Wow, willie.. you sure nailed him.  Rook tells a guy how to get in touch with him, the guy never does, and um...

So.. yeah... what's your point?

I posted it because I thought Rook would be interested in what someone was saying about him.  Which he was. 

And I posted it if he might want to add a clarification. Which he did.

No problem.  I just didn't have an email so I thougth this was the best way to bring it to Rooks attention... though now I realize I could of pmed him.

If I remember correctly, we didn't find out about James White talking about Rook until after he had already recorded his show.  My recollection is that James White didn't offer Rook a chance to come on the show that he used to criticize Rook.  My memory may be wrong though as I don't care much about James White, seeing as how he's a presuppositionalist. 

For those that aren't aware, we refuse to talk with presuppers as they don't meet the minimum honesty/intelligence requirement.

Could you elaborate on that?   Or if it's been explained somewhere else just shoot me an URL.

That didn't really clarify anything. You just restated in slightly different words.  What about presup is inherently absurd?  Why is it inherently absurd?  Why would it require dishonesty to hold to it?

For clarification we are talking about TAG here?

I guess this probably should move to another forum.

You're right.  James White recorded his show without ever informing me or giving me a chance to respond.  I only found out about it from another Christian internet-radio talk-show host after the fact who was supposed to be coordinating a debate event.  After we agreed to the event (me specifically, that is), James was supposed to contact me and give me the details of the discussion.  He seems to have vanished off the face of the earth, along with the other Christian talk-show host who has decided not to contact me since we initially accepted the debate. 

Dr. White has posted more of his side of the story:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2929

Dear James White (since I know you're reading),

Please provide a means to verify or prove that your presuppositions are correct.   Please provide a means for all of us to test or prove that the believing your God exists before the conversation gets started is more accurate or logical than to presuppose that a giant anteater that hates Jesus exists and that created all of existence.  Please actually answer the question instead of coming off like a hustler who ducks, jives, or diverts from my test.

Please feel free to do so on your aomin site or on a radio show that I would not be interested in appearing on as I find you and anyone who thinks like you far too stupid to warrant any of my time (in fact, this was far too much time already).  I will be glad to eat those words should you show that your presuppositionalist logic actually holds some weight.  

Thanks,

Sapient

I'm not quite sure whether you understand what Presuppositionalism teaches. Although I don't want to speak directly for Dr. White, I think he would say that he does not assume nakedly the existence of God or the truth of the Scriptures. Rather, he would likely state that taking the Bible as a foundation for all knowledge is the only worldview that is internally consistent. Thus, the Christian God would be a bit more accurate presupposition than the anteater, because such a being did not present a consistent worldview to mankind, like God has. 

To preempt your possibly asking how Dr. White came to know this truth to begin with, he will answer that it is due to the irresistable grace of God. From an outside perspective (i.e. from an atheist presupposition, to give those Reformed reading this a bit of a chuckle here) this is why I think Presup and Calvinism go hand-in-hand: as Dr. White says himself on his presentation of the double-predestination Calvinist reading of Romans 9, "I know that the only way anyone can believe this is by an act of grace." 

First of all, I have not met a single Presuppositionalist who lacks in intelligence, or ignores the application of his or her intelligence. Although I think some self-proclaimed Calvinists seize the system and tout themselves as some sort of haughty, God-chosen Elect with the power to refute all wordviews (Kelly Tripplehorn, of the Texas intern email scandal fame, is a prime example of such an alpha-male chest beater who happily took up this role to make his belittling nature Godly), I have seen much more calm scholarship rather than this type of behavior from Dr. White in his Dividing Line broadcasts. 

Although I am a little disappointed in Dr. White's treatment of this subject in recognizing that the "middle man" radio host that mediated between the two of you is the actual one at fault, you've done the same thing. Although your next post (I thought you said you had spent too much time already in this one) contains Martin's decent but incomplete refutation of TAG, not all Presup uses or even agrees with TAG, so you can't assume that on Dr. White; the other link does not provide a sound refutation and would be chicken feed for Dr. White to demolish in comparison to the level of scholarship and thought with which he is engaged. 

Presuppositionalism is worth your time, and if you're interested in ancient history, you should be willing to at least calmly discuss this matter on Dr. White's show. Bart Ehrman, who (I hope) you at least know about so far in your studies, is to meet Dr. White in a debate this January - if a nonbeliever who has already spent an academic career on the subject of Biblical history is willing to debate Dr. White, this should tell you the level of respect fellow skeptics give him. Besides, if he is stupid, as you say, then you should be able to jump on his program and rout him pretty soundly, although if you do in reality go about it with that attitude you're going to get smashed to bits. 

Kind of strange that the guy with an upside down Calvin as his avatar is defending one of the top modern Calvinist apologists out there, but if you're going to be serious in your future studies, scholarship, and debating, you can't make an assertion that he is stupid without checking the scholarship and testing your theory first. That is, after all, the very thing you criticize them for not being able to do  

But it is you who does not understand.

White does assume god exists. He does not consider "god" to be a naked assertion!

What god?

A presupposition is the assumption that the naked assertion "god" is a fact that needs no proof. The proof presuppositionalists provide is a circular argument! White is trying to prove 'god' with the assumption that 'god' exists (which hasn't been proved).