If you're going to assume that you've won the argument before it begins, then require all participants to agree with your assumption, you can't expect to be taken seriously. Presuppositionalism is nothing but a trolling word game, and your straw men about atheism doesn't improve it.
@dutchchatham1
3 ай бұрын
That's exactly what it is. Presuppositionalists do not care one iota about spreading the gospel or convincing anyone of the truth of Christianity. Presuppositionalism exists only out of malice. It's a rhetorical bludgeoning tool wielded by bullies and sociopaths.
@oldpossum57
2 ай бұрын
Yup. Couldn’t say it any better. Theology is an abstruse form of entertainment.
@AG-rl5pw
2 ай бұрын
So what's the answer to David Hume's skepticism? I thought atheism is just about being subjective and/or arbitrary about abstract topics? Sure seems that way.
@oldpossum57
2 ай бұрын
@@AG-rl5pw Any broker who tried to sell you stock in a company with the bona fides of any religion would be a flim-flam man. The atheist just invests time (and money) more thoughtfully than the theist.
@gregcampwriter
2 ай бұрын
@@AG-rl5pw Atheism deals with one question only: Do you believe in any gods? An atheist answers, no. That's it. Atheism addresses no other topics.
@diogeneslamp8004
11 ай бұрын
10:30 in and it sounds like presuppositionalism is based on a lack of understanding of how evolution works.
@noobitronius
6 ай бұрын
How so?
@odinallfarther6038
4 ай бұрын
It based on pure ignorance and the assumption or to supposes before hand your position is right nothing more . It's not a hill to die on it's a gutter to crawl and hide in .
@bossabassa364
3 ай бұрын
@@odinallfarther6038are you going to explain how or..?
@odinallfarther6038
3 ай бұрын
@@bossabassa364 you want me to explain how to presuppose the conclusion is ignorant and stupid ,. 🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽
@bossabassa364
3 ай бұрын
@@odinallfarther6038 well you didn't explain what is missing, as far as understanding evolution, if you would have just said that the argument is wrong I wouldn't have expected anything more. But you said that it was a lack of understanding evolution. So I was just wondering if you were going to explain that or not
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for all the kind comments on the last video! Sorry for the out-of-focus camera at the beginning of this one. I promise the tech hand responsible for this has been put outside the camp of Israel.
@ChristopherDolby
Жыл бұрын
Lol! Nice one 😂😂😂
@adamsmith4195
Жыл бұрын
I thought you were going for like a 1980s vintage look.
@marleyandme447
Жыл бұрын
Well done. You are glorifying God, my brother.
@ChristopherDolby
Жыл бұрын
@@nickjones5435 I find presuppositional apologetics to be an odd fish really.. I’m an Evidentialist… I always found the point of apologetics to be the defence of the faith, and that obviously entails doing so to non-believers. To presuppose the thing you’re attempting to prove seems like it would cause you more problems that it solves to me. I don’t think many non-believers would be convinced either
@ChristopherDolby
Жыл бұрын
@@nickjones5435 🤣🤣🤣 Well I probably wouldn’t have gone that strongly, but I do find a certain circularity with the presupp position that I find very unsatisfactory. I feel like apologetics needs to be done on the home field of the Atheist, as they’re the ones we’re trying to reach… I get being an evidentialist gives the atheist home field advantage, but you gotta play the game where it’s being played IMO 👊😊
@hdubya692
5 ай бұрын
Why couldn't every religion use the Presuppositionalism to claim the truth of their beliefs? Who is going to referree the one true religion or are they all equally true? Sounds like circular logic to me. If observations supported your religion, you wouldn't need presuppostionalism to reframe the discussion.
@joecheffo5942
4 ай бұрын
Thats my thoughts. I can sort of see how things might need a grounding. That is, unless these are all meaningless questions we are asking, maybe there is no "why" or "how" or "when" in the human sense. But if logic and such needs a grounding, why not any God. Why not non-dualism, we are all the dream of one consciousness, like Rubert Spria or Eckart Tolle, or Alan Watts. Or maybe some higher power that made the universe that is more of a Deist entity. Or perhaps just something so far beyond we can't even comprehend, like ants trying to figure out an elephant. It seems like reality must be grounded in something, maybe. God is such a general term. If it is an intelligent higher power that doesn't tell us much. Also it seems like once you have a god that the universe would be part of the god. So again, so many ways to interpret this.
@guyblackburn8894
3 ай бұрын
Of course they can. This argument is based on absolutely nothing of substance. The metaphysics of phenomenal states is, for lack of a better term, mental masturbation. As between any two competing metaphysical accounts for a phenomenal state, there is nothing of substance one could use to adjudicate between the claims. Philosophers have been discussing the problem of the one and the many since Plato because we all experience the red apple the same way. We experience all of these categories the same way. Giving a metaphysical foundation for it amounts to pure speculation. The presup just argues that they have an mental masturbatory accounting for these things and atheists don't so they win. It is pretty silly, really. But, anyone offering any God capable of accounting for these things brings the argument to a stalemate.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Because all other religions besides eastern orthodoxy promote natural theology and absolute divine simplicity, and have no God incarnated in man.
@dutchchatham1
3 ай бұрын
They totally could. Presuppositionalism is merely "Since I'm right, you can't be."
@AG-rl5pw
2 ай бұрын
@guyblackburn8894 no... presuppositional arguements are based on what you value without having a basis for said value... for instance what's your epistemology, how do you know what you know, and how do you differentiate justified belief from mere opinion? Like if we were to speak about abstract topics that people know exist, what would be your basis for a position? Like in ethics? Let's take morality for instance, is it subjective or objective in your worldview? Upon the answer, I can elaborate or expound. But what the presup is doing is showing the atheist, how he is without excuse for the existence of God, and is able to do that thru the athiests own assertions about the nature of reality and the human experience. It's to have the intellectual conversation and not the intelligence one. And since athiests lack intellect, it seems like the presup is right, because the core values don't comport with the stance taken. Atheism doesn't agree or comport with atheist assertions, and that's what's being pointed out, it won't have to do with one religion vs another for the presup arguements, but can depending on the presupposition of the opposition. Like most people presuppose human dignity, the theistic worldview for that is something like we were created for a reason, or in the image of God, or something along them lines. The atheist doesn't really have a foundation to even take the stance of, or arguement for, human dignity. Their worldview says that we are no different than any other product of evolution, like a dog, a snail, or a horse, however they presuppose that we are. There's where the arguement begins and the whole reason I won't claim atheism anymore.
@barelyprotestant5365
5 ай бұрын
This is why I don't like presuppositionalism: it arrogantly pretends that it introduced the idea that Christianity is a better explanation of reality than atheism.
@kellystone7501
3 ай бұрын
Atheism doesn't explain anything. It merely indicates a lack of belief or disbelief in a God or gods.
@barelyprotestant5365
3 ай бұрын
@@kellystone7501 atheism is worthless.
@oldpossum57
2 ай бұрын
Atheism is simply the practical step one takes after accepting agnosticism. Provide evidence of gods: we can still talk! Science is a better explanation of reality than any religion. For one thing, science does not presuppose the supernatural.
@Jimmy-iy9pl
2 ай бұрын
@@kellystone7501 It would be more accurate to say that theism and naturalism are rival explanations of fundemental reality than theism and atheism. But atheism so construed is a very dubious notion. There are only three possible doxastic states one can hold in regards to any particular proposition: affirmation, negation, or suspension. Theists typically define themselves as people who affirm the proposition that God exists. If you deny that same proposition, you are an a-theist. If you're withholding judgement, you're an agnostic. But you can only be a reasonable agnostic if: 1. You believe the evidence for both sides is too close to decide. Or 2. You think both sides are lacking evidence.
@kellystone7501
2 ай бұрын
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Google 'agnostic theist'. Knowledge and belief are related but different things.
@isidoreaerys8745
11 ай бұрын
So Van Til’s apologetics was no more sophisticated than the work of Kent Hovind.
@kevinfancher3512
4 ай бұрын
Can't wait to give this a thumbs up but haven't watched the video yet. Patience.
@bossabassa364
3 ай бұрын
Lol one of the stupidest comments I’ve ever read. And that’s including the Kent hovind supports
@CryoftheProphet
2 ай бұрын
Essentially.
@AG-rl5pw
2 ай бұрын
@isidoreaerys8745 I think it's wild that an atheist would say anything about sophistication. So the origin of life to the atheist is pretty random and supposedly lacks sophistication. (There's no design or purpose, and if there is sophistication, design and purpose, then there is a creator) but then wants to get critical cause a man of God doesn't seem sophisticated enough, damn... prove our point for us. 🤣🤣🤣 your whole worldview and view of reality lacks sophistication by its own assertions about the human experience. Lol. You can't make this stuff up.
@mnemosyne1337
2 ай бұрын
@@AG-rl5pw 1. We don't know the origin of life. What does that have to do with sophistication? We don't make stuff up like theists. 2. No. Sophistication doesn't mean there is design and purpose. Are you an idiot? The eye is sophisticated and complex but also flawed. That's just evolution. 3. Yeah the man of god is using a stupid argument that begs the conclusion. It's 3rd grade logic. 4. What do you think sophistication means? And pretty sure scientists make very sophisticated assertions about the human experience. That's literally all of psychology, neuroscience, and evolution. Are you a special kind of stupid?
@piage84
Жыл бұрын
Presup is for lazy people. Bahsen said that with presup, you don't need to stay up to date with the latest arguments etc. Basically he said it's fine to close your ears and shout I win, I win because I'm right and the reason I'm right is because I'm right
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
Where did he say that?
@piage84
Жыл бұрын
@@CalebSmith3 a preseup apologists said this in a KZitem video with a bunch of other presup (sye, Eli, slick etc). And this guy was so proud of that! Mind boggling
@piage84
Жыл бұрын
@@CalebSmith3 but still, even before I heard this guy uttering this pearl, I found it pretty clear that the whole presup schtick is for the lazy. There's no arguments, loads of assertions, loads of loaded questions to "shut the atheist". It's the kindergarten of apologetics. It's fantastic entertainment though, that's why it's only popular online! Especially the likes of Darth Dawkins and his minions. A bunch of guys who can barely speak trying to use very big words they don't understand. It's hilarious! But apart from one or 2 presup online, the main feature that linked them all is their arrogance and narcisism. The way they condescend people because they think they have this amazing argument that it's just them asserting they are right... Really telling
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
@@piage84 I agree narcissism and name calling sure are ineffective...
@piage84
Жыл бұрын
@@CalebSmith3 I never said that
@ericb9804
4 ай бұрын
We don't know why we find the laws of logic useful, but we tend to agree that we do. We don't know if our senses are showing what is "really real" or not, but we agree that they seem to. Honesty is something most people value for practical reasons, but its not a "virtue" in any sense beyond that. The point is that we don't' need to to "presuppose" anything, in an ontological sense. All we need to do is agree on what we find justified. Pragmatism defeats presuppositionalism.
@George-zj9rr
3 ай бұрын
May I steal that?
@ericb9804
3 ай бұрын
@@George-zj9rr If you are serious, then certainly. Its not like I invented any of that - I am just a shill for Richard Rorty.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Well no we dont agree on what we observe, you only think this because you take the various concepts of christian thought which expresses itself through christian civilization, and cut off their origins, and then pretend to say that we all see the same things. You take the fruits from the tree, and then act as if the fruits origins dont matter. Also, by pragmatisms own standard, there is no basis to claim it "defeats" anything. Why are you so dishonest? Why do you promote double think? Are you a freemason? On your same worldview, there is as much reason to be presup as there is to be pragmatist, as in, there is no reason to accept or reject any proposition at all. There is no reason for reason, nor for anything. So quit asserting its all just pragmatic utility, and then smuggle in such charged language such as "defeat", as if you didnt just destroy the concept of "defeating" itself by becoming a pragmatist lmao
@Broooooo-ww7hw
3 ай бұрын
Just cause we "may" agree, doesn't mean it is right to do. Whatever right is in atheism.
@AG-rl5pw
3 ай бұрын
Pragmatism presupposes theism. Some of ya'll just don't get it. Smh. Anti-theists and atheists do not have a way to talk about truth when nothing is ultimately true. It's like the athiest or anti-theist stands up and says there is no absolute truth, (making an absolute truth claim) and then says he doesn't have a foundation or a basis and then wants to proceed in discourse, well ma'am/sir, you lost by your own position, it's like they take an ultimate or absolute position that they cannot even justify. So my claim is that they are so self-deluded that they mention something like pragmatism. Pragmatism in ethics rejects the idea that there's any universal ethical principle or universal value. 🤔 So we are left with ethics being rendered as nonsense. No moral compass, no absolutes and relativism. Aka no ground to stand on, no foundation. And the nonbelievers won't be consistent in life and live that way.
@BigDrozJoe
2 ай бұрын
Presup has defined its god into existence within its system and considers all of those definitions as closed questions and then demands the interlocutor to do an internal critique of their system. Until the presup can support the definitions themselves, they are simply begging the question against any opposing viewpoint. An internally consist model doesn't entail necessity. Until he shows the map matches the territory, he has failed to show necessity. Presup is designed to avoid that task. A question begging non-sequitor isn't even worth engaging. It works against precocious internet atheists but philosophically literate atheists are never going to engage a substanceless apologetic in the first place so you're safe.
@Jimmy-iy9pl
2 ай бұрын
It's probably not of much interest, but it's important to note that what you're essentially describing is a coherentist model of justification and truth. I'm not a coherentist, but in the wake of logical positivism and the rejection of traditional epistemology, coherentism gained and still has a substantial amount of defenders - many of whom would identify as atheists and agnostics. Quine, the coherentist and natural epistemologist par excellence, was an atheist. That's worth thinking about.
@joshsmith1551
Жыл бұрын
I’m only 2 mins in and I would just like to say, I do indeed care what Caleb Smith has to say. That’s why I like and subscribe
@Macher96_
Жыл бұрын
Facts bro
@MarkLeBay
Жыл бұрын
17:57 Our history is full of people telling stories to explain reality and frequently those stories have turned out to be wrong. For example, as we learned more about electricity, we discovered that the stories used to explain lightning were wrong. How is your approach to explaining things using stories reliable? Why is it not more honest to just say “we don’t know” ?
@michaeleldredge4279
5 ай бұрын
"People don't really believe things based on arguments. They believe based on what they love" Caleb at 27:49 Please don't project your faults onto the world at large. That is not how I approach truth and it shouldn't be how you approach truth either.
@bossabassa364
3 ай бұрын
You need to read Jonathan Edward's freedom of the will. Every choice you make is based off of what is the perceived most good for you
@michaeleldredge4279
3 ай бұрын
@@bossabassa364 My thoughts: "Oh. A book recommendation. Maybe it will be a good analysis of human psychology based on modern research. Maybe it will open my eyes to faults in my understanding of how people like me work and help me avoid certain biases. Let's see, first published in...1754. By a theologian. And he based the book on Romans 9:16. Do I have any reason to believe that the author has any insight? No. I think I will skip this one."
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
IT most definitely is the case largely. Unless you are autistic, and autistic people just cant access their true emotions, or they are robots.
@thomasthellamas9886
3 ай бұрын
What are your thoughts on Libertarian FreeWill vs Determinism?
@michaeleldredge4279
3 ай бұрын
@@thomasthellamas9886 I don't have a strong position on that debate. I have heard arguments for both and I find the arguments for Determinism more persuasive than the arguments for Libertarian Free Will, but I haven't studied the issue deeply enough to feel like that opinion means anything.
@dutchchatham1
3 ай бұрын
What method is used to tell the difference between a genuine revelation and a false one?
@DanielSpringer-oj1mm
2 ай бұрын
It’s arbitrary, whatever one feels right to you.
@BreakingMathPod
Ай бұрын
Really enjoyed this video! I’m an engineer by trade and an overall science/ scientific method enthusiast. I am curious about the presuppositional approach engaging with statistical distributions of data. Let me try to explain I anticipate that I’m going to get some blow back on this- but I want to use an example of how scientists or researchers engage with data. Specifically, I want to talk about statistical distributions of fossils found throughout the world and what those distributions mean- according to secular researchers. I’m trying to get to “How would a presuppositionalist engage with data as they are collected and what emergent picture of the world appears in these distributions as data are added? Okay here goes! Please bear with me- this topic might get a little heated. In the fossil record, there is a very clear distribution of fossil groupings the world over. Modern mammals (elephants, apes, horses, raccoons, humans….) are never, ever found intermixed with things like stegosauruses or trilobites. In fact! Tyrannosaurus Rex is never, ever found mixed in with Stegosauruses. Secular scientists, in fact, would say that Tyrannosaurus existed closer to the time of humans than to the time of Stegosauruses. I realize I’m drifting here- let me refocus and get to my point: Evidentialism is interested in things like the distribution of data. How does a Christian Presuppositionalist value data points as they are identified in the world? Would a presuppositionalist have any interest in the fact that human and modern mammal fossils never appear intermixed with many dinosaur fossils, making it seem (to an evidentialist) that humans lived millions of years (or some duration of time) away from when dinosaurs roamed the earth? Does this make sense? I’m really big into data and I’m trying to figure out how presuppositionalists engage with data and statistics.
@happy.tulip6276
4 ай бұрын
Brilliant summary. Naugle's books on worldview helped me massively in wrestling with Van Til, Bahnsen etc Took me 6 years to "get" why CVT is the greatest philosopher-theologian since Calvin, at least in terms of relentless pursuit of the implications of the absolute self contained ontological Trinity for all knowledge.
@Toby-asdf
Жыл бұрын
In the era of my life when I really got into apologetics and the philosophical work of ol' WLC, I always rolled my eyes at the presuppositional approach. But since then...nah. Not much has changed. 😉 But I do appreciate the summary of this school of thought in a non-defensive manner. (in a side note, I find it interesting that you mentioned in passing that you consider Kierkegaard a representative of fideism. I hear this a lot but mostly from folks who only know the associations made with him or have only read 'Fear and Trembling' and-in my evaluation-misinterpreted the significance of that text in relationship to the rest of his work. I’m not necessarily accusing you of that but I’m always curious when people make that kind of comment if those folks have actually engaged with the work of Kierkegaard in depth.)
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
haha understandable. WLC is the man, it's frustrating when presuppositionalists can't admit he's clearly been a major force for good in the Kingdom just because his method is different. I took a class on Kierkegaard and read Fear and Trembling, his journals, and a few of his anonymous pieces of fiction. But I wouldn't say I'm super well-versed in him or the existentialists. I sort of remember Fear and Trembling but I guess I took him for a fediest because that's his reputation, but it's always good to reread original sources to make sure they are being interpreted rightly! I have an anthology of his around here somewhere I'll get to it one day!
@TerryC69
8 ай бұрын
Hi Caleb! I have been researching Francis Schaffer and found this video. Very good explanation indeed. I would like to suggest that you consider making outlines for these sorts of talks available for download. That would help not only researchers but also students new to the topic who are unfamiliar with some of the terminology and concepts presented. I have subscribed. Many Thanks!
@darksaga2006
Жыл бұрын
I just wanted to say that as an atheist I love this video and I wanted you and the algorithm to know
@Ken-dk8ev
Жыл бұрын
The big question is - are you convinced????
@kellystone7501
3 ай бұрын
No way. You obviously can't love anything without grounding it in God. ;)
@dansoelberg
2 ай бұрын
@@kellystone7501 Probably the best answer ever
@gaborzoltai6965
6 ай бұрын
Atheism (actually, evolutionary biology) has no issue explaining love, meaning, values. Explaining all of these by saying that they are that way because the biblical God wants them to be that way may be simpler than the evolutionary view of how altruism is selected for in some species and how that can lead to the arising of instincts for love, honesty etc. But "simpler" is not "better", especially since it relies on the mother of all unsupported assumptions, an undetected and actively detection-resisting all-powerful omniscience.
@brentbarrus9754
5 ай бұрын
👏👏
@Jdbaraiac19
5 ай бұрын
Don’t you realize that all reasoning is circular? I saw love in nature therefore it came from nature! Nature came up with intelligibility? Yes, by natural processes! Where did those natural processes come from? It is built into the fabric of our reality by the laws of nature. Oh so you do believe in invisible forces but you just cannot fathom conceiving those invisible forces being personal! Why do they have to be personal? Because they have information in them which is intelligible! They could just be intelligible impersonal forces I don’t claim to know so the burden is on you! When I jump off a tower I get pulled down therefore something wants to kill me if I do that! Oh no, you’re attributing personality to unconscious forces! How do you know they’re unconscious? Because I do! How? Because I do! How? Because I do! You’re just offering your personal opinion made off of circular empiricist reasoning!
@ajhieb
2 ай бұрын
@@Jdbaraiac19 _"Don’t you realize that all reasoning is circular?"_ Funny how it seems to be the people trying to rationalize and excuse their own circular reasoning are the ones making this claim, despite it being demonstrably false. Want a demonstration? You already provided it. _"How do you know they’re unconscious? Because I do! How? Because I do! How? Because I do! "_ That's not circular reasoning. That's appealing to a brute (unjustified) fact.
@miketaylor9969
Ай бұрын
I love theology,i am also pressoppositionalist,postmil,reformed etc new sub😊
@katysmith2036
Жыл бұрын
I'm still not a fan of calling people b-tier
@davidjennings1256
Жыл бұрын
😂 - don’t let the sun go down…😂
@BrendaCreates
4 ай бұрын
I didn't hear any reason i should accept presuppositionalism. I think WLC criticism of its a "logical howler" still stands.
@thebyzantinescotist7081
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video. This was the best explanation of presuppositionalism I’ve seen. I hold to more of a classical approach, but one area where I sympathize with presuppositionalists is in their critique of certain forms of evidentialism as leading to rationalism. I recently heard someone say that they think there is a 91% chance that Christianity is true. What does that even mean? I am a Christian because God has given me the grace of faith so that I can believe because He has chosen me before the foundation of the world. I think some forms of evidentialism can lead to a crisis of faith when that piece of evidence is knocked down.
@davidcoleman5860
Жыл бұрын
I'm a classical theist and can acknowledge the contribution of presuppositinalists in helping to identify the logical inconsistencies of competing claims. That notwithstanding, I do not think they can successfully sidestep evidential apologetics, at least legitimately. Their doctrinaire rejection of evidentialism seems almost bizarre. Their insistence that it is somehow a surrender to unbelief is baseless.
@thebyzantinescotist7081
Жыл бұрын
@@davidcoleman5860 Agreed
@jjadter8139
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video, I need to look more into apologetics, so conversation structures like this are great!
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@jonparker5728
Жыл бұрын
Presupp: Shut the mouths of the unbelievers, circular nonsense.
@matthewjones3556
Жыл бұрын
Timely. Thanks for making the complex, simple-r…. 😂 Stoking my interest to dive deeper.
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
Happy to help!
@Macher96_
Жыл бұрын
I originally here to help Jeremiah to not have to to work via building your add revenue, but my once a knight mentality had to watch it thru, happy I’m subscribing
@Shevock
4 ай бұрын
Great info! I'm Catholic and I agree with your approach nearly 100%
@DanielSpringer-oj1mm
2 ай бұрын
Catholicism believes that God is absolutely simple and composed of three persons at the same time. (Cue endless semantics about composition).
@myblueheaven86
Жыл бұрын
You are using appeal to authority. Just because Francis Schaefer said something doesn't mean he's correct. Francis Schaefer has tons of problems with his reasoning.
@showmeanedge
8 ай бұрын
Christianity should never be used in a utilitarian argument.
@nicolascarr6797
Жыл бұрын
So glad you are making videos again!
@guyblackburn8894
3 ай бұрын
The best thing about presup is that it forces the atheist to admit his limitations. The worst part about it is that it allows the theist to deny his.
@dansoelberg
2 ай бұрын
Therapist Frank Yeomans said once that to a narcissist, reality is an aggression. If you are not familiar with narcissists, they feel they are better than everyone else and should be treated as special, which also means that they feel entitled to lie and manipulate for adulation, and reject accountability. So, when a narcissist is shown that reality does not fit their narrative, the narcissist flips out and tantrums. I feel this description of narcissists applies to presup apologists and many religious folks. If your beliefs do not hold up to reality, it doesn't mean that somebody is hell-bent on destroying your religion. It could just be that reality operates in such a way that your religion doesn't fit. You can't just argue your religion into reality. By all means, please believe in your religion and honour it however you see fit. But, a belief cannot be more than a belief, or give you powers to know how reality operates.
@AG-rl5pw
2 ай бұрын
"Forces the athiest to admit his limitations" I agree... but allow the theist to deny his limitations? Makes no sense, can you elaborate?
@CryoftheProphet
2 ай бұрын
The worst part of presup is that it doesnt actually convert the atheist. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. No where does the bible say "Faith comes by hearing the transcendental arguments for epistemological justification"
@ardbegthequestion
2 ай бұрын
@@AG-rl5pw - because most presuppers believe they have certainty about shit they have no actual way to demonstrate. How does God exactly form the laws of logic, how does he uphold it? How does God do, choose, think about ...a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g...
