How to beat a presupp at their own game

[Angrboda]

So I had a debate with a Christian presuppositionalist and I don't think I did particularly well. I haven't debated Christians in a while so I'm pretty rusty, but they were trying to poke holes in my naturalistic framework.

He kept insisting that because I don't KNOW everything about gravity that there is nothing in my system that would prevent gravity from operating differently tomorrow. Just because gravity has observable patterns today or yesterday doesn't mean it will be consistent tomorrow or the next, so in my worldview anything can change. What regulates gravity or the laws of physics? What is the absolute etc - so I naturally said that I don't know.

His point was that God is the ground of all things yadda yadda - so I told him that just because I don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean I don't know ANYTHING, and he, funnily enough said the opposite. Theists.

I seriously need to learn how to deconstruct these theist arguments because I am so weak right now - he then went to Modus Pollens, which I've never even heard of. When asking for evidence for God, he says that God has revealed himself to everyone but as an atheist that I have suppressed the knowledge. No I haven't. That is the Christian line of reasoning - that I just don't WANT there to be a God.

I need to learn how to defend my beliefs.

The argument is more or less sound. Constantness in naturalism depends on the assumption of uniformity for which there is a lot of evidence, but which is an inductive argument meaning that it could prove wrong. And physicists do wonder about the laws changing, not only here, but also in other universes that some speculate may have very different laws than our own. And there has been debate over seeming changes in the measurement of the speed of light. So it's a fair question.

I would try to learn your own position better so that you can recognize when your interlocutor is making a valid point and when they are not. They say that offense wins games but defense wins championships. You'll likely prosper more from examining your own presuppositions and arguments more closely. When you understand your own position better, you will be better able to navigate arguments designed to exploit weaknesses in your position.

I could offer a few zingers to offer in reply to this person, but I'd rather ask why this has become a focus for you? I've debated such subjects for years, but have lately been less interested in engaging. As they say, knowing the other is valuable, but knowing oneself is true strength. If there's anything I would suggest is that you not automatically assume a theist argument is wrong or defective because you don't like the result. In addition to knowing yourself, spend some time walking in the other man's shoes. Find out what has made these arguments appealing to theists, and how they've been expressed.

And finally, as with any other subject, the best balm for an inadequate base is to read, read, and read some more.