You Are At Least Tacitly Presupposing God's Existence | w/Dr. James Anderson - PPP ep. 13

[@ParkersPensees]

Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees

[@ryangahman4998]

James Anderson is just fantastic. His RTS lectures on the app were so formative for me. He is a top notch scholar!

[@ParkersPensees]

Amen!

[@ryangahman4998]

@@ParkersPensees thank you for interviewing brilliant and God honoring Philsophers for the betterment of us all!

[@manager0175]

Anderson would be a much better scholar if he jettisoned Van TIl, PA, TAG, and Calvinism.

[@vigilant_2731]

First time I've seen an unapologetic Christian on your show and it's been a great experience.

[@ParkersPensees]

Really? Dude I have a ton of them on

[@ParkersPensees]

You're gonna love so many of these episodes!

[@vigilant_2731]

@@ParkersPensees Perfect for a binge, thanks man

[@jonathandarville8772]

Really enjoyed this. Thanks for the good work you are doing, brother.

[@aisthpaoitht]

This is so good. Man, what a channel. Keep up the great work!

[@bubbasaudio6265]

How does this not have 1 million views

[@ParkersPensees]

beats me! It definitely should, Dr. Anderson is the manderson!

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Because it contains truth. That's why.

[@artrider66]

Very good conversation Sir.

[@Juju-hg6rf]

Lovely chat, thanks for the soul enriching content, I'm here from Ralph Right Reaction.

[@redbearwarrior4859]

Great video! I'm so glad I found your channel! I'm a Messianic Jew that affirms the 5 Solas and Tulip. So I guess that puts me in the Reformed camp. I would like to push back on the Trinitarian Mysterianism. I really don't like appealing to mystery in order to avoid a contradiction. Because I think doing so makes the position that it is trying to defend impossible to believe. For example if I came running up to you one day and said "You must believe that the highs are in the upper end of the lower reds in order to be saved!" You might ask "What does the the highs are in the upper end of the lower reds mean?" And if I replied "I don't know exactly it is a mystery." I don't think you or I would honestly be able to say that we believe that the highs are in the upper end of the lower reds. If we cannot comprehend a proposition we cannot claim to believe it. And apparent contradictions are by definition incomprehensible. But this appears to be what Mysterianism regarding the Trinity is doing. The Father = YHWH, The Son = YHWH, but The Father does not = The Son. Thankfully many Theologians have addressed this apparent contradiction. But Mysterianism just kind of says we don't know what's being claimed. And if I could take a swing at the flatlander analogy I would point out that the Flatlander is absolutely correct that a triangle and a circle cannot be the same thing. In this analogy it needs to be explained to the Flatlander that the cone is neither a triangle or a circle. But that it is just his experience of the cone that makes him think that it is both a triangle and a circle. So this is actually a good analogy for Divine Simplicity. And of course it does seem to me that if Divine Simplicity is true then The Father and The Son are identical to each other. It is just our experience of the Divine Nature that makes us think of them as separate individuals. But like you I have gone back and forth on Divine Simplicity.🤔

[@adriang.fuentes7649]

Thank you for discovering me this great thinker, I loved this video and the one with Alex Malpass. I am into philisophy of religion and nowadays I do not feel I want to get deep into theology. Any particular recomendations from James Anderson or another presup philopher?

[@philochristos]

I"ve used "self-referentially incoherent" many times. I must've gotten it from Plantinga and forgotten all about it.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Excellent interview. This content is hard to express how important it truly is. Thanks for doing this.

[@PaulRossOnline]

Daddy Paul is watching your channel now.

[@TheMargarita1948]

Can someone explain to me: what do theologians actually study? This is a serious question. I am reluctant to ask any of the clergy or holders of PhD degrees whom I know. I fear they may be insulted by the question.

[@hudsontd7778]

So would you agree that transcendental argument does not assume or conclude the theology of Calvinism?

