I really appreciate the line about how presuppositionalism is only a thing men do to dominate each other. My father is a presuppositionalist in a very conservative reformed church. That is EXACTLY how he uses it. He doesn’t give a damn about reasoning together to find mutual agreement; he just wants to shove your face in it and show you how much intellectually tougher he is than you.
Instead of making them sound tough it makes them sound boring and unspiritual. I'm not a Theist but I do understand the meaning of the reference to wolves in sheep's clothing in the NT. Most of these folks don't even understand that they can be recognised by what kind of fruit they bear.
Then don't try and engage, meet him at his level on this topic. Just laugh, call presuppositionalism dumb and then move on. It will take away the power that he thinks he has.
@@betadecay6503 I am his son and what I do does not matter one bit. In his mind I will always be small and inferior. He cannot tolerate that I, finishing my PhD doing experimental physics, don’t respect the intellectual merits of his young earth creationist worldview.
@@adamredwine774 then I say again, meet him at his level. The fact that he is your father does not earn him some inherent right to respect when it comes to nonsense beliefs. Laugh at his position, call it idiotic, if he then tries to engage tell him there's no point, he's too dumb to understand. See how he likes it. I get that it's difficult because he's your dad and you love him, but stupid ideas need to be ridiculed. No matter who they're coming from. If he doesn't respect you enough to listen then make it clear that this is not a conversation you want to have with him. If it is a conversation you want to have with him then you need to have a word with yourself and consider if you're ready to cut your relationship with him because he's not going to change. You don't owe him anything.
What you need to be aware of is that the effective Presupper will always divert the conversation back to your worldview. The effective Presuppers will make almost no assertions at all and just ask you to defend your metaphysical assumptions. For example, let's say you make a claim like "Matthew copied Mark verbatim in many verses." The Presupper would then respond..."You just made a knowledge claim right there. How do you account for knowledge in your atheistic worldview?" Notice that it passes the burden all to you and they made no assertions (in which they would have to defend). So at this point if you wish to continue the conversation with them, I see that you only have 2 options. One is try to defend your worldview or to get him to make some assertion which he would then have to defend. So if he says something like "How can you know anything if you are merely matter in motion?" He just asserted that atheists think the humans are "merely matter in motion" which is committing the fallacy of composition. You could then talk about that with him or just ask him questions. But I have seen situations with Presuppers where they will refuse to answer any questions and not talk about the Bible or their worldview at all. They will always steer the conversation back to you. You need to be aware of this.
You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God! Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth! Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny! Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers! God authored the Bible! DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication? 1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion! One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“! Psalm 139 is about the human body!
Actually presups do make assertions, they just don't justify/defend them. That's how you can short-circuit the conversation where they start saying "without the Christian worldview, your worldview is incoherent" by forcing them to demonstrate it, and they can't without making more assertions. So it's pretty much done at that point.
@@jkorling That is why I stated "effective Presupper". They will greatly limit any assertions so they have nothing to defend. They will just ask you to justify your worldview and its metaphysical assumptions.
I would catch on to that and say, “Look, I’m completely willing to admit that both of us are more than likely wrong about 99% of what we believe if you are. I never had the idea that I had it all right to begin with. This is just what I have best been able to work out for myself, but I’m also no claiming it’s the unquestionable truth from God’s lips and the rest of the world must follow and impose it, or be damned.”
They're just playing epistemological Calvinball. "You have to 'account for' absolutely everything to the point of being omniscient, while I don't have to 'account for' anything at all. I win!" It's the sort of thing little kids do when they're arguing about who shot who in a game of Cops and Robbers, but with bigger words.
Just always remember when dealing with presups, they can never justify their presupposition of biblical inerrancy/infallibility no matter how hard they try to sneakily smuggle that into their arguments.
Name one contradiction in the Bible;;; The contradictions online are taken out of context , you can’t! A N D You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God! Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth! Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny! Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers! God authored the Bible! DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication? 1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion! One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“! Psalm 139 is about the human body!
@@dbt5224 four gospels have to have the same corroboration from four different viewpoints? Even the police, with four witnesses of a car wreck, Don’t get that.! Next question
>Name one contradiction in the Bible Sure, but which "Bible" are we talking about? The LXX based on translations of the original Hebrew text for OT and NT? The KJV based on the Masoretic text for the OT? Or any other variant?
@@thelobsterking1055 it’s not logic. It stops thought when you tell people that thier evidences are invalid because of thier suposssed “worldview.” Its always gaslighting. You can have a conversation with an evidentialist.
I can see calling presuppositional apologetics gaslighting. The problem with doing so is that it's an advertisement of mental deficiency. It's like this. You could say that throwing a 75mph fastball is an unrealistic standard. Yes, that is a true statement for children in little league. However, it is not a true statement for professional pitchers. Yes, presuppositional apologetics is gaslighting when you lack the mental capacity to justify your positions. When you cannot conceive of accounting for your thoughts, then being asked to account for your thoughts seems like nonsense word games, such as gaslighting. I would suggest the 40 people who upvoted this comment spend your time attempting to find some grounding for your worldview rather than using social approval to make yourselves feel better about being unable to do so.
@@MrTonyJ your original comment is ad hominem. You just saying that if someone said something that you didnt understand than that means you ve been gaslighted
If people want to take the idea that the Bible is inerrant as properly basic, they should feel free to. But at that point I think they've given up on convincing anyone else.
What does convincing someone else have to do with it? Can you convince the people you interact with to change from how they currently think, to your way of thinking?
@@davidrigg8678 It's related to what you think a good argument is. A good argument isn't necessarily just one that has a true conclusion, for example the arguments "God exists, therefore God exists" and "God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist" are both valid arguments and one of them is even sound but I would say they are both bad arguments because they are both unconvincing. If we are not trying to convince anyone, or clarify some concept for them etc. we could ask ourselves why we are even having a discussion, we aren't really communicating at that point.
@@surfin0861 Presupps don’t want to defend their position, they want to press their interlocutor to solve the problem of hard solipsism. Many, especially Darth Dawkins, don’t even really care about Jesus. He uses presupp as a way to verbally abuse his opponents.
@@surfin0861 The whole point of presuppositional apologetics, at least in its “street” form, is to circumvent discussions about the faith. It is purely a rhetorical tactic to get nonbelievers tripped-up. Most presupps are also Calvinists and have a very pessimistic/defeatist view about the value of discussing the faith with non-believers since anyone who isn’t among God’s elect aren’t going to “get it” anyway.
To Dr. Malpass, for what it's worth: I would consider anyone actively publishing in the field to be a professional philosopher, regardless of whether they have an "official" academic position or not. Just as a PhD who works in a private research lab can still be a professional chemist, professional biologist, etc., even though they're not at a university.
I am an electrical engineer and a propellerhead. It has become clear to me that reason cannot give an account of itself, without tying itself up in self-referential knots. Reason is a given in the human being. It does not imply God , however it is a step towards seeing the world as a mystery and seeing that the domain of reason has its limits. Its a step towards having an open mind.
It's not that reason cannot give an account of itself. Infinite recursion is just a common product of left-recursive parsing. And left-recursive parsing is how most humans tend to describe things.
Yes, I agree with Alex about the length of Carrier's blogs. Carrier definitely needs an editor for his blogs, who could start by cutting out the mind-reading of opponents' motives.
I would suggest having Dr. Malpass back, playing the Bahnsen/Stein debate, and having him respond as he would have in Stein's place. That would be instructive for people dealing with these arguments online.
Presups get their epistemological cart before the horse. The reason it's impossible to "account for" things like reason, logic, and natural regularity ("laws of physics") is because those things are ontologically prior to "accounting." They are the things that make "accounting for" or "explaining" things possible. It's like storming out of H&R Block in a huff because they can't find anything in your tax returns to "account for" the existence of money. Presups do this because their approach replies on destroying epistemology so that anything goes, and following up with "Nuh-uh! Only what _I_ say goes!" It should be needless to say, but this is a ridiculously poor basis for a model of reality.
Also, positing a deity can't "account for" logic, reason, physics, or anything else. Why? Because, in order for a deity to "account for" anything, it must first: 1) exist, and 2) be _that_ deity (with whatever attributes and properties make it suitable as an explanation) and not some other, and this identity must be stable. In other words, logic, reason, etc. are ontologically prior to any deity. Such epistemological and logical basics as Existence (something exists rather than nothing) and Identity (A is A, A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same respect) have to be applicable before one can posit the _existence_ of a deity with a certain _identity_ (e.g. Yahweh rather than Ma'at) and certain _attributes_ (such as the power to create, order, and sustain the Cosmos--IOW some sort of natural/supernatural regularities that make it able to do what the Presup wants it to do). Take away those things, and you can't say "Yahweh exists, and can do things."
This is false. If you can explain the origin of the German language in German why should you not be able to make logical inferences about the origins of logic? The real problem with "accounting" is that it's a weasel word. Whatever explanation you give when asked to "account" for logic, if it doesn't contain god, the presup will complain that you haven't "accounted " for logic.
@@stenlis You cannot explain the origin of German in German unless you draw an arbitrary line at some point in the development of German. German did not just spring into existence, it is the result of everything that ever came before it, and so no matter how well you know the language, you will never be able to fully explain it simply because you have a massive knowledge gap that the language itself *cannot* bridge. But German is not logic. Logic is something that springs from basic observations of the universe to give us fundamental assumptions that *must* be accepted before logic can function. (E.G.: Points exist.) That is just what mathematical axioms are. We cannot prove them, we can only attempt to see if the arguments they produce predict things that are provably true. German does not require axioms, because it is a language. All of its words are fundamentally arbitrary, and whether Ich mean "I" or "you" is not material so long as people agree on it. That is not to say they are not using that as a weasel word. They usually are. But they also are definitely simultaneously asking people to prove the unprovable, or accept their unprovable claim as true. It is a nonsense argument. It is exactly like saying that Unicorns exist, and when I say there is no evidence that Unicorns exist, you respond asking me to prove that there is no evidence that Unicorns exist, and since I cannot prove the negative, the response is that Unicorns must exist. It is just a bundle of logical fallacies that cannot be argued against, because there is no idea to argue against. They have just decided they know the truth and so only ever posit unanswerable question without making any falsifiable assertions.
@@Caelinus I think you are conflating something. I'm not saying that the German language itself explains the origin of the German language. I'm saying you can explain the origins *using* German language as means of communication. If you have 1) The knowledge of how German language originated and 2) Can sufficiently communicate in German then 3) You can explain the origins of German language in German. Feel free to show me where the contradiction is in this reasoning. With regards to logic I think you are conflating something different: I'm not saying you can explain how logic works using logic (that's a different matter). I'm saying you can make logical inferences about the origins of logic. You can talk to someone who accepts/uses the laws of logic and argue where logic comes from. The statement "Logic was created by God" is not contradictory. It's just not sound.
@@stenlis They do not really say that logic was created by God, they say that the existence of logic proves that God exists because logic was created by God. They presuppose that God exists. That is why they are called that. They assume it as an axiom without justification or evidence. It is not contradictory, but it being unsound is exactly what the person you were responding to is saying. They are adopting their conclusion as an axiom that no one has a reason to accept, and then using that axiom to prove itself by arguing that no other axiom can be proven. The only contradiction is in their hypocrisy, not in the statement itself. Yet the statement itself is just as invalid as saying that 0 = 1 because 0 is written with one character. As for explaining the origin of German, to do that you still need to create an arbitrary line where German starts, and then ignore everything else. You cannot explain it in totality because the knowledge to do so does not exist. The same is true of logic. We cannot logically explain the origins of logic with logic, because the knowledge to do so does not exist. If an omniscient being existed it likely could, but it also would likely need to vastly expand both systems to make it possible. In either case we are limited by our perspective. You can comment or discuss the origin of logic logically, but you cannot truly explain or prove it logically, because you cannot prove axioms. Without axioms logic fails. Just as like without knowing how German originated, any explanation of it in German fails due to a lack of knowledge and perspective. The point is that they cannot demand that someone explains the totality of the universe or resign themselves to the God of the Gaps. Which is exactly what they do. They want us to explain every axiom omnisciently, whereas they just assume that if it cannot be explained by perfect knowledge it must be God.
It seems to me that this dilemma is helped by agnosticism. As an agnostic, the few times I’ve had someone go for the pre-sup tactic of asking how I can defend my view apart from God grounding the laws of logic, I always respond that I don’t. I think God might exist, I just think the evidence is against the Christian God. There may be a God out there that hasn’t revealed itself to either of us, that grounds the laws of logic, that doesn’t have a fallible holy book, for example.
They’ll still try. They will say do you accept or reject the Christian worldview and if you say you’re unsure, that is an implicit rejection. If you don’t accept, anything else is a rejection. So defend your rejection. Just say allah is the necessary to presuppose to ground logic.
You just have to have a plausible explanation for your ability to think. For some reason it doesn't come up much in these discussions, but "evolution" is most atheists' explanation, which really doesn't cut it.
"There may be a God out there that hasn’t revealed itself to either of us, that grounds the laws of logic, that doesn’t have a fallible holy book, for example." Why would the laws of logic need to be grounded? Seems like you're trying to have it both way, there might be a God that grounds logic, and there might be no logic. Well why MIGHT there be a God that grounds logic?
@@echoftw I think that aspect of Theism, that logic comes from God, makes sense. So in that sense, that’s why logic might be grounded in God. But it could also be that logic just is a brute fact of the universe, and maybe is explained by something else, possibly something natural. Do you see some issue with this way of thinking? I’m not seeing the point of your question.
@@Boogachomperi do see an issue, if logic is a fact of the universe but all that exists is matter, how does an idea exist in matter? And how do ideas predate the human brain if all we have is matter? Where IS the law in the matter? How do you get universals from matter?
Well, I am watching and there's very little new about it. Not everyone knows all the same things and to the same extent as you. As written, It sounds like you already understand presupositional argumentation and how it's used in apologetics, and want others to know too, but you are making the generalization logical fallacy by assuming everyone needs to watch and listen. I don't I'm watching to see how these two approach it and see if I can agree, and to what extent, and even call out flaws in their own logic if it arises. A presuppositional argument should be obvious, and as soon as uttered rejected as a valid premise until it can be shown true. It serves to get your opponent to argue within your belief when you are trying to debunk it! They will use your acceptance to argue it as acceptance of the false premises they presupposed without substantiation. Garbage in = Garbage out, and a logically valid conclusion can be gained from false premises, but a valid conclusion by no means is a true conclusion! For that the premises themselves have to be true in order to logically establish any true or useful conclusions from them, and even that is based on rational and reasonable use of logic, and still may never show conclusive by mere argument. That's where science comes in, which has it's own limitations.
I was just to comment that please avoid such teen/simpleton titles like "destroyed" in this context, but was glad I found out later on it was ironic, totally fitting! Subscribed, and jealous. I have no content at all, but I have this silly dream to have long discussion with Malpass about epistemology, having actually charitable discussions with opponents and whatnot. I hold him in very high regard for multiple reasons, and you're doing very good job with all these discussions!
Their ultimate source of knowledge says that bats are birds, rabbits chew cud, and animals get their markings from the patterns their parents were staring at as they rutted. Enough said.
While I appreciate Dr. Malpas I both agree and disagree with him on various points. 1. Yes if it's the theist argument it's on us to defend it. 2. That doesn't mean you have no burden. It's not shifting the burden to ask you to justify your reasoning or position. This is just how debates work. They're back and forth. 3. Dr. Malpas should definitely be in academy. It's crazy someone with his level of deep thought process isn't teaching the next generation. I'm missing the main point about God's gift to women? Is this an insult? I don't know any Christians who say or believe that?
I'm atheist, but you don't get the presup argument - the whole point hinges on the notion of "objective truth." If you think "Objective Truth" is something that you can identify, for example via empirical investigation or via logic, then you are making a a metaphysical claim, i.e. a claim about the "what is real." All metaphysical claims, including god, are on equal footing - i.e. we can't declare one more appropriate than another, we can only say which ones we want to make and which ones we don't. So there is a sense in which believing in "objective truth" is the same as believing in "god." The only way to avoid this is to use an epistemology that avoids metaphysics, namely pragmatism.
Exactly, truth is just a descriptor, not an actual thing. Most of these Christian presups are Platonists and they don't even know it. They think that "truth" exists in the universe as an object. The way to dismantle the presup script is just to reject metaphysics as the pseudoscience it is.
But a presupp is game to critique pragmatism as well. IIRC Van Til wrote a paper critiquing it. I don’t think you need to be a pragmatist to shut down presupps anyway. You just have to, as Alex said, point out that they haven’t successfully shown how Trinitarian Christianity has to be true for whatever the token thing they are arguing about to make sense.
@@samuelstephens6904 I confess I'm not familiar with the deepest recesses of the presup argument, and there is certainly more than one way to address it. I also agree with Alex's critique as you explained. My message is that the presup argument does make some good points and has some useful insights, namely that there is hypocrisy in declaring one man's metaphysics as silly but another's as obvious.
@@ericb9804 I don’t think the presupp argument makes good points. I think encountering a presupper can teach some valuable lessons about humility, more closely examining your own beliefs and background assumptions, etc. But this isn’t an experience that is unique to encountering TAG specifically. It will happen to anyone who is naive and encounters something that is philosophically tricky. Moreover, I don’t think it is wise to adopt a philosophical position like pragmatism just to more competently deal with this irritating form of apologetics. That seems no better than the presupps who only like TAG because it “wins” debates. Maybe use pragmatism to show there are possibly other “worldviews” that can make sense of things or play by very different rules than the ones a presupp assumes any “worldview” should abide by. But that wouldn’t require actually becoming a pragmatist. Like, if you are a pragmatist for independent reasons and it just so happens it can meet the presupp challenge, more power to you. But the claim that the “only way to avoid” the presupp argument is to adopt pragmatism or become some form of antimetaphysician strikes me as about as plausible as the presupp claim that only the triune God of Christianity can account for logic, the intelligibility of experience, or whatever.
