peanuts in the meal you want to order and she says “I can’t be certain, but there are no peanuts in the meal. I could be wrong about that, but to my knowledge there are not.” Would you say she knows whether or not there are peanuts in the meal? Of course not.
Truth assumes certainty. If you could be wrong about something then you cannot claim to know it.
The speed limit on the undivided highway that runs near my residential area is 30 mph. By law, that's the long-standing speed limit on all such roads in residential areas in my state.
So I can reasonably say, "I know the speed limit on that road near my neighborhood is 30 mph." I'm justified in that belief and I hold it with a high degree of certainty given the evidence available to me.
However, there is a very remote possibility that the speed limit on that road could for example be changed to 35 mph at some point without me being immediately aware of that change. It's highly unlikely, but it is within the realm of possibility.
So unless I'm on that road looking right at the speed limit sign, I cannot for 100% sure rule out that the speed limit could have changed. Especially if I've been out of state for a few weeks on vacation for example.
Despite the lack of absolute certainty, I'm still justified in saying, "I know the speed limit on that road is 30 mph." I don't need 100% certainty to be justified in making that knowledge claim.
@@scottsponaas No one defines knowledge as requiring absolute certainty except for presupps, because they need that definition for their scripted semantic arguments. It’s one of many reasons that no one else finds such arguments persuasive.
Brilliant! Jimbob was given a spin he won't recover from in a long time. He is an inherently dizzy individual, yes, but this little chat forced him to realize it (which made him not very pleased, apparently). Love it!
I think Spongebob is into pigs mixed with snakes.
Oh boy, Jimmy Bobby getting another beatdown. 😆
His real name is Francis 😆
@@Joseph91585no it isnt
@@MadebyJimbob can we be in a simulation?
The law of identity is not mind dependent. To clarify, the statement "A = A" is indeed a statement generated by minds, however the underlying reality upon which that statement is based does not require any minds.
A hydrogen atom in a mindless universe would still be whatever it is and not simultaneously and in the same sense what it is not regardless if any minds were around to notice.
Can you lay out for me like chess moves what happened here? I’m really interested in the arguments here but it’s too lofty for me
I pop in and out throughout the video to do that, but sometimes with a philosophy argument things can be hard to follow. Try looking at the review on my debate regarding the ordering of the fossil record or my review of the "faithless heathen's" debate with Hovind, and see if those are easier to follow.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses yeah those are brilliant. Your debate with hovind was historical. Just thank you for that
Religion make people act so odd...
Religion is people control.
I would say atheism results in irrationality. How is it the case that no god exists? Do you have argument or reason?
@@jason335777 Presups are case studies in emotional insecurity; your suggestion that Atheism leads to irrationality is pure projection. To present the ‘Presup Approach’, one must be struggling in the ‘5 stages of Acceptance'; ‘Presup’ is the middle ground between Anger and Bargaining. Presup is not taken seriously in Philosophical/Academic circles. As Alex Malpass as said, “Presup is Garbage.” Grow up kid.
@@jason335777 Presups are case studies in emotional insecurity; your suggestion that Atheism leads to irrationality is pure projection. To present the ‘Presup Approach’, one must be struggling in the '5 stages of 'Acceptance'; ‘Presup’ is the middle ground between Anger and Bargaining. Presup is not taken seriously in Philosophical/Academic circles. As Alex Malpass as said, “Presup is Garbage.” Grow up kid.
@@jason335777 Presups are case studies in emotional insecurity; your suggestion that Atheism leads to irrationality is pure projection. To present the ‘Presup Approach’, one must be struggling in the '5 stages of 'Acceptance'; ‘Presup’ is the middle ground between Anger and Bargaining. Presup is not taken seriously in Philosophical/Academic circles. As Alex Malpass as said, “Presup is Garbage.” Grow up kid.
19:55 it’s an ok definition for “faith” the “faith” I hear from most religious traditions is one of confidence in something you will never see “typical evidence” for in the way one might expect when seeking truth for non supernatural things.
I guess if one dislikes that def they should clarify they don’t mean “faith” like “faith” but like this other thing not typically meant by it.
Did that outburst (28:07) immediately follow that conversation? Or were there more interactions (as you perhaps hinted at)?
There were more interactions, so that's why I can't say that I am sure that this is what he is referring to, though I think it is.
