Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Refuting (Presuppositional) Christianity

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:19:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

Very concise. +1
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:26:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

This is a strawman.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:28:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:26:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

This is a strawman.

If you do not make that claim then the argument doesn't apply to you. I put that in the disclaimer.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:32:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:28:23 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:26:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

This is a strawman.

If you do not make that claim then the argument doesn't apply to you. I put that in the disclaimer.

I don't think that anyone claimed everyone is born with knowledge of the God of the Bible. Rather, more likely they claimed that everyone is born with (or begins to experience later in life) an inherent sense of some greater power existing, or some greater purpose.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:36:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:32:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:28:23 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:26:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

This is a strawman.

If you do not make that claim then the argument doesn't apply to you. I put that in the disclaimer.

I don't think that anyone claimed everyone is born with knowledge of the God of the Bible. Rather, more likely they claimed that everyone is born with (or begins to experience later in life) an inherent sense of some greater power existing, or some greater purpose.

Over half the presuppositions lists I have seen (which so far number in the dozens) make the stronger claim. However even the weaker claim is refuted in an identical manner (can also be refuted using the 'doubt' premise).

Again, if the argument doesn't match your beliefs, then it doesn't apply to you. I made it explicit that it only targets a very specific claim.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:08:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

Forgive me if my intellect is not equal to this post, as it is a bit esoteric, but I'm not understanding how disbelief is an incorrigible experience.

Also, if all experiences of the mind are true, then would all feelings of the heart, as they are processed by the mind, also be true?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:46:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Just one question. Is God the only variable in step 2?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:43:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Does the same principle apply to those whose father is the devil?
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:03:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Okay, I'm a presuppositionalist. What do you understand about presuppositionalism? Have you read Greg Bahnsen, Van Til, Gordon Clark, John Frame? Those are the ones who have influenced me the most. How about Alvin Plantinga?

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Here is a definition of what presuppositionalism entails from Greg Bahnsen:

1) Any adequate apologetic argument must function (even if it is only implicitly) within a broader philosophical framework, and rest ultimately upon it.
2) The Christian gains his philosophical presuppositions, not abstractly or by speculation, but concretely and directly from the Scriptures at the very onset.

- Van Til's Apologetic, Readings and Analysis, p. 35

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.

What makes you think our presuppositional position comes from ourselves? Why can't it come from God, through Scripture? You see, it is your presuppositions that will not allow this God, not mine. And from the Scriptures we are told that man suppresses the knowledge of God. You are doing just that. And why is your presuppositional position the one that has to be coherent and true/correct or is it? I don't believe it is and I can test to see how coherent it is. What is your epistemological basis? How do you know what you know is true concerning God? What is necessary for you to know this or anything for that matter in the first place??? Where does true knowledge come from and how do you know?

2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Explain yourself more.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

True, your worldview will not allow it, so what? How does that eliminate God? Just because you will not accept the evidence does not eliminate Him. So you are blind to the fact because you know that if God then you are in big trouble. You understand this and resist it. And why do you dwell so much on this Being you are trying to deny? What does it matter in an atheistic universe where moral values are subjective and so is meaning? Yet you make it matter. Your worldview has many inconsistencies to it.

Peter
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 7:05:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:08:53 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

Forgive me if my intellect is not equal to this post, as it is a bit esoteric, but I'm not understanding how disbelief is an incorrigible experience.

Because it's a statement that is sincerely made. A type-1 experience (the lowest form). It is true *for me* what I believe, since I am the one with the belief. It is not necessarily true that an incorrigable experience of someone else being conveyed to you (I.e. Me tell you I see red) is 'true', it's only necessarily true for the person having the experience.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

So the argument I made conclusively demonstrates presuppositionalism (as defined) false *to* the non-believer. A believer doesn't necessarily need to accept I am being honest about my disbelief, but that's an almighty concession if I have ever seen one.

Also, if all experiences of the mind are true, then would all feelings of the heart, as they are processed by the mind, also be true?

Yes. Emotions are incorrigable experiences. The sensation of love is 'true' in that you are having that sensation. It doesn't say anything about the nature of that sensation (I.e. What *is* love! and what causes it), only the fact that you are having that particular experience.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 7:27:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:03:22 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Okay, I'm a presuppositionalist. What do you understand about presuppositionalism? Have you read Greg Bahnsen, Van Til, Gordon Clark, John Frame? Those are the ones who have influenced me the most. How about Alvin Plantinga?

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Here is a definition of what presuppositionalism entails from Greg Bahnsen:

1) Any adequate apologetic argument must function (even if it is only implicitly) within a broader philosophical framework, and rest ultimately upon it.
2) The Christian gains his philosophical presuppositions, not abstractly or by speculation, but concretely and directly from the Scriptures at the very onset.

- Van Til's Apologetic, Readings and Analysis, p. 35

This means that before you read the Bible, you need another philosophical framework, otherwise it would be impossible to understand what it says, lol.

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.

What makes you think our presuppositional position comes from ourselves? Why can't it come from God, through Scripture? You see, it is your presuppositions that will not allow this God, not mine. And from the Scriptures we are told that man suppresses the knowledge of God.

My incorrigible belief God doesn't exist tells me otherwise. If I were suppressing it then it would be another incorrigible experience, which is simply not the case with me. It might not convince you, but this argument is first-person. It's only relevant to me. In modal epistemics, if you know something, then you know you know something. Hence it is logically impossible for me to not know that I know God exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

You are doing just that. And why is your presuppositional position the one that has to be coherent and true/correct or is it?

My epistemological position is irrelevant. The argument is a reducio ad absurdum, it assumes YOUR position to be true to show that it is incoherent.

I could reformulate it even more explicitly:

A) Christian Epistemology is coherent (assumption)
1. If Christian Epistemology is coherent, then Christianity is true
2. If Christianity is true then I believe God exists
3. I believe God exists (from A-3)
4. I do not believe God exists (Incorrigable experience)
C) A entails a contradiction, hence Christian epistemology is incoherent

Good luck disputing any of those premises.

I don't believe it is and I can test to see how coherent it is. What is your epistemological basis? How do you know what you know is true concerning God?

Doesn't matter, I am assuming your position in the reducio.

What is necessary for you to know this or anything for that matter in the first place??? Where does true knowledge come from and how do you know?

Irrelevant.

2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Explain yourself more.

Because then you have an epistemology that states things are both true and false simultaneously. It makes no coherent sense, and hence is just gibberish. Any statement 'THIS is a cup' would have no meaning, since the statement may be both true and false under your epistemology.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

True, your worldview will not allow it, so what? How does that eliminate God? Just because you will not accept the evidence does not eliminate Him. So you are blind to the fact because you know that if God then you are in big trouble. You understand this and resist it. And why do you dwell so much on this Being you are trying to deny? What does it matter in an atheistic universe where moral values are subjective and so is meaning? Yet you make it matter. Your worldview has many inconsistencies to it.

Attacking my worldview does not advance your worldview. That is an argument from ignorance. Even if you disproved every single worldview incoherent, it does nothing to advance Christianity, since they could all be incoherent.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 8:57:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:46:43 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Just one question. Is God the only variable in step 2?

Yes. But not just God, the biblical God of Christianity. However if you want to know why that is the only validation... I don't do bible studies with atheists.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 9:01:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:43:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Does the same principle apply to those whose father is the devil?

No, only the biblical God of Christianity can be used as the solution. I know this because he revealed it to me in such a way that I can be absolutely certain. And if you ask me how I know for certain, I'm simply going to ask you if it is possible for an all powerful God to reveal things to you so that you can be certain. If you say no, then you are crazy and not worth debating. If you say yes then you admit that it's possible and since you don't know anything you have no grounds to tell me he did not.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 9:26:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:03:22 AM, PGA wrote:
What makes you think our presuppositional position comes from ourselves? Why can't it come from God, through Scripture?

Because reading scripture requires the use of your senses and your reasoning to determine what it says and to determine who the message is from. Do you not see a problem with this?

And from the Scriptures we are told that man suppresses the knowledge of God. You are doing just that.

Let me ask you... Am I aware that I am suppressing this knowledge?

If Yes: Then am I consciously lying to you when I tell you that I don't believe in God?

If No: Then how do you distinguish between knowledge that I am unknowingly suppressing, and knowledge that I don't have?

What is your epistemological basis?

The same as yours... Logic and reasoning.

What is necessary for you to know this or anything for that matter in the first place??? Where does true knowledge come from and how do you know?

What do you mean by "knowledge" and "know"? Are you talking about absolute certainty?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:15:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Forgive me if my intellect is not equal to this post, as it is a bit esoteric, but I'm not understanding how disbelief is an incorrigible experience.

Because it's a statement that is sincerely made. A type-1 experience (the lowest form). It is true *for me* what I believe, since I am the one with the belief. It is not necessarily true that an incorrigable experience of someone else being conveyed to you (I.e. Me tell you I see red) is 'true', it's only necessarily true for the person having the experience.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

So the argument I made conclusively demonstrates presuppositionalism (as defined) false *to* the non-believer. A believer doesn't necessarily need to accept I am being honest about my disbelief, but that's an almighty concession if I have ever seen one.

Also, if all experiences of the mind are true, then would all feelings of the heart, as they are processed by the mind, also be true?

Yes. Emotions are incorrigable experiences. The sensation of love is 'true' in that you are having that sensation. It doesn't say anything about the nature of that sensation (I.e. What *is* love! and what causes it), only the fact that you are having that particular experience.

When it comes to presupposition, incorrigibility, and epistemology, I must confess that my understanding falls short. I must also confess that I probably shouldn't be involved in this topic according to the rules you have set, as I reject presupposition. It more often than not leads to circular logic, which has nearly always proved to be anti-logic. But I have to say that it seems to me that you are interjecting a bit of personal philosophy into this topic to give yourself the edge.

For example, while you're telling me you see red is only true for you, I have, however, also seen red, and know that it can be true. Neither presupposition or incorrigibility necessarily apply.

I appreciate you standing for your convictions and answering my questions. In the short time I have been posting here, not a single Christian has done so.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:19:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 8:57:37 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:46:43 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Just one question. Is God the only variable in step 2?

Yes. But not just God, the biblical God of Christianity. However if you want to know why that is the only validation... I don't do bible studies with atheists.

I have. They found it amusing at first, and then irritable.

I can't tell if you're employing parody, or making the rules up as you go along. I have no reply.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:44:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:19:12 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/10/2014 8:57:37 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:46:43 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Just one question. Is God the only variable in step 2?

Yes. But not just God, the biblical God of Christianity. However if you want to know why that is the only validation... I don't do bible studies with atheists.

I have. They found it amusing at first, and then irritable.

I can't tell if you're employing parody, or making the rules up as you go along. I have no reply.

I would call it a parody, but this is literally their strategy and how they deal with criticisms of their conclusion, or at least how Sye Ten Bruggencate who seems to be the recent leader of the presup movement handles it. I'm not too familiar with some of the other notable names in this area. I just saw a couple of his exchanges the other day and was absolutely fascinated by how nonsensical this all is and how theists are buying this crap.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 9:01:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Does the same principle apply to those whose father is the devil?

No, only the biblical God of Christianity can be used as the solution. I know this because he revealed it to me in such a way that I can be absolutely certain. And if you ask me how I know for certain, I'm simply going to ask you if it is possible for an all powerful God to reveal things to you so that you can be certain. If you say no, then you are crazy and not worth debating. If you say yes then you admit that it's possible and since you don't know anything you have no grounds to tell me he did not.

HaHaHaHaHa... Too funny.

The biblical God is actually the devil. I know because Jesus revealed it in scripture. The Pharisees worshipped the God of the bible who created the world. They called that God, father. Jesus told them their father was the devil.
If you want to be as certain as I am, take a look at.....
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Amazingly enough Christians also worship the same God the Pharisees did. Their father is the same devil.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:06:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 7:27:39 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:03:22 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
Here is a definition of what presuppositionalism entails from Greg Bahnsen:

1) Any adequate apologetic argument must function (even if it is only implicitly) within a broader philosophical framework, and rest ultimately upon it.
2) The Christian gains his philosophical presuppositions, not abstractly or by speculation, but concretely and directly from the Scriptures at the very onset.

