Presuppositionalism

Author: Timid8967

Posts

Total: 39
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Added06.04.21 06:33AM

 Stephen wrote: So leave it there and simply produce those "fundamental flaws" that you wish to discuss with no one but Christians. 
Dimtim wrote: I will when a Christian turns up and wants to argue the case.  

 Well.  Is it any wonder that you do not have any other takers considering that you have totally ignored PGS' detailed response to you over seven days ago!!!!!? 
HERE>. >Added06.11.21 01:51AM.? #21

 It seems that not even our resident Christian Reverend or resident  the High Priest fauxlaw want to take you up on your offer to discuss these "fundamental flaws"#1  that you believe to have discovered in Presuppositionalism, that you speak of in your OP


Topic's author
#32
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Oh are you impatiently waiting are you? Good for you.  
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
It is marvelous how your own thread has shown you for what you really are , isn't it?
Topic's author
#34
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Just like all your thread show you for who you really are.  
Topic's author
#35
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
-->@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. 

thanx for responding. At least I know you will respond without the unnecessary quips of some.  I think tradesecret is some kind of evidentialist. But not really sure. He does talk a lot about axioms so I would have presumed presuppositionalist. Yet, he spends lots of time attempting to refute using experience and reason as well.  I think he is just confused.  Still it is good to know he is not dead.  Having said that - he has not been on here for a while. Are you in contact with him?  

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.
I don't have an issue with people having worldviews - I do think that 99.9% of people have never thought about what theirs is and would probably deny it or act inconsistently with it anyway.  I have noticed many christians talking about worldviews - but there is not a lot of consistency about what they believe. Some hold to socialism - some don't.  Some hold to social gospel. Others to evanglism only. Some seem to think the bible teaches experiential faith - others believe in soul sleep.  some believe in hell. Others believe in evolution others in aliens and others in seven day creation.  Given there are so many denominations - it is hard to believe that there is one christian worldview.  So it makes it difficult to understand how there could be some kind of unique presupposition. 

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. 
Interesting delineation. I will need to explore that before I comment. 


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.     
This is a good response.  And it proves my point that presuppostionalism has fundamental flaws using this list of items.  Atheists also don't have a worldview.  They don't have beliefs - well at least theoretically. I suppose they are inconsistent - but this clearly proves the view that everyone identifies things through a worldview as false. 


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.
Christianity is just another religion preaching that God needs to be appeased.  That is no different to other religions. Muslims say they believe in a personal God. And let us for the sake of the argument agree that Christianity is radically different, so what?  there are lots of unique religions and sects and worldviews out there. To suggest that because one is unique from the rest - as some how some kind of measure of objectivity or correctness is bad logic. 


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. 
It is not true is it? Christian beliefs include "do not murder, do not kill, do not steal.  Love other people.  These are all quite acceptable beliefs to atheists.  They are not incoherent.  They flow from a human position that it is our best interests not to murder people. To respect other people's property. And to treat others the same we want to be treated ourselves. This is a natural extension of an atheist's view to survive - to work in compact with other people.  


[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.   
It would be helpful  to have one definition of god, yet, christians seem to have different definitions. Is it trinity?  It is one God? Is it Jesus? It is all powerful and able to do anything it wants or is it limited by own character? Is it all loving or the cause of evil? But that is the problem when we talk about god. 

But we don't know how we got here. And Christians dont seem to know either. Big bang, alien's, god? 


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. 
But then we just add water.  It is like asking what is the biggest number and the adding one more.  When we ask that question - there is no set criteria. No set measure to know it is correct.  It is impossible to resolve. 


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. 
It is not my question.  I have just cut a paste some one's position on presuppositional.  If it is not in accord with your understanding, I am sorry. I don't understand it either - and was hopeful you might be able to unpack it. 

In any event, it seems that the presuppositionaist point of view is not consistent in its understanding - that others who agree with it in principle don't understand it -and do not agree with it - supports my position that it is fundamental flawed. 
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Just like all your thread show you for who you really are

With a difference. I have never denied or hid my opinions concerning these unreliable , ambiguous half stories that make up the bible that you want to put to the flames.   Where as you are just a proven out n out fraud that tells me that YOU wish that my theories and opinions were  ;

 "more easily agreeable with the bible." #25 .. 

Such an odd AND CONTRADICTORY thing to say for someone that ALSO SAYS:

"I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books" #8
Timid8967

and !!!!


" It is tenor of the bible as an entirety that gives me reason for it be destroyed".    #14
Timid8967

 
Topic's author
#37
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
@Timid8967
Just like all your thread show you for who you really are

With a difference. I have never denied or hid my opinions concerning these unreliable , ambiguous half stories that make up the bible that you want to put to the flames.   Where as you are just a proven out n out fraud that tells me that YOU wish that my theories and opinions were  ;

 "more easily agreeable with the bible." #25 .. 

Such an odd AND CONTRADICTORY thing to say for someone that ALSO SAYS:

"I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books" #8

and !!!!


" It is tenor of the bible as an entirety that gives me reason for it be destroyed".    #14
I respond to you again - I do not know why. 

Everyone knows you are a fraud and charlatan. I have not seen too many people agree with you. You tend to spend more time trying to dig dirt on other people's character than you do on actually doing any research.  You tend to drive people away from you from any walk.  I have seen christians, agnostics, atheists and others steer clear of you. I think people vote with their feet. 

Your comments against me - never argue a point. They only attempt to somehow ridicule my comments in the past.  Good for you. It is water of a duck's back. Ad hominin is your only weapon. Too bad you cannot even wield that well.   My views on the bible are my views. I am not trying to make you believe them or anyone else.  But they are my views - and honestly, you trying to twist them and your decision to continue to recall them on every opportunity says more about you than me.  I give you permission Stephen, you may worship me. You may get down on your knees and continue your undying adoration of me.  I accept the fact you find me worthy. I give you permission to relax now.  

Ahhh - it seems the reason I have responded has become clear.   I am your god. You are my prophet.  Now all we need is a scribe. Perhaps the Brother will join us in our unholy trinity? 
#38
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
@Timid8967
Just like all your thread show you for who you really are

With a difference. I have never denied or hid my opinions concerning these unreliable , ambiguous half stories that make up the bible that you want to put to the flames.   Where as you are just a proven out n out fraud that tells me that YOU wish that my theories and opinions were  ;

 "more easily agreeable with the bible." #25 .. 

Such an odd AND CONTRADICTORY thing to say for someone that ALSO SAYS:

"I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books" #8

and !!!!


" It is tenor of the bible as an entirety that gives me reason for it be destroyed".    #14
I respond to you again - I do not know why. 
Neither do I but respond you do. And still no sign of the "fundamental flaws" that you keep telling us about? 


I have not seen too many people agree with you.

I am not here expecting to be agreed with princess. 

But the odd thing here is that you are one of those that appears to agree with me, in part at least.  Or have you also forgotten this little comment concerning these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures:

As for the bible - yes I have read it. Not suggesting i know it well and I don't pretend to understand it. It is quite confusing and to me contradictory.   #186

And I agree with you .They are my thoughts EXACTLY.  I just don't agree with having it committed to the flames, as you do.



You tend to spend more time trying to dig dirt on other people's character than you do on actually doing any research.

What dirt?  Is reminding you of your  own vile and disgusting comments "digging dirt"?  Or is reminding you of your own contradictory comments  "digging dirt"?  such as saying to me:

Timid8967 wrote: Eat shit and die. I don't care.   #86



And this absolute filth from you,


Timid8967 Wrote:
" I thought you understood animal and pussy.  Ask your god, it might help.  Although it seems to be silent.  Stephen is a dick."#272   





  You tend to drive people away from you from any walk. 

People have a choice on these boards. They either respond or they don't. And if its the truth driving them away, then they shouldn't be here in the first place should you princess?



I have seen christians, agnostics, atheists and others steer clear of you. I think people vote with their feet. 

 And that is their prerogative.  I don't drag them to me kicking and screaming demanding that they respond. 


Your comments against me - never argue a point. They only attempt to somehow ridicule my comments in the past. 

Strange isn't it, that  you are complaining  about comments made by YOU that I remind you of saying, they are your OWN fkn comments, ffs. You shouldn't have said them , should you..



Good for you. It is water of a duck's back. Ad hominin is your only weapon.

Then stop complaining and playing victim.  You won't find such vile and disgusting comment coming from me princess, I can assure you of that? And 1st, you need to learn to spell  -  ad hominem and 2nd, you need to understand its definition.


My views on the bible are my views.

That almost mirror my views. Only I don't wish to see the a book that is holy to the Christian thrown onto a fire and eradicated from the face of the earth as you do.


Timid8967 wrote: 
I think the best place for the bible is on a burning pile of books #8"

It is tenor of the bible as an entirety that gives me reason for it be destroyed".    #14





I am not trying to make you believe them or anyone else. 

BELIEVE WHAT!!? Whatever are you saying man!!!  I agreed with most of what you say about the bible. You tell us that you "don't believe the bible and that it is confusing an contradictory.  I agree. You don't have to "TRY" to make me believe anything .



But they are my views - and honestly, you trying to twist them and your decision to continue to recall them on every opportunity says more about you than me.

 There is nothing to twist, they are simply your comments. Stop complaining and playing victim. That said,  I suppose you could just scratch the moniker that you now are writing and posting under, and go back to any one of your old usernames or create a new one, if you haven't already.


your decision to continue to recall them on every opportunity says more about you than me. 

Only where deserved , needed and appropriate.




I give you permission Stephen, you may worship me. You may get down on your knees and continue your undying adoration of me.  I accept the fact you find me worthy. I give you permission to relax now.  

Ahhh - it seems the reason I have responded has become clear.   I am your god. You are my prophet.  Now all we need is a scribe. Perhaps the Brother will join us in our unholy trinity? 


My, my. deary deary me, you have totally lost it haven't you.

And seeing that you don't want to reveal these "fundamental flaws" that you keep banging on about; 

can you explain why it is that on the one hand you say that you don't believe the bible and that it should be put on a fire and THEN say that you wish that I was >>


 "more easily agreeable with the bible." #25 .. ?





Topic's author
#39
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I have responded to one Christian and have provided examples of fundamental flaws.  

I care less whether you agree or not. For me they are. 

That you are unable to read or understand is a problem for you - not me honey.