Preconditional Worldview

[AronRa]

I got into it with a presuppositional apologist who actually imagined that his is the "worldview" which "cogently provides the preconditions of intelligible experience": as if he knows what that even means. So we had that discussion, and he thinks I went off-topic. I wonder if anyone here agrees?



Prior to this discussion, I told him that presuppositional apologetics was "a branch of religious belief wherein the believer asserts that he is right simply because he believes he is right." He accused me of committing a straw-man fallacy, but he demonstrated in our discussion that I got it right, didn't he?

After this discussion, he read the comments on the video and of course couldn't accept any of the criticisms coming from every single poster there. So rather than consider that maybe all those people had a point, he deflected all that with his confirmation bias and challenged them all to debate him. Get that? After he's already shown his hand and what an inevitable failure his argument is, he still wants to continue! As if reading the same script to someone else would get a different result, especially after they already heard what's wrong with it.

Then he challenged me to a moderated debate. Because his position is obviously based entirely on a word game, just like Sye ten Bruggencate's. Thus he can't go off-script. He said that "a moderated and formatted debate would allow for fair exchange for both of us. No talking over the other person and interrupting them. We can BOTH voice our positions without being stopped mid sentence."

I replied to his challenge, saying "You don't have a position. I pointed out in the beginning that faith means pretending to know things you don't know and asserting unsupported and indefensible speculation as if it was fact. I pointed out how both of these are deliberately deceptive misrepresentations, in other words, lies. I pointed out how apologetics is dishonest too, in that you simply refuse to admit when you're wrong despite any amount of evident or logical proof. So that's all you did, make false assertions and ignore all the proof that you're wrong. I can prove that I know what I know, but you can't defend or support any of the obviously indefensible nonsense you only make-believe. So what is there to debate?"

But he persisted. "There is something to debate and I think it's worth doing in a formatted and moderated fashion. No interruptions, no jumping around from topic to another.... Surely you're not intimidated to do things the right way?"

Now he's going to call me chicken and pretend that it's even possible for me to intimidated? By anyone, much less him? See how delusional this guy is?

So why did I create a thread here? Because I'll do it the right way, but I won't do it HIS way. If the goal is to convince the other person, then it can't be a moderated debate, because a debate will never achieve my goal. This guy is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, and that is glaringly obvious to everyone but him. So I'm going to give him the uninterruptible exchange that he wants in the hope of conducting an experiment, Is it possible to get HIM to realize where, why and how he's wrong? I think I can do that. Even if I can't, then at the very least, I can expose his dishonesty again as a matter of public record.

So to open this up, I'll repeat what I told him in an earlier text message: "I define Rationalism as "A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated." So you explain to me how you think being rational is irrational."

 

[joshua040103]

I got into it with a presuppositional apologist who actually imagined that his is the "worldview" which "cogently provides the preconditions of intelligible experience": as if he knows what that even means. So we had that discussion, and he thinks I went off-topic. I wonder if anyone here agrees?



Prior to this discussion, I told him that presuppositional apologetics was "a branch of religious belief wherein the believer asserts that he is right simply because he believes he is right." He accused me of committing a straw-man fallacy, but he demonstrated in our discussion that I got it right, didn't he?

After this discussion, he read the comments on the video and of course couldn't accept any of the criticisms coming from every single poster there. So rather than consider that maybe all those people had a point, he deflected all that with his confirmation bias and challenged them all to debate him. Get that? After he's already shown his hand and what an inevitable failure his argument is, he still wants to continue! As if reading the same script to someone else would get a different result, especially after they already heard what's wrong with it.

Then he challenged me to a moderated debate. Because his position is obviously based entirely on a word game, just like Sye ten Bruggencate's. Thus he can't go off-script. He said that "a moderated and formatted debate would allow for fair exchange for both of us. No talking over the other person and interrupting them. We can BOTH voice our positions without being stopped mid sentence."

I replied to his challenge, saying "You don't have a position. I pointed out in the beginning that faith means pretending to know things you don't know and asserting unsupported and indefensible speculation as if it was fact. I pointed out how both of these are deliberately deceptive misrepresentations, in other words, lies. I pointed out how apologetics is dishonest too, in that you simply refuse to admit when you're wrong despite any amount of evident or logical proof. So that's all you did, make false assertions and ignore all the proof that you're wrong. I can prove that I know what I know, but you can't defend or support any of the obviously indefensible nonsense you only make-believe. So what is there to debate?"

