(No, this is not the “tu quoque!” moral equivalent of starting out by assigning probability 1 that Christ died for your sins.)
Can someone please explain this?
I understand many religious people claim to just ‘have faith’ in Christ, with absolute certainty. I think the standard argument would run “well, you say I shouldn’t have faith in Christ, but you have faith in ‘science’ / ‘non-neglible probability on induction and some single well ordered large ordinal’ so you can’t argue against faith”.
What is Eliezer saying here?
Addendum: By which I mean, can someone give a clear explanation of why they are not the same?
Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.
Can someone please explain this?
I understand many religious people claim to just ‘have faith’ in Christ, with absolute certainty. I think the standard argument would run “well, you say I shouldn’t have faith in Christ, but you have faith in ‘science’ / ‘non-neglible probability on induction and some single well ordered large ordinal’ so you can’t argue against faith”.
What is Eliezer saying here?
Addendum: By which I mean, can someone give a clear explanation of why they are not the same?
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
You pretty much got it. Eliezer’s predicting that response and saying, no, they’re really not the same thing. (Tu quoque)
EDIT: Never mind, I thought it was a literal question.
I see. Could you articulate how exactly they’re not the same thing please?
For instance: nowhere above did EY claim anything had probability one.