Danny responds to Christian Presupper

Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @dannyphiltalk

[@davec-1378]

“That’s an argument from ignorance…” “I don’t think so, if you can’t give me another option…” Comedy gold!

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

He was actually correct to say that, as it was a dichotomous question.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Law of excluded middle = X or not-X. His interlocutor affirms a worldview, so whatever worldview he affirms, it'll be either: X = Christian worldview, or Not-X = any non-Christian worldview What is the third option? You need to say what the third option would be if you're going to deny that simply plugging in the variable for the law of excluded middle somehow results in a false dichotomy (which is literally impossible... it always results in a true dichotomy. Always) Then from there, If there are only two coherent answers to a question (X or not-X, P is true or Q is true) then if you refute one of the option the other option is validated as true via disjunctive syllogism. But you guys obstruct from ever getting to that part by bickering over something completely non-controversial: whether the law of excluded middle even forms a true dichotomy in the first place, which is literally just bickering over a fundamental law of logic. Something that isn't even considered a disputable point in rational debate because both sides must necessarily presuppose the 3 fundamental laws of logic even just to engage in debate to begin with. But go ahead and tell me what the third option would be, other than: X = Christian worldview, or Not-X = Christian worldview Let's watch below as if he just bickers over a basic law of logic somehow ⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️

[@drinjj]

​@@lightbeforethetunnel *"If there are only two coherent answers to a question (X or not-X, P is true or Q is true) then if you refute one of the option the other option is validated as true via disjunctive syllogism."* Except there isn't only two coherent answers. There is basically an infinite number of them. It's cute that you try to sneak in a false dichotomy in your syllogism. Here, let me correct it for you: P = Christian worldview Q = every non-Christian worldview If Q is false, P is true.

[@jr-pn1dt]

@@lightbeforethetunnelyou got cooked

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@drinjj Your response is simply a composition / division fallacy. You were asked to provide what the third option is. His interlocutor necessarily has a worldview, and whatever worldview he has, it'll necessarily be either: 1. Christian worldview, or 2. Any non-Christian worldview When asked to justify what the third option would be... you argued, "there are an infinite number of options," and then you simply replaced "any non-Christian worldview" with "every non-Christian worldview" which is laughably incompetent... *because a person can only adhere to ONE worldview.* You claimed 1. Christian worldview, or 2. Any non-Christian worldview Is a false dichotomy, so I asked what the third option is... and your response is to just conflate "any non-Christian worldview" with "every non-Christian worldview" as if you believe his interlocutor in the debate can adhere to every non-Christian worldview all at the same time. It's utterly asinine. And 11 atheists actually upvoted that over the last year, followed by an atheist even going, "you got cooked" (which is why I got notified and finally came back to reply a year later) This is embarrassing, guys. I'm not even going to go on about DK Effect but I just want you guys to know that this is really not a good look when you guys combine incompetence / ignorance with arrogance like this. Any Philosopher would laugh hysterically at that response. Because this is such a basic thing... it's literally just plugging in the variable for the law of excluded middle (one of the fundamental laws of logic) which ALWAYS NECESSARILY forms a true dichotomy. Always.

[@wilberforce1826]

This is why I can't stand presup; they refuse to accept axioms exist in any other worldview, while treating their god's attributes axiomatically. Let's be honest, the only way they ever answer the question "why does god have the attributes he does," is either asserting it brutely, special pleading, and/or committing an argument from consequence fallacy. And when you call them on it? "How do you know it's a fallacy? You don't even have a justification for why logic exists!" Pure, unadulterated, sophistry.

[@davec-1378]

Danny signing off with a smirk in his voice, foreshadowing the future “You should follow me, there are plenty of people that would love to talk with you. They may be meaner…”

[@darkloki1]

I love how presupps are always so insincere when they start with the... "Oh... i just want to know more about your position..." or "So before we begin.... what's your worldview....". - This is not sincere, it's not charitable, and it's not honest. They use this as an excuse to start the atheist on the backfoot WHILE NEVER DEFENDING THEIR POSITION. It's such a disingenious dodge. Presupps are a joke and they are ridiculous to debate. The times that I have in the past (a long time ago), it was pretty obvious that their position was absurd and it's pretty easy with anyone over 5 iq points can realize.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