@DanielSpringer-oj1mm
2 ай бұрын
@@ardbegthequestion “I don’t know every fact about the moon and how it formed, therefore I cannot say the moon is real.”
@kevinfancher3512
4 ай бұрын
Give me a reason to believe god is even possible before going on about submitting myself to Jesus or expecting me to show up at church. Still waiting for the simple part, of course when you misrepresent atheism by assuming I know anything at all about science and have used it to platform my simple lack of a god belief, or that honest communication is anything more than a tool to advance communications relationships, it's really easy to think you're onto something big. I'm not seeing it. Wait, why is an atheist referencing the bible? I'm an atheist, I know almost nothing about the bible, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I see no reason to believe a god is even possible. On the other hand, if you say you had an experience of a god, I'll believe you think you had exactly that. The problem is that it doesn't indicate anything about WHY you had an experience you attribute to god. It tells us nothing about the truth. I'm partway through Part 3 and am bored to tears with what sounds to me like the same old word salad. Do you have anything better? Give me a reason to watch any further. Have a fine day.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Define possibility.
@kevinfancher3512
3 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332 "a thing that may happen or be the case". You could have looked it up yourself, bonehead. Now, demonstrate that a god may happen or be the case. But if you're going to continue this pea-brained definitions game, don't waste our time.
@oldpossum57
3 ай бұрын
Decided to read the wiki instead. I’m old, no time to waste. 1. Presuppositional apologetics says that the problem with science is that by using methodological naturalism, it cannot discover or describe the supernatural. So long as we do not have to assume that the supernatural exists, I’m okay with that. On the other hand, once there is some objective evidence of the supernatural, it becomes material for science to study. 2) Wiki mentions two issues that science cannot explain, because has nothing to say (yet) about the supernatural. A) The Argument from Morality (B) Transcendental Argument for the existence of god. (A) I suppose at one time, theists might have pointed to gods as the cause of certain ethical Principles showing up across cultures. Some candidate principles are “One should not kill one of our tribe. If you kill on of another tribe, it is okay if the tribe sanctions the homicide.” “Regulate your women.” I suppose theists have lofty ways of expressing these. I suggest that Neuro-ethics, psychology, anthropology and the human sciences generally have a better chance than the theists to explain the basis of morality, and also how we should respond rationally to the instincts, respected in all religions, that it is sometimes okay to murder people, and that women need control. Ethical systems appear to be founded on instincts, and then culturally adapted. Religions want to freeze ethical development in place.Religions pretend that there are no conflicts in the ethical principles imposed by divine law codes. But that isn’t true. B)wiki says that “There is a transcendental unity of apperception, a set of categories that give rise to our present experience and make knowledge, and therefore argumentation, possible.” Again , if we look at the three pound meat brain of the social ape Homo sapiens, we find it larger proportional to body mass than other asocial apes. Can evolution through random genetic mutation and natural selection produce this ape? Apparently, yes, since it has happened once, and the null hypothesis says you don’t need gods to do it. One candidate to help explain the excessive neocortex is the mutation TKTL1. (Look it up.) Keep in mind that due to (say the geneticists) two near extinctions one for early Homo 900,000 years ago, another for Homo sapiens 70000 years ago, with 100-1000 breeding adults surviving, there is almost no genetic variation in H. sapiens. Our brains and minds are very similar. Let us defind mind as the bare minimum, without calling in gods quite yet: So mind will be generated by the three pound meat brain and its nervous system and organs. Mind has access to the social group, and through communication and memory and education, the content of “the collective mind”. We see the naive functioning of mind everywhere: we invent Invisible Anthropomorphic Agents all the time. Over millennia, and at a rapid pace over the last 400 years, we have figured out disciplined, controlled ways of thinking. We call these maths, logic, science, reason. Given that our understanding ultimately is founded on a three pound meat brain and a primate nervous system, we cannot directly apprehend reality. We construct representations. Clearly our cultural ability to construct more accurate representations has improved greatly since we (or some of us) stoppedthinking magically. Because of the species-specific and biological origins of our thinking, it is wrong to think that we apprendreality directly, that we have an endless ability to construct useful theories, that the average person has the time or even the ability to understand our richest most difficult theories. I for one don’t. I think models of Morality and of Cognition that depend on gods as explanations are misleading, insufficient, potentially very malignant and clearly on all accounts, less useful, less wise less promising than ones based on naturalism. Gods are definitely yesterday.
@anyone9689
2 ай бұрын
Uhm , anything more than short paragraph is trolling, especially when it's just a paste and copy. Troll
@oldpossum57
2 ай бұрын
@@anyone9689 I’m 67, so your response prompted me to look up the word « troll ». I’d seen “troll” many times before, had a rough idea of what it means. I didn’t think it means what you claim and still don’t. However I do think I can defend my comments as genuine responses I generally applaud the decline of religion and other irrational superstition in the West, both because in the USA to an alarming extent, religions are being harnessed by reactionary politicians whose real goal is to achieve an authoritarian plutocracy, and also because religions appear prima facie just dumb. I composed my thoughts about “presuppositional apologetics” because I think it is just another way for cultists to pretend they are serious thinkers, when they are just cultists.
@EdT.-xt6yv
2 ай бұрын
Magic to be found only on the 4th rock-Y planet from our SUN,. After Pluto we find exponential lacunas,,,
@Jimmy-iy9pl
2 ай бұрын
If minds do not access reality as it is in itself, but merely experientially represent the world, then indirect realism is true. If indirect realism is true, there is a sensible world divorced from the underlying physical world it represents. If there's a sensible world that isn't physical, then it is nonphysical. Congratulations, you've proven substance dualism! But if substance dualism is true, then we need an explanation of psycho-physical laws that dictate why certain experiences are contingently correlated with certain brain states. God is the best explanation of why there's lawlike psycho-physical correlation between mental and physical events. You've proven God exists with your argument from conciousness!
@dansoelberg
2 ай бұрын
I appreciate your video. Well articulated and easy to understand. Unfortunately, it makes presuppositional apologetics look like foolish word salad. 10:09 “Can atheism explain the fact of love?” I understand that you’re likely just regurgitating Schaffer and Van Til, but this sentence is nonsense. You’re trying really hard to demand that “atheism” present a counterpoint explanation for things theists believe. No. Talking about love as a fact is weird and random. This is a sentence that demonstrates how presuppositional apologists are desperate to make their personal beliefs sound important and authoritative, but they just come across as dumb and pathetic. Presuppositional apologetics is just such a weird and awful toddler tantrum. At around 11:45 you say that atheists pose all their questions to Christians as “attempts to destroy Christianity”. That’s such a reductive and dismissive way to sum up critical questions about Christianity. Christians question Christianity too. I ask questions about what Christians believe because I’m curious, not because I’m attempting to destroy Christianity. I became interested in presuppositional apologetics because I noticed that presup apologists confuse belief and knowledge and I wanted to know how they explain this. After many years of inquiry, I learned that they just do it, and that’s part of their incoherent schtick. Presup arguments are loaded with inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, vagaries, hypocrisies, and deliberately confusing wordplay. Christianity is fine. Christians should question what they believe, as should everyone. Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is a dumpster fire, and I wish Christians would just shut it down already.
@thenowchurch6419
6 ай бұрын
The presuppositions of Mind and Logic are the natural outcome of a universe with a Creator God of some sort, not just the Christian concept. The Greek philosophers some of whose teachings were adopted and adapted into Christianity, did not come to those conclusions from the tribes of Israel and the Torah.
@brnfrmjts05
3 ай бұрын
How did you come to that conclusion?
@thenowchurch6419
3 ай бұрын
@@brnfrmjts05 From a study of history. The Biblical tradition has no monopoly on Logic.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Thats a true belief, except, christianity is the only basis to justify that true belief.
@thenowchurch6419
3 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332 Please explain your point. How is Mind and a Creator justified only by Christianity?
@tomlabooks3263
Жыл бұрын
I LOVED the image of the bullet wounds “just appearing out of nowhere”, because it’s a great simile for atheists who go around saying “the law of physics simply happen to be there”. This “just-thereness” is indefensible.
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
I think that's a helpful illustration too! Wish I could take credit for it! But, like most of the best illustrations I think I read it somewhere haha
@slashdotism
Жыл бұрын
Isn't this just the old god of the gaps argument? We don't know the exact origin for X yet so that means god did it. Not very convincing. You have to demonstrate that your god did it, not just assert it.
@tomlabooks3263
Жыл бұрын
@@slashdotism No, it’s not. Science can explain many things but not itself, or “existence”, that’s the point. That’s not a “gap” in knowledge. What’s smaller than electrons is an example of a gap in knowledge. But existence itself is something that science is unequipped to explain. It’s about the fabric of reality.
