presup apologetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2017, 04:56 PM
presup apologetics
This is not really a question or debate or anything it's just something for some weird reason I find interesting. I know presuppositional apologetics peaked and ebbed a few years ago but if anyone wants to share thoughts (I know a lot of it will be "it's stupid, move on"), any Christians in particular I wonder if they think it's persuasive.

So the first half of the "debate" would be to try to box the non-believer into admitting they have no ultimate bedrock for determining truth, this would be generally in some irritating form of repeating "How do you know?" until you finally just say, oh fuck it, whatever. I don't find this part of the conversation persuasive at all but just for argument's sake, let's say I grant that I could be wrong about everything, my senses may be totally deceiving me, I may be in the matrix, whatever.

The second part of the debate would be for the Christian to say that there is a God because, well, by default: you don't know, I do, period. God shoots his presence directly into my brain, as well, allegedly, as logic, reason, and bible-inspired knowledge. So does this work, has this worked on anybody on Earth ever? Is there any logical fallacy in asking how God knows anything? Isn't that enough to kill it right there? Anyway, I hesitate to post this as the whole argument seems to boil down to silly wordplay, but here goes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
24-07-2017, 05:19 PM
RE: presup apologetics
It's stupid, move on...

It is obviously circular reasoning, or affirming the consequent.

P1 - logic/reason cannot exist without god*
P2 - logic/reason exists
Conclusion - god exists

P1 is asserted without evidence.
P2 is true, but without supporting P1, the modus ponens fails. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, unless P1 is supported.

The only thing I've heard them say about P1, is that it is self evident, because it says so in the Bible. Sye is known for claiming, that there is no such things at atheists, that we all know that Yahweh exists, but we are suppressing the fact, again, because it says so in the Bible.

* of course the god that exists, is the specific one, with the exact attributes, that the presup already believes in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Simon Moon's post
24-07-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: presup apologetics
Actually WLC finally caved with respect to this. Look on YouTube for "The Bad Faith of William L Craig". It's where all this bullshit ends up. (I'm too lazy to look it up ... and I have to go run.) Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2017, 06:41 PM
RE: presup apologetics
(24-07-2017 04:56 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  This is not really a question or debate or anything it's just something for some weird reason I find interesting. I know presuppositional apologetics peaked and ebbed a few years ago but if anyone wants to share thoughts (I know a lot of it will be "it's stupid, move on"), any Christians in particular I wonder if they think it's persuasive.

So the first half of the "debate" would be to try to box the non-believer into admitting they have no ultimate bedrock for determining truth, this would be generally in some irritating form of repeating "How do you know?" until you finally just say, oh fuck it, whatever. I don't find this part of the conversation persuasive at all but just for argument's sake, let's say I grant that I could be wrong about everything, my senses may be totally deceiving me, I may be in the matrix, whatever.

The second part of the debate would be for the Christian to say that there is a God because, well, by default: you don't know, I do, period. God shoots his presence directly into my brain, as well, allegedly, as logic, reason, and bible-inspired knowledge. So does this work, has this worked on anybody on Earth ever? Is there any logical fallacy in asking how God knows anything? Isn't that enough to kill it right there? Anyway, I hesitate to post this as the whole argument seems to boil down to silly wordplay, but here goes.

yeah, both sides do this. they focus on "nobody knows" and they don't know what they don't know. They whip out "I don't believe that" or " you don't really know" or neg rep ya death. Like that determines what reality is.

its fundy-mentalists-think. "belief statements" are more valid than "knowledge statements". Laugh out load we get stuck in the middle of boob stick. "practical" is based on a personal emotional need. Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

It would be cute if it wasn't so dangerous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2017, 06:50 PM
RE: presup apologetics
Simon yeah I agree and it helps see it in the form that you put it. It seems like their support of P1 is just to assert that the non-believer can't know anything, so P1 wins by default. Ridiculous because by that thinking P1 could be anything, Dogs are smaller than ants, 1+1 is actually 5, etc., because that's what God beams into my noggin.

The Sye videos I've seen...ugh. Just from a practical perspective, how can a method carried out in that smug and smarmy and conceited a manner lead to a conversion? If I was an atheist and was on the fence leaning towards Christianity and he was talking to me I would be go full atheist just to spite him. He should be locked in a cage match to the death with what's his name, the banana-evolution guy. Also very annoying (the "Have you ever lied" guy)

Bucky thanks I will check that out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2017, 07:09 PM
RE: presup apologetics
For those who are interested in presuppositionalism apologetics and TAG, there is a blog devoted to the subject.

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/0...-year.html

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2017, 07:41 PM
RE: presup apologetics
Rene Descartes in his letters to Marin Mesenne claimed that God created the laws of logic, moral and math. Essentially, it's presuppositionalism.

Do you see the obvious problem here? If so, the God who is morally good and does not like moral, God evil could create a world without moral evil. Since God creates all the laws and logic of the Universe, he could change them to eliminate all moral evil.

God supposedly is good and has free will. God freely follows his good will and does no moral evil. Why then could God not give man a god-like good nature such as God enjoys, and a god-like free will such as God enjoys?


Then there would be no possible hidden reasons that God must accept the existence of moral evil.

We don't live in such a Universe we would expect if God did in fact create what we think of as logic, or the metaphysical necessities of the Universe. And so much for presuppositionalism and TAG.

Now the problem is, where do those metaphysical necessities, the very logic and laws of the Universe come from?

At best theology can only admit that God doesn't care about us in the least, which is abandoning major dogmas and revelation. Or God does not create these things. Which means naturalism is firmly established as trumping God, who is now superfluous, or that God does not exist, again, establishing naturalism.

This idea that God is super-omnipotent self destructs easily enough. And points out some rather serious problems for Perfect Being theology.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
24-07-2017, 07:55 PM
RE: presup apologetics
The whole thing is a cornucopia of fallacies and terrible thinking in general. Simon already mentioned circular reasoning and affirming the consequent. I would throw in the stolen concept fallacy it's also related to post-hoc rationalization.

It asserts that reason and logic can only exist because of god, a non-sequitor and a bad explanation for reason and logic.

It also commits a category error where it attempts to assert that "logic and reason" are things that are tangible. They are only human-constructed concepts as is their god that they are equivocating these concepts with.

It's really a debating style with zero substance, it has no intellectual weight, it's just a way for a theist to attempt to gaslight anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
24-07-2017, 08:02 PM
RE: presup apologetics
Quote:yeah, both sides do this. they focus on "nobody knows" and they don't know what they don't know.


Except I am perfectly comfortable saying "we don't know....yet." It is the religitards who must insist that their invisible sky-daddy did it all and they have not a shred of evidence to back that up.

The real nuts, like AIG, tell children to say "were you there?" when someone asserts the big bang ( brow-beating children is the one thing they can do with their "logic" ) and completely seem oblivious to the fact that no one was there when their magic man supposedly poofed everything into existence.

It's one reason I truly despise fundies of any stripe. Born-again assholes.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
24-07-2017, 08:02 PM
RE: presup apologetics
(24-07-2017 06:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually WLC finally caved with respect to this. Look on YouTube for "The Bad Faith of William L Craig". It's where all this bullshit ends up. (I'm too lazy to look it up ... and I have to go run.) Tongue




Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: