War of The Blogs: Have They Jumped The Gun?

I presuppose demon unicorns offer a coherent worldview and everyone else is corrupt

I presuppose demon unicorns offer a coherent worldview and everyone else is corrupt

I recently wrote an article addressing Presupposition. You can find it by clicking the link.

I then went on my merry way and wrote about other things.

Today, a Christian apologist who I’ve pleasantly exchanged many comments with commented on my post while I was at work.

I work in the social service field, and sometimes I have to work long, mentally draining hours, although I love my job and can’t imagine doing anything else. The people I work with are some of the most amazing and inspiring people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. They show me every day what it means to have strength in the face of adversity.

But I digress.

I really think I did a fairly good job of refuting presupposition apologetic in my original post. I think it’s based on a false presupposition that offers no way to differentiate between the truth claims of one religion over the other. Long story short, this sort of apologetic presupposes that Christianity is correct and that any way of looking at the world other than through the lens of Christianity is automatically ‘sinful in his mind’.

I don’t know what else to really say about that.

Anyhow, after this gentleman was kind enough to leave a comment, I told him that I was texting a reply and that since we’d already had a lengthy discussion on the topic, I would wait and see if anyone else commented on his comment.

So here I am after a short nap on my couch thinking of what I want to tackle on my blog. Am I in the mood for a heavier topic or a light one? Happy, sad, humorous?

It’s totally up in the air.

To my surprise, I’m notified by WordPress’ magical notification window that someone had linked to my blog. Intrigued, I went to look and saw it was the Christian apologist throwing down a digital gauntlet.

So here is what he said in response to my blog post about presupposition and my response:

It’s astounding how quickly atheists dismiss presuppositions. Even if you don’t make a categorical assertion that “no god” exists, everyone has something that they presuppose. Some presuppositions *project* while others don’t. I acknowledge that some who employ this particular methodology don’t truly understand the implicit strengths or weaknesses.

Not sure why it matter if everyone presupposes something. I was talking about your erroneous presupposition that Christianity is automatically true and the dismissal of every other religious claim that theirs is true. I’m pretty sure I understand the strengths and weaknesses of this argument and I already addressed them. I think this type of reasoning is mostly full of weakness.

Some of the comments even go so far as dismissing the method because words like *epistemology* are used. This is a trite objection; and while some Christians/Atheists might not know what the word means it does not follow that one should be dismissive of the implicatures of certain presuppositions.

I agree with you in a way.

However, my Nan used to say that if someone didn’t understand your message, the problem isn’t in the receiver but in the sender. Honestly, people don’t want to engage with someone who uses million dollar words all of the time. They want to engage with someone they can understand.

For example, Stephen Hawking could talk using million dollar words and equations all day, but his message wouldn’t be received by anyone besides other physicists. One big reason he’s so well known is because he brings science to the layperson. He makes science understandable. In my opinion, you seem to fail at this in a big way.

Let me demonstrate by using your own words in your original comment:

The project of presupppositional apologetics is to ascertain whether the entailments of any particular view (including the Christian view) follow without contradiction. This is why the Christian considers the Christian God to be the necessary precondition of intelligibilty. Properly speaking a coherent worldview is a “proof”.

Okay, I think most people (including myself) would be following happily along up to this point. So far, you have not answered why the Christian God is needed for intelligibility, or why this deity is required for intelligibility, or why you’re wasting your time talking to the unintelligible, because I certainly don’t believe in this god. You have also not answered why the Christian worldview is coherent or even more coherent than other religious and non-religious worldviews.

Moving along to the million dollar word stuff:

Let me provide you with an example, if you presuppose the rationality of laws of logic (and)

1. Laws of logic are immaterial
2. Laws of logic are invariant
3. Laws of logic are universal

Can you account for (1,2,3) in your worldview? I am not asking if you use laws of logic, you have presented yourself as rational and thoughtful. I am asking you to examine your presuppositions and assess whether laws of logic can be coherent is a reductionist, materialist worldview? Are these laws a priori? If so, how can this be if on empiricist presuppositions one must experience the laws of logic before appropriating them?

Any time a presuppostion is found to be implicitly or explicitly contradictory, reason would tell us that the proposition entailed by the presupposition must be false by way of negation. I wrote an article about presuppostions and projection that details the entailments and the operators that are involved in determining whether presuppositions project. I would welcome thougthful exchange on this topic, however if the degenerates into certain people calling me a dickhead, my interest will wane.

I hate to break it to you, but you lost me (in an eyes glazing over sort of way) right around the ‘let me provide you with an answer’ part. I understand what you’re saying, but I doubt anyone in their right mind wants to sit around and engage that. It’s a bunch of questions with no answers.

So no, I don’t think anyone has mailed it in. I think you’re failing at making yourself intelligible. I think you’ve failed to even come close to explaining why your assertions, Christianity, your deity or your apologetic should be taken seriously.

Don’t get me wrong, I think you’re a hell of a smart guy. I think you cloak your message in important sounding words, which make it difficult to pick apart or engage in any serious manner. Most people just don’t have the time to sift through such literary wreckage. If you could say what you’re trying to say in plain English, I really think you’d have more people willing to engage you in conversation.

However, I think it plain to anyone reading this that I don’t view non-engagement as a ‘mailing in’. Perhaps they didn’t notice your comment. The article is a few days old. Perhaps they felt like they already said all they had to say on the subject. Perhaps they didn’t feel like engaging or were unable to at the time. Perhaps they didn’t want to sift through the verbiage.

I don’t know. There are other possibilities other than ‘mailing it in’. It really boils down to what I said in my last post – with evidence, there would be no need for apologetic. And like I said, I think I already exhausted what I had to say on the topic in my fairly lengthy blog post about it.

But don’t take my word for it. After all, my fallen nature prevents me from seeing the truth. *wink*

Advertisements

66 Comments

  1. A digital gauntlet? Well sir…let the games begin! I think war might be overstating the case and really I was awaiting a reply from Ark…he is always good for a rousing a debate, but if this the fodder we need to keep the debate going, I am all for it.

    • I think war might be overstating the case and really I was awaiting a reply from Ark…he is always good for a rousing a debate, but if this the fodder we need to keep the debate going, I am all for it.

      Sorry, I was busy with much more important things ..such as the World Cup and doing Dog Poop Patrol in my garden. ( But P.P is a lot like religion: lots of s…no, best not.)

      I did not realise you were expecting a reply from moi? Good heaven’s were you frothing at the mouth in Apologetic Anticipation? I am flattered.

      I really have no idea what you expect, but anyone that can afford even the slightest credence to something like the Zombie Apocalypse in Matthew – the SOB who got a fat zero on his RE homework for plagiarizing 600 verses of Mark –
      needs to see their doctor about upping the dosage of their medication.
      Maybe afterwards the term, enlightenment, will have genuine meaning.
      Until, then…

            • You can be comfortable; snug as a bug in a rug for all I care.
              This means Jack.
              Your refusal to provide any bona fides just make you look silly and all your posturing is just that.
              Beat about the Burning Bush for as long as you like.

              Your god is the ultimate straw man, and currently he is disappearing down the Yellow Brick Road.
              He ain’t in Palestine any more, BBG.
              Time to put up or push off.

              • No, I have not refused. I seek to establish the foundation upon which this discussion can move forward. You can call me any name you wish, it means nothing other than you cannot offer a proper foundation for knowledge.

                No amount of evidence will ever be offered that can convince you of God’s existence. Thus the argument must proceed by examining what you presuppose. If your presuppositions (or mine for that matter) do not allow for discussion because they are contradictory then one of must admit that we have no foundation for knowledge.

                Rather than invective, I would ask you disclose the nature of reality, how immaterial laws of logic are possible, the foundation for moral absolutes, and do this on the basis of substantive interaction with the actual question. It is easy to lampoon and dismiss, it is profoundly more difficult to engage the actual argument. I am open to an honest evaluation of your presuppositions and mine to see which cohere and make sense of human experience.

  2. By way of introduction, the title of my post was *interrogative* not declarative (sorry I am not sure what words are out of bounds)

    “Not sure why it matter if everyone presupposes something. I was talking about your erroneous presupposition that Christianity is automatically true and the dismissal of every other religious claim that theirs is true. I’m pretty sure I understand the strengths and weaknesses of this argument and I already addressed them. I think this type of reasoning is mostly full of weakness.”

