Presuppositional apologetics

[Ana the Ist]

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

Well I look at it this way....

Suppose the apologist is making an argument he knows is intellectually dishonest and a logical fallacy or otherwise "wrong".

There is undoubtedly going to be some cognitive dissonance that arises from such behavior. If however, that argument is necessary to maintain his worldview and beliefs....a little cognitive dissonance in a small price to pay. The alternative is to dramatically change his own perspective and the subsequently reexamining his entire life....which is extremely difficult both intellectually and emotionally.

This is why you rarely see anyone adopting others' religious beliefs in these online.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well I look at it this way....

Suppose the apologist is making an argument he knows is intellectually dishonest and a logical fallacy or otherwise "wrong".

There is undoubtedly going to be some cognitive dissonance that arises from such behavior. If however, that argument is necessary to maintain his worldview and beliefs....a little cognitive dissonance in a small price to pay. The alternative is to dramatically change his own perspective and the subsequently reexamining his entire life....which is extremely difficult both intellectually and emotionally.

This is why you rarely see anyone adopting others' religious beliefs in these online.

I hear what you're saying and I know how hard it is to completely change one's view because I went through it. I was just curious what others thought about this relatively new style of apologetics. I mean I know it's been around for decades but it seems to be gathering steam very recently or Maybe it's just that youtube has made it more accessible.

I know when I was in my middle teens and I became interested in really knowing that my beliefs were true instead of just having faith, and I started learning about reason and logic and I started examing all the arguments for God, I would have been repulsed by these guys. At that time, I was having a hard time reconciling the idea that God made us with this wonderful mind and then didn't want us to use it. So I had this notion that it was a test to see who would use their minds and think for themselves and that the ones who just had faith would be the ones going to hell. True story. I just remember how I was at that age If I had encountered a Matt Slick or a Sye Ten Bruggencate, I think it would have pushed me over the edge to becoming an atheist. I would have thought no, no, no, a rational God would not let someone who acts this way be its representative. Maybe not pushed me over the edge but a whole lot closer.

Or worse. I could have had my own meager confidence in my ability to reason so thoroughly smashed and undermined that I would have retreated to a closet to beg God for forgiveness for thinking I could think.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I hear what you're saying and I know how hard it is to completely change one's view because I went through it. I was just curious what others thought about this relatively new style of apologetics. I mean I know it's been around for decades but it seems to be gathering steam very recently or Maybe it's just that youtube has made it more accessible.

I know when I was in my middle teens and I became interested in really knowing that my beliefs were true instead of just having faith, and I started learning about reason and logic and I started examing all the arguments for God, I would have been repulsed by these guys. At that time, I was having a hard time reconciling the idea that God made us with this wonderful mind and then didn't want us to use it. So I had this notion that it was a test to see who would use their minds and think for themselves and that the ones who just had faith would be the ones going to hell. True story. I just remember how I was at that age If I had encountered a Matt Slick or a Sye Ten Bruggencate, I think it would have pushed me over the edge to becoming an atheist. I would have thought no, no, no, a rational God would not let someone who acts this way be its representative. Maybe not pushed me over the edge but a whole lot closer.

Or worse. I could have had my own meager confidence in my ability to reason so thoroughly smashed and undermined that I would have retreated to a closet to beg God for forgiveness for thinking I could think.

Frankly, I couldn't care too much less about Presuppositional Apologetics. I never have. Ever.

So, there. On to other discussions.

 

[Tone]

Here's a short vid. of Dr. Francis Schaeffer where he touches upon the the inconsistency of a nonbiblical worldview:

 

[Tone]

If you really want to commit to this subject, here's another presuppositional apologetics champion video:

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Here's a short vid. of Dr. Francis Schaeffer where he touches upon the the inconsistency of a nonbiblical worldview:

Objectivism isn't "relativistic" since it is fully consistent with the principle of objectivity. And it is not Materialistic either since it holds the axiom of consciousness as one of its founding principles. Of course, it's impossible to live on a worldview that denies the axiom of consciousness. Reason is man's basic means of survival. This guy makes the same mistake that most Christians do in assuming that all non-Bilical world views are the same. They aren't. What is impossible is to live consistently with the primacy of consciousness at the root of one's philosophy and nobody does, but they pretend to. I however can live and do in full consistency with the primacy of existence at the root of mine. I Challenge you to find one internal inconsistency in Objectivism, Tone. I've already pointed out a big one in Christianity. This is just laziness, Tone.

I reject Christianity and I'm not in constant tension between my ideas about reality and what reality really is. When I was a Christian, I certainly did and it was that tension that led me away from Christianity. He made so many errors in the first minute that I didn't bother to watch the rest.

Does this guy or any theist deal specifically with Objectivism rather than make a bunch of unsupportable claims about it?

 

[Tone]

If you really want to commit to this subject, here's another presuppositional apologetics champion video:

Wow, I'm watching this right now and about halfway through he sounds prophetic...at around 30:00.

 

[Tone]

Objectivism isn't "relativistic" since it is fully consistent with the principle of objectivity. And it is not Materialistic either since it holds the axiom of consciousness as one of its founding principles. Of course, it's impossible to live on a worldview that denies the axiom of consciousness. Reason is man's basic means of survival. This guy makes the same mistake that most Christians do in assuming that all non-Bilical world views are the same. They aren't. What is impossible is to live consistently with the primacy of consciousness at the root of one's philosophy and nobody does, but they pretend to. I however can live and do in full consistency with the primacy of existence at the root of mine. I Challenge you to find one internal inconsistency in Objectivism, Tone. I've already pointed out a big one in Christianity. This is just laziness, Tone.

I reject Christianity and I'm not in constant tension between my ideas about reality and what reality really is. When I was a Christian, I certainly did and it was that tension that led me away from Christianity. He made so many errors in the first minute that I didn't bother to watch the rest.

Does this guy or any theist deal specifically with Objectivism rather than make a bunch of unsupportable claims about it?

The key is knowing that he is speaking as man begins from man.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If you really want to commit to this subject, here's another presuppositional apologetics champion video:

Like all presuppositionalists, he assumes all non-Christian worldviews are the same. They aren't. Again, I'm one minute in and nothing this guy is saying applies to Objectivism. We are not Secular Humanists, we are not materialists, we reject the false dichotomy of either God did it or it was pure random chance. We reject the very notion of random chance as a violation of the law of causality. And like all presuppositionalists he must assume my starting point"s truth in order to make any of his claims.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The key is knowing that he is speaking as man begins from man.

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Tone,

In both of the videos you posted, the speaker ascribes views to me as a non-christian that I do not hold and in fact, reject. Do you agree with me that this is unethical? At the very least, it's very sloppy thinking, don't you agree?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Yeah I suppose that would be annoying....

However, I don't think many 3rd party audience members watching an exchange like that would find that sort of badgering to indicate a strong position.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Reality is only what is agreed upon by those in relationship...no?

No.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yeah I suppose that would be annoying....

However, I don't think many 3rd party audience members watching an exchange like that would find that sort of badgering to indicate a strong position.

I would hope most wouldn't. I have seen videos Where Sye was thrown off of or walked off by the Christian host and I have watched Christian critiques of him. So that's good.

 

[FireDragon76]

It just seems to be an extremely stubborn and recursive form of begging the question.

Helpful stranger: Your shoe's untied.
Presup apologist: Yes, but the only reason you can sense that and know it accurately reflects reality is because Jesus died for your sins.

uh, how do you know Jesus died for your sins?
The same way I know anything! Because Jesus died for your sins!

Pretty much.

When pressed, years ago, a presuppositionalist I saw in a debate admitted that one could easily substitute "Allah", "Buddha" or the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for "God" in his arguments.

 

[Tone]

I don't know what you mean by this.

What is your base for your stance?

You begin from yourself right?

 

[Tone]

Tone,

In both of the videos you posted, the speaker ascribes views to me as a non-christian that I do not hold and in fact, reject. Do you agree with me that this is unethical? At the very least, it's very sloppy thinking, don't you agree?

I posted those videos as a general look at a presuppositional stance, not necessarily aimed at objectivism, though, I think if one were to look more into Schaeffer's work, one could see a connection.

 

[Tone]

This guy makes the same mistake that most Christians do in assuming that all non-Bilical world views are the same. They aren't.

But you do agree that they are all related since they stem from the same history?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But you do agree that they are all related since they stem from the same history?

No, Buddhism, Judaism, Epicurianism, and Marxism do not stem from the same history.

 

[Tone]

No, Buddhism, Judaism, Epicurianism, and Marxism do not stem from the same history.

Well, I was speaking in the context of Western thought, which I believe 3/4 of your list apply.

Even Buddhism was eventually subsumed into the Great Convo...no?