Me: Presup
Posted on: March 14, 2007 - 4:32am
Offline
Me: Presup
I would very much like to come on the show and have a dialogue with you all and we could exchange arguements and see who's world view is more rational. Contanct me at [email protected]
"When we go to look at the different world-views that atheists and theists have, I suggest that we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary." -Greg Bahnsen
- Login to post comments
Why is it that everyone wants to go on the show? What are the motivations for this?
The sheer arrogance needed to presuppose that your interview on a show would be something new or worth airtime is astounding.
Why not look for the answers to your questions in this format on the message board?
Have you listened to the shows? How do you know that your particular brand of theism has not already been addressed?
You got some 'splaining to do. So do we for any questions that you may have. After all, you have been responded to in chat several times. Prove that you're capable of supporting your position to the responders here.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
You're back Presup, after getting pwned?
To be fair, it's very easy to own a presuppositionalist.... they don't understand the first thing about logic.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag
Having them on the show is a waste of time, their position is so ridiculous that anyone who holds to it can't be taken seriously.
In fact, take a look at what he quotes:
Bahnsen is implicitly conceding that he can't put forward a positive argument! He can only argue from the negative. This leads to the claim that his position is the 'default' position if he can somehow show a weakness in physicalism or materialism, or whatever non supernatural 'worldview' he looks at.
This commits two logical fallacies at once - argument from ignorance and the fallacy of 'correct by default'. First, it's simply not true that showing flaws in a naturalistic position means supernaturalism is true... all it shows is that our present naturalistic views have weaknesses, it's simply untrue that if you show a flaw in naturalism that supernaturalism is true by default.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It has. For me addressing presuppositionalism is like addressing is the sky red and the sun actually green, I think one show might be enough. Reverend Fred Klett was on: http://www.chaim.org/bio.html
At this point we're garnering attention from well known pastors and preachers, and plan to entertain their invitations first. I believe Matt Slick may be a presupper, and he'll probably be on. (ugh... presups)
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Just like to say this.
Me: Presup
You: Jane
Presup, I see you got crushed on freethinkingteens. But since you deny that you should read my essay on morality without God. It is on the forum The salient points of the essay is as follows:
-It is inherently ridiculous to state God as a requisite for morality because if you need a requisite for morality, you are not inherently moral, merely a suck up
-Furthermore, there is no evidence from history to state that theists are more moral than athests
-The first argument is little more than an offshoot of Camus' argument from despair, which would seem to imply that humans require teleological significance because they are so self-centered that they cannot give meaning to their own life. At any rate, any theist claims that life is "pointless" is inherently ridiculous in and of itself because no one claimed that teleological "point" to life was a requisite for life and morality.
But don't comment on what I just wrote. Read the essay first.
The essay is here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5431
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Ask him to tell you, specifically why 'god is a requisite' and how, precisely, this works.
Odds are, he has no idea.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
To him God is a requisite because:
You probably already know this, but
2 errors:
1) This does not provide a basis for morality, it is merely a claim that god's existence is axiomatic.
2) It is false that god's existence is axiomatic!
Look:
'god does not exist.'
Show me the internal contradiction.
My guess is that his argument is as juvenile as this: you have to say the word 'god' to deny god, therefore you must employ the term.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
True, Zhwazi pointed that out to him but he completely ignored it. Oh well.
Wow I don't remember it quite that way. Any honest person will see all the problems within his arguments and will see that I pointed them out but he wouldn't remain consistent from what I remember. I remember that we kept going in circle so I proposed doing it in a quicker way such as the chat or aim but he didn't so oh well.
I would also like to say yes Bahnsen said that and he showed this in the form of a transcendental argument the premises of which were shown by an internal critique.
"When we go to look at the different world-views that atheists and theists have, I suggest that we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary." -Greg Bahnsen
to todangst that is a basis on which we can know that God exist. The Christian moral is the word of God based on the unchanging nature and character of God. To your your second error I do not see how it is not since on the Christian world view his existence is the foundation on which we claim things have intelligibility.
"When we go to look at the different world-views that atheists and theists have, I suggest that we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary." -Greg Bahnsen
But you don't haven any such basis, upon examination. You can't show me where saying "god does not exist' commits an internal contradiction, because it doesn't. There's nothing 'axiomatic' about 'god', no where does one need to assume god exists in order to deny god's existence....
Ergo, your claim is groundless - 'god' cannot be defended through retortion.
If you disagree, please provide an argument, not an assertion.
So the basis for your morality is whatever 'god says', is moral? Based on what, exactly? The bible? "god' speaking to you? How does this work? How do you know what this 'god' says and how do you justifiy that it does come from a 'god'?
You've not demonstrated any errors in my post.
So you assert, without demonstration.
Now, can you demonstrate how this works, precisely? Can you show me how your 'god' is the basis for anything? Define your god in positive terms, without stealing from naturalism, and then, explain precisely how this 'god' serves as the foundation for your 'worldview'
Give the the details, tell me precisely how it works... give me the ontology for your theory, and then present the epistemology....
Let's go.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Presup, are you going to comment on my essay, to which I posted the link in one of my above posts. Or the comment which I suggested which todangst put forth then challenged you to refute?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
He has no choice, he can't answer because he doesn't even know what he's asserting. Just keep asking him these questions, and he'll either reassert or run off....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
Did I just prove the existence of the FSM? That totally rocks! I always knew my Home Noodle was real.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Let's all play!
My multi-million dollar bank account does not exist.
Or... more to the topic:
"God" does not, not exist.... therefore, atheism is axiomatically true?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'