I haven't completed the video yet (currently at the 10 minute mark), so I apologize if this gets covered later, but the conversation is getting fairly close to a line of argumentation I've really enjoyed making on Discord lately, which starts with this question:
"Is it possible for God to make an unintelligible world?"
This has proven to be very frustrating for the TAG-defenders. If they say yes, then by modus tollens, we can show that God implies both an intelligible and unintelligible world, which is contradictory (or at the very least uninformative). If they say no, then an unintelligible world is logically impossible, and thus intelligibility is necessary (via impossibility of the contrary) and not indicative of a God (or anything).
In my most recent discussion presenting this argument, the only real rebuttal I got back was them rejecting modus tollens (contrapositive).
It's an interesting argument. It sounds like a variation of the old "can God create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift it," or "can God lie?" And the typical answer to those sorts of questions is to say that he could, but that he does not and will not because it is not in his nature. How would you respond to that kind of a riposte?
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Those retorts are usually addressing problems with God’s omnipotence. Most presuppers will never let the conversation get that far (in my experience anyway).
In this case, we’re focusing exclusively on what can be inferred from this world being intelligible, as they claim God is the necessary precondition, and thus God is necessarily inferred from intelligibility. But if God *could* make an unintelligible world, then logic prevents us from such a necessary inference:
If intelligibility, then God.
If not intelligibility, then God.
If not God, then both not intelligibility and intelligibility (Modus tollens), a contradiction.
So they get cornered into either unintelligibility being logically impossible (ie god couldn’t do that), which renders intelligibility necessary on its own and thus doesn’t indicate God, or an unintelligible world could exist without God, which no Tagger would accept.
I’m still smoothing some details out, but as far as I can tell, “can god create an unintelligible world,” is a question Taggers need to avoid completely, else any answer puts them in a bind without the “can’t violate his own nature” escape route.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses "and will not because it is not in his nature"
I'd ask how they know that. I expect I'd get back some sort of convoluted interpretation of an obscure biblical verse, but the more outlandish the hoops they can be made to jump through the sillier they look.
What about using the Flying Spaghetti Monster to argue with a presup?
"JimBob Justified", philosopher persona for tack-team mental gymnastics
Another interesting video!
This guy an acolyte of Darth Dawkins? Sounds like the exact same presup nonsense.
All presuppers work with essentially the same script/flowchart. It's not an argument. It's a rhetorical stacking of the deck.
Before the debate, you told your atheist subs that you think you CAN prove the pre-conditions for science (excitedly). But first thing in the debate, you told Jim Bob that you think you can't actually prove them.
Lawyer, indeed.
How does Jimbob know we are not in a simulation?
"Faith is belief without evidence..............................
from your view."
SpongeBob, 2024.
I admit that Presup does provide a deductive justification that the Biblical God must exist by logical necessity. But here's why I'm still an atheist: Who cares? We don't know that the way everything is resolved in the universe is entirely logical. It's not like we can verify God with science. I don't see God in the current consensus or peer-reviewed papers. And being rational is overrated anyway. Logic isnt all it's cracked up to be. Right guys?
Actually Spanky is the true God that exists by logical necessity. The Biblical God was made up by the incomprehensible forces of evil. Spanky is the truth itself and reveals itself to everyone, but people choose to reject it out of their wickedness and ego. It was revealed to me bro.
Dude you literally defined faith as belief in a God around 15:30 specifically so it can't possibly apply to you when you believe things without justification. that has to be the most absurd example of an appeal to definition fallacy I've ever witnessed.
This dude is absolutely convinced he did something here, but all of Jimbob’s arguments just went *woosh* over his head. It’s amazing
Can you have uniformity of nature in a world where the God of the Bible performs the miracles claimed?
I think it is arguable that if it is the case that where Good intercedes and violates the laws of nature that he lets us know, by leaving a trace, that we can assume that other than those instances that nature is uniform.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses That's acceptable, and a point I didn't consider before posting.
I have been interacting with another presup in comment sections, and a property of their primary metaphysic that they claim as necessary is "secure the uniformity of nature." I argue that if God has the ability to violate nature, then it cannot be considered secure. I just presupposed that this is where JimBob was coming from. Apologies if not.
@@dbt5224 I can't say for sure, but this is typically where I steer my presuppers when I am talking to them. It's kind of a middle ground. They can have thier miracles, but they just have to justify them, so no invisible miracles that have no evidence are allowed, and where there is no evidence of a miracle, naturalistic explanations are preferred.
