Darius and Karin Viet #fundie

Darius and Karin Viet #fundie answersingenesis.org

We agree that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate biblical approach to apologetics. The common accusation that the presuppositionalist uses circular reasoning is actually true. In fact, everyone uses some degree of circular reasoning when defending his ultimate standard (though not everyone realizes this fact). Yet if used properly, this use of circular reasoning is not arbitrary and, therefore, not fallacious.

Contrary to what your non-Christian friend said, circular reasoning is surprisingly a valid argument. The conclusion does follow from the premises. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy only when it is arbitrary, proving nothing beyond what it assumes.

[Emphasis added]

75 comments

old comment by David B.

It's not merely circular, presuppositional arguments are routinely of the form "if God then X, X, therefore God."

This is affirming the consequent, a formal fallacy that leads to incoherence. If it's a tiger it will be stripey, it's stripey, so it's a tiger...
image
..."Grrr!"

The simple counter to presupp appologetics is that you can presuppose the opposite and generate equally 'valid' (and equally circular) conclusions. So the presupp argument is worthless without additional reasons to presuppose a god over presupposing no god.

In otherwords unless they can justify their assumption of God's existence, there is nothing (bar Occam's razor) to distinguish their argument from one assuming he doesn't.

Hence they have proved nothing, but merely made a bare assertion, and "begged the question" that we take them at their word and accept their subsequent conclusions without inspection or consideration.

Presuppositional apologetics is simply an obfuscated call to "have faith."

old comment by David B.

Here's my presuppositional reply to presuppositional apologetics:

"If God didn't exist then it would be necessary to come up with half-assed 'logical reasons' for supposing he does, since valid logical thought and axioms would not be able to reach the incorrect conclusion that he does. An example of such is the naive use of presuppositional apologetics, which incorporates circularity, beggin the question, affirming the consequent and bare or hidden assertion into a logical framework that has worked backwards from a desired conclusion to a set of superficially reasonable assumptions and arguments. Therefore the use of presuppositional apologetics is proof of God's non-existence."

You're welcome.

old comment by The Duelist

"We agree that presuppositional apologetics is the ultimate biblical approach to apologetics."

Thus proving yet again that apologetics is a worthless, meaningless field where something is only true if you want it to be.

"The common accusation that the presuppositionalist uses circular reasoning is actually true."

Exactly. See? They're finally being honest.

"In fact, everyone uses some degree of circular reasoning when defending his ultimate standard (though not everyone realizes this fact)."

First off, bullshit. I've seen people defend ideas without using any circular logic whatsoever. Secondly, even if this were true, it still doesn't validate your idiotic presumption that you're right even though you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

"Yet if used properly, this use of circular reasoning is not arbitrary and, therefore, not fallacious."

[citation needed].

"Contrary to what your non-Christian friend said, circular reasoning is surprisingly a valid argument."

Okay. Christianity is a false cult because this book I skimmed through last month says it is, so there. Oh, and the Illuminati are planning to sap our precious bodily fluids, 'cuz National Enquirer said so.

"The conclusion does follow from the premises."

Without evidence, your premise and any conclusions you draw from it are meaningless.

"Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy only when it is arbitrary, proving nothing beyond what it assumes."

Go back to school, retard. Only at AIG...

old comment by Fireshark

@Duelist

What sort of evidence would you like? Most of what we know about the ancient world doesn't exactly come from complete, detailed, independently verifiable sources. For example, we have only a few sources that tell much about Emperor Nero's rule, they contradict each other, and they were written with an agenda. So I think the Bible could be seen as enough to at least strongly suggest that it has some of its roots in history on things like the history of Israel or the teachings of Jesus (of course, I'm not saying you should believe in miracles or anything else that would need extraordinary evidence).

You also have to consider the possible agenda when anything is written. For example, the differences between the gospels can be explained by the audiences they were written for, but they each (independently?) say some of the same things, presumably based on a couple generations of oral tradition (Probably not enough time to screw things up TOO much). They wouldn't just make something up unless they had a specific reason. So could miracles have been made up to sell the gospel? Sure. But that doesn't invalidate everything that's written in the Bible (glimpses into history, ancient life, etc) just because it's a religious text.

old comment by zomgwtfbbq

@His4Life
Ok, let's talk evidence. What kind of evidence do you want? They have found the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea.

They found a SINGLE CHARIOT WHEEL in the red sea. By the way, "they" is a crazy religious nutter, so take what they said with a grain of salt. This wheel could have been there for the more obvious reason of, say, "it fell off a boat". After all, if the entire egyptian army was drowned in the red sea, we would expect to find a lot more than one single wheel.

Not to mention we would also expect to find the remains of a tribe of >600k wandering 40 years in the desert, no such remains exist (and the Israelis have been looking for a LONG TIME with plenty of motivation.) Much smaller and older wandering groups spending less time in that desert have still left tracks, so why not the Israelites?

Also, no record of any plagues or drowned emperors in Egyptian history, not to mention at the time of the Exodus Egypt was going through one of its strongest economic times.

Face it, of all the Bible stories, the Exodus is probably the second most easy to falsify. It never happened. You can deal with the results of that in your own way, but the facts are the facts, and the evidence is in.

old comment by zomgwtfbbq

@His4Life
[citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed]

Multiple "wheels" have been found, one at a time by various religious nutters. Many were actually just interesting shaped coral. Show me ONE example of a verified find of the remains of AN ENTIRE FUCKING ARMY. Please, just one news article. Of course, you won't, because such a thing does not exist. So feel free to avoid providing it yet continue to claim there isn't enough evidence of Evolution because you don't see 1 billion fossils showing graded change from primitive Ape to Human with every single Generation. Here's a nice list of "finds" from beneath the Red Sea from some guys who really love looking for this stuff:
http://www.squidoo.com/redseacrossing

Just some wheel shaped coral.

Existence of campsites and shrines in the Sinai is an example of different wondering tribes. Please provide evidence that these were JEWISH campsites and shrines. Also that the campsite was large enough to fit 600,000 men (+ women and children). A small shrine would clearly show that a SMALL group of people were there, as I have mentioned, there are many small groups of people who have wondered the Desert.

See http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html#wandering for some information on what exactly has been found in Sinai.

Now your next response had better contain some sources, without such, you are basically just making shit up, which I suppose is pretty much par for the course for a creationist...

old comment by Night Jaguar

"If you want to talk science, the Bible talks science. If you want to talk history, the Bible talks history. If you want to talk philosophy, the Bible talks philosophy. "

Science:
- All the evidence suggest the Earth and Universe are both much, much older than 10,000 years old.
- The evidence strongly suggest the theory of evolution is correct and all species of Earth did NOT appear spontaneously as it says in the Bible.
- The Earth is not flat as suggested by the Bible (Isaiah 40:22,1 Samuel 2:8, Matthew 4:8).
- The Earth is not the stationary as suggested by the Bible (Psalm 104:5, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 96:10).

History:
- No evidence of massive enslavement or Jews in Egypt or massive exodus of Jews. You'd expect to some if the numbers the Bible claimed were accurate.
- No evidence for massive Empire of Israel that stretched from the Euphrates to Eilath. Again, you'd expect such an empire to leave a lot of evidence behind.
- The crucifixtion eclipse seems to be completely made up.

Philosophy:
- No refutable argument of the Epicurean paradox given in the Bible
- No refutable argument of the Euthyphro dilemma given in the Bible

This is just a short list of the bullshit in the Bible, but I think you get the point.

The Bible actually reads like the writings of brutish, ignorant ancients with axes to grind. There's a lot political propaganda and boring details about priest rituals. It does not read like the work of a great intelligence that created the universe. Well, there's a very simple explanation for that....

Darius and Karin Viet #fundie answersingenesis.org

75 comments

Confused?