How to beat a presupp at their own game

[Superjock]

If god exists, then he's revealed himself to everyone.
he hasn't revealed himself to everyone
therefore he doesn't exist.

Then they will say how do you know he hasn't? It says so in the bible. Etc, etc, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sure they'll say anything, and?

It's only true insomuch as a given believer insists - but, if they insist..then they'll have to be satisfied with the consequences of their own beliefs.

[Silver]

Then they will say how do you know he hasn't? It says so in the bible. Etc, etc, etc.

At that point you state that the bible is as historically accurate as a spider-man comic.

[Superjock]

Then they will say how do you know he hasn't? It says so in the bible. Etc, etc, etc.

At that point you state that the bible is as historically accurate as a spider-man comic.

Then they will ask me to support that claim and I'm not a biblical expert. :  I'm just not well versed enough, sadly.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't have to know anything about a magic book to have a rational discussion about belief in a god.

If having revealed himself to everyone is a requirement of the god they believe in existing, then their god doesn't exist. QED.

[Silver]

Then they will ask me to support that claim and I'm not a biblical expert. :  I'm just not well versed enough, sadly.

A little tip: you don't have to be biblically knowledgeable to defeat theists. You simply have to be more reasonable.

Truth be told, I used to be in the same boat as you. I didn't learn by asking questions, but instead investing myself in how other atheists responded to theists.

[Superjock]

Then they will ask me to support that claim and I'm not a biblical expert. :  I'm just not well versed enough, sadly.

A little tip: you don't have to be biblically knowledgeable to defeat theists. You simply have to be more reasonable.

Truth be told, I used to be in the same boat as you. I didn't learn by asking questions, but instead investing myself in how other atheists responded to theists.

Thanks! I think I just need to invest time watching atheists debate Christians. Youtube is a good learning tool. Familiarize myself with the various objections and try to think more critically about their claims.

I used to be very into this stuff when I was in my early 20s, then I kind of just felt it was unnecessary - I don't need to know any of this stuff as I couldn't care less quite honestly. I must say, it's one thing to put together an argument in writing, but when you are on the spot it can be difficult to explain things while talking.

Maybe it's just me.

[Angrboda]

So I had a debate with a Christian presuppositionalist and I don't think I did particularly well. I haven't debated Christians in a while so I'm pretty rusty, but they were trying to poke holes in my naturalistic framework.

He kept insisting that because I don't KNOW everything about gravity that there is nothing in my system that would prevent gravity from operating differently tomorrow. Just because gravity has observable patterns today or yesterday doesn't mean it will be consistent tomorrow or the next, so in my worldview anything can change. What regulates gravity or the laws of physics? What is the absolute etc - so I naturally said that I don't know.

His point was that God is the ground of all things yadda yadda - so I told him that just because I don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean I don't know ANYTHING, and he, funnily enough said the opposite. Theists.

I seriously need to learn how to deconstruct these theist arguments because I am so weak right now - he then went to Modus Pollens, which I've never even heard of. When asking for evidence for God, he says that God has revealed himself to everyone but as an atheist that I have suppressed the knowledge. No I haven't. That is the Christian line of reasoning - that I just don't WANT there to be a God.

I need to learn how to defend my beliefs.

The argument is more or less sound. Constantness in naturalism depends on the assumption of uniformity for which there is a lot of evidence, but which is an inductive argument meaning that it could prove wrong. And physicists do wonder about the laws changing, not only here, but also in other universes that some speculate may have very different laws than our own. And there has been debate over seeming changes in the measurement of the speed of light. So it's a fair question.

I would try to learn your own position better so that you can recognize when your interlocutor is making a valid point and when they are not. They say that offense wins games but defense wins championships. You'll likely prosper more from examining your own presuppositions and arguments more closely. When you understand your own position better, you will be better able to navigate arguments designed to exploit weaknesses in your position.

I could offer a few zingers to offer in reply to this person, but I'd rather ask why this has become a focus for you? I've debated such subjects for years, but have lately been less interested in engaging. As they say, knowing the other is valuable, but knowing oneself is true strength. If there's anything I would suggest is that you not automatically assume a theist argument is wrong or defective because you don't like the result. In addition to knowing yourself, spend some time walking in the other man's shoes. Find out what has made these arguments appealing to theists, and how they've been expressed.

And finally, as with any other subject, the best balm for an inadequate base is to read, read, and read some more.

[Rahn127]

It is fairly unnecessary.

They are presupposing something that hasn't been shown to exist.

[Superjock]

So I had a debate with a Christian presuppositionalist and I don't think I did particularly well. I haven't debated Christians in a while so I'm pretty rusty, but they were trying to poke holes in my naturalistic framework.

He kept insisting that because I don't KNOW everything about gravity that there is nothing in my system that would prevent gravity from operating differently tomorrow. Just because gravity has observable patterns today or yesterday doesn't mean it will be consistent tomorrow or the next, so in my worldview anything can change. What regulates gravity or the laws of physics? What is the absolute etc - so I naturally said that I don't know.

His point was that God is the ground of all things yadda yadda - so I told him that just because I don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean I don't know ANYTHING, and he, funnily enough said the opposite. Theists.

I seriously need to learn how to deconstruct these theist arguments because I am so weak right now - he then went to Modus Pollens, which I've never even heard of. When asking for evidence for God, he says that God has revealed himself to everyone but as an atheist that I have suppressed the knowledge. No I haven't. That is the Christian line of reasoning - that I just don't WANT there to be a God.

I need to learn how to defend my beliefs.

The argument is more or less sound.  Constantness in naturalism depends on the assumption of uniformity for which there is a lot of evidence, but which is an inductive argument meaning that it could prove wrong.  And physicists do wonder about the laws changing, not only here, but also in other universes that some speculate may have very different laws than our own.  And there has been debate over seeming changes in the measurement of the speed of light.  So it's a fair question.

I would try to learn your own position better so that you can recognize when your interlocutor is making a valid point and when they are not.  They say that offense wins games but defense wins championships.  You'll likely prosper more from examining your own presuppositions and arguments more closely.  When you understand your own position better, you will be better able to navigate arguments designed to exploit weaknesses in your position.

I could offer a few zingers to offer in reply to this person, but I'd rather ask why this has become a focus for you?  I've debated such subjects for years, but have lately been less interested in engaging.  As they say, knowing the other is valuable, but knowing oneself is true strength.  If there's anything I would suggest is that you not automatically assume a theist argument is wrong or defective because you don't like the result.  In addition to knowing yourself, spend some time walking in the other man's shoes.  Find out what has made these arguments appealing to theists, and how they've been expressed.

And finally, as with any other subject, the best balm for an inadequate base is to read, read, and read some more.

Honestly? It all started with Darth on Youtube. I kept watching his videos to see if anyone could exploit holes in his arguments because it just seems like he is beating down atheists online. So then I joined Discord and I noticed that he has a brigade of Christians who challenge atheists and I figured that I would like to defend my atheism when asked to do so.

It's funny, I didn't really care about this a few weeks ago, but having debated someone recently and failing miserably (I think I did) has just shown me how little I actually know about my own position and I don't like that. I don't like knowing that I don't really know my position as well as I should - as an atheist, I should be able to defend and/or attack opposing viewpoints. Also it's addictive listening to other people in chat. Strange, I know.

Even if this is just a passing phase, I think having a firm grasp of your own position is always a good thing (as well as learning about opposing positions) hence all the questions. I'm a newbie navigating these arguments so any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. I guess I'll probably need to learn logical fallacies again.