Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm
(October 15, 2011 at 11:42 am)objectivitees Wrote: (Nothing on the Trinity)
Still waiting for you to explain the Trinity to me.
Tick tock.
*Plays theme to Jeapordy*
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 67175
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 1:06 pm
It's axiomatic Object. As a lahni-do I must presuppose the existence of the grape jelly creator. If you're going to question my axioms, I get to question yours. Can you provide evidence that the abrahamic god even exists?
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8U-6duKyHVOmXR-4JE-o...igMzQyfmMC]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=t2.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQ8U-6duKyHVOmXR-4JE-opXtmp-36OA00Ka2SobRigMzQyfmMC)
I rest my case.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm
The trinity could only be dumber if it had been the quaternity.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm
(October 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm)Epimethean Wrote: The trinity could only be dumber if it had been the quaternity.
I've observed how Christians sometimes treat the Bible as if it were a god, so there you go.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I always that was the "infinity."
As in "Yes it is, infinity plus one!"
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 45
Threads: 2
Joined: February 18, 2010
Reputation:
1
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm
(October 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: (October 15, 2011 at 11:42 am)objectivitees Wrote: (Nothing on the Trinity)
Still waiting for you to explain the Trinity to me.
Tick tock.
*Plays theme to Jeapordy*
Oh, then allow me to make myself clear... I am not going to distract myself from my purpose of getting a response from rhythm, by going down your all too obvious rabbit trail.
Or even clearer... I'm not going to respond to this, INTENTIONALLY.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 2:27 pm
To infinity plus one!
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 45
Threads: 2
Joined: February 18, 2010
Reputation:
1
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 2:29 pm
(October 15, 2011 at 1:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's axiomatic Object. As a lahni-do I must presuppose the existence of the grape jelly creator. If you're going to question my axioms, I get to question yours. Can you provide evidence that the abrahamic god even exists?
I rest my case.
You rest too soon. I am not questioning your axiom. I accept that it is your axiom without reservation. It is the rationality of your axiom I question.
You don't understand presuppositional arguments, do you?
Since I haven't questioned your axiom, you don't get to question (what you think) is mine.
Now, defend your proposition that Jelly is the creator.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 2:34 pm
To the Jelly's credit, it actually has created some full bellies, and in the trinity of the PBJ, it makes a hell of a good meal.
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
October 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm
(This post was last modified: October 15, 2011 at 4:33 pm by DeistPaladin.)
(October 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Oh, then allow me to make myself clear... I am not going to distract myself from my purpose of getting a response from rhythm, by going down your all too obvious rabbit trail.
Or even clearer... I'm not going to respond to this, INTENTIONALLY.
Well, if you remember how the topic came up, it's because you dismiss the Islamic god as being illogical and self-contradictory but the Trinitarian god, who is one person and yet three distinct people all at the same time, makes perfect sense.
I say this is " confirmation bias" but perhaps you have a reason to conclude that your god is so superior to all other concepts.
So do explain why the Triune god isn't self-contradictory and is the only possible god that could explain why we use logic or why there is morality.
We'll deal with the non-sequitur of a divine creator being necessary for there to be logic or morality later.
(October 15, 2011 at 2:29 pm)objectivitees Wrote: You don't understand presuppositional arguments, do you?
You, Stat and Ryft all like to play that card (and I think have on this thread). You sound like a whiney teenager crying "you don't understand me".
We understand the "argument" just fine. It's utter crap.
Christian apologists have no store of yet unknown evidence or artifacts. They can't perform the magic tricks that Jesus promised those of true faith would be able to perform (Mark 16:17-18 as an example). All they (you) have is the endlessly rehashed philoso-babble arguments, which, even if they were sound, would fall short of the burden of proof you'd need to justify your supernatural claims.
To repeat, here's how your argument works:
1. Realize you need an argument to believe your articles of faith and you have buggerall as far as any hard evidence goes.
2. Create a problem that doesn't exist by asking some abstract "why" question (why do we use logic, why do we have morality, etc.).
3. Create a contrived definition of your god that solves the problem that doesn't exist ("moral goodness is bound in the very nature of God" etc). Don't worry about offering any proof of your claims. Just use your bare assertions to prove your point.
4. Say GodWillsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, etc.
5. Dismiss all other gods as irrational but don't apply the same skepticism to your own god.
6. Throw around a bunch of Latin phrases. That always makes philoso-babble sound so sophisticated.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
|
