I already explained that to you. Within my worldview, my ability to know truth is designed by the same God that designed the cosmos we live in–a God incapable of mistakes or errors and able to ensure his purposes are accomplished.
But that was my point. We agree! Your worldview only allows for probabilities and conjectures, not knowledge.
Like Descartes, you are still not being skeptical enough. Cogito Ergo Sum already presupposes the validity of logic itself. If logic is an illusion to help us survive, then you cannot even be certain that you really exist. Perhaps, like Elon Musk has speculated, our whole universe is just a simulation.. Or maybe it’s all just an incoherent dream being had by no one. Without God to uphold a consistent logic throughout creation, the belief in universal laws of logic becomes just one more unjustified ‘brute fact’ you must presuppose.
This is really what it’s all about. The Bible says what it says. You are disbelieving on the basis of assumptions about sediments. The reality is that those layers were put there by the Flood, not by gradual processes. Case in point.
And your belief that there is a God that “uphold[s] a consistent logic throughout creation”*, is somehow not an unjustified “brute fact” you must presuppose?
*Whatever that even means, it seems to be treating logic as if it was a physical force like a gravitational field. There is no end to the madness of incoherence your posts contain. I have nothing more to say that I have not already. I’m satisifed I have exposed to anyone who isn’t already a presuppositionalist the utter intellectual poverty that it is based on. Thank you again, @PDPrice, for having made that so unusually easy.
I presuppose one thing only: The Bible is true. Based on that one presupposition, I can live my life consistently and the world makes sense. As CS Lewis stated, Christianity is the light by which we see everything else.
You, on the other hand, have a laundry list of disconnected presuppositions. Logic. Sense perception. Human reasoning. Uniformity of nature. Each one unjustified by any of the others.
So yes, we both must use presuppositions. But mine starts with one thing (The Bible is true), and all these others flow elegantly from that one. I’ll take the more elegant solution (via Ockham’s Razor). God is the one answer that makes sense of all the world’s questions.
Well if human reasoning is reliable all those others would seem to fall in line. So I guess the only presupposition I make is human reasoning is reliable
I’m using my reasoning to determine logic is a brute fact, that our sense perception is reliable and while the uniformity of nature may be be evidence favoring Theism, there are many other facts about nature that favor naturalism
That is not the case. We could have a perfectly good “Reasoning machine”, but machines are only as effective as the input they receive. Garbage in, garbage out. We could have a good brain capable of reasoning, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t getting garbage from the universe. Each one of those presuppositions is disconnected from the others. They only find their unification in God.
You’re presupposing we get reliable information at all. If all we get is unreliable information, there’s nothing to distinguish. You aren’t appreciating that each of these presuppositions is required for knowledge, and each one is independent of the others.
Give me an example of unreliable information. If it was all unreliable, a rational mind would realize this information isn’t reliable. You don’t need reliable information to distinguish between the two. Things just wouldn’t work out very well for us.
Well, I suppose that if you try to reach a reasoned conclusion but discover that your conclusion doesn’t match reality, then you might think your conclusion not matching reality doesn’t necessarily mean your reasoning is not working. But if that’s the case, you wouldn’t have tried in the first place, and probably wouldn’t be capable of the mental effort of even considering the question.
The more I think about it, and the deeper I go, the closer to insanity I get. This way madness lies.
He has also decided that anyone who disagrees with him is doing so because they have rejected his god and have thus not been gifted with the power of reason. An unassailable get-out clause. Of course he himself may not have been gifted with the power of reason, but he never seems to realise that his arguments apply to everyone.
The whole line of strained verbiage is to impress the choir - “glory be, that’s deep”. But ask, if Christians have a more solid basis for knowledge, where does this kick in?
Do Christians recognize the truth of stop signs better than others?
Are Christians superior at solving murder mystery who-done-its than others?
Is every valedictorian always a Christian?
Are Christians the best stock pickers?
Are Christians better at math?
Are Christians better at chemistry?
Are Christians better at biochemistry?
Are Christians better at population genetics?
Are Christians better at discerning the history of life on earth?
Are Christians better at discerning origins?
Oh, but it is not about knowledge, it is about the basis of knowledge? What is that supposed to mean? If a Christian is wrong about a math problem, at least he is well based about it?
That is the purpose here. This is an unmoderated conversation that isn’t entirely elucidating. Reading over it, I think there may be value in, when I have some time, explaining my understanding of “worldview”.