Apologetics to the Glory of God

Reasonable Doubts About Devastating Arguments

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2012/02/22/episode-98-presuppositional-apologetics-part-2/#comment-7065

Jeremy says:

February 23, 2012 at 2:14 am

There are plenty of arguments our listeners mentioned that we didn’t get to in this episode. Some that are just as devastating as the ones we did provide. Which bible are we presupposing the truth of? What about other valid TAG arguments that arrive at different conclusions? How can all other possible sources for logic be eliminated? So many problems with presuppositionalism, so little time. But we will be addressing more of these critiques and talking about our atheistic foundations in a near-future episode. At the moment we are switching gears to plan our live 100th episode special. Hope you guys and gals can join us for that!

1. Which bible are we presupposing the truth of?

The Christian Bible. Weren’t you listening?

2. What about other valid TAG arguments that arrive at different conclusions?

There aren’t any. Fallacy of complex question.

3. How can all other possible sources for logic be eliminated?

Pigeonholing. What is your actual account of logic?

So many problems with presuppositionalism, so little time.

So you say. You are wasting time on questions that are not problems at all.

Posted

in

by

C. L. Bolt

Tags:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

20 responses to “Reasonable Doubts About Devastating Arguments”

  1. Dennis Mackulin Avatar
    Dennis Mackulin

    nicely handled

    Reply
  2. Phil Stilwell Avatar
    Phil Stilwell

    Suppose non-christian religion X presupposes their god is actually the true source of logic. How do you respond?

    Reply
  3. C.L. Bolt Avatar
    C.L. Bolt

    By asking for an argument, rather than a mere assertion.

    Reply
  4. Phil Stilwell Avatar
    Phil Stilwell

    And what is your argument behind your presupposition?

    Reply
    1. C.L. Bolt Avatar
      C.L. Bolt

      The argument for my presupposition is transcendental.

      Reply
      1. Phil Stilwell Avatar
        Phil Stilwell

        Religion X can invoke the very same transcendental arguments to support their presupposition that it is actually their god that is the true source of logic.

        Reply
        1. C.L. Bolt Avatar
          C.L. Bolt

          And again, I would ask for an argument rather than an assertion.

          Reply
          1. Phil Stilwell Avatar
            Phil Stilwell

            Religion X will give you the very same transcendental arguments for their god you give them for your god.

          2. C.L. Bolt Avatar
            C.L. Bolt

            You have already made that claim. That is your assertion. Please provide an argument.

          3. Phil Stilwell Avatar
            Phil Stilwell

            The argument has been made.
            Conclusion: The transcendental arguments you make for your god give your god as much ontological legitimacy as they do for any other god that can be undergirded by the same transcendental arguments.

            I’ll let you ponder the degree of legitimacy you must necessarily distribute evenly among all gods invoking transcendental arguments.

          4. C.L. Bolt Avatar
            C.L. Bolt

            You have not made a transcendental argument for the existence of any other god in this thread, nor have you linked to one. Hence your claim that the argument has been made is false. You are lying, and doing so in an obvious fashion.

            Your “Conclusion” merely repeats the same naked assertion you have already made several times in this thread. And so I will repeat again that you have not made the alleged argument you repeatedly cite. Perhaps you do not know the difference between a mere assertion and an argument. I do not know, but whatever you are trying to convince people of here, you have failed miserably.

          5. Phil Stilwell Avatar
            Phil Stilwell

            A bit thick today I see.

            Let’s simplify this for your speed one premise at a time.

            P1. A religion X can exists that invokes the very same transcendental arguments for its god Y that you do for your Jehovah.

            On board so far?

          6. C.L. Bolt Avatar
            C.L. Bolt

            Yes. You have stated as a premise the same claim you have repeated a number of times now. A premise is not an argument. Neither is your premise supported thus far. So are you going to get to the point?

          7. Phil Stilwell Avatar
            Phil Stilwell

            Excellent! Correct! A premise is not an argument.

            P2. The god of any religion that is ontologically based on the same arguments that your god is based on, has the same ontological status as your god.

            Are you following along? We’re almost there.

          8. C.L. Bolt Avatar
            C.L. Bolt

            Yes, “Excellent!” and “Correct!” So like I said, you were lying when you stated that you had made an argument.

            “P2. The god of any religion that is ontologically based on the same arguments that your god is based on, has the same ontological status as your god.”

            I don’t know what it means for a god to be “ontologically based on” an argument or for gods to share an “ontological status.”

  5. Andrew Ryan Avatar
    Andrew Ryan

    “Which bible are we presupposing the truth of? The Christian Bible. Weren’t you listening?”

    That’s a glib, sarcastic, response that misses the point. There are many, many different versions of the Christians Bible, which often differ considerably. This point WAS made clear on the show recently when they discussed the differences between different editions of the King James Bible.

    Reply
    1. C.L. Bolt Avatar
      C.L. Bolt

      Then “the point” is not sufficiently clear. I did not listen to “the show” you reference. Yes, there are many different versions of the Christian Bible. What specifically is your question? We presuppose the ontological Word, the original autographa being theopneustos (God breathed), and their copies and translations being faithful to the original. Where they are not faithful, we do not accept them, but you would need to move into specifics here rather than speaking in generalities.

      Reply
  6. Andrew Ryan Avatar
    Andrew Ryan

    “Then “the point” is not sufficiently clear.”

    I don’t see what other interpretation one could make from ‘which bible are we presupposing the truth of’. ‘The bible’ almost universally refers to the Christian bible. You say elsewhere that you are well aware that there’s more than one version, so the meaning of the question ‘which bible’ should not have been too opaque to you. There’s no crime in not understanding something, but the smart thing to do is either not leap to a conclusion or ask for elucidation. Glib “weren’t you listening?”-style sarcastic responses do not advance the conversation.

    Reply
    1. C.L. Bolt Avatar
      C.L. Bolt

      What do you mean you do not see what other interpretation one could make? Didn’t you just jump on me for interpreting the question differently from what you did? Are you following the conversation? The term “bible” is not exclusively Christian. In fact it just means “book,” and generally when I am asked the question that is the focus of this conversation it pertains to other religious texts outside of Christianity. As the question stands apart from your commentary it is vague, contrary to your dogmatic assertions to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with sarcasm in and of itself, and your complaint that it did not advance the conversation is demonstrably false in virtue of this very conversation.

      Now to restate my question to you, what, specifically, is your question regarding the different versions of the Bible?

      Reply
  7. Rhology Avatar
    Rhology

    Cue appearance of Flying Spaghetti Monster in 3…2…1…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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