@@samuelstephens6904Fair enough. I don't mean to imply that pragmatism should be adopted merely because it "defeats" presups. I do in fact mean to imply it should be adopted because it is more useful in general. Critiquing the presup argument as I do is just a useful tool for advocating for pragmatism in general. Presups argue for "god," which is just silly, but in doing so they employ a well-known critique of epistemology - the same critique that led to pragmatism in secular philosophy. This critique is specifically that traditional epistemology is premised on metaphysical speculation about "what is real" and "how we know." When we try to answer such questions by appealing to "objectivity", we engage in the same behavior as the presup, namely simply declaring that "objectivity" is "necessary" in the same way the presup claims "god" is "necessary." So pragmatism "defeats" the presup for the same reason it "defeats" traditional epistemology - by showing that this is simply behavior we don't need to engage in, we just need to change how we answer those questions by appealing to a mundane "utility" as opposed to a metaphysical "objectivity."
Malpass bringing up his Matt Slick interactions was great - and he was completely right. Matt Slick was a guy who prided himself on being a paragon of logic, logic logic logic constantly, you can't even logic without my god! and Alex came in and pointed out this very straightforward problem with his argument and he just couldn't come to terms with hit. He never has. People bring it up to him from time to time and he runs for the hills every time, it's glorious.
@@thelobsterking1055 If a possible answer is "I account for X by supposing the existence of a magical being that grants X" then it's really a useless question.
BTW, that video Malpassa mentioned with Slick is what made me follow Malpass. It's rare you see someone with so kind, patient and generous. I feel Malpass really tried to help him, found out together how things are instead of arguing, even though the other party wasn't familiar at all with philosophical concepts or language, and simultaneously very stubborn on his views
One of the best interviews I've watched recently, and I've been watching Dr. Kipp. Amazing stuff. Definitely more things like this. I'd love to see another follow up with a Kant scholar!
As a result of his lazy and dishonest representations of mythicism I can no longer take Dr Kipp's videos seriously. He has shown an incredible lack of integrity and a willingness to lie rather than research. Whether you think mythicism is plausible or not, you shouldn't have to straw man the arguments to discredit it. He also has a habit of attacking the person rather than the arguments.
@@betadecay6503 I don't know what video you watched, but I find Dr. Kipp's criticisms of mythicism to lack any of the flaws you mentioned. He doesn't attack anyone personally and engages with the material in which he has specific training. His handling of mythicism seems pretty standard to me. It isn't a serious theory, after all.
@@J_Z913 If you think mythicism "isn't a serious theory, after all" then you are seriously behind on the research. If you think Dr Kipp has done a good job criticizing mythicism then you are seriously behind on the research. If you think he doesn't attack anyone personally then you haven't paid attention to any video he's made on the topic. I can debate you on any point you think mythicism fails on if you like. I'll let you pick it...
@@betadecay6503 I do not engage in debates about mythicism. Mythicism has to be a coherent theory and provide convincing evidence before it is taken seriously and therefore worthy of debate. I do not know of any relevant scholar that takes the theory as a whole seriously. I am always willing to listen though, and the scholar that makes a convincing case for mythicism must have the following qualifications and/or acomplishments: A deep and unquestionable knowledge of the ancient languages in question, like Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and/or Coptic, etc. Ideally more than just Greek or just Hebrew. A background in a relevant field of Biblical or Ancient Southwest Asian studies (this includes degrees or specializations in the languages like those listed above). No clear financial incentive to preach mythicism (Carrier, Price, etc.). Refute the major arguments for a historical Jesus in a way that convinces a critical mass of other scholars (this does not have to be a majority, just enough to start a conversation in the field). Defend their evidence coherently and logically when questioned and not make excuses when evidence is weak or lacking (ex. Inventing a conspiracy involving Biblical scholars that are biased against them and have some sort of pro-Christian agenda). Use the most up to date research in the relevant fields to make their arguments. Engage in some sort of historiography regarding the past arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus (Ideally with some sort of understanding of international scholarship, especially German, Nordic, & French scholarship). Publish their work with an acclaimed academic press. Have relevant and valuable footnotes or endnotes to back up any claims they make. Note: the mere presence of citations is not enough. The cited sources must be relevant to the claim in question. Ideally, this theory must be presented at some sort of relevant academic conference, allowing live feedback from other scholars (ex. SBL.). Until there is a scholar that meets all of these criteria, I continue to be highly skeptical of mythicism. As to your points about Dr. Kipp, I believe that you are projecting. It is people like Carrier and Price who are behind on the research, not Dr. Kipp. Scholarship has moved on from this position, and with good reason. If the only resource you use for keeping up with scholarship are UA-cam channels (like Godless Engineer), then you will be misinformed about the state of the field. I recommend following people like M. David Litwa, Dale Allison, James Tabor, Jennifer Bird, Dan McClellan, Francesca Stavrokopoulou, and, of course, Bart Ehrman, to name a few of the dozens of public scholars that are relevant to this topic. For more of a specialized view on Biblical research, I recommend checking out the latest copies of New Testament Abstracts, Currents in Biblical Research, & Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (available in English, French, & German). That should give you a better understanding of the state of the field than anything on UA-cam (barring our great overlord here on Mythvision, Derek Lambert). I will end with this analogy: Mythicism is to Atheists as Young Earth Creation is to Fundamentalist Christians. Until more evidence and a convincing case is made, it will continue to be a baseless conspiracy theory.
If you run into a presup, just start with, "is it possible that you were in a car accident yesterday and in a coma right now, dreaming?" That ends that shit right there.
Presuppositional arguments seem to be a last redoubt of apologetics. They have conceded so much terrain by this point that it seems pointless to engage these in order to take that last bit of ground. It’s become kind of like Buddy Hackett’s “keep the duck” joke.
I came to the conclusion that presup is the admission that the evidential apologetic route has failed. IT boils down to childishness where they're essentially doing the intellectual equivalent of "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah *sticks tongue out*"
Most “serious” apologists don’t bother with presuppositional apologetics. There are hardly any “professionals” or academics who take it seriously. Even William Lane Craig thinks its bollocks. It mostly only exists on the “street” level as a kind of pseudophilosophy that, as Alex pointed out, functions more like alpha-male posturing than a real intellectual program.
@@CascadeGamer In a way you're right, minus the self serving and unjustified condescension. But you're right that presup is an evolution from the various debates of the 90s and 2000s between evidentalists and new atheists. But the problem is saying they "failed" implies that they were balanced debates where 2 people went head to head and the new atheists came out the winners. In reality what we see now is that those debates were extremely asymmetrical. Instead of a debate between competing worldviews what we got was atheists taking for granted all sorts of things, including morality and standards for epistemology and then attacking theism from this "view from nowhere" where they never have to put forward an alternative. This is an idiotic strategy for theists to take. It makes absolutely no sense because there is essentially no up side. To demonstrate: do you think atheists would be willing to spend the next 20 years having debates like "Can materialism explain everything?" No, they wouldn't. So why should theists? Why should we just grant you everything you want and then start from there?
Atheism used to assert "God doesn't exist". Today it's mostly agnosticism, or " I don't know if God exists", so agnosticism. Theists used to say "God exists" and still do. Who has given ground?
A machine works because it was designed and created to do so. There is also the question of how it works and how we know this. If we are to accept your analogy, why is it unfair to explore it fully? How/why does logic work and why do you assume it had no designer? The machine surely did. Your analogy suggests God.
If a presuppositionalist tells you that God was grounding the law of Identity when he said "I am that I am," remind them that they just undermined Jesus's divinity. Jesus repeating this line before the Sanhedrin is one of the principle proof texts for his godhood.
@@Mista_Awesomeness The name "I Am" (a name given by God in the Hebrew Bible) was used by Jesus to convey his divinity. But if God was merely formulating the law of identity, then "I am" isn't his name. Therefore, Jesus was merely clarifying the law of identity, not claiming to be God.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 Ok thanks, I hadn't heard that people were using it to formulate the law of identity. I heard of Jesus saying it to Moses and then again to the Sanhedrin
@@Mista_Awesomeness To be clear, it's a minority view, even among apologists. The traditional Christian explanation is that Jesus used that language intentionally to express his divinity. Meaning God used "I Am" as his name, which Jesus borrowed to make a point. A handful of grasping presuppositionalists aren't the best examples of Christian beliefs.
Don't worry about this particular style of presup apologetics - it is fallacious, circular reasoning - so it's not worth much time thinking too much about. Once you know their script it's pretty easy to deal with. Good to see Alex on, though.
@@FightFilms Well, you either agree circular reasoning is fallacious or not; I'm not bothered which camp you fall into. Definitions of words are circular? I don't see why - you're going to have to expand on that one ...
When you ask one to define "chair", for example, they use different words that ultimately mean chair So, the definition of chair is chair, in other words. All definitions are by definition circular. See, when you get to the foundation of any worldview, or language, they are all circular. Atheists will say that the justification for logic is " it works". That's circular. However you slice it, you have to use logic to justify logic. It's a circularity no one can escape. If you want to hold that as fallacious, that would probably lead to solipsism, so incoherence. Or, you accept circularity as the foundation of all worldviews, thus not a fallacy. TAG being circular is not a fallacy. It is what it is.
@@FightFilms Well, yes - the words use to describe a "chair" are used to describe what I mean by the word chair. That isn't circular - it's for brevity sake. ie: when I say: "I'm sitting on a chair." I could say: "I am sitting on a thing that was made for sitting on" - but why bother when I can replace the phrase 'thing that was made for sitting on' with one word 'chair.' Logic are axioms (self-evidently true), so they don't require justifications. ie: nobody needs to justify them; whatever your world view (atheist, Christian etc). Accusing atheists of having an incomplete world view because they "can't justify axioms" is simply missing the point. This is why presup *is circular - because they believe they can justify logic - and what do they use? That's right - they use logic to justify logic. Which we've agreed is circular. And thus fallacious. No - you don't have to accept circularity - as I said - logic are axioms that don't require justification. That isn't circular and thus isn't fallacious. Yes - TAG being circular is fallacious, because we agree circular reasoning is fallacious.
Definitions being circular is not my opinion. This is a well-established fact. Go study this, if in doubt. Say I grant you that "chair is a thing we sit on that also sometimes comes in a set that includes a table" isn't circular. Tell me in one word what a "thing we sit on that also sometimes comes in a set that includes a table" without being circular or dishonest. Sometimes linguistic circularity makes a larger circle. Define any word in the dictionary without using the words in the dictionary. Any word you define will contain other words. Keep defining all the individual words in all subsequent definitions and you will get to the original word eventually. A lake is a body of water smaller than a sea. A sea is a body of water bigger than a lake. That's a small circle. They can be much bigger, but all ultimately circular. You can't escape this. This is not controversial. Saying that logic is self-evident is literally a circle. You said logic justifies itself. Axioms are by definition circular. Me: Justify logic. You: logic is Me: why? You: because it just is It is SELF-EVIDENT. It provides evidence for itself by itself. Of course that is circular. You accept circularity at the foundational level, thus you need a different argument to attack TAG. Honesty demands you concede this, or provide an argument that will put cement you in the history of philosophy forever. Whatever you do, please do not repeat your claims as they have already been addressed. Advance the conversation or concede the point.
Logic is a descriptive abstraction of reality. Nothing more, nothing less. A thing exists, that thing has properties, those properties dictate what that thing can and can't do. This is what logic and the "laws" of nature boil down to. There's no metaphysical, pseudo-intellectual bullshit required.
I agree. The basis for logic and ultimately mathematics is our observation of the basic characteristics of reality. A is A, A cannot be not-A, etc. None of this needs a metaphysical grounding. It's just what we see at the simplest level and therefore, these basic principles are axiomatic. Presups are out there claiming that we need to prove axioms. Logic is grounded in empirical observation.
@@donnievance1942 it genuinely annoys me that people like Matt Dillahunty agree that "we all have presuppositions". I don't see how I do. I didn't presuppose the laws of logic. I observed things before I knew how to formulate a coherent thought. Those observations shaped my thoughts and became my foundation for logic. The laws of logic, which are an entirely arbitrary state of reality, gave me my understanding, therefore I did not presuppose them and I have no need to presuppose anything.
@betadecay6503 I think someone like Matt could just say that you presuppose logic in the sense that you 'presuppose' those features of reality that you observed will still hold in the future such that you can make inferences/predictions. That's kind of the way I see it anyway.
@@grumpypoof9648 but I don't presuppose that those features of reality will hold in the future. Reality is going to do whatever reality does, all I'm doing is interpreting it in the best way I can. I base my actions on the fact that they have acted the same in the past and I have no better method to propose. I'm going to continue to use the best available tool until it fails, just like I would in any other task.
@betadecay6503 Right. But that isn't a justification for them. Because all you're doing is committing the 'black swan fallacy'. "Every swan I've observed is white" It's the the problem of induction. It's basically what the presuppers are always trying exploit. You are presupposing your rational cognitive faculties are working properly. Your answer to why they are working properly can't be because they have been properly working. That's begging the question. It's not a problem to have presuppositions. It's actually in my view unavoidable. So the problem is going to arise when asked to "ground or justify or account for the laws of logic." Never mind the presuppers can't justify any of this themselves lol. But it is what the whole argument is basically about.
This isn’t a helpful statement. “Our God”? Whose exactly? Evangelicals? Baptists? Fundamentalists? Presbyterians? Episcopalians? Theists? Mormons? Eastern Orthodox? Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Your particular sect? In addition, both the host and his guest have laudably open minds on these matters; your insult “cries and runs to daddy…” is, apart from being inane, uncharitable and unchristian. There is much in the Gospels about love: just one example: “If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen.” I don’t particularly agree with Derek on many things - but if there IS a God, then I think God would value honest enquiry over bigotry.
They're all infuriating. It's part of the presuppositionalist approach; frustrate your interlocutor until they get upset, then you can call them irrational. All part of the manipulation tactic.
You are not required to be convinced, nor persuaded. The issue with millions of people around the world not thinking as one might hope, and perhaps still hoping it, in itself, is wishful thinking. If the idea is to convince on a one on one basis, maybe, but reason does not end according to what you consider valid, there are endless considerations outside the bounds you'd agree with. Everyone fools themselves, lesser fools than others know this, and though aware, it does not remove the status. People do not have to play by certain rules, they will do as they will. If you lack faith in this that's said, there is a pattern for evidence, history.
Likewise. Starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics It would be nice if MV or the guest could give us an intro into where this ideology came from historically. Was it related to the Millerites?
One last point, Derek... When they ask... " Do the Laws of Logic exist without human minds ? " ... you can answer in depth, and reject as absurd from a completely philosophically justifiable standpoint ( Transcendentally reduce their Transcendental argument ) without an appeal to Supernaturalism: It is absurd to suggest that Laws ( thought objects ) of any kind can exist without ( human ) subjects in existence: " No subject no object, " and this includes thought objects, of course. That's Schopenhauer. My words... " No thinkers no thoughts, lol! " It's a rank contradiction to propose the existence of Laws ( human thoughts ) without subjects (humans ) in existence!!! Thus, the question can be rejected as absurd on its face! JimBob proposed that... (when I asked the question, " Where does Reason come from ? " back to him... ) humans " access " Reason, lol! You have them again!! You again Transcendentally reduce to absurdity their Transcendental argument!! Ask : " By what medium do we " access " these Laws? " JimBob did not respond, because... ... he only had two choices : He could claim them sensually " accessed, " which of course he denies; or he can claim that the brain is inherently prepared to produce & access them, which he also denies! By denying both... ... this leaves them with what they don't want, which is to go into their particular theology because they have rejected basic philosophy! That is... they have to take an unjustifiable leap into Supernaturalism... which you can also call them out on!! I answered that question again... in another way, and again received no response from JimBob: " The ontology of the human being ( subject ) is where the thought object ( Laws of Logic ) come from. " They aren't prepared to have answers to those that know real philosophy, that is!
@@jackisgallantDo you affirm the following principle? _Without a belief as to why X is true, one cannot be justified in believing that X is true_ X can be any proposition
@@jackisgallant Okay let's consider an implication of that answer. Presumably you'd agree that sometimes people experience nerve pain or emotional pain that they can't account for. According to the aforementioned principle, in cases where a person is in pain but has no clue as to why, they are unjustified in believing that they're in pain. One must first form a belief as to _why_ they're in pain, before one can be justified in believing _that_ they're in pain. Does that sound right to you?
@@jackisgallant I understand a definition to be a statement that expresses (or attempts to express) the essential nature of something. So when you say that their pain is undefined, I interpret that to mean there is no statement expressing the essential nature of the person's pain. Is that what you mean when you say their pain is undefined? ______ Would you affirm these principles as well? _It's always irrational to believe things without justification_ _It's always irrational to act on beliefs which are non-epistemically justified_
I typically like Derek chiming in, but here is one place I wish he would have left Alex to speak much more. It’s clear Derek doesn’t understand the philosophical side as well as other things, and I think a lot of time was wasted that could have been better used by Alex to flesh out the topic.
I really like David John Wellman's approach to presuppositionalist "logic", based on Malpass actually. As soon as someone comes up with the whole "you can't know/reason/argue anything without God", all you do is repeat "toast". Do not go beyond that until they change their position.
This is very much in line with conspiracy thinking. Just keep the opposition in doubt. Keep asking questions. Avoid answering questions. Say things that sound impressive on the surface. Leave no room for nuance.
Yup, I have to deal with this when I debate Proverbs 16 4. There's always the presupposition of free will, even though the first half of that verse speaks of predestination. Which does, in no way, comport with free will.
The presuppers will try and push you on answering the hard questions that Philosophy has not answered yet and they will avoid giving their answer, because they don't have one. And if you tell them that you don't have an answer and nether do they, then they will scream: that's a "tu quoque fallacy", instead of just giving you an explanation.
I think one reason you're not going to see a lot of female apologists is that Apologists tend to be fundamentalist and Christian Fundamentalist Women don't get on stage a debate men a lot.
