A few problems I have is that Presuppositionalism ends in infinite regress and supposes reasonable cognitive faculties as opposed to God. For God to reveal X to you such that you can be certain, God has to reveal Y to you such that you can be certain that God revealed X you to. For God to reveal Y to you such that you can be certain, God has to reveal Z to you such that you can be certain that God revealed Y to you and so on and so forth.
Praesuppositional-logic boils down to "no Knowledge/STANDARD without G-D"which suffers from an ambiguity in "G-D" - everybody can insert their subjective G-D (YHWH, TriUneG-D, Allah...) which makes it null and void. Actually, Knowledge (thought, perception, awareness, image, STANDARD) is a non physical effect, fabricated in the brain. The IMMEDIATE causality is individual, it is subjective, it is the structure and the energy flux in the brain, both maintained by the continual oxidation of Glucose, and Betahydroxybutyrate in the Long fasted state respectively. The EVENTUAL causality is, via our 5 senses, objective templates, outside the brain, Facts, physical, object, matter, cosmos. All KNOWN G-Ds are just that: non physical *EFFECTS,* fabricated in the evolved-primate brain, *ON-, OF-, ACQUIRED/OBTAINED FROM-, ABOUT-* physical CAUSE, the cosmos itself, namely a *causality of the cosmos* itself, which WOULD qualify for- or be according to brainmade definition "G-D". The causality of the cosmos is possible; yet, if there IS causality of the cosmos, then it MUST be non physical (in order to not require own causality and so forth!) in other words will defy the scientific scrutiny in other words it is unknowable. The mere praesupposition of "Mono-Causality" is "already" an invalid Gnostic Position about the unknowable, and it is owed to a dishonest pontifical (bridgebuilding) attempt, to bring possible causality in congruence with Theism. Everybody plz GOOGLE the *fallacy of the SINGLE cause* Theists are worshipping a brainmade effect, an Image ABOUT the possible yet unknowable causality of the cosmos, in other words Theists are, unbeknownst to them but effectively, idolators, worshipping a non physical image = Idol which is the non physical aequivalent of a physical cult object.
Well, You are entitled to your opinion. You are yet to substantiate it though.Let us consider - HOW can Multicausality be an "oversimplication", namely as compared to a mere dichotomy "number of causes = 0" versus "number of causes = 1" ? IS multicausality NOT diametrally opposed to "oversimplification". If you have nothing intelligent to say - your oversimplified catchphrase indicates it - then FYI: I am a scientist, and i will not let you off the hook. *NOW, SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ALLEGATION*
TheAtheistPaladin So would I. It's not finished as my uploading ability is hampered by my current location and I liked doing detailed philosopher faces. However I think I will suck it up and continue after we finish with Bayes and Teleology.
Thank you for posting these videos. This is the argument I am encountering more and more and would love to see more from you on this subject. I can not seem to find all the videos in this series. Have you finished them yet?
madmonkey1968 No, unfortunately I moved to work in West Africa before finishing this series and I didn't want to upload the videos at a low quality because I liked doing the faces in this series greater detail. However as it looks like I'll be here a while I will probably restart the series some time early this year as time permits.
He may not always debunk Presuppositionalist Apologetics. But when he does, it is with Bertrand Russel's Principia Mathematica. Stay skeptical, my friends.
You said at 2:50 that Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and A.N. Whitehead was one of the three most important books on Logic ever written. So what are the other two books? I'm going to buy Principa Mathematica soon and so if you could let me know what the other two are that would be great. I really want to master and gain great understanding on the sub -fields of logic and mathematical logic.
+Ellis Farrow Aristotle's Organon and Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. If you have not already, you should check out my series on the three months of modal logic to get more info on sub -fields of logic (ruclips.net/video/JHyfy0Chcs4/видео.html)
Carneades.org Thanks so much! Also wouldn't you consider Kurt Godel in the top logicians especially with his incompleteness theorems? And yes I will check out that series right now! I'm a little late to the party but this is going to be fun. Thanks for the hard work you put in.
