Відео

I have been working on an argument for why I think pressupositionalism is incoherent. I would be curious to get feedback on this if anyone is interested. Presuppositions in Epistemology In epistemology, a presupposition as I understand it is as a concept or principle that serves as a foundational element for knowledge but which itself is not justified by further argument. It is treated as self-evident or a “brute fact.” In contrast, a justification provides supporting information in the form of logic, reason, evidence, proof, etc. Presuppositionalism based on the way I have heard pressupositionalists explain it. The way I have heard presuppositionalists explain there position is that knowledge requires presupposing the Christian worldview as the bases of all knowledge. This worldview, according to them, is the only one that can consistently ground intelligibility of anything. Presuppositionalists employ what they call the “block-house” method here: rather than building a worldview piece by piece, they present the Christian worldview wholesale as the necessary foundation for all intelligibility. The Problem A worldview especially one like Christianity contains many justifications for its core concepts: free will, morality, the existence of the universe, etc. To presuppose an entire and specific worldview like Christianity “all at once” (as a single block) conflates presuppositions with justifications. To help illustrate the problem I will use a variation of a classic deductive philosophical argument: Premise 1: I presuppose that humans are mortal. Premise 2: I presuppose that Socrates was human. Conclusion: I presuppose that Socrates was mortal. Presuppositionalism effectively does something similar as this but on a much larger scale. It lumps an entire body of interconnected claims and arguments used for justification into a single “worldview presupposition.” This eliminates the traditional usage of “argument” which is reasoning from premises to a conclusion. There is no longer any distinction between premises and conclusion or between presupposition and justification; everything is simply taken as a single brute fact, thus there is no argument in the traditional sense of providing reasons. As a result, presuppositionalism forces you into one of two positions: Simply presuppose the entire Christian worldview as a brute fact (without any arguments and is unable to be give any arguments for anything). Attempt to justify the worldview through logic and reason (in which case the Christian worldview is not whole sale presupposed and is built upon). But if you claim to do both; presuppose the worldview as a brute fact and argue for it you break down the line between presupposition and justification, creating an incoherent stance.

I have not encountered any reasonable evidence that any gods exist.

It tells you to outsource your power

It was fun just now... For any theists who want to try being insulting, it's best if you learn the definition of atheist. It's not what 1 Romans whatever says. An atheist is a person who is unconvinced by the evidence that any god exists. That's all. Our politics can be anything.

I think you're onto something. It might be the rise of the online presups, especially the most vocal and obnoxious ones like Darth Dawkins who use a script and the power of their mute button to shut down every attempt to engage honestly. They demand yes/no answers to convoluted questions so that they can continue down their prompt tree. At some point though, it gets pointed out that their arguments are circular (to which I've heard the comical reply....they're "virtuously circular"). The somewhat analogous quote that comes to mind is from Carl Sandburg and it relates to lawyers: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

There can be no afterlife for humans. You only need to see people who have been reduced to vegetables by strokes, in order to realise that humans are just material creatures. You can’t contact Aunt Jill through a medium, because there’s nothing but random static on the hereafter channel. There is no reward for obeying God. He is either a disgusting, unjust, character, or nothing more than a myth.

Funny how this god claimed it won't punishh people for the actions of others, and does just that. This cult's amazing stupidity is always fun to point out to cultists. Few things end a discussion when yuo can show that their god is a vicious idiot.

That title is really great. It really shows the evil god directly. God seems to love them babies blood and bbq meat. Except when the people of Israel offered him their very first born, he rejected it. Maybe he had too many babies already that time.

This story is and will forever be crucial to my decon =) Thanks for talking about this!

It's an aquital! It's not a punishment for David. Brilliant response I can honestly say , I've never heard it used as an argument. At least the word 'acquital'.

Spiritual competition and arrogance . Who can shout the loudest , sing the loudest , roll on the floor , memorise the most scriptures . Suck up to the pastor . It’s exhausting

You shouldn't delete or ban these twats, you give them the pin of shame.

