RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 28, 2011 at 2:46 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2011 at 2:50 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: You claimed that because I couldn't disprove your assertion that the assertion must be true. That's appeal to ignorance.
Not quite, if I provide a valid syllogism for my argument, which I have, then the onus is on you to demonstrate how the premises are not true or else my argument stands un-refuted. If I had simply said “God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t”, then that would be an appeal to ignorance. Rather, I said that God exists because only His existence can justify the preconditions of intelligibility. Since you have been completely unable to justify the preconditions given your worldview my argument still stands. This is an internal critique of worldviews, not an external one.
Quote:You didn't back up your claim. I've already explained how you failed ad neuseum.See above.
Quote:I never said others should. You certainly don't.
Yes you did, by pointing out supposed logical fallacies in other arguments and attempting to have a discussion indicates you believe others should adhere to your own arbitrary views on logic which is completely irrational in itself. If the laws of logic are merely conventional, I could just as easily adopt my own and they would be just as logically valid as yours. So you say one thing but behave in a manner that indicates you really don’t believe what you claim you do.
Quote:Never said you did. Keep your beliefs the hell out of my life and out of the government and we'll get along just fine.
Why do I have to do that? Are you implying there are some laws of behavior that are not merely conventional and would actually apply to everyone? I have not seen you give account for such things, you seem to believe everyone gets to just pick their own truths.
Quote:Re read this thread for yourself.
Again you are being inconsistent. How could you possibly refute any argument if the laws of logic are merely conventional? I could just say I have adopted a law of logic that permits me to use an appeal to ignorance and you would be in no position to even say my argument was invalid.
(October 28, 2011 at 9:09 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Video clip to share that reminds me of Waldork claiming over and over again that he won:
I am just playing by your own rules, I adopted laws of logic that state that I am always the winner by definition. I like the results I get with these laws, so they are therefore valid. You are in no position to tell me otherwise since I am only playing by your own rules. I can see why you invented these rules, it makes debating way easier than actually having to adhere to universal immaterial transcendent laws of logic that apply to everyone equally.
