Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Presuppositional Aplogetic Nonsense

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith. But why is that? What makes it so absurd?

As debaters I think there is one thing that most of us share in common; It's not enough for us to merely recognize that an argument is nonsense, we like to dissect them till we fully understand why. Presuppositional apologetics has always intrigued me because I find it so nonsensical that despite just how deeply I have dissected it over the past year and change, and despite just how much nonsense I have pulled out of it, I feel like there is still so much more I have yet to get to.

So if you were to talk about why Presuppositional Apologetics is nonsense, how would you characterize or explain it?

I'll offer two of my observations/critiques below:

1. It pretends to be a worldview comparison, when it is nothing of the sort

Unlike most debates where the intent is to find as much common ground as possible until both sides are either in complete agreement or until the core disagreement is found and understood, the idea behind PA is to accept at the outset that there is no agreement and then compare the two opposing worldviews to see which one is more absurd. This by itself is not a problem, however PA contradicts itself because it's inherent strategy forbids this from happening.

In order to compare two opposing worldviews, both sides must be able to scrutinize the other. However PA includes the "don't answer answer strategy" which literally instructs it's proponents to not allow their worldview to be scrutinized. So even when you offer a critique of their worldview by making a statement that they have admitted that they agree with, their response will still be "How do you know that?". In other words, until you validate your worldview to their satisfaction (which means agreeing that God exists) you're not allowed to question theirs.

What's really happening here could be put like this; PA identifies a problem with all worldviews (epistomological circularity), declares that their worldview does not suffer from this problem, offers to "compare" worldviews to see which is more impacted by this problem, critiques the opposing worldview for being impacted by this problem, then declares that identifying the problem within the opposing worldview disqualifies the opponent from critiquing their worldview. Then of course, comes the declaration of victory.

It's kind of like a baseball team scoring 1 run in the bottom of the first inning, then declaring that this disqualifies the opposing team from getting to bat, then walking off and declaring to have won the game. What they don't seem to understand is that if both teams do not get to bat, it's not a baseball game.

2. The irony of the "Your using your reasoning to justify reasoning" charge

PA proponents biggest charge against the "atheist worldview" is that we are using our senses and reasoning to justify our senses and reasoning. I have argued many times that this is absolutely false. We are using our senses and reasoning to justify everything else. Our senses and reasoning is our starting point because as human beings we have no other choice.

PA proponents of course disagree. They say that divine revelation allows them to be absolutely certain that their senses and reasoning is valid, which in turn allows them to be absolutely certain that they are not a crazy person living in a psyche ward. But how do they know that they received divine revelation? Because it's written in scripture. Which means that they used their senses to see the words, and their reasoning to interpret the meaning of the words. So while I recognize that I could be crazy and seeing what my crazy brain projected, and concluding what my invalid reasoning lead to, the PA's say that this cannot be the case for them because of the words that their senses picked up.

So in short, the recognition atheists make that we could be crazy or that we could be a brain in a vat stems from the realization that we cannot justify your own senses and reasoning apart from our own senses and reasoning. But what would it look like if someone did use their senses and reasoning to justify their senses and reasoning? They would claim absolute certainty. How ironic.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:37:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith. But why is that? What makes it so absurd?

As debaters I think there is one thing that most of us share in common; It's not enough for us to merely recognize that an argument is nonsense, we like to dissect them till we fully understand why. Presuppositional apologetics has always intrigued me because I find it so nonsensical that despite just how deeply I have dissected it over the past year and change, and despite just how much nonsense I have pulled out of it, I feel like there is still so much more I have yet to get to.

So if you were to talk about why Presuppositional Apologetics is nonsense, how would you characterize or explain it?

I'll offer two of my observations/critiques below:

1. It pretends to be a worldview comparison, when it is nothing of the sort

Unlike most debates where the intent is to find as much common ground as possible until both sides are either in complete agreement or until the core disagreement is found and understood, the idea behind PA is to accept at the outset that there is no agreement and then compare the two opposing worldviews to see which one is more absurd. This by itself is not a problem, however PA contradicts itself because it's inherent strategy forbids this from happening.

In order to compare two opposing worldviews, both sides must be able to scrutinize the other. However PA includes the "don't answer answer strategy" which literally instructs it's proponents to not allow their worldview to be scrutinized. So even when you offer a critique of their worldview by making a statement that they have admitted that they agree with, their response will still be "How do you know that?". In other words, until you validate your worldview to their satisfaction (which means agreeing that God exists) you're not allowed to question theirs.

What's really happening here could be put like this; PA identifies a problem with all worldviews (epistomological circularity), declares that their worldview does not suffer from this problem, offers to "compare" worldviews to see which is more impacted by this problem, critiques the opposing worldview for being impacted by this problem, then declares that identifying the problem within the opposing worldview disqualifies the opponent from critiquing their worldview. Then of course, comes the declaration of victory.

It's kind of like a baseball team scoring 1 run in the bottom of the first inning, then declaring that this disqualifies the opposing team from getting to bat, then walking off and declaring to have won the game. What they don't seem to understand is that if both teams do not get to bat, it's not a baseball game.

2. The irony of the "Your using your reasoning to justify reasoning" charge

PA proponents biggest charge against the "atheist worldview" is that we are using our senses and reasoning to justify our senses and reasoning. I have argued many times that this is absolutely false. We are using our senses and reasoning to justify everything else. Our senses and reasoning is our starting point because as human beings we have no other choice.

PA proponents of course disagree. They say that divine revelation allows them to be absolutely certain that their senses and reasoning is valid, which in turn allows them to be absolutely certain that they are not a crazy person living in a psyche ward. But how do they know that they received divine revelation? Because it's written in scripture. Which means that they used their senses to see the words, and their reasoning to interpret the meaning of the words. So while I recognize that I could be crazy and seeing what my crazy brain projected, and concluding what my invalid reasoning lead to, the PA's say that this cannot be the case for them because of the words that their senses picked up.

So in short, the recognition atheists make that we could be crazy or that we could be a brain in a vat stems from the realization that we cannot justify your own senses and reasoning apart from our own senses and reasoning. But what would it look like if someone did use their senses and reasoning to justify their senses and reasoning? They would claim absolute certainty. How ironic.

And they refuse to admit that they too are using those selfsame senses, most won't even try to describe their 'revelations' so they can be examined. It's like arguing with a two year old.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:15:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:48:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Agreed. Arguing with a PA is a lot like arguing with an athiest.

Oh, please. Atheists don't try to obfuscate and demand your acquiescence to their world view before they'll even present their own. Any chance you can discuss thing maturely without resorting to personal insult or threat?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:43:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:15:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:48:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Agreed. Arguing with a PA is a lot like arguing with an athiest.

Oh, please. Atheists don't try to obfuscate and demand your acquiescence to their world view before they'll even present their own. Any chance you can discuss thing maturely without resorting to personal insult or threat?

Nope. It's his MO.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:47:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
It's kind of like a baseball team scoring 1 run in the top of the first inning, then declaring that this disqualifies the opposing team from getting to bat, then walking off and declaring to have won the game. What they don't seem to understand is that if both teams do not get to bat, it's not a baseball game.

Fixed.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:58:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:15:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:48:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Agreed. Arguing with a PA is a lot like arguing with an athiest.

Oh, please. Atheists don't try to obfuscate and demand your acquiescence to their world view before they'll even present their own. Any chance you can discuss thing maturely without resorting to personal insult or threat?

What personal insult or threat did I make?

Are you so pathetic mere words hurt you?

Oops I guess not
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 11:13:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith. But why is that? What makes it so absurd?

I had never heard of it, but based upon what little I read about, it is kind-of silly. One cannot be allowed to merely presuppose that matter/energy always existed. Likewise, one cannot simply assume that God exists.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 1:43:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:48:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Agreed. Arguing with a PA is a lot like arguing with an athiest.

But how do you KNOW that ?

I win, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:27:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:58:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:15:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:48:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Agreed. Arguing with a PA is a lot like arguing with an athiest.

Oh, please. Atheists don't try to obfuscate and demand your acquiescence to their world view before they'll even present their own. Any chance you can discuss thing maturely without resorting to personal insult or threat?

What personal insult or threat did I make?

None, yet, but you've done so before when you can't get me to swallow your baloney whole.

Are you so pathetic mere words hurt you?

Not at all, since your opinion of me means nothing. It's just a dishonest way to discuss a subject.

Oops I guess not

And there it is, the implied insult. See, you prove yourself you can't keep it factual.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 4:45:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith. But why is that? What makes it so absurd?

As debaters I think there is one thing that most of us share in common; It's not enough for us to merely recognize that an argument is nonsense, we like to dissect them till we fully understand why. Presuppositional apologetics has always intrigued me because I find it so nonsensical that despite just how deeply I have dissected it over the past year and change, and despite just how much nonsense I have pulled out of it, I feel like there is still so much more I have yet to get to.

So if you were to talk about why Presuppositional Apologetics is nonsense, how would you characterize or explain it?

I'll offer two of my observations/critiques below:

1. It pretends to be a worldview comparison, when it is nothing of the sort

Unlike most debates where the intent is to find as much common ground as possible until both sides are either in complete agreement or until the core disagreement is found and understood, the idea behind PA is to accept at the outset that there is no agreement and then compare the two opposing worldviews to see which one is more absurd. This by itself is not a problem, however PA contradicts itself because it's inherent strategy forbids this from happening.

In order to compare two opposing worldviews, both sides must be able to scrutinize the other. However PA includes the "don't answer answer strategy" which literally instructs it's proponents to not allow their worldview to be scrutinized. So even when you offer a critique of their worldview by making a statement that they have admitted that they agree with, their response will still be "How do you know that?". In other words, until you validate your worldview to their satisfaction (which means agreeing that God exists) you're not allowed to question theirs.

What's really happening here could be put like this; PA identifies a problem with all worldviews (epistomological circularity), declares that their worldview does not suffer from this problem, offers to "compare" worldviews to see which is more impacted by this problem, critiques the opposing worldview for being impacted by this problem, then declares that identifying the problem within the opposing worldview disqualifies the opponent from critiquing their worldview. Then of course, comes the declaration of victory.

It's kind of like a baseball team scoring 1 run in the bottom of the first inning, then declaring that this disqualifies the opposing team from getting to bat, then walking off and declaring to have won the game. What they don't seem to understand is that if both teams do not get to bat, it's not a baseball game.

2. The irony of the "Your using your reasoning to justify reasoning" charge

PA proponents biggest charge against the "atheist worldview" is that we are using our senses and reasoning to justify our senses and reasoning. I have argued many times that this is absolutely false. We are using our senses and reasoning to justify everything else. Our senses and reasoning is our starting point because as human beings we have no other choice.

PA proponents of course disagree. They say that divine revelation allows them to be absolutely certain that their senses and reasoning is valid, which in turn allows them to be absolutely certain that they are not a crazy person living in a psyche ward. But how do they know that they received divine revelation? Because it's written in scripture. Which means that they used their senses to see the words, and their reasoning to interpret the meaning of the words. So while I recognize that I could be crazy and seeing what my crazy brain projected, and concluding what my invalid reasoning lead to, the PA's say that this cannot be the case for them because of the words that their senses picked up.

So in short, the recognition atheists make that we could be crazy or that we could be a brain in a vat stems from the realization that we cannot justify your own senses and reasoning apart from our own senses and reasoning. But what would it look like if someone did use their senses and reasoning to justify their senses and reasoning? They would claim absolute certainty. How ironic.

Before a PA will engage with you in an argument about their worldview, you must first agree that the PA's worldview is correct. It is the ultimate dodge.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:15:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 4:45:18 PM, Fly wrote:
Before a PA will engage with you in an argument about their worldview, you must first agree that the PA's worldview is correct. It is the ultimate dodge.

lol. Nice and simple.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 5:48:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:48:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Agreed. Arguing with a PA is a lot like arguing with an athiest.

I fully agree. In fact, as I read the post I had to go back and see the OP cause I was sure D2R could not be the author.

