Against Jay Dyer

Because I was corrected on a mistake I made on Jay's views in the second half of the video, I have tried to remove it using youtubes video editor. Jay himself pointed out the mistake I made in the comments, I'll explain it if anyone is interested. I'm leaving up the first half of the video because I still think it'll be useful for anyone who comes across the general presup crowd(I think the youtube editor worked, I'm not certain though. If it didn't work at all, I'll just remove the video).

A paper presenting a systematic account of the theoretical virtues(significantly more complex than "coherent" and "arbitrary"):

[JayDyer]

Astounding level of misunderstanding and lack of basic epistemology. It’s an issue of justification, not that they literally have no knowledge. It’s not the case that every position can be justified and leaves us in relativism. You literally cited TDump LOL.

[manonthestars]

You said
"presuppositions are things you assume are true and you don't argue for."

I don't think Dyer believes that but in any case presuppositionalism which he uses is based off Van Til, Greg Bahnsen and John Frame. They don't define presuppositions that way. There's actually a few ways the term "presupposition" is used within the apologetic framework.

but the following is the main presupposition people who hold to this apologetic are talking about.

Presuppositions are ones most fundamental beliefs of reality, knowledge and ethics, that are assumed/held to be as true and are used as the rules of interpretation before investigating any evidence. All experiences and evidence is interpreted through ones Presuppositions. Presuppositionalism holds that there is no epistemological neutrality, one cannot come to any fact or evidence without presuppositions to interpret evidence or a fact as fact. And because it is there from the start and must be used to analyze any evidence or reasoning for a position. So The goal is to see if the presuppositions held by the individual can be justified themselves. Is it warranted, metaphysically possible or epistemologically knowable within the system itself. The goal is to do a internal critique of one's worldview (network of presuppositions of reality knowledge and ethics). That is can the presuppositions one holds to be justified or known as true. Can the network of presuppositions justify itself as true, or is it merely held because of psychological conditioning, arbitrary reasoning or incoherent reasoning or something else. the goal is to see if a certain collection of presuppositions can justify the preconditions of intelligibility.

it is not as you say it just assumed and not argued for. Arguing about it is the whole point of presuppositionalism's debate endeavor.

[CosmicNous]

With respect, I think you have misunderstood transcendental arguments and more importantly the problem in epistemology that they're aimed at.

[emmanuelsimon]

Pretty interesting critique. It seems that If presuppositionalism Is correct, then the proposition, 'everyone has a worldview' means 'in my worldview, everyone has a worldview'. You also wouldn't be able to do genuine internal critiques'. For example, one with the Christian worldview might attempt an internal critique of Atheism by stepping into the atheists worldview. However, since the Christian also has a worldview, he can only see the atheist worldview through the Christian worldview.

Furthermore, since each *person* has a worldview, it follows that each Christian understands Christianity by his own worldview. He wouldn't be able to see it as it is, see it in a manner that transcends all worldviews.

For this reason, I don't see how presuppositionalism doesn't lead to relativism. That said, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something

[dharmadefender]

I am Joe Biden and I endorse the true internationaldepressure.

[appliedvirtue]

How are brutal facts even coherent? They go against the principle of sufficient reason.

[milkshakeplease]

you're wrong because if you hold those presuppositions under materialism (like universals), you're not justified in holding those presuppositions if you think everything is matter.

[dianekamer]

Please complete this when you have a chance! Thanks very much in advance.

[dharmadefender]

Anyway, very good content. Keep up the good work.

[peenweinerstein]

It’s so subversive. Sure it’s a way to argue for the existence for god. But to then pivot to “the orthodox worldview is the only coherent set of beliefs”. What’s stopping you from presupposing anything else other than an orthodox worldview? At this point you’re just comparing abstract systems of presuppositions and saying yours is correct. It’s actually funny seeing how quickly TAG (for orthodoxy) is cast aside from some apologists due to its relativism