- Van Til's Apologetic, Readings and Analysis, p. 35

This means that before you read the Bible, you need another philosophical framework, otherwise it would be impossible to understand what it says, lol.

It means changing your deep seated presuppositional basis and bias (philosophical framework) on the appeal of God's word. For you as an atheist you place man as the measure and your highest authority of appeal. You defeat knowing God because you will not believe He exists. It is pretty hard to believe something that you go out of your way to deny. The Bible explains this.

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.


This faith comes from hearing the message, just as it did when these gospels and epistles were written.

Romans 10:16-17(NASB)
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.


Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.

What makes you think our presuppositional position comes from ourselves? Why can't it come from God, through Scripture? You see, it is your presuppositions that will not allow this God, not mine. And from the Scriptures we are told that man suppresses the knowledge of God.

My incorrigible belief God doesn't exist tells me otherwise.

Suppressing the truth leads to God giving you over to the desires of your heart. You will not accept the message as the word of God so you have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:18, 25, 28. You choose not to acknowledge God. God has given you over to the depravity of your mind. In your pride you put yourself in the place of God would be the biblical reply that Paul used to his 1st century audience.

If I were suppressing it then it would be another incorrigible experience, which is simply not the case with me. It might not convince you, but this argument is first-person. It's only relevant to me. In modal epistemics, if you know something, then you know you know something. Hence it is logically impossible for me to not know that I know God exists.

Possible worlds are hypothetical worlds. This is the only world we have any certainty of.

I see you as placing yourself in a truly postmodern relativistic position. You think that just because "you know" that you know something as it really is. It ain't true until you call it true. How do you "know" what you know is true? That is the whole problem with knowledge. Do you know something as it truly is? Do you just will it to be true for you? Truth is what corresponds to what is, not what you want it to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

You are doing just that. And why is your presuppositional position the one that has to be coherent and true/correct or is it?

My epistemological position is irrelevant. The argument is a reducio ad absurdum, it assumes YOUR position to be true to show that it is incoherent.

I could reformulate it even more explicitly:

A) Christian Epistemology is coherent (assumption)
1. If Christian Epistemology is coherent, then Christianity is true
2. If Christianity is true then I believe God exists
3. I believe God exists (from A-3)
4. I do not believe God exists (Incorrigable experience)
C) A entails a contradiction, hence Christian epistemology is incoherent

Christian epistemology is coherent when properly interpreted. If it is not properly interpreted then that knowledge is a false knowledge. Those who come to God must first believe that He exists and must worship Him in spirit and in truth, for God is Spirit. You can't worship God as He is unless you correctly understand Him as He reveals Himself and you can't believe what He says without trusting His Word. You do not believe God exists because you do not trust Him or His word. It is your problem, not mine.

Good luck disputing any of those premises.

I don't believe it is and I can test to see how coherent it is. What is your epistemological basis? How do you know what you know is true concerning God?

Doesn't matter, I am assuming your position in the reducio.

Assume all you wish. I see yours as absurd. Show me you have an objective, universal, unchanging reference point for what you believe outside of God.

What is necessary for you to know this or anything for that matter in the first place??? Where does true knowledge come from and how do you know?

Irrelevant.

Not at all. You can't justify false knowledge as true knowledge. How do you as a mere man know what you believe is true knowledge? What would be necessary for you to know as certain in this relative, subjective world of man?

Explain yourself more.

Because then you have an epistemology that states things are both true and false simultaneously. It makes no coherent sense, and hence is just gibberish. Any statement 'THIS is a cup' would have no meaning, since the statement may be both true and false under your epistemology.

I don't state things are both true and false at the same time and in the same manner. That violates basic laws of logic like the Law of Identity or the Law of Contradiction.

