A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 1

This is an exchange, or what Jason Petersen has called a "debate" between us which began at his website "Answers for Hope". My interest was to challenge him for a response to a presuppositionalist counter I had developed, which is a suggestion to test the assertion or claim the current group of presuppositionalists often seem to infer or imply, best expressed by the website of a newbie presup I've come up against by the name of Surfer Brendan, called "God or Absurdity."

My suggestion is to see if an "absurdity" or a deficiency can be demonstrated independent of any presuppositional conversation in an individual who doesn't accept the God of the presuppositionalist (in relation to attributes which they claim "belong" to their god, namely, logic and reasoning). Surfer Brendan has this great little graphic (right) he uses in a video which makes it look like non-believers have their reasoning capabilities on a shaky foundation, while the Christian is smiling as he stands on a level, firm foundation, "bricked up" by logic, reasoning and morals...and the Bible, of course. I wanted to see if an experienced apologist like Jason might have something new or interesting to tell me in a response (that I could address).

Jason, however, while extolling "benefits" he could not name, kept repeating, and repeating and repeating how his "first principle" solved the "problem of skepticism" and that without it one could not even have a rational conversation, complete with the little digs and put-downs typical of "condescensional apologetics." (Side note:  While I understand some atheists can be pretty rude and profane, I do make efforts not to be that way, and I would expect the apologist to notice.)  The following comment from him, however, was the show-stopper (italics added for emphasis):

... your statement regarding the Christian’s reasoning capabilities would have to be necessarily higher the atheist’s reasoning capabilities show that you simply don’t get it. Atheists can reason like any Christian because they were made in the image of God. The problem is that they cannot account for knowledge in their worldview, so they borrow capital from the Christian worldview. Such a situation has nothing to do with IQ tests.

So, "atheists can reason like any Christian, they just can't account for knowledge in their worldview." There you have it! Redeemed reasoning = Atheist reasoning. So if it doesn't do anything for the atheists' reasoning, what use is it? This means there is no intrinsic purpose to accounting for one's knowledge or solving the problem of skepticism.  It is irrelevant to reality. It's just like "a nice thing to know" but has no other consequence.

For those of you interested in reading further, this is Part 1 of my response, and here is Part 2.

My words will be italics prefaced by my name, followed by Jason's, both indented in pale blue (or might appear as pink) block paragraph, followed by my second response. Please enjoy, and comments are appreciated.

Jason: Hi Karen, I see that you have a blog. I browsed it and made some interesting observations. I will be bringing up these observations in light of some of the strange things you have said in your reply to me. Let’s get started.

Karen: “Please explain what it means when you say “Alex’s worldview cannot get off the ground.” Does it mean he is suffering from delusions and needs to get help? Does it mean he is mentally ill or imbalanced in some way? Does it mean he can’t function in life? What does it mean, in the context of his REAL LIFE, to not have such principles?

This was what Alex meant at the beginning of the discussion. “What benefit does your worldview have that I am otherwise denied?” he asked you five times. You responded that he might not like your “answer” which was “It solves the problem of skepticism.” But if this is actually the case, then what? Please explain why it is so important to solve the problem of skepticism. Can a person function and navigate through life successfully even if they’ve never even heard of this problem?”

Jason: Rationalist and dogmatist philosophers agree that every worldview must start somewhere. This is called a “first principle.” If one does not start somewhere, then they can’t get their worldview off the ground in the context of a rational debate.

Your questions about Alex being mentally ill or imbalanced is a strange one. I view Alex as someone who has a big problem with Christianity and the Christian God, but I would certainly not use those sorts of adjectives to describe him. I would, however, describe him as “lost” in the Biblical sense.

So, here I find some agreement with Petersen, and I see he admits the focus of the presuppositionalist argument is a very narrow one. His argument is "in the context of a rational debate" and that may be where it ends. That is why he states he does not view Alex as mentally ill or imbalanced; he is just "irrational" as far as "in the context of rational debate." So can I assume that "outside the context of rational debate" Alex is a rational person? As Petersen continues, he seems to waver back and forth on whether such irrationality is only in the context of the debate or is an everyday problem for the non-believer.

Jason: You then ask, what does this entail in the context of “REAL LIFE?” Well, it is interesting that you ask that question considering that on your blog you have a picture of a gentleman standing in front of two signs.  

One says “Presuppositional Apologetics Convention” and the other says “Reality.” Both signs have arrows pointing in different directions. Of course, this would insinuate that presuppositionalists do not live in “reality.” Based on this illustration that you provided on your blog, it would seem practical that you would be able to give some sort of account for what reality is. This would include solving the problem of skepticism. After all, if the problem of skepticism is not solved, one cannot even begin to argue about reality, for one would have to be able to know reality in order to have a rational discussion about it. Certainly, for both you and Alex, in the context of “REAL LIFE” one would need to be able to explain how they can discern reality before they can have a discussion about it. Perhaps it is also worthy of note that it is strange that someone(you) who makes blog posts with such illustrations as the one you provided would ask such a silly question about reality when your own illustration uses the very concept. This should not only answer your question, but also show that you are either not aware of the nuances behind your question or you prefer to stick your head in the same in an effort of special pleading in order to avoid questions that you can’t answer.

(So Jason, you said "it would seem practical..."...so you're a pragmatist then? LOL)

I would say first that it was a JOKE and it's sad Petersen has no sense of humor; he also right out of the gate does some poisoning of the well with the "silly question" claim, and that I'm "sticking my head in the sand." Secondly, I would ask about the claim that one cannot discuss reality until the problem of skepticism is solved, since is not only just a claim, but it is a false choice.

The problem of skepticism, I'm guessing--since Petersen never defined what he meant by the "problem of skepticism"-- is the solution to infinite regress experienced in skepticism. Petersen claims his first principle of god belief ends the infinite regress through "divinely revealed" certainty, since skeptics claim one can never be certain. But he cannot show how his god ends the regress and why certainty is a requirement for a worldview.

However, Petersen commits his first "waver" between "irrationality in debate and irrationality in reality" when he says Alex and myself would have to "know reality to have a rational discussion about it." He also commits the fallacy of the stolen concept, also known as performative inconsistency: in the very act of asking the question, he validates he and Alex (and myself) are in the same reality, or we would not be able to even communicate. In other words, Petersen refutes himself.  If he is able to read these words I have written, then WE ARE IN THE SAME REALITY, and there should be no questions about "discerning" it.

I'm just trying to show that I obviously am not "sticking my head in the sand" (he misspelled "sand" as "same") and am aware of the nuances behind the question as shown above.

Jason: Perhaps this is why bloggers such as you and Alex continue to make posts and videos about an apologetic methodology that you claim is dead. Perhaps if you keep repeating “presuppositional apologetics is dead” enough times, the problem will go away, yes? Until you are able to give a rational and internally consistent answer to Sye and other presuppositionalits, I am afraid(for your sake) that Van Tilian apologetics is not dead.(and this is coming from a Clarkian.)

Yes, I've made many posts and videos about presuppositional apologetics, and very recently several YouTubers declared it dead.  Yet, as long as theists are using what is considered a "dead" argument, atheists will continue responding. It's been called dead because it has been scrutinized carefully since Sye Ten Bruggencate brought out his "version" around 2009-10, and found to be a very bad argument--an argument full of flaws and fallacies.

 

A Priori fallacy right at the start (it's God!), circularity (the Bible is true because it says so!), special pleading (it's a "special" circularity because it's God's!) and so on. But often bad arguments are re-cycled in various ways to make them seem more palatable or believable--like in the "Clarkian" version of PA, the version used by Petersen. That is what piqued my interest.

 

As far as our "ability to give a (rational and consistent) answer to Sye and other presuppositionalists" I am going to use the identical response Petersen gave to Alex Botten when he asked what practical application does his argument have that he is otherwise denied: we have given you an answer, but just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not an answer. But it's really not that Petersen doesn't like the answer, he will only accept one answer, the answer he wants, and everything else is claimed to be avoiding the question. A very convenient way to argue.

