This Is How You Do Apologetics (Presuppositional Apologetics) - Dr. Greg Bahnsen

[@reformedcatholic457]

Presuppositional Apologetics is a Christian method where it challenges and destroys the Atheist perspective on their foundation which they give up, this method of apologetics is the best way to refute the Atheist worldview. The Atheist rejects God, so in doing so reject absolute truth, human value, universal logic etc.. there is no standard for anything once you reject the ultimate standard in God. To refute this apologetic method the Atheist must believe in absolute truth but he cannot, his worldview doesn't allow him to, you can't make a truth statement if there is no truth. So then they decide what is good, but everything is relative at that point, everyone decides what is good in morality, there is no ultimate authority. An Atheist has said " there is no absolute truth" at that point you ask is that true that there is no absolute truth? They just have made a self refuting statement, therefore when they give up absolute truth they give up knowledge, that is the Atheist perspective, they give up truth before even speaking. According to what standard is something evil or good? Who decides what is truth? More on Presuppositional Apologetics below in video and see how easy it is to refute the Atheist worldview. How to answer the fool by Sye Ten Bruggencate. One of the best out there. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4Kum4iwpNmqlbs Militant Atheist vs Jeff Durbin at the Reason Rally kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnOzYplvZ8uYsNU No science, no logic, no morality: Atheism kzbin.info/www/bejne/randaWehiJ2earc

[@mikedials4606]

Biblical Christianity I read this verse in 2Timothy 2:23-24 I feel as Christians we shouldn't participate in these debates bc they basically degrade to quarreling and Timothy admonishes us not to do it. What say you? Btw I'm a Christian.

[@reformedcatholic457]

Well when I go out to witness and I come across an atheist, I do use the Presuppositional apologetics approach and it works very well for me. There is no angry quarreling, or foolish controversies. But after I present the Gospel if they want to hear it. I do think it is important for Christians to know this method of apologetics when their faith is being attacked. God bless.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Biblical Christianity How do you know that the Bible god exists?

[@RoseNoho]

+Biblical Christianity, no, Atheists don't give up absolute truth, human value, nor universal logic. You presups attack strawmen. Presuppositional Apologetics is Christianity is full retreat. I see that as a good thing.

[@pittzburghkid]

Your non-arguments are as bad as your grammar. For every Dawkins and Harris there are thousands of you...thats a good thing.

[@jesuschrististheredpill9121]

This man cured my atheism as you can tell by my screen name. Anyone who doesn't listen to what he says and follow it to it's logical conclusion that God exists....they don't want to see the truth. I know personally because I was one of those people for 36 years. The Truth of Jesus Christ will set you free. You have to be ready to accept the truth.....wherever it may lead you....before you should ever seek it.

[@shawn4888]

Jesus Christ IS the Red Pill lol, or it could just be they realize that he hasnt presented a sound and valid argument.

[@xxxmmm3812]

Jesus cured your atheism THROUGH this guy

[@shawn4888]

Jane Erstić yeah kinda silly isnt it.

[@20july1944]

Pill: I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in the presupp apologetic. If Bahnsen cured your atheism, that's wonderful but I can't get anyone to actually demonstrate the presupp apologetic to me. What presupp/argument did you find persuasive?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@20july1944 why don't you speak plainly, and just tell us what your end game is!

[@patarikisoterion9899]

Dr Bahnsen is hands down my favourite Christian apologist.

[@patarikisoterion9899]

That only demonstrates that you don’t have the foggiest idea about pressup.

[@patarikisoterion9899]

Nick Jones What it demonstrates is that God is not in the witness stand. You are. He is the judge. The reason why atheists do not like this method of argumentation is because it exposes that without God you can not make appeals to the validity of anything.

[@patarikisoterion9899]

Nick Jones Actually we can “equit” God evidentially. And apologists have. But the theists interpretation of the evidence will simply be dismissed by the atheist or naturalist. Because it’s not about evidence it’s the interpretation of said evidence based on your worldview. Atheists do not like presupp because it doesn’t deal in secondary matters but rather the foundations or what is fundamental in a particular persons worldview, and how you can justify your metaphysic, Absolute laws of logic, rationality, science and morality. This is where atheism crumbles as it is suspended in midair. Having to borrow from the Christian worldview to have those things. You are presupposing Gods existence by assuming that rationality is valid even in this interaction now. How does the atheist account for abstract entities in a materialistic universe?

[@patarikisoterion9899]

Nick Jones Nick Jones I meant to say acquit. And you know that. Just like you mean to say doesn’t not dousnt right? Lol Ok go ahead justify Laws of logic and induction according to your atheism. Oh wait you don’t have to? That is not rational, you just believe what you you believe with blind faith. Justify how in a materialistic worldview you get ideas, concepts law of logic, moral absolutes. According to my Christian, worldview. God is the necessary precondition for all knowledge. And my supernaturalistic worldview can justify abstract entities because God is immaterial, universal and unchanging. You cannot have reasoning in an atheistic universe just non moral, non logical electrical impulses firing off in your 3 pound meaty grey matter. Your worldview crumbles because you do not have an answer to the preconditions of knowledge, truth, morality laws in general and the laws of logic in particular. Your atheism is false it has no foundations and needs my worldview to survive. Because without God you wouldn’t know anything.

[@patarikisoterion9899]

Why are you continuing to reply back. Every time you do you’re assuming my worldview.

[@bellakhokhar5621]

"God is the precondition for the intelligibility of all human experience and reason"-- Amen!

[@shawn4888]

Too bad the people claiming that have yet to demonstrate its true.

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@shawn4888 prove it. You actually have no demonstration as to why the people claiming that God is the precondition for the intelligibility of all human experience and reason have yet to demonstrate it to be true. And yet here you are demanding a demonstration. Your statement is merely arbitrary.

[@shawn4888]

@@juilianbautista4067 lol, sorry but you look incredibly stupid saying I am.being arbitrary. It's on the presupps to prove their case. Never on anyone else and it's a logical fallacy to demand others do so.

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@shawn4888 "you look incredibly stupid saying I am being arbitrary" is also arbitrary. You didn't substantiate it. You didn't prove it. You didn't demonstrate it. You also don't need proof, by the way. You know God exists.

[@shawn4888]

@@juilianbautista4067 lol, I realize you are not very bright, but arbitrary doesn't mean hasn't been proved,demonstrated etc. If that was the definition all of christianity would be arbitrary. And sorry but you look rather idiotic declaring what I know, when you are so hopelessly wrong.

[@a5dr3]

Bahnsen was the best apologist of all time. Like a Grandmaster who could see fives moves ahead. Other people imitate him constantly but he was special. His logic was authoritative in its ability to expose and destroy. He could grasp all the ramifications of each individual fallacious thought because he could see the whole epistemological picture and the history of western philosophy so clearly, and how each assertion was inter-related to the whole. He could helicopter out and then zoom in off the cuff in debate, in a way that was so efficacious that it sounded scripted. And all this within the context of an encyclopedic knowledge Scripture and Systematic Theology, that he constantly stood on and drew from. It’s such a shame he didn’t live long enough to wipe the floor with Hitchens, etc. He was only getting more and more skilled and knowledgeable, as he essentially died young.

[@shawn870]

Lol, hitchens would have destroyed him. When your approach is simply mak8ng claims you never bother to back up, its quite easy to defeat.

[@a5dr3]

Shawn H Oh yeah, bra? And how should he “back it up.” Should he challenge all materialists to a slam dunk contest? Or let’s just turn the classroom into thunder dome and make boxing gloves and mouth guards mandatory so everyone will stop with the sissy talking and verbal communication. You know, like Christopher Hitchens, he was the cruiserweight champion of scholarly debate. By the way, how do you back up your claim that Bahnsen needs to “back it up.” How is your comically idiotic 13 year old criticism not reversible?

[@shawn870]

@@a5dr3 He has to provide evidence his claims are true. Anyone can make a claim. That doesnt have any ability to show its true. So yeah he needs to back up his claims. Any 13 year old knows that. Why you think that isnt the case suggests you are not as bright as the average 13 year old.

[@a5dr3]

Shawn H - Oh you want him to provide evidence! How profound! I’ve never heard anyone make that challenge before. What a novel idea! Where do you teach? Do you have any books on epistemology? I’d love to check out more of your novel, paradigm exploding atheistic challenges! - I’m sure Bahnsen didn’t give empirical evidence, and also deal with the concept of empirical evidence every single lecture and question and answer of his entire life, as he also does here for the first 5 minutes of a 15 minute video. - You don’t have the slightest idea what your talking about. Not even enough to get into into a philosophy 101 class. I would be happy explain it to you, the logical positivist etc. as I often do to freshman students, and as Bahnsen already does in this video, but your not only ignorant, your arrogant and cavalier in your juvenile mediocrity, and it would be waste of my time. Done with you.

[@shawn870]

@@a5dr3 Lol, sorry but you are projecting your arrogance and mediocrity. Btw, bahnsen doesnt back up his claims because he has no ability to, nor does any other presupp. Thats why they avoid it and use every logical fallacy they can of pressed to do so. You are quite funny that it you who would fail logic 101, not me.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

The hidden gem of apologetics

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Nick Jones triggered

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Nick Jones triggered again

[@LindeeLove]

It IS a gem of apologetics. It's comedy gold!

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S are you saying we don't make presuppositions, in order to have meaningful experience?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S well I was just looking at your last post. And it seems, at least to me... That you're stating the Christian position is I'm right! I have to be right! so you must be wrong! So I was simply trying to ascertain what your position was.

[@GracUntoYou]

My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. Psalm 73:26 | KJV

[@FrescoFD]

Thank you for this video. Through AiG, I encounter this method, which really make sense in my attempt to give reasonable answer about my belief in Christ. Anyway, do you have any video regarding the use of this method with other false religion? I hadn't found either video nor article that give such example of the effectiveness of this method.

[@gogos869]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4bIgqxoe7eXmrc Thought you might appreciate this interview with his son. Apologia studios also has something called Bahnsen university. Enjoy!

[@rougebaba3887]

I had a series of lectures done by Bahnsen where his approach to certain world religions was touched on. His approach was a bit different as I recall. He seemed to focus more on the internal contradictions inherent to them and/or their contradictions with widely accepted facts in what might be called "universal human experience". Not sure if any of these are publicly available. An example (again, as I recall) was the apparent contradiction of the Buddhist belief in emptying ones self of all personal desire as a path to enlightenment, while also not acknowledging the obvious nature that such a belief inherently presupposes a personal desire. Or it might be easier to say that the desire to rid one's self of all desires is quite obviously a desire in and of itself. And when you think about it, there just is something inhuman in such a process. Of course a Buddhist wouldn't necessarily see anything wrong with becoming less human..... He might even complain about using the word "less". Why call it less human? But he is human and cannot ultimately escape his own nature as such.

[@dutchchatham1]

Imagine approaching an argument where you assert you can't be wrong and that your opponent isn't allowed to disagree. That is presuppositionalism; the apologetic of choice for the intellectually lazy and the emotionally fragile bully.

[@nickjones5435]

Yeah Christian presuppers are so dishonest and pathetic it's laughable isnt it!

[@manbad-xc1os]

Make an argument then

[@nickjones5435]

@manbad-xc1os I'll make an argument if you wish. Here's my sylogism. Please tell me if it's logically valid and sound. P.1. We have no reason to believe and accept claims from mythology untill credible evidence has been presented. P.2. No credible evidence has been presented of the Christian god. P.3 There is therefore no reason to believe the Christian god exists.

[@dutchchatham1]

@@manbad-xc1os if you identify as a presuppositionalist, no. The only assertion I'll make is that presupps are inherently disingenuous malicious people who exist only to humiliate others. Please, for the love of your god, prove me wrong.

[@dutchchatham1]

@@nickjones5435 sounds good to me. I'm certain the response will be something like: "By what standard do you evaluate evidence?" Or some such excrement that they always pull.

[@parraphrase]

Anyone else notice how the atheists in this thread trash the presuppositional apologetic but have no response to it? And also how they make absolute statements based on their presupposition that invariant unchanging laws of logic, which their worldview cannot account for, exist? Amazing to see people who haven't listened to or understood an argument be so convinced they are right to oppose it.

[@lotus160]

Well actually we do. We point out that yours is a circular argument based on assertion. Secondly you claim to have solved hard solipsism by saying the Christian God did it! I totally understand it and I call it out as flawed. You argue that we cannot account for the laws of logic however that is an argument from ignorance. Just because we cannot account for X does not mean that God did it. You can only conclude that if, and only if, you exclude all other possibilities. Errrrrrm, which you haven't.

[@shawn4888]

parraphrase You actually have it backwards, presupps cant back up their claims. There make absolute statememts like the ones you made without being able to back them up or support them.

[@20july1944]

paraphrase and Biblical Christianity: I am a Christian with contempt for presupp. What *is* the fundamental presupp in your presupp apologetic? Does it differ among presupp schools? I can't get anybody to walk me through it.

[@shawn4888]

20july1944 the presupposition in presuppositional.apologetics is thats god exists. Basically they presuppose god exists rather than try to show god exists. At least thats what it meant for the originial versions of the argument. Later varitions avoid annoucing that in order to hide the circular argument inherent in the argument.

[@20july1944]

@@shawn4888 I don't think their argument is that lame, but perhaps it is. However, you're clearly not a presupp and I'm looking for a presupp to present and defend it. Where do you think the universe came from?

[@NayBuster]

The only response from atheists to presuppositional apologetics is basically: Presupp: You can't jump that high. atheists: I disagree, I can. Presupp: Prove it. atheists: No, it's on you to prove that I can't jump that high.

[@llkiii3139]

The preconditions for intelligibility are provided by the following three axioms. 1. Existence exists (there is something rather than nothing) 2. Consciousness perceives existence 3. A = A (the logical absolutes are grounded in this axiom) These axioms are conceptually primary. That is, all concepts are reliant upon them, including the concept of God. And as a side note, the logical absolutes are transcendent and mind independent. They apply even in a universe that contains no thinking entities. A hydrogen atom in a mindless universe would still be whatever it is and not whatever it isn't. And existence is metaphysically primary as well. We can deny the existence of God, but we cannot deny the existence of existence.

[@toofargonemcoc]

justify those three axioms

[@llkiii3139]

@toofargonemcoc Because the axioms are the most fundamental premises possible, they are implicitly presumed, not only in every claim to knowledge of any sort, but also in every attempt at proof. Any attempt to prove them (or disprove them) conceptually must, itself, presume them. Thus, the axioms are performatively affirmed.

[@toofargonemcoc]

@@llkiii3139 so you cant justify or give an account for your presupposed axioms. you just assume them and say they "just are" arbitrary and ad hoc buddy.

[@llkiii3139]

@@toofargonemcoc You just performatively affirmed them again. And so did I.

[@toofargonemcoc]

@@llkiii3139 affirming them isnt the justification/account for the axioms themselves. im asking for justification/account for your presupposed axioms.

[@Kingfish179]

Serious question: why do Dr. Bahnsen's arguments support the Christian worldview specifically? Wouldn't it be less of a logical leap to say that they support theism more generally?

[@reformedcatholic457]

I believe this article will answer your question. frame-poythress.org/presuppositional-apologetics/

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones so how is it morally bankrupt, or dishonest to acknowledge that there are necessary presuppositions in order to have meaningful experience? The Christian has a least a philosophical answer to account for the presuppositions we all already use! Do you have an answer to account for their existence?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones even though I appreciate that you conceded to the fact that my philosophy of thought, my worldview is able to account for induction, logic, abstracts, Etc., if we appeal to the Christian God as a philosophical answer. But that does not negate your earlier unsupported assertion that presuppositional apologist are morally bankrupt and dishonest! How can we be dishonest if you already agree with our assessment that presuppositions exist and are necessary? Is it being dishonest because we have a philosophical answer and you don't? And exactly what subjective ethical standard are you appealing to by which you evaluate mine or anyone else's actions? Didn't your mom ever teach you that's subjective moral foundations are self-refuting! Sounds to me as if you're having an atheistic verbal temper tantrum!

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones not only have you called the presuppositional apologetics dishonest and morally bankrupt, without a shred of evidence. Now you are asserting without evidence that God is not part of reality. In your world Nick, are things true simply because you say they are?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones that's exactly what I'm doing waiting for you to answer the question....... how is the presuppositional apologist dishonest or morally bankrupt? After all.... that was actually the first question posed to you for your unsupported assertion! As far as evidence for the existence of God goes..... you have already been given a logical chain of reasoning where it logically, and deductively follows that God exists necessarily so. I understand in your unbelieving state you want to naturalize everything that you experience. The only problem is that such properties as induction, logic, universals, and abstracts don't comport to a non-teleological universe!

[@i_assume]

Jay Dyer employed and developed it further.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

Presuppositional apologetics is the last bastion of a dying faith. They are verbal gymnastics directly resulting from the admission that the burden of proof can't be met.

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

@@thevulture5750 2+2=Odin? I like it! 👍🏼

[@timothyokeefejr6019]

Weird people consider this to be verbal gymnastics? He is just simply explaining that in the kindest way possable..That if you are an Atheist..You are illogical..Irrational..and are maintaining your own mental disorder even though you don't have too..There arent any verbal gymnastics here..He is just explaining his point.The problem is..He's actually correct..So correct...that it seems like he's being arrogant..But he's just that right about it..that it comes off as arrogant..But He actually knows what he's talking about so it seems to be offensive because some people have to listen a few times to get it..But if you listen a few times..You will get it..❤️

[@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1]

@@timothyokeefejr6019 Having a conversation with a Presup is like playing poker with a guy holding Baseball cards.

[@nemochuggles]

You didn’t deal with his argument. You Just made an assertion.

[@a.i.l1074]

I'm doing a deep dive on Bahnsen and Van Til soon, but can someone explain why logic is not possible on materialism? Surely matter could just move in predictable ways which gives rise to these laws? I don't see that a logical material universe is a priori less likely than one where things move and interact randomly

[@a.i.l1074]

@@Kantiandude Couldn't the materialist just say that it may be possible that laws of logic don't apply in some unobservable part of the universe? What difference would that make? This sounds like a first cause argument, and we're back to standard apologetics

[@a.i.l1074]

@@Kantiandude alright, thanks man that makes sense.

[@spilledbeans4226]

​@@a.i.l1074its the fact that for there to be matter the law of identity has to be true and prior to matter

[@a.i.l1074]

@@spilledbeans4226 Maybe we can contrast this with a fine tuning argument to see the problem I'm having: I can imagine a universe where gravity is slightly stronger, and the gravitational constant seems to be a completely arbitrary number in want of an explanation. I cannot imagine a universe where x =/= x, and that doesn't seem to be arbitrary or require an explanation. If anything is brute, surely x=x is brute. In terms of priority, I could agree with them being conceptually prior but not temporally prior with an independent ontology, like the law of identity existed in any sense before the universe. If it is temporally prior and *real*, wouldn't it also be prior to (or at least coeternal with) God, and wouldn't it limit His actions?

[@a.i.l1074]

@@spilledbeans4226 Bahnsen's book about Van Til is on my reading list and I intend to approach it seriously and with an open mind, so if I'm frustrating you then probably best just give me time and I'll be guided to the truth myself

[@curious1053]

Presuppositional apologetics is what pushed me to finally give up the faith and later become atheist. Thank you.

[@kylec8950]

You were never of the "faith" if you were able to give it up.

[@curious1053]

@@kylec8950 Sorry you feel that way but I was and did give it up over time.

[@kylec8950]

@@curious1053 The Bible says if you were able to leave the faith then you never were of it. 1 John 2:19. I urge you to reconsider !

[@curious1053]

@@kylec8950 the Bible has been proven to have contradictions, not just with itself but also scientific research. Begging isn’t very convincing anymore. I had faith in that book but not anymore.

[@kylec8950]

@@curious1053 There are no contradictions in the Bible. Science depends on the Bible. Without the Bible there is no real science.

[@ezbody]

How to win any debate -- just declare yourself a winner who is incapable of losing. Religious Narcissism at its best.

[@richardbonnette490]

For sure, anyone can win a debate with that method, no matter a person's beliefs.

[@cygnusustus]

Presuppositionalism is the last desperate gasp of apologetics.

[@RickPayton-r9d]

Calling "laws of Logic" abstrations misses the point, they are usefull mental tools (just like other mental tools, such as memory) that thinking creatures keep because they help us to live. Trying to "justify" such things is pointless. I have no certainty that the laws of logic are always true, but ITS A FACT that the laws always help when I'm thinking.

[@shawn870]

Open challenge to any presupps who think they can show the argument is sound and valid without logical fallacies, like trying to shift the burden of proof, associated arguments from ignorance or personnel incredulity, or circular reasoning.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H well you have not shown the argument to be unsound and contain any logical fallacies. You haven't offered evidence nor demonstrated that the argument is an argument from ignorance fallacy or that there is a shifting of the burden of proof taking place. Nor have you proven there a circular reasoning taken place. In fact your entire diatribe is just an opinion that's it! *Before anyone can accept your challenge you. First need to demonstrate that there are accusations needing to be defended against* !

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein The challenge is for presupps to back up their claims without using those fallacies michael. They are making claims they need to back up. You tried and failed and you had several months to do so.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H yeah yeah yeah yeah and of course you say a lot of things that are not true! You are correct in one aspect..... the presuppositional apologist does make claims about reality. *But you are also making claims that you need to backup* ! You are claiming as if historically the presuppositional argumentation is laced with logical fallacies .....again with your verbiage... " _like trying to shift the burden of proof Associated argument from ignorance or personal incredulity or circular reason_ ". *Exactly what fallacies are you referencing* ? That is since you speak as if they plague the argument in general!

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein I realize you are not that bright, but you just quoted the fallacies they use. And if you want details you already know exactly where to go to see them because i already told you.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H how you missed the point Shawn..... it's not enough to pop off a couple names and say .....tada! You actually have to demonstrate how the fallacy is committed not just that it exists! Btw... this is exactly what I've been trying to tell you on all the other threads! What if I was to accuse you of denying the antecedent fallacy? How would you feel after you had protested I simply stated that you know what I mean it's there prove me wrong! .....Shawn, that's what you been doing in your argumentation and accusations against the presuppositional Apologist. You're tossing out all these labels and names and never actually detailing how these fallacies occur within the argument itself! So give us some details!

[@veganworldorder9394]

As an atheist, I am peferctly aware that my worlview relies on assumptions. To name a few : I exist, an external world exists independantly of my experience, the validity of logic, the uniformity of nature... But theists have almost exactly the same problem... they will tell you that God makes it possible to make knowledge statements without relying on assumptions because he is the absolute, but how do they know that ? Because God revealed himself... and how do they know that ? And you continu to ask 'why questions' until they admit that them too have a worldview based on assumptions.

[@merecatholicity]

But we can back up our assumptions, whereas the atheist cannot. All the assumptions made by human beings lead back to the Biblical God.

[@veganworldorder9394]

@@merecatholicity How do you back up your assumptions ?

[@merecatholicity]

@@veganworldorder9394 By scripture. I assume it as true, and it answers all of my other presuppositions, such as logic, reasoning, morality, reality, etc.

[@veganworldorder9394]

@@merecatholicity Ok so, as it is the case for atheists, your worldview is based on an assumption. The validity in scripture in this case.

[@merecatholicity]

@@veganworldorder9394 Well, not quite. See you already made the assumption that my presupposition of the validity of scripture needs to be verified to be true. My question is, why does something need to be valid to be worthy of following from your worldview? See, because of my presupposition that the Bible is the word of God, I can appeal to why something must be valid. From an atheistic worldview, there is no basis for objective truth, and if you remove that, there is also no basis to claim that something must have validity. In other words, you can't help but borrow from my position to try and make a case for yours. You are proving mine.

[@andrewjohn2124]

Presuppositional Apologetics is nothing more than a great system of avoiding the argument.

[@PatternSon]

How so?