True, your worldview will not allow it, so what? How does that eliminate God? Just because you will not accept the evidence does not eliminate Him. So you are blind to the fact because you know that if God then you are in big trouble. You understand this and resist it. And why do you dwell so much on this Being you are trying to deny? What does it matter in an atheistic universe where moral values are subjective and so is meaning? Yet you make it matter. Your worldview has many inconsistencies to it.

Attacking my worldview does not advance your worldview.

But it can show that your worldview can't make sense of itself which would be my prime objective. It would reveal all its little inconsistencies and how it continually goes against its core by borrowing from my Christian worldview. In this way i will show that yours is inconsistent and untrustworthy.

That is an argument from ignorance.

Not if I can show that you have no basis for your worldview to explain itself without God, that your core presuppositions can't make sense of themselves.

Even if you disproved every single worldview incoherent, it does nothing to advance Christianity, since they could all be incoherent.

Not if I can show that Christianity is coherent and consistent.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:08:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:44:02 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/10/2014 9:01:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:04 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:37:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositionalist Debate Strategy 101 (Please take out your pen and notepad):

Step 1: Use your reasoning to determine that reasoning itself is invalid.

Step 2: Use your reasoning to determine that God validates reasoning, thus solving the problem.

Step 3: Declare a monopoly on reasoning.

Step 4: Challenge your opponent to justify his worldview without using reasoning (since you have a monopoly on it)

Step 5: When they can't justify their reasoning without reasoning, declare victory.

Step 6: When your opponent challenges you to defend your worldview, simply declare that he has already lost and therefore you have no need to respond.

Any questions?

Does the same principle apply to those whose father is the devil?

No, only the biblical God of Christianity can be used as the solution. I know this because he revealed it to me in such a way that I can be absolutely certain. And if you ask me how I know for certain, I'm simply going to ask you if it is possible for an all powerful God to reveal things to you so that you can be certain. If you say no, then you are crazy and not worth debating. If you say yes then you admit that it's possible and since you don't know anything you have no grounds to tell me he did not.

HaHaHaHaHa... Too funny.

The biblical God is actually the devil. I know because Jesus revealed it in scripture. The Pharisees worshipped the God of the bible who created the world. They called that God, father. Jesus told them their father was the devil.
If you want to be as certain as I am, take a look at.....
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Amazingly enough Christians also worship the same God the Pharisees did. Their father is the same devil.

They had a false knowledge of God in that they did not worship Him as He attended.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:39:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 9:26:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:03:22 AM, PGA wrote:
What makes you think our presuppositional position comes from ourselves? Why can't it come from God, through Scripture?

Because reading scripture requires the use of your senses and your reasoning to determine what it says and to determine who the message is from. Do you not see a problem with this?

To some. Language has meaning and you have to understand the intent of the author in order to understand what he is saying. If you do not understand what I have said because you read into my words things I did not mean or my words are not coherent enough then we have miscommunication.

But the point is that language can be understood when properly interpreted or else word communication would be impossible.

And from the Scriptures we are told that man suppresses the knowledge of God. You are doing just that.

Let me ask you... Am I aware that I am suppressing this knowledge?

I don't know - are you? Did you ever believe in God as revealed in the Bible? Are you to the point where you will not believe no matter where the evidence leads you?

If Yes: Then am I consciously lying to you when I tell you that I don't believe in God?

There are a few options but it boils down to what you place your highest authority in and why? Can you emphatically say that there is no God and how would you know? Can you see yourself in possible rebellion against God? Will you allow yourself to think God is a possibility? if you will then will you allow yourself to take the Bible as His word? These are all roadblocks that you have in believing in God.

If No: Then how do you distinguish between knowledge that I am unknowingly suppressing, and knowledge that I don't have?

You deny God exists - right? You deny He has revealed Himself to man - right? You do not believe the Bible to be a revelation of God - right? If you are wrong then you are suppressing this knowledge because Scripture says exactly that about those who deny Him.

What is your epistemological basis?

The same as yours... Logic and reasoning.

Where does logic originate from when you strip your presuppositions to their core? Can you say? Do you have a logical explanation?

What is necessary for you to know this or anything for that matter in the first place??? Where does true knowledge come from and how do you know?

What do you mean by "knowledge" and "know"? Are you talking about absolute certainty?

I'm asking what would be necessary for what you "know" to be true knowledge, with certainty, and how you would test this to be the case? Do you just take it by faith that what you know is true knowledge when it comes to the core foundational presuppositional beliefs that your worldview rests upon?

Peter
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:39:35 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/10/2014 9:26:33 AM, Double_R wrote:
Because reading scripture requires the use of your senses and your reasoning to determine what it says and to determine who the message is from. Do you not see a problem with this?

To some. Language has meaning and you have to understand the intent of the author in order to understand what he is saying. If you do not understand what I have said because you read into my words things I did not mean or my words are not coherent enough then we have miscommunication.

But the point is that language can be understood when properly interpreted or else word communication would be impossible.

You completely missed the point. You asked why our presuppositions must come from ourselves (by use of our own reasoning), as opposed to scripture. I answered because our reasoning is required to determine what the scripture says. You turned around and gave me a speech on how language can be misunderstood. That has nothing to do with the point I just raised.

Let me ask you... Am I aware that I am suppressing this knowledge?

If Yes: Then am I consciously lying to you when I tell you that I don't believe in God?

There are a few options but it boils down to what you place your highest authority in and why? Can you emphatically say that there is no God and how would you know? Can you see yourself in possible rebellion against God? Will you allow yourself to think God is a possibility? if you will then will you allow yourself to take the Bible as His word? These are all roadblocks that you have in believing in God.

You, again, paid no attention to what I said. The question is simple. If I am aware that I am suppressing my own knowledge of God's existence then I am either lying when I tell you that I don't believe God exists, or I am not lying when I tell you I don't believe God exists. Those are the only options, and they both lead to absurdity on your part.

To assert that I am lying puts you in the exact same position as a conspiracy theorist who claims that everyone who testifies to the contrary of their conspiracy allegation is lying. I assume you look at those people as hopeless and unworthy of rational consideration. You are doing the same thing.

To assert that I am not lying contradicts your basic premise, that I know God exists.

So to answer yes to the question of whether I am aware that I am suppressing the knowledge of God's existence leads you down an absurd path. Which leaves the answer to this question as no...

If No: Then how do you distinguish between knowledge that I am unknowingly suppressing, and knowledge that I don't have?

You deny God exists - right? You deny He has revealed Himself to man - right? You do not believe the Bible to be a revelation of God - right? If you are wrong then you are suppressing this knowledge because Scripture says exactly that about those who deny Him.

The answer to your third question, according to your own assertion, is no. This is your problem. If I know God exists, and I am suppressing this knowledge, yet I do not know that I am suppressing this knowledge, then your assertion is completely nonsensical. If someone is suppressing knowledge, it is impossible for them to continue being unaware that they are doing so when confronted with the allegation that they are doing so. For God to give me knowledge that I can suppress while being unaware that I am suppressing it after analyzing my own psyche and determining that I don't have it and am not suppressing it is the equivalent of giving it to me but hiding it so that I can't find it. That is in all practical purposes, the exact same thing as not giving it to me at all. So any argument that God gave me this knowledge is completely meaningless.

The same as yours... Logic and reasoning.

Where does logic originate from when you strip your presuppositions to their core? Can you say? Do you have a logical explanation?

Logic originated at the point of existence, since what we describe as the laws of logic are simply the properties of existence itself.

What do you mean by "knowledge" and "know"? Are you talking about absolute certainty?

I'm asking what would be necessary for what you "know" to be true knowledge, with certainty, and how you would test this to be the case? Do you just take it by faith that what you know is true knowledge when it comes to the core foundational presuppositional beliefs that your worldview rests upon?

The definition of knowledge has nothing to do with absolute certainty. Any description of certainty is nothing more than your level of confidence in a belief that you hold. Absolute certainty is to believe something to the point in which you have not one single shred of doubt in your mind as to the truth of a proposition. To reach this sate of mind requires one to use their reasoning to justify their reasoning. My reasoning has lead me to the conclusion that this is an invalid method which produces nothing but invalid assessments, so I am incapable of reaching that state of mind.

Knowledge, as it is defined in English simply requires my beliefs to be justified. I justify them by using reason that is in accordance with the laws of logic. That is how I attain knowledge from my own internal perspective. For you to grant my belief as knowledge you are required to take another step and evaluate my belief as true. That is your own evaluation, I have nothing to do with that process.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:14:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
...someone doesn't know the difference between de dicto and de re beliefs.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:02:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

The problem is that if you said that to people like Sye, he would merely say "You do know he exists. Your just rejecting what you clearly know because you don't want to be held accountable for your morals and you hate him." But good argument. I agree that pressupositionalism is the worst defense of Christianity since Ray Comfort's books.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:14:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:02:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

The problem is that if you said that to people like Sye, he would merely say "You do know he exists. Your just rejecting what you clearly know because you don't want to be held accountable for your morals and you hate him." But good argument. I agree that pressupositionalism is the worst defense of Christianity since Ray Comfort's books.

True, even the fact it's a reducio ad absurdum (I.e. It assumes their position to be true to show a contradiction) glosses over it. Since the principles of modal epistemics (of which one axiom is, If you know something, then you know you know something) means that any incorrigable disbelief is impossible. To go against that is to go against logic, which they accept under presuppositionalism (and assumed for reducio).
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:37:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

We are the .1%!
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:30:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:14:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:02:33 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 12/9/2014 9:15:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
*Disclaimer* This argument doesn't apply to 99.99% of Christians. Only the handful of presuppositional apologists that make a very specific claim.

Just though I would share a clean, and concise way of nipping this in the bud, so we can get on with our lives. The claim by presuppositional apologists is:

"Christianity is true, which entails everyone has certain knowledge of God's existence"

Something along these lines. It doesn't matter how it is phrased, since presuppositional apologetics by definition presuppose God's existence as part of their epistemology. Thus the refutation is trivial:

1. If Christianity is true, when I believe God exists
2. I do not believe God exists
C. Christianity is false

1 is true by definition of their specific presuppositionalist position - thus denial of this immediately concedes their epistemology is incoherent.
2. Is an incorrigible experience. All incorrigible experiences are by definition/axiomatically 'true'. The colours you see are 'true', the sound you hear is 'true', all experiences of the mind as 'true', regardless of 'what' the nature or cause of those experiences are (for example, solipsism can be true, but the incorrigible experience of reality is still true regardless.

If for example you have the experience of hearing music, it may well be the case you are just dreaming, or hallucinating the music, but the fact you are having the experience is true independently of that.

Conclusion follows deductively. Denying this concedes one's own epistemology is incoherent.

Hence, no atheist can possibly be convinced by this brand of apologetics, as their very existence refutes it.

The problem is that if you said that to people like Sye, he would merely say "You do know he exists. Your just rejecting what you clearly know because you don't want to be held accountable for your morals and you hate him." But good argument. I agree that pressupositionalism is the worst defense of Christianity since Ray Comfort's books.

True, even the fact it's a reducio ad absurdum (I.e. It assumes their position to be true to show a contradiction) glosses over it. Since the principles of modal epistemics (of which one axiom is, If you know something, then you know you know something) means that any incorrigable disbelief is impossible. To go against that is to go against logic, which they accept under presuppositionalism (and assumed for reducio).

Also I find that this form of apologetics insults me. I didn't know God before I was 18. I heard of this guy Christian God, but it isn't the one I follow today. And even then, I had doubts and didn't really think or care while not knowing he existed. So for Sye to say a 10 year old orphan who is wandering in the desert since birth with no other contact in society knows who God is without hearing other people talk to him, that bothers me. He also says "Who to you give evidence to in Court? The Judge. So if an atheist asks for evidence, he's putting himself as judge and letting God not be the judge." This is his excuse to say he won't debate, but preach his non sense. Matt Dillahunty was right in saying that debating with pressupositionalists is a waste of time.