The Bible and its fallacies and contradictions

[Caecilian]

---

The only thing I can contribute as far as Arcanus' texts are that he tries very hard to obfuscate points by using frames of reference not usually utilized in regular dialogue. He doesn't outline his point outright, he just makes a case against the point he's writing about, whatever it may be - so far it has been epistemology, abortion, or any other thing that's on a Christian's agenda.

He's a true apologetic, more interested in falsifying the point of the other guy, or at least arguing until they give up, rather than establishing his own views.

I spoke with him on the "If science, why God" on skype, and we spent 2 hours going around in circles because of semantics and the fact that his presuppositionalist mindset did not allow him to assess the validity of the very thing he was assuming to be true, as he regarded that it would be unscientific in any case to do so and wouldn't comport with his other preconceptions of truth.

---

Well, Arcanus is a presuppositionalist (I think I've spelled that right), which means that he's more interested in arguing against metaphysical naturalism than for anything in particular. The presups think that by 'disproving' naturalism, they can somehow 'prove' the existence of god, which of course doesn't follow at all.

In common with other presups, he's fixated by C.S. Lewis' 'Argument from Reason' and its various mutations. Imo its a very weak argument, based on the fallacy of composition. Still, its apparently pretty popular in some theist circles. Talk about clutching at straws...