As a reminder, there are three things we don't allow here: (1) Blaspheming God, (2) Slandering Christians, and (3) Trolling. Avoid these and you're welcome here.
I'm a philosophy novice, so can somebody help me understand this? It sounded like Mark was saying that he presupposes 1. That his sense data is generally accurate, and 2. That his mind is generally rational. He seemed to be arguing that he cannot justify this (if he could, they would not be presuppositions), but that he also has no choice but to assume both of those things. The Christians argue that the justification for accurate sense data and rational mind is God; are they not also presupposing the same things that Mark is, but then adding at least one additional presupposition on top of them? Is there a single thing that the Christians know about reality, (or God, for that matter) that they did not 1) perceive with their sense data, or 2) understand rationally in their mind? So now, on top of the possibility that exists for all of us that our sense perception is hopelessly flawed, or our mind is hopelessly irrational, they have introduced the possibility that a supernatural being with the power to delude people's mind has hopelessly muddled their thoughts. They talked to Mark for over an hour and I'm not certain I understand how they escaped his initial point that their position is weaker on the basis of having more presuppositions.
@@ajhieb Also, at 2:08:16, Joel says that that Mark is right that additional presuppositions increase one's chances of being wrong, while at 3:10:48, he is dismisses it as an "immaterial rule," and then (hilariously) says "rules imply a rule-giver." Mark offered an example to demonstrate his point; Joel initially accepted it, but then dismissed it when it became inconvenient, without ever offering any substantive argument against it. The last five minutes just absolutely reeked of Joel needing to end the stream, but not being willing to leave any ambiguity that he was, in fact, totally and completely right (see also my other comment about misrepresenting Mark's views about accepting other people's presuppositions).
@ "Immaterial" in this case means "not made of matter," not "unimportant." I'm not debating atheists in the comments, but I needed to note that for you.
@@TheThinkInstitute Haha yes, I am aware that's what you mean by "immaterial" there, and that's an immaterial distinction to make here. Edit: Also, I'm not an atheist, so you could debate me! Edit #2: Actually, the more I think about this, the more hilarious it becomes. You made sure to clarify that you dismissed Mark's point--a point that you had agreed was true earlier--on the basis of the fact that his point was a rule that was not made of matter? Is this the kind of intelligibility that God provides the preconditions for, because...
@ It seemed like you were misunderstanding what I was saying. Looks like you have some thoughts on this. Come on the next debate stream and defend whatever your worldview is. See you there.
Also, just watched the last bit of the video again, and wanted to point out that at the very end (around 3:16:41) when Joel is emoting just before they cut Mark off, Joel says (and this is a direct quote): "That is the very point, you get it. He doesn't think that he determines what you think, that's the very point. He told you a presupposition that he doesn't have to justify, and by your reasoning, you should have to accept it." Mark had stated, repeatedly, that on his view, presuppositions can be dismissed. He never once said anything that would remotely support the idea that one person's presuppositions had to be accepted by somebody else (in fact, if I were to summarize his view, I would say it was very close to the exact opposite of that). Throughout the conversation, any time he noted any of his own presuppositions, he actually attempted to establish whether the others had reason to reject his presuppositions (for example, that he can generally trust his sense data). For Joel to say "by your reasoning, you should have to accept it" at the end of an hour-plus-long discussion throughout which Mark thoroughly refuted that very statement illustrated that Joel either completely failed to listen to what Mark was saying, or he was dishonestly trying to capitalize on Mark's frustration by misrepresenting the view he had articulated. It really, really came across like an attempt to make Mark look inconsistent in the waning moments of a debate (just before muting him and ending the debate, I might add), whether by carelessness or dishonesty, either of which I would say is pretty telling.
Alexx was using Mark's reasoning against him, and Mark didn't understand that, so I explained it to him. If you disagree, come on the next debate stream and defend your view.
@ I appreciate the offer, but this is exactly what the comment section is for…discussing the content of a video. A great place to discuss my critique of the content of a video would be the comment section of the video. Since you still seem to be having some issue grasping the issue, as indicated by the fact that you simply rephrased the same misunderstanding I quoted in the comment above, I’ll spell it out. I’ll try to make it clear enough that an apologist can understand it!* -> Mark repeatedly made the point that anyone can reject another person’s presuppositions. -> Alexx claims “I reject your presuppositions that you can reject my presupposition.” Let’s recap: Mark’s logic = anybody can reject your presuppositions Alexx’s logic = I reject the presupposition that anyone can reject presuppositions. Question 1: if Alexx rejects the presupposition that anyone can reject presuppositions, on what basis is he rejecting it? Answer 1: If Alexx rejects the presupposition that presuppositions can be rejected, then he has no basis for rejecting it, because he does not agree that presuppositions can be rejected. Alexx’s position is inconsistent and incoherent. Question 2: Is Mark’s logic consistent with him simply rejecting Alexx’s new presupposition? Answer 2: if Mark were to reject Alexx’s presupposition on the basis of its incoherence, it would consistent with his logic that presuppositions can be rejected. Mark’s logic is consistent and coherent. Aaaaaand then here comes Joel trying dunk on Mark by saying that according to HIS logic, he must accept Alexx’s presupposition, which is not the case because his logic is: anyone can reject someone else’s presuppositions. Alexx articulated an incoherent position, and Mark, in real time, pointed out that it didn’t make any sense, but was shouted down by Joel misrepresenting his entire viewpoint, and then muted and booted. Jesus 1 Atheist 0 *This is a joke. I know that you, and other apologists, are not dumb and do in fact understand things as well as anyone else. It’s just that DEMONSTRATING your understanding is not always consistent with your goals, so we often get “Repeatedly insist that I am right!” Or “OBFUSCATE UNTIL THE CLOCK RUNS OUT!” instead.
Doug had to change the subject every time his argument was refuted. It happened in their conversation before this one too. Mark couldn’t even debate without misrepresenting presuppositional apologetics
2:07:00 - Atheist Mark Reid joins to talk about justification of presup. He's a common debater on the online sphere, with many debates on Modern Day Debate.
2:38:00 (still on Mark Reid) "Authorative revelation from one who has comprehensive knowledge" - Wow so cool that they basically are arguing that I can provide authorative revelation and they cannot distinguish it from biblical revelation.
2:45:30 How does Joel have no ability to entertain a hypothetical? This obsessive focus on immediately asking how shows he has no ability to entertain it. It's the most disturbing self own of the whole video.
Because if they entertain a hypothetical they might have to actually answer a question with their worldview rather than shift the burden onto the other person.
Doug made a poorly developed question, more like he performed a good trick. C'mon, there ARE examples of such tweaked christianities. There are people who think that the serpent is somewhat like one of four necessary persons, there are other people who claims that yahveh is not Elohim or El, meaning that exactly yahveh is the other one of four majors, and so on. It took actual centuries to get through each one and show on the text why that is actually wrong, and anyway such views still have places today. So his final assumption on that matter is just straight wrong: you can't get everything with four persons instead of three. Check the Spirit. Tho trick was nice.
@@russellsteapot8779 thanks for proving my words by such bold comment, even though that was not necessary to expose your ignorance about counting here. I appreciate your effort.
@@russellsteapot8779 a different and interesting way to address this point is to ask them what is "necessary" for intelligibility that 3 persons provide that 2 persons does not provide. @DelgardAlven Would you care to address the question?
Why do you say the laws of logic are undeniable and then ask someone to justify them? If they're undeniable, which I agree, then why would I even try to ground them? I can't help but believe/know them once I understand them.
@ what an odd question to ask. Since the laws of logic are the standard most use in determining what is possible or impossible, I am not sure how one would judge if something were possible or not without having a standard to make that determination. What standard should I use to determine what is possible without using the laws of logic?
@@michaelfredgren3910 I'm not asking that question. I'm asking if his question to me is implying that question. I agree with you that that question would be basically incoherent. My above question was directed toward TheThinkInstitutes follow-up question to me. It's incoherent to ask "why does something "necessary" exist".
You aren't going to like it, but this is what you asked for. The following is valid: P1: If intelligibility presupposes the Triune God of Scripture, then only the the Triune God of Scripture can ground intelligibility. P2: Intelligbility presupposes the Triune God of Scripture. Conclusion: Therefore only the Triune God of Scripture can ground intelligibility. --- You will object that P2 needs to be supported (IOW you will say "It's valid but not sound!." That's what we're doing with this channel. It's also important to note that the truth of this argument entails that logical reasoning itself presupposes the Triune God of Scripture. So to engage in reasonable arguments is to tacitly behave as though God is there. This also may help: It's not that logic implies God. It's that the very concept of logic is meaningless without God. From John Frame: "The difference between “implies” and “presupposes,” according to Peter Strawson and Bas Van Fraasen, is that in the latter case God’s existence is implied either by the assertion or the denial of causality. "That is, not only does the existence of causality imply the existence of God, but even to deny (intelligibly, if it were possible) the existence of causality would be to invoke a framework of meaning that presupposes God’s existence. "...So if creation presupposes God, even the denial of creation presupposes him, and the atheist is like the little girl slapping her father while sitting on his lap." Source: frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments That was more than you asked for, but I'm banking on the hope that you are a good-faith seeker of truth, not an atheistic troll. Let's see.
@@TheThinkInstitute I actually object to P1. Again, you make the error that a 4-person God with all the necessary attributes for intelligibility would not be able to ground intelligibility. Unless, of course, you want to say that "being Triune" is necessary for intelligibility which I would LOVE for you to demonstrate.
@@TheThinkInstitutefor what it’s worth, I’m not a troll (at least I don’t think so). Just an ex Christian who likes thinking about this stuff. Not looking to hastle anyone. Btw I heard the part about your child recovering from cancer, and I’m thrilled for your family. I’d be devastated if my child went through that. All the best 👋
Sye, I enjoyed seeing you on this stream. I have a small channel, but feel free to come by anytime. I have featured the “Epic God debate” and “answer the fool” among other clips of you. Grace and a peace to you, brother.
Hey Joel, as a heads up, Pinecreek Doug cannot grasp the presuppositional argument. I know you seemed surprised, like Doug was playing dumb, but he wasn't playing.
1:44:44 "I want to be obedient" wow - Doug is wondering what's the point of winning the debate when a Calvinist admits God is in control of who is a believer and who isn't.
2:38:50 Says scripture is authorative revelation from God, but since scripture is so full of incorrect reality myths, then you can say most chatgpt answers are authorative revelation from God. Authorative revelation from God shouldn't be saying that the Earth is Flat.
In my opinion, an "authoritative revelation from God" is simply an appeal to authority fallacy. And most Christian Apologists lose their minds when one points this out to them.
@ yeah I mean I had an authorative revelation from God just now that told me Christianity is made up nonsense from lying Paul. Wow thanks God. Omg God even told me I am his prophet and I deserve all the Christian money worldwide.
So what do you mean by "account for" and what do you mean by "explain"? (My longer comment does not appear to be sticking, no matter how I set "Sort by". Hopefully this shorter comment sticks.)
@@ajhieb //I'm also curious what else was contained in your full comment that wouldn't post.// Well I am still not locating the full comment even if I change the "Sort by" switch. Even after I reposted it, the comment did not display. It was made up of three paragraphs:- 1. >>> Joel. It seems to me that you operate by two different standards. Thus, you claimed on several occasions that your world view "accounts for" many things. In fact I get the impression that you think that it accounts for all things in your universe, both the supernatural and the natural. OTOH you expected on a few occasions or asked Doug to "explain" various things. Thus you claimed to be able to "account for" things, while you wanted Doug to "explain" things. > And if your world view accounts for everything in the natural world as well as the supernatural world, and you ask someone explain some phenomenon and they have to admit that they don't know what the explanation is, then is there any chance, any chance at all that you could be wrong when you say that the biblical world view accounts for said phenomenon?
@@ajhieb That is how I see it too. At day's end, Joel remains a fallible human. When Joel quotes Paul (e.g. Romans 1:20), Paul too was a fallible human. Joel might assume that God overrode Paul's fallibility when Paul wrote those words, but all I have is either fallible Joel's "trust me" word on that, or Joel has fallible Paul's "trust me" word.
All the love to Joel- However, Doug really had him on the back foot. The tetrinitarian worldview grounds all the same things except trinitarianism. That just means that Christianity is NOT the only thing that grounds morality, logic, uniformity in nature. The only reason for rejecting it is that it is devastating to the argument Joel is making.
it totally crushes their "because the alternative leads to absurdity" portion of the argumentum ad absurdum that they attempt to use as the "proof" that Christianity is true.
@@Certaintyexists888 Well, the same way the trinitarian worldview claims to be grounded-by assertion. If three persons in one being can ground logic, morality, and nature, why wouldn’t four (or even more) do the same? After all, if grounding is tied to the 'impossibility of the contrary,' then adding more persons to the divine mix doesn’t seem to invalidate the solution-it just expands it. The only reason trinitarianism is 'grounded' is because it’s presupposed to be, not because it’s uniquely necessary.
@@Certaintyexists888 are you serious with this question? or do you not comprehend the point being made? If one believes that a trinitarian god is capable of and does ground their worldview, then a tertrinitarian god that possesses all the same necessary attributes is capable of and does ground that worldview, UNLESS, one believes that being triune is a necessary attribute for existence. So how is being triune necessary for existence??? Now, before you get too crazy in your response, understand that human beings are NOT triune, yet do exist...... GOOD LUCK!
@@michaelfredgren3910 Joel is arguing against Doug’s worldview. Doug is playing a game. Doug stated he rejects metaphysics, yet he relies on immaterial, invariant realities. That is where Joel could end his game and his actual position.
Presuppositionalism and YEC are both ideas that only ever make sense to the people who already believe them. They're very unpersuasive. To the rest of us, your assertions don't sound any more justified than the ones you're trying to undermine.
@Answeranyone when you say that Doug doesn’t understand the argument and to have the Channel host a dialogue between you and Doug assumes that you don’t think that Joel understands the argument. If Joel, who has studied this for years, doesn’t understand the argument, then what hope does this kind of thing have to be “properly basic”.
"You don't act in accordance with determinism" I don't get it, what would acting in accordance with determinism look like? I got no clue what that's supposed to mean
They use brute facts all the time just say atheists can’t. Presup is a fundamentally dishonest tactic used to get the focus off the Bible and onto nebulous philosophy/metaphysics
Internal critique: "Immaterial, absolute, universal, authoritative, triune God who reveals truth," sounds ridiculous. Presumably this God is an agent making choices, which means you're arguing in favor of a ghost that authored the universe. You think there's no basis for logic or thinking in a materialist/physicalist world view, probably because you don't understand it. If you find yourself wondering what material the number 1 is made of, then you don't understand materialism. Mark actually did a decent job explaining how this all works, no God required. Physicalism is essentially the world view of science. You are in a cult. Philosophical arguments for the foundations of knowledge/logic whatever else is one thing, but then the giant leap to the invite to get to know the Creator and read his ridiculous Bible is a total cult move. It seems like you're trying to put some intellectual dressing on a baffling faith proposition. You're in a cult.
As a reminder, there are three things we don't allow here: (1) Blaspheming God, (2) Slandering Christians, and (3) Trolling. Avoid these and you're welcome here.
@@TheThinkInstitute are we allowed to slander atheists though? Some of those guys have it coming
Sounds pretty emotional fellas.
@ Did you notice how they focus on "Slandering Christians" but omit "Slandering Non-Christians"?
@@michaelfredgren3910 Oh yes, but they're very deep into their feels. Maybe I'll call Monday and ask why they're so emotional.
All other beliefs aside, I wish guys who are presups could understand what they sound like to non presups.
they do when people like Doug "presup the presupper'...
@@michaelfredgren3910 And they hate it.
I'm a philosophy novice, so can somebody help me understand this? It sounded like Mark was saying that he presupposes 1. That his sense data is generally accurate, and 2. That his mind is generally rational. He seemed to be arguing that he cannot justify this (if he could, they would not be presuppositions), but that he also has no choice but to assume both of those things. The Christians argue that the justification for accurate sense data and rational mind is God; are they not also presupposing the same things that Mark is, but then adding at least one additional presupposition on top of them? Is there a single thing that the Christians know about reality, (or God, for that matter) that they did not 1) perceive with their sense data, or 2) understand rationally in their mind? So now, on top of the possibility that exists for all of us that our sense perception is hopelessly flawed, or our mind is hopelessly irrational, they have introduced the possibility that a supernatural being with the power to delude people's mind has hopelessly muddled their thoughts. They talked to Mark for over an hour and I'm not certain I understand how they escaped his initial point that their position is weaker on the basis of having more presuppositions.
@@ajhieb Also, at 2:08:16, Joel says that that Mark is right that additional presuppositions increase one's chances of being wrong, while at 3:10:48, he is dismisses it as an "immaterial rule," and then (hilariously) says "rules imply a rule-giver." Mark offered an example to demonstrate his point; Joel initially accepted it, but then dismissed it when it became inconvenient, without ever offering any substantive argument against it. The last five minutes just absolutely reeked of Joel needing to end the stream, but not being willing to leave any ambiguity that he was, in fact, totally and completely right (see also my other comment about misrepresenting Mark's views about accepting other people's presuppositions).
@ "Immaterial" in this case means "not made of matter," not "unimportant."
I'm not debating atheists in the comments, but I needed to note that for you.
@@TheThinkInstitute Haha yes, I am aware that's what you mean by "immaterial" there, and that's an immaterial distinction to make here.
Edit: Also, I'm not an atheist, so you could debate me!
Edit #2: Actually, the more I think about this, the more hilarious it becomes. You made sure to clarify that you dismissed Mark's point--a point that you had agreed was true earlier--on the basis of the fact that his point was a rule that was not made of matter? Is this the kind of intelligibility that God provides the preconditions for, because...
@ Things that are "Not made of matter":
- Conceptual unicorns
- Conceptual universe-creating pixies
- Conceputal universe-creating gods
@ It seemed like you were misunderstanding what I was saying. Looks like you have some thoughts on this. Come on the next debate stream and defend whatever your worldview is. See you there.
Also, just watched the last bit of the video again, and wanted to point out that at the very end (around 3:16:41) when Joel is emoting just before they cut Mark off, Joel says (and this is a direct quote): "That is the very point, you get it. He doesn't think that he determines what you think, that's the very point. He told you a presupposition that he doesn't have to justify, and by your reasoning, you should have to accept it."
Mark had stated, repeatedly, that on his view, presuppositions can be dismissed. He never once said anything that would remotely support the idea that one person's presuppositions had to be accepted by somebody else (in fact, if I were to summarize his view, I would say it was very close to the exact opposite of that). Throughout the conversation, any time he noted any of his own presuppositions, he actually attempted to establish whether the others had reason to reject his presuppositions (for example, that he can generally trust his sense data).
For Joel to say "by your reasoning, you should have to accept it" at the end of an hour-plus-long discussion throughout which Mark thoroughly refuted that very statement illustrated that Joel either completely failed to listen to what Mark was saying, or he was dishonestly trying to capitalize on Mark's frustration by misrepresenting the view he had articulated. It really, really came across like an attempt to make Mark look inconsistent in the waning moments of a debate (just before muting him and ending the debate, I might add), whether by carelessness or dishonesty, either of which I would say is pretty telling.
WHAT??? A Christian Apologetic misrepresented a "Not God" worldview??? I am completely shocked!
Alexx was using Mark's reasoning against him, and Mark didn't understand that, so I explained it to him.
If you disagree, come on the next debate stream and defend your view.
Lose the snark and come on the next debate stream. Monday night.
@ I appreciate the offer, but this is exactly what the comment section is for…discussing the content of a video. A great place to discuss my critique of the content of a video would be the comment section of the video.
Since you still seem to be having some issue grasping the issue, as indicated by the fact that you simply rephrased the same misunderstanding I quoted in the comment above, I’ll spell it out. I’ll try to make it clear enough that an apologist can understand it!*
-> Mark repeatedly made the point that anyone can reject another person’s presuppositions.
-> Alexx claims “I reject your presuppositions that you can reject my presupposition.”
Let’s recap:
Mark’s logic = anybody can reject your presuppositions
Alexx’s logic = I reject the presupposition that anyone can reject presuppositions.
Question 1: if Alexx rejects the presupposition that anyone can reject presuppositions, on what basis is he rejecting it?
Answer 1: If Alexx rejects the presupposition that presuppositions can be rejected, then he has no basis for rejecting it, because he does not agree that presuppositions can be rejected. Alexx’s position is inconsistent and incoherent.
Question 2: Is Mark’s logic consistent with him simply rejecting Alexx’s new presupposition?
Answer 2: if Mark were to reject Alexx’s presupposition on the basis of its incoherence, it would consistent with his logic that presuppositions can be rejected. Mark’s logic is consistent and coherent.
Aaaaaand then here comes Joel trying dunk on Mark by saying that according to HIS logic, he must accept Alexx’s presupposition, which is not the case because his logic is: anyone can reject someone else’s presuppositions. Alexx articulated an incoherent position, and Mark, in real time, pointed out that it didn’t make any sense, but was shouted down by Joel misrepresenting his entire viewpoint, and then muted and booted.
Jesus 1
Atheist 0
*This is a joke. I know that you, and other apologists, are not dumb and do in fact understand things as well as anyone else. It’s just that DEMONSTRATING your understanding is not always consistent with your goals, so we often get “Repeatedly insist that I am right!” Or “OBFUSCATE UNTIL THE CLOCK RUNS OUT!” instead.
58:35 He is simply asserting that properties of Nature like logic can’t exist outside the mind of God.
1:35:10 Doug says he has read only snippets, and the guy in the middle makes a judging face
Nah
Whenener I hear the pre-sup, I hear "yeah, I cant defend the bible but still want to debate."....
So what?
@@TheThinkInstitute You're a Christian, you'd think you'd want to talk about your holy book rather than low-rent philosophy.
You know Joel was on the ropes when he had to call in the other guy for backup lol. In all honesty though Doug and Mark made a lot of sense.
A lot of sense while using metaphysical ideas that they deny?
Doug had to change the subject every time his argument was refuted. It happened in their conversation before this one too. Mark couldn’t even debate without misrepresenting presuppositional apologetics
2:07:00 - Atheist Mark Reid joins to talk about justification of presup. He's a common debater on the online sphere, with many debates on Modern Day Debate.
2:38:00 (still on Mark Reid) "Authorative revelation from one who has comprehensive knowledge" - Wow so cool that they basically are arguing that I can provide authorative revelation and they cannot distinguish it from biblical revelation.
Why hasn’t anybody not exposed to the Bible just discovered the triune God through introspection and observation?
@@anthonyzav3769 I did. Not gonna share that with you, believe me or not, but I did.
@@DelgardAlven care to share how you "exposed" something without "sharing"?
This was good. However, the ads are really distracting. There were too many of them.
@@JRey-re9rl I’m sorry to hear that! I know how annoying those can be.
@ You can actually control the frequency of ads in your videos.
2:45:30 How does Joel have no ability to entertain a hypothetical? This obsessive focus on immediately asking how shows he has no ability to entertain it. It's the most disturbing self own of the whole video.
Because if they entertain a hypothetical they might have to actually answer a question with their worldview rather than shift the burden onto the other person.
Was literally laughing the whole time when Doug was presupping the presupper. Joel didn't know what to do.
this is soooo painful
Doug made a poorly developed question, more like he performed a good trick. C'mon, there ARE examples of such tweaked christianities. There are people who think that the serpent is somewhat like one of four necessary persons, there are other people who claims that yahveh is not Elohim or El, meaning that exactly yahveh is the other one of four majors, and so on. It took actual centuries to get through each one and show on the text why that is actually wrong, and anyway such views still have places today.
So his final assumption on that matter is just straight wrong: you can't get everything with four persons instead of three. Check the Spirit.
Tho trick was nice.
@@russellsteapot8779 yeah-yeah, blah-blah-blah. You have no idea what you are talking about, like haven't at all. You barely could read my comment.
@@russellsteapot8779 thanks for proving my words by such bold comment, even though that was not necessary to expose your ignorance about counting here. I appreciate your effort.
@@russellsteapot8779 a different and interesting way to address this point is to ask them what is "necessary" for intelligibility that 3 persons provide that 2 persons does not provide.
@DelgardAlven Would you care to address the question?
I've never heard a defense for presup, just unsupported assertions.
Why do you say the laws of logic are undeniable and then ask someone to justify them? If they're undeniable, which I agree, then why would I even try to ground them? I can't help but believe/know them once I understand them.
That's right! They are obvious. Can your worldview explain why they exist?
@@TheThinkInstitute can you load up a question any more than you have here?
@TheThinkInstitute
Does your question imply that there is a possible world in which they aren't true or don't exist?
@ what an odd question to ask. Since the laws of logic are the standard most use in determining what is possible or impossible, I am not sure how one would judge if something were possible or not without having a standard to make that determination.
What standard should I use to determine what is possible without using the laws of logic?
@@michaelfredgren3910
I'm not asking that question. I'm asking if his question to me is implying that question. I agree with you that that question would be basically incoherent. My above question was directed toward TheThinkInstitutes follow-up question to me. It's incoherent to ask "why does something "necessary" exist".
What is the valid deductive argument that ends with the conclusion: “therefore only the Christian God can ground intelligibility”?
You aren't going to like it, but this is what you asked for. The following is valid:
P1: If intelligibility presupposes the Triune God of Scripture, then only the the Triune God of Scripture can ground intelligibility.
P2: Intelligbility presupposes the Triune God of Scripture.
Conclusion: Therefore only the Triune God of Scripture can ground intelligibility.
---
You will object that P2 needs to be supported (IOW you will say "It's valid but not sound!."
That's what we're doing with this channel.
It's also important to note that the truth of this argument entails that logical reasoning itself presupposes the Triune God of Scripture. So to engage in reasonable arguments is to tacitly behave as though God is there.
This also may help:
It's not that logic implies God. It's that the very concept of logic is meaningless without God.
From John Frame: "The difference between “implies” and “presupposes,” according to Peter Strawson and Bas Van Fraasen, is that in the latter case God’s existence is implied either by the assertion or the denial of causality.
"That is, not only does the existence of causality imply the existence of God, but even to deny (intelligibly, if it were possible) the existence of causality would be to invoke a framework of meaning that presupposes God’s existence.
"...So if creation presupposes God, even the denial of creation presupposes him, and the atheist is like the little girl slapping her father while sitting on his lap."
Source: frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments
That was more than you asked for, but I'm banking on the hope that you are a good-faith seeker of truth, not an atheistic troll. Let's see.
@@TheThinkInstitute I actually object to P1. Again, you make the error that a 4-person God with all the necessary attributes for intelligibility would not be able to ground intelligibility. Unless, of course, you want to say that "being Triune" is necessary for intelligibility which I would LOVE for you to demonstrate.
@@TheThinkInstitutethanks for the response. Now what’s the valid deductive argument that ends with the conclusion that is premise 2?
@@TheThinkInstitutefor what it’s worth, I’m not a troll (at least I don’t think so). Just an ex Christian who likes thinking about this stuff. Not looking to hastle anyone. Btw I heard the part about your child recovering from cancer, and I’m thrilled for your family. I’d be devastated if my child went through that.
All the best 👋
@@michaelfredgren3910 I mean, this seems just like affirming the consequent no? How is this not If P, then Q. Q. Therefore P.
Mark uses the Christian’s ladder to get on the roof, and then argues that since we’re both on the roof the issue of ladders is irrelevant.
Sye, I enjoyed seeing you on this stream. I have a small channel, but feel free to come by anytime. I have featured the “Epic God debate” and “answer the fool” among other clips of you. Grace and a peace to you, brother.
@@russellsteapot8779 So... how did he justify the proper functioning of his senses and reasoning faculties again? I'll wait.
@@russellsteapot8779 The ""godless epistemic ladder" is what I'm waiting for (and just so you know - not holding my breath).
@@russellsteapot8779 Just explain how you got on the roof dood!
@@russellsteapot8779 What authority do you ultimately rely on regarding your fist and second order claims?
Oh no …. not Presupp 😂😂
Join the next debate stream and beat it.
"Peace is the worst thing because then you think you don't need Christ" 1:59:54 Sye debunks Christianity.
2:52:22 Yes Mark Reid just won...again.
Is mark navigating this conversation utilizing metaphysics?
You actually think he won that? He couldn’t even debate without misrepresenting presuppositional apologetics
Hey Joel, as a heads up, Pinecreek Doug cannot grasp the presuppositional argument. I know you seemed surprised, like Doug was playing dumb, but he wasn't playing.
Thanks, Peter.
Mostly uniform but sometimes not. lmao do they even realize they're just special pleading?????!???!?
"Joel I know you said you wanted to end at a decent time tonight." 3 hours later....🤣
I have a problem!
1:45:27 He doesn’t believe in metaphysics yet he is borrowing a transcendental argument to ground his worldview which ultimately is “cuz universe”.
1:10:38 - Doug Pinecreek calls in.
1:25:00 uniformity of nature Doug discussion.
1:44:44 "I want to be obedient" wow - Doug is wondering what's the point of winning the debate when a Calvinist admits God is in control of who is a believer and who isn't.
1:52:48 Sy(e) joins
2:38:50 Says scripture is authorative revelation from God, but since scripture is so full of incorrect reality myths, then you can say most chatgpt answers are authorative revelation from God.
Authorative revelation from God shouldn't be saying that the Earth is Flat.
In my opinion, an "authoritative revelation from God" is simply an appeal to authority fallacy. And most Christian Apologists lose their minds when one points this out to them.
@ yeah I mean I had an authorative revelation from God just now that told me Christianity is made up nonsense from lying Paul. Wow thanks God. Omg God even told me I am his prophet and I deserve all the Christian money worldwide.
So what do you mean by "account for" and what do you mean by "explain"?
(My longer comment does not appear to be sticking, no matter how I set "Sort by". Hopefully this shorter comment sticks.)
@@ajhieb
//I'm also curious what else was contained in your full comment that wouldn't post.//
Well I am still not locating the full comment even if I change the "Sort by" switch. Even after I reposted it, the comment did not display.
It was made up of three paragraphs:-
1. >>>
Joel. It seems to me that you operate by two different standards. Thus, you claimed on several occasions that your world view "accounts for" many things. In fact I get the impression that you think that it accounts for all things in your universe, both the supernatural and the natural. OTOH you expected on a few occasions or asked Doug to "explain" various things. Thus you claimed to be able to "account for" things, while you wanted Doug to "explain" things.
>
And if your world view accounts for everything in the natural world as well as the supernatural world, and you ask someone explain some phenomenon and they have to admit that they don't know what the explanation is, then is there any chance, any chance at all that you could be wrong when you say that the biblical world view accounts for said phenomenon?
@@ajhieb That is how I see it too.
At day's end, Joel remains a fallible human. When Joel quotes Paul (e.g. Romans 1:20), Paul too was a fallible human. Joel might assume that God overrode Paul's fallibility when Paul wrote those words, but all I have is either fallible Joel's "trust me" word on that, or Joel has fallible Paul's "trust me" word.
All the love to Joel- However, Doug really had him on the back foot. The tetrinitarian worldview grounds all the same things except trinitarianism. That just means that Christianity is NOT the only thing that grounds morality, logic, uniformity in nature. The only reason for rejecting it is that it is devastating to the argument Joel is making.
it totally crushes their "because the alternative leads to absurdity" portion of the argumentum ad absurdum that they attempt to use as the "proof" that Christianity is true.
How is it the tetrinitarian worldview grounded?
@@Certaintyexists888 Well, the same way the trinitarian worldview claims to be grounded-by assertion. If three persons in one being can ground logic, morality, and nature, why wouldn’t four (or even more) do the same? After all, if grounding is tied to the 'impossibility of the contrary,' then adding more persons to the divine mix doesn’t seem to invalidate the solution-it just expands it. The only reason trinitarianism is 'grounded' is because it’s presupposed to be, not because it’s uniquely necessary.
@@Certaintyexists888 are you serious with this question? or do you not comprehend the point being made?
If one believes that a trinitarian god is capable of and does ground their worldview, then a tertrinitarian god that possesses all the same necessary attributes is capable of and does ground that worldview, UNLESS, one believes that being triune is a necessary attribute for existence. So how is being triune necessary for existence???
Now, before you get too crazy in your response, understand that human beings are NOT triune, yet do exist...... GOOD LUCK!
@@michaelfredgren3910 Joel is arguing against Doug’s worldview. Doug is playing a game. Doug stated he rejects metaphysics, yet he relies on immaterial, invariant realities. That is where Joel could end his game and his actual position.
Presuppositionalism and YEC are both ideas that only ever make sense to the people who already believe them. They're very unpersuasive. To the rest of us, your assertions don't sound any more justified than the ones you're trying to undermine.
Come on the next debate stream and attempt to defend your position.
@TheThinkInstitute I would if
1. I could time it right
2. I thought there was something I could offer that hasn't already been said by my comments.
@Answeranyone when you say that Doug doesn’t understand the argument and to have the Channel host a dialogue between you and Doug assumes that you don’t think that Joel understands the argument. If Joel, who has studied this for years, doesn’t understand the argument, then what hope does this kind of thing have to be “properly basic”.
maybe the argument is not being understood because it lacks the necessary grounding needed for intelligibility?
2:39:20 "rationalism is viciously circular" oh lord hahahahahaha
What is the starting point of rationalism, fella?
"You don't act in accordance with determinism"
I don't get it, what would acting in accordance with determinism look like? I got no clue what that's supposed to mean
They never demonstrate how reason gets to god.
They use brute facts all the time just say atheists can’t. Presup is a fundamentally dishonest tactic used to get the focus off the Bible and onto nebulous philosophy/metaphysics
*God
There are no brute facts. Presup is not dishonest, but to the impure everything seems impure.
"We have authoritative revelation from God" - claims without evidence as per usual.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 tough, God bless, let's go
Mark Reid is a beast, to me Joel and Sye struggle to keep up.
Joel needing to tap in other people is not a good look.
Mark, how is it logically coherent to have "1% doubt" you exist ?
Great question.
Internal critique: "Immaterial, absolute, universal, authoritative, triune God who reveals truth," sounds ridiculous. Presumably this God is an agent making choices, which means you're arguing in favor of a ghost that authored the universe.
You think there's no basis for logic or thinking in a materialist/physicalist world view, probably because you don't understand it. If you find yourself wondering what material the number 1 is made of, then you don't understand materialism. Mark actually did a decent job explaining how this all works, no God required. Physicalism is essentially the world view of science.
You are in a cult. Philosophical arguments for the foundations of knowledge/logic whatever else is one thing, but then the giant leap to the invite to get to know the Creator and read his ridiculous Bible is a total cult move. It seems like you're trying to put some intellectual dressing on a baffling faith proposition. You're in a cult.
@The Think Institute, “cuz universe” has no explanatory power. Also, you can go after the subjective ethical component in Doug’s alleged worldview.
What is the explanatory power of “cuz universe”?
@@ajhiebIs your statement true? If so, demonstrate the validity of said true claim.
@@ajhieb What is “Truth” in your worldview. Please don’t give a circular definition.
@@ajhiebWhat is “Truth” in your worldview?
Most people answer “truth is that which comports with reality”. What’s your answer?
Joel: just another arrogant poser.
Dishonest Believer Syndrome.