[@1689solas]

It has nothing to do with calvinism.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

The above poster is correct. Presuppositionalism / TAG is not exclusive to Calvinism. There is a misunderstanding in which some think one necessarily entails the other, but this is false. I'm a Presuppositionalist who is opposed to Calvinism

[@manager0175]

You said: "So would you agree that transcendental argument does not assume or conclude the theology of Calvinism?". An interesting observation. I contend that PA and TAG are not a defense of Christian theism, but of Calvinism. Even K. Scott Oliphant said that you would not find an Arminian using PA nor TAG. John Frame has said that PA is taking God's sovereignty and applying it to epistemology. Clearly, PA and TAG is a Calvinist activity.

[@hudsontd7778]

@@manager0175 Great book on the Topic is [ double-think: the Satanic Teachings of Cornelius Van Til by Monty L Collier ] Also old video [ Norman Giesler- critics of Van Til ] is also much listen too, he says that the Transcendental Argument originated from Idealist Philosopher Immanuel Kant (Critic of Pure Reason) and that Van Til wrapped Kants insights within Sovereign Calvinist god Presupposition?

[@chrisctlr]

I don't think a truth bearer could exist without a truth maker (i.e., God), any more than your reflection in the mirror could exist without you. And maybe that's not the best analogy because of the whole necessary truth vs contingent truth aspect, but might be helpful nonetheless. Thoughts?

[@chrisctlr]

I think the question many presuppers would have is, if you grant Decarte's argument (i.e., I think, therefore I am), then aren't you granting that he can have knowledge according to his worldview, when in fact that Bible teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge? Of course, we know that unbelievers can know things, *because the Christian worldview is true*. But how would you explain why "I think, therefore I am" doesn't work on the unbeliever's worldview?

[@ParkersPensees]

Well for starters, we don't just grant or refrain from granting something because it agrees with or goes against our preconceived notions right? We have to wrestle with the argument and see if it's true or not. If you think Descartes's cogito is successful then you need to accommodate it into your worldview and if you don't think it's successful then you need to explain why. I think it is successful and I think everyone can know it. The question is how can we account for this knowledge? I'd want to go on to explain this item of knowledge by my broader Christian worldview, a non-Christian will want to give another story.

[@chrisctlr]

​@@ParkersPensees I will happily plead guilty to presupposing the truth of the Bible :) which says that the unbeliever cannot know anything unless they start with God... including their own existence. Of course the unbeliever knows that they exist, just as much the believer does, but that's because the Christian worldview is true. The question is, how does the unbeliever know they exist on their own worldview? If we say they know they exist because of cogito ergo sum, then I guess they don't need God to know things. I'm proposing that the argument is sound, but still requires Christian presuppositions in order to work. That is, the unbeliever can know he exists based on a transcendental necessity, but they'd still have to account for the laws of logic and the validity of their reasoning that they're using to conclude that their existence is a transcendental necessity. So in other words, we can grant that cogito ergo sum is sound, but the unbeliever couldn't know it's sound on their worldview.

[@ParkersPensees]

@@chrisctlr presupposing the truth of the Bible is different than presupping that an argument is unsound because it might contradict the Bible. That's why I said we gotta do the hard work of analyzing the argument and seeing if it's sound and making sense of it based on our Christian worldview. Descartes went on to employ an ontological argument after the cogito to make sense of it, which is awesome. I don't think that the cognizer could know they exist if it weren't for God and all that depends on Him, but I'm not sure they need to be directly aware of God to know that they themselves exist. "I know I exist because I am thinking". Okay, but how do you account for that? "I don't know, that'd be some other item of knowledge, all I'm claiming here is that I know that I exist. I don't know what else follows from that or what that presupposes, all I know from the phenomena of my occurent thought is that I am thinking it and so I am. I exist."

