Presuppositional Apologetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2012, 08:35 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(02-05-2012 08:11 PM)Debzilla Wrote:  The apologetic arguments are enigmatic, circular, and above the burden of proof. How can you have a debate with someone entrenched so?
I love that apologetics as a word is so similiar to apology. Puts a smile on my face.
I've wondered time and time again why apologists have adopted that title. It's like atheism defenders choosing to call themselves evilogists.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 08:40 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
These types of "logical" arguments for god are absolutely insane.
You can't state something is true, then base the conclusion on that claimed truth as proof that something else is true.
If you have a brain and do this you are simply a liar.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 09:00 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
To start this post off, here's some reference material:

The theist in the "Proof That God Exists" podcast is named Sye Ten Bruggencate (his website is http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ ) As mentioned in the podcast, Sye and Eric Hovind were on The MagicSandwichShow with panelists AronRa, DPRJones, Thunderf00t, and C0nc0rdance (the YouTube Playlist here). There was a short lived thread here about this episode of the MSS (link). Following that MSS show with Sye and Eric, C0nc0rdance posted a
response video highlighting his argument against the Presuppositional
stance (link). TheBeardedDude posted a link of Thunder and Eric debating at the Reason Rally which I believe this is only part of that debate. For the full unedited version check out the video Thunder posted in his YT channel (link).

I'll admit I have not yet watched the three debates the OP linked to, but i believe C0nc0rdance makes a very simple and one of the best counter arguments. Please go and watch his video if you were only to click on one of my links, but here's my interpretation of it.

As mentioned by Hafnof, we can't really know what reality is, but we can make predictive models of what we observe. Presuppositionalists say that logic and reason only exist because of Gods inherent nature, thus without god we cannot reason or use logic. Yes, our logic is circular, observation -> reason -> testing/inference -> reason -> observe... but people like Sye have a somewhat "double circular" reasoning. That is, after reason, we must then jump to God and his truthfulness and his revelations before we test and infer. So basically reason without God is less circular...

As I said, go watch C0nc0rdance's video, I'm terrible at explaining this. It makes my simple head hurt.

"The most valuable possession you can own is an open heart. The most powerful weapon you can be is an instrument of peace." -- Carlos Santana
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 06:48 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 06:55 AM by bwilson.)
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
Here is a great written debate on TAG. I just read through the whole thing (takes around 30-40 minutes). It's worth it, and I think will give you a good idea of how to point out the weaknesses of presuppositionalism.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/t...ge-wilson/

(02-05-2012 05:19 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  I think the straightforward counter to this is:
1. There is no reason to think that there is an absolute reference frame
2. There is no reason to think that beings exist there
3. There is no reason to think a being that exists there would be honest
4. There is no reason to think that if such a being would be interested in us
5. There is no reason to think that the Bible is the word of that being. Why not another religion's text?
6. I tend also to think that the properties of such a god contradict those of the god of the Bible. I don't think the god of the Bible is honest, nor absolute.
7. The god of the Bible is self-contradictory. Its properties are logically inconsistent with each other, and with reality.
Great points. I think it would be useful just to grant that a god may exist for the sake of argument, and stick to emphasizing #3. They simply have no way to establish that this divine force is telling them to truth, rather than deceiving them into thinking the opposite of what is really true. There are bible-believing Christians in mental asylums have all sorts of delusions about god. Some will jump of buildings thinking they can fly or that angels will catch them. These people have a clearly inaccurate picture of reality, and presuppers will be forced to admit that the "real" god (if he exists) never corrects their delusion. This being the case, how can they know he isn't doing the same to them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bwilson's post
03-05-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(03-05-2012 06:48 AM)bwilson Wrote:  Here is a great written debate on TAG. I just read through the whole thing (takes around 30-40 minutes). It's worth it, and I think will give you a good idea of how to point out the weaknesses of presuppositionalism.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/t...ge-wilson/

I enjoyed reading this, but Dr. Drange destroyed Pastor Wilson here. It wasn't even close. Drange's points about Wilson not making a real argument are all valid, and Wilson argues that he's trying to present an argument "in a different way" since his argument itself rejects logic, but that's like trying to win at chess by moving the pieces as if it was checkers... it's not fair to make up new rules as you're debating and declare yourself the winner because you won by your own personal system.

I didn't learn much about refuting TAG because Wilson sucks so badly at debate that his point was almost incoherent. However, that was my introduction to Drange's arguments for the nonexistence of the Christian God, and they both appear to be sound. I guess I'll have to hear a better refutation from someone who understands logic and is willing to accept it in order to know if there are any true weaknesses to those arguments.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 12:25 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
You're right, StarCrash; I should have shortened it up, just a tinge! ....and thanks! I thought Egor's response was pretty funny. (and valid)

I wasn't aware of the responses that have been linked to in this thread, and I've finally had the chance to watch TheoreticalBullshit's video response to Matt Slick. First of all, Slick is ridiculous, and he's borrowing the Bahnsen-talk, as well. His pseudo-confidence/cockiness is nauseating to the point that I feel that it's not even worth a response, though I'm glad TB did it, and all of these morons need to be put in their place. The only debate I've seen with Slick is the one he did with Tabash, and Eddie made him look foolish. TB's point about logical absolutes is solid, and he's right in pointing out that Slick can't account for his god's consciousness that supposedly accounts for said absolutes. It's nothing more than a convenient insertion.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the TAG argument should never even get off the ground until their precious holy book is proven to be true. They'll try to weasel their way into making people think that the argument is valid by telling you that they're not referring to the Bible for argumentation. Anyone who thinks in a sincere manner for five seconds won't let that slide. The fact that they need one to "step into the arena" before the argument can even begin is enough to brush it off. TAG is truly no more than an alt-GotG argument; once again, their god is simply being unjustifiably inserted to make things work for them.

Zephony, I'd love to see c0nc0rdance's video response, but that thread is down, so I'll head to his page and find it.


bwilson, there's a response that Christian apologists will likely use to rebut this part of your statement:


"These people have a clearly inaccurate picture of reality, and presuppers will be forced to admit that the "real" god (if he exists) never corrects their delusion. This being the case, how can they know he isn't doing the same to them?"


It's, you guessed it, Satan. They would never use that reason in an argument that required any level of integrity, but they'll say it to the flock, which, in and of itself, says volumes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2012, 10:17 AM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
I located the video by C0c0rdance to which Zephony was referring, and it's excellent! If you have the time, please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMtj0vXWAc&feature=plcp

"If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think, more or less, the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2012, 11:49 AM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
Adopting presuppositionalism is like lobotomizing yourself. It's a decision to completely give up on making any kind of sense at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2012, 07:46 AM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
Here I wuz thinking sane people knew better than to debate crazy people. And c0nc0rdance's vid makes no sense to me. Trying to make an argument out of craziness is just crazy. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2012, 12:14 PM
RE: Presuppositional Apologetics
(07-05-2012 12:25 PM)Questioning Wrote:  Zephony, I'd love to see c0nc0rdance's video response, but that thread is down, so I'll head to his page and find it.
(15-05-2012 10:17 AM)Questioning Wrote:  I located the video by C0c0rdance to which Zephony was referring, and it's excellent! If you have the time, please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMtj0vXWAc&feature=plcp
My apologies! I meant to link directly to this video but somehow I ended up adding the TTA Forum address as a prefix to the URL. If I had realized my mistake I would have just posted the link as you did.

Anyways, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

"The most valuable possession you can own is an open heart. The most powerful weapon you can be is an instrument of peace." -- Carlos Santana
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: