Presuppositional Apologetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(02-10-2014 02:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(27-09-2014 04:29 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Arguing against presuppositionalism contradicts yourself. It's your position that is presuppositional. God's existence is required for absolutely anything.
Starting with no assumption and seeing where the evidence leads does not come from presupposition, including when the evidence does not reveal a god.

But you do start with an assumption. You assume reason.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 07:34 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2014 07:38 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(02-10-2014 05:27 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 02:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Starting with no assumption and seeing where the evidence leads does not come from presupposition, including when the evidence does not reveal a god.

But you do start with an assumption. You assume reason.

Yes, and look at the marvelous places it leads us to when we follow that stepping stone.

What have you got to show for your crockpot of insanity shitstew?

Also, your response implies that God is not rational; glad to see we agree on something for once.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 07:59 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(02-10-2014 05:27 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You assume reason.
That's not even a complete sentence so please explain what about reason is assumed.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(02-10-2014 07:59 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 05:27 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You assume reason.
That's not even a complete sentence so please explain what about reason is assumed.

That is a complete sentence. It has a subject and a predicate.
You assume that reason is valid without any justification.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(03-10-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You assume that reason is valid without any justification.

Yes and so do you. We all do.

Reason cannot be justified without reasoning in a circle, even when god is used as the justification. You have to assume reason first, then engage in reasonable argument to prove you need god.

I know you already have heard this, since I posted the following thread specifically for you to understand it.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...or-Diddo97

Either comment on the refutation, or shut up.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
03-10-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(03-10-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 07:59 PM)Impulse Wrote:  That's not even a complete sentence so please explain what about reason is assumed.

That is a complete sentence. It has a subject and a predicate.
You assume that reason is valid without any justification.

"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" is a grammaticaly valid sentence as well.

What else ya got?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-10-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(03-10-2014 12:25 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You assume that reason is valid without any justification.
Reason cannot be justified without reasoning in a circle, even when god is used as the justification. You have to assume reason first, then engage in reasonable argument to prove you need god.

God doesn't need reason. His existence is self evident.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(03-10-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  That is a complete sentence. It has a subject and a predicate.
You assume that reason is valid without any justification.

You assume rock.
You assume bananas.
You assume planet.

Do any of those make sense to you?
You assume <insert noun> is incomplete.

But now that you clarified, let's recap:
You said:
(27-09-2014 04:29 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Arguing against presuppositionalism contradicts yourself. It's your position that is presuppositional. God's existence is required for absolutely anything.

To which I said:
(02-10-2014 02:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Starting with no assumption and seeing where the evidence leads does not come from presupposition, including when the evidence does not reveal a god.

To which you now said:
(03-10-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  You assume that reason is valid without any justification.

Translation: "Arguing against presuppositionalism contradicts yourself. It's your assumption that reason is valid without any justification that is presuppositional. God's existence is required for absolutely anything."

When I said there are no assumptions, I meant about a god because you were talking about God's existence being required. Assuming reason is valid, not as an absolute, but as a framework for investigating and for thinking, in no way assumes anything about a god; nor does it even assume reason is, in fact, valid.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
03-10-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
Basically because presupp is asserting that we already believe in god and asserting what we think, feel or know because they "know" it to be true because circular reasoning bible god blah blah blah.

You CANNOT answer their questions, because no matter how you answer them, it is a double negative that will be proof that you indeed DO believe in god proving them "Right" for a lack of better terms.

It is childish, retarded and down right dishonest. It would like me asking you, Since I know you eat bacon regardless of your denial. How does it taste with sea salt and chives? I know this may be a lousy comparison, but you get the point.

Sye asserts that infants believe in god for craps sake. If this were true, if we already know everything there is to know about it. Why STUDY the bible at all? Why learn anything? it would make church a complete waste of time if that were true and its NOT.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2014, 07:54 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(03-10-2014 12:34 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(03-10-2014 12:25 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Reason cannot be justified without reasoning in a circle, even when god is used as the justification. You have to assume reason first, then engage in reasonable argument to prove you need god.

God doesn't need reason. His existence is self evident.

Except it's not.

Here's a good question for you to answer: what factors constitute something as being self-evident?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: