I have many objections to it but my biggest objection is that it counts on and cashes in on the ignorance of its opponents. It uses the gish gallop and browbeating to pummel opponents into submission and to find some item of ignorance that it can exploit until the opponent gives up under the hail of questions thrown rapid fire. Then the apologist declares victory by pointing out that his opponent "can't account" for something, e.g., knowledge, reliability of the senses, truth, good and evil, etc.
All axioms can be doubted. Saying 'at least in reason' merely means you are presupposing a set of reasonable positions within which to judge it, so you are then no longer dealing with an axiom. An axiom should be self-evidently true, but that is basically a statement taken on faith therefore. You can always say, suppose it isn't true though, and hence you still fall within the absolute Pyrrhonic Sceptic realm.
Correct, it doesn't validate their own. But that is not the goal of presuppositional apologetics though. It is a response to claims of empiricism or such, as taking precedence to faith-based claims. It is merely to point out that there is a presupposition there too, so that precedence cannot really be established. It is a way to counter the attempts to invalidate a faith claim based upon another claim ultimately resting on faith; not to show the faith claim necessarily valid. If they did claim this, then yes, that would be fallacious. I am not sure most Apologists do this though, at least in my experience thereof (but I am not big on youtuber guys, so I am sure it is more prevalent there).
That is impossible. If you accept your own perception, or consider your qualia valid, you are already making an assumption. Everything always falls within one of Agrippa's five Tropos in some way. At some point something must be accepted as such, and that something whatever it might be, is what is taken 'on faith'; else you just rest in utter Pyrrhonic Scepticism where nothing is known. One must just be careful, as there is a lot of confusion around the quotidian use of on faith and the idea of Faith as a Christian virtue; and this is exploited by the unscrupulous on occasion.
My axioms are not based on faith. The concept "faith" presupposes my starting point. My starting point is perceptually self evident, so no faith required.
Not impossible and of course I accept the validity of my perception, to do otherwise would be to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept, since acceptance is a type of conscious action. If my perception is invalid, by what means am I conscious? Blank out.
I didn't say it did. I said that my axioms are implicit in the act of disagreeing.
They are existence, consciousness, and identity
Did you ever listen to or watch the Atheist Experience episodes where Darth Dawkins appeared?--he is a nutter. I think he was on Talk Heathen also. These guys are nuts as well as unethical. It is pure comedy watching them loose debate after debate and not even know it.
Oh yes. I can only stand to watch about 5 minutes of that guy before my blood pressure reaches dangerous levels. The evasion and gish gallop are strong with that one. He gives Christians a bad name in my opinion. people like him and Sye are delusional if they think they are winning converts.
They have given up arguing for their position and seek to discredit other worldviews in the mistaken apprehension that if they can find some flaw or lack, theirs wins by default, but this is fallacious reasoning. I've noticed that they use a script and that that script is designed to go up against skeptics. They are expecting certain answers and if they don't get them, they don't know what to do. I've even seen them go ahead when this happens as if they have gotten the answer they wanted and when corrected, they just ignore the correction.
