Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

I choose rationality

...claims the man who believes in talking snakes, redemptive blood sacrifice and a god who is three distinct persons yet one being.

[Statler Waldorf]

...claims the man who believes in talking snakes, redemptive blood sacrifice and a god who is three distinct persons yet one being.

You seem to understand what rationality is about as well as you do the word contradiction. My views are rational because I reason consistently from my ultimate axiom to my conclusions. I can justify my presuppositions with my ultimate axiom. I am consistent with how I discern truth. On the other hand, your presuppositions are not consistent with your ultimate axiom, you cannot even justify many of them which violates the principle of sufficient reason. You borrow from other worldviews whenever you cannot reconcile your beliefs with your own worldview. You are in fact a very irrational person.

On a side note, I do not believe in three persons that are one being, I believe in three persons that are one in essence. I do not believe in a talking snake, I believe that Satan took the form of a serpent when he spoke to Eve. Christ’s atonement makes perfect sense given God’s gracious and yet wholly just character. You merely asserting these beliefs are irrational of course does not make them so. You would have to demonstrate how they are either inconsistent with my presuppositions and/or worldview, or violate a logical principle. Considering that some of the greatest logicians of all time were Christians, I highly doubt you will have much luck.

[DeistPaladin]

My views are rational because I reason consistently from my ultimate axiom to my conclusions.

Have you seen this question?

You see, I doubt very seriously that you were unable to function until someone told you "JesusWillsIt" and then suddenly everything made sense and all things flow from the simple axiom. I think it's more likely you were a Christian long before you heard the TAG argument.

On a side note, I do not believe in three persons that are one being, I believe in three persons that are one in essence.

Oh, well then.

Christ’s atonement makes perfect sense given God’s gracious and yet wholly just character.

Which explains how blood sacrifice makes everything better how...?

Considering that some of the greatest logicians of all time were Christians, I highly doubt you will have much luck.

Topping off the post with an appeal to authority. Bravo.

[Statler Waldorf]

Have you seen this question?

You see, I doubt very seriously that you were unable to function until someone told you "JesusWillsIt" and then suddenly everything made sense and all things flow from the simple axiom. I think it's more likely you were a Christian long before you heard the TAG argument.

Where did I say all Christians were automatically rational? I had some holes in my reasoning before I studied up on presuppositionalism. However, it helped me learn how to be a rational thinker and how to reason downward from my ultimate axiom. It also helped me come to the realization that unbelievers are even worse off than I was before I studied up. They have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it and by doing so they prove the validity of the Christian worldview. I’ll be honest, I was a bit skeptical when I first heard the TAG, I figured there had to be an unbeliever out there somewhere who could account for the laws of logic, morality, the uniformity of nature, etc. I am no longer a skeptic though, I have not run into one who can even come close, you have helped me out on that one, so I thank you for that.

Which explains how blood sacrifice makes everything better how...?

The only person who could justly substitute for a totally guilty person is a wholly innocent person. Since none exist, it makes complete sense for God to send His son to do the work on our part. I can’t think of a more perfect display of grace, love, and justice.

Topping off the post with an appeal to authority. Bravo.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is not qualified in the topic of discussion, since the topic at hand is rationality and logic, os of course appealing to logicians is not a fallacious appeal to authority. Today’s lesson in logic has been brought to you by the number 3, and the letter L.

[frankiej]

The only person who could justly substitute for a totally guilty person is a wholly innocent person. Since none exist, it makes complete sense for God to send His son to do the work on our part. I can’t think of a more perfect display of grace, love, and justice.

So, would you say that a new born is wholly innocent person? Makes no sense to say that it isn't...

[Statler Waldorf]

So, would you say that a new born is wholly innocent person? Makes no sense to say that it isn't...

No, newborns are not completely innocent; because of Adam’s fall they inherit a fallen sinful nature.

[frankiej]

I couldn't believe in such a fucked up religion... You would condemn someone for someone else's mistake. Makes me want to puke in your face.

[5thHorseman]

someone, who knows nothing inherits sin, without doing anything. How sick.

[Statler Waldorf]

Take it up with Adam, not God; you are essentially getting mad at the judge for the actions of the criminal. Furthermore, how do you know all newborns stay condemned? I think it is consistent with God's character to grant all newborns that die saving grace. Although if He chose not to He would be just in doing so because when a representative (Adam) acts he acts on the behalf of those he represents (mankind).

someone, who knows nothing inherits sin, without doing anything. How sick.

Oh stop it. This is just silly coming from someone who can’t believe a newborn is anything more significant than a blob of tissue in motion. Don’t forget that it is the Christian, not the atheist, who believes all humans are made in the image of God and worthy of dignity and love.

[DeistPaladin]

Where did I say all Christians were automatically rational?

I never said you did.

I had some holes in my reasoning before I studied up on presuppositionalism. However, it helped me learn how to be a rational thinker and how to reason downward from my ultimate axiom.

I find it more likely that you heard about presuppositionalism and found it a handy rationalization to believe the things that you already believed. If I'm wrong, you can feel free to go into greater detail.

It also helped me come to the realization that unbelievers are even worse off than I was before I studied up. They have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it and by doing so they prove the validity of the Christian worldview.

I still can't find Jesus' copyright notice on reason or morality.

I’ll be honest, I was a bit skeptical when I first heard the TAG, I figured there had to be an unbeliever out there somewhere who could account for the laws of logic, morality, the uniformity of nature, etc.

Hello.

The only person who could justly substitute for a totally guilty person is a wholly innocent person.

Moral justice can't allow for the innocent to take the place of the guilty in punishment, even if the innocent were willing.

For a religion that claims the copyright on morality, it sure is morally bankrupt on even the simplest issues.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is not qualified in the topic of discussion,

The fact that a brilliant person is a Christian lends no credibility to the Christian case, especially in ancient times when we didn't know much about how the universe really works and people were burned at the stake for openly rejecting Jesus. That is appeal to authority.