Presuppositionalism

Author: Timid8967

Posts

Total: 39
Topic's author
#1
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
I recently came across this on a webpage. I wonder if there are any Christians on this site who hold to it.  For the record, I think it is fundamentally flawed. 

1. It is impossible to define any individual thing apart from a worldview.
2. At the outset Christianity is radically different than non-Christianity, on the account that to us, the most fundamental reality is personal and eternal, while in non-Christianity, the most fundamental reality is either impersonal or personal and temporal.
3. Given that fundamental difference, it follows that an atheist will obviously find Christian beliefs incoherent, because they are incoherent when defined according to his worldview from the foundation.
4. This means that we can't debate over a singular belief apart from talking about the worldview that defines that belief. We can't debate whether or not God exists when we're operating under different definitions of God and being itself.
5. If you want to discuss this sincerely the first question you have to ask is "what is God?" and "what is being?", and then, having resolved that, we can talk about whether or not God exists.
6. The problem arises when you realize that in Christianity God and being are identical, and that you can't accept that. What do you do then? Then the only way to critique Christianity is to hypothetically adopt our believes and show that we're incoherent. And we'll do the same with atheism. The difference is that you will fail, while we won't.
Firstly, are there any Christians who hold to this view and who would be prepared to discuss it further? 

Secondly, would you consider a debate on the subject? 
#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I recently came across this on a webpage.

I see. And which web page?  Lets have the link. 

Does it start by saying this >> ` Presuppositionalism is a school of  Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought` ?


Firstly, are there any Christians who hold to this view and who would be prepared to discuss it further? 

What an odd request for one that believes  Christianity to be the most dangerous in the world and  should be "cancelled"?#18


Secondly, would you consider a debate on the subject? 

  Well you have had a complete transformation haven't you?  In just a few weeks you have gone from the most vehement and vociferous anti Christ,anti god, and anti religion person to have ever graced this forum and  that also  once believed non of the above should even be discussed, to this 'new' tolerant you, that is now begging for costumers to engage you and talk about everything that you oppose and disbelieve in. 

Topic's author
#3
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I told you that I had had my mind changed. You were one of the ones who did this.  Surely, you expect some people to agree with you when you make some of your grandiose arguments? Or do you think that everyone just ignores your point of view?   Despite the fact that you continue to troll me, it does not mean that I don't at times accept some of the things that you and others make.

The people who responded to my posts have been very gracious in the most part.  And besides - PGA has piqued my mind about presuppositionalism again.  And I am interested. 
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Timid8967
By the looks of points 1 to 6.

"Presuppositionalism" is the same old argument.

Lets refer to it as P'ism  in the wind.
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I told you that I had had my mind changed.

And in such a short time too!!!!  Miraculous!!!


I did prophesy that you would become a believer of sorts. So where is it that you actually stand now? 

Do you still believe that the  Jesus story that has come down to us is a "myth"? 

Do you still believe that Christianity is the "most dangerous religion in particular"? 

Do you still believe that the "bible belongs on a fire"? 

 Is Christianity no longer a  "threat to our children and our very existence"? 

Should religion simply be "cancelled"? 




You were one of the ones who did this. 

Did what?  I have done nothing but agree with you on everything you have to say concerning religion, the bible and god and Jesus, with just two exceptions;  of  your idea that the Christian " holy scriptures belong on a book burning fire". And that " Christianity is a threat to our children and our future existence".



Surely, you expect some people to agree with you when you make some of your grandiose arguments?


 Its nice if they do. But I don't  expect anything at all, princess.  The only thing I do expect is the freedom to say what I want even at the cost of offending someone. 
For instance, I know that it may well offend someone when I say that I believe that John the Baptist and Jesus were rivals. And that John was forced to baptise Jesus . But you see,  I didn't just go to bed one night and wake up next morning with this idea in my head. NO,  I got the idea from the scriptures themselves .


Or do you think that everyone just ignores your point of view? 

I wouldn't know? 


 piqued my mind about presuppositionalism again

"again"?   That would be Christian apologetics I take it?




I recently came across this on a webpage.

 And you have avoided giving us the link. Is there a reason for that? 

Topic's author
#6
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
What part are you missing? 

I changed my mind about - not wanting to engage with religious folk. I changed my mind about it giving the air time. 

 I haven't changed my mind in respect of what I think about christianity or the bible or Jesus.  It almost sounds like you are scared I might become a christian.  

