As an atheist, I enjoy Pressupositional apologetics and reformed denominations. We can spot holes in each other's worldviews. I believe they are almost two sides of the same coin as a literal reading of the Bible can lead you to being an atheist or reformed.

Objective Idealism Autonomy of Reason, sounds like Freewill view (the Ability to do Otherwise)

I’ve never really understood the coherence of this issue. If reason constitutively depends on justification (internalist or externalist) then the question becomes “what justifies justification” which is as nonsensical as “what’s north of the North Pole”. The same issue arises when considering reason as a hinge, the question is trying to treat the concept as logically prior to itself which is incoherent. That’s construing reason conceptually, the other horn would be construed non-conceptually, such as a capacity. But asking what justifies a capacity is just a category error. Regarding autonomy: if reason was non-autonomous that would eliminate the normative force which constitutes the coherence of the concept, so reason is essentially autonomous & thus the objection is self-defeating. It’s also self-defeating internal to theism given its commitment to God himself being a self-existent autonomous reasoner, which is to say an agent who reasons independent of external constraint or conditions. And if they think God is logically prior to reason & grounds reason that implies God is logically prior to Himself, which is incoherent gibberish. The presup themselves would need to reason autonomously prior & with respect to interpreting scripture to determine this very issue, which is another way it’s self-defeating. So there’s a transcendental “defence” of the indispensability & autonomy of reason as well an offensive attack on the coherence of this stripe of theism/apologetic which is logically independent of a/theism & thus neutral.

Very good presentation.

Autonomy of reason is an interesting idea, but presuppositionalist arguments would ask that you justify reason. Why would it be that the universe is rational? Couldnt reason itself be an illusion? What is the justification that reason actually applies to the real?

Hi! I am wondering what are your opinions on what are the best versions of the problem of evil and suffering (logical and evidential) and the divine hiddenness argument. If there are any other arguments for atheism against theism that you think are potent and overlooked, I wouldn’t mind you mentioning them. I am an upcoming philosophy student and I am overall new to rigorous philosophy of religion. I would really love to come up to speed with the best philosophical atheist arguments. Thanks

Did you happen to read VanTil’s “Christianity and Idealism”? Couldn’t tell what work you quoted from in the video.

What are your thoughts on Cutter’s and Crummet’s psychophysical harmony argument for theism? Do you have any arguments or counter-arguments against it (or is it too fresh)?

So, would the analytic idealism of Bernardo Kastrup fall into the objective or subjective idealism camp?

hmm I hoped that you could have explained the ideas of objective idealism and Hegel's dialectic more simply. These terms are often loaded and have many different interpretations...If I'm not wrong, you are using the categorical imperative as an illustration of objective idealism?

I know that this jmis not relevant to the topic but I am in kind of a philosphicap crisis. I am starting to think that moral realism is false... It is something that I really wouldn't like to be true, but my confidence in its truth is just slipping away.

Interesting. I've never really understood presuppositional apologetics. I don't see why God's existence is a necessary precondition for me to know 1+1=2. Also I don't think positing a being that possesses the very thing we're trying to account for (knowledge) explains why there is knowledge. One concern I have - is there a companions in guilt style argument being put forward? Atheism entails we can't know anything; not knowing anything is "bad"; so atheism is "bad". Be a Christian if you want to feel secure in knowing stuff! But how do they presuppose the Christian God without the Bible or Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? PS. It kind of looks as if you are a reading - which is fine, but in that case it might be visually easier if you put the text on screen as you read (like Majesty of Reason - Joe, does). I find being able to read what's on screen (personally) helps me internalise what you're saying - I can pause etc. Just feedback though.

The independence of reason postulates that reasoning is not controlled by causality. I think this is an untenable position. Many philosophers say _should_ and yet postulate the opposite. So which _should_ survives is rather dependant on survival. And thus reasoning is not independant. Your final conclusion _which implies atheism_ is wrong because it presupposes a whole laundry list of attributes of the respective theism. How easily we become presuppositionalist in all our conversations.

I love presuppositionalism. It makes Christianity look so, so weak.

Both conceptually confused garbled gibberish.