Is Presuppositional Apologetics a Joke? Ayaan Hirsi Ali shows It’s Not.

This video illustrates what presuppositional apologetics is as it explores the testimony of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The God-debate has run its course, at this point debates have proven important, but not the deciding factor for faith in Jesus Christ.

[@thequantumshade1556]

Yes, it’s a joke. So is Ali’s conversion.

[@dougsmith6793]

It wasn't until I realized just how stupid I was that everything started to make sense.

[@toughbiblepassages9082]

No it is not a joke, but it is not logically valid. Saying it is the reason why people are converted is just as illogical a proof as presuppositionalism was in the first place.. far more have believed far worse based on far less.

[@dougsmith6793]

Labeling presup apologetics a "joke" is a bit confrontational / dismissive. While I may understand the sentiment behind that characterization, I wanted to understand it so I knew better how to address it when looking at all the pro / con arguments. The topic of presup apologetics boils down to the central dichotomy between theism and non-theism -- the necessary existence of an intelligent agent ("God") itself. I refer to this as intelligent agency (IA) or "theism" versus non-intelligent (circumstantial) agency (CA) or "naturalism". For me, IA / theism sufficiently and abundantly explains rationality, order, logic quite succinctly / concisely. I have no basic problem with this -- makes "perfect" sense. But theists create their own problem the moment they grant their IA properties like perfection, benevolence, omniscience, omnipotence. And this requires a convoluted layer of apologetics to explain everything that is NOT rational, logical, or in "perfect" order, in order to remain coherent with a perfect IA. Proponents of presup theism provide a series of rationalizations based on the initial presupposition in order to make their WV coherent. This is all well and good. But by the time they get through with all the explanations / apologetics for why their IA uses naturalistic means to accomplish its goal (whatever goal that might be), they've created an IA that is indistinguishable from the CA hypothesis or naturalism itself. That is, they're borrowing, either knowingly or unknowingly, from naturalism to make their case -- and they have no other choice but to do this, because making their hypothesis coherent with naturalistic phenomena is the purpose they're using apologetics to begin with. Naturalism only needs a few (sheesh, maybe only one) simple but pervasive ordering principle in order to explain both rationality / logic / order AND any and all deviations from rationality / logic / order. Suspiciously, the most basic ordering principle just happens to be the same simple principle that the IA must abide by (Eurythphro's dilemma) in order for it to accomplish its goals. Deviations from "perfect" order, rationality, logic, or "benevolence" require no explanation under CA -- there is no requirement for products of CA to be perfect or benevolent because benevolence is not a property of CA to begin with. Naturalism also does NOT have to invent apologetics to explain logic, rationality, order -- that coherency is also an unavoidable consequence of the basic ordering principle of the hypothesis itself. That said, CA is relentlessly, annoyingly, excruciatingly logical -- it literally has no other choice because it has no ability to choose to begin with. IA / theism DOES have a choice -- but, oddly, it chooses naturalism and naturalistic processes to accomplish whatever goal it's trying to accomplish (the only goal that we know of is existence as we experience it, which is just as true under naturalism). So, for me, it boils down to Occam's razor. IA / theism has not just sufficient, but abundant explanatory power, but is unnecessarily complicated -- intelligence itself is unnecessary. CA / naturalism is much more concise / succinct overall without compromising explanatory power, even when restricted by the necessity of strict adherence to its most basic ordering principle. Presup theism justifies belief in God for those who need that justification (that's psychology, not theology). But it does not prove that God is necessary, or even exists at all. I'm not saying that I particularly like that conclusion. I'm just as human as anyone else is, and so understand the existential dissonance that's pretty much inescapable for any mortal entity pondering it. But that's psychology (mortal thinking), not theology (immortal thinking). The truth of the matter is not obligated to abide by my -- or anyone else's -- personal preferences.

[@christianmonarchist3393]

I have been working on my own presuppositional argument that kind of fits in with this video. The idea is that all the atheist believe is matter in motion and some random cosmic accident brought us here to live for no reason at all. So without a higher purpose beyond themselves life is pretty meaningless. Usually they will say "i can create my own meaning" but that didn't work out to well for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective meaning in life cannot be grounded in an ultimate source. Premise 2: Objective meaning in life exists (e.g., moral values, purpose, significance). Conclusion: Therefore, God exists as the necessary precondition for the existence of objective meaning in life. Presuppositional arguments are more effective at illustrating a particular perspective or challenging alternative worldviews. It is more intellectually honest to frame presuppositional arguments as demonstrating the internal coherence of a particular worldview rather than asserting a conclusive proof of God's existence. Christian worldview is very consistent. If atheist gives you the "all meaning is subjective nonsense" than use this version. Premise 1: If there is no transcendental or objective source for meaning, then any individual meaning would be subjective and lack universal grounding. Premise 2: Objective or universal meaning exists in people's lives. Conclusion: Therefore, there must exist a transcendental or objective source for meaning, which we can identify as God. This revised argument acknowledges that subjective meaning might exist without an ultimate source. God bless and good night!

[@Druid75]

1 problem with your logic No proof of objective meaning in life Your premises aren’t sound so your conclusion isn’t either

[@wadehenderson1557]

To put it simply, I think that that's part of the point. There indeed is not proof of any meaning in life, UNLESS you believe you were made in the image of God and endowed with the ever-fulfilling purpose of enjoying God and sharing Him with others in love. Thanks for making me think@@Druid75

[@thequantumshade1556]

There is no good reason to believe life having meaning in the sense that you are talking about is necessary. Some people may think that it’s bleak to contemplate life without meaning, which is probably the reason atheists are saying to you things like “I can make my own meeting“ because we’re trying to explain to you that the reality we are aware of doesn’t necessarily have to make us hopeless. But there is no justification for the claim that the explanation for the beginning of human life must includes some timeless grand meaning.

[@JezuesChavez]

" objective meaning in life cannot be grounded in an ultimate source." - what an awful first premise. I see no meaning in a spirit existing forever.

[@christianmonarchist3393]

@@thequantumshade1556 Thanks for the objection, this one I will actually reply. Please consider the implications of subjective meaning. If meaning is solely subjective, it lacks universal grounding and becomes fluid, varying from person to person. This subjective meaning can often struggle to provide individuals with fulfillment, purpose, and a sense of value. While some may claim they have meaning, the subjective nature of this meaning limits its ability to serve as a firm foundation for a fulfilling and purposeful existence. I propose the existence of a universal foundation for those who seek it. Don't turn to nihilism.

[@Druid75]

Yes its a joke

[@andyarellanoChannel]

the druid, never studied, never read, never even tried; knows no archeology, knows history, knows nothing about enlightenment but can make a mean mandrake and tonic; amazing!

[@Druid75]

@@andyarellanoChannel whole lot of nothing you just said there

[@livingfaithpa]

Hello, I’d love to know your perspective and why you think it’s a joke, especially in light of ayaan’s testimony. I mean that genuinely, what am I missing?

[@Druid75]

@@livingfaithpa Here’s what presuppositionalism ACTUALLY is Narcissism, blatant pseudo-philosophical narcissism. It teaches you to assume you’re right and that you cannot be wrong and if people cant prove you wrong you’re therefore right. And every time you bring up this obvious flaw in the method the presups desperately try to trap you into this epistemological infinite regress of “how do you know?” Even though the same regress can and will be applied to them. “You can’t know anything without god” ok well how do you know that? “Cause its written in scripture” how do you know thats what it says? And how do you know it’s accurate? “Because it comes from god!” Well how do you know that?! And on and on it goes It indoctrinates you into thinking that only the Christian worldview is the only rational worldview but they cannot demonstrate any truth of that, they merely assert it. Even though that fallacious method can (and will be) applied to every religion to ever exist. Which is self evident that the presuppositionalist method is not all that sound as its adherents claim Its child mentality hiding behind the guise of phony intellectuals When it comes to Ayaan, i simply dont care what she thinks. She wasn’t even regarded as this big spokesperson for atheism or anything like that as some people think. If anything she was used as a tool by the right wing for their Islam smear campaign.

[@brandonmacey964]

@@livingfaithpadon’t expect atheist trolls to be logically consistent or defend their ideas, they just drive by comment and hate watch you 🙃

[@christian.comedy.channel.2]

Get to the point - thumbs down your too long winded

[@andyarellanoChannel]

i thought the whole point was made in 15 seconds. not being sarcastic. he said, we want to study how a Christian view of life is the best answer to all of lifes trials, challenges, the state our world is in etc. that makes sense to me. rewind and just spend 30 second after the music to just listen. i like comedy though and will check out the channel.

[@livingfaithpa]

Always want to improve, and I mostly agree with you actually

[@justinchamberlain3443]

@@livingfaithpa tell him to kick rocks

[@brandonmacey964]

Man this is a great video but of course there are always minor things to do better. That person is a hater bro

[@christian.comedy.channel.2]

@@brandonmacey964 I did listen tot he start but the guy never got to the point of explaining what presuppolinism is he just seemed to be saying nothing - talking for the sake of talking, after a few minutes I gave up, he needs to elarn to GER TO THE POINT QUICKLY.

[@Pax-Africana]

To make Jesus known as the Messiah meaning Christ foretold by Moses and the Prophets was the great commission which the White man changed with baptism in the name of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." It is the Messiah who brings the light of the law of Moses to the pagans, the polytheists, and idolaters through a new and inclusive Covenant... As it is written: "I will send the Messiah/Muhammad(Christ), a Prophet(Messenger) like you Moses, him they must listen..." Deut. 18:15-19; Surat 3:81... Trinity, trinity, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...!!!

[@whitevortex8323]

you do realise Augustine was african, and he was a believer of the trinity.

[@Pax-Africana]

@@whitevortex8323 Who cares what Augustine believed? Who is he anyway? We care what Jesus believed and here is He said: "Hear O Israel, Eternal our God, Eternal is One..." Jesus