A Blow at Presuppositionalism

[Dimmesdale]

Some Christians (presuppositionalists) believe that knowledge can only be justified with recourse to God, and even then the Christian God. If we resort to other means of obtaining knowledge, we cannot justify it because, for example, in a naturalistic worldview blind chance and evolution could not furnish us with logical facts, but only meaningless electrical signals firing in our brains that we have no reason to trust. Or, there could only be some demon existing who feeds impulses to a brain in a vat, and thus we have no reason to believe in an external world, etc (obviously the possibilities are legion…). However, if the Christian Creator is real, then we would expect both order and trustworthiness to inhere in his perfect creation, thus forestalling and exploding these alternative hypotheses. Our concepts could then “map onto� reality in a way that’s meaningful and hence the correspondence theory of truth would be as tangible as my left thumb. The God who would do this could not be the Muslim god because the Muslim god can lie. But, if God cannot lie, then he would not hand us a deceptive revelation. And so, if one takes knowledge seriously, and really wants to make the claim that the things he knows he *really* knows, he would have to borrow from Christianity because no other worldview can philosophically sustain such a stance. Or so it seems.

I would not want to dismiss this position outright as I can grasp its logic and have to acknowledge also my own thirst for certainty regarding knowledge. I do not know how to refute it beyond saying that it’s circular. But even though it is circular, at rock bottom any philosophical claim is circular whether one resorts to “God� or “brute facts.� What I think I can do is undercut it, and render it more or less valueless, by showing that the knowledge of the things we hold dear, is still practically relevant for us even if we can’t grasp how we know the things we know. I say we know some things in a sense even were they to be proven wrong. This may sound contradictory, even ridiculous, but let me explain.

Let us say we want something to be real. Ice cream, Santa Claus, whatever. What is it in us that points to such things being true? The Christian may point and say “you can’t even appeal to an objective reason if you deny Christianity!� Alright. Then what is wrong with taking the subjective stance? Without the subject there can be no knowledge at all, no? Subjectivity is a key ingredient. Perhaps the most primal fact of existence, if there be none other, is “I.�

“I� cannot be denied. Perhaps there are those who deny that “I� can be denied. I would simply disagree with them. “I� is self-authenticating, and it is upon this rock that I base my whole epistemological framework. Moreover, on this rock I also base all my loving relationships with everyone whom I would like to preserve as “real� and “there.� I would say there is a sense of communion, of commonality between all existent things and my own personal psyche. I would call this existential knowledge, rather than theoretical knowledge, and I would also like to add that, this is the only type of knowledge that has any ultimate value and which anyone should ultimately concern himself with. Some things we may never be able to ascertain. But what we can ascertain, at least once removed from their “absolutized form� is that self and others have value – and the way we know this is by empathy and knowing both ourselves and others. That which is secondary to these things may be useful and supportive, but not to be elevated to the same level of “ultimate� concern....

But what if humans and everything else are a dream in a solipsist’s mind after all? Well, I’ll bite the bullet here, and admit that that may be the case – theoretically. But one is still concerned. And that concern in and of itself produces a type of certainty – that conscious beings have value, as well as the fact one cares. This value is a type of knowledge, and it points to something. That something is the reality of who and what we are. By implication, the rest of the world is also included though not as important. There is a sense that these things are. If this are-ness of things is illusory, it must be the reflection of some other reality that nevertheless still is.

I can only begin with myself. Myself and my own existential knowledge. Knowledge of what is. My family and friends and the world all partake of this existential knowledge. If I am mistaken, and all the things around me are an elaborate dream, then they would still partake of existential knowledge, because this knowledge is first within me, and matches onto worthwhile beings and relationships around me. It is by virtue of my Self that all other things have value. And the Self cannot be denied. Hence, knowledge is safeguarded in some existential sense. If I sense only an illusioned matrix of relationships, they still remain relationships and, at least, have an intimating, "shadow-cast" value because they point to something real, in that they COULD have value, would they be real.... The Self, the I AM, augments all of Reality, and hence preserves it, even were it entirely unmanifest. This is because the I AM seen as diversified, is an expression, begotten of the One Unity that lasts forever.

Perhaps I have failed in my endeavor to render presuppositionalism moot, but I think I’ve played my best hand at least….

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

Unless I overlooked it, I don't see a question for debate.

Not only is one expected, but it would help other posters know specifically what you want addressed.

[Dimmesdale]

I'm not sure what to formulate exactly as a debate question... I'd like to relocate this thread to "Random Ramblings" if that would be necessary.

[Tcg]

I'm not sure what to formulate exactly as a debate question... I'd like to relocate this thread to "Random Ramblings" if that would be necessary.

That's above my pay grade. Perhaps you can PM one of the moderators for assistance. They're the folks whose IDs appear in green text.

[Dimmesdale]

I'm not sure what to formulate exactly as a debate question... I'd like to relocate this thread to "Random Ramblings" if that would be necessary.

That's above my pay grade. Perhaps you can PM one of the moderators for assistance. They're the folks whose IDs appear in green text.

Already did.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

Some Christians (presuppositionalists) believe that knowledge can only be justified with recourse to God, and even then the Christian God.

Would I be correct in presuming you've come across Sye Ten Bruggencate and his ilk? Would that be a name you're familiar with? He debated Matt Dillahunty four years ago, and to sum things up: Matt proved Sye was full of BS. Sye was claiming that people can't know anything without God, so Matt did something clever. During the formal debate, he answered Sye by reading a rebuttal.
Now, that might not strike you as very strange, but here's the thing. A rebuttal in a debate is something typically written on the fly in response to what your opponent is saying. But Matt didn't write his on the fly. He had pre-written his rebuttal before the debate even happened.
This meant that Sye, after saying that people can't know things without his god, was just verbally slapped in the face by a text that was written by someone who rejects his god, before the debate started and containing knowledge that according to Sye's claim, the atheist shouldn't have been able to know.

If we resort to other means of obtaining knowledge, we cannot justify it because, for example, in a naturalistic worldview blind chance and evolution could not furnish us with logical facts, but only meaningless electrical signals firing in our brains that we have no reason to trust. Or, there could only be some demon existing who feeds impulses to a brain in a vat, and thus we have no reason to believe in an external world, etc (obviously the possibilities are legion…).

I've always wanted to ask the following to a Sye like person.
"Take a person who starts out with no knowledge of the Christian God. How does he get that knowledge?"
Simplest answer I might get would be by reading the Bible, but thing is that right there is a paradox for that person. How did that person learn to read, sans any knowledge of Big J? Why should that person, in the presupper's point of view, trust what his eyes are telling him when he sees the words on the page?
The presupper makes noise about one requiring his god for the concept of knowledge to make sense, but fails to consider just how one might get knowledge of his god in the first place.

The God who would do this could not be the Muslim god because the Muslim god can lie.

The Christian God lies too. 2nd Thessalonians tells us that God sends out spirits to deceive. There are verses from the OT where God lies, but for now I won't consider them.

And so, if one takes knowledge seriously, and really wants to make the claim that the things he knows he *really* knows, he would have to borrow from Christianity because no other worldview can philosophically sustain such a stance. Or so it seems.

Other worldviews can indeed do such a thing. They could do the simple thing and mimic the presupper but claim a different god, and say the Christian presupper has the wrong god.
That's just one example.

I would not want to dismiss this position outright as I can grasp its logic

Au contraire, it is not logical. The presupper demands that a person who reports not believing in his god really does, demands that that person cannot make sense of knowing anything by denying his god, yet at the same time demands that people be able to learn how to read before they read the Bible and learn about his god.

and have to acknowledge also my own thirst for certainty regarding knowledge. I do not know how to refute it beyond saying that it’s circular.

That's enough.

But even though it is circular, at rock bottom any philosophical claim is circular whether one resorts to “God� or “brute facts.�

True...but the claim itself is false. I do not know the presupper's God, I am not secretly a satanist, like Sye Ten Bruggencate might claim. They make claims about other people's state of mind, a claim that they do not justify in any way beyond regurgitating from a book thousands of years old by mostly unknown authors.

What I think I can do is undercut it, and render it more or less valueless, by showing that the knowledge of the things we hold dear, is still practically relevant for us even if we can’t grasp how we know the things we know. I say we know some things in a sense even were they to be proven wrong. This may sound contradictory, even ridiculous, but let me explain.

I'm not going to comment further, because before I even read it, I can predict I'll be nodding my head in agreement more or less.

“I� cannot be denied. Perhaps there are those who deny that “I� can be denied.

Yup, thought so. Ego cogito ergo sum.

Perhaps I have failed in my endeavor to render presuppositionalism moot, but I think I’ve played my best hand at least….

No, you succeeded. You said things I myself think and believe, but far more eloquently. Congratulations!