Jason:  So what is the benefit of solving the problem of skepticism? Perhaps being able to have a rational conversation would be a start. After all, if you persist in pragmatism when the problem of skepticism entails that you can’t even know what is beneficial or not beneficial, then your worldview is irrational. Appealing to pragmatism because you are not able to solve the problem of skepticism is pure nonsense, and certainly, both you and Alex would not continue to call yourselves rational people if you ignore problems that challenge your ability to be rational.

So with the claim "perhaps being able to have a rational conversation is a start" as a benefit Petersen continues his equivocal wavering between " irrationality in debate and irrationality in reality." Is Petersen intentionally equivocating? Where does "(your) ability to be rational" extend to? Would we non-believers know "what is beneficial or not beneficial" as we navigate through our lives so "pragmatically?" For example, that money has "beneficial value" has an almost unanimous consensus. Can non-believers count money and make change? Can they pay their bills? Or do non-believers have problems accounting for any money unless they first resolve the problem of skepticism? Can Christians count money and make change better because they have a "first principle"? Can they count money better than Muslims? After all, counting money involves reasoning, using abstract, immaterial concepts, called numbers, and definitions and rules called mathematics governed by logical absolutes, which linguistically processes the amount of money into a compact formalism.

"Appealing to pragmatism because you are not able to solve the problem of skepticism is pure nonsense...." This is ad hominem on the part of Petersen. He needs to explain why it's nonsense if it's nonsense.

In my last video on Presuppositional Apologetics, I talked about how I worried all my life about the problem of skepticism--of course, I was joking......the intent was to show what meaningless minutiae it was. I don't think there ever was a time I pondered whether I had an answer to skepticism because it never occurred to me, either alone or in my many, many, many rational conversations with others. It's only come up in the course of my YouTube atheist experience in concentrating my efforts on Presuppositional Apologetics--and here, in even a smaller sub category of it, called "Clarkian." So when Petersen says one can't have a rational conversation without solving the problem of skepticism, it is a puzzling contention when you've been having rational conversations all your life without any problem.

Karen: “Yes, people think in propositions. But they do not realize they are doing so, which you admit. The issue is not with people using them. It is what value does knowing one is using them have, because that is the basis of your apologetic. You obviously place high value on having such “first principles” or you wouldn’t be doing these debates!”

Jason: It appears that you fail to realize that if the problem of skepticism is not solved, then you have no justification for pragmatism. If you cannot account for how you know anything, you cannot even begin to make assertions about what is beneficial or not beneficial. Could you attempt to ignore the problem and stick your head in the sand while pretending the problem isn’t there? Certainly; however, this would make you an irrational person. If you are an irrational person, and you continue to ignore the problem of skepticism, then you certainly have no right to go around and lecture people like Sye Ten Bruggencate on being rational.

Where did I ever lecture Petersen or Sye Ten Bruggencate on being rational?

Petersen tries to claim that I cannot even know what values are, because he insists I can only "know" what he approves of. I just discussed this concerning how one accounted for the value of money. But that is another false dichotomy: there may be alternative, secular solutions to this so-called problem, only Petersen refuses to recognize them. That is, if it is indeed the problem Petersen thinks it is; he claims it is but has not established the significance of it in terms of every day reality, outside his philosophical argumentation.

Again, he makes the equivocating waver between irrationality in debate and irrationality in reality, and a hint of the "Sye-Clone" presuppositional argument "If you cannot account for how you know anything...." rears its head. As I've said before, Petersen cannot account for his god, and until he does that, I'm not obliged to account for anything.  (I'll speak more to that in Part 2) 

Jason: In order to solve the problem of skepticism, one must posit a first principle that is able to solve that problem. If your first principle cannot solve the problem of skepticism, then any other solution that follows the first principle will become null and void.