Ill paraphrase the fundamental reason for the presup argument. "its not your job to witness the non believer, only the holy spirit can do that. It's your job to shut their mouths". -Greg Bahnsen Defending the Faith Presuppositional arguments only use TAG as a weapon for burden shifting the gish galloping bad faith argument tree.
Which raises an interesting question- why should they want to shut the unbelievers' mouths? Is it because others might be influenced by them? Even though WE know of course that they are wrong?
Making a TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD is burden shifting? And refusing to meet the theist half way in either refuting God or defending one's own axiom like logic is not burden shifting? What are you saying, exactly?
That's really it. Presuppositionalism is not intended to convince anyone of anything. So why employ it as an approach? The only conclusion I can make...(And this is part of a pet hypothesis I'm working on)...is that presuppositionalism attracts people with emotional shortcomings/personality disorders. It's malicious at its core, and serves only to denigrate the non-believer. That's why every presupp you meet is a jerk. They have a pathological need to hurt others.
Hey Derek your seriously physically looking good brother, love the tats, love how your muscles are shaping up. cheers. sorry my subscription is on pause, as i'm broke as at the moment
When Malpass said that presuppers don’t like evidence I pretty much wrote him off. That may be the case with some internet folk, but that doesn’t prove much. If you read any of the main writers from the presuppositional camp, it’s evident Malpass is beating a straw man.
Did he say they don’t like evidence? He said their arguments aren’t evidentiary. And that is true. Presupps position themselves _against_ evidentiary apologists. They think their methods are wrong.
Derek... you need to stop calling philosophy " mental masturbation. " That's as disrespectful to the discipline as the presupp's are to it, by doing what they do. To me... such is YT Atheism... which is no better than YT Presuppositionalism. As Malpass suggested... you should read Kant... especially: Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. It is a hard read, but you are intelligent and can with the help of Richard Brown, Daniel Bonevac, Kyle Bannick & others - philosophers all on YT - come to understand Kant's ideas. Kant will tell you & remember again, he is following & responding to Hume ( with respect & not with hostility )... that Transcendental Ideas are merely... non empirically derived Ideas, that's all. Transcendental Ideas are not... our " accessing " of a " Platonic Realm " or the " Energies " of God... " which is the assertion of the Presuppers. It is how our brain works to ' fill in the gaps ' if you will. ' Laws are Ideas that aren't empirically observable: Hume - all we observe/sense are a chain of events. Therefore, Laws are derived from the Systematic Unity that the mind imposes. We call this... Reason: Kant. Do yourself a true service and read real philosophy... you, as a dealer in Ideas... will probably enjoy real philosophy, and find it extremely helpful in your realm of Ideas...
Wow the raw amount of special pleading by the host favoring atheism here is crazy. Special pleading=Making exception to the rule. Look this is pretty simple you guys ask believers to justify own belief in God. You see this as a valid argument and question. When believers ask you to justify your worldview (God does not exist) with reason, logic, morality, metalogical system, or transcendentals and you can't you cry theists are being unfair. Well too bad it's not unfair for Christian theists to ask you to justify your views. Look this is simple to understand. If you say I don't believe in miracles you need to justify why you think that. Your ultimate justification or reason you give either supports your view or it doesn't. It's not the Christians fault that logically speaking naturalism (The puddle analogy) fails to justify these systems.
//Everyone is a presupper// I presuppose that the universe exists, that the means we use to glean information about it are reliable, and that other minds besides my own exist. These are sufficient for making sense of my everyday experience. The existence of an ancient near-eastern desert spirit named Yahweh illuminates nothing whatsoever of reality, so I don't include it in my presuppositions.
No dude. We don't presuppose anything. We go with what we see. Things are themselves. A is A. Things are not not-themselves. A cannot be non-A. Logic is built on these most basic observations of the nature of reality. We don't need metaphysical groundings for any of this. We just observe the world and then describe what is seen. We abstract general statements from these descriptions. That is all logic is at its root. It's built entirely on empirical observation.
The more I learn about people’s religious beliefs, the more I’m convinced that humans are hard wired to stick to their core beliefs at almost all cost.
@@sullainvictus I’m not immune. I find myself getting caught in ego traps all the time. But I work hard to correct these as best I can. Learning to recognize and expose our cognitive biases is probably the most important thing when it comes to being right.
Christ is the Lord who revealed himself. Atheists keep saying that we don't justify the claim that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. But we do, we do it first by demonstrating all other worldviews false(limited starting points). Then we also give our account of how the preconditions are justified in the christian worldview.
The Christian world view never shows how all others are false and every time you try to justify why Christianity is true you end up falling prey to the same issues that you accuse other non Christian world views falling short of.
Thats the problem though you're not actually justifying the claim that god is the "necessary" precondition for knowledge because you are demonstrating all other known world views false. This only means that your justification is based on a sufficient precondition. In order for the Christian god to be proven the "necessary" precondition you would need to nullify ALL known and unknown worldviews which is literally impossible. Therefore TAG is unprovable.
_" But we do, we do it first by demonstrating all other worldviews false(limited starting points)."_ But that's not what is actually being demonstrated. What you're demonstrating is "When assuming the truth of the Christian worldview, all other worldviews are false." It's a trivial claim that I can grant you and has no bearing on the truth of any worldview, rather it's an external evaluation of worldviews that are already recognized as being incompatible with your own. If you start with your own, of course the other worldviews all appear to fail in some way. _"Then we also give our account of how the preconditions are justified in the christian worldview."_ Yet another trivial claim.
I'm a Christian, I know Derek, I disagree with much of the conclusions on this channel, but after watching his exchange with Dyer, even though I think there is something to the Presuppositional argument, Derek got ambushed and even when he said "hey Jay you win", just to stop the attack, it kept going, and I as a viewer thought it was nerve-racking, and no one gets anywhere in that type of discussion. What Derek needs to do now, is get ahold of Dyer and have him debate Dr. Malpas or someone else, and keep it well moderated, then and only then, can anybody get any real benefit from such a discussion.
Dyer just asked for criteria base on which Derek decide some story is a myth or not and he couldnt answer. Is that count as attack ? Sound like super basic question to me And Malpass already debated Jay but spend most time talking about Aristotels for some reason
and all his little Dyer parrots smugly telling everyone they dont need to argue witht hem because anyeone who opposes their views has no justification for reality.
So this guy gets embarrassed on various livestreams with presuppers and then he goes and has a circlejerk interview about how dumb they are without them being there to defend themselves.
Professional philosopher here. Presuppers aren't taken seriously in the field, in fact there are no relevant pholosophers who use those "arguments" because they are riddled with fallacies that professionals easily recognize while laymen don't
@@triggered8556this is just a silly thing to say. Derek was very clear that he didn't know what Jay Dyer was talking about. To be fair Dyer spouts pure BS, it's pretty obvious he can't justify TAG
My pet hypothesis is this: Those that employ presuppositionalism as a tactic have some sort of emotional hindrance that manifests in many ways and for different reasons. They run the gamut from fragile people who simply won't allow themselves to admit to being wrong, all the way to sociopaths and narcissists who get real pleasure from the bullying nature of presuppositionalism. In any case, presuppositionalism is a fascinating study of human psychology.
Let's assume all of that is true and that you have a degree in psychology. None of your psychologizing makes them wrong and can likewise be psychologized as "saying 'me no likey' feel good'".
You couldn't answer the basic question about what is your criterion based on which you decide which story is a myth and which is not, so you made 2h video "destroying presups" ? lol nice try to cover it up
I came for the title, but I can't locate where 'Presuppositionalism is Destroyed' in the discussion after an hour and a half. Can someone give me a timestamp or two? I'll finish and try to locate it again, but it seems like the guys are simply complaining about presuppers making you justify why you assert 'everything must be rational'. Or the wonder of how our abstract logical thoughts apply to the material universe. All they seem to say is 'we don't know yet'. Or more generally 'we don't know anything for sure, but we know Christians can't be right.'
I am a Christian, though not a fundamentalist conservative type (So, NOT a Christian to many Christians haha) Anyway, the idea that "no one can know truth apart from the Spirit of God" can be softened by thinking about "the Spirit of God" not as some abstract, unknowable idea, but rather as LOVE itself. What is love (baby don't hurt me)? Love is the embodiment of inward homeostasis due to an overwhelming sense of unity and compassionate kindness and peace for one's self and all things. THIS is "the spirit of God", not some Ghostly apparition that magically moves around in the world. Thus, I agree with "presup" in the sense that LOVE is the very ground of being, the Oneness that enables the "10,000 things" to be come into existence, the singular consciousness that we are all simply expressions of. You are part of the totality, you are exactly where you should be, and part of the whole, whether you believe it or not! So my version of "presup" is "you are loved by God, even if you reject him!" or "you are an intricate and perfectly placed part of the universe, whether you feel that or not!" presup as a tool for conservative evangelical tribalistic reinforcement? Garbage, just like all forms of ego stroking and division.
@jeredmckenna He has risen. Nice Haddaway reference. What is justice? What is truth? Will the babe stop hurting him or be corrected in some way..? I mean tow to those fit in to your stance of (tri-personal) God's love in His mind unifying everyone and everything?
@@ioaalto He is risen indeed. One working theory I have is that proper ethical behavior (justice, truth) would be determined by or practiced by 1) ceasing mental commentary and viewing things with pure awareness 2) calming tension in the body, especially any that arose from mental commentary. My theory is that in this state of pure awareness and homeostasis is a way of clearing the filters and mud away, revealing the divine logos, or spirit of God that is there ready to be accessed and enjoyed. We don't create it. Our minds only cover it up. My theory is that love exists PRIOR to human thought, and thus to transcend thought is to reveal and realize and awaken the consciousness of love that is already there (God) If God is love, and God is omnipresent and omnipotent, than shedding our addiction to our mental conceptions and judgments is the key to accessing that dimension within ourselves. I've found this to be true for myself at least. I know "love" or "God" is there as a baseline for reality because I let go of thought as my identity and discovered that compassion and peace filled the void left automatically without effort.
Faced with this puzzle, the naturalist has to say he doesn't know what mechanism, if any, gave rise to the laws of logic, rational thought etc. It is a mystery that remains to be solved. But the naturalist is quite at liberty to ask the presup theist: "Your assertion about these phenomena being grounded in your God is fascinating. So tell me, what was the mechanism employed by God to achieve this remarkable result?" Now our presup friend has little choice but to admit that the answer to that question remains a mystery. So both protagonists are in the same boat. The only difference is that the history of science has taught the naturalist that such puzzles have been resolved in the past, so there is reason for optimism that this puzzle, too, will be resolved in the future. The presup, on the other hand, has no reason for such optimism. All he can say is that all may be revealed to him after he is dead. He is unable to resolve one mystery, so he simply replaces it with another.
Ok, but being in the same befuddled boat as the presp hardly seems desirable. I think it better to reply to the presup that the laws of logic, rational thought, etc. don't need the type the explanation the presup is demanding. Rather, they are things that humans find useful in achieving their goals, and they don't need any further explanation.
@@ericb9804 Perhaps I expressed that badly. My intention was to show that even if you grant the presup view, it contains the seeds of self-destruction. His boomerang comes hurtling back at him.
@@sullainvictus The point is that what we traditionally call an "explanation" is just a metaphysical claim. Such are claim as no longer satisfying and we don't just accept them as "necessary." But with this realization comes the realization that such "explanations" were never needed in the first place, so there is little reason to lament not having one.
So let me this straight, this guy wants to understand presuppositional apologetics and in order to accomplish that he goes to somebody that doesn't believe in presuppositional apologetics or understands it himself. Shocker. 😂
Well, considering the stated purpose of presuppositional apologetics from several influential presup apologists, is to "shut the mouths of the atheists" I wouldn't expect (and have rarely encountered) a presup apologist willing to give a straight answer to the question of "how is it exactly that you're attempting to trick me?" It's the same reason you don't go to a magician to find out how he performed a magic trick.
@@firstthes2811 Use "common" words in a proprietary way. Use philosophical jargon when "common" language would be more clear. Basic equivocation. Flat out lying. Take your pick.
@@ajhieb Hmm, so you apparently think that presuppositionalist is doing something that they shouldn't be doing and of course you have an Objective Standard for why what they're doing is wrong, yes?
@@firstthes2811 _"Hmm, so you apparently think that presuppositionalist is doing something that they shouldn't be doing"_ Never said that. _"you have an Objective Standard for why what they're doing is wrong, yes?"_ Why should I care about your arbitrary demand for some objective moral standard, that you can't even adhere to yourself?
As an evidentialist Christian apologist i really don't like presupp apologetics. There is no reason we should have to use arguments that really tend to put up barriers and insult people rather than to have an honest dialogue. However, I find it ironic how you never see atheists/naturalists calling out their own for using presupp arguments and counter apologetics...lets be consistent. Only Christians seem sot call out their own presupps...
@ReyWho _"Evidential apologetics leaves the unbeliever with an excuse for their unbelief."_ Yeah, and presuppositional apologetics is the embodiment of the famous W.C. Fields quote: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
In the Bible it says they have no excuse, if someone has not seen the evidence it is clearly hidden within their presuppositions. The Tag argument when used well is probably the best argument.
Presuppositionalism simply establishes that materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances requires certain presuppositions that transcend these materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances in order for said stances to get off the ground in the first place - the issue is that atheists, in the main, appeal to the idea that claims must be subject to the requirements of these stances and that a claim failing to to do so means that it ought to be dismissed. In short, it's like claiming that my set of tools are the only real and proper set of tools by which proofs can be attained to or reality properly circumscribed. It's like a painter who says that houses cannot be built because his brushes (his tool set), though capable of painting a lovely picture of a house and conceiving of much more besides, do not attain to that end, the actual construction of a house - by way of example. Presups show the limitations of a circumscribed naturalistic/materialistic tool set. Moreover, there is often a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean by God. We mean something closer to ipsum esse subsistens. I cannot say that the title of this video does what it claims to do at all though, I did enjoy it.
_"Presuppositionalism simply establishes that materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances requires certain presuppositions ..."_ Well to be clear, presuppositionalism _claims_ this. That it establishes it is controversial at best. _" the issue is that atheists, in the main, appeal to the idea that claims must be subject to the requirements of these stances and that a claim failing to to do so means that it ought to be dismissed."_ Close, but not quite. Mos atheists differentiate between type of claims. The relevant category being about concrete particulars that exist within our local instantiation of space-time. Those claims, fall under the domain of empiricism, and if those claims can't be demonstrated to be true empirically can be rightfully dismissed. _" In short, it's like claiming that my set of tools are the only real and proper set of tools by which proofs can be attained to or reality properly circumscribed."_ Is that not exactly what the presuppositional apologetic sets out to do? Every version of presup I've encountered starts with the singular tenet that without first presupposing the Christian God, knowledge, intelligibility, rationality, etc are impossible. Seems like this "critique" is just projection.
@@ajhieb "Presuppositionalism simply establishes that materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances requires certain presuppositions ..." Well to be clear, presuppositionalism claims this. That it establishes it is controversial at best. Not at all. We suppose that things can be known, that they are intelligible, that we have a mind to grasp those things…we have all of this before “materialist, naturalistic, nominalist” projects get off the ground. " the issue is that atheists, in the main, appeal to the idea that claims must be subject to the requirements of these stances and that a claim failing to to do so means that it ought to be dismissed." Close, but not quite. Mos atheists differentiate between type of claims. The relevant category being about concrete particulars that exist within our local instantiation of space-time. Those claims, fall under the domain of empiricism, and if those claims can't be demonstrated to be true empirically can be rightfully dismissed. To my point…empiricism - all that wonderful experience derived from the senses and you conclude by saying that if it is not empirically demonstrable it can then be dismissed. If this is the criteria then things like universals (the knowledge that all triangles have three sides without having seen every type of triangle) become impossible/unknowable and things like ethics, logic, goodness, beauty et al, are not subject to that criterion. One may have an ethical foundation for the sciences but there is no scientific foundation for ethics - to further illustrate the point. Now, there are types of claims. I’m aware of that but you’ve separated them out. When you say “types” are you speaking to examples that pertain to a particular genus? I’m not entirely clear on that one. " In short, it's like claiming that my set of tools are the only real and proper set of tools by which proofs can be attained to or reality properly circumscribed." Is that not exactly what the presuppositional apologetic sets out to do? Every version of presup I've encountered starts with the singular tenet that without first presupposing the Christian God, knowledge, intelligibility, rationality, etc. are impossible. Seems like this "critique" is just projection. We can stay away from God for the moment and just look at what the transcendental argument does, what it addresses in light of those who claim that materialist/naturalistic stances etc. are the bench mark means by which we attain to any kind of surety with respect to existence. This simply can't be the case.
@@josephdawson5679 _"Not at all. We suppose that things can be known, that they are intelligible, that we have a mind to grasp those things…we have all of this before “materialist, naturalistic, nominalist” projects get off the ground."_ I'm not sure who the "we" is that you're referring to here as you appear to be identifying as the only only presuppositionalists that actually holds that position. Every presuppositionalist I've ever encountered would argue that you can't start with those assumptions, rather you have to start with the assumption of the Christian God, otherwise you have no justification for those other assumptions. But you and I seem to agree on that point. _"To my point…empiricism - all that wonderful experience derived from the senses and you conclude by saying that if it is not empirically demonstrable it can then be dismissed. "_ I'm not sure if there is some sort of language barrier at play here, but I very distinctly qualified that statement in a way you completely ignored. I very specifically stated this stance applies to *concrete particulars.* You then turn around and counter with saying it isn't compatible with things like universals. SO WHAT? I (and most atheists) would never demand empirical verification for universals (which I would neither consider to be concrete, nor particulars) I agree that it's incompatible with universals. That's why I made the distinction in the first place. Again, this appears to be a topic on which we agree. _"We can stay away from God for the moment and just look at what the transcendental argument does,"_ Not much. The various transcendental arguments don't solve any of the various unsolved problems in philosophy. They don't tell us anything about existence. They don't add any sort of epistemic certainty to our worldviews. If anything all they do is offer false comfort to people seeking absolute certainty where there is none.
