RE: Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined
October 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2016 at 12:28 pm by Soldat Du Christ.)
Alright so we are making some progress here, i'm seeing somewhat intelligible responses now. Remember i'm try to learn here so knock off all this emotional garbage.
My impression, is that it points out a foundational flaw for naturalists epistemology. Now i wouldn't claim that it is an argument in the traditional sense of premisis, and a conclution. But rather the way i would aproach it, is by pointing out naturalists don't have a justification for objectivity.
Athiests can count, but can't account for their counting.
So what's your claim here? Do you feel it is a neccecary precondition, and the exception to the rule? Do you deny objectivity, everything is subjective?
C'mon give me some reason.
My impression, is that it points out a foundational flaw for naturalists epistemology. Now i wouldn't claim that it is an argument in the traditional sense of premisis, and a conclution. But rather the way i would aproach it, is by pointing out naturalists don't have a justification for objectivity.
Athiests can count, but can't account for their counting.
So what's your claim here? Do you feel it is a neccecary precondition, and the exception to the rule? Do you deny objectivity, everything is subjective?
C'mon give me some reason.