If a drummer maintains a beat, but in a spot does a irregular cool drum fill, is the beat still maintained?
@@jason335777 not during the fill, no.
I really cant handle that Jimbob guy, so arrogant
His 'cartoons' make my eyes bleed.
That was awesome...you have a new subscriber! 👏👏👏
* A thing is itself and not another thing.
That's the principle/law of identity. I didn't expect it here, though I'm grinning that Mr. Anderson deployed it so expertly against presuppositional nonsense.
Pointing it out helps put the lie to quite a few arguments or claims that are abstract but unfounded.
For example, I'm not an explicit materialist...though I'll give materialism one thing; they can point to what they are discussing. Abstract ideological claims are extra and require justification. Even if hard solipsism is correct, and no material things actually exist, the law of identity remains to understand reality without ideological presuppositions.
TAG and other presup arguments are the last defense of theistic apologists; when they run out of other talking points, they have only their heartfelt assertions.
William Lane Craig's "witness of the Holy Spirit" to justify believing in the face of contradictions shows another example of apologists actual views; ideology above mere reality.
This was the discussion that precipitated the Pig Snake rant? Yup, the guy still freaks me out.
Since we aren't watching this on his channel, could you please even out the sound levels? It is unpleasant to be assaulted by his voice just so I can hear you properly.
Thanks in advance.
I did what I could, especially between the hours clips and mine, I tried to equalize the sound, but within his clips I don't have the tech savvy to do that. There is also nothing I can do now that the video is posted other than take it down and repost, but then I lose all of the views... Sorry.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Nah, I mean to do this for future videos, if you can figure it out. It would improve the quality of listening immensely.
@@PhysiKarlz I'll try. I appreciate how annoying it is. He regularly blew my eardrums out when I was editing it.
Mr. Anderson, how did you determine your particular non-theistic worldview is true?
by means of some presuppositionalist confirms it is true 🤣 - if A is true then A is true - remember? 😂 jimbob confirmed it personally 🤣
...it was just brilliant
12:50 here you aaserted that "neither one of us can justify our base assumptions."
How do you justify this assertion? How could you possibly know the universal positive claim that ALL possible worldviews lack justification for those base assumptions?
Mr Anderson, I think you'd benefit more from these discussions if you begin by identifting what your worldview actually is, at least for Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.
I say this because ive noticed a lot of atheists end up unwittingly engaging in Obscurantism (obscuring what their position actually is to make it impossible for anyone to consistently critique it).
I dont think its being done on purpose, i just think that you guys are thinking like this is a scientific debate so you think you can just have a null hypothesis of nothing at all to defend. Thats false. In paradigm-level debates, it's Worldview vs Worldview.
Does it matter what “the atheist position” is? Atheism false does not equal insert your brand of Christianity true.
Lance, you have a very tall order. Not only do you have to prove that a creator God exists, and that the Christian God exists, but that the Eastern Orthodox Christian God exists as is the necessary precondition for Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics. Even if you are able to dismantle the Atheist worldview, you also have to dismantle every other challenger to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. So it's not your worldview vs my worldview. It's your worldview vs all other worldviews.
So I'll ask you. Why is the Eastern Orthodox Christian God the necessary precondition for Ethics?
The TAG argument begs the question
How?
@@Noetic-Necrognosis TAG begs itself.
@@LookOutForNumberOne Yeah, explain.
I wouldn't even call it an argument just a baseless assertion.
@@LuciferAlmighty Well, sorry, you are right.
I agree with Hume’s skepticism, and my own limitations. Presuppositionalits are people who incorrectly believe they’ve found a way to do better.
I think TAG is a failed argument. But I'm not sure you understood it at the end. TAG proponents admit from the get go everyone has an assumption. So to get JB to admit this is no win, this is often the initial presupper attack, no? It's to say, "we all have to assume logic, time, external world etc...but Christianity is the only worldview that can justify said assumptions"
Well, that's not quite what they think, presuppers go further than that, but even if it was just a normal TAG argument, it would still be devastating because he admitted that NO ONE could justify those assumptions, that they were faith based, and that faith was a belief without evidence, and further that his "faith" was the same as ours when it came to the standard fundamental assumptions, so he would then have a tough job of walking that back, even if he were taking the less extreme position. As it is, he has a monumental hole to climb out of, and if he wants to try and justify his presumptions, he is going to be in defence for some time.