It's not dishonest at all. Presup proves the Christian worldview is a true with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews. Reductio ad absurdums are a perfectly valid, noncontroversial way of proving something by establishing its denial results in contradiction. How would you expect anyone to prove a worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary without doing an analysis of their opponent's worldview? The issue is: You guys are just so used to evading defending ANYTHING AT ALL with that ambiguity fallacy "I just lack belief in God" definition for your position that you experience severe cognitive dissonance when your worldview is rightfully analyzed to expose the blatant contradictions & incoherence within.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

You guys say you want proof of God, but when we begin doing it you just start whining and complaining like this.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Perhaps if you could ACTUALLY identify a fallacy that was commited that would be a different story. But you haven't. You've just complained that you don't like that presups do a worldview analysis of their opponent (there is nothing wrong with this) and then followed it up with a bunch of ad hominem attacks.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Oh, and you also falsely claimed presups don't ever defend their worldview. Of course they do. It just doesn't take as long because Christians actually have answers to the questions they're asked, do they don't spend half an hour at a time evading each question.

[@darkloki1]

@@lightbeforethetunnel Really? What "proof" of god is there? Which god?

[@hillarysemails1615]

Sid seems like a more human version of Darth Dawkins.

[@trevorlunn8442]

Always intriguing how pre-suppers interfere by inserting themselves into the theology and never letting god speak for itself.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

god's been busy for the last 50,000 years

[@kdaviper]

​@@HarryNicNicholasGod's away on business

[@bigbrutal_0179]

Sye Ten left youtube but sent his only begotten son.

[@darthbahnsen3832]

Sye Ten the vulnerable woman lover, such a fruitful worldview these guys have with presuppositionalism.

[@dbt5224]

How do you know that?

[@bigbrutal_0179]

The one above all revealed it to me through general and special revelation so that I cannot be wrong.

[@darthbahnsen3832]

From his church: "Following admissions by Sye Ten Bruggencate of fornication with a vulnerable woman, and following a formal complaint (with evidence) by the woman concerning the particular admissions given by Sye, the Session has begun a full and thorough investigation. Sye has been suspended from all privileges without limit of time while the church judicial process is followed." I had misremebered the language they used so i editted my comment and apologize for the mistake.

[@c.guydubois8270]

@@bigbrutal_0179 and the impossibly of the contrary. Don't cha know?

[@darkloki1]

This "Sid" guy is spouting garbage he heard from his Sye Ten Bruggencate Dvd he bought years ago.

[@aristotleprovidence7060]

Cold burn and the end by Danny… “ I’m sure you have to go.” 😂😂😂

[@dearthfunk9604]

"you are not an atheist, agnostic, or theist, you are a person who 'suppresses the truth in unrighteousness`"... uhmm

[@TheMahayanist]

Dishonesty thy name is presup.

[@New_Essay_6416]

BTW, ATHEISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION 😁

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

But it must be your foundation!!!!!

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

How many Creationist atheists have you met?

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@lightbeforethetunnel A small minority of the flat Earthers I've talked to say they aren't convinced the world was designed by a god, and are just as open to it being aliens. Then we could look at atheist children before they've learned about evolution. Although not creationists, they still demonstrate you can be an atheist without accepting evolution.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I could similarly point to people who refer to themselves as "Christians" but don't actually believe what other Christians believe, just calling themselves Christians anyhow because they believe in Jesus Christ or something particular in the Bible. But at the end of the day, people generally associate the beliefs of a demographic with what the community of scholars or prominent people within that demographic believe. That's what we do for all other demographics. And I can't think of any prominent Atheists who are not Evolutionists, Naturalists, Heliocentrists, etc.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke In my experience, I'd actually say there's probably more variation among the beliefs of Theists than among Atheists.

[@bardbarian4065]

I’m listening to this, and I’m struck by the fact that Danny would be completely unconvincing to me when I was a theist. He does great in this, don’t get me wrong, but the con man game of the presup’s repeated “how do you know” just bulldozes the cautious rationality that I prefer. It’s frustrating!

[@bardbarian4065]

Lol, the ending was much stronger for Danny

[@DannyPhilTalk]

While I like the idea of being convincing, that’s not why I do all of this. If it were, I’d be miserable because I don’t think I’d convince anyone haha

[@bardbarian4065]

@@DannyPhilTalk totally fair, i was more reflecting (sheepishly i guess) on where my head was at when i was more of a theist

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@bardbarian4065 I understand, I would have not convinced my theist self perhaps. I was a pretty stubborn theist

[@Overonator]

My favorite part is the "knowledge is a subset of belief"

[@davec-1378]

Does Sid understand he’s just a white belt?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

and that his mum bought it cos he didn't have enough pocket money from the paper route?

[@Qzopr1]

There’s only one true white belt: Gary F. Milne. Bottom of the barrel apologetics.

[@TheeChristopherEsley]

The arrogance blinds them

[@JarrodCardinal]

My head is spinning from the dishonesty and mental gymnastics

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

I enjoyed this convo very much. I hope he takes you up on your offer to continue the conversation. Btw, your response to his claim that you know god exists was really strong. I can’t believe I’ve never heard it before.

[@c.guydubois8270]

Well done Danny...

[@ruxterlennon9954]

Also when he asks "How do you know you exists?", has a referent and the question would be unintelligible if you were not the referent. And because the referent presupposes your existence, there's going to be logical tension if he were to deny your existence.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

This is a worldview / paradigm debate. So, given the context, the question is "how does your worldview provide justification for how you know you exist?" Presuppers aren't arguing that atheists don't know they exist. They're arguing atheists DO know that, but if their worldview were true then they couldn't. This is because atheist worldviews can't justify knowledge claims about anything. Münchhausen's Trilemma helps understand why (it presupposes Atheism).

[@JerkaBackbeat]

@@lightbeforethetunnelHey, LBTT! Still waiting for that non question begging argument for god. And for the earth being flat for that matter.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@JerkaBackbeat Presup is a non-question-begging argument for the Christian worldview. It uses a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews. Reductio ad absurdum =/ question begging. The objection that presup begs the question is a common false objection put forth by those who do not understand transcendental reasoning yet. Below, I'll explain precisely why presup does not beg the question. A transcendental argument typically takes the following form: (1) If X were not the case, Y would not be possible. (2) Y is possible. (3) Therefore, X is the case. In the presuppositionalist’s argument, X is the existence of God and Y is one of many various propositions we all assume to be possible as a presupposition (laws of logic, uniformity of nature, rational thought, knowledge, intelligibility, morals, uniformity of nature, laws of mathematics, laws of physics, the causal principle, the self / consciousness, identity over time, the meaning of words, etc). Now, a formulation of presup could be: (1) If God did not exist, rational thought would not be possible. (2) Rational thought is possible. (3) Therefore, God exists. Another could be: (1) If God did not exist, knowledge would not be possible. (2) Knowledge is possible. (3) Therefore, God exists. Notice these arguments are very different from begging the question, which looks like: (P1) God exists. (P2) … (P3) … (C) Therefore, God exists. So, as you can see, presups are not begging-the-question.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@JerkaBackbeat The issue is you're conflating the fact the Christian worldview uses epistemic circularity when appealing to its ultimate standard for truth... with your claim that the ARGUMENT of presup begs the question. Every worldview uses epistemic circularity, including your own. And since presup does a comparison of competing systems (worldviews), you are noticing the epistemic circularity of the Christian worldview... but not noticing the epistemic circularity of the non-Christian worldview you already believe (because you're not aware all worldview use epistemic circularity). Presup does not use that epistemic circularity of the Christianworldview *as an argument* ... in other words, the argument is not "God exists Therefore God exists"... or "God exists because the Bible says so" No, the argument is reductio ad absurdum proof in all non-Christian worldviews to prove the Christian worldview is necessarily true since its the only worldview which can provide the necessary pre-condition for knowledge, rational thought, intelligibility, and more. So you are confused and not understanding the argument, which does not beg the question or use any fallacies at all.

[@JerkaBackbeat]

@@lightbeforethetunnel What’s the argument for P1?

[@allisonsutherland1144]

I got an ad for a Christian organization in this video.

[@TheRealisticNihilist]

The Christians are inadvertently paying the atheists' bills.

[@New_Essay_6416]

My condolences 😂

[@HarryNicNicholas]

"organization" like, mafia?

[@letsomethingshine]

@@HarryNicNicholas all of the threats, none of the (illegal) substance

[@whitler57]

was he equivocating on the word "know" when he would say "you know god"?

[@DannyPhilTalk]

probably, who knows?

