Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

TAG is an umbrella term for a whole host of arguments that rely on defining any given thing as "transcendent", and then supplying god as their creator (or redefining god as the transcendent thing itself, or part of it etc etc etc). Could be numbers, logic, morality, anything that one dreams up. No rules really.

You're standing by one of the sickest things I can possibly imagine btw, vicarious redemption, or salvation, or whatever pretty word you use for scapegoating.

[Statler Waldorf]

TAG is an umbrella term for a whole host of arguments that rely on defining any given thing as "transcendent", and then supplying god as their creator (or redefining god as the transcendent thing itself, or part of it etc etc etc). Could be numbers, logic, morality, anything that one dreams up. No rules really.

Actually the transcendental form of reasoning was first developed by Kant, it does not necessarily deal with God, it’s a valid form of argumentation that deals with what makes reality comprehendible and discernable.

You're standing by one of the sickest things I can possibly imagine btw, vicarious redemption, or salvation, or whatever pretty word you use for scapegoating.

Please demonstrate given your atheistic worldview how you can deem anything as “sick” and not have it just be your own arbitrary opinion. Thanks.

[The Grand Nudger]

"You cannot account for" wha wha wha, every thread. Make your own case.

[Statler Waldorf]

Make your own case.

I already did. I can account for what I assume to be true, you cannot. My worldview stands on its own merits; your worldview has to assume mine is true in order to stand at all. Your complete inability to account for any of the preconditions of intelligibility without borrowing from my worldview (a great example is why adultery is wrong if the person is never caught) is an excellent demonstration of my argument. The fact you seem incapable or unwilling to accept the validity of such a clear form of argumentation is irrelevant. You can assert that you are still in this fight all you want, but the truth of the matter is that you started the fight down for the count as soon as you stepped into the ring.

[Captain Scarlet]

Make your own case.

I already did. I can account for what I assume to be true, you cannot. My worldview stands on its own merits; your worldview has to assume mine is true in order to stand at all. Your complete inability to account for any of the preconditions of intelligibility without borrowing from my worldview (a great example is why adultery is wrong if the person is never caught) is an excellent demonstration of my argument. The fact you seem incapable or unwilling to accept the validity of such a clear form of argumentation is irrelevant. You can assert that you are still in this fight all you want, but the truth of the matter is that you started the fight down for the count as soon as you stepped into the ring.

As it's such a great example can you tell me if adultery is always wrong (whether the person is caught/admits to it or not)? Then tell me why.

[Statler Waldorf]

As it's such a great example can you tell me if adultery is always wrong (whether the person is caught/admits to it or not)? Then tell me why.

Yes, because we live in the New Covenant and adultery is a violation of God’s moral law under the New Covenant. Since God knows all that we think and do, it is a violation of His law regardless as to whether other men discover the act or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your god's authority derives from exactly what in these matters? You're telling us that god doesn't like it, not why it's "wrong".

[Statler Waldorf]

Your god's authority derives from exactly what in these matters? You're telling us that god doesn't like it, not why it's "wrong".

It's wrong because it breaks His law, that's the defintion of what is right and wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

And again, you're substituting your beliefs for the definition of "right" and "wrong". I'll say this again, you've told us that god doesn't like it, not why it is "wrong". If this were actually the definition of right and wrong then the two concepts are arbitrary, whatever god decided to be right would have been right, including adultery. That's subjective moral authority, not objective moral authority. Why should I accept his ideas of subjective moral authority as ultimate or final instead of the Nazis, who you so recently invoked?

[Captain Scarlet]

Yes, because we live in the New Covenant and adultery is a violation of God’s moral law under the New Covenant. Since God knows all that we think and do, it is a violation of His law regardless as to whether other men discover the act or not.

The very definition of subjectivity. Before you interject about how fookin brilliant and perfect the invisible one is; why did he place coveting your neighbors ass (presumably their equine rather than their botty), a more pressing moral issue than slavery? Apparently your absolute authority (knowing everything for all time of course) deemed this so important he authored that bit personally in stone and left slavery unmentioned. On a naturalistic basis I hate to question the perfect one, but as one of his earthly spokesman, perhaps you can enlighten me?