>thats a fallacy. >thats a fallacy. >thats a fallacy. >thats a fallacy. >thats a fallacy

>thats a fallacy
>thats a fallacy
>thats a fallacy
>thats a fallacy
>thats a fallacy
>thats a fallacy
wow.... so this is the pinnacle of orthodox apologetics....

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You forgot "that's the fallacy fallacy"

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You’ve forgotten schizophrenia where claiming mystical visions are above good exegesis and academic study.

      The Puritans warned Christians about debate bros in the 1600s
      When discussing bring young men into the faith Richard Sibbs wrote
      >Again we should not rack that wits with curious or ‘doubtful disputations’ (Rom, 14:1), for so we shall distract and tire them give them, and give occasions to make them cast off the care of all. That age of the church which was most fertile in subtle questions was most barren in religion; for it makes people think religion to be only a matter of cleverness in tying and untying of knots. The brains of men inclining that way are hotter usually than their hearts
      The Bruised Reed, Pg 31 (Puritan Paperbacks)

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >don't debate the Orthodox you'll lose every time
        couldn't have said it better myself

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Didn’t say that, just that’s it’s a waste of time. Same as debating atheoids who will state that no evidence would be sufficient for them to believe in God. Both are Redditors primarily driven by their own pride hearts.

          >Palamites are incapable of exegesis, the conclusion on what a passage “says” is already reached before they even look at the scriptures.
          St Theophylact of Orchid would like a word with you.
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophylact_of_Ohrid

          >UMMMMM ACKTCHUALLY, the Palamaites once had a dude who did exegesis 1000yrs ago
          Anon, I…….. yikes you really showed me. Okay I will concede that maybe 1000yrs ago (I say maybe because I would actually need to read his exegesis to determine the quality) the organisation that would eventually degenerate into the palamite church had a few individuals who could do exegesis.

      • 3 months ago
        Chud Anon

        >just turn off your brain and enjoy it 🙂

        Puritans confirmed for the MCU fans of religion

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You’ve forgotten schizophrenia where claiming mystical visions are above good exegesis and academic study.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >claiming mystical visions are above good exegesis
      Palamites are incapable of exegesis, the conclusion on what a passage “says” is already reached before they even look at the scriptures.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Palamites are incapable of exegesis, the conclusion on what a passage “says” is already reached before they even look at the scriptures.
        St Theophylact of Orchid would like a word with you.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophylact_of_Ohrid

  3. 3 months ago
    Andy Hitlerism

    He got btfo’d hard by brownoid Haz. Semite on Semite violence

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      These guys are professionally unhinged

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      They're demonically influenced by the testimony of Richard Ibranyi

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Vatican Catholic
      >is neither Vatican nor Catholic

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ifunny.co

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This vid was honestly based. I've never seen one guy get BTFO so hard.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    does he do anything other than presup bullshit? why do zoomer larpers like him so much?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      He also does conspiracy theories and young earth creationism.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        But not meaningful conspiracy theories, it's just JFK, Alex Jones, and Jekyll Island Libertarian crap.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >young earth creationism
        Didn't know Orthodox were into this. You'd think their vague, mystical approach to religion would let them dodge the issue.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          American convertadox love seraphim rose, who argued in favor of it so they do too.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >seraphim rose
            What's the deal with this guy? Is he actually Orthodox or is he a protestantization or americanization of the EO Church?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            He was a brilliant orthodox monk who wrote several books and translated more

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >young earth creationism.
        refuting it? he's mad people can start? i like him

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >why do zoomer larpers like him so much?
      Presup seems smart if you're moronic

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        then why can't you make an argument against it

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's no argument to make against "I presupposed I'm right based on divine revelation". What the morons don't understand is anyone can just "presuppose" they're right to win an argument, most people don't because it's just a stupid and pointless rhetorical tactic that isn't realistically going to convince anyone else.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't most atheists presuppose that there is no God?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no argument to make against "I presupposed I'm right based on divine revelation".
            that is a position no one is taking

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is the basis of presuppositionalism, that they take the presupposed claim that knowledge is impossible without god through divine revelation.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            the basis of presuppositionalism is questioning the atheist presuppositions

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The presuppositions they're questioning are essentially the basis of any real discussion. Without them any argument is a big waste of time since you'll have no common ground to argue on. The moronic part is presuppers thinking this only works for their religion and that others can't just do the same to them. There's no real debate or argument to be had if two people start on totally different presuppositions. I've yet to see why christianity is an any better presupposed starting point that anything else though, other than claiming that knowledge can only be based on divine revelation, which is horseshit since you have no way of knowing if your "divine revelation" actually is a divine revelation any more than an atheist can know the validity of his presuppositions.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The presuppositions they're questioning are essentially the basis of any real discussion. Without them any argument is a big waste of time since you'll have no common ground to argue on
            this is the position we are taking, coreect.
            >The moronic part is presuppers thinking this only works for their religion and that others can't just do the same to them
            you're free to try and prove them given an atheist world view.
            >There's no real debate or argument to be had if two people start on totally different presuppositions
            I agree and your inability to prove your presuppositions shows that you cannot enter into a debate.
            >I've yet to see why christianity is an any better presupposed starting point that anything else though
            personal incredulity fallacy

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't prove your presuppositions either, other than arguing circularly that you received revelation from a divine source, but no way to prove that you actually did.
            It just boils down to "I am right because I presupposed I am right" in the end.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't prove your presuppositions either
            this is again the position we are taking, that is why they are presuppositions, the argument is that the atheist position collapses into contradiction as they insist that metaphysical concepts like God needs to be proven and not presupposed while presupposing other metaphysical concepts such as, logic, reason, human thought, consciousness, objective truth. thats just being ad hoc.
            >It just boils down to "I am right because I presupposed I am right" in the end.
            again, no this is a strawman

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the argument is that the atheist position collapses into contradiction as they insist that metaphysical concepts like God needs to be proven
            This isn't really the win you think it is, since all you've done is opened up the possibility of anything and impossibility of knowing anything. You can start from any presupposition you like essentially, there's no way of a Christian to prove his faith is any more valid than another, which ironically makes proselytising pointless and you have no foundation to proselytise from against someone else. It's an argument thats used purely to troll atheists thinking they're going to have an honest conversation and instead getting some moron who just insists nothing can be proven and that he has presupposed hes right.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there's no way of a Christian to prove his faith is any more valid than another,
            The point is to prove that faith jtself is more valuable than epistemological skepticism, which is the dominant athiest presupposition. It might be the case that some hardcore atheists have "faith" that there definitely is no God, but they would be a fringe minority.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The point is to prove that faith jtself is more valuable
            It isn't though as it leaves you incapable of resolving differences between people with two presupposed faiths. If a Muslim and a Christian, or even two different types of Christian both presuppose their doctrine is derived from divine revelation, there's absolutely no basis on which you can ever resolve this difference.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            the argument isn't an argument in favor of Christianity over islam its an argument in favor of theism against atheism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it doesn't favour either, theism or atheism, it's a stalemate argument. You've just started from a position that creates an impasse, but also leaves you just as incapable of arguing the other side is wrong as well.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But it doesn't favour either, theism or atheism, it's a stalemate argument. You've just started from a position that creates an impasse
            you're calling your inability to make a counter argument an impasse. that is called losing an argument

