Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

presuppositional apologetics argues from God to logic, not the other way around.

A bolder admission of begging the question would be hard to imagine.

[Ryft]

A bolder admission of begging the question would be hard to imagine.

If you want to turn something into a fallacy by the sheer force of your say-so, you have to remember to say "abracadabra."

[The Grand Nudger]

And why, Ryft, can x not be not-x? Because that is the way we have observed our universe to behave. Elaborate upon the law of non-contradiction without referring to an observation of the world around you. Logic isn't a spirit that goes around making blocks fall into line. What was the magic word again Ryft? Abracadabra?

[Ryft]

And why, Ryft, can x not be not-x?

Lolwut?

X most certainly can be not-X. What it cannot be is X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect.

Because that is the way we have observed our universe to behave.

No, it is not. We observe X and we observe not-X. But the law of non-contradiction (X cannot be not-X at the same time and in the same respect) is not an a-posteriori descriptive or a conclusion drawn from empirical observation. We can draw a-posteriori conclusions about what a thing is and what it is not, but that it cannot be X and not-X at the same time and in the same respect is a conclusion drawn from a-priori logical principles.

Elaborate upon the law of non-contradiction without referring to an observation of the world around you.

Elaborate? The law of non-contradiction is a self-evident proposition; i.e., it is known to be true by simply understanding the meaning of the terms. The very statement of the law of non-contradiction (X cannot be not-X at the same time and in the same respect) makes zero references to any observation of the world around you.

Logic isn't a spirit that goes around making blocks fall into line.

As if anyone argued otherwise.

[DeistPaladin]

If you want to turn something into a fallacy by the sheer force of your say-so, you have to remember to say "abracadabra."

Prove God exists. Then prove that this god is the Christian god.

If you can't and still use the assumption of (your) god to argue logic, this is a classic example of begging the question.

What part of this did you pretend not to understand?

[Ryft]

Prove God exists. Then prove that this God is the Christian God. If you can't, but still use the assumption of God to argue logic, then this is a classic example of begging the question.

What part of this did you pretend not to understand?

All of it, because it is so incoherent it makes my head hurt. As I have said more than once—even though once ought to have been enough—presuppositional apologetics does not argue from logic to God, but from God to logic. The God of biblical Christianity is an axiomatic presupposition; if the existence of God was a conclusion we reason to, then by definition it would not be an axiomatic presupposition. Your typical responses to evidential apologetics is categorically inapplicable to presuppositional apologetics.

If you think we argue from logic to God to logic, then that simply means you are grossly uninformed of your opponent's position. But hey, why let such ignorance stop you from pretending to have something intelligent to say against your opponent?

[DeistPaladin]

All of it, because it is so incoherent it makes my head hurt. As I have said more than once—even though once ought to have been enough—presuppositional apologetics does not argue from logic to God, but from God to logic.

Exactly. You beg the question.

evidential apologetics

Now there's an oxymoron akin to "military intelligence", "jumbo shrimp" and "honest used car salesman".

[Statler Waldorf]

---

This website may be of some interest to those who need proof of observable evolution.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/

These sound more like your opinions and story telling than anything having to do with science. Did someone directly observe this? I remember sitting in Advanced Evolutionary Biology in university and listening to the Professor talk about how one day a dinosaur that had developed feathers for warmth ran with its arms outstretched to capture food and accidentally learned how to fly. I rejected that form of story telling just as much as I reject yours here.

I mention this as Mr Waldolf mentioned previously in this thread how Atheists like to quote evolution but cannot prove it through observable sciencific study, and due to there being no observable evidence to suggest that evolution is a continual progressive phenomenon it cannot be true.

---

Oops, I missed this post while I was watching Ryft lay waste to the opposition in this thread. Where exactly is the "observed evolution" in the link you posted? I must have missed it, I just see a bunch of examples of natural selection in action which of course is not what you meant by the word "evolution".

[The Grand Nudger]

I have to ask Ryft, and this probably has more to do with you than our discussion, but. Why argue from god to logic on the one hand, as an explanation, but on the other label the concepts of logic as self evident, requiring no further elaboration? Is this not analogous to saying "the concepts of logic need no further explanation, they are self evident..and that explanation is god."?

What is the purpose of this argument, given what I understand to be the Calvinists view of salvation and atonement?

(found a way to ask a question in fewer words, always a plus)

[Statler Waldorf]

What is the purpose of this argument, given what I understand to be the Calvinists view of salvation and atonement?

(found a way to ask a question in fewer words, always a plus)

To provide a defense of and reason for the faith.