Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

When people assert bullshit and then use that assertion in the manner in which religious assertions have been used the most apathetic thing one could possibly do is to leave it unchallenged. That's how.

Everytime someone says "Faggots will burn in hell" someone should say "no they wont, that's bullshit, and your an ass", just as one example.

You could refute my argument by simply giving account for the preconditions of intelligibility using your worldview, why don’t you? Is it because you can’t?

I'm sorry, when did I say we get to modify or make up our own laws of logic as we see fit? Either I haven't been clear or you are trying to strawman me.

When I asked you to justify the laws of logic you said you didn’t have to because you use them because you like the results. This is a completely arbitrary answer. What is to stop someone from giving the exact same answer if they believed in a law of logic that stated “God necessarily exists”? Your answer would do nothing more than lead to complete relativism concerning the laws of logic.

I said I use logic, reason and science because I wish to, I like the results and I need provide you no other justification.

Why not? The principle of sufficient reason states you do.

I did NOT say we get to make up our own set of rules of logic like "circular reasoning is not fallacious" or "2+2=5".

Well technically circular reasoning is not fallacious (the conclusion does necessarily follow from the premises because it is a restatement of the premises), it just doesn’t progress the argument any. You didn’t say you can make up your own laws, but your justification would lead someone to believe they could as long as they liked the results.

You can, of course, think in such ways if you wish but I don't think you'll like the results (you'll often be wrong and be ridiculed by those who know better).

How do you know they would be wrong?

The question of which system of thinking is "more valid" logically is based on what is shown to work, both in predictive value and explanation of what is and has been. If I say "2+2=4" and you say "2+2=5", we can test both hypotheses and discover that mine has a more accurate predictive and explanatory value. An invisible sky daddy is neither necessary nor helpful to the process.

There is no such thing as “more valid”, something is either valid or it is not. How would you empirically prove 2+2=4? I am still not sure why you keep bringing up laws of mathematics when we are talking about laws of logic, but oh well.

You might as well say, "You can't account for why you eat, drink or breathe but I can because I say MyGodWillsIt"

I am starting to think you have missed the point of the last 42 pages. The point is that you have to presuppose certain things are true before you can know anything. There are about a half dozen of these things; they are called the preconditions of intelligibility. The Christian has complete justification in assuming these things are true because he believes in a sovereign and providential creator God. The unbeliever cannot justify these assumptions because they make no sense in a purely natural world. In a purely natural world there is no room for universal immaterial and transcendent entities such as laws of logic and mathematics because everything is material. So the Christian is asserting that we live in “World A”, and when you look at his worldview it is built on a foundation consistent with “World A”. The atheist or unbeliever is asserting that we live in “World Not A”, but when you look at the foundation of his worldview it is built on that of “World A”. So if he refuses to debate he loses, if he debates he loses because he has to use principles that can only be true if the very thing he is debating against is also true. It is proof through the impossibility of the contrary, it is completely valid, and completely sound.

Because by violating that contract, you are harming others and therefore it is not solely your business. If you wish to leave the social contract, go be a hermit in some wilderness and live without society. That is your choice.

Why can’t I still live in society and just not act in a manner consistent with the contract for my own personal gain? It worked pretty well for Stalin; he died one of the most powerful men on earth. (Just playing devil’s advocate, so don’t take this down some rabbit hole about me not knowing right from wrong).

No, people do these things because the Bible tells them to.

I was not aware that Stalin was a Bible believing Christian. Where does the Bible say to cheat and lie your way to the top? I am starting to think you haven’t read it.

In any event, the reason we are morally aghast at such things is because we are empathic creatures and wish to form functional communities, which are essential to our survival.

How do you know communities are essential to our survival? There are plenty of people out living completely on their own.

Invisible sky daddy is neither necessary nor helpful to elucidate our understanding of what morality is or why we are moral.

---

I never said anything about an invisible sky daddy, if you wish to have a discussion keep the question begging epithets to a minimum.

Because I can't seem to resist trying to school fucktards.

It’s too bad trying does not equal succeeding huh? By all means keep trying though, I admire persistence, even if it is futile.