[@ctjuggler]

A lot of people initially struggle with the concept of presuppositional appologetics (including me). However, after reading a couple books and lots of scripture on the topic I am convinced that it is the Biblical approach to appologetics. Presuppositional Appologetics is a system that takes seriously Biblical claims such as in Romans 1 verse 18-20. People already know about God because what can be known about god is plain to them because because God has made it plain to them. The issue is the suppression of the truth rather than a lack of evidence. One argument against presuppositional appologetics that I also had is: Presuppositional argumentation could be used by any other religion. The difference is that there is only one true God who actually makes himself known to people. You can easily claim that a presuppsitional argument can be made by any religion but presuppositional appologetics for the true God lands differently than the same argument for any other god because only one of these is backed up with God's divine revelation.

[@shawn4888]

@@ctjuggler Presuppositional apologetics is just a silly method that is unsound, fallacious, and dishonest.

[@shawn4888]

@@wretch1 Yet that has never bern shown to be true. So you lost by simply trying to win by assertion which doesn't work.

[@tmwtpbrent14]

I hate debates because they amount to grandstanding.

[@truthdefenders-]

Want to debate that position, or do you just want everyone to bow to your position?

[@tmwtpbrent14]

@@truthdefenders- You may bow.

[@Contramundum429]

You can tell how effective this is. The atheist are squealing.

[@shawn4888]

Except its never been particularly effective.

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@shawn4888 yet here you are triggered by it, continually making arbitrary claims for which there is no evidence.

[@shawn4888]

@@juilianbautista4067 lol, except they are not arbitrary and you look lile an idiot by saying they are. Even worse with the no evidence thing since I literally have tons of evidence including you. Every presupps who fails in such spectacular ways is evidence.

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@shawn4888, "lol, except they are not arbitrary and you look li[k]e an idiot by saying they are" is also arbitrary. You love going around on these comment sections asserting things you're incapable of proving. "since I literally have tons of evidence including you." >> But you haven't demonstrated why or how your claims are validated by your supposed evidences. "Every presupps who fails in such spectacular ways is evidence." >> Arbitrary. Baseless. No one has ever successfully refuted presuppositional apologetics, yet here come atheists claiming it's been debunked, oftentimes using that term loosely so they can feel better about themselves. We are all sinners, Shawn. You are a sinner, too. And you know it. You don't need proof, because you know God exists, and you hate Him. But Jesus died to save sinners, and rose again for their justification before God. For this, we have evidence. And none of you atheists have any valid counter-evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, who made you in His image, which is why you are able to reason and to exchange ideas and to learn and to make moral judgments. And you don't need proof for these. You already know God exists, and so you scoff at Him, and revile those who follow Him, and act as though it's a moral failure to go against your own worldview. But the Bible speaks about people like you clearly. "A scoffer seeks wisdom in vain, but knowledge is easy for a man of understanding." - Proverbs 14:6 I'll let you have the last word, so you can feel even better about yourself (and if you choose to give me the last word, I win anyway haha!).

[@shawn4888]

@@juilianbautista4067 I again realize you are an idiot, but no one needs to refute presupppositionalism. It's on the presupps to show their claims are true and they always fail. That's why you and every other presupp are evidence for my claims.

[@stevecarroll7545]

I cannot believe how poor some of the responses to this message are. It's not a case of believing something because a source says so - it's about the implication of a source corresponding more closely to our experience of life. That's why I left atheism.

[@asix9178]

+SC "it's about the implication of a source corresponding more closely to our experience of life" *I have no invisible magician experience, that's why I've never accepted theism.* "That's why I left atheism." *Ahahahaaaa!!! Thanks for the humor.*

[@shawn870]

Steve Carroll i realize this is an old comment, and you may not reply, but what about the bible closely matches reality? Outside of things a fiction writer at the time it was written would know it contain little else that matches reality.

[@m.gwhite8899]

Keep the faith, brother, and don’t entertain foolishness. Bahnsen has said enough to refute the entire atheists worldview, that’s why you see so many atheists storming into comments on these videos desperately trying to say “show me show me!” even though they’ve already been shown. Keep up the faith, and God bless you brother.

[@asix9178]

+MGB "Bahnsen has said enough to refute the entire atheists worldview," *Not believing your bullshit claim is not a 'worldview' and there is nothing to refute. Just as your lack of belief in every other 'god', Leprachauns, fairies, ghosts, goblins, Santa Claus, The Loch Ness Monster, Tooth fairy and Bigfoot are not 'worldviews' nor something to refute.* *I hope you wake up someday and realize how detrimental believing absurd fairy tales really is to humanity. The further our beliefs are from reality, the more harmful those beliefs are to humanity.*

[@shawn870]

M.G Bianco Point of correction they say show me because Bahnsen didnt do anything to show them. He asserted things but never backed them up. He in fact did more to turn people away than other methods because his arguments are so easy to see through.

[@stoicsquirrel]

I'm less than two minutes into this and there's already been a bait-and-switch. The guy mentions logic (a way of thinking) but then starts talking about "the laws of logic". More specifically, he talks about the three laws of Aristotelian logic. The three Aristotelian laws of logic describe reality. That's it. The aren't "abstract entities"; they're just three facts about reality. You don't need a god for facts about reality to exist. You only need reality.

[@tobieaina]

stoicsquirrel you are mistaken. In order to have facts about reality you need to have intuition about reality. You must have framework for thinking about reality. "Reality is the way it is". However, for me to infer anything about the way reality is the way it is, I must assume a certain character or uniformity to reality and nature. Without the assumption of God's existence and creation and upholding of nature and reality, there is no basis for that assumption

[@stoicsquirrel]

"In order to have facts about reality you need to have intuition about reality" Apples grow on trees. That's a fact about reality. Even if everything that has "intuition" ceased to exist, the fact that apples grow on trees would still be a fact. So you're wrong about having to have intuition. The fact is just part of reality. "However, for me to infer anything about the way reality is the way it is, I must assume a certain character or uniformity to reality and nature" Sure. We all have to make these assumption. I'm in agreement so far. "Without the assumption of God's existence and creation and upholding of nature and reality, there is no basis for that assumption" Now you just made an extra assumption that isn't necessary. You already said that you're assuming certain things about reality. Now you've just added another assumption that just isn't needed. You've added this extra assumption to try and use it as a "basis" for the other assumptions. The problem is that you don't have a basis for assuming that a god is the reason for "certain character or uniformity to reality and nature". So, in the end, you have these assumptions backed up by another assumption. While you may be thinking that you've solved the problem with basal assumptions, you haven't. You've assumed them to be true based on one more assumption. All you've done is create a false sense of security. I agree that, is a god exists and is the reason that all these things we assume to be true are true, then we no longer have to assume. But just assuming that a god exists doesn't actually mean that a god exists. And that's the entire presupposition argument is: assume God exists and serves as a basis for these other assumptions, therefore God exists. You can't assume God into existence.

[@yournightmare9562]

@@tobieaina What's the argument for that?

[@tyc4587]

Without God, reality does not make sense. Without God, there’s no reason that facts exist

[@FloydFp]

Greg Bahnsen should have studied the "Problem of God and abstract objects". There are many different views on whether or not abstract objects exist. William Lane Craig doesn't even believe mathematical object exist. Bahnsen was taking a very naive view on abstraction. "Matter in motion" has an identity and thus the law of identity abides in this "matter in motion". We don't need a god for the uniformity of nature. Both Bahnsen and non-Christian alike assumes the uniformity of nature. Bahnsen says his god made it that way. The non-Christian can simply say that is simply the properties of the universe. So rather than "God did it", I can say "nature did it". Bahnsen argues from his metaphysical presuppositions that "accounts for" things and people from other worldviews argue from their metaphysical presuppositions.

[@vickyfang2195]

This is awesome!!!!!!!!

[@reformedcatholic457]

Yep, and this is how you defend the faith, this is how you do apologetics. Please, I encourage you to learn this type of apologetics. It is called and it is a mouthful lol Presuppositional apologetics where one attacks the foundation of the atheist's worldview when attacked it crumbles.

[@vickyfang2195]

I'm a 16 year old, before I was presented with Christianity (I came from an atheistic background), I was into philosophy, to an extent that makes me suicidal because I thought there is no substantial reason or meaning for our existence, for we all decay eventually. In my opinion people who are into the investigation of truth, who doesn't want to live, but to live clearly, will come to the conclusion that God exists without external factors, for they constantly challenge their own presuppositions. But for those people who don't and choose to ignore the truth that's ingrained in their heart of hearts, only God can decide when and how to reach them.

[@vickyfang2195]

It is when I debated with a friend of mine, that I thought about this and tried to convince her through questioning her presuppositions, but I'm not very good with words for English is not my mother tongue. So i looked up on youtube and found this awesome video, I just sent it to her and hope that she'll come to a realization this time. Pls pray for my friend.

[@reformedcatholic457]

That is great to see! I am glad that you came out of atheism. It is true, if there is no God, then there is ultimately reason for living, no purpose. Why do we live? Just to procreate? It is pointless. Since you are 16 you have a long journey ahead of you. I can see you are quite intelligent for a 16 year old. I encourage you to subscribe to my channel and learn more as you grow and study the Scriptures and spread this truth to other people that Christ died for sinners to set them free from the bondage of sin that they may repent turn from sin and put their trust in Christ alone for salvation. Blessings in Christ to you sister!

[@reformedcatholic457]

If you like sister, you can like our facebook page facebook.com/ReformedProtestant/ and keep in touch. I shall pray for your friend indeed, but remember also you must preach the Gospel for her to be converted. Blessings in Christ!

[@kylec8950]

Presuppositional apologetics destroys ever other claim that tries to refute it. I love it!

[@therick363]

No, no it doesn’t

[@kylec8950]

@@therick363 Yes, it does

[@therick363]

@@kylec8950 how has it “destroyed” atheism then? Because I’m still an atheist.

[@kylec8950]

@@therick363 Not sure why'd you be one. The Bible does state that you must be chosen though.

[@therick363]

@@kylec8950 the question was how has it destroyed atheism….why didn’t you answer that?

[@tekbarrier]

This was so painful to listen to. So many logical fallacies and unfounded assertions. I also love the blatant Morton's Fork. "If you say that God exists, that proves that God exists. If you say God doesn't exist, that proves God exists"

[@davidodom9518]

Do you have any other unsubstantiated assertions?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@davidodom9518 don't you just love it when an atheist makes a strawman argument against the existence of God.

[@davidodom9518]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Yes. God doesn't believe in atheists.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@davidodom9518 true, but all atheist believe in God , in their heart of hearts!

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Lol where is the strawman? You literally do the Morton fork all the time. You really shouldn't lie Mike.

[@noynoying]

he sounds like a classicist/evidentialist 😁

[@tekbarrier]

"aThEiStS CaN't BrUsH tHeIr TeEtH wItHoUt GoD"

[@kwstokes]

Yes

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones and exactly how does an atheist justify induction! Have you gotten past David hume's criticism?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones and this is why it is hard to talk to you about God. ....it either works, or it doesn't? What if your view of reality made it impossible for it to work? Nothing connects the past, present, and future together from the atheistic perspective. But we have induction, based on the uniformity of nature. How can we have uniformity of nature, when fron the atheist perspective, the universe runs on pure chance?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones might I ask you... What contrary testable and verifiable evidence are you talkin about? And what did I state that was dishonest... That logically speaking there has to be a first uncaused cause?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S the strange thing is that both Nick and you like to assert that everyone else has yet to demonstrate anything. When neither one you can even account for induction. And what was it that you said... why the hell would I need to justify induction? Is that your way of stating that you have no answer to account for induction. Maybe before you two deside to tear up all those who have an answer you might like to come up with a answer for your own position

[@caryfrancis8030]

I get it, first you presuppose a bunch of stuff is true without any basis or evidence at all, and then defend it with the assertion that it is true.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Cary Francis no... it's just that there are necessary preconditions to make our experience meaningful. If we expect to learn, we need induction! If we expect to make meaningful moral evaluations, we need a objective absolute universal standard as a foundation! Here is the rub... We all learn, and we all make moral evaluations based on the above standard. Yet the atheistic philosophy is unable to account for induction and absolute standards. Ergo, it is irrational!

[@brandonbecker4479]

This comment missed the case of the apologetic completely

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Brandon Becker could you please explain?

[@reality4330]

Cary, your answer is the atheistic worldview

[@asix9178]

+Real{ity}? *There is no ONE atheistic worldview. Just as there is no ONE theistic worldview.*

[@Max-nc4zn]

This is the definition of based, so to speak.

[@JMUDoc]

What's wrong with just presupposing the law of induction?

[@shawn870]

The only law of induction that i am aware of refers to magnatism and is a law that can be directly observed, no presupposing required.

[@JMUDoc]

@@shawn870 'm talking about induction in the "the future will be like the past" sense. That is, the (broad) consistency of nature.

[@shawn870]

@@JMUDoc i realize thats what you are talking about, but its not currently a law and it couldnt be based on how we define laws.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

If you realize what JMUDoc is saying..... why are you acting stupid ? You know that He is speaking about the uniformity of Nature and how it allows for induction: inferring onto future events experience from past events.

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Because there is no law of induction (except the magnatism one) and as we define laws there cant be.

[@RedefineLiving]

I love God, but He loves us more. I wish these atheists would allow themselves to understand.

[@shawn870]

Its not about allow. We simply cannot believe without evidence.

[@RedefineLiving]

@@shawn870 The atheists believes without evidence. The atheists has a faith position, I’ll show you. What caused the Big Bang? What proof do you have of abiogenesis? What proof do you have of Darwinian evolution?

[@shawn4888]

@@RedefineLivingits called evidence and there is plenty of it for all 3, the problem you have is there is no evidence for god unlike for the things you mentioned. Thats why you rely on faith and science relies on evidence

[@RedefineLiving]

@@shawn4888 please give me observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence for any of your faith beliefs....

[@shawn4888]

@@RedefineLiving a) i have no faith beliefs, I have evidence, b) for those topics, i dont need to provide it to you as science already has. It has published its findings for all to see, so much so its on you to show it doesnt gave evidence to support your claims

[@keithbentley6364]

You need to be more than confident. You have to be 100% sure.

[@reformedcatholic457]

And that is what I am, absolutely %100 confident what I believe is true. Jesus rose from the dead, that is how Christianity started and since He has risen from the dead He will come back and judge the living and the dead.

[@shawn870]

Biblical Christianity Then why support an argument that is fallacious and suggests you are not sure.

[@davidwitkopii291]

Shawn H how do you know that it fallacious? What is absolutely true then?

[@shawn870]

David Witkop II because it is a logical fallacy. Its really simple.

[@davidwitkopii291]

Shawn H that doesn't answer the question, just giving opinions.

[@theologymatters2479]

Awesome

[@asix9178]

*You think an argument from ignorance is 'awesome'?! LMFAO!!*

[@shawn870]

asix Dont forget the circular reasoning.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 why do you say that?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 You already know.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S the only thing that you have done is to make right and wrong nonexistent, and morality impossible! Way to go Ds!

[@doranoster4192]

So he’s saying that if you don’t believe in talking snakes, you can’t be logical. Is he sure?😊

[@DesGardius-me7gf]

Presuppositional Apologetics is the ultimate form of gaslighting.

[@Stanzi18]

Could you be wrong?

[@G_Demolished]

@@Stanzi18 Could you be Sye?

[@Stanzi18]

@@G_Demolished are you absolutely sure I'm Sye?

[@smokert5555]

There is no good, verifiable evidence for god's existence. There are decent arguments that ultimately fall flat, but no piece of direct evidence to support the idea. Presuppositional apologetics are bad because they "presuppose" ideas not in evidence, then build a case off of that. A premise needs to be factual in nature to forward an idea to conclusion.

[@firstthes2811]

You clearly either didn't listen to what he said or don't understand what he said. You owe it to yourself to listen again, or for the first time.

[@smokert5555]

@@firstthes2811 Then i invite you to correct what i got wrong. Telling me to relisten to something i already understand is not an argument against what i said.

[@firstthes2811]

@@smokert5555 No, that's just it, you don't understand what he said. Go listen to it again and keep listening to it until the light goes on.

[@smokert5555]

@@firstthes2811 That would be an incorrect assessment. I understand what he said, i just don't agree with it. But if you think i did misunderstand something, pointing out exactly what you think i misunderstood would help immensely. We can then determine who misunderstands what.

[@firstthes2811]

@@smokert5555 Ok, let's start with logic. What's your foundation for the laws of logic?

[@drawn2myattention641]

When Bahnsen first began to formulate this argument by reading his Bible and the works of other Pre-suppers, he did so with a whole raft of background beliefs and assumptions about the reliability of his memory, perceptions, and the reliability of the logical absolutes. At that point, he could not appeal to his god as a foundation for any of these background beliefs on pain of circularity. Therefore, his god conclusion can never be more certain than were his unaided, starting beliefs and assumptions.

[@xxxViceroyxxx]

whats wrong with circularity

[@ACE-pm3gh]

😂 Were you paying attention at all?? Bahnsen regularly admits that he presupposes these transcendentals to be grounded in the God of the Bible. That's why he says it's an argument from the angle of the impossibility to the contrary. There isn't a thinking human alive that doesn't have presuppositions about origins of time space and matter. Bahnsen is basically arguing that the presuppositions he holds are the most coherent to include all observed realities physical, metaphysical, epistemological and ethical. I would assume that if he were alive today and you debated him on this topic, he would simply show your worldview as absurdly irrational. Of course, you could continue to believe he is incorrect about his presuppositions and you are correct about yours. That choice is yours to freely make, but realize you cannot actually make any choice decisions if you simply are molecular structure being moved by non molecular forces.

[@jesus_saves_from_hell_]

WuzZz Da DeAL! 👑✝️👑

[@shawn4888]

Some advice for people who want to engage or debate on such subjects *and Michael Reichwein who unfortunatly is the reason the list was made.* 1) People tend to react in kind to how they are treated and do not forget the actions of those who treat them badly. So if you dont want condescending or disparaging remarks directed at you, dont direct such remarks at others. And to avoid hypocrisy dont use such remarks as an excuse to villify the other person after you have already made such remarks yourself. 2) Do not under any circumstances claim the other person said something they didnt say or brought up something they didnt bring up, especially if its something you actually said or brought up. It makes you look dishonest and if it's obvious the person didnt say it, you become a liar. If you dont understand something they said ask them to explain it without trying to put words in their mouth. 3) If someone demonstrates you lied, were wrong, or otherwise said something that makes you look bad, dont pretend that it didnt happen, own up to your fault and move on. That includes interactions that cross threads. Just because the current thread doesnt contain the fault doesnt make it ok to pretend it didnt happen. That makes is very dishonest and will lose any credibility you have. Keep in mind the other person knows how dishonest you are for sure and other people reading the thread can read the other threads and discover both the initial fault and see your dishonesty in the current one. 4) Read what the other person posts, dont just skim it or otherwise ignore what they say. You may miss details that refute or question your position and end up causing you to look foolish when you continue that same line of argmemt or discussion after it was already shown to be wrong or questionable. 5) Be an adult. 6) If you get an answer to a question that isnt useful for the point you were trying to make by asking it, ask the question in a different way or find another way to make the point without a question. Dont continue to ask the same question multiple times, see number 5 above. 7) Be honest. *Michael has unfortunatly done all of the things in this list that people shouldnt do. I encourage everyone to go through the threads to see just often he does them.*

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Isn't it nice that Shawn paints himself as the poor atheist being attack, and lied to by the evil Christian.... The only problem is that given your own atheistic presuppositions, you can't even account for evil. What is evil to a bunch of molecules in motion?

[@shawn4888]

Michael Reichwein lol, well Mike if you didnt get caught lying so much and using such poor reasoning their wouldnt be such a post advising people not to do what you do. Oh, btw i realize you are not bright, but the problem of evil is on the side of the theist. Its one of things that argue against it. Oh and since i only have one presupposition and that presupposition has no issues or contradictions with the things people typically call evil, you really cant get anywhere with it.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 no thoughts about the nature of man, God, or the universe? I didn't know that I was speaking with a rock! Or a plant!

[@shawn4888]

Michael Reichwein lol, i realize you are not very bright but you really shouldnt be so childish.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 how is it childish to as you if you have thoughts about man, God, or of the nature of the universe?

[@llkiii3139]

The Bible in multiple places depicts God lying and being deceitful/dishonest/untrustworthy. How can you trust him? How do you know he's not deceiving you right now? Genesis 15:7-8 The LORD also told him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But Abram replied, “Lord GOD, how can I know that I will possess it?” Exodus 6:2-3 God also told Moses, “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by My name the LORD I did not make Myself known to them. -------- 2 Sam 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Later on in the same chapter God is angry at David for taking the census that he had earlier ordered David to take. God then kills 70,000 Israelites as punishment for David doing what he told him to do. How can you trust this god? ‐--------- Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Numbers 21:6-9 Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you. Pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” So Moses made a bronzec serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. One minute he's saying not to make a carved image of any creature whatsoever, the next minute he's ordering Moses to do the exact opposite. Again, how can you trust such a god? How do you know he won't tell you not to do something today and then tell you to do the opposite tomorrow?

[@thelobsterking1055]

Atheists are crying in comments 😂

[@nickjones5435]

NAW Atheists are laughing at Christians in full retreat. Having to resort to childish word games cos you havnt got a single scrap of credible evidence of your imaginary friend!

[@lennaylennay2]

if you reject a circular argument due only to the fallacy of begging the question then you believe the position is false as that is the only way the fallacy is actualized. There’re for when you then argue that God has given you certainty of position X you are dishonest about your beliefs. Especially if you believe Y is false and when a different WV claims that X=>Y and you reject the argument due to lack of certainty in X you are contradicting yourself

[@shawn4888]

You are quite wrong about a few things. Fallacies in an argument mean you cannot make any conclusions about whether the conclusion of the argument is true or false. Rejecting an argument because its circular does not in any way mean you are accepting the conclusion is false. And so everything after that is flawed because of your initial premise being false.

[@lennaylennay2]

@@shawn4888 thanks for the response I did misspeak here in saying that you would hold the position as being false but if you meaningfully reject a world view on the basis that it begged the question then at the very least you must not hold the position that it is true

[@shawn4888]

@@lennaylennay2 Which means there is no contradiction.

[@lennaylennay2]

@@shawn4888 but you do believe that the world is rational (as an example) as you claim to know that the world is rational therefore rejecting a begging the question argument is a meaning less objection.

[@shawn4888]

@@lennaylennay2 I dont claim the world is rational. So why make idiotic claims like I said or claimed things I didnt? And nothing in your comment makes a circular argument not fallacious. You are sounding like you have no clue what you are talking about.

[@brandwijkgg]

one big appeal to emotion fallacy

[@cygnusustus]

There is logic....because God says there is logic. There is causality....because God says there causality. There are moral absolutes...because God says there are moral absolutes. Wow. That was really convincing. For fools.

[@AtlasBookkeeping]

My god (I mean, goodness😊), 15 minutes of baseless assertions, arguments from ignorance, and arguments from personal incredulity. Not a single shred of evidence. “The impossibility of the contrary.” ie “I can’t think of how this could’ve happened without a god” Argument from personal incredulity.

[@RozkminTo]

Tell us then how this could have happen without God.

[@RozkminTo]

@user-dy3uh did you see the video ?

[@RozkminTo]

@user-dy3uh its all in the comments above, read them again and you will figure

[@RozkminTo]

@user-dy3uh yea lets play, answer my first comment

[@RozkminTo]

@user-dy3uh the world/reality we live in

[@ElasticGiraffe]

Long on assertion, painfully short on argument for "how" there are no tenable alternative accounts for the laws of logic and the consistency of experience over time, etc. I'm very curious how presuppositionalism is supposed to work against, say, a Muslim detractor who likewise believes God sustains the universe and renders it intelligible. Is he not as equally unregenerate as the atheist? While it aims to be an all-inclusive method for answering non-Christians, it seems to be extremely focused on scientific materialism in particular.

[@hudjahulos]

ElasticGiraffe Arguing from the impossibility of the contrary will obviously vary according to the contrary worldview provided. Both Islam and atheism undermine the preconditions of intelligibility, but in different ways. You can see Dr. Bahnsen's treatment of Islam here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/imXHdmqlmKyDjK8h11m57s (the too-long-didn't-watch summary is Islam claims that the Bible is true, then contradicts it. Any self-contradictory worldview must necessarily be false)

[@shawn870]

Jay Hu Of course the presuppositionalist has yet to demonstrate that atheism is self contradictory, assert it sure, demonstrate, no.

[@jeromemccollom936]

OK, many problems with this video. I do believe in material and natural things (as he does and you do) because I believe, correctly, if I jump out a window nature will smash up my material body by falling on the grown in terms of gravity. But that is not in counter to laws of logic because logic is universal, if everything is material or supernatural. If x equals y and y equals z then z will always equal x no matter if there is a supernatural or not. Supernatural is not abstract like logic is abstract, and in fact, it is not abstract at all like that, it’s a thing, that being a thing that is not material but still tangible thing. A god can’t change the laws of logic, they are universal be it a god exists or not, material or supernatural existing or not. This guy isn’t as deep as you think. Atheists don’t make assumptions of uniform of nature, we support scientific investigations. Brushing your teeth works has because it has been investigated, it’s not magic. Sun appears in all probability in the East because it has been investigated and scientific knowledge. In terms of moral absolutes, morality is about reducing harm or increasing well being or it is just the whims of a god or morality supersedes beyond a god. This dude thinks that atheists get some type of morality from atheism which shows he knows not a thing about atheists or atheism Atheism is not a moral set of principles. Most atheists are some form of humanists and he does not mention humanism at all. In terms that the concept of cause comes from a god and without it we wouldn’t have an idea of such a concept, sigh, it’s not. Causes are easily examined. If I hit you you will fall because there are physical laws behind my hit and velocity and force of the hit. Causation is easily seen in.

[@steveareeno65]

Without an absolute being there can be no moral absolutes, standards or principles. All that we are left with is human consensus. Good and evil become what we determine they are. When we become the arbiters of good and evil then we can justify anything as long as we can get majority consensus or wield enough power to put down our opponents. Ultimately, it comes down to “might makes right.“ Not only that, why are animals not subject to the same “universal” standards? Did you know that a male cat will kill kittens from another male to bring the female back in heat? That’s called infanticide. If infanticide is deemed universally wrong then it’s wrong for cats too. If it’s not, then it’s not a universal principle but merely a human construct.

[@jeromemccollom936]

@@steveareeno65 OK, say your god is all powerful, knowing etc, why does this make a god moral? I have a being that is absolutely strong, no being can be stronger, would this being be necessary moral or wise? Let me ask you, if you believed this god you believed in told you (and you believed it came from this god) to murder a random person, would it be moral? And if you say your god would never ask you to do that, then is is because such an action is inherently immoral no matter what a god might say? Would murder be impossible (especially of a random innocent person) to be moral no matter what a god or "absolute being" would say? What is the basis of this god's morality, is it this god's whims or does this god use reason? Finally, can you be wrong? I can be wrong, can you be wrong in your conclusion?

[@nickjones5435]

​@@steveareeno65 Do you have a single scrap of credible evidence of an absolute being as you claimed or is morality subjective and reliant on human opinion?

[@nickjones5435]

​@@steveareeno65 I see you cant answer Steve.

[@keithbentley6364]

Jews and Muslims must think you have committed idolatry by worshipping a false god. How am I supposed to work out who, if anybody, has the right answer ?

[@reformedcatholic457]

Well, you study the Holy Scriptures. I believe the Bible is very clear, the disciples worshiped Jesus as God. Matthew 14:33 (ESV) 33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” And so for the last 2,000 years Christ has been worshiped as God, many more passages I can point out to show Jesus is God and is worshiped. And let me know what you think about this message.. The most terrifying thing in the world is that... God is good, you may think to yourself that is not terrifying at all, well the thing is we are not good, we are evil sinners,our hearts are filled with darkness, we have broken the 10 commandments which is God's law by lying,stealing etc..so what does a good, Holy and Just God do with evil sinners like us? well He must punish us, just as a judge must punish a criminal, the judge must give him justice, so the just punishment is death then hell, but 2,000 years ago God the Son came to earth as a man in Jesus Christ to die on the cross in our place because He loves us and on the third day He rose from the dead, it is like this we broke God's law Jesus paid our fine because He loves us,so repent of your sin and believe in Jesus today for your eternal salvation. Have a nice day/night.

[@shawn870]

Biblical Christianity You didnt really answer his question. You kinda need a way to show the bible is right in the first place.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Keith Bentley Keith I don't know if this will help or not. All the religions that I have studied, Only Christianity states that you cannot by means of work, save yourself. And the rest, at least to my mind, required a type of self atonement for one's own transgressions. Check it out. It might actually speak to your heart!

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H Are you stating that the scriptures didn't say the things that Biblical Christianity said they did?

[@keithbentley6364]

Michael Reichwein : what is that meant to prove. If I hurt someone it is my responsibility to make amends.

[@p00tis]

How can a limited being such as the Christian diety be the foundation for anything?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S how do you know that God is fictitious?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S it was not meant to be a demonstration. Duh! It's a question... you called the Christian God fictitious. On what basis do you do so?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S are you not the pot calling the kettle black! So what are you trying to tell me... God is fictitious but you don't know why? Maybe you should keep your mouth shut unless you know what you're talkin about!

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S oh... D's, you child. I did look at your previous post. And guess what? Telling your opponent to go first, when it is you who has made the claim, is simply childish! So this is how you want to play... You make all the arbitrary claims... Then sidestep your accountability for the burden you bear for such claims.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Dd S I do not understand how you can be accusing me of dodging anything, sense this entire thread has been about your first post. A post and when you maded the claim that God was fictitious. So it is you and not I who is dodging! so why don't you just admit that you don't have any evidence that God is fictitious? And that you don't know what you were talking about!

[@doctorwebman]

The reasoning that the Christian worldview and theism explains everything, such as morality, logic, and reason, is circular reasoning at its best. In my worldview, evolution favors genes that increase the brain's ability to care about others and to reason effectively. A species that is able to know and understand its environment, and that has an ability to effectively solve problems, is more fit for survival, so natural selection will favor conducive mutations over detrimental ones. Because of how evolution works, a non-random process, we have every reason to expect the brain to be capable of reason, morality, and logic. A species that cares for one another is more fit for survival, because its members will work together to survive.

[@AP-bo1if]

LOL just stop

[@michaelreichwein3970]

So you know of any sources that actually demonstrate this evolutionary hypothesis?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Lol, Mike its called nature.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 well it sounds more like a cute sci-fi bedtime story! You want to kick start this hypothesis with a workable method ?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Science already has.

[@Cathee.M.]

Is it just me or is he not making much sense at all? He's just making vague and sweeping statements & generalizations that don't seem to be rooted in observable reality, not to mention they can be applied to virtually ANY creator deity in human history besides the Christian God. He's just picking that particular one because, presumably, that is the one that permeates the culture he grew up in.

[@shawn870]

A new thread for open and honest conversation. So if you want to join mike, no lies. If you dont want condescension dont be condescending. Also, no fallacies and no lying about fallacies. We have argued them enough and you not only lost everytime, its the topic of fallacies that you got caught lying about the most. So lets go mike. Lets see if you can be honest.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Say you should lead by example.... Are you up to it? And what's the topic?

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 You pick the topic. But again no lying, no fallacies. So dont try to shift the burden of proof to back up your presupp argument.

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Ok, how about this for a topic since it is one that you havent bothered addressing even though i have asked about it. Its in several parts. 1) You constantly claim atheists cant account for (insert any of several preconditions [or as you for some silly reason call presuppositions]), the questions is what do mean by "account for". For example, do you mean having an explanation of its origins, how it works or why, both the previous things, or something else. 2) How do you get from inability to "account for" those things to "not comporting to reality" or "irrationality". Note: ignorance doesnt equal "not comporting to reality" or "irrationality" 3) Since atheists claimed inability means nothing for your position unless you can account for them, how can you "account for" them. Keep in mind that depending on how you define "account for" in part 1, simple appeals to god are unlikely to be sufficient (and of course you would still need to separately show god exists to be able to appeal to him in the first place).

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 do you except reasoning as a from of evidence? And do you plan to continue with your debate games, or will actually address the reasoning given?

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 1) his thread is for open and honest discussion Mike, so no lying here. You are the only one who plays debate games, so please dont pull the same lies and games on this thread as you do on others, otherwise you shouldnt bother. 2) *lines of reasoning in which each statement is supported are accepted, unsupported assertions with no support are not. So your usual method wont work.*

[@EuclidFusionSupernova]

The easiest defeater of PreSup Apologetics is the answer, "I don't know".... which is an honest answer to these important (yet unanswered) questions. But Bahnsen and his cultish ilk don't operate rationally in a rational world; instead, they invent magical scenarios to explain natural phenomena, with no basis for their presuppositions except: "god did it... how do I know god did it? Because it was revealed to me by god and I can't be wrong." This is catastrophic circularity and it's absolutely laughable, dishonest, and like living in ignorance under a rock!

[@doctorwebman]

Logic is indeed physical, and can even be weighed. Just because there is a conscious experience of logic, does not mean that logic is not a physical process of matter in the brain. To say that logic is immaterial is to misunderstand how the brain works.

[@AP-bo1if]

LOL just stop.

[@AP-bo1if]

LOL stop

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Where do I go to get some?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 in the brain

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 well that doesn't sound right.... how is it that we all have different brains but the same set of logic?

[@keithbentley6364]

I admire your confidence. I will keep my options open. The Muslim heaven sounds tempting though. Good luck and goodbye.

[@reformedcatholic457]

Of course the Muslim heaven sounds tempting because it is a man made heaven. If you were to make heaven that is exactly how you would do it, 72 virgins for you to enjoy. But the Christian heaven is heaven because God is there, He is the center of heaven. Let me know what you think of this message. Bad news. Man is wicked and his thoughts and intentions are continually evil (Genesis 6:5) The heart of every human is deceitful and desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9) All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) Because God is good (Psalm 136:1) man is a sinner and have broken God's law by lying, stealing, lusting he is guilty and needs to be punished. Good news or Gospel God made the way for us by sending His Son in Jesus Christ because He loves us (John 3:16) We broke God's law (1 John 3:4) Jesus paid the fine (Col 2:14, Eph 1:7) and on the third day He rose from the dead conquering death (1 Cor 15:55-57) So God commands people everywhere to repent (Luke 13:5,Acts 17:30) turn from sin and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone ( Mark 1:15, Acts 16:30-31, Acts 20:21)

[@shawn870]

Biblical Christianity So was the christian one, for the very same reasons.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H are you asserting that the Heaven from the Christian faith is also man-made?

[@shawn4888]

Shawn H The concept of heaven as described by the various religions appears to be man made. But if you want to assert that the heaven of christian faith is real, then you can try back up such an assertion

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H I find this post a little puzzling, since your previous post states , *so was the Christian one for the very same reason* . That doesn't sound like a maybe statement! It sounds to me as if you were a stating it as being a fact! Is that not the case?

[@shawn4888]

Wow, I have to repost this challenge again for presupps to show they can back up their claims and that their argument is sound and valid? Every time I post this challenge the only responses I get are presupps who just seem to want to show that they are dishonest or not very bright. Really, how hard is it to grasp that the challenge is to show your claims are true, and not to just assert your claims and pretend they are true. Why do idiots like Michael Reichwen comment with useless questions that just show he has no ability or desire to demonstrate anything and just wants to lie and make claims he knows he can't back up?

[@parraphrase]

Presuppositional apologetics contend that everyone presupposes what it takes God to come to. Logic.

[@shawn870]

Which doesnt really matter since they have an unsound and invalid argument and never back up their claims.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 you just made the claim that it's invalid and unsound. Would you care to back up your claim?

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 i already have to you michael, many times. Its really simple, its unsound as long as you and the rest avoid backing up your claims. Its invalid because because of the various logical fallacies employed. I am not required to go through it all with you again.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 really? What fallacies? And no... you haven't backed up anything!

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 lol, you really are not the brightest guy mike. I have already told you many times the various fallacies you commit as well as the argument in general. I know you dont need it repeated, so why are you asking? In any case, i have in fact demonstrated the fallacies that you and other presupps commit. I have also pointed out how you havent backed up your claims. So why do you lie in such an obvious manner?

[@keithbentley6364]

Did god kill Jesus or give Jesus a good sleep ?

