Presuppositional apologetics

[The happy Objectivist]

Oh, you added this last part.

By every means available to me as a person.

How does existence smell, taste, feel, etc...?

Well, existence is a collective noun denoting everything that exists. Some things that exist have a distinctive smell or taste or feel or sound but existence as a whole does not. Now if you ask me how specific existent smells or tastes or feels I could tell you as long as you have the concepts of sensation that I do such as "sweet" or "rough" or "high pitched". So you have dodged answering the question by asking a question. Surely you can tell me at least what it looked like. If you can't then I'm going to doubt that you perceived anything.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So what if I assume that you had perceived something and that you have misidentified it as existence?

This question is incoherent. How can I misidentify the non-existent as existence? If I'm perceiving something then I'm perceiving something and to be something is to exist. I can't perceive something that doesn't exist. I can't perceive Sparky the Wonder Unicorn because it doesn't exist so it would be impossible for me to misidentify Sparky the Wonder Unicorn as existing.

 

[Tone]

There's no such thing as an incorrect perception.

So, was I wrong?

Some things that exist have a distinctive smell or taste or feel or sound but existence as a whole does not

We are speaking of the Creator of all things.

I'm going to doubt that you perceived anything.

Really, I thought that was a no no?

Well, you are right, in the sense that when I speak of the Creator I am not saying that I perceived any thing.

I met The Person, if you will.

 

[Tone]

This question is incoherent. How can I misidentify the non-existent as existence? If I'm perceiving something then I'm perceiving something and to be something is to exist. I can't perceive something that doesn't exist. I can't perceive Sparky the Wonder Unicorn because it doesn't exist so it would be impossible for me to misidentify Sparky the Wonder Unicorn as existing.

I think things are getting lost in translation here.

No thing (or should I say not thing or un thing) does exist.

Personality is not a thing. Relationship is not a thing.

In fact, I think the word "exist" should be more reserved for the unseen rather than things seen.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Oh yeah, I found this video that I believe conveys what I tried to--a whole lot better!:

Just give this last one a chance. If you watch this entire one, I'll watch one of your choice!

Sorry, I can't finish it. This guy totally straw man's my position offers false dichotomies and trades in stolen concepts. I do agree with what he says are differences between evidentialist and presuppositionalism methods. Unfortunately, he rambles and has trouble sticking to his point and so it's hard to watch. Presuppositionalists say that evidentialism isn't Biblical because the Bible says in Romans 15:20 that everyone already knows that God exists and is without excuse and that offering evidence is treating the atheist as judge over what's true, essentially putting God on trial.

 

[Tone]

Sparky the Wonder Unicorn

What is this?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So, was I wrong?



We are speaking of the Creator of all things.



Really, I thought that was a no no?

Well, you are right, in the sense that when I speak of the Creator I am not saying that I perceived any thing.

I met The Person, if you will.

Tone, you said you perceived it with all of the senses that you have and yet you won't tell me what it looked like even so yes, at that point I'm going to think that you are just being silly. If I meet a person I can at least describe what color their hair was, how long, how tall they were, what they were wearing, how their voice sounded, etc., but you offer nothing for me to believe you perceived something other than your say so.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What is this?

Something that I just made up.

 

[Tone]

Sorry, I can't finish it. This guy totally straw man's my position offers false dichotomies and trades in stolen concepts. I do agree with what he says are differences between evidentialist and presuppositionalism methods. Unfortunately, he rambles and has trouble sticking to his point and so it's hard to watch. Presuppositionalists say that evidentialism isn't Biblical because the Bible says in Romans 15:20 that everyone already knows that God exists and is without excuse and that offering evidence is treating the atheist as judge over what's true, essentially putting God on trial.

Okay, just jump to 12:00-27:00!

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think things are getting lost in translation here.

No thing (or should I say not thing or un thing) does exist.

Personality is not a thing. Relationship is not a thing.

In fact, I think the word "exist" should be more reserved for the unseen rather than things seen.

Of course, personality is a thing and so are relationships. If they weren't things we couldn't have concepts or definitions for them. Are you perhaps equating thing with something physical like a chair?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Okay, just jump to 12:00-27:00!

OK, I'll try again but it'll have to be tomorrow. It's late.

 

[Tone]

Tone, you said you perceived it with all of the senses that you have and yet you won't tell me what it looked like even so yes, at that point I'm going to think that you are just being silly. If I meet a person I can at least describe what color their hair was, how long, how tall they were, what they were wearing, how their voice sounded, etc., but you offer nothing for me to believe you perceived something other than your say so.

Well, have we met?

Do I know your hair color?

 

[Tone]

Of course, personality is a thing and so are relationships. If they weren't things we couldn't have concepts or definitions for them. Are you perhaps equating thing with something physical like a chair?

Thing
"2a: an inanimate object distinguished from a living being"

Yeah, I guess I was looking at it like ole Webster.

 

[Tone]

Well, have we met?

Do I know your hair color?

Limited though it is, I am perceiving you with "every means available to me as a person"...I didn't necessarily say "all the senses that I have".

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well, have we met?

Do I know your hair color?

Did you perceive this God or not? Why the tap-dancing here. Of course we haven't met but if we had I'd expect you to be able to describe a few things about me, at least my devastatingly good looks. Seriously though, If I say I've perceived something but can't tell you anything that I perceived wouldn't you start to wonder whether I was playing games?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Limited though it is, I am perceiving you with "every means available to me as a person"...I didn't necessarily say "all the senses that I have".

Which sense did you use then?

 

[Tone]

OK, I'll try again but it'll have to be tomorrow. It's late.

Yeah, past my bedtime. Good night!

 

[Tone]

Which sense did you use then?

I'll just say this real quick, cause I'm tired.

There's a difference between meeting someone as a person and meeting them face to face .

I've met you as a person here on CF. That's not to say that we've met exhaustively.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I'll just say this real quick, cause I'm tired.

There's a difference between meeting someone as a person and meeting them face to face .

I've met you as a person here on CF. That's not to say that we've met exhaustively.

You've read some of my words, but you haven't perceived me. So what you are saying is that you haven't actually perceived God. I could say I've met Harry Potter in the pages of the novel but I haven't perceived him, just imagined him. This makes my question of how one could reliably distinguish what you are calling God from something that you are merely imaging, come to the fore.

 

[Tone]

You've read some of my words, but you haven't perceived me. So what you are saying is that you haven't actually perceived God. I could say I've met Harry Potter in the pages of the novel but I haven't perceived him, just imagined him. This makes my question of how one could reliably distinguish what you are calling God from something that you are merely imaging, come to the fore.

Your words are more existent than your hair.

*As far as Harry Potter, I would say that you've encountered more about the author than the fictional character.