So, by my not granting that first principle, the argument is over, according to Petersen. But let's examine his claim more closely: it is also a false choice. Petersen is saying that "either there is a first principle OR there is no solution to skepticism." In other words, there can be no other solutions. As noted above, there could be other satisfactory solutions, but Petersen, to use his own words, prefers to ignore them and stick his head in the sand.

Karen: “MereChristianLogos, in the BTWN after show, said Christianity was the superior worldview; Matthew4Nineteen said it was the only rational one, that anything else was irrational. If that is true, and one was saved and adopted your worldview, how does having the only superior rational worldview (according to you and your brethren) benefit them in reality? Is Christian reasoning enhanced through having such first principles? If so, can it be tested?”

Jason: It would be beneficial in many ways, but I will stick with my answer to Alex. It would solve the problem of skepticism. Christianity can be tested for internal consistency by using the law of non contradiction. Any worldview can be tested this way, but it so happens that Christianity is the only worldview that can pass this test. Atheism(especially your conception of atheism) certainly can’t pass the test.

So, this is what I believe Petersen means when he refers to the "law of non-contradiction": all other worldviews, according to his Clarkian argumentation, are internally contradictory, which means they defy the law of non contradiction ("no statement can be true and false in the same sense at the same time"--Pushing the Antithesis by Gregory Bahnsen, page 202.)   But whether or not this is true is not strictly a matter of internal consistency:  "truth" implies internal consistency, but internal consistency doesn't imply truth.  It doesn't guarantee Christianity as the superior worldview.
 

Again, wondering whether my worldview is internally contradictory is not something that has kept me awake at night throughout my long life. I never knew what a worldview was until I first saw a YouTube video on Presuppositional Apologetics. And as Alex Botten pointed out in his debate with Petersen, if he finds his explanations for his epistemology satisfactory for himself, what is the point of a demand to provide a "first principle" especially when it sounds like what it is, an assertion founded on appeal to (an unproven) authority (another fallacy of presuppositional apologetics).   

This is what I mean by "testing." If there are "benefits" as Petersen claims, there should be evidence of them. There should be some demonstrable outcome for the new believer's reasoning capabilities who has acquired the "first principle" and has the problem of skepticism solved. Petersen tries to excuse himself from the need for "evidence" by claiming this is "empiricism" but it is not. He seems to want to label something a "worldview" as a way to excuse himself from having to explain it, as if worldviews were mutually exclusive.

If the Christian worldview is superior in the way Petersen and presuppositionalists claim, it should have a profound effect on a person's "spirit" and "being" once they are saved, as they now have "standards" for "evaluating everything." Why can't it be measured? I'm sure if there were statistics to support improved reasoning outcomes for Christians, it would be the core of his apologetic....because it would be undeniable proof of the desirability of a Christian worldview.

Karen: “If you say that by taking a philosophical position about the usefulness of philosophy is self-defeating, then you are telling me there is no value to “first principles”, because it’s just circular philosophic semantics…..which means you are saying there IS no value to adopting the Christian worldview, because you are denying even any discussion as to its value. Therefore I am justified in not granting your claim of having the only “true worldview” because you are denying it has any value, and if it has no value, it’s irrelevant.”

Jason: This is a straw man. What I said is talking about is Alex’s particular position that philosophy is useless. That particular position is self-defeating, for it is a philosophical position that was arrived at philosophically even though he said it was useless. You attempted to muddy the waters by generalizing it to “any philosophical position about the usefulness of philosophy,” but you will not be getting away with any of those sorts of dishonest tactics on this page. If you want to do that, feel free to go back to your own blog and write until your heart is content. What has been said at this point, of course, causes your empty assertions concerning the Christian worldview to fall.

"Not be getting away with any of those sorts of dishonest tactics"...."your empty assertions"...more ad hominem, and veiled threats. So Jason, do you have a real explanation for why your philosophy about the usefulness of philosophy is better than Alex Botten's philosophy about the usefulness of philosophy, or are you going to use "coercion without clarification through special pleading"? Well, I've decided that the way around it is to make more widely known in my blog and summarizing it in a video. That should be better than having to risk your deleting it because you decided the solution was to mischaracterize it as dishonesty on my part. You are trying to find a way out of explaining again.

