This is the second discussion on Part 2 of a video posted by KnownNoMore. If you didn’t see the first video, please check out Part 1 of my blog. KnowNoMore has split up his rebuttal to Sye Ten Bruggencate’s presuppositional apologetic technique. I’m ordering my responses to match each of his separate videos.
A little background:
I’ve recently been visiting Google+ communities to discuss the existence of God. There are several communities that post and debate on atheist and theist materials. I think is a great way to build your apologetic skills and be ready to address any questions you might get while sharing the Gospel. There are many more atheists in the communities than there are Christians which is disappointing. Also, it can get a bit overwhelming when you have 3, 4, or 5 atheists challenging you at the same time. These communities are an excellent place to see Proverbs 17:12 in action! (Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool bent on folly) We certainly need more Christian voices on the web so please consider joining in the share the Gospel and glorify the Lord by addressing atheists on the internet.
I was recently using a presuppositional apologetic when an atheist stated that presuppositional apologetics was refuted and posted a link to these youtube videos. There are actually several videos from a you-tuber knows as KnownNoMore. These videos focus on Sye Ten Bruggencate and his presuppositional approach. Sye has become very popular on youtube and has debated many popular atheists. To learn more about Sye and his ministry, please visit ProofThatGodExists.org. Also, check out his video produced by Crown Rights Media called How to Answer the Fool. The video is an excellent resource for learning the presuppositional approach to apologetics.
I’ve been responding to these videos with the goal of creating a resource to direct atheists to when this video is brought up again to keep the focus on the absurdity of the unbelievers world view. I also hope that other apologists can use the blog as a resource too.
Here is the video we will be looking at:
A common question that is asked when using presuppositional apologetics is “What do you know for certain?” The idea is to discuss how the unbeliever can justify knowledge without revelation from God. We’re not saying that the unbeliever doesn’t know things for certain, but that they can’t justify knowing something for certain with their worldview. The unbeliever wants to make themselves the final authority for truth and knowledge and then they want to decide whether God exists or not. This is the same sin that we saw in the garden when Eve began thinking that she could have certain knowledge apart from God’s revelation.
KnownNoMore states he can know two things for certain.
1.”That I, as a thinking entity exist”
2.”The laws of logic”
When asked how he knows these things for certain, he answers, “Same way that you think you know your God exists, from the impossibility of the contrary.” I’d like to clarify this point because it’s often missed by the unbelievers. The possibility of the contrary does provide evidence that God exists. However, we have certain knowledge that God exists because he has revealed himself to all of us (Romans 1:19).
KnownNoMore then provides a syllogism to demonstrate how he knows he exists. He states:
1.In order for thinking to be going on, there must exist a thinking entity
2. There is thinking going on
3. A thinking entity exists
And this thinking entity is referred to as “I”
However, the syllogism only proves that a thinking entity exists. It doesn’t lead to any proof that KnowNoMore exists. He makes a jump from the conclusion that a thinker exists to I exist, but doesn’t demonstrate how he gets there. There is no way to get from a thinking entity exists to I exist. This was also pointed out by atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell in his work The History of Western Philosophy, p. 567.
In Part two, KnownNoMore introduces a proof to show how he can justify certain knowledge apart from God. However, he attempts to make a leap from the conclusion of his proof, a thinker exists, to that thinker is I. His proof fails to show how he can know that he exists for certain. This isn’t a new problem, and was also discussed by Russell back in 1945.
In Part 3, KnownNoMore will be looking at the Laws of logic for justification of certain knowledge apart from God. We’ll examine his argument and discuss any flaws we find.