@@ajhieb "Not at all. We suppose that things can be known, that they are intelligible, that we have a mind to grasp those things…we have all of this before “materialist, naturalistic, nominalist” projects get off the ground." I'm not sure who the "we" is that you're referring to here as you appear to be identifying as the only only presuppositionalists that actually holds that position. The “we” is the common run of humanity, the royal “we” - however you wish to take it. Though, I am certain you took my meaning. As to myself being the only person who holds to such a position, I must say that I have not found this to be the situation in my life at all. It’s certainly the case, by way of example, that Aristotelian metaphysics hold to a number of presuppositions that cannot be proven via materialistic/naturalistic means(so circumscribed) but which must be held as true in order to even entertain the idea that knowledge can, with certainty, be attained… even by these means (sola materialism/naturalism etc.) Moreover, though not content to build their own house, they (those who subscribe to materialism/naturalism/nominalism etc.) would also seek to disavow and even burn down the houses of their presuppositional parents. Every presuppositionalist I've ever encountered would argue that you can't start with those assumptions, rather you have to start with the assumption of the Christian God, otherwise you have no justification for those other assumptions. But you and I seem to agree on that point. I think they tend to jump the gun with everyone starting with conclusions and building back. I do certainly believe that “ipsum esse subsistens” being the very nature of Being itself, not belonging to any genus of beings and so on, must “be” in order for anything “to be - genus”. All that aside, I, like you, do not think it is helpful for a theist/deist to say: you can only entertain X if you accept Y off the bat without getting all of one’s ducks in line especially online when you have no idea with whom you are speaking. There should be more of a getting to know you process. It would make the road less bumpy in light of these kinds of discourses. I rather, unlike Kant, prefer the scholastic and the metaphysical. I wish that the the seamless garment that was both science and philosophy together had not been torn with each going their own way. I can talk about that if you like but science and philosophy were not strictly separate disciplines back in the day. It was only when a more reductive mindset set in that this happened and with it came many of the difficulties we now have to contend with which would not have otherwise been the case had sounder minds prevailed. "To my point…empiricism - all that wonderful experience derived from the senses and you conclude by saying that if it is not empirically demonstrable it can then be dismissed. " I'm not sure if there is some sort of language barrier at play here, but I very distinctly qualified that statement in a way you completely ignored. Perhaps I have misunderstood something. I’ve reread the comment and I’m pretty certain that must be the case given your response, though I don’t rightly see it. Why would you think I ignored what you may have meant? Look at the effort I am putting in here. At worse it is, as you say a misunderstanding but ignored?...and completely? Certainly you see that that can’t be the case at all; but to the point - Are you simply saying that a glass of water, for example, can be understood as such using our senses and those tools that enable us to get at the heart of the matter (the glass of water)? If so, ok. If this is the kind of claim you are speaking too, perfectly fine. I’m just concerned that one might use empiricism as the limiter to the exclusion of those other modes of enquiry by which a thing can be more properly known and understood, including those presuppositions that allow for empirical scrutiny in the first place. I very specifically stated this stance applies to concrete particulars. You then turn around and counter with saying it isn't compatible with things like universals. SO WHAT? I (and most atheists) would never demand empirical verification for universals (which I would neither consider to be concrete, nor particulars) I agree that it's incompatible with universals. That's why I made the distinction in the first place. Again, this appears to be a topic on which we agree. I acknowledge that there are distinctions being made here but it doesn’t necessarily entail separations. I should have been more explicit on this point I suppose. What I was trying to say earlier by way of implication is that the particular partakes in the universal which empiricism cannot, in principle, circumscribe given its limits. An empirical verification of universals is impossible though the universal is indeed concrete as is evidenced by the essential nature/intelligibility of a given thing being instantiated with marvelous variety under a particular genus of being - like an orange tabby cat under the umbrella term “cat”. I’m simply saying, in a short hand way, that empiricism can’t get off the ground without certain a priori claims about reality - those pesky presuppositions - and they are legion. Now whether a demand is made by atheists for empirical evidence of universals or not (many of whom will dismiss them (universals) out of hand because of what they imply), it is certainly something we need to concern ourselves with when talking about the nature of things/reality and our relationship with reality. "We can stay away from God for the moment and just look at what the transcendental argument does," Not much. The various transcendental arguments don't solve any of the various unsolved problems in philosophy. They don't tell us anything about existence. They don't add any sort of epistemic certainty to our worldviews. If anything all they do is offer false comfort to people seeking absolute certainty where there is none. I can’t at all agree with this surmise. Go have a chat with Kant about the transcendental argument (though I’m more Aristotelian myself). It does offer a great deal respecting limits of knowledge and so on which is the business of epistemology and is usefully instructive to those in particular who would limit the means by which we can know a thing to such stances as materialism/naturalism/nominalism etc. - which need a whole host of presuppositions that their adherents can in no way justify or account for in order to get their project off the ground. This is a big problem if they draw and insist on conclusions via these reductive means. Theory of knowledge is a big topic and I must confess that it is an error to strawman the discipline into a “false comfort plushie” Moreover, one never has absolute certainty about anything at all. That word…absolute…is a tricky one. Most will appeal to the principle of sufficient reason. We don’t need to be absolute in order to be certain. So in as much as your “where there is none” points to the “absolute” as a qualifier, I can agree. After all, what we know and understand corresponds to the level of the individual.
@@josephdawson5679 I'm not really interested in addressing what is nothing more than a circuitous, unnecessarily verbose, handwave dismissal of what I said. You wrote a small essay, to basically say "I disagree" and then conclude that because you disagree my statements aren't worth consideration. Not the tactics of an honest interlocutor. As for your closing paragraph... _"Theory of knowledge is a big topic and I must confess that it is an error to strawman the discipline into a “false comfort plushie” "_ You're the one strawmannnig here, not me, and I can't imagine that it happened on accident. I very clearly stated that the "false comfort" was the erroneous certainty provided by the the various TAG arguments, NOT the discipline of epistemology as you're trying to suggest. Having made it abundantly clear you're not interested in an honest conversation, I have no interest in any further interaction. If you want the last word, have at it, but I have no desire, nor need to interact with blatant sophists such as yourself.
Did you actually listen closely to that debate between Dyer and MV? It was essentially: MV "bible is mythology!" Dyer "So is evolution based on your standard" And that was that, MV couldn't go onto show evolution wasn't a myth but Dyer didn't even attempt to show the Bible isn't either except simply assert it isn't because of TAG and impossibility of the contrary which was laughable.
If you actually believe the so-called “great debate” is a true reflection of Christianity being true, then you are deceived and only caught up in the hype. Any secular philosopher who understands the dense and convoluted topic of epistemology and idealism could have easily exposed the grand but empty rhetoric of Bahnsen and TAG.
@@albertkim7882 then why hasn't it been done yet, and if it has, could you please provide the argument? i already know the outcome of asking you this, btw. you have a blind faith in a religion of your own; one of which has no answers. 🤣
@@jimiberman3464 I wouldn’t be surprised if it has been addressed at various points within academic circles, and it just hasn't been made accessible by the public, especially since no one in the public would understand the technicalities of the Continental field of philosophy. I also assume to a considerable degree it’s not taken seriously by the philosophy community for good reason; It’s just another form of metaphysical idealism that is no more valid (rationally speaking) than Hegel’s idealism or any other form of German Idealism. And there are perfectly good critiques of Van TIl's Presuppositionalism by other Reformed theologians who are more of the BB Warfield school of apologetics. But I was originally just describing why Stein wasn’t a match for Bahnsen; Bahnsen having the higher philosophical training than Stein.
The only non-fallacious critique in this 2 hour talk was "presup makes a positive claim, but then attacks us and keeps us on the defensive. We should Turn it around on him." Sure. But ALL worldviews make positive claims. Ie.. we can use logic to get to knowledge. So why not start with square one. How does your worldview justify the use of logic, and how does it get to, define, and justify knowledge. Wouldnt addressing this be step one? The conversation starts and ends here. And sure, for pragmatic reasons one could move on. But is this not the actual pointed specific of the issue? I think yes. So of course the presupper is going to dig the trench here and stand his ground. This is the crux of the entire argument.
EVIDENCE IS IN: Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter! The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin! First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview EXPLAINS ENTROPY -The 2nd LAW AT ALL, let alone the first law of thermodynamics! So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here; Right out the gate! DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA genome, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“! God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there! Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job! 3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing! The Bible Predicted telecommunications
I really don’t think scientists believe that the matter and energy were created, just compressed. That’s not how evolution or entropy works. And you know that the verse is not saying that.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 typical response. the accusation is only applicable within our current system, which purports a "big bang" theory, which states everything came from nothing... thanks for playing
@@donnievance1942 clearly you do presuppose we came from pre-human type being, and don't even realize it. you’ll probably claim there's evidence supporting your belief, but w/o any actual proof of a pre-human, you’ll just use other hominids as verification. that’s presupposing. congratulation and welcome to the team.
@@jimiberman3464 bet he does presuppose humans evolved from another form, and doesn’t even understand that he’s doing so. he will probably assert “evidence”, but his “proof” will probably be other hominids. yea, that’s a presupposition. should we welcome him to the team?
All world views have presuppositions. The question then is which world view can justifiably give an account for its presuppositions? Christianity is the only world view that can do this.
Prove it. You would have to use your presuppositions to "account" for them and thus arguing in a circle. "Who wishes to make such a simple blunder in elementary logic, as to say that we believe something to be true because it is in the Bible? Our answer to this is briefly that we prefer to reason in a circle to not reasoning at all. We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man." - Christian Apologist Cornelius Van Til "A Survey of Christian Epistemology" (p. 12)
//All world views have presuppositions// Correct. And since presuppositions are assumed rather the demonstrated, the goal is to have as few of them as possible, while still making sense of reality. My presuppositions are that the universe exists, that we can reliably glean information about it, and that other minds besides my own exist. The existence of ancient near-eastern desert spirits named Yahweh is not one of those presuppositions, because it is utterly worthless, and only necessitates further worthless presuppositions piled on top of each other.
So far you have all misrepresented each and every point. Please have a psychologist on please. Your level of fanatic cognitive dissonance should be studied in college. Hopefully in 10 years you will have the wisdom to see it
Feel free to try and prove me wrong. I'll be happy to back up every "assertion", as it isnt' an "assurtion" if it is true. Have you written that to Derek and Alex too? Plenty of insults flying out of their immature and ignorant mouths@@donnievance1942
The bases for human interactions evolved socially in the natural environment to which we continually adapted. No god required. The Greeks who pioneered the formalization of a lot of this were pagans. UA-camr Floyd P effectively deals with the pressuppers. His debates are worth watching.
Lol, you seem unaware that Darwinism is a theory based on evidence. Presuppositionalism is evidence based on a belief. So basically Presuppositionalism is just a form of cherry-picking that justifies a belief.
@@baarbacoa Evidence that can't be duplicated any laboratory?! Perhaps you have some video evidence of this alleged "evolution"?! I only see a Cambrian Explosion of a plethora of creatures which is a proverbial fly in the ointment......
We have observed evolution happening. It's not "sacred" because it has been Demonstrated. In the last few thousand years, no theistic god claim has been Demonstrated to be true. Sorry, but your misperceptions about Reality, don't actually affect Reality.
If I had a million dollars every time i heard a Christian ungraciously cram something non religious into a story about idolatry, i would probably have like a billion dollars
@@RL.777 I think you lack even a basic understanding of science. A lab is place that provides controlled conditions for scientific or technological research, experiments, and measurement. A lab could be a room, a geographical location, a planet (e.g., Earth), a star, or even the universe. But scientists do investigate evolution on small laboratories. Specifically, on microbes and cells.
using these arguments, i can prove unicorns. A Realicorn is an entity identical to a unicorn but with the necessary property of undeniable existence. Being real is integral to the nature of the Realicorn. Because 'Real' is in the name , the Realicorn is tied indelibly to physical reality. By denying the Realicorn, you deny reality itself. It's in the name,
No this is really dumb and has nothing to do with what presuppers are saying. But also, even if it were do you not see that you've just invalidated every critique you have of theism by making up just a dumber theism? Do you think this is somehow a win for you to be put into the position of having to defend a belief in a realicorn?
I am enjoying the conversation, but I wish Alex was given more airtime. The host took a really long time asking questions each time and saying the same thing over and over, whereas the question was usually clear immediately.
I just watched the video this discussion was prompted by. My view is, J Dyer was up to his usual tricks, first by constantly interrupting. Then, he claims that the Christian worldview is the only one that can account for knowledge etc, without saying how it actually does this. You asked him at one point how the Christian worldview does this, but he didn't get around to saying. He does this a lot from what I've seen of him.
I really appreciate the line about how presuppositionalism is only a thing men do to dominate each other. My father is a presuppositionalist in a very conservative reformed church. That is EXACTLY how he uses it. He doesn’t give a damn about reasoning together to find mutual agreement; he just wants to shove your face in it and show you how much intellectually tougher he is than you.
Is your father darth dawkins lmao
Instead of making them sound tough it makes them sound boring and unspiritual. I'm not a Theist but I do understand the meaning of the reference to wolves in sheep's clothing in the NT. Most of these folks don't even understand that they can be recognised by what kind of fruit they bear.
Then don't try and engage, meet him at his level on this topic. Just laugh, call presuppositionalism dumb and then move on. It will take away the power that he thinks he has.
@@betadecay6503 I am his son and what I do does not matter one bit. In his mind I will always be small and inferior. He cannot tolerate that I, finishing my PhD doing experimental physics, don’t respect the intellectual merits of his young earth creationist worldview.
@@adamredwine774 then I say again, meet him at his level. The fact that he is your father does not earn him some inherent right to respect when it comes to nonsense beliefs. Laugh at his position, call it idiotic, if he then tries to engage tell him there's no point, he's too dumb to understand. See how he likes it.
I get that it's difficult because he's your dad and you love him, but stupid ideas need to be ridiculed. No matter who they're coming from. If he doesn't respect you enough to listen then make it clear that this is not a conversation you want to have with him. If it is a conversation you want to have with him then you need to have a word with yourself and consider if you're ready to cut your relationship with him because he's not going to change. You don't owe him anything.
What you need to be aware of is that the effective Presupper will always divert the conversation back to your worldview. The effective Presuppers will make almost no assertions at all and just ask you to defend your metaphysical assumptions.
For example, let's say you make a claim like "Matthew copied Mark verbatim in many verses." The Presupper would then respond..."You just made a knowledge claim right there. How do you account for knowledge in your atheistic worldview?" Notice that it passes the burden all to you and they made no assertions (in which they would have to defend). So at this point if you wish to continue the conversation with them, I see that you only have 2 options. One is try to defend your worldview or to get him to make some assertion which he would then have to defend. So if he says something like "How can you know anything if you are merely matter in motion?" He just asserted that atheists think the humans are "merely matter in motion" which is committing the fallacy of composition. You could then talk about that with him or just ask him questions.
But I have seen situations with Presuppers where they will refuse to answer any questions and not talk about the Bible or their worldview at all. They will always steer the conversation back to you. You need to be aware of this.
You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God!
Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth!
Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny!
Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers!
God authored the Bible!
DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication?
1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion!
One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled!
Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“!
Psalm 139 is about the human body!
Actually presups do make assertions, they just don't justify/defend them. That's how you can short-circuit the conversation where they start saying "without the Christian worldview, your worldview is incoherent" by forcing them to demonstrate it, and they can't without making more assertions. So it's pretty much done at that point.
@@jkorling That is why I stated "effective Presupper". They will greatly limit any assertions so they have nothing to defend. They will just ask you to justify your worldview and its metaphysical assumptions.
I would catch on to that and say, “Look, I’m completely willing to admit that both of us are more than likely wrong about 99% of what we believe if you are. I never had the idea that I had it all right to begin with. This is just what I have best been able to work out for myself, but I’m also no claiming it’s the unquestionable truth from God’s lips and the rest of the world must follow and impose it, or be damned.”
They're just playing epistemological Calvinball. "You have to 'account for' absolutely everything to the point of being omniscient, while I don't have to 'account for' anything at all. I win!" It's the sort of thing little kids do when they're arguing about who shot who in a game of Cops and Robbers, but with bigger words.
Just always remember when dealing with presups, they can never justify their presupposition of biblical inerrancy/infallibility no matter how hard they try to sneakily smuggle that into their arguments.
Name one contradiction in the Bible;;; The contradictions online are taken out of context , you can’t! A N D
You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God!
Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth!
Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny!
Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers!
God authored the Bible!
DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication?
1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion!
One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled!
Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“!
Psalm 139 is about the human body!
@@jjphank What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?
@@dbt5224 four gospels have to have the same corroboration from four different viewpoints? Even the police, with four witnesses of a car wreck, Don’t get that.!
Next question
>Name one contradiction in the Bible
Sure, but which "Bible" are we talking about?
The LXX based on translations of the original Hebrew text for OT and NT?
The KJV based on the Masoretic text for the OT?
Or any other variant?
@@OnlyGnosis Old or New Testament, Masoretic text Septuagint, They all corroborate with each other!
Next question please !!
Presuppositional apologetics isn’t a joke. It’s gaslighting.
Logic itself must be a gaslighting to you
@@thelobsterking1055 it’s not logic. It stops thought when you tell people that thier evidences are invalid because of thier suposssed “worldview.” Its always gaslighting. You can have a conversation with an evidentialist.
I can see calling presuppositional apologetics gaslighting. The problem with doing so is that it's an advertisement of mental deficiency. It's like this. You could say that throwing a 75mph fastball is an unrealistic standard. Yes, that is a true statement for children in little league. However, it is not a true statement for professional pitchers.
Yes, presuppositional apologetics is gaslighting when you lack the mental capacity to justify your positions. When you cannot conceive of accounting for your thoughts, then being asked to account for your thoughts seems like nonsense word games, such as gaslighting.
