How to beat a presupp at their own game

[R00tKiT]

If you say the universe is my starting point as an atheist, they'll say what grounds the universe?

One of the primary presupps there is Darth Darkins. Anyone know how to dismantle this type of argument?

I am a theist myself and don't think presuppositionalism is a good argument. To answer this argument, simply replace the christian deity with any arbitrary object: a giant alien is the foundation of knowledge, or could also be some ill-intentioned demon who enjoys deceiving people about reality, but who also happens to be eternal and all-knowing, etc. There is no shortage of scenarios that answer the presuppositionalist's challenge and don't include the christian god. The latter in its trinitarian form is a joke, a basic logical impossibility that famous apologists like W.L. Craig looked really silly when they tried to defend it.

Arguing towards a deity seems a better way to defend theism, in my opinion. I think the teleological argument is sound and, together with some thought experiments about [the impossibility of] infinite regress, does at least lead to a being with some omni- properties, including justness, without which no religion can be proven to be correct. Further knowledge about such a being is impossible without referring to scripture.

---

Another important point : the presuppositionalist is simply attempting a regressive argument, one kind of three vacuous arguments you can read more about here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

It's an infinite regress of questioning, the exact same thing a theist is supposed to rule out to prove the abrahamic god. So that anything you say to defend your POV can be questioned, and all the presuppositionalist has to do is continuously ask for the entity or principle governing the assertion you just said, then question the next assertion, ad infinitum.

[brewer]

Hi everyone,

I'm an atheist, although I've really just suppressed my belief in God for 30 years... which is what some theists will tell me. I joined Discord a week ago and I listened to the chats in one of the theist servers

The chat server is filled with presupps and the number one objection for atheism that I hear is what grounds our atheism? What grounds do we have for facts and knowledge? How can we know anything in a godless world?

From their view, God is the foundation of knowledge. It's self-justifying - how do they know? God revealed it through special and divine revelation and therefore they cannot be wrong. So to deny this, means that atheists are appealing to a non-personal universe (??) (I'm probably not stating this argument 100%, I"m tired and haven't slept)

If you say the universe is my starting point as an atheist, they'll say what grounds the universe?

One of the primary presupps there is Darth Darkins. Anyone know how to dismantle this type of argument?

No one can argue a god into existence. They can argue it's concept (man made by the way), but not that it exists. With that in mind, claims for provision of facts, knowledge and logic by a god are an mental abstraction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Arguing towards a deity seems a better way to defend theism, in my opinion. I think the teleological argument is sound and, together with some thought experiments about [the impossibility of] infinite regress, does at least lead to a being with some omni- properties, including justness, without which no religion can be proven to be correct. Further knowledge about such a being is impossible without referring to scripture.

While I applaud your sober assessment of the nature of presuppositional argumentation when it comes to compelling belief..here, I have to stop you.

Of course a religion could be proven correct in the absence of a god, or of a just god.  The only ones that require either are the ones predicated on either.

You also believe that there are piles and piles of religions with just gods which aren't true - for what it's worth.

[Superjock]

Darth will start off with ... if you believe one or more facts do not necessitate referencing God as the precondition it necessitates that God can't logically exist in that world. It's inescapable and irrefutable.

In a world where God exists, all facts would necessitate referencing God because they stand in causal relations to God.

So it's "either you believe this or you believe that. This is a YES/NO that he presents to people. He says this is a true dichatomy. One of the Talk Heavens presenters joined into Discord and he said, he doesn't hold a belief on that matter, although Darth means that he does affirm, but the Talk Heaven guy said he doesn't affirm or deny that God has to necessitate or not necessitate etc etc.

The atheist says it's a false bifurcation. Darth says it's a true dichotomy. I don't know.

[The Grand Nudger]

If it were true that a person believing that one or more facts not necessitating a god logically entailed that this god couldn't exist....and there is a person who believes that one or more facts don't necessitate a god..then it logically follows from the stated premise and the true assertion that his god does not exist.

I don't believe that any facts necessitate a god. In fact, I know that no facts necessitate a god. So I guess that's that? If I exist, then his god can't - according to him.

[Superjock]

Then he will ask : How do you know you exist? In fact I just had a conversation with a theist a few minutes ago and he asked me how do I know I exist? Well I said to him that I can't NOT exist. Maybe I should have refined what I meant to say. How do we know anything at all?

You have to start somewhere - with a base presupposition that you exist. Right? I mean, we could be living in a simulation which is what he was getting at. And he kept saying well why should I try and convince someone, an atheist, that God exists when they don't even know if they exist or the universe exists.

[Mister Agenda]

I think, therefore I am...I think.

[Silver]

"I don't know" in relation to a god's existence is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It's lazy fence sitting, when reasonably no one sits on the fence regarding the existence of unicorns but somehow still feel illogically compelled to do so in relation to god.

Is our life a simulation? Why don't you prove it instead of raising a nonsensical what-if on the same absurd level as god. It's not my job to accept your silly notions, rather it is your job to prove your notions are more than silly.

[Angrboda]

Darth will start off with ... if you believe one or more facts do not necessitate referencing God as the precondition it necessitates that God can't logically exist in that world. It's inescapable and irrefutable.

In a world where God exists, all facts would necessitate referencing God because they stand in causal relations to God.

So it's "either you believe this or you believe that. This is a YES/NO that he presents to people. He says this is a true dichatomy. One of the Talk Heavens presenters joined into Discord and he said, he doesn't hold a belief on that matter, although Darth means that he does affirm, but the Talk Heaven guy said he doesn't affirm or deny that God has to necessitate or not necessitate etc etc.

The atheist says it's a false bifurcation. Darth says it's a true dichotomy. I don't know.

Theologians speak of God's aseity, that he is not dependent upon anything but himself. This quality of God means that everything else, including the laws of logic, must depend upon and flow from God. Naturally this can be a sticking point, as if the laws of logic and morals aren't dependent upon anything but God, in what way could he be at odds with them. If he can't logically be at odds with them, no matter what they are, then they could be anything that he likes. Others suggest it's absurd to talk about things like God's omnipotence being limited to only doing things that are consistent with his nature if the laws of consistency don't in some sense supercede God. If God is above the laws of logic, there are no limits to what he can do.

But in a nutshell, if you are arguing for such a god, it would render the dichotomy intelligible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then he will ask : How do you know you exist? In fact I just had a conversation with a theist a few minutes ago and he asked me how do I know I exist? Well I said to him that I can't NOT exist. Maybe  I should have refined what I meant to say. How do we know anything at all?

You have to start somewhere - with a base presupposition that you exist. Right? I mean, we could be living in a simulation which is what he was getting at. And he kept saying well why should I try and convince someone, an atheist, that God exists when they don't even know if they exist or the universe exists.

It's a good question, what would the point be, of trying to convince a person of anything, if they have concerns about the impossibility of knowledge?

Say, if a person sits in wide eyed wonder at how another person might know their own name, or that they exist.

I'm starting to think that you may be dealing with a person who thinks he's laying brilliant rhetorical traps for the other guy, but something else just keeps happening, instead...atheism isn't the belief that knowledge is impossible - but if your friend wants to chase that bird......