faceofyah (Christian Presuppositionalist) Tries Running Presupp in the Atheist Room

faceofyah (Christian Presuppositionalist) hops in the Atheist Room and tries running presupp and gets torn apart.
Join us at discord.gg/politics for more great conversations!
Please like, comment, share, and subscribe for more amazing videos!
#religion #christianity #islam #metaphysics #buddhism #christianphilosophy #christian #islamic #metaphysical
Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Presuppositionalist, Presuppositionalism, Presuppositional Apologetics
May want to start this at medium volume, everyone's volume was all over the place and so I did my best to even it out. Bear with me while I work out the kinks as I learn how to edit. The goal is better quality videos with less sound fluctuations.

[@alexritchie4586]

Behold, a cube! It has no edges, faces, vertices, or volume, but it's still a cube, goddam it!

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Yes

[@racuncai]

I want a presupp to define what revelation is and why they have to read a book to get it.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Good point!

[@racuncai]

@@realBreakfasttacos Is not like God fill their minds with perfect knowledge with God magic, they have to read a book. Unless they prove they have perfect senses and a perfect minds I have no reason to trust revelation.

[@dansmith7009]

@@racuncaiyep, and the other, equally fun question to watch them spiral on is “how do you know what God revealed to you was true?” They’ll say something that boils down to, “gods nature was revealed to be in a able of falsehood,” at which point it goes back to circularity of “and how do you know god wasn’t lying when He revealed to you that it was against his nature to lie?”

[@racuncai]

@@dansmith7009 they'll say other bullshit like "God's nature is to be honest" The problem with pressups is they ignore their own nature as fallable human beings, even if God gave you perfect knowledge doesn't mean you can hold it or even use it, your mind is not perfect. Unless they are sociopaths (most of them are sadly) they will understand that and win and an Olympic medal in mental gymnastics trying to justify nonsense.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

@@racuncai Very good point!

[@LookOutForNumberOne]

Defining a god into existence, nice going there!!!

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Seems to be a common theme.

[@ajhieb]

3:19 _"By definition, if it's eternal, it couldn't fail to exist."_ Yeah, and? That doesn't change the theist's burden of proof at all. It's still up to the theist to demonstrate that such a being is _actual._ Telling me that _if_ it exists, it exists necessarily, is fine and I agree. (given the definitions used... I don't agree that a necessary being is even a coherent, let alone actual concept) But adding "exists necessarily" to the definition of some concept doesn't make it _actual._ 3:48 _"When we're talking about the ultimate, everything that is not ultimate would be evidence (for the aforementioned ultimate)"_ Sure, if you're okay with begging the question. Yes if you _assume_ that specific ultimate as your starting point then everything else derives from that, but absent that specific starting point everything that is not ultimate doesn't point to any particular ultimate at all. Even if you were to try and make the weaker claim that it's all evidence of _some_ (non-specific) ultimate, that again begs the question as that doesn't follow either unless you assume that some ultimate is necessary for there to be non-ultimate things. Also, given the definition of evidence that is often used (any body of objectively verifiable facts which are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other) faceofyah's assertion that everything that is not ultimate is evidence for _his_ ultimate is simply false. It doesn't even begin to meet the definition.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

True

[@GrimHC]

dude if face needs to crank up his gain when his opponent is dismantling his position is proof face is just a troll lmao he doesnt take atheists seriously, if what face said is to be summed up

[@realBreakfasttacos]

I'm pretty sure most of that was me trying to correct everyone in the room being all over the place. I'm still new to editing, sorry about that.

[@wj2036]

Im dumb, so I have no idea if any of that was actually coherent. But it sure sounded cool. Presup is so frustrating.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

LOL

[@Imagicka]

Don't worry about it, presuppositionists don't understand what presuppositionism either. They only understand the script they are trying to get you to follow.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

@@Imagicka Very true

[@thomasg627]

Even iffffff you could prove there is or was a creator, you have done absolutely nothing to prove there's a personal god who listens to prayers. Maybe there's a creator who just loves seeing his creation die by the 1000s in devestating earthquakes, floods, drouts, etc. Maybe there's a creator who spreads out contradictory and vague information about who or what he is, just because he loves seeing his creation kill each other over the question who believes in the right version of creator. Maybe there's a creator who wanted to have a huge load of cats and dogs in his heaven and he needed humans to breed them.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Very good point lol