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

The Self, the I AM, augments all of Reality, and hence preserves it, even were it entirely unmanifest. This is because the I AM seen as diversified, is an expression, begotten of the One Unity that lasts forever.

There is more than a drop of Panentheism in what you wrote Dimmesdale. Perhaps you might be interested in perusing my Members Notes.

Therein are such subjects as;

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

♦ "It's Only Coincidence - The Brain Is Trained To recognize Patterns Which Aren't Really There"

♦ Light is In Formation

♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.

♦ What is 'The Soul' and is it Immortal?

♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.

♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.

♦ My thoughts on death.

♦ Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?

♦ The Earth Entity

♦ Omniscience and other Omni's

♦ About the idea of 'Free Will' and 'Perfection' etc...

♦ The Problem Of Evil

♦ Looking into the science of Astral Projection

♦ Near Death Experiences

♦ Stimulating Simulation

Cheers
W

[Dimmesdale]

There is more than a drop of Panentheism in what you wrote Dimmesdale.

Guilty as charged.... I am an unabashed panentheist. In fact, I am 7homas rechristened....

I think I will look at your works. Thanks.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

Some Christians (presuppositionalists) believe that knowledge can only be justified with recourse to God, and even then the Christian God. If we resort to other means of obtaining knowledge, we cannot justify it because, for example, in a naturalistic worldview blind chance and evolution could not furnish us with logical facts, but only meaningless electrical signals firing in our brains that we have no reason to trust. Or, there could only be some demon existing who feeds impulses to a brain in a vat, and thus we have no reason to believe in an external world, etc (obviously the possibilities are legion…). However, if the Christian Creator is real, then we would expect both order and trustworthiness to inhere in his perfect creation, thus forestalling and exploding these alternative hypotheses. Our concepts could then “map onto� reality in a way that’s meaningful and hence the correspondence theory of truth would be as tangible as my left thumb. The God who would do this could not be the Muslim god because the Muslim god can lie. But, if God cannot lie, then he would not hand us a deceptive revelation. And so, if one takes knowledge seriously, and really wants to make the claim that the things he knows he *really* knows, he would have to borrow from Christianity because no other worldview can philosophically sustain such a stance. Or so it seems.

I would not want to dismiss this position outright as I can grasp its logic and have to acknowledge also my own thirst for certainty regarding knowledge. I do not know how to refute it beyond saying that it’s circular.

I have not looked too deeply at this kind of argument so I don't know where I fall on it, but I've heard bits here and there. I don't think only presuppositionalist Christians would make this kind of argument, but maybe we just understand different things by that term. How do you see it being a circular argument? The argument seems to be something like:

P1: If God does not exist, then reality could not be intelligible.
P2: Reality is intelligible
C: Therefore, God exists.

The support for P1 involves the various things in your first paragraph, but I don't see the use of "God exists" as one of those supports, which would be needed to make this a circular argument.

There is a sense that these things are. If this are-ness of things is illusory, it must be the reflection of some other reality that nevertheless still is.

I don't currently see how this would undercut the argument. It's not saying there isn't some underlying reality, but that this reality would be unintelligible unless God (and possibly a very specific version of God) exists. Without God being responsible for reality, whatever reality there is could not make sense of its life.

[Overcomer]

rikuoamero wrote:

The Christian God lies too. 2nd Thessalonians tells us that God sends out spirits to deceive.

I expect you are referring to this verse:

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness (2 Thess. 2:11-12).

If you look at it in context, you can see that it is talking about the end times, when there will be people who reject God's truth and choose to follow the man of lawlessness. God, knowing that they will not return to him, confirms their choice by adding to their delusion.

It's rather like what he did with the Egyptian Pharaoh who had hardened his heart. God hardens the man's heart further to expedite his plan to deliver the Israelites. In the same way, God hastens his plan to deal with evil once and or all and supports the desires of the wicked to believe the devil's lies rather than the truth.

It's also similar to what we see in Rom. 1:28:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done

People make bad choices. He knows they will never come to him in humility. He confirms their choices.

So God did not lie in 2 Thessalonians. It's the devil who lies and who is the father of lies (John 8:44).Paul calls him"the god of this age" who "has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4).

In the end times, God will give up the wicked to Satan's lies as a punishment to them. That's what the verses in 2 Thessalonians mean.

See here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/6-third-ex ... thes-29-12

https://www.compellingtruth.org/strong-delusion.html