Jason
Petersen recently published his third "rebuttal" to my finding that
his presuppositional argument is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be accepted
as believable or rational.
It should be said that all religions are in themselves unfalsifiable; however, the presuppositional argument makes additional claims: it not only claims certainty (which moves it beyond a faith claim, as faith by definition must contain an element of uncertainty), it makes a comparative claim that it is the "superior" worldview while all others are "inferior." This should make it applicable to reality, and therefore testable. By dismissing any testing, Petersen has made its application to reality non-demonstrable thereby putting the entire apologetic back in with religious faith.
His response has been to attack my ability to respond to him, instead of directly answering the question. This is traditional, and predictable, for presuppositionalists. Whenever a presuppositionalist challenges the non-believers' ability to criticize or object to the propositions of their argument, they are evading their burden of response (even though they are likely perfectly capable of having an answer).
Even if Jason Petersen presented a cogent argument that I was a raving lunatic, it does not change the irrelevancy of his "can't ever be wrong" argument: it's still unfalsifiable. His argument has failed to meet the criterion of testability. And regardless of his claims about me, the unfalsifiability of his argument has been established by Petersen's own statements about it, not any by me.
It should be said that all religions are in themselves unfalsifiable; however, the presuppositional argument makes additional claims: it not only claims certainty (which moves it beyond a faith claim, as faith by definition must contain an element of uncertainty), it makes a comparative claim that it is the "superior" worldview while all others are "inferior." This should make it applicable to reality, and therefore testable. By dismissing any testing, Petersen has made its application to reality non-demonstrable thereby putting the entire apologetic back in with religious faith.
His response has been to attack my ability to respond to him, instead of directly answering the question. This is traditional, and predictable, for presuppositionalists. Whenever a presuppositionalist challenges the non-believers' ability to criticize or object to the propositions of their argument, they are evading their burden of response (even though they are likely perfectly capable of having an answer).
Even if Jason Petersen presented a cogent argument that I was a raving lunatic, it does not change the irrelevancy of his "can't ever be wrong" argument: it's still unfalsifiable. His argument has failed to meet the criterion of testability. And regardless of his claims about me, the unfalsifiability of his argument has been established by Petersen's own statements about it, not any by me.
No comments:
Post a Comment