[@ReformedR]

neither Jesus is God

[@shawn4888]

Well I still have an open challenge for presupps to back up their claims and show they have a sound argument. (See the responses below for some spectacular failures)

[@jamesgrosso4372]

Hey Shawn!! How are you? I see your son is an awesome wrestler. Shawn pre suppositional apologetics is evidence that world view that posits no God is incoherent. So for a individual to believe God does not exist he must hold to the following facts. Life came from non life; consciousness came from the unconscious; order came from chaos, logic comes from the illogical, mind comes from matter, free will is non existent and a host of other irrational beliefs. In essence an individual understands that everything came from nothing and life has no objective meaning. If an individual carries those beliefs they have blind faith and can not live out their beliefs.

[@shawn4888]

@@jamesgrosso4372 Presuppositional apologetics isn't evidence of anything. It's on the presupp to demonstrate their claims are true, hence the challenge. Btw, not believing god exists is not the same as believing god doesnt exist. There is no need to believe something came from nothing. That is a strawman that theists put up. Libertarian free will hasn't been shown to exist and based on the evidence doesnt exist. That of course doesnt mean that there are not other forms of freewill that do exist. Oh and finally, there is no faith in admitting you dont know something, nor is it faith to believe something based on evidence. Faith is believing something without evidence.

[@jamesgrosso4372]

@@shawn4888 I agree agnosticism is an intellectual option. Yet not a practical one which is difficult to live out.

[@shawn4888]

@@jamesgrosso4372 atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive btw. And you have yet to demonstrate any of your claims are true.

[@jamesgrosso4372]

@@shawn4888 these are logical arguments based on deductive reasoning. What that means is if the premise are true the conclusions follow. Logical arguments are not expository. To show the arguments are false or invalid one needs to refute the premises of the deductive argument.

[@keithbentley6364]

If you got it all right then you have no worries about Jews and Muslims having the right answer. Are you fully confident ?

[@reformedcatholic457]

Absolutely, I am confident. Otherwise I wouldn't be preaching Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of the Living God.

[@Devilock07]

These supposed laws of logic, uniformity of nature and many other things Bahnsen says non-Christians assume without accounting for are examples of unavoidable presuppositions that no one can justify including presuppositionalists. Even attempting to justify them with a rational argument assumes the very things in question, yet not assuming them is to give up any possibility of being rational. If presuppositionalists are not in agreement with this, how do they provide a rational argument for the uniformity of nature or the "laws" of logic without circularity? If presuppositionalists do agree that we are all in the same epistemological boat, then providing a rational "account" for presuppositions, including God, is dependent upon the assumption that rationality is possible. This is why I reject the claim that all reasoning presupposes God. The belief in God rests on the previous assumption that our reasoning is reliable when we reason to the conclusion that God explains what we experience.

[@hudjahulos]

Devilock07 I think you may have misunderstood the nature of circular reasoning and the presuppositional argument. I hope I can explain it in a way you will understand and accept. Please forgive me if I am verbose or unclear. First in defense of begging the question, which is a type of circular reasoning that you seem to have issue with. Begging the question is an interesting logical conundrum in that it is valid in form. By valid I mean the premise supports the conclusion because the conclusion is essentially a restatement of the premise. Consider the arguments "I know evolution is true because it's a fact" or "the Bible is true because it says so." These arguments are not actually fallacious because they are begging the question, but because they are arbitrary, that is they are based on nothing and easily reversed, e.g. "Evolution is a lie because it is false." I think you pointed out in your post very well that the laws of logic (I would add other preconditions of intelligibility to the list: uniformity in nature, the reliability of memory, the principle of induction which Dr. Bahnsen calls "the toothpaste argument") are not arbitrary and can therefore be considered valid even though they are circular. Second concerning the presuppositional argument. I believe that we are all presuppositionalists, that is we have basic beliefs about the universe and how it works (I get the feeling from your post that this is something you are ascribing to Dr. Bahnsen in particular or perhaps to theists in general. I would encourage you to embrace your presuppositions until they are proven false.) Our basic presuppositions form our worldview. Some examples of worldviews might be theism, naturalism/materialism, empiricism etc. Many people are not even aware that they have a worldview. Even the belief that we should not have a worldview and should look at all evidence neutrally and independently is, in fact, a worldview (a pretty bad self-refuting one at that). Dr. Bahnsen's point as I understand it is that the theistic worldview can make sense make sense of all these things in the world like laws of logic whereas the atheistic worldview can not. This is in essence the argument that the atheist really needs to address.

[@Devilock07]

Jay Hu Thank you for responding. I agree with most of what you said, but I’m not sure how it addresses any alleged misunderstandings I have of circular reasoning or presuppositionalism inherent in my questions. I agree that question begging is a type of circular reasoning that is valid in form. I’m not saying question begging is formally invalid, I’m saying that attempting to justify one’s confidence in a proposition by arguing in a circle does not do the job of justifying. I am talking about justifying one's reliance on these presuppositions, as I believe Bahnsen was. I agree that we all have presuppositions, but presuppositionalism is the methodology Bahnsen uses in his apologetic, and I think it would be wrong to say we are all presuppositionalists in that sense. All of us, including most animals to some extent, presuppose these things. Humans do it long before we have the mental capacity to recognize that we are doing so and long before we have the capacity to reason to God as the origin of them We wouldn’t be able to reason to the conclusion that God is the origin if we did not already presuppose these things. These presuppositions taken together provide the framework of rationality itself and they must be presupposed without justification in order to get the reason ball rolling. Any attempt to justify our reliance on them requires or reliance on them, and so, would be circular. Regardless of whether a circular argument is or isn't formally valid, can a circular argument do the job of justifying beliefs? I don’t think so, which is why I don’t believe it is possible to justify our reliance on our most basic presuppositions. I disagree that “the laws of logic,” the uniformity of nature, the reliability of memory or the principle of induction exist in the world as you said. Bahnsen says that the laws of logic cannot be accounted for by materialism because they are not matter nor in motion; they are concepts. The same goes for the others.

[@hudjahulos]

I wasn't arguing that begging the question is the best way to justify any worldview. I was trying to address your concerns in the first post about circular logic. Sorry if that's confusing. Begging your patience I'll take another stab at the presuppositional (more broadly the transcendental) argument for God. The best way to evaluate a worldview is an internal critique, that is to test how well one's presuppositions agree with one another. If we accept the laws of logic (specifically the law of noncontradiction) than any worldview which contradicts itself is necessarily false. A simple example would be someone who claims that "everything is relative" which is actually an absolute statement. The contradiction is obvious. Or take a strict empiricist who claims "knowledge can only be gained through the senses." But this belief is itself a philosophical one which cannot be observed through the senses. Another contradiction. I myself do believe that some things are relative and that much knowledge can be gained through the senses, but neither of those are my ultimate standard for measuring truth. Dr. Bahnsen's argument against atheism is that it does not pass the internal critique test. Atheists believe in morality but they deny God who makes morality possible. Atheists assume the principle of induction (especially in science) but they can not account for it. Atheists use the laws of logic, but they cannot justify anything universal or abstract within their own worldview. When you call the presuppositions of intelligibility "concepts" you miss the mark - of course they are conceptual as opposed to physical. How does an atheists explain these concepts? If they are simply chemical reactions in the brain then we are in no way beholden to trust them as truth in any meaningful sense. If they are constructions of society then they are arbitrary conventions and can be changed on a whim. However, if they are absolute, invariant, and immaterial (i.e. transcendent) then you can not explain them using a worldview which does not allow for transcendent truth or a transcendent being, i.e. God.

[@AStoicMaster]

"Atheists assume the principle of induction (especially in science) but they can not account for it. Atheists use the laws of logic, but they cannot justify anything universal or abstract within their own worldview." - And this is where the Bahnsen/Sye ten presuppositional apologetic goes wrong +Jay Hu. One CANNOT justify ONE'S presuppositions. You argue yourself in a circle every time you attempt to as you appeal to them in order to justify them. The way you explain your presuppositionalism is externalist foundationalism to a tee! But yet presupps want to hold the (generally speaking externalist coherentist) unbeliever to an internalist justification for knowledge. It's rather redundant & uninformative to explain the causal origin of your "Belief" (i.e., God makes you know in a way such that you can know for certain, etc.) and not what justifies the "Belief". Presuppositionalists jump around and saying they are one thing; whilst arguing like something else. This is inconsistent, hypocritical and contradictory. I'm sorry, but you haven't provided justification for demanding people do ontology with, (or prior to) epistemology. The only apparent justification you seem to have is to just ask questions ad infinitum and make bald assertions. This is woefully sophomoric & no one outside of your minuscule pressupositional circle takes you seriously. Furthermore, with all due respect, you don't understand what an internal critique is. An internal critique is when you accept your interlocutors pressupositions (i.e. axioms, starting point) and reason from there in order to point out contradictions. It is NOT accepting them on your terms and commanding they justify their presuppositions with the "how do you know, how do you know, how do you know" or "how do you account for" questions in order to invoke the infinite regress. And then claim your god stops the regress, now repent drivel. This is not just semantics. I'd recommend you read Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues (Great Debates in Philosophy) if you truly are curious, as Bonjour uses the same language I do here. Studying Agrippa the skeptic, the Münchhausen trilemma and the KK principle will be helpful as well. My apologies if I come off as rude, but I've grown tired of the dishonest sophistry many presuppositionalists employ. Cheers!

[@waynemills206]

Personally, I am wholly unimpressed with the evidence for gods. Secondarily, I find no reason to believe the verbal and written assertions of other humans who use presuppositional apologetics. Mother Nature has revealed to me, in such a way to know these things for certain.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Mother nature?

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 He is being sarcastic Mike and showing how ridiculus the presupp argument sounds.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 however childish, he made a claim. Or maybe he stating that observing nature, is how we are able to draw conclusions. Yet, that doesn't work to explain laws in nature, or universals.

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Mike, as i said he was being sarcastic. You are not getting any brighter.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 well... I didn't know that you read his mind! And there are people who actually believe in mother nature.

[@bretkunkle6496]

If this is all Christian apologetics has, then listening to this has made me at least an atheist when it comes to the Christian deity.

[@20july1944]

OK, Kunk: How did Christianity get started?

[@shawn4888]

@@20july1944 Lol, you know you can't get anywhere from that question.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

I think people should watch David Pallmanns videos on pressupositionalism. It’s really not a great apologetic

[@uberd00b]

Friendly reminder: Do not use this apologetic method amongst non-believers. It is nonsense on stilts. Most of what he says is flat wrong and some of it is entirely backwards.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

uberd00b then maybe you would like to demonstrate how what he says it's wrong or entirely backwards. As of presuppositional apologetics I have been using the reductio ad absurdum approach in my argumentation

[@uberd00b]

Michael Reichwein sure no problem. Run it by my (concisely if you will!) so I can see what you're using.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

uberd00b I can of course to do that, ...but first... it is you, ...not I that has asserted that most of what dr. Greg bahnsen had said is flat wrong and that some of it is entirely backwards. Is that just an empty assertion on your part, or do you have evidence in support of such a proclamation?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

I guess that we can all assume that your silence in response to my inquiry suggest an actual lack of evidence in support of your opening comments.

[@uberd00b]

Michael Reichwein Actually I went through the video and made list but it was far too much for a reply. This is why I asked you specifically what you were using, it's better to stay focused. So I'll pick one thing, and then will you give me your method? Let's take the toothpaste proof as a totally backwards argument. Here he argues that the only way we can know that the toothpaste will exit a squeezed tube is if there is God behind it to guarantee it happening. But of course in a atheistic universe things can only do as they must, a squeezed tube will produce toothpaste if there is nothing to interfere with the process. But in a theistic universe there *is* something to interfere with the mechanism, in a theistic universe no such guarantee is possible. Perhaps paste will come out, perhaps wine will, perhaps the sun will stop in the sky or the dead will walk. There can only be far less certainty, *unless* God acts exactly as we'd expect a godless universe to act. In other words exactly as if God doesn't exist. Now what was your favourite presupper method?

