presup apologetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2017, 08:25 PM
RE: presup apologetics
Good video, gets to the point, not very long. WLC I suspect will happily use history as proof of Christianity's truth while here he's hedging his bets: perhaps he suspects there is still some new Gnostic Gospels or Dead Sea Scrolls-type document to come along that really shits on "the Historical Jesus"? I can hear the Holy Spirit whispering to him now, pay no attention to any new information!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
24-07-2017, 08:48 PM
RE: presup apologetics
If I should ever encounter a presup, I might ask them to prove that he or she exist before I go any further.

If they can't, then anything they have to say is meaningless.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
25-07-2017, 01:57 AM
RE: presup apologetics
In a similar sort of thing, this is what vaccine deniers do, say "Ahh..but you're not 100% sure?". Recently watching an episode on Last Week Tonight on that subject, it showed a doctor who took the time to explain to concept of scientific knowledge and how nothing is ever a 100% certainty, just more we have evidence to back up one claim over all other claims, so that become the general consensus.

One line that stuck out to me on the matter, which is something he advises to parents who are unsure on vaccines, and this might indeed work on some apologetic s as well was, "We are never 100% certain, but I am as a certain that vaccines work, as I am that if I step off the roof I will not fly". To me that's an amazing answer, and should be applied to anything that is science/knowledge questioning.

The logic being, sure maybe he would *could* start flying, but what we know via evidence of gravity and all other scientific knowledge, suggest that humans cannot fly....so he wouldn't be doing so. In this case, you can say the same for god. "I'm as certain that if I put my hand in fire, I would burn myself, as I am there is no god" .

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like OakTree500's post
25-07-2017, 04:38 AM
RE: presup apologetics
P1: X can't exist without god
P2: X exists
C: therefore god exists

the logic is sound but there's a bit of a problem, well a huge one...... reality is not dictated by logic

nothing is presented that remotely hints that god is required for something to exist. So on what basis should anyone assume god is necessary for something to exist simply because someone says so?

Also there is the issue of defining this god thingy of theirs so unless we have a coherent definition along with something to infer a connection between the existence of god being directly necessary for something else to exist, then the entire argument can be rejected out of hand without objection

The more one asserts their own unquestioned preconceived beliefs, the more demanding I will be for empirical evidence for I will accept nothing else in place of it
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2017, 05:42 AM
RE: presup apologetics
(24-07-2017 05:19 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  It is obviously circular reasoning, or affirming the consequent.

Presuppositionalism is also an easy way to deny the humanity of those you oppose, so you don't have to address their actual positions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
25-07-2017, 06:07 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2017 06:15 AM by Rahn127.)
RE: presup apologetics
If a god is defined as an all powerful force, then I equate that with a black hole the size of the universe.

We can exist if there is not a black hole the size of the universe (ie: a god)
We exist
Therefore a god does not exist.

Alternatively replace the word god with leprechaun and the presup argument is exactly the same.

They presume that all imaginary things must exist as a necessary requirement for us to exist.
An infinity of imaginary things do not exist.
I think I can demonstrate that by my own existence and the fact that the universe isn't filled with unicorns.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2017, 06:10 AM
RE: presup apologetics
If this persuaded anyone, they must be dumb as ditchwater. It's really just another way for theists not to have an honest debate.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
25-07-2017, 07:02 AM
RE: presup apologetics
(24-07-2017 08:48 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If I should ever encounter a presup, I might ask them to prove that he or she exist before I go any further.

If they can't, then anything they have to say is meaningless.

Ill go with Dillahuntys final argument, which is similar to yours:

Presups claim to have solved the problem of hard solipsism and claim to have a worldview founded on more than just assumptions/asssertions (logical absolutes) like everybody else, but they cant demostrate their claim. All they have in an assertion too.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
25-07-2017, 07:46 AM
RE: presup apologetics
(24-07-2017 06:41 PM)AB517 Wrote:  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.

Except only one of the sides is making an assertion. I've yet to see any on the atheist side assert that god definitely doesn't exist; the presups most definitely do that, and it's laughably circular.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: presup apologetics
(24-07-2017 08:02 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(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




As an aside, I highly recommend TMM on YouTube. His videos are short and succinct, and often times quite funny and informative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: