Presuppositionalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2012, 07:43 AM
RE: Presuppositionalism
The trend these days is more towards presupposisensationalism, imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:10 AM
RE: Presuppositionalism
(21-10-2012 06:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Apologetics usually don't bring up scripture in their philosophical acrobatics. Dinesh D'Souza, for example, specifically mentioned in his debate with Hitchens that he isn't going to make any references to revelation and the Bible in general.

We obvious talking about differend approaches to the word apologetic.
W.L.Craig is a strong fan of the resurrection and the bible in general, he even wrote a book about the issue, named "The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus."
Before i run into a selfbuild trapp, do you think W.L. Craig is an deist?

If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is an Olympic discipline.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 04:43 AM
RE: Presuppositionalism



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 06:11 AM
RE: Presuppositionalism
(21-10-2012 12:32 AM)THEDEATHBERRY22 Wrote:  I'm usually not the person to start a conversation, so I really don't know what to say. (Also my punctuation is horrible, sorry)

I was just wondering if anyone else has a solution, or is annoyed with, presuppositonal apologetics? It seems to me that really it can be used to defend any position with an impenetrable hedge of "you just don't get it because you don't assume my assumption. If you did it would make perfect sense!". It really irks me because my stupid brain can't think of a way to show a person how dishonest such a line of arguing is. Your thoughts?

Trivial. Attack the assumption.

In logic, if the assumption is false, any manner of thing can be derived.

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
22-10-2012, 06:11 PM
RE: Presuppositionalism
(22-10-2012 06:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 12:32 AM)THEDEATHBERRY22 Wrote:  I'm usually not the person to start a conversation, so I really don't know what to say. (Also my punctuation is horrible, sorry)

I was just wondering if anyone else has a solution, or is annoyed with, presuppositonal apologetics? It seems to me that really it can be used to defend any position with an impenetrable hedge of "you just don't get it because you don't assume my assumption. If you did it would make perfect sense!". It really irks me because my stupid brain can't think of a way to show a person how dishonest such a line of arguing is. Your thoughts?

Trivial. Attack the assumption.

In logic, if the assumption is false, any manner of thing can be derived.

Chas,

I agree with your statement about the fact that if an assumption is unsound, then no valid logical conclusions can be drawn from it.

However, i am not so sure that attacking the assumption is always the best method (at least in terms of being the most timely or the most practical). Consequently, this is why I always insist the Apologist make his argument sound enough to satisfy the Scientific Method. Via the Scientific Method, the Hypothesis (or the premise in this case) can only be proved by physical evidence.

What do you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 06:31 PM
RE: Presuppositionalism
(22-10-2012 06:11 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 06:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  Trivial. Attack the assumption.

In logic, if the assumption is false, any manner of thing can be derived.

Chas,

I agree with your statement about the fact that if an assumption is unsound, then no valid logical conclusions can be drawn from it.

However, i am not so sure that attacking the assumption is always the best method (at least in terms of being the most timely or the most practical). Consequently, this is why I always insist the Apologist make his argument sound enough to satisfy the Scientific Method. Via the Scientific Method, the Hypothesis (or the premise in this case) can only be proved by physical evidence.

What do you think?

You are attacking the hypothesis by requiring evidence. If the argument is otherwise sound, that is all you can do.

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
23-10-2012, 01:57 PM
RE: Presuppositionalism
Thank you everyone for the good advice! I'm glad to see that other people are thinking of some of the objections I've come up with. I'm always worried that no matter how hard I mull over a problem I'll miss some vital, obvious solution. I think about it a lot because, even though she doesn't know, it my mom will usually resort to relativistic mumbo-jumbo when I've pressed a certain issue, especially with science and religion. She'll say" Well, that's your opinion and this is my opinion." And I'll say, "No, this X is supported by mountains of evidence." Repeat the cycle. It really drives me insane because I can fathom NOT excepting something without evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: