Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 6:48 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
#31
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
(October 17, 2016 at 11:32 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:
(October 17, 2016 at 4:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: OP. Worst. Apologetic. Ever.

I'd like to know why you think so, that is why i made this thread after all.

I personally agree with him because apologetics are mainly used to persuade others to believe in religious claims. Presupposing things does nothing at all to convince us. You are getting less than serious responses for a good reason. So far you've made a lot of claims across many threads without actually breaking down why we should believe a word you say.
I don't believe you. Get over it.
Reply
#32
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
Presuppositionalism is only 'persuasive' to those who already believe and want to be reassured that their belief is reasonable. The mental reaction of most people who haven't had it tried on them before is usually along the lines of 'WTF did I just hear?'.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
#33
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
(October 17, 2016 at 11:32 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:
(October 17, 2016 at 4:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: OP. Worst. Apologetic. Ever.

I'd like to know why you think so, that is why i made this thread after all.

I saw the video some time ago. It's so bad I don't think I can fully comprehend what they are trying to say. They beg the question on such a massive scale that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could take it seriously. Saying that someone must first agree with you before they can be convinced to agree with you makes no sense. If they already agree with you then they require no convincing. So what's the point? Then if they don't agree with you, you tell them they don't have the capacity for reason because they don't agree with you. Now that I think of it, that's just another kind of holier-than-thou douchbaggery that pisses me off.
Reply
#34
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
Alright so we are making some progress here, i'm seeing somewhat intelligible responses now. Remember i'm try to learn here so knock off all this emotional garbage.

My impression, is that it points out a foundational flaw for naturalists epistemology. Now i wouldn't claim that it is an argument in the traditional sense of premisis, and a conclution. But rather the way i would aproach it, is by pointing out naturalists don't have a justification for objectivity.

Athiests can count, but can't account for their counting.

So what's your claim here? Do you feel it is a neccecary precondition, and the exception to the rule? Do you deny objectivity, everything is subjective?

C'mon give me some reason.
Reply
#35
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
(October 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Alright so we are making some progress here, i'm seeing somewhat intelligible responses now. Remember i'm try to learn here so knock off all this emotional garbage.

My impression, is that it points out a foundational flaw for naturalists epistemology. Now i wouldn't claim that it is an argument in the traditional sense of premisis, and a conclution. But rather the way i would aproach it, is by pointing out naturalists don't have a justification for objectivity.

Athiests can count, but can't account for their counting.

So what's your claim here? Do you feel it is a neccecary precondition, and the exception to the rule? Do you deny objectivity, everything is subjective?

C'mon give me some reason.

1+1 = 10 apples.
Reply
#36
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
You know, there are 10 kinds of people....

How about that for a reason.

I am sure Chad can entertain you in that realm. I'm out.
Reply
#37
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
Why wouldn't naturalists have a justification for objectivity?  They certainly have a reason for the noticed objectivity in measurement between thirty thermometers in a room saying it's 50f. 

It's 50f.

.......?

Objectivity, subjectivity, you clearly approach these things as contradictions, but are they? No matter how many thermometers tell us it's 50f different people will rate that as relatively hot or cold. Not much of a paradox, it's obvious that subjectve agents are capable of offering varying descriptions - all equally true, regarding an objective thing such as temperature. Is there some problem, in your estimation, with acknowledging apparent truths? Do i have to side with or exclude the thermometer that says it's 50f, or the person who says it's mildly cool, or the person who says it's positively frigid? They all seem to be telling the truth to me.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#38
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
(October 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Remember i'm try to learn here so knock off all this emotional garbage.

Fair enough. I appreciate that you want to learn. That’s great. My point is that the speakers, who appear to be some kind of para-ministry, are not equipping their students to defend the Christian faith. I can guarantee that if the students’ rely on such flimsy justification their beliefs will fold like lawn chairs in a hurricane when faced with even the most basic objections. So, yeah, I get a little emotional because this is the kind of nonsense that I was fed repeated when I was a kid.

(October 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: My impression, is that it points out a foundational flaw for naturalists epistemology. Now i wouldn't claim that it is an argument in the traditional sense of premisis, and a conclution. But rather the way i would aproach it, is by pointing out naturalists don't have a justification for objectivity.

The problem is their “presupposition” that acceptance of special revelation, specifically the bible, is necessary to justify belief in 1) the efficacy of human reason and 2) the intelligibility of the reality. That’s completely backwards. Belief in the efficacy of reason and the intelligibility of the world are necessary to justify subsequent beliefs about not just biblical texts, but pretty much everything else.

(October 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Atheists can count, but can't account for their counting.

I agree that physical reductionists have no adequate solution to the problem of universals. That is a separate issue. And not all atheists are physical reductionists.

(October 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Do you feel it is a necessary precondition, and the exception to the rule? Do you deny objectivity, everything is subjective?

I believe that knowing subjects can hold justified true beliefs about objects that have independent existence. No one needs the bible to believe that.
Reply
#39
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
(October 18, 2016 at 12:37 pm)LastPoet Wrote: 1+1 = 10 apples.

IMO there are 3 kinds of people: those can count and those who can't.
Reply
#40
RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
"The problem is their “presupposition” that acceptance of special revelation, specifically the bible, is necessary to justify belief in 1) the efficacy of human reason and 2) the intelligibility of the reality. That’s completely backwards. Belief in the efficacy of reason and the intelligibility of the world are necessary to justify subsequent beliefs about not just biblical texts, but pretty much everything else."

Except you're wrong, the claim isn't that revelation(bible) is the source, the creator is the source. God created the universe with objective governing laws, and as a result we too are dictated under the same objective laws.

"I agree that physical reductionists have no adequate solution to the problem of universals. That is a separate issue. And not all atheists are physical reductionists."

Case and point. Any other objections?

You get a bunch of fools together and they start giving eachother compliments. Good going guys.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Christian Apologetics and Arguments are Futile MindForgedManacle 61 18623 November 4, 2013 at 6:23 am
Last Post: Optimistic Mysanthrope
  Anselm's argument examined. max-greece 6 1915 October 30, 2013 at 11:52 pm
Last Post: MindForgedManacle
  Theistic Argument Against Apologetics MindForgedManacle 6 2510 September 3, 2013 at 10:39 am
Last Post: Faith No More
  When do we cross the line from 'animal' to 'person?' TaraJo 131 43804 April 22, 2013 at 5:15 am
Last Post: Little Rik



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)