Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined

[Neo-Scholastic]

Except you're wrong, the claim isn't that revelation(bible) is the source, the creator is the source. God created the universe with objective governing laws, and as a result we too are dictated under the same objective laws.

As the conclusion of a logical demonstration I agree that the rational order of the world is contingent on a rational Creator god. What I object to is saying that the existence of a rational Creator can serve as a valid premise with which to start a logical demonstration. That is the difference between classical apologetics (like the 5 Ways or the Kalam) and a presuppositionalist one.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Except you're wrong, the claim isn't that revelation(bible) is the source, the creator is the source. God created the universe with objective governing laws, and as a result we too are dictated under the same objective laws.

As the conclusion of a logical demonstration I agree that the rational order of the world is contingent on a rational Creator god. What I object to is saying that the existence of a rational Creator can serve as a valid premise with which to start a logical demonstration. That is the difference between classical apologetics (like the 5 Ways or the Kalam) and a presuppositionalist one.

Hmmmm... Okay progress...

So the way i understand it, if the premisis are true than the conclution must be true. And what seems to be the issue with this aproach is that we cannot empericaly prove the existence god. Leaving both presupositions at a loss.

However, this is negating the supporting evidence for the premise. If there is reason to believe in the premise of a creator, it is AT LEAST more reasonable than justifying the brain with the brain.

And as it turns out, the athiest have dug themselves into a hole by dissmissing all evidence in support of a creator...

Amazing, it's all clicking together now.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I have found that all so-called refutations of the Aquinas's 5 Ways rely on negating either the efficacy of reason or the intelligibility of the world. (Kant and Hume, respectively) As such I say that atheism is self-defeating despite its pretence of having a monopoly on reason.

Sorry for being a bit hard on you at first. I cannot tell you how many new-to-apologetics Christians join AF hoping to debate but lacking any deep knowledge of theology. If you're curious about my take on the 5 Ways go to the debate area and you'll see my formal debate with some dude called Metis. (I had to change my username today to be more anonymous)

[Soldat Du Christ]

I have found that all so-called refutations of the Aquinas's 5 Ways rely on negating either the efficacy of reason or the intelligibility of the world. (Kant and Hume, respectively) As such I say that atheism is self-defeating despite its pretence of having a monopoly on reason.

Sorry for being a bit hard on you at first. I cannot tell you how many new-to-apologetics Christians join AF hoping to debate but lacking any deep knowledge of theology. If you're curious about my take on the 5 Ways go to the debate area and you'll see my formal debate with some dude called Metis. (I had to change my username today to be more anonymous)

I'll be sure to check that out. Now are you going to refute what i said?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Refute what? Maybe, like I said earlier, the thinking behind presuppositionalism is so foreign to me that I cannot see the point being made.

[The Grand Nudger]

You haven't found that so much as imagined it, Neo, lol.

[bennyboy]

I trust that the intillectual individuals can see through these emotional responses, you guys are the ones i want to accept the challenge.

Also, no made up superstition can be put on the same level as the Jesus and the bible (or any other major religion for that matter), as far evidence and probability goes. So that answer won't fly, sorry.

What's that, now?

You have a horribly skewed view of the world of ideas. Here's how it goes.

People: *live their lives happily, making babies, eating food, and dying*
You: Jesus is real, not like those other made-up BS superstitions
People: Okay. . . demonstrate that this is true.

The thing is, anyone who's not Christian probably doesn't care enough about the God idea even to consider it much. The aren't so much presuppositionists as don't-give-a-shit-ists. It's your burden to show your ideas represent truth, and that we should care whether they represent truth.

[Mister Agenda]

Alright so we are making some progress here, i'm seeing somewhat intelligible responses now. Remember i'm try to learn here so knock off all this emotional garbage.

My impression, is that it points out a foundational flaw for naturalists epistemology. Now i wouldn't claim that it is an argument in the traditional sense of premisis, and a conclution. But rather the way i would aproach it, is by pointing out naturalists don't have a justification for objectivity.

Athiests can count, but can't account for their counting.

So what's your claim here? Do you feel it is a neccecary precondition, and the exception to the rule? Do you deny objectivity, everything is subjective?

C'mon give me some reason.

'God did it' doesn't account for anything, it's the intellectual equivalent of 'poof, it's magic!'

If you can't figure out what our claim is, it's probably because we didn't make one. We've been commenting on your claim. That's the topic, right?

[Mister Agenda]

As the conclusion of a logical demonstration I agree that the rational order of the world is contingent on a rational Creator god. What I object to is saying that the existence of a rational Creator can serve as a valid premise with which to start a logical demonstration. That is the difference between classical apologetics (like the 5 Ways or the Kalam) and a presuppositionalist one.

Hmmmm... Okay progress...

So the way i understand it, if the premisis are true than the conclution must be true. And what seems to be the issue with this aproach is that we cannot empericaly prove the existence god. Leaving both presupositions at a loss.

However, this is negating the supporting evidence for the premise. If there is reason to believe in the premise of a creator, it is AT LEAST more reasonable than justifying the brain with the brain.

And as it turns out, the athiest have dug themselves into a hole by dissmissing all evidence in support of a creator...

Amazing, it's all clicking together now.

If the premises are true AND the argument leading to the conclusion is valid, the conclusion will be true.

There's a way to demonstrate that you're here to learn and capable of doing so, btw; and you're failing at it. Have you considered less arrogance?