Presuppostitionalism works perfectly as an explanation. Substantialisation isn't it's goal, as that would be illogical.

(January 3, 2012 at 4:40 pm)theVOID Wrote: I hang out with electrical engineers, that doesn't make me good at designing PCBs.

But I bet you'd be better at it than someone who didn't hang out with them.

(January 5, 2012 at 10:17 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Presuppostitionalism works perfectly as an explanation. Substantialisation isn't it's goal, as that would be illogical.

An argument based on presupposition is NOT an explanation, it's a curiosity, if part of your reasoning for explaining phenomenon x involved the assumption that y but you never manage to verify that y then x is necessarily unexplained too.

As you also know Fr0d0, a presupposition makes an assumption about the world that has not been confirmed thus any presuppositionalist argument is ALWAYS a bare assertion, every presuppositionalist argument is a fallacy by it's very nature.

---

(January 5, 2012 at 12:57 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:

(January 3, 2012 at 4:40 pm)theVOID Wrote: I hang out with electrical engineers, that doesn't make me good at designing PCBs.

But I bet you'd be better at it than someone who didn't hang out with them.

Nope, I still wouldn't have a damn clue what I was doing

What can be said without thinking can be dismissed without thinking.

Do you want me to spell it out for you?

1. A logical argument with an assumed premise is unsound.
2. A logical argument that is unsound is fallacious.
3. All presuppositionalist arguments have assumed premises.

Therefore:

4. All presuppositionalist arguments are fallacious.

Yeah point one is where it fails.

(January 6, 2012 at 2:15 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yeah point one is where it fails.

No it doesn't.

A sound argument is one where all premises have been shown to be true and the logic valid - this means all arguments where the premises cannot be shown to be true (or are shown not to be true) are necessarily unsound.

(January 6, 2012 at 2:15 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yeah point one is where it fails.

I believe you're confusing validity with soundness. A sound argument must be valid and have true premises. As a result, a presuppositional argument can only be sound if it's premises can be demonstrated to be true. If the premises were demonstrably true, they wouldn't be found in a presuppositional argument.

In my view, this makes presuppositional arguments an exercise in mental masturbation and not a good tool for determining truth.

Checkmate.

(January 6, 2012 at 3:59 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: In my view, this makes presuppositional arguments an exercise in mental masturbation and not a good tool for determining truth.

Checkmate.

Indeed.

You're all confusing presuppositionalism with a conclusion. Like I said. Point 1 fails. Badly. An prime example of skewed logic.