This post is an attempt to take an interesting, if disjointed, Facebook discussion on epistemology between a Christian presuppositionalist and a non-Christian, and sort it out to explore whether there is enough mutual agreement and understanding to continue.
➘ PHIL’S PROMPT:
Assess the raw Facebook thread below and sort it out to rigorously establish the basic stance of each interlocutor and their basic points of disagreement. In addition, assess the degree of logical coherence, relevance, and absence of logical fallacies of the interlocutors.
◉ ARE CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS BORROWING FROM SECULARISM TO DEFEND THEIR FAITH?
Christian apologists frequently claim that without their God, we couldn’t justify reason, logic, or “moral” intuitions. Yet when they actually try to justify those things, what do they do? They borrow. They frequently adopt standards of deductive and inductive inference borrowed from Aristotle, empirical investigation, and even humanistic values that are fully intelligible within a secular framework, then pretend that only their faith can support those very tools.
Apologists habitually accuse naturalists of “stealing from God” whenever secular thinkers use logic or appeal to meaning, but Christians themselves rightly rely on the very same secular methodologies to test claims, evaluate arguments, and make everyday decisions. No one checks a Bible verse before boarding an airplane or undergoing surgery. Instead, they lean on science, reason, and peer-reviewed consensus—tools that stand independently of any theological scaffolding.
Even their own confidence in Scripture is based on secular-seeming criteria: consistency, testimony, and inductive inference. And when challenged on contradictions or interpretive chaos within the Bible, apologists often retreat to abstract notions of “worldview coherence” or “properly basic beliefs”, moves that more reflect philosophical hedging than divine revelation.
If Christianity had an actual internal, self-authenticating standard of truth, it wouldn’t need to borrow the scaffolding of secular thought. The need to constantly reach outside their system to justify what they claim is only possible within it should raise serious questions.
If Christianity is the foundation of reason and morality, why do its defenders need to borrow from the very secularism they criticize?
In “There Is No Missing ‘Ground’ Needing God,” when you say “once we accept,” you are assuming unproven presuppositions. You ask for 1) structure, 2) perception, and 3) a human mind that a) sees and b) understands logic.
These unproven presuppositions are what you are borrowing from what the trinitarian God can only provide.
Again, God revealing Himself in Scripture as trinitarian is the only way that structure (uniformity of nature), reliability of sense perception, and a conceptual understanding in the mind of immaterial logical laws are possible.
The presuppositional argument is as follows:
Premise 1 – Without the Bible, we would not know a Trinitarian God exists.
Premise 2 – If we did not know that the Trinitarian God exists, we cannot ground reason and logic.
Premise 3 – If we cannot ground reason and logic, then all rational thought is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Conclusion – Therefore, without the Bible revealing the Trinitarian God, all rational thought is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Charlie Nason “You are assuming unproven presuppositions… which only the Trinitarian God can provide.”
That assertion is neither novel nor neutral—it’s a theological presupposition itself, and it assumes what it aims to prove. Let’s examine the logic.
◉ Presupposing God to Justify Logic Is Circular
Your syllogism:
Premise 1 – Without the Bible, we would not know a Trinitarian God exists.
Premise 2 – If we did not know that the Trinitarian God exists, we cannot ground reason and logic.
Premise 3 – If we cannot ground reason and logic, then all rational thought is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Conclusion – Therefore, without the Bible revealing the Trinitarian God, all rational thought is arbitrary and inconsistent.
…suffers from a foundational flaw: it is itself structured using logical inference. That is, it depends on the very laws of logic (like modus ponens) that you claim cannot be grounded without prior belief in a Trinitarian God. This is the classic performative contradiction of presuppositional apologetics: using logic to argue that logic cannot be used without God.
If the argument works logically, then logic must be independently valid before belief in the Bible or the Trinity. Otherwise, you cannot use logic to reach your conclusion without begging the very question at issue.
◉ Logic Predates Christianity and Requires No Revelation
As detailed in the CONTENT, logical systems (e.g., the Law of Non-Contradiction, Syllogistic Reasoning, Predicate Calculus) were formalized by ancient Greek and Indian thinkers long before Christianity emerged. The Nyāya Sūtras and Aristotle’s Organon exemplify rigorous logical systems that function without reference to Christian scripture or theology.
✓ Why atheists, Buddhists, and Hindus can construct valid logical proofs and predictions without epistemic chaos.
If your argument were true, the use of logic outside Christianity would be unintelligible. But that’s clearly not what we observe.
◉ The Borrowing Argument Backfires
Your central accusation is that secular thinkers “borrow” logic, structure, and perception from Christianity. But Christianity itself borrowed from prior systems:
✓ Greek philosophy: Logic and metaphysics (via Platonism and Aristotelianism).
✓ Judaism: Core theological tenets.
✓ Stoicism: Universal human dignity and natural law.
So, if borrowing implies epistemic dependence or incoherence, Christianity itself is guilty, and your critique collapses into self-defeat.
To formalize:
P1: If borrowing from another worldview implies incoherence,
P2: Christianity borrows from Judaism, Greek philosophy, and Stoicism,
C: Therefore, Christianity is incoherent.
To escape this, you’d have to reject your own borrowing premise, which undercuts your entire objection.
◉ Secular Reasoning Is Coherently Self-Grounded
You assert that reason and logic only make sense in a Christian framework. But this ignores:
✓ The naturalistic origins of logic as descriptions of pattern regularities in the observable world.
✓ The evolutionary development of human cognition and perception.
✓ The existence of non-theological explanations for abstract reasoning, such as cognitive science and Bayesian epistemology.
We do not need to “account for logic” by appealing to a deity any more than we need to appeal to Thor to explain thunder. Logic is not a metaphysical entity floating in need of divine sponsorship—it is a tool: a language we use to track relationships between propositions and to model consistency in our experience of the world.
◉ Conclusion
Charlie, your presuppositional stance relies on a circular structure, misrepresents the history of logic, and fails to acknowledge the robust secular grounding of rational thought. Worse still, it tries to exempt Christianity from the very borrowing it condemns.
So the challenge stands:
If Christianity has its own internally sufficient epistemology, why must it borrow the tools of secular inquiry—logic, induction, empirical testing—to defend itself?
And if reason is “only possible” within a Christian worldview, why does it work so well outside it?
Until those questions are answered with clarity and coherence, the presuppositional claim does not defend theism—it only demonstrates the intellectual resilience of the very secularism it seeks to undermine.
The Trinity is only revealed in the Bible, a document written by people who witnessed this God and wrote about him. These people passed their writings on to others who experienced the same.
The 66 books reveal the Trinity, which grounds human reason and logic like no other system (worldview) can.
You did not. You made assumptions based on experience. The Trinity grounds the experience of knowing and logic.
I can explain human reason and how God is the ground. I can explain logic and how God is the ground. Both are what we experience and what God says in his word. Thus, general revelation (experience) and special revelation (Bible) agree.
You have no access to ultimate reality from experience. Your view is a mere opinion.
If you would like me to explain, please ask. Otherwise, we are at an impasse of opinion.
And you did not have confidence in logic as an infant. You learned the inductive density of the reliability of logic through your inductive experience. I It is both unnecessary and silly to invoke this or that God to ‘ground’ logic: https://freeoffaith.com/…/%e2%9c%93-the-atheogenic…/
FREEOFFAITH.COM
#51 ✓ Consider: If a human can sin but not a God, can Jesus truly be fully human and fully God?
When you claim it is incoherent for Jesus to be both God and man, you reveal that you do not understand the Trinity or the incarnation. Of course, an infant does not have logic in the mind, but grows to understand. However, that is another point you miss. Conceptual laws exist outside the brain and yet govern thought and the external world. How does a human mind apprehend them? Any worldview that does not include the Trinity fails to ground this experience of knowing and is therefore merely an opinion with an arbitrary starting point. Yours is based on structure, sense perception, and a mind capable of grasping and understanding that structure. However, you are only describing the experience of human knowing, not grounding it. You seem intelligent, but you have been fooled about what a presupposition truly consists of.
Several aspects describe what we refer to as human reason. These aspects include consciousness, sense perception, intelligibility, and the uniformity of the reality we experience. When we say that people are conscious, we mean they are aware of themselves and their surroundings. People are aware of their surroundings through sense perception, but it’s important not to confuse the two concepts. Consciousness pertains to what a person is aware of, including their thoughts and the objects around them. Sense perception refers to how a person becomes aware of their environment. The awareness of a person’s internal thoughts about themselves, as well as their thoughts about external objects, constitutes being conscious. Some refer to this as self-awareness.
Sense perception is how a person becomes aware of internal sensations and external objects. Humans possess five senses: hearing, seeing, smelling, touching, and tasting. These senses help us to recognize our surroundings. A person may be missing one or more of their senses, which can make it more difficult to understand their perceptions. Additionally, individuals are aware of emotions like joy or depression, which are not external but originate from within. Therefore, sense perception encompasses the observation of both internal and external stimuli.
Intelligibility is the place of reason. Humanity can gather information through its senses and simultaneously evaluate that information, coming to an understanding and decision about what it perceives. This evaluation is done intuitively but can be improved, as it relies on and is ultimately governed by logical laws (see the next chapter).
Reality must maintain uniformity for humanity to understand what they perceive. Uniformity means that the present is interpreted through past experiences (perceptions) that are similar in nature. Oxford’s reference defines the uniformity of nature as “The principle that the future will resemble the past, in that when sufficiently similar situations recur, similar effects follow.” Reality must maintain uniformity for an intelligible experience to occur. In simple terms, unless the world we see today matches what we perceived yesterday, we cannot make sense of today. We could change the sensory input from sight to one of the other senses and make the same point. If the external input is constantly changing, we have no reference point to comprehend what we are sensing.
Conscious beings perceive and understand a consistent reality, guided by logical laws. These form the foundation of human reasoning. There is much more to explore, but reflect on these ideas before delving into the intricate realms of theology and philosophy. How does the Christian worldview explain consciousness, sensory perception, intelligibility, and the uniformity of nature? The straightforward answer is that humans are created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-28), and the world is designed to reflect God’s glory uniformly (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19-20). This God is the trinitarian God of Scripture. Consider the persons of the Trinity reasoning, and then think about God creating humans in this image.
Trinity:
Once more, God has revealed Himself in Scripture as trinitarian. There is one divine nature and three persons who possess the one nature. Consider Matt. 11:27 and two persons of the Trinity.
Matthew 11:27 (ESV) 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
In this passage, Jesus speaks of the Father. In the immediate context, the Father is identified as the Lord of heaven and earth (Matt. 11:25). The Father reveals what is necessary for people to repent—changing their minds and actions toward God. Jesus declares that “all things have been handed over” to him “by the Father.” The one true God and Father of the Son entrusted all authority in heaven and earth. This authority, specifically in this context, aims to bring about a revelation in people’s minds so they will change their thinking to agree with God (Matt. 11:20-24). This divine ability reconciles fallen humanity back to God.
The Father has eternally known the Son. The Father is consciously aware of Himself as the Father (consciousness). The Father perceives a person outside of Himself, the Son (sense perception). The Father understands the Son (intelligibility). The Son is uniform in nature as God (uniformity of nature). The Father knows the Son as God.
The same could be said for the Son. The Son has eternally known the Father. The Son is consciously aware of himself as the Son (consciousness). The Son has a perception of a person outside of himself, the Father (sense perception). The Son understands the Father (intelligibility). The Father is uniform as God (uniformity of nature). The Son knows the Father as God.
Here, we can observe that the internal consistency of the eternal Trinity grounds human reason. Conscious beings perceiving and intelligibly understanding a uniform reality is the universal experience of human reasoning. This universal experience is grounded in the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. Human reasoning is anchored in how the Father and Son know each other. Humanity was created to reason towards knowing in a similar manner because they are made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27). Humanity has consciousness and the ability to perceive and understand a uniform reality because the Father is conscious, perceives the Son, and intelligibly understands the Son as uniformly God. The same can be said for the Spirit and the Son. Humanity is distinct in that they were created to progressively learn and know more about God forever.
Logic is also grounded in the eternal consistency of the relationship in the Trinity. Once we agree that human reason is recognized and grounded in the eternal Trinity, we can move forward.
Charlie Nason Your claims still suffer from the same problem as before:
You describe the Trinity as grounding every element of human reason—consciousness, perception, intelligibility, logic, and the uniformity of nature. But the question isn’t whether your model is internally coherent once assumed. The deeper question is: why should anyone accept it as the explanatory foundation, rather than a poetic overlay onto universal human experience?
Let’s examine a few core issues in your latest response:
◉ 1. You Assume What You Must Prove
You wrote:
“Any worldview that does not include the Trinity fails to ground this experience of knowing…”
But this is simply an assertion, not an argument. You presume the necessity of the Trinity, then retroactively fit all human faculties into it—reasoning, perception, uniformity, etc. Yet none of those features actually demand a trinitarian explanation. Every item on your list can be described, modeled, and tested through cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary theory, and epistemology without invoking a supernatural tri-personal being.
If your claim is that these human faculties require the Trinity, then you must show that:
These faculties are incoherent without it,
Non-theistic systems fail to account for them,
And the Trinity necessarily resolves this problem better than any competing model.
But you haven’t done that. You’ve only rephrased the Christian doctrine of the imago Dei in philosophical language.
◉ 2. Logic Is Not “Grounded” in a Person
You state:
“Logic is also grounded in the eternal consistency of the relationship in the Trinity.”
This is metaphysical poetry, not epistemic necessity. Logic describes relations between propositions, not persons. Logical principles such as non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle are not derived from divine psychology; they emerge from pattern stability and are inferable by any cognitive agent in any structured reality.
Consider:
Aristotle formalized logic without knowledge of the Trinity.
Indian Nyāya logic developed independently.
Modern symbolic logic operates with no theological presupposition.
If logic “requires” the Trinity, how is it that cultures unaware of the Trinity still developed it and used it with great success?
◉ 3. You’re Describing Function, Not Proving Ground
When you say:
“You are only describing the experience of human knowing, not grounding it.”
You’re misidentifying the epistemic task. Describing the function of reason and perception is exactly how naturalistic epistemology works: we observe, model, test, and refine our understanding of how minds work and how beliefs track truth.
The idea of “grounding” tends to be an artifact of theological systems that demand a metaphysical anchor beneath cognition. But there’s no evidence this anchor must be personal, trinitarian, or theological at all. A secular framework explains cognition as an emergent product of evolved pattern-sensitive brains operating in a structured universe.
You’re importing the need for metaphysical grounding from within your system and then acting like everyone else has the same requirement. They don’t.
◉ 4. Your Appeal to the Trinity Is Unfalsifiable
If you say logic, consciousness, and intelligibility are “grounded” in the Trinity, you’ve created a claim that cannot be tested, observed, or disconfirmed.
From a non-theistic standpoint, this is indistinguishable from a Hindu claiming all reason is grounded in the harmony of Brahman or a Muslim claiming Allah’s eternal knowledge sustains logic. These are narrative frameworks—not explanatory ones in any epistemically rigorous sense.
If every epistemic success can be reinterpreted as “God’s design,” then no conceivable data could show otherwise. And that’s precisely why such claims lack epistemic traction outside the belief system that generated them.
◉ 5. Circularity Still Haunts Your View
Even granting your premises, you continue to reason from logic to justify a worldview that claims logic can’t be justified without that worldview.
So let’s make this clear:
P1: Logic can only be grounded if the Trinity exists.
P2: We use logic to infer that the Trinity exists (from Scripture or coherence).
C: Therefore, we must use logic to prove the Trinity, and the Trinity to prove logic.
That’s epistemic bootstrapping, not justification. You’re presupposing the validity of the very reasoning you claim you cannot justify without the conclusion. That’s the textbook definition of circularity.
◉ 6. The Uniformity of Nature Is a Working Assumption, Not a Revelation
You appealed to the “uniformity of nature” and said it must be grounded in God. But the principle of uniformity is inductive, not revealed. It is not “grounded” in belief—it is inferred from repeated success.
We don’t believe the future will resemble the past because of a Bible verse. We believe it because it works. Science, engineering, medicine, and even apologetics all rely on the pragmatic justification of uniformity through experience. This is a probabilistic commitment, not a metaphysical conclusion.
The assumption “nature will continue behaving as it has” is provisional. And it’s always subject to revision. That’s why science advances.
Charlie, let’s be intellectually honest:
If the Trinity were necessary for intelligibility, no non-Christian society could produce philosophy, science, or mathematics. Yet they have. Repeatedly. And brilliantly.
So I’ll close with a simple question:
➘ Why does logic function flawlessly in the hands of those who reject your God?
Logic needs no “transcendent” grounding. It is grounded by its inductive regularity.
There are a thousand different Gods that a thousand faith-committed individuals can invoke to “ground” logic. These unsubstantiated assertions are equally fallacious since logic is demonstrably reliable, as is easily determined through its application.
You stated, “The deeper question is: why should anyone accept it as the explanatory foundation, rather than a poetic overlay onto universal human experience?” Because the Trinity is not a concept created by human experience, but rather it is understood from 66 books where God reveals himself. The Trinity is found nowhere else! God describes himself this way, and our experience of knowing aligns with it, while no other worldview does, which he also reveals. The Bible and our experience align. Here is the problem. People see this but refuse to submit to it because they don’t want to submit to God—not because he has not rationally revealed himself. We don’t have a reason issue but a moral issue, which is why we need the salvation found only in the gospel of Christ Jesus, God’s Son.
Charlie Nason your response substitutes theological confidence for epistemic justification. Let’s break it down.
◉ 1. “The Trinity is found nowhere else.”
That’s precisely the problem.
You assert that the Trinity is not a human concept but divinely revealed in Scripture. But saying “God describes himself this way” presupposes the authority of the Bible before it’s been epistemically justified. That’s circular.
You are essentially saying:
➘ “We know the Trinity is true because the Bible says so, and we know the Bible is true because God says so in the Bible.”
This is not an explanatory foundation, Charlie. It’s a closed loop.
If the Trinity were not culturally contingent, why is it absent from every other religious tradition and inaccessible apart from a specific set of texts written by fallible humans in ancient languages and compiled centuries later?
◉ 2. Experience Does Not Uniquely Align with the Trinity
You claimed:
➘ “Our experience of knowing aligns with [the Trinity], while no other worldview does.”
This is easily falsified by looking at other systems:
Buddhists also report profound insights into consciousness and reality, without any concept of a triune deity.
Secular philosophers develop comprehensive theories of cognition and epistemology—fully functional, coherent, and predictive—without Trinity assumptions.
Neuroscience and cognitive science explain perception, reasoning, and emotion using testable, naturalistic models—no theological anchoring required.
You see alignment because you’re looking for it. That’s confirmation bias.
◉ 3. From Epistemology to Accusation
Your move from:
“People reject the Trinity because they don’t want to submit to God.”
…is a psychological claim, not a rational one. And it functions as a conversation stopper, not a contribution.
This kind of motivation-shaming is:
✓ Unfalsifiable,
✓ Epistemically lazy,
✓ And entirely reversible.
I could just as easily say:
“Christians only believe because they want to feel safe, special, or forgiven.”
But that wouldn’t be fair or respectful—or useful. It’s an ad hominem wrapped in theology.
◉ 4. “We don’t have a reason issue but a moral issue”
This claim is theological projection. You’re not showing that reason fails. You’re asserting that resistance to belief is moral rebellion.
This echoes Romans 1, but again—quoting Scripture to validate the psychological state of nonbelievers presupposes the truth of Scripture. You’re making a circular, doctrinal argument appear like a psychological diagnosis. It’s not.
If someone rejects your version of God, it does not logically follow that they’re rejecting God out of rebellion. It may be—as it is in my case—a result of clear, rational evaluation of the claims, contradictions, and lack of credible evidence.
◉ Conclusion
Charlie, your commitment is clear, but your argumentation is self-reinforcing, not evidential. You presuppose divine revelation, then interpret all human reasoning, experience, and resistance through that lens.
But outside that lens, nothing in your claim uniquely tracks reality:
✓ Logic works independently of theological claims.
✓ Perception and cognition are better modeled by empirical methods than by doctrines of divine persons.
✓ People reject your conclusions not because they hate God, but because your conclusions aren’t epistemically warranted.
Until you’re willing to show—rather than assert—that the Trinity is necessary and not just meaningful within your worldview, the rest of us have no rational obligation to submit to it.
Belief should follow the evidence. Not the fear of being wrong.
Charlie Nason your response substitutes theological confidence for epistemic justification. Let’s break it down.
◉ 1. “The Trinity is found nowhere else.”
That’s precisely the problem.
You assert that the Trinity is not a human concept but divinely revealed in Scripture. But saying “God describes himself this way” presupposes the authority of the Bible before it’s been epistemically justified. That’s circular.
You are essentially saying:
➘ “We know the Trinity is true because the Bible says so, and we know the Bible is true because God says so in the Bible.”
This is not an explanatory foundation, Charlie. It’s a closed loop.
If the Trinity were not culturally contingent, why is it absent from every other religious tradition and inaccessible apart from a specific set of texts written by fallible humans in ancient languages and compiled centuries later?
◉ 2. Experience Does Not Uniquely Align with the Trinity
You claimed:
➘ “Our experience of knowing aligns with [the Trinity], while no other worldview does.”
This is easily falsified by looking at other systems:
✓ Buddhists also report profound insights into consciousness and reality, without any concept of a triune deity.
✓ Secular philosophers develop comprehensive theories of cognition and epistemology—fully functional, coherent, and predictive—without Trinity assumptions.
✓ Neuroscience and cognitive science explain perception, reasoning, and emotion using testable, naturalistic models—no theological anchoring required.
You see alignment because you’re looking for it. That’s confirmation bias.
◉ 3. From Epistemology to Accusation
Your move from:
➘ “People reject the Trinity because they don’t want to submit to God.”
…is a psychological claim, not a rational one. And it functions as a conversation stopper, not a contribution.
This kind of motivation-shaming is:
✓ Unfalsifiable,
✓ Epistemically lazy,
✓ And entirely reversible.
I could just as easily say:
“Christians only believe because they want to feel safe, special, or forgiven.”
But that wouldn’t be fair or respectful—or useful. It’s an ad hominem wrapped in theology.
◉ 4. “We don’t have a reason issue but a moral issue”
This claim is theological projection. You’re not showing that reason fails. You’re asserting that resistance to belief is moral rebellion.
This echoes Romans 1, but again—quoting Scripture to validate the psychological state of nonbelievers presupposes the truth of Scripture. You’re making a circular, doctrinal argument appear like a psychological diagnosis. It’s not.
If someone rejects your version of God, it does not logically follow that they’re rejecting God out of rebellion. It may be—as it is in my case—a result of clear, rational evaluation of the claims, contradictions, and lack of credible evidence.
◉ In short, your commitment is clear, but your argumentation is self-reinforcing, not evidential. You presuppose divine revelation, then interpret all human reasoning, experience, and resistance through that lens.
But outside that lens, nothing in your claim uniquely tracks reality:
✓ Logic works independently of theological claims.
✓ Perception and cognition are better modeled by empirical methods than by doctrines of divine persons.
✓ People reject your conclusions not because they hate God, but because your conclusions aren’t epistemically warranted.
Until you’re willing to show—rather than assert—that the Trinity is necessary and not just meaningful within your worldview, the rest of us have no rational obligation to submit to it.
Belief should follow the evidence. Not the fear of being wrong.
Phil Stilwell, so no worldview can actually escape arbitrariness as a starting point. This means it is a person’s opinion to select a starting point.
Christianity does not do this. God reveals himself in Scripture. Or from the human perspective, people interacted with God and wrote what he said and did, passing down their writing to others who experienced the same. From this historical account, God is revealed to be a Trinity. The internal consistency of the Trinity reveals the grounds for our experience of knowing without being arbitrary, as God progressively revealed himself to approximately 40 authors over a 1500-year period of time, and the Trinity was one of the last things revealed.
The Trinity grounds the human experience of knowing. You get that right. God’s revelation in the Bible (one kind of evidence). Our experience of knowing (another type of evidence). These two kinds of evidence ground human knowing in a way no other worldview does. Every other attempt is one kind of evidence from human experience. It fails intellectually. No other religion has a Trinity to ground reason. Christianity does.
Your arguments assume (do not ground) human experience. You are borrowing from the ground of Christianity while claiming to ground what you assume. You are doing what you claim to argue against.
Charlie Nason You’re now admitting that worldviews require a starting point—yet claiming Christianity alone escapes arbitrariness. But let’s take a closer look at your framing.
◉ 1. You Admit Arbitrariness, Then Claim Exemption
You wrote:
“So no worldview can actually escape arbitrariness as a starting point… Christianity does not do this.”
This is an assertion, not a demonstration. You’re claiming your starting point is not arbitrary because it claims to be self-authenticating revelation. But many worldviews do that.
If mere claiming divine revelation removes arbitrariness, then:
✓ Islam escapes arbitrariness.
✓ Mormonism escapes arbitrariness.
✓ Vedic traditions escape arbitrariness.
✓ Any system with a self-referential sacred text escapes arbitrariness.
But clearly, they can’t all be correct.
The claim to revelation isn’t special—it’s common. What matters is: How do we assess which, if any, actually tracks reality? For that, we need external epistemic standards—consistency, testability, predictive power—not internal declarations of authority.
◉ 2. Experience + Scripture = Arbitrary Pairing
You said:
➘ “God’s revelation in the Bible (one kind of evidence). Our experience of knowing (another kind).”
But this doesn’t escape the arbitrariness you admitted earlier—it multiplies it:
✓ Why pair that scripture with that kind of experience?
✓ Why prioritize those 66 books out of thousands of religious texts?
✓ Why link those writings to your lived experiences instead of Buddhist, Muslim, or Stoic interpretations?
You’re taking two humanly interpreted data streams and declaring them unified because your doctrine tells you they must be. That’s confirmation bias, not epistemic escape velocity.
◉ 3. The Trinity as a Retrofitted Explanatory Device
You wrote:
“The Trinity was one of the last things revealed.”
Exactly. It was retrofitted into the canon after centuries of interpretive friction. The term “Trinity” never appears in the Bible, and the doctrine itself emerged through centuries of philosophical theologizing, not direct revelation.
It wasn’t obvious to:
✓ The writers of the Torah,
✓ The apostles,
✓ Even early church fathers like Origen.
It took multiple councils (Nicaea, Constantinople) to hammer out a version of the Trinity even Christians could agree on. If it were truly essential for grounding human reason, one might expect it to be disclosed unambiguously, upfront, and without centuries of metaphysical struggle.
◉ 4. The Grounding Fallacy
You claim:
➘ “Your arguments assume (do not ground) human experience.”
This misrepresents the role of grounding in epistemology. Not all knowledge systems require a metaphysical ground beyond functionality. Secular systems often adopt a coherentist or pragmatic model:
Beliefs are justified insofar as they cohere with others and produce predictive success.
Uniformity is assumed because it works, not because it’s guaranteed.
Logic is modeled as a language-game we refine based on error detection and correction, not because it emanates from divine persons.
So yes, I assume experience because experience is the condition of all inquiry. You don’t “ground” that from outside—you build coherence within it.
◉ 5. Borrowing Is Not What You Think It Is
You said:
➘ “You are borrowing from the ground of Christianity while claiming to ground what you assume.”
Let’s reverse it.
You use logic, perception, historical inference, and reason to defend your belief in the Bible and the Trinity.
Yet logic and inference existed:
✓ Long before Christianity,
✓ In cultures that never knew your God,
✓ In systems like Aristotelianism, Nyāya logic, and Daoist metaphysics.
So if using tools developed outside your belief system is “borrowing,” then Christianity itself is the largest borrower of all. It borrowed logic, ethics, cosmology, and even eschatology from non-Christian systems.
You can’t simultaneously rely on these tools and then claim they’re uniquely grounded in your worldview without contradiction.
Charlie, your position boils down to this:
➘ “I start with Scripture, then interpret the world through it. Because this pairing works for me, I declare it universal and accuse others of theft.”
But in doing so, you commit the very error you accuse me of:
✓ You assume the authority of your source without justifying it.
