+Br00klyn116 Thanks! I'm glad to help.

Agrippa FTW

Ozymandias Ramses II Love the new pic, Ozy. Also, I had idea that you could pull off such an amazing falsetto. ;)

The key is in the phrase "justified knowledge" instead of just "knowledge"

Yeah it's always mind boggling when they say you have to "start with god" to know anything, but what's the pre-condition to the knowledge or decision to the action of starting with god? You have to start with god to have the thought starting with god?

Are you a Trinitarian or a Unitarian? Because I swear I’ve seen you in comment section of inspiring philosophy is videos arguing against the deity of Christ.

That is one of the few times I actually liked Sye,I think he won the debate hands down.

Interesting dialectic. I am a Pyrrhonian skeptic, so I don't know anything. What you have there seems more like an academic skeptic position, to me they are just as bad as the epistemists. (kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j7R2rLR1neDcm4E.html)

@@CarneadesOfCyrene I am merely subscribed and committed to the veeery ole' Greek assertion OF categories: Physis (real=know-ABLE: Original things) versus Psyche (elicited, made up, fabricated {from/about the real} = imaginary = meaning = known-ness = observedhood = knowledge = property, does not exist) versus Logoi (real = knowable: all that proclaims, utters, asserts, object-IZES = material-IZEs the PSYCHE) In order to clarify what PSYCHE your LOGOS "bad" symbolizes on this occasion, can you provide me with some LOGOI you deem to be synonymous? Such as "detrimental to the bodily health" or "destabilizing the society" etc?! Kind regards from GERMANY!

If you can’t prove that assertion then it’s meaningless.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 It *!!!! IS !!!!* neither meaningless nor meaningful. Do you know why?

​@@CarneadesOfCyrene " I am a Pyrrhonian sceptic, so i don't know anything" 😂 Do you know that you are a Pyrrhonian sceptic? Do you know that you don't know anything?! Self refuting nonsense

Thanks!

I don’t even like Sye ten’s presuppositionism, but the idea it’s shifting the burden proof is complete nonsense, if you think it is you clearly don’t know how the burner proof works. I think that he comes across very condescending and repetitive, but this is total BS, no his argument is in order to have to Standard of evidence you have to have a justification for it, you have to have an ultimate starting point and justification for that standard reason or else your arguments are meaningless, I don’t even like Sye, shifting the burden of proof is ridiculous it’s a debate the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Cool response to the argument. I'll add it in to the final set of objections that I offer.

​@@CarneadesOfCyreneso the argument here is that knowledge doesn't exist!? That is self refuting; knowledge doesn't exist - do you KNOW that? Certainty doesn't exist - are you certain? Absurdity.

Yes great fun. Traditionally you deny knowledge and spin around in self refuting absurdity!

Which debate did this occur in? Would like to watch

Because, how do you know, that thise Philosophers really refuted it? Just kidding. I find it likely that Sye Clones are dishonest. Their strategy motivates them to claim, that they are 100% certain about the truth of christianity. However this is something we can't check and people are normally not immune to at least a kind of unsophisticated doupt.

@@guillatra This but unironically

So far I haven’t heard one, most of the refutations have already been responded by vahntil or other presuppositionalist, or it’s just the fact that they don’t understand the method. Also sye is no where near the best presupp around tbh. Bahnsen, vahntil, frame, bosserman,Chris bolt, Anderson etc. are way better

Most of them assume that God is the conclusion of the argument with no presuppositionist claims that that’s a complete strawman, The argument is that God is the starting point. And is the basis for logic and reason itself.

@@ryanbrown9833 most people who critique the argument have no idea who those people are, they’re only familiar with people like Darth Dawkins, Matt slick, Sye Ten, they are familiar with people like Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Scott Oliphant, Frances Schaeffer, John frame, and Gordon Clark even though they’re prepositionalism is a bit different, well if you’re really deep in the philosophy you’ve likely heard of these people but most atheists aren’t, at least your average online atheist.

MyOnlyFarph, I'm not sure it's possible to believe in Christ without "resonating with" (however the mechanism - Holy Spirit?) as "true" the presuppositions of the Bible narrative, at least the presuppositions that man's biggest problem and need is forgiveness for his sins, and that faith in Jesus Christ's death on his behalf is the solution. History points to Jesus being who he said he was (messiah - God in human flesh) and so persuades us to accept reality as he presented it, which, from that point on, though still we seek to "back-fill" "gaps" and mitigate cognitive dissonance, is largely presuppositional. The book of Romans (1:18-32) describes many layers of suppression and denial of the truth, accelerated through deviant and defiant conduct (tho', I agree, it certainly comes across as arrogant and "Jedi-ish" to correct people's perceptions of their own realities, "small r"[?] lol), but the Bible presents us all as "without excuse" in regard to our knowledge of God's existence and even of certain of his attributes, because, so it says, we naturally perceive those things. (Another possible example of presupposition? Hebrews 2:15 seems to describe the human fear of death as a kind of universal bondage, an intimidating, controlling, even paralyzing force.) Some old saint or reformer said creation provides enough evidence to condemn a man, but not enough to save him (i.e., Creation includes/inspires an awareness of God, human conscience bears witness of sins needing forgiveness). Salvation happens only through "special revelation," when the spiritual significance of the historical facts of Jesus's life, ministry, death and resurrection "clicks," inspiring a person's faith in him.

Did you quote yourself?

Are you absolutely sure about that?

@@percyjohnsoniv1794 interesting assessment. Is the statement that absolute truths do not exist absolutely true? If not then that statement is false and it is true that absolute truth exist,This he’s completely self refuting, because if the statement that absolute truth do not exist is true, then absolute truth exists since it would be absolutely true that that statement is true if it is true, if it’s not true that absolute truth do not exist, it’s also self refuting. So is it absolutely true that truth is relative?

@@percyjohnsoniv1794 Exactly people need to before they say things like absolute truths do not exist, because if that statement is true then it completely refutes that statement.

The danger of presuppositionalism is it lets you assume any world view without explanation or argument. Including deeply dangerous ones.

+Ed Thoreum In part because 1) Many people believe it and 2) If the claim is true then it would drastically change everything we study around literally every other realm of philosophy. They say in a paper you should respond to objections which are obvious, and objections which are particularly powerful. The thesis of God may not be well jsutified, but it is boh obvious (in that many people would claim it in the face of the work of philosophy) and powerful (in that it would completely dismantel much of the work of philosophy).

​@@CarneadesOfCyrenebut your claim is that knowledge and therefore truth doesn't exist! Rendering philosophy and any and all pursuit of knowledge meaningless.

Presuppositionalism starts with the Transcendental Argument for God. That arguments asserts 2 premises as facts, then concludes that "God exists" The problem is in the Christian worldview any statement of fact necessarily implies the existence of God, which means that the conclusion is implied by each premise in the argument, making it a fallacious, question begging argument.

That’s not the argument the argument is that everyone has presuppositions, and we all have underlining presuppositions, The real question is how do you justify those presuppositions?

@@pleaseenteraname1103 The fact that they are presuppositions means implicitly they cannot be independently justified because of the oh so boring concept of hard solipsism. The thing with Presup apologists is that they dishonestly try to frame that problem is that in the absense of absolute certainty, any presup is just as reasonable/unreasonable as any other. Which is not the case. Presupposing that I exist and an in some sort of reality is more justifiable than presupposing the cause of said reality for no other reason than I only require the assumption that my experience of consciousness and the supposed reality around me is a direct experience, whereas presupposing the cause of that requires the initial presupposition listed plus the reality having a cause at all, and then assuming what that cause cannot be, then assuming what the cause actually is.

@@nickokona6849 it’s the complete opposite solipsism, since they believe the mind and the physical body are separate, and they believe that epistemology and reason are grounded in God, where do you get the idea that they can’t justify anything independently of themselves? No they believe you can’t justify anything outside of God, not themselves. The main issue with your comment is that you immediately attack their motives by calling them dishonest, and claiming that they’re trying to frame the problem is the absence of absolute certainty, how was that dishonest? And what’s wrong with that? There’s nothing dishonest about that whatsoever remotely, how is that reframing the problem? Then critiquing your epistemology and getting down to your core presuppositions, i’m trying to get you to justify them is dishonest to you? That’s not dishonest whatsoever. That’s an assertion? And that statement itself is a presupposition. This doesn’t actually Address the argument at all, so you don’t believe that there is an absence of absolute certainty in the naturalistic framework? Yeah this is not presupposition apologetics at all, The sounds more like evidentialism, Chris oppositional ism presupposes that God exists and is necessary and it must exist in all possible realities, because he can’t have a stand of reason and you can’t possibly justify the laws of nature or the preconditions of intelligibility without him. This is a complete strawman I literally have never heard of presuppositionist argue this, no but they’re arguing is that you can’t ground you’re presuppositions about reality without an underlining justification for those presuppositions. No some of them can be pretty arrogant like Sye and Matt slick, but you also have people like Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til that or nothing like that. What do you mean cause? No they don’t argue that there is a cause of epistemology or reason, they believe these concepts are transcendent and have always existed but they believe they’re grounded in God who has always existed.

@@pleaseenteraname1103 They're just kicking the ball down the road. You can say they're grounding it in god. But in order to do that they have to assume they are an actual agent in an actual reality that requires a grounding, and that a god exists, andd that god serves as a grounding, and that the grounding is necessary. It's assumptions on assumptions. I don't need to justify the laws of nature. They appear to be real. I don't necessarily need a grounding for that. As far as I can tell, they are the grounding. It's only assumptions that demand it need anything. Here's how it's dishonest.. As I explained in my previous reply. In the absence of absolute certainty, I assume I exist, that the reality I experience is real. I am forced to by my experience. That's the bare minimum to assume to be able to function in the reality I appear to be in. To compare that necessary step (that presups do too) to their additional and completely unsupported assumption that the grounding for all of it is a god is far less justifiable than the initial necessary assumptions. That's why it's dishonest. You alluded yourself to it. They're just saying that we all got assumptions. I assume what's apparent, theuy assume what's apparent and then assume a god to explain it claiming it's necessary. Those two positions aren't equal at all and portraying them as if they are is dishonest.

@@nickokona6849 i’m saying that’s their argument. Yes exactly, they assume that they do have a true vision of reality and they can provide a grounding and justification for it. God is the first assumption, he’s the starting point. That’s not a coherent argument they just appear to be real, how can you be sure they are? OK then a presuppositionlist can just say God appears to exist, and you can just say your view appears to be through that’s not gonna get us anywhere and it’s not gonna very helpful. How do you know that the laws of nature are reliable? How do you know what the laws of nature say about nature is true? Yes you don’t but why do you trust the laws of nature if you don’t have a justification for them? You can believe whatever you want that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t seem very rational unless you have a good reason to believe in it, just saying they appear that way isn’t a coherent justification whatsoever it’s not even a justification. The laws of nature themselves cannot be the grounding, since we know there is something above a lot of nature, metaphysics. No it’s not. This is an issue philosophers I’ve been dealing with for nearly 3000 years at this point, what do you think is more interesting talk about how we can ground or assumptions about reality to be accurate, or just say oh well it seems to me that they’re right and just call it a day, that’s not gonna get us anywhere. Do you believe that God needs a justification? She didn’t explain how it’s dishonest still that’s still begs the question, so basically you’re saying they’re dishonest because they want you to actually give a justification for your claims, and prove that your perception of reality is accurate? Yes but how do you justify those assumptions? You don’t you just assume that your perception of reality is accurate? How does it appear to be real? this is not a coherent response whatsoever, that doesn’t support your claim that they’re dishonest because I want you to give a justification for your claim. OK well the specs a question you haven’t actually explain why that’s an unsupported assumption, and according to your logic why would they need to? Why can’t they just say my view of reality is that God exists. So to you giving a justification for your perception of reality is the less rational than just saying it’s just the way it is this is how I perceive reality? You’re still begging the question, i’m having a disagreement on whether or not you need to ground your perception of reality is not dishonest. So you don’t wanna be forced to have an answer in the deeper metaphysical and philosophical underlining presuppositions about reality? You just want to say it’s the way it is and that’s it, that’s not a coherent answer, you’re still begging the question because you haven’t been demonstrated how those are just internal necessary assumptions that need their grounding. That doesn’t make it dishonest, it just sounds like you don’t I want your epistemology to be challenged. Your comment is basically just a huge question begging fallacy, because you really haven’t justified any of your assumptions. Your comment basically boils down to there just brute facts or internal necessary assumptions that need no grounding, and question that standards all itself is dishonest. No they’re saying we all have assumptions and underlying presuppositions about reality, no how do we justify those underlining presuppositions, because just saying the assumption within itself is necessary and not giving any sort of justification for that claim to begin with is not coherent or logical whatsoever. No the argument is that you have to have an underlining starting point and justification justify using reason or appealing to reason to begin with, if you don’t everything you say is meaningless since you don’t have an underlining justification for any of those claims, and they argue that God is the ultimate starting point and justification, I recommend reading Cornelius van till, Greg Bahnsen or John Freeman except his is a little bit different, they are much more sophisticated than Sye. And what’s wrong with that if you’re allowed to just assume something with no justification and just say that the assumption itself is the justification, why can’t they? The argument is that everyone assumes a standard of reason everyone assumes a standard of knowledge, now the real question is how do you justify that. That’s just an assumption, you’re claiming that it’s different but you have an actually going to justification for that you’re just saying it is, they’re both underlying assumptions about reality so yes they are the same.

