Presuppositional Arguments For God Are Incoherent Fallacious Nonsense!
A Debate Tactic now common in arguments between Theists and those doubting their God (Atheists, Opposing Christian Sects and Other Religions) is the Presuppositional Argument position.
They argue that knowledge can only come from God and without God there is no knowledge.
Presuppositionalist Apologists, make the Assertion that Science, Logic, Morality, Free Will and Induction all cannot exist without God Existing.
They basically have no evidence at all for this claim, as Presuppositionalism itself is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.
Though Theists deliberately use such arguments as last resort tactics to obfuscate the debate and try and confound their opponent.
This is working less and less in arguments as their opponents arm themselves with knowledge of how Presuppositional Arguments are extremely Fallacious and thus can now attack back.
Though it does seem that Theism will be doomed to lose all arguments with skeptics and opposing sects and world views when all opposition know how to defeat such Presuppositional nonsense.
Though recently I've noticed some Theists who attack Atheists continually are resorting to such Presuppositional Nonsense straight up in arguments.
One such clown who insists in starting his debates off with the Fallacy of Presuppositionalism is Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Here is Sye in a debate with Matt Dillahunty, (only a 90 second excerpt from the debate), who by the way makes Sye appear extremely Ignorant, as he indeed is.
Notice the very first argument Sye uses here is a Presuppositional Argument.
Most theists only use such arguments when they have already lost a debate and try to confuse their opponent to gain back some ground.
those theists know that their Presuppositional Arguments are Fallacious, but are simply a stall tactic, Sye appears to think they are valid. Silly Sye!
Though it is a wonder anybody bothers to debate Sye, since he presents no evidence for God only presents Fallacious Nonsense like his even more Fallacious version of the already Fallacious Presuppositional Arguments.
One Wonders Where Apologetics Fallacies Will End??
Maybe they will never end, just get increasingly Fallacious year by year as they appear to be doing, in order to keep their error ridden and unverifiable belief systems alive.
My thanks to whoever wants to take the Con position in this discussion/debate.
And Good Luck!
These are my working definitions for my arguments.
God – Entity in which knowledge and logic are grounded
Note the argument doesn’t aim to demonstrate any specific God, nor any other superficial attributes it may have (Omnipotence), although omniscience is a likely collory from the entity demonstrated.
Before dealing with the evidence at hand, one needs an epistemological basis for which they interpret said evidence, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them are hinged upon the grounding of one's worldview. The epistimological problem of induction, and hence scientific enquiry in secular circles is well known to philosophers.
As irritating as this game may be, it highlights an important philosophical point, that ultimately we simply do not have a justification for how we come to know things. Recall the definition of knowledge I have given:
“Justified True Belief”
The key word here is ‘justified’. I argue that there simply is no way to ultimately justify anything one claims to know without presupposing a logical entity in which logic and reason is grounded into. An entity which grounds some things with certainty, such as its own existence and the coherency of the logical absolutes and maintains them.
There are many ways in which this can be formulated, I will give a basic version of a presuppositional argument:
P1. Without presupposing God, one cannot justify their reasoning & logic.
This is a valid modus tollens syllogism, another example using the same notation is given below.
P1. With no humans dying, there will be no funerals
P2. There will be funerals
C. People are dying
P1. ~X -> ~Y
I will briefly outline a defence of both premises, although I have already established this in the background section.
Defence of Premise 2.
This is easily defended, not justifying one’s logic and reasoning is epistemological suicide, since there is no connection to your truth claims to the truth of reality itself. You cannot claim to be using logic if the very logic you are using is of questionable reliability, how will you show your cognitive faculties and reasoning to be valid to even a fraction of a % without appealing to another question-begging premise?
Pragmatically, it cannot be done.
Defence of Premise 1.
This I mostly defended in the introduction. Presupposing God gives an objective basis to ground logic and reason into, and gives a platform from which we can know some things for certain, such as the soundness of the logical absolutes, and God’s existence, and that these facts are known a priori. These basic facts allow us to build our logical systems in a sound and valid manner. We can trust our cognitive faculties to be reliable which would be impossible to do under naturalism/atheism cf. Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (more on this later).
In order to win this debate debate, Pro need to demonstrate his logic and reasoning are of sound foundation, and that they are valid. Attempts to make logical objections and arguments against me in this debate will only be question-begging otherwise, since he is methodologically ‘jumping the gun’ in making epistemic claims without solving the issues with the basis of his epistemology first, which is what the presuppositional argument addresses.
Therefore, Pro is trapped in a dilemma:
Since the very process of justifying logic and reasoning will inevitably result in Pro having to use logic and reasoning to justify it, yielding a circular argument.
Pro strawmans the presuppositional position by falsely asserting
“Science, Logic, Morality, Free Will and Induction all cannot exist without God Existing.”
I would actually like Pro to support this claim with evidence. I would only go as far as to assert logic, science & induction are directly affected by the argument, and the others are barely relevant. Science & induction are important because they are philosophical tools to garner knowledge about reality, and require a logical foundation, which makes it a collary to the presuppositional argument. The others I struggle to see the direct relation.
V. Further problems with naturalism
The question may be perceived as a debate tactic, but it’s also a very serious one, which is as follows:
If the answer is no, then the follow up is, how can you be certain of that? Under naturalism there is no such thing as omniscience, and hence in the vastness of everything there is to know, of which most theists and atheists will admit ignorance over the vast majority of, there is THAT much stuff that could contradict what you claim to know.
Hence, without certainty you can never claim you cannot be wrong about everything you claim to know, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against yourself in having your claimed truths correspond to reality.
If the answer is yes, then you essentially concede this debate, since again you cannot justifiably make knowledge claims, they are just guesses, firing in the dark. Everything that you think you know that you could appeal to to justify any knowledge claim it itself contingent and unsound.
For the atheist/naturalist, either answer leads to epistemological suicide, and hence reality should be unintelligible. Their position becomes much like the following statement:
“This sentence is false”
Such a statement can never fulfil its own truth conditions, and becomes self-defeating. The same applies to atheism/naturalism.
VI. Argument from Reason
This is an argument closely related to Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism, and I will only sketch an outline of the argument in this round and may expand on it later. It’s another way of illustrating the futility of naturalism.
The argument is taken from C. S. Lewis :
P1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
P2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
P3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred (from 1 and 2).
P4. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence.
C. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism
I have affirmed P1 and P2 already in this debate, once we accept the conclusion from these 2 premises, it quickly becomes apparent that naturalism is self-defeating, and as such we must presuppose supernaturalism (which involves God, or at least some omniscient entity).
Pro has a massive burden to overcome in affirming the topic of debate, I wish him bets of luck in doing so.
Thanks Con for your insightful Argument.
Though it appears easy to get lost in Philosophical concepts where I will try to frame my arguments for the layperson rather than appeal to those educated in Philosophy.
Firstly on presuppositional concept of God considering both: Con's Definition of Knowledge as Justified True Belief and how it reflects on the Presuppositional concept that "Without God There Can Be No Knowledge.
Part 1: Knowledge as Justified True Belief, this Begs the Question of Justification?
What is Justification?
Simply it may mean Justification by experience alone, such as you wake up every morning and providing you are a standard biological person you are reassured that you have two hands and five fingers on each hand as you grasp to turn off your alarm clock, and you have knowledge that your alarm clock exists and by tapping the snooze button you can turn the alarm off for usually 10 minutes.
Thus you have knowledge of your anatomy, the existence of your alarm clock and the snooze button.
Your own experience of your body and your immediate environment (bedroom) has justified your belief that these all exist.
Thus you have Knowledge, regardless of your belief in God or not.
This alone demonstrates that without God you can have knowledge.
Knowledge is truly your beliefs about your own world that are justified by your sensory perceptions of the world around you and what information from others you trust in.
Much of your knowledge comes from trusted sources and has not necessarily been justified to you, though you assume that the knowledge is justified as you consider the sources to be Authoritative or Trusted.
Much of our knowledge is false knowledge, because we have not made any effort to check their justification, it is simply knowledge on trust.
Some prefer it that way, such as if they really did the research on what is justified, especially in religious knowledge, such as the real story behind the origins of the Bible, they would likely realize that their knowledge is not justified at all.
So in reality: Personal Knowledge is not Justified True Belief, it is simply That Which We Trust To Be True, thus knowledge itself can be an illusion of knowledge, this is called the Problem Of Knowledge.
For those interested, here is a look at the History of the Problem of Knowledge:
Part 2: Without God We Can Have No Knowledge.
This implies that without God, your could not know that you have two hands and that each hand has five fingers.
Without God you would not know that your alarm clock has a snooze button.
As even the Garden of Eden Story is Nonsensical, in that Adam had knowledge of Eve and both had knowledge of the tree bearing the fruit of Knowledge and they appear to have knowledge of God and what knowledge entails.
They even had Knowledge of what was right and wrong (good and evil) thus they gained absolutely nothing but the taste of the fruit and a quenched appetite by eating the fruit, as they already possessed knowledge.
Though the tale is metaphorical, it is extremely childish and actually meaningless.
Con looked to Plato, though much of Plato's ideas (forms exist outside of time and the material world) were entirely misled, Plato was wrong about most things. There is no evidence for Plato's Dualist notions, nor will there ever likely to be evidence.
Though Apologists love Plato because his duality concepts are malleable into forms that support their Misconceptions of reality.
That is why I often referred to Plato as Play-dough for Apologists.
Even Aristotle knew this and disagreed with Plato's mythical notions.
Plato's concept is that the mind is powerful and can extend beyond the limits of the physical world.
Modern neurology and psychology, now demonstrates clearly that Plato's concepts are entirely mythical, in that all consciousness is grounded in our own brains.
We are each Conscious/Aware in our own distinct, individual way thus our Knowledge is subjective.
So it should be very clear that our Knowledge is simply our Brain's awareness of things that appear to be consistently true, and that which we learn from trusted sources. These all exist, because we have a mind, no external agency such as a God required.
Though as Apologists assert that God is the source of all Morality is an argument from Ignorance.
Simply because Morality is an evolved trait in humans and other species of social creatures.
Humans like other animals that rely on numbers for survival to fend off predators and gather food, all developed group moral codes such as don't kill your fellow members as this reduces your numbers and thus lowers your strength as a group.
Don't upset others in your group, otherwise you may be kicked out and you will surely die on your own in a hostile environment such as jungles full of predators or internal fighting within the group will weaken the group's effectiveness in working together to gather food or fend off predators.
Such communal living naturally develops codes of ethics or as we call it here Morality.
So such Morality evolved for survival and as human languages formed, these moral codes became more complex and abstract along with our language.
Though no Objective Morality has ever existed, all the morality humans have has evolved from group dynamics and to enhance our own survival.
Thus, Morality developed without need of a God.
Why is the Presuppositional Assertion an Argument from Ignorance?
> Remember it is an Assertion, thus their Burden Of Proof Commitment which they have failed to provide any Knowledge (justified true belief) or Evidence for.
Simply meaning that Apologists like Sye Ten Bruggencate and Con in this debate have never provided any Evidence that Justifies their God. So to assert that God is the Basis for Anything is and Assertion without Evidence.
Since as I have demonstrated, that there is existing Evidence for Knowledge and Morality without God.
Then Apologists are ignoring this evidence deliberately and going straight to the Assertion of God, which has no Evidence.
In Philosophy an Assertion of something without evidence, yet ignoring the existing justified evidence (knowledge) is termed:
An Argument From Ignorance!
Thus Presuppositionalist Assertion that all knowledge and morality originates from God, is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy!
No confounding, empty Philosophical postulates as Con is trying to produce are necessary.
This what Apologetics rely on for confusing and obfuscating reality.
Empty postulates that seem logical and rational.
But like most of Philosophy, they are just subjective mind games.
Philosophical mind games have nothing to do with reality.
Certainly not those of Plato.
Here is a look at Plato's Mystical Nonsense Destroying the Roman Empire:
Just as Plato's notions are entirely subjective and mostly Nonsense!
Assertions without Evidence as Presuppositional Apologetics Assert, can only be False Claims.
Because no evidence exists for them!
Since they put God outside of Humans ability to Question this God Assertion.
They are making special excuses for belief in their God.
In Philosophy this is called a Special Pleading Fallacy.
So we have now two Fallacies being applied in Presuppositionalist Apologetics.
Thus I have shown their Argument to be Extremely Fallacious!
Satisfying most of my Burden Of Proof Commitment!
How Presuppositionalism is like solving a headache with a Lobotomy.
Back to you Con for some more Philosophical Conjecture:
I am sat here in disbelief at my opponent’s rebuttal, which was largely a massive strawman, and largely irrelevant to this debate. My arguments aren’t overly complex, especially considering this is an epistemological argument which Pro is attempting to show is invalid and ‘incoherent nonsense’, as such he is required to use and understand a certain threshold of the relevant philosophy. It would be absurd for someone to claim to refute Pythagoras’ theorem, or Evolution without a grounding in the respective fields first.
Pro commits both a straw man and ad homenum fallacy in attacking Sye Ten Bruggencate. While Sye does engage in presuppositional apologetics, his arguments simply aren’t representative of all what presuppositionalism is. Attacking Sye Ten Bruggencate does in no way make headway on the argument itself, and as such becomes ad homenum (since he’s attacking the person using them and now the arguments).
Pro commits the strawman fallacy by deliberately ignoring the bulk of my arguments and continuing to attack Sye Ten’s representations of them, I hardly care for what Sye Ten thinks or has presented. I have presented my own arguments in this debate which also fall under the presuppositional argument umbrella, which if valid and coherent would clearly negate the resolution.
Moreover I have made absolutely no reference to Christianity, and I explicitly stated in my opening round that my arguments do not argue for any specific God, that and I gave a very specific definition of God in my opening round. I am rather flabbergasted that this basic point went over my opponent’s head. Hence I have absolutely no idea why he’s attacking the Adam & Eve story for instance.
Pro’s repeatedly attacks on Plato’s philosophy (why?). To be fair I am not fully familiar with it, but I am familiar enough to know I have not engaged with it. Why on Earth is Pro attacking Plato?
I can only assume he thinks I am using Plato’s work because of the title of my references, which if opened people would quickly see it’s actually a title of a philosophy encyclopaedia, and a very comprehensive one where Plato is just a brand.
Pro continues to defend morals from naturalism, to which I hardly see the relevance to this debate, presuppositional arguments are epistemological arguments, not moral arguments. I explitly stated that morals are at best a collary to what the arguments conclude. By what basis can one conclude something is ‘moral’? To do so would require the use of logic and reason, and knowledge of what moral actions generally are. Yet I have demonstrated that these are things Pro cannot justifiably use.
Holy crap, I have already written an entire page on correcting strawmen and other irrelevancies, now to refute Pro’s more relevant points.
Pro asserts that justification comes from experience, and gives numerous examples of this, however this falls foul of exactly what I have mentioned earlier:
Essentially, Pro’s justification all beg the question and necessarily make numerous unsupported assumptions in their own justification. A good example of a world in which reality doesn’t exist as it appears ‘prima facie’ is a solipsist world. In such a universe, the only thing that exists is your own mind, and everything around you are mental constructs. The very computer you are using to type on only exists within your mind, as well as other people.
This may sound somewhat absurd, but it is widely regarded within philosophical circles to be a logically consistent version of reality. That and there is no internal way to distinguish between a ‘material reality’, where objections and other people really do exist as material entities, and a ‘sollopsist reality’.
Given this to be the case, there is absolutely no way Pro can actually justify his examples, such as your hand having five fingers, or the existence of an alarm clock via perception alone. As such these cannot be ‘knowledge’ as defined, they are just beliefs.
Even presupposing material reality to exist, it may well be the case Pro has six fingers, but he will never know about it, because his cognitive and sense faculties don’t perceive the sixth finger. To give an example of this very real phenomena, we each have a blind spot ten times bigger than the full moon, yet we clearly do not perceive this large hole in our vision, as our brain apparently hallucinates it into focus. Take the optical illusions below, which both apparently have the same colour square, yet our mind perceives a different colour to what it being projected.
Clearly our sense cognitive faculties do not perceive reality as it really is, assuming it even exists. How can Pro trust his faculties then on more significant issues?
Pro quite nicely attests to this problem that the atheist/naturalist will run into with the ‘Problem of Knowledge’. Which in summary demonstrates that we cannot know anything via. purely a posterori experiences, and must be grounded a priori. However according to naturalism, there is no way for one to have anything reliable a priori either, as such we must presuppose supernaturalism lest we commit epistemological suicide.
V. Alleged Fallacies
I would encourage Pro to research the definitions of these logical fallacies, to which he has claimed two of them. The argument from ignorance and special pleading fallacies.
I will use Rationalwiki to give the respective definitions, especially considering it is an atheist-biased source.
Argument from ignorance:
“Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true.”
“Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.”
With these definitions in hand we can assess Pro’s reasons for my arguments, and indeed all Presuppositional arguments are guilty of these fallacies:
“Thus Presuppositionalist Assertion that all knowledge and morality originates from God, is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy!”
That is not the presuppositionalist assertion, it’s an argument that states without presupposing God, we cannot have knowledge (as defined). Moreover it doesn’t have anything to do with the argument ad ignorantum fallacy since it doesn’t assert something true because it hasn’t been proven false (which is the definition of the fallacy). I have not asserted God’s existence based on the its lack of disproof, nor the argument’s truth for lack of refutation. As such Pro’s claims of an argument ad ignorantum are flat out false.
“Assertions without Evidence as Presuppositional Apologetics Assert, can only be False Claims.Because no evidence exists for them!
It is only a special pleading fallacy if I am trying to make a special case for God, or special rules. However I have shown in my opening round and this round that the argument is actually about showing that the denial of God’s existence is self-defeating, and also the acceptance of naturalism is self-defeating. As such we are forced to conclude God’s existence lest our reason and perception of reality be reduced to absurdity. So God’s exception to these conditions is something I have demonstrated, rather than just asserted/defined.
I beg Pro to keep his rebuttals on-topic and on-target for his closing. Back to Pro!
Con appears to misunderstand my arguments, I tried to make them as simplistic as possible, yet Con considers such simplification fallacious, which possibly means I'm guilty of oversimplification to the point of abstraction from his epistemological conjectures.
Though my second round was not actually a rebuttal, but an extension of my own argument using some of the points made by Con.
So there is a mistake there in that I did not state I was making a rebuttal, just highlighting a different take on those points to which Con made.
Such as what is meant by Justification, as when dealing with epistemology, many look to philosophy, when the truth is that Knowledge is a personal belief that the individual knows to be true, not an epistemological justified conclusion.
Personal, Knowledge is whatever an Individual considers to be Truth.
From my second round argument, I have demonstrated that personal knowledge and personal truths can exist, regardless of god. Even if we were brains in vats, we would still hold personal perceptions of what we believe to be real. This is personal knowledge of what we perceive it to be true.
Objective Knowledge or what the majority of humans consider as Justified True Belief, is what Cumulative Consensus of humans consider to be Justified True Belief.
Thus our objective knowledge comes from the cumulative observations of other humans, not any God.
The only genuine source of Justification for true belief humans have is Cumulative Consistent, Careful Observation or Science.
There is no evidence of everybody discovering the fundamentals of trigonometry at the same time as would be if such knowledge was given by a God. One person ( i.e. Pythagoras) may discover it by trial and error (not God given) and then others must develop the rest by their own research, again knowledge is derived by research not God endowed.
The scientific method amounts to a Set of Cumulative, Consistent Outcomes which indicate Justification of Truthfulness.
There is no other defined form of cumulative consistency in any other human endeavor.
No such consistency exists in any Epistemological framework.
Here is a Rational Wiki definition of Presuppositional Apologetics:
Presuppositionalism is a tactic cooked up by Christian apologists when they realized that their old arguments were not working.
The crux of presuppositionalism is a twofold technique: First, that only the (Reformed, Westminster Confession) Christian theistic worldview can account for logic, morality, science, induction, consciousness itself, and peanut brittle. Second, that all other worldviews are absurd and/or fail to account for these. Presuppositionalists often go further and assert that classical apologetics and evidential apologetics are sinful and blasphemous, as they savor of "autonomy" and make human reason the judge of God's existence"
Since for Presuppositional Apologetics to be true, the Christian religion also has to be True, the fact that Christianity may not be true, destroys the Presuppositionalists blind assertion, which as previously mentioned.
Without evidence (knowledge) to support Christianity, such claims that without belief in the Christian God, nothing can be known, is non-sequitur.
The History of Religion and History of humans bumbling acquisition of knowledge through trial and error completely destroys the Presuppositional Apologetics claim.
Had Presuppositionalists cited Spinoza's God then it would be a different story and likely a different set of fallacies.
The reason for bring up Sye Ten Bruggencate is that he has developed his own even more fallacious version of PA.
Though here is a video giving his additions to PA and why these arguments are Fallacious.
Something I would cover if I had more time to do so.
Being an Abstract Apologetics construction Presuppositionalism is also incoherent with reality as we know it and thus can be considered as complete and utter Nonsense!
The Biblical God is definitely non-existent (being the product of Josiah's reign) and to base any claim on presupposing it exists is Irrational, Incoherent with reality and thus Entirely Nonsensical.
Thanks Con for your interesting attacks!
Pity I have become too busy to spend any more time on this to answer them.
Work always increases when I want to pursue other more interesting things.
Such as having 2 debates going and now no time for research.
Thanks again and best of luck M8!
I am bitterly disappointed in my opponent’s last round, and somewhat annoyed, especially given he concedes he pretty much ignored most of my first round. Anyway, I will make a handful of rebuttals and tie things off.
I am literally screaming at my computer screen at some of the things I read in the second and last rounds by Pro, let me provide a definition of a straw-man to make things crystal clear.
“A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.”
Pro has done this time and time again in this debate, he has continued to attack Christian Apologetics, which has nothing to do with this debate whatsoever, despite being corrected on this in every single round. There is nothing inherent in presuppositional arguments that necessitate a Christian God and theology. I provided a very specific definition of the God I was arguing for in my opening round:
“God – Entity in which knowledge and logic are grounded”
Pro later commits the most blatent straw man argument I have ever seen in my life when he deliberately re-writes my syllogism to say something completely different, and attacks the rewritten argument!!!
Well… no sh*t! Fortunately I never made anything remotely like this argument!
Pro later makes another strawman:
“These destroy the Presuppositional Apologetics claim that all humans are born with a concept of God”
No they don’t, it doesn’t logically follow from the presuppositionalist position. Some apologists may advocate for this but that is not representative of ‘presuppositional arguments’ in general, and has nothing to do with what I argued.
Pro also falsely states I believes he was being oversimplistic, I only said he needs an appropriate philosophical competence in order to refute epistemological arguments in a way to show them ‘incoherent and fallacious’, as the resolution demands.
Pro attempts to qualify some sort of knowledge as ‘personal knowledge’, which he defined as:
“Personal, Knowledge is whatever an Individual considers to be Truth.”
Well, that’s just the definition of ‘belief’, and there is nothing to say that this belief corresponds with reality, which is the objective truth, which is the only thing that matters when it comes to knowledge. Pro cannot justify these beliefs, and hence cannot possess knowledge as defined. Pro seems to affirm this later:
“Even if we were brains in vats, we would still hold personal perceptions of what we believe to be real. This is personal knowledge of what we perceive it to be true.”
Believing something to be true in spite of what objective reality is called a delusion.
As such, Pro has already lost this debate.
Pro attempts to justify his beliefs by appealing to the ‘cumulative consensus of humans’, but this is just a blatent ad populum fallacy. The number of believers has no bearing on the objective truth of a claim.
Note that I never advocated for any ‘special knowledge’ or ‘revelation’, I only argued that presupposing God and supernaturalism is necessary to have reliable and dependable logic and reasoning. I argued that denying this is a self-defeating proposition.
Pro asserts my P1 is a blank presumption, but ignores the definition of God I gave, which is that god grounds logic and reason. A mechanistic explanation is not necessary, although some argue for it being part of God’s nature, for example.
The presuppositional argument doesn’t in any way argue that atheists and naturalists cannot reason and use logic, not at all, it only argues that their beliefs (or lack of) are self-defeating. People clearly can hold false beliefs and be able to reason logically. The distinction is that only people who believe in God as defined can have truly justified true beliefs, whereas the atheist can only hold ‘true beliefs’, which is not enough to qualify as knowledge, and is in an epistemically self-refuting, self-defeating position.
If God did not exist then the world WOULD be reduced to absurdity, is what follows from my arguments, since there would be no way to justify beliefs, period.
All of Pro’s examples of knowledge, justification etc all make presuppositions which reduce to irrational causes, and as such cannot be rational themselves. He simply has not touched the presuppositional position.
Sigh. Virtually all of Pro’s argument is centred around straw man arguments, and I am rather glad this debate is over now. Pro has not adequately addressed ANY of my arguments, and has missed the mark with most of his. He has not at all attempted to negate my claims that the atheist/naturalist position is self-refuting, and concedes this debate on many levels.
I thank Pro for offering this debate, and voters for reading and voting. Please vote Pro!
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|