Presuppositionalists say the darndest things.
Posted on: August 31, 2007 - 1:35am
Offline
Presuppositionalists say the darndest things.
"Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so we know it must have been created by God." - Joe "whatdoyoubelieve" on Stickam
Presuppers who fall for the TAG argument are the most illogical of all Christians. The Rational Response Squad advises moving on to more intelligent people when trying to help theists overcome their delusions. While it's a noble effort to try and help a presuppositionalist it's likely a waste of time. Please feel free to post quotes that show how illogical these arguments are in this thread.
Theory of inherent dishonest in theism: A theist must act ignorant, dishonest, or both when defending belief in a god.
The above theory is seen heavily in presuppositionalists. Matt Slick is a well known presupper.
- Login to post comments
With this form of idiocy I would suggest sticking with Biblical Errancy. I mean if they can’t at least see and recognize a simple numeric error such as the age differences of Jehoiachinis in 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 (Never mind how it got that way.) then you are clearly dealing with an insane person. I kid you not these people truly do exist. At first I thought people on these boards were just kidding but I run into this kind of blind (literally unable to see simple faults.) faith on Godtube, and at my old church, all the time. At that point it’s best to move on.
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
"Atheism is False & presupposes the existence of God.
God is the necessary foundation for the laws of logic."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGklBNPdno8&mode=related&search=
Try to watch this video without laughing....LMAO I can't!
Reason, Observation, and Experience -- the Holy Trinity of Science.
Robert G. Ingersoll
I'm going to say this carefully, because I haven't actually tried too hard to falsify it. In fact, if someone can think of an exception, I'd love to hear it. (I love it when other people fix my mistakes for me!)
Anyway, I suspect that all theists are presuppositionalists in a sense, because every defense of god presupposes something the universe is lacking, or, more commonly, the presupposition of "purpose" in the universe creates a window for god to sneak in through.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I can watch it without laughing. I just can't watch it without throwing up in my mouth a little.
This is right up this threads alley. I am currently working on Godtube.com and here is a reply I received from PHIFERB " I know that I cannot convince you of the Truth with mere facts...". I was laughing for about 2 minutes.
Anywho, you can catch the whole thread here:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f21d69c91dddeefb792a
Sadly Godtube deleted most of my comments under my other account.
It's still pretty entertaining. Notice NO facts, evidence, or references in any of their arguments. Though they deleted my posts the rebuttals of the others are still there. You can pretty much extrapolate what I said. I figured this would happen so I kept copies of all my post.
[MOD EDIT - fixed link]
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
WOW Truatheist that was pretty persuasive! I couldn't even watch it all because I felt the "Truth" coming. Or maybe that was my lunch? :/
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
Not long ago on these very boards, someone told me the following (paraphrased) proof of Jesus' resurrection:
Because Jesus' resurrection is so improbable, its very improbability serves as proof that it happened, since only god would do something so improbable.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
They need to put a warning on that sort of thing "Warning! Viewing this may cause your IQ to drop up to 30 points."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
"God/purpose isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophical." - Cpt_pineapple
What god?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I think it might be a common error in human thinking though.
The question people ask is always why X. This however can very easily assume purpose.
"Why does the rock fall?"
"Why does the sun rise?"
"Why does Joe write?"
You can answer the first two in a How fashion, there may not be a good answer another way, but it would be odd to answer the how with the third one.
The 'laws of logic"? Presuppers confuse logic for metaphysics or physics.... In fact, seeing as none of them seem to have even taken a logic 101 class, they confuse a lot more than just that...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I couldn't watch the video because I am allergic to presuppers. You would think that at some point one of them would realize that if they held their presuppositionalism to the same criteria they require of other foundations for justifying inference they would have no basis by which to question the validity of any belief system. Goodness gracious it must be difficult for them to keep from giving in to the incoherence of their own existence.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Todangst, this is what I was thinking of when wave asked about god being axiomatic in the other thread.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I think it's an extremely common error in thinking. "Why" and "How" are interchangable in much conversation, but there is a significant difference. There are two meanings of the word "why." First, it is used to ask "what purpose" and second, to ask "what cause".
Why (purpose) does Joe write? Because he wants to convey a message.
Why (cause) does Joe write? Because his brain told his muscles to do so.
How does Joe write? By manipulating the muscles in his arm and hand such that the pen moves in recognized patterns, etc...
BUT...
Why does the rock fall?
Because the force of gravity was stronger than the force of the air pushing upwards on it.
Why (purpose) does the rock fall?
um.... the rock has no purpose. It's a rock.
How does the rock fall?
Through the air towards the center of the earth.
BUT...
How is the universe here?
Through the effects of negative vacuum fluctuation or some other cosmological something-something.
Why is the universe here?
Because of negative vacuum fluctuation or some other cosmological something-something. (Again, no inherent purpose!)
So, the error happens when people try to differentiate Why and How with regard to non-sentient processes, simply because we do differentiate with regard to sentient processes.
It's also a form of anthropomorphic fallacy to assume that because we create purpose, that all things have purpose.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I completley agree with you michael - i may only be 13 and i still have alot to learn in this world , but ive taken Religious,moral and philisophical studies as a higher class in school and ive found that it really angers me when - if a question cannot be solved but common sense or science it is automatically shunted into the category of "god did it"
im atheist/egoist and i hope i dont offend anyone by saying - there is NO proof "god" exists! the "bible" is fake , it has had so much crap piled into it since it was first written that there is no possible way that much of it can be true anymore
does anyone agree with me ?
If a theory/blasphemy or any other religious statement is unsolved then there sound be firther reasearch done on that topic - it shouldnt just be given up on
???
** ive highlighted words such as "god" and "bible" because of my beliefs **
The obvious hole is: we are told by the folks in this video that God is the necessary foundation for logic. And, we may ask, why is this so? Apparently, this is so because the people who made that video say so.
But that's not even the worst of it.
The worst of it is: even as useless as theology is...this is even rotten theology. Not only have these people never taken a logic class (or a philosophy class,) they don't even know the definitions of their own theological terms. For example: the word "transcendant," properly defined, means "outside of space." (For the curious: "outside of time" is "eternal."
Anyway, logic thus cannot be transcendant (or, for that matter, eternal,) as it functions, very well within space-time.
Geez...don't these people even know their own religion?
Conor