ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(06-11-2014 01:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 10:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I mean that having heard hundreds of salvation testimonies in person or over Internet/radio/TV from born agains, not a single one said, "Life is great, all is well. Oops, I'm missing something, I need to trust Jesus." On the contrary, every born again's testimony is that they heard the gospel, doubted, than pondered.

And I have heard others who were in terrible trouble or pain and were persuaded that they needed religion.

Quote:John 3:19 - This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

John 1:5 - The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

People run from the light of God like insects exposed under an overhang.

I really hate these passive-aggressive statements. Fuck you.

Quote: In my own instance, I know I wasn't guilty of confirmatory biases because I grew up as a nonChristian and reading the Bible for myself as an adult, was converted only after great skepticism and reluctance. I embarked on months of critical study before converting.

You have a very different understanding of 'critical' than I do.

Quote:I can see where people might say, by the way, that all start life as atheists. After all, the universal nature of man is be born as sinners who are in the dark on many things about God. That there is a "hole in the heart" that draws people to explore the numinous or philosophical has been confirmed by science, a "god gene" if you will.

No, I won't. There isn't anything at all like a 'god gene' - that's preposterous. Or is that simply a disingenuous reading of actual science?

What we do have is an evolved set of mind tools that seek meaning and intentionality. Actual critical thinking allows us to keep those from misfiring and finding gods where there is no evidence for any.

Chas, your comments here are very strange, because my "passive-aggressive" statement was about ALL persons, and in particular those who eventually trust Jesus for salvation. I'm one of the insects, as in "amazing grace". You are saying I was being passive-aggressive to myself. And your invective was uncalled for and ungentlemanly. I thought you said you are a professor or teacher? I would never talk to my own students or disciples in that manner, and since you represent yourself as smarter and better informed than me and as my intellectual superior, perhaps you will in future confine yourself to logical, reasoned discourse and not foul language. (I hope that comes across as a direct challenge to behave yourself like a reasoning adult and not in any way passive.)

I don't mind that you brought up coming to Christ while in pain, because it underscores two points that 1) suffering has meaning for Christians 2) suffering is a witness to the lost that further suffering awaits unless there is repentance. Heaven and Hell are brought to the fore when there is suffering, and I'm unashamed to mention Hell or Heaven on this or any other forum.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(06-11-2014 02:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't mind that you brought up coming to Christ while in pain, because it underscores two points that 1) suffering has meaning for Christians 2) suffering is a witness to the lost that further suffering awaits unless there is repentance. Heaven and Hell are brought to the fore when there is suffering, and I'm unashamed to mention Hell or Heaven on this or any other forum.

Suffering only has meaning to folks with the same kind of mental condition you have been "suffering from". What a loon!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(06-11-2014 02:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 01:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  And I have heard others who were in terrible trouble or pain and were persuaded that they needed religion.


I really hate these passive-aggressive statements. Fuck you.


You have a very different understanding of 'critical' than I do.


No, I won't. There isn't anything at all like a 'god gene' - that's preposterous. Or is that simply a disingenuous reading of actual science?

What we do have is an evolved set of mind tools that seek meaning and intentionality. Actual critical thinking allows us to keep those from misfiring and finding gods where there is no evidence for any.

Chas, your comments here are very strange, because my "passive-aggressive" statement was about ALL persons, and in particular those who eventually trust Jesus for salvation. I'm one of the insects, as in "amazing grace". You are saying I was being passive-aggressive to myself. And your invective was uncalled for and ungentlemanly. I thought you said you are a professor or teacher? I would never talk to my own students or disciples in that manner, and since you represent yourself as smarter and better informed than me and as my intellectual superior, perhaps you will in future confine yourself to logical, reasoned discourse and not foul language. (I hope that comes across as a direct challenge to behave yourself like a reasoning adult and not in any way passive.)

I don't mind that you brought up coming to Christ while in pain, because it underscores two points that 1) suffering has meaning for Christians 2) suffering is a witness to the lost that further suffering awaits unless there is repentance. Heaven and Hell are brought to the fore when there is suffering, and I'm unashamed to mention Hell or Heaven on this or any other forum.

The only thing you want to address is my calling out your passive-aggressive insult? That statement is an insult to everyone who doesn't share your belief in a god.

I use language for communication and for effect. When I am rude to you it is quite intentional and measured.

Please address the other points or fuck off.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
Suffering has great meaning for many who've suffered. You are assuming *great* suffering has *great* meaning objectively, it doesn't.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
Pre-suppositional apologetics is just another scam word-switch by fundie Christians. Same thing as Intelligent Design... just a sneaky word for creationist...

Except that it's orders of magnitude stupider than ID.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 07:02 AM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(10-11-2014 04:36 PM)photon9 Wrote:  Pre-suppositional apologetics is just another scam word-switch by fundie Christians. Same thing as Intelligent Design... just a sneaky word for creationist...

It's a necessity for them.

I was in a Facebook group primarily composed of fundamentalist Baptists. I made the statement that there is no evidence that God exists that doesn't require you to assume he exists in the first place. That statement really bothered a lot of people. I had about half a dozen people try to prove me wrong. Most of them independently said "Creation is proof of God", and I pointed out that they had to pre-suppose God to get there, and they didn't respond. I had one person start a very odd attempt at the Ontological Argument with me. Only one person openly admitted that their stance was a purely faith-based stance, and I got the impression he was agreeing with me passive-aggressively (I could be wrong; no tone of voice on the Internet, and all).

The point is, without presupposition, all they have is faith, and honestly, I think that scares them. I think they realize that if all they have is a belief, they can't objectively put their religion on a higher pedestal than all the other ones. There are no shortage of posters in that group that have well-crafted responses for why Christianity is the "true" religion and others don't count. They have reasons for believing in God. They know which interpretation of the Bible is "correct", and they base a huge portion of their life on that...

...and to think that all of that involves making a bunch of unfounded assumptions bothers them like nothing else. They'll tell you to your face that faith is good enough, yet they'll spend the rest of their time trying to prove various facets of it. They have well rehearsed and memorized statements to stave off different lines of attack. This is important, because, apparently, the only thing behind that line of defense is a very tall house of cards.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
12-11-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(11-11-2014 07:02 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(10-11-2014 04:36 PM)photon9 Wrote:  Pre-suppositional apologetics is just another scam word-switch by fundie Christians. Same thing as Intelligent Design... just a sneaky word for creationist...

It's a necessity for them.

I was in a Facebook group primarily composed of fundamentalist Baptists. I made the statement that there is no evidence that God exists that doesn't require you to assume he exists in the first place. That statement really bothered a lot of people. I had about half a dozen people try to prove me wrong. Most of them independently said "Creation is proof of God", and I pointed out that they had to pre-suppose God to get there, and they didn't respond. I had one person start a very odd attempt at the Ontological Argument with me. Only one person openly admitted that their stance was a purely faith-based stance, and I got the impression he was agreeing with me passive-aggressively (I could be wrong; no tone of voice on the Internet, and all).

The point is, without presupposition, all they have is faith, and honestly, I think that scares them. I think they realize that if all they have is a belief, they can't objectively put their religion on a higher pedestal than all the other ones. There are no shortage of posters in that group that have well-crafted responses for why Christianity is the "true" religion and others don't count. They have reasons for believing in God. They know which interpretation of the Bible is "correct", and they base a huge portion of their life on that...

...and to think that all of that involves making a bunch of unfounded assumptions bothers them like nothing else. They'll tell you to your face that faith is good enough, yet they'll spend the rest of their time trying to prove various facets of it. They have well rehearsed and memorized statements to stave off different lines of attack. This is important, because, apparently, the only thing behind that line of defense is a very tall house of cards.

My church is doing a series on non-pre-sup apologetics.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(31-10-2014 08:56 AM)corfou73 Wrote:  I've recently come across this video proposing, as the title says, a rebuttal to presup apologetics :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG63IEfAz2Y

Very short summary: to counter the claim of a possible absolute knowledge provided by divine revelation, affirm the possibility that reality is a computer simulation and that the computer is feeding the apologist with incorrect data that leads him to beleive that he *knows*.

I guess that this argument is OK in front of an audience of normally resonable persons, but then, do they have to be convinced anyway ? I can also imagine that people who already have a germ of doubt could be led to doubt more. But I cannot imagine a *convinced* presuppositionalist to fall for that, for two main reasons :
  1. A computer simulation could well be the modality of creation of this universe : a supernatural being with a supernatural computer creating a natural universe over which he has all power.
  2. It is an *argument*. It uses *reason*, the same reason that apologist denies to his opponent, and to himself if it wasn't for the divine revelation.

Basically, the presuppositional position is nothing more than uttering "Whatever!" again and again.

Then how to counter it ?

I'd like to propose a few strategies, none of which use a correctly formulated argument per se. They have in common that they assume the presupposition and let it develop itself to a practical impossibility or uselessness.
  1. You talkin' to me ?
    - When we debate one with another, do we use our reason to make sense of, and assess, eachother's statement ?
    Option 1
    - We sure do!
    - Then if my reason is flawed, how can I be sure that what I understand you are saying is actually what you are saying?
    Option 2
    - No (+ explanation).
    - You just made a statement about reality that I can not assess due to my reasoning being flawed.
    Conclusion
    Why did you want to debate anyway?
  2. Play stupid. Since presuppositions are legit in the apologist's logic, let's accept it and state our own "presupposition" : *nothing* can be known for sure. This should lead to quite an "interesting" debate :
    - I know that god exists.
    - No you don't.
    - Yes I do.
    - No you don't.
    - How do you know?
    - It's my presupposition.
    - How do you know your presupposition is true?
    - I don't. My presupposition precisely states that nothing can be known for sure.
    - It's illogical.
    - No it's not.
    - Yes it is.
    ....
    Hours of fruitful debate to follow.


You may say that these are childish scenarios, and I would agree. Nonetheless, if I accept to debate, I have to find a common ground with my opponent, a common language, a common logic. If my opponent sticks to his presupposition, I go with it. The presuppositionalist claim *is* childish, hence is the debate.

Actually I have other weird ideas, but I'm interested in what you guys think of all this.

If any presup apologist is around, I'd be quite interested in his/her opinion too.

Now you see what you have to do? You have to reduce your worldview to absurdity.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(12-11-2014 02:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 07:02 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  It's a necessity for them.

I was in a Facebook group primarily composed of fundamentalist Baptists. I made the statement that there is no evidence that God exists that doesn't require you to assume he exists in the first place. That statement really bothered a lot of people. I had about half a dozen people try to prove me wrong. Most of them independently said "Creation is proof of God", and I pointed out that they had to pre-suppose God to get there, and they didn't respond. I had one person start a very odd attempt at the Ontological Argument with me. Only one person openly admitted that their stance was a purely faith-based stance, and I got the impression he was agreeing with me passive-aggressively (I could be wrong; no tone of voice on the Internet, and all).

The point is, without presupposition, all they have is faith, and honestly, I think that scares them. I think they realize that if all they have is a belief, they can't objectively put their religion on a higher pedestal than all the other ones. There are no shortage of posters in that group that have well-crafted responses for why Christianity is the "true" religion and others don't count. They have reasons for believing in God. They know which interpretation of the Bible is "correct", and they base a huge portion of their life on that...

...and to think that all of that involves making a bunch of unfounded assumptions bothers them like nothing else. They'll tell you to your face that faith is good enough, yet they'll spend the rest of their time trying to prove various facets of it. They have well rehearsed and memorized statements to stave off different lines of attack. This is important, because, apparently, the only thing behind that line of defense is a very tall house of cards.

My church is doing a series on non-pre-sup apologetics.

The only apologists you need is Sye Ten Bruggencate. He leaves atheists no way out.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: ACE's Rebuttal to Presuppositional Apologetics
(16-11-2014 01:51 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  The only apologists you need is Sye Ten Bruggencate. He leaves atheists no way out.

I found his site. I'm confused, though. I went through his proof and reached the page that says:
Quote:To reach this page you have admitted that absolute truth exists, that you can know things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging, that it is not made of matter, and that it is universal.

I admit these things because: "I think, therefore I am," is true and in the sense that even should I stop thinking it will always be true that at the point in time that I made the proposition it was true. This will be true everywhere and for all time: it is an absolute truth. Additionally, the first person experience it is not made of matter: it is immaterial. And it's validity is supported by the definition of "I." If there is an I, there is a me. Regardless of what that me is, there is necessarily a me thinking: A knowledge true and valid everywhere there is or was a me that thought, and that's just what I do: Think.

The next paragraph is confusing though. He goes on to say that:
Quote:Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God. Therefore...

Why is God necessary? With thought alone we have absolute truth, knowledge, logic and even the immaterial. They exist for no other reason than: "I think, therefore I am."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: