Thoughts on next video...

[DeistPaladin]

Feedback and constructive criticism welcome...

After my last video on the prefailure of apologetic arguments...

Recap:

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
   
2. Religion makes extraordinary claims
   
3. Arguments without hard evidence, demonstrations or predictive capability = at best weak evidence
   
4. Apologists can only offer abstract philosophical arguments
   
5. Ergo: Apologetics pre-fails before the arguments are even evaluated
   

...I've had requests to do a video on presuppositional apologetics. I find this a daunting task, not because the argument is persuasive but rather I have no idea where to begin. It is so interwoven with so many overlapping logical fallacies, it's like untangling a wad of yarn. So I'm getting my thoughts straight here as to the best approach to the presentation.

Classical presuppositional apologetics (ala Van Til) is the stuff that YahwehIsTheWay would happily embrace (except that, unlike YITW, these people are serious). It is a rejection of "evidential apologetics" as it rejects the idea that Christians can reason with non-believers. The presupposition of the Christian faith is the only foundation by which anything can be known. Non-Christian ways of thinking are so alien that there is no neutral assumption by which a True Christian could relate to the non-believer.

At least, this is my understanding.

Current incarnations of this way of thinking, championed by internet apologists like Eric Hovind, (and closer to home, Elunico13, Statler-Waldorf and others) are being used to debate with atheists and other non-believers but still maintain that "God" (by which they mean Yahweh-Jesus, of course) and the assumptions about Christianity are the only way we can know anything, the only basis for morality and the only justification for rational thinking.

As Eric Hovind said in the video I've linked to:

"The proof of (Jesus) is that without (Jesus) you can't know anything and that's exactly what we've seen here, is we've seen somebody say, 'I could be wrong about everything'. They've given up knowledge in order to deny the god that they know exists."

So the logic seems to be:
1. Without "God" (read: Christian god Yawheh-Jesus) we can't know anything.
2. We know things.
3. Therefore, God exists.
4. (unspoken) and of course this god must be Yahweh-Jesus.

This seems to evoke the Transcendental Argument:

1. Without God, knowledge is not possible
2. Knowledge is possible
3. Therefore God exists.

Or the Moral Argument for God (as favored by W.L. Craig):

1. Without God, there is no objective morality.
2. Objective morals exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So this is a familiar pattern. Before I get into detail on all the fallacies, I want to be sure I understand the argument correctly. Any feedback so far?

[Mystic]

I'm curious DeistPaladin, why do you believe in God?

[DeistPaladin]

I'm curious DeistPaladin, why do you believe in God?

A sense of awe I have about the grand machine we call the universe, from the macro to the micro, as well as over the potential not just of the human mind but human civilization. A lot came together for us in our evolution and not just in terms of increased cranial capacity. The fact we walk upright, we have opposable thumbs, we lost our body fur so we could develop language, out sense of community, all came together for what we might one day achieve as a species.

None of this, I realize, decisively proves God. Maybe we just won the cosmic lottery. That, among other reasons, is why it's just a personal philosophy for me. Deism is for me a truce between my skeptical brain and my lofty sentiments, a way to be spiritual and yet remain firmly and safely grounded in the real, natural world.

[Mystic]

I'm curious DeistPaladin, why do you believe in God?

A sense of awe I have about the grand machine we call the universe, from the macro to the micro, as well as over the potential not just of the human mind but human civilization. A lot came together for us in our evolution and not just in terms of increased cranial capacity. The fact we walk upright, we have opposable thumbs, we lost our body fur so we could develop language, out sense of community, all came together for what we might one day achieve as a species.

None of this, I realize, decisively proves God. Maybe we just won the cosmic lottery. That, among other reasons, is why it's just a personal philosophy for me. Deism is for me a truce between my skeptical brain and my lofty sentiments, a way to be spiritual and yet remain firmly and safely grounded in the real, natural world.

Thanks for your perspective. Much appreciated.

[FallentoReason]

Hah! The kid had Mr. Hovind in the palm of his hand when he implicitly said that the argument falls apart because he can't know God to exist -- it's a piece of knowledge that is also in question like everything else Mr. Hovind says we can't know without God.

[Mystic]

Hah! The kid had Mr. Hovind in the palm of his hand when he implicitly said that the argument falls apart because he can't know God to exist -- it's a piece of knowledge that is also in question like everything else Mr. Hovind says we can't know without God.

The kid was smart.

"If I don't know everything, I can't know one thing?" lol poor kid is probably thinking Adults get really stupid when they grow up and he's right.

[FallentoReason]

Hah! The kid had Mr. Hovind in the palm of his hand when he implicitly said that the argument falls apart because he can't know God to exist -- it's a piece of knowledge that is also in question like everything else Mr. Hovind says we can't know without God.

The kid was smart.

"If I don't know everything, I can't know one thing?" lol poor kid is probably thinking Adults get really stupid when they grow up and he's right.

I feel like by the end of it, the kid might have felt like he got crushed, but only because Mr. Hovind avoided the issue the kid raised in knowing God exists. He had to start over his argument in order to avoid addressing it.

[DeistPaladin]

OK, so getting back to the future video, the application of this apologetic is the following strategy (famous example being the painful-to-watch video between Thunderfoot and Eric Hovind):

1. Get your opponent to admit they don't know everything.
2. Follow with but-I-can-say-God(verb)It.
3. Therefore Jesus.

The first part is easily accomplished. Nearly everyone will admit they don't know everything. Part of the scientific method is admitting what we don't know. The beginning of all wisdom is to admit what we don't know. "Empty your cup" and all. But this apologetic makes this strength into a supposed weakness. For example, in the video I linked to, Eric Hovind claimed the straw man that his opponent "had given up knowledge" based on the quote "I could be wrong about everything". It does not follow admitting ignorance is "giving up on knowledge"; in fact that's the first step. The attack is a straw man.

The second step is in anticipation of "well, you don't know everything either". We've seen how Elunico and Statler will then turn to GodVerbIt. This can be GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodDoesIt, GodIsIt, etc. It's the perfect filler yet doesn't help elucidate our understanding of anything.

The last part is the non sequitur conclusion.

Unraveling all the fallacies to follow...

[Mystic]

If you admit you can be wrong about everything, you admit you can be wrong that you aren't suppose to know God exists or Christianity is true via the holy spirit. This doesn't change the strength of the arguments you present, it just shows you lack confidence that your opponents are wrong.

It also shows you aren't sure whether they know the argument proving God is wrong or not.

While this technically doesn't strengthen their arguments, to the audience depending on their preference, it will sway them. The reason is that people rather follow someone that claims to be certain then in doubt.

This may have to do with something that happened along the lines in evolution.

[Tonus]

If you admit you can be wrong about everything, you admit you can be wrong that you aren't suppose to know God exists or Christianity is true via the holy spirit. This doesn't change the strength of the arguments you present, it just shows you lack confidence that your opponents are wrong.

I think that the idea is that if you can get the non-theist to admit that there are gaps, you can fill them with 'god.' If neither person knows, the theist can fill the gap, the non-theist can at best fill it with guesses, assumptions, theories, etc. If the theist starts from "do you know for certain that god isn't there?" he can fill that gap with god and from that point he's rolling right along with his god-grout-gun, filling gaps as fast as he can find them.