Do Presuppers Conflate Ontology & Epistemology?

In this brief clip, Dr. Jason Lisle responds to the common objection to presuppositionalism, that it conflates ontology and epistemology.

[SnakeWasRight]

This is exactly the argument I had with a presupper who droned on and on about ontology when trying to analyze my epistemological position.

[Jollyswagman]

Any chance I could get a link to the debate you were talking about at the start? Thank you.
👍

[TheCASSMAN]

Ok, so Lilse's response was not good at all, because he did not actually respond to what Howe means when he accuses presups of conflating ontology with epistemology. When HOWE says this, he is saying that presups assert that belief in God is the precondition to intelligibility. However when presups defend this claim, they actually defend a different and less controversial claim, which says that God is the cause of all intelligibility. Howe is essentially saying that the presups are using a Motte and Bailey tactic. He says that since saying God is the cause of our intelligibility, this is not at all controversial among most Christians. However, saying that the belief in God is the cause of intelligibility is very controversial claim among Christians. Howe is trying to say that the presups are trying to push the controvercial position, while only trying to defend the non-controversial position. There is a huge difference between saying that *belief* in God is the precondition to intelligibility, and saying that God is the precondition to intelligibility. One is a epistemological claim, the other is an ontological claim. The claim that "God is the precondition to intelligibility" just means that God designed us with the ability to reason and have knowledge. It does not mean that we need to believe in God in order to reason or to have knowledge.

[CMVMic]

Do we presuppose existence? Can we question anything without an epistemology?

[AD-sxix]

But “God must metaphysically exist” is an assertion which (For Van Til) can’t be proven by reasoning from nature to God (aka, doing Natural Theology) under a fallen humanity interpretive schema, from which every man starts from.

So you’re stuck with a baseless assertion, and no where to go unless you presuppose the baseless assertion. That’s why presuppositionalism is absurd and does a disservice to the interlocutor. One can’t use the natural light of reason to get off of the ground…

[fndrr]

So your disappointed and don’t think he understands the claim but your answer is that epistemology and ontology are related? The critique is that you are saying things in complete agreement with classical Theism but then saying you disagree with it. You cannot presuppose Gods existence before you learn how to speak/reason/write. It’s very frustrating but I imagine you guys feel the same way from your view. Thanks for making good content, don’t want to always only comment when I disagree but it does seem to me that it would be more helpful if an attempt was made to actually hash out where Howe is coming from to come to his conclusion. Steel man his argument so to speak. Certainly it would seem possible to be able to learn to tie your shoes or learn simple addition without presupposing God’s existence?

[aquapointbeshoy]

Love you Eli! Are you middle eastern? If so, from what part?

[markgamache]

And they conflate the two again. You have to start with epistemology not ontology.

[berglen]

Neville Goddard teaching from experience will wake you up when you came down and called man, the death on this planet repeats for teaching you never dies except in man, you a original sons of god never dies, its a play.

[RedefineLiving]

I’m in the last chapter of Ultimate Proof ATM, great book. Thank you for the upload 💪

[lalumierehuguenote]

literally every presup answer to people critiquing their position: "you don't understand"..

[robb]

Do deterministic presups conflate determinism with Biblical teaching?