50 Presup Questions Answered
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- In this video, Eli tackles 50 questions on Presuppositional Apologetics ranging from basic introductory type questions to more complex issues typically asked on the topic. #presup #apologetics #Q&A #theology
Please consider signing up for my NEW COURSE, Presup Applied: Sign-up here: www.revealedap...
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
This was really helpful Eli
Question: In Hebrews 6:16-19, it says God guaranteed the promise to Abraham and the heirs of the promise by 2 unchangeable things: an oath and himself. So that means God tied the promise to Abraham and his heirs, salvation itself to himself transcendentally? So if a worldview attempts to reinterpret one of those, God, the oath, Abraham, Abraham’s heirs, their view would attack intelligibility?
Looking for the videos on compatiblism unfortunately I can't spell (Gi on B on) 😢
ua-cam.com/users/liverP2BWwC9M3s?si=tYpdbFPEOttF2FMQ
@@RevealedApologetics thanks Eli. I appreciate you brother!
I just paused the video and thought to myself "how do I spell Gi on B on?" 😆 Thanks for asking the question for me already.
Thank you for your effort and insight. As a side note, next time you do questions, try to have them posted on the screen. It is easier to follow! God bless.
Yes, these are helpful.
Question: can Christian’s hold non-Christian worldviews or at parts of non-Christian worldviews?
Easiest way for you to write a book:
Title: First Floor Presup
Body: Use the transcripts from UA-cam from the many videos on explaining Presup.
You already have all the content produced. It just needs to be edited and organized into chapters.
Hey, that sounds like a really good idea. :-) thanks.
@@RevealedApologetics you’re welcome. Don’t forget me when u go big time lol.
Presup seems to be nothing more than arguing for a BELIEF that a skeptical scenario obtains. It's the kind of trivial thing that a first-year philosophy undergrad would present, before discovering that the theory they've latched onto is ontologically extravagant. The reason to accept and commit to such a theory on the basis that "you can't rule it out" makes a profound error, because not being able to rule out a *possible* scenario does NOT mean you should rule it IN, and even worse, think that it's somehow *necessary* .
If you can't find your car keys, you can always circumvent naturalistic explanations by presenting a pseudo-explanation that a supernatural key-stealing fairy has been at work. You can then pile on additional layers of pseudo-explanations to account for the existence of the KSF, and watch your already-bloated ontology grow even more! Or you can halt this ever-growing expansion by deeming the KSF as a "necessary" ontological primary.
The trouble is, all the folk who made it into the second year will be raising an eyebrow at the odd commitment YOU have made (or at least PROFESS to have made) to your own particular 'BIV' scenario, and will be wondering what drove you to make the willful decision to accept it, and stop reasoning. The question mark is no longer over the theory itself; it's over the psychological motivation of the person who dogmatically commits to it, and tries to mould reality around this commitment.
This was a total strawman. We are arguing at the worldview level that only the Christian worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for human experience and intelligibility, AND that any opposing worldview cannot.
@@jason335777 Nah. A 'strawman' is misrepresenting someone's argument in a weaker form that's easier to refute. But presups don't actually have an argument to support their TAG. It's just the bald assertion of a fideistic belief.
@@jason335777 If you want to compare metaphysical views, and show why A is *more likely* than B, then you're making an inference to the best explanation (IBE), which is an *abductive* argument. IBEs do NOT establish *necessity* , but establish *likelihood*. But likelihood is NOT the presupper's claim. Other worldviews make no difference at all if yours is supposedly *necessary* , and your job is to support your wildly ambitious claim and demonstrate *necessity* via a sound deductive argument. Since this NEVER happens, and it seems highly unikely that such an argument even COULD be made, presup is just someone holding up an empty sack, and doing a rhetorical dance to persuade people that there's something inside it.
@@russellsteapot8779 That comment shows you dont get it. This is a transcendental argument. It gives 100% certainty. It's a meta-level argument. If God did not exist, then you couldnt even do arguments. Because you need a ground for truth, logic, predication, time, causation, etc.
Let's see if you can interact with these simple points. The final reference point of reality is either:
1) Singular
2) Multiple
3) There is not final reference point (nothing is ultimate)
Which do you hold? If 2 or 3 you have devastating problems.
So, let's start with the case that we must have one singular ground of all facts. Do you agree so far or disagree?
@@jason335777lol. Ambitious transcendental arguments have been dead in the water since 1968. And it’s the major premise of your TAG that’s the very thing I’m talking about. It remains unsupported (and seemingly unsupportable) despite your amusing claim of “100% certainty”. 😂😂😂
Questions start at 9:14
There isn’t 50 questions. Just one. How do you justify premise one in tag. If we don’t hold to you presupposition then you need to give an argument for premise one. Do you have a non question begging argument in support of premise one? Or do you just assume it and tell everyone else they are wrong because the don’t assume (presuppose) god. It’s very dishonest in argumentation to engage that way.
It's me again.. in my opinion, you did not adequately address the circularity in the argumentation employed in presuppositionalism.
Just curious...where are you seeing circularity in his argument?
X is the necessary condition for y. Y, therefore x. This is the structure of the transcendental argument. Point out the fallacious circularity. -Thanks!
@RevealedApologetics..
Just substitute the God for X in your statement and the circularity is clearly exposed.. The existence of God is the contention, but you already assumed the existence of God in your first premise without justification.
For example, all I need to ask is for you to justify your first premise without begging the question. FYI, you can't. No presupper has ever done that.
@@k7stingray.. provide the argument and I'll show you the circularity. The pressup argument clearly begs the question..
Pressuppers know this and have tried to hide under the [phantom] classification of circularity into virtuous and vicious circularity. Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the problem. Rather, this classification compounds the problem because in my opinion, the pressup circularity is more vicious than virtuous.
All arguments are ultimately circular. The question is whether that circle is consistent within itself and also accurately represents reality.
Oddly he never answers my questions.
I'm sure it's because he's deathly afraid of your questions.😂
@@k7stingray --- You are right, that is why, all Calvinists run away like frightened little girls when they are cornered.
@@JohnQPublic11Right..😂
I dare any atheist to challenge me on this:
TAG has not been debunked. TAG is valid, sound, and IRREFUTABLE. Let me demonstrate. ..Here is the original (and the best IMHO) version.
P1. God exists.
P2. If you disagree that God exists, you're wrong.
P3. You disagree.
P4. Therefore, you are wrong. (From P2 and P3).
P5. If you are wrong, then I am right.
P6. I am right. (From P4 and P5).
P7. If I am right, then God exists.
P8. If anyone one mentions "Begging the Question" or any other logical fallacy, you are wrong (See P4).
C1. Therefore, God exists. (From P6 and P7).
Come on atheists. Challenge me!
Let me ask you a simple question. Is there one singular thing that is ultimate, in reality, that is the ground of all facts and intelligibility, that is not God? If no, then do you affirm:
1) There can be brute facts
2) There can be a multiplicity of ultimacies?
3) Both
So, lets get to the meat of it here, and I'll show you why the Christian worldview must be the case.
@jason335777 That is not a simple question. That is a LOADED (Complex) question, which is a fallacy. Do you agree?
@@TheoSkeptomai Whats is the unstated objection?
@jason335777 Your question assumes this 'God' is a _reality._
@@TheoSkeptomai No I didnt. I simply asked you if you think there is one singular thing that grounds all facts that isnt God. How is that assuming God? Actually the opposite.
So what I'm getting at is this. You only have a few options for an ultimate model of reality. And when I say ultimate I mean the final reference point (no higher thing).
1) One singular thing is ultimate
2) A multiplicity of things is ultimate
3) Nothing is ultimate
Which option do you hold? 1, 2, or 3? Or, perhaps there is a 4th option i am not thinking of. Go ahead sir.
gibberish
How do you justify revelation? Seems like you cannot know your revelation is really from God. Revelation seem to be the weak component of presuppositional Christianity.
I agree with you that appeal to revelation seems to be the weak link in the chain in the pressup argument, yet the whole argument is hinged on it. No wonder the chain breaks easily under a scholarly, yet critical review of the so-called revelation.
@RevealedApologetics claim that it is not based on blind faith, yet he can not explained how he determined that the books of the Bible are not ideas in the heads of the writers or a figment of the writers imagination without begging the question or engaging in vicious circularity.
It all boils down to.. The Bible is God's revelation because the Bible says so because the Bible says that God exists and that the Bible is His revelation.. Just circle 🔵 upon circle 🔴 upon circle.. and circles all the way..
In fact the very first statement recorded in Gen 1:1 exemplifies the circle.. In the beginning God...
Q: How did the writer know this? A: God revealed it..
Q: How did you determine that this sentence was revealed by God?
A: By revelation from God..
Q: How did you know that it was a revelation from God?
A: By appealing to the revelation..
...and the circle gets bigger and bigger..
Are you saying that a Creator God can not create creatures in a way to receive a revelation in a way that they can’t be wrong? Do you have an argument for that? I’ve addressed this with you on another thread, but it seems you just like to repeat slogans, and then resort to rhetoric when pressed. I’ll just wait for the argument, thanks.
@RedefineLiving .., A question is not an argument, and no one is saying that anyways.. that is like putting the cart before the horse. First you have to provide a non-fallacious argument for the the existence of such a God for us to examine. Then we can proceed to debate whether such a God can reveal anything. Your time starts now!!!!
@@olubunmiodebiyi5157 First, I’ve not made an argument. I’ve just shown how the OP, if it was an objection, would be a non sequitur if my question cannot be answered. Second, you have also been corrected on your statement, so it seems you also are only repeating talking points. Lastly, and be clear, are you saying you have an argument for everything you believe? If so, I can say “ that’s like putting the cart before the horse”, first you need to give me a non-fallacious argument for your rational mind and the external world. I can go on, but hopefully you get the point.
@@RedefineLiving "Are you saying that a Creator God can not create creatures in a way to receive a revelation in a way that they can’t be wrong?" Not at all, but possibility is not justification revelation is from God. Someone might have made up God and you have fooled yourself in believing revelation is from God. Surely you didn't see Christ rise from the dead?
Question: In Hebrews 6:16-19, it says God guaranteed the promise to Abraham and the heirs of the promise by 2 unchangeable things: an oath and himself. So that means God tied the promise to Abraham and his heirs, salvation itself to himself transcendentally? So if a worldview attempts to reinterpret one of those, God, the oath, Abraham, Abraham’s heirs, their view would attack intelligibility?