I would suggest the 40 people who upvoted this comment spend your time attempting to find some grounding for your worldview rather than using social approval to make yourselves feel better about being unable to do so.
@@patrickbarnes9874 litterally used an ad hominem attack every time as a second recourse like a true Calvinist
@@MrTonyJ your original comment is ad hominem.
You just saying that if someone said something that you didnt understand than that means you ve been gaslighted
If people want to take the idea that the Bible is inerrant as properly basic, they should feel free to. But at that point I think they've given up on convincing anyone else.
You also have a lot of explaining to do if you want to get from there to the Christianity you want to practice.
What does convincing someone else have to do with it?
Can you convince the people you interact with to change from how they currently think, to your way of thinking?
@@davidrigg8678 If you're asking if its possible to change someone's mind. I'd say, yes, it is.
At this point they often resort to intimidation…. Hell etc!
@@davidrigg8678 It's related to what you think a good argument is. A good argument isn't necessarily just one that has a true conclusion, for example the arguments "God exists, therefore God exists" and "God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist" are both valid arguments and one of them is even sound but I would say they are both bad arguments because they are both unconvincing.
If we are not trying to convince anyone, or clarify some concept for them etc. we could ask ourselves why we are even having a discussion, we aren't really communicating at that point.
Thanks Derrick, great convo. Key words to the presupper "And neither can you, even though you merely claim it"
Love Alex Malpass's attitude and approach to these topics. More of him, please!
He’s an incredibly humble individual for how accomplished he is. Deference is key for quality philosophers in my opinion
The presup kryptonite seems to be: "Please tell me the Good News of Jesus. "
“I want to talk about Jesus, Darth. Can we please talk about Jesus?”
Why is that? Can they not talk about it or something?
@@surfin0861 Presupps don’t want to defend their position, they want to press their interlocutor to solve the problem of hard solipsism. Many, especially Darth Dawkins, don’t even really care about Jesus. He uses presupp as a way to verbally abuse his opponents.
@@surfin0861 I suspect that Jesus is not manly enough for them. I think they want less compassion, more smiting.
@@surfin0861
The whole point of presuppositional apologetics, at least in its “street” form, is to circumvent discussions about the faith. It is purely a rhetorical tactic to get nonbelievers tripped-up. Most presupps are also Calvinists and have a very pessimistic/defeatist view about the value of discussing the faith with non-believers since anyone who isn’t among God’s elect aren’t going to “get it” anyway.
Great hangout. Hangout was very educational and helpful. Thanks to guests and hosts for your time and energy. Well done.
To Dr. Malpass, for what it's worth: I would consider anyone actively publishing in the field to be a professional philosopher, regardless of whether they have an "official" academic position or not. Just as a PhD who works in a private research lab can still be a professional chemist, professional biologist, etc., even though they're not at a university.
Professional = paid
Always good to hear Alex.
Presuppositionalism is not apologetics, it is a tactic of verbal aggression.
Does it hurt your feelings?
@red8556 Does it hurt yours? Did my remark trigger something?
@@andreasplosky8516 does verbal aggression make you sad,
@@triggered8556 Does it make you sad?
Did my remark trigger something?
@@andreasplosky8516 I’m fine, I’m not the one describing arguments as “verbal aggression”. 😂
Your channel is the very best
Agreed.
Is that a presupposed statement? Lol I'm kidding
I am an electrical engineer and a propellerhead. It has become clear to me that reason cannot give an account of itself, without tying itself up in self-referential knots. Reason is a given in the human being. It does not imply God , however it is a step towards seeing the world as a mystery and seeing that the domain of reason has its limits. Its a step towards having an open mind.
If reason is a given, who gave it to you?
It's not that reason cannot give an account of itself.
Infinite recursion is just a common product of left-recursive parsing. And left-recursive parsing is how most humans tend to describe things.
Listen, I don't believe in having heroes, but if I did, Malpass would be at the top of my list. Great vid!
Yes, I agree with Alex about the length of Carrier's blogs. Carrier definitely needs an editor for his blogs, who could start by cutting out the mind-reading of opponents' motives.
I would suggest having Dr. Malpass back, playing the Bahnsen/Stein debate, and having him respond as he would have in Stein's place. That would be instructive for people dealing with these arguments online.
The Bahnsen/Stein debate without Bahnsen? After seeing Malpass on the Kalam I think that Bahnsen would still win.
Alex is kind and patient. He let the host interview himself.
Presups get their epistemological cart before the horse. The reason it's impossible to "account for" things like reason, logic, and natural regularity ("laws of physics") is because those things are ontologically prior to "accounting." They are the things that make "accounting for" or "explaining" things possible. It's like storming out of H&R Block in a huff because they can't find anything in your tax returns to "account for" the existence of money.
Presups do this because their approach replies on destroying epistemology so that anything goes, and following up with "Nuh-uh! Only what _I_ say goes!" It should be needless to say, but this is a ridiculously poor basis for a model of reality.
Also, positing a deity can't "account for" logic, reason, physics, or anything else. Why? Because, in order for a deity to "account for" anything, it must first: 1) exist, and 2) be _that_ deity (with whatever attributes and properties make it suitable as an explanation) and not some other, and this identity must be stable. In other words, logic, reason, etc. are ontologically prior to any deity.
Such epistemological and logical basics as Existence (something exists rather than nothing) and Identity (A is A, A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same respect) have to be applicable before one can posit the _existence_ of a deity with a certain _identity_ (e.g. Yahweh rather than Ma'at) and certain _attributes_ (such as the power to create, order, and sustain the Cosmos--IOW some sort of natural/supernatural regularities that make it able to do what the Presup wants it to do). Take away those things, and you can't say "Yahweh exists, and can do things."
This is false. If you can explain the origin of the German language in German why should you not be able to make logical inferences about the origins of logic?
The real problem with "accounting" is that it's a weasel word. Whatever explanation you give when asked to "account" for logic, if it doesn't contain god, the presup will complain that you haven't "accounted " for logic.
@@stenlis
You cannot explain the origin of German in German unless you draw an arbitrary line at some point in the development of German. German did not just spring into existence, it is the result of everything that ever came before it, and so no matter how well you know the language, you will never be able to fully explain it simply because you have a massive knowledge gap that the language itself *cannot* bridge.
But German is not logic. Logic is something that springs from basic observations of the universe to give us fundamental assumptions that *must* be accepted before logic can function. (E.G.: Points exist.) That is just what mathematical axioms are. We cannot prove them, we can only attempt to see if the arguments they produce predict things that are provably true. German does not require axioms, because it is a language. All of its words are fundamentally arbitrary, and whether Ich mean "I" or "you" is not material so long as people agree on it.
That is not to say they are not using that as a weasel word. They usually are. But they also are definitely simultaneously asking people to prove the unprovable, or accept their unprovable claim as true. It is a nonsense argument.
It is exactly like saying that Unicorns exist, and when I say there is no evidence that Unicorns exist, you respond asking me to prove that there is no evidence that Unicorns exist, and since I cannot prove the negative, the response is that Unicorns must exist. It is just a bundle of logical fallacies that cannot be argued against, because there is no idea to argue against. They have just decided they know the truth and so only ever posit unanswerable question without making any falsifiable assertions.
@@Caelinus I think you are conflating something. I'm not saying that the German language itself explains the origin of the German language. I'm saying you can explain the origins *using* German language as means of communication.
If you have 1) The knowledge of how German language originated and 2) Can sufficiently communicate in German then 3) You can explain the origins of German language in German. Feel free to show me where the contradiction is in this reasoning.
With regards to logic I think you are conflating something different: I'm not saying you can explain how logic works using logic (that's a different matter). I'm saying you can make logical inferences about the origins of logic. You can talk to someone who accepts/uses the laws of logic and argue where logic comes from. The statement "Logic was created by God" is not contradictory. It's just not sound.
@@stenlis
They do not really say that logic was created by God, they say that the existence of logic proves that God exists because logic was created by God.
They presuppose that God exists. That is why they are called that. They assume it as an axiom without justification or evidence.
It is not contradictory, but it being unsound is exactly what the person you were responding to is saying. They are adopting their conclusion as an axiom that no one has a reason to accept, and then using that axiom to prove itself by arguing that no other axiom can be proven. The only contradiction is in their hypocrisy, not in the statement itself. Yet the statement itself is just as invalid as saying that 0 = 1 because 0 is written with one character.
As for explaining the origin of German, to do that you still need to create an arbitrary line where German starts, and then ignore everything else. You cannot explain it in totality because the knowledge to do so does not exist. The same is true of logic. We cannot logically explain the origins of logic with logic, because the knowledge to do so does not exist. If an omniscient being existed it likely could, but it also would likely need to vastly expand both systems to make it possible. In either case we are limited by our perspective.
You can comment or discuss the origin of logic logically, but you cannot truly explain or prove it logically, because you cannot prove axioms. Without axioms logic fails. Just as like without knowing how German originated, any explanation of it in German fails due to a lack of knowledge and perspective.
The point is that they cannot demand that someone explains the totality of the universe or resign themselves to the God of the Gaps. Which is exactly what they do. They want us to explain every axiom omnisciently, whereas they just assume that if it cannot be explained by perfect knowledge it must be God.
When someone asks me if "I could be wrong", they are also saying"I could be right". Could is the word which cuts both ways.
It seems to me that this dilemma is helped by agnosticism. As an agnostic, the few times I’ve had someone go for the pre-sup tactic of asking how I can defend my view apart from God grounding the laws of logic, I always respond that I don’t. I think God might exist, I just think the evidence is against the Christian God. There may be a God out there that hasn’t revealed itself to either of us, that grounds the laws of logic, that doesn’t have a fallible holy book, for example.
They’ll still try. They will say do you accept or reject the Christian worldview and if you say you’re unsure, that is an implicit rejection. If you don’t accept, anything else is a rejection. So defend your rejection.
Just say allah is the necessary to presuppose to ground logic.
You just have to have a plausible explanation for your ability to think. For some reason it doesn't come up much in these discussions, but "evolution" is most atheists' explanation, which really doesn't cut it.
"There may be a God out there that hasn’t revealed itself to either of us, that grounds the laws of logic, that doesn’t have a fallible holy book, for example." Why would the laws of logic need to be grounded? Seems like you're trying to have it both way, there might be a God that grounds logic, and there might be no logic. Well why MIGHT there be a God that grounds logic?
@@echoftw I think that aspect of Theism, that logic comes from God, makes sense. So in that sense, that’s why logic might be grounded in God. But it could also be that logic just is a brute fact of the universe, and maybe is explained by something else, possibly something natural.
Do you see some issue with this way of thinking? I’m not seeing the point of your question.
@@Boogachomperi do see an issue, if logic is a fact of the universe but all that exists is matter, how does an idea exist in matter? And how do ideas predate the human brain if all we have is matter? Where IS the law in the matter? How do you get universals from matter?
Everyone needs to watch this and listen very closely.
No
Well, I am watching and there's very little new about it. Not everyone knows all the same things and to the same extent as you. As written, It sounds like you already understand presupositional argumentation and how it's used in apologetics, and want others to know too, but you are making the generalization logical fallacy by assuming everyone needs to watch and listen. I don't I'm watching to see how these two approach it and see if I can agree, and to what extent, and even call out flaws in their own logic if it arises.
A presuppositional argument should be obvious, and as soon as uttered rejected as a valid premise until it can be shown true. It serves to get your opponent to argue within your belief when you are trying to debunk it! They will use your acceptance to argue it as acceptance of the false premises they presupposed without substantiation. Garbage in = Garbage out, and a logically valid conclusion can be gained from false premises, but a valid conclusion by no means is a true conclusion! For that the premises themselves have to be true in order to logically establish any true or useful conclusions from them, and even that is based on rational and reasonable use of logic, and still may never show conclusive by mere argument. That's where science comes in, which has it's own limitations.
Presups like Darth Dawkins proves to me that there are just some people you can't reason with.
What is reason?
I was just to comment that please avoid such teen/simpleton titles like "destroyed" in this context, but was glad I found out later on it was ironic, totally fitting!
Subscribed, and jealous. I have no content at all, but I have this silly dream to have long discussion with Malpass about epistemology, having actually charitable discussions with opponents and whatnot. I hold him in very high regard for multiple reasons, and you're doing very good job with all these discussions!
Their ultimate source of knowledge says that bats are birds, rabbits chew cud, and animals get their markings from the patterns their parents were staring at as they rutted.
Enough said.
While I appreciate Dr. Malpas I both agree and disagree with him on various points.
1. Yes if it's the theist argument it's on us to defend it.
2. That doesn't mean you have no burden. It's not shifting the burden to ask you to justify your reasoning or position. This is just how debates work. They're back and forth.
3. Dr. Malpas should definitely be in academy. It's crazy someone with his level of deep thought process isn't teaching the next generation.
I'm missing the main point about God's gift to women? Is this an insult? I don't know any Christians who say or believe that?
I'm atheist, but you don't get the presup argument - the whole point hinges on the notion of "objective truth." If you think "Objective Truth" is something that you can identify, for example via empirical investigation or via logic, then you are making a a metaphysical claim, i.e. a claim about the "what is real." All metaphysical claims, including god, are on equal footing - i.e. we can't declare one more appropriate than another, we can only say which ones we want to make and which ones we don't. So there is a sense in which believing in "objective truth" is the same as believing in "god." The only way to avoid this is to use an epistemology that avoids metaphysics, namely pragmatism.
Exactly, truth is just a descriptor, not an actual thing. Most of these Christian presups are Platonists and they don't even know it. They think that "truth" exists in the universe as an object. The way to dismantle the presup script is just to reject metaphysics as the pseudoscience it is.
But a presupp is game to critique pragmatism as well. IIRC Van Til wrote a paper critiquing it. I don’t think you need to be a pragmatist to shut down presupps anyway. You just have to, as Alex said, point out that they haven’t successfully shown how Trinitarian Christianity has to be true for whatever the token thing they are arguing about to make sense.
@@samuelstephens6904 I confess I'm not familiar with the deepest recesses of the presup argument, and there is certainly more than one way to address it. I also agree with Alex's critique as you explained. My message is that the presup argument does make some good points and has some useful insights, namely that there is hypocrisy in declaring one man's metaphysics as silly but another's as obvious.
@@ericb9804
I don’t think the presupp argument makes good points. I think encountering a presupper can teach some valuable lessons about humility, more closely examining your own beliefs and background assumptions, etc. But this isn’t an experience that is unique to encountering TAG specifically. It will happen to anyone who is naive and encounters something that is philosophically tricky.
Moreover, I don’t think it is wise to adopt a philosophical position like pragmatism just to more competently deal with this irritating form of apologetics. That seems no better than the presupps who only like TAG because it “wins” debates. Maybe use pragmatism to show there are possibly other “worldviews” that can make sense of things or play by very different rules than the ones a presupp assumes any “worldview” should abide by. But that wouldn’t require actually becoming a pragmatist. Like, if you are a pragmatist for independent reasons and it just so happens it can meet the presupp challenge, more power to you. But the claim that the “only way to avoid” the presupp argument is to adopt pragmatism or become some form of antimetaphysician strikes me as about as plausible as the presupp claim that only the triune God of Christianity can account for logic, the intelligibility of experience, or whatever.
@@samuelstephens6904Fair enough. I don't mean to imply that pragmatism should be adopted merely because it "defeats" presups. I do in fact mean to imply it should be adopted because it is more useful in general. Critiquing the presup argument as I do is just a useful tool for advocating for pragmatism in general.
Presups argue for "god," which is just silly, but in doing so they employ a well-known critique of epistemology - the same critique that led to pragmatism in secular philosophy. This critique is specifically that traditional epistemology is premised on metaphysical speculation about "what is real" and "how we know." When we try to answer such questions by appealing to "objectivity", we engage in the same behavior as the presup, namely simply declaring that "objectivity" is "necessary" in the same way the presup claims "god" is "necessary."
So pragmatism "defeats" the presup for the same reason it "defeats" traditional epistemology - by showing that this is simply behavior we don't need to engage in, we just need to change how we answer those questions by appealing to a mundane "utility" as opposed to a metaphysical "objectivity."
Malpass bringing up his Matt Slick interactions was great - and he was completely right. Matt Slick was a guy who prided himself on being a paragon of logic, logic logic logic constantly, you can't even logic without my god! and Alex came in and pointed out this very straightforward problem with his argument and he just couldn't come to terms with hit. He never has. People bring it up to him from time to time and he runs for the hills every time, it's glorious.
I don't even think that I understand the phrase "how do you account for X...?" It seems to only ever be demanded by presups.
Spoken like someone who has never questioned their own worldview
Its a meta question that is demanded by meta disciplines (meta logic, meta ethics...)
@@thelobsterking1055 If a possible answer is "I account for X by supposing the existence of a magical being that grants X" then it's really a useless question.
@@idahogieThen I guess you are a pragmatist
Fair position only its have nothing to do with such things as "objective truth" or "objective reality".
BTW, that video Malpassa mentioned with Slick is what made me follow Malpass. It's rare you see someone with so kind, patient and generous. I feel Malpass really tried to help him, found out together how things are instead of arguing, even though the other party wasn't familiar at all with philosophical concepts or language, and simultaneously very stubborn on his views
One of the best interviews I've watched recently, and I've been watching Dr. Kipp. Amazing stuff. Definitely more things like this. I'd love to see another follow up with a Kant scholar!
As a result of his lazy and dishonest representations of mythicism I can no longer take Dr Kipp's videos seriously. He has shown an incredible lack of integrity and a willingness to lie rather than research.
Whether you think mythicism is plausible or not, you shouldn't have to straw man the arguments to discredit it. He also has a habit of attacking the person rather than the arguments.
@@betadecay6503 I don't know what video you watched, but I find Dr. Kipp's criticisms of mythicism to lack any of the flaws you mentioned. He doesn't attack anyone personally and engages with the material in which he has specific training. His handling of mythicism seems pretty standard to me. It isn't a serious theory, after all.
@@J_Z913 If you think mythicism "isn't a serious theory, after all" then you are seriously behind on the research.
