The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point) The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever) The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)ünchhausen_Trilemma

"....Some people would say that all statements need evidence to support them. Others would say that some statements can follow out of other statements. Most people belong to both categories, but all face one problem: what if there's no evidence for a fundamental statement and that statement also doesn't follow out of any other statements? ..."

James Randy Edit

Sye Ten Bruggencate Edit

Stephen Law debate with Sye

The presuppositional apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate at May Memorial Universalist Church in Syracuse.

The persons debating Sye and it seems even Sye himself are unaware that the concept they are discussing is the (Münchhausen Trilemma). Sye is making the point that our only alternative to circularity and infinitism is unfalsifiability or being unscientific.

Since atheists insist they are scientific, they therefore don't understand Sye's arguments. The mistake they make is to think that Sye is the originator of his line of questioning.

Sye Ten Bruggencate's line of reasoning is very good. See the youtube links at

notes on Sye: 1. truth is what is real, correspondence theory of truth. Problem is we don't know what is real.

2. The only way to stop an infinite regress is if you have infinite knowledge 2min

> Sye Ten Bruggencate makes the following point:

"..... P.S. For my parody "proof" that Sye has been hit on the head with a rock and his brain addled, go here ....." Edit - Carneadesofcyrene's video - - on Agrippa takes the position of skepticism concerning the validity of the trilemma itself. Since the very concept of skepticism bootstraps the law of excluded middle, he is still bound by the Agrippian rhetorical circle. We are all bound, either virtuously or rhetorically.

These types of pop. expositions on Agrippa all bootstrap their respective world views into the problem and are oblivious to this fact since they don't cite any journal papers. Dr.Andrew Cling did not spend hours of his life and over 20 pages in the Journal of Philosophical studies, nor the the four university professors who had to peer review it before publication, if he thought the whole Agrippian issue is bogus, rather for him it is "intolerable". Carneades is using "sceptical" as dissimilar term for 'bogus', 'misguided', uninteresting in his Adaptationist angle on Agrippa and presup issues.

Presuppositional apologetics Notes Edit

Dr. Jason Lisle

Presuppositional apollogetics Edit

Sye Ten Bruggencate's - - pre suppositional

The Atheists in on Youtube, attempting to refute Bruggencate's apologetics are actually attempting to refute the Münchhausen Trilemma , without knowing that Wikipedia defines it as an unsolved philosophical problem. See

Sye said "... 49:30min ..... God is not an axiom, he is a necessary pre-condition. .... because axiom is not provable. ... axiom is not a necessary truth...." 2min "..... are viciously circular arguments invalid ....."

His arguments must be incorporated into this wiki and thus some things could be up for review. A full course on his views is here

At Stephen Law I have compiled Prof.Stephen Law's replies to Sye

C0nc0rdance Edit

NOTE: C0nc0rdance at 10min misstates Sye's argument. Sye differentiates virtuous circularity from vicious circularity(Logical fallacies , concordance left out the 'virtuous part'. Presup states that beings with finite knowledge cannot refute God who has infinite knowledge, nowhere does Concordance use the term 'infinite' in his video. He misrepresents Sye not quoting anything that can be directly verified on youtube or in print. Concordance idea of God is as a being with finite knowledge, God has infinite knowledge.

Links Edit from some replies seems to equivocate between logical circularity and rhetorical circularity. Just like logical tautologies, there must be logical circularity, don't confuse the two finite-mind objection

Klein, Peter. 2005a. “Infinitism Is the Solution to the Regress Problem.” In M. Steup and E. Sosa, eds, Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.