✓ You claim experiential coherence, but so do countless rival systems.
✓ You demand grounding from others while exempting your own assumptions from scrutiny.
What distinguishes secular epistemology is not a magic foundation—but its willingness to test, revise, and remain accountable to intersubjective standards of evidence and coherence.
If your worldview discourages that and instead interprets all dissent as rebellion, then it may function as a theology—but not as a philosophy.
Charlie Nason You’ve once again confused assertion with demonstration, and theological interpretation with independent evidence. Let’s carefully examine your key claims.
◉ 1. You Call the Bible “Historical Evidence,” but That’s the Very Claim in Question
You said:
➘ “A book written by people as a historical account of their dealing with God that reveals a Trinity is evidence.”
But this is question-begging. You’re assuming the Bible is:
✓ Historically reliable
✓ Accurately reflective of divine interaction
✓ Coherently revelatory of a triune God
Yet these are the very claims in dispute. Simply labeling the Bible “a historical account” doesn’t bypass the need for:
✓ Archaeological corroboration (which is often lacking or conflicting)
✓ Explanatory exclusivity (whether it outperforms rival hypotheses)
Calling it “historical evidence” doesn’t make it epistemically decisive—especially when the documents were written decades after the alleged events, with heavy theological interpretation layered in.
◉ 2. You Conflate Correlation with Explanation
You said:
➘ “We compare our experience of knowing with the theological implications of the historical documents and they match.”
But that’s not verification; it’s theological retrofitting. Any religious tradition can do this:
✓ A Hindu matches their inner experience to the Vedas
✓ A Muslim aligns their moral instincts with the Qur’an
✓ A Buddhist finds confirmation of impermanence in the Dhammapada
Matching general human features to a preferred scripture is not evidence of divine origin—it’s confirmation bias.
◉ 3. You’re Still Assuming What Needs Demonstrating
You said:
➘ “The God revealed in the historical documents says he grounds human knowing and we see how he does.”
But this requires a long list of justifications:
✓ Why these particular documents?
✓ Why your interpretation over other Christian or Jewish readings?
✓ Why the Trinity, which took centuries and multiple councils to define?
✓ Why trust texts filtered through political, cultural, and doctrinal gatekeeping?
You call your framework revelatory. But without independent verification, it remains a theological claim, not an epistemic foundation.
◉ 4. Secular Foundations Are Not Arbitrary—They Are Inductive
You accuse me of arbitrarily “assuming” structure and a reasoning mind. But that’s not arbitrary—it’s inductive and pragmatic:
✓ Structure and reasoning are necessary for inquiry
✓ They yield successful predictions across domains
✓ They remain open to revision based on new data
✓ They don’t require metaphysical dogma to function
That’s not epistemic handwaving—it’s methodical humility. It admits its starting points and refines them based on utility and coherence.
Your model begins with a specific theological claim, then justifies everything else downstream from it—declaring it “not arbitrary” by fiat.
◉ Conclusion
Charlie, simply declaring your foundation “non-arbitrary” doesn’t make it so. You’re:
✓ Starting with a contested ancient text
✓ Interpreting it through a predetermined lens
✓ Matching its claims to general human experience
✓ Calling that match “proof” while dismissing every rival as arbitrary
That’s not critical inquiry—it’s confirmation theology.
Secular epistemology, by contrast:
✓ Stays accountable to external standards
✓ Admits its assumptions
✓ Remains testable and revisable
Until your system demonstrates uniqueness and indispensability rather than internal compatibility, your claim to non-arbitrariness remains unconvincing.
Still happy to continue the dialogue—but let’s keep it epistemically honest.
You seem to be an intelligent man, but you continue to misconstrue what I am saying. When did I ask you to believe the statements of the Bible were true?
Premise 1: I am merely telling you what the Bible is as it presents itself. I am telling you a doctrine developed from what the Bible says.
Premise 2: I am telling you the aspects of the experience of human knowing. Then I am putting those together, showing that the God presented in the Bible is an adequate ground for the human experience of knowing.
Premise 3: Finally, I am asserting that no other religion or philosophy of man provides an adequate ground for the human experience of knowing. All others fail. They fail, whereas the Bible’s description of the God it claims is revealing himself to us does not. This God, whom the Bible claims is revealing himself to us, does what no philosophy or religion can do.
Conclusion: The proper conclusion is to believe the Bible, at least until you find a different ground for the experience of knowing.
Oh yeah, the Bible says people who reject this God claim to be wise and become fools (Rom 1:18-23) by denying God who grounds knowing and exchanging him for something that does not. This exchange reduces knowledge to opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion, but you have no ability to claim to know I am wrong or that you are right. I do. I have the ground for the experience of knowing. Further, I have a way to recognize right and wrong. My epistemology leads to knowledge.
Charlie Nason The core structure of your argument continues to shift between theological assertion, philosophical dismissal, and mischaracterization of secular epistemology. Let’s examine it clearly.
◉ 1. You’re Still Assuming What You Claim Not to Require
You said:
“When did I ask you to believe the statements of the Bible were true?”
Yet in the very next lines you argue that:
✓ The Bible presents a coherent doctrine
✓ That doctrine uniquely explains human knowing
✓ All other systems fail, while the Bible’s succeeds
You can’t claim not to be asking me to believe the Bible, then turn around and say belief in the Bible is the only valid conclusion. That’s equivocation—treating the Bible as if it’s just being “described” while using its claims as though they’re demonstrated.
If you’re offering an argument from coherence, fine. But coherence is a necessary condition for truth—not a sufficient one. Islam, Platonism, Buddhism, and idealism can all present internally coherent accounts of knowing. That doesn’t make them all true.
◉ 2. Your “Comparison” Is Theologically Filtered
You wrote:
“I am putting [Scripture and experience] together, showing that the God presented in the Bible is an adequate ground for the human experience of knowing.”
This is theological matching—not explanatory necessity.
✓ You start with the Bible.
✓ You observe human knowing.
✓ You claim a match—because your theology leads you to see one.
But this match is subjective and post hoc. Any religious adherent could do the same:
✓ The Qur’an grounds revelation in Allah’s eternal speech
✓ Hindu Vedanta grounds knowing in the eternal Atman
✓ Confucianism grounds social reasoning in the harmony of Tao
Matching features of consciousness to a sacred text you already accept is not epistemology—it’s confirmation. You’re not asking what best explains human knowing; you’re trying to make the Bible the only candidate by excluding all others through fiat.
◉ 3. Your Dismissal of “All Others Fail” Is Unsupported
You said:
“No other religion or philosophy of man provides an adequate ground for the human experience of knowing.”
Where is the demonstration of this sweeping claim?
✓ Have you falsified Hindu metaphysics?
✓ Have you dismantled Kantian transcendental idealism?
✓ Have you disqualified naturalized epistemology?
Simply declaring “all others fail” while holding up your own system because it aligns with your text is not philosophical argument—it’s theological absolutism. And it’s indistinguishable in form from the claims of every other exclusivist religion.
◉ 4. Your “Grounding” Language Obscures, Rather Than Clarifies
You say:
“I have the ground for the experience of knowing… You don’t.”
But “grounding” here is slippery. Are you talking about:
✓ A metaphysical foundation for the possibility of reason?
✓ A psychological explanation for cognitive stability?
✓ A theological justification for intelligibility?
If you’re saying logic, perception, and induction are unintelligible without a Trinitarian God, you must:
✓ Show why they fail in every other framework
✓ Show why your framework uniquely solves the problem
✓ Avoid circularly using logic to prove the necessity of the God you say logic requires
You haven’t done any of this. Instead, you simply declare that others “reduce knowledge to opinion.” That’s a rhetorical maneuver, not an argument.
◉ 5. Your Closing Claim Is Pure Epistemic Exceptionalism
You wrote:
“You are welcome to your opinion… I have the ground for the experience of knowing.”
But that’s just another assertion of privileged access, based not on demonstrated superiority but on self-validation:
✓ You believe your text is from God.
✓ Therefore, your text is authoritative.
✓ Therefore, your interpretation of knowing is correct.
✓ Therefore, all other systems are “just opinion.”
This is a closed epistemic loop. It admits no testing, no cross-worldview evaluation, and no defeasibility. You don’t merely claim your model works—you claim it’s the only model that can work, because the model itself says so.
That is not philosophy. That is dogma.
Charlie, the issue is not that you lack intelligence or sincerity—it’s that your entire framework is insulated from falsification and dependent on the authority of your tradition.
Secular epistemology, by contrast:
✓ Starts with observation and experience
✓ Admits assumptions and seeks to justify them inductively
✓ Refines itself based on evidence
✓ Remains accountable to shared standards of justification
You’re not showing why the Bible best explains human knowing. You’re assuming it must, then denying the epistemic legitimacy of anyone who doesn’t share that starting point. That’s not knowledge. That’s theological imperialism.
Let’s continue the conversation—but only if we agree on one thing: Belief without testability is not knowledge.
Phil Stilwell The core of my argument is exactly what the Bible presents itself to be. I am taking the fact of the Bible as a document and what it presents theologically. I am comparing what it is and what it says with the experience of human knowing. It “magically” grounds human reason and logic when no other worldview does. It does so because of the trinitarian God it reveals. This Trinity is recognized nowhere else in human experience or human philosophy. How is that possible? Provide one worldview that grounds reason and logic. There is not one. However, a book you refuse to acknowledge or believe does so by revealing the Trinity. Your assertions and arguments are arbitrary and inconsistent because you have no ground for the human reason and the logic you are trying to use. Ground human reason and logic without an arbitrary starting place. Go ahead. I will wait. Human history has not yet done it. I don’t think you will. The Bible does.
