Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ad naus. You've done no such thing.

[Napoléon]

Make your own case.

Make your own case.

Make your own case.

Already did.

Already did.

Already did.

How the fack is this thread still going?

[The Grand Nudger]

When people assert bullshit and then use that assertion in the manner in which religious assertions have been used the most apathetic thing one could possibly do is to leave it unchallenged. That's how.

Everytime someone says "Faggots will burn in hell" someone should say "no they wont, that's bullshit, and your an ass", just as one example.

[DeistPaladin]

Again, if laws of logic are merely something you choose arbitrarily, then why would you even bother saying you have refuted anything? You couldn’t refute a thing because I can just choose my own laws of logic to play by and they would be just as valid as yours.

I'm sorry, when did I say we get to modify or make up our own laws of logic as we see fit? Either I haven't been clear or you are trying to strawman me.

I said I use logic, reason and science because I wish to, I like the results and I need provide you no other justification.

I did NOT say we get to make up our own set of rules of logic like "circular reasoning is not fallacious" or "2+2=5". You can, of course, think in such ways if you wish but I don't think you'll like the results (you'll often be wrong and be ridiculed by those who know better).

The question of which system of thinking is "more valid" logically is based on what is shown to work, both in predictive value and explanation of what is and has been. If I say "2+2=4" and you say "2+2=5", we can test both hypotheses and discover that mine has a more accurate predictive and explanatory value. An invisible sky daddy is neither necessary nor helpful to the process.

You might as well say, "You can't account for why you eat, drink or breathe but I can because I say MyGodWillsIt". You're creating a problem that doesn't exist, defined your god in a contrived way to solve the non-existent problem and then said GodWillsit all in order to justify an a priori conclusion that was based on faith in the first place.

I never opted into any such contract, so are you forcing your moral beliefs on me by telling me I can’t force my moral beliefs on others? That position crushes under its own weight.

Because by violating that contract, you are harming others and therefore it is not solely your business. If you wish to leave the social contract, go be a hermit in some wilderness and live without society. That is your choice.

Is that why humans kill one another in wars, commit murder, steal, rape, and lie and cheat in order to get ahead in life?

No, people do these things because the Bible tells them to.

Just kidding. The Bible does indeed justify wars, murder, robbery, rape and deception but evil people will do that where they can get away with it without religion. What religion does is help evil people justify their behavior while inspiring good people to do evil things.

In any event, the reason we are morally aghast at such things is because we are empathic creatures and wish to form functional communities, which are essential to our survival.

Invisible sky daddy is neither necessary nor helpful to elucidate our understanding of what morality is or why we are moral.

---

Make your own case.

Make your own case.

Make your own case.

Already did.

Already did.

Already did.

How the fack is this thread still going?

Because I can't seem to resist trying to school fucktards.

Call it a compulsion.

[Statler Waldorf]

Ad naus. You've done no such thing.

I offered to do it again for you, but you didn't want me to, so your objections are nothing more than fluff.

[The Grand Nudger]

: Scrolls up :...............

I indicated no such thing, that's bullshit, you're an ass.

[Statler Waldorf]

When people assert bullshit and then use that assertion in the manner in which religious assertions have been used the most apathetic thing one could possibly do is to leave it unchallenged. That's how.

Everytime someone says "Faggots will burn in hell" someone should say "no they wont, that's bullshit, and your an ass", just as one example.

You could refute my argument by simply giving account for the preconditions of intelligibility using your worldview, why don’t you? Is it because you can’t?

I'm sorry, when did I say we get to modify or make up our own laws of logic as we see fit? Either I haven't been clear or you are trying to strawman me.

When I asked you to justify the laws of logic you said you didn’t have to because you use them because you like the results. This is a completely arbitrary answer. What is to stop someone from giving the exact same answer if they believed in a law of logic that stated “God necessarily exists”? Your answer would do nothing more than lead to complete relativism concerning the laws of logic.

I said I use logic, reason and science because I wish to, I like the results and I need provide you no other justification.

Why not? The principle of sufficient reason states you do.

I did NOT say we get to make up our own set of rules of logic like "circular reasoning is not fallacious" or "2+2=5".

Well technically circular reasoning is not fallacious (the conclusion does necessarily follow from the premises because it is a restatement of the premises), it just doesn’t progress the argument any. You didn’t say you can make up your own laws, but your justification would lead someone to believe they could as long as they liked the results.

You can, of course, think in such ways if you wish but I don't think you'll like the results (you'll often be wrong and be ridiculed by those who know better).

How do you know they would be wrong?

The question of which system of thinking is "more valid" logically is based on what is shown to work, both in predictive value and explanation of what is and has been. If I say "2+2=4" and you say "2+2=5", we can test both hypotheses and discover that mine has a more accurate predictive and explanatory value. An invisible sky daddy is neither necessary nor helpful to the process.

There is no such thing as “more valid”, something is either valid or it is not. How would you empirically prove 2+2=4? I am still not sure why you keep bringing up laws of mathematics when we are talking about laws of logic, but oh well.

You might as well say, "You can't account for why you eat, drink or breathe but I can because I say MyGodWillsIt"

I am starting to think you have missed the point of the last 42 pages. The point is that you have to presuppose certain things are true before you can know anything. There are about a half dozen of these things; they are called the preconditions of intelligibility. The Christian has complete justification in assuming these things are true because he believes in a sovereign and providential creator God. The unbeliever cannot justify these assumptions because they make no sense in a purely natural world. In a purely natural world there is no room for universal immaterial and transcendent entities such as laws of logic and mathematics because everything is material. So the Christian is asserting that we live in “World A”, and when you look at his worldview it is built on a foundation consistent with “World A”. The atheist or unbeliever is asserting that we live in “World Not A”, but when you look at the foundation of his worldview it is built on that of “World A”. So if he refuses to debate he loses, if he debates he loses because he has to use principles that can only be true if the very thing he is debating against is also true. It is proof through the impossibility of the contrary, it is completely valid, and completely sound.

Because by violating that contract, you are harming others and therefore it is not solely your business. If you wish to leave the social contract, go be a hermit in some wilderness and live without society. That is your choice.

Why can’t I still live in society and just not act in a manner consistent with the contract for my own personal gain? It worked pretty well for Stalin; he died one of the most powerful men on earth. (Just playing devil’s advocate, so don’t take this down some rabbit hole about me not knowing right from wrong).

No, people do these things because the Bible tells them to.

I was not aware that Stalin was a Bible believing Christian. Where does the Bible say to cheat and lie your way to the top? I am starting to think you haven’t read it.

In any event, the reason we are morally aghast at such things is because we are empathic creatures and wish to form functional communities, which are essential to our survival.

How do you know communities are essential to our survival? There are plenty of people out living completely on their own.

Invisible sky daddy is neither necessary nor helpful to elucidate our understanding of what morality is or why we are moral.

---

I never said anything about an invisible sky daddy, if you wish to have a discussion keep the question begging epithets to a minimum.

Because I can't seem to resist trying to school fucktards.

It’s too bad trying does not equal succeeding huh? By all means keep trying though, I admire persistence, even if it is futile.

[The Grand Nudger]

How many times do I have to say this.

Make your own case.

I can go this far (and Ive already done this with you) -Everything I know is wrong, now show me why you're right. The examples you've given thusfar are insufficient.

[DeistPaladin]

When I asked you to justify the laws of logic you said you didn’t have to because you use them because you like the results. This is a completely arbitrary answer. What is to stop someone from giving the exact same answer if they believed in a law of logic that stated “God necessarily exists”? Your answer would do nothing more than lead to complete relativism concerning the laws of logic.

OK, maybe I went too fast.

I said I use logic, reason and science because it works. I choose rationality over magical thinking. I do not need to justify that choice. If you choose magical thinking, be honest enough to say so and go live in an Amish community or be a hermit or live some other lifestyle that better suits you.

This is not to say that I believe you can make up your own rules for logic. Rules of logic, principles of mathematics, laws of science, etc. are what they are not because someone made them all up but because they were discovered.

Are you catching the distinction yet?

I am starting to think you have missed the point of the last 42 pages. The point is that ... [long paragraph full of bullshit]

Yeah, I understand you perfectly.

I never said anything about an invisible sky daddy, if you wish to have a discussion keep the question begging epithets to a minimum.

The ancient Hebrew word for "sky" and "Heaven" are one and the same. Consequently, Genesis 1:8 can be faithfully translated either as "Yahweh called the dome sky" or "Yahweh called the dome Heaven".

The Judeo-Christian god is referred to as a "Heavenly Father" (even by Jesus no less). "Daddy" is an affectionate term for "father".

The NT says that "Yahweh is a spirit" and that faith is the conviction of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1).

Unseen Heavenly Father = Invisible Sky Daddy

Don't whine because I'm not being respectful.

[Statler Waldorf]

How many times do I have to say this.

Make your own case.

I can go this far (and Ive already done this with you) -Everything I know is wrong, now show me why you're right. The examples you've given thusfar are insufficient.

How many times do I have to say this? I already did, you must have not been paying attention. I can make sense of each of the preconditions given my worldview, and you cannot make sense of any of them given yours. That’s all I have to demonstrate, and I have done so.

I said I use logic, reason and science because it works.

How do you know it works?

I choose rationality over magical thinking. I do not need to justify that choice.

Yes you do, or else you are not being rational; which means you are not actually choosing rationality over anything but rather irrationality over rationality.

If you choose magical thinking, be honest enough to say so and go live in an Amish community or be a hermit or live some other lifestyle that better suits you.

Straw man, I choose rationality, and I can justify my rationality given my worldview; which of course makes me more of a rational thinker than you, don’t hate me for it.

This is not to say that I believe you can make up your own rules for logic. Rules of logic, principles of mathematics, laws of science, etc. are what they are not because someone made them all up but because they were discovered.

How were they discovered (the laws of logic)? How do you discover the law of identity? Namely, now do you observe that something is what it is and is not what it is not?
This also does not explain how they exist or where they came from since surely you believe they existed prior to their discovery.

I am starting to think you have missed the point of the last 42 pages. The point is that ... [long paragraph full of bullshit]

Careful with how you quote me please, changing a person’s quote white still using the quote function is against the forum rules.

I
The ancient Hebrew word for "sky" and "Heaven" are one and the same. Consequently, Genesis 1:8 can be faithfully translated either as "Yahweh called the dome sky" or "Yahweh called the dome Heaven".

Hence why Hebrew words are defined by context, the proper translation there is “sky”, not “Heaven”. You wouldn’t think that when I said, “I went to the bank today and cashed a check” that I was talking about going down to the bank of a river now would you? Context matters.

The Judeo-Christian god is referred to as a "Heavenly Father" (even by Jesus no less). "Daddy" is an affectionate term for "father".

So when you use this term you are showing admiration and affection for the Christian God? Get real, it was a question begging epithet and you know it.

Don't whine because I'm not being respectful.

I don’t care whether you are respectful or not, I do care whether you are rational though, and using biased language in a discussion is logically fallacious and thus irrational.