How to destroy a presup in 3 easy steps!

[@waveman0]

presup isn't interested in honest discourse. Its only objective is to shut the opponent down, people employ presup because they they believe it is an easy 'win' in exchanges. It's lazy.

[@lawless7859]

Denying the antecedent is a logcal fallacy. One of many reason why presuppostional arugments are not good.

[@BScott7220]

It's telling that even in the apologetics world, presupp is frowned upon. You will rarely see presuppers go up against skilled atheist interlocuters. What you will find are ridiculous street preachers bulldozing unbelievers. Or all these chat rooms of course with a handful of clowns who's mission statement seems to be to make Christianity as unappealing as possible. Their argumentation is terrible and their personalities worse. At least the street preachers approach their victims with a modicum of decency or even initial charm. In the sewers of Discord etc., there's no pretense of civility.

[@garrgravarr]

❤

[@adam_meek]

It's 'between x and *ME* ' - not 'I'. WHY ARE YOU RUBBISH AT GRAMMAR?

[@ericb9804]

No - you don't get it. You just declare that some things are "true," in an "objective" sense, but you don't explain how you would identify any specific example. How do you identify a "true" statement? Wouldn't any such actual identification implicate your own "subjective" determination? If so, then its unclear what you mean by "objectively true." The presup argument has legs not because it demonstrates god, but because it reveals something inconvenient about traditional epistemology, i.e. that "objectivity" is an incoherent idea, for both theists AND atheists. See Pragmatism.

[@nowthatsdebatablepodcast]

Naw that's nonsense, there are truths that rely on logic itself. One such example is true dichotomies. It is true that (A v-A). That is necessarily true. You'd have to deny logic itself to refute it. You should come on the show though. Email us at [e-mail] if you're interested.

[@ericb9804]

@@nowthatsdebatablepodcast But "logic itself" is something we "experience," right? Saying (Av-A) is "necessarily true" is precisely to say that it "conforms to your experience," and so much so that you can't imagine it being any other way. Right? So, as usual, you are appealing to your experience to inform you on what is "true," which is why its unclear in what sense any given example of "truth" can also be "objective," in the sense of "independent of our experience." And no one is "denying logic." Logic is demonstrably useful, thats all that matters. I don't need to insist that what I can "logic" has anything to do with what ever is "really, really real, like really," in order to keep doing what I am already doing.

[@nowthatsdebatablepodcast]

@@ericb9804 not even close. While I do in fact experience logic, it isn't contingent on my experience nor limited by my imagination. Square circles aren't impossible because of my lack of imagination, but rather because it's a contradiction. My experience is irrelevant. You should definitely come on the show bro. I'd love to discuss this live.

[@ericb9804]

@@nowthatsdebatablepodcast If logic is something you "experience," then how do you know it isn't "contingent" on your experience? How do tell the difference between "logic" and "your experience of logic?" It doesn't seem you can, does it? It seems that what you call "logic" will also always be what you call "your experience of logic" as well, right? You can't tell me something is "true" without telling me how you know, and how you know will always be an expression of your experience, which is why insisting that "reality" and "your experience of reality" are two separate things is just silly metaphysics that only leads to confusion.

[@nowthatsdebatablepodcast]

@@ericb9804 it doesn't sound like you understand the argument which is why I invited you on the show. Not only have my experience been wrong occasionally which demonstrates that it's seperate from reality but whether my experience of reality is different reality isn't relevant to the argument. As long as reality is reality the argument works. You still can't have square circles.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

You're presupposing God isn't necessary, which is the same thing as presupposing God doesnt exist (since God is defined as the necessary metaphysical pre-condition for all dependent facts). So, in your example, when you say "if God doesn't exist, then it's still the case that the socks do exist or the socks don't exist" you're presupposing God is not *necessary* for all kinds of things, such as: 1. Laws of logic 2. That words have meaning 3. A metaphysical framework (you can only make assertions about what does or doesnt exist in line with your metaphysical framework - which is usually Materialism for atheists). Whichever non-theistic metaphysical framework you invoke here, it'll necessarily entail God cannot & does not exist. 4. A theory of Epistemology - you can only make assertions in line with your theory of knowledge (Atheists usually believe Empiricism pr Scientism for this) 7. That intelligibility is possible 8. That knowledge is possible 9. That rational thought is possible 10. Unity among diversity 11. Identity over time And more... You're affirming that God is not necessary for all of those... so, youre affirming any non-theistic worldview. And all non-theistic worldviews necessarily entail that any creator God cannot & does not exist. So you're not withholding judgment. You've affirming a worldview which necessarily entails the falsity of God, committing you to defending the position that God does not exist.

[@nowthatsdebatablepodcast]

I didn't presuppose that god isn't necessary, I demonstrated it in the argument. Reality exist by necessity because of identity, and if there is a reality then it is true that it either does or does not contain apples. So there you have it, truth. Please explain how the existence of a god or lack thereof have any impact on this argument. Morevover, I'm not convinced of your assertion that affirming that god is not necessary means that I'm affirming that god doesn't exist. That just sounds like a non-sequitur. Would you apply that to anything else? For instance, I don't need bicycles to explain nuclear fission, but that doesn't mean that bicycles don't exist. Also, I'd love to get you on the show for a live discussion. Are you interested?

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@nowthatsdebatablepodcast When you say "reality exists by necessity" you're assuming God is not necessary for reality to exist, which is the same thing as presupposing God doesn't exist.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@nowthatsdebatablepodcast You're essentially just making "reality" God instead of God by saying that "reality" necessarily exists. In truth, it's only God which necessarily exists... not the creation (which is what you're referring to when you say "reality" because, as an atheist, you will mean material reality)

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@nowthatsdebatablepodcast And we actually know that the material world (what you mean by "reality") is NOT necessary, in numerous different ways. 1. There are Mathematical & logical proofs that the universe cannot be eternal & therefore began to exist at a finite time in the past. 2. If the universe began to exist, then it can't be what is ultimate. It is contingent upon something else, which means it's not necessary.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@nowthatsdebatablepodcast To answer your question: You asked why affirming that God is not necessary means that you're affirming God doesn't exist: This is the case because any creator God is known as the personal creator of the universe. When translated into metaphysical terminology, this becomes "the universal mind that is the necessary pre-condition for all dependent facts" Notice how the word "necessary" is in there. This is because any creator God MUST BE the necessary pre-condition for all dependent facts, since ALL dependent facts must ultimate derive from God, otherwise He wouldn't be a creator God. Either you believe all facts require a universal mind (God) as a necessary pre-condition or you do not. There is no third option to choose from there, due to the law of excluded middle. So, in any worldview either all facts are evidence for God or none of them are. No third option. And so when you say "God is not necessary" for any fact or anything at all within this material reality we live within in, you are positively affirming that any non-theistic worldview is true... and that any creator God cannot & does not exist within that world. Because, if even a single fact exists independently from God then God cannot & does not exist (since the concept of God is the necessary pre-condition for ALL dependent facts). So God cannot logically co-exist in any world where even a single fact exists independently from Him.