I love this debate. I learned a lot of Reformed Theology from Sproul as a believer, all while considering myself a presuppositionalist. As I get older, the more I agree with Sproul.
Thanks for the upload, Floyd! I do agree very much with the idea that the proclamation of absolute certainty gives the unbeliever an excuse to be skeptical of what the pre-suppositionalist is putting forward. Not only is philosophical certainty impossible, it is also intuitively impossible for the majority of people who remain intellectually honest. How would one even go about the task of eliminating all doubt? I’ve always enjoyed this quote from Hitchens regarding certainty: “The offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having.”
There can only be one correct worldview. Only one correct ultimate metaphysical foundation for the dependent facts that are invoked. Only the Christian God has the attributes needed to fulfill this role within the worldview system we've established and agree on. It's systemic knowledge. All non-Christian worldviews are simply incapable of justifying knowledge, rational thought, intelligibility, the uniformity of nature (required to do science), morals, the laws of logic, the causal principle, identity over time, and much more...
And due to the unique circumstance of worldviews, being that they're mutually exclusive, presups don't need to go through an infinite number of hypothetical worldviews to prove this. They just need to eliminate the foundations or starting point of the other options for starting points (of which there are maybe 8 total), and all the rest of the following combinations of normative level beliefs which follow are refuted with them.
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 Presup already does that with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews. Are you denying that reductio ad absurdums are a valid way of proving something? If so, then you'd reject the laws of logic too... and much more.
Here I think is the first question to ask every presup: “is it possible for a person to think that they have received infallible knowledge from God and be wrong about it?”
Love that leaky bucket! Sure beats arbitrary certainty. Greg was my colleague at a Christian college in the 60’s. He was all certain and authoritarian back then, too.
11:14 "from the impossibility of the contrary." this is just reformulating, by double negation, the claim. suppose i had you locked in a steel room. there's a steel door and a button on the wall, and i tell you that *it's impossible to escape the room without first pushing the button on the wall.* how will you escape the room? by reformulating, by double negation, my claim into *"it's only possible to escape the room by first pushing the button on the wall."* KEvron
A long long time ago, God walked and talked to humans here on Earth. Later, he caused natural disasters and cured sore backs. Now he's only knowable by using some sophistry and mental gymnastics and logical tricks. Pretty pathetic god you guys got there...
Sounds more human than a god. God was and is a create being on par with cartoons. If Marvel/Anime (most popular one) and knowledge level of science we have come first, God will be more powerful and inclusive with science.
I love this debate. I learned a lot of Reformed Theology from Sproul as a believer, all while considering myself a presuppositionalist. As I get older, the more I agree with Sproul.
Thanks for the upload, Floyd!
I do agree very much with the idea that the proclamation of absolute certainty gives the unbeliever an excuse to be skeptical of what the pre-suppositionalist is putting forward. Not only is philosophical certainty impossible, it is also intuitively impossible for the majority of people who remain intellectually honest. How would one even go about the task of eliminating all doubt?
I’ve always enjoyed this quote from Hitchens regarding certainty:
“The offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having.”
There can only be one correct worldview.
Only one correct ultimate metaphysical foundation for the dependent facts that are invoked.
Only the Christian God has the attributes needed to fulfill this role within the worldview system we've established and agree on. It's systemic knowledge.
All non-Christian worldviews are simply incapable of justifying knowledge, rational thought, intelligibility, the uniformity of nature (required to do science), morals, the laws of logic, the causal principle, identity over time, and much more...
And due to the unique circumstance of worldviews, being that they're mutually exclusive, presups don't need to go through an infinite number of hypothetical worldviews to prove this. They just need to eliminate the foundations or starting point of the other options for starting points (of which there are maybe 8 total), and all the rest of the following combinations of normative level beliefs which follow are refuted with them.
@@lightbeforethetunnel By all means, please demonstrate how only the Christian god can account for knowledge and intelligibility.
@@lightbeforethetunnel This comment is nothing but claims and assertions.
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 Presup already does that with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews.
Are you denying that reductio ad absurdums are a valid way of proving something?
If so, then you'd reject the laws of logic too... and much more.
Here I think is the first question to ask every presup: “is it possible for a person to think that they have received infallible knowledge from God and be wrong about it?”
Love that leaky bucket! Sure beats arbitrary certainty. Greg was my colleague at a Christian college in the 60’s. He was all certain and authoritarian back then, too.
11:09 This I think is the big take-away
11:14 "from the impossibility of the contrary."
this is just reformulating, by double negation, the claim.
suppose i had you locked in a steel room. there's a steel door and a button on the wall, and i tell you that *it's impossible to escape the room without first pushing the button on the wall.*
how will you escape the room? by reformulating, by double negation, my claim into *"it's only possible to escape the room by first pushing the button on the wall."*
KEvron
A long long time ago, God walked and talked to humans here on Earth. Later, he caused natural disasters and cured sore backs. Now he's only knowable by using some sophistry and mental gymnastics and logical tricks. Pretty pathetic god you guys got there...
Ahem 👍
Sounds more human than a god. God was and is a create being on par with cartoons. If Marvel/Anime (most popular one) and knowledge level of science we have come first, God will be more powerful and inclusive with science.