Presuppositional apologetics

[Tone]

the primacy of consciousness which is false.

Out of curiosity, what do you believe (induce?) Is prime?

Observation and induction. That's how the vast majority of new knowledge is acquired by man

Can you have any of this without consciousness?

 

[Tone]

Out of curiosity, what do you believe (induce?) Is prime?



Can you have any of this without consciousness?

Oh nevermind, I read back.

You believe existence is prime. Is this axiomatic? You've observed and induced this?

So you will say, "How can you have consciousness without existence?

 

[Tone]

wishing doesn't make things so. Facts do not care about your feelings.

So this is your summation of "God"...

Sounds like a Personality is required to hold this view.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I'm riding this one right now, other one is in the shop:

BM-Shadow 27.5 – BMEBIKES

I'm riding this one right now, other one is in the shop:

BM-Shadow 27.5 – BMEBIKES

Sweet. That's a pretty reasonable price. Is it hard to pedal when the battery runs out.? Looking to get a conversion kit for my wife's Surly Moonlander. My daughter lives in Pheonix and is looking to get a folding E-bike for commuting. She's just a few blocks from a nice canal path that would take her most of the way to work. The problem is it's so hot there most of the year. It was 118 F a couple of days ago.

 

[Tone]

Is it hard to pedal when the battery runs out.

Yeah, well, if you have the know how, you can probably do it yourself for $1000 less.

You do get a year warranty, I believe it is.

I bashed the display on my other one and the shop is fixing it under warranty and the first tune-up is free!

Yeah, it weighs 45lbs. With battery so it can be a little harder when not using pedal assist or going full throttle.

But, I've never had her just die on me and I've put in some good mileage. Of course, hills will drain the battery faster.

It's nice to know that you can just throw it on the front of a bus or on a trolley if you do run out of battery. If you're uphill then it'll be a lot of fun!


*You can easily convert that one on your avatar, for about $500. It looks similar to mine, which is a KHS.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just curious what you all think of presuppositional apologetics. Do you find it as unethical as I do, which is completely? If you're not familiar with this style of apologetics, just look up Sye Ten Bruggencate, Jeff Durbin, Matt slick, Dustin Segers, or watch one of the videos by Darth Dawkins aka, Dunkin Atheists.

I just watched a Darth Dawkins video on YouTube and I'm not entirely sure what "presuppositional apologetics" is.

Just based on context and definitions....I'm going to make a guess though....

There is a type of argument I've seen a lot of apologists use when debating atheists that goes something like this....

I've heard this particular atheist say this and it's wrong because reasons....how do you other atheists defend it?

Or...

Atheists have told me they don't believe in god because of these reasons....why do you atheists think these things?

Or...

Atheists must hold this belief because of these reasons, this is why they are wrong....

Basically, they're all variations on choosing a weak argument that they're attributing to atheists, attacking it and asking atheists to defend it....then declaring victory when it's poorly defended.

Is this generally what you mean by presuppositional apologetics?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Oh nevermind, I read back.

You believe existence is prime. Is this axiomatic? You've observed and induced this?

So you will say, "How can you have consciousness without existence?

I'll try to keep this short but it's a complex subject.

Yes, the fact that existence exists is the most fundamental fact. Yes, the concept existence is an axiomatic concept. An axiomatic concept is one that identifies a primary fact of reality. A primary fact is one that can't be analyzed or broken down into more fundamental facts. It is conceptually irreducible. There's no more fundamental fact than the fact that reality exists, reality being the realm of existence. since the fact that existence exists is the primary fact, the concept which identifies this fact is the primary concept. There can be no more fundamental concept than existence because what would it refer to except something that exists. Does that make sense?

Now I'm going to quote Ayn rand on what it means for a concept to be axiomatic because I can't explain it any better than she did.

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."

Do you see why the concept existence is axiomatic and why it stands at the base of knowledge? Knowledge is a mental grasp of that which exists.

These three axiomatic concepts stand at the base of all knowledge and at the base of all statements about knowledge: Existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is a corollary of existence since existence is identity and identity is existence. To be something is to exist and to be something means to be something in particuar as opposed to nothing in particular.

So yes you can't have consciousness without existence because consciousness is consciousness of something. You could never say coherently that you are conscious but that you are conscious of nothing, you're just conscious.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So this is your summation of "God"...

Sounds like a Personality is required to hold this view.

