presup apologetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2017, 08:23 AM
RE: presup apologetics
(25-07-2017 07:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(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.

Yeah, I was going to point to Dillahunty also. I like the way he handles presup callers on The Atheist Experience Laugh out load. He knows exactly when someone is starting down the TAG path, and it makes for some really funny responses from him. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Emma's post
25-07-2017, 08:49 AM
RE: presup apologetics
well, how can they defend died, woke up, and flew away. Past that, nothing matters. If the starting observational fact is wrong; the line of logic is flawed from that point. Either it be omni god or "practical personal emotional need". People that push Belief statements that take preference over knowledge statements are the major root of the problem. But unfortunately they think they know whats best. And, of course, bring the rest of us down with them.

what is a bummer is that if we raise a dead person, which we will, they will claim 'see, it can be done." ignoring, like many people do, historical context.

literalist personality types are the vain of the rational person. what things do people experience that turn them into literalist or pushers of practical personal needs over observations anyway?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes AB517's post
25-07-2017, 09:12 AM
RE: presup apologetics
(25-07-2017 08:49 AM)AB517 Wrote:  what is a bummer is that if we raise a dead person, which we will, they will claim 'see, it can be done."
Smile

Quote: what things do people experience that turn them into literalist or pushers of practical personal needs over observations anyway?
I know you meant that rhetorically, but...childhood indoctrination would be the main thing.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2017, 09:41 AM
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.

Someone said, and I'm sorry I don't remember where I read it, that presuppositionalism is a great thing. It means Christianity is on the ropes. They've given up on reason, on arguments, on evidence to prove their god. Sye Ten Bruggencate is an example. He says he will not present evidence because that would make us the judge. He's openly anti-reason and in that sense he is being consistent with what Christianity teaches. He's embraced circular reasoning as a virtue, at least when practiced in the aid of his god belief. In a way, presuppers are the most honest of apologists or at least the most consistent with their worldview's ideas. They are totally dishonest in their tactics and they have to be since they are promoting false ideas.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like true scotsman's post
25-07-2017, 04:47 PM
RE: presup apologetics
What I find the most dishonest about presuppositional arguments , and all philosophical arguments (cosmological, ontological, teleological arguments) in general, is that the vast, VAST majority of theists did not come to their beliefs by being convinced by them.

Anytime I get in a discussion with a theist that uses one of these arguments, I ask them if that was what convinced them. WIthout exception, they answer no.

They believe for other reasons, usually faith, and use these arguments in an attempt to make their faith based beliefs seem more rational. Too bad for them, all the philosophical arguments are logically invalid and/or unsound.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Simon Moon's post
25-07-2017, 05:52 PM
RE: presup apologetics
Let's say there are two people in a room with no windows & no doors. The source of light is from a lightbulb screwed into a fixture on the ceiling. There is a light switch on the wall.

One person is sitting on a chair next to a table in middle of the room. The other person is standing by the light switch. There is an open book on the table.

From a presups position, how is the person who is reading the book, gaining the knowledge contained in the book ?

Is god granting this person access to the knowledge ?
What if the knowledge is too complex and the person can't grasp what is written ?
Does that mean that god has not granted access to the knowledge ?

Now what happens when the person standing next to the light switch decides to randomly turn the light off and on ?

Is that person now controlling when god is granting you access to the knowledge in the book ?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: