How to respond to godless presuppositions

[Confessor]

I was discussing presuppositional apologetics with someone, and I said that we cannot make sense of experience, because, as one example, we have no reason to believe in the uniformity of the universe without presupposing God. She said that it would be simpler to presuppose uniformity as an intrinsic quality of the universe than to presuppose God behind it. How would you respond to this?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Presuppose uniformity with no cause?

The very existence of any uniformity must presuppose a "uniformer".

Give me a cohesive rationale that leads to uniformity without a prime organizing force.

It is irrational to presuppose causeless uniformity.

 

[Hippo]

We do not presuppose God instead of uniformity, we presuppose God because this explains the uniformity. In this way it is not "simpler" to presuppose uniformity, it is illogical to do so.

If the argument then descends to a claim that which is chosen (God or uniformity) is a matter of choice our argument would be that the preupposition of uniformity on its own has no internal logic and is arbitrary. the presupposition of the Christian God is logical as such a presuposition is necessary to have uniformity in the first place.

 

[Confessor]

Thank you for these answers. I still have one more (threefold) question, and I believe the answer will be very similar to the ones already given, but I'm still not sure how to articulate it.

Is it possible to know that an objective reality exists without presupposing God? In other words, what is the relationship between our belief in an objective reality and in God? Can objective reality be presupposed intrinsically?

Thank you all again for your help. I truly appreciate it.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I may be off-course here, but what do you mean by uniformity of the universe? Uniformitarianism?

Regarding the latter, I think of Peter who specifically warned that scoffers of the faith would come in the last days denying the imminent and personal return of Christ, the great Flood, and the miraculous creation of the cosmos by the spoken word of God (II Peter 3:3-6). Peter warned that these scoffers would propose an empirical, uniformitarian framework supposing that "all things continue as from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:4).

 

[Confessor]

I may be off-course here, but what do you mean by uniformity of the universe? Uniformitarianism?

Regarding the latter, I think of Peter who specifically warned that scoffers of the faith would come in the last days denying the imminent and personal return of Christ, the great Flood, and the miraculous creation of the cosmos by the spoken word of God (II Peter 3:3-6). Peter warned that these scoffers would propose an empirical, uniformitarian framework supposing that "all things continue as from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:4).

I am proposing uniformity in the sense that if I drop this coin off a building twice, all conditions being the same, it will behave the same way. It is the uniformity needed for science to progress, but not necessarily uniformitarianism, which maintains that there is never any change.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thank you for these answers. I still have one more (threefold) question, and I believe the answer will be very similar to the ones already given, but I'm still not sure how to articulate it.

Is it possible to know that an objective reality exists without presupposing God? In other words, what is the relationship between our belief in an objective reality and in God? Can objective reality be presupposed intrinsically?

Thank you all again for your help. I truly appreciate it.

In short, not consistently - either you are the arbiter of objective reality - in which case, you are effectively God or there is some objective reality defined by an objective source or standard, that is, without presupposing a prime source of objectivity, reality is subjective - again - you become God.

So - without God there is only you.

 

[VictorBravo]

I was discussing presuppositional apologetics with someone, and I said that we cannot make sense of experience, because, as one example, we have no reason to believe in the uniformity of the universe without presupposing God. She said that it would be simpler to presuppose uniformity as an intrinsic quality of the universe than to presuppose God behind it. How would you respond to this?

I'd ask if she has an answer to Hume's criticism of induction. In a nutshell: (1) we cannot prove a priori regularity based upon principles (unless we presume that there is one who regulates); and (2) assuming regularity through inductive reasoning is circular arguing because induction requires the assumption of regularity.

So, we are left with either a pragmatic and arbitrary assumption that the universe is regular and uniform; or with the existence of a first principle. If we go with the first, we have given up on reason (there is no logical argument for our arbitrary assumption). If we go with the second, we are theists. But we then have reason.

Hume didn't particularly like this dilemna, but he at least acknowledged it. He is probably the best skeptic and someone who would scoff at the modern empiricists' attempt to arrive at truth. But he had an outlet: he liked to play whist and party with his friends to ‘dispel the clouds’ of scepticism and melancoly that his philosophy conjured up.

 

[panta dokimazete]

In short, not consistently - either you are the arbiter of objective reality ...

And this is the crux of the matter; because 99% of the time, someone who thinks this also believes that we're here by chance. Now, if that's the case, then their beliefs and interpretations are also cosmic accidents. And yet, they'd rather place their trust in "logic" derived from themselves - products of an accidental primordial ooze from billions of years ago- than in the God of Scripture.

from goo to you!

 

[Craig]

She said that it would be simpler to presuppose uniformity as an intrinsic quality of the universe than to presuppose God behind it. How would you respond to this?

This lady is confusing "presupposition" with "unwarranted assumption. Dittos to victorbravo...

Make sure you're asking her questions instead of making assertions...she needs to understand what her worldview says about the universe...then show her how she cannot presuppose UON...at least not in a logical way.

Is it possible to know that an objective reality exists without presupposing God? In other words, what is the relationship between our belief in an objective reality and in God? Can objective reality be presupposed intrinsically?

I'm sure you've gotten some decent answers so far...do you have a more specific question? You can go nearly any direction on this question...if this is in relation to the lady you're talking to, I'd just ask her how she knows there is an objective reality...if she's a materialist, she would need to know everything...further, how can she know there is an objective reality? Objective reality is non-observable...where would you find objective reality?