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

No. In the Christian worldview we speak of God analogically, not univocally. We understand we can't "know God" in the sense of certainty and complete understanding of God given that God inherently possesses the truth value to all truth claims.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@lightbeforethetunnel that doesn’t have to do with Whistler’s comment. He was referring to the video

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@DannyPhilTalk Of course he was referring to the video. You understand this is a worldview / paradigm debate, right? Sid is speaking from and arguing for the Christian worldview and Danny is speaking from and arguing for his non-Christian worldview.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@lightbeforethetunnel you’re confused. Whistler is talking about 34:39

[@weirdwilliam8500]

“How do you know that you’re actually thinking your own thoughts? If you can’t answer to my satisfaction, then god exists!”

[@anthonyzav3769]

The world of the Christian God includes magic, prophecy, angles, demons, witches and a temperamental God. A world in which one could trust nothing.

[@piage84]

Sid is a phony presup. he let you talk way too much, giving you the chance to expose the idiocy of his argument. A true presup would have talked and overtalked 90% of the time. He still has a lot to learn.

[@dearthfunk9604]

"there is a way of knowing god, and then there is another way of knowing god" 1 means you believe in god, 1 does not. wtf?

[@uninspired3583]

Well let's see, is there anything analogous? Could I know calculus and suppress that knowledge in unmathiness?

[@derkylos]

You know god but don't know god. In the same way that god exists and doesn't exist. It's schroedinger's god.

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

Love can be accounted for evolutionarily speaking. It’s literally a chemical released in the brain during sex, having children, and even relationships with pets. It seems pretty straight forward that caring for one another (especially when it comes to caring for our offspring) would increase survivability and reproduction. I think most of the things we describe as virtues would provide an evolutionary benefit in a very similar way. It feels very intuitive to me and probably most people if they were to think about it.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

"all powerful" and "all knowing" and all the omni's and what have you are assumptions, for a start how can you know if anyone is omniscient, if i claim to be omniscient, what would the test be? besides, if i say "my god is more loving than your god" how can you say i'm wrong. when you believe god exists you have to justifying all kinds of weird actions he does, and it turns your brain to jelly, and not even the tasty jelly, the immoral jelly. "he could have done otherwise of course" yeah, like putting a fence around a tree and we'd ALL be in paradise, instead of this race where half of us are cobbled. presuppers are really boring. why have some of them not yet got the memo that presup died years ago. how can we be arguing if you say i'm unintelligible.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

That’s it I’ve had ENOUGH of this Middle School girl Cafeteria lunch table sophistry from this Sid boy, I’m almost 60 years old. I could be this guy’s grandfather!

[@jmike2039]

Holy shit that entire part around 25:00+ is fucking hilarious

[@awdfan2259]

If i know god and just suppress my beliefs in that god, how can i be an atheist? 😅 Sid making the claim but not understanding the clarifying question was gold.

[@ttff-bd2yf]

I wish rather then Christians saying I or someone doesn't understand x, they should just explain what they think I don't understand.

[@Qzopr1]

There’s no word of god. Only books claimed to be so.

[@ruxterlennon9954]

There might be a category error when they ask for a justification for atheism. I was under the impression that justification was an epistemic heuristic for propositions.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Do you mean because atheism in the broad 'non-theist' sense isn't a proposition? Well, Danny is okay with taking the strong sense of the label, where it is the proposition that God does not exist. (He makes sure he's clear that he's talking about classical theism)

[@HarryNicNicholas]

well i'm atheist, but i'm atheist because of someone else's belief. nothing to do with what i believe.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

How is asking why one believes no gods exist for a justification a category error?

[@uninspired3583]

@@LuciferAlmighty where else would we require justification of non existence? Do you need justification there are no teacups in orbit around saturn? If we don't need justification for other things not existing, why would we need justification for god not existing? I'm not sure it's formally correct to call this a category error, it could maybe be seen that way... I would think of it more as an epistemic principle.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

@uninspired3583 bottom barrel atheists can't or don't believe they have to justify their belief.

[@edluckenbill9382]

This guy is sad 😢 .omg he his all over the place. Talk about super natural .

[@DeconvertedMan]

you see, without gud nothing makes sense therefor gud is true lollol111derp.