Awesome! Thanks so much!

Thanks 😊

Sye is not the best representation of presuppositional apologetics.

In the first three videos we will cover two more kinds, pragmatic truth and paradigm relative truth.

@@CarneadesOfCyrene If truth is per se imaginary (PSYCHE) then truth is neither this nor that, it is just imaginary, the symbol symbolizing "does not exist". ONLY assertions (LOGOI) can be DEEMED TO BE pragmatic, useful, relative, absolute.

Interesting. Most of my philosophers are going to stop the argument before it even gets started, but let's take a look at where you are objecting. I'll offer a more detailed version of the presuppositionalist argument: 1. Either we have knowledge or we do not 2. The only way to gain knowledge is to be omnipotent or to be told from something that is omnipotent. 3. We cannot not have knowledge. 4. We have knowledge. 5. We are not omnipotent C. Therefore we have gained knowledge from something that is omnipotent. 1 is simply the LEM, 4 follows directly from 1,3 DS, 5 is pretty generally accepted and the conclusion follows from 2,4, and 5. So, in order to object to this argument we must either object to 2, or 3. The skeptic will put pressure on 3. The non-skeptic will put pressure on 2. In order to do this the non-skeptic would offer whatever arguments they would use against the skeptic as 2 will be supported by the duplication argument, or some other skeptical argument. It will go as follows: 1. We cannot know if we are in a skeptical scenario or not unless we were told by something omnipotent. 2. We know that we are not in a skeptical scenario 3. Therefore we were told by something omnipotent. This will work unless you have some other way out of the duplication argument. As a skeptic, it seems easier to put pressure on 3, which will require putting pressure on the dialectic (which purports to show that lacking knowledge is a contradiction). That's the route I'm going to take. If you have a good way to debunk the argument for 2 please offer it.

Carneades.org I'll give it a whirl at debunking P2. I will not go about it by saying that there are other ways to obtain knowledge in this example, and will instead show that this premise also fails. Objection 1: This argument gives us no mechanism in which we can differentiate between non-omnipotent beings and omnipotent beings. This is akin to saying "The only way we could know things is by knowing things", the argument needs to give us some sort of mechanism in which we can differentiate between an omnipotent, and an impotent being. What we are searching for is an inerrant mechanism to distinguish between true and false claims, and if we cannot distinguish between omnipotence and impotence, we haven't even made it through the door. Objection 2: Omnipotent beings can lie. Even if we knew that an omnipotent being was in fact omnipotent, how would we show that this being is not a liar. Objection 3: The conclusion is a non-sequitur. Even if we were told something by an omnipotent being, that does not mean this being is not deceiving us. That implies that the being is not lying. We have no *justification* in saying that this being is telling the truth, knowledge is true, *justified* belief, so even if an omnipotent being tells us something, it is not knowledge, even if it is true. Nutshell statement: This God may be an *omnipotent evil deceiver*, this God could be a moderately powerful demigod without omnipotence and we would have *no way to tell the difference*, the belief in a true statement does not count towards knowledge, even if an omnipotent being is not lying to you, this *cannot be justified* and therefore violates Sye's definition of knowledge. I agree that if a truthful omnipotent being tells you something, it is true. I also agree that if a person tells you something true, it is true. What we need is a way to justify the assumptions made about whatever being is telling you these things.

Carneades.org Additionally, the argument states that the only way to gain or have knowledge is to receive it from something omnipotent. This seems problematic because it begs into question how said omnipotent being got that knowledge? Wouldn't it be logical to conclude that even omnipotent beings need to get their true, justified beliefs from somewhere? When you really look at this, it seems that even an omnipotent being would need another omnipotent being to give it knowledge, leading to an infinite regress.

​@@drinkmugomniscient or all knowing God doesn't acquire knowledge! Problem solved 😂

Its still high presumptuous of him, A more honest position would be to work from the bottom up like science to see if a god exists.

@@karlazeen Without God, presumption could not be objectively wrong. Without God, honesty could not be objectively good. Without God, science could not be objectively correct. Thanks for your time!