It was you and others on that thread which persuaded me that my view about not giving them oxygen was perhaps too harsh and that I ought to pause and consider my position.  Now that I have done that - I am figuring out a way to achieve my ends - but which is not confrontational as I was. 

My brother was a fundy presuppositionalist before he passed away.  PGA figured this out and asked me some questions. So given that I wanted to do my homework I went looking for some answers.  I found this on one of those sites - which I won't link because it is a private page. But it made me think - these people really believe it. But as I said above - it is fundamentally flawed. This is why I wanted to find out if there were people who believed it - and then made my challenge.  I can't for the life of me see why this is all so difficult for you - or that matter - why it is any of your business? 

Please keep to the topic.  And given you are not a christian - or if you are - you don't believe presuppositionalism - then I am not even sure why you are here on this thread except to stir and harass. 
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
What part are you missing? 

I changed my mind about - not wanting to engage with religious folk. I changed my mind about it giving the air time. 

 I haven't changed my mind in respect of what I think about christianity or the bible or Jesus.  It almost sounds like you are scared I might become a christian.  

I just wanted to be clear. I wouldn't want you to accuse me of  quoting something that you once believed but have now changed your mind about. 

It was you and others on that thread which persuaded me that my view about not giving them oxygen

 Yes I understood that at the time and I   praised your common sense.  It was your other beliefs that I was referring to.



I recently came across this on a webpage.

 And you have avoided giving us the link. Is there a reason for that? 


I found this on one of those sites - which I won't link because it is a private page.

 Absolute bollocks. Of course you did.   Was it Wikipedia?  .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics




But it made me think - these people really believe it.

Well of course they do. Why else would thy stoop to denying that which is clearly written in the bible and to rewriting scripture, and putting words into the mouths of biblical characters and its  authors when caught on the backfoot.



But as I said above - it is fundamentally flawed.

 How is it flawed? 



This is why I wanted to find out if there were people who believed it [ Presuppositional apologetics] - and then made my challenge. 

Well, it is all to do with CHRISTIAN apologetics, isn't it.  And the arrogant and haughty christian belief that believes that ONLY the  Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. So what kind of argument are you expecting?

  They won't recognise any of those "flaws" that you are about to highlight and knock them dead with. 

But for now I am more prepared to just sit back and listen to your argument  with whoever may wish to see and discuss these "flaws" in the Christian apologetic argument.

Good luck, dimtim, 

Topic's author
#8
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Not wikapedia - a FB group.      A private group.  One that debates doctrine. You can join if you like.  But I don't have permission to link to it. 

Given that you say you agree with me - I am not going to tell you how it is flawed.  I am sure you must know already. 

  They won't recognise any of those "flaws" that you are about to highlight and knock them dead with. 

You make another valid point.  Perhaps it was premature again for me to decide to take them on. 

But if I can't make them see the error of their way, what am I supposed to do? 

There seems to be no point to ignoring them. 

There seems to be no point to trying to destroy them. 

There seems to be no point in trying to reason with them. 

Aha - ok.  What is left? Just to ridicule them.  And now that I see this, I can see what you and the Brother do and what SecMerlin does and what all of the others do.  Ok. That makes sense.  

So is that what you do? Is that the purpose behind your questions. To make a mockery out of Christianity. To belittle it and to show the foolishness of what they do. It is not to convince them. It is not to change their perspective. It is to baffle them and make a buffoon out of them.  

Let me sleep on that. It surely is an interesting perspective. Perhaps a paradigm moment. 
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967


- I am not going to tell you how it is flawed.  I am sure you must know already. 

Sorry no. I don't.  So I would be grateful if you would just point out what it is that you consider to be "fundamentally flawed" with  Presuppostionalism. 





Given that you say you agree with me. 


And you are confusing what it is that I do agree with  you on. I explained exactly what it is that I agree with you on and those agreements have nothing to do with what you are now calling the  " fundamentally flawed"  Presuppostionalism. 


  Perhaps it was premature again for me to decide to take them on. 

 Not at all. I urge you to. I am curious to see the responses you receive once you expose these flaws.



There seems to be no point to ignoring them.

 I agree. 


There seems to be no point to trying to destroy them. 

Destroy?   I have no problem destroying their arguments, the bible does that for me quite nicely most of the time.

But to talk of destroying Christians!?  No I am not a fkn savage and I do respect the fact  that they have a belief and are entitled to it. 

 All talk of "destruction" has came from YOU and ONLY YOU, destruction is all you , you want to eradicate religion and destroy the bible. You will never hear of me saying anything so vile and intolerant and  destructive as YOU have said!!! I can promise you that !!!!



There seems to be no point in trying to reason with them. 

 There  is but if your intention is to get them to rethink any single part of their beliefs, then you are up against it and it should never be your intention anyway. It has and never will be my own.


Aha - ok.  What is left? Just to ridicule them. 


Stop making wild  assumptions about me. 
AND No. Not at all. I don't know why that should be your first and or last resort.   Besides,  they do often invite ridicule without realising it. 


And now that I see this, I can see what you and the Brother do and what SecMerlin does and what all of the others do. Ok. That makes sense.  .

 Well only to you , not me. And I won't speak for the others you mention. So stop making assumptions about me. 






So is that what you do?

No. And I  certainly  would not intentionally. But as I have said, they do invite ridicule often, ESPECIALLY when they claim  one thing on one hand then go as far as to deny what they have said on the other.

I have found that among their worst faults  is their claims to be above others and qualified above others to speak about these unreliable ambiguous half stories that make up the bible only to discover  that they know absolutely nothing at all about what it is that they claim to be qualified to talk , teach and preach  about!!!   I have found the worst culprits to be Chaplains and  Pastors. 




Is that the purpose behind your questions.

 You just love piling up all your assumptions about people don't you?  Have you considered your own reasons for believing the bible should be put to the flames? Are those reasons justified in your mind? 

The purpose of my scrutinizing and questioning  the scriptures is certainly not to ridicule anyone for having belief. But you know, these Christians can never explain anything without invoking the supernatural when stuck for a commonsense answer.


To make a mockery out of Christianity.

FFS , stop making assumptions about me and my intentions. 


[A] Christianity AND Christians make a mockery of their own beliefs and faith, without any help from me. Take the belief in Baalams talking donkey,Numbers 22:21-39.
(1) Now anyone that believes this talking donkey shite is deserving of ridicule if you ask me, (2) but more so if they try to convince others that it is all true!! 


They mostly start telling lies once they are stuck answers after often painting themselves into a corner.  This is not to mention their own complete denial of what it is that is ACTUALLY written in the scriptures. They make things up on the hoof and lie about it later. But their  biggest mistake in my opinion, is trying to bullshite anyone that has actually read and studied these scriptures for themselves. 




To belittle it and to show the foolishness of what they do.

More assumptions.See [A] above. 


It is not to convince them.

That is such a stupid and retarded thing to say in my opinion.  I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything... at all. I just simply ask questions ,and give my opinions on these unreliable and what you refer to as   "contradictory and   confusing"  scriptures.


It is not to change their perspective. It is to baffle them and make a buffoon out of them.  

No, of course not. And they make themselves buffoons at every turn from my stand point and without any encouragement from me.




Let me sleep on that.

 Do what you like. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I don't care if you listen to me or don't. It is of no interest to me



It surely is an interesting perspective. Perhaps a paradigm moment. 


Well what is  interesting to ME,  is that YOU find interesting ALL the assumptions that YOU have made about ME above without even waiting for a single reply in  agreement or denial, to be an "interesting perspective"!!!  It is not my perspective you fool, it is  an invented assumed  perspective about ME that was invented  by only YOU. 

AND  that is how  stupid you ALWAYS come across, to me.  You really think you are clever don't you. But you'er not


 So now,  let us see these "fundamental flaws" that you mention, and get this thread truly underway.

Topic's author
#10
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Do what you like. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I don't care if you listen to me or don't. It is of no interest to me

Did you write this? What does it mean? 

 So now,  let us see these "fundamental flaws" that you mention, and get this thread truly underway.

Did you write this?  What does it mean? 

Oh that is right. You don't have a freaking clue? You don't care what I believe and then you want me to provide fundamental flaws. 

But I thought you did not care? And if you do - then aargghhh -   - 

If you are not a Christian who believes these presuppositions then there is no point in discussing them with you. You do realize how often you seem to contradict yourself? Probably not. 
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Do what you like. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I don't care if you listen to me or don't. It is of no interest to me

Did you write this? What does it mean?  
 I did write it.  It means exactly what it says. You said you wanted to sleep on something that YOU had invented about ME. 
I said you are welcome to do what it is you like.     I see now that you are actually avoiding discussing  your own topic.



 So now,  let us see these "fundamental flaws" that you mention, and get this thread truly underway.

Did you write this?  What does it mean? 
 Yes I wrote that.  It means instead of discussing yourself or I , lets see these "fundamental flaws" that you keep referring to so we can discuss those. But for some odd reason aren't prepared to highlight these "flaws" for us to discuss.    I see now that you are actually avoiding discussing  your own topic.  



Oh that is right. You don't have a freaking clue?


 Of course I do silly. See above I have explained them for you. And is all  I see now that you are actually avoiding discussing  your own topic.


You don't care what I believe and then you want me to provide fundamental flaws. 

 I said that don't care if or not you believe  what I have to say , and that I don't care if you listen to me or you don't listen to me.  or what it is that you you believe about me.  Now count how many times I refer to myself in that sentence.   I see now that you are actually avoiding discussing  your own topic. LOOOOOK>>

Stephen wrote:#9

Stephen Do what you like. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I don't care if you listen to me or don't. It is of no interest to me



But I thought you did not care? And if you do - then aargghhh -   - 


I don't care what you think or believe about me, is what I have clearly said first time around.Or believe or not believe what I  what I have to say.  I see now that you are actually avoiding discussing  your own topic.



If you are not a Christian who believes these presuppositions then there is no point in discussing them with you.

Then it is all as I have guessed.  You have simply fell at the first fence and are avoiding discussing your own topic.  But I am not surprised in the least. There used to be complete utter bellend here once that used to do exactly what you have done and did it often. Just like you have done, he too would start a thread that would regret starting the second he was asked his first question. 

You do realize how often you seem to contradict yourself? 
Like I have said, the - not caring - is all about ME not caring what it is that YOU think of believe about ME and what it is that I write.  I hope that clears that up.

 So, are we going to see these "fundamental flaws" you keep banging on about, or not? It appears that it is only I that is showing any interest in these "fundamental flaws" anyway. So when you are ready. 

Or are you going to take your ball home now?

Topic's author
#12
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Firstly, are there any Christians who hold to this view and who would be prepared to discuss it further? 

This is clearly in my topic opener.  I am not avoiding discussing the flaws - I am just not discussing them with you. 

You already disagree with the presuppositions so you would not be able to add anything relevantly for me.  

You have already distracted the topic far enough anyway. I would like christians who believe it to be true - so that I can test what I perceive to be fundamental flaws on them.

What you think or care is becoming tiresome.  


#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967

This is clearly in my topic opener.  I am not avoiding discussing the flaws - I am just not discussing them with you. 

So you are taking home your ball  because you have been called out.


You already disagree with the presuppositions so you would not be able to add anything relevantly for me.  


 You don't have the first clue what it is that I do or don't  agree with concerning Presuppostionalism.  This is why I would like to see these "fundamental flaws" that you keep referring to. And you won't know until you can produce them.


I explained exactly what it is that I agree with you on and those agreements have nothing to do with what you are now calling the  " fundamentally flawed" 

 I agree. And I ALREADY  said so above that the two things were separate. SEE response to second quote HERE>> #9 Stephen




AND LET US BE VERY CLEAR HERE >>>>>, it is YOU that mentioned "fundamental flaws" not me. I am still waiting for YOU to produce and highlight the "fundamental flaws" that YOU keep referring to .


You have already distracted the topic far enough anyway.

 No you did that all on your own. I  have only responded to you  and what YOU had to say about ME. I asked you more that once now to stay on your own topic and to highlight these " fundamental flaws" that YOU mention in your OWN OP!  and to   " get this thread truly underway".



I would like christians who believe it to be true - so that I can test what I perceive to be fundamental flaws on them.

Is what true, exactly? That Christians are of the arrogant belief  that only a Christian can think rational when it comes to discussing Christianity , Jesus, god  and the bible, which just also happen to be all the things that YOU don't believe in.


What you think or care is becoming tiresome.  

I haven't be able to say or think or care about the "fundamental flaws" either. You see you haven't produced them yet have you? 

Let me just remind you what I said at post #7


Stephen wrote:  But for now I am more prepared to just sit back and listen to your argument  with whoever may wish to see and discuss these "flaws" in the Christian apologetic argument.


 You could have left  IT and ME me  right there,  but you didn't.  You kept plugging away at me . Did you really expect me not to respond to the shite that you invented and imagined about me that you posted about me here>>#8 Timid8967  

 You have no need to carry on this conversation with me. So leave it there and simply produce those "fundamental flaws" that you wish to discuss with no one but Christians. 



Topic's author
#14
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
So leave it there and simply produce those "fundamental flaws" that you wish to discuss with no one but Christians. 
I will when a Christian turns up and wants to argue the case.  


#15
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Timid8967
Firstly, are there any Christians who hold to this view and who would be prepared to discuss it further? 

Secondly, would you consider a debate on the subject? 

You should talk with PGA2.0.
Topic's author
#16
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Thanks

#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967

Author:Timid8967,7 days ago


So leave it there and simply produce those "fundamental flaws" that you wish to discuss with no one but Christians. 

I will when a Christian turns up and wants to argue the case.  


 And on the seventh day, no Christians were to be seen in the land. Not even the Reverend Tradesecrete?
Topic's author
#18
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
@PGA2.0
@Tradesecret
Is the reverend tradesecrete a presuppositionalist?  He doesn't sound like one. Perhaps he might decide to post. I have been waiting for PGA.0.
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Is the reverend tradesecrete a presuppositionalist?

But you have particularly pointed to Christians have you not.

 Well, I'll have you know he happens to be all things to all men, from what he tells us. That  includes being a serving and devout Christian in the service of god. .Just the type your looking forward to revealing these "fundamental flaws" that you keep talking about and will only reveal to.

You do know he is a CHRISTIAN Pastor and a Chaplain, don't you, that ministers to his countries Defence Force??  I mean, you have made it clear many times now how you have read over many of his posts and are pleased to be "mistaken for him". 


Oh, you are a forgetful one aren't you?  Here you go then>>


For a  matter of interest, after reading some of Tradesecret's posts - which are on  balance, ok, I would be happy, no pleased  to be mistaken for him or her.  Yet, despite your compliment, I am unable to accept such an accolade. 

But after 7 days in the wilderness and no takers, you have had to resort in calling them to you. 
Topic's author
#20
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,

I have read some of trade's posts. Mostly the ones you keep posting.  You seem to be obsessed with him.  He does have a quick wit. And a dry sense of humor.  And it looks like he is an Aussie. So obviously smarter than those in UK or America.   Is there a reason apart from your envy that you continue to tell us all how well qualified he is? You really look like a sycophant. But I guess you know that, don't you? 

I tagged both tradesecret and PGA2.0 because I thought you might know something more than me since you have been here a whole longer than me.  But perhaps I have wrongly understood you. 

At least neither PGA2.0 or trade are as bitter as you.  Even if they are both a bit nuts in their religious points of view.  Both of them seem to be able to carry on a conversation without resorting to twisted comments like you do.  It does not want me to be religious, but their example is much more attractive than your cynical and negative comments.  

Religion should be abolished. But so should belligerent attitudes such as yours be as well. Bibles should be burnt and destroyed - but negativity and militant idiots ought to be canceled too. 

They are both deluded in their positions - but so are you.  And you are paranoid as well.  


#21
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Timid8967
-->@PGA2.0 @Stephen @Tradesecret
Is the reverend tradesecrete a presuppositionalist?  He doesn't sound like one. Perhaps he might decide to post. I have been waiting for PGA.0.
I'm not sure about Tradesecret. I am, among many other things. 

Sorry, I have been busy lately turning a storage shed into a cottage. I did not notice the thread so I will read it and get back to you in the next few days. And I do believe that people who have examined the weighty issues of life hold some form of worldview on which their basic core beliefs (those that everything else rests upon) are presupposed. We start somewhere. Those core suppositions of their worldview tends to influence how they look at most things in some way, although sometimes (often) a person acts inconsistent with their worldview.

Ronald Nash notes that Gordon Clark, in the argument for truth, identified six steps (p.162) that favour the Christian worldview of that necessary God; 1) Truth exists, it is 2) immutable, 3) eternal, 4) mental, 5) superior to the human mind, 6) God. 

To your queries:

1. It is impossible to define any individual thing apart from a worldview.
Not necessarily. A person can be inconsistent with their worldview regarding some things. A worldview is a connected web of beliefs that answers questions about the important issues of life that start from basic core beliefs that everything else rests upon; ideas such as looking at life from either God, or no God, or the nature of the universe and its cause, or our causal tree and our nature and cause. Ronald Nash identified our core presuppositions as life's ultimate questions. Worldviews tend to deal with questions of existence, ontology, epistemology, axiology, and other weighty issues; questions like, Who am I? Why am I here? What difference does it make? What happens to me when I die?

Andrew Montano identifies many areas each worldview looks at, more involved than Ravi Zacharias or Ronald Nash, Greg Bahnsen, or even Cornelius Van Til. But that does not mean people cannot live inconsistently with their beginning presuppositions. For instance, if the natural realm is all there is then there is no Mind behind the universe and no ultimate meaning. So, why do strong atheists look for meaning and treat life in a meaningful manner? They are being inconsistent with such a universe because it does not reason, doesn't care about us or anything, has no purpose, mean or value.     

2. At the outset Christianity is radically different than non-Christianity, on the account that to us, the most fundamental reality is personal and eternal, while in non-Christianity, the most fundamental reality is either impersonal or personal and temporal.
I agree wholeheartedly.

3. Given that fundamental difference, it follows that an atheist will obviously find Christian beliefs incoherent, because they are incoherent when defined according to his worldview from the foundation.
Maybe or maybe not incoherent depending on how well the person has investigated Christianity, but certainly not believed based on the way they gather evidence to fit with their core presuppositions. Sometimes a person once bought into Christianity but later was influenced by the secular world they mostly live with every day. With the Age of Reason or the Enlightenment  man increasingly became the measure of all things. 

[a] 4. This means that we can't debate over a singular belief apart from talking about the worldview that defines that belief. [b] We can't debate whether or not God exists when we're operating under different definitions of God and being itself.
[a] I agree since the issues are fundamental to how we got here and what difference that makes. 

[b] There is usually a conflict there that needs us to identify what we mean or much of the time we speak past each other.   

5. If you want to discuss this sincerely the first question you have to ask is "what is God?" and "what is being?", and then, having resolved that, we can talk about whether or not God exists.
Anselm of Canterbury identified God as the greatest being that can be thought of or conceived of. That certainly fits the Christian God. 

6. The problem arises when you realize that in Christianity God and being are identical, and that you can't accept that. What do you do then? Then the only way to critique Christianity is to hypothetically adopt our believes and show that we're incoherent. And we'll do the same with atheism. The difference is that you will fail, while we won't.
I don't understand what you mean that God and being are identical. Yes, the Christian God is a personal Being. 
#22
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967




  You seem to be obsessed with him. 

Not at all. You were "waiting for Christians" . You said that you would only discuss your discovered "fundamental flaws" with Christians. 

You then seemed to be arguing that Tradesecret wasn't a Christian or at least the  ` type` of christian that you wanted to discuss this thread with;  which I thought silly considering that it was  YOU brought the Reverend  Tradesecret in our very first ever conversation? 

When I mentioned that even he hadn't showed to your thread you said this>>>" Is the reverend tradesecrete a presuppositionalist?  He doesn't sound like one."  #18",     which simply gave me cause to remind you that he was a Christian and a very high ranking one at that, so much so that that you told us that you were "honoured to me mistaken for him".

Listen, if you feel that I mention the Reverend tradsecret a little too much and often, SIMPLY DO NOT GIVE ME CAUSE TO DO SO, like you have done right now and will no doubt do again. You cannot help yourself.



   Is there a reason apart from your envy that you continue to tell us all how well qualified he is?

Well no, but I am sure there are many a Christian dunce that would want his qualifications, don't you?  After all , it is you that said  you are " honoured to be mistaken for him". That wasn't me. 



I tagged both tradesecret and PGA2.0 because I thought you might know something more than me since you have been here a whole longer than me.

You also tagged ME on the same post although YOU have made it abundantly clear that YOU do not want to discus these "fundamental flaws inPresuppositionalism  " with ME?  You really are disorientated and confused, aren't you?  I had noticed too that you hadn't tagged your greatest fan fauxlaw to come join you, he too is a Christian , you know.. 


At least neither PGA2.0 or trade are as bitter as you.

BITTER!!!?  I am not bitter, silly. I enjoy myself here talking to the likes of the biblical ignorant. But at least you have excuse for not knowing the scriptures, don't you?  You have only read it once you tell us and found it be   "  quite confusing and to me contradictory"#186 .   Yet here you are wanting to discuss presuppositionalism with Christians  yet not the Christian bible that you "find confusing and contradictory"!?  


resorting to twisted comments like you do. 

 Which twisted comments, lets see them.  Either you post them up or stop lying.


 more attractive than your cynical and negative comments. 


 lets see them or simply stop telling lies about me.


Religion should be abolished. But so should belligerent attitudes such as yours be as well.

Attitudes about the bible that you have read only once and condemned to the flames after just one reading.



Bibles should be burnt and destroyed - but negativity and militant idiots ought to be canceled too. 

 No. What you mean is that YOU do not want ME to scrutinise and question these scriptures or even give my opinion on them. I have told you. I think you are fraud.
What I  think and believe about a book that you have read only once and want condemned to the flames should  be of not bother or interest to YOU.  So you can drop the pretence of being anti EVERYTHING religion!



They [ tradesecret & PGA2.0]are both  deluded in their positions

SEE^^^^, you're doing it again! You cannot help yourself, can you?


OK ,  how are  tradesecret & PGA2.0  "deluded" and why would you wish to discuss the "fundamental flaws"  that you have discovered with the very two people that YOU are now calling   " delusional and nuts"? 






Topic's author
#23
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
All  you have to convince me that you are not obsessed with tradesecret is stop referring to him every time you talk to me.  You are like a broken record. A person in the midst of grieving. 

I could care two hoots for him - but he is there every time you respond.  Stop it. It is almost like you are in love with him.  Is he one of your ex lovers? 

Is that why you are so possessive? Does his words mean so much to you? It is pathetic. 

But your love is so compelling.  Is he Romeo or are you? 

#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
All  you have to convince me that you are not obsessed with tradesecret is stop referring to him every time you talk to me. 

 Then do not give me cause. It is that simple.


You asked for Christians , I mentioned the Christian the you  tell us that you " would be honoured to be mistaken for",  your hero, and that fact that even he hadn't shown to your party.

I could care two hoots for him [the Reverend Tradesecrete]

 But you do care just enough to " be honoured to be mistaken for him"..  I see. ok.

and you missed this>>

OK ,  how are  tradesecret & PGA2.0  "deluded" and why would you wish to discuss the "fundamental flaws"  that you have discovered with the very two people that YOU are now calling   " delusional and nuts"? 

 
  SO,  are you going ahead with  showing your "fundamental flaws"?  or are you throwing the towel in already and just putting it all down to yet another bad idea of yours?
Topic's author
#25
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Who cannot help it? Is that 3 x?

This is not about me. It is about you.  You are the obsessed one.  I like his logical prowess.  I am not ashamed of that. Why would I be? Tradesecret seemed very capable- I don't have to agree with him. But I do acknowledge his ability to argue.  Why would that be a problem to you unless you are bigoted? 

You reject his every word and argument. Good for you. 

But not every person agrees with you.  

YOU are obsessed. Wow! Why? This is a remarkable situation.  I sense the hatred you have for Tradesecret. It is in the air. Wow! 

Why? I like his wit but I don't agree with him. I think he is nuts but so what? The world is full of people from every position - so why are you so obsessed with him? 

I think he sounds like a fundy.  He does not bother me in the least.  His words are a dime a thousand.  Words. Empty words.   


#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Who cannot help it? Is that 3 x?

This is not about me.
It is not about me either. But you direct all of your complaints in my direction. I didn't ignore your thread, NO! that was Christians that were ignoring your thread until I asked where they all were.

  This is why I cannot understand for the life of me that you have responded three consecutive times now to me  and not even entertained the idea of responding to the  " delusional and nuts" PGA2.0 that has taken the time to respond to you in some great  detail? 



Why have you shown only interest in what I have to say and not PGA's  detailed response to your op?  Why are you not now highlighting  these " fundamental flaws" that you have discovered  but instead keep replying to me? 



I sense the hatred you have for Tradesecret

See,^^^^^^^ you simply  cannot help yourself, can you. I don't know the Reverend Tradesecret to hate him  you clown. I just think that like you, he is also a fraud. 




I could care two hoots for him [the Reverend Tradesecrete]

 But you do care just enough to " be honoured to be mistaken for him".#243.  I see. ok.


Topic's author
#27
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Wow! Delusional. I leave it there. 

#28
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Timid8967
That website has come up with the longes possible way of saying “we’re begging the question”

Any discussion on the universe is predicated on two assumptions: reality exists and we are able reason about it.

If both those two things are true presuppositionalism is false. If either of them ate false a then presuppositionalism is false.
Topic's author
#29
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
That is pretty cool. Thanks. 
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
That website has come up with the longes possible way of saying “we’re begging the question”

 Which web site is that, Ramashtu?