What's the best way to shut up a Presuppositionalist?

[Minimalist]

My supposition is that the bible is a pile of dogshit.

[Ryantology]

That moment where we all are just waiting for the first stooge to make a debut.

[Rampant.A.I.]

How do they argue for the first premise?

Generally- and I'm serious here- they go with "it says so in the bible."

That's why it's presuppositional: they presuppose the bible is true, and therefore everything it says in there is a problem for everyone else... so deal with it.

It's a combination of that and some sort of BS about Christianity being "the only tradition that supports logic, reason and ethics."

I've seen and heard cursorily "coherent" arguments, but have trouble paraphrasing them because, frankly, it turns my stomach, and circular reasoning should be dismissed out of hand. But that can appear to "reinforce" their argument, and they'll claim it does.

There's a good summary given by the Reasonable Doubts podcast here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledo...cs-part-2/

[Esquilax]

It's a combination of that and some sort of BS about Christianity being "the only tradition that supports logic, reason and ethics."

And the really troubling thing is, where do they get their notions of the latter point? From the former.

It's the same crap we get when we get told that the fool hath said in his heart there is no god, it's just bolstered by this bizarre insistence that the presup gets to take total control of the conversation, and if you can't immediately rebut their three or four bald assertions from the bible, then you no longer have anything else to say.

I'm most familiar with Sye Ten Bruggencate's "debate" style, so I'm not really sure if there's any legitimate humans that attempt this argument, but his entire schtick is nothing more than bullying and interrupting wrapped around a couple bible quotes and an unjust sense of smugness.

[RobbyPants]

Instead of advancing arguments for the existence of God, the Presuppositionalist simply assumes it as granted. They assume, therefore, that atheists must assume God does not exist in order to formulate arguments, and reject any argument that does not presuppose <God Exists> as invalid.

If they do this, come up with something even more absurd and stick to it.

Tell them that YHWH isn't even that great of a god, and certainly not a perfect one. State that all gods are under the dominion of the over-deity, Steve. All things proceed from Steve, and everything is evidence of His glory.

Use the TAG argument as evidence that Steve exists. Any arguments the presuppositionalist uses can be turned toward Steve. Any time they assert that YHWH is the one, true god, sadly shake your head and ask them why they are denying Steve when they know he's correct.

[Tonus]

Instead of advancing arguments for the existence of God, the Presuppositionalist simply assumes it as granted. They assume, therefore, that atheists must assume God does not exist in order to formulate arguments, and reject any argument that does not presuppose <God Exists> as invalid.

If I am understanding correctly, the PA is claiming that simply having the discussion is proof of god, and therefore you prove god exists by making any argument at all. So the obvious retort is... none at all. This works on any number of levels, the most important being that you waste as little time with him as possible and can get on to more productive endeavors, such as... just about anything else.

[The Valkyrie]

A high velocity lobotomy.

[Mister Agenda]

Presuppositionalism is to logic what beating yourself to death with your own legs is to running. It's diving down a hole and pulling the hole in after you, using a tool that can only dig down and never up. Let such people go, there's nothing you can do for them. Maybe they can escape, but they can't be rescued.

[Coffee Jesus]

How do they argue for the first premise?

Generally- and I'm serious here- they go with "it says so in the bible."

That's why it's presuppositional: they presuppose the bible is true, and therefore everything it says in there is a problem for everyone else... so deal with it.

That's easy. Their premise, which they use to exclude all other possible foundations, assumes that their foundation is correct.
The argument is essentially: My foundation is correct, therefore my foundation must be correct.

What verses do they use to support their premise?

I read about the Clarkian presuppositionalists, who will argue that no other worldview is totally coherent. Don't forget that their worldview comes from a book, so it's only fair that you can choose a book as the foundation of your worldview. Choose a science textbook. That ought to be coherent.

[Angrboda]

Tell them you're already saved. If they protest that you're an unbeliever, tell them there are no such things.