Atheism & Logic 

Another great show thank you brother Must have listened to the Bahnsen /Stein debate a few dozen times over the years Incredibly helpful and great to share with others seeking to better under presupp Thanks again brother

Always entertaining when a presup tries their hand at logic and falls flat on their face 😂. This is your brain on god y'all.

As an atheist, I am interested in how the pressuppositional method works. How would a presuppositionalist approach someone like me? I am willing to answer any questions concerning my current convictions if that is how this method works.

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented withany _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ 11. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

presuppositional apologetics is the equivalent of a child being overly pleased with themselves for painting their first picture of their house and family and announcing that not only is it the best and most accurate painting ever painted, but it's the only painting that matters.

If Van Tli wasn't a philosopher, then Rousseau wasn't a social influencer.

Simply put, we all have an ‘authority’ or foundation by which our worldview is formed, thus leading to our interpretations of the world around us, and the fundamental meanings of life. The ultimate question is whether or not your ‘authority’ or foundation for your worldview is TRUE or FALSE. Truth is objective, not subjective, so there is always ONE truth. The idea that someone can have their truth, while I have mine, is illogical at its core. Someone is wrong, and someone is right. I’ll side with the Only God of the Universe…not a fallible, finite, depraved human that claims logic and reason with no basis. The idea that we are just “matter in motion” cannot coherently provide a basis for any type of logic, reasoning, or intelligence. “The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭1‬:‭7‬ ‭

Did you see the AI Atheist vs AI Christian debate? Both were terrible.

Love Bahnsen's work.

Hiding comments is a sign of insecurity by the way.

Eli, when talking with an atheist or anyone for that matter and they say, "Prove that christianity is true.", do you think it wise to respond like this, "Give me you definition of "prove" but remember that your definition will be used against you."? I am thinking that their definition, when used in regards to their life, beliefs etc. will be seen...well, they will be seen to be a liar. Thanks. 1 John 4:10,11

Question for Presups: Mathematics and therefore logic, is provably incomplete - meaning that under ANY rigorous system of thought, there will always be propositions that cannot be proven true or false. How do you square that fact with your UNJUSTIFIED ASSERTION that your god underlies THAT reality?

Bring back another episode of Sayala

The logic argument is moronic. Broadly we have two ideas of logic. One is the idea of deductive logic as developed by the Greeks. This broadly is an extension of rhetoric. It is a way of structuring language. It is not a map of actual mental process. The other logical method is induction. It is a process rather than a set of laws. People find out about reality by working out theories and trying to falsify them. Unlike deductive logic it is not a subjective process. People publish findings so that their theories and experiments can be reproduced and counter check. Philosophy has been a human dead end. It has produced the humor theory of medicine, the phlogiston theory of combustion and the uses of blood letting in medicine. The deductive process is a human construct that now days has not practical application outside universities which study it largely out of nostalgia

I dig the presuppositional apologetic. But if you're going to say the accusation of it question begging is a laughably bad refutation, perhaps you could demonstrate it as such rather than just dismissing it.

Thanks for the uploads brother. Dont know what it is, but I cant youtube download this video in particular like I normally with all your other videos.

It seems like a reformed vs secular world view thing. Reformed thinkers have an advantage in approaching presup compared to secular thinkers like Craig because they don't take their starting points for granted. Craig doesnt understand reformed theology or presup because he doesn't have a biblical world view and appears to reject any philosophy unless the thinkers starts from a secular world view (aka myth of neutrality).

It seems the *real* and actual *best* (so called) argument against presuppositionalism isn't an argument at all, but rather a strategy of intellectually dishonest gas-lighting and a staunch refusal to reason. "What's the argument for premise 1???" ... repeated ad nauseam. Dr. Malpass, for his part, seems to have accepted the false premise that Van Tillian presuppositionalism is just one more would-be straight-forward, classical-style argument, stated in premise, premise, conclusion form. My push-back is to assert that this is never at all what Van Til had in mind. (I've been doing a study on the history of the presup development and trying to track down the first usage of so-called "TAG" - it seems to have come from a group of Bahnsen's students who were reading philosophy and trying to imitate some of the analytic philosophers of their day. Bahnsen just kind of went with it, but you can tell he wasn't married to the "TAG" jargon). In any case, if we side with Van Til and conceive of our apologetic method as a meta-undercutting-defeater for all intellectual attacks against Christianity, this takes the teeth out of pretty much everything the good Dr. Malpass has done. Otherwise, Malpass has helpfully kept us on our toes and he certainly helped clarify the issues with Matt Slick's formulation of TAG, but this is all really beside the point. We need biting criticism and a chomp-worthy atheist worldview that can actually stand on its own in contention with Christianity. Dr. Malpass, other than vague hand-waving towards undefined platonic metaphysics, hasn't given us anything like this. Nor have any of the Discord atheists.