Presuppositional Apologetics is Absolutely Ridiculous

[Danthemanlyman7]

...A logic, immaterial by nature, that applies to a material universe. How does the concept apply to a universe of matter, space, and time if it is outside them? Where did it come from? Was it made by man? If so, according to the law of noncontradiction (supposedly made by man according to atheists)--did the universe both exist and not exist before man created the law of noncontradiction?

[Danthemanlyman7]

The atheists' "evidence" comes from his rational though. However, he cannot account for his outside of the material universe--to him reason and logic are simply the result of chemical reactions within the brain. How then can he trust his own reason? Who is not to say that the reactions are faulty or result of a poor evolutionary adaptation? The theist, trusts that he has been made capable of reason and logic, and can trust the logic which was given to him by a logical creator that created logic

[gooselax27]

@Danthemanlyman7 Physical evidence and reasoned logic have given us more than prayer ever will. One of them produces results, i.e. vaccines, precise theories from which testable predictions can be made, and better technology, the other, produces bigotry and division among human kind. Do you trust the bibles cure for leprosy, or mans cure for leprosy?

[YHWHisSovereign]

Only someone who doesn't understand logic would say that presuppositional apologetics is ridiculous.

[bengphoenix]

Can an atheist even explain their foundation for describing truth? How is truth even considered "truth" if if is merely conventional? By what standard do you measure truth? I say your truth is a lie. You say my truth is a lie. Who's is really the truth? I guess we'll never know since there is no absolute standard by which to judge. In fact, we can't know if anything at all is really truthful if we have no standard for judging truth. Conclusion: atheism is false and bankrupt.

[suicidewafflez]

@bengphoenix *APPLAUSE* *PROCEEDING ROARING APPLAUSE* Conclusion continued: HOOWEVER, professing in [insert religion here], reading the respective book and putting reason aside solves everything for you!

[bengphoenix]

@suicidewafflez Hardly

[bengphoenix]

@suicidewafflez Man's reason is possible only because there is an Eternal God who created the Laws of Logic. No fixed Laws of Logic=no standard by which to reason.

[suicidewafflez]

@bengphoenix That's a really simple way to explain why our mind can perceive things. Explaining this in a scientific fashion will take a lot of time and hard work by people who are apt enough to do so. Don't you think your explanations are a little too convenient? I'm sure there's a scientific explanation as to why you believe god presides over you. Animals have evolved in certain ways to cope with their surroundings; the human race has this rather nifty psychological mechanism called "God".

[bengphoenix]

@suicidewafflez Such is the usual dogmatic response of the atheist. But check it out for yourself. Find a suitable answer as to why the human mind (biologically exclusive from the world and all other minds) is able to make sense of the world, and to relate to other human minds. This seems a hopeless task if you remain committed to a purely naturalistic worldview.

[suicidewafflez]

@bengphoenix A hopeless task for whom? For a single person you would be correct, is that why you result to theology to make sense of your life? My mom tried to indoctrinate me with the teachings of Creationism and Christianity, but I never felt such things were factual and sought to make sense of the world by my own means, not being overly influenced by one concept or idea.

[bengphoenix]

@suicidewafflez For you, or anyone else who takes this view. The case for God is in the impossibilty of the contrary. If there is no God, then there is no ultimate purpose (or truth, or morality, or Laws of Logic) for which the universe exists. All things are subjective, including reality itself, and are nothing more than figments of men's imaginations (rather, random electro-chemical reactions in the brain). But, thank God, things are not so! There is hope, and purpose; there is Jesus!

[suicidewafflez]

@bengphoenix "there is no absolute standard by which to judge" That's why you use an absolute figure to justify your standpoints. Surely no person's perspective and logic is going to be absolute, that's why people need to collaborate.

[bengphoenix]

@suicidewafflez Collaborate to what end? Does the sum of finite minds (whatever the number) ever equal 1 infinite mind? People are not able to attain the sort of knowledge you are talking about, even through the most earnest efforts. Only God knows the beginning from the end.

[suicidewafflez]

@bengphoenix To what end? As far as possible; a more detailed answer could come from studying Epistemology.

[bengphoenix]

@suicidewafflez No, because just as the premise of presuppositional apologetics states, there is no neutral ground from which to begin your study. You've already rejecvted God from the outset, and no amout of studying will lead you to the truth

[imanatheistbiatch]

^_^

[Hollenthon2468]

lol, ReformedApologian's expression is priceless in this.

[imanatheistbiatch]

reformed apologian is a fucking asshole

[clubmondobizarre]

ReformedApologian is your everyday "friendly" creationist that just wants to save everyone from goin to the firey pits of his god's wrath. You know, hell is for us because we deserve it of course. We are born into sin, therefor we need to die and be tortured forever for being born. But, god sent himself in human form ,aka his son, to come to earth to die for a short 3 days just to be raised into eternal paradise, for our sins, how GREAT!!!!!

[SunriseSucks]

Christianity is a neurosis exalted to a religion. Anyone who is insane enough to believe such nonsensical mental illness is wasting his time, that includes Christian apologetics. They defend a delusional madness.

[clubmondobizarre]

I definately agree. I was being sarcastic about ReformedApologian.

[Justinfh2point0]

lol. Good one.

[gonjamon99]

"...you should be producing content-filed logical refutations of Christian arguments..."

No, I should not waste too much time refuting madness, a particularly American madness. (Would you spend time refuting Jains or afro-centric Black Hebrew Israelites? You're as insane to me, as they are to you.  Pick your madness and then assume it to be true: This kind of thinking does not work in engineering.) I probably should spend more time working on my thesis and less time on youtube...

[gonjamon99]

...my videos are just for laughs...this one, at your expense.

[jogayot]

"god" word exists therefore god exists would be just too blatant a proof.

[Twobitz1]

LET ME HAVE YOUR CHILDREN.

[gonjamon99]

hehe!

[SofaKingLoaded]

The system of thought used to make this video is arbitrary, inconsistent with itself and lacks the preconditions necessary for the intelligibility of knowledge. Logic and knowledge are possible and reality itself is meaningful only within the worldview of bronze age philosophers scribing over a camel dung fire. Silly goose, you must embrace the christian myth in order to deny it..

[gonjamon99]

haha! ...damn it! :D

[gonjamon99]

Oh no!  I just noticed that yet another moron had joined the ranks of these brain damaged freaks: watch?v=SYAO9o3GNrc

[SofaKingLoaded]

Oh man.. even by the most retarded standards of Apologetic buybull thumpery that fucker is nuttier than a squirrel turd..

[bbugmenott]

religion sucks.

peer revieuwd science is the way to go.

[SunriseSucks]

The bible is on of the most contradictory books written, and even if there where only one contradiction, it can't be "God's Word".

[gonjamon99]

ReformedApologian, there is a difference between being mistaken and lying. Your lack of understanding of such simple concepts is astounding.

[gonjamon99]

"Ah, yes, we certainly don't want any of that "truth" stuff going around, do we? You'd much rather spread misinformation."

Now you're sounding paranoid.

[gonjamon99]

ReformedApologian, something to ponder upon for you: propositional logic can be constructed in such a way that it contains no axioms, for example, read "concerning logic without axioms" by Roman Suszko (1948).

[gonjamon99]

ReformedApologian, look up "false dichotomy." I'm neither a "naturalist" nor am I a presuppositional apologist.

[gonjamon99]

ReformedApologian, by "your school," I was referring to "presuppositional apologetics." Perhaps, it is not your school entirely. Not everything written down is necessarily true, including what I wrote about you.

[gonjamon99]

Your school of thought denies the following facts:

1. "It rains" is true iff it rains. (In your school, "it rains" is true iff the Bible or some other scripture states it rains.)

2. Scripture/wishful thinking does not necessarily correlate with reality. (In your school, Christianity is true because you wish it true, because your parents taught you that it is indeed true.)

4. (\forall a)a=a is the definition of the symbol '='. (In your school,...

[gonjamon99]

...the rules of logic as well as the rules of chess are magical.)