[@edluckenbill9382]

Smart guy

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

He asks "can you know something and not believe it?" The answer to this is yes. Psychological self-deception occurs, where people can know something but deceive themselves into not believing it. If you type in "does knowledge always entail belief" you'll see there are academic papers about how knowledge doesn't always entail belief.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

...and there are plenty academic papers that say that knowledge is a subset of belief (at least propositional knowledge). I don't know why people appeal to authority on these types of issues. If knowledge is taken to imply at the least, justified-true-belief, then yes, to know something is to imply that you believe it.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@DannyPhilTalk We are both appealing to academic papers, but only you are doing so in a fallacious manner. The papers you're appealing to state that as a general principle, but do not specify that there can't be justified exceptions to that general rule.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

​​@@DannyPhilTalk "If knowledge is taken to imply at the least, justified true belief, then yes, to know something is to imply that you believe it." Not necessarily. Knowledge is not a choice, but belief is. Someone could choose to not believe something they know deep down is true. For example, a mother who wants to believe her son is a wonderful perfect child may imagine up ways to blame everyone else for his bad behavior at school. She'll blame the teachers, the students, etc. But, at home, she won't leave her purse out because she knows the truth. She knows the truth, but at times she behaves in accordance with what she WANTS to believe (even though its contrary to what she knows deep down subconsciously). And this is similar to what atheists are doing. Atheists claim (and act like) they have justification for the assertions they make all the time. However, the only way that could possibly be true is if they are presupposing the existence of the Christian God (whether they're consciously aware of this or not). Without the Christian God as the fundamental metaphysic of one's worldview system, that non-Christian worldview necessarily entails justified predication would not be possible. So, atheists are deceived in the sense that they have chosen to believe in a non-Christian worldview despite the fact their actions/behavior require the Christian worldview to be true.

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@lightbeforethetunnel k

[@ajhieb]

@@lightbeforethetunnel In your worldview, you define "Knowledge" as "(ultimately) justified true belief" so it follows in your worldview that without belief you can't have knowledge, otherwise you're simply equivocating. So if you're being consistent in your usage of "knowledge" then two things necessarily follow, given your other assertion that belief is a choice: 1) Knowledge is a choice 2) Knowledge requires belief But since you're stating one thing and your worldview entails another, (a direct contradiction) then it also follows that your worldview is incoherent and false.

[@bengreen171]

this is like watching a comedian come on stage to tell the same tired old racist joke the previous guy just got through telling - he's completely oblivious to the fact that we've already heard it, and it isn't funny.

[@tartarus1478]

“They might be a lot meaner than I am” - that’s not a joke Danny. You were way way too nice but still spanked him lol

[@fekinel]

Is there such a thing as a 'Sidiot'?..

[@weirdwilliam8500]

According to this presupp, the beliefs and opinions that I hold as an atheist are impossible in his worldview because their very existence would contradict his worldview. Well, then I can rationally conclude his worldview is contradicted, and false?

[@JosephDCLXVI]

Hey hey! Saw your tiktok live debate. Very entertaining. I don't usually cross platform

[@DannyPhilTalk]

Thanks! Hope you enjoy some of the content here too!

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

Who needs Jesus when you can be as smart as Sid and obtain salvation for yourself?

[@TheMahayanist]

There's no "doctrine" in the Bible.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

doctoring.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

The Bible teaches a worldview when properly understood

[@mrmaat]

@@lightbeforethetunnelSo does Harry Potter. So does the Book of Mormon. Nerds debate the “real meaning” of their stories all the time.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@mrmaat The difference is: 1. The Christian worldview, taught in the Bible, can be defended with a reductio ad absurdum proof on all non-Christian worldviews. 2. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is a historical fact. 3. There is overwhelming corroborating evidence of events described in the Bible 4. Countless people have given up their lives throughout history for their belief in this.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@mrmaat I could list more differences. But the point is, it's a false equivalency fallacy.

[@mikeekim242]

How life came to be? I don't know, Sid, and neither do you.

[@sticks1990]

Sid asks about things the same way my 5 year old does. How do you know that? All that stuff you said. What a lolcow

[@deedrabbit]

Why doesn't Danny reference God as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of facts?

[@Qzopr1]

Because Danny is an atheist. I’m an atheist and I can’t reference the necessity of god. It’s not that I don’t do it: I can’t do it.

[@AMore429]

Theist seem to be very simple minded people.

