Feedback and constructive criticism welcome...
After my last video on the prefailure of apologetic arguments...
Recap:
...I've had requests to do a video on presuppositional apologetics. I find this a daunting task, not because the argument is persuasive but rather I have no idea where to begin. It is so interwoven with so many overlapping logical fallacies, it's like untangling a wad of yarn. So I'm getting my thoughts straight here as to the best approach to the presentation.
Classical presuppositional apologetics (ala Van Til) is the stuff that YahwehIsTheWay would happily embrace (except that, unlike YITW, these people are serious). It is a rejection of "evidential apologetics" as it rejects the idea that Christians can reason with non-believers. The presupposition of the Christian faith is the only foundation by which anything can be known. Non-Christian ways of thinking are so alien that there is no neutral assumption by which a True Christian could relate to the non-believer.
At least, this is my understanding.
Current incarnations of this way of thinking, championed by internet apologists like Eric Hovind, (and closer to home, Elunico13, Statler-Waldorf and others) are being used to debate with atheists and other non-believers but still maintain that "God" (by which they mean Yahweh-Jesus, of course) and the assumptions about Christianity are the only way we can know anything, the only basis for morality and the only justification for rational thinking.
As Eric Hovind said in the video I've linked to:
So the logic seems to be:
1. Without "God" (read: Christian god Yawheh-Jesus) we can't know anything.
2. We know things.
3. Therefore, God exists.
4. (unspoken) and of course this god must be Yahweh-Jesus.
This seems to evoke the Transcendental Argument:
1. Without God, knowledge is not possible
2. Knowledge is possible
3. Therefore God exists.
Or the Moral Argument for God (as favored by W.L. Craig):
1. Without God, there is no objective morality.
2. Objective morals exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
So this is a familiar pattern. Before I get into detail on all the fallacies, I want to be sure I understand the argument correctly. Any feedback so far?
After my last video on the prefailure of apologetic arguments...
Recap:
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
- Religion makes extraordinary claims
- Arguments without hard evidence, demonstrations or predictive capability = at best weak evidence
- Apologists can only offer abstract philosophical arguments
- Ergo: Apologetics pre-fails before the arguments are even evaluated
...I've had requests to do a video on presuppositional apologetics. I find this a daunting task, not because the argument is persuasive but rather I have no idea where to begin. It is so interwoven with so many overlapping logical fallacies, it's like untangling a wad of yarn. So I'm getting my thoughts straight here as to the best approach to the presentation.
Classical presuppositional apologetics (ala Van Til) is the stuff that YahwehIsTheWay would happily embrace (except that, unlike YITW, these people are serious). It is a rejection of "evidential apologetics" as it rejects the idea that Christians can reason with non-believers. The presupposition of the Christian faith is the only foundation by which anything can be known. Non-Christian ways of thinking are so alien that there is no neutral assumption by which a True Christian could relate to the non-believer.
At least, this is my understanding.
Current incarnations of this way of thinking, championed by internet apologists like Eric Hovind, (and closer to home, Elunico13, Statler-Waldorf and others) are being used to debate with atheists and other non-believers but still maintain that "God" (by which they mean Yahweh-Jesus, of course) and the assumptions about Christianity are the only way we can know anything, the only basis for morality and the only justification for rational thinking.
As Eric Hovind said in the video I've linked to:
Quote:"The proof of (Jesus) is that without (Jesus) you can't know anything and that's exactly what we've seen here, is we've seen somebody say, 'I could be wrong about everything'. They've given up knowledge in order to deny the god that they know exists."
So the logic seems to be:
1. Without "God" (read: Christian god Yawheh-Jesus) we can't know anything.
2. We know things.
3. Therefore, God exists.
4. (unspoken) and of course this god must be Yahweh-Jesus.
This seems to evoke the Transcendental Argument:
1. Without God, knowledge is not possible
2. Knowledge is possible
3. Therefore God exists.
Or the Moral Argument for God (as favored by W.L. Craig):
1. Without God, there is no objective morality.
2. Objective morals exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
So this is a familiar pattern. Before I get into detail on all the fallacies, I want to be sure I understand the argument correctly. Any feedback so far?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