If you think Dr Kipp has done a good job criticizing mythicism then you are seriously behind on the research.
If you think he doesn't attack anyone personally then you haven't paid attention to any video he's made on the topic.
I can debate you on any point you think mythicism fails on if you like. I'll let you pick it...
@@betadecay6503 I do not engage in debates about mythicism. Mythicism has to be a coherent theory and provide convincing evidence before it is taken seriously and therefore worthy of debate. I do not know of any relevant scholar that takes the theory as a whole seriously. I am always willing to listen though, and the scholar that makes a convincing case for mythicism must have the following qualifications and/or acomplishments:
A deep and unquestionable knowledge of the ancient languages in question, like Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and/or Coptic, etc. Ideally more than just Greek or just Hebrew.
A background in a relevant field of Biblical or Ancient Southwest Asian studies (this includes degrees or specializations in the languages like those listed above).
No clear financial incentive to preach mythicism (Carrier, Price, etc.).
Refute the major arguments for a historical Jesus in a way that convinces a critical mass of other scholars (this does not have to be a majority, just enough to start a conversation in the field).
Defend their evidence coherently and logically when questioned and not make excuses when evidence is weak or lacking (ex. Inventing a conspiracy involving Biblical scholars that are biased against them and have some sort of pro-Christian agenda).
Use the most up to date research in the relevant fields to make their arguments.
Engage in some sort of historiography regarding the past arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus (Ideally with some sort of understanding of international scholarship, especially German, Nordic, & French scholarship).
Publish their work with an acclaimed academic press.
Have relevant and valuable footnotes or endnotes to back up any claims they make. Note: the mere presence of citations is not enough. The cited sources must be relevant to the claim in question.
Ideally, this theory must be presented at some sort of relevant academic conference, allowing live feedback from other scholars (ex. SBL.).
Until there is a scholar that meets all of these criteria, I continue to be highly skeptical of mythicism.
As to your points about Dr. Kipp, I believe that you are projecting. It is people like Carrier and Price who are behind on the research, not Dr. Kipp. Scholarship has moved on from this position, and with good reason. If the only resource you use for keeping up with scholarship are UA-cam channels (like Godless Engineer), then you will be misinformed about the state of the field. I recommend following people like M. David Litwa, Dale Allison, James Tabor, Jennifer Bird, Dan McClellan, Francesca Stavrokopoulou, and, of course, Bart Ehrman, to name a few of the dozens of public scholars that are relevant to this topic. For more of a specialized view on Biblical research, I recommend checking out the latest copies of New Testament Abstracts, Currents in Biblical Research, & Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (available in English, French, & German). That should give you a better understanding of the state of the field than anything on UA-cam (barring our great overlord here on Mythvision, Derek Lambert).
I will end with this analogy: Mythicism is to Atheists as Young Earth Creation is to Fundamentalist Christians. Until more evidence and a convincing case is made, it will continue to be a baseless conspiracy theory.
@@betadecay6503 Behind "the research"? What research?
If you run into a presup, just start with, "is it possible that you were in a car accident yesterday and in a coma right now, dreaming?"
That ends that shit right there.
Presuppositional arguments seem to be a last redoubt of apologetics. They have conceded so much terrain by this point that it seems pointless to engage these in order to take that last bit of ground. It’s become kind of like Buddy Hackett’s “keep the duck” joke.
I came to the conclusion that presup is the admission that the evidential apologetic route has failed. IT boils down to childishness where they're essentially doing the intellectual equivalent of "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah *sticks tongue out*"
I think of it as trying to do an end run around actual arguments by retreating into philosophical abstractions.
Most “serious” apologists don’t bother with presuppositional apologetics. There are hardly any “professionals” or academics who take it seriously. Even William Lane Craig thinks its bollocks. It mostly only exists on the “street” level as a kind of pseudophilosophy that, as Alex pointed out, functions more like alpha-male posturing than a real intellectual program.
@@CascadeGamer In a way you're right, minus the self serving and unjustified condescension. But you're right that presup is an evolution from the various debates of the 90s and 2000s between evidentalists and new atheists. But the problem is saying they "failed" implies that they were balanced debates where 2 people went head to head and the new atheists came out the winners. In reality what we see now is that those debates were extremely asymmetrical. Instead of a debate between competing worldviews what we got was atheists taking for granted all sorts of things, including morality and standards for epistemology and then attacking theism from this "view from nowhere" where they never have to put forward an alternative. This is an idiotic strategy for theists to take. It makes absolutely no sense because there is essentially no up side. To demonstrate: do you think atheists would be willing to spend the next 20 years having debates like "Can materialism explain everything?" No, they wouldn't. So why should theists? Why should we just grant you everything you want and then start from there?
Atheism used to assert "God doesn't exist". Today it's mostly agnosticism, or " I don't know if God exists", so agnosticism. Theists used to say "God exists" and still do. Who has given ground?
Scientist: This machine works. We tested it.
Philosopher: Yeah, I know it works in practice, but does it work philosophically?
“Philosophy” and “presuppositionalism” aren’t the same thing lol.
More accurate might be to have the philosopher consider the moral implications of implementing the machine.
A machine works because it was designed and created to do so. There is also the question of how it works and how we know this. If we are to accept your analogy, why is it unfair to explore it fully? How/why does logic work and why do you assume it had no designer? The machine surely did. Your analogy suggests God.
@@FightFilms nope, the machine suggests humans make machines, it says absolutely nothing about a "supernatural" force that "created" the Universe.
@@uncomfortableshirtthat would be because Presup isn't Philosophy, Presup is a word game pretending to be a Philosophical Argument.
I presuppose that anyone who talks about god cannot do so unless they were created by Asherah.
If a presuppositionalist tells you that God was grounding the law of Identity when he said "I am that I am," remind them that they just undermined Jesus's divinity.
Jesus repeating this line before the Sanhedrin is one of the principle proof texts for his godhood.
Can you explain this further?
@@Mista_Awesomeness The name "I Am" (a name given by God in the Hebrew Bible) was used by Jesus to convey his divinity. But if God was merely formulating the law of identity, then "I am" isn't his name.
Therefore, Jesus was merely clarifying the law of identity, not claiming to be God.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 Ok thanks, I hadn't heard that people were using it to formulate the law of identity. I heard of Jesus saying it to Moses and then again to the Sanhedrin
@@Mista_Awesomeness To be clear, it's a minority view, even among apologists. The traditional Christian explanation is that Jesus used that language intentionally to express his divinity. Meaning God used "I Am" as his name, which Jesus borrowed to make a point.
A handful of grasping presuppositionalists aren't the best examples of Christian beliefs.
Don't worry about this particular style of presup apologetics - it is fallacious, circular reasoning - so it's not worth much time thinking too much about.
Once you know their script it's pretty easy to deal with.
Good to see Alex on, though.
Definitions of words are circular. Does that make language fallacious?
@@FightFilms Well, you either agree circular reasoning is fallacious or not; I'm not bothered which camp you fall into.
Definitions of words are circular?
I don't see why - you're going to have to expand on that one ...
When you ask one to define "chair", for example, they use different words that ultimately mean chair So, the definition of chair is chair, in other words. All definitions are by definition circular.
See, when you get to the foundation of any worldview, or language, they are all circular.
Atheists will say that the justification for logic is " it works". That's circular. However you slice it, you have to use logic to justify logic. It's a circularity no one can escape. If you want to hold that as fallacious, that would probably lead to solipsism, so incoherence.
Or, you accept circularity as the foundation of all worldviews, thus not a fallacy.
TAG being circular is not a fallacy. It is what it is.
@@FightFilms Well, yes - the words use to describe a "chair" are used to describe what I mean by the word chair. That isn't circular - it's for brevity sake.
ie: when I say: "I'm sitting on a chair." I could say: "I am sitting on a thing that was made for sitting on" - but why bother when I can replace the phrase 'thing that was made for sitting on' with one word 'chair.'
Logic are axioms (self-evidently true), so they don't require justifications. ie: nobody needs to justify them; whatever your world view (atheist, Christian etc).
Accusing atheists of having an incomplete world view because they "can't justify axioms" is simply missing the point.
This is why presup *is circular - because they believe they can justify logic - and what do they use? That's right - they use logic to justify logic. Which we've agreed is circular. And thus fallacious.
No - you don't have to accept circularity - as I said - logic are axioms that don't require justification. That isn't circular and thus isn't fallacious.
Yes - TAG being circular is fallacious, because we agree circular reasoning is fallacious.
Definitions being circular is not my opinion. This is a well-established fact. Go study this, if in doubt.
Say I grant you that "chair is a thing we sit on that also sometimes comes in a set that includes a table" isn't circular.
Tell me in one word what a "thing we sit on that also sometimes comes in a set that includes a table" without being circular or dishonest.
Sometimes linguistic circularity makes a larger circle. Define any word in the dictionary without using the words in the dictionary. Any word you define will contain other words. Keep defining all the individual words in all subsequent definitions and you will get to the original word eventually. A lake is a body of water smaller than a sea. A sea is a body of water bigger than a lake. That's a small circle. They can be much bigger, but all ultimately circular. You can't escape this. This is not controversial.
Saying that logic is self-evident is literally a circle. You said logic justifies itself. Axioms are by definition circular.
Me: Justify logic.
You: logic is
Me: why?
You: because it just is
It is SELF-EVIDENT. It provides evidence for itself by itself. Of course that is circular.
You accept circularity at the foundational level, thus you need a different argument to attack TAG.
Honesty demands you concede this, or provide an argument that will put cement you in the history of philosophy forever. Whatever you do, please do not repeat your claims as they have already been addressed.
Advance the conversation or concede the point.
This is a fantastic coversation
humility and questioning can go a long way
Logic is a descriptive abstraction of reality. Nothing more, nothing less. A thing exists, that thing has properties, those properties dictate what that thing can and can't do. This is what logic and the "laws" of nature boil down to. There's no metaphysical, pseudo-intellectual bullshit required.
I agree. The basis for logic and ultimately mathematics is our observation of the basic characteristics of reality. A is A, A cannot be not-A, etc. None of this needs a metaphysical grounding. It's just what we see at the simplest level and therefore, these basic principles are axiomatic. Presups are out there claiming that we need to prove axioms. Logic is grounded in empirical observation.
@@donnievance1942 it genuinely annoys me that people like Matt Dillahunty agree that "we all have presuppositions". I don't see how I do. I didn't presuppose the laws of logic. I observed things before I knew how to formulate a coherent thought. Those observations shaped my thoughts and became my foundation for logic. The laws of logic, which are an entirely arbitrary state of reality, gave me my understanding, therefore I did not presuppose them and I have no need to presuppose anything.
@betadecay6503 I think someone like Matt could just say that you presuppose logic in the sense that you 'presuppose' those features of reality that you observed will still hold in the future such that you can make inferences/predictions.
That's kind of the way I see it anyway.
@@grumpypoof9648 but I don't presuppose that those features of reality will hold in the future. Reality is going to do whatever reality does, all I'm doing is interpreting it in the best way I can. I base my actions on the fact that they have acted the same in the past and I have no better method to propose. I'm going to continue to use the best available tool until it fails, just like I would in any other task.
@betadecay6503 Right. But that isn't a justification for them. Because all you're doing is committing the 'black swan fallacy'. "Every swan I've observed is white" It's the the problem of induction. It's basically what the presuppers are always trying exploit.
You are presupposing your rational cognitive faculties are working properly. Your answer to why they are working properly can't be because they have been properly working. That's begging the question.
It's not a problem to have presuppositions. It's actually in my view unavoidable.
So the problem is going to arise when asked to "ground or justify or account for the laws of logic."
Never mind the presuppers can't justify any of this themselves lol. But it is what the whole argument is basically about.
Derek insults our God in every video but then cries and runs to his daddy Malpass to help him out to understand basic philosophy.
This isn’t a helpful statement. “Our God”? Whose exactly? Evangelicals? Baptists? Fundamentalists? Presbyterians? Episcopalians? Theists? Mormons? Eastern Orthodox? Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Your particular sect? In addition, both the host and his guest have laudably open minds on these matters; your insult “cries and runs to daddy…” is, apart from being inane, uncharitable and unchristian.
There is much in the Gospels about love: just one example: “If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen.” I don’t particularly agree with Derek on many things - but if there IS a God, then I think God would value honest enquiry over bigotry.
Tissue?
Presuppositionalist Predestinationist Preterist Pentecostal Presbyterian Protestants unite!
Stop P’ing everywhere. You’re leaving a mess!!
I had the experience of being infuriated by a presuppositionalist.
They're all infuriating. It's part of the presuppositionalist approach; frustrate your interlocutor until they get upset, then you can call them irrational. All part of the manipulation tactic.
😂
But SoyVision, do you presuppose logic?
Lmao, insecure much are you?
Everyone presupposes logic. Adding in another claim you’d need to prove just continue presupposing is illogical.
@@LiveLXStudiosno one is saying it is logical the argument is asking you to ground and justify your beliefs..
@@LiveLXStudioswhat? Are you having a stroke?
You are not required to be convinced, nor persuaded. The issue with millions of people around the world not thinking as one might hope, and perhaps still hoping it, in itself, is wishful thinking. If the idea is to convince on a one on one basis, maybe, but reason does not end according to what you consider valid, there are endless considerations outside the bounds you'd agree with. Everyone fools themselves, lesser fools than others know this, and though aware, it does not remove the status. People do not have to play by certain rules, they will do as they will. If you lack faith in this that's said, there is a pattern for evidence, history.
I just tuned in to find what "presuppositionalism" is.
You chose a good source 💪
Basically, it's word salad god of the gaps.
@@stevenhuntley8706 I get the concept. I had just never heard that term used before. Always a pleasure to add a new word to the lexicon.
@@dbt5224 Deus ex-machina with a twist of lime.
Likewise. Starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
It would be nice if MV or the guest could give us an intro into where this ideology came from historically. Was it related to the Millerites?
Great Show! 😊👍
Malpass is awesome, and I endorse the podcast he suggested 😎
One last point, Derek...
When they ask... " Do the Laws of Logic exist without human minds ? " ... you can answer in depth, and reject as absurd from a completely philosophically justifiable standpoint ( Transcendentally reduce their Transcendental argument ) without an appeal to Supernaturalism:
It is absurd to suggest that Laws ( thought objects ) of any kind can exist without ( human ) subjects in existence: " No subject no object, " and this includes thought objects, of course. That's Schopenhauer. My words... " No thinkers no thoughts, lol! " It's a rank contradiction to propose the existence of Laws ( human thoughts ) without subjects (humans ) in existence!!! Thus, the question can be rejected as absurd on its face!
JimBob proposed that... (when I asked the question, " Where does Reason come from ? " back to him... ) humans " access " Reason, lol!
You have them again!!
You again Transcendentally reduce to absurdity their Transcendental argument!!
Ask : " By what medium do we " access " these Laws? " JimBob did not respond, because...
... he only had two choices : He could claim them sensually " accessed, " which of course he denies; or he can claim that the brain is inherently prepared to produce & access them, which he also denies!
By denying both...
... this leaves them with what they don't want, which is to go into their particular theology because they have rejected basic philosophy!
That is... they have to take an unjustifiable leap into Supernaturalism... which you can also call them out on!!
I answered that question again... in another way, and again received no response from JimBob: " The ontology of the human being ( subject ) is where the thought object ( Laws of Logic ) come from. "
They aren't prepared to have answers to those that know real philosophy, that is!
Thanks for proving what you've responded to, lol!@@jackisgallant
@@jackisgallantDo you affirm the following principle?
_Without a belief as to why X is true, one cannot be justified in believing that X is true_
X can be any proposition
@@jackisgallant The quality of conveying or representing what is the case (I.e reality)
@@jackisgallant Okay let's consider an implication of that answer. Presumably you'd agree that sometimes people experience nerve pain or emotional pain that they can't account for. According to the aforementioned principle, in cases where a person is in pain but has no clue as to why, they are unjustified in believing that they're in pain. One must first form a belief as to _why_ they're in pain, before one can be justified in believing _that_ they're in pain. Does that sound right to you?
@@jackisgallant I understand a definition to be a statement that expresses (or attempts to express) the essential nature of something. So when you say that their pain is undefined, I interpret that to mean there is no statement expressing the essential nature of the person's pain. Is that what you mean when you say their pain is undefined?
______
Would you affirm these principles as well?
_It's always irrational to believe things without justification_
_It's always irrational to act on beliefs which are non-epistemically justified_
I typically like Derek chiming in, but here is one place I wish he would have left Alex to speak much more. It’s clear Derek doesn’t understand the philosophical side as well as other things, and I think a lot of time was wasted that could have been better used by Alex to flesh out the topic.
Jay Dyer may perhaps be a master debater, but he is most certainly a poor dialectician. 😊
Nah he good.
I really like David John Wellman's approach to presuppositionalist "logic", based on Malpass actually.
As soon as someone comes up with the whole "you can't know/reason/argue anything without God", all you do is repeat "toast".
Do not go beyond that until they change their position.
This is very much in line with conspiracy thinking. Just keep the opposition in doubt. Keep asking questions. Avoid answering questions. Say things that sound impressive on the surface. Leave no room for nuance.
Yup, I have to deal with this when I debate Proverbs 16 4. There's always the presupposition of free will, even though the first half of that verse speaks of predestination. Which does, in no way, comport with free will.
The presuppers will try and push you on answering the hard questions that Philosophy has not answered yet and they will avoid giving their answer, because they don't have one.
And if you tell them that you don't have an answer and nether do they, then they will scream: that's a "tu quoque fallacy", instead of just giving you an explanation.
The answer is God. You just don't like it.
@@aisthpaoitht based on that answer could you say that rape happens because of God?
@@Vinnymanvinny1 define "happens because of"
@@aisthpaoitht The answer cannot be God because God explains nothing. He can't even explain his own existence.
@@ataho2000 then you don't understand what we mean by God. There's your problem.
I think one reason you're not going to see a lot of female apologists is that Apologists tend to be fundamentalist and Christian Fundamentalist Women don't get on stage a debate men a lot.
Ill paraphrase the fundamental reason for the presup argument.
"its not your job to witness the non believer, only the holy spirit can do that.
It's your job to shut their mouths". -Greg Bahnsen Defending the Faith
Presuppositional arguments only use TAG as a weapon for burden shifting the gish galloping bad faith argument tree.
Which raises an interesting question- why should they want to shut the unbelievers' mouths? Is it because others might be influenced by them? Even though WE know of course that they are wrong?
You're not debating. You're psychologizing. But, it could be because of the foul untruths coming out of them.
Making a TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD is burden shifting? And refusing to meet the theist half way in either refuting God or defending one's own axiom like logic is not burden shifting? What are you saying, exactly?
That's really it. Presuppositionalism is not intended to convince anyone of anything. So why employ it as an approach? The only conclusion I can make...(And this is part of a pet hypothesis I'm working on)...is that presuppositionalism attracts people with emotional shortcomings/personality disorders. It's malicious at its core, and serves only to denigrate the non-believer.
That's why every presupp you meet is a jerk. They have a pathological need to hurt others.
Great hangout. Very educational. Have a hangout with your guest and a presuper. Love to hear that.
17:60 RMA Syndrome (Reformed Male Arrogance Syndrome)...I've seen it many times. Nothing like a Calvinist man to make the case for a loving God. NOT.
Hey Derek your seriously physically looking good brother, love the tats, love how your muscles are shaping up. cheers. sorry my subscription is on pause, as i'm broke as at the moment
Gaaaayyyyyeeeeee!
When Malpass said that presuppers don’t like evidence I pretty much wrote him off. That may be the case with some internet folk, but that doesn’t prove much. If you read any of the main writers from the presuppositional camp, it’s evident Malpass is beating a straw man.
Did he say they don’t like evidence? He said their arguments aren’t evidentiary. And that is true. Presupps position themselves _against_ evidentiary apologists. They think their methods are wrong.
Great conversation!
Derek... you need to stop calling philosophy " mental masturbation. " That's as disrespectful to the discipline as the presupp's are to it, by doing what they do.
To me... such is YT Atheism... which is no better than YT Presuppositionalism.
As Malpass suggested... you should read Kant... especially: Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.
It is a hard read, but you are intelligent and can with the help of Richard Brown, Daniel Bonevac, Kyle Bannick & others - philosophers all on YT - come to understand Kant's ideas.
Kant will tell you & remember again, he is following & responding to Hume ( with respect & not with hostility )... that Transcendental Ideas are merely... non empirically derived Ideas, that's all.
Transcendental Ideas are not... our " accessing " of a " Platonic Realm " or the " Energies " of God... " which is the assertion of the Presuppers. It is how our brain works to ' fill in the gaps ' if you will. '
Laws are Ideas that aren't empirically observable: Hume - all we observe/sense are a chain of events.
Therefore, Laws are derived from the Systematic Unity that the mind imposes. We call this... Reason: Kant.
Do yourself a true service and read real philosophy... you, as a dealer in Ideas... will probably enjoy real philosophy, and find it extremely helpful in your realm of Ideas...
Why is this formatting all over the place
Wow the raw amount of special pleading by the host favoring atheism here is crazy. Special pleading=Making exception to the rule.
Look this is pretty simple you guys ask believers to justify own belief in God. You see this as a valid argument and question.
When believers ask you to justify your worldview (God does not exist) with reason, logic, morality, metalogical system, or transcendentals and you can't you cry theists are being unfair. Well too bad it's not unfair for Christian theists to ask you to justify your views.
Look this is simple to understand. If you say I don't believe in miracles you need to justify why you think that. Your ultimate justification or reason you give either supports your view or it doesn't. It's not the Christians fault that logically speaking naturalism (The puddle analogy) fails to justify these systems.
Everyone is a presupper.
Atheist presuppose mind and logic
Theists presuppose a mind behind mind dependent items.
Stop coping so hard
//Everyone is a presupper//
I presuppose that the universe exists, that the means we use to glean information about it are reliable, and that other minds besides my own exist. These are sufficient for making sense of my everyday experience. The existence of an ancient near-eastern desert spirit named Yahweh illuminates nothing whatsoever of reality, so I don't include it in my presuppositions.
you're my fav presupper
I don’t presuppose mind or logic. Those are tentative conclusions I have come to.
No dude. We don't presuppose anything. We go with what we see. Things are themselves. A is A. Things are not not-themselves. A cannot be non-A. Logic is built on these most basic observations of the nature of reality. We don't need metaphysical groundings for any of this. We just observe the world and then describe what is seen. We abstract general statements from these descriptions. That is all logic is at its root. It's built entirely on empirical observation.
@@donnievance1942 can observation be flawed, or do you presuppose your position to be true?
The more I learn about people’s religious beliefs, the more I’m convinced that humans are hard wired to stick to their core beliefs at almost all cost.
Except you right?
@@sullainvictus I’m not immune. I find myself getting caught in ego traps all the time. But I work hard to correct these as best I can. Learning to recognize and expose our cognitive biases is probably the most important thing when it comes to being right.
Christ is the Lord who revealed himself. Atheists keep saying that we don't justify the claim that God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. But we do, we do it first by demonstrating all other worldviews false(limited starting points). Then we also give our account of how the preconditions are justified in the christian worldview.
The Christian world view never shows how all others are false and every time you try to justify why Christianity is true you end up falling prey to the same issues that you accuse other non Christian world views falling short of.
Thats the problem though you're not actually justifying the claim that god is the "necessary" precondition for knowledge because you are demonstrating all other known world views false. This only means that your justification is based on a sufficient precondition. In order for the Christian god to be proven the "necessary" precondition you would need to nullify ALL known and unknown worldviews which is literally impossible. Therefore TAG is unprovable.
_" But we do, we do it first by demonstrating all other worldviews false(limited starting points)."_ But that's not what is actually being demonstrated. What you're demonstrating is "When assuming the truth of the Christian worldview, all other worldviews are false." It's a trivial claim that I can grant you and has no bearing on the truth of any worldview, rather it's an external evaluation of worldviews that are already recognized as being incompatible with your own. If you start with your own, of course the other worldviews all appear to fail in some way.
_"Then we also give our account of how the preconditions are justified in the christian worldview."_ Yet another trivial claim.
I'm a Christian, I know Derek, I disagree with much of the conclusions on this channel, but after watching his exchange with Dyer, even though I think there is something to the Presuppositional argument, Derek got ambushed and even when he said "hey Jay you win", just to stop the attack, it kept going, and I as a viewer thought it was nerve-racking, and no one gets anywhere in that type of discussion.
What Derek needs to do now, is get ahold of Dyer and have him debate Dr. Malpas or someone else, and keep it well moderated, then and only then, can anybody get any real benefit from such a discussion.
Dyer just asked for criteria base on which Derek decide some story is a myth or not and he couldnt answer. Is that count as attack ?
Sound like super basic question to me
And Malpass already debated Jay but spend most time talking about Aristotels for some reason
This one’s for you, Dyer. 😉
and all his little Dyer parrots smugly telling everyone they dont need to argue witht hem because anyeone who opposes their views has no justification for reality.
2:26 "I don't know if I'm a professional philosopher or not" Sounds like something a professional philosopher would say.
So this guy gets embarrassed on various livestreams with presuppers and then he goes and has a circlejerk interview about how dumb they are without them being there to defend themselves.
I am still waiting for someone to point out where presup gets destroyed.
Professional philosopher here. Presuppers aren't taken seriously in the field, in fact there are no relevant pholosophers who use those "arguments" because they are riddled with fallacies that professionals easily recognize while laymen don't
@@sunflare8798 Ah ok good to know. Fallacies like appeals to authority?
@@sunflare8798 Fallacies like appeals to authority?
@@sunflare8798 Like appeals to authority? That kind of fallacy?
1:13:00 I love how he considers that the explanation could easily be simply a selection effect.
You just encountered Jay Dyer! He is a well-read egomaniac.
Jay dyer destroyed mythvision in a debate
@triggered8556 Something tells me you're not the most unbiased judge.
@@theenigmadesk watch it for yourself, it was embarrassing for mythvision. And when you do, if you’re honest, you will agree.
@@triggered8556this is just a silly thing to say. Derek was very clear that he didn't know what Jay Dyer was talking about. To be fair Dyer spouts pure BS, it's pretty obvious he can't justify TAG
@@francisa4636 if TAG is so easy to debunk... Why don't you call Jay Dyer? He does open lives on twitter basically every day. Lol.
My pet hypothesis is this: Those that employ presuppositionalism as a tactic have some sort of emotional hindrance that manifests in many ways and for different reasons.
They run the gamut from fragile people who simply won't allow themselves to admit to being wrong, all the way to sociopaths and narcissists who get real pleasure from the bullying nature of presuppositionalism.
In any case, presuppositionalism is a fascinating study of human psychology.
Let's assume all of that is true and that you have a degree in psychology.
None of your psychologizing makes them wrong and can likewise be psychologized as "saying 'me no likey' feel good'".
@@FightFilms I completely agree. It doesn't change the fact that presuppositionalism is apologetics for those who can't accept criticism.
You couldn't answer the basic question about what is your criterion based on which you decide which story is a myth and which is not, so you made 2h video "destroying presups" ? lol nice try to cover it up
I came for the title, but I can't locate where 'Presuppositionalism is Destroyed' in the discussion after an hour and a half. Can someone give me a timestamp or two? I'll finish and try to locate it again, but it seems like the guys are simply complaining about presuppers making you justify why you assert 'everything must be rational'. Or the wonder of how our abstract logical thoughts apply to the material universe. All they seem to say is 'we don't know yet'. Or more generally 'we don't know anything for sure, but we know Christians can't be right.'
I think its destroyed in a sense that, where do you get your presuppositions that can't be verified and build a worldview that we are to accept
Show me on the doll where Jay Dyer wrecked you 😂.Justify empiricism Derek.
This cope session is hilarious
I am a Christian, though not a fundamentalist conservative type (So, NOT a Christian to many Christians haha)
Anyway, the idea that "no one can know truth apart from the Spirit of God" can be softened by thinking about "the Spirit of God" not as some abstract, unknowable idea, but rather as LOVE itself. What is love (baby don't hurt me)? Love is the embodiment of inward homeostasis due to an overwhelming sense of unity and compassionate kindness and peace for one's self and all things. THIS is "the spirit of God", not some Ghostly apparition that magically moves around in the world.
Thus, I agree with "presup" in the sense that LOVE is the very ground of being, the Oneness that enables the "10,000 things" to be come into existence, the singular consciousness that we are all simply expressions of. You are part of the totality, you are exactly where you should be, and part of the whole, whether you believe it or not!
So my version of "presup" is "you are loved by God, even if you reject him!" or "you are an intricate and perfectly placed part of the universe, whether you feel that or not!"
presup as a tool for conservative evangelical tribalistic reinforcement? Garbage, just like all forms of ego stroking and division.
@jeredmckenna He has risen.
Nice Haddaway reference.
What is justice? What is truth? Will the babe stop hurting him or be corrected in some way..?
I mean tow to those fit in to your stance of (tri-personal) God's love in His mind unifying everyone and everything?
@@ioaalto He is risen indeed.
One working theory I have is that proper ethical behavior (justice, truth) would be determined by or practiced by
1) ceasing mental commentary and viewing things with pure awareness
2) calming tension in the body, especially any that arose from mental commentary.
My theory is that in this state of pure awareness and homeostasis is a way of clearing the filters and mud away, revealing the divine logos, or spirit of God that is there ready to be accessed and enjoyed. We don't create it. Our minds only cover it up.
My theory is that love exists PRIOR to human thought, and thus to transcend thought is to reveal and realize and awaken the consciousness of love that is already there (God)
If God is love, and God is omnipresent and omnipotent, than shedding our addiction to our mental conceptions and judgments is the key to accessing that dimension within ourselves.
I've found this to be true for myself at least. I know "love" or "God" is there as a baseline for reality because I let go of thought as my identity and discovered that compassion and peace filled the void left automatically without effort.
Faced with this puzzle, the naturalist has to say he doesn't know what mechanism, if any, gave rise to the laws of logic, rational thought etc. It is a mystery that remains to be solved. But the naturalist is quite at liberty to ask the presup theist: "Your assertion about these phenomena being grounded in your God is fascinating. So tell me, what was the mechanism employed by God to achieve this remarkable result?" Now our presup friend has little choice but to admit that the answer to that question remains a mystery. So both protagonists are in the same boat. The only difference is that the history of science has taught the naturalist that such puzzles have been resolved in the past, so there is reason for optimism that this puzzle, too, will be resolved in the future. The presup, on the other hand, has no reason for such optimism. All he can say is that all may be revealed to him after he is dead. He is unable to resolve one mystery, so he simply replaces it with another.
Ok, but being in the same befuddled boat as the presp hardly seems desirable. I think it better to reply to the presup that the laws of logic, rational thought, etc. don't need the type the explanation the presup is demanding. Rather, they are things that humans find useful in achieving their goals, and they don't need any further explanation.
@@ericb9804 Perhaps I expressed that badly. My intention was to show that even if you grant the presup view, it contains the seeds of self-destruction. His boomerang comes hurtling back at him.
@@ericb9804 Oh ok good I'm glad you solved this one. All you have to do is say "I don't need to explain it." Great job. Atheists are very smart.
@@sullainvictus The point is that what we traditionally call an "explanation" is just a metaphysical claim. Such are claim as no longer satisfying and we don't just accept them as "necessary." But with this realization comes the realization that such "explanations" were never needed in the first place, so there is little reason to lament not having one.
@@ericb9804 "Such are claim as no longer satisfying and we don't just accept them as "necessary.""
Thanks for putting our vision on the myth christianity is based on!
So let me this straight, this guy wants to understand presuppositional apologetics and in order to accomplish that he goes to somebody that doesn't believe in presuppositional apologetics or understands it himself. Shocker. 😂
Well, considering the stated purpose of presuppositional apologetics from several influential presup apologists, is to "shut the mouths of the atheists" I wouldn't expect (and have rarely encountered) a presup apologist willing to give a straight answer to the question of "how is it exactly that you're attempting to trick me?" It's the same reason you don't go to a magician to find out how he performed a magic trick.
@@ajhieb Trick you? What do you mean by "trick you"?
@@firstthes2811 Use "common" words in a proprietary way. Use philosophical jargon when "common" language would be more clear. Basic equivocation. Flat out lying. Take your pick.
@@ajhieb Hmm, so you apparently think that presuppositionalist is doing something that they shouldn't be doing and of course you have an Objective Standard for why what they're doing is wrong, yes?
@@firstthes2811 _"Hmm, so you apparently think that presuppositionalist is doing something that they shouldn't be doing"_ Never said that.
_"you have an Objective Standard for why what they're doing is wrong, yes?"_ Why should I care about your arbitrary demand for some objective moral standard, that you can't even adhere to yourself?
As an evidentialist Christian apologist i really don't like presupp apologetics. There is no reason we should have to use arguments that really tend to put up barriers and insult people rather than to have an honest dialogue. However, I find it ironic how you never see atheists/naturalists calling out their own for using presupp arguments and counter apologetics...lets be consistent. Only Christians seem sot call out their own presupps...
@ReyWho _"Evidential apologetics leaves the unbeliever with an excuse for their unbelief."_ Yeah, and presuppositional apologetics is the embodiment of the famous W.C. Fields quote: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
In the Bible it says they have no excuse, if someone has not seen the evidence it is clearly hidden within their presuppositions. The Tag argument when used well is probably the best argument.
Presuppositionalism simply establishes that materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances requires certain presuppositions that transcend these materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances in order for said stances to get off the ground in the first place - the issue is that atheists, in the main, appeal to the idea that claims must be subject to the requirements of these stances and that a claim failing to to do so means that it ought to be dismissed. In short, it's like claiming that my set of tools are the only real and proper set of tools by which proofs can be attained to or reality properly circumscribed. It's like a painter who says that houses cannot be built because his brushes (his tool set), though capable of painting a lovely picture of a house and conceiving of much more besides, do not attain to that end, the actual construction of a house - by way of example. Presups show the limitations of a circumscribed naturalistic/materialistic tool set. Moreover, there is often a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean by God. We mean something closer to ipsum esse subsistens. I cannot say that the title of this video does what it claims to do at all though, I did enjoy it.
_"Presuppositionalism simply establishes that materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances requires certain presuppositions ..."_ Well to be clear, presuppositionalism _claims_ this. That it establishes it is controversial at best.
_" the issue is that atheists, in the main, appeal to the idea that claims must be subject to the requirements of these stances and that a claim failing to to do so means that it ought to be dismissed."_ Close, but not quite. Mos atheists differentiate between type of claims. The relevant category being about concrete particulars that exist within our local instantiation of space-time. Those claims, fall under the domain of empiricism, and if those claims can't be demonstrated to be true empirically can be rightfully dismissed.
_" In short, it's like claiming that my set of tools are the only real and proper set of tools by which proofs can be attained to or reality properly circumscribed."_ Is that not exactly what the presuppositional apologetic sets out to do? Every version of presup I've encountered starts with the singular tenet that without first presupposing the Christian God, knowledge, intelligibility, rationality, etc are impossible. Seems like this "critique" is just projection.
@@ajhieb "Presuppositionalism simply establishes that materialist, naturalistic, nominalist stances requires certain presuppositions ..." Well to be clear, presuppositionalism claims this. That it establishes it is controversial at best.
Not at all. We suppose that things can be known, that they are intelligible, that we have a mind to grasp those things…we have all of this before “materialist, naturalistic, nominalist” projects get off the ground.
" the issue is that atheists, in the main, appeal to the idea that claims must be subject to the requirements of these stances and that a claim failing to to do so means that it ought to be dismissed." Close, but not quite. Mos atheists differentiate between type of claims. The relevant category being about concrete particulars that exist within our local instantiation of space-time. Those claims, fall under the domain of empiricism, and if those claims can't be demonstrated to be true empirically can be rightfully dismissed.
To my point…empiricism - all that wonderful experience derived from the senses and you conclude by saying that if it is not empirically demonstrable it can then be dismissed. If this is the criteria then things like universals (the knowledge that all triangles have three sides without having seen every type of triangle) become impossible/unknowable and things like ethics, logic, goodness, beauty et al, are not subject to that criterion. One may have an ethical foundation for the sciences but there is no scientific foundation for ethics - to further illustrate the point. Now, there are types of claims. I’m aware of that but you’ve separated them out. When you say “types” are you speaking to examples that pertain to a particular genus? I’m not entirely clear on that one.
" In short, it's like claiming that my set of tools are the only real and proper set of tools by which proofs can be attained to or reality properly circumscribed." Is that not exactly what the presuppositional apologetic sets out to do? Every version of presup I've encountered starts with the singular tenet that without first presupposing the Christian God, knowledge, intelligibility, rationality, etc. are impossible. Seems like this "critique" is just projection.
We can stay away from God for the moment and just look at what the transcendental argument does, what it addresses in light of those who claim that materialist/naturalistic stances etc. are the bench mark means by which we attain to any kind of surety with respect to existence. This simply can't be the case.
@@josephdawson5679 _"Not at all. We suppose that things can be known, that they are intelligible, that we have a mind to grasp those things…we have all of this before “materialist, naturalistic, nominalist” projects get off the ground."_ I'm not sure who the "we" is that you're referring to here as you appear to be identifying as the only only presuppositionalists that actually holds that position. Every presuppositionalist I've ever encountered would argue that you can't start with those assumptions, rather you have to start with the assumption of the Christian God, otherwise you have no justification for those other assumptions. But you and I seem to agree on that point.
_"To my point…empiricism - all that wonderful experience derived from the senses and you conclude by saying that if it is not empirically demonstrable it can then be dismissed. "_ I'm not sure if there is some sort of language barrier at play here, but I very distinctly qualified that statement in a way you completely ignored. I very specifically stated this stance applies to *concrete particulars.* You then turn around and counter with saying it isn't compatible with things like universals. SO WHAT? I (and most atheists) would never demand empirical verification for universals (which I would neither consider to be concrete, nor particulars) I agree that it's incompatible with universals. That's why I made the distinction in the first place. Again, this appears to be a topic on which we agree.
_"We can stay away from God for the moment and just look at what the transcendental argument does,"_ Not much. The various transcendental arguments don't solve any of the various unsolved problems in philosophy. They don't tell us anything about existence. They don't add any sort of epistemic certainty to our worldviews. If anything all they do is offer false comfort to people seeking absolute certainty where there is none.
@@ajhieb "Not at all. We suppose that things can be known, that they are intelligible, that we have a mind to grasp those things…we have all of this before “materialist, naturalistic, nominalist” projects get off the ground." I'm not sure who the "we" is that you're referring to here as you appear to be identifying as the only only presuppositionalists that actually holds that position.
The “we” is the common run of humanity, the royal “we” - however you wish to take it. Though, I am certain you took my meaning. As to myself being the only person who holds to such a position, I must say that I have not found this to be the situation in my life at all. It’s certainly the case, by way of example, that Aristotelian metaphysics hold to a number of presuppositions that cannot be proven via materialistic/naturalistic means(so circumscribed) but which must be held as true in order to even entertain the idea that knowledge can, with certainty, be attained… even by these means (sola materialism/naturalism etc.) Moreover, though not content to build their own house, they (those who subscribe to materialism/naturalism/nominalism etc.) would also seek to disavow and even burn down the houses of their presuppositional parents.
Every presuppositionalist I've ever encountered would argue that you can't start with those assumptions, rather you have to start with the assumption of the Christian God, otherwise you have no justification for those other assumptions. But you and I seem to agree on that point.
I think they tend to jump the gun with everyone starting with conclusions and building back. I do certainly believe that “ipsum esse subsistens” being the very nature of Being itself, not belonging to any genus of beings and so on, must “be” in order for anything “to be - genus”. All that aside, I, like you, do not think it is helpful for a theist/deist to say: you can only entertain X if you accept Y off the bat without getting all of one’s ducks in line especially online when you have no idea with whom you are speaking. There should be more of a getting to know you process. It would make the road less bumpy in light of these kinds of discourses. I rather, unlike Kant, prefer the scholastic and the metaphysical. I wish that the the seamless garment that was both science and philosophy together had not been torn with each going their own way. I can talk about that if you like but science and philosophy were not strictly separate disciplines back in the day. It was only when a more reductive mindset set in that this happened and with it came many of the difficulties we now have to contend with which would not have otherwise been the case had sounder minds prevailed.
"To my point…empiricism - all that wonderful experience derived from the senses and you conclude by saying that if it is not empirically demonstrable it can then be dismissed. " I'm not sure if there is some sort of language barrier at play here, but I very distinctly qualified that statement in a way you completely ignored.
Perhaps I have misunderstood something. I’ve reread the comment and I’m pretty certain that must be the case given your response, though I don’t rightly see it. Why would you think I ignored what you may have meant? Look at the effort I am putting in here. At worse it is, as you say a misunderstanding but ignored?...and completely? Certainly you see that that can’t be the case at all; but to the point - Are you simply saying that a glass of water, for example, can be understood as such using our senses and those tools that enable us to get at the heart of the matter (the glass of water)? If so, ok. If this is the kind of claim you are speaking too, perfectly fine. I’m just concerned that one might use empiricism as the limiter to the exclusion of those other modes of enquiry by which a thing can be more properly known and understood, including those presuppositions that allow for empirical scrutiny in the first place.
I very specifically stated this stance applies to concrete particulars. You then turn around and counter with saying it isn't compatible with things like universals. SO WHAT? I (and most atheists) would never demand empirical verification for universals (which I would neither consider to be concrete, nor particulars) I agree that it's incompatible with universals. That's why I made the distinction in the first place. Again, this appears to be a topic on which we agree.
I acknowledge that there are distinctions being made here but it doesn’t necessarily entail separations. I should have been more explicit on this point I suppose. What I was trying to say earlier by way of implication is that the particular partakes in the universal which empiricism cannot, in principle, circumscribe given its limits. An empirical verification of universals is impossible though the universal is indeed concrete as is evidenced by the essential nature/intelligibility of a given thing being instantiated with marvelous variety under a particular genus of being - like an orange tabby cat under the umbrella term “cat”. I’m simply saying, in a short hand way, that empiricism can’t get off the ground without certain a priori claims about reality - those pesky presuppositions - and they are legion. Now whether a demand is made by atheists for empirical evidence of universals or not (many of whom will dismiss them (universals) out of hand because of what they imply), it is certainly something we need to concern ourselves with when talking about the nature of things/reality and our relationship with reality.
"We can stay away from God for the moment and just look at what the transcendental argument does," Not much. The various transcendental arguments don't solve any of the various unsolved problems in philosophy. They don't tell us anything about existence. They don't add any sort of epistemic certainty to our worldviews. If anything all they do is offer false comfort to people seeking absolute certainty where there is none.
I can’t at all agree with this surmise. Go have a chat with Kant about the transcendental argument (though I’m more Aristotelian myself). It does offer a great deal respecting limits of knowledge and so on which is the business of epistemology and is usefully instructive to those in particular who would limit the means by which we can know a thing to such stances as materialism/naturalism/nominalism etc. - which need a whole host of presuppositions that their adherents can in no way justify or account for in order to get their project off the ground. This is a big problem if they draw and insist on conclusions via these reductive means. Theory of knowledge is a big topic and I must confess that it is an error to strawman the discipline into a “false comfort plushie” Moreover, one never has absolute certainty about anything at all. That word…absolute…is a tricky one. Most will appeal to the principle of sufficient reason. We don’t need to be absolute in order to be certain. So in as much as your “where there is none” points to the “absolute” as a qualifier, I can agree. After all, what we know and understand corresponds to the level of the individual.
@@josephdawson5679 I'm not really interested in addressing what is nothing more than a circuitous, unnecessarily verbose, handwave dismissal of what I said. You wrote a small essay, to basically say "I disagree" and then conclude that because you disagree my statements aren't worth consideration. Not the tactics of an honest interlocutor.
As for your closing paragraph... _"Theory of knowledge is a big topic and I must confess that it is an error to strawman the discipline into a “false comfort plushie” "_ You're the one strawmannnig here, not me, and I can't imagine that it happened on accident. I very clearly stated that the "false comfort" was the erroneous certainty provided by the the various TAG arguments, NOT the discipline of epistemology as you're trying to suggest.
Having made it abundantly clear you're not interested in an honest conversation, I have no interest in any further interaction. If you want the last word, have at it, but I have no desire, nor need to interact with blatant sophists such as yourself.
Yes Stein got schooled just like Derek and rather than face where he is weak he calls in all of the daddies to tell him that he is smart.
hahaha yea... neither of them said anything this entire stream. i was expecting a lot more from malpass, but all we got was weak sauce.
Did you actually listen closely to that debate between Dyer and MV? It was essentially:
MV "bible is mythology!"
Dyer "So is evolution based on your standard"
And that was that, MV couldn't go onto show evolution wasn't a myth but Dyer didn't even attempt to show the Bible isn't either except simply assert it isn't because of TAG and impossibility of the contrary which was laughable.
If you actually believe the so-called “great debate” is a true reflection of Christianity being true, then you are deceived and only caught up in the hype. Any secular philosopher who understands the dense and convoluted topic of epistemology and idealism could have easily exposed the grand but empty rhetoric of Bahnsen and TAG.
@@albertkim7882 then why hasn't it been done yet, and if it has, could you please provide the argument? i already know the outcome of asking you this, btw. you have a blind faith in a religion of your own; one of which has no answers. 🤣
@@jimiberman3464 I wouldn’t be surprised if it has been addressed at various points within academic circles, and it just hasn't been made accessible by the public, especially since no one in the public would understand the technicalities of the Continental field of philosophy. I also assume to a considerable degree it’s not taken seriously by the philosophy community for good reason; It’s just another form of metaphysical idealism that is no more valid (rationally speaking) than Hegel’s idealism or any other form of German Idealism. And there are perfectly good critiques of Van TIl's Presuppositionalism by other Reformed theologians who are more of the BB Warfield school of apologetics. But I was originally just describing why Stein wasn’t a match for Bahnsen; Bahnsen having the higher philosophical training than Stein.
I am just surprised you didnt know this before now. It was a big thing several years ago but it has died down.
lol Malpass doesn't destroy presuppositionalism.
Is that so? Then justify the first premise of TAG, it should be easy.
no...presups do a good enough job of that themselves.
Actually Malpass does
The only non-fallacious critique in this 2 hour talk was "presup makes a positive claim, but then attacks us and keeps us on the defensive. We should Turn it around on him."
Sure. But ALL worldviews make positive claims. Ie.. we can use logic to get to knowledge. So why not start with square one. How does your worldview justify the use of logic, and how does it get to, define, and justify knowledge. Wouldnt addressing this be step one? The conversation starts and ends here. And sure, for pragmatic reasons one could move on. But is this not the actual pointed specific of the issue? I think yes. So of course the presupper is going to dig the trench here and stand his ground. This is the crux of the entire argument.
EVIDENCE IS IN: Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist, would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space! Genesis 1: 1 God creates time space and matter!
The KILLER is, Entropy! Entropy is somewhat opposite of evolution and why did this come into the universe if everything’s getting better? Genesis 2:17 says death came into the universe through the first sin!
First two chapters of the Bible not the 500th chapter or the thousandth chapter; explain what evolutionists have not explained; and no other worldview EXPLAINS ENTROPY -The 2nd LAW AT ALL, let alone the first law of thermodynamics!
So the Bible explains how matter, space, time, entropy, and energy get here; Right out the gate!
DNA does not auto encrypt, it did not write itself the code writer is outside of the code. 3300 billion lines of computer code in 1 humans DNA genome, would fill the Grand Canyon 50 times of Books, let alone plant and animal DNA and it did not write itself! One person‘s DNA could stretch to the sun and back 61 times! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“.
John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did the world will not have enough room for the Books, telling of it“!
God made matter and energy, a.k.a., the first law of thermodynamics and DNA, pointing to himself; pointing to an outside source beyond the realm of the universe; that these things were made there!
Job 38:35 “were you there when I created the lightnings and they say ‘here we are!”’ This is God talking to Job!
3300 years later, James Maxwell discovers that light rays and electricity are two forms of the same thing!
The Bible Predicted telecommunications
//Matter and energy cannot be created//
Therefore, your god did not create the universe. Game over. Thanks for playing.
I really don’t think scientists believe that the matter and energy were created, just compressed. That’s not how evolution or entropy works. And you know that the verse is not saying that.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 typical response. the accusation is only applicable within our current system, which purports a "big bang" theory, which states everything came from nothing... thanks for playing
@@jimiberman3464 I don't think that is what the BBT proposes.
@@dbt5224 really- so what does it propose then? educate me 🤣
Good discussion. Alex is the antidote to partisan chest-beating.
well, derek, now that you're an expert, you should rejoin jimbob and pwn all the presuppers hahahahahahah yea that'll never happen.
Presuppositionism: making stupid unsupported assertions that you presuppose are true.
@@donnievance1942 do you presuppose that derek could outwit jimbob now that he's been educated by malpass?
@@donnievance1942 clearly you do presuppose we came from pre-human type being, and don't even realize it. you’ll probably claim there's evidence supporting your belief, but w/o any actual proof of a pre-human, you’ll just use other hominids as verification. that’s presupposing. congratulation and welcome to the team.
@@jimiberman3464 bet he does presuppose humans evolved from another form, and doesn’t even understand that he’s doing so. he will probably assert “evidence”, but his “proof” will probably be other hominids. yea, that’s a presupposition. should we welcome him to the team?
I really enjoyed this one.
All world views have presuppositions. The question then is which world view can justifiably give an account for its presuppositions? Christianity is the only world view that can do this.
All their sophistry is to avoid this truth.
Prove it. You would have to use your presuppositions to "account" for them and thus arguing in a circle.
"Who wishes to make such a simple blunder in elementary logic, as to say that we believe something to be true because it is in the Bible? Our answer to this is briefly that we prefer to reason in a circle to not reasoning at all. We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man." - Christian Apologist Cornelius Van Til "A Survey of Christian Epistemology" (p. 12)
@@FloydFp God the only answer. Thank you for conceding.
//All world views have presuppositions//
Correct. And since presuppositions are assumed rather the demonstrated, the goal is to have as few of them as possible, while still making sense of reality. My presuppositions are that the universe exists, that we can reliably glean information about it, and that other minds besides my own exist. The existence of ancient near-eastern desert spirits named Yahweh is not one of those presuppositions, because it is utterly worthless, and only necessitates further worthless presuppositions piled on top of each other.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 your presupposition has no basis for truth. So it fails. Sorry.
1:02:50
Great response from Alex about how it’s not a dig against philosophy to say it doesn’t have answers
So far you have all misrepresented each and every point. Please have a psychologist on please. Your level of fanatic cognitive dissonance should be studied in college. Hopefully in 10 years you will have the wisdom to see it
Thanks for the insults and assertions. That's a really impressive case.
Feel free to try and prove me wrong. I'll be happy to back up every "assertion", as it isnt' an "assurtion" if it is true. Have you written that to Derek and Alex too? Plenty of insults flying out of their immature and ignorant mouths@@donnievance1942
The bases for human interactions evolved socially in the natural environment to which we continually adapted. No god required. The Greeks who pioneered the formalization of a lot of this were pagans. UA-camr Floyd P effectively deals with the pressuppers. His debates are worth watching.
Presuppositions are not only found in Christianity but also in Neo darwinism aka the sacred cow of evolution! 😮
Lol, you seem unaware that Darwinism is a theory based on evidence. Presuppositionalism is evidence based on a belief. So basically Presuppositionalism is just a form of cherry-picking that justifies a belief.
@@baarbacoa Evidence that can't be duplicated any laboratory?! Perhaps you have some video evidence of this alleged "evolution"?! I only see a Cambrian Explosion of a plethora of creatures which is a proverbial fly in the ointment......
We have observed evolution happening.
It's not "sacred" because it has been Demonstrated.
In the last few thousand years, no theistic god claim has been Demonstrated to be true.
Sorry, but your misperceptions about Reality, don't actually affect Reality.
If I had a million dollars every time i heard a Christian ungraciously cram something non religious into a story about idolatry, i would probably have like a billion dollars
@@RL.777 I think you lack even a basic understanding of science. A lab is place that provides controlled conditions for scientific or technological research, experiments, and measurement. A lab could be a room, a geographical location, a planet (e.g., Earth), a star, or even the universe. But scientists do investigate evolution on small laboratories. Specifically, on microbes and cells.
Thanks 👍
using these arguments, i can prove unicorns. A Realicorn is an entity identical to a unicorn but with the necessary property of undeniable existence. Being real is integral to the nature of the Realicorn. Because 'Real' is in the name , the Realicorn is tied indelibly to physical reality. By denying the Realicorn, you deny reality itself. It's in the name,
No this is really dumb and has nothing to do with what presuppers are saying. But also, even if it were do you not see that you've just invalidated every critique you have of theism by making up just a dumber theism? Do you think this is somehow a win for you to be put into the position of having to defend a belief in a realicorn?
This dr.Alex already got destroyed by Jay Dyer in a dabate a long time ago 🤣
I am enjoying the conversation, but I wish Alex was given more airtime. The host took a really long time asking questions each time and saying the same thing over and over, whereas the question was usually clear immediately.
I just watched the video this discussion was prompted by. My view is, J Dyer was up to his usual tricks, first by constantly interrupting. Then, he claims that the Christian worldview is the only one that can account for knowledge etc, without saying how it actually does this. You asked him at one point how the Christian worldview does this, but he didn't get around to saying. He does this a lot from what I've seen of him.
I haven’t seen Alex in ages nice