Karen: “You continue on stating Alex does have a “first principle” but that would also “collapse into skepticism.” I think you should just come out of the closet, so to speak: no matter what Alex told you, or anyone else, anything a non-believer says is going to collapse into skepticism, according to you, because, according to you, you have the ONLY valid worldview, and ALL others are skepticism. As Sye Ten Bruggencate has been heard to say “the Christian worldview is the only true one AND all others are false.” Now, why don’t you just be honest and say that right at the beginning in the manner which attests to your certitude: “My worldview is the only true one and I can’t be wrong.”

Jason: Come out of the closet? For what? I am certain that I have been dogmatic and clear on the fact that any starting point other than revelation of God through scripture will collapse itself into skepticism. You are speaking as if I have some hidden agenda. I have been very clear that this is my position. It is amazing how atheists like yourself will attempt to assign these arbitrary conjectures to Christians. I suppose that according to your worldview, there is no reason not to lie about other people’s positions or intentions.

I just want to confirm it. I know that IS Petersen's position, so it's not an "arbitrary conjecture." So, Jason, are you going to say it, then?  Just say it at the beginning when you present your argument "My worldview is the only true one and I can't be wrong....I am very clear that this is my position." It's important to me (and others) that all those listening hear that position, because it's very, VERY telling. It lets readers/listeners/viewers know what consideration, what significance you are giving to the rival position (which is NONE).

(I should also note that Petersen recently referred to our exchange in a recent biblethumpingwingnut hangout at around the one hour mark.  He stated that I told him he needed to come out of the closet with regard to presupposing the Bible is true.  That is not what I said.  I said he needs to admit he cannot be wrong, that any objection will be rejected.  His claim that his position is not assailable is not because the Bible is true, even if it was; he's claiming his position is unassailable because of his interpretation of the Bible.)

Karen:“I think I can say “with certainty” that you will not accept any secular alternative worldview to your own. So why waste Alex’s time ?”

Jason: Since you have taken the position that you would like to ignore the problem of skepticism, this certainly cannot be said with certainty. It can only be said in the exercise of delusion: “Let’s pretend that the problem of skepticism doesn’t exist and claim absolute certainty.”

Certainly (ha ha!), I can use the word "certainty" in a generic, broad, layman "non-Christian" sense. Petersen does not have a flag planted in the word certainty, and is using it as a red herring to avoid answering the question, but we already know what the answer is from the previous confirmation: Petersen will (certainly!) not accept any secular alternative worldview to his own.

Claiming I am saying this in an "exercise of delusion" is not only another ad hom, but it again parades the wavering between " irrationality in debate and irrationality in reality." And since the statement I supposedly made "in delusion" is true, and Petersen admits it's true, what does it have to do with my "pretending skepticism doesn't exist?" It's about HIS position, not mine.

Karen:“General revelation: what you read in the Bible. ..and your revelation may be different from someone else’s revelation from identical verses. Who would be correct? As far as better reasons to be a Christian, why can’t you practically apply that? If it’s better to be a Christian, you should be able to show how it is better other than the traditional theological offerings of heaven or hell etc. (which atheists must have obviously already considered).”

General revelation concerns itself with the revelation of God through nature and not through scripture. If you are going to criticize Christianity, at least get the doctrines of Christianity correct.

So, where do Christians such as Petersen get support for general revelation? How do they know there IS general or natural revelation? According to VanTil (sorry it's not Clark) "The existence of God is the presupposition of all human prediction, and the idea of biblical self-testimony is involved in the presupposition." (Intro to Systematic Theology, page 243). According to Bahnsen (Pushing the Antithesis, page 62) , Romans 1:20 reveals God's existence and his power, Romans 1:18 his wrath, Psalm 19:1 reveals his glory, and Genesis 1:26 and 9:6 that man was a creaturely image of god, as "general revelation." Since all truth in his worldview comes through scripture, general revelation is supposedly proved by scripture as well.