[@j.gairns]

Sid sounds more intelligible than Douche Dawkins. Eeep.

[@troysdogtraining]

pain can be valuable. this guy makes lots of assumptions wow

[@edluckenbill9382]

Concepts by defining do not get you to truth . Ask a person who studies this . This guy is a Moran .

[@davids11131113]

‘Biblical doctrine’ …. oh really? Which of the 3 separate religions of the Bible, and the multitude of sects in each 1, got the Bible doctrine right? You don’t have an answer for that, do you? Other than some special pleading ‘Well obviously mine is right, because that’s the 1 I’m in.’

[@Jsjakook-93929]

That's not the reasoning they give and you know it

[@Jsjakook-93929]

Just because I have a multitude of choices does not mean the view itself is incoherent

[@edluckenbill9382]

Wow Arrogant theist . 😢

[@tnwstphl]

bro i just subscribed to ur tiktok cus i wanted to debate you but apparently i need something called “live access.” Idk what it is could u help me out? i paid 7 bucks

[@DannyPhilTalk]

Oh no! TikTok requires that guests have 1000 followers. I’m fine with talking to you on a different platform. Do you have the Clubhouse app?

[@tnwstphl]

@@DannyPhilTalk no i meant like on your tiktok live… did they all have over a thousand followers? im new to this live thing btw so please excuse me

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@tnwstphl yes on my TikTok live, sorry that you wasted your money. I can talk to you on another platform if you want

[@tnwstphl]

@@DannyPhilTalk Ur probably busy atm but i just wanted to have a conversation abt god. doesn’t have to be right now though, i can wait it’s not a problem for me, but i was just really interested

[@DannyPhilTalk]

@@tnwstphl sure, I can’t right now, but you should download clubhouse and we can do it there

[@JerkaBackbeat]

This is some low level presup.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

The reason why the Christian God is the necessary pre-condition of knowledge and rational thought is because: A conceptual analysis of all the "unjustified assumptions" which lead to Münchhausen's Trilemma in non-Christian worldviews demonstrates that whatever DOES justify them (to make knowledge and rational thought possible) must have all the attributes of the Christian God. Only the Christian God has all the attributes needed.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Hello. Are you simply saying the Christian God must exist for knowledge and rational thought to exist? Or are you going as far as saying that a person needs to believe in the Christian God for them to engage in rational thought?

[@dbt5224]

@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke The worldview debate is a diversionary tactic to avoid the presup view from being questioned. Light has admitted that atheists can use reason and rationality, but they can't "ultimately ground" them. So, to answer your question, I assume Light means the first one. If the "Christian worldview" is correct, and atheists can reason only because the Christian god exists, there is no reason to even discuss worldviews. We are just "borrowing from the Christian worldview" and our reason is just as justified as theirs. We just don't acknowledge that it is god that grounds it.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@dbt5224 Okay, thanks :) In that case I suspect "justify" was the wrong word, and he should have gone with something like "explain". God would be the explanation of why knowledge and rationality is possible. However, then he's wandered from the topic of the Munchhausen trilemma. I still can't follow this argument all the way through, there's too much messy equivocating between justifying subjective assumptions, and the actual objective things themselves which cause or explain phenomena like rationality. :)

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

The Munchhausen's trilemma is arrived at by assuming that beliefs can only be justified by other beliefs. Light, you undermine your conceptual analysis starting point with your conclusion which introduces non-beliefs as justifications (like God). If you accept the possibility of things other than beliefs justifying beliefs, you can't use Munchhausen's trilemma to trace back to any unjustified assumptions in the first place.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke You say "are you going so far as saying that a person needs to believe in the Christian God for them to engage in rational thought?" No, that's not what I said nor is it what presup argues although it's a very, very common strawman counterargument we get. We are NOT arguing atheists can't engage in rational thought. We are saying atheists CAN, just like everyone else. But if their worldviews were actually true, then they would not be able to. We're saying the worldviews of atheists do not have the necessary pre-condition for rational thought (or knowledge) .. and much more such as the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, and a long list of presuppositions everyone presupposes just to engage in debate.

[@discordantrhyme4750]

7:53 Hilarious that were supposed to take the Bible as some sort of authority to be refuted.

[@gman25]

Just a whole bunch of god of the gaps

[@MichielvanderMeulen]

god of the gaping hole