Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Faith No More]

These things can all be and only be justified by God’s revealed word.

This only works if one presupposes the Christian god is necessary, which only works if one presupposes the bible to be true, which only works if one presupposes the Christian god is necessary, which only works if...well, you get the picture.

[Statler Waldorf]

Actually, we agnostic atheists say we don't know if it is an even or an odd number so we choose not to speculate, but we do know that it can't be a specific value of '4' as the Christians claim. By saying one should choose which theism is right, you presuppose that a god is necessary, which we atheists are unwilling to do. The stance of the agnostic atheist is that no presuppositions on the existence of god should be made, therefore specific gods can only be judged on their nature, which is why we dismiss the Christian god.

Welcome back.

I know that agnostic atheists say these things but they do not live like it, that's the whole point of this form of apologetics. The agnostic atheist may say that he knows the answer is not "4" but he then turns around and lives his life like it is "4". So agnostic atheists use certain assumptions that can only be justified in the Christian worldview. For instance, I assume you discount the Christian God because you disagree with His morality. However, in an atheistic world there would be no basis for having a transcendental morality to even judge God by. Van Til makes this point, he says that atheists are like the girl sitting on her father's lap slapping him in the face, the only reason she is able to even do that is because she is sitting on his lap. The only reason atheists can even argue against the existence of the Christian God is because they live in a universe created by Him.

Thanks, I was up at camp teaching high schoolers how to run fast
:-P

[Statler Waldorf]

These things can all be and only be justified by God’s revealed word.

This only works if one presupposes the Christian god is necessary, which only works if one presupposes the bible to be true, which only works if one presupposes the Christian god is necessary, which only works if...well, you get the picture.

I do not believe it is justified that way, it's justified by the impossibility of the contrary. People who hold the opposite view cannot justify their own presuppositions; this violates the principle of sufficient reason. So the atheist is able to appeal to logic, but he cannot give an account for doing so.

[Faith No More]

---

I know that agnostic atheists say these things but they do not live like it, that's the whole point of this form of apologetics. The agnostic atheist may say that he knows the answer is not "4" but he then turns around and lives his life like it is "4". So agnostic atheists use certain assumptions that can only be justified in the Christian worldview. For instance, I assume you discount the Christian God because you disagree with His morality. However, in an atheistic world there would be no basis for having a transcendental morality to even judge God by. Van Til makes this point, he says that atheists are like the girl sitting on her father's lap slapping him in the face, the only reason she is able to even do that is because she is sitting on his lap. The only reason atheists can even argue against the existence of the Christian God is because they live in a universe created by Him.

---

The only reason you can argue against Allah, is because you are in a universe created by him. Do you see the problem now?

Also I don't know what you mean by we know the answer isn't 4, but we live like it is anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

And the evidence of the impossibility of the contrary is based on what? Oh, that's right, presupposistion of the impossibility of the contrary.

[Statler Waldorf]

He's making a buddhist argument Stat, they have morality too. A christian whining about plagiarism is fucking rich.

However Buddhism cannot provide justification for the uniformity in nature and reliability of one's senses, so in a Buddhist world knowledge would not be possible either. So it can't be that one, check it off the list

---

And the evidence of the impossibility of the contrary is based on what? Oh, that's right, presupposistion of the impossibility of the contrary.

No, it's the fact that you cannot give a reason for the way you live given your worldview, which violates the principle of sufficient reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

We already know you think that buddhists are wrong Statler, but you haven't provided any evidence against any religion that doesn't implicate your own. Actually, you haven't provided any evidence of anything, at all.

[Faith No More]

I do not believe it is justified that way, it's justified by the impossibility of the contrary. People who hold the opposite view cannot justify their own presuppositions; this violates the principle of sufficient reason. So the atheist is able to appeal to logic, but he cannot give an account for doing so.

Which could be used as an argument for any god, so to use this as an argument for the Christian God is dubious and taking a leap in logic that is unjustified.

[DeistPaladin]

I don’t believe I have conversed with you on here before, nice to meet you.

Thank you. You as well.

You see though, right here you have borrowed from the Christian worldview, you made an appeal that people should be rational.

I don't believe I did use the word "should" but letting that go for a moment, do I understand you correctly when you say that making statements of "should" borrow from the Christian worldview? How exactly is the word "should" a Christian word or indicative of Christian thinking?

1. When you use the word “should” you are making a moral statememnt, where do you get your authority to make a statement telling everyone what they should and should not do?

Morality and our evaluations of it are rooted in our sense of empathy for one another as social animals. We build communities and depend on each other for survival. We therefore have, as a matter of evolutionary necessity, formed a social contract with each other. The exact fine print of each contract will vary somewhat between cultures but basic concepts like prohibitions of murder, theft, and other activities detrimental to a functioning civilization, are found uniformly.

This is why the ancient Hebrews weren't killing each other willy nilly prior to Moses' alleged presentation of the ten commandments. It's also why other cultures that follow other religions seem to understand that high rates of murder are not desirable.

2. There is no way to justify rationality (logic) in an atheistic universe, where did it come from? Why should we adhere to it?

Why do we need to justify the use of logic? To whom must we justify its use? Why do we need to determine where it comes from?

As for the "should" question, we choose to because it produces results. We wish to live in a rational society because we prefer the setting to one dominated by superstition.

I'm using bold emphasis to underscore that the preference for science and reason is a value judgment and matter of taste based on the results we see. If you wish to live in a society governed by superstition, this is your choice and there are places in the world that might suit you.

See above though for how you have borrowed from the Christian worldview in this very post.

I still don't grasp how you claim Christianity has ownership of deontological views of ethics and morality. Maybe you can elaborate further?

A deist would still have trouble justifying morality, logic, the uniformity of nature,

I've offered the naturalist justification above but even using "GodWillsIt", what makes Yahweh-Jesus superior to Nature's God?

and the reliability of one’s senses and memory,

Are we invoking solipsism here? I assume my senses and memory are accurate barring evidence to the contrary. Everyone else who is capable of functioning in the real world does so as well.

so I do not believe he/she can use presuppositionalism to defend their position.

I'm less concerned about what you believe as what you can rationally argue. I haven't seen any argument as to why I couldn't use presuppositionalism and apply it to Nature's God.

These things can all be and only be justified by God’s revealed word.

What if the only revealed word is the Natural Universe?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

[hide]
I know that agnostic atheists say these things but they do not live like it, that's the whole point of this form of apologetics. The agnostic atheist may say that he knows the answer is not "4" but he then turns around and lives his life like it is "4". So agnostic atheists use certain assumptions that can only be justified in the Christian worldview. For instance, I assume you discount the Christian God because you disagree with His morality. However, in an atheistic world there would be no basis for having a transcendental morality to even judge God by. Van Til makes this point, he says that atheists are like the girl sitting on her father's lap slapping him in the face, the only reason she is able to even do that is because she is sitting on his lap. The only reason atheists can even argue against the existence of the Christian God is because they live in a universe created by Him.

---

The only reason you can argue against Allah, is because you are in a universe created by him. Do you see the problem now?

Also I don't know what you mean by we know the answer isn't 4, but we live like it is anyway.
[/hide]
This method cannot be used to support Allah because the Quran does not provide a basis for the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, scripture does however. That is why this can be used even in arguing with Muslims. It's not like you have to just make that statement and stop there, it's a whole discipline of stepping through and showing the person exactly why they live in a world created by the Christian God who revealed Himself in scripture. That's why I don't like Wikipedia, it never really gets things right.

I was just trying to stick with our math analogy, it didn't work so well.
:-)