Four Basic Blunders of Van Tillian Presuppositionailsm

http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_easy_argument_to_refute_van_tillian_calv...

Basically, Presuppers make these errors (amongst others!):

1) They fail to grasp that the assumption of uniformity of nature is considered to be only a necessary, not sufficient justification for induction BY LOGICIANS, and thus the UON is not used as a justification for induction by LOGICIANS in the first place! So they attack a strawman born of their ignorance of logic.

2) They misunderstand the actual problem of induction - it is not the circular relationship between induction and the 'uniformity of nature' but a concern about a logical connection between a sample and a population. No one uses the UON to justify induction.

3) Their attempts to 'solve' the 'problem of induction' by arguing for an assumption of uniformity of 'god' (the implication of presuppositionalism) therefore do not even address the actual 'problem', seeing as the UON isn't used to justify induction in the first place! Furthermore, the UOG argument leads to even greater problems than using the UON to justify induction.

4) Finally, they fail to grasp that it is a mistake to presume that a failure to provide an adequate justification for induction leaves us without any grounds to rely on induction other than 'faith': The fact one cannot provide a justification for a system doesn't imply that one cannot know that the system is useful. A child is unable to prove that his name is his name; does this mean that he is without any grounds for holding that his name is his name? Knowledge and justification are two different philosophical concepts. The Problem of Induction relates to philosophical justification.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Rational
• Response
• squad
• logic
• reason
• refuting
• presuppositional
• arguments

[recalibration]

@RedBeetle

Definition of FACT

fact noun \ˈfakt\

3 : the quality of being actual : actuality [a question of fact hinges on evidence]

4 a : something that has actual existence [space exploration is now a fact] b : an actual occurrence [prove the fact of damage]

5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Source: Merrian Webster

Your reality is a simulacrum.

(1/1 RB00)

[ideologger]

@WaldoPepper9 Indeed- there is no reason to believe in atheism- because atheism doesn't entail any beliefs! I guess we can both agree- there is no god.

[ideologger]

@AOPrinciple If you paid any attention, you'd have seen that Van Til does make this mistake. "But the best and only possible proof for the existence of such a God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world." Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 103.

[ideologger]

@Mike82ARP No disrespect, but making a personal attack doesn't refute what he said nor does it compensate for the fact that you weren't able to understand it. *shrug*

[Mike82ARP]

“Quick and easy.. blah blah...” You think too highly of yourself.

[WaldoPepper9]

This is absurd...  induction IS the uniformity of nature and the argument is that in an atheist worldview... you cannot give an account for it. In an atheist worldview if we are to presuppose that these things be true you cannot give an account for laws of logic, laws of science and laws of morality. you cannot even give an account for debating that atheism is true for in an atheist universe there is no REASON to believe in atheism. Everything is conventional in nature..which is arbitrary..

[AOPrinciple]

do not argue in that fashion. And we've only just spoken of this specific issue of induction! It's misleading to assume that a 3 minute rundown on these 4 somewhat confused points discredits the entire presuppositional method of Van Tilians. To illustrate this very quickly with reference to your 4th point, Van Tilians DO NOT conflate knowledge and justification. They ask the question, "since we think we know these things, what must we presuppose in order to be epistemologically self-conscious?"

[AOPrinciple]

3

referenced by Van Tilians. Have you read any of Van Til or his students, or are you just extrapolating the heart of the transcendental method and presuppositional argument from an exerpt spoken or written by someone who claims to be a presuppositionalist. Don't take that offensively; in my experience that is usually the case and misunderstanding abounds for much that reason, among others.

Along those lines, your fourth point is simply mistaken. Self-conscious Van Tilians have not and...

[AOPrinciple]

2

performing induction. Van Til himself does not make that mistake either, as I have read him. The last three points and your treatment of this issue are conditioned by your first point. When Presuppositionalists speak of the "problem of induction," it is usually to address a naive remark made by a dialogue partner which indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of induction. These are points where the "rubber meets the road," so to speak" in an encounter. This is not an issue frequently...

[AOPrinciple]

I'm not sure you're representing Van Tilian Presuppositionalism/ts accurately. Where have you heard or read A Van Tilian suggesting that the principle of the uniformity of nature is a sufficient condition for induction? Most atheists' introduction to Presupp. is by listening to Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen, at least, never suggests such a thing, and in at least one of his debates quotes David Hume and Bertrand Russell to demonstrate to his opponent that one may NOT reference the UoN as a grounds for...