Phenomenal conservatism (PC) is the epistemological view according to which, roughly, the way things seem or appear to be is a source of justification for believing that things are actually so.

Jimmy Stephens explains:

The problem with PC is that it’s trivial. It’s a format for analyzing/classifying natural warrant/justification. It is not itself an answer to basic skeptical problems – it just rewords (some of) them, at best.

As a foil, I can just say, “It seems to me you’re self-evidently wrong.” If PC is taken to be sufficient for knowledge, there ends the debate. You have to have a defeater for my seeming but you cannot raise anything above “self-evident.” Self-evident just means a seeming x which in case it seems cannot be doubted.

So our only choice is to say, PC is a cool format, but not really interesting to foundationalism or epistemology writ large.

It reminds me of the analytic future/future answer to the problem of induction. It’s very insightful, but doesn’t accomplish anything other than a neat way to parse our concepts.

Giansar:

Yes. I agree completely. PC is all in all not interesting because it’s boxing off your own position while not doing anything to criticise the opposing position.
That said, I would argue this is precisely what the theist side does, hinging their worldview on a personal experience.
This is why the discussion on online debate forums with PA Christians rarely touches on the question of personal experience of God, apart of the claim itself (and I know because I tried talking about it with people like DD, JRobin, Matt Yester, Tonloc). A declaration of lack thereof effectively ends any possibility of attack from the theist side – which doesn’t mean it gives an opening to the atheist side. It basically turns the discussion into two ships broadsiding one another but staying out of range

Jimmy Stephens:

I do not propose a personal experience. I appeal to divine revelation – a historic act of God that entails knowledge in those affected.

Giansar:

I never felt I had a good grasp on what exactly a divine revelation is but I always thought it was personal. If you say it’s not the case then I’m completely at a loss .

Jimmy Stephens:

I think you mean by “personal” private. Like I said, it’s a historical event. It has taken place publically.

Giansar:

I’s say it’s not about events or information itself but what it means for you – this part is immediate knowledge. The fact that for you the Bible is the world of God is I think personal and I don’t know why it is so for you while it isn’t for me.
When you say the Bible is the word of God and that God revealed himself to you – I believe you. At the same time I kind of don’t know what you are talking about because I do not share this experience.
It’s like if I suffered from congenital insensitivity to pain and you tried explaining to me how it is to be in pain.

Jimmy Stephens:

That’s the contention, though. You are claiming that the Bible does not provide you this experience. I am saying, this is the experience the Bible universally provides.

To back your claim, you have “seemings,” which is indistinguishable from repeating the claim. So your claim to not have this experience is not justified.

To back my claim, I have the testimony of our Creator. Justification gets no stronger than that.

Giansar:

“So your claim to not have this experience is not justified.”
“To back my claim, I have the testimony of our Creator. Justification gets no stronger than that.”
I accept that this is how it looks like from your perspective.
From my perspective though, you’re just begging the question: I’m telling you that I did not experience Gods revelation and you are telling me that I necessarily did, because God’s revelation is universal – which is also just restating the claim that God exists.

Jimmy Stephens:

The propositions

– God exists

– God has revealed Himself to all men

have very different content. Saying one is not saying the other.

Giansar:

Well, the second one includes the first one. God has to exist to be able to reveal himself, right?

Jimmy Stephens:

Right, and the first does not include the second. The mere consideration or claim that God exists is not the same as the consideration that God has spoken and made Himself known. So it’s not accurate to say one is just repeating the claim, “God exists,” to report that God has testified to His existence.

Giansar:

So, I agree that IF the Christian God exists, then he revealed himself to me and I rejected the revelation.
It doesn’t get me any closer to accepting God’s existence though.
The “IF” is the contention here.

Jimmy Stephens:

Sure, but that conditional isn’t the justification to which I appealed.

Again, you believe God’s existence is doubtable via PC. But we agreed, PC on its own reduces to subjectivism. That’s not justification.

I believe God’s existence is indubitable because He has designed the universe and authored Scripture so that they cause all who experience them to know Him. Justification can get no stronger.

For you to reply and say, “But I don’t believe in God,” is just to miss the fact that that claim rests on PC, which we just agreed doesn’t work.

Giansar:

“Again, you believe God’s existence is doubtable via PC. But we agreed, PC on its own reduces to subjectivism. That’s not justification.”
I don’t believe in God for the exact same reason you do. You believe in God because God revealed himself to you. I don’t believe in God because God didn’t reveal himself to me. It may be my subjective experience but it is also necessarily true as experience because it’s my immediate experience. And it looks like it can’t be objected to without invoking another competing worldview – like the Christian worldview in your case.
So you still just telling me that God did reveal himself to me – which is begging the question because you ask me to accept God’s existence in order to show me God exists.

Jimmy Stephens:

No, I am neither asking you to infer revealed theology from God’s existence, nor am I appealing to “the exact same reason you do” when you appeal to PC seemings.

I am appealing to historic, public acts of God.

If Jesus were here and He says, authoritatively, “I am God,” and I say, “Observe the evidence,” it would be greatly mistaken to say I am doing anything like saying, “Believe God exists in order to then tie Jesus into that.”