Update 2/27/2014: For a further refinement of this table please visit my next post.
The following table is a condensed version of the video by TheGlobalAtheism on presuppositional apologetics. I've also added some other questions/declarations typically in the pre-sup's script, along with the responses. TheGlobalAtheism's points are numbered (in the order he presented them).
The following table is a condensed version of the video by TheGlobalAtheism on presuppositional apologetics. I've also added some other questions/declarations typically in the pre-sup's script, along with the responses. TheGlobalAtheism's points are numbered (in the order he presented them).
The "Actual Answer" (Column 4) is the one provided by TheGlobalAtheism, the "honest" or technically correct answer. It can get pretty complicated since the pre-sup will argue those responses, so in Column 5, I've provided the "Quick & Dirty" response--the response with the purpose of turning them back to their faulty, unproven premise and bring the discourse to a quick close. In asking where the apologist gets their standard, foundation, absolutes or authority in terms of their question or statement, you are getting them back to their pre-suppositional starting point: that, as Sye Ten Bruggencate's website asserts: "We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary!"
So once you get the "God/Jesus" or "Word/Bible" response, you simply go back to Point 1, advise the apologist the premise of their god's existence is unproven, and shut off the conversation with the same "courteous close" that Sye Ten uses: "Thank you for your time." And then refuse to answer any more questions, since you've just advised (honestly) you're not going to respond to meaningless propositions based on a faulty premise. You may need to be tenacious in repeating the question until they give you "it's from God (or in the Bible)" response.
A few of these questions/statements (Points 3, 9,11, 13 and 14), however, have a Quick & Dirty Answer that does not require you go to Point 1, although it can be used. The answers are also designed to end the discourse. The one question that so often starts the pre-sup interrogation has an even better answer as discovered by Alex Botten, which is to name one thing for which you are absolutely or 100% certain (usually a continuation of "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?"). Alex calls it the "lulz" response: "I am 100% certain that I am not the god you worship." You can immediately see where this leads.
Since I consider pre-suppositional apologetics a "con", the third column is called "Mark" Response because that is the response the pre-sup is looking for from an unknowing non-believer, the "mark" of his con word game.
If you have any other questions/responses you'd like to see added to this table, please advise me either at YouTube in a PM or in the comments.
THE PRESUPPOSITIONALIST SCRIPT WITH
APPROPRIATE RESPONSES
No.
|
Question or
Statement |
"Mark"'
Response |
Actual
Answer
|
QUICK
& DIRTY ANSWER
|
|
A
|
Almost all questions below (except a few have
even better responses, as emphasized)
|
See last column
|
This
question is based upon the starting point of your apologetic
methodology. Until you demonstrate the
core presupposition of that starting point, that your god exists, the dependent propositions which
follow have no merit and are irrelevant.
|
Until
you demonstrate your premise (that your god exists), all propositions hinging
on that premise are not relevant. Thank you for your time.
|
|
How to you justify
(account) for your morals? Where do
you get your moral foundation? |
Myself
|
Since this foundation or justification is based upon the existence of a god which you have not proven in your core presupposition, it follows you have not proven any moral foundation or standard.
|
Where do YOU get your
moral foundation? If "from
god", go to A.
|
||
1
|
Is it impossible for
the god of the Bible to exist?
|
No
|
It depends on how you
define God. Yes if omniscient/
omnipotent, because these are mutually contradictory.
|
||
2
|
Is it impossible for
the Bible to be what it claims to be?
|
No
|
If the god of the
bible does not exist, then it logically follows that the bible is not the
word of god.
|
Yes, explain why is it possible? If "god" then go to A.
|
|
3
|
Could
you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
|
Yes
|
Philosophically, yes,
I'm not omniscient. Scientifically,
there's 3 bits of knowledge we can be certain of, 2 of which we can't be
wrong:
1. Laws/observations (can't be)
2. Facts
(can't be)
3. Theories
|
I
am 100% certain that I am not the god you worship.
Thank
you for your time.
|
|
4
|
Could you be wrong about
that? (Is it possible a fact or law
could be proven wrong?)
(This
is the same question if you answer No.)
|
Yes.
|
No, by definition,
above. If it was wrong to begin with,
then it would not be a fact.
|
(Here
the pre-sup is in the untenable position of trying to convince you that you
are their god or are omniscient)
|
|
5
|
Does
absolute truth exist? Yes or No. (Do you believe in absolutes?)
|
Well....
|
Yes, forms of absolute
truth do exist, but it's more complicated than that.
|
How do you define
absolutes? If "of god" then
go to A.
|
|
6
|
Does knowledge have to
be true?
|
Well....
|
Not necessarily;
depends on your definition.
|
How do YOU define true
or truth? If "of god" then
go to A.. Or ask if they mean "absolutely true" and then ask
how they define absolutes. If "of
god" go to A.
|
|
7
|
Out of all the
knowledge in the universe, how much do you have?
|
Well.....no
Maybe 1%
|
Yes: since knowledge is a human construct,
humans possess 100% of all knowledge (potential knowledge will be acquired)
|
Who has all the
knowledge in the universe? If
"God" then go to A.
|
|
8
|
Is there something in
the 99% that could contradict the 1%?
|
Well....
maybe
|
No, not the first 2
because new knowledge does not contradict base laws of logic
|
(This is an extension
of Point 9, which will send you to A)
|
|
9
|
God
has revealed things to me in a way that I can be certain. (scripturally)
|
Well....
|
No, it is not
possible. (1) He does not exist (2) If he did, you might not be able to
cognitively understand his answer to certain questions.
|
Do
YOU have any way to check or verify that it was your god? How can you be certain you're not being
deceived?
|
|
God
does not lie!
|
Uh....
|
(inserted) A god who does not have the capability of lying is not omnipotent.
|
How
do you know that?
If
"Bible" go to A.
|
||
God
has made everyone certain through his word!
|
Huh?
|
(inserted) Isn't
making you think you're certain exactly the kind of thing a deceiving god
would do? And then ask "would a deceiver try to deceive you?" & follow up with "how can you be
certain of that?"
|
Why
should I think the Bible is authoritative to begin with? If "god" then go to A.
|
||
10
|
What is your (ultimate)
authority?
|
Myself.
|
Myself. We all have a tool: logic.
|
Who do YOU deem as
your ultimate authority? If
"god" then go to A.
|
|
11
|
How
do you know that your reasoning is
valid?
|
Well.....
|
Reasoning is a process
model we use based on all our senses which is falsifiable (we can test it).
|
Are
YOU telling me I can't trust my reasoning (senses)?
If I can't, then I can't trust you. Thank you for your time.
|
|
12
|
Are there people whose
reasoning isn't valid? How do you know
that you're not one of those people?
|
Yes...
(next
Question)
|
Because I can
successfully navigate through life.
|
How would YOU know I
wasn't? What standard do you use? If "god" then go to
A.
|
|
(Then your reasoning
is viciously circular!)
|
(inserted) We do reason with our
reason, but it is not viciously circular. It is developed through experience.
|
What is defined as visciously
circular as compared to not? On answer of "God-Bible
(being virtuously circular)", go to A.
|
|||
13
|
What are you using to
justify senses and reasoning?
|
My senses?
|
Reasoning is a model with predictive capability using
our sensory input which independently converge to form a picture of reality.
|
Are you telling me I
can't trust my reasoning (senses)? If I can't,
then I can't trust you. Thank you for your time.
|
|
14
|
Name
one thing you can be absolutely certain about.
|
I'm not sure....
Nothing?
|
Philosophically, yes,
I'm not omniscient. Scientifically,
there's 3 bits of knowledge we can be certain of, 2 of which we can't be
wrong:
1. Laws/observations (can't be)
2. Facts
(can't be)
3. Theories
|
I'm
100% certain I'm NOT the god you worship.
(or that I'm not omniscient).
Thank
you for your time.
|
|
15
|
Is your worldview
based on faith?
|
No.
|
By strictest
definition, my worldview is not based on faith.
|
What do YOU base your
worldview on? If "god" then
go to A.
|
|
The Christian
worldview is the only consistent/
plausible one because of the impossibility of the contrary! |
Huh?
|
(inserted) If they say
other worldviews are not consistent, re-direct question: you're not asking about other worldviews,
you're asking why or how the Christian one is only plausible one.
|
How (or why) is it
impossible? If "Bible" or
"god" go to A. (Ask why all other world views aren't plausible until they get to "god.")
OR "I reject that assertion" then go to A. |
||
16
|
The laws of logic,
science, morality which we use everyday are universal, immaterial & unchanging.
How does a strictly natural world account for such unchanging laws?
("...then you
believe in logical absolutes?")
|
I don't know...
|
These laws are
descriptive, not prescriptive. There's
no reason to think they're prescriptive.
(Prescriptive = sanctioned or authorized, not a way to describe something)
|
How do YOU account for
(laws of logic, reason, logical absolutes)? What are your standards for these laws? If "god" or "Bible" then go to A.
|
|
17
|
The only thing that
can make sense of the immaterial, unchanging, universal laws of logic,
science and morality is an immaterial, unchanging, universal god--the god of
the bible and of scripture.
|
I don't know
|
As we discover new
information, we may necessarily have to change these laws. We have done so for centuries (Newton's
Principia on gravity and motion or Huygens' theories on celestial orbits)
|
Even
if I accepted that there was an immaterial, unchanging and universal being ,
there's no logical step between that and "therefore Jesus." Thank you for your
time.
OR "I reject that assertion" and then go to A. |
|
18
|
We could not know
anything without the god of the Bible.
We'd be forced to say we could be wrong about things, because without
certainty you can't know anything, which is intellectually a foolish position
and why the bible says "The fool has said in his heart there is no
god."
|
Huh?
|
Are you saying that I cannot be certain about anything? Anything? I know one thing I'm certain of....I'm not the god that you worship.
OR "I reject that assertion" and then go to A. |
||
(The proof of god is that without him you can't prove anything.)
|
"I reject that assertion" and then go to A.
|
||||
Nice workflow! -lol
ReplyDeleteWow. This flowchart completely misses the entire point of a presuppositional conversation, and following this flowchart will simply expose the fact that the person following it doesn't even understand the basic point of the conversation.
ReplyDeletePlease, for the sake of rationality, don't blindly follow such an uninformed script. Try engaging with the actual subject matter being discussed instead.
well said...AMEN
DeleteYes Amen!
DeleteThank you for your comment. If someone wishes to engage and enjoys such discourse, they can follow Column 4. I recommend Column 5 because pre-supp is an intellectually dishonest argument. As I said in my video, you cannot have a fruitful conversation with someone who refuses to examine their own assertions or engage with their opponent’s arguments.
DeleteThe core pre-sup premise is not falsifiable and cannot be demonstrably proven, so all dependent propositions which follow are irrelevant. The entire argument is riddled with fallacies. So why should one waste their time on meaningless questions?
Karen,
DeleteThe entire point of a presuppositional argument is to point out that BOTH sides take a presuppositional foundation upon which EVERYTHING else is built. This flowchart does nothing other than showing that the person responding in this way refuses to take a look at their OWN presuppositions.
For example, on what basis do you say that "pre-supp is an intellectually dishonest argument"?
As for "you cannot have a fruitful conversation with someone who refuses to examine their own assertions or engage with their opponent’s arguments", quite frankly, that's what presuppositionalists are trying to do! I don't really know any presuppositionalist who isn't willing to examine their own assertions - the question is, examine them according to what standard? However, the vast majority of non-Christians I've had discussions with (or seen discussions with) flat out refuse to examine their own assertions. Quite frankly, that's exactly what this flowchart is all about: it's teaching atheists how to bury their head in the sand and refuse to examine their own assertions! You're exhorting people to do the exact thing that you previously called intellectually dishonest!
In regards to this, "The core pre-sup premise is not falsifiable", have you taken a look at your own core presuppositions? Do you consider them to be falsifiable?
"The entire point of a presuppositional argument is to point out that BOTH sides take a presuppositional foundation upon which EVERYTHING else is built. This flowchart does nothing other than showing that the person responding in this way refuses to take a look at their OWN presuppositions."
DeleteIn response to this, I'll refer to The Gospel and Contemporary Perspectives: Viewpoints from the Trinity Journal, on page 143 (this part is about John Frame, an well known presuppositional apologist);
"a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing."
The chart applies to anybody who speaks with certainty without evidence for something extreme. To assume that people who lack belief in something without evidence are "presupposing" is a poor argument. The whole point of the chart is, in my own words, why must I presuppose your faith before a discussion/debate when your only evidence is that "I know that your god exists"? No, I don't, and for a person to say that is extremely arrogant. Responding to "prove to me that x exists" shouldn't have a response of "well, prove to me that x doesn't exist". Anything that imagination can think of can be "x", and to believe that it exists as well as assume that somebody must presuppose that it does is utter nonsense.
"In regards to this, 'The core pre-sup premise is not falsifiable', have you taken a look at your own core presuppositions? Do you consider them to be falsifiable?"
I can't speak for Karen, but for me, being an agnostic atheist, my own core presuppositions can be falsifiable when the gods or goddesses people worship can be displayed with evidence. If something lacks evidence, then I don't see the point behind believing it's real.
I posted this to youtube, and I'll leave it here as well;
"All I say as a counter to the presup argument is the same thing I told G Man. Your argument applies to all faiths, not just your own. You believe your argument supports your faith (people of other faiths people of other faiths think the same), yet you believe that people of other faiths are wrong. This leads to either all faiths being correct, or all of them being wrong, because most religious people have the same certainty of their faith, and can use examples such as miracles, answered prayer, or what have you, to prove their faith."
When you say that atheists bury their heads in the sand, is that not the same position you take when a muslim asks you to presuppose that Allah exists? Do you take the position of a Hindu when they ask you to presuppose Ganapati, Vishnu, Agni, or their other gods/goddesses exist?
Living in the cosmopolitan city of New York, my personal experience is that nobody ever takes the side of another faith, or lack thereof. All that happens is my friends gang up on me and ask me to prove that their various gods or goddesses don't exist. Even when I point out how stupid it is to ask me to prove their nonexistence is, they don't get it. They either spout something about prayer working, or some statue that cries milk, or their peer being possessed by a djinn and the imam reciting the quran to expel it. Then they persist to say that their religion is true. All I can do is just sit their confused, because they don't presuppose that another deity is real, yet they wish me to do that for their faith. That's not how it works.
@ Jonathan Bradford: And I suppose that "presuppositional standard on which everything is built" is of course, that of your god? No, you have haven't proven that, you just assert it. You're only assuming you're right, nothing else. This conversation is done. Thank you for your time.
DeletePaul,
Delete// The chart applies to anybody who speaks with certainty without evidence for something extreme. //
Who's definition of "extreme"? Quite frankly, I find an atheist's blind faith in the principle of induction or the validity of their own reasoning very extreme. There's no rational, logical reason to accept either of those things on any of the typical atheistic foundations (ie, materialistic naturalism, empiricism, rationalism, etc). So the whole point is to show that, as I mentioned before, BOTH sides have foundational presuppositions through which they view the world, and according to which everything else is judged. And as such, both sides will come to different conclusions as to what constitutes "extreme".
Why would your concept of "extreme" (ie, belief in God) be any more valid than my concept of "extreme" (ie, belief in autonomous human rationality)? To simply assume your viewpoint is correct is to do the very thing that you accuse presuppositionalists of doing.
// Responding to "prove to me that x exists" shouldn't have a response of "well, prove to me that x doesn't exist". //
I honestly don't know of any presuppositionalist who would ask that question. I'm not even sure what the point is of bringing it up.
// Anything that imagination can think of can be "x", and to believe that it exists as well as assume that somebody must presuppose that it does is utter nonsense. //
But here's the thing - Christian presuppositionalists actually do KNOW that God exists - it's not just an imagination, belief or assumption. To simply assert that it is an assumption on our part it to completely strawman the Christian position.
// my own core presuppositions can be falsifiable when the gods or goddesses people worship can be displayed with evidence. //
Do you consider the concept that "a position can be falsified when countered with evidence" a falsifiable position itself? If so, how would I falsify it on your worldview?
// If something lacks evidence, then I don't see the point behind believing it's real. //
Are you willing to take up the challenge I mentioned at the top of this response? Can you provide evidence that autonomous human reasoning is valid? Can you provide evidence that the principle of induction is reliable? Quite frankly, according to your own admission here, if you can't provide evidence for either of those things, you shouldn't 'see the point behind believing' them. That means you'd have to give up knowledge and science - are you willing to do that?
