Matt Slick: Merely for Your Personal Pleasure

It is always wrong for you to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure.

Matt Slick has developed this proposition over the years to support his claim of “absolute morals”. As he states in the link:

“If it is always wrong, then that supports a universal moral absolute. But how is it possible in a worldview that contains no God and/or does not allow universal moral truths?

So let’s respond to the “If it is” and the “If it is not” as Slick explains at his carm.org website:

“If it is always wrong (to torture babies to death for personal pleasure), then that supports a universal moral absolute. But how is it possible in a worldview that contains no God and/or does not allow universal moral truths?”

Incoherent/does not follow. A well-known Atheist Community Youtube commenter expresses this very well: “If you have to use a very specific example ‘raping babies for mere pleasure’ in order to demonstrate an objective moral standard, the moral standard can't be very objective (at least not in the transcendent, god given morals, kind of way ).” (Shaar roambeams , YT comment on BTWN Show, 8/7/2016)

Reductio Ad Absurdum. Slick is attempting to find something he can claim is universal in that no one can deny it, but in doing so, raises its specificity to an absurdity The immediate question arising is: who would EVER torture babies to death “merely for personal pleasure”?  It is the specifier, the "merely for personal pleasure" clause, which takes the proposition to this level.

At his carm.org website, Slick tries to extend this appeal-to-emotion-framed statement to a table of “objective" wrongs:

Notice that they are set up in a table which perfectly reflects the false dilemmas he sets up.  He starts with a universal ("always") in the first column, with another universal (for "anyone/everyone") then to the act, and then obscures it with the emotionally-infected false choice "specifier".  The second proposition about mothers is obviously a thinly-veiled reference to abortion.  The choices make these propositions, again, something that would only be done by a sociopath, someone mentally ill, because of the "personal pleasure" phrasing.    The appeal to emotion "specifier" in the last column is meant to remove any compelling rational reason for an exception, but also renders it almost impossibly uncommon (reduces it to an absurdity).

Straw man/Reification. Where does it say that an atheist worldview cannot allow universal moral truths? Matt’s insinuation is that only a theist worldview can support them, I’m assuming because it has a ”morality giver” (which of course is his version of god). In other words, universal moral laws require having a “law giver.”

Altruism and empathy can be used to develop objective, universal moral truths in both a theistic and secular world.  Five of them will be discussed later in this post.

Divine Command Theory. Slick tries to get around the DCT quandary in various ways, but it always comes back to the fact that any act his god would command him to perform is morally permissible. This is expressed well in a Personal Challenge by Raymond Bradley in his book “God’s Gravediggers: Why No Diety Exists”—

Consider First Samuel 15:3 in which the Lord commands his people: “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant."

Now ask yourself three questions:

(i) Was "put to death both man and woman, child and Infant" the very word of the Lord whom you believe and worship?

(ii) Is it conceivable that your Lord could again issue the same command in our time?

(iii) If you did believe you were so commanded by your Lord, could you and would you obey?

If you answer "No" to question (i), you deny the authority of God's so-called word, the Bible. If you answer "No" to question (ii) (perhaps because you think your Lord might have mended his ways), then you deny that God's commands have the kind of universal applicability which is a necessary condition of their being in accord with, let alone the source of, moral truths [Note from Karen: you also deny that God is “changeless” as defined by the Westminster Confessional definition of God]. If you answer "No" to question (iii), you must think that it is sometimes right, or even obligatory, to disobey God. You thereby admit that moral truths are independent of, and may even conflict with, God's dictates. You admit that, as most philosophers since Socrates have long insisted, ethics is autonomous; and that we must, therefore, do our moral thinking for ourselves. But if you answer "Yes" to each question, then I submit that your belief in the God of biblical theism is not just mistaken but morally abhorrent.

My Answer to Slick
Torturing babies “merely for personal pleasure” is an appeal to emotion that entails that one enjoys giving pain, which is sadism.  Sexual sadism disorder is the “medical/psychological condition for sexual arousal [i.e., personal pleasure] from inflicting pain/humiliation on unwilling, non-consenting victims.” Babies are by definition “unwilling, non-consenting victims.” So it’s not wrong as indicative of someone who has a psychological disorder who needs to be helped (i.e., with empathy, altruism). The person who is “deriving personal pleasure” may not think it is wrong, because they have a psychological problem—they are “sick” from a mental condition which requires treatment.

Matt Slick's TAG Conclusion: FIVE Counter Arguments

In the YouTube video finale on a joint "TAG-team" effort with my good friend and fellow YouTuber Deconverted Man, at analyzing Matt Slick's Transcendental Argument for God straight from his carm.org website, I presented four counter-arguments to his conclusion. Here is Slick's beginning "simplifed summation" so as to understand the context of these counter-arguments:

The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows: The Laws of Logic exist. The Laws of Logic are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, The Laws of Logic would still be true. The Laws of Logic are not the product of human minds because human minds are different--not absolute. But, since The Laws of Logic are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated. Therefore, part of the argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of The Laws of Logic from its worldview.

There are fallacies run amuck in the above simplification as well, let's point out the major one that may not have been covered in our video series, and that's in Slick's disjunctive syllogism of "God or No-God." At issue is the term "God" which is by nature equivocal and multi-faceted: how is this "god" defined? In order to determine "everything else" we need to know what the opposite of "everything else" is, and that premise also needs to be validated.

But hold on!  Enter Alex Malpass, a post-graduate in philosophy who, in the FIFTH and probably most devastating counter argument to TAG, demonstrates that  the disjunctive syllogism Slick uses (shown in bold in the block quote from carm.org above) validates its own conclusion by positing the conclusion in the premise through the disjunctive syllogism, and hence is begging the question.  A simple way to show how it is begging the question might be this:

Premise 1:  God  ("conclusion") OR
Premise 2:  No God
Premise 3:  No god is negated
Conclusion:  God  (see Premise 1)

Therefore, the premise and the conclusion are one in the same.  It should also be pointed out that other educated philosophers, most notably Ozymandias Ramses, agree with Alex's objection to TAG.

YouTube channel "darkhorse" presented this easy-to-understand diagram in a recent video.

Alex recently explained all this (more comprehensively) to Matt Slick on the Biblethumpingwingnut podcast and YouTube hangout.  Slick seemed to think this was all a matter of "presentation" even though it effectively reduced his entire argument to, as Alex termed it, a "triviality."

Nevertheless, the following are the four basic responses (from the final video on TAG as published by Deconverted Man)  to Slick's final point that "since The Laws of Logic are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God."

Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 1)

From TAG/Presuppositionalism

P 1 - Theist apologists have resorted to negative, burden-shifting argumentation by attacking the capacity and ability of their opponents to even argue by claiming their particular god "owns" that capacity and ability, i.e., the laws of logic, etc.

P 2 - Theist apologists have resorted to such argumentation because they inherently recognize that there is no evidence or compelling arguments to positively prove the existence of their god, or that there are no other positive reasons to believe in their chosen religion.

P 3 -  If any theist god existed, it would not need such negative argumentation in lieu of theists offering positive reasons to believe.

Conclusion:  Therefore, by the theists' own admission, their god must not exist.

The Properly Basic Beliefs

This list is a compilation from a video published a year or so ago by Ozymandias Ramses II.

When a presuppositionalist such as Matt Slick asks how your worldview accounts for logic and reason, your answer should be that you hold to these nine properly basic beliefs (there may be more, but these are the most basic ones).  These nine "beliefs" can be thought of as a ladder: as we go up the ladder (by number) the previous belief(s) may be required in order to use them. 

1) Existence of a mind-independent reality

2) The validity preserving character of logical deduction

3)  The reliability of induction

4)  Causation  (for which deduction and induction must be assumed)

5)  Concept of Truth

6)  Existence of other minds

7)  Reliability of perception  (senses)

8)  Reliability of memory  

9)  Concept of a unified sense or agent 

If you're asked how you ground them or account for them, your answer is simple:  you cannot defend them by pain of self-referential or performative inconsistency and circularity.  You are validating them in the very act of responding to the presuppositionalists' question.

And, if you note, the existence of a mind-independent reality precedes the validity preserving character of  logical deduction and reliability of induction.  In other words, you have to be aware of the reality around you in order to use logic.

Ozymandias offers the following explanation for why these beliefs are so foundational:

The presup could not learn or conceive of such a god (contemplate his attributes, or apprehend his nature, or correlate the words said about him with the Bible) without properly basic beliefs. With respect to scripture being divinely revealed truth, you can't read it without assuming there's a mind-independent reality. You must first assume your god is "out there"--you must presuppose other minds exist (those who wrote it, and your god). You assume your senses are reliable, that your view is veridical, as you read the text. You assume your memory is functioning (so you can trust you can remember the start of a sentence by the time you get to the end of it). You assume your inductive and deductive reasoning is working when you think about what you are reading, especially when you compare one verse with another and assess them. And when you speak of "the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit" operating within you, you are assuming another mind, you're assuming you exist, and you are an agent with a mind having that experience, and it goes beyond your mental state that some other entity causing something to happen to you, so you are assuming causation. You can't presuppose the above two propositions without presupposing properly basic beliefs. Causation is assumed the moment you decide to read the bible. You couldn't act without presupposing you exist.

What the theologians try to staple onto this list is the need for a god, but by virtue of Occam's Razor, a god is not necessary, and therefore NOT BASIC.

By Commenter Request

A commenter to one of my YouTube presuppositional apologetic series asked where to get a copy of the presuppositional "bingo card." After some googling failed to find one, I decided to retrieve the one I had done.

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 8

The following is a table which describes many of the fallacies which riddle presuppositional apologetics; in this case, the "Clarkian" apologetic as used by Jason Petersen.  Although most of it applies to "VanTilian" presuppositional apologetics as well.

Fallacy	Fallacy Description	Evidence in  Clarkian PA
Appeal to Authority	Something is true because it's from an authority	The Bible (Biblical verses of God as "ultimate authority")solves the problem of skepticism.  The Bible (Biblical verses) reveal that "all other worldviews are false."
Argument from Omniscience	An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge	Best expressed in the Romans 1:18-21 verses that anyone who disbelieves knows (the Christian) god exists, but they suppress the truth.  Using Bible as "omniscient" source, omnisciently revealed, with the revelations omnisciently verified to be true.
Appeal to Ignorance	Opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion Is proof of its validity.	"We know all other worldviews are false...and since we know all others are false, that makes the Christian worldview true."
Ipse Dixit	A dogmatic statement which the opponent is expected to accept as valid.	"The First Principle" that the Bible is the Word of God.  "The most basic way to distort an issue is to deny that it exists."  Believers deny recognizing that "The First Principle" is not an axiom because it is not self-evident as it is premised on the unproven supernatural.
False dilemma	Only 2 outcomes are inevitable	(1) Non-believers must accept the Christian worldview because  (2) the Bible says all other worldviews are false (and therefore irrational).
Ad hominem/ Poisoning the Well	Damning /discrediting the source.	Condemning Biblical study sources; condemning other philosophies; saying that non-believers "suppress the truth" as if they are lying, and claiming non-believers are "fools."
Tautology	Qualifying argument in such a way that it makes it impossible to disprove.	The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.  (Notice that impossible to disprove supports unfalsifiability)
Shifting the Burden	Burden of proof is shifted to the side which is not making the positive claim	Asking non-believer for solution to problem of skepticism, or asking them to account for "reality" or how their reasoning is valid (when the believer cannot account for their god.)
Special Pleading	Someone or something is exempt from standards for no good reason	In the above example, the believer will say their god does not have to be accounted for, as it is exempt from any accounting. Claiming the same circular reasoning used by Christians is exempt from circularity because it is labeled "virtuous."
Reification	Creating a concrete "thing" out of an idea	Logical absolutes are termed "laws" which were "created by" or "part of " the Christian god.
Equivocation	Using terms in two ways in the same sentence	Claiming the "laws of logic" are "followed" as if they were "laws" when it really means "no exception (known) to the concept" (used at the same time as the conceptual usage)
Proof by Assertion	Proposition repeatedly stated regardless of its contradiction	"The First Principle" that "The Bible is the Word of God, because the Bible itself reveals that it is" already indicated to be a tautology.

 

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 7

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.   

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 6

An Example of Jason Petersen "Logic"

 

As part of my "Conversation with Jason Petersen" series I had planned to do a post where I described Petersen's tortuously conjured presuppositional methodology in attempting to prove I was not being logical. It was essentially taking certain words I was using and then ascribing them to a worldview; for example, if I referred to a "practical application" of something, he would say my worldview was that of a pragmatist, and then, almost as if he was scripted, he'd transform that into "the pragmatic worldview was not rational" and therefore I was not rational.

Lo and behold, George at the blog Misplaced Grace did something even better: he wrote up a parody following a similar discussion he had with a presuppositionalist, which precisely describes what Jason seems to be doing. I don't need to do anything further, because this is so illustrative. The names have been replaced with mine and Jason's. Please enjoy.

Jason: Let’s talk about that dog over there. Would you say that that dog is gray?

Karen: That is an elephant, Jason. It’s ten feet tall and has a big trunk. It is an Elephant.

Jason: I didn’t ask you if it was an elephant, Karen. I asked you if that dog is gray. Just answer the question. But be careful, you will have to accept the consequences of your answer.

Karen: Seriously. It’s a goddamn elephant. If your question is “Is that quadruped gray?”, then yes, yes it is.

Jason: I told you to be careful how you answer the question. You should have listened to me. You see Karen, if you answer yes, you are saying that that animal is a dog, and you are committing the fallacy of mutual contradiction. An elephant can’t be a dog, you see. If you answer no, then you are saying that it is not gray, and by their nature all elephants are gray. So again, you are wrong.

Karen: First off, that is the most retarded thing anyone has ever said to me. Second, what about albino elephants? Are they not white, or at least cream colored?

Jason: See, you lost the argument when you answered the question. I am not obliged now to answer any of your arguments because you are wrong no matter how you answer. I claim victory. You admitted that you are incapable of simple color recognition or of species identification, so in your world any animal can be any color, or any species. That makes no logical sense.

Karen: Seriously? Are you even sane?

Jason: I cannot argue with someone who cannot grasp simple logic. Have a nice day.

(aside) Wow, I sure showed her. I got her to admit that an elephant was a dog. What an ass.


That is the logic that he follows. Then he tells everyone that he saw an elephant with an atheist who insisted it was a gray dog. 

Update 5/14/2014:  Compare the above to this, which Petersen actually stated in his last posted comment to me:

One may ask, what else is a Christian supposed to do? There is no authority that is higher than God Almighty(Hebrews 6:13). Since The Bible is my first principle, I will inevitably appeal to it when I defend Christianity. Karen apparently doesn’t understand the nature of axioms, when you defend an axiom, you will have to appeal to it. If you appeal to another principle to defend your axiom, then what you are asserting your axiom is is not really your axiom. Further, I previously asked Karen how she knows her reasoning is valid. By Karen’s logic, she can’t appeal to her own reasoning, because she would have to appeal to it in order to defend it, and of course, Karen thinks that appealing to first principles is fallacious. Karen then offers me rope to hang myself with, but I suspect that I am not the only one who will find her offer to be ironic.

(Face palm!)

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 5

No, I didn't refute Petersen; Petersen did

 

Jason Petersen has already responded to my May 7 "Part 3" post. Of course, he did it at his website without any link or reference from his home page, so I had to find out about it from others who have had run-ins with Petersen.

Karen claims that because my arguments are unfalsifiable, therefore, my 24,000 post was destroyed. She then goes on to, in behavior that is ever so typical for her, straw man me by saying that I couldn’t be wrong, that, therefore, my worldview is not testable. Now, why did I say that my worldview is unfalsifiable? Anyone who read my previous response to her would clearly see that I said that the reason why my worldview is unfalsifiable is because it’s true. How can one falsify the truth? Such a notion is nonsensical. If Karen ever figures out a way to show that the truth is actually false, then perhaps she should go write a book on it. I am sure such a spectacle would have philosophers in awe.

(ONE MORE FACE PALM!)  Jason refuses to recognize what unfalsifiable really means. His "worldview" can neither be proven true nor false. To use the quote from Part 2 of my posts to Petersen: there’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where his worldview is true appears exactly identical to the world where his worldview is false. His worldview tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about his worldview. So, there is no reason to believe. The failure to meet the criterion of falsifiability is sufficient grounds to dismiss it.

But Petersen still has to find a way to pat himself on the back and puff out his chest:

Karen also quotes me concerning when I pointed out that if the foundation of her argument is refuted, then her examples fall along with it. That said, I’d like to say something to Karen directly: The problem is, Karen, that the foundation of your argument is still refuted. You have not bothered to respond to the argument that I erected against your idea to test revelation with IQ tests, nor did you respond to the paper that I cited that showed that IQ tests aren’t reliable after all.

It doesn't matter WHAT Petersen claims now about whatever my worldview may be, because in asserting his worldview as "unfalsifiable" he refuted himself. He denigrates something that could possibly test it ("IQ tests aren't reliable after all") which confirms it further.   I may have already suggested trying other tests (there are many) of reasoning and logic skills, but I have this sneaking suspicion that Petersen would conveniently find none of them to be "reliable." 

In his new diatribe, he continues to use Bible verses to back up his claims for "revelation" he receives...from the Bible (?!!!)....while trying to exempt his god as an "appeal to authority" in a special pleading. It's a sad display of circularity.

I'll continue answering him, however, i.e., Jason, here's some more rope if you want it.

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 4

Around the Worldview in 80 Lies (...Half Truths, Deceptions, Misrepresentations and other assorted Falsehoods)

Jason Petersen, throughout his 24,000-word reply to Parts 1 and 2 of our "conversation", told me I was dishonest and lying numerous times; I counted over 20, not including the allegations of dishonesty in his previous post.  The purpose of it was to discredit my character, and of course, to demonize atheists.   So, I will likewise respond to his repeated ad hominem.  I will try to provide some brief explanation for each of his false hoods, and try to describe them for what they are.  He stated that I like to ridicule and mock Christians.  He says he made me look foolish. As I understand the argument for the most part, I know I do not need "to feel foolish" at all.  And if Petersen feels mocked or ridiculed....he is only doing it to himself.

 

Each capitalized "LIE" of Petersen's post (or more appropriate description) is followed by a direct quote of what he said, along with an explanation if required.  I include context where required, although most of his pretensions stand on their own.

 

LIE:  "...she has laced this very paragraph with prejudicial conjecture."  Presuppositional Apologetics IS prejudicial conjecture.

LIE:  " the one benefit that I named was that Christianity solves the problem of skepticism." No, it does NOT solve the problem of skepticism (see last post).  An appeal to supernatural authority does not solve the problem, or as I will call it, "authoritay magic."

LIE:  (False fallacy claim) " After quoting me, Karen moves to straw man..."

LIE:  As a Christian, I believe that we should all be “rational.”  We are both equally rational: if he were going to be honest, Petersen should replace the word "rational" with "Fundamentalist Evangelical Calvinist Literalist."

LIE:  "... in order for her to claim that anything is useful(while being rational) she would have to have a first principle that will solve the problem of skepticism."  (see above)

LIE:  " if she actually tried to solve the problem of skepticism, it would remind her that Christianity is true."  Christianity doesn't solve it either.

LIE:  "She then says that the problem of skepticism is irrelevant to reality. This is quite an ignorant statement to be sure."  If that's true, claiming it is solved by "authoritay magic" makes it more irrelevant and just as ignorant.

LIE:  "Her conception of reality, like other atheists, is delusional and fabricated." 

LIE:  "Alex [Botten] is irrational both in the context of a debate and outside the debate."

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 3

MULTIPLE FACE PALMS!!!!

 

On April 30, Jason Petersen answered my video and two part blog where I responded to our conversation in the comment section of his blog. He quoted both of our previous commentaries quite a bit so this redundancy added to the huge word count and length of his post (24,000+ words).

But I suppose he thought he'd "Gish gallop" me back for "Gish galloping" him. I must say, his post was of tremendous help to me in understanding presuppositionalism, as he "answered" some questions I have seen posed by other atheists for which I've never seen a direct responses. Although throughout, I had multiple face-palming (hence the subtitle), rolling-my-eyes laughter at some of them. I thought I'd concentrate on those which expose the flaws of his presuppositional methodology the most..

1. Unfalsifiable arguments are not rational. Petersen declared at one point "if the foundation of her argument is refuted, her examples fall along with it..." Without realizing it, Petersen's proud affirmation of his "not being wrong" obliterated the foundation of his 24,000-word novella, because he repeatedly made statements confirming that his argument was unfalsifiable (and his examples fell with them):

[Petersen] I would think that anything that is ultimately true would be unfalsifiable. You know, because the proposition, Christianity, is already true.

***

“[Karen] So, Jason, are you going to say it, then? Just say it at the beginning when you present your argument “My worldview is the only true one and I can’t be wrong….I am very clear that this is my position.”

[Petersen] There is no need for further clarification, because I have said it numerous times to you and others. Christianity is the only worldview that can be true, all other worldviews are false. Any other starting point besides revelation of God through scripture will reduce to skepticism. There is no other worldview other than Christianity that is able to provide a stable epistemology. There is no other worldview other than Christianity that is rational. Christianity is the only worldview that is true, and I cannot be wrong about it. I think I have, once again, spelled this out to Karen. ***

"...[Karen] and that no matter what argument or evidence is presented, there is no way that you can be contradicted, your propositions can make no predictions, and even if you’re wrong YOU will never find out because you have closed yourself off from any correction.”

[Petersen] This again, shows that Karen is an empiricist, for she assumes that we must be able to make predictions in order for any knowledge to be justified. This is an assertion that Karen has not bothered to support. If all propositions must be testable in order for them to be justified, then one must ask how we would test whether or not a justified proposition makes a proposition justified? Certainly, Karen cannot due so, and ends up contradicting herself again. All first principles are ultimately indemonstrable, however, they can be tested for logical consistency. This is also true of the Christian worldview, but no axiom can be empirically tested. They can only be tested logically.

***

[Petersen] If I presuppose revelation of God through scripture and I say that I can’t be wrong about it, what am I saying? I am saying that I cannot be wrong about God’s revelation through scripture. The two statements are equivalent.

It seems that Karen is stuck on the fact that I will not accept any secular alternative to the Christian worldview. She is correct.

Right, it is very telling. I am open about my position, but Karen is not open about her’s.

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 2

This is a continuation of my conversation with Jason Petersen at his website "Answers for Hope." Our exchange at that website is shown in the block (indented) paragraphs with light blue or pink background, prefaced by our names, my comments in italics. 

Karen: You have the chance to prove your worldview IS the superior one, and to actually prove the Christian god. Are you going to take that chance? In fact, I think you could submit the test results to the James Randi Foundation, and claim the $1 million prize.”  

Jason: Prove according to what standard? James Randi can’t account for any concept of proof in his worldview. Further, atheism necessarily leads to relativism and skepticism. James Randi certainly isn’t the standard by which proofs are measured. If atheism is true, skepticism is all there is and nothing can be ultimately proven.

Doing such a test has nothing to do with atheism or relativism. It has all to do with making the case about presuppositionalism's central claims, and determining if it can make predictions about reality.

 

Who's talking about standards here? Asking for standards is a red herring. This is the processing of data! It doesn't have to be measured by James Randi. Petersen could process the data and then have a neutral source validate it. In that way, no one could accuse him of bias. Doesn't Jason want to prove his god, or at the very least that "redeemed reasoning" is advantageous? If his god is all-powerful and omniscient, he should be guiding these results, so by his faith he should have no concern over "standards" any way. And if the James Randi Foundation confirmed his data, such actions speak louder than words, and may make James Randi reconsider his position in Petersen's favor.

Karen:  “Dogmatic: to rigidly assert, authoritarian, doctrinaire, unbending. You do realize this is different than reasonable discourse or dialogue, since they involve two-way communication? And this goes hand in hand with your non-admission that you can’t be wrong. Because if there can be no objection, then your “philosophy” is unfalsifiable, rendering it without value (again).”

Jason: Spare me. Earlier, your comment involved exposing my “hidden agenda” by highlighting the “fact” that I “secretly” start with scripture. This portion shows that you are well aware and were intending to misrepresent me. That is dishonest, but it is, on the other hand, convenient. This is because it makes it easier to highlight the repulsive dishonesty behind your approach that you have taken when you came here. You then talk about how dogmatism is different than reasonable dialogue; however, I recall you making it clear that you do not wish to address the problem of skepticism. Rather, you defend Alex’s approach of sticking his head in the sand while pretending that the problem doesn’t exist. This, of course, is not a rational approach, and, therefore, leaves you in no position to judge whether or not dogmatism is reasonable or rational.

"Spare me?" Are not those terms ("to rigidly assert, authoritarian, doctrinaire, unbending") for what dogmatism means? Or does Petersen employ a definition of convenience-to-presuppositionalism like he does everything else? Or does he not like it?

I am now going to start calling Presuppositional Apologetics by a name I thought it should be called given the behavior of presuppositionalists during debate, as this is exactly how Petersen is treating our conversation at this time. Condescensional Apologetics.

Peterson confirmed that "he could not be wrong." That makes his presuppositional approach unfalsifiable, because there can be no objection to it. He validates the unfalsifiability by saying I "am in no position to judge" (i.e., I cannot make any objection).  I did suggest a possible positive way it could be tested, and he even responded in the negative, saying that "I didn't 'get' it."

An unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions. There’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where the theory is true appears exactly identical to the world where the theory is false. The theory tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about the theory. So, there is no reason to believe. (George Locke)

Petersen's position is that "he can't be wrong" and that no matter what argument is provided in response to skepticism, it is insufficient. The ONLY answer is "the first principle of revelation" through accepting that Christianity is true. Otherwise, the non-believer is sticking their head in the sand and avoiding answering his questions, since EVERY answer isn't an answer. If they don't grant his principle, they are "pretending the problem of skepticism doesn't exist" (which is "repulsively dishonest"). On the other hand, Petersen can proudly proclaim he is answering the non-believer's questions even if he assiduously avoids them in defending his Christian position. So who exactly is dishonest here?

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 1

This is an exchange, or what Jason Petersen has called a "debate" between us which began at his website "Answers for Hope". My interest was to challenge him for a response to a presuppositionalist counter I had developed, which is a suggestion to test the assertion or claim the current group of presuppositionalists often seem to infer or imply, best expressed by the website of a newbie presup I've come up against by the name of Surfer Brendan, called "God or Absurdity."

My suggestion is to see if an "absurdity" or a deficiency can be demonstrated independent of any presuppositional conversation in an individual who doesn't accept the God of the presuppositionalist (in relation to attributes which they claim "belong" to their god, namely, logic and reasoning). Surfer Brendan has this great little graphic (right) he uses in a video which makes it look like non-believers have their reasoning capabilities on a shaky foundation, while the Christian is smiling as he stands on a level, firm foundation, "bricked up" by logic, reasoning and morals...and the Bible, of course. I wanted to see if an experienced apologist like Jason might have something new or interesting to tell me in a response (that I could address).

Jason, however, while extolling "benefits" he could not name, kept repeating, and repeating and repeating how his "first principle" solved the "problem of skepticism" and that without it one could not even have a rational conversation, complete with the little digs and put-downs typical of "condescensional apologetics." (Side note:  While I understand some atheists can be pretty rude and profane, I do make efforts not to be that way, and I would expect the apologist to notice.)  The following comment from him, however, was the show-stopper (italics added for emphasis):

... your statement regarding the Christian’s reasoning capabilities would have to be necessarily higher the atheist’s reasoning capabilities show that you simply don’t get it. Atheists can reason like any Christian because they were made in the image of God. The problem is that they cannot account for knowledge in their worldview, so they borrow capital from the Christian worldview. Such a situation has nothing to do with IQ tests.

So, "atheists can reason like any Christian, they just can't account for knowledge in their worldview." There you have it! Redeemed reasoning = Atheist reasoning. So if it doesn't do anything for the atheists' reasoning, what use is it? This means there is no intrinsic purpose to accounting for one's knowledge or solving the problem of skepticism.  It is irrelevant to reality. It's just like "a nice thing to know" but has no other consequence.

For those of you interested in reading further, this is Part 1 of my response, and here is Part 2.

My words will be italics prefaced by my name, followed by Jason's, both indented in pale blue (or might appear as pink) block paragraph, followed by my second response. Please enjoy, and comments are appreciated.

Sign at Presuppositional Apologists' Convention

Yes, Another Pre-Sup Counter-Script New and Improved!

In keeping with my recent video, below is a revised counter-script to questions asked by presuppositional apologists, particularly the Sye-clones, or "rabid" presuppositionalists, who have devolved the classical presuppositional methodology which took on some burden of proof and tried to inform the non-believer,  into a dogmatic, condescending badgering and moral judgment for the purpose of shutting mouths and declaring victory regardless of the outcome.

 

My decision to update it is because even after a lot of study of the argument, I still didn't have it quite right.  I had several books on atheism, but most of them don't cover the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG).   While I still believe that pre-sups, especially the Sye-clones, should be pushed to prove god because of their incessant declarations that God exists (and atheists "know it"), and I still stand on my original table, their argument can still be refuted in theory in several other ways. 

The numbering scheme from the first table has been retained for cross-reference.  Applicable Bible verses are included in Column 2.  If you find anything you think should be added or corrected or omitted, please let me know in the comments.  Please note there may be some overlaps but that is the nature of this apologetic (redundancies are "good").  In the last column the "A--" in parentheses means an answer you might receive from the apologist, most followed by a suggested response.

 

A bunch of BIG thank you's go out to Dawson Bethrick and his website "Incinerating Presuppositionalism", the book "Atheism Explained" by David Ramsay Steele, various YouTubers such as Ozymandias Ramses II, Alex Botten, CapriciousBlackBox, Dan Courtney, NegationofP and RictusGate, for comments and other assistance in developing the table info and questions. And of course to TheGlobalAtheism whose initial video "Presuppositionalism Dismantled" inspired me to make the first table.

 

For this table I am not guiding readers back to the first row to abruptly conclude any conversation with the pre-sup.  That is up to them.  As the question for atheists from the pre-sup is "how do you...." yours is "why" in particular "why is (a foundation, accounting, justification) necessary."  While atheists can give a satisfactory answer for these questions, the rabid pre-sup will never be satisfied with it.  So your answer can either ask the pre-sup to demonstrably prove the necessity of recognizing any foundation/accounting/justification, or to discharge the premise of the transcendental argument for god--that is, to account for the existence of their god beyond the circular argument from the Bible.

 

Lastly is the problem of unfalsifiability and lack of explanatory power.  With nearly all "justifications" offered being content-free ambiguous Bible verses with  a supernatural guarantee, the argument is insulated from objection.    If on question the apologist tells you they "can't be wrong" they have made any discussion meaningless.  If the pre-sup believes the triumphalist need for "victory" is so important, it is just as important to show the absurdity of their belief that they "can't ever be wrong" in a discussion setting.

 

Hope this helps everyone and I don't think I need to do this again, and over time I hope to get a lot of messages to please quit beating that dead horse!  Thanks.

Update 3/12/2014:  Adding a great comment from Benny Ocean spotted today under Matthew Steele's response to Biblethumpingwingnut's video asking atheists to name one thing they could be absolutely certain about.  (#18)

Update 3/22/2014:  Added an answer to a question concerning knowing reality is real, which Sye Ten Bruggencate is known to use and asked Mathew Steele recently in a YouTube Hangout discussion:  How do you know you're not strapped face-down in a gurney right now?  (#18a)

Update 3/24/2014:  Incorporating Alex Botten question to Jason Petersen in a recent debate, with regard to senses. (#17)

Update 3/31/2014:  Including an admission by the pre-sups themselves that the "infallible, perfect" Bible is that of the original transcripts, which do not exist.  (#1b)

Update 4/22/2014:   Two new thought-provoking questions for the presuppositionalist on morality (#2); and the benefits of redeemed reasoning (#22).

Update 4/30/2014:  Update to moral question taken from blog post by Atheist Experience's Tracie Harris in response to outrageous comment about her morals. (#2)

Update 5/5/2014:  Clarification/question for how the presuppositionalists use Platonic realism/fallacy of reification to claim divine "possession" of the laws of logic. (#21)

THE PRESUPPOSITIONALIST SCRIPT WITH APPROPRIATE RESPONSE QUESTIONS

	Pre-sup Script	Biblical Revelation	Response Commentary	Questions for Pre-sup
1	Almost all questions when you discover you're getting questioned by a  presuppositionalist. Close with "Thank you for your  time" to indicate the discussion is over.	1 Peter 3:15 Col. 1:18	TAG inherently assumes the legitimacy of “a priori knowledge” and that notion would have to first be defended in order to respond to the ensuing propositions. Since there's an insufficient explanation as to the defense of the "a priori knowledge" (the existence of your god) I am justified in rejecting TAG in total. (TAG = Transcendental Argument for God)	While I can grant that it's helpful to have foundations, you cannot show how your accounting for logic, reasoning and morals (certainty, truth, etc.) is of value to me except in terms of deficiencies on my part (rational and moral) and negative theological consequences for me which have not been demonstrated. Therefore I cannot grant the assumption of the need for your accounting.  If you believe you do not have to answer or can summarily dismiss specific charges by challenging my ability or right to level them, then this discussion is over.
1a	If you used to be Christian, you were never a Christian.	1 John 2:19 Matt. 12:30	Pre-sups claim ex-Christians were suffering from a delusion.	Then how can I tell if YOU are a real Christian? (because if 10 years from now you deconvert, you are not a Christian now)
1b	The "truth" of scripture		"We believe the Bible is the unchanging, authoritative, truthful word of God." (Bahnsen, "Pushing the Antithesis" p. 10) "The infallible word of God must be presupposed.." (The Portable Presup., p. 107) Contradictory verse: "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Cor 4:20)  The infallibility of scripture is based on the original manuscripts, not the current translations.  Pre-sups admit that the current Bible is 97-98% as accurate as the original transcripts.	Is there a list in the Bible to show which books go into the Bible?  (A- No) Certain churches have more books than yours; in other words, the books of the Bible were determined extra-scripturally according to church doctrine.  Why are there so many thousands of sects disagreeing over the "truth"? How do you know yours is the correct interpretation of the truth besides revelation (since other sects claim the same)?  If the accuracy of the Bible as translated from the original manuscripts is 97-98%, how can you claim it as truth unless you know what is in the other 2-3%?
2	How to you justify (account) for your morals?  Where do you get your moral foundation?	Mosaic Laws	Euthyphro Dilemma   (see question) Secular morality has evolved.  We have a book of moral knowledge, and that book grows as we evolve and learn and become more civilized.   A policeman is patrolling a stop sign.  Two men do "rolling stops" (which gets a ticket in some jurisdictions). They both have equivalent records, everything else equal, except one is an atheist.  Should the theist be warned and let go and the atheist get a ticket because he has no foundation for his morals?	Is harming another person "the wrong", or is transgressing God's commands "the wrong?"  (If you are unable to judge morality, how did you assess your god as morally superior?) How is it you came to know that morals came from God?  (A-Bible) ...which is God's word?That is circular. Do you believe they are absolute and unchanging?....
2a	There must be moral absolutes (absolute = unchanging)	Romans 1:20	ALL morality is subjective, even biblical. Two practices Greg Bahnsen deplored as immoral in his book "Pushing the Antithesis" were human sacrifice (p. 175) and slavery (p. 219).	.....so therefore you support slavery and women as property? (and wasn't Christ a human sacrifice?)  If you don't, your morality is not absolute since it is relative to what is prescribed in your bible.
2b	The "raping babies" analogy (without a moral foundation you don't know what's right or wrong  )		There is no command in the Bible which prohibits child molestation. United Church of Christ and Episcopal churches allow (and have appointed) gay clergy.   This is similar to inconsistent revelation: inconsistent interpretation of the "moral foundation."   One could ask a Calvinist "If your pastor told you that he was coming out as gay and wanted to marry his partner, would you want him to step down?"  They should answer YES, at which point you could point out that there are Christian churches who say NO based on a different revelation (thereby making morals subjective).	(See #2 - Is raping the baby wrong or is transgressing God's commands wrong) Is Christian morality objectively the same for all Christians?  Then why do Christians disagree with each other on a wide assortment of religious moral issues such as  theocracy, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, chauvinism and war?
3	Is it impossible for the god of the bible to exist?		He cannot be the way as you describe for omnipotence and omniscience contradict each other.	Other than philosophical, hypothetical pre-suppositional arguments, do you have any empirical objective evidence that your god is real?   Is the only way you have to prove anything via using the bible?
4	Is it impossible for the Bible to be what it claims to be?		If the god of the bible does not exist, then it logically follows that the bible is not the word of god.	Why do you use verses of the Bible to explain metaphysics and epistemology to me when you also say I have to accept it before I can understand it?  Why are the verses so ambiguous that they can be interpreted in different ways?
5	Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?	Proverbs 1:7, 9:10	(If "claim" not included) This question presupposes you know something (how to communicate) in order to answer it. It is a possibility that I could be wrong about everything I CLAIM to know; that means, I might be right about some things I CLAIM to know.  It would NOT follow that I do not know anything--that is the fallacy of denying the antecedent (because "could" and "claim to" --meaning possibility, not certainty--are deliberately left out) and an equivocation.	The biblical basis of this question is "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."  That is an appeal to emotion (fear). If it was possible I could be wrong about some things I claim to know, what has that got to do the existence with your god?  Is my ability to know things deficient because I do not accept your god belief?
5a	(continuation of above) My god is eternal and self-existent (transcends primacy of existence).	Gen 1:1 Ex. 3:14	I am aware that I exist (cogito ergo sum).  (If objected to, please note there is an enthymeme [implicit assumption] that there is existence with thinking, then "therefore I am.")	Does a god who is eternal still exist?  Is a god who is self-existent still existing?
6	Could you be wrong about that?  (Is it possible a fact or law could be proven wrong?)		I'm certainly more correct in the way your statement should be understood than your claim that "I can't know anything."	Are you infallible?  So neither of us can know all things, correct?  Can your god change your thoughts without you knowing it?  Humans have created thousands of gods whom many still believe in today, how do you know you have the right one?
7	Does absolute truth exist?  Yes or No.  (Do you believe in absolutes?)	Romans 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar."	Absolutes can exist in conventional sense. "There are no absolutes outside God." (Greg Bahnsen in a debate)	Is absolute truth endowed by your god?  What is the necessity of requiring absolute truth?
8	Does knowledge have to be true?		No it does not.	(see above)
9	Out of all the knowledge in the universe, how much do you have?	Proverbs 1:7, 14:26 Ps. 139:6	Yes:  since knowledge is a human construct, humans possess 100% of all knowledge (potential knowledge will be acquired)	Is your god the possessor of all possible knowledge?  Can you prove this without the bible? (So, the only way you have to prove anything is using the Bible [revelation]?)
10	Is there something in the 99% that could contradict the 1%?		No, not the first 2 because new knowledge does not contradict base laws of logic. We can reasonably know that certain things fall within certain guidelines, and we can reasonably know certain things to be true, even when no human beings were there to directly observe.	Can one be certain about something and still be wrong? How does justified true belief resolve the Gettier problem (there are situations where one can have justified true belief that is not knowledge)?
11	God has revealed things to me in a way that I can be certain. (scripturally)	2 Peter 1:21 2 Timothy 3:16-17 2 Corinthians 2:10	Actually, you are interpreting Biblical verses for the purpose of your apologetic, and there's no direct revelation.  "In a way I can be certain" was added later by the rabid pre-sups. Because this is an "interpretation" there are other Christians who might interpret the same verses differently and add "in a way I can be certain" as well.  So we have no way of determining which one is the correct revelation. Eric Hovind has been heard to utter the sentence "Absolute certainty means I can't be wrong." (from YouTube)	Is this apologetic infallible; in other words, is it unassailable and beyond any objection in that you believe the revelation you received is the only true and correct one?  How would you know if you were wrong about your god's existence? In other words, in this apologetic, you are always right, and everyone else is wrong? (The purpose of this is to point out the preposterousness and meaninglessness of their apologetic and how there is no use in having any discussions if they cannot even know they may be wrong. To put it another way, beliefs without falsification have no value.)
11a	God has also revealed this to you in a way you can be certain.	Rom 1:18-21 Ps. 1:19,4	I do not interpret Romans 1:18-21 in the same way, I (and most Biblical scholars) interpret it in the original context and language, which specifically says it was meant for the Jews and Gentiles of the Roman Church.	If there’s a supernatural being out there personally revealing knowledge to believers, why are they constantly in such wide and contentious disagreement with each other (just the Christians)?
11b	You are suppressing the truth because you just want to sin.  You just love your sin.	Romans 1:20	Please demonstrate your claim (without referring to the Bible) that in not agreeing with you, I am assumed to be dishonest and persisting in wickedness and have no right to object to immoral behavior.  You've just removed the possibility of atheists ever considering your version of Christianity:  if a religion makes a claim about me that I know to be false, then that religion is false.	So in this apologetic, if someone doesn't believe your claims, you accuse them of moral shortcomings? Do you think I should believe you just for not wanting to be guilty of your charge of my suppressing the truth?
11c	God does not lie.	Heb 6:18 "...it was impossible for God to lie."	(1) A god who can lie would be more powerful than a god who doesn't.  He would not be omnipotent. (2) That conflicts with your Bible (Jer. 4:10, 20:7, 2 Thes. 2:11) (3) Wouldn't someone who was lying to you tell you that very same thing?  (See #5, God can withhold knowledge and do as he pleases)	Since your god does not have the power to lie, could there be another god (an alpha god) or entity (your god also created demons and fallen angels who DO lie) that is instructing you (scripturally) that he does not lie?   Is it possible for your god to change your mind without your knowing it?
11d	God has made everyone certain through his word. (Everyone knows God exists and is suppressing the truth...)	Rom 1:18-21 Ps. 1:19,4	See #11b.   No, nobody can know that a god exists.	108 BILLION people are estimated to have been on this planet.  A charitable estimate of those who believe in your doctrine is 3.2%, about 3.4B people; the other 105B are going to Hell.  Do you think your god is doing an effective job making everyone certain up to this point?
13	What is your (ultimate) authority?	Matt 7:24 "...upon a rock."	The self-attesting laws of logic and certainty of your own existence.  These do not depend on our reasoning, since even faulty reasoning ends up affirming them.	Can you demonstrate your ultimate authority without the Bible?  What benefit is there in having an ultimate authority?  Why is an ultimate authority needed?
14	How do you know that your reasoning  is valid?		Through properly basic beliefs, predictive models of reality and evolutionary reliabilism. Where specifically does the bible give any insight or instruction on circularity, validation of one’s reasoning, proper construction of argument, or the validity of the senses, etc.?  Please cite verses that are specific without stretched interpretations or inferences.	Are you saying I cannot trust my reasoning? (Because then I cannot trust you and you could be saying untruthful things to me and I wouldn't know.)  By what mechanism does your belief improve the outcomes, that is, the predictive value, of your reasoning? Would accepting your belief improve my aptitude  to reason? Does it have practical application?  Do you have any evidence of that?  (If not, then it's irrelevant!) (Also see #22)
15	Are there people whose reasoning isn't valid?  How do you know that you're not one of those people?		Their reasoning may be faulty but they are still reasoning.  Can that be tested?  When you take a flight, do you check the religion of the pilot?  Should a Christian getting a critical heart operation check the religion of the lead surgeon?  Does that happen today?	By answering and acknowledging me, aren't you admitting my reasoning is valid in the very act of communicating with me? (term is "performative inconsistency" or "fallacy of stolen concepts")
16	(Then your reasoning is viciously circular)		We do reason with our reason, but it is not viciously circular, it is axiomatic.  We also reason through outside causes, it is not all internal.	Viciously (and virtuously) is an appeal to emotion, why do you need to use such a fallaciously ad hominem label?
17	What are you using to justify senses and reasoning?		Reasoning  is a model with predictive capability using our sensory input which independently converge to form a picture of reality.  We also have properly basic beliefs, presuppositions about reality which help us reason.	You've also applied a label to avoid the fallacy of special pleading, because your reasoning is also circular. A- Tu quoque fallacy So what! You still have special pleading for it even though it's just as circular as mine.  Please explain how your god gets you off this merry-go-round.  Also, what senses do you use in experiencing thought?
18	Name one thing you can be absolutely certain about.		Lots of things: (1) I am not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent. (2)  I am not the god you worship. (3)  I am not dead. (Are we in heaven or hell?) (4) I'm certain that not all of us know everything for certain. (5)  I'm certain that I exist and am conscious of that which exists around me.  (PoE) If pre-sup then asks "How do you know?" your answer should be "because of the impossibility of the contrary."	Why do I need to be absolutely certain?  What is the necessity of having it? (A- something could change 5 minutes from now)  (You:  OK, let's wait 5 minutes...) You said your god does as he pleases (Psalm 115:3) and he has a second secret will (18a), so  how does that justify your certainty?  The same can happen to you. Could you ever accept a secular alternative to the Christian epistemic foundation? (If the pre-sup is being honest, he will say no.  He can never consider any alternative epistemology other than his own--he can only attack yours.)
18a	How do you know that reality is real?  (Sye version may be "How do you know you are not strapped face down on a gurney (maybe in a house with 100 such rooms)?"   (This may also answer the question "How do you gain knowledge?")		Ask the theist their name.  Ask them a simple question that concerns being conscious of something (like identifying something that is in their environment).  Then identify something in your own environment in a simple statement.  (Like casually asking "what time is it?)    Calvinists believe God has TWO wills: one revealed in the Bible and a secretive one only he knows.  He can sovereignly decree horrendous acts for higher purposes.  This means Calvinists have no reason to trust the Bible, nor "reality" since God can change it for his higher purpose. Deut. 29:29, Isa. 55:9 and Bahnsen on p. 173 of  his book "Always Ready"-- confirms God can withhold knowledge.   Ps 115:3, 135:6  God does as he pleases....	(In the act of expressing what you are conscious of) you have shown you are in my reality, and I have shown I am conscious of that which exists around me.  Even if we are not in reality (the matrix), we are still part of something which exists.  See #15 for "performative inconsistency. Example--  The "gurney" question:  Do you talk to people strapped face-down in a gurney?  Do I look/sound like I am face-down in a gurney?  How are YOU talking to me if I am? (performative inconsistency)   If your god does as he pleases (Ps. 115:3) he can change that reality as well, can he not?  So how do YOU know your reality is real? Could your god change your thoughts without your knowing it?  Could god go back in time and erase all memory of you? (Negation of P argument)  (Also see #22 "teacher" asking if atheist students would be graded lower.... for not knowing if reality is real)
19	Is your worldview based on faith?	Gen 8:22, Col 1:17, James 1:17 Eph. 3 Heb. 11	"Perfect faith, not marred by any doubt" (Col 2:2) Paul says Christians "have confidence."  "Certainty is an infallible assurance of faith." (the Portable Pre-sup., Page 295).  Faith is NOT perfect knowledge even according to PA training materials.	Why are all religions referred to as "faiths"?    What IS religious faith?  Paul describes faith as "not marred by any doubt."  Can faith still be marred by doubt?   Has there ever been a time in your life where your faith was marred by doubt?   Are Christian beliefs faith based?
20	The Christian worldview is the only plausible one because of the impossibility of the contrary. You have a choice of either the Christian worldview, or absurdity. (In the meantime you are borrowing from it.)	Eph. 4:17 Col. 1:21 Gal. 1:10 Matt. 7:26	How can a worldview consisting of worship of something that is inherently self-contradictory on multiple levels have anything to do with the foundations of logic, whose task is to safeguard non-contradictory identification?  Jesus cannot equal God and Man (cannot be A and not A) (as well as the triune God) Can you demonstrate the uniqueness of the internal critique of the Christian worldview without invoking divine revelation as an explanation?  (See #23 for list) The classical pre-sup did not use revelation to explain this:  why does your apologetic leave out so many explanations in relying on revelation, which I've explained is only Biblical interpretation (see #11).	Are there any shortcomings in your worldview that you know of? You say we are borrowing from your world view.  Is there something helpful or of value to adopting it and not borrowing it (besides the religious significance)?  What exactly does "choosing absurdity" mean?   How does choosing it affect me directly?  Shouldn't "virtuous/transcen- dental reasoning" have a practical application?  (Unfortunately, studies show just the opposite:  the religious have on average a lower IQ and capacity to reason than the non religious.) If no (or there is no proof), then the absurdity claim is irrelevant and hyperbole, because there is no necessity for an "accounting".
21	The laws of logic, science, morality which we use everyday are universal, immaterial & invariant. How does a strictly natural world account for such unchanging laws? ("...then you believe in logical absolutes?")		Pre-sups use pre-Christian (?!) Platonic realism to claim that descriptions of abstractions are somehow "forms" which belong to God. (fallacy of reification).  Just because something is universal, immaterial and invariant, does not necessitate that it has supernatural attributes or "belongs to God."  Is 31:1-2 (God declares he created evil), also 2 Kings 6:33	How is a linguistic expression of abstractions drawn from a direct observation of reality in any way dependent on anything except observation of reality? Does everything universal, immaterial and invariant derive from your god? (A-Yes) So bias, bigotry, death, evil, wrath, greed, pride, envy, anger, ignorance, discord, sorrow, hate, rage, spite, apathy and fear derive from god as well? (A- No)  So then you select the attributes you want, for the purpose of this apologetic?  (A- what do you mean?) Go to Yes answer
21a	For that reason, we would not be able to have uniformity of nature without God.		Theism posits a multi-formity of nature, not uniformity, with the natural and the supernatural.	As your god is supernatural, are natural and supernatural uniform or two separate concepts?  Do miracles violate the uniformity of nature?
22	The only thing that can make sense of the immaterial, invariant, universal laws of logic, science and morality is an immaterial, unchanging, universal god--the god of the bible and of scripture.	Proverbs 3:5 (for lack of explanatory power ["lean not unto thine own under- Standing"])	Please show me why this is the Christian God and not any other, and where in the Bible this is precisely described, not just through allegory or stretched interpretations. Just because something is immaterial, invariant and universal, it does not equate to your god.	Even if I accepted that there was an immaterial, invariant and universal being , what is the logical step between that and therefore Jesus?
22	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 (absurdity).	Ps. 14:1 "...The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."	(We) have navigated through life successfully without the need for absolute certainty or accounting for logic, reasoning and morals.  Please show what difference it would make by ascribing to your religion (beyond your religion), or what the result will be if these implied deficiencies are removed.	If what you are saying is correct, shouldn't college students want to have "redeemed reasoning" as a way to improve their grades?  OR   A teacher gives his students an educational task requiring logic and reason.  All the students complete the task successfully.  Should the teacher give the theist students an "A" but the atheist students a "D" because they could not account for reason and logic and hence had viciously circular reasoning? (The  pre-sup will answer "No" confirming "redeemed reasoning" has no value. If yes.....he's a bigot.)
22a	Non-believers are fools.		That should be a testable proposition with practical application NOW.  Are there studies which show believers have higher IQs, better reasoning abilities and better morals?  (Also see #22 "Teacher")	Do you think calling those who don't agree with your beliefs fools will help get them saved?   Do you think you are offering a positive reason to believe in Christianity?
22b	How do you know that.... (or "is that true?")		Is this the question which pre-sups usually pose when they can’t interact with the point being discussed?	How does your god belief prevent an infinite regress (or "get you off the merry-go-round")?  Appeal to authority without explanation is not an answer.
23	The explanatory power of the Christian worldview is sufficient and there's no issue with being informed by revelation.	Prov 3:5   "...do not lean unto your own understanding." ( = Don't try to understand things; just believe whatever the Bible tells you)	All "worldview" answers either include "God has revealed it to me in a way I can be certain" when assertions/fallacies present (virtuous versus vicious circular reasoning, everyone knows god exists), or it's the only answer.  In other words, this answer makes Christian pre-sup "content-free"! As far as how the revelation received: "I know without knowing how I know." Classical Presup. author John Frame in his book "Presuppositional Apologetics - An Introduction."	Please give detailed internal critique of Christian worldview. Explain the impossibility of the contrary. Explain how you receive your revelation and know it is the correct one. Explain how you know you have the right god (the Calvinist one). How does "God" prevent infinite regress? How do you account for your god? Where specifically does the bible give any specific insight or instruction on circularity, validation of one’s reasoning, proper construction of argument, or the validity of the senses, etc. (or is it just your interpretation of biblical verses)?
24	We can do that in a Bible study		(plus you have to be "regenerated" before you can understand the Bible)	So, I have the accept the belief before I can even understand it?  How is it you expect me to understand your revelations (questions) which are coming from Bible verses?
25	Please prove [a statement concerning logic and reason] in a syllogism.		Please provide link between proving these syllogisms and proving your god.	How does proving these syllogisms prove your god?  Aren't we just proving the syllogisms and not your god?
26	The proof of God is that without him you can't prove anything.		If you actually had proof of god, you wouldn't need to make that statement.   In other words, this is what someone might say when they don't have any evidence.	Other than this philosophical, hypothetical pre-suppositional declarations, do you have any empirical objective evidence that your god is real? Because if your god is not real, this is just a baseless assertion.
27	Creation cries out its creator (as evidence).	Gen. 1:1	This is (1) argument from ignorance /incredulity (2) has no explanatory power (3) begs another question (who/what created the "eternal" creator?) (4) still need to explain how we get to Christian god (5) why SO many flaws in that which he created (especially if you claim he is perfect),   (6) does not have means of distinguishing between "creators".	If it's the natural world ("the creation") you're talking about, how does your god serve as evidence of that which completely contradicts it? Even granting your claim, it could be another god or other entity.  How do you get to the Christian god?
28	...but your thinking is just "brain fizz" or "chemical reactions"?			Is a chemical reaction objective? Why are thoughts affected by drugs, disease, and brain injury?