An absolutely brilliant refutation of presuppositional apologetics

A little while ago I stumbled across this series on YouTube, and it is without a doubt the most brilliant refutation of presuppositional apologetics, specifically Sye Ten Bruggencates', I have ever seen on the internet. I suspect that even Sye would be left looking like a complete idiot if responded too in this way, because it not only debunks every sentence that he says, but actually makes all his arguments work against him rather than for him. Everyone should definitely check this out, and pass the series on to any other active atheists they know. Too many of us get confused with this sort of apologetics, and they are in fact easy to refute if you know how.

Views: 9227

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I got around to watching this series of videos, and although I enjoyed it, it seemed to be a little beyond my complete comprehension. I'll need to watch it again, and try to understand it better. One thing I did note, is the author's claim that Sye Ten Bruggencate says that no matter what arguments are put before him, he will not be swayed.

It seems stupid, to me, to engage in any kind of discussion or debate if you are determined never to learn - never to change.

Have to admit, Gila, I'm not certain I'm much different as regards "being swayed."  Oh, if some day someone unearths irrefutable evidence that the god of the bible does indeed exist and that he's everything the bible says he is and a bag of chips, sure, I can acknowledge that discovery, maybe even praise the discoverer for his or her work.

But would I ever worship that god, do all the groveling and boot-licking he evidently demands?  Not on my worst day.  Said god would remain the egomaniacal despot we've always perceived him to be through those writings and as deserving of such worship as a hole in the head.

Fuck that ... and should that god exist, fuck him, too.

Pretty much. You see, the only reason that presuppositional apologetics even exists is because the apologists have realized none of their evidential arguments hold any water whatsoever, and so this is what they have been reduced to: playing these dishonest and fallacious word games to try and use the skeptic's own intellectual honesty against them to make them look foolish on camera. If you don't know how to counter it, they will succeed.

If you wish to take the side of the theists, as your book title suggests, you have no place here.  I would heartily recommend you leave before you are thrown out.  This site is for NON-BELIEVERS.

Amen to Loren's comment. Mike, you lied to get in here, Mr. Christian. Sorry bud, but if you're pretending to deal with reality there's no such thing as "a strong defense for belief." Dream on, but not here.

Amen and amen! Mr. Manea seems to be here to promote his theist book in progress. I've reported him.

Dear Mike Manea,

   This is an atheist site. Here we look at you like a theist troll. We have found that trolls want to get you into big debates about something and then throw in "god did it." Most of us were also theists at one time, so we know where you are coming from. I looked ahead into your book you are writing and I stopped here. You say:

   1. Is it possible that a god exists?

   2. Is it possible that this is the god of the bible?

   You simply cannot argue or debate something with "knowledge" that you assume everyone knows is true. Apologists do it all the time but you have to have logic, reasoning, and evidence. Apparently you trolls will never understand that.

   My advice is to leave this site before they kick you out. You are not allowed here.



I have had religious people make some of those same arguments to me. 

I don't feel intimidated by them - I just ask things like, "what makes you think the laws of logic imply the existence of God?" 

Or how does "absolute moral law" imply a law-giver?  Never mind that intelligent praying mantises would have a different notion of "absolute morality". 

I might similarly ask "what do you mean by God?" if someone asked me whether it were possible for God to exist.

So it looks to me like he's working too hard in those videos.

My reaction to long videos like this is typically Too Long; Didn't Watch. I did watch the first few minutes; the summary of Bruggencate's position arguing for the existence of God struck me as nonsensical on its face, largely relying on a false dilemma between complete certainty and paralyzing doubt. (Summarizing the summary: we can't be certain of anything, since some unknown fact could falsify everything we think we know. Without an all-knowing God revealing knowledge in a way that gives us 100% certainty, you cannot know or account for anything at all.)

I am certain of some things, like math proofs that work. But I don't need absolute certainty in general.

Conceiving that one has certainty when one doesn't is a cognitive toxin.  It stops thinking.

an all-knowing God

and would an all-knowing God contradict Gödel's incompleteness theorem? 

See, if the theist can't answer that question, their "all-knowing God" isn't well-defined.

A brilliant refutation yes, but a bit over my head. That means most theists will not understand it either. The bottom line on theists debating atheists is that the theist always starts with god as a "given." They assume everyone knows that god exists, and deep down the atheist knows it also. They get bold enough to claim you would have no logic without god. To believe in logic you secretly believe in god. Yes, you atheists just want to sin. It gets pathetic!

I confess. I believe in logic so therefore, I must also believe in Tinker Bell.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service