Ellis Farrow If you want to learn logic it's probably not the best idea to start by reading Frege, Russell and Aristotle. You would do better to start with some introductory book on logic and then move on to something more advanced. I can recommend Causey's Logic, Set and Recursion for an introductory overview, together with Mates' Elementary Logic and Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic together with Shapiro's Foundations Without Foundationalism for more advanced topics in logic. Frege and Russell are better understood if you have at least an introductory background in logic. Both Russell and Frege published incredibly great, short books which purport to explain their more advanced work in mathematical logic: The Foundations of Arithmetic and Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy respectively.
If Presuppositionalists means that they have fully, completely and ultimately justified, totally and absolutely true beliefs, and everybody else should have them, that's just silly. It's like saying: "You should believe what I believe! Why? Because!"
This video reminds me of Turing's solution to the halting problem. Anyways, beautiful video. Have you considered setting up a Patreon account, I would totally donate.
but if logic doesnt work how can logic show that it doesnt work, coz if it doesnt work than all its results shouldnt work, therefor its result that it doesnt work is false.... basic liar's paradox.. it will say this sentence is a lie...
rodlurks66 No. I will. I have been meaning to for a while now, but by the time I got a strong enough internet connect to start posting these videos where I make the philosopher's faces again, I was already knee deep in several other series. Soon hopefully.
Sebastiaan van Rijk Be careful. You're conflating denial of the existence of a set with denial that a set has members. The category "True" can be posited in a metalanguage as empty.
Stefan Travis but doesn’t that mean that the set of empty truth does not exist? Because by truth, we mean something such as “Truth” . Replacing truth for something that doesn’t mean truth to say see, truth is empty is just hoping through loops. You cant escape the concept of truth by redefining truth.
It is quite a read. Volume I looks accurate. I don't have a copy of II or III so I can't speak to their accuracy, but I would be surprised if they were incorrect.
My main objection to presuppositionalism is that it doesn't solve the problems that it raises. For example I imagine a conversation a bit like this between Sye and God: Sye: Am I being systematically deceived by something like Descartes' demon? God: No and you can know this to be true. Sye: Are my senses and cognitive faculties reliable? God: Yes and you can know this to be true. Sye: There goes external world skepticism, that was easy, I wonder why Descartes didn't think of just asking God.
Carneades.org wow, really? Thanks! Bless you Lord Carn. Your work is very appreciated from a young (future) psychologist and Philosopher, especially the 100 days of logic and 3 months of modal logic.
Interesting video, I learned things. I'm looking forward to your personal objections to Presuppositionalism, my own objection would be that the Presuppositionalist definition of knowledge is wrong. They misunderstand "justified true belief" thinking that it means a fully, completely and ultimately justified, totally and absolutely true belief. The mistake is understandable since the "standard definition" is poorly formulated, I prefer "justified belief" since justification implies truth anyway and it doesn't have the same risk of being misinterpreted as "cannot be incomplete/partially true". The best objection against Presuppositionalism is that it is based on special pleading, It is basically skepticism except towards Christianity. It's like using Gödel's incompleteness theorem against the logical systems of others but not against your own. It never justifies why or how they can be sure of its own presuppositions since it doesn't just start with god but starts with god already behind it. The RUclips channel "KnownNoMore" has his own series on presuppositionalism which is very interesting and which I recommend others to watch.
Paradoxarn I think Carneades.org might disagree with your definition of knowledge. Carneades.org admittedly has a *very* high bar for what qualifies as knowledge and mere "justified belief" would not be enough to reach the bar.
GainingUnderstanding True, but what I look at knowledge not as something binary but more as a spectrum. To explain better, I think that having a partially or poorly justified belief means you possess knowledge but not as much as if you have a fully or well justified belief.
GainingUnderstanding You want me to write an essay or just give you a label? I'll try to summarize it best as I can by giving my views on what knowledge is and how to obtain it. I previously stated that I define knowledge as justified beliefs rather than justified true beliefs. Now since all beliefs have justification you might think that I take some sort of postmodern stance on the nature of knowledge but what I'm really mean is that all beliefs contain knowledge and the better the justification, the more knowledge it contains. The observant will notice that this means that I have yet to give an actual definition of knowledge beyond "that which is contained in justified beliefs". Without going into why, however interesting that may be, what I believe what is contained in them is quite simply power, thereby taking literally the saying "knowledge is power". Having understood this, the answer to the issue of how to gain knowledge is quite easy to answer. It is simply to gain justified beliefs. Does this mean that I think that we should have as many beliefs as possible rather than suspending judgment when we aren't sure? Well I don't think there is any conflict between those two, in fact I'm convinced that suspending judgement is the expression of a of a belief. Consider these two statements: "X is true/false" and "X could be true/false". In my mind both are beliefs even though one of them is a example of suspending judgment. I'm sure I could go into more detail but, as I implied in the beginning, I'm not sure how exhaustive of an answer you wanted.
That is like making a post on Facebook, saying no one should use Facebook. How would anyone show with logic that logic is not the case? What would that mean? That logic is not functioning as intended? Because as long as our intentions do not include logic referring to itself then it can be show to work, then again you believe in your video of doubting truth, that showing incompleteness is enough, which is fine to an extent, but it only covers one specific epistemology (set of axioms and definitions), and many people choose to follow other slightly modified systems, to avoid such problems as they see fit. I just don't understand what are trying to accomplish, because in real life for example if i receive three apples and then two apples, then by addition I can infer I have five apples, I won't specially care, if the Peano axioms that I relied for such a result, are shown to be incomplete, if they can´t prove themselves to be right or they prove themselves to be wrong, all i care about is that i won't get a different quantity of apples that i originally thought.
Christians worship Jesus as God. Muslims don't. Very stupid statement. You guys should learn some theology if you want to debunk Christianity. But that takes years. You won't put in the effort.
I'm sorry ... where was the actual critique of presuppositionalism? Even if we accept the author's (controversial) conclusion about logic, I'm not sure how it's a relevant criticism of presuppositionalism.
How on earth does that engage in Presuppositionalism? If I had to guess the relevancy here, I would guess you are defending skepticism in the form of 'It's ok to deny logic using logic'. But skepticism is self-refuting, and I suppose that your response to that is "That's ok I'll just deny logic too". Then your interlocutor can easily respond "so you are not denying logic" because you can't complain when he contradicts you. And if you do complain and respond with "I'm ok with being arbitrary and irrational", then hey, just admit your opposition is at core anti-intellectual, despite being disguised as highly sophisticated.
We are not a program and your 1 or 0 thinking is just wrong. Not possibly wrong but wrong and simplistic. Let's examine your presuppositions and that's just trying to get through to you in words that don't have enough meaning
Come on, Russells teapot was debunked by the flying spaghetti monster. Or is a logical prove against the FSM written at the bottom of Russell's teapot?
A few problems I have is that Presuppositionalism ends in infinite regress and supposes reasonable cognitive faculties as opposed to God. For God to reveal X to you such that you can be certain, God has to reveal Y to you such that you can be certain that God revealed X you to. For God to reveal Y to you such that you can be certain, God has to reveal Z to you such that you can be certain that God revealed Y to you and so on and so forth.
***** Wow, I think your little comment here alone is quite devastating to presuppositional apologetics. Well played.
+The Realistic Nihilist LMAO! I didn't expect to find you here lol
Praesuppositional-logic boils down to "no Knowledge/STANDARD without G-D"which suffers from an ambiguity in "G-D" - everybody can insert their subjective G-D (YHWH, TriUneG-D, Allah...) which makes it null and void.
Actually, Knowledge (thought, perception, awareness, image, STANDARD) is a non physical effect, fabricated in the brain. The IMMEDIATE causality is individual, it is subjective, it is the structure and the energy flux in the brain, both maintained by the continual oxidation of Glucose, and Betahydroxybutyrate in the Long fasted state respectively. The EVENTUAL causality is, via our 5 senses, objective templates, outside the brain, Facts, physical, object, matter, cosmos.
All KNOWN G-Ds are just that: non physical *EFFECTS,* fabricated in the evolved-primate brain,
*ON-, OF-, ACQUIRED/OBTAINED FROM-, ABOUT-*
physical CAUSE, the cosmos itself, namely a *causality of the cosmos* itself, which WOULD qualify for- or be according to brainmade definition "G-D".
The causality of the cosmos is possible; yet, if there IS causality of the cosmos, then it MUST be non physical (in order to not require own causality and so forth!) in other words will defy the scientific scrutiny in other words it is unknowable. The mere praesupposition of "Mono-Causality" is "already" an invalid Gnostic Position about the unknowable, and it is owed to a dishonest pontifical (bridgebuilding) attempt, to bring possible causality in congruence with Theism.
Everybody plz GOOGLE the *fallacy of the SINGLE cause*
Theists are worshipping a brainmade effect, an Image ABOUT the possible yet unknowable causality of the cosmos, in other words Theists are, unbeknownst to them but effectively, idolators, worshipping a non physical image = Idol which is the non physical aequivalent of a physical cult object.
yourg@disathought, thanks for introduction to the oversimplification fallacy.
Well, You are entitled to your opinion.
You are yet to substantiate it though.Let us consider -
HOW can Multicausality be an "oversimplication", namely as compared to a mere dichotomy "number of causes = 0" versus "number of causes = 1" ?
IS multicausality NOT diametrally opposed to "oversimplification".
If you have nothing intelligent to say - your oversimplified catchphrase indicates it - then FYI: I am a scientist, and i will not let you off the hook. *NOW, SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ALLEGATION*
I would like for you to pick up this series again since you haven't finished it yet.
TheAtheistPaladin So would I. It's not finished as my uploading ability is hampered by my current location and I liked doing detailed philosopher faces. However I think I will suck it up and continue after we finish with Bayes and Teleology.
Thank you for posting these videos. This is the argument I am encountering more and more and would love to see more from you on this subject. I can not seem to find all the videos in this series. Have you finished them yet?
madmonkey1968 No, unfortunately I moved to work in West Africa before finishing this series and I didn't want to upload the videos at a low quality because I liked doing the faces in this series greater detail. However as it looks like I'll be here a while I will probably restart the series some time early this year as time permits.
This is my favorite video of yours, Carnaedes!! This is excellent.
Thanks!
Apologies for misspelling your moniker, lol. I watched a video of "Why I am not a Christian" on RUclips. Russell was Hitchens before Hitchens!
He may not always debunk Presuppositionalist Apologetics. But when he does, it is with Bertrand Russel's Principia Mathematica. Stay skeptical, my friends.
You said at 2:50 that Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and A.N. Whitehead was one of the three most important books on Logic ever written. So what are the other two books? I'm going to buy Principa Mathematica soon and so if you could let me know what the other two are that would be great. I really want to master and gain great understanding on the sub -fields of logic and mathematical logic.
+Ellis Farrow Aristotle's Organon and Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. If you have not already, you should check out my series on the three months of modal logic to get more info on sub -fields of logic (ruclips.net/video/JHyfy0Chcs4/видео.html)
Carneades.org Thanks so much! Also wouldn't you consider Kurt Godel in the top logicians especially with his incompleteness theorems? And yes I will check out that series right now! I'm a little late to the party but this is going to be fun. Thanks for the hard work you put in.
Ellis Farrow If you want to learn logic it's probably not the best idea to start by reading Frege, Russell and Aristotle. You would do better to start with some introductory book on logic and then move on to something more advanced. I can recommend Causey's Logic, Set and Recursion for an introductory overview, together with Mates' Elementary Logic and Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic together with Shapiro's Foundations Without Foundationalism for more advanced topics in logic. Frege and Russell are better understood if you have at least an introductory background in logic. Both Russell and Frege published incredibly great, short books which purport to explain their more advanced work in mathematical logic: The Foundations of Arithmetic and Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy respectively.
But, if the program isnt working and it can know that ... "yes, I am working properly enough to know that something is wrong with me. Help."
@_@;
I concur, had to find the comment to ensure I didn't have to add the point myself.... tip of the hat.
I'm sorry, can't resist but...
How do you know that?
Petros Adamopoulos I never claimed to know anything. ;)
Carneades.org Bro you’re so woke for saying that.
If Presuppositionalists means that they have fully, completely and ultimately justified, totally and absolutely true beliefs, and everybody else should have them, that's just silly. It's like saying: "You should believe what I believe! Why? Because!"
This video reminds me of Turing's solution to the halting problem. Anyways, beautiful video. Have you considered setting up a Patreon account, I would totally donate.
but if logic doesnt work how can logic show that it doesnt work, coz if it doesnt work than all its results shouldnt work, therefor its result that it doesnt work is false.... basic liar's paradox.. it will say this sentence is a lie...
Was this series ever finished? I can't find any further episodes.
Carneades.org Did you finish this series? the playlist only goes to part 6 and I cannot find the remaining videos on your channel.
rodlurks66 No. I will. I have been meaning to for a while now, but by the time I got a strong enough internet connect to start posting these videos where I make the philosopher's faces again, I was already knee deep in several other series. Soon hopefully.
@Carneades ,do you have a video regarding T.A.G. - Transcendental Argument for god?
It is the only one of the four main arguments for the existence of God that I have yet to cover. I will do a full series at some point.
wow, I'll patiently wait Lord Carneades!!
If absolute truth does not exist, the claim "Absolute truth does not exist" is not absolutely true either.
No, it is merely true.
Sebastiaan van Rijk Be careful. You're conflating denial of the existence of a set with denial that a set has members. The category "True" can be posited in a metalanguage as empty.
Stefan Travis but doesn’t that mean that the set of empty truth does not exist? Because by truth, we mean something such as “Truth” . Replacing truth for something that doesn’t mean truth to say see, truth is empty is just hoping through loops. You cant escape the concept of truth by redefining truth.
does you mind tingle when you know someone is referring to Wittgenstein but does want to spell it out farther :)
so I want to read the Principia Mathematica, 1700 bucks for all three volumes hard cover lol. Is the internet archive version accurate?
It is quite a read. Volume I looks accurate. I don't have a copy of II or III so I can't speak to their accuracy, but I would be surprised if they were incorrect.
Just wait until you get to *54.43 (page 379). That's what's up.
Maybe the copy I found was antique or something. I only popped one up.
My main objection to presuppositionalism is that it doesn't solve the problems that it raises.
For example I imagine a conversation a bit like this between Sye and God:
Sye: Am I being systematically deceived by something like Descartes' demon?
God: No and you can know this to be true.
Sye: Are my senses and cognitive faculties reliable?
God: Yes and you can know this to be true.
Sye: There goes external world skepticism, that was easy, I wonder why Descartes didn't think of just asking God.
Didn't Descartes in effect ask God, by turning to God to assure that his senses were basically OK?
@@gerededasein1182 Yes he did. I don't know what I was thinking 7 years ago
@@kas00078 To be fair, you were ferreting out similarities in Sye's M.O.
please lord Carn finish this series
This month we are doing the next video in the series!
Carneades.org wow, really? Thanks! Bless you Lord Carn. Your work is very appreciated from a young (future) psychologist and Philosopher, especially the 100 days of logic and 3 months of modal logic.
Sorry you can't have your cale and eat it.
If logic implies that logic is not the case , then logic is the case (sic).
doesn't line 7 go against the law of the excluded middle, though?
Jay Dyer
wait but if logic doesnt exist, couldnt you say that logic was working and not working at the same time?
You could, but without logic, you would not have any rational justification for it. :)
Interesting video, I learned things. I'm looking forward to your personal objections to Presuppositionalism, my own objection would be that the Presuppositionalist definition of knowledge is wrong. They misunderstand "justified true belief" thinking that it means a fully, completely and ultimately justified, totally and absolutely true belief. The mistake is understandable since the "standard definition" is poorly formulated, I prefer "justified belief" since justification implies truth anyway and it doesn't have the same risk of being misinterpreted as "cannot be incomplete/partially true".
The best objection against Presuppositionalism is that it is based on special pleading, It is basically skepticism except towards Christianity. It's like using Gödel's incompleteness theorem against the logical systems of others but not against your own. It never justifies why or how they can be sure of its own presuppositions since it doesn't just start with god but starts with god already behind it.
The RUclips channel "KnownNoMore" has his own series on presuppositionalism which is very interesting and which I recommend others to watch.
Paradoxarn I think Carneades.org might disagree with your definition of knowledge. Carneades.org admittedly has a *very* high bar for what qualifies as knowledge and mere "justified belief" would not be enough to reach the bar.
I'm looking forward to seeing Carneades objections. I expect we will get fewer objections than "8 ways from Sunday." Cause that was a world record.
GainingUnderstanding True, but what I look at knowledge not as something binary but more as a spectrum. To explain better, I think that having a partially or poorly justified belief means you possess knowledge but not as much as if you have a fully or well justified belief.
Paradoxarn Hmm what is your epistemology?
GainingUnderstanding You want me to write an essay or just give you a label? I'll try to summarize it best as I can by giving my views on what knowledge is and how to obtain it.
I previously stated that I define knowledge as justified beliefs rather than justified true beliefs. Now since all beliefs have justification you might think that I take some sort of postmodern stance on the nature of knowledge but what I'm really mean is that all beliefs contain knowledge and the better the justification, the more knowledge it contains.
The observant will notice that this means that I have yet to give an actual definition of knowledge beyond "that which is contained in justified beliefs". Without going into why, however interesting that may be, what I believe what is contained in them is quite simply power, thereby taking literally the saying "knowledge is power".
Having understood this, the answer to the issue of how to gain knowledge is quite easy to answer. It is simply to gain justified beliefs. Does this mean that I think that we should have as many beliefs as possible rather than suspending judgment when we aren't sure? Well I don't think there is any conflict between those two, in fact I'm convinced that suspending judgement is the expression of a of a belief.
Consider these two statements: "X is true/false" and "X could be true/false". In my mind both are beliefs even though one of them is a example of suspending judgment.
I'm sure I could go into more detail but, as I implied in the beginning, I'm not sure how exhaustive of an answer you wanted.
I don't get it
Renzo Andre What don't you get?
Carneades.org Nevermind I figured it out. Took me a while to wrap my head around the program example.
That is like making a post on Facebook, saying no one should use Facebook. How would anyone show with logic that logic is not the case? What would that mean? That logic is not functioning as intended? Because as long as our intentions do not include logic referring to itself then it can be show to work, then again you believe in your video of doubting truth, that showing incompleteness is enough, which is fine to an extent, but it only covers one specific epistemology (set of axioms and definitions), and many people choose to follow other slightly modified systems, to avoid such problems as they see fit. I just don't understand what are trying to accomplish, because in real life for example if i receive three apples and then two apples, then by addition I can infer I have five apples, I won't specially care, if the Peano axioms that I relied for such a result, are shown to be incomplete, if they can´t prove themselves to be right or they prove themselves to be wrong, all i care about is that i won't get a different quantity of apples that i originally thought.
Got it!
Christian presuppositionalism defeated with one sentence: "I know for certain that I am not the deity that Muslims worship."
Made a positive claim prove it
Christians worship Jesus as God. Muslims don't. Very stupid statement. You guys should learn some theology if you want to debunk Christianity. But that takes years. You won't put in the effort.
I'm sorry ... where was the actual critique of presuppositionalism?
Even if we accept the author's (controversial) conclusion about logic, I'm not sure how it's a relevant criticism of presuppositionalism.
How on earth does that engage in Presuppositionalism? If I had to guess the relevancy here, I would guess you are defending skepticism in the form of 'It's ok to deny logic using logic'. But skepticism is self-refuting, and I suppose that your response to that is "That's ok I'll just deny logic too". Then your interlocutor can easily respond "so you are not denying logic" because you can't complain when he contradicts you. And if you do complain and respond with "I'm ok with being arbitrary and irrational", then hey, just admit your opposition is at core anti-intellectual, despite being disguised as highly sophisticated.
We are not a program and your 1 or 0 thinking is just wrong. Not possibly wrong but wrong and simplistic. Let's examine your presuppositions and that's just trying to get through to you in words that don't have enough meaning
grrrr
Come on, Russells teapot was debunked by the flying spaghetti monster.
Or is a logical prove against the FSM written at the bottom of Russell's teapot?
catapults.
Only two choices, God or absurdity. People choose absurdity because they love their sin.
Your false dichotomy makes me think you might be an anti-nihilist. ruclips.net/video/B9aMLkwpf0U/видео.html.