That is why Petersen and other presuppositionalists make the assertions that others know (their) god exists--it comes directly from their interpretation of these verses--their revelation. Even Petersen would have to admit it would be much harder to argue for general revelation without biblical revelation. Of course, it's hard to argue with biblical revelation as well, since it's inconsistent, as we will see.

Jason: You then ask, “If two people’s interpretations of a verse in scripture is incorrect, then how shall it be resolved?” It would be resolved by looking at other verses in scripture that correlate with the particular verse in question. Of course, it would seem that you are asserting that we should be omniscient if scripture is our starting point. Scripture clearly teaches that this is not the case in 2 Timothy 2:15. If we were omniscient, then there would be no point in studying scripture. The revelation of God through scripture has to do with God’s existence and being the source of all authority, reality, and knowledge. Such a statement does not entail that everyone is going to agree on some parts of scripture. These are known as secondary-doctrinal issues and have no bearing on the truth of the axiom of revelation of God through scripture. It is because we know God that we can be justified in reading scripture in the first place.

If Petersen uses the add-on "It has been revealed to me in a way I can be certain" he IS claiming omniscience....for certain biblical verses. The "Sye-Clone" presuppositionalists will readily admit to that. The issue with resolving differing interpretations is that they are often not resolved, which is the reason for so many denominations of Christianity. Not only are they not resolved, but there are often disputes with regard to who is a "real" Christian and who is not, with no working definition for how non-believers can make that distinction.

One of the presuppositionalists' most popularly referenced revelations for their argument is Romans 1. Verses 18-21 are often used as the crux of the universal assertion ("general revelation") of the existence of (the Christian) god and that all humans know it, and that those who don't believe are suppressing it. Yet scholarly interpretations (and by many Christian churches) of Romans 1 maintain that, based on the context, the history and the original linguistics (the "hermeneutics") that the universal assertion is severe hyperbolism and in error. The verses that "everyone knows God exists" only applied in the context of the Gentiles and Jews who belonged to the Church of Rome, who Paul was writing to. It cannot be denied that this definitely has a bearing on knowledge of "God's existence." There are many sources where one can see all the denominational differences, and they are not just "secondary doctrinal."

Karen: “The reason you use the presuppositional argument is because you know you have no evidence. That is why it is currently such a popular argument. Arguments (such as Kalam Cosmological Argument) are arguments, NOT evidence. Please do not conflate the two. The only sense in which Alex was dishonest was because he knew you had no evidence.”

Jason: This is prejudicial conjecture. I use presuppositional apologetics because it is taught in scripture. On this website, I have multiple arguments for God’s existence. If you are going to characterize me as someone who uses presuppsotional apologetics because there is no evidence for God despite what is clearly shown throughout this website, then you are deliberately lying about me. While there is no reason for you to refrain from lying in your worldview, that sort of behavior will not be acceptable on this Christian website.

"Prejudicial conjecture"....which is identical to dogmatic assertion. Who makes dogmatic assertions???? And to continually accuse me of lying.....more ad hom. There are a number of channels on YouTube who have stated on their About page that they are "shutting down evidential apologetics", for example, as 1GodOnlyOne is doing here with commentary:

 

"My Evidential Apologetics videos' comments sections are in the process of being shut down."

 

Sye Ten Bruggencate has repeatedly stated in interviews that he no longer uses evidential arguments. This is a known phenomena among current Christian apologists. At the beginning of a recent video with Mathew Steele, Sye discusses this very subject.

Evidence is indisputable fact for which there is general agreement while arguments contain words which are disputable or arguable and raise "how" and "why" questions, where there may be very little agreement. If Petersen had indisputable facts for which there was general agreement, he wouldn't even need to do the presuppositional argument.

Petersen then takes a jab at my ethics, stating I have no reason to not lie. Not only does he have no reason either (he has proclamations without explanation), he is affirming he'd lie without the proclamations, AND most certainly lie because he knows he is "forgiven." On the other hand, I have to take responsibility for myself. Think about this for a moment: if someone says that all that is preventing them from stealing, lying, raping, and killing to reach whatever ends they want is the dictates of God, can that person really be trusted? To be held to a view of morality only by an external force, implies that should that force be taken away, the individual would resort to immorality almost immediately.

Jason: Evidence is defined as specific facts that make a proposition more probable. Since the arguments given on this website make God’s existence more probable, it logically follows that these arguments are evidence for God. If you want to learn more, you can read an intro to philosophy book or go take a few classes at your local college. I will not be lecturing you on the philosophical nuances on evidence on this page.

Petersen takes my definition and expands on it. Yes, specific facts can make a proposition more probable. But it DOESN'T follow that it turns the proposition into evidence. And a thousand bad arguments don't equate to evidence. Probability is measured in percentages, and if a proposition goes from 10% probable to 25% probable, that just means its MORE probable, it does not make the jump to being evidence--not until all the facts supporting the proposition are proven to be 100% true. If Petersen is claiming 100% probability, then he should only be using his evidence-based arguments and has no need for presuppositionalism. His claim is pure non-sequitur.

Karen: “You stated during the debate that you did not have to prove your first principle because it is axiomatic. Axioms are by definition self-evident. Yours is supposedly self-evident through biblical revelation, but revelation is not only necessarily first person, it has been repeatedly been shown to be subjective since there are numerous variations in the way revelation is interpreted. So Alex was perfectly justified in not accepting your axiom as it was arguably not an axiom, since its validity cannot be verified.”

Jason: The axiom of revelation is self evident because it is the only axiom that can resolve the problem of skepticism. If all other axioms fail, then the axiom of revelation must be embraced. You then make the claim that revelation is subjective, but you did not provide anything to substantiate that assertion. Further, it would appear that your definition of revelation is quite different than mine. If you want to press this point, we must take care and make sure that we are both using the same definition of revelation. Based on some of your previous statements about revelation in your comment, it is clear that in order to make such an assertion that you must equivocate the definition of revelation. If you were to press this point, you would destroy your own epistemology. This is because people reason in different ways to different conclusions. This would make reasoning itself subjective. This entails that no one can know anything, yet, here you are arguing against revelation when you fail to understand that the objection you bring up destroys your own foundation for knowledge.

I would like some examples on how revelation of God through scripture is subjective. We can start there, and then I will show you where you are mistaken.

The axiom of revelation cannot be self evident, because its premises (God's existence) must be demonstrably true, which has not been shown. A few paragraphs above I discussed how interpretation/ revelation is relative with an important presuppositional Biblical book, that of Romans 1, as well as where I pointed out the numerous Christian denominations who cannot agree on who is a "real Christian" or on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, and even which books belong to it. The plethora of Christian denominations in and of itself is a testament to the subjectivity of Christian belief.

Now Petersen decides to make repeated use of the highly stigmatizing word "destroy" to imply that no matter what I say, no matter what objection I make, he will destroy my worldview/foundation for knowledge. It has now become a stepped up version of his continual equivocating waver between irrationality in debate and irrationality in reality. So tell me Jason, if my worldview and knowledge foundation is so destroyed by you, WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN? Can I go on functioning in life? Can I ever reason again effectively? While I'm sure Peterson only means this in the context of the argument, the inference that there is only futility and hopelessness in all non-Christian reasoning becomes very apparent.

Karen: “The presuppositional argument at its core, however, CAN provide empirical, testable evidence if it wanted to. If the need for “first principles” (or foundations, accounting, etc.) is so fundamentally important, it should have value: a Christian’s reasoning capabilities should be demonstrably superior to those of a non-believer, as well as those of other non-Christian religions.

So if I were you, I’d fully endorse some sort of test involving a statistically sufficient sample of participants, and test IQ’s and reasoning abilities through many commonly available tests. If the Christians come out on top with higher scores excluding sampling errors, then you’ve just proven your god. As of right now, however, non-believers come out higher, although you naturally attack the source.”

Jason: The presuppositional argument does not embrace empiricism. In fact, it repudiates it as a foundation for epistemology. If you are arguing that the presuppositionalist, which rejects empiricism as a valid foundation for epistemology, must prove their argument with empiricism, then you should stop writing articles on presuppositional apologetics. I say this because it entails that you do not understand presuppositional apologetics. Further, your statement regarding the Christian’s reasoning capabilities would have to be necessarily higher the atheist’s reasoning capabilities show that you simply don’t get it. Atheists can reason like any Christian because they were made in the image of God. The problem is that they cannot account for knowledge in their worldview, so they borrow capital from the Christian worldview. Such a situation has nothing to do with IQ tests.

Fallacy of composition: as soon as Petersen sees the word "empirical" he assumes I am an "empiricist" and responds on that basis. No I am not--I am using it like I used the word certainty, in layman's terms. Perhaps I should have used "observational" but he might have still made the same false assumption. I am trying to tell him that there may be a way to demonstrate the benefit of having a "foundation" or "first principle" by becoming a Christian.

So I don't understand Presuppositional Apologetics because it doesn't embrace empiricism? Gee, Gregory Bahnsen doesn't seem to think so: See page 154 of his Pushing the Antithesis: "Empirical (observational, sense-based) scientific investigation is also called for in the Christian worldview because God created an objective, material universe....empirical learning , then, is necessary because of the way the God-created world and God-created man operate...The world is real, not imagined."

The rest of Petersen's response rightfully goes to the core of the uselessness of presuppositionalism. He says not accounting for knowledge in the atheist worldview "has nothing to do with IQ tests." Now, we've been in quite a long discussion about logic and reason, the centerpieces of the presuppositionalists' argument, and I'd like to go over just what IQ and "intelligence" are: let's just say IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is a test devised to measure an individual's intelligence. Intelligence is defined as:

".... one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, and problem solving."

Logic? Abstract thought? Problem solving? Does all this talk about having first principles and foundations and being able to account for logic and reasoning relate to intelligence?

Let's look at a few examples of test questions.  What's really interesting about this sample question is it uses the phrase "absolute certainty"--which would immediately prompt the question from Sye Ten Bruggencate "Ah, so you believe in absolutes?"  since as Gregory Bahnsen stated "There are no absolutes outside God."  And of course, the use of the word "certainty" which as already noted Petersen has claimed as the property of presuppositionalists.  I also recall in a YouTube "commentary debate" with a presuppositionalist, he demanded that I form a syllogism to explain my worldview.

"Absolute certainty"?  Why don't pre-sups want to plant their flag in IQ tests?

In this example, the test-taker must rely on their visual senses, in conjunction with their reasoning, to solve the problem presented...and presuppositionalists often question non-believers on the reliability of the senses as it relates to being able to....reason?



Here one is almost strictly relying on visual sense perception to reason out this problem. According to
presuppositionalists, non-believers cannot rely on sense perception to be valid, and yet non-believers on
average score higher on such tests than believers, according to a recent meta-study.

And all this has "nothing to do with IQ tests"? With all other things being equal, would a person more rational generally score higher on an IQ test than one who is less rational? And hasn't Petersen waxed poetic on virtues of Christian reasoning being more rational? If it has nothing to do with our IQ, nothing to do with how we use reason and logic in every day reality, then we have to look at why we need to "account for our worldview" in the first place. 

Jason: My time is short, I will have to respond to the rest of your comment later. If you plan to respond, I ask that you provide your first principle and explain your epistemology to me. Otherwise, your future comments will be sent to spam for wasting my time. Have a nice day

Karen: Hey, Jason, thanks for your "short" 2,647 word reply. Wow, where do I start? I might be putting a response on my blog to you, and send you a link. I might even do another video, would you like that? Take care, Karen

Petersen seems to fault his time and health for reasons as to why he could have a better argument? Stay tuned for Part 2.