Question

Hello Rabbi, I looked through your first book from the trilogy, The First Existent, written with very careful precision, and the transition between different modes of thought throughout history goes straight to the point. In the past I dealt with the argument that tried to express, in an apologetic style, the presuppositions of Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. That position is no longer really held in Western secular academia, but that is not the point. The criticism I wanted to raise is that I can create a hypothetical world in which all the conditions hold: the cognitive faculties also represent the real truth and reflect reality as it is, much of the time and even broadly speaking, but it is still an unjustified true belief with regard to all the parameters that I find in the facts of the world. So I have no way of proving that what I say is correct in this hypothetical world with respect to claims about the external world, but it is definitely a possible world: it has objects, etc., and senses, and a person who perceives them, and the senses reflect reality, but the subject has no way to prove it. I do not see any problem with that. And I also saw among the people I mentioned earlier that Western criticism said that it falls into the same pit no less than atheism. The fact that I need “God” in order to justify my rational belief does not mean that He necessarily exists, and certainly things can be true without my knowing how to justify them, all the more so how to justify them completely.