[@NealeBaxter]

I thought presupposing your conclusion is what theists do. You presuppose your conclusion (the existence of your preferred chosen God, usually the one prevailing in the culture you live in), then invent arguments leading to your presupposed conclusion, then mislabel these arguments as "evidence".

[@shawn870]

Neale Baxter Presupps do it in a much more blatant manner, and generally occasionally admit it is circular while non presups while never admit when they are circular.

[@parraphrase]

Yahweh is validated by predictive prophecy. Notice Isaiah 49:6- "I am the Lord and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me knowing the end from the beginning and declaring from the beginning things that have yet to come to pass" So the God fo the Bible, not Thor, claims to have declared the end from the beginning or in other words predicted future events accurately. These are verifiable and falsifiable predictions. They're found scattered through Scripture but primarily in the books of Daniel and Revelation.They prove the validity of the Bible beyond the shadow of a doubt. Prophecy is history in advance. All you need to do in order to falsify or verify it is to compare it with history and see if it predicted human history accurately God left evidence in His word that any sincere person can find. He says, "come now and let us reason together." God respects your intelligence and wants you to find evidence to base your faith on. Those who believe blindly are misrepresenting the God of the Bible. The Book Daniel and Revelation by Urriah Smith is recommendable for the person uninitiated in Bible Prophecy.

[@shawn4888]

parraphrase i did compare with history, and sorry no fulgilled prophecy.

[@lotus160]

@@parraphrase I have asked you this question on another thread but I received no response. What are the specific predictions in Daniel? Bear in mind the following must be true : 1. Unambiguous and specific. 2. A rare event, in other words not predicting the sun will rise tomorrow. 3. Made prior to the event. 4. Verifiable. 5. Something not easily inferred.

[@parraphrase]

@@shawn4888 What history did you compare Daniel 2 to?

[@chrisbarry6217]

It must be an American thing. For many, it appears that this apologetic way of preaching is a convenient way to get on with the job without God. The Apostle Paul said in 1Cor ch 2v 1-2 “And I brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Of many it could be said, would look down on Paul because he was determined to know nothing but the preaching of Christ and Him crucified. The Apostle Paul was bold to say in Romans chapter 1 verses 16-17 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Take note, God wields His power with the preaching of the good news about His Son; the power of God unto Salvation. In the next verse, very clear to see what great importance God has place with this preaching. “For in it is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” Do you now see the error of the apologetic way of persuading men? When we get saved by Gods Grace and Power we have began a walk that is faith to faith. So with the preaching, it must be done in Gods way and the preacher looking to his Savior to give the increase. A little rebuke here and hopefully it will be received with Grace.

[@librarian0075]

Hi Chris. The Bible teaches by direct precept, by Christ’s example, and by apostolic example that Christians should argue/debate/contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Paul himself did so several times, including on Mars Hill. Dr. Bahnsen wrote an extensive article on how that discourse was an application of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. You might find it interesting that Bahnsen taught that Christian faith actually precedes reasoning in order for any reasoning to have a sound basis. I think that the Corinthian verse that you cited is best understood in light of the context of the Corinthian church situation, as laid out in the rest of the epistle. Anyway, best wishes.

[@chrisbarry6217]

@@librarian0075 thank you Librarian 007

[@Pranav-rp8wi]

It's funny how you have to question logic itself in order to get around the fact that you have no reason at all to hold a position.. 😂😂 Next time on the show we'll question maths...

[@Zardoz998]

A truely remarkable rate of logical fallacies. I count about one logical flaw every 2-3 sentences. The big one is "atheists can't explain this therefore Christianity"

[@michaelreichwein3970]

I think that it is amazing how two people can listen to the same lecture, and walk away with two completely different views. The thrust of Bahnsen's argument is NOT atheism has no answer, so theism. His argument is that atheism, with its excess baggage. Defined the universe as being physical only. And to explain everything in the universe , the atheist has only the elements of the periodic table and physics to work with. Atheism fails, even before Bahnsen stepped onto the scene. For no amount of mixing the periodic table, along with physics will account for abstracts, universals, and morality

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 1) you are ok with logical fallacies. 2) the baggage of atheism as you put it is a strawman. 3) You cant account for anything with god. 4) you always ignore reality and the simple explanations and pretend there are no other explanations availible.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 do you understand Shawn that everything you just posted is an unsupported assertion? Do you really understand that? 1. Why? 2. How is it a strawman? 3. Details! And 4a. Details! 4b. You Haven't offered anything else! Why?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970Stop lying Mike. You already know the answers and the details, because it's been explained to you many many times by multiple people. Why do you keep up this lie that you are ignorant of all these things?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 2nd reply, Mike will you promise me that one day you will tell me why you lie so much?

[@michaelromero1873]

Logic existed long before the God of the Bible was invented. Everything Christians believe was borrowed from past mythologies. The Christian God is an evolution of humanity's mythologies.

[@reformedcatholic457]

Did logic exist before there were human minds? God is the source of logic, without God your arguments become illogical.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@nickj14711 question... Is logic dependent on a mind?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@nickj14711 it seem to me that logic only function in the mind. So, it would be dependent.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@nickj14711 This is not a debate game... think. Do rocks use logic? Or trees? Plants? Logic is a function of reasoning. If we cease to exist, would logic cease to exist?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@nickj14711 actually I did! It's called reasoning! If we cease to exist, does logic also cease to exist?

[@ScienceFoundation]

Presuppositional apologetics crumbles under one question; What are you using to believe that god existing makes your brain reliable?

[@mherberts]

Why is the brain necessary? Brain function supposes a physical universe. What if the whole existence is a purely immaterial reality? So we use our immaterial mind (our center of self-awareness) to think and communicate potentially with other people. The Bible (the immaterial information contained therein, not the book of ink and paper) says that an immaterial God reveals truths about creation in the form of propositions directly to our mind. We use the fundamental laws of logic to deduce logical information from this divine revelation - and it is through it that we know that a physical universe has been created. On the other hand, materialistic atheists can not justify the reliability of the brain or the physical senses, for the existence of a physical universe is a presupposition for its use of physical senses (which is a circular argument).

[@ScienceFoundation]

Meaningless postulation. You backed up nothing you asserted Oh and information is not immaterial. There is no information that is not dependent on matter and energy

[@shawn870]

Marcelo Herberts You may want to learn how to back up assertions with evidence as science foundation pointed out. Your claims are useles if you cant demonstrate they are true, but the presupps never do back up their claims.

[@geuwglesuxballz6074]

LOL, Marcello must argue against reality to make his point. Troll or not a troll?

[@qwaurk985]

What's your precondition for intelligibility for asking the question? In asking the question you used the Christian worldview to question the Christian worldview.

[@shawn4888]

I encourage everyone to look at Micheal Reichwein's comments across the comment threads. Is is really as stupid as he portrays himself, or is he just too cowardly to admit the truth.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Yes, please look at them... all of them! Lol! Look at who is actually arguing, and who is just being argumentative!

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Mike, I realize you are an idiot, but, no one cares that you dont understand the definition of argumentative.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 since I have not stated who is, and who is not being argumentative.... and since, once again child you are attacking me... you must rightly feel that you are the one who is being argumentative! Thank you for proving my point!

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 I realize you are an idiot, but that doesn't prove your point Mike. Why lie about it? You know that it doesn't prove your point and has no ability to, unless you are really stupid.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 like a broken record you keep saying the same thing! Do you want to debate or not?

[@cygnusustus]

I want evidence. You have none. You lose.

[@keithbentley6364]

I assume Jews and Muslims can use logic etc but they come to a different answer to you when it comes to the Jesus question. For your salvation I hope you are correct, if not you are in big trouble.

[@reformedcatholic457]

Christ is Lord, He is the ONLY way to eternal life this can only happen by repentance and faith if a sinner doesn't do this they will perish, the Jews and the Muslims must do this to inherit eternal life.

[@reformedcatholic457]

After one has repented and put their trust in Christ then comes baptism.

[@shawn870]

Biblical Christianity So you again highlight the contradictions in the bible.

[@reformedcatholic457]

semper fidelis Romans 16:16 is talking about greeting each other with a holy kiss. You mean another passage like Mark 16:16?

[@shawn870]

Biblical Christianity Which still doesnt address his point.

[@Devilock07]

"The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil." -Bertrand Russell

[@cygnusustus]

"In your worldview there couldn't be any logic." What a liar. The laws of logic describe relationships. As soon as objects exist, the laws of logic exist.

[@shawn870]

Presuppositional apologetics is a waste of time. Sure, it does a nice job making you feel good by stumping people unfamiliar with it, but once those people look it up they realize very quickly how bad it really is. People who are familiar with it can kneecap it fairly easily. Just don't let them shift the burden of proof, they have to demonstrate their claims are true before anyone else has to defend their position. So claims they can't demonstrate: 1) No other worldview can account for (insert thing they are arguing, logic, reason, induction, logical absolutes, morality, etc). To back this up they have to demonstrate that they investigated every possible worldview. Since they never do, and really cant, they are invoking an argument from ignorance by claiming they are right until proven wrong (and of course this also involves shifting the burden of proof). Then of course even if true, this means nothing if they can't demonstrate their worldview can. 2) Their worldview can account for the thing (see item 1). To do this they appeal to god in some way, either it has been revealed to them in a way they can know with certainty from God (like the bible) or other way to appeal to god. Now here they now need to demonstrate god exists to support their claim. Here is where the circular reasoning comes in. Their proof that God exists is the combination that 1) and 2) are true, but 2) is only true if God exists. Now they will try to use philosophical sounding words and phrases to try and cover this up or again try to shift the burden of proof but it still boils down to a fallacious circular argument. 3) Various other claims they will bring up to cycle through 1) and 2) above. This will almost always be bold assertions meant to deflect from the issues with 1)and 2). Just constantly ask for evidence or demonstrations that they are true and don't let them shift the burden of proof, keep it on their claims, especially the issues with the main argument. It is a logically fallacious argument that only works because of the dishonest way they present it to people like trying to constantly get the other person to disprove them rather than proving their argument (ie shifting the burden of proof).

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H do you know what taxonomy classification is? It's how we group and classify different species on our planet. Now, do I have to see every single Sparrow to know that it is a sparrow? Absolutely not! I simply need to know the physical traits, migratory habits, and breeding cycle, in order to classify a particular type of bird as a Sparrow. So does the apologist need to investigate every possible worldview? Absolutely not! What is being compared is theistic and non-theistic worldviews. Any assertion under investigation is that all non-theistic worldviews are irrational. This tactic is what is known as framing the debate.

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein Yes you do need to imvestigate every worldview to be able to say no other worldview can. It is fairly simple. Oh and your taxonomy/sparrow example is not particularily apt, can you figure out why?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H remember we have talked about induction, how you go from past experience to Future expectations? Come on Shawn and engage your brain! If I say that ALL non-theistic worldviews are irrational, by virtue of them being non-theistic.... What would be the point and purpose of an investigation? It is a given Axiom.... If your worldview is non-theistic it's irrational! Now unless you want to propose there is a worldview out there that is both non-theistic and rational. Then I would be interested in hearing it; for I have been doing this for 35 years and have yet to hear of a cogent non-theistic rational worldview.

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein As i said, you havent demonstrated your claim is true. You havent even made a connection between being unable to account for the thing and being irrational even if they cant. And you do need to be able to examine all worldviews to determine that no other worldview can account for those things. Demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary requires that you demonstrate all contrary worldviews are impossible, or in your case irrational. And to show they are irrational you have to demonstrate your worldview can account for them, which you cant do without circular logic. Again, the burden of proof is one you to demonstrate your claims. 35 years should be plenty to learn the basics of logic and reasoning.

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein 2nd reply, when you take your premises as axioms, they are by definition unsound.

[@daniellewilliams8633]

THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES IN THE BIBLE ...THAT ARE PROVEN SCIENTIFICLY TRU EVERYDAY.... THINGS UNKNOWN WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN.

[@js9943]

Try 500+ eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ (from pretty much all 4 Gospels). If that empirical evidence doesn't count, then I don't know what does.

[@shawn870]

J S Sorry, no empirical evidence of 500 witnesses. Its just any claim by the petson making the original claim and rather useless.

[@geuwglesuxballz6074]

Yes, JS, I wonder why so many other people do not recognize that the claim of the 500 witnesses absolutely destroys the resurrection nonsense. Good point.

[@geuwglesuxballz6074]

Shawn H, that is why it is such powerful evidence. What are the chances that not one of the 500 were a scribe, or knew a scribe, and would not record something so mind blowing? Very few things destroy the gospels harder than the claim of the 500.

[@shawn870]

GeuwgleSuxBallz true

[@shawn870]

Michael, we can continue the conversation here if you still think you can demonstrate your claims are true, since you failed to do so in the other thread even after a few hundred comments.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

You have not demonstrated my failure you have only asserted it! Just because you're presented with evidence that you do not like, doesn't mean that you can just call it an insertion and sweep it under the rug.

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein hahahahaha you showed you didnt demonstrate your claims by not demonstrating them. You just asserted them. I asked you multiple times for evidence that would back up your assertions but you didnt provide any and just continued to reassert the same unsupported assetlrtions.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H is that like a tautology? Everything is an assertion because you say everything is an assertion? Oh wait let me use your vernacular... You are just asserting that I didn't prove my claims. You need to demonstrate that I did not prove my claims!

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein You didnt bother to demonstrate your claims. You provided no evidence and just continued to to reassert them. You already showed you didnt demonstrate your claims by not doing so. It is really simple. You are on the hook for demonstrating your claims are true and have offered no evidence to support those assertions. No evidence was presented that there is a universal objective moral standard ( just you saying it makes sense to you but no actual evidence it exists). No presentation of evidence that one is required (just your assertion that is the case). No evidence that people use a higher standard (just your unsupported assertion that they do). So you provided plenty of unsupported assertions but evidence or demonstration. So your lack of providing such evidence is the evidence you havent done so yet.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H Does it logically follow that if one area of epistemology is non-teleological, that it would have ramifications in other areas of the same epistemology?

[@shawn870]

I still find it amazing how presupps will keep on lying and committing fallacies time and time again even after getting caught doing so. Look through all these threads on this video and its just a constant thing with them.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Coming from someone who hasn't shown their own claims as being sound or valid doesn't say much!

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 The only claims i have yet to show are sound are direct challenges to yours, ie its still on you to demonstrate yours. *Mile your games and lies wont save you from the fact that you have never backed up your claims and do everything you can to avoid doing because you know you cant.* On the learning claim for example you already acknowledged that knowledge can be aquired (ie learning) without assuming the future will be like the past. So you know your claim is false, so you know you cant back it up. On your morality claims, you know that the world exhibits many moral systems and that no moral value was considered right or wrong by all people at all times, yet you keep lying and claiming it has.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 wrong... You have made several claims which have yet to back up. you claim that you could learn Without assuming that the future is like the past. Which is different than asserting the collection of knowledge. Is already been made crystal clear to you that the method of learning requires assuming the future is like the past. I think it's pathetic and emphasizes how weak your position is that you have to twist the words around!

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 1) Sorry mike, but the aquistion of knowledge is learning. I will post definition from the dictionary below. *So you already acknowledgde that learning is possible without assuming the future will be like the past.* 2) As i said the only claims i made that i didnt back up were in challenge to your claims, and since you have the burden to demonstrate your claims first, unitl you do i wont let you get away with fallaciously attempting to shift the burden if proof. Now for the definition of learning: learn·ing /ˈlərniNG/ noun noun: learning 1) the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught. "these children experienced difficulties in learning" synonyms:study, studying, education, schooling, tuition, teaching, academic work, instruction, training; More research, investigation; informal swotting "the importance of the library as a center of learning" 2) knowledge acquired through experience, study, or being taught. "I liked to parade my learning in front of my sisters" synonyms:scholarship, knowledge, education, erudition, culture, intellect, academic attainment, acquirements, enlightenment, illumination, edification, book learning, insight, information, understanding, sageness, wisdom, sophistication; More pedantry; letters "his second book displayed the astonishing range of his learning" antonyms:ignorance

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 2nd reply, i think your lies, fallacies, hypocricy, games, making rather stupid statements just to avoid admitting you are wrong, twisting words, etc that you keep getting caught at are pathetic, *yet you still keep doing it even though you know you have been caught and everyone can see through your bs.*

[@doctorwebman]

Your worldview doesn't explain anything.

[@gherriman5945]

Did you just lose the debate?

[@mendozagaspar1990]

At best, he is arguing for the pantheistic god. Like hitches says; your work is still ahead of you.

[@03chrisv]

I know I'm not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. I know I'm not the God of the Bible. I know I'm having a conscious experience. How do I know these things? If I were omniscient I would know everything, which I clearly don't. If I were omnipresent I could be in multiple places at once, which I cannot do. If I were omnipotent I'd be able to erase an entire planet with a mere thought, which I cannot do. If I were the God of the Bible I wouldn't claim that I'm not, which if I were I'd be a liar and Christians don't believe that God can lie. I know I'm having a conscious experience because I'm typing this right now. These things I am sure of without needing to appeal to any "absolute standard". Unless any of you presuppositionlists want to argue that I could be God?

[@stacy2point0]

How do you know that you are not God? How do you know that your not omnipotent? Maybe you just haven't figured out how to access all the power. ... So the only thing you really know... is that you don't know EVERYTHING? How do you know that? Maybe you are in a dream where your not all knowing.

[@shawn870]

CalledChosenTransformedAbiding I know that i dont know everything because i can demonstrate i dont. Incidently, not knowing if i am in a dream or in the matrix actually helps demonstrate that point. Since i do know that, i know i can know something. From there i can build a knowledgebase. In any case presupoositional apologetics is rather silly.

[@ByTheBookMinistries]

Shawn H “knowing that you don’t know everything” is a knowledge claim, which is self-defeating. Furthermore, there’s no way to build a “knowledge base” on things you think you know, because you could be wrong about those things. Good luck using your senses to validate your reality, seeing that in order to ensure your senses are functioning properly; you have to use your senses to make a determination. Even if you argue that someone else could tell you, they would have to use their senses to ensure their senses are functioning properly. In order to guarantee that you’re not in the matrix is to possess infinite knowledge. You don’t possess infinite knowledge, therefore you cannot guarantee that you’re not in the matrix.

[@shawn870]

Shield Of Faith I can demonstrate i dont know everything. It isnt self defeating. If you want to concede i do know everything you can, it would put a dent in your claims though. I can in fact build a knowledge base, i have done so while acknowledging that much, but not everything i know could be wrong. I can test my senses against each other and against other peoples senses as well as testing using various technologies. You of course have no solution to hard solipsism either so bringing up not knowing if you are in the matrix is a rather useless point. I realize you will claim you do, but you will have to resort to circular reasoning that makes your solution not a solution.

[@shawn870]

Shield Of Faith 2nd reply, you do realize presupps have yet to demonstrate their argument is sound right? They assert it but never demonstrate it. You are no different. Their also really like trying to shift the burden of proof as if makes their claims true. Rather silly.

[@larrytompkins5719]

Jesus didn't preach logic or moral absolutes. Apologetics is an attempt to save an already conquered religion.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Could you explain please?

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Lol, you have had it explained to many times.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn870 again with the fluff and no substance!

[@shawn870]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Again with the projecting.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Straight White Male all I see is a lot of hot air! Is that all Atheism has? Is it logical to have a worldview that doesn't comport to reality? According to the atheist there is no God the universe is non-teleological! There is no guiding force! What happens just happens! But when I look into Universe I see uniformity in nature. The ability that allows me to learn. That allows for scientific inquiry, and that allows for you to even understand this very conversation! And what's your thoughts on morality? How can morality to a bunch of animals be ethically relevant?

[@lotus160]

Let's substitute the word God with Thor. Wow - look at that Thor is.necessary requirement for logic.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Now I could explain why God is necessary for logic. But Thor? But I think you may have missed the point. Logic is a empirical indicator for the existence of God.

[@lotus160]

Michael Reichwein That is an assertion. Can you show the logically

[@lotus160]

Michael Reichwein That is an assertion. Can you explain why it is an indicator of God and not Thor.

[@shawn4888]

Tony Byers michael doesnt bother backing up his claims and has a tendency to lie and use logical fallacies instead.

[@lotus160]

Shawn H and he deletes his comments when confronted

[@cecilys5507]

This is how you preach to the choir. It's pretty easy to "win" an argument against an absent opponent when you make his arguments for him - straw man fallacy.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Cecily S well, you just showed that you don't know what a strawman fallacy is. Look it up and get back to me.

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein Edit( thread is missing comments by michael because he is deleting comments to have last word in at the 500 comment limit) There are actually some strawman fallacies involved, but that doesnt matter as he also uses several others like circular reasoning, arguments from ignorance, etc. Presupps love logical fallacies and never manage to support their claims.

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein you would of course have to demonstrate that all worldviews but yours dont comport to reality, which is rather tricky as you cant demonstrate your does or that others dont.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H no... I am asking a general question. would it not be illogical to hold on to a worldview that doesn't comport to reality?

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein You still need to demomstrate that those worldviews do not comport to reality. This is really simple. Then of course it depends on how specifically it doesnt comport to reality as to whether it is illogical.

[@jackburton7483]

circular reasoning, nothing more.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Why?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 dont be stupid Mike.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 why is it stupid to ask why? Oh darn I just asked why again! Lol!

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Because you already know and constantly lie about it.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 why do you keep making these unsupported assertions? Do you have any proof?

[@keithbentley6364]

God is Just yet he killed his own son for 3 days. Does that make sense to you ?

[@reformedcatholic457]

Yes, it makes sense to me. You should be grateful that God punished and killed His own Son for you, because that punishment is meant for you that Jesus took for you on the cross. It is like this, you have broken God's law by lying, stealing, lusting. You have a problem you have broken God's law and you will face Him on judgment day with your sins. But here is the good news. Christ took your sin and was punished in your place, and if you truly believe in Christ then Christ's perfect life or righteousness will be given to you. You broke God's law and Jesus paid your sin debt on the cross, and on the third day He rose from the dead defeating death. So God commands you to repent of sin (change your mind about sin) and trust in Christ alone for salvation. Either you will pay for your sins in hell or Jesus paid for your sins on the cross.

[@shawn870]

Biblical Christianity So god isnt really just.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H exactly what standard are you appealing to to criticize the actions of God?

[@shawn870]

Michael Reichwein My standard. Dont need any other.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Shawn H so you put yourself above God?

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Presup is horrible and is guilty of begging the question.

[@20july1944]

Presupp is indeed horrible. Try my brilliant and hard-hitting logic- and evidence-based apologetic for real progress for God's kingdom.

[@shawn870]

@@20july1944 lol, it not hard hitting or useful.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@20july1944 There are different methods for different reasons. You should remember that.

[@20july1944]

@@shawn870 You said that you're looking for rationality and enlightenment values, and you correlate them with declining religiosity, right?

[@20july1944]

@@michaelreichwein3970 The reason for apologetics is evangelism, I think always -- or not?

[@gravytopic]

Wow, non sequitur of numbing grossness at about 6:00. Thumbs so down.

[@shawn4888]

Charles Barnes among other fallacies

[@stannley11]

This is nonsensical

[@stannley11]

@@thevulture5750 my opinion, mostly

[@stannley11]

@@thevulture5750 because his argument is circular, he mis- or redefines concepts, and draws sweeping conclusions from faulty premises

[@stannley11]

@@thevulture5750 What do you mean?

[@stannley11]

@@thevulture5750 No

[@nickjones5435]

​@@thevulture5750 Its non sensical because its circular and fails spectacularly to show a god EXISTS

[@guyblackburn8894]

Presup: I have a simple-minded placebo for the problem of.uncertainty. The Intellectual World: Run along, child. The adults are speaking.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Yes, but is it rational?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 of course presupps are not rational.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 why?

[@shawn4888]

@@michaelreichwein3970 I dont know why they chose to be irrational. You would be in a better position to answer that.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@@shawn4888 no... you *claimed* presuppositional Apologist are irrational . On what basis are you making such a claim?

[@reallifelegend4781]

Well that was weak! "It's the concept of cause that I'm arguing for, rather than God being one of the causes." Yet, what he argues is that God is the cause of the concept of causes. You can't escape it.

[@LindeeLove]

gobbledygook