@dennisduncan7561
Жыл бұрын
Can it not
@tomlabooks3263
Жыл бұрын
@@dennisduncan7561 “Science explaining itself” means, for example, how can science explain the existence of the laws of physics? How are they so conveniently “discovered”? Why is there anything instead of nothing at all?
@tylers5656
Жыл бұрын
Love to see you posting again!!!!
@BatTaz19
Жыл бұрын
Presuppositional apologetics is an oxymoron. "I'm right and you're wrong" is asinine.
@Ken-dk8ev
Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately, this apologetic often comes down to that impression and just leaves a bitter taste. It comes off as feigned civility and in reality like a courtroom interrogation: ‘How do you know that!’ ‘How can you be certain?’ ‘Is it possible that you’re wrong?’ And so on. No vibe of a truly genuine open inquiry or true interest with seeing first where the person is coming from. It’s like they can’t go off script.
@AG-rl5pw
2 ай бұрын
@Ken-dk8ev I'm interested to see where athiests are coming from, I mainly wanna know how an athiest views morality, I keep seeing that the athiest's view on ethics is subjective, that it's all arbitrary. Does a typical athiest have a standard or foundation for things like Morality. Like, can they view morality objectively? If so what's the basis for it? I was speaking with another athiest and he said there is no objective morality and that it's intersubjectively accepted. What's your views on this?
@joshua_wherley
Жыл бұрын
Caleb, my only critique would be in regard to what you say at 7:46. We are not monkeys, we are apes, at least according to the theory of evolution. A seemingly small and perhaps annoying distinction, yes, but I worry that virtually any atheist will hear a Christian criticize the idea that we're monkeys and roll their eyes. They may dismiss whatever else is said because this is yet another Christian who doesn't understand evolution. Other than that, I appreciate this video!
@FIr3BLZ
Жыл бұрын
It was him describing what an atheist might sound like toward the problem he is referring to. He does that a lot. It’s cool. Mr. Smith for president lowkey tbh fr fr.
@MultipleGrievance
7 ай бұрын
I would love to have hours long conversations with this guy
@MarkLeBay
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video! This really helps me understand this perspective ! I have to say however, that in my experience presuppositional apologist take a dishonest approach in their rhetoric. They play a rhetoric game intended to shut up the person they are engaged with rather than arguing openly. For example, one strategy is to run a script of questions that requires shoe-horning the answers to fit the script. Here are two examples: kzitem.info/news/bejne/tY6OxX6wmoB_oKw kzitem.info/news/bejne/2XilmKOibmuqfGk Thank you for not being like that. I appreciate your transparency and honest approach to explaining your point of view.
@alexshaykevich509
6 ай бұрын
8 min in, but there are some wildly strange and wrong arguments here. Is the "orderly" universe supposition taking into account supernovas, black holes, mass extinctions on our own planet? The universe is a wild chaotic place and we have thus far found it incredibly inhospitable to life, let alone intelligent life. Next, this idea of "monkeys just wanting to reproduce" completely ignores the evolutionary pressures that produce intelligence, curiosity, and cooperation. When you start off with a set of incorrect assumptions as a foundation, what's built on that cannot make for a rational argument.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Look into francis bacon and newton. This is uncontroversial if you are familiar with intellectual history.
@alexshaykevich509
3 ай бұрын
Neither of those of two remarkable thinkers were aware of the wider cataclysmic universe or evolutionary biology which I mention above. Intellectual history has nothing to do with a nonsensical, biased argument about "order" in the universe which flies in the face of basic observations we now have.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
@@alexshaykevich509 Ok? My point is that if you presuppose order, you see order, If you dont presuppose order, you have no basis for knowledge.
@alexshaykevich509
3 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332 "if you presuppose order, you see order," Leading with one's own bias is wildly unscientific. "If you dont presuppose order, you have no basis for knowledge." This is merely a baseless assertion unless your definition of "order" is broad enough to include randomness, at which point the definition becomes practically meaningless. Nature is filled with stochastic processes, not to mention entropy. Again, it has nothing to do with the errors in thinking I pointed above, especially the complete misunderstanding of evolutionary pressures.
@oldpossum57
2 ай бұрын
Thank you Alex for pointing out what should seem obvious to these folks. Weirdly, when a theist agrees to use strictly rational grounds to look for evidence of a god or for evidence that having faith in gods could be a reasonable belief, they always seem to have a god card hidden up their sleeve.
@davidsanchez4254
Жыл бұрын
Loving the beard
@ZombieXee
Жыл бұрын
Thank you Caleb.
@frankrecinos7158
6 ай бұрын
Just a question: didn’t van til complain that Schaefer misunderstood his ideas?
@Feniantimmy
Жыл бұрын
I'm confused: Why do you believe what you do?
@billymanilli
Жыл бұрын
I wonder that about all theists, myself...
@guyblackburn8894
3 ай бұрын
The Bible tells him to
@SemiSynergist
Жыл бұрын
What can I read of Schaeffers to better understand his views of presuppositionalism?
@Joe-bw2ew
Жыл бұрын
Youre good kid. I have suspicions that an inflationary expansion of plasma energy ( big bangs) does not explain the product of complexity and organization ,and is not experimentally reproducible. If the source of matter and energy is mindless, non-directional singularity, this should produce a consistent simplicity ,non complexity.The singularity itself being the ultimate simple source.
@dennisduncan7561
Жыл бұрын
Who knows what proceeded.
@brnfrmjts05
3 ай бұрын
How did you determine that?
@TaylorWalston
Жыл бұрын
This feels to me like a very problematic type of defense. It is sneaking your conclusion into your argument without demonstrating it. We have thousands of imagined gods that men have sincerely believed. There "experiences" felt real to them, but if atheism is right, they were all using cognitive bias to falsely associate feelings as experiences. When we start knocking down the cards, asking you Christians to understand you can be in the same place as them, special pleading is invoked. This emotional appeal of wouldn't be nice, honestly works for every religion. Wouldn't it be nice if I got to sit next to Odin? Your poetic license bursts when I point out the Christians I know and like that have the exact same challenges and struggles as us atheists. What you "want" to be true is not a measure of the truth. If I invoke an unfalsifiable god, it can invoke or support ANY assertion. And that's why we need this neutral ground. The only thing we can demonstrate in common across all religions is the human brain. That ability to convince things that imaginary claims are true. Its not a detective analogy, its a how can we demonstrate any of these things are even a factor? And that's why presuppositionalism is making the cardinal sin of Christianity. Overstating what the evidence actually demonstrates. If these claims are just mythology kept alive because we have whittled away "most" of the pantheistic claims, and again, an unfalsifiable single god can support any assertion, then you are honestly not really rationally grounded. When I hear the presup argument, I hear... my argument is grounded in myth, where is your myth? You don't have a myth, then you can't be rational.
@FIr3BLZ
Жыл бұрын
I’ve heard the voice of God before and felt his hand on my back. I’ve felt the Spirit flow through me and speak through me. You can believe what you want but “I know that I know that I know” (Mr. Smith 2022) there is a God.
@dennisduncan7561
Жыл бұрын
I imagine the practioners of other religions would argue the same.
@Spinozasghost
Жыл бұрын
@@FIr3BLZ I’ve heard the voice of Zeus before and felt his hand on my back. I’ve felt the lightning flow through me and speak through me. You can believe what you want but “I know that I know that I know” Zeus exists.
@jbthesing1
Жыл бұрын
This was very thankful, thanks!
@joshuahaymes9141
11 ай бұрын
Super helpful. Thanks brother.
@WakeRunSleep
Жыл бұрын
Maybe my apologetics is misunderstood but I thought presuppositionalism said all arguments presupposed a God that is rational?
@grantearley4472
Жыл бұрын
This is a fantastic explaination of the issue. And thank you for putting your views out from the beginning, it is important to not just act an an impartial observer, we all have presuppositions ;);) when speaking into this debate.
@josephgibbs723
Жыл бұрын
Thank you caleb, very cool!
@graceev
Жыл бұрын
That was really helpful, thank you
@emmanuelmungai2641
Жыл бұрын
This is awesome, thanks!
@johnelliott5859
6 ай бұрын
Doesn't Van Til just trade one axiom for another, neither of which can be logically proven without circularity?
@guyblackburn8894
3 ай бұрын
You gotta remember that presup is inherently dishonest so Van Til excused his own circularity by calling it virtuous.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
So circularity would destroy classical foundationalism right?
@johnelliott5859
3 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332 don't we all have to agree that whatever the foundation is, it is axiomatic.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
@@johnelliott5859 Ok, is the belief in axioms also itself self evident?
@johnelliott5859
3 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332 Not sure self evident is the right word, but I might say they are self attesting. The belief is held because the axioms work. So the belief isn't self evident, it's based on evidence of the axioms success at predicting/explaining.
@sofiachiavini2785
Жыл бұрын
So good as usual! Thanks!!
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@mikemiller7225
Жыл бұрын
Thanks so much for your content. I have just retired 42 years as a pastor. I really enjoy the theological views you explore in such an unbiased way. A great place to come think and learn. You mentioned your pastoral duties. Where do you serve?
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the compliment and your years of service in the Kingdom!! I work at a Christian High School and Church just north of LA
@mikemiller7225
Жыл бұрын
@@CalebSmith3 I hope you are considering doing your PHD. work. We need people like you teaching theology to the new generation of young theologians.
@rickdelatour5355
8 ай бұрын
Ah, the god of “if”.
@leepretorius4869
Жыл бұрын
How about Craig Carter and Christian Platonism?
@WakeRunSleep
Жыл бұрын
Now let’s s talk about how a person like Frank schaefer is the antithesis of his father and what we can learn from this
@undergroundpublishing
Жыл бұрын
Have you done much delving into the second century apologists? I'm curious how presuppositionalism interacts with their presumptions about a "spermatic logos" or a general logos existing in the unregenerate. Also, I didn't find many of the ideas presented to assert a scritpural basis for their fundamental premise, but only a worldview informed by the Christian tradition. Have you done much meditation on Ecclesiastes 3:11 and Romans 1 as a basis for what people do and ought to know? Feel free to point me to another video. Thanks.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Look into the greek fathers.
@brnfrmjts05
3 ай бұрын
So, you admit that presup was devised in order to "knock the board off the table," so to speak? Interesting.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Yeah, the atheists set up a stupid table.
@M3Etasmania
2 ай бұрын
You should beg your Magic Space Wizard for a new head of hair.
@DanielSpringer-oj1mm
2 ай бұрын
Body shaming? Are you a fascist?
@brandwijkgg
29 күн бұрын
Okay, so you're just reason something into existence (give it all the properties that help you), to reach your biased conclusion. Then you let go of all logic and then ignore and misinterpret the rest of the world who do think seriously about things.
@MarkLeBay
Жыл бұрын
5:52 “the atheist gambit” . I think it’s incorrect to call this approach the “atheist gambit”. This approach was started by enlightenment Christians. Classical theology created this game.
@cliveadams7629
13 күн бұрын
Atheism is growing as more of the faithful read their books and find what's in them appalling. Your inability to engage with reality not only keeps you stuck in your blood cult but makes you believe nonsense like this.
@alexonthestreet
10 ай бұрын
I may be late to the party but I am glad I found this video. You did a great job of explaining the issues. Thanks. I Have heard this question used before: "If the God of the Bible exists and has spoken what would we expect to find?" What we find is more consistent with a powerful intelligent designer who has spoken in the Bible than Allah or blind chance determinism.
@scottjackson163
Жыл бұрын
Presuppositionalism indeed. 😒
@showmeanedge
8 ай бұрын
Atheism will never disappear until the Lord comes back on the clouds. Lord have mercy on our souls.
@showmeanedge
8 ай бұрын
@AnonYmous-yj9ib sorry, I don't understand the question
@showmeanedge
8 ай бұрын
@AnonYmous-yj9ib oh His pronouns aren't "they", that was what did it. We're not at the end of the age yet, that's why He hasn't come back. I don't remember having to wear the mark and bow to the antichrist, do you?
@gaborzoltai6965
6 ай бұрын
The reason why logic SHOULD be valid if there is not God is simply that we DO in fact use logic, therefore any universe in which we can exist needs to have some logic to it. There may indeed be many other universes where logic fails, but since our minds DO get logic, we could not even have this conversation in any of those universes. If the Presup starts talking about how much more likely other scenarios are without God, they run right into the Anthropic Principle.
@Jdbaraiac19
5 ай бұрын
“Logic exists! Therefore it is necessary. It could not exist but it exists because it’s necessary. ” is your argument. Your circular reasoning isn’t valid. Try again.
@gaborzoltai6965
5 ай бұрын
@@Jdbaraiac19, if I held logic to be necessary, then I could not admit that universes without logic are possible. You could more accurately abbreviate my argument as: "We find logic useful, therefore it is not surprising that our universe should allow logic to be useful." If we entertain the possibility of other universes where logic is useless, then we have to admit that a highly complex creature that uses logic, as we do, could only exist in a possible universe where logic is useful. This is basically the Anthropic Principle, applied to a multiplicity of possible universes. It is not circular.
@Jdbaraiac19
5 ай бұрын
@@gaborzoltai6965 It is circular because you’re using logic to come to that conclusion. Logic is always begging the question. How do you know that? How do you know that? How do you know that?
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Use is not justification.
@gaborzoltai6965
3 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332 - I am not justifying why logic exists. I am explaining (in direct response to the video) that it is not surprising that logic works. The existence of logic actually cuts AGAINST a single creator entity. Logic works because language works. For logic to exist, language must exist, and language implies at least two minds needing to communicate. A single creator entity that pre-exists everything else has no need for language, hence no need for logic.
@michaelallan7510
Жыл бұрын
Are there any strong Christian responses to Nietzsche's works on Ethics? (Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morality) Just going on the back of what you say about a sort of transcendental morality and love ethic that people can take as real axioms of their existence
@zakkonieczka6811
Жыл бұрын
What is the relationship between nominalism and presuppositionalism? I am not really theologically or philosophically literate so this may be a silly question :/
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
Nominalism is cancer originating from the latin west, it denies the reality of universals.
@MarkLeBay
Жыл бұрын
7:25 This point about how we explain order in the universe is I think the critically important one. Our universe appears to operate in a predictable way - yes. It’s so slavishly predictable that we can write mathematical formulas that accurately describe it in the minutest detail. Slavish predictability is not what you would predict if the universe were sustained and controlled by a free agent. A universe that propagates in a mindlessly predictable fashion for as far back in time as we can observe is exactly what is predicted by a world-view without a personal god. And worse, if an agent arbitrarily disrupted this order, it would undermine our foundation for making sense of the world. Moreover, if it is true that all finely-tuned orderly things require an intelligent designer, and it is true that God is finely-tuned, then either God requires a designer, God is not finely-tuned, or it is not true that all finely-tuned things require intelligent designers.
@atanas-nikolov
Жыл бұрын
Presup is having a resurgence in Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Though they know next to nothing about Van Til.
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
I've heard this elsewhere. As I read more Eastern thinkers I'm excited to see connections between some areas of the theology I was raised with as well as the differences.
@atanas-nikolov
Жыл бұрын
@@CalebSmith3 I bet you will enjoy the articles "Orthodox Theory of Knowledge" on the Patristic Faith site. Especially the one on the Church fathers points out how natural theology has never been the center of apologetics in early Christianity and should have only supplemented apologetics, not spearheaded it. I tend to agree.
@absofjelly
Ай бұрын
The doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent.
@coreymiller6581
Жыл бұрын
Consider Bosserman's The Trinity And the Vindication Of Christian Paradox, an exploration of Van Til with respect to the Trinity. Bosserman argues God must be trinitarian in order to be intelligible, to account for the One and the Many, and to have aseity (His love is not contingent on His creating the world because each person within the Godhead loves the other persons, etc.). He also showcases why Hegel proposed an Absolute, and why it fails, and why the Trinity resolves his difficulties while also resolving what his philosophy fails to resolve.
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
I love Bosserman, but I haven't read Vindication of Christian Paradox yet. I'll put it on the list!!
@henrytberry
6 ай бұрын
I must say, I like your approach. You are obviously serious, sincere and respectful of other peoples' views. I would like to add that I respect your views and beliefs. I have friends and family that are believing Christians, and my late wife was a devout religious Jew. That being said, I am an atheist and I think van Til's presuppositionalism is nonsense. (As an aside, I thought van Til's most important follower and interpreter, since van Til himself was as you suggest very close to incomprehensible, was Greg Bahnsen, followed by John Frame. I didn't know Francis Schaffer was an important acolyte of van Til.) First, to address a side issue that you raise, we need to clarify that we are not monkeys, we are great apes, and we have evolved to use our minds to do a lot of things, including engage with the laws of logic (or from my perspective, invent the laws of logic), do mathematics and so forth. The evolution of our minds allowed to to become what seems to be the most successful species on the planet, which is the goal of natural selection, i.e., perpetuating the species in question. So homo sapiens evolving to understand math and the laws of logic seems to have been evolutionarily successful, at least up till now. No god needed Aristotle first formulated what we now think of as the basic laws of logic; they can't be found in the Bible, although a lot of illogical stuff can be found there. Not, I hope, to be rude, but your whole discussion of monkeys simply wanting to reproduce but Christians being created to comprehend the laws of logic is so much word salad. It provides zero evidence for the truth of Christian theism. Just to refute one of what you say was van Til and Schaffer's points - that there is no reason to be honest in science if you are an atheist - when you understand what science is and how it works, it is obvious that it only works if the process is done honestly. Dishonest science, and there have been many examples of faked results and so forth, leads to false results and thus is unreliable. Science can only actually occur if it is done 'honestly'. Your broad claim that Christianity makes more sense than other religions, Mormonism being your example, is nothing but confirmation bias. It makes sense to you. Islam makes more sense to someone from Riyadh. And your statement that it would be 'nice' if Christianity were true is in my view false. It is one of the nastiest religions ever conceived, based as it is on the doctrine of original sin. Whatever nice things Jesus said, the fact is that an omniscient god supposedly created Adam and Eve knowing they would sin by eating the fruit which, as Milton puts it, brought death into our world, and all our woe, and thus would condemn humans and other sentient animals to pain, misery, disease and ultimate death is hardly nice. Yes, Christ supposedly came to redeem us of this utterly unjust fate, but only if you buy the story. If you are a Muslim, born and raised in Mecca say, and thus very unlikely to become a Christian, you will burn in hell for all eternity. Just because you were born in Mecca. Does that seem 'nice' to you? Schafer's argument that using abductive reasoning, Christianity makes more sense of things like love and so forth than does atheism is again, simply confirmation bias and is also so much word salad, signifying, as Macbeth might say, nothing. It's interesting that you admire Tim Keller. I live in New York City, and Keller was a greatly admired figure here among people of all faiths. I knew about him and his activities and admired him myself, and was saddened by his death. He, much like J. Gresham Machen, was a Christian thinker admired for their intellect and decency by Christians and atheists alike. H.L. Mencken, a legendary atheist, wrote an admiring eulogy for Machen after Machen's untimely death. We are talking about very different people from van Til, Bahnsen and Schaffer, the latter of which came across as a nasty man, a promoter of angry Christianity, as exemplified by one of his best-known students, Michele Bachmann. In closing, I should say that you don't, as advertised, explain presuppositional apologetics - you don't deal with the problem that the reasoning underpinning presuppositionalism by definition begs the question, which van Til conceded as I recall, and that the transcendental argument which underpins van Til's faith in presuppositionalism has been shown to be unsound by various philosophers over recent decades, notably Prof. Barry Stroud of U.C. Berkeley. Yes, Schaffer and you are correct that people don't believe or disbelieve because of arguments - I personally have known that I didn't believe in god since I was seven or eight, and it was never an intellectual decision; one day people were talking about Jesus and I realized I just didn't believe he was real - but if you are going to advance a philosophical position such as presuppositionalism, it should at least hold water, and other than as a baseless claim, presuppositionalism does not.
@kellystone7501
3 ай бұрын
Too much wrong to comment. Gish gallop for the win?
@Narikku
Жыл бұрын
As a Christian, I don't think Presuppositional Apoogetics works from a Probabilistic or Bayesian perspective. It only works to root out logical reasonings and axioms. Mathematically, the Probability of a certain evidence, given any theory, given that we have observed the evidence, is 1. That is, unless the probability of a certain evidence given a theory is 0. If that's the case, presuppositionalism can't be used as a probabilistic argument under Bayesian rules.
@HumanAction1
9 ай бұрын
"Probability" in and of itself presupposes induction. How do you address this without begging the question?
@Narikku
9 ай бұрын
@@HumanAction1My point is, you cannot simultaneously assume both Presuppositionalism and Probability. If you take a Presuppositionalist framework, then Epistemic Probability ceases to make sense. But, if you take an Epistemic Probability framework in any meaningful way, then presuppositionalism is inherently false. I'm not challenging presuppositionalism: Im saying you can't have both.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
@@Narikku Wrong, presup is about the preconditions for knowledge, bayseian stuff is about statistics measuring patterns of phenomena.
@EdT.-xt6yv
2 ай бұрын
5:00 🎯
@samuelandmarikaadams9837
4 ай бұрын
We say logic, reason and the scientific method are the rules of the game when we are asking empirical questions. These are the rules because they have been successful in making predictions about reality..... they are not arbitrary. Presuppositional apologetics is a junk arguement because I could substitute anything in the place of God, assign whatever arbitrary values I want and say it is expected on my world view. I can say with equal validity that there is natural suffereing in the world, my God likes natural suffering and torturing animals, this is expected as my god is evil. I can assign Ala, Visny or the spaghetti monster and highlight or not highlight whatever things I wish.
@lotus160
Жыл бұрын
One of the problems I see here is the claim that as we atheist cannot account for the laws of logic, for example, then the Christian explanation of the God claim is correct. To me this is a logical mistake. Many centuries ago certain people believed that a solar eclipse was caused by a dragon eating the sun and the local villagers would go outside, make a loud noise to frighten the dragon away and the sun would reappear. Now obviously this was not true however it was the only explanation. I do not know where the laws of logic come from however the claim that the Christian god made them is the same as dragon eating the sun. I say that I cannot account for the laws of logic but it does not mean the only explanation left is correct. I do not wish to be disrespectful and would welcome an adult debate.
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Whenever people are bombastic in the comments, Christian or non-Christian, I delete the comments. But I always appreciate thoughtfulness in disagreement! I hope I didn't misspeak in the video. The presuppositional approach is actually very mild. We are not saying "materialism can't account for x phenomena" (in this case the laws of logic) "therefore Christianity is true." Instead we are saying "materialism can't account for x phenomena and Christianity can. This is just a small bit of evidence (not a proof) that Christianity is a better explanation of reality than materialism." There are some presuppositionalists who act that just by pointing of the insufficiencies of materialism they are therefore giving positive proof of Christianity. I disagree with my fellow evangelists at that point. I don't want to be the guy who writes a War and Peace length response in the comments, but thought that could clarify my position.
@Spinozasghost
Жыл бұрын
@@CalebSmith3 This is a really good way of putting it, thank you for making that clarification. However, I think my issue would still be that it's not clear why Christianity would have some a priori advantage over materialism at accounting for "the laws of logic"? It seems really what the presup wants to say is that some rational divine mind is required. But if that's the case, then, a priori, deism, certain versions of Hinduism, and of course Judaism and Islam would be just as good, not to mention certain late antiquity Greek and Roman notions of God. So, for instance, one could be a press NeoPlatonist and I don't see on what ground the presup Christian could counter this without bringing a posteriori evidence, in which case we're right back at classical apologetics. Perhaps a bigger issue is the presup notion of the laws of logic. Firstly, which laws? There are many different systems of logic. But it seems like an even further presupposition is being made, namely that the laws of logic are intuited by the human mind but exist apart from it. Is this correct? Or perhaps something like it? If so, then two immediate routes of response for the non-theist would be to embrace something like Platonism (which, again, a priori seems just as good an answer as Christianity and makes fewer assumptions, so would win out via Occam's razor) or to go the Kantian route and speak of logic as the science of our understanding (i.e., that it is tasked with discovering the basic kinds of activities that our understanding is capable of and the basic kinds of representational contents that our understanding makes use of in these acts). All in all, it seems the presup might be attributing a metaphysical uniqueness to logic and the workings of the mind that are either unfounded or even incorrect. I hope these concerns all makes sense!
@Ken-dk8ev
Жыл бұрын
@@CalebSmith3I think it’s important to get atheists to comment here on where the holes are - the very people theists are trying to convert - to see where their apologetics can go sideways and genuinely learn from it in humility. IOW’s like anything else that evolves and adapts to what the other sides concerns and own adaptations have themselves evolved to.
@Jdbaraiac19
5 ай бұрын
“There are an infinite number of plausibilities for whatever is happening therefore the most plausible explanation is probably the right one” can apply to anything including God. We cannot with absolute certainty disprove a dragon is eating the sun but we can just deny it because there is no evidence. That’s a claim. There is no evidence. How do you want to go about this? Empiricism says “because all that exists is material! And material things can be explained. Therefore science can explain immaterial things like logic” But the Christian says, “you cannot account for something immaterial’s existing!” You say, “science will discover why!” You’re begging the question. And saying that Something cannot exist and be immaterial is an assumption which is inconsistent because you don’t apply that skepticism to gravity but you do to God. It’s just as saying something can exist and be immaterial when it’s scientific. And something cannot exist and be immaterial because it’s not scientific. You’re choosing what you believe And it’s all a matter of personal opinion not facts.
@1kpjones
6 ай бұрын
God bless you brother. Much appreciate what you do.
@lizd2943
3 ай бұрын
Presuppositional apologetics- simply explained: "I'm right because I say I'm right."
@AG-rl5pw
2 ай бұрын
No it's, things are right and wrong because God is the standard on how we measure right and wrong, without him there's no basis to say anyone is right or wrong, God is the precondition of all Ethics to provide an objective standard on how to live. The athiest just has feelings and opinions, basically its all arbitrary and subjectivity. No moral absolutes. Nothing can be considered good or evil, cause theres no ultimate source of good, nor an ultimate source of evil, its all intersubjective, i suppose. There's the simple explanation. The athiest says I'm right because I say I'm right. The theist knows he's wrong despite his feelings and opinions cause God is right, and the standard for what is right.
@lizd2943
2 ай бұрын
@@AG-rl5pw And what makes you right about that?
@AG-rl5pw
2 ай бұрын
@lizd2943 I didn't say, I was right. Actually if we went with my personal feelings instead of submitting to THE STANDARD. I'd be wrong. For instance I fall for fornication, and lust. I don't personally FEEL that it's a bad thing, but God says it's a bad thing, so I'm defeated. That's just a big one for me. Another example, I have lied and stole before, at the time, I felt justified in my actions, hence why I did them, but when I judge myself against the standard, I know I'm wrong. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" as it is written. But I know you don't believe scripture. I think, the athiest worldview is lack of standards and beliefs entirely. Like I'm sure it goes how Richard Dawkins, an athiest I greatly respect, said, "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." If you're an athiest or anti-theist you can correct me if I'm wrong.
@lizd2943
2 ай бұрын
@@AG-rl5pw Claiming something is wrong because an authority figure says so, and you get to say what the authority figure says. In other words, exactly what I said at the beginning.
@dansoelberg
2 ай бұрын
@@AG-rl5pw Any religious apologetics is a highly focused niche interest. Apologists are trying to score points in a game that no one else is playing. The game doesn't matter to me, so I don't care. I can dismiss it out of hand. An apologist would rightfully call that dismissive. Yes. I bet there's an apologist who dismisses rugby. Same.
@hearhisvoice4155
Жыл бұрын
RIP Tim Keller
@ellaaa9811
Жыл бұрын
wow so cool
@manualboyca
Жыл бұрын
Great video! I’m just getting into presuppositionalism, and I’ve been listening to lectures from Greg Bahnsen. Maybe you’ll review one of his books on this channel someday?
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
I hope to make more videos on presuppositionalism, to try and present it clearly and kindly the way Bahnsen does.
@billymanilli
Жыл бұрын
hope you didn't waste too much time on it, before realizing it's flawed "reasoning".
@el-duderino975
10 ай бұрын
@billymanilli and what made you come to this conclusion?
@natebozeman4510
Жыл бұрын
Looking into the presupp approach more, and thank you for the helpful video on this!
@natebozeman4510
Жыл бұрын
@@nickjones5435 I say I'm looking into an apologetic approach, you hurl childish insults at me, and you think I can't defend theism? Lol It is MUCH easier to defend than "yeah man, there's just infinity universes and we just happen to live in the perfect one with moral intuitions, psychophysical harmony, consciousness, teleology, and enough biodiversity to remain in homeostasis. All of this is meaningless bro. You just don't wanna accept that. But I don't need that kind of crutch, because I am an honest atheist with lots of chest hair and manliness."
@natebozeman4510
Жыл бұрын
@@nickjones5435 I simply pointed out the logical conclusion of your position. I can't help if you haven't thought about the absurdity of atheism. Think through your worldview and then read what I said again. You'll see it matches up nicely unless you rationalize the absurdities. You're conflating evidence and proof. There is LOTS of evidence there is a God. That doesn't mean one can demonstrate Him or PROVE His existence. It's not a good faith question.
@natebozeman4510
Жыл бұрын
@@nickjones5435 If you have any etymological understanding of the word "atheism," you would know your pop-atheist claims of "aThEiSm iS jUsT dIsBeLiEf iN yOuR cLaImS aNd nOt aLsO a cLaIm" is wrong. At least have the courage and the good faith to admit you have a worldview and that you don't simply reject a different one.
@blueglassdave
2 ай бұрын
So, whatever it is, if my particular religious world view is right, it makes sense that it encompasses God better than all the other worldviews. The common trait among all worldviews.
@JoshuaBSunderland
Жыл бұрын
I forgot to comment it in your previous video, but it's good to have you back! Presup apologetics is not something that I was raised with, but when I was informed about it, it just seemed far more useful to me than most classical arguments. Though you try to keep your analysis videos fairly theologically neutral, which is something I can respect, what theological tradition would you find yourself in? I'm Reformed and can identify some of the books behind you, but you seem to read widely enough to where I doubt your shelves perfectly reflect your beliefs haha
@CalebSmith3
Жыл бұрын
I'm a Reformed Baptist. But I'll read anything charitably!
@FIr3BLZ
Жыл бұрын
8th
@IvanPierreLApostat
5 ай бұрын
Mhhh, christianity can prove everything because god.... but this explains nothing... :D
@c-qpo
7 ай бұрын
Great brake down of presup!!surprised you didn’t bring up Greg Bahnsen He’s definitely one of my favorite apologists and teachers ..how about a review on his book “always ready”..thx brother
@danhoff4401
Жыл бұрын
3 points: First the idea that Christianity is a good system and you should want it to be true is a blatant argument from consequences. Many people believe traditional Christianity could be improved on (this is why there are progressive Christians) and the fact that they find their system appealing doesn't make their theology any more correct. Second presupp relies on TAG and until someone publishes, in an actual philosophy journal, a comprehensive defense of P1 no one who has done their homework on this will take van Till seriously. This is why presupp is popular with internet layman and preachers but has little to no traction with educated audiences. Third it should be trivial to make an evidentialist case for Christianity if it is true. I think the fact Christians like you exist is a major challenge to the belief system writ large.
@Ken-dk8ev
Жыл бұрын
I’ve seen too many presuppers get laughed out of the room on atheists debates OR they get so disgusted at the perceived disingenuous argumentation (ie denying that its circular) that they end up getting father away from theism.
@danhoff4401
Жыл бұрын
@@Ken-dk8ev presuppositionalists are very good at creating atheists.
@Ken-dk8ev
Жыл бұрын
@@danhoff4401A lot of them are so hyper focused on staying with ‘the script’ that their apologetic comes off too much as dogmatic, mechanical and agenda filled at the loss of being perceived as genuine, humble, and charitable. You almost get the impression that they would get further if not respected, if they admit their own circularity and appeal to some (if present) natural genuine good qualities in them - that light that would make a person of good will, curious.
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
This apologetic only works with Eastern orthodoxy due to the essence energy distinction.
@thomasthellamas9886
3 ай бұрын
Is that why it was formulated and sharpened by Reformed Folks?
@nkoppa5332
3 ай бұрын
@@thomasthellamas9886 it’s historical development does not really reveal if it actually works with reformed theology
@DanielSpringer-oj1mm
2 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332Beginning your epistemology with revelation (the written assertions of men) is arbitrary, since there are many contradicting revelations. Your worldview is incoherent, no matter how many times Dyer spergs out
@nkoppa5332
2 ай бұрын
@@DanielSpringer-oj1mm So revelation is false because naturalism is true? Nice logic buddy
@DanielSpringer-oj1mm
2 ай бұрын
@@nkoppa5332 No, I only argued that revelation is arbitrary, and so does not work as a basis for a worldview that believes in an objective truth. Meaning, the entire worldview is incoherent. This says nothing to the question of whether or not there is a God.
@davidcoleman5860
Жыл бұрын
Whether or not an atheist “can” or “cannot” do certain things has no bearing on the validity of an argument. An argument is or it isn't sound. Either there is sufficient evidence in the cosmos for God's existence or there isn't. There is sufficient evidence in the cosmos for God's existence. So, providing that evidence is valid.
Пікірлер: 874