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's an impasse because you can't actually make an argument against atheism either if the other person doesn't start with your presuppositions.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're both acknowledging the argument against atheism then saying b-but you can't make an argument against atheism.
            you contradicted yourself

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it's not an argument against atheism, if you start from an atheist presupposition then atheism is right.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            and that then collapses because if you can presuppose atheism is right i can presuppose its wrong,
            try again

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and that then collapses because if you can presuppose atheism is right i can presuppose its wrong
            It doesn't collapse if we presume my frame work is right though, it only collapses if we presume your frame work is right. But I don't presume your frame work is right so you can't prove me wrong either.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't collapse if we presume my frame work is right though
            which you can't prove and thus cannot be right
            try again

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >which you can't prove and thus cannot be right
            And you can't prove yours, and thus you also cannot be right.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And you can't prove yours, and thus you also cannot be right.
            tu qouque

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you might want to actually look up the definition of that before using it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This isn't really the win you think it is, since all you've done is opened up the possibility of anything and impossibility of knowing anything
            this is only a problem within the atheist world view so technically it isn't the win you think it is.
            >You can start from any presupposition you like essentially, there's no way of a Christian to prove his faith is any more valid than another
            ahhh but you're now trying to move from theism vs atheism to Christianity vs other religions which is a totally different argument entirely.
            >. It's an argument thats used purely to troll atheists thinking they're going to have an honest conversation and instead getting some moron who just insists nothing can be proven and that he has presupposed hes right.
            nothing can be proven on an atheist world view that is correct, however you keep saying we presuppose we are right which is not the case

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this is only a problem within the atheist world view so technically it isn't the win you think it is.
            It actually also exists in yours, as you similarly cannot give reason for your reason, you've just made presuppositions.
            >ahhh but you're now trying to move from theism vs atheism to Christianity vs other religions which is a totally different argument entirely.
            It's not, an atheist can also just start with the presupposition of logic existing, you can start with any presupposition. The problem you run into is you can't resolve any difference between two different presuppositions ever.
            >nothing can be proven on an atheist world view that is correct
            You can if you start with the presupposition of existence, there's nothing inherently contradictory about that. Of course if the other person starts on a different set of presuppositions there's no way to resolve any differences. All you've really done is argued into a stalemate.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It actually also exists in yours, as you similarly cannot give reason for your reason, you've just made presuppositions.
            and again this isn't an issue because only the atheist is asserting that 1 metaphysical concept cannot be presupposed but will then presuppose others, thats ad hoc.
            >It's not, an atheist can also just start with the presupposition of logic existing, you can start with any presupposition.
            the issue is you can't show your presuppositions to exist
            you seem to think that the presup argument doesn't involve demonstrating them to be true which is another error on your end.
            >You can if you start with the presupposition of existence
            so again presup arguments aren't just asserting them to be true and not demonstrating that they are.
            the error is you being unable to show your presuppositions to be true

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and again this isn't an issue because only the atheist is asserting that 1 metaphysical concept cannot be presupposed but will then presuppose others, thats ad hoc.
            Christians also assert that one must presuppose their particular metaphysical concept, but there's no real basis for why it has to be theirs.
            >the issue is you can't show your presuppositions to exist
            Neither can you
            >so again presup arguments aren't just asserting them to be true and not demonstrating that they are.
            You can't demonstrate your arguments unless the other person accepts your presuppositions, but it's impossible for you to reason they have to accept your presuppositions, hence why it's a stalemate.
            >the error is you being unable to show your presuppositions to be true
            Which is also a problem for you, since you can't give any reason to compel acceptance of yours either. All it boils down to is "if we accept that the universal truth is that god exists, then god exists", but this is starting with a presupposition that can't be demonstrated and only works if the other party accepts your presupposition. It's just as valid to deny your presupposition.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christians also assert that one must presuppose their particular metaphysical concept, but there's no real basis for why it has to be theirs.
            ok prove it.
            >Neither can you
            tu qouque fallacy
            >You can't demonstrate your arguments
            tu qouque fallacy
            >Which is also a problem for you
            tu qouque fallacy

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ok prove it.
            If we start at the presupposition that god doesn't exist and existence exists of its own right, then he doesn't exist. Within my presupposed frame work I'm right.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If we start at the presupposition that god doesn't exist
            and this would go back to the argument that atheism collapses into an ad hoc position as you are accepting some metaphysical concepts without proof but rejecting others despite having a supposed equal 'lack of proof'

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and this would go back to the argument that atheism collapses into an ad hoc position
            So does christian presuppositionalism, you've started from the ad hoc position that god is necessary for existence. I've started from the ad hoc position that he isn't. good luck proving one way or the other.
            >you are accepting some metaphysical concepts without proof but rejecting others
            You literally do the same with other theistic metaphysical concepts, you're choice to choose christianity over islam is just as arbitrary, so claiming there's something invalid about rejecting some and accepting others while you yourself reject some and accept others is the same hypocrisy. Hence why its an impasse.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So does christian presuppositionalism, you've started from the ad hoc position that god is necessary for existence
            but I didn't start from that, that is the conclusion reached from your inability to prove your presuppositions
            >You literally do the same with other theistic metaphysical concepts
            again no I didn't
            >you're choice to choose christianity over islam is just as arbitrary
            i already addressed this, Christianity vs other religions is a different argument entirely then Theism vs atheism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but I didn't start from that, that is the conclusion reached from your inability to prove your presuppositions
            You can't prove your presuppositions, so I don't get why you think this is a win. What has this gained you other than a stalemate?
            >again no I didn't
            you literally do, you start from the presupposition that god exists, and that thus he is where all existence is derived from, but you cannot prove that any more than I can prove atheism to you.
            >i already addressed this, Christianity vs other religions is a different argument entirely then Theism vs atheism
            It isn't, other religions start from the presupposition that their religious knowledge is derived from divine revelation, there's absolutely no way to ever resolve this if you both start from a completely contradictory set of presuppositions.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't prove your presuppositions, so I don't get why you think this is a win. What has this gained you other than a stalemate?
            wrong and a tu qouque fallacy.
            >ou literally do, you start from the presupposition that god exists
            show where I did that
            >It isn't, other religions start from the presupposition that their religious knowledge is derived from divine revelation, there's absolutely no way to ever resolve this if you both start from a completely contradictory set of presuppositions.
            sorry but Christianity vs other religions is in fact a different argument then theism vs atheism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not the tu qouque fallacy btw, I haven't attacked you personally, I've simply said you can't prove your presuppositions, which you can't and won't, you'll just keep going in these same boring circles over and over forever to the bump limit. Feel free to prove your presuppositions at any time instead of going "um ackhually thats a fallacy" over and over again ad nauseum.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Feel free to prove your presuppositions at any time
            Presuppositional beliefs are unproven beliefs. That's the definition of being "presupposed".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Presuppositional beliefs are unproven beliefs.
            Right, so we're at an impasse like you said. As we start with two presupposed beliefs that can never be resolved against each other.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we start with two presupposed beliefs that can never be resolved against each other.
            Well at least you admit you are an atheist with unproven presuppositional beliefs.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everything has to terminate somewhere otherwise you end up in essentially rhetorical infinite regress. Of course this doesn't put Christians in a much better position as they similarly can never prove their beliefs as more valid than anyone elses. Thus it's a stalemate at best, not a win for Christianity. You can never demonstrate that Christianity is more valid than atheism, Islam or any other presupposed beliefs.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            By saying this you are admitting that you atheism has exactly the same level of unproven faith as a Christian, if not slightly worse. As a Christian, I have no problem with having faith in a higher power, but it seems like that would be a cognitive problem for a fideist atheist.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            This isn't a satisfying answer for you either, if as a Christian you seek to spread Christianity, as you have no basis to really convince others unless they subscribe to your presuppositions. It's literally only useful as a way to avoid admitting argumentative defeat but never really gives the Christian victory either. It is quite literally just a path to a rhetorical stalemate.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you have no basis to really convince others unless they subscribe to your presuppositions
            Right. That's why Christianity is a faith based religion and not an empirical science.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So how can you compel someone to convert without any basis? If we applied faith based logic to everything else in life you've be falling for every Indian call scammer that graced your phone.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So how can you compel someone to convert without any basis?
            I can't compel anyone to convert. It requires faith which is a supernatural grace from God.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look up what a presupposition is, dumbass. You don't prove them.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol. That's exactly what I said...