Agreed that TAG is a failed argument. I take it as a more sophisticated variation of "look at the trees!". Once untangled, it falls apart.
Mr. Anderson pointing out that the law/principle of identity applies -- and that the presupposationalist agrees -- shows that the presupposationalist claims can be reviewed without just asserting they are true, and the burden goes back to the presupposationalist.
@@Mr.AndersonCrossesWith respect, I still think you're missing the point. Not saying you're dense but I'm Orthodox and have been 5 years listening to presuppers. Yes, Orthodox have faith as does everyone. But the single Orthodox Presup is Divine Revelation. Once we Presup God and only God every other presupposition is now "justified" because God makes logic, time, laws etc all comprehensible and consistent for man.
Whereas the atheist or non believer has "faith" but his faith does not end up justified. He has no justification or foundation for knowledge, truth, laws etc... So no. I'm not sure JB has to walk anything back. I think he simply needs to clarify.
Now again, I don't think Presup works, but don't think your current line of argumentation at the end is the knockout punch.
@@mikemolaro4198 I do understand all of that, but what JimBob agreed to in the video is that the level of justification for knowledge under both worldviews is the same. Because everything the presuppers say are "justified" by God are just the same unjustified assumptions dressed up as aspects of God's character. Without the assumption that the God they believe in necessitates those things, the belief in God justifies nothing. Fundamentally it's the same base assumptions in a different set of clothes. I don't know how you walk that back, and with that admission, I don't know how you can do presup.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses @Mr.AndersonCrosses Appreciate the clarification. But presuppers adhere to Coherentism. It's not about "proving" things against another, it's about how the overall worldview looks in terms of coherency. They say, "yes, we assume God, but once we do that we get everything justified and a completely coherent worldview that accounts for knowledge, Truth, Love, Time etc... whereas the non-theist (or any other worldview) may have faith in logic, knowledge, time etc, and assume various things... however, even with their faith and assumptions their worldview still fails to JUSTIFY said things. The Triune Orthodox God justifies all the Transcendental categories, no other worldview does, therefore, the impossibility of the contrary proves the Orthodox position. Without God, knowledge is impossible."
If you debate someone who can’t debate, you should expect to win.
Anyone that thinks science is above logic and reason doesn’t understand that science cannot stand without logic and reason. Use science to prove True is True.
A much more interesting question is Free Will. By definition, there can be no Free Will in a universe where there is only the physical. That is a far more interesting discussion.
I have that discussion with Jim Bob on our second interaction. We disagree.
1. Existence exists. (There is something rather than nothing.)
2. Consciousness perceives existence. (Consciousness is consciousness of something.)
3. A = A. (To exist is to be. And to be is to be something.)
These axioms are conceptually irreducible identifications of fundamental/primary facts about reality. As such, they are implicit in all other knowledge and facts. Even attempts to deny these axioms performatively affirm them.
These axioms are not proven as though they were the premises to an argument, because without them, you couldn't prove anything - let alone form the concept of proof in the first place (or any other concepts such as justification, knowlege, uniformity, causality, etc.).
The axioms are inescapable. They provide the grounds for intelligibility. You can coherently deny the existence of a god, but you cant deny the existence of existence. No god is required.
Sure, you've heard of the TAG argument...
P1: There is knowledge
P2: The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of knowledge
C: Therefore, God exists
...but have you heard of the TAG-back argument?
P1: There is knowledge
P2: The nonexistence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of knowledge
C: Therefore, God doesn't exist
Equally valid
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Bonus: It really annoys presuppositionalists when you flip that script.
@@shassett79 I do enjoy annoying then...
There seems to be some type of correlation between people who use TAG and people who do not like to be wrong. It's so strong, in fact, that the venn diagram is a circle. 😂
In fairness, is probably 2 circles, but the Tag one is smaller and entirely inside the other one
Jim Bob is the Nathan Thompson of Darth Dawkinses/Dawkins/Dawkins'...😅
Its turtles all the way down till you come to the eternal omnipresent omnipotent metaphysical mother of all turtles
Justified true belief as a definition of knowledge is a bit dated. Not only did Gettier point out some really wonky edge cases, but its greatest weakness is the truth part. Time and time again "knowledge" has been proven wrong, which should have been impossible (as it is supposedly true). And even today you can't really be certain that what you believe is actually true. If you debate on that basis, prepare to have the floor ripped out under you.
I'm aware of the gettier exceptions. Again, this is his definition, not mine, so he has no basis for attacking it, and I have no desire, as the definition should suit my purposes just fine. If he wanted to be more careful with his definitions, he should have been more careful with his definitions. It's kind of disingenuous for him to raise objections with them at this point.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses I've seen presups go "knowledge is justified, true belief" -> "you can't be sure you have the truth" -> "I have the word of god, therefore I am sure"->"checkmate, atheist!" It's kinda like a bad conclusion follows from a wrong premise.
Sorry if I came across as talking down to you.
jimbob’s reasons for being christian seem more political than religious
There may be some truth to that.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Christianity would be great.... if it had a r* cist component to it.
Sadly, it commands you to love demon bantoids.
20:13
I disagree, Mr. Anderson.
You must be either an atheist or a theist.
You are either convinced or you are not.
If you are not one, you are definitionally the other.
A common misconception is that an "atheist" knows that there is no god or at the least claims that knowledge, but that's not the claim of the atheist, that's gnosticism.
To be more accurate, a lot of theists are agnostic theists and a lot of atheists are agnostic atheists. They don't know, but they are or are not convinced.
But if you were just saying that to fit into JimBob's layman philosophy definitions, that makes sense.
Or you could simply take the position that neither position matters as neither can be proven objectively true so why even worry about it. Most atheists I know just simply don't care what theists think and have no conviction one way or the other. The most useful position in this argument is "I don't know". Theists think they know. Atheists know there is no absolute knowledge.
Atheism is the proposition that no god concept exists. Agnostics claim neutrality that you can know one way or the other. But upon examination, that claim of neutrality will be shown to collapse into an implicit position of atheism.
“A presuppositionalist is a Christian who specializes in refusing to admit that the fundamental assumptions of science are justifiable.
So we're gonna try and prove those things and justify those things to somebody whose whole shtick is denying them.”
Based on our prior interactions, you usually seem to engage in good faith so I don’t think you intentionally meant to mischaracterize presuppositionalists here but you did.
We don’t deny that the fundamental assumptions of science are justifiable; we deny that any worldview besides Christianity can account for or justify them.
The thing you’re missing here is that from your own worldview you’ve admitted that you can’t justify them. If we live in a universe that isn’t guided by intelligence, and everything is just happening as a result of an unintended cosmic accident, then any attempt at justifying the assumption that the future will be like the past is going to be completely circular.
From the Christian worldview however, we have revelation from the Creator of the universe who designed it for a purpose and has promised to maintain it until a planned time. That right there is our justification. You might not like that justification but the onus would be on you to provide your own justification which you have admitted you can’t do.
We both assume the regularity of nature, but only one our worldviews can provide a foundation for doing so.
You can’t believe on one hand they the universe randomly came into being during the Big Bang for no reason, life randomly appeared for no reason, and then began evolving into more and more complex life forms for no reason, but then also claim that you believe in the regularity of nature. That’s inconsistent. If you’re going to subscribe to the ideas of naturalism, you would therefore have to conclude that you have no idea what to expect in the future because accidents happen all of the time they drastically change things.
Induction, along with things like human value, free will, laws of logic, objective truth, objective morality, certainty, and the original of the universe and life, are only justifiable by the Christian worldview and you actually gave a demonstration of this by admitting you can’t do it (other than to ask JimBob if nature is regular and then to piggyback off of that.)
Well said brother, now if only we could get them to understand why its not just arbitrary to demand of them that they demonstrate an epistemic foundation for their worldview. I have yet to see a presupper get a materialist over this intellectual hurdle
Putt putt golf with a 3' diameter hole.
28:39 he is not your friends any more his Christian love has forsaken him .
sweet.
the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot
be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore
cannot deceive me, it permeates the universe, so information goes direct to my brain
via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as
you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, amd you are suppressing the
truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven.
Too bad Jim Bob isn't an honest interlocutor. He's more interested in triggering people.
That seems to be the modus operandi of presups in general.
Presups don't deny the pre-conditions for science. They just argue that only the Biblical worldview justifies them such that the system entails science is possible.
There is no such thing as the "Biblical worldview". You have several different denominations. So one of those denominations being right would necessitate all the others being wrong. Not only do you have to have a defeater for the Atheists and Non-Christian worldviews, you must have a defeater for every Christian denomination opposed to yours. That's a very tall order.
And absolutely NEVER give an argument for why their claims are true.
And actual science has demonstrated that the Bible presents pseudoscience about the physical world, which is what you would expect people pre-science would write.
And science has refuted Biblical "science."
@@nogoodusernames100 Biblical worldview, when Presups argue for is, just means the Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics taught in the Bible.
Specifically, this means:
For Metaphysics: The Creator-creature Distinction
For Epistemology: Revelatory Epistemology
For Ethics: Biblical Ethics
Your acquiescence to “faith” destroyed your argument
Faith is just what he called a fundamental presumptions. I find that as long as the definitions are clear it is often best not to sweat that sort of thing. Imagine if we had gotten sidetracked int that issue and then not gotten the major admissions with respect to the acceptance of the universal nature of standard fundamental assumptions. The juice would not have been worth the squeeze in that situation (in my opinion).
@Mr.AndersonCrosses Just before 25:34 you were talking about all the forms of faith-- by his definition-- you share, then added he *also* has faith in a deity.
This is usually where theists equivocate: "My faith in God is the same as your faith in your presuppositions." I believe they operate differently.
Also, in their case, God is the presupposition that undergirds the others. So I don't think it's an article of faith in the same category, but a far weightier one.
Except it has less explanatory power than the presuppositions they claim it supports.
@@cseggerman but it doesn't undegird any of the others, they just become properties they assume were created by God. You still have to presuppose Good made them that way
@Mr.AndersonCrosses Yeah, they say it does, bit that's just an assertion. And it undergirds the others because it *has to*. And why? Because God is God and that's what he does.
Yeah, nope.
@@cseggerman that's why I'm happy to have those as"faith" as long as God is an ADDITIONAL article of faith.
He’s going to do another 3+ hour “review” of your video 😆🙄
Did he say that, or are you assuming?
@@Mr.AndersonCrossesassuming
A=A that was great!
Your objection to Solipsism at the end is literally an appeal to consequences fallacy.
8:35 this wasn’t the gotcha that you apparently think it was, my friend.
JimBob is affirming the regularity of nature based on an epistemic foundation of the universe being created and having revelation from its Creator. If you’re appealing to JimBob as your proof then you accept his epistemology as well. 🤦🏻♂️
If you reject his epistemology, then you’re right back to needing to justify why you assume the future will be like the past.
You got to lie to theist, is my favourite truth.
Xtian debaters likemthis guy are so dishonest and trollish
He says his is founded on faith everybody's is and faith is not worth two hoot , talk about chopping your own legs off.
subscribed!
lol what does you being a lawyer have to do with anything? Jimbob is a crybully and his cope vid is just crybully behavior.
29:36 Against presupps you always want to be on the aggressive and you can be even more aggressive here.
Once the theist says that worldviews which are unsubstantiated cannot make claims you can instantly put them on the backpedal. Just say, "hey, if only substantiated worldviews can make points then before you can make claims about my or any other worldview you must first substantiate your own worldview." Their own rules have now shifted the burden of proof onto them and you can just hold them down like this until they find a way out. Fun bonus, all ways out of this will force them to accept your ability to account for your worldview. So either they apply their own unreasonable standards to themselves and are trapped forever, or they can't subvert your worldview. Either way they lose.
You did put JB on the defensive and were able to get a winning position out of it, which is what you should do, but this is a more direct way of funneling presupps into that line of argumentation. Plus it just gives you more control over the conversation. For example, those "pointless jabs" you were talking about, aren't really pointless under this framework. You can also at any time just put the conversation on hold, saying both sides are considered accounted for until this point is sorted out, for example, if you want to move onto other topics. The amount of breathing room you give yourself with this line can't be understated.
Also, your point about using his worldview to account for logic is a bit inefficient. Just say, "hey if you think logic is an acceptable tool for evaluating and finding truth, then I should be able to use the tool too to make valid conclusions" Accomplishes the same thing, but doesn't give them veto powers over your logical conclusions.
However, I would again encourage you and others not to interact with JB. He's clearly not here in an entirely honest intent. Getting involved further is just stooping down to his level where he'll beat you with experience eventually. It's not worth it.
Dude, presup is the argument that they DO have justification for their worldview; it’s literally about showing how their worldview is justifiable. Your KO tactic is to lean into the punch lol
@@Noetic-Necrognosis Getting the theist to admit that presupps are valid ways of accounting for worldviews, is part of the strategy.
Once the theist admits such, it can now be argued that godless axioms, which are presupps, are just as valid as god based ones.
In order to argue otherwise, the theist is going to have to uniquely prove otherwise. Which is to say they now have to prove their god.
Thus rendering their presupp argument redundant.
This is how "leaning into the punch" as you put it, actually works.
@@TheAnimeAtheist I think you still don’t understand the argument. We all have presuppositions. The difference is the theist affirms a rational/Intelligible reality, personhood, value, free will and ethics on the basis of God as the precondition for these metaphysical categories; the atheist just arbitrarily grants himself metaphysics because he needs them to make arguments. TAG is the logical proof for God, as God is the only coherent account for the preconditions for knowledge. The atheist needs to provide grounding and justification for metaphysics from a naturalist/materialist framework (Protip: you can’t).
@@Noetic-Necrognosis No, I understand the argument just fine.
A theist's presupp is just as circular as any other. In order to account for the divine one needs to account for reality, which is accounted for with the divine, which is accounted for with reality, ect. It's just as circular.
Atheist axioms are doing the same thing just with different concepts. So the methodology is all the same, just the details are different.
The only way the theist can say this difference matters is to show the details as relevant. Which is to say, they need to prove the divine as the source of all, else you're just asserting "arbitrarily". So the theist will need to prove their god's existence at the very least before they can claim any high ground here.
And if the theist can't do this, then they just admit that all presupps are just as grounded as each other, divine or not. At which point the atheist can just ask for proof of God should they want.
So either way the theist maintains the burden of proof for god, making the presupp argument redundant.
@@TheAnimeAtheist No, this isn't the presup position. It isn't on the theist to account for the Divine, that knowledge is given by Divine revelation and God IS the account for reality (in the theist worldview). Our presuppositions are justified because God made the world to be intelligible and created us with intellective capacities. The atheist just grants his own presuppositions because he needs to in order to make arguments. The former position is rationally coherent, the latter is ad-hoc/arbitrary.
As a theist, I'm under no obligation to prove my God to you. Everyone has presuppositions so it goes both ways. I can grant atheism entirely and you still have no argument against theism, because you can't ground/justify your presuppositions. Both our positions would be equally groundless, making no position more/less valid than another.
In either case, you need to justify your presuppositions before you can make universal truth claims like what constitutes evidence, what types of things exist, how we can know things, etc. Even if God doesn't exist, materialism still makes this impossible and all I have to do is point that out at every turn and your arguments against God are rendered totally impotent.
The Atheist mind is fascinating. Andersen knows the preconditions of knowledge like truth, logic, time, free will, predication, and uniformity in nature, etc. must have a singular concrete ground. And that ground must be eternal, absolute, and ultimate. When presented with the argument that this must be the triune God, Andersen will not accept it because of his unbelief. Instead, he twists words, meanings, and logic in order to refute what he already knows is true. Man, I hope I'm never in court and being prosecuted by such a person using sophistry to wrongly convict.
These conditions don't require God
Prove it's your triune god thing.
@@twcnz3570 Sure. You need one singular ground for the preconditions required for human intelligible experience and knowledge. The triune God grounds all these like logic, ethics, time, etc. But especially the other things that ONLY a triune God can ground. Such as love, relationality, and predication. Because only the triune God is one and many in equal ultimacy.
Are you Irish?
He obviously American. How do you get Irish?
@@PhysiKarlz
1. He's Canadian
2. Many people in the US and Canada are the descendants of Irish immigrants.
@@sarahyoon3069 I think you should have asked if he is of Irish decent.
But you didn't prove the uniformity of nature. You only got him to agree to the premise that nature has uniformity.
Nature or not, he doesn't have to. He only has to show that the presuppositionalist takes it as true that the law of identity is true.
If someone wants to show that a thing is ***not*** itself, then they have their work ahead of them.
@EclecticOmnivore
The law of identity does not prove the constancy of natural forces.
@@cygnusustus it does combined with the fact of that natural forces are constant, which is what we have here... What am I missing?
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses
"it does combined with the fact of that natural forces are constant"
That is just a tautology. Literally begging the question. "Constant forces are constant because they are constant."
@@cygnusustus but, if I got him to agree to the premise that nature had uniformity, and if it had uniformity, then it has uniformity, then it seems to me that it follows that it has uniformity. Accordingly, I've proved uniformity. Remember, he didn't agree that he BELIEVED nature had uniformity, he said that it DID. And if so, and if that is objectively true, it's true for me too.
My advice for you is to stay away from philosophical discussions until you find clue.
@@peterw1642 thanks for the advice! I think we might disagree on what a "clue" is though...
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses philosophy bros are so conceited. get over yourself, your navel gazing isn't hard to decipher. translation; you're wrong because you disagree with me! hmph!
The uniformity of nature is/was true IS NOT THE SAME as the uniformity of nature WILL BE, nor is it a justification that it will be.
You’ve already been educated on this distinction
JimBob, come on. We talked about the presumption that the future will resemble the past and the present will resemble both. You know that this is what the "uniformity of nature" is. Don't be silly.
Also, it doesn't matter because you admitted that you believe that nature both is uniform AND will be uniform, so there is no point to your distinction.
Also also, you agreed that all of the traditional "presuppositions" that you object to for Athiests apply equally to you, and that you accept them without proof, so there is only one presupposition that we need to debate--the one we don't share--your presupposition about the existence of God. The rest of them it is clear have been granted. That why this was so devastating to your presuppositionalist apologetics argument.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosseswhat do you honestly expect from a guy who thinks women voting and trans people are two major issues plaguing this country..
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses”it doesn’t matter because you admitted that I believe it will maintain”
What do you mean, what doesn’t matter? Do you think two people holding the same position about the future suddenly means their justification for the assertion need not be put into question?
In the context of an argument there are matters at issue. In order for a matter to be at issue, there must be a difference of opinion with respect to that matter. So, definitionally, where we are arguing something, the only things we are arguing about are the things about which we disagree. That's the definitional side. From a logical side, if you want to simultaneously hold two contrary opinions, one being that you agree with me, and one being that you don't agree with me, that is not a valid premise from which to make an argument. From a practical side, a person who deliberately and actively advances a position they know to be untrue, is not acting in good faith.
Metaphysically, you are considering epistemology and ontology. I'm not asking you whether or not I can KNOW whether the future resembles the past, I'm asking you if it DOES, and you either know the answer or you don't. If you don't, then we are in the same boat and we either assume it does it doesn't together. If you do know, then kindly tell the rest of us what the answer is.
There is more, but you get the idea.
There is a flying spaghetti monster prove me wrong.
Sorry, but not a good take down of presup.
Man, it seems that, you don’t like being corrected.
That’s the same nonsense of Tjump “reality is reality” and then “see I just made it”.
You are assuming the very thing is in question dude! 😤
He has a justification for A=A. You don’t in an atheist worldview.
Then you say that he’s moving the goals post. Hahaha not at all! Has been the goalpost from the start.
You are taking from his worldview to prove yours.
Man! 🙄
I didn't assume anything other than that I could trust my senses, and trust my interlocutor. Everything else I needed, he told me. That's the problem you have with this approach. Accusing me of unwarranted assumptions doesn't work. I didn't make any other assumptions. So the only assumptions you have to attack are either that my senses were lying to me, or he was.
And you're kind of right that I'm taking from his worldview. More accurately, I showed that under his worldview, the assumptions that ground my worldview are reasonable. So I have effectively bootstrapped the presumptions, and done the impossible. His trying to hold contradictory positions was what allowed that feat of magic. Pretty cool wasn't it?
"He has a justification for A=A. You don’t in an atheist worldview."
'A=A because my God wills it!' is not a justification.
A=A because we have no examples of A≠A on the other hand.
@@CrowManyClouds access to an all knowledge and trascendental mind is my justification.
You are assuming a universal principle without universal knowledge. From your limited epistemology you don’t have examples of A not being A.
@@GodID7 you have access to an all knowledge and trascendental mind? COOL!
So, you'll have no problem telling me how much cash is in my wallet and what color that wallet is, correct?
@@CrowManyClouds Sorry, you are straw manning. God is the justification for knowledge. Doesn’t follow He gonna tell me secrets about you.
Justification is the issue here.
Arguing with flatwits is fallacious 😅😅😅😅😅
You are the definition of the dunning krueger effect 🫵😂
You do not know what the dunning kruger effect is (also you spelled it wrong lmao)