Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 18 posts ] 
presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

On my blog, I talked about last night's Dogma Debate featuring Sye Ten Bruggencate. One of Sye Ten's following somehow imagined that Sye Ten prevailed in that conversation. This person said, "It dsnt take much of a mind 2 figure out the things @Aron_Ra is basing his reasoning on could be figments of his imagination". Then he challenged me to "demonstrate how you're not delusional without using things that could be part of your delusion & I'll analyze it".

To answer that challenge, I would remind him that the faithful say they're gonna believe what they wanna believe regardless what the facts are, but 'what the facts are' is what the truth is. So given what this guy believes and what I 'believe', I would suggest that he and I both provide the facts that are exclusively concordant with, or positively indicative of our two positions. I predict that I will show a bunch of actual facts which can be objectively verified, and he will argue that nothing can be verified because reality might not be real.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:38 am
HamsterPosts: 83Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:54 pmLocation: wisconsin Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

BUT, but, but If you don't know everything, you can't be certain about anything because you could be wrong .

:lol: I think that was his argument :lol:
Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:55 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Aron wrote:Sye Ten disregards all of this, and every other element of relevant logic, claiming that all atheists secretly know that God exists.

You know my discussion with Sye would probably end after he claimed this because I'd say he was lying about all of it and that he actually secretly knew that God doesn't exist and he just claims that God exists because he want's to keep having his immoral lifestyle. If he can accuse me of lying with no evidence to back it to bolster his argument I can easily do to same.

Anyways, I do enjoy theseeeee things were Aron invites some poor soul (not that souls exist, but it's a nice phase) here for a discussion. Not only is the result facepalmage in so many ways but also, usually, educational.
Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:29 am
Baud2BitsNew MemberUser avatarPosts: 1Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:12 amLocation: London Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

IMHO There are two methods to demolish STB's absurd presupp argument.
Firstly: do not engage him. His broken record approach is designed to catch the honest responder. Sye is not encumbered by any such honesty.

So: either agree to debate him. The key word being 'debate'. Forget his playground Q&A. Let him speak for 10 minutes and respond. I doubt he could manage 2 minutes without referring to a bible passage.

The second approach is to engage on his terms. When he gets to his 'so you cannot know anything' flash card, stop him there.
Ask him if he believes that you are wrong about everything you know.
play his broken record back at him. Do not allow him to rogress until he answers that question.
He has to respond that he does not believe you could be wrong about everything you know.
At this stage you have left his circular non-reasoning and you can choose the path of the conversation
Options might be:
"OK Sye, you agree that I am not wrong about everything I know, let us discuss radiometric dating and you tell me at what point my reasoning is invalid and upon what basis you make that decision"
or
"let us discuss some contradictions in the bible, etc."
"let us discuss dinosaurs on the Ark"
post flood population growth
etc.
etc.
Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:33 am
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Welcome, Baud2Bits.

Apologies for the delay in approving you. We keep the board clean of spammers by requiring first posts to be moderated. Enjoy the forum :)
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:51 pm
nemesissUser avatarPosts: 1259Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

AronRa wrote:Then he challenged me to "demonstrate how you're not delusional without using things that could be part of your delusion & I'll analyze it".

.


Do you think Sye would accept himself as your evidence?
But in all seriousness, if sye is accusing you of being delusional... howabout him forking over any evidence for that assumption. i HIGHLY doubt he has any, no reason to even take it serious.

Also, because he claims that if you don't know everything, you can't no anything and you should listen to folks with (higher) authoritah...

since my authoritah is higher and i cause speak with authoritah, i declare that sye ten brugge is a panda! an ugly panda to boot.
Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:13 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Sye actually touches on points that are quite interesting, and if taken that analysis to its inevitable consequence, would expose apologetics for what it really is, a fools errand. But of course Sye being an apologists himself, will not lead it to its natural consequence but instead takes it for a ride in the retard mobile.
I always taught that this subject is pretty basic, I mean I remember touching upon this subject on a basic course in philosophy. Special on the subject of Descartes reasoning that lead to question the veracity of everything and eventually lead him to the famous words "I think therefore I am". Although I do not find his conclusion convincing, his reasoning to discredit pretty much everything can not be ignored.
After all our experience of the world that we ever had comes to us trough our senses, and we know, even by example of things like illusions, that you can not be absolutely sure that any of your sensory experience is in any way related to reality.
So in reality you are out of options about ways you can know reality for certain. Such is impossible, it can't be done. And certainly throwing God into the mix wouldn't solve this problem, you still have to climb the mountain that the experience of the outside world is made trough sensory experience that may or may not be true.
Plus in principle it would even only make sense if you had previously established the existence of a God, which is as far as I know the very thing he is trying to prove in the first place. To add on top of that that God would need to be interested in providing you true information, which is even a less supported assumption, curiously Descartes used the possibility of the "existence of a deceiving God that fakes his experiences in order to confuse you" as an example that discredits the idea that your experiences are reliable.
Which is quite daunting to me because this is for me has been part of philosophy 101, and it is clear to me that this apologist trying to pass as philosophers were never exposed to the works of Descartes, or even exposed to the philosophical theme on how do we know things.

