yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Answering Presuppositionalism: Extra Credit


3m read
·Nov 8, 2024

Presupposition lists hold that a theistic worldview is the only one that can account for knowledge. In particular, they claim that atheists cannot justify their use of inductive reasoning, while God provides a firm epistemological basis; in other words, a firm foundation for knowledge. The uniformity of nature—of the UN, as it's often abbreviated—is the name given to the apparent consistency of the universe's physical laws over space and time. Without uniformity of nature, the universe would be a chaotic place where the past wouldn't resemble the future.

To use inductive reasoning is to make an estimate of how likely a general statement is to be true based on specific knowledge. Inductive reasoning is used when trying to predict future events from knowledge of the past. In a universe without uniformity of nature, where the past didn't resemble the future at all, inductive reasoning would be useless. Presuppositionalists say that God guarantees the uniformity of nature and, in doing so, provides justification for inductive reasoning.

Vantil, one of the most well-known presuppositionalists, said the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature that the scientist needs. When Vantil says that the uniformity of nature needs accounting for, he is assuming that a chaotic universe is more likely than a uniform one and that a God is necessary to provide uniformity. But since Vantil has never seen a universe other than the one we all live in, this is an unfounded assumption.

For all we know, it may not be possible for a Godless universe to be anything but uniform. Far from the Christian God being the only presupposition that can account for the uniformity of nature, it's one of many. There are an infinite number of unlikely-sounding assumptions that can account for the uniformity of nature, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or other guarantees of the uniformity of nature. There are also some far more parsimonious presuppositions; perhaps the simplest one is that uniformity of nature is true.

Presuppositionalists think they have a firm foundation for knowledge that the rest of us lack. Here they are making a double error, because, as well as mistakenly believing that the uniformity of nature needs accounting for, they seem to believe that the uniformity of nature is sufficient to provide a rational basis for inductive reasoning when it isn't. Even in a universe with uniformity, inductive reasoning can never be epistemologically justified.

Just because the pen dropped to the floor yesterday doesn't mean that a previously unknown universal law will prevent it from falling to the ground today. To demonstrate that the atheist has no basis for assuming the validity of inductive reasoning, the presuppositionalist asks how we can know that the universe will continue to be uniform. If the answer involves appealing to knowledge of the past, then it uses induction to try to validate induction, which is begging the question.

The presuppositionalist mistakenly thinks he has a solution to this problem through revelation. God lets him know that the universe will continue to be uniform. But how can he be sure that God won't change his mind about uniformity? The presuppositionalist might cite God's unchanging nature as a guarantee that he won't change his mind. But what grounds does a Christian have to conclude that God's nature is, in fact, unchanging and that it will continue to be so?

Whether you gain knowledge of God's unchanging nature through direct revelation or through scripture, the only way he can say anything about God's nature in the future is to use induction. Appealing to God to solve the problem of induction merely postpones the point at which induction has to be invoked to justify itself, thereby begging the question. Presuppositionalists can't rationally justify their use of induction any more than the rest of us can.

More Articles

View All
This Worm Uses a "Silly String of Death" | National Geographic
[Music] In the rainforest, one sharpshooter is in search of its next target. Meet the velvet worm, a nearly blind creature with an impressive weapon. The worm is sensitive to air currents caused by movements and uses this to hunt. The velvet worm moves …
Slash and Burn | Live Free or Die
It should go back down. There’s so much green around it. Yeah, got the fire working for us. Looks pretty good up here. God, we just burnt like 400 square feet or some. Wow, this is the art of slashing burn. Whenever we move into a new area to terrace it …
A message from Sal on school closures and remote learning on Khan Academy.
Hi everyone, Sal here from Khan Academy. I am back in the walk-in closet where Khan Academy all began, socially distanced, obviously. The entire globe is going through a very unusual crisis right now, and as part of that crisis, you know people are worri…
Charlie Munger: Be a Survivor, Not a Victim
Of course, feeling like it’s rather interesting to make change. Some people are victimized by other people, and if it weren’t for the indignation that that causes, we wouldn’t have the reforms that we need. But that truth is mixed with another. It’s very…
Evaluating exponent expressions with variables
We are asked to evaluate the expression (5) to the (x) power minus (3) to the (x) power for (x) equals (2). So pause this video and see if you can figure out what hap—what does this expression equal when (x) equals (2). All right, now let’s work through …
How We Can Keep Plastics Out of Our Ocean | National Geographic
8 million metric tons of plastic trash enters the sea from land every year; the equivalent of five plastic bags filled with trash for every foot of coastline in the world. Across our ocean, plastic trash blows into circulation, dispersed almost everywhere…