Open call for Presups

[Oncedeceived]

So it seems like you have an externalist account of justification based on the interaction of your reson with the reality (that is to say,true in your worldview) of God, that's totally fine. I also have an externalist theory of justification based on the interaction of reality with our senses and our reason. So we both have these externalist views, the most useful feature of both being that they sidestep the infinite regress problem.
So now what? If God exists as you describe him, you are justified in believing the conclusions of your reason and your senses. If the causal story I'm telling about reality and evolutionary reliabalism is true, then I am justified in believing the conclusions of my reason and my senses. The question then is... I wonder which narrative, if any, is actually true.

That would be my initial question for you having read the above. Thanks again for all the links, you are definitely doing most of the work in this conversation, I'm just reading up on things you have already gone to the effort of vetting and collecting. Thank you

This is what presup is about. All of us, believer and un-believer alike have presuppositions that align with our worldview. For the Christian, God created the universe and all that encompasses. For the un-believer they hold that mankind holds that place or nature or whatever. In Christian theology, it is consistent and reasonable that the universe being designed by God would be governed by universal, objective and timeless laws which include the Laws of Logic that create the foundation upon which all mankind abides by, and in which each worldview must account for.

You claim: I also have an externalist theory of justification based on the interaction of reality with our senses and our reason. So we both have this justification and presupposition, what presuppositional worldview can explain those Universal laws and be consistent within their worldviews? So I can start first or you can...

 

[Athée]

This is what presup is about. All of us, believer and un-believer alike have presuppositions that align with our worldview. For the Christian, God created the universe and all that encompasses. For the un-believer they hold that mankind holds that place or nature or whatever. In Christian theology, it is consistent and reasonable that the universe being designed by God would be governed by universal, objective and timeless laws which include the Laws of Logic that create the foundation upon which all mankind abides by, and in which each worldview must account for.

You claim: I also have an externalist theory of justification based on the interaction of reality with our senses and our reason. So we both have this justification and presupposition, what presuppositional worldview can explain those Universal laws and be consistent within their worldviews? So I can start first or you can...

You can go first my friend

 

[Oncedeceived]

You can go first my friend

Ok, I will begin with the Christian presupposition that the Christian God makes our discussion here possible and without the Laws of Logic we could not have a coherent conversation about any subject. The laws of logic presuppose an Intelligence that transcends mankind. Mankind is governed by these laws which allow for proper reasoning and thinking.

Edited to add: The Christian worldview is consistent in explaining why we would have any laws in the universe.

 

[Athée]

Ok, I will begin with the Christian presupposition that the Christian God makes our discussion here possible and without the Laws of Logic we could not have a coherent conversation about any subject. The laws of logic presuppose an Intelligence that transcends mankind. Mankind is governed by these laws which allow for proper reasoning and thinking.

Edited to add: The Christian worldview is consistent in explaining why we would have any laws in the universe.

Maybe you could identify what your properly basic beliefs are in that summary. Meaning, beliefs that have no justification, they are just assumed. For example a couple of my properly basic beliefs are that.
1. A mind independent reality exists
2. The rules of inference obtain.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe you could identify what your properly basic beliefs are in that summary. Meaning, beliefs that have no justification, they are just assumed. For example a couple of my properly basic beliefs are that.
1. A mind independent reality exists
2. The rules of inference obtain.

Ok
1. A reality outside of our mind exists.
2. There are laws that transcend mankind.

 

[Athée]

Ok
1. A reality outside of our mind exists.
2. There are laws that transcend mankind.

Oh good, we agree on that then What next?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Oh good, we agree on that then What next?

Sorry to butt in. What do we mean by "laws that transcend mankind"?

ETA: Your #2 and OD's are not the same.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh good, we agree on that then What next?

You summarize your position.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry to butt in. What do we mean by "laws that transcend mankind"?

ETA: Your #2 and OD's are not the same.

Meaning that if man was not present the laws of logic still apply.
Neither are the #1's.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Meaning that if man was not present the laws of logic still apply.
Neither are the #1's.

What is the distinction between each #1?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is the distinction between each #1?

His #1 claims a "mind" independent reality exists where my #1 claims a realty outside of "our" mind exists.

 

[Athée]

Sorry to butt in. What do we mean by "laws that transcend mankind"?

ETA: Your #2 and OD's are not the same.

No worries, it is a discussion thread.
I suspect that is true but I was only going to raise it if it became an issue. I would say the inference rules transcend humanity for example as would physics and math.

 

[Athée]

His #1 claims a "mind" independent reality exists where my #1 claims a realty outside of "our" mind exists.

That's exactly the same thing that I was saying, a reality exists outside of my mind

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's exactly the same thing that I was saying, a reality exists outside of my mind

Ok great!

 

[Athée]

Ok great!

So we both have properly basic beliefs that we can't justify, fair enough. What next?
Also I should add I'm traveling today so I will be on a plane and out of communication for awhile. In fact our next couple weeks are a family vacation so I will be decidedly intermittent

 

[Oncedeceived]

So we both have properly basic beliefs that we can't justify, fair enough. What next?
Also I should add I'm traveling today so I will be on a plane and out of communication for awhile. In fact our next couple weeks are a family vacation so I will be decidedly intermittent

You provide your explanation for your position.
Would you rather take this on after your vacation? I think really that would be best, you need to enjoy your family and vacation. Have fun.

 

[Athée]

You provide your explanation for your position.
Would you rather take this on after your vacation? I think really that would be best, you need to enjoy your family and vacation. Have fun.

Don't worry I'm very careful not to sacrifice family time for internet discussions

What position of mine did you want an account of?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Don't worry I'm very careful not to sacrifice family time for internet discussions

What position of mine did you want an account of?

How you in your position, explain the Laws which transcend mankind.

 

[HitchSlap]

How you in your position, explain the Laws which transcend mankind.

What are "laws which transcend mankind"?

 

[Athée]

How you in your position, explain the Laws which transcend mankind.

It would depend on what laws you are referring to.