I am in a debate right now where three atheists are doing exactly what D2R expounds here. They simply expect their world-view to be accepted without preamble, and will declare all their claims to be "self-evident".

But I must be wrong because only theists do it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 5:54:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 5:48:00 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:48:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Agreed. Arguing with a PA is a lot like arguing with an athiest.

I fully agree. In fact, as I read the post I had to go back and see the OP cause I was sure D2R could not be the author.

I am in a debate right now where three atheists are doing exactly what D2R expounds here. They simply expect their world-view to be accepted without preamble, and will declare all their claims to be "self-evident".

But I must be wrong because only theists do it.

On the topic of the existence of a deity, the deity is frequently defined to fit the world and world view, not the other way around. This becomes especially problematic when the theist insists that the source of their world view has a host of attributes that are asserted from a tome, and nothing concurrent. Or demonstrated.

If I am making a claim that my world view hinges on some esoteric bit of knowledge, and an entity behind it, such should be readily made present. This doesn't occur in convincing fashion.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.

Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.

It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:

1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?

Moreover, the excuse of 'different world view' is a farce. Either a world view embraces independent accountability to best practice evidentiary procedures or it doesn't.

If it does, you've established common ground and there are no more excuses. If it doesn't, you've exposed the very problem under question: unaccountable claims to authority.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 8:54:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.

Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.

It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:

1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?

Moreover, the excuse of 'different world view' is a farce. Either a world view embraces independent accountability to best practice evidentiary procedures or it doesn't.

If it does, you've established common ground and there are no more excuses. If it doesn't, you've exposed the very problem under question: unaccountable claims to authority.

Double R is 2R not R squared.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 9:15:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 8:54:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.

Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.

It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:

1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?

Moreover, the excuse of 'different world view' is a farce. Either a world view embraces independent accountability to best practice evidentiary procedures or it doesn't.

If it does, you've established common ground and there are no more excuses. If it doesn't, you've exposed the very problem under question: unaccountable claims to authority.

Double R is 2R not R squared.
By mathematical convention, putting two variables adjacently without an operator between them connotes multiplication and not addition, so the area of a circle is expressed as: pi r ^2 or pi r r.

Double_R is therefore an R's worth of Rness, not simply a two-for-one R deal. You've actually under-estimated the total Rness of Double_R by R(R-2)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 10:43:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith. But why is that? What makes it so absurd?

As debaters I think there is one thing that most of us share in common; It's not enough for us to merely recognize that an argument is nonsense, we like to dissect them till we fully understand why. Presuppositional apologetics has always intrigued me because I find it so nonsensical that despite just how deeply I have dissected it over the past year and change, and despite just how much nonsense I have pulled out of it, I feel like there is still so much more I have yet to get to.

So if you were to talk about why Presuppositional Apologetics is nonsense, how would you characterize or explain it?

I'll offer two of my observations/critiques below:

1. It pretends to be a worldview comparison, when it is nothing of the sort

Unlike most debates where the intent is to find as much common ground as possible until both sides are either in complete agreement or until the core disagreement is found and understood, the idea behind PA is to accept at the outset that there is no agreement and then compare the two opposing worldviews to see which one is more absurd. This by itself is not a problem, however PA contradicts itself because it's inherent strategy forbids this from happening.

In order to compare two opposing worldviews, both sides must be able to scrutinize the other. However PA includes the "don't answer answer strategy" which literally instructs it's proponents to not allow their worldview to be scrutinized. So even when you offer a critique of their worldview by making a statement that they have admitted that they agree with, their response will still be "How do you know that?". In other words, until you validate your worldview to their satisfaction (which means agreeing that God exists) you're not allowed to question theirs.

What's really happening here could be put like this; PA identifies a problem with all worldviews (epistomological circularity), declares that their worldview does not suffer from this problem, offers to "compare" worldviews to see which is more impacted by this problem, critiques the opposing worldview for being impacted by this problem, then declares that identifying the problem within the opposing worldview disqualifies the opponent from critiquing their worldview. Then of course, comes the declaration of victory.

It's kind of like a baseball team scoring 1 run in the bottom of the first inning, then declaring that this disqualifies the opposing team from getting to bat, then walking off and declaring to have won the game. What they don't seem to understand is that if both teams do not get to bat, it's not a baseball game.

2. The irony of the "Your using your reasoning to justify reasoning" charge

PA proponents biggest charge against the "atheist worldview" is that we are using our senses and reasoning to justify our senses and reasoning. I have argued many times that this is absolutely false. We are using our senses and reasoning to justify everything else. Our senses and reasoning is our starting point because as human beings we have no other choice.

PA proponents of course disagree. They say that divine revelation allows them to be absolutely certain that their senses and reasoning is valid, which in turn allows them to be absolutely certain that they are not a crazy person living in a psyche ward. But how do they know that they received divine revelation? Because it's written in scripture. Which means that they used their senses to see the words, and their reasoning to interpret the meaning of the words. So while I recognize that I could be crazy and seeing what my crazy brain projected, and concluding what my invalid reasoning lead to, the PA's say that this cannot be the case for them because of the words that their senses picked up.

So in short, the recognition atheists make that we could be crazy or that we could be a brain in a vat stems from the realization that we cannot justify your own senses and reasoning apart from our own senses and reasoning. But what would it look like if someone did use their senses and reasoning to justify their senses and reasoning? They would claim absolute certainty. How ironic.

PA has a very logical worldview. It takes a top down approach starting with the big picture and then breaking those components down into finer details. It begins with God, divine revelations and answers the why to the questions of creation and our existence. What we do not understand in detail will be revealed/discovered with time. But the road map is clear as are the directions.

The other worldviews take a bottom up approach where individual bits of knowledge are gathered to build the big picture. It is based on local decision making on what bits of information should be added to build the big picture. It is more like a work in progress because it is an appeal to our intellects through reason, logic, or empirical evidence. There isn't a road map or clear directions. Immature and impulsive trends and fashion dictate the order of things.

If you look at human history a bottom up approach with local actors is hardly an endorsement of its methodology. Our own Age of Enlightenment began in the 18 th Century. And the period has been fraught with missteps and self induced inflictions recognized as a process of renovation through destruction.

The Top Down approach reduces the influence of human tendency to pervert everything and our human impulse to destroy what we cannot control. It starts with a higher order and allows humans to play within their zone of competence.

I am a vedantist raised in the Vedantic tradition and trained in the reading of esoteric scriptures, Christian Theology and Islamic fundamentalism. I am also a student of philosophy and the behavioural sciences. But most of all I am a spiritualist.

Please do not be offended by the brilliance of my aura. You are invited to be embraced by my abundance. Harikrish.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 11:07:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 9:15:21 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:54:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.

Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.

It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:

1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?

Moreover, the excuse of 'different world view' is a farce. Either a world view embraces independent accountability to best practice evidentiary procedures or it doesn't.

If it does, you've established common ground and there are no more excuses. If it doesn't, you've exposed the very problem under question: unaccountable claims to authority.

Double R is 2R not R squared.
By mathematical convention, putting two variables adjacently without an operator between them connotes multiplication and not addition, so the area of a circle is expressed as: pi r ^2 or pi r r.

Double_R is therefore an R's worth of Rness, not simply a two-for-one R deal. You've actually under-estimated the total Rness of Double_R by R(R-2)

Double has a specific meaning in math. It means 'two times'. So a value that is double is 'two times' that value. A number that is doubly even, means it can be divided by 2 'two times'.

Linguistically 'double' means the same thing. Like double-u 'uu' which is actually how we have the letter 'w', 'two time u'.

If he wanted R(R-2) more juice he should have called himself R squared.

I would have replied to more of what you wrote but I see by your 2nd to last sentence I would have to demonstrate using an independent best practices of scientist evidentiary procedure to show you you're wrong in assuming all knowledge comes from the independent best practices of scientist evidentiary procedure.

And that's off topic because the OP is about presuppositional arguments. I can't see any similarity. *shrug*
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 2:34:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 10:43:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
PA has a very logical worldview. It takes a top down approach starting with the big picture and then breaking those components down into finer details. It begins with God, divine revelations and answers the why to the questions of creation and our existence. What we do not understand in detail will be revealed/discovered with time. But the road map is clear as are the directions.

A worldview which asserts that logic itself needs to be validated is anything but logical.

A worldview which fails to recognize that choosing a starting point is itself an act of reason, is anything but a logical.

A worldview which fails to recognize that you can't use reason to argue against reason, is anything but logical.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:05:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.

Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.

It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:

1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?

#2 is not necessary. The very act of saying yes to #1 is the very thing they say makes our worldview absurd, which definitely exposes the problem.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:26:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:34:02 AM, Double_R wrote:

A worldview which fails to recognize that choosing a starting point is itself an act of reason, is anything but a logical.


Where is the starting point to eternity?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:30:10 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:05:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.
Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.
It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:
1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?
#2 is not necessary. The very act of saying yes to #1 is the very thing they say makes our worldview absurd, which definitely exposes the problem.
Out of curiosity, sqrt(R^4), have you ever met someone who denies the legitimacy of 1) yet directly admits that they're rejecting independent accountability?

For, me that's the key dishonesty. It's one thing to refuse accountability and bear the legitimate response of no authority without independent account.

It's another matter to pretend accountability while simultaneously insisting that any accountability should by one's own chosen criteria. :p
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:39:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:26:59 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:34:02 AM, Double_R wrote:

A worldview which fails to recognize that choosing a starting point is itself an act of reason, is anything but a logical.


Where is the starting point to eternity?

Please explain how your question is relevant to what we're discussing.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:55:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:30:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:05:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.
Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.
It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:
1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?
#2 is not necessary. The very act of saying yes to #1 is the very thing they say makes our worldview absurd, which definitely exposes the problem.
Out of curiosity, sqrt(R^4), have you ever met someone who denies the legitimacy of 1) yet directly admits that they're rejecting independent accountability?

Scmike2, and probably VR but he is too much of a troll to directly offer his position on that.

For, me that's the key dishonesty. It's one thing to refuse accountability and bear the legitimate response of no authority without independent account.

It's another matter to pretend accountability while simultaneously insisting that any accountability should by one's own chosen criteria. :p

But that's the problem with these guys. The very notion of making their authority accountable to anyone else is an idea that is not only dismissed offhand, but they even go so far as to claim that no coherent worldview can exist without acceptance of the authority as its foundation. The very act of questioning their authority, in their view, automatically reduces your worldview to absurdity. Which is of course the reason why PA is so ridiculous and childish, because what it's actually saying is that the very thought of attempting to validate their worldview invalidates yours. In other words, trying to prove me wrong proves me right. Talk about a dishonest and cowardly tactic.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 5:22:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:55:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:30:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:05:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:50:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith.
Its purpose isn't to defend one's faith, R^2, because presuppositional beliefs aren't accountable to anyone in the first place. If they were, they couldn't presuppose validity or veracity -- they'd have to submit them to independent scrutiny.
Its job is to make you defend the frame under which you ask questions, so you'll spend your time doing that instead of exposing that beliefs claimed authoritiative, are nevertheless unaccountable.
It's procedural smoke-blowing, and a person who argues that way is doing so dishonestly and in bad faith, and it's easily revealed with the following questions:
1) Are you willing to make the authority of your beliefs accountable to independent validation and verification?
2) If so, how is it independent to contest generally-accepted standards of evidence and falsification?
#2 is not necessary. The very act of saying yes to #1 is the very thing they say makes our worldview absurd, which definitely exposes the problem.
Out of curiosity, sqrt(R^4), have you ever met someone who denies the legitimacy of 1) yet directly admits that they're rejecting independent accountability?
Scmike2, and probably VR but he is too much of a troll to directly offer his position on that.
I spend very little time talking to Scmike, since I don't believe either of us has ever profited from an exchange. And I agree that VR is not only a troll, but an uninventive monomaniac with it. His profile shows him grinding the same topic over and over in debate [http://www.debate.org...], and based on his responses to comments and questions, I'm not confident that he understands the topic well enough to do more than stick to a canned script.

For, me that's the key dishonesty. It's one thing to refuse accountability and bear the legitimate response of no authority without independent account. It's another matter to pretend accountability while simultaneously insisting that any accountability should by one's own chosen criteria. :p
But that's the problem with these guys. The very notion of making their authority accountable to anyone else is an idea that is not only dismissed offhand, but they even go so far as to claim that no coherent worldview can exist without acceptance of the authority as its foundation.
Sadly, it's not hard to produce closed-minded zealots, DD. History is peppered with them. But their intellectual isolation is its own weakness. Hindered from integrating outside their beliefs, incapable of resolving dogmatic disputes, pawn to whichever cynical authority manipulates them, and in a race to show excesses of ignorance and pious intolerance, they tend not to have much long-term cohesion.

On the other hand, if mobilised they can do profound damage to social fabric in the short term, and I think that's the real risk.

Since you can't reason with them, and they don't recognise full personhood outside their own ideology, I think the thing to do is keep an eye on their leadership, continue promoting critical thought, and deal with any excesses under force of law.

It's disturbing just how popular such stuff has become in the US though. I think it may be in part a consequence of three decades of replacing public interest journalism with cynical public entertainment.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 6:03:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:39:44 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:26:59 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:34:02 AM, Double_R wrote:

A worldview which fails to recognize that choosing a starting point is itself an act of reason, is anything but a logical.


Where is the starting point to eternity?

Please explain how your question is relevant to what we're discussing.

Try answering the question and you just might find out.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 2:18:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:34:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2016 10:43:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
PA has a very logical worldview. It takes a top down approach starting with the big picture and then breaking those components down into finer details. It begins with God, divine revelations and answers the why to the questions of creation and our existence. What we do not understand in detail will be revealed/discovered with time. But the road map is clear as are the directions.

A worldview which asserts that logic itself needs to be validated is anything but logical.

A worldview which fails to recognize that choosing a starting point is itself an act of reason, is anything but a logical.

A worldview which fails to recognize that you can't use reason to argue against reason, is anything but logical.

All worldviews without God as a starting point is illogical because it begins with the premise that everything came from nothing which denies tbe existence of a creator.

Listen to the brilliant Stephen Hawking. His theory of everything (M Theory) is illuminating and fascinating till you ask yourself all this came from nothing. And then you look at him and ask again, Is he displacing God? The poor man is a cripple who cannot even get out of his wheelchair and yet he wants you to believe he knows the secret of the universe.

That is an example of a bottom up approach. A small shrunken man stuck to his wheelchair at the bottom struggling without hope and all he can do is look up (bottom up approach) and all he has is a worldview that he cannot even stand on. How logical is that?!!!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 2:59:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:18:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:34:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2016 10:43:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
PA has a very logical worldview. It takes a top down approach starting with the big picture and then breaking those components down into finer details. It begins with God, divine revelations and answers the why to the questions of creation and our existence. What we do not understand in detail will be revealed/discovered with time. But the road map is clear as are the directions.

A worldview which asserts that logic itself needs to be validated is anything but logical.

A worldview which fails to recognize that choosing a starting point is itself an act of reason, is anything but a logical.

A worldview which fails to recognize that you can't use reason to argue against reason, is anything but logical.

All worldviews without God as a starting point is illogical because it begins with the premise that everything came from nothing which denies tbe existence of a creator.

I wasn't aware a creator HAD to be God. This doesn't include all the other presuppositions.

Listen to the brilliant Stephen Hawking. His theory of everything (M Theory) is illuminating and fascinating till you ask yourself all this came from nothing. And then you look at him and ask again, Is he displacing God? The poor man is a cripple who cannot even get out of his wheelchair and yet he wants you to believe he knows the secret of the universe.

What exactly prevents that? It sounds like you just disparaged his knowledge because of his illness. Is physical action, like throwing a baseball, required for KNOWING about throwing a baseball?

That is an example of a bottom up approach. A small shrunken man stuck to his wheelchair at the bottom struggling without hope and all he can do is look up (bottom up approach) and all he has is a worldview that he cannot even stand on. How logical is that?!!!

Considering you haven't actually conducted any variety of reasoning to get to your conclusion, I fail to see how it is illogical based on your suggestions.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:08:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
Presuppositional apologetics is in my view the most absurd, silly, and childish tactic for defending one's faith. But why is that? What makes it so absurd?

As debaters I think there is one thing that most of us share in common; It's not enough for us to merely recognize that an argument is nonsense, we like to dissect them till we fully understand why. Presuppositional apologetics has always intrigued me because I find it so nonsensical that despite just how deeply I have dissected it over the past year and change, and despite just how much nonsense I have pulled out of it, I feel like there is still so much more I have yet to get to.

So if you were to talk about why Presuppositional Apologetics is nonsense, how would you characterize or explain it?

I'll offer two of my observations/critiques below:

1. It pretends to be a worldview comparison, when it is nothing of the sort

Unlike most debates where the intent is to find as much common ground as possible until both sides are either in complete agreement or until the core disagreement is found and understood, the idea behind PA is to accept at the outset that there is no agreement and then compare the two opposing worldviews to see which one is more absurd. This by itself is not a problem, however PA contradicts itself because it's inherent strategy forbids this from happening.

In order to compare two opposing worldviews, both sides must be able to scrutinize the other. However PA includes the "don't answer answer strategy" which literally instructs it's proponents to not allow their worldview to be scrutinized. So even when you offer a critique of their worldview by making a statement that they have admitted that they agree with, their response will still be "How do you know that?". In other words, until you validate your worldview to their satisfaction (which means agreeing that God exists) you're not allowed to question theirs.

What's really happening here could be put like this; PA identifies a problem with all worldviews (epistomological circularity), declares that their worldview does not suffer from this problem, offers to "compare" worldviews to see which is more impacted by this problem, critiques the opposing worldview for being impacted by this problem, then declares that identifying the problem within the opposing worldview disqualifies the opponent from critiquing their worldview. Then of course, comes the declaration of victory.

It's kind of like a baseball team scoring 1 run in the bottom of the first inning, then declaring that this disqualifies the opposing team from getting to bat, then walking off and declaring to have won the game. What they don't seem to understand is that if both teams do not get to bat, it's not a baseball game.

2. The irony of the "Your using your reasoning to justify reasoning" charge

PA proponents biggest charge against the "atheist worldview" is that we are using our senses and reasoning to justify our senses and reasoning. I have argued many times that this is absolutely false. We are using our senses and reasoning to justify everything else. Our senses and reasoning is our starting point because as human beings we have no other choice.

PA proponents of course disagree. They say that divine revelation allows them to be absolutely certain that their senses and reasoning is valid, which in turn allows them to be absolutely certain that they are not a crazy person living in a psyche ward. But how do they know that they received divine revelation? Because it's written in scripture. Which means that they used their senses to see the words, and their reasoning to interpret the meaning of the words. So while I recognize that I could be crazy and seeing what my crazy brain projected, and concluding what my invalid reasoning lead to, the PA's say that this cannot be the case for them because of the words that their senses picked up.

So in short, the recognition atheists make that we could be crazy or that we could be a brain in a vat stems from the realization that we cannot justify your own senses and reasoning apart from our own senses and reasoning. But what would it look like if someone did use their senses and reasoning to justify their senses and reasoning? They would claim absolute certainty. How ironic.

Well Double_R if you are trying to justify whatever it is you are trying to justify in an argument it"s more of a stalemate then anything. Justification is not proof of anything no matter the logic. And logic is no better then what a computer does which is a garbage in garbage out system.

A child will justify what it has done by pointing to who has told them to, or compelled them to. And if the one who has compelled them tells nothing but lies, how can that be justified? It can"t. The blind do lead the blind to their death.

Justification is no different then a person employed and is justified to do as his employer has instructed and isn"t justified to do otherwise, within the context of the agreed employment. In the case of a Christian view for instance existence belongs to God, hence what is and isn"t justified should be according to God. But argument for proof of something true, never need justification because it is the Truth that justifies, just like the law justifies the obeyer thereof.

So if you"ve been boxed into a justification match, then most likely your opponent has gone for a tie. Which has nothing to do with being specific to religious arguments. It's merely a tactic.