That's what the notion of God reduces to, the primacy of consciousness, the view that reality or existence is dependent on consciousness. It reverses the relationship between consciousness and existence. But this could never be true because consciousness presupposes existence. A consciousness would first have to exist in order to be conscious and it would have to have something to be conscious of. A consciousness that doesn't exist could not be conscious of anything and before it could be conscious something would have to exist other than itself to be conscious of. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. a consciousness conscious only of itself is a contradiction in terms. consciousness presupposes existence and not the other way around.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I just watched a Darth Dawkins video on YouTube and I'm not entirely sure what "presuppositional apologetics" is.

Just based on context and definitions....I'm going to make a guess though....

There is a type of argument I've seen a lot of apologists use when debating atheists that goes something like this....

I've heard this particular atheist say this and it's wrong because reasons....how do you other atheists defend it?

Or...

Atheists have told me they don't believe in god because of these reasons....why do you atheists think these things?

Or...

Atheists must hold this belief because of these reasons, this is why they are wrong....

Basically, they're all variations on choosing a weak argument that they're attributing to atheists, attacking it and asking atheists to defend it....then declaring victory when it's poorly defended.

Is this generally what you mean by presuppositional apologetics?

That's not my understanding. Presuppositionalists presuppose the existence of god and they claim that everyone already knows that the Christian God exists. So they don't feel that they need to present any evidence for the existence of the Christian God. Instead, they argue from the "impossibility of the contrary". They claim that without God you can't make sense of the world and you can't account for things like the laws of logic, mathematics, and universal laws of morality. They'll say that if you reject the Christian God, your worldview is reduced to absurdity. They deploy what they call the transcendental argument for God or TAG for short. Essentially, they say that the proof of God is that without him, you couldn't prove anything because non-Christian worldviews can't account for the laws of logic. Since the vast majority of people that the prsuppositionalist deals with are not philosophically sophisticated, they stumble and bumble and contradict themselves in attempting the task and the apologists steps in and says see I told you so. This is why I think their methods are unethical, because they prey on the philosophically ignorant. The whole edifice is simply an argument from ingnorance, in my opinion.

Imagine going up to some 18 or 19 year old and asking them to account for the "immaterial" laws of logic, mathematics, and universal morality. Do you think they could do it in an informed way.?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I just watched a Darth Dawkins video on YouTube and I'm not entirely sure what "presuppositional apologetics" is.

Just based on context and definitions....I'm going to make a guess though....

There is a type of argument I've seen a lot of apologists use when debating atheists that goes something like this....

I've heard this particular atheist say this and it's wrong because reasons....how do you other atheists defend it?

Or...

Atheists have told me they don't believe in god because of these reasons....why do you atheists think these things?

Or...

Atheists must hold this belief because of these reasons, this is why they are wrong....

Basically, they're all variations on choosing a weak argument that they're attributing to atheists, attacking it and asking atheists to defend it....then declaring victory when it's poorly defended.

Is this generally what you mean by presuppositional apologetics?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I just watched a Darth Dawkins video on YouTube and I'm not entirely sure what "presuppositional apologetics" is.

Just based on context and definitions....I'm going to make a guess though....

There is a type of argument I've seen a lot of apologists use when debating atheists that goes something like this....

I've heard this particular atheist say this and it's wrong because reasons....how do you other atheists defend it?

Or...

Atheists have told me they don't believe in god because of these reasons....why do you atheists think these things?

Or...

Atheists must hold this belief because of these reasons, this is why they are wrong....

Basically, they're all variations on choosing a weak argument that they're attributing to atheists, attacking it and asking atheists to defend it....then declaring victory when it's poorly defended.

Is this generally what you mean by presuppositional apologetics?

Just curious, did watching him make you feel uncomfortable or angry?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yeah, well, if you have the know how, you can probably do it yourself for $1000 less.

You do get a year warranty, I believe it is.

I bashed the display on my other one and the shop is fixing it under warranty and the first tune-up is free!

Yeah, it weighs 45lbs. With battery so it can be a little harder when not using pedal assist or going full throttle.

But, I've never had her just die on me and I've put in some good mileage. Of course, hills will drain the battery faster.

It's nice to know that you can just throw it on the front of a bus or on a trolley if you do run out of battery. If you're uphill then it'll be a lot of fun!


*You can easily convert that one on your avatar, for about $500. It looks similar to mine, which is a KHS.

Yeah, we were at a mountain Bike race at snowmass right on the ski slope and this guy went zipping past us up this 16 percent grade and we were all amazed at his fitness until we saw the battery mounted to the down tube. LOL.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not my understanding. Presuppositionalists presuppose the existence of god and they claim that everyone already knows that the Christian God exists.

Ok...I thought it was an argument that presupposes a position of an atheist. My mistake.

In response, "I'm correct and everyone knows it" is a bad argument for anything really.

So they don't feel that they need to present any evidence for the existence of the Christian God. Instead, they argue from the "impossibility of the contrary". They claim that without God you can't make sense of the world and you can't account for things like the laws of logic, mathematics, and universal laws of morality. They'll say that if you reject the Christian God, your worldview is reduced to absurdity. They deploy what they call the transcendental argument for God or TAG for short. Essentially, they say that the proof of God is that without him, you couldn't prove anything because non-Christian worldviews can't account for the laws of logic. Since the vast majority of people that the prsuppositionalist deals with are not philosophically sophisticated, they stumble and bumble and contradict themselves in attempting the task and the apologists steps in and says see I told you so. This is why I think their methods are unethical, because they prey on the philosophically ignorant. The whole edifice is simply an argument from ingnorance, in my opinion.

Imagine going up to some 18 or 19 year old and asking them to account for the "immaterial" laws of logic, mathematics, and universal morality. Do you think they could do it in an informed way.?

Perhaps? I imagine I had difficulty dealing with those arguments at that age....however, the more I thought about them, the easier they became to deal with. I feel confident in addressing them now and I've done so on this forum without ever invoking any philosophers.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just curious, did watching him make you feel uncomfortable or angry?

No. I've long since accepted that people naturally want others to agree with them....even to the point of engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

No. I've long since accepted that people naturally want others to agree with them....even to the point of engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

Well my hat is off to you. You must be one cool and calm cat.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Perhaps? I imagine I had difficulty dealing with those arguments at that age....however, the more I thought about them, the easier they became to deal with. I feel confident in addressing them now and I've done so on this forum without ever invoking any philosophers.

Well imagine having some guy in your face asking questions non-stop such as How do you know, how do you know and did you use your senses and reason to come to that conclusion and how do you know your senses are valid and did you use you senses and reason to validate your senses and reason and are you certain of that and on and on without being given a chance to answer.

 

[Tone]

I'll try to keep this short but it's a complex subject.

Yes, the fact that existence exists is the most fundamental fact. Yes, the concept existence is an axiomatic concept. An axiomatic concept is one that identifies a primary fact of reality. A primary fact is one that can't be analyzed or broken down into more fundamental facts. It is conceptually irreducible. There's no more fundamental fact than the fact that reality exists, reality being the realm of existence. since the fact that existence exists is the primary fact, the concept which identifies this fact is the primary concept. There can be no more fundamental concept than existence because what would it refer to except something that exists. Does that make sense?

Now I'm going to quote Ayn rand on what it means for a concept to be axiomatic because I can't explain it any better than she did.

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."

Do you see why the concept existence is axiomatic and why it stands at the base of knowledge? Knowledge is a mental grasp of that which exists.

These three axiomatic concepts stand at the base of all knowledge and at the base of all statements about knowledge: Existence, consciousness, identity. Identity is a corollary of existence since existence is identity and identity is existence. To be something is to exist and to be something means to be something in particuar as opposed to nothing in particular.

So yes you can't have consciousness without existence because consciousness is consciousness of something. You could never say coherently that you are conscious but that you are conscious of nothing, you're just conscious.

I just heard a good quote from a movie I'm watching, "Can consciousness exist without interaction?"

--Ex Machina

*Asked about the necessity of sexuality in the AI.

 

[Tone]

I just heard a good quote from a movie I'm watching, "Can consciousness exist without interaction?"

--Ex Machina

*Asked about the necessity of sexuality in the AI.

So maybe relationship is primal.

Which is what a Biblical worldview would attest to.

 

[Tone]

... something would have to exist other than itself to be conscious of.

I think this is key, "other"--this is where relationship comes in.

No other, no existence.

They claim that without God you can't make sense of the world and you can't account for things like the laws of logic, mathematics, and universal laws of morality. They'll say that if you reject the Christian God, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.

What other basis is there for relationism (if that's a thing)?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think this is key, "other"--this is where relationship comes in.

No other, no existence.





What other basis is there for relationism (if that's a thing)?

I think rationalism is very very bad. It's essentially attempting to make reality fit one's emotions. No, existence is an absolute and it doesn't depend on anything. That's what makes it a primary. But yes there is a necessary relationship between a subject of consciousness and it's objects and I think that relationship is contextually fixed. This is what the issue of metaphysical primacy is all about. What is the orientation of this relationship? does reality depend on consciousness or does consciousness depend on reality? Reality either holds primacy over consciousness or it doesn't. It can't both hold primacy and not hold primacy at the same time with respect to consciousness.

The basis for this relationship is the fact that existence exists and that we exist possessing consciousness. No other basis is needed. The relationship is necessary because if the objects of consciousness did not have a relationship with the subject of consciousness, we couldn't be conscious.