Phil Stilwell The core of my argument is exactly what the Bible presents itself to be. I am taking the fact of the Bible as a document and what it presents theologically. I am comparing what it is and what it says with the experience of human knowing. It “magically” grounds human reason and logic when no other worldview does. It does so because of the trinitarian God it reveals. This Trinity is recognized nowhere else in human experience or human philosophy. How is that possible? Provide one worldview that grounds reason and logic. There is not one. However, a book you refuse to acknowledge or believe does so by revealing the Trinity. Your assertions and arguments are arbitrary and inconsistent because you have no ground for the human reason and the logic you are trying to use. Ground human reason and logic without an arbitrary starting place. Go ahead. I will wait. Human history has not yet done it. I don’t think you will. The Bible does.
Charlie Nason You are confidently repeating a structure that masks theological assertion as epistemic necessity. Let’s untangle your assumptions and examine your claims in order.
◉ 1. You Concede Epistemic Arbitrariness—Then Exempt Yourself by Fiat
You wrote:
➘ “No worldview can actually escape arbitrariness as a starting point. This means it is a person’s opinion to select a starting point. Christianity does not do this.”
But that is plainly special pleading. You acknowledge that all systems must adopt starting assumptions, but then claim yours uniquely avoids this because it’s a “revelation.” Yet:
✓ Muslims say the exact same about the Qur’an.
✓ Mormons say the same about the Book of Mormon.
✓ Vedantists say the same about the Vedas.
What you call “not arbitrary” is just your preferred starting point, validated by internal coherence and doctrinal loyalty, not external testing. If you exempt your own assumptions from scrutiny while demanding secular systems justify theirs absolutely, you’re not arguing—you’re legislating authority.
◉ 2. “Historical” and “Theological” Are Not Epistemically Equivalent
You said:
➘ “A book written by people as a historical account of their dealing with God that reveals a Trinity is evidence.”
You are conflating:
✓ The Bible as a historical artifact (which it is),
✓ With the Bible as historically reliable divine revelation (which is precisely the disputed claim).
Your repeated assertion that the Bible “grounds” logic is not a demonstrated feature—it’s a theological interpretation built after the fact from reading the Bible through a presuppositional lens. Simply calling it evidence does not make it epistemically foundational.
For example:
✓ You cite the Trinity—but this was not explicitly revealed in the Old Testament and not fully defined until centuries after Jesus.
✓ The earliest Christians didn’t teach a coherent Trinity—they struggled and disagreed.
✓ The doctrine was only formalized through Greek philosophical categories, not Hebrew revelation.
So if the Trinity is the epistemic key to grounding logic, why was it:
✓ Absent from early Judaism,
✓ Absent from Jesus’ own teachings,
✓ And only visible to post hoc theologians trying to resolve contradictions?
◉ 3. You Commit the Fallacy of Inverse Justification
You wrote:
➘ “We compare our experience of knowing with the theological implications of the historical documents and they match.”
This is confirmation bias in disguise.
✓ Every religious system can do this: “Here’s a sacred text. Here’s an experience. Look—they align!”
✓ That’s not grounding—that’s matching.
✓ And you’re matching only because you’ve committed to a framework in which that match must be seen.
This is like saying, “My worldview makes sense to me; therefore, it grounds everything.” That’s fine as personal conviction—but it’s not epistemically universal. It does not compel the outsider unless independently validated. You haven’t done that. You’ve declared it.
◉ 4. You Shift the Burden of Proof While Dismissing All Alternatives Without Evaluation
You said:
➘ “Provide one worldview that grounds reason and logic. There is not one… I will wait.”
You are using the argument from lack of imagination, not rigorous disproof. You haven’t:
✓ Engaged with Aristotelian realism, which grounds logic in the structure of being
✓ Addressed Kantian transcendental idealism, which grounds categories of thought in the preconditions of experience
✓ Interacted with Quinean naturalized epistemology, which grounds logic in biological cognition
✓ Critically analyzed Bayesian epistemology, which refines reason through probabilistic modeling
You just declare these as “failures” without presenting argumentation. That’s not philosophy—it’s presuppositional posturing.
And worse, you set up the rules so that no secular foundation can count:
✓ If it’s inductive: “It’s just opinion.”
✓ If it’s pragmatic: “It lacks transcendence.”
✓ If it’s testable: “That’s not ultimate.”
Yet when you use circularity, special pleading, and ancient texts, you say that alone escapes arbitrariness.
You don’t get to demand that others justify every premise to your satisfaction while refusing to justify your own.
◉ 5. Your Final Move Is Epistemic Imperialism
You concluded:
➘ “You are welcome to your opinion… I have the ground for the experience of knowing.”
But what you’re really saying is:
➘ “Unless you adopt my metaphysical framework and scripture, you cannot know anything.”
This is epistemic imperialism: it positions your system not as one interpretive model, but as the sole legitimate map of reality—regardless of competing evidence, rational systems, or historical scrutiny.
That’s not a demonstration of truth. It’s a rhetorical cage.
Charlie, you’ve now:
✓ Acknowledged all worldviews begin with assumptions
✓ Exempted yours by invoking revelation
✓ Called your interpretation of scripture “historical evidence”
✓ Matched subjective experience to theology and declared the match epistemically unique
✓ Demanded impossible standards from secular frameworks while giving your own immunity
✓ Concluded that only you can claim to know anything
This is not a level epistemic playing field. It’s a theologically gated system immune to falsification. It can’t lose, not because it’s true, but because it’s constructed to win by disqualifying all rivals a priori.
That’s not a ground. That’s a trap.
My invitation remains: Let’s engage without circularity, without special pleading, and without declaring victory before the discussion starts.
Until then, your system remains what you accuse others of being: a closed circle of untested assumptions.
Phil Stilwell Let’s start slowly, as we are having trouble connecting on presuppositions and preconditions necessary for the experience of human knowing, human reason, and logical laws.
Several things are in view: 1) the experience of human reasoning, 2) the world experienced by humans, meaning a person’s view of the nature of the world – ontology, 3) a person’s presuppositions about ontology, 4) providing a consistent epistemic methodology.
1) Human Experience of Knowing
The universal experience of human reason has several aspects: a) consciousness, b) sense perception, c) a uniform reality, d) intelligibility of that reality, and e) conceptual laws governing intelligible understanding and external reality. This experience is what we, and philosophers since Socrates, are trying to ground.
2) The world experienced by humans
There is an external world. All humans experience it. All humans have a view of it, but that is the next point. This point is merely saying that there is a reality and it has its own nature, whether humans understand it correctly or not. There is an ontological reality that we are experiencing. There are three possible ontological views of reality: 1) materialistic atomism, 2) dualism, and 3) spiritual monism. All worldviews can be categorized into these three concepts of reality.
3) A Person’s View of Reality
A person’s view of reality is called a worldview. It is a perspective that helps the knower recognize, categorize, and organize patterns, making understanding easier. A person’s worldview (their understanding of the ontological nature of reality) is not the actual ontology of reality unless they are all-knowing. However, through experience, logic, and inference, someone can develop an increasingly accurate understanding of the reality they encounter.
4) A Person’s View of Reality must be consistent with Epistemic Methodology
A person’s ontological view of reality must be coordinated with their epistemological methodology for knowing to be helpful in the process. An ontological view must provide the preconditions necessary for the epistemological methodology. Example: if my view of reality is spiritual oneness, and so making distinctions and logical laws are an illusion of oneness, then this view drives a search for data and what one considers evidence. Distinctions are minimized, and logic is softened. A person who views the ontological reality as materialistic atomism will, by necessity of his ontological view, reject any immaterial claims of data or evidence.
Therefore, a worldview must be evaluated on its own terms for consistency of ontology, epistemology, and human experience of knowing.
Again, there are three possible ontological views of reality: 1) materialistic atomism, 2) dualism, and 3) spiritual monism. A person’s presuppositions for epistemology must be consistent with their ontological view of reality. We would ask the questions: Does a person’s ontological view of reality provide the preconditions necessary for the presuppositions of his epistemology, and is that epistemology consistent with the experience of human knowing? An internal critique of a person’s ontological choice, epistemological method based on that choice being consistent with the experience of human knowing, is presuppositional apologetics.
You seem to think presuppositional apologetics is merely about choosing a set of presuppositions and defending them to supply the starting point for my epistemological method. This is an error and is keeping our conversation from advancing.
So let’s start here, do you understand and agree with what I am saying, I am trying to do?
I am coordinating a chosen ontological view of reality with the epistemology that arises from it, with the experience of human knowing, to see which worldview (ontological reality) coordinated with the logical epistemological methodology is consistent with the experience of human knowing.
Charlie Nason And a very basic blunder you’re making is thinking humans must all choose from your triad of choices.
//Again, there are three possible ontological views of reality: 1) materialistic atomism, 2) dualism, and 3) spiritual monism. A person’s presuppositions for epistemology must be consistent with their ontological view of reality. //
We are not forced into a presupposition. We can honestly say we don’t know when we don’t know, the fact that some cannot adopt this humble epistemic stance notwithstanding.
Phil Stilwelldid you read what I said? I said there is an actual reality that is ontologically there. I said there are various world views for people‘s understanding of that ontological reality. I did say there are three categories of worldview. You say that’s not true. Please tell me what other category of world is there?
Phil Stilwell what categories of worldview are there beyond atomistic materialism, dualism, and spiritual monism?
You claim I am wrong. Prove I am wrong by enlightening me. Or do you just disagree to disagree?
Phil Stilwell of the four points I offered you challenges number two. Do we agree on one, three, and four?
1) Human Experience of Knowing
2) The world experienced by humans
3) A Person’s View of Reality
4) A Person’s View of Reality must be consistent with Epistemic Methodology
Phil Stilwelldid you read what I said? I said there is an actual reality that is ontologically there. I said there are various world views for people‘s understanding of that ontological reality. I did say there are three categories of worldview. You say that’s not true. Please tell me what other category of world is there?
Charlie Nason Your comment here is out of order. I have no way to contextualize this since the comment you want to respond to is not the one you’ve clicked on. You’ve done this with your last three comments. Click on “Reply” only on the comment you would like to respond to.
Charlie Nason Your comment here is out of order. I have no way to contextualize this since the comment you want to respond to is not the one you’ve clicked on. You’ve done this with your last three comments. Click on “Reply” only on the comment you would like to respond to.
Charlie Nason Your comment here is out of order. I have no way to contextualize this since the comment you want to respond to is not the one you’ve clicked on. You’ve done this with your last three comments. Click on “Reply” only on the comment you would like to respond to.
Fair enough?
➘ GEMINI’S RESPONSE:
An analysis of the Facebook discussion between Phil Stilwell and Charlie Nason reveals a fundamental clash of epistemologies. Phil champions a secular, evidence-based approach to knowledge, while Charlie defends a Christian presuppositionalist framework. Their disagreement highlights key differences in how they believe logic, reason, and evidence function.
Stances of the Interlocutors
◉ Phil Stilwell: Secular Epistemologist
Phil’s position is that the tools of reason—logic, induction, and empirical verification—are products of human inquiry and stand independently of theological claims. He argues that Christian apologists, especially presuppositionalists, engage in hypocrisy by accusing secular thinkers of “borrowing” from God to make rational arguments. Phil contends that Christianity itself relies on these secularly-derived methods to defend its own claims. His stance is that presuppositionalism is a logically flawed system built on circular reasoning.
◉ Charlie Nason: Christian Presuppositionalist
Charlie argues from a classic presuppositionalist perspective, asserting that the Trinitarian God revealed in the Bible is the necessary precondition for all knowledge, logic, and reason. His core claim is that without presupposing the Christian God, all thought becomes arbitrary and inconsistent. From his viewpoint, any logical argument a non-Christian makes is an unintentional act of “borrowing” from the Christian worldview, because only that worldview can account for the existence of logic in the first place.
Main Points of Disagreement
The debate centers on several key conflicts:
The Foundation of Logic: Phil argues that logic is a human-developed tool, pointing to its existence in pre-Christian societies like ancient Greece and India as proof of its independence from Christian theology. Charlie insists that logic’s universal and unchanging nature can only be “grounded” in the eternal and consistent character of the Trinitarian God.
The “Borrowing” Charge: Phil contends the “borrowing” argument is a rhetorical device that backfires, as Christianity itself adopted concepts from Greek philosophy, Judaism, and Stoicism. Charlie maintains that secularists inherently “borrow” the very possibility of reason from God, because no other worldview can provide a foundation for it.
Circularity and Starting Points: Phil identifies Charlie’s argument as “viciously circular”—using logic to prove a God that he claims is necessary for logic to be valid in the first place. Charlie concedes that all worldviews have starting assumptions but engages in special pleading by claiming Christianity alone escapes arbitrariness because its foundation is divine revelation, not human opinion.
The Role of Scripture: Phil sees the Bible as a collection of historical documents that must be subjected to critical analysis and cannot serve as its own justification. Charlie treats the Bible as God’s authoritative self-revelation, which provides the only non-arbitrary starting point for knowledge.
The Reason for Disagreement: Phil attributes the impasse to Charlie’s reliance on logical fallacies. Charlie concludes the disagreement is not intellectual but moral, claiming Phil and other non-believers actively “suppress the truth” out of a rebellious hostility toward God, a move Phil identifies as a genetic fallacy.
Assessment of Logical Coherence and Fallacies
The interlocutors operate with starkly different standards of reasoning, which is a key feature of debates involving presuppositionalism.
◉ Phil Stilwell
Coherence and Relevance: Phil’s arguments are logically coherent and consistently relevant. He directly addresses Charlie’s points, deconstructs his syllogisms, and uses historical evidence and philosophical principles to support his claims. His focus remains on testing the logical soundness of Charlie’s framework.
Logical Fallacies: Phil’s method is to identify and expose logical fallacies in his opponent’s reasoning. He correctly points out that Charlie’s core argument is an example of Begging the Question (circular reasoning), as it assumes the conclusion in its premises. He also highlights instances of Special Pleading and the Genetic Fallacy.
◉ Charlie Nason
Coherence and Relevance: Charlie’s arguments are coherent only within the closed loop of his presuppositional system. To an external observer, his reasoning is structurally flawed. He often fails to provide the direct evidence Phil requests, instead reasserting his foundational claim that the Trinity is the only possible ground for knowledge.
Logical Fallacies: Charlie’s position is constructed from a series of interlocking fallacies detailed in Phil’s referenced articles.
Begging the Question: The entire argument rests on the unproven assumption that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, which is then used to prove that the God of the Bible is the source of all authority.
False Dilemma: He presents an either/or choice: either the Christian God is the foundation for reality, or reality is unintelligible and meaningless, ignoring a vast landscape of alternative philosophical systems.
Dismissal through Reinterpretation: Rather than refuting Phil’s points, Charlie reinterprets Phil’s ability to use logic as an unwitting affirmation of God’s existence. He ultimately dismisses the entire disagreement as a “moral issue” on Phil’s part, which is a way of invalidating a counter-argument without engaging its substance.
In conclusion, the discussion serves as a clear illustration of the “impossibility of the contrary” method in presuppositional apologetics. Phil consistently demonstrates the logical fallacies inherent in this approach, while Charlie remains within his framework, where disagreement is not seen as an intellectual challenge but as evidence of the opponent’s flawed spiritual state.
➘ PHIL’S PROMPT:
Give both Phil and Charlie advice on how they might productively proceed in the discussion.
➘ GEMINI’S RESPONSE:
Based on the exchange, here is some advice for both Phil and Charlie on how they might proceed more productively.
◉ Advice for Phil Stilwell
Your arguments are logically rigorous and effective at deconstructing the fallacies within presuppositionalism. However, you’ve reached an impasse because your method of identifying fallacies is, by its nature, unlikely to persuade someone whose system reinterprets such critiques as evidence of a flawed starting point. To move the conversation forward, consider shifting your strategy from deconstruction to exploration.
Pivot from “What” to “How.” You have successfully demonstrated what is logically wrong with Charlie’s argument (it’s circular, commits special pleading, etc.). He is not engaging with this critique. A more productive path might be to explore how his worldview functions in practice. Ask questions like:
“Setting aside the ultimate grounding for a moment, how do you determine which historical claims in ancient texts—Christian or otherwise—are reliable? What method do you use to distinguish a credible account from a legendary one?”
“If two presuppositionalists from different faiths, say a Christian and a Muslim, both claim their scripture grounds logic, what tool could they use to adjudicate their competing, circular claims?” This directly engages the problem you table in your PDF concerning competing circles.
Use Analogies to Illustrate the Problem of Special Pleading. You’ve stated that Charlie’s claim to revelation is not unique. Instead of just stating this, build an analogy. You could spend time constructing a parallel argument for a different worldview (e.g., Islam or Mormonism), using Charlie’s exact structure. This forces the issue beyond a simple dismissal and makes him confront the structural problem you’ve identified.
Focus on Shared Epistemic Virtues. Charlie has dismissed your position as mere “opinion” while claiming “knowledge” for himself. Rather than rebutting this directly, pivot to a discussion about the process of knowing. Ask:
“Would you agree that intellectual humility—a willingness to be wrong—is a virtue in the pursuit of truth?”
“How does a worldview that begins with an unfalsifiable, certain presupposition allow for genuine intellectual humility?” This leverages your own point that secular epistemology remains “accountable to intersubjective standards of evidence and coherence” and is willing to “test, revise, and remain accountable”.
Acknowledge the Goal of His Framework. Show that you understand the purpose of his argument, even if you disagree with its mechanics. You could say, “I understand that from your perspective, the goal is to show the internal coherence of the Christian worldview. And within those bounds, you have a consistent system. My question is about the bridge from that internal coherence to the claim that it is the only possible coherent system.” This separates the critique of the argument as a universal proof from a dismissal of it as a statement of faith.
◉ Advice for Charlie Nason
Your goal is to demonstrate that the Trinitarian God is the necessary precondition for reason. However, your method of asserting this and then dismissing all counter-arguments as evidence of moral rebellion or ungrounded “opinion” prevents any productive dialogue. To engage Phil more effectively, consider the following.
Temporarily Bracket the “Moral Issue” Argument. Your claim that Phil’s disagreement stems from a desire to “not submit to God” is a use of the Genetic Fallacy. It dismisses his argument based on his presumed motives rather than its logical content. This is a conversation-stopper. To proceed productively, you must commit to addressing the substance of his logical objections as if they are being made in good faith.
Engage with the Problem of Specificity. Phil has argued that even if TAG (Transcendental Argument for God) were sound, it would not prove the Trinitarian God of Christianity. This is a significant logical challenge to your position. Instead of repeating that the Bible reveals the Trinity, try to build a rational bridge:
How do you get from a “necessary precondition for logic” to the specific and complex doctrine of the Trinity without simply appealing to the Bible as a brute fact?
Address the critique that the argument could be co-opted by other religions to “prove” their mutually exclusive conclusions.
Attempt to “Steel Man” the Secular Position. You repeatedly characterize Phil’s view as an “arbitrary starting point” or “mere opinion”. This is a “straw man” representation of secular epistemology. A more productive approach would be to try to articulate his position back to him in the strongest possible terms. For example:
“As I understand it, you’re arguing that logic is not a ‘thing’ that needs a foundation, but a descriptive system of rules for coherent thought, justified by its practical success and inductive reliability. Is that a fair summary?”
Engaging with this allows you to address what he’s actually arguing, rather than knocking down a caricature of it.
Address the Charge of Circularity Head-On. Phil, citing your own apologists, notes that presuppositionalists often defend their circularity by calling it “virtuous.” Instead of ignoring the charge, explain why you believe your circularity is justified while others’ is not. This requires more than saying “it’s revelation.” You need to explain why this “revelation” is not just another arbitrary starting point, which is the core of Phil’s challenge to you.
➘ Phil’s Questions for Charlie » Suggested by Gemini
Category 1: Questions about Competing Revelations (To Address Special Pleading)
This line of questioning addresses your claim that Christianity uniquely escapes having an arbitrary starting point because it’s “revelation”.
You’ve mentioned that any worldview not based on God’s revelation begins from an arbitrary starting point. I’m trying to understand how we can distinguish between a genuine revelation and one that is merely claimed. What method could we use?
Let’s imagine we met an Islamic presuppositionalist. He makes the exact same argument as you, but he says that logic is grounded in the mind of Allah as revealed in the Qur’an. He also says his starting point isn’t arbitrary because it’s divine revelation. How could you demonstrate to him that his claim is arbitrary but yours is not, without simply appealing to your own starting point?
If both you and the Muslim apologist claim your holy book is the ultimate standard, and any argument against it is invalid because the dissenter is ‘borrowing’ from your God, have you both reached an unbreakable impasse? What rational tool is left to determine who is correct?
Category 2: Questions about the Bridge to the Trinity (To Address the Problem of Specificity)
These questions explore the massive logical leap from “logic needs a ground” to “that ground is the Christian Trinity,” as found in the articles I’ve cited.
Help me understand the steps here. Let’s grant for a moment that logic needs some kind of metaphysical ground. Why must that ground be a mind, as opposed to an abstract principle or a fundamental feature of reality itself?
Okay, let’s say we agree it must be a mind. Why does it need to be a personal mind? And what do we mean by ‘personal’ in this context?
Now, even if we grant that logic is grounded in a personal, eternal mind, how do we get from there to the very specific Christian doctrine of the Trinity? What feature of logic itself points specifically to a tri-personal being, as opposed to a unitarian one like the God of Judaism or Islam?
You mentioned the Trinity was one of the last things revealed. If the Trinity is the necessary precondition for all human reason, why do you think humanity was able to reason, build civilizations, and develop systems of logic for thousands of years before this precondition was clearly revealed?
Category 3: Questions about Epistemic Method (To Address Circularity)
This approach probes how one might actually determine what is true. This may require you to confront your use of secular tools while claiming they are only valid within your system.
You’ve said that the Bible is a historical account and that your experience of knowing matches it. When you evaluate the Bible’s historical claims, what tools do you use? Do you use principles of textual criticism, archaeology, and assessing the credibility of testimony?
Are these tools—like historical analysis and weighing evidence—themselves grounded in the Trinity, or are they methods that anyone, including an atheist historian, can use effectively?
If a non-Christian historian uses these same tools and concludes the biblical accounts are not historically reliable, can we say the historian’s method was wrong, or only his conclusion? If the method is valid for anyone to use, why isn’t it a neutral, common ground for discussion?
Category 4: Questions about Falsifiability and Humility (To Address Dogmatism)
These questions challenge the unfalsifiable nature of your claims and the assertion that disagreement is a moral failing.
You’ve suggested my disagreement comes from a moral refusal to submit to God, rather than a rational evaluation. If we assume that’s true, how could your argument possibly persuade me? If my reason is fundamentally corrupted by rebellion, wouldn’t presenting me with a rational argument be futile?
Is there any conceivable evidence or argument that could, in principle, convince you that your presupposition about the Trinity is mistaken? If there is no such evidence, how is your belief different from something held dogmatically, rather than something known?
You’ve said I am welcome to my ‘opinion,’ while you have ‘knowledge’. In your view, what is the key difference between a belief that is ‘just an opinion’ and one that counts as ‘knowledge’?
Does the pursuit of truth require a degree of intellectual humility—that is, a recognition that our current beliefs might be wrong? How can one practice that humility if they begin with a conclusion that they believe is impossible to question?
You can respond to the questions above in the comments section below. Feel free to add your own questions you’d like me to answer.
2 responses to “Charlie and Phil on Presuppositionalism”
Phil Stilwell
Charlie Nason’s Comments(I’ve pasted his Facebook comments here in the hope he will use this forum since he has not been able to keep his Facebook comments in order. I’ll respond beneath this comment.)
1) There is a universal experience of human knowing.
This knowing includes a) a conscious being, b) reliable sense perception, c) a uniform reality perceived, d) an intelligible understanding of that reality, and e) conceptual laws guiding conceptual understanding and the uniform reality.
2) The reality has one ontological nature.
Our perception and understanding of it are limited, but to be uniform, it must exist as it does, and its nature remains unchanged.
3) A person’s conceptual understanding of that reality is a worldview.
As a person perceives and conceptually understands reality, the person gains a view of reality called a worldview. This worldview would be only as good as it rightly conceives of reality.
I purported that there are three basic worldviews: a) atomistic materialism, b) dualism, and c) spiritual monism. You rejected that there are only three, and I asked you to identify another. Do you have another category of worldview you would like to add?
4) Presuppositional apologetics evaluates worldviews by an internal critique of that worldview.
What I mean is that the worldview asserts an ontological structure of reality. There is an epistemological system that arises from that ontological view. Presuppositionalists assess whether the ontological view of reality provides the necessary preconditions to support the epistemological system that aligns with our universal experience of human knowledge and logical laws.
My claim is that the biblical worldview resting on the ontological Trinity is the only worldview that supports the human experience of human knowledge and logical laws.
My logical argument is this:
Premise 1 – Without the Bible, we would not know a Trinitarian God exists.
Premise 2 – If we did not know that the Trinitarian God exists, we cannot ground reason and logic.
Premise 3 – If we cannot ground reason and logic, then all rational thought is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Conclusion – Therefore, without the Bible revealing the Trinitarian God, all rational thought is arbitrary and inconsistent.
___
The Bible recognizes that the ontological reality of the Trinity is the ground for the experience of human knowing and logic.
The Trinity experiences each other perfectly, and we are created in this image to experience knowing in a similar way.
Matt. 11:27 Jesus says that no one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and those whom he chooses to reveal him.
This assertion displays the experience of knowing humanity was created to image. The Father is conscious of himself and another person, the Son. The Father perceives the Son and understands him as uniformly God, just as he is uniformly God himself. Thus, there is consciousness, sense perception, uniformity of nature, and intelligibility (conceptual understanding).
From the same verse, we can see the ground for conceptual laws. The Laws of Logic are: 1) Identity (A=A), 2) Excluded Middle (A or nonA), and Non-Contradiction (A not = nonA).
The Father identifies the Son as the Son, identity. The Father recognizes the Son is the Son and not the Father, excluded middle. The Son understands that the Son is God and the Father is God simultaneously, but not in the same way, non-contradiction. The Son is God as the Son, and the Father is God as the Father.
From these two members of the Trinity, we see that the human experience of knowing and the Logical Laws governing reason are grounded in the eternal ontological relationship of the Trinity.
This worldview, based on the Bible (the only place to find the Trinity), is the only worldview that provides the preconditions for the presuppositions that ground human knowing and Logical Laws.
___
The Bible recognizes that the ontological reality of the Trinity is the ground for the experience of human knowing and logic.
The Trinity experiences each other perfectly, and we are created in this image to experience knowing in a similar way.
Matt. 11:27 Jesus says that no one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and those whom he chooses to reveal him.
This assertion displays the experience of knowing humanity was created to image. The Father is conscious of himself and another person, the Son. The Father perceives the Son and understands him as uniformly God, just as he is uniformly God himself. Thus, there is consciousness, sense perception, uniformity of nature, and intelligibility (conceptual understanding).
From the same verse, we can see the ground for conceptual laws. The Laws of Logic are: 1) Identity (A=A), 2) Excluded Middle (A or nonA), and Non-Contradiction (A not = nonA).
The Father identifies the Son as the Son, identity. The Father recognizes the Son is the Son and not the Father, excluded middle. The Son understands that the Son is God and the Father is God simultaneously, but not in the same way, non-contradiction. The Son is God as the Son, and the Father is God as the Father.
From these two members of the Trinity, we see that the human experience of knowing and the Logical Laws governing reason are grounded in the eternal ontological relationship of the Trinity.
This worldview, based on the Bible (the only place to find the Trinity), is the only worldview that provides the preconditions for the presuppositions that ground human knowing and Logical Laws.
Your comments reflect a traditional presuppositionalist stance, but several issues require clarification and a willingness to move beyond assertion into genuine engagement. I’ll respond to your key points and then explain why answering the list of questions I have posed is essential for advancing this discussion meaningfully.
✓ Response to Your Comments
1. On the “Universal Experience of Human Knowing”
You list elements such as consciousness, reliable sense perception, and conceptual laws as part of a shared human knowing experience. I agree we experience these phenomena—but your leap is to claim that only the Trinity can account for them. This is the very claim under dispute, yet you treat it as a given. You must offer independent justification for why this common human experience cannot be accounted for within secular or non-Christian frameworks.
2. On Ontological Uniformity
You assert that reality has a single unchanging nature. I do not dispute that a consistent reality is experienced; what he disputes is the necessity of grounding that experience in a Christian ontology. Many philosophical systems (materialist, idealist, neutral monist, etc.) posit a coherent ontology without invoking the Trinity. To say that these fail because they’re not Christian is circular reasoning unless you demonstrate why the Trinity is the only viable ontological anchor.
3. On the Three Worldview Categories
You asked me to name an alternative to your triad of “atomistic materialism, dualism, and spiritual monism.” But this trichotomy is arbitrarily constructed. Where would neutral monism, process philosophy, panpsychism, or metaphysical idealism fit? Your framing excludes non-Christian positions not because they’ve failed but because they’re omitted. If your categories are meant to be exhaustive, you must argue for their exhaustiveness, not assert it.
4. On the Internal Critique of Worldviews
Internal critique is valuable. But your argument collapses into special pleading: you grant your own worldview a self-justifying “revelation” status while dismissing all others as “arbitrary.” This is not an equal application of standards. When a Muslim, Mormon, or Vedantic thinker applies the same reasoning to their scripture, do you see it as rational? If not, why should I see yours as rational?
5. On the Syllogism You Offered
Let’s break it down:
Premise 1: Without the Bible, we would not know a Trinitarian God exists. Fine. But this is a statement about information—not necessity. That something is revealed by the Bible doesn’t prove it is metaphysically required.
Premise 2: If we did not know the Trinitarian God exists, we cannot ground reason and logic. This is precisely what you must defend, yet you presume it. Why is a Trinitarian God necessary for logic rather than, say, a unitarian God or no deity at all?
Premise 3: Without grounding for reason, rationality becomes arbitrary. Even if we accept this, it doesn’t follow that the Bible is the only possible grounding.
Conclusion: Without the Bible, rational thought is arbitrary. This is not only question-begging, but it ignores all competing epistemologies that successfully produce predictive and coherent models of reality without appeal to your presupposition.
6. On Matt. 11:27 and the Trinity
You derive logical laws from interpersonal awareness within the Trinity—but this is theological metaphor stretched far beyond what is logically justifiable. Logic does not emerge from persons recognizing each other. It is a structural property of coherent language and propositions. You are engaging in anthropomorphic projection, not rigorous deduction.
✓ Why You Must Answer the Questions I’ve Posed
Charlie, your comments make sweeping claims, but the moment you are asked how you adjudicate between similar claims from competing religions or how you distinguish revelation from arbitrary assertion, you fall back into restatement. That’s not discourse; that’s dogmatism.
The questions are not distractions. They are essential diagnostic tools to test whether your system withstands scrutiny. Here’s why answering them matters:
✓ They force your framework to be consistent across cases, especially in the presence of competing religious epistemologies that claim the same grounding.
✓ They test your methodology, probing whether your tools of inference, evidence, and coherence are truly grounded in your system—or merely borrowed from secular analysis.
✓ They highlight the unfalsifiability of your stance—crucial if your position is to be intellectually honest rather than an apologetic shell.
✓ They challenge your dismissal of disagreement as “rebellion,” which short-circuits rational dialogue and violates norms of good faith discourse. ✓ Final Thought
If you’re convinced the Christian worldview is uniquely coherent and necessary, then it should not fear honest comparison with rival claims. It should be able to step into the arena of intersubjective inquiry. You’re not being asked to surrender your faith—only to show why it should be held above other options on epistemic grounds.
You’ve been offered a fair set of questions. If your position is as robust as you believe, the answers should come easily—and their clarity will help others see the strength of your convictions.
Hebrews 11:1 is often misquoted as a clear definition of faith, but its Greek origins reveal ambiguity. Different interpretations exist, leading to confusion in Christian discourse. Faith is described both as assurance and as evidence, contributing to semantic sloppiness. Consequently, discussions about faith lack clarity and rigor, oscillating between certitude…
This post emphasizes the importance of using AI as a tool for Christian apologetics rather than a replacement for personal discernment. It addresses common concerns among Christians about AI, advocating for its responsible application in improving reasoning, clarity, and theological accuracy. The article outlines various use cases for AI, such…
This post argues that if deductive proofs demonstrate the logical incoherence of Christianity’s core teachings, then inductive arguments supporting it lose their evidential strength. Inductive reasoning relies on hypotheses that are logically possible; if a claim-set collapses into contradiction, evidence cannot confirm it. Instead, it may prompt revisions to attain…
This post addresses common excuses for rejecting Christianity, arguing that they stem from the human heart’s resistance to surrendering pride and sin. The piece critiques various objections, such as the existence of multiple religions and perceived hypocrisy within Christianity. It emphasizes the uniqueness of Christianity, the importance of faith in…
The Outrage Trap discusses the frequent confusion between justice and morality in ethical discourse. It argues that feelings of moral outrage at injustice stem not from belief in objective moral facts but from a violation of social contracts that ensure safety and cooperation. The distinction between justice as a human…
Isn’t the killing of infants always best under Christian theology? This post demonstrates that the theological premises used to defend biblical violence collapse into absurdity when applied consistently. If your theology implies that a school shooter is a more effective savior than a missionary, the error lies in the theology.
This article discusses the counterproductive nature of hostile Christian apologetics, which can inadvertently serve the skepticism community. When apologists exhibit traits like hostility and arrogance, they undermine their persuasive efforts and authenticity. This phenomenon, termed the Repellent Effect, suggests that such behavior diminishes the credibility of their arguments. As a…
The post argues against the irreducibility of conscious experiences to neural realizations by clarifying distinctions between experiences, their neural correlates, and descriptions of these relationships. It critiques the regression argument that infers E cannot equal N by demonstrating that distinguishing between representations and their references is trivial. The author emphasizes…
The article highlights the value of AI tools, like Large Language Models, to “Red Team” apologetic arguments, ensuring intellectual integrity. It explains how AI can identify logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, strawman arguments, and tone issues, urging apologists to embrace critique for improved discourse. The author advocates for rigorous…
The concept of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling is central to Christian belief, promising transformative experiences and divine insights. However, this article highlights that the claimed supernatural benefits, such as unique knowledge, innovation, accurate disaster predictions, and improved health outcomes, do not manifest in believers. Instead, evidence shows that Christians demonstrate…
This post examines the widespread claim that human rights come from the God of the Bible. By comparing what universal rights would require with what biblical narratives actually depict, it shows that Scripture offers conditional privileges, not enduring rights. The article explains how universal rights emerged from human reason, shared…
This post exposes how Christian apologists attempt to escape the moral weight of 1 Samuel 15:3, where God commands Saul to kill infants among the Amalekites. It argues that the “hyperbole defense” is self-refuting because softening the command proves its literal reading is indefensible and implies divine deception if exaggerated.…
This post challenges both skeptics and Christians for abusing biblical atrocity texts by failing to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive passages. Skeptics often cite descriptive narratives like Nahum 3:10 or Psalm 137:9 as if they were divine commands, committing a genre error that weakens their critique. Christians, on the other…
In rational inquiry, the source of a message does not influence its validity; truth depends on logical structure and evidence. Human bias towards accepting or rejecting ideas based on origin—known as the genetic fallacy—hinders clear thinking. The merit of arguments lies in coherence and evidential strength, not in the messenger’s…
The defense of biblical inerrancy overlooks a critical flaw: internal contradictions within its concepts render the notion incoherent, regardless of textual accuracy. Examples include the contradiction between divine love and commanded genocide, free will versus foreordination, and the clash between faith and evidence. These logical inconsistencies negate the divine origin…
The referenced video outlines various arguments for the existence of God, categorized based on insights from over 100 Christian apologists. The arguments range from existential experiences and unique, less-cited claims, to evidence about Jesus, moral reasoning, and creation-related arguments. Key apologists emphasize different perspectives, with some arguing against a single…
In a personal chat about the scenario in which a young girl with a Muslim father and a Christian mother,…
This response is a necessary reboot of your position, Ryan. You have effectively abandoned the “stopping rule” epistemology you previously…
I understand your analogy and analysis, but I think you are confusing something. As I read the scriptures, I do…
This is a list of probing questions designed to clarify and scrutinize your epistemic position, particularly in light of the…
◉ The Infinite Gap: Where Biblical Salvation Breaks Epistemic Hygiene Ryan, let’s take that imagery of the cliff and the…
Ryan, your latest response confirms my suspicion: you are confusing pragmatic utility (the necessity to act within a physical, high-stakes…
Since your whole refutation hinges on a flawed Bayesian approach to epistemology, I will only address one part of your…
(Continued from Above): 4b.) The following elements in your understanding of the creation/common Christian interpretations (and correct me if I’ve…
In response to the specific points in your last post: 1.) Respectfully, what appeared to a form of “question-begging” was…
Thanks for the response. I apologize if my posts weren’t well-outlined or well-formatted: it would probably have been better…
Phil Stilwell
A Deep Dive into Common Faith-Based Concepts & Claims
All-star contributor · Sonrstdopei50c01M1h 6g 31f1Ay0l37 af864a f300uc8i87J2844tg:l ·
Free of Faith 
Leave a reply to Phil Stilwell Cancel reply