Pre-Suppositional Christian Apologetics

[SpecUVdust]

Hi everybody. It's been quite a while since I visited so I'm glad to be back.

I've been interested for a while now in the pre-sup attempt made by Christians. Interested in destroying it. If not careful, and if new to this form of apologetics, one could get caught stumbling on how to respond to it. If you don't believe me, just watch "debates" involving it if you have time. SaeTen(Satan) Bruggencate is the worst... So watch his. I'm not by any means saying he wins, but when his opponents have never heard the argument before, they stumble. I really urge people to watch a few his debates but here is a shortened version of his pre-supp BS:
http://youtu.be/U8q0hxqdq8A

So I have some rebuttals that I hope can help some people and be expounded on by all. So tell me what you think ?. Christians welcome as well ?. I'll keep these brief.
⚫️It's incredibly circular and not demonstrable in any way. That's obviously enough for some people to say it is retarded.
⚫️When asked if you could be wrong about everything you know, do not say yes. The correct answer is no. I know I exist, I know there can't be a spherical triangle, no married bachelor, etc. These are truths, they are facts, and since I exist, I KNOW them.

⚫️Now we use their exact tactics against them:
?God does not exist (therefore)
?God is not required to have knowledge (therefore)
?I CAN have knowledge (therefore)
?I DO have knowledge (therefore)
?I know God does not exist
⚫️?I'll end this by saying it's interesting that pre suppositional Christian apologetics seems to take faith from believers by saying God is a fact. Hmmm "Satan Bruggencate" much!? ?

[robvalue]

Nice to meet you

I'm very familiar with this style. I consider it a sign of the sheer desperation of apologetics.

Retreating into solipsism, treating your opponent's intellectual honesty as a weakness and playing dumb word games is a sure sign that you've got nothing left of substance.

And always they argue for a purely deistic God and never bother explaining how this abstract, hands-off creator suddenly becomes their favourite cartoon character God. Actual deists are not normally so obsessed with trying to convince people.

[jenny1972]

oh a debate about the existence of God this should be interesting lol

Now we use their exact tactics against them:
God does not exist (therefore)
God is not required to have knowledge (therefore)
I CAN have knowledge (therefore)
I DO have knowledge (therefore)
I know God does not exist
️I'll end this by saying it's interesting that pre suppositional Christian apologetics seems to take faith from believers by saying God is a fact. Hmmm "Satan Bruggencate" much!? ?

lol as if - modern apologetics is more defensive at this point thats organized logical apologetics by something thats not in desperate panic mode

[SpecUVdust]

Nice to meet you

I'm very familiar with this style. I consider it a sign of the sheer desperation of apologetics.

Retreating into solipsism, treating your opponent's intellectual honesty as a weakness and playing dumb word games is a sure sign that you've got nothing left of substance.

And always they argue for a purely deistic God and never bother explaining how this abstract, hands-off creator suddenly becomes their favourite cartoon character God. Actual deists are not normally so obsessed with trying to convince people.

Exactly. Just where does their God fit in lol?? Does he manifest in reality? Such as answering prayers or whatever? If yes then by definition he must be demonstrable. So then...demonstrate. If no, then their God is completely indistinguishable from something that does not exist.

[robvalue]

Yup. I keep asking our theists how I can distinguish God from nothing at all, and I get word salad™. I get easily explained psychology such as confirmation bias and placebo. I get nothing of substance.

They can't even define God in a way that can be distinguished from nothing. That's why I'm ignostic. I still have no fucking clue what they are talking about. I suspect they are thinking "old man on cloud" but have to run that through the salad filter because it no longer flies to describe it that way.

The only meaningful characteristic I can use to link all the bullshit together is that it is a creator. Which would make it of no particular significance in its own reality.

[SpecUVdust]

And I also agree with it being sheer desperation. That's partly why it interests me. It's like watching the death of a black hole. If there is such a sight, twould surely be magnificent.

[robvalue]

Haha, yeah. It is almost painful to watch. It can seem impressive at first, especially to those not well versed in logic. But once you see through it, you see grown men frothing at the mouth trying to make out that anything less than absolute certainty means knowing absolutely nothing; and that they somehow have the magic key out of this conundrum.

Apologetics is for making theists feel better, it's not about convincing atheists. All this shit is rationalisations, not the real reason for belief.

[jenny1972]

Nice to meet you

I'm very familiar with this style. I consider it a sign of the sheer desperation of apologetics.

Retreating into solipsism, treating your opponent's intellectual honesty as a weakness and playing dumb word games is a sure sign that you've got nothing left of substance.

And always they argue for a purely deistic God and never bother explaining how this abstract, hands-off creator suddenly becomes their favourite cartoon character God. Actual deists are not normally so obsessed with trying to convince people.

Exactly. Just where does their God fit in lol?? Does he manifest in reality? Such as answering prayers or whatever? If yes then by definition he must be demonstrable. So then...demonstrate. If no, then their God is completely indistinguishable from something that does not exist.

only God can convince anyone or provide proof so debating the existence of God is completely useless it cannot convince anyone of anything i understand what your saying though about wanting proof its not my fault i cant give you any proof of Gods existence . how would someone demonstrate God ?

[SpecUVdust]

I'm sorry but no. That which manifests in reality IS demonstrable. If it manifests in reality then it affects reality and CAN be demonstrated. Period.Please give me one example of something that manifests in reality that is not demonstrable.

[jenny1972]

something that is manifesting in the mind is not demonstratable through modern technology physical manifestations can be demonstrated if its not physical it cannot be demonstrated