    I don’t recall saying it is was automatically true. However, we are comparing truth claims. Presuppositions are the most basic assumptions we make about the nature of reality, our theory of knowledge (see I can use other words besides epistemology) and what we suppose to be true. When we speak, we make certain assumptions and entailed in those assumptions are propositions. When the Christian argues presuppositionally he or she is asking you to examine your own assumptions to determine whether what you presuppose is consistent and by extension coherent (reasonable)

    So, to the meat of your post. Why is the Christian God necessary for intelligibility? Simple really. God is a universal,unchanging, and immaterial being. When the Christian employs logic, rules of inference, has an answer for why induction (reasoning from the general to the particular) is rational, he or she appeals to the nature and character of God. In a materialist (the universe is simply matter in motion) world immaterial and a priori laws do not provide a coherent system of knowledge acquisition.

    I am happy to further explain this but don’t want to come across like I am patronizing you or your readership.

    • “However, we are comparing truth claims. Presuppositions are the most basic assumptions we make about the nature of reality, our theory of knowledge (see I can use other words besides epistemology) and what we suppose to be true.”

      I wouldn’t call a supernatural, invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful god as a ‘basic’ anything.

      Love the new word *heathen hug*

      “Why is the Christian God necessary for intelligibility? Simple really.”

      Then why engage anyone you feel is unintelligible?

      “presuppose is consistent and by extension coherent (reasonable)”

      What is more coherent about the Christian view than the Muslim, Hindu or atheists?

      “In a materialist (the universe is simply matter in motion) world immaterial and a priori laws do not provide a coherent system of knowledge acquisition.”

      You mean science, based on physical evidence, doesn’t offer a coherent system of knowledge acquisition?

      Either way, why do you believe this doesn’t offer a a coherent system of knowledge acquisition?

      “I am happy to further explain this but don’t want to come across like I am patronizing you or your readership.”

      My ‘readership’ is woefully low. My first post on WordPress was on May 23rd. I haven’t been here long. I’m encouraged by my rising numbers, and I’ve met some good people here, but I’m under no illusion that I have a massive readership or anything. *smile*

      I’m going to see if other people engage you.

      • Let me start at the bottom and work my way to the top. Perhaps having a common foe will help attract new readers…it can’t hurt. You can thank me later.

        Science is not a theory of knowledge acquisition. Science is based on deduction and induction. The latter pole is particularly troubling. Inductive inference, reasoning from a general instance of something to a conclusion that particularizes the generalization is not something that can be rationally demonstrated because there are no perfect inductions (or very few). Consider for a moment the sentence “all swans are white” this really means all of the swans observed up until that moment have been white therefore it is inductively true that all swans are white. One instance of a black swan negates the truth of the inductive inference.

        This is quite true of science as well. There have been numerous revisions to so-called scientific discoveries. Furthermore, physical evidence is also deficient for a number of reasons. For one thing, it assumes that everyone has the same experience of say the color red. Some people are color blind for example.

        Christian theism depends upon a couple of things. First it is primarily a revealed religion, thus no amount of observation or evidence will by necessity establish the truth or falsity of its claims. However, and this is an important point it presupposes certain things about reality and on those assumptions either stands or falls. The same thing holds true for other beliefs systems and even a lack of a belief system.

        For instance, you would have a hard time providing evidence of atheism (some would argue that even the question is absurd since it posits an absence of evidence as it primary *evidence*.

        But you and I can examine what it (Christian theism or atheism) presupposes to be true. There are very specific reasons why Christian apologists conclude that the Christian God is the precondition of intelligibility. In order to instantiate this claim it might be helpful to look at atheism rather than theism. Bear with me, and in subsequent comments my positive case will be clear.

        For now, would you say that laws of logic are immaterial? unchanging? and universal? If so, how do you account for this based on what you assume to be true (which in this case is the absence of a deity).

    • @BBG
      Your god is that smelly little Lake Tiberius Pedestrian and itinerant preacher, the narrative construct, Jesus of Nazareth.
      So, before you get all high and mighty and start throwing about Big Words from dining on philosophical thesauri or classic works of theological truth such as Historia Ecclesiastica,( barf) it is only fair that you provide unequivocal evidence that your man-god, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Creator of the Universe.

      Then we can have a truly meaningful discussion….about Soccer.
      How were the Netherlands last night! Phew!
      Sorry, you were about to say something about your god and pre whatever you call it.

        • No. Rather you start by showing the evidence for your man god.
          I thought being truthful was part and parcel of following JC?
          You’re not going to start by doing the Theological Two Step again, are you?
          Lets. have the straight version. You can save the bulls*** for those that are impressed with long sentences. and complicated words.

          Away you go….evidence please.

          • There is no theological two step. You are simply not following along. Asking for evidences posits a neutral foundation upon which any supposed evidence can be evaluated.

            There is no neutral foundation between our worldviews. Assessing evidences is a tertiary concern. First, establish for me that your presuppositions project, that what you believe allows for a meaningful discussion that employs laws of logic. Do you believe laws of logic are immaterial and universal? If so, please explain how these comport with your worldview. Establishing this is logically prior to assessing any such evidence.

            • Now you are being disingenuous as this whole topic is about your god. And if you are not prepared to demonstrate his bona fides that you claim then all you are doing is piddling in the wind.

              You have to establish the existence of what you believe in before you argue its merits.

              So, once more. Let’s see the evidence for your god, Jesus of Nazareth. And for once, try to be honest and not piss about, okay?

                • You are being obtuse. Be honest enough to acknowledge what is the basis for this discussion in the first place. Your god.
                  I need evidence of this deity before I can formulate any response. Evidence that the god-man, Jesus of Nazareth is who you claim he was and also evidence that he is the creator of the universe.
                  I mean, this is what you believe, yes?

                  Otherwise, anything you say is meaningless.
                  So, off you go..let’s see your evidence.

    • That’s logically fallacious. I never said that I have no evidences, I have plenty of evidences but my primary concern is to establish a foundation for knowledge. This is logically prior, and something that a thoughtful atheist should want to establish. Your arguments are overtly dismissive and are demanding a concession that assumes a neutrality that I don’t accept. If your atheism cannot establish epistemic grounds for rationality then it reduces to absurdity. It is up to you to show that you can establish how universal, invariant, and immaterial laws comport with atheism.

      In the absence of this foundation, tertiary evaluations of evidences have no firm foundation. This post is regarding presuppositional apologetics, and I am arguing from that methodology. You want me to employ a completely different methodology and when I restate my methodology you claim that I am being obtuse. I am simply being consistent and asking you to engage on the topic at hand.

  3. “Perhaps having a common foe will help attract new readers…it can’t hurt. You can thank me later.”

    ‘Foe’ is such a dark word. Not something I’d apply to you.

    “Science is not a theory of knowledge acquisition. Science is based on deduction and induction.”

    And physical evidence, testing, retesting and so much more. It’s very much based on material substance rather than the immaterial. Are you seriously suggesting that science isn’t a method used to acquire knowledge?

    “This is quite true of science as well. There have been numerous revisions to so-called scientific discoveries. ”

    Agreed. Which is why it’s a better tool of knowledge acquisition. It changes as new data becomes available or is discovered.

    “First it is primarily a revealed religion, thus no amount of observation or evidence will by necessity establish the truth or falsity of its claims.”

    I could make that claim about the demon unicorns. Other religions make the same claim.

    “However, and this is an important point it presupposes certain things about reality and on those assumptions either stands or falls.”

    Yes. Weak ones in my opinion. Magical ones. I also disagree with that assumption, which is why we’re having this discussion. You’ve yet to provide evidence for your assumption or explain why it’s a reasonable assumption to make.

    “For instance, you would have a hard time providing evidence of atheism (some would argue that even the question is absurd since it posits an absence of evidence as it primary *evidence*.”

    There’s no need for evidence of atheism because atheism doesn’t make a claim. It’s a lack of belief.

    Theists are making the claim. The atheist doesn’t believe them.

    “For now, would you say that laws of logic are immaterial? unchanging? and universal? ”

    No.

    But your axiom is something we do not agree upon, thus the problem we are having. You assume God. I do not.

    However, you have still failed to explain why Christianity is true, while other religions or non-belief is not true. Your entire argument rests on these points.