[@chrisctlr]

​@@ParkersPensees I never meant to imply that cogito ergo sum is unsound. When I expressed my reservation to "grant" the argument, I meant grant that the unbeliever can use it, and use it successfully. Sorry for the confusion. I was not aware of the subsequent ontological argument. I'll have to look into that. Thanks! I would agree that the unbeliever doesn't need to be aware of God (in the 'second-order' sense) in order to know that they exist. But I still have reservations about granting them the argument (in the sense that I mentioned above)... they can claim that *giving an account* of the argument is "some other item of knowledge" and therefore unnecessary or irrelevant. But I'd argue that accounting for the argument is very much necessary and relevant. Because we're asking how they know the argument is sound *on their worldview*... I would agree with everything you (pretending to be the atheist) said at the end there, but that all assumes the validity of the unbeliever's reasoning, the very thing I'm calling into question.

[@ParkersPensees]

@@chrisctlr nice! Maybe the confusion was my fault. Thanks for this brother!

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Transcendental arguments are unsound and often beg the question. Presupp apologetics are a laughingstock even among most Christians, and are entertainment for atheists.

[@aisthpaoitht]

Uh huh

[@1689solas]

Blah blah blah cry harder.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

If you think transcendental argumentation are necessarily unsound or beg the question, then you're not grasping transcendental argumentation. That's a common thing people say when they're not getting it. So, I'd recommend taking a look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for transcendental argumentation. It'll help you get what the form is about and why it's neither necessarily unsound or begging the question. But here's something that may help. People typically express a transcendental argument as P1: X is the necessary pre-condition for Y. P2: We have Y C: Therefore, X exists. Now, the reason why you're thinking that begs the question is because of a semantical issue. The same argument, if about non-contingent claims, can be expressed like this: P1: If X did not exist, Y would not be possible P2: Y is possible C: Therefore, X exists The propositional content is the same. I've only semantically expressed it in a slightly different way to remove the semantical issue which is causing you to falsity think it's begging-the-question.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

The only reason why people often don't express it as I did in the second example is because that makes it appear like an affirming the consequent fallacy. But affirming the consequent is not fallacious if it's the only option. So, I could express it as I did in the second option... and when my interlocutor says that's an affirming the consequent fallacy, then I will dispute that assertion itself. To justify that it's an affirming the consequent fallacy, my interlocutor will need to justify that there is another option, other than X, which would entail Y is possible. In the example of Presup / TAG, this means my interlocutor would need to justify that any non-Christian worldview entails Y is possible by justifying the pre-conditions for knowledge, rational thought, intelligibility, etc. If my interlocutor can't do that, he can't justify that it's an affirming the consequent fallacy.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@lightbeforethetunnel If a fallacy is the "only option" to support your claims, then this establishes that your claims are unjustifiable and irrational. I'm glad you at least recognize this, even if you need to special plead that fallacies reliably lead to certain conclusions when they are the conclusions your prefer. Pretty shady, though, right? The structure of TAG arguments is circular. The first premise of most TAG arguments is typically a rewording of the conclusion, because the conclusion is in that first premise. The first premise is unsound, because it is unsupported by anything except circular reasoning and bald assertion. For example: 1. The magical, eternal, necessary, non-conscious Florken Stone is the necessary precondition for apples to exist. 2. We have apples. 3. Therefore, the Florken Stone exists. Can you see the complete failure of this structure of an argument? Or: 1. If unicorns did not exist, dreams about spaceships would not be possible. 2. Dreams about spaceships are possible. 3. Therefore, unicorns exist. I KNOW you think I'm making a mockery of TAG, or that these arguments aren't comparable to YOUR TAG arguments because they just don't make sense to you, and seem ridiculous, and feel like non-sequiturs. I need you to understand that for anyone who isn't a presupp Christian, these are EXACTLY how your TAG arguments sound to us. They have the same circular structure, the same sort of first premise that relies on asserted personal intuition and nothing else, and the same complete failure to show that the conclusion is actually warranted.

[@1330m]

so good 2023 Huh kyung young Eternal milk Kerygma 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Magnificent aletheia .

[@1689solas]

Parker, dude stop trying to sound smart and impress the guy and just let him do the speaking. Stop interrupting the man and let him speak. Really rude man.

[@ParkersPensees]

Lol settle down

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

​@@ParkersPensees You did well! I appreciate this it was a great interview