If a kid dies he will go straight to heaven. So abortion is being moral sending their souls to heaven. Don't you hate logic

355 million people now suffering at the hands of a three-time adulterer and seggs offender, women dying of pregnancies gone bad, and no god anywhere to be found.

Yahweh is pro death, pro suffering, utterly selfish. And off topic, the play Richard III was propaganda for the opposing dynasty.

So god will give leadership to a sinful person. Being put into leadership doesn't mean that god approves of everything that leader will do, and if the leader sins god will punish the public but keep the leader in power and untouched. before the election preachers could have chosen to preach THIS biblical lesson. But nobody did. The vast majority wanted to empower an obviously sinful unrepentant ungodly leader, saying that god would use him for godly purposes. Did none of them remember this story? Or did they choose to go the other way because it was popular and they think it will give more power to themselves.

Imagine dedicating your life to tearing the wood from beneath your feet and wondering why there's always gravel everywhere. Seeking the destruction of human civilization itself. May God help you sir.

A difficult passage, but several things need to be taken into account. 1) In verse 23 David says of the child, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me," which is often taken to mean that this is one of the few indications in the Old Testament that there is life after death, and that the baby went to heaven. So if God takes the baby to heaven, and spares David's life here on earth, God is being merciful. 2) In Old Testament times the extended family was considered a unit, and offspring were inevitably affected by the actions of their parents. 3) God is sovereign, and is free to do whatever He wishes to His creation. If you wish to call this subjective morality, so be it. But we are still accountable to Him as our sovereign Lord and Creator for our actions. 4) In the sight of God all human beings are sinners and deserve to be punished for our sins. The root problem is with us, not with God, who is just, and hates and punishes sin. 5) David himself presents a unique case. He had been anointed by God to be the king of God's chosen people Israel, and ultimately would become the human ancestor of Jesus the promised Messiah. Therefore God would treat him a bit differently than He would an ordinary human being. David occupied a special place in God's redemptive plan.

Lots of d moves there, but they weren't the first in the bable..

Theist: God is against abortion. God:

Hello ed raby!!

Right, I forgot about that baby, poor little guy!

I recently saw a meme I have to share. Greek mythology in a nutshell: "Unfortunately, Zeus was feeling horny." Norse mythology in a nutshell. "Then Loki had an idea."

Bro really thinks Jesus is a mythical figure lol bro, even the historians know He was real.

Atheismus which means Materialismus ist proved wrong by newest NDE studies.

No they are not stupid...and atheists suck at providing compelling reasons to give up religious belief. Oh your crystal example does not illustrate something "undesigned'.

Stockholm Syndrome can also be observed in people with an abusive partner.

in which a compassionate antitheist explains which theistic claims are bunk and why.. With drive-by theists!

Yes. The Bible has amazing historical accuracy (more discovered every new archaeological discovery in the field), there's no reason to question this other than a bald cynicism and attempt to discredit the Bible. Just for the record, people have tried this for 2000 years and keep being humiliated.

No. I don't believe it actually happened. However, millions were murdered under State enforced atheism under Josef Stalin. That's a historical fact.

While im totally on board with your thesis. I do caution that we keep in mind that, like a wounded animal, a dying faith is at its most dangerous gasping for followers.

I'm with you Ed. Unlike you I'm pretty much a lifelong atheist. Even at age five the idea of God as it was explained in churches never seemed believable to me, and nothing has happened in the subsequent forty years to make me change that view. The doctrine of hell only further solidified my disbelief since like you I reject the notion that anybody chooses to go there, say by not believing in the right god or any god at all. That's not true choice, it's coersion.

To my presuppositionalist comment buddy, @Noetic-Necrognosis: Why did you delete that thread!? I was looking forward to you actually advancing TAG in compelling terms for the first time in UA-cam history!

I think the Massacre of the Innocents episode in the New Testament was invented by the gospel authors who borrowed from the Moses story when Moses as a baby was almost killed by Pharaoh. Total fiction, and the gospels were written in Greek, so their authors could have been influenced by Greek myths such as: Cronus trying to eat/kill his son Zeus; the goddess Hera vs the baby Dionysus; the goddess Hera vs the baby Heracles (aka Hercules); King Acrisius of Argos trying to drown his grandson Perseus; King Pelias vs Jason; King Laius vs Oedipus; King Priam of Troy vs Paris; King Athamas of Boeotia vs Phrixus; and Atalanta's father vs Atalanta. In Roman mythology, King Amulius tries to drown the babies Romulus and Remus. In Jewish mythology besides Moses, there are: Abraham trying to kill his son Isaac; King Saul trying to kill David; King Darius tries to kill Daniel by throwing him into the lions' den. In Christianity, besides the Massacre of the Innocents, there is also: God/Yahweh killing his son Jesus (as part of his "divine plan"), as well as Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven by God. There are plenty of other similar myths from different cultures and religions/mythologies around the world where an evil king or father tries to kill the hero, such as: The King tries to kill the child Gilgamesh (Mesopotamian mythology). The king of Egypt/god Set tries to kill the baby Horus by disguising himself as a snake (Egyptian mythology). King Duransarun tries to kill the baby Zoroaster (Zoroastrian aka Persian mythology). King Kamsa tries to kill the baby Krishna (Hindu mythology). Princess Kunti abandoned her baby son Karna (Hindu mythology). Balor tries to kill his grandson Lugh, but he escapes and survives (Irish mythology). The boy Cuchulain was attacked by a guard dog, but he survived (Irish mythology). Pryderi is separated from his parents when members of his mother Rhiannon's family steal him (Welsh mythology). Ceridwen abandons her baby boy Taliesen but he survives (Welsh Arthurian mythology). King Gargoris abandoned his son Habis (Tartessian mythology from Spain). Vainamoinen tried to kill Marjatta's son (Finnish mythology). The evil Untamo tries to kill the baby boy Kullervo three times (by drowning, fire, and hanging). But the baby Kullervo survives. (Finnish mythology). Chief Shemwindo tries to kill his son Mwindo (Nyanga mythology from the Democratic Republic of Congo in central Africa). The evil red Rainbow King Nkongolo tried to kill the hero Kalala Ilunga, but he survived (Luba mythology from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, central Africa). Nzame throws his son Bingo out of Heaven (Bantu of the Congo mythology). Shun's family tried to kill him (Chinese mythology). The King tries to kill Cumong while he is still inside an egg (Korean mythology). The King's brother, Todong, tried to kill the boy Gesar Khan (Tibetan and Mongol mythology). The Big Bad Wolf eats Little Red Riding Hood, but she survives (European fairy tale). The Queen aka Snow White's step mother tries to kill Snow White (German fairy tale). Maleficent curses Princess Aurora so that she may die on her 16th birthday, but she survives after the Prince kisses her (French fairy tale). Hansel and Gretel are abandoned by their father and stepmother and attacked by a witch, but they survive (German fairy tale). Anastasia is abandoned by her father and stepmother but survives (Russian fairy tale called "Father Frost"). Vassilisa was sent to the witch Baba Yaga by her stepmother, but she escaped and survived (Slavic mythology). Mariassa was sent by her stepmother to the witch Baba Yaga, but she escaped and survived (Slavic mythology). Maui was abandoned by his mother as a baby (Polynesian mythology).

Oh people are still doing the gay fedora "I hate you so much dad!" thing in 2025? Huh, learn something new every day

When a five-year-old tells you that they have the best invisible friend (ever), you wouldn't ask them "what epistemic framework are you using to substantiate the existence of your friend?" You'd typically say something like, "that's cool-what's their name," right? I fail to see a significant intellectual difference between presup apologists and that hypothetical kid. They have an invisible best friend and you can't tell them otherwise. If you make a rational counter-argument, you're threatening to take their friend away. So why do so many adults need the security of an invisible but reassuring presence? The times I've most wanted God to be real were the times I felt alone and afraid. I've gathered from recent events that many people, despite being in dominant positions in society, feel lonely and fearful. In retrospect, this national emotional crisis is intentional. However, many of the architects of our miserable situation are long gone, so their original doctrine has transformed into this amorphous concept of "traditional values." Because the religious Right can always beat that metaphorical drum to stir up discontent, they have no incentive to retire any dogma, no matter how antisocial it becomes. I'm no sociologist, but I suspect that our whole approach to pedagogy in this nation is critically flawed. Our school systems are modeled after military drill camps, so we all effectively adopt a military lifestyle from early childhood onward. The militarism always present in our society went into overdrive after WWII, so the USA has been in a total war stance for generations now. We need to learn how to stand down and be at ease before the battle fatigue completely overwhelms us.

Please spell a-theist with the hyphen, as the believes believe atheism is a belief due to the suffix “ISM”, denoting belief.

Logic and rational thought are kryptonite to the faithful believer.

I've had fun sometimes by refusing to play along. Presup: why X? Me: I don't know. My ignorance does nothing to advance your claim.

😊

Name and prove one thing created without a designer? No, you name and prove anything has ever been created. Then we can talk about how it was created. Storms are rearrangements of millions of tons of atmospheric gases. At a certain point, humans choose to call the arrangement a storm but nothing has been created. Crystals are rearrangements of preexisting molecules in a certain way according to the known chemical bonding processes. We call that a crystal but there's nothing new. And no the big bang is not claimed to create anything. The whole universe was in a hot dense state, it was already there but our known laws of physics can't describe what that was like or what happened before the planck time.

Presup arguments can be dealt with ny pointing out that God actually adheres to a more Neitschian idea of morality. Called Will to Power. God exerts his morals and values in order to subjugate the world and impose a seperate value system in which one must not exert their own power but rather relinquish power for complete and utter obediance. Much like the Roman Empire (master morality) subjugated the jewish/early christian Peasant class (slave morality) morality and ethics to God himself is not Universal, but is completely based on his own whim and edict. Which would explain why he is willing to wage war and genocide at the command of his words. But does not allow humans ,even his own followers, to do the same. There is no universal Morality. Only values imposed by those who have the power to do so. And this is inherent with or without God and he himself has practiced this.

Presupposionalism basically presents the problem of solipsism to the materials worldview. The materialist worldview cant solve solipsism, but niether can the theistic worldview. They CLAIM that god is the foundation for true things, but if they cant trust their senses, then they could be wrong. They ALSO have to demonstrate that their foundation for truth is real, just like they are asking the atheist to do. The second one side brings up any form of solipsism as a possibility, they lose. There is no point talking to someone that doesnt already agree we can trust our senses. If we agree, now we can start looing at the evidence. Suprise, there is none for god

Why are all these atheists mad at something they claim doesn't exist.

I remember being floored when I first learned of presuppositionalism. How can anyone be so intellectually dishonest!

Masochist to sadist: "hurt me, hurt me!" Sadist: "NO!" (The guy who wanted you to ban him.)

Apologists are smarter than most of their fans but anyone capable of critical thinking can see through the fallacies of their arguments.

😊

Presup, as used by most apologists is just a poorly disguised "God of the philosophical gaps" argument. They just take all of the unsolved problems in philosophy... typically, Hume's problem of induction (which none of them understand) the problem of hard solipsism, Agrippa's trilemma, the is/ough problem, the problem of the criterion, etc. ...and then try to weaponize those problems against their interlocutor, while utterly failing to demonstrate _how_ their worldview solves these problems, let alone _that_ their worldview solves these problems.

Presupositional apologetics has been around for a while. I believe cornealius van till discovered it, and Greg Bahnson popularized it. If someone is using it, they are probably a calvinist. I'm not an atheist, but if you want to defeat a presupositionalist, this is the best way I can think of. " I know some things with absolute certainty ( 2+2=4 I am absolutely certain of that), but I don't know how I know these things with absolute certainty. " It flips the script back on to them to demonstrate God is the cause.