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok. You made it sound like there was something wrong about presuppositions being unproven

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not at all. In fact, such presupposition are necessary to begin building a coherent logical worldview. Take for example Platonism.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's not the tu qouque fallacy btw, I haven't attacked you personally
            tu qouque isn't a personal attack, get your fallacies right,

            you are instead of defending your position deflecting my falsely accusing me of doing the same.
            You haven't countered any point but instead resort to
            b-but you can't either

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because "you can't either" is a valid attack on the worthlessness of presuppositionalist arguments. all it does is builds a big presupposed shell around the arguer where he just presupposes hes right and everyone else is wrong. It is impossible to ever resolve any difference between two sets of presupposed beliefs.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because "you can't either" is a valid attack on the worthlessness of presuppositionalist arguments
            its shifting the burden and you can't show that statement is true

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            And you can't show your statement is true either, thus theism doesn't have any leverage against literally any other presupposition. It's not a fallacy when it's a valid statement.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            i already did through my argument against atheism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't make any argument against atheism, you just said atheism has to start with presuppositions. Great, that doesn't actually prove atheism wrong though, atheism isn't defined as having no presuppositions thus having presuppositions wouldn't make atheism invalid.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok well you clearly aren't following the thread then

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheists make the presupposition that a world outside their own mind exist, and it's possible to know stuff about it
            !!!
            How terrible
            How can they do this

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you tell me the difference between a presupposition and faith?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's literally the same thing.
            There is no difference between presupposing (having faith) that the world exist, and you can know stuff about it,
            and presupposing that, the cause of this universe that is a guy with holes in his hand who died on a cross 2000 years ago, accounts for truth, logic and intelligibility

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            the difference is the atheist cannot prove that concept to be true but assert it anyways while rejecting the concept of God and demanding proof. that collapses atheism into a self contradictory world view

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, atheists agree with you, we don't prove our presuppositions.
            Maybe you've been talking to atheists who don't know what a presuppositions is?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, atheists agree with you, we don't prove our presuppositions.
            then if you can presuppose metaphysical concepts without proof I can presuppose God without proof and your position collapses

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, go ahead, explain how you could go about proving your presuppositions, even in principle

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            the fact atheism collapses into a self contradictory world view shows theism is true

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you provide us with reasons why we should believe that assertion?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >show where I did that
            Look, it's going to go something like this:

            P1 Truth, intelligibility and logic, etc.. exist
            P2 ONLY the Christian God can account for truth, logic, intelligibility.. etc
            (C Christian God exist)

            It's not like you could support the second premise. It's why it's PRESUPPOSED.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >P2 ONLY the Christian God can account for truth, logic, intelligibility.. etc
            (C Christian God exist)
            this is true but this isn't the argument, its the conclusion of the argument

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. Give me the argument, premises and conclusion, please.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            atheism rejects God on a basis of a supposed 'lack of proof' but accept logic, reason, human thought, consciousness to exist despite having an equal lack of proof
            which makes atheism inherently ad hoc and what remains is theism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The reason is people can experience human thought themselves, that's the gist of it. People tend to start with the presupposition that they exist, which I would say is actually a perfectly valid presupposition to start with due to it being an inherent experience.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The reason is people can experience human thought themselves
            personal experiences aren't a proof of somethings existence,
            this is just another example of how atheism is contradictory,
            "human thought exists because I experience it"
            then by the same token does God exist because I experience God?
            obviously not.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How could I possibly "think" that I exist, and be wrong about it?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            in thinking you exist you are presupposing thought and a self despite not being about to show it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's inherently shown to him through his ability to think. It is quite literally a case of inherent knowledge, as its impossible for someone to think and not exist, as if they didn't exist they couldn't think in the first place.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's inherently shown to him through his ability to think
            presupposing thought.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not presupposed its inherent experience.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thought is just a placeholder word for the experience that I'm having
            I could be in the matrix, I could have a dream, I could be a simulation, whatever.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look, don't make any theoretical assumptions about what a thought is, or what the self is
            Consider it in super neutral terms, "I have experience" (even if it's possible for me to be confused about what *I* am, or what the experience is)

            I cannot be having experience, and be wrong about it (wrong about the fact that I have some kind of experience, not the content)
            Seems like such a reasonable presupposition. Do you disagree with it?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Consider it in super neutral terms, "I have experience"
            even this presupposes a self.
            >Seems like such a reasonable presupposition. Do you disagree with it?
            again the issue isn't whether they are true or reasonable but the fact atheism is being arbitrary but accepting concepts without proof but demanding proof for others despite by the atheists own criteria having a 'lack of proof'

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Please, I told you to drop theories of what "a self" is. (Those can be pretty complicated, right?)

            This is just because the way language works, I don't really want to make a distinction between "the self" that is having the experience, and the experience
            Should be thought of as the same thing, the experience. But that's not how English language works, it sound weird

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Please, I told you to drop theories of what "a self" is. (Those can be pretty complicated, right?)
            no

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you agree with Descartes, the "I think, therefore I am" is the only a posteriori knowledge we can have *without* making any a priori presuppositions. This means all other knowledge is uncertain, however, so you must either grant some presuppositional knowledge or be stuck wkth radical skepticism that questions even the existence of the outside world, a position that no one can practically maintain.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I agree with all of that.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't have to presuppose the fact that you exist. It is demonstrably evident.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Presupper Christians will claim it isn't, even though it is. But that's because presupper Christian argumentation just boils down to refusing to ever concede on anything until the opponent gets bored and leaves.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we can't prove god but we can't prove anything so it's ok
            By this argument theists have no reason to deny belief in anything, like unicorns existing or 1+1=3

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If universal truth is granted, then you can work forward with deductive logic to prove 1+1=2. The existence of unicorns is an uncertainty which cannot be disproven (you cannot prove a negative).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If universal truth is granted, then you can work forward with deductive logic to prove 1+1=2
            The post I was responding to asserted that we can't prove 1+1=2. By that argument theists have no reason to deny belief in anything

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            This "argument" can simply be restated as the claim; that the Christian God exist and accounts for truth and logic.
            You need to support this premise, you have provided literally zero reason why anyone should believe this.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            For a christian, saying God is the source if logic is like saying the sky is blue. It's just a fact to them. Which is you won't get any good answer.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >an atheist can also just start with the presupposition of logic existing
            You really can't presuppose that without some kind of faith. If you are a skeptic as most atheists claim to be, you would say it is unknowable whether logic exists since we cannot directly measure it. On the other hand, if you presuppose that universal truth exists in order to grant the validity of logic, which is itself a statement of faith, then you are no different than the theistic presuppositionalist, except that instead of calling universal truth "God", you call it something different, while at the same time denying that such a universal truth exists.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nta Why can’t I just propose a perrenial God like that of Platonism’s the One

            Why do I have to accept orthodox Christianity as the explanation for logic etc

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nta Why can’t I just propose a perrenial God like that of Platonism’s the One
            how do you know a perrenial God like that of Platonism’s the One exists?
            ultimately once you move beyond atheism you'll have a hard time showing this is true

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, for one it's less goofy than the foreskin eating desert demon.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            your personal preferences aren't an argument though
            I could easily say Christ is better because he makes atheistcucks seethe so much but arguing based on preference is silly

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I wasn't talking about preference. You preferring the goofy desert demon is a preference, but it being goofy isn't.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            this relies on Christ being a goofy desert demon which you haven't shown.
            burden of proof is on you

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's self evident. If you can't see how goofy Christianity is, you are too low IQ to be argued with.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's self evident
            prove its self evident

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I've yet to see why christianity is an any better presupposed starting point that anything else though
            Yeah... Presupposing that the universe created itself for no reason out of nothing and that there is no universal truth (God) is kind of a goofy ngl.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Presupposing that god exists for no particular reason is also goofy.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The singularity wasn't nothing.
            It was infinitesimally small, but it was not nothing.
            I find it funny how this is what hinges on the belief in God hinges on the origins of the universe.
            That's something for scientists to concern themselves over. For the laymen atheist like myself it is simply a matter of not knowing and not positing positively to know, because that is intellectually honest.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The singularity IS GOD moronic atheists

            Also God is Jesus and Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are both God, but the Father is also not the Holy Spirit but even though there are three persons there is only one God but also modalism is wrong.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The singularity IS GOD moronic atheists
            Gotta love materialist theism.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then where did that come from?
            I don't know.
            >It obviously didn't always exist, since it had a beginning a finite time ago
            What's obvious about it?
            How do you know?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Meant for.

            >The singularity wasn't nothing
            Then where did that come from? It obviously didn't always exist, since it had a beginning a finite time ago.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The singularity wasn't nothing
            Then where did that come from? It obviously didn't always exist, since it had a beginning a finite time ago.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You believe a israelite in the sky created himself for no reason.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because the people who espouse it are too pigheaded to accept one? It also cannot be argued against gecause its "not even wrong"; it lacks an internal coherence to argue against. Really the best you can do is psychologize it; appeal to theory of mind with the outsider test for faith (i.e. bring up Muslim presups) and ask if presup is really not just making arbitrary observations about reality and looking for matches in the distinctives of your worldview.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Without a basic faith in universal truth as a foundation, it is impossible to develop an epistemology that is not based on circular logic. That's how you get people like Matt Dillahunty who believe human life is inherently valuable because monkey ancestors thought they were valuable (i.e. truth is subjective sense data).

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Looks pretty circular to me. Also its impossible to NOT use your reasoning to justify your reasoning for the same reason you have to use a public language in order to argue that one doesn't exist. So Christians have doubly-circular logic.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's a virtuous circle, moron

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which is essentially saying
            >NOOOOO! IT'S NOT A VICIOUS CIRCLE, BECAUSE.... BECAUSE IT JUST ISN'T OKAY?!!!

            Also notice I didn't even say "vicious circle".

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Still a better debater than ~~*Daniel*~~ ~~*aisraeliteaisraelite*~~.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why is jay dyer unable to defeat drake shelton in a debate?

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a moron can someone explain how tu quoque is is fallacious in this context? I understand tu quoque as a fallacy because I told someone not to steal and they knew I shoplifted once as a kid therefore I am a hypocrite so it is a variation of ad hominem. I don't understand how it is fallacious here. Please do not redirect me to some link.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      its shifting the burden away from an argument made against them to a false accusation of the opponent doing the same thing

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because in this case you are doing the same thing. You've said you don't need to prove your presuppositions, I said I don't have to prove mine either by the nature of presuppositionalism, so in this case it's not a fallacy.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not saying I don't have to I'm just not responding to your attempt to shift the burden

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        But aren't they doing the same thing? Both making presuppositions at least according to the gist of the argument as I follow it? So if they are both doing it and they both seem unconvinced, how can you convince the the neutral 3rd party not taking part in the argument? Also, if I am following you correctly, couldn't you just reframe the debate with the atheist making some sort of atheological presuppositionalist claim and ask his christian debater to refute it how would he go about doing it? Is this kind of argument even resolvable using natural language?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >But aren't they doing the same thing? Both making presuppositions at least according to the gist of the argument as I follow it?
          the point is that the atheist position demands evidence for 1 metaphysical concept while taking others as a given despite an equal supposed 'lack of evidence'

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheists start at a position of "I exist" and work outwardly from there. From that position it's perfectly valid for them to ask for proof before belief.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            that is my point entirely, you cannot prove that concept to be true but assert it anyways while rejecting the concept of God and demanding proof. that collapses atheism into a self contradictory world view

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism isn't inherently about proof, just a lack of belief in god. Is your idea that demanding proof for things is bad? Should we all go about our lives never asking for proof of anything from anyone?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            then your position just collapses faster if you don't need proof for anything

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is that you can only work backwards from that belief to inductively arrive at uncertain generalized beliefs. Religion begins with a certain universal belief (absolutism), and deduces all other truths moving forward from that beginning point. Most atheists are willing to grant for themselves the existence metaphysical truth in order to deduce things like logic existing. It's only a problem when you say it's fine for atheists to presuppose univesal truths, but theistic universal truths must be proven, because you are applying a double standard. If you are fine with both presupposing a starting point of universal truth, then there is no problem, so long as you admit that such a belief cannot be "proven" empirically, and must be granted a priori.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I really just don't see what this brings to the table practically or how they really help Christians in proving Christianity. It seems like a pyrrhic victory where you've managed to save yourself from being proven wrong but left yourself incapable of actually being able to convince anyone else of your ideas.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how they really help Christians in proving Christianity
            It's not meant to "prove" anything, other than the benefit of beginning with certain a priori knowledge (another way of saying a presupposition). You can deny presuppositional truths entirely at the risk of becoming a radical skeptic, but that is an impractical worldview which denies all certainty of knowledge.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is that this leaves the Christian in an equally awkward position in which anything can be presupposed, which in practice they don't really like.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only presupposition being made is that universal truth exists as a starting point for deductive reasoning. I'm not sure why it would be necessary to presuppose anything additional. We could suppose anything we wanted, but those would be additional unproven beliefs.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            if you can presuppose something without proof why can others not be presupposed without proof?
            that makes atheism arbitrary

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it makes (some? all?) presuppositions arbitrary.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can presuppose anything without proof, on the condition that you understand that it is a presupposition, rather than a belief based on evidence. In most ordinary circumstances, I would prefer to base my beliefs on observable evidence, such as "What is the weather like today?" There's no need to presuppose one way or the other. I would necessarly have to presuppose the existence of universal truth in order to establish that evidence itself exists. If universal truth does not exist, then there is no such thing as evidence to prove it, since without truth, there are no true facts, and without true facts, there is no such thing as evidence. Truth is a necessary precondition.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            it doesn't though

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm a moron can someone explain how tu quoque is is fallacious in this context?
      it isn't, he just has no real counter argument so he's just going to say it over and over again.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >presupposing (having faith) that the world exist, and you can know stuff about it

    Thing is, atheists and christians both share these presuppositions.
    So now what he can move on and start talking about what else are good and reasonable presuppositions to hold.

    You can't have truth or knowledge if some guy didn't walk on water 2000 years ago -> I think this is a BAD presupposition
    But, it's not like I can prevent you from presupposing whatever the frick you want.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Thing is, atheists and christians both share these presuppositions.
      this is the argument against atheism. atheists will arbitrarily presuppose things and reject others despite having an equal lack of proof

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe they want proof in order to believe some kinds of things, but not for their core presuppositions (just like Christians)

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          yes thats arbitrary

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what?
            We just agreed that we don't prove our presuppositions, that they are "arbitrary", and now you are acting like there's a problem with that.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes if as you admit atheism is arbitrary, then it is wrong and what remains is theism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It really doesn't, it just means both theism and atheism are arbitrary at best. It does not leave one over the other.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does that defeat atheism? It leaves all of our beliefs, including theism, as unprovable and arbitrary. It gives no reason to disbelieve atheism any more than theism.

            show how theism is arbitrary then you already conceded atheism is

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >show how theism is arbitrary
            Here:

            The theistic position is arbitrary, with God being identified as the arbiter of truth, good, evil, etc. So a theistic system has no problem with faith-based arbitray beliefs. A non-theistic system of ideal truth is just as arbitrary. The only question is whether your skepticism allows for arbitrary beliefs, which many atheists would label a kind of "faith". If you think faith contradicts reason, this is an incoherent system which should result in cognitive disonance. If you see no contradiction between faith and reason, it is a coherent system, and there's no problem.

            >The theistic position is arbitrary

            Your "argument" is that we can't prove logic, so not being able to prove God doesn't matter. Which is fricking moronic because it means we have no reason to believe anything at all.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your "argument" is that we can't prove logic, so not being able to prove God doesn't matter.
            no i never said this.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Alright, you can tell us your presuppositions
            And then explain how they are not "arbitrary", in the same sense you keep using that word.

            I really don't get you. How could you presuppositions not be arbitrary? Even in principle

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And then explain how they are not "arbitrary", in the same sense you keep using that word.
            if you are claiming it is arbitrary the burden of proof is on you

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we have no reason to believe anything at all.
            You're replying to 2 people so it's a confusing conversation. I'm the second person in your reply. Yes, both beliefs in universal truth, both teistic and atheistic, are arbitrary. You can believe in either one a priori without proof. It's only a problem if you reject all a priori beliefs, which as a Christian I do not. That is the nature of a faith-based belief.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is this is bad for Christians, as you essentially admit there's no basis for conversion.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem is this is bad for Christians, as you essentially admit there's no basis for conversion
            Correct. The "basis for conversion" to Christianity is faith. Otherwise, it would be a science, not a religion.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The "basis for conversion" to Christianity is faith.
            It isn't though, since it encourages using reason to convert nonbelievers.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right. Catholicism uses the dual methods of faith and natural reason to show that a belief in God is reasonable. Jay Dyer is an Orthodox Christian who believes natural reason is a bad argument, so he only argues for presuppositional faith. Hypothetically, if someone were to rejectsthe truth of the natural world, I would have to agree with him that appealing to faith would be the only recourse. Since most atheists share a belief in natural truth, I will engage with them there. But to say that it's a problem for Christianity to be based on faith, when it is a religion, I would disagree, since by its very nature a religion must always be faith-based. I don't see that as a "problem".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Orthodoxy doesn't reject natural reason but it is not in the same level as it is in Roman Catholicism because you cannot get to Christ from natural reason

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            As a Catholic I believe that you can get to a reasonable belief in God through natural reason, just inductively in an uncertain way, as opposed to the deductive way starting from divine revelation with certainty. I get to my belief in God through natural reason the same way an atheist would arrive at a belief in truth from natural reason. The only difference is, I also arrive at that same truth through faith (faith and reason), instead of reason alone or faith alone (fideism).

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As a Catholic I believe that you can get to a reasonable belief in God through natural reason
            This is true but its the belief of a generic monad not the triune God

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is problematic for a proselytizing religion. You can't really go on and preach the word if you can't even use reason to prove the word is true in the first place. The idea that people should just take your word on the concept automatically is absurd, and even people like Jay Dyer don't operate that way in reality, they only wheel it out when its rhetorically useful for them to do so.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I adress this here

            As a Catholic I believe that you can get to a reasonable belief in God through natural reason, just inductively in an uncertain way, as opposed to the deductive way starting from divine revelation with certainty. I get to my belief in God through natural reason the same way an atheist would arrive at a belief in truth from natural reason. The only difference is, I also arrive at that same truth through faith (faith and reason), instead of reason alone or faith alone (fideism).

            I'm not using "faith alone", I'm simply pointing out that you cannot know the divine revelation half of religion without faith. We both agree through the use of natural reason in a universal truth.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your presuppositions are arbitrary, in just the same way
            Like.. We agree on all of mine, you just have some more, that God exist and grounds truth and logic, etc

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your presuppositions are arbitrary, in just the same way
            ok prove they're arbitrary

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a world outside their own mind exist, and it's possible to know stuff about it
            Presumably you agree with my presuppositions, and also hold them.
            You keep saying my presuppositions are arbitrary (whatever you mean by that).
            Because my presuppositions are also your presuppositions, your presuppositions are arbitrary.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            that isn't the case at all though

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seriously reject that there's a world outside their own mind exist, and it's possible to know stuff about it?
            You don't right? You're just bullshitting.

            If you are for real, I don't really want to talk to a solipsist who believes knowledge about the world to be impossible

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You seriously reject that there's a world outside their own mind exist, and it's possible to know stuff about it?
            no I'm rejecting your ability to show there is given an atheist world view. its a question of epistemology not questioning the outside world.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now you are just changing the subject.

            >a world outside their own mind exist, and it's possible to know stuff about it
            Do we share these presuppositions or not?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Now you are just changing the subject.
            I'm not, I never argued these don't exist, the argument was always that you cannot show this in an atheist worldview
            >Do we share these presuppositions or not?
            np

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Now you are just changing the subject.
            I'm not, I never argued these don't exist, the argument was always that you cannot show this in an atheist worldview
            >Do we share these presuppositions or not?
            np

            >>Do we share these presuppositions or not?
            no

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only fundamental difference is that the theist believes this universal truth to be revealed as a personal God, while the atheistic belief is in an ideal or imaginary form.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now you're just clowning.

            We both agree that we have presuppositions who are "arbitrary", and that there's nothing wrong about that.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We both agree that we have presuppositions who are "arbitrary", and that there's nothing wrong about that.
            no just atheism does

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no just atheism does
            No you do to, since you can't prove theism is true, you can only "presuppose" it is.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No you do to, since you can't prove theism is true, you can only "presuppose" it is.
            but I'm not presupposing theism is true, theism is true because atheism is arbitrary
            it is true because the impossibility of the contrary

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            theism is also arbitrary, so it is equal to atheism, not above it.
            >it is true because the impossibility of the contrary
            Only assuming your presuppositions.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >theism is also arbitrary
            ok prove it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon we've already gone over this conversation, presuppositions don't require proving, so an atheist can make presuppositions and still be valid. You can't demonstrate the impossibility to the contrary, you can only presuppose it.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok then what you said can't be shown to be true and thus you are not correct. you defeated yourself again

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does not being able to show something mean it isn't true?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            that is in fact not an argument

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is, since you can potentially not be able to show something but still be correct.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            now you're arguing a different point entirely.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You said atheism is wrong because it can't be demonstrated, but that's not true since it could be correct and also impossible to demonstrate.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You said atheism is wrong because it can't be demonstrated
            no I said atheism was wrong because it collapses into an arbitrary worldview

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Being arbitrary wouldn't make it wrong.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        But that's not an argument against atheism. Atheism isn't a stance of having no presuppositions.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Atheism isn't a stance of having no presuppositions.
          im not saying it is I'm saying its self contradictory for expecting proof of metaphysical concepts then presupposing others despite having an supposed equal lack of proof

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            By this logic no one is allowed to expect proof for anything, because if you accept one concept you're not allowed to doubt any others.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >By this logic no one is allowed to expect proof for anything
            no quite the opposite if the atheist demands proof of God then then to be consistent they would need to demand proof of all metaphysical concepts which if they did they would believe in logic,reason, objective truth to the same extent they believe in God

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            if you insist that atheists should accept one concept without proof, then everything should be accepted as apparently you're not allowed to accept one concept but not the other.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >f you insist that atheists should accept one concept without proof,
            I'm not though

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you think god can't be proved, but it's OK because god's lack of provability is on the same level as logic itself, then you have no reason to believe in theism or anything at all.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        How is that an argument against atheism? At best it leaves atheism and theism as equally arbitrary positions.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          it doesn't because theism doesn't arbitrarily reject God despite having just as much proof and reason, logic etc

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If one thinks god can't be proved, but neither can reason or logic, one has no reason to believe in god. That doesn't defeat atheism, it just means all of the theist's beliefs are arbitary.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If one thinks god can't be proved, but neither can reason or logic, one has no reason to believe in god. That doesn't defeat atheism, it just means all of the theist's beliefs are arbitary.
            it defeats atheism because if try to prove logic and reason the same way you expect proof of God you collapse into absurdity which defeats atheism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does that defeat atheism? It leaves all of our beliefs, including theism, as unprovable and arbitrary. It gives no reason to disbelieve atheism any more than theism.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism doesn't inherently have anything to do with "logic and reason", it's simply rejection of the concept of God. So it doesn't "crumble" anything.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            atheism comes with metaphysical implications of a worldview lacking God

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The theistic position is arbitrary, with God being identified as the arbiter of truth, good, evil, etc. So a theistic system has no problem with faith-based arbitray beliefs. A non-theistic system of ideal truth is just as arbitrary. The only question is whether your skepticism allows for arbitrary beliefs, which many atheists would label a kind of "faith". If you think faith contradicts reason, this is an incoherent system which should result in cognitive disonance. If you see no contradiction between faith and reason, it is a coherent system, and there's no problem.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you just want to be a fideist then go ahead, but you've just admitted you can't prove any of your beliefs and they're all arbitrary, and there's no reason for anyone to be a theist over an atheist.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a fideist. I believe that faith and reason work together in a complimentary way. A fidest rejects reason, believing it to be contrary to faith.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you just want to be a fideist then go ahead, but you've just admitted you can't prove any of your beliefs and they're all arbitrary, and there's no reason for anyone to be a theist over an atheist.
            I mean this is the ultimate result of presup arguments, it's why they're shit because all it does is leads to this stalemate where you just claim everything is arbitrary and just believe whatever.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Theists reject other metaphysical concepts, so yes they are on the same level.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            tu qouque

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your argument is that if your reject one metaphysical concept, you can't accept another. So a theist by accepting one metaphysical concept is not allowed to reject any others. If they do then their position is equal to atheism, not better than it under their own arguments.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your argument is that if your reject one metaphysical concept, you can't accept another
            this isn't my argument though

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this isn't my argument though
            It is if you want to state that atheism is wrong simply for objecting to the concept of God. Otherwise all you have is a stalemate position where everything is arbitrary and truth is whatever you presuppose it to be.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is if you want to state that atheism is wrong simply for objecting to the concept of God.
            no if you read what I said they is more then just the objection to the concept of God

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no if you read what I said they is more then just the objection to the concept of God
            That is literally all atheism is, you're concocting your own definition and trying to load it with a load of other positions that aren't present in the definition.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is literally all atheism is, you're concocting your own definition and trying to load it with a load of other positions that aren't present in the definition.
            that position comes with metaphysical implications of a reality void of God

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing inherently contradictory about that, thus completely valid. The idea of an impersonal universal existence is totally valid and doesn't actually contradict atheism in any way.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            demanding proof of God while presupposing, logic, reason, human thought, consciousness, objective truth despite having an equal supposed 'lack of proof' is what makes it contradictory

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Human thought is an experience, not a thought, thus doesn't require "proof" the way outside concepts do. Existence is proven through direct experience of it, as to even doubt your existence proves your existence.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Human thought is an experience, not a thought, thus doesn't require "proof" the way outside concepts do.
            if it doesn't require proof then I could say I experience God and don't need proof
            but claiming to have an experience isn't a proof that the concept exists.
            >Existence is proven through direct experience of it
            same as above

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wow, presuppositional apologetics really crumbles if they engage in conversation

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being living in the most scientifically advanced age in human history and believing there's a magical israelite in the sky.

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let do a litmus test
    What you think accounts for the failure of these kind of arguments to persuade people, if they are actually successful arguments?

    Like, did God just create me too moronic to understand the TAG argument, and therefore I'm going to hell? Too bad, so sad.
    I guess that's perfectly consistent with Calvinism, lol

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >What you think accounts for the failure of these kind of arguments to persuade people, if they are actually successful arguments?
      some person are persuaded and not persuaded by the same argument whats is the issue?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Jay Dyer stuff isn't supposed to be persuasive, it's just supposed to stop atheists from proving him wrong. Atheists get lulled into thinking they're going to be debating on logical grounds then get hit with a curveball because they didn't expect him to not accept logic and ask them to prove it. Of course they also can't prove their side either, but that's not the point, the point is to be seen not getting beaten by atheists by arguing things into a stalemate. Technically he "wins" because he didn't have to concede anything.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        No the point is to be persuasive which plenty of people have come to Orthodoxy through Jay Dyer and seeing atheists consistently lose debates helps

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Plenty of morons maybe, the problem is people thinking not having to concede is the same as a win, but it's smoke and mirrors. All he really ends up with is epistemological subjectivism where nothing can ever be proven so technically any belief of any kind is valid.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Plenty of morons maybe, the problem is people thinking not having to concede is the same as a win, but it's smoke and mirrors
            do you have any reason why this is true beyond you not liking it?
            >All he really ends up with is epistemological subjectivism where nothing can ever be proven so technically any belief of any kind is valid.
            this is only a problem for atheism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this is only a problem for atheism
            It's a problem for literally any position of any kind, theistic or atheistic.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok prove it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is that you literally can't prove either of them, it's just all subjective assumptions.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            well if you can't show satan is lying to me then there is no reason to think that is the case

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can't show he isn't either, so you could be under Satans spell and then go to hell. Both of these are valid possibilities under your logic and it'd be impossible to differentiate between actual god and a Satanic trick.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't show he isn't either
            yes negatives can't be proven anon but we don't go around making assumptions based on not being able to prove a negative.
            the burden of proof is on you

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the burden of proof is on you
            You can't "prove" a faith-based transcendent belief. That's why it's a faith-based transcendent belief.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            never said I could though

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but we don't go around making assumptions based on not being able to prove a negative.
            Which is why Atheism is valid.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which is why Atheism is valid.
            wrong as I stated above

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Agnostic atheism is, i.e you can never prove he doesn't exist but no reason to assume he does.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well I KNOW God doesn't exist, it was revealed to me in a way that cannot be wrong

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jay Dylators, not like this...

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can though, impossibility of the contrary as stated above

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            prove the impossibility of the contrary.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a presupposition, we don't prove our presuppositions.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I presuppose I'm right
            >Thus I'm right
            Truly an intellectual power house. I'm sure many a 14 year old has been convinced by this.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            A presupposition is an assumed necessary precondition. It's got nothing to do with being "right".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're not smart for just presupposing you're right, literally anyone can do this about anything. Anyone can just presuppose they're right and be axiomatically consistent on literally anything.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're not smart for just presupposing you're right
            I specifically said the opposite, that a presupposition has nothing to do with "being right", unless your presupposition is specifically "I am right". Presupposing a universal truth has nothing to do with me being "right".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're presupposing a statement. Anyone can say "X is right, because I presupposed the impossibility of the contrary" to literally anything.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what a presupposition is. If I say "suppose it is raining outside", that does not mean "I am right that it is raining outside".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Saying "it is raining outside, because of the impossibility of the contrary" is.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >suppose it is raining outside
            Is different than saying
            >it is raining outside

            I don't know how to explain it any more clearly to you.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            But you're not saying "suppose god exists", you're saying "god MUST exist because of the impossibility of the contrary". Otherwise you accept the contrary is possible and thus atheism is a valid position.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not saying that either
            I'm saying that atheism collapses into a arbitrary wold view so what remains is theism

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm saying that atheism collapses into a arbitrary wold view so what remains is theism
            That doesn't leave only theism, it just leaves them both arbitrary. Saying "what remains is theism" implies atheism is impossible.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That doesn't leave only theism, it just leaves them both arbitrary. Saying "what remains is theism" implies atheism is impossible.
            prove theism is arbitrary

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            As a theist, theism is arbitrary because it requires faith, rather than being a belief based on empirical evidence. You can believe one way or the other, hence it is arbitrary.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            why does theism require faith

            Because it's based on presuppositions that cannot be proven in and of themselves, and thus is arbitrary. Do keep up.

            ok prove it

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why does theism require faith
            Because it requires some form of divine revelation, unless you are an agnostic theist.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >divine revelation
            Oh, those are the kinds of revelation that you cannot be wrong about?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I never said that. Please when you make a reply, try to reply to what is actually being said in that particular comment, instead of referring to other replies by other Anons.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If I just keep asking people to prove it I can't lose!
            Anon you were the one who originally stated that atheism is based on presuppositions, and thus is arbitrary. If you won't accept that then you literally have no argument.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Anon you were the one who originally stated that atheism is based on presuppositions, and thus is arbitrary. If you won't accept that then you literally have no argument.
            so you admit you're just making claims you can't prove?
            NEXT

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so you admit you're just making claims you can't prove?
            No YOU made that claim, that atheism is arbitrary because it's based on presuppositions. So any claim made based on presuppositions is arbitrary, and since Christianity is also based on presuppositions, it is thus also arbitrary. But sure go on, say prove it again.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No YOU made that claim, that atheism is arbitrary because it's based on presuppositions. So any claim made based on presuppositions is arbitrary, and since Christianity is also based on presuppositions
            prove Christianity is also based on presuppositions

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What else is it based on?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you made the claim so the burden of proof is on you

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon this isn't how arguments work, you have to give an alternative for what Christianity is based on if you're claiming it's not just based on presuppositions. You can't just keep asking for "proofs" over and over again

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't though, you made the claim and cannot prove it. simple as

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what is Christianity based on if not presuppositions? Surely you have an answer?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes but I'm here to argue against atheism not teach Christian theology.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what is the basis for Christian knowledge then? Because even Jay Dyer admits its based on presuppositions but I'd love to hear your answer for the basis of Christian knowledge.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because even Jay Dyer admits its based on presuppositions
            source?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What would you accept as proof that Christians base their worldview on presuppositions?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            an argument that holds up to scrutiny

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what is Christianity based on? You're not just being contrarian for the sake of it are you?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not making an argument, I'm asking what you think Christian epistemology is based on.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            well I guess you lose considering you can't make an argument

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well I can't argue against what you think Christian epistemology is based on if I don't know what you think Christian epistemology is based on. I guess I can't win an argument if you won't actually tell me what I'm arguing against.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you also can't win if you can't prove the claims you made
            maybe try to make arguments you understand next time

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well I can't make any claims against something if I don't know what that thing is, so yes indeed you've won. You're very smart anon, I indeed cannot prove something wrong if I don't know what it is. You've unlocked the secret to winning every argument ever.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You made the claims, or can you not keep up?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already did prove them, you just went "no" and that was that. I can't really prove anything to someone who'll never concede or agree on anything. It's not particularly hard to just disagree with your opponent on every single point. You can't prove your point that atheism is wrong due to the impossibility of the contrary either so we're even.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Careful, I'm using a proprietary definition of atheism (and I'm not gonna tell you what it is)
            I'm unbeatable, you can't hope to debunk my worldview

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you have to guess what I think, but I'm gonna be mad if you guess wrong
            Are you a woman?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove your claims

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm content with ending the conversation here.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            your entire argument rests on claims you cannot prove and when that is pointed out you run away
            your concession is accepted

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no argument, you are not making claims

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You feel like making any claims yourself? No?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's based on presuppositions that cannot be proven in and of themselves, and thus is arbitrary. Do keep up.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, there is one guy

            I'm not saying that either
            I'm saying that atheism collapses into a arbitrary wold view so what remains is theism

            who is saying that atheism is an arbitrary belief. I am saying that a presupposition is a belief that you presuppose.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            But that doesn't only leave theism, it just means they're both unprovable positions.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, that's correct. They are both arbitrary.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So it doesn't only leave theism, they're both potentially valid.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not saying that, this guy is

            I'm not saying that either
            I'm saying that atheism collapses into a arbitrary wold view so what remains is theism

            . You are having a conversation with more than one person. Respond to one person at a time instead of assuming everyone is one person.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did read the thread

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where? You've rambled for hours and I haven't seen anything that proved the impossibility to the contrary.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So essentially you're completely blind and have no idea if any of it is real or satan manipulating you, but somehow still think you're above atheists?
            >inb4 gay 'chad yes' response

            Can you prove you're not gay for Jay Dyer?

            You gays are bumping a GAY Dyer thread over 300. Christ this board is moronic.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jay Dylators, not like this...

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus Christ, everything has to be a debate with you morons. You know your own Bible is against debate, right?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look, we both know the only reason you grant the TAG argument is because you would like for Christianity to be true, and Jay is super handsome.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            now you're just speculating without any ability to show what you're saying is true

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's presupposing you're gay for Jay Dyer, which is a valid presupposition.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I used to talk to Jay on discord, but we had a falling out after a disagreement about the age of the Earth.

            Do you even disagree about Jay being handsome?
            Would you prefer for Christianity to be false?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's presupposing you're gay for Jay Dyer, which is a valid presupposition.

            >I'm mad at Jay Dyer
            lmao the absolute state of atheist morons

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are you talking about? I'm a Christian.
            I like Jay, and I wish he'd talk to me again

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you prove you're not gay for Jay Dyer?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It depends on why you reject the argument. If you don't deny the existence of universal truth, then the natural argument has persuaded you through reason. If you reject the claim of knowledge about the nature and substance of that truth from divine revelation, that would be a result of a lack of supernatural faith, which only God can give.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        How would you know it was divine revelation?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          That can only be known through faith.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know it isn't Satan lying to you?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you were mistaken about it being divine revelation, how could you figure it out?

            That would be a question of faith. You either believe it or you don't.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            By your inability to show he is

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have to for that to be a possible reality. Satan could make you believe he's actually god and deceive you, and you'd have no way of knowing otherwise.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            but if you can't show that is happening there is no reason to believe it is

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't show it's God either, so they're both equally possible. Essentially your entire salvation boils down to a dice roll even if you accept the Christian perspective.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're free to believe that Satan is a transcendental universal truth, I just don't think that makes sense, as Satan is a created being, Satan is not all good or all knowing, etc. If you believe in an all knowing, benevolent, timeless, spaceless, transcendent law giver, and wish to call that person Satan based on some vision, you are free to do so, but why?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're free to believe that Satan is a transcendental universal truth
            He doesn't have to be, you can only interact through experience of "revelation" but have no way of confirming the source of said revelation.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >have no way of confirming the source of said revelation
            Right... That's where faith comes in.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            So essentially you're completely blind and have no idea if any of it is real or satan manipulating you, but somehow still think you're above atheists?
            >inb4 gay 'chad yes' response

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if any of it is real
            What are we talking about here when you say "any of it"? Presumably, the nature of the source of objective truth and reality? It's possible that Satan has impersonated God and revealed Himself infallibly through divine revelation, but then where would the true God fit into all of this? Or are you supposing that Satan is the all powerful creator of the universe in this scenario?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How would you know whether a revelation was infallible or not?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the nature of a supernatural revelation. If it's not infallible, then it's not a supernatural revelation. I'm not saying "infallible" in the sense that I can't be mistaken about it, but that the nature of the truth revealed would be absolute truth.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Satan giving it to you would also be supernatural, how do you differentiate between them?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean by "Satan"? Do you mean a supernatural creator God who is the source of absolute truth? If you're talking "Satan" and referring to our common conception of Satan as a demon or fallen angel, that is not supernatural, as demons are created by God. Satan as a demon delivering a message is not supernatural.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How would you tell the difference then?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How would I tell the difference between what? Has God revealed Himself in this hypothetical scenario, or is this a hypothetical in which God has not revealed Himself but Satan has? I still need to know whether you are asking about Satan as a demon or simply calling God "Satan".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Has God revealed Himself in this hypothetical scenario
            Satan pretending to be God has revealed himself through revelation.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, Satan pretending to be God is not actually God. So in that scenario, there would be an actual God who would reveal Himself in an unmistakable way, thus proving the Satan impersonator to be a false God. In other words, the revelation of the true God would win out against the false religion of the imposter God.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know God will reveal himself to you? If you're an EO then there are many protestants who you believe have been deceived by Satan, despite them having faith. Why do you believe the other way around is impossible?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you know God will reveal himself to you?
            Supposing that God exists, why would he not want to make Himself known to us? Why would God allow us to be deceived by a lesser creature? It would be strange for God to create us in such a way that we cannot know Him. Eastern Orthodox and Protestants believe in the same God, so these alleged Protestants are mistaken.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you were mistaken about it being divine revelation, how could you figure it out?

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is incompatible with knowledge
    You can't have knowledge with the uniformity of nature. Nature is not uniform if there exist a God who interacts with nature, IE: Miracles

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I used to be an insecure and lonely young man, until I found Him

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean Jesus, btw

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist stops arguing and suddenly there are moronic low quality posts responding to other atheists
    obvious false flag

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's going in boring circles where the Dyerists they just start restating things that have already been argued against because the entire basis of their argument style is just arguing to the bump limit which they consider a win. It doesn't have to make sense, you just have to get the last post in.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        the atheists are the ones rage quitting

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Like I said, it's just about getting the last word in. We're now right back to the first few posts being literally reposted because that's just how they argue, getting the last word in rather than actually making sense. There's not much else to say, all the dyerist arguments have already been boiled down to "I'm right because I presupposed the impossibility of otherwise" What more is there to argue about when someones argument is that they're right because they're right?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm right because I presupposed the impossibility of otherwise
            Nobody is saying that, in fact I am specifically saying the opposite.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is what you're saying, you're saying theism must be right because I presuppose the impossibility of the contrary. That IS the argument you're making.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're not even arguing at this point you're just whining about something that isn't even true, you're clearly just trying to whining and play the victim

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            We literally have the tired old "atheism is wrong because its impossible for it to be right" argument which literally was brought out in the first few posts and already argued into the ground. It's dull to just go around in these circles over and over again.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            and you couldn't argue against that and now are mad and rage quitting. sorry but if you can't make a counter argument you lose

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have argued against it, multiple times. There's no valid reason to say theism is left because of the impossibility of the contrary if they're both arbitrary. He's an utter moron. If they're both equally arbitrary they're both equally possible.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You keep saying that but can't show it

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Look how it's always about *something* the atheist worldview cannot do
    But he never gets into how the Christian worldview can do it

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >impossibility of the contrary
    Impossibility is just to say that there's an entailed contradiction.
    Can you please tell us the contradiction entailed in the contrary (theism being false) ?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Impossibility is just to say that there's an entailed contradiction.
      But there isn't a contradiction, no one has been able to actually show where the contradiction in atheism is, just stating that it has a contradiction over and over.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is proof that there's no God who "grounds intelligibility"

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, it merely demonstrates that such a grounding belief must be presupposed rather than proven.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        If there was such a thing as God-intelligibility, 80% of the posts wouldn't be unintelligible

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          The intelligibility of a person's argument has nothing to do with the intelligibility of the universe.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seems like great evidence for the universe NOT being intelligible

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    WHAT THE FRICK IS THIS """ARIBITARY""" NONSENSE
    NO ONE USES WORDS THAT WAY
    THIS MAKES NO SENSEJ

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Right.
        And I'm not an atheist because of my individual preference or convenience, I'm an atheist because it has been revealed to me in a way that cannot be wrong
        I literally can't be mistaken about the truth of atheism, it would entail a contradiction (me being wrong, when I cannot be wrong)

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think you are once again mistaking me for the other Anon, because I never said or implied anything about that in my reply.

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just asking questions, gayz

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm an atheist and I can know stuff with 100% certainty
    I know that I'm not God.

    Prove me wrong. You cannot.

  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    How many people have converted to Dyerism yet cuz of this thread?

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >uses presup
    Jay is one to talk about fallacies

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wow, these Christians don't really talk about Jesus that much

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *