Can someone spell this out so I can understand it or am I reading too much into the argument? Seems to me it's another twist in the realm of..." If a person can concieve of a god then there must be a god." Are they really saying " In order to presuppose either side of the argument there must be a god to allow presuppostion?"

Views: 163

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pardon if this subject has been beaten to death on this site, I'm rather new.
"In order to presuppose either side of the argument there must be a god to allow presuppostion?"

In formal logic,the proposition is always presumed to be true for the sake of argument. IE: 'IF A then----"

I decline to argue with what I call 'presuppositional apologists' My reasoning is: A skeptic,I assert only "I do not believe'' I freely admit the possibility of error.

The PA begins from a position of personal certitude,that "there is a god' as an absolute truth. In my opinion,that is dogmatism,the antithesis of reason.

I don't claim to be a philosopher,so can be baffled by sophisrty. I keep my position simple: You believe god(s) the soul,ghosts, the paranormal, fairies at the bottom of your garden? Wonderful! Show me ,or stop wasting my time.
It is the presupposition in this argument that requires the argument. Otherwise why not just begin with "There is a god, therefore there's a god."
This presupposition flips rationality on its head - it assumes the supposition "does god does not exist?" is false. This is not reason, it is faith. The rational question is "does god exist?", where the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence is "no". Note this is distinct from saying you believe god doesn't exist. It merely says their is no evidence to prove he/she/it exists therefore your default position, until disproved, is "no". Here is a good vid -

Thanks for the input. I think the philosophical B.S. I've been reading has made me confused about the nature of the argument. Looks like I was overthinking it after all. I've read a few blog posts where people are convinced that atheists are wrong because they can't disprove presuppositionalist apologetics. I suspected it was another philospophical smoke and mirrors technique but wasn't sure while wading through the muck.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service