// Your argument applies to all faiths, not just your own. //
This is just a bald assertion with no actual support. I could just as easily say that your position applies to all non-Christian positions, and not just your own. Atheism fails for the same reason as pantheism or voodoo or Buddhism. But I don't - I'm actually willing to have the conversation and deal with the actual position of the person across the table.
But regardless, your assertion here is fundamentally incorrect, and is easily demonstratable as incorrect. For example, the Mormon god can not be the foundation for the metaphysical reality in which we live, since the Mormon god is a physical being existing within that metaphysical reality. The Muslim god can not be the foundation for the validity of the principle of induction, since the Muslim god can change his mind on a whim at any time for any reason.
See, the argument is actually built upon the characteristics of the Christian God. It is specific to the Triune God of the bible, and as such does actually show that Christianity is true. It's not possible to use the same argument for any other religion - there are always places where its differences from Christianity cause it to breakdown.
(con't.....)
(.....con't)
DeletePaul
// When you say that atheists bury their heads in the sand, is that not the same position you take when a muslim asks you to presuppose that Allah exists? //
No - I will actually deal with the specific tenets of their worldview. I'll ask them questions and go down the path of examining their viewpoint according to what they actually say. I'll deal with the discussion at hand instead of simply referring to a flowchart that simply says "then go to step A" every single chance that it gets.
// Do you take the position of a Hindu when they ask you to presuppose Ganapati, Vishnu, Agni, or their other gods/goddesses exist? //
I'll happily step into the Hindu's worldview to do an internal critique of it and show where it breaks down. With Hinduism, I'd show how the presupposition of any of their gods, none of which can actually be omniscient, could ever lead to the possibility of knowledge. On their own worldview, their epistemology breaks down to destroy the concept of rationality. Just like with atheism, if Hinduism were true, knowledge would not actually be possible.
// All that happens is my friends gang up on me and ask me to prove that their various gods or goddesses don't exist. //
Well, that's an unfortunate position to be in. I could happily offer to provide you with plenty of arguments to prove the non-existence of a vast array of false idols that people have created to worship. I'm not sure how much you'd like them though - they all end up standing on, and leading back to, the truth of Christianity. :)
// That's not how it works. //
And here we get down to the root question. How DOES it work?
And while you are thinking of an answer to that, recognize that I'm going to have a different answer to that question than you would. So who's answer is right? When we differ on how to work out our differences, how do we work out THAT difference?
Karen,
Delete// And I suppose that "presuppositional standard on which everything is built" is of course, that of your god? //
That is my position, yes. That's the foundation of my worldview. If you have a different worldview, then let's put them both on the table and have a look at them, and see where they lead.
// No, you have haven't proven that, you just assert it. //
Proven it according to what standard? The very question at issue is "what is the ultimate standard by which all other things are known or proved", and you are just asserting that your standard is the correct one, without even saying what it is!
Ultimately, what you are asking me to do is to prove to you the Christian position that God is the judge of all things, on the basis of His terms, and you want me to prove that according to your judgement, on the basis of your terms. You don't see a problem with the very nature of your question?
// You're only assuming you're right, nothing else. //
Actually, I have certain knowledge that I am right about the fact that the Christian God exists and the bible is true. But you don't seem to even want to consider the possibility. You don't seem willing to put your own presuppositions on the table to have a look at them.
// This conversation is done. Thank you for your time. //
Well, I'll give you credit for one thing - it looks like you stuck to your script!
Hi Jonathan, do you include a hypothetical worldview which is shorn of the issues that the Christian worldview has ?
DeleteMK Skeptic, I'm not sure what you would mean by "shorn of the issues that the Christian worldview has"? I personally find no issues with it at all. (But you would probably expect that I would say that)
DeleteCan you give me an example or two of what you would consider "issues"?
Jonathan, my definition of extreme is believing in something that you lack any evidence to show for it, at all. I mean zero evidence at all. You accuse me of presupposing that a god doesn't exist, yet I'm not. I stated that I'm an agnostic atheist.
DeleteWhen I said "Responding to "prove to me that x exists" shouldn't have a response of 'well, prove to me that x doesn't exist'." I referred to a general statement in apologetics that I hear come up often.
When you say "But here's the thing - Christian presuppositionalists actually do KNOW that God exists - it's not just an imagination, belief or assumption. To simply assert that it is an assumption on our part it to completely strawman the Christian position.", it can be repeated as. "But here's the thing - Muslim presuppositionalists actually do KNOW that Allah exists - it's not just an imagination, belief or assumption. To simply assert that it is an assumption on our part it to completely strawman the Muslim position." That's my point.
"Do you consider the concept that "a position can be falsified when countered with evidence" a falsifiable position itself? If so, how would I falsify it on your worldview?"
What is the point of such a silly question? I already said that my own core presuppositions can be falsifiable when the gods or goddesses people worship can be displayed with evidence. Repeat that question over in your head. It's such a strange thing to ask. If you falsify a successful attempt to falsify my position that requires evidence, then you first converted me when you succeeded the first time, and sent me right back to atheism with evidence to the contrary.
// Your argument applies to all faiths, not just your own. //
Check Hamza Tzortzis, Dr. Zakir Naik, or talk to some members of the World Pantheist Movement.
"No - I will actually deal with the specific tenets of their worldview. I'll ask them questions and go down the path of examining their viewpoint according to what they actually say. I'll deal with the discussion at hand instead of simply referring to a flowchart that simply says "then go to step A" every single chance that it gets."
So you don't presuppose their god exists then. Thank you. Also, this is Karen's chart, it's not old, so to say that the other option is to refer to this chart is ignorant.
(Continued)
Delete"I'll happily step into the Hindu's worldview to do an internal critique of it and show where it breaks down. With Hinduism, I'd show how the presupposition of any of their gods, none of which can actually be omniscient, could ever lead to the possibility of knowledge. On their own worldview, their epistemology breaks down to destroy the concept of rationality. Just like with atheism, if Hinduism were true, knowledge would not actually be possible."
You speak with such certainty. How much do you actually know of Hinduism to make such claims? Also, the whole knowledge not being possible in atheism is laughable. Knowledge needing an absolute source is nonsense, and needs the circular argument that "x exists because it was revealed to me through y, which was provided by x" in order to exist. Claiming certainty just because something was "revealed" to you, and only you, isn't evidence. I'm not saying you are, just that I've heard this line of thinking before. There are several things that I'm certain of.
"Well, that's an unfortunate position to be in. I could happily offer to provide you with plenty of arguments to prove the non-existence of a vast array of false idols that people have created to worship. I'm not sure how much you'd like them though - they all end up standing on, and leading back to, the truth of Christianity. :)"
"False idols"? Remember when I said that everything is limited to the lens of the religion in presuppositional appologetics? Six of my friends are practicing presup arguments, and only 2 of them belong to the same religion. Each one of them thinks they proved the other wrong, which is hilarious to watch, until, of course, they ask me stupid questions.
"And here we get down to the root question. How DOES it work?
And while you are thinking of an answer to that, recognize that I'm going to have a different answer to that question than you would. So who's answer is right? When we differ on how to work out our differences, how do we work out THAT difference?"
In my opinion, to be fair in any debate, you have to respect your opponent. Don't assume that he "knows" you're right. That won't hold ground with an unbiased audience. Also, don't waste time with idle threats. The Hindu hell isn't a worry for a Christian, but an unbiased audience watching will be disgusted at such barbarism.
My opinion is irrelevant, however. All organized debates have rules that need to be followed, and a moderator to make certain that both parties follow said rules.
@ Jonathan - ok, first I need to establish how you read the Biblical text, do you accept the text as literally and word for word true (and I'm assuming that the wording is the KJV) ? Again making an assumption that you do - how do you reconcile the statements made, particularly in Genesis with our observations of the natural world ?
Delete@ Paul - you quote (Jonathan I assume)
Delete"No - I will actually deal with the specific tenets of their worldview. I'll ask them questions and go down the path of examining their viewpoint according to what they actually say. I'll deal with the discussion at hand instead of simply referring to a flowchart that simply says "then go to step A" every single chance that it gets."
This is an important part of the parlour trick - state that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary, which is a global claim against all possible worldviews and then restrict the opponent to only advocate a single worldview.
It's neat until it's detected.
Paul,
Delete"Jonathan, my definition of extreme is believing in something that you lack any evidence to show for it, at all. I mean zero evidence at all."
Well, in that case, yours is definitely the position which fits the bill, and mine is not. I have evidence for God. In fact, everything is evidence for God. There is nothing that ISN'T evidence for God. So Christianity doesn't fit your definition of extreme in any way.
Yet your atheism does. As I mentioned, any atheistic position is built upon a belief in autonomous human rationality. Yet you have no evidence for this position. None at all. You have no evidence that human reasoning can be valid in any way, nor any evidence for the validity of sensory perception, nor the principle of induction which grounds all scientific endeavour. In reality, you accept these things without any evidence for them at all, so by your own definition, your position fails it's own test, while mine passes without a scratch.
But as I mentioned previously, I have a different definition of "extreme" than you do. Who's should we use? You simply want to declare yours to be the proper one and demand that I acquiesce - Why?
"You accuse me of presupposing that a god doesn't exist, yet I'm not. I stated that I'm an agnostic atheist. "
First, I have made clear that I am only discussing the biblical God of Christianity. I am not discussing a generic concept of a generic god. This is clear from my previous comments.
Second, the very claim that you are an agnostic atheist DOES presuppose that the biblical God of Christianity does not exist. The biblical position is that God is the NECESSARY foundation for ALL knowledge and ALL reality. But agnostic atheism is founded on the position that it MAY be POSSIBLE that some facts of reality may be known without God as their foundation. Such an implicit presupposition is completely contrary to the biblical position, and as such your position does actually presuppose that the biblical God does not exist.
"When I said "Responding to "prove to me that x exists" shouldn't have a response of 'well, prove to me that x doesn't exist'." I referred to a general statement in apologetics that I hear come up often."
Well, on this point I will agree with you. Anyone who responds to you like that in such a simple way is being intellectually lazy. Feel free to exhort them to do a better job.
Paul, (cont)
Delete"When you say "But here's the thing - Christian presuppositionalists actually do KNOW that God exists ", it can be repeated as. "But here's the thing - Muslim presuppositionalists actually do KNOW that Allah exists " That's my point. "
And if a Muslim actually did respond that way, I'd happily say the same thing I said to you - let's put our positions on the table and have a look. In response to a Muslim, I would show them that Allah can't possibly be the source of a valid epistemology, since Allah can and does lie. I would also show them that if the Qu'ran were actually what it claims to be (revelation from Allah) then it couldn't possibly be known to be from Allah (since the Qu'ran states that Allah is ultimately incomprehensible by humans). And I'd show them that if the Qu'ran were true, it would actually prove the truth of the bible (since the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospels are admitted by Islam to be previous revelation), and with the truth of the bible established, the Qu'ran could then be proven false, contradicting it's own position. That's only the starting point - there are at least a dozen other ways in which Islam fails to provide a workable and coherent epistemology or a consistent metaphysic.
It has nothing to do with simply making the claim - it has everything to do with whether or not the attributes of the worldview in question can lead to the truth of the claim. Islam can't.
But you're not a Muslim, and you don't believe in Allah as the foundation of your epistemology, or metaphysic, or ethic, so I wouldn't bother getting involved on any of those issues with you. I'd rather deal with what you think and what you believe about reality.
"What is the point of such a silly question?"
The issue is, it isn't actually a silly question. It's a perfectly valid question which exposes a huge and glaring hole in your worldview. It exposes a foundational presupposition which you hold which you apparently aren't willing to examine at this point in time. And that's the whole point of a discussion like this - bringing such presuppositions out into the open so that people can recognize that they hold them, and then see that they can't possibly lead to an intelligible worldview.
"So you don't presuppose their god exists then. Thank you."
In actuality, no. Since I know for a fact that the biblical God of Christianity exists.
For the sake of discussion, I will accept their presupposition on a hypothetical basis and follow it to it's natural conclusion. And they always break down into inconsistency, arbitrariness, and complete unintelligibility.
"Also, this is Karen's chart, it's not old, so to say that the other option is to refer to this chart is ignorant."
Since my original post was in referencing to the complete and utter weakness of the chart and a desire to avoid people referring to it as a teaching or dialoguing tool, the comment was not ignorance on my part. It wasn't a comment about what has been happening in the past - it was a comment about what might be happening now or in the future.
"You speak with such certainty. How much do you actually know of Hinduism to make such claims? "
First, you assume that I am required to know anything about Hinduism to make such a certain claim. However, I do not. If I know that Christianity is true, then by pure and simple deduction I can know that Hinduism is false. So the only thing I would need to know in order to know that Hinduism is a false view of reality is that Christianity is the true view of reality. Since this is an actual fact that I do know for certain, I can make such a statement with confidence.
Second, I actually have studied some Hinduism, including having presuppositional engagements with Hindus exactly as I outlined in my comments. So your criticism seems to fail on two points.
Paul, (cont)
Delete"Also, the whole knowledge not being possible in atheism is laughable. Knowledge needing an absolute source is nonsense, and needs the circular argument that "x exists because it was revealed to me through y, which was provided by x" in order to exist. "
And here we get to one of the major problems which most atheists, including yourself it seems, fail to even realize:
ALL epistemologies are ULTIMATELY circular. EVERY ONE. Every ultimate epistemological foundation is only possibly reasoned about in a circular way, since if it were reasoned about according to any other standard external to itself, then it wouldn't be the ultimate epistemological foundation - that other external standard would be.
This is a fundamental problem that almost every single atheist just doesn't seem to realize, and as a result, a lot of time is spent trying to educate people on this issue. Every epistemological foundation is ultimately circular, the atheists' no more or less than the Christians'. Until an atheist realizes that and understands that, they are going to spend a whole lot of time making an argument that destroys their own ability to even make the argument in the first place. It's like being stuck in neutral at the starting line while having the gas pedal floored - a whole lot of noise and fuel spent, but zero movement at all.
But if you believe that knowledge is possible without an absolute source, I'd love for you to attempt to defend that claim on the basis of your own worldview.
"Claiming certainty just because something was "revealed" to you, and only you, isn't evidence."
First, I don't know any Christian presuppositionalist who claims private revelation of things "only" to them. Divine revelation of the existence of God is provided to everyone.
Second, such divine revelation from the Christian God not only satisfies the criteria of what you would call "evidence", it's actually the best possible evidence that there can be. Because it can be known with absolute certainty to be 100% true. If the omniscient, omnipotent, infallible, always honest God who is the source of all knowledge and the foundation of all reality were to reveal something to one of His creatures in such a way that the creature could know it for certain, then that revelation IS evidence that the person can trust with 100% certainty.
""False idols"? Remember when I said that everything is limited to the lens of the religion in presuppositional appologetics? Six of my friends are practicing presup arguments, and only 2 of them belong to the same religion. Each one of them thinks they proved the other wrong, which is hilarious to watch, until, of course, they ask me stupid questions."
But realize that you too are making a presuppositional argument for your own position. There are certain things that you presuppose and take for granted on your own worldview, which by the sounds of it, you aren't willing to take a look at. So by the sounds of it, you are the most closed minded of the bunch.
And once again, I'm happy to provide plenty of refutations for you for all the non-Christian positions. They really aren't that hard. The problem is, your own position is the easiest to refute, so in order to use them, you'd have to destroy your own atheistic position as well, proving the truth of Christianity.
One other thing I'd like to point out to you. You sit there and think that your position is the default position. All the other positions are "religious" positions and you take the "non-religious" position by default, claiming that they others are all basically the same and fight against themselves. But why is your position the default position? Quite frankly, the Christian can say that all the other positions are just "idolatrous" positions, and the Christian takes the "non-idolatrous" position by default. Who's position IS actually the default position?
Paul, (cont)
Delete"In my opinion, to be fair in any debate, you have to respect your opponent. Don't assume that he "knows" you're right."
But this simply assumes that your worldview is true. You are arguing in a circle prior to even stepping into the debate. In the Christian worldview, the bible does state that all people know that God exists. So I happen to know this for a fact. When you state that I shouldn't assume your knowledge of this fact, you are implying that I shouldn't accept my worldview is true, and I should accept your worldview is correct right from the start. That's a very interesting trick - getting me to admit you are correct before we even step into the debate about who's actually correct.
See, this is how deeply these presuppositions go.
"That won't hold ground with an unbiased audience."
See, that assumes that there is such a thing as an unbiased audience. Once again, I don't hold that viewpoint. Christianity teaches that all non-believers are in rebellion against God, suppressing the truth in sin. Jesus says that you are either for Him or against Him, you either walk in the darkness or walk in the light. There is no neutral ground. There is no such thing as an unbiased audience.
"Also, don't waste time with idle threats. The Hindu hell isn't a worry for a Christian, but an unbiased audience watching will be disgusted at such barbarism."
Once again, you assume such warning are "idle threats". In reality, I know for a fact that they aren't. Hell is real, whether or not you choose to believe it. Your comment is about as silly as telling me that when I see children playing on the railroad tracks, if they don't believe trains exist, then I shouldn't bother warning them about trains, because my comments will seem like disgusting barbarism. It doesn't matter how much they may not like the warnings given them, since the warning are true, I'd keep giving them.
"All organized debates have rules that need to be followed, and a moderator to make certain that both parties follow said rules. "
Yes - and the entire point of these presuppositional discussions is that the rules for any formal debate (i.e., rational, logical, orderly, honest, organized, etc) only make any sense at all upon the foundation of biblical Christianity. If any other worldview were true, then such rules would simply be arbitrary and inconsistent absurdity.
MK Sceptic,
Delete"ok, first I need to establish how you read the Biblical text, do you accept the text as literally and word for word true (and I'm assuming that the wording is the KJV) "
I accept the bible as true in the way that it was written. That means that the historical parts are true history, the biographical parts are true biography, the instructional parts are true instructions, the prophetic parts are true prophecy, the poetic parts are true poetry, etc. Also, since they were written in different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), the wording which is true is the original language wordings. (for the record, I typically use the NASB for study, since I find it to be the truest to the original languages; however, for serious questions, it's best to actually dive into the original text in the original languages.)
"how do you reconcile the statements made, particularly in Genesis with our observations of the natural world ?"
I have no problem reconciling these in any way. In a Christian worldview, scientific data is to be interpreted according to the parameters God has given us through divine revelation. And as such, I interpret the natural world within these parameters. And essentially everything that I see matches up near perfectly - from a fossil record of billions of dead animals and plants buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth (what I would expect from a global flood), to the birth of identifiable civilizations appearing approximately 4300 years ago (what I would expect from the tower of Babel), even down to the details of mitochondrial DNA being traceable back to a single female ancestor (what I would expect since we all descended from Eve) and even being broken into three major lineages (M, N, and R) which trace all humanity back to one of three main women (which is what I would expect since we all descended from the three wives of Noah's three sons.)
So ultimately, I have zero problem with this at all. Essentially everything I see in the natural world fits almost perfectly with what I read in Genesis. Sure, there are some things that we may not currently understand, which may currently be confusing, but that's what science is all about - exploring and learning so that we can find answers!
"This is an important part of the parlour trick - state that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary, which is a global claim against all possible worldviews and then restrict the opponent to only advocate a single worldview. It's neat until it's detected."
This isn't a trick - it's the basic state of the conversation. The person in question has an ACTUAL worldview. They have an ACTUAL viewpoint on epistemology. That's where the question lies. Having someone argue a hypothetical position which they don't hold is pointless. Why? Because in order to argue a hypothetical viewpoint which they DON'T hold, there are still standing upon the viewpoint that they DO hold. For someone to argue the hypothetical position that an invisible pink unicorn is the necessary foundation for logic (which I have seen a PhD philosopher actually try to do), since they don't ACTUALLY believe that the invisible pink unicorn is the foundation for logic, they must have their own DIFFERENT foundation for logic to even make the hypothetical argument.
So the questions about their own views on epistemology or metaphysics are still relevant, even when they are arguing a hypothetical viewpoint.
"to the birth of identifiable civilizations appearing approximately 4300 years ago (what I would expect from the tower of Babel),"
Deleteyou mean like Chinese or Egyptian Civilization existing BEFORE that time
" Your comment is about as silly as telling me that when I see children playing on the railroad tracks, if they don't believe trains exist, then I shouldn't bother warning them about trains, because my comments will seem like disgusting barbarism. It doesn't matter how much they may not like the warnings given them, since the warning are true, I'd keep giving them."
your are a Calvinist arent you? if you are what you said made no sense its impossible for you to convince anyone to think otherwise because they are "dead in their sins" you might as well give the warning to dead people and it will has as much effect according to Calvinism
"They really aren't that hard. The problem is, your own position is the easiest to refute, so in order to use them, you'd have to destroy your own atheistic position as well, proving the truth of Christianity."
uh no presupptionalism is the easiest to refute of all Christian apologetics, the only thing you do everytime you open your mouth is destory your own position, and its impossibl for you to refute everyone anyways as their are viturally an infinite amount of worldviews
"With Hinduism, I'd show how the presupposition of any of their gods, none of which can actually be omniscient, could ever lead to the possibility of knowledge"
saying that you must have an omniscient god for knowledge is insane as it si absurd, its impossible to know if an omniscient god is revealing anything to you except on blind faith unless that said god reveals ALL knowledge to you
I think that the critical point about the exchange with a pre-sup is that the version presented by Sye and his clones is essentially a game with set routine or series of moves. If the advocates of presuppositionalism seek to complain about a publish sheet of counter moves not addressing the core argument then that it surely a criticism of the way that Sye and his clones present that argument in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIf you want your argument to be taken seriously then present it in a manner that deserves that respect not as an ambush.
It is worth remembering that the most common reaction that non-Christians feel when encountering this form of the argument is not "Wow, this is a paradigm shift !" but more "I think I've just been had !".
http://cdn.meme.li/i/phpfp.jpg
ReplyDeleteActually, no it doesn't, it simply demonstrates that the argument and it's counter are both coherent.
DeleteThis is another aspect of the problem with the argument - let's proceed on the basis that the argument is persuasive - there is a God and that God is the Christian one. Is that the end of the argument ?
Well, no, because the Christian God is behaving in some very strange ways that are not consistent with the plain vanilla style of the presuppositional argument. The Christian God that we appear to see is a complex individual with an unpredictable set of behaviours - yet the argument that underpins the proof of his existence is predicated on predictability and uniformity.
So when Sye spews his nonsensical sentence he is uttering a speech that is actually more accurately describing the behaviour of that God.
Think about that.
"the argument that underpins the proof of his existence is predicated on predictability and uniformity."
DeleteNot even close.
http://pureantithesis.wordpress.com/evidence-for-the-existence-of-god/
This might be a good place for you to start. Followed by reading some books on what the argument actually is. I'm not a huge supporter of Sye's method of doing things... I don't think he is representative of the presuppositional method - read some Bahnsen or Van til.
You will get some idea if you read the links and follow the series in that link i put above for you! :)
Part one.
DeleteWhat is the evidence for the existence of God?
"The easiest answer is: everything.
(rom 1:20: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.)"
"Everything is evidence for God’s existence. And not just any God either, specifically the Triune God of the Christian Scriptures. We do not try to argue for a kind of generic theism, nor should we do so as we do not believe in a generic ‘minimum-attributes’ God, we believe in the Christian God!"
To quote MK;
"This is another aspect of the problem with the argument - let's proceed on the basis that the argument is persuasive - there is a God and that God is the Christian one. Is that the end of the argument ? "
Personally, the buck stops there, because common sense should tell you that people who worship other gods can just as easily make the same claim, and quote from their religious texts as well. It all leads back to two things, your specific bias, and my specific opinion to either agree or disagree with your bias. I, as many other atheists/theists, choose not to subscribe to your assertions.
I mean, seriously, the entirety of part one is just a strong assertion made, and stacked upon the backs of several supposed refutations, instead of actual evidence. To surmise;
1. Everything is evidence of your specific god.
2. The reasons being that I think unbelievers know it to be true (another assertion), I believe that the supernatural exists (another assertion), and you need my worldview in order to make sense of things that I believe (another assertion).
Here are a few questions I'd like to ask.
Why is it that every deity of every religion is limited to people who follow that specific worldview?
Wouldn't a deity that performs in the manner it's followers profess be able to exist to all worldviews, without a need to delve in it's specific worldview?
If said deity was capable of this, would that not obviously render worship of all other gods, as well as missionary work to profess said deity, a pointless endeavor?
Why does a deity need to be presupposed to exist, if it supposedly created everything that exists?
How do you convince others that your presuppositions trump the presuppositions of a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or any other religious/non-religious person with their own presuppositions?
Towards this quote, "The proof of the existence of God is that without Him, you couldn't prove anything”, isn't this saying flexible, fitting all different worldviews with a deity, and having as much ground as they do?
Id est, knowing that other deities can replace the word "God" in the quote, and be backed up with religious claims, isn't it likely that all deities are supported by their own specific worldview, which clashes with other worldviews, and the only way to get converts is by convincing them to completely adopt a specific worldview?
Well, I'm happy to discuss all the things you've raised - none of them are new, and have been answered by presuppositionalists for years...
DeleteHowever, if i could make a suggestion - could you post your comment/query on my blog so that I get notification - for some reason on here I don't get any notifications that you've replied, and since I have recently been blessed with a baby boy - I don't always remember to check here! :)
We can take the discussion further there if you want to continue it?
Look forward to hearing from you!
Thanks!
Here's a nice little paradox for "14. Name one thing you can be absolutely certain about":
ReplyDelete"I'm 100% certain that there is nothing I can 100% certain about." Oops! How does that work?
Thank you for looking this over Matt, and appreciate your visit! I don't check this blog as much as I should, so my apologies for a late response. But I might be doing another list to get it better suited to "traditional" pre-sup which says it does not "prove that God exists"--even though the Sye-Clones keep insisting it.
DeleteAnother answer I heard from Ozymandias Ramses is "I am certain I am not dead" because if I was dead and the pre-sup is with me, and his god exists, he's in hell...or we're in heaven, and I'm there with him.
Sye Ten would read yours as you're not certain and therefore have "given up knowledge" misrepresenting that you actually said, which is it's a possibility you can't be certain and it's a claim to knowledge.
Cheers, Karen
For #15, we should also ask the presup to list all worldviews, so that this claim can be verified or rejected. My guess is that there are about seven billion worldviews in the world today.
ReplyDeletePresuppers are bullies.
ReplyDeleteThe way that bullies operate are:
Cause people to doubt their ability to reason,
Substitute their world view for the reasoning abilities of their victims.
When they question "who or what is your ultimate authority?" The honest answer is WE are our ultimate authority. The christians must admit that from moment to moment the act of submission to god is a continuous struggle of submission to christ. The christian is the one who "presents themselves as a living sacrifice" Their argument is that christ/ god never takes away free will
Look at the beliefs of most pressuppers.
Deny the validity of evolution,
Literal rendering of the bible.
Look up the "wedge document" it spells out their intent.