    Also, you have failed to answer my questions:

    -Why engage anyone you feel is unintelligible?
    -What is more coherent about the Christian view than the Muslim, Hindu or atheists?

    • I intend no disrespect here, but it seems to me that no one is apprehending the actual argument. This becomes a bit of a straw man and I blame the popularity of the method for the perceived anemic nature of the argument.

      Everyone has presuppositions. The nature and role of presuppositions is tantamount to addressing truth claims. Why is the Christian God the precondition of intelligibility? Because the Christian Trinity is unique among conceptions of God. The trinity solves the age old problem of the one-and-the many. A strict monotheism does not, neither does pluralism, neither does deism.

      Christianity provides justification for use of laws of logic. It is irrational in the extreme to assert that laws of logic are *material*, if they are I will send you my address and would ask you to slip them in the mail to me. If laws of logic are merely the subjective rules of thought, and the chemical interaction in your brain then they cannot be trusted because your brain is never in the exact same state as my brain. If they are merely social conventions i.e. not universal then all I need to do is formulate a new set of laws and declare atheism irrational and cease the debate.

      Knowledge, a justified true belief cannot be open as you assert to revision. This is not properly knowledge or at bottom is something that is only inductively true. In reality you are restating my claim that induction can never establish a truth that could not be falsified upon further observation.

      A demand for evidence misses the point, presuppositions that are negated in discourse have to be either revised or jettisoned. If someone here can make the claim that unicorns or Odin can make the same modal claim that Christianity does, it would be on you to demonstrate this. I am arguing only for the Christian God

      I have acknowledged my presuppostions and am happy to fully disclose my own presuppositions however the demand for evidence by implication acknowledges that the discussion is taking place in two very different worlds and has yet to even begin.

      • “Why is the Christian God the precondition of intelligibility? Because the Christian Trinity is unique among conceptions of God.”

        Unique doesn’t make something true. Who cares if it’s unique?

        Also, trinity is not a unique concept. It was used before Christianity. Even in Pagan worship, 3 was a sacred number and Christianity borrows heavily from Paganism.

        “The trinity solves the age old problem of the one-and-the many.”

        What age old problem?

        “A strict monotheism does not, neither does pluralism, neither does deism.”

        Doesn’t what? I think you’re getting desperate.

        “If laws of logic are merely the subjective rules of thought, and the chemical interaction in your brain then they cannot be trusted because your brain is never in the exact same state as my brain.”

        So what? That’s why we’re disagreeing. If our brains were in the exact same state, we’d agree on everything and act completely alike. Why is this a problem for you? I like my individuality. It doesn’t mean we can’t come to a common understanding.

        “If they are merely social conventions i.e. not universal then all I need to do is formulate a new set of laws and declare atheism irrational and cease the debate.”

        Your form of apologetic does just that! It states that atheists are unintelligible. Because of our fallen state, we’re irrational. You’ve never actually answered my question about why you’d even bother to engage the unintelligible.

        Furthermore, your religion as a whole has tried to do this on numerous occasions, along with other religions. You call them blasphemy laws. Saudi Arabia calls us terrorists. Religion has tried to stamp out atheism violently for a long time.

        I can’t understand for the life of me, how a smart guy such as yourself can’t see these things for yourself. It shows the power of indoctrination and blind faith, I guess.

        “A demand for evidence misses the point, presuppositions that are negated in discourse have to be either revised or jettisoned. ”

        You have stated in your own words that presuppositions are basic. I have said God is not a simple presupposition. It’s a complex one and one that Ark has rightly said, requires evidence to believe.

        You’re not making a presupposition – you’re making an assumption about the nature of the universe and reality. You’re doing the same thing every other religion does, and you have yet to demonstrate why your view is more coherent than theirs.

        “If someone here can make the claim that unicorns or Odin can make the same modal claim that Christianity does, it would be on you to demonstrate this.”

        It’s the same claim you’re making in regards to your God! You’re right…it’s on you to demonstrate this. Something Ark has asked you repeatedly to do. You have so far failed miserably.

        “I am arguing only for the Christian God”

        And doing an abysmal job.

  4. Oh, and my other question, which was in reply to what you said:

    “However, we are comparing truth claims. Presuppositions are the most basic assumptions we make about the nature of reality, our theory of knowledge (see I can use other words besides epistemology) and what we suppose to be true.”

    And I said:

    I wouldn’t call a supernatural, invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful god as a ‘basic’ anything.

    Do you really think your god with all its supposed attributes and your religion with all its claims on reality really qualifies as a ‘basic assumption’?

  5. This thing about “presuppositions” and an “anti-supernaturalist bias” is a common gambit I find in the blogosphere as they try to fill in time looking for actual, you know, tangible evidence of their god to show us. Well, I freely admit it, I’m biased against elves, dragons, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, aliens, sensible theists, and all other such fantasy creatures.

      • I fail to see how this is ruse. You have presuppositions, everyone does. Presuppositions entail other propositions, if the presupposition is negated then the presupposition fails to project. Other religions can attempt to do so, as can atheism the question if whether these religions can formulate a cogent system that establishes the rationality of laws of logic, inductive inference, etc.

        • You’ve yet to demonstrate how your religious view does this better than any other religion. You’ve also neatly sidestepped answering the questions leveled at you by me and others.

          I don’t think this sort of apologetic hasn’t caught on because people don’t understand it. I think people do understand it and even Christians realize its bunk.

          • I would agree, atheists don’t understand it. They want to argue against premises that have nothing do whatsoever with the presuppositonalism. However, it does not follow that just because someone (atheist or Christians) does not apprehend the argument that it is invalid.

            This is primarily a philosophical argument and takes a better than average understanding of the terms of concepts of that discipline. I have yet to meet a Christian that understands the argument to concede the point that it is bunk. But if this makes the atheist feel better, far be it from me to spoil this illusion.

            • “This is primarily a philosophical argument and takes a better than average understanding of the terms of concepts of that discipline.”

              It’s not a primary anything because hardly anyone uses it, and for good reason. People do understand it. I know it’s hard to fathom and easy for you to dismiss their disagreement because it doesn’t match your agreement, but that doesn’t make their opposition invalid.

              You’ve failed to explain your position.

              When people do use this concept, it usually isn’t in conjunction with god belief or the dogmas associated with it.

              Your own words describe presupposition as being ‘basic’ but your assuming your specific god exists and the dogmas associated with it are true is not anything of the basic sort.

                  • Is this because you don’t agree with the role of presuppositons or you simply don’t believe you have them? The argument is clear to me, but I have studied philosophy. I realize not everyone has the vocabulary and background for such a discussion.

                    Regardless, when others resort to abusive ad hominems and insults, there is little room for continued exchange. I can assure you my conversation with you has been pleasant however I have no more inclination to engage with those who invoke childish name calling and belittle anyone who has come to different conclusions.

                    • “Is this because you don’t agree with the role of presuppositons or you simply don’t believe you have them?”

                      I agree we all have presupositions. I just don’t agree you’re using it properly. I don’t think your presupposition can be categorized as ‘basic’, and I think at the heart of it, you have no evidence to back your god belief. You have no more evidence than a Muslim does for theirs or a Pagan does for theirs.

                      I also think your presupposition that atheists or anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligible makes this apologetic less than useful.

                      “I can assure you my conversation with you has been pleasant”

                      Thank you. 🙂

                    • With all due respect and charity, this completely misses the thrust of the argument. May I kindly suggest you read the works of Dr. Bahnsen, perhaps take the time to watch the debate between Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein. It is available on YouTube. Perhaps after viewing this debate you will have a better understanding of the nature of the apologetic methodology that I employ.

  6. You have presuppositions, everyone does.

    But your presupposition involves indoctrinating children who are unable to marshal an effective argument one way or another. This is abuse.

    That you insist upon doing this to children further illustrates how arrogant you are and how feeble your religious claims are; and how hypocritical.

    That other branches off monotheism also inside on physical mutilation is further evidence of the barbarism of what you believe. One can hope that this ( circumcision) will eventually be outlawed.

    That you are unable to offer even a single shred of verifiable evidence to back your claims merely demonstrates how disgusting and untenable your position truly is.
    Everything theistic – from its text, its doctrines to its philosophy is simply nothing more than flatulence.
    And I, unlike Godless Cranium, do not consider you or your ilk intelligent at all.

    • I agree with some of what you’ve said, Ark, but I think assuming religious people are not intelligent is a dangerous assumption to make. Sometimes it’s the most intelligent people who are hardest to sway from their positions because they can rationalize almost any stance, including believing in magic, especially in a society that normalizes such belief and pushes it as necessary for moral development.

        • I think you can believe in magic and be intelligent. I agree it’s a sign of indoctrination or wishful thinking. I think we can all be irrational at times. I agree that his lack of evidence and his inability to demonstrate why his view is more coherent are a problem – but that’s his problem. I hope other people read this discussion in cyber space and see that his apologetic approach is weak. They will have to come to their own conclusions. 🙂

    • you have neither engaged the argument nor demonstrated that you have any idea of the requisite philosophical positions to which I advocate.

      In this context, philosophy is a meaningless exercise in diatribe in order not to confront that fact you have no evidence to back your theistic claims.
      It really is this simple, and Godless Cranium has demonstrated this as wel.
      However, if you feel we are being unaccommodating of your position, let us se if we can approach it from a different angle, okay?

      1. Do you consider the character, Jesus of Nazareth , as portrayed in the bible to be a real, historical person?
      If .’Yes’ please give reasons, and offer evidence.

  7. Well that’s an awful lot of words I don’t encounter on a daily basis. Is presupposition another name for a false premise? What’s the point in having the discussion at all if you’re determined to define away the problem?

    I believe I’m all too familiar with the argument that ‘everyone has something that they presuppose’, if not in those exact words. Science is a kind of faith? Ridiculous. If your defence of your position is that my trust in gravity is equally dismissible as your belief in an invisible, all powerful, but clearly very shy super being, then your capacity for delusion renders the discussion meaningless to begin with.

    Uh oh, I’m starting to sound ranty, better stop now. Entertaining read.

    • It’s a real shame that no one has really offered an argument. Either the role of presuppositions is diminished, or rejected out of hand, or the argument is misconstrued as philosophical sleight-of-hand. On the other side of the ledger even some Christians have misused the argument. It is a shame really as no one has really engaged the argument.

      The constant refrain “show us evidence” is evidence enough to demonstrate the lack of understanding and apprehension of the what is being argued and what is not.

        • I think you have tried. However, and this is not necessarily addressing you: asking for evidences is asking for the argument to include something that is neither (1) contained in my arguments (2) does nothing to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent (3) discloses the atheistic presuppositions (4) Understand the actual arguments being proffered.

          This is not an argument about evidences. This about comparing and contrasting competing epistemologies. I am arguing that abstract entities such as the laws of logic find a coherent foundation on distinctly Christian presuppositions. I have argued that on atheistic presuppositions laws of logic are incoherent. Yet, all of the comments have been either (1) rejecting presuppostional apologetics because no one can seem to understand that coherence is an evidence. The strong modal claim has been left unaddressed, and inquiry into why their is no neutral basis upon which evidences can/should be addressed belies a disinterested rejection that contains the trappings of religious indoctrination rather than honest inquiry.

          • I’ve grasped that. You’ve yet to demonstrate how the Christian worldview offers more coherence than any other religion or no religion at all. You’ve merely asserted it does, but that’s not good enough.

            And that’s okay. I’m content agreeing to disagree. Anyone else in the future reading this can make up their own minds about the arguments put forth and which seems more coherent.

            For my part, I’ve enjoyed the exchange. You’re one of those people I’ve met online that I’d love to meet in person, sit in a coffee shop and just chat.

      • BBG,
        1) Can you explain for us what you think “law” means in the context of the laws of logic?
        2) Do you believe a world view can be coherent and not true?
        3) Your world view “accounts” for the laws of logic by showing the correlation between the laws of logic and the christian god. (e.g. immaterial, invariant, universal) How is correlation an “account” when correlation does not necessitate causation?
        4) If the christian god is your account of the laws of logic how do you account for the christian god?
        5) If your answer to (4) is that you presuppose god then why can’t any other world view just presuppose the laws of logic?
        Thanks in advance for your response.

  8. Pingback: May I presuppose premises that support my presupposed conclusion? « Enquiries on Atheism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s