The assumption that we make about or sensory experience being related to physical reality, was never a logical one, it was a matter of relevance. We chose to think is true because no matter what we think of it, reality is out there and it hits you. You feel pain, you starve if you don't feed, you can get cold without shelter, you can also feel pleasure in things to. They hijack your thoughts and make you act, either it is true or not!
If your experiences has absolutely nothing to do with reality, and your reasoning is completely muddled and wrong, then it doesn't matter what you do, you have no hope of making an effective difference. And there is really nothing you can do, even if you taught you had a bullet proof argument without any holes in it, you would still be wrong even if you are absolutely sure you are right, because your reasoning is wrong. If however some of it is right, then what you think of it makes an important difference difference.

It seems to me that Sye attempts to argue on 2 fronts.
1. That it is obvious that we do posses reason, and for some reason the only way that could be the case is if God! (note: yes, I intend to write this last words as is).
2. He wants to make it a matter of certainty that his epistemology is complete and self demonstrable.

Number 1. can be very simply dismissed with the fact that no matter what philosophical argument you have, you can never demonstrate the existence of anything in physical reality of any kind what so ever by philosophy alone, such is an impossibility. And this is a consequence of what I have just explained earlier.
Number 2. is also quite interesting because of this thing (you might have heard of) of the Godel's incompleteness theorem. Which is a proven proposition, that any epistemology that can prove itself (and/or be complete) is necessarily false. Which is quite a masterpiece, because while Sye being most convinced of his bullet proof nature of his epistemology, he managed to unwillingly certify that it is hogwash. And how can you not love that?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:23 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Ps. Given the limitation of experience as a way to know about the things which exist, the next best thing that you can hope for in order to establish some form of truth about it, is to observe this thing we call reality very carefully and methodically. And science is the best method we have to carefully observe reality and trying to find out more about it while avoid making most mistakes.
But not only there is no scientific evidence for God, apologists are proud to admit that their God is outside of the scope of science. Which leaves us to wonder, if the knowledge can not come from observation of physical reality, then by what other means do they come to the conclusion that there is even a God to start with?
There is only one alternative left, it must come from their mind, i.e. it unwillingly admits that God as they know it is a product of their imagination. And this is true either there was an actual existent God or not.
And that is how you disprove the theistic God.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:37 pm
nemesissUser avatarPosts: 1259Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

im probably oversimplifying sye's argument a bit to much, but after hearing his argument a bit too much, i think.... it sounds like he's saying "because we (humans) can make mistakes, therefor we can make faulty conclusions. and the only way not to make faulty conclusions is for someone else to tell you the (correct) answer (aka revelation) instead of reaching it by yourself."

this led me to believe that the correct answer to his question "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" is: "because i can verify it" and when he goes "that's circular" or stuff like that. i can reply "no, it's itterative. that a huge difference". though im not sure how he will react to that though.... never seen anyone respond that way...
Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:27 pm
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

AronRa wrote:On my blog, I talked about last night's Dogma Debate featuring Sye Ten Bruggencate. One of Sye Ten's following somehow imagined that Sye Ten prevailed in that conversation. This person said, "It dsnt take much of a mind 2 figure out the things @Aron_Ra is basing his reasoning on could be figments of his imagination". Then he challenged me to "demonstrate how you're not delusional without using things that could be part of your delusion & I'll analyze it".

To answer that challenge, I would remind him that the faithful say they're gonna believe what they wanna believe regardless what the facts are, but 'what the facts are' is what the truth is. So given what this guy believes and what I 'believe', I would suggest that he and I both provide the facts that are exclusively concordant with, or positively indicative of our two positions. I predict that I will show a bunch of actual facts which can be objectively verified, and he will argue that nothing can be verified because reality might not be real.


It's the most boring of all the apologetics, 5 minutes of listening to him brought on a panic attack.

I did listen to one debate where a person pointed out (I forget who) that Sye couldn't use his reasoning to validate God or the Bible, because it may be flawed. When Sye said he knew it couldn't be because God told him the truth, your man points out that "Ahhhh, but he could be lying to you, and you have no way of justifying the validity of what god is saying".

I quite liked that. However, Sye then retorted with, "you can't say that, because you said you may not know anything".

Great debate.
Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:42 pm
WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3210Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Greetings,

Presuppositional Apologetics is - needless to say - flawed.

It's based on the idea that revelation is the only way to know anything: reason, working correctly, should always agree with revelation - if it does not, then reason is wrong.

Descartes' Dilemma - aka, the "brain in a vat" problem or Neo in the Matrix - is not quite the refutation of it as some think: the PA can claim that he knows he's not deluded by his senses because "God" reveals the truth to him.

However, there's a even more interesting variation of Descartes' Dilemma which does defeat the above claim.

What if - rather than a brain-in-a-vat - you're a hologram, programmed to believe that you're a real human being? [Westerhof, 2011]

If the PA claims that "God" reveals that he's not, then that doesn't work - it's part of the program to believe that "God" is revealing truth to you, when (clearly) he can't be doing so.

At this point, the ball is squarely in the PA's court - until he's answered that problem, you can enjoy your life!

Regarding Gödel's Theorems - although a couple of researchers have used a computer to prove the internal logic [1], this doesn't mean the theorem itself is sound. There are a number of misconceptions about it [2]

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Last edited by Dragan Glas on Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:12 pm
olympus monUser avatarPosts: 2Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:56 pm

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

I have suffered through a half dozen or more of Sye Tens "debates" and was most satisfied with the one between he and Aronra. I felt Aronra held the slippery snake Sye to the fire as best as can be done. There are so many problems with the presupposistional apologetics approach but my main reasons I feel engaging with them is a futile waste of time are as follows.

-They approach the conversation as somehow being special and that all there bogus assertions do not apply to them. Such as hard solipsism, there ability to know if they are being deceived, or there assertions of the failings to use of reasoning to establish reasoning. In fact by there own admission that they get their knowledge through biblical revelations only opens them up to these things even greater.

-The convenient refusal to never discuss scripture or the validity of the bible and even the existence of God with non believers. Well isn't that cute. The very things they claim to be the source of all knowledge yet can't be challenged!

-The very foundation of the pressup's approach forces the opponent to adhere to the same presuppositions that God exists and the bible is divine word.

-Sye and other presupp's refuse to answer questions or often even allow questions to be asked of them except in allotted times in which they dictate. When anyone ask questions in attempt to counter their craziness they always say "well get back to that but just answer my questions first".

-The whole debate ends up on their terms by their refusal to move on until they get the answer they NEED for their ridiculous little game to work. In the case of Sye vs. AronRa Sye asked the same question for close to 10 min in which Aronra answered completely every time but since it was not what Sye wanted to hear he kept insisting Aronra hadn't answered the question and asked it again over and over. This to me is the most frustrating part of watching these people debate and why I see debating them as pointless.

-Presupposistonal approach is not a debate method. It is a game or a trick in which the end goal is to create the appearance of being right by herding the opponent like a Corgi heard's sheep. By relentlessly barking and nipping an animals rump until they move in the direction the pressups want it to go. Ill give them this, although over flowing with fallacies, untruths, and unreason, it is effective in controlling the conversation to appear as "winning" to an outside observer un-familiar with this B.S.
It is a well planned yet illogical game in which they can not appear wrong even though they are dead wrong. This I feel is achieved by the pressup's the moment the opposition is forced to adopt the presuppositions of God and the Bible of being true and divine.

Its a trick and an ridiculous one at that. I have watched and heard enough presupp's to last 10 lifetimes. I don't feel these idiots should be given any further attention or opportunities to play their little game since the game is designed so they can never appear to be defeated. Therefore it is pointless and just annoying.


Just my 2 cents though.
Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:25 pm
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

As painful as it is to listen to and watch, I love the presupposition garbage. There is nothing better than hearing someone who is condescending, rude, and ignorant to their opponent that states, "I am an un-reasonable asshole that is going to badger and annoy you until I hear what I want to hear and try to make you feel stupid for denying my ignorance.". It entirely demeans their position and is just plain disrespectful to people's intelligence. Yay, root for that guy. :roll:

I'm surprised that no one tries to use the believers in the audience against him. He say he won't discuss with non believers, but if you had a bible with you and read aloud, and asked him to defend the position to the audience that does believe. If he tries to back out, say what if hearing you (Sye) defend this part of the bible is the revelation I need to accept god. Are you going to prevent that by not complying to answer? Just a thought.

All in all it hurts at first, but who does it win over? He turns off nearly everyone who can hear him it only works for the ones who already believe like he does. It bolsters them with useless ridiculous ammunition that they cannot use without looking ignorant and boorish themselves. Even more ridiculous than Creation Science Evidences (emphasis on the S). I cannot wait untill Big Daddy Hovind gets out and Godsmacks wittle baby Eric in the mouth when he talks that logical maze of word salad at him.
On a side note...

If I ever had the chance to speak with Eric, my answer to his set up of "Could you be wrong about everything you know?", my response would be, "No, in fact I have certain knowledge that your dad knows what prison penis tastes like."
I would look him straight in the eye and before he could speak to that I would walk away and leave him hanging.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:39 pm
olympus monUser avatarPosts: 2Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:56 pm

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Mugnut wrote:
If I ever had the chance to speak with Eric, my answer to his set up of "Could you be wrong about everything you know?", my response would be, "No, in fact I have certain knowledge that your dad knows what prison penis tastes like."
I would look him straight in the eye and before he could speak to that I would walk away and leave him hanging.


Lmao! I would pay good money to see this. I challenged She Ten Brugencunt (sp) on his channel repeatedly to refuse my answer to his "could you be wrong about everything you know?" Incoreant babble. May answer is no I can be certain of at least 2 things, I am not the god you worship. Therefore I am rather correct or I am the god of the bible therefore am an omnipotent all knowing being and can not by his own definition be wrong about anything and can say with certainty that Sye is a raging TWAT!

He has removed my challenge twice in which I called him out as the lying coward he is.
Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:35 am
CollecemallPosts: 396Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

I watched one of his "debates" last night. I always have to lead off with the caveat that I'm not real bright so it's possible I just don't understand. Having said that lets progress.... His argument seems to be that none of us can know anything because we can't prove we aren't a brain in a vat. And that he can know something because he's special. Is that about right? So either all of us who come together and verify our reasoning through mutual exchange are all brains in a vat or he's wrong. However, if he's not a brain in a vat wouldn't he then realize he's dealing with something that is a brain in a vat? Why does anyone even bother discourse with this guy? Is there any likely hood of someone watching his debate and saying AH HA! I now believe in the magic zombie king? If this is the missing piece for someone to buy in I have less hope for humanity than before.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:13 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3498Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

Collecemall wrote:... And that he can know something because he's special...


It is not that he is special; it is that he believes that a god is giving him special knowledge that is available to everyone if they simply ask for it.

The whole presuppositional apologetic relies on this asinine assumption and I do not understand how presuppositional apologists think this line of argumentation is convincing. It is philological sophistry at its finest.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:33 am
YIM WWW
CollecemallPosts: 396Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

So all I have to do is ask and I'll know I'm not a brain in a vat? Sweet, is there an 800 number or website I go to? Perhaps an address I can send a letter? I thought I had to believe the Bible was true so that it could then show me it was true. No wonder I wasn't getting it right.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:36 am
flywheelShysterUser avatarPosts: 21Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:04 pm

Post Re: presuppositional [head -> desk] apologetics

I'm glad to have fallen across this discussion because I wanted to make a comment to the Youtube version of it but for whatever reason failed to do so.

In your discussion (http://www.spreaker.com/user/smalleyand ... ls_sye_ten) at about 168min 24 sec the dialogue goes something like this:

Sye: On what basis do you assume that the laws of science are going to apply 5 seconds from now?
AronRa: On what basis would we assume they will not? How could we assume they don't?
Sye: Thanks a lot.
AronRa How is it possible that they could not?
Sye: So you are saying that the future will be like the past because it has been like that in the past. If you don't see a problem with that then there is no point continuing.
AronRa: reality has to be wrong. That is your defence. Reality itself is wrong but not you.
Sye: I did not say that. I'm asking on what basis do you assume the laws of science are going to apply in in 5 seconds.

I think the Presuppositionalist argument wrong not least because the problem of solipsism is well known and his answer to that problem, viz that Jesus told him so, begs the very question it is intended to answer.(Also see Mark Johnston's Saving God: Religion after Idolatry where one of his questions is how is one to know it is god and not a demon one is worshiping).

However, by whatever means we may choose to oppose Presuppositionalism it would be good to retain reason on our side. That means we acknowledge instances when Sye is correct in what he says. In this particular case I think he was and it should have been acknowledged.

1: All science is contingent and therefore any factual assumption or probability is dependent on the future being like the past, e.g. Karl Popper: Objective Knowledge, or e.g. Lawrence Krauss in this YouTube video 2min 40 secs in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33YTGrElA0c.

2. As a case in point the Italian physical theorist Gian Giudice argues that there is a probability that the Higgs vacuum undergoes quantum tunnelling with the surprising consequence that the universe is in a critical state which will eventually end in a cosmic collapse. He says that this could happen at any time, viz. the next five seconds.
e.g. wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Francesco_Giudice
and video of TED presentation 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8z6HfSq7l8

I am not saying that any challenge to a given theory needs to be considered as worth discussing without sufficient supporting evidence, however, one's opponent's arguments should be strengthened where possible so the arguments against them may be properly tested. Thus even though Sye Bruggencate did not explicitly state the contingent nature of science, this should have been done for him. Now that we also know there are good theoretical reasons for supposing that aspect of his argument to be correct, that aspect should be re-examined.
Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:30 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 18 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests