I feel like presup is mostly pointless

[Phil D.]

Personally it's hard for me to see how one methodology of apologetics is vastly superior - nay, triumphal over the other, especially in real world interactions where the rubber meets the road. My own conversion experience involved the instrumentality of being challenged by both approaches.

 

[RamistThomist]

Personally it's hard for me to see how one methodology of apologetics is vastly superior - nay, triumphal over the other, especially in real world interactions where the rubber meets the road. My own conversion experience involved the instrumentality of being challenged by both approaches.

I hate to sound like a pragmatist, but one is always going to go with "what works." Maybe not as crudely as that, but one will always go with what one is most familiar with and has the most ease with.

Studying classical apologetics, at least for me, has put me in touch with the great thinkers like Turretin. Sproul and Gerstner's apologetics goes nicely with their stuff on "Being," which goes nicely with Sproul's high doctrine of God.

 

[Phil D.]

Studying classical apologetics, at least for me, has put me in touch with the great thinkers like Turretin. Sproul and Gerstner's apologetics goes nicely with their stuff on "Being," which goes nicely with Sproul's high doctrine of God.

Alright, but for the average person...

 

[jwright82]

Personally it's hard for me to see how one methodology of apologetics is vastly superior - nay, triumphal over the other, especially in real world interactions where the rubber meets the road. My own conversion experience involved the instrumentality of being challenged by both approaches.

I think your right the difference here as been understanding one method over another.

 

[RamistThomist]

Alright, but for the average person...

People understand causality. God has blessed me when I use the cosmological argument.

 

[Apologia Christou]

@jwright82

Here, I just found that, the section from 15:45 for about 2 minutes, the story of our little debate and methodology:

I also didn't know his apologetic course is free on YouTube.

 

[jwright82]

I hate to sound like a pragmatist, but one is always going to go with "what works." Maybe not as crudely as that, but one will always go with what one is most familiar with and has the most ease with.

Studying classical apologetics, at least for me, has put me in touch with the great thinkers like Turretin. Sproul and Gerstner's apologetics goes nicely with their stuff on "Being," which goes nicely with Sproul's high doctrine of God.

I couldn't agree more. Thats why I don't criticize the classical aproech. If that works go for it brother. On that brotherly note you made, I think we can end this one. You know I respect you Jacob and that hasn't changed. But I'm bowing out.
I've spent so much time focused on the Transcendental Argument that's where my bread and butter are with Van Til. I have been able weave it into conversations with ease, using Edgar's style. If you haven't read "Reasons of The Heart" I highly recommend it Jacob. You won't be disappointed.
So I'll end with two stories I believe I've told before, the first one I was a convinced classical apologist, the second a presuppositionalist.
I'm 40 so many many moons ago I was talking to a girl and she brought up the problem of evil. She started very abstractly and than focused on how she had been raped. Now this is no knock against the classical approach but it is one of the reasons I became a presuppositionalist, it seemed to me as a method to have more maneuverability.
I tried to reason with her, my failure not classical apologetics failure, when I should have just listened and given her a hug (this was way pre #metoo). I regret that encounter, my advice to you gins is read the situation before engaging.
The second was at a bookstore in Texas, I was in the Airforce at the time, and a college girl was having a "conversation" with like 4 guys about Christianity. They were laughing and asking questions she couldn't answer. She kept responding with "I just have faith". I'm not patting myself on the back here so please don't misunderstand, I'm just telling a story.
I said "gentlemen she can't answer your questions but maybe I can". They accepted and within 10 minutes I had all of them backed into a corner, and it wasn't the Sye style it was reasonable conversation, and they couldn't answer my questions. I looked mid sentence at the girl and she was watching me and smiling because she couldn't answer their questions but somebody could giving her faith strength. Thats the second lesson, sometimes apologetics is about strengthening the believers faith.

 

[jwright82]

@jwright82

Here, I just found that, the section from 15:45 for about 2 minutes, the story of our little debate and methodology:

I also didn't know his apologetic course is free on YouTube.

Thanks.

 

[jwright82]

@jwright82

Here, I just found that, the section from 15:45 for about 2 minutes, the story of our little debate and methodology:

I also didn't know his apologetic course is free on YouTube.

I love Sproul. If you haven't read "The Holiness of God" your missing out.

 

[Apologia Christou]

I love Sproul. If you haven't read "The Holiness of God" your missing out.

I started reading it some 3 years ago, since I could get a copy. But it was the German translation, and it just didn't feel right. So since then it is still on my reading list. James White sometimes alludes to it as one of the best books ever written. Now this is a statement.

 

[jwright82]

@jwright82

Here, I just found that, the section from 15:45 for about 2 minutes, the story of our little debate and methodology:

I also didn't know his apologetic course is free on YouTube.

Ok I said I was going to bow out but this reminded me of something. If the classical apologist is going to insist on moving from arguing for the existence of God to historical considerations fine. But thats not Van Til's aproech, his aproech was and is Christian theism must be true in order for anything to be as it is.
Sproul is raising a straw man when he says "presuppositionalism says you presuppose God in order to prove God exists". That is a straw man and why he lost his debate with Bahnsen. Thats a classical methodology not a presuppositionalism one. Since we argue for Christian theism not first the existence of God its a straw man argument, read any of Van Til’s books and you'll see this. To impose a classical methodology on presuppositionalism is false.
Our methodology is different, we argue for Christian theism not just the existence of God. Obviously Sproul's argument about presuppositionalism shows a logical fallacy but thats stacking the deck on an untrue straw man argument. I have his book "Classical Apologetics" and its all the same. Classicism needs to get out of their method to correctly evaluate other methods. It simply isn't fair to judge every method by arguing from first an existence of God argument than everything else. If that's not what we're doing thats unfair.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Sproul is raising a straw man when he says "presuppositionalism says you presuppose God in order to prove God exists".

But thats not Van Til's aproech, his aproech was and is Christian theism must be true in order for anything to be as it is.

But Christian Theism must not be true in order for anything to be as it is. As I said before, if anything to be as it is just seems like it is, and in reality there is no order, logic, morality etc., then atheism must be true.

VT assumes that to be as it is is meaningful. All I have to do at this moment is to say: no it's not, and assume it's meaningless. And from there on I stay on safe ground for anything that follows and for all seeming objections, since all I have to do is to appeal to my meaninglessness.

VT needs to prove that the world is meaningful. How does he do that? He says himself, that a meaningful world implies a God (or CT, I don't really care at this point). So he agrees here that God makes it meaningful. So if 1) it's true that VT needs to prove that the world is meaningful, and 2) that God makes it meaningful, then 3) he would have to prove that God exists first of all, in order to keep his first premise that the world is actually meaningful. And that's what we do, too: proving God's existence.

And so you see that he assumes what he is trying to prove. There is a God (a meaningful world), therefore God. But whether there actually is a meaningful world is the very thing under dispute, and so you can't just assume that.

Good thing VT is now a classisist.

 

[Ulster Fry]

'Sproul is raising a straw man when he says "presuppositionalism says you presuppose God in order to prove God exists". That is a straw man and why he lost his debate with Bahnsen. Thats a classical methodology not a presuppositionalism one. Since we argue for Christian theism not first the existence of God its a straw man argument, read any of Van Til’s books and you'll see this. To impose a classical methodology on presuppositionalism is false.'

Surely it is just a logical consequence of what Van Til claims?

For example:

'I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else'.

So you have to presuppose God's existence to believe in anything else, which presumably includes God's existence and all truth claims of Christian theism. If I am reading this incorrectly (as you claim Sproul is) then how would you interpret the above?

 

[jwright82]

Surely it is just a logical consequence of what Van Til claims?

For example:

'I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else'.

So you have to presuppose God's existence to believe in anything else, which presumably includes God's existence and all truth claims of Christian theism. If I am reading this incorrectly (as you claim Sproul is) then how would you interpret the above?

In consulting the Bahnsen reader, Van Til does use the phrase "starting with the fact of God" or other analogous phrases. But when you actually read the context you notice that he goes or sometimes begins with this to simply weaving in and out of various Christian doctrines, so an interpretation of Van Til must recon with that. But page 261 to 271 is proof of this. Also 101 to 106. As well as 177 to 194.
Actually a bit of an aside here. If you read "Jerusalem and Athens" no one that im aware of makes these simplistic arguments. Montgomery does point out the worldview vs worldview sort of in a vacuum argument but its more refined and Van Til responds. So how is it, unless I missed something (which is very possible) these great Christian thinkers missed an obvious logical fallacy like this? Until Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsey come along and point it out. Sproul goes about debating Bahnsen and is embarrassed on this, among other things. Food for thought.

 

[jwright82]

But Christian Theism must not be true in order for anything to be as it is. As I said before, if anything to be as it is just seems like it is, and in reality there is no order, logic, morality etc., then atheism must be true.

VT assumes that to be as it is is meaningful. All I have to do at this moment is to say: no it's not, and assume it's meaningless. And from there on I stay on safe ground for anything that follows and for all seeming objections, since all I have to do is to appeal to my meaninglessness.

VT needs to prove that the world is meaningful. How does he do that? He says himself, that a meaningful world implies a God (or CT, I don't really care at this point). So he agrees here that God makes it meaningful. So if 1) it's true that VT needs to prove that the world is meaningful, and 2) that God makes it meaningful, then 3) he would have to prove that God exists first of all, in order to keep his first premise that the world is actually meaningful. And that's what we do, too: proving God's existence.

And so you see that he assumes what he is trying to prove. There is a God (a meaningful world), therefore God. But whether there actually is a meaningful world is the very thing under dispute, and so you can't just assume that.

Good thing VT is now a classisist.

Ok, in the sake of good Christian dialog may I try to lay out your argument as it appears to me. I will do so painting it in the best possible light and with as little speculation as possible, you are a fellowChristian and I owe you that. Here goes.
1. The question of whether or not reality would be different given the truth or falsity of CT is irrelevant. Its, reality, a given so we proceed from there.
2. Since it is given the doctrine of creation is a matter of faith until an argument for the existence of God be given which implies that the doctrine of creation is not just a matter of faith but also of reason.
3. Worldview analysis is simply, taking points 1 and 2, like opinions or preferences. A worldview is like a bellybutton we all have one. Who cares.
4. Worldview analysis at the end of the day points out at most inconsistencies in the Atheist's worldview.
5. Our sly, not psychotic, atheist sees the problem in my approach and simply responds "I know my worldview has inconsistencies and is meaningless but I'm fine with that. And since worldviews are like a bellybutton it doesn't matter. I'm happy with mine and you're happy yours."
6. The classical apologist comes and says "wait a minute and shows arguments proving the existence of God" already they have a leg up on me. They proved the existence of something and i merely proved the inconsistencies of a worldview someone could easily accept like their bellybutton or any other personal opinion. It doesn't matter.
7. To prove something is far superior to proving inconsistencies in matters of opinions. So Van Til must at the very least have an inferior position to the Classical apologist.
Am I right there? Is that a fair summary of your argument, if not please correct me?

 

[Apologia Christou]

Ok, in the sake of good Christian dialog may I try to lay out your argument as it appears to me. I will do so painting it in the best possible light and with as little speculation as possible, you are a fellowChristian and I owe you that. Here goes.
1. The question of whether or not reality would be different given the truth or falsity of CT is irrelevant. Its, reality, a given so we proceed from there.
2. Since it is given the doctrine of creation is a matter of faith until an argument for the existence of God be given which implies that the doctrine of creation is not just a matter of faith but also of reason.
3. Worldview analysis is simply, taking points 1 and 2, like opinions or preferences. A worldview is like a bellybutton we all have one. Who cares.
4. Worldview analysis at the end of the day points out at most inconsistencies in the Atheist's worldview.
5. Our sly, not psychotic, atheist sees the problem in my approach and simply responds "I know my worldview has inconsistencies and is meaningless but I'm fine with that. And since worldviews are like a bellybutton it doesn't matter. I'm happy with mine and you're happy yours."
6. The classical apologist comes and says "wait a minute and shows arguments proving the existence of God" already they have a leg up on me. They proved the existence of something and i merely proved the inconsistencies of a worldview someone could easily accept like their bellybutton or any other personal opinion. It doesn't matter.
7. To prove something is far superior to proving inconsistencies in matters of opinions. So Van Til must at the very least have an inferior position to the Classical apologist.
Am I right there? Is that a fair summary of your argument, if not please correct me?

I think that is a little bit complicated, my mind works way easier in this matter. It's really simple, let me try:

You (Christian) have just used VT methology and showed me that reality, as we perceive it, implies God.

I am impressed. I see it.

But then I realise and say: wait a minute, you didn't make a case (you didn't prove) that reality, as we perceive it, actually is objective reality, but that's only your assumption.

And so at this point I simply turn the tables and assume my own reality, which doesn't lead to God. Or I demand proof for your assumption, and then you would have to prove that God exists.

That's all.

The point is (if I go an by assuming my own reality), I can be as arbitrary as I want to, as unreasonable and imaginative as I can be, but nonetheless, I make your entire argument of no effect. And that's a problem. You may say: but what he does is stupid. And I agree, it is. But he gets away with it, he is allowed to it by your own standards, by your apologetic, which proceeds the same way. Because when you don't prove your reality, he doesn't have to prove his. All he does is playing by your own rules.

This will never happen in classical apologetics. Can he act unreasonably and stupidly there? Of course he can, but he doesn't get away with it, because I don't give him the grounds to do it.

 

[jwright82]

I think that is a little bit complicated, my mind works way easier in this matter. It's really simple, let me try:

You (Christian) have just used VT methology and showed me that reality, as we perceive it, implies God.

I am impressed. I see it.

But then I realise and say: wait a minute, you didn't make a case (you didn't prove) that reality, as we perceive it, actually is objective reality, but that's only your assumption.

And so at this point I simply turn the tables and assume my own reality, which doesn't lead to God. Or I demand proof for your assumption, and then you would have to prove that God exists.

That's all.

The point is (if I go an by assuming my own reality), I can be as arbitrary as I want to, as unreasonable and imaginative as I can be, but nonetheless, I make your entire argument of no effect. And that's a problem. You may say: but what he does is stupid. And I agree, it is. But he gets away with it, he is allowed to it by your own standards, by your apologetic, which proceeds the same way. Because when you don't prove your reality, he doesn't have to prove his. All he does is playing by your own rules.

This will never happen in classical apologetics. Can he act unreasonably and stupidly there? Of course he can, but he doesn't get away with it, because I don't give him the grounds to do it.

Thats not the point, that was essentially your argument yes, no, maybe with some corrections. I have to have an answer for us to proceed. Did I get your argument right or not, if not where was I wrong? Please im trying to understand you. I need to correct before we can proceed.

 

[Apologia Christou]

1. The question of whether or not reality would be different given the truth or falsity of CT is irrelevant. Its, reality, a given so we proceed from there.

The question of reality is not irrelevant, it is most relevant. But I don't grant that reality as perceived is the same as reality per se. I challenge you right here, at this very point.

And so, I don't really follow the next lines of argumentation, I have a hard time understanding and answering them, because I don't really identify with them, and this is the very question you asked me. This is not my argumentation. Is the problem settled by clarifying point 1?

 

[jwright82]

I think that is a little bit complicated, my mind works way easier in this matter. It's really simple, let me try:

You (Christian) have just used VT methology and showed me that reality, as we perceive it, implies God.

I am impressed. I see it.

But then I realise and say: wait a minute, you didn't make a case (you didn't prove) that reality, as we perceive it, actually is objective reality, but that's only your assumption.

And so at this point I simply turn the tables and assume my own reality, which doesn't lead to God. Or I demand proof for your assumption, and then you would have to prove that God exists.

That's all.

The point is (if I go an by assuming my own reality), I can be as arbitrary as I want to, as unreasonable and imaginative as I can be, but nonetheless, I make your entire argument of no effect. And that's a problem. You may say: but what he does is stupid. And I agree, it is. But he gets away with it, he is allowed to it by your own standards, by your apologetic, which proceeds the same way. Because when you don't prove your reality, he doesn't have to prove his. All he does is playing by your own rules.

This will never happen in classical apologetics. Can he act unreasonably and stupidly there? Of course he can, but he doesn't get away with it, because I don't give him the grounds to do it.

Okay let me me take another stab at this. Everyone of those points I made points I made wrong are wrong.
1. Reality is not given it is creation. Does the Bible not proclaim this to the point that it states explicitly "the unbeliever has no excuse"?
2. You continue to wrongly think and assert worldviews have nothing to do with reality. You need to prove that as a critique, you refuse to do so for whatever reason.
3. Your assuming those things are given defies God and the tradition on this matter.
4. Stating that my argument merely implies the truth of CT tells me you don't understand Van Til.
5. Assuming that the classical aproech is the only way to prove God is wrong and arbitrary. You have not proven that only given straw man arguments against Van Til.

 

[jwright82]

The question of reality is not irrelevant, it is most relevant. But I don't grant that reality as perceived is the same as reality per se. I challenge you right here, at this very point.

And so, I don't really follow the next lines of argumentation, I have a hard time understanding and answering them, because I don't really identify with them, and this is the very question you asked me. This is not my argumentation. Is the problem settled by clarifying point 1?

Actually it is. So reality is not the same as we perceive it. So your real point is falling back into the skeptical question of reality vs perception, be careful here lest your undermine your own argument.
So ultimately our atheist simply resorts to this kind of skepticism, if true than all your talk of the benefit of classical apologetics is nothing different than mine, useless. Luckily in the philosophical literature we have ample proofs against this kind of skepticism.
But for a second step back and look at the conversation. To make your case you've gone from merely asserting Van Til's wrong to resorting time and again to straw man arguments. Then giving up the biblical and orthodox Reformed position on these matters. Now your in a foxhole of skepticism you can't get of.
Can you please just to end this discussion and admit you don't understand Van Til's argument? You have not one time gotten him right, why are you so against him that your willing to deny the Bible, our tradition (and the confession), logic and common sense just to crawl into a skeptical hole you can't out of? I'm confused I really am. And destroy any viability of classical apologetics has along the way, that seems extreme to me.

 

[jwright82]

Oh see Plantinga, Wolterstof, and James Clark on skepticism as well. Davidson, Sellars, the later Wittgenstein, Anscrombie, G. E. Moore, Anscrombie's reply to Moore. Bahnsen, Oliphant, Edgar, Schaeffer, Frame.
The perception vs reality debate is over my friend. It died with that poor man in a vat. Oh Strawson is good against skepticism and on contemporary versions of the transcendental argument. Don Collett sums all this up. Hope that helps.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Actually it is.

Glad to hear.

So ultimately our atheist simply resorts to this kind of skepticism, if true than all your talk of the benefit of classical apologetics is nothing different than mine, useless.

No, here you make the mistake, this is most important: I granted before that the unbeliever can act as unreasonable as he wants to in both cases, so against the presuppositionalist and the classisist. I mean if you want to act like a fool and skeptic, it doesn't matter who you are talking to.

But the difference is, that on the grounds and methodology of presuppositionalism, he is justified in doing that, because his line of argumentation perfectly reflects the line of argumentation of the presuppositionalist. So he digs himself into absolute skepticism and is justified in doing that, because you let him do that. This is really what I am saying all the time, and I said it a couple of times already. You hand him the bush to get away with it.

In classical apologetics, we show that if he wants to be reasonable, then he has to affirm the existence of God. And so as long as he stays on our grounds (sense perception, laws of logic, causality), we can and do argue with him. And if he here wants to become an absolute skeptic, or throw away any of those rational principles, then I tell him: go ahead, and go your way, it was nice talking to you. But I am not handing him the bush, because my line of argumentation doesn't reflect his arbitrariness and craziness.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Can you please just to end this discussion and admit you don't understand Van Til's argument?

There are people who actually understand him?

Nah, I wasn't following VT, I was reading and listening and learning from Bahnsen. I don't pretend to completely understand VT, but I think I understand the presuppositionalist methodology in general enough to see the problems of it. But of course, one does always learn.

You have not one time gotten him right, why are you so against him that your willing to deny the Bible, our tradition (and the confession), logic and common sense just to crawl into a skeptical hole you can't out of? I'm confused I really am.

I don't know what you mean that I deny the Bible and tradition, common sense etc. by being against VT. You have no idea how grateful I am for presuppositionalism, because, as I hinted already, this makes you a sharp thinker and expose underlying presuppositions and faulty reasonings in unbelievers. This whole movement is a blessing in this regard, it just has enormous practical application. All I say is that it also has it's clear limitations, which, in my humble opinion, shouldn't be crossed.

Edit: Ah now I understand what you mean. To roleplay the skeptical Atheist is useful because it exposes the faulty way of the apologetic method, and that was enough for me to leave this approach. I don't want the Atheist to be able to do this and go away with it. That's all. I am not denying our faith by it, but rather defending it. Because if it's faulty (which I think it clearly is), I don't want to make use of it.

And so, why am I against it? I just don't think it's the most God-glorifying and honoring way. And I am sure that on this premise you would do the same, at least I hope you would.

 

[jwright82]

Glad to hear.



No, here you make the mistake, this is most important: I granted before that the unbeliever can act as unreasonable as he wants to in both cases, so against the presuppositionalist and the classisist. I mean if you want to act like a fool and skeptic, it doesn't matter who you are talking to.

But the difference is, that on the grounds and methodology of presuppositionalism, he is justified in doing that, because his line of argumentation perfectly reflects the line of argumentation of the presuppositionalist. So he digs himself into absolute skepticism and is justified in doing that, because you let him do that. This is really what I am saying all the time, and I said it a couple of times already. You hand him the bush to get away with it.

In classical apologetics, we show that if he wants to be reasonable, then he has to affirm the existence of God. And so as long as he stays on our grounds (sense perception, laws of logic, causality), we can and do argue with him. And if he here wants to become an absolute skeptic, or throw away any of those rational principles, then I tell him: go ahead, and go your way, it was nice talking to you. But I am not handing him the bush, because my line of argumentation doesn't reflect his arbitrariness and craziness.

Fair enough. But take a step back and look at what I did. With Edgar I believe subtly is a better approach than "how do you know that, give me one piece of knowledge you know!" How obnoxious! I used the transcendental method against your atheist to back him into a corner that even his atheist philosophers have disproven.
From there after going onto the ground of the unbeliever to show him how bankrupt his position I invite out of the hole laced with philosophical mines of his own atheist philosophers (obviously I don't have Plantinga and crew in mind here).
At this point I would invite him onto the ground of the believer to show that the reason life makes from whatever angle he wants to come from (art, values, logic, science, whatever) only is what it is because Christian theism is true. Since Christian theism is true reality reflects that. Hence the transcendental argument.
So you say presuppositionalism can't do that but I just did it to you. I don't know how many how many apologetical engagements you've been but in experience these things take time.
My point about denying the Bible, tradition, etc is referring now to a Christian critic of Van Til. In order for your Christian argument against Van Til to work it seems to me, as I've labored to point out, you in fact do that. My response has been two pronged one against the skeptic and one against a Christian critic.
So my question now would be since it seems to me your skeptical critic, and thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate how this works, has only proven Van Til right why do you continue to misrepresent him in seeking to disprove him?

 

[Apologia Christou]

And you always got to remember this: On the presuppositionalist approach, the Atheist is going to end up in hyper-skepticism on the assumption of a meaningless world. Now what is wrong with that? While the classisist isn't handing him this meaningless world to stand upon. That, from another perspective, is the difference.

 

[Apologia Christou]

disproven.

Nothing can be disproven in a meaningless world. I mean, it's always the same. All I (as a apologist) don't want to do is to give to the Atheist this meaningless world to stand upon, because then I know I lost the debate (not really lost, it's a tie, but a loss in the sense that I can give no positive case for God), and can give no apologetic.

The meaningless world is the bush you are handing to the Atheist.

 

[jwright82]

Nothing can be disproven in a meaningless world. I mean, it's always the same. All I (as a apologist) don't want to do is to give to the Atheist this meaningless world to stand upon, because then I know I lost the debate (not really lost, it's a tie, but a loss in the sense that I can give no positive case for God), and can give no apologetic.

The meaningless world is the bush you are handing to the Atheist.

When are you going to admit that I have said over and over again that we judge worldviews based on reality? BTW you've already admitted you handed him that bush too. Than you merely assert by way of straw man arguments that you can prove God and we've given the cover to hide. I completely agree with you about not giving the unbeliever the option to intellectually hide. But you're merely asserting these things. Can you please make your case without straw man arguments and arguments by arbitrary assertion?

 

[Apologia Christou]

When are you going to admit that I have said over and over again that we judge worldviews based on reality?

Yes, based on reality, but based on reality as perceived by you and by me.

One likes a picture, the other dislikes it, I want to know if the picture itself is likeable, and not the picture as perceived by someone.

BTW you've already admitted you handed him that bush too.

No, no. The bush is only a bush if he is justified in using it. He is justified on the presuppositional approach, because all he does is mirroring his argumentation. He isn't justified against the classisist, there he can surely choose to be super-skeptical and unreasonable still, but this is not a bush, because he acts arbitrary and not according to the rational argumentation of the classisist apologist.

 

[jwright82]

Yes, based on reality, but based on reality as perceived by you and by me.

One likes a picture, the other dislikes it, I want to know if the picture itself is likeable, and not the picture as perceived by someone.



No, no. The bush is only a bush if he is justified in using it. He is justified on the presuppositional approach, because all his does is mirroring his argumentation. He isn't justified against the classisist, there he can surely chose to be super-skeptical and unreasonable still, but this is not a bush, because he acts arbitrary and not according to the rational argumentation of the classisist apologist.

When you can argue with philosophical literature on this we can proceed. There is no problem with perception vs reality. It doesn't exist, its a boogeyman argument. But your argument proves too much. You can't lay out this problem and merely asserting arbitrarily that classical apologetics can get over this. It can't by your own reasoning, congratulations you've proven too much. You know you've proven too much when you have to resort to logical fallacies to may a case.

 

[Apologia Christou]

There is no problem with perception vs reality.

Oh see Plantinga, Wolterstof, and James Clark on skepticism as well. Davidson, Sellars, the later Wittgenstein, Anscrombie, G. E. Moore, Anscrombie's reply to Moore. Bahnsen, Oliphant, Edgar, Schaeffer, Frame.
The perception vs reality debate is over my friend. It died with that poor man in a vat. Oh Strawson is good against skepticism and on contemporary versions of the transcendental argument. Don Collett sums all this up. Hope that helps.

Could you provide some specific treatments on this very topic? Like articles, chapters, debates or whatever. I would like to know what the response is to this objection.