RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2011 at 8:08 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(September 7, 2011 at 7:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Ryft has a better way of forming the argument than Statler. You should probably hold out for that. He's a bit more cautious. (though, in the end it's the same thing, just better presentation, gotta give credit where it's due)
That's funny you would think this, I think Ryft is far more condescending towards you than I am, although it is most likely deserved on your part.
(September 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: P1 If knowledge is possible, Havamal is necessarily true
P2 Knowledge is possible
C1 Therefore Havamal is necessarily true.
The above is a valid syllogism and I have demonstrated that both premises are in fact true; therefore the conclusion is also true. If you feel I have taken a misstep here please demonstrate how so or my argument stands un-refuted.
Nope, you have not demonstrated using Havamal how you can justify the preconditions of intelligibility like I have done with scripture. Nice try, but epic fail.
(September 7, 2011 at 4:31 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 1. If the Earth orbits the sun, I must necessarily have $1 million in the bank.
2. The Earth orbits the sun
3. Therefore, I have $1 million in the bank. Yea!
You have not demonstrated how this is a sound syllogism like I demonstrated with mine. Fail.
Quote: Would everyone please turn to page 1 of the Bible?
Now tell me if Yahweh created man before plants and animals or afterwords?
Not a logical contradiction here, in fact it kind of is a silly one for people to even bring up. God made vegetation on day three, animals on day six followed by Adam and then Eve.
(September 7, 2011 at 4:37 pm)frankiej Wrote: I just can't believe you said this. I had a genuine lol.
Your inability to even try and refute it is what made me laugh out loud. For pretending to be the “logical” and “rational” ones, everyday atheists sure suck at basic logic and rationality.
(September 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm)I_Blaspheme Wrote: Despite what you may think, you have not demonstrated P1 to be true. You haven't demonstrated P2 either, but I think we can take that one as axiomatic.
Actually I have, I demonstrated that not only can Christianity account for the preconditions of intelligibility, but it is the only proposed worldview that can do this. Nobody on here has even began to try and propose an atheistic model that could come close. If you believe there is one, please present it, but just asserting that they exist does not make it so.
(September 7, 2011 at 7:26 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: I've been following this argument, and I fail to see how this presuppositional apologetics doesn't eventually boil down to belief in the validity of the bible.
Well yes, it matters what you make your ultimate authority. Although the point is that even though the atheist does not make scripture his ultimate authority he has to borrow concepts from it in order to argue against it. I can claim that words do not exist, but if I am using words the whole time to argue against the existence of words it kind of undermines my position.