But he persisted. "There is something to debate and I think it's worth doing in a formatted and moderated fashion. No interruptions, no jumping around from topic to another.... Surely you're not intimidated to do things the right way?"

Now he's going to call me chicken and pretend that it's even possible for me to intimidated? By anyone, much less him? See how delusional this guy is?

So why did I create a thread here? Because I'll do it the right way, but I won't do it HIS way. If the goal is to convince the other person, then it can't be a moderated debate, because a debate will never achieve my goal. This guy is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, and that is glaringly obvious to everyone but him. So I'm going to give him the uninterruptible exchange that he wants in the hope of conducting an experiment, Is it possible to get HIM to realize where, why and how he's wrong? I think I can do that. Even if I can't, then at the very least, I can expose his dishonesty again as a matter of public record.

So to open this up, I'll repeat what I told him in an earlier text message: "I define Rationalism as "A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated." So you explain to me how you think being rational is irrational."

Rationalism as an epistemic position is irrational as it leaves an individual with no choice but to assume the validity of their reasoning as a means to justify their reasoning. This is akin to folding measuring tape in on itself to ascertain it's accuracy. Certainly you must see the viciously circular nature of such a position. You could, and you have asserted that I also appeal to my reasoning to justify my reasoning; but such an assertion is merely an example of the tu quoque (you too) fallacy. At its base, your justification for your reasoning is logically fallacious, and as a consequence, all subsequent claims you assert are by default arbitrary, question begging conjecture founded by bias and utterly lacking objective authority requiring any effort for consideration.

My justification for my reasoning is founded on Scripture (the ultimate foundation for my philosophical framework). We are specially created and designed with the purpose of knowing God, learning about what's been created, and acting as stewards over His creation. We are imago dei (image of God), therefore the concept of valid reasoning is a logical inevitability of my worldview as we can recognize and utilize universal logical constants, and on my worldview, it's also an objective moral imperative to do so.

Now I'll ask you this...

If naturalism is true, meaning that all causation between events is naturalistic; then on what basis do you presume that you have the capacity to freely choose the better between two propositions? Keep in mind that in light of naturalistic presuppositions, your thoughts are merely the necessary byproducts of matter moving through time in accordance to fixed laws of chemistry, biology, and physics.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

Rationalism as an epistemic position is irrational as it leaves an individual with no choice but to assume the validity of their reasoning as a means to justify their reasoning.

An erroneous capitulation. For example, an independent validator would be how well one's rationality coincides with observable outcomes in the external world.

This correspondence theory of truth is hardly a novel concept, nor a new one but dates back nearly as far as the first recorded instances of philosophy.

This is akin to folding measuring tape in on itself to ascertain it's accuracy.

Another erroneous notion - the measuring tape IS the rationalisation, and it is used to measure things other than the tape according to prespecified definitions. The defining lengths are wholly arbitrary, but so long as we all understand them, then meaning can be conveyed, and that's what a tape measure is for - rationalizing distances.

Certainly you must see the viciously circular nature of such a position.

Of your capitulation, yes. But your capitulation is stunted and contrived. A valid context of rationalism doesn't possess the flaw you've mistakenly assigned to it.

You could, and you have asserted that I also appeal to my reasoning to justify my reasoning; but such an assertion is merely an example of the tu quoque (you too) fallacy. At its base, your justification for your reasoning is logically fallacious, and as a consequence, all subsequent claims you assert are by default arbitrary, question begging conjecture founded by bias and utterly lacking objective authority requiring any effort for consideration.

Exuberantly wrong, and blindly misinformed. See above.

My justification for my reasoning is founded on Scripture (the ultimate foundation for my philosophical framework).

An utterly absurd notion of justification. Just because something is written down, doesn't make it valid. It must also correspond to reality, and scripture doesn't. Instead, it attempts to dictate reality, but does so through the lens of iron age humans and their restricted knowledge of the mechanisms of the natural world. As scripture is provably wrong in dozens of cases, it cannot form a basis for justified reasoning.

In reality, as well we all know, scripture doesn't actually provide you or anyone a basis for reasoning - it is an a-rational faith position which pre-empts all reasoning, thereby demanding that anything you reason conforms to it, rather than the other way round. As it is provably in error in numerous cases, if your basis for reason was predicated solely on scripture, then you would necessarily be incapable of reason.

We are specially created and designed with the purpose of knowing God, learning about what's been created, and acting as stewards over His creation. We are imago dei (image of God), therefore the concept of valid reasoning is a logical inevitability of my worldview as we can recognize and utilize universal logical constants, and on my worldview, it's also an objective moral imperative to do so.

Presuppositional hogwash.

Now I'll ask you this...

If naturalism is true, meaning that all causation between events is naturalistic; then on what basis do you presume that you have the capacity to freely choose the better between two propositions?

Cognition, reason, empathy, experience and, of course, independent arbitration via evidential results to hypothetical propositions. Naturalism isn't in conflict with these, so your question holds only a non-sequitur.

Keep in mind that in light of naturalistic presuppositions, your thoughts are merely the necessary byproducts of matter moving through time in accordance to fixed laws of chemistry, biology, and physics.

No, they are not - your capitulation is flawed, and your assumptions are manufactured.

 

[MarsCydonia]

So why did I create a thread here? Because I'll do it the right way, but I won't do it HIS way. If the goal is to convince the other person, then it can't be a moderated debate, because a debate will never achieve my goal. This guy is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, and that is glaringly obvious to everyone but him. So I'm going to give him the uninterruptible exchange that he wants in the hope of conducting an experiment, Is it possible to get HIM to realize where, why and how he's wrong? I think I can do that. Even if I can't, then at the very least, I can expose his dishonesty again as a matter of public record.

Can a mod move the comments of Aron Ra and joshua040103 to the Active Debates and restrict it to them only?

This way
- They can have their discussion without any of the participants feeling the need to claim the conversation is tainted by the interference of other participants
- Other forum users can comment here about their discussion with interrupting it.

 

[Rumraket]

My justification for my reasoning is founded on Scripture (the ultimate foundation for my philosophical framework).

You need to be able to reason first, in order to make sense of scripture.

Done, case closed. That is presuppositionalism defeated.

 

[joshua040103]

So why did I create a thread here? Because I'll do it the right way, but I won't do it HIS way. If the goal is to convince the other person, then it can't be a moderated debate, because a debate will never achieve my goal. This guy is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, and that is glaringly obvious to everyone but him. So I'm going to give him the uninterruptible exchange that he wants in the hope of conducting an experiment, Is it possible to get HIM to realize where, why and how he's wrong? I think I can do that. Even if I can't, then at the very least, I can expose his dishonesty again as a matter of public record.

Can a mod move the comments of Aron Ra and joshua040103 to the Active Debates and restrict it to them only?

This way
- They can have their discussion without any of the participants feeling the need to claim the conversation is tainted by the interference of other participants
- Other forum users can comment here about their discussion with interrupting it.

Thank you for your comment.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[joshua040103]

My justification for my reasoning is founded on Scripture (the ultimate foundation for my philosophical framework).

You need to be able to reason first, in order to make sense of scripture.

Done, case closed. That is presuppositionalism defeated.

A person can believe something to be true before having justification for said belief. The justification for that which I presuppose is found in God's revealed word. So I went from assuming blindly the validity of my reasoning, to discovering the justification for that assumption.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Rumraket]

A person can believe something to be true before having justification for said belief. The justification for that which I presuppose is found in God's revealed word. So I went from assuming blindly the validity of my reasoning, to discovering the justification for that assumption.

Just becaues you find something that agrees with your pressupposition doesn't mean you have then demonstrated (to yourself or anyone else) that the presupposition is sound.

I could blindly presuppose that Kim Jong Un is the greatest human being who ever lived. Me then finding a copy of some North Korean propaganda-screed that agrees with my presupposition isn't a "justification" that somehow validates my presupposition as a fact of reality.

Regardless of all that, what you wrote did not address my point at all. We are talking about the ability to make presuppositions in the first place. You have to implicitly presuppose that you are able to reason, in order to blindly believe that scripture is true. Blindly believing that scripture of some particular type says something true, requires the ability to reason. So to begin with, you implicitly, even if just subconsciously, were acting as if you were able to reason in the first place.

Whatever it is you do, in so far as you do it, you have presupposed you are even able to do it. Presupposing something, whether that is presupposing that scripture says true things, or just presupposing that God exists, the very act of making presuppositions is to take a metaphysical stance of some sort. To do that, you have to implicitly assume you can do metaphysics, which means reason correctly.

There is no way around this. When you do metaphysics, whatever it is, make presuppositions, analyze arguments, think about scripture, you are implicitly assuming you can reason. It is the most foundational of all assumptions. You can't not make it in so far as any thought at all takes place in your mind. Like talking about movement of some entity assumes a spatial or temporal dimension in which to move.

 

[joshua040103]

A person can believe something to be true before having justification for said belief. The justification for that which I presuppose is found in God's revealed word. So I went from assuming blindly the validity of my reasoning, to discovering the justification for that assumption.

Just becaues you find something that agrees with your pressupposition doesn't mean you have then demonstrated (to yourself or anyone else) that the presupposition is sound.

I could blindly presuppose that Kim Jong Un is the greatest human being who ever lived. Me then finding a copy of some North Korean propaganda-screed that agrees with my presupposition isn't a "justification" that somehow validates my presupposition as a fact of reality.

Regardless of all that, what you wrote did not address my point at all. We are talking about the ability to make presuppositions in the first place. You have to implicitly presuppose that you are able to reason, in order to blindly believe that scripture is true. Blindly believing that scripture of some particular type says something true, requires the ability to reason. So to begin with, you implicitly, even if just subconsciously, were acting as if you were able to reason in the first place.

Whatever it is you do, in so far as you do it, you have presupposed you are even able to do it. Presupposing something, whether that is presupposing that scripture says true things, or just presupposing that God exists, the very act of making presuppositions is to take a metaphysical stance of some sort. To do that, you have to implicitly assume you can do metaphysics, which means reason correctly.

There is no way around this. When you do metaphysics, whatever it is, make presuppositions, analyze arguments, think about scripture, you are implicitly assuming you can reason. It is the most foundational of all assumptions. You can't not make it in so far as any thought at all takes place in your mind. Like talking about movement of some entity assumes a spatial or temporal dimension in which to move.

This is a discussion between myself and Aron Ra. If you read his initial post, you'd probably understand that this isn't the place for your conjecture.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[joshua040103]

Just becaues you find something that agrees with your pressupposition doesn't mean you have then demonstrated (to yourself or anyone else) that the presupposition is sound.

I could blindly presuppose that Kim Jong Un is the greatest human being who ever lived. Me then finding a copy of some North Korean propaganda-screed that agrees with my presupposition isn't a "justification" that somehow validates my presupposition as a fact of reality.

Regardless of all that, what you wrote did not address my point at all. We are talking about the ability to make presuppositions in the first place. You have to implicitly presuppose that you are able to reason, in order to blindly believe that scripture is true. Blindly believing that scripture of some particular type says something true, requires the ability to reason. So to begin with, you implicitly, even if just subconsciously, were acting as if you were able to reason in the first place.

Whatever it is you do, in so far as you do it, you have presupposed you are even able to do it. Presupposing something, whether that is presupposing that scripture says true things, or just presupposing that God exists, the very act of making presuppositions is to take a metaphysical stance of some sort. To do that, you have to implicitly assume you can do metaphysics, which means reason correctly.

There is no way around this. When you do metaphysics, whatever it is, make presuppositions, analyze arguments, think about scripture, you are implicitly assuming you can reason. It is the most foundational of all assumptions. You can't not make it in so far as any thought at all takes place in your mind. Like talking about movement of some entity assumes a spatial or temporal dimension in which to move.

This is a discussion between myself and Aron Ra. If you read his initial post, you'd probably understand that this isn't the place for your conjecture.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

If you wish to carry out a discussion with me, here's a link to my page.

https://www.facebook.com/BACDM/

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[AronRa]

Before I get into this, I'd like to let everyone know who Joshua is. He brags that he's been an apologist for over a decade, as if that's a good thing. As if that is any different than admitting to being a fraudulent snake-oil salesman for over a decade. Today he sent me a private message saying, "You know what. You really screwed me over in our discussion. You interupted me AT EVERY TURN and the majority of your minions don't have the sense to see it! If you had any sense of decency, you'd take me up on my challenge for a moderated debate with a format."

So I'll remind him and everyone else reading this that (1) I don't have any minions, and (2) I started this thread to give Joshua the uninterrupted format he wants, because I obviously HAVE a sense of decency, where he seems not to. But as i have twice pointed out to him already, and he somehow still hasn't pieced together, it cannot be a debate because I don't want it to be the two of us talking past each other to convince a third party. I'm trying to reason with Joshua himself. That's why it can't be a debate. Hopefully after repeating this explanation three times now, I won't have to explain it to him a fourth time.

Rationalism as an epistemic position is irrational as it leaves an individual with no choice but to assume the validity of their reasoning as a means to justify their reasoning.

Except that I have the advantage of objective verification. I can inquire of others to check my math and counter my conclusions and explain any corrections in a manner I can understand and accept. And if it turns out that I am insane, that method will also get me the help that I need. You have none of these advantages as you insist on your own subjective interpretations and reject any and all evidence that you're wrong.

This is akin to folding measuring tape in on itself to ascertain it's accuracy.

As has already been pointed out, the measuring tape is the metric, the standard to be measured against. So your analogy fails.

Certainly you must see the viciously circular nature of such a position.

Once again, as I have already pointed out in the video above, even Sye ten Bruggencate admitted that his [your] position is circular. He [and you] said that my position is "viciously circular" [despite my use of objective verification which makes it not circular], and he says that his [your] position was "virtuously circular"--despite the fact that it is only an empty assertion which is evidently not virtuous at all, and is instead based on, and is entirely dependent on lies.

You could, and you have asserted that I also appeal to my reasoning to justify my reasoning; but such an assertion is merely an example of the tu quoque (you too) fallacy.

No sir, it is not a fallacy but a demonstrable fact. You claim--without any justification whatsoever--that you're not using your reasoning to justify your reasoning only because you have imagined an arbitrary external source, one which not only can't possibly exist, but which clearly does not provide for your reasoning either, as we will soon see. Instead you use your reasoning to interpret a haphazard compilation of man-made mythology, while pretending that you "presuppose" what you hadn't even read yet. and you clearly don't understand even what you have read.

At its base, your justification for your reasoning is logically fallacious, and as a consequence, all subsequent claims you assert are by default arbitrary, question begging conjecture founded by bias and utterly lacking objective authority requiring any effort for consideration.

You're talking about yourself now; not me. Your position is based entirely on question-begging conjecture, (and we can prove that) where mine does not even permit that. My position seeks to minimize or eliminate bias wherever and however possible. Your position however requires confirmation bias for its very maintenance, and this is by public admission even by other presuppositionalists, as well as many authorities in philosophy too.

My justification for my reasoning is founded on Scripture (the ultimate foundation for my philosophical framework).

No, it isn't. Because apart from the fact that everything your scripture says is at least unsupported absurdity if not demonstrable falsity too, your scripture doesn't support you in this or anything else. If it did, you'd at least be able to cite that. But you can't.

Nor could Sye ten Bruggencate or Isaac Newton, who both drew opposite conclusions which they both said were based on the same scripture. In the video linked above, you agreed that at least one of them had to be wrong, which is a damning admission, although I'm sure you don't realize that yet. Because both men claimed to have received special revelation by God through scripture, when in fact what really happened is that both men relied on their reasoning to justify their interpretation of the works of ignorant primitive men which were later misrepresented as being the word of God.

Since you accept that at least one of these men logically must be wrong, then how could we tell which one it is? Do you also accept either the evident probability or obvious possibility that BOTH men could be wrong?

We are specially created and designed with the purpose of knowing God, learning about what's been created, and acting as stewards over His creation.

Do you remember what I said about asserting empty unsupported and indefensible speculation as though it were factual? Do you understand why that is already tantamount to lying? Especially when your claims are clearly false! My very existence, as well as the 2/3 majority of people on this planet who don't believe in your god stand as testament to that.

You should understand that it is dishonest to cite facts that are not facts.
You should understand that it is dishonest to claim "truths" that are either not evidently true or are evidently not true.
You should also understand that it is dishonest to say you know things you don't know. That the only time you can claim to know something is when you can demonstrate your accuracy and SHOW that you know what you say you do.

Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass: in other words, effectively lying. You're an example of what Hitchens' was talking about when when he said, "Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

We are imago dei (image of God),

Why is God in the image of an evolved ape?

therefore the concept of valid reasoning is a logical inevitability of my worldview as we can recognize and utilize universal logical constants,

Yet what you call universal logical constants include mathematics and the laws of nature, none of which are to be found in your scripture. Much of your scripture was written before the number zero was invented, and is consequently based on the Mesopotamian sexegessimal [base 60] numeric system. That's why all the ages in the Old Testament are exaggerated by multiples of either ten or twelve depending on translation.

Each of the laws of nature were observations made by men, and some of these had to be corrected, because not even one of them was ever decreed by your god in any scripture.

and on my worldview, it's also an objective moral imperative to do so.

You don't know what valid reasoning is. For one thing, it isn't objective if your judgment is only influenced by personal feelings or opinions and regardless of facts. That's SUBjective, and quite the opposite.

Now I'll ask you this...

If naturalism is true, meaning that all causation between events is naturalistic; then on what basis do you presume that you have the capacity to freely choose the better between two propositions? Keep in mind that in light of naturalistic presuppositions, your thoughts are merely the necessary byproducts of matter moving through time in accordance to fixed laws of chemistry, biology, and physics.

As I told you before, I have no "naturalistic presuppositions". I was open to the idea of supernatural things when I was a child, and have since grown up to realize that they are both wholly unsupported and impossible. So that is not a presupposition.

"If naturalism is true?" Are you saying the natural world doesn't or might not exist? Because I think we're both pretty certain the natural universe is real. But we don't have any reason to believe there is also a magical supernatural realm too. So what you really mean to say is "if supernaturalism is false..." Because naturalism is already true either way.

Once again, I have to point out that even Hume said that we have no choice but to make the same assumption as a child or a beast would, that what our senses report about the world around us must be real to some degree. Therefore Hume's answer is to favor consistency. That everything we do in life is based on the assumption that we can learn from experience and that the future will conform to the past. We can't even go about our day otherwise.

In the words of Dr Peter Millican, professor of Philosophy at Oxford, "the rational thing to do is accept that we are part of nature and that this assumption is one that we simply cannot live without. So we should systematize what we learn about the world in conformity with our model of an assumption of consistently uniform laws of nature. Hume himself advocates that we must assume this," and "it gives a reliable basis for preferring science to superstition".

In Hume's own words, "Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone, which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past. Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. We should never know how to adjust means to ends, or to employ our natural powers in the production of any effect. There would be an end at once of all action, as well as of the chief part of speculation."

He also explains how, by this assumption, we can actually know things reliably and without resorting to any logical fallacy.

"But here it may be proper to remark, that though our conclusions from experience carry us beyond our memory and senses, and assure us of matters of fact, which happened in the most distant places and most remote ages; yet some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first proceed in drawing these conclusions. A man, who should find in a desert country the remains of pompous buildings, would conclude, that the country had, in ancient times, been cultivated by civilized inhabitants; but did nothing of this nature occur to him, he could never form such an inference. We learn the events of former ages from history; but then we must peruse the volumes, in which this instruction is contained, and thence carry up our inferences from one testimony to another, till we arrive at the eye-witnesses and spectators of these distant events. In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact, present to the memory or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however the particular links might be connected with each other, the whole chain of inferences would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence."

Another thing Sye ten Bruggencate liked to say was, "how do you know the laws of physics won't change five seconds from now." But of course if we assume that the laws of physics WILL change, that would be irrational, as it is not based on or in accordance with reason, and it violates all experience on which our knowledge is based. Further someone determined not to assume any degree of uniformitarianism would likewise be perceived as insane and incapable, since it would be impossible to get anything done.

So of course I have to side with the pragmatist. Since Hume said we must inevitably and irresistibly assume uniformitarianism, and since it is impossible not to make this assumption and still function, then induction could be considered the only rational position by definition, especially since assuming anything else would be considered irrational.

So it's not a circular position at all. You and I both agreed--because we have to--that reality is real. That means that we both rely on our senses for information, with the awareness that there are other minds independent of our own. The only difference between us is that I can use objective verification to test what I think I know, while you reject all of that. Yet you call ME irrational?

And again, I must remind you that if we are just brains in a vat, then your god does not exist, since it is based on the Bible and the Bible is false in the Matrix. But if reality is real, which it is by definition, then your god still doesn't exist, because it is based on the Bible, and the Bible is demonstrably wrong about practically everything back to front.

Now, be sure to answer each my questions when you reply. I hate when apologists habitually duck and dodge every point or query that shows how vacuous your position really is.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is a discussion between myself and Aron Ra. If you read his initial post, you'd probably understand that this isn't the place for your conjecture.

This is a forum that neither you nor he own, and considering you just got here, it might be best to employ a little humility and not act like you're in charge of who can say what and where they can say it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

To note that I received an obnoxious private message from joshua, to which my public response is: fuck off Joshua.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So I'm going to give him the uninterruptible exchange that he wants in the hope of conducting an experiment,

To aid with your reading comprehension here, Aron Ra didn't say that other people cannot reply - he said that you cannot be interrupted in a written exchange. Understand? It means that as you are typing, Aron Ra can't interject in the flow of your exposition.

Of course, if you wanted a private conversation with him, you already found the private messaging system, didn't you? This being a public forum where ideas are exchanged freely, stop trying to play cop over the format of a forum you've just joined.

Regardless, your claim was immediately shown flawed. How do we check the validity of our reason: well, one very crucial way is in how well our reason corresponds to reality. It's experimentation, Joshua.

Ergo, if I reasoned that I can change the colour of my herd of cattle by having them copulate in front of coloured sticks, then I could test that in the real world. Reality would arbitrate how accurate my reasoning is. In this case, of course, such reasoning would be utter bollocks, and no matter who tried this experiment, or how often this experiment was tried, the result would always be the same - my reasoning's outcome does not correspond to the world and fails to either describe or predict its workings.

Feel free to ignore this if you really want to, but there it remains.

 

[joshua040103]

Before I get into this, I'd like to let everyone know who Joshua is. He brags that he's been an apologist for over a decade, as if that's a good thing. As if that is any different than admitting to being a fraudulent snake-oil salesman for over a decade. Today he sent me a private message saying, "You know what. You really screwed me over in our discussion. You interupted me AT EVERY TURN and the majority of your minions don't have the sense to see it! If you had any sense of decency, you'd take me up on my challenge for a moderated debate with a format."

So I'll remind him and everyone else reading this that (1) I don't have any minions, and (2) I started this thread to give Joshua the uninterrupted format he wants, because I obviously HAVE a sense of decency, where he seems not to. But as i have twice pointed out to him already, and he somehow still hasn't pieced together, it cannot be a debate because I don't want it to be the two of us talking past each other to convince a third party. I'm trying to reason with Joshua himself. That's why it can't be a debate. Hopefully after repeating this explanation three times now, I won't have to explain it to him a fourth time.

//

Rationalism as an epistemic position is irrational as it leaves an individual with no choice but to assume the validity of their reasoning as a means to justify their reasoning.

Except that I have the advantage of objective verification. I can inquire of others to check my math and counter my conclusions and explain any corrections in a manner I can understand and accept. And if it turns out that I am insane, that method will also get me the help that I need. You have none of these advantages as you insist on your own subjective interpretations and reject any and all evidence that you're wrong.//

Here's the problem, you're employing YOUR reasoning to evaluate "objective verification", which is to say that you are assuming the validity of your reasoning as the means to justify your reasoning. I'm all about verification, but on your position, no verification is verifiable, especially objectively. My argument still stands.

This is akin to folding measuring tape in on itself to ascertain it's accuracy.

//As has already been pointed out, the measuring tape is the metric, the standard to be measured against. So your analogy fails.//

Are you saying that your reasoning is not the standard you measure your reasoning against? That's contrary to your professed epistemology.

Certainly you must see the viciously circular nature of such a position.

//Once again, as I have already pointed out in the video above, even Sye ten Bruggencate admitted that his [your] position is circular. He [and you] said that my position is "viciously circular" [despite my use of objective verification which makes it not circular], and he says that his [your] position was "virtuously circular"--despite the fact that it is only an empty assertion which is evidently not virtuous at all, and is instead based on, and is entirely dependent on lies.//

The Christian worldview is virtuous in its circularity because not only is it self attesting and self proving, but the rejection of it reduces one to absurdity, which we'll see in this discussion. Your position of employing your reasoning to justify your reasoning and your senses to justify your senses is no more rational then stating that the sky is blue because the sky is blue. If you can't escape the vicious circle which you appeal to in order to justify your reasoning, you can't know with epistemic certainty that any of your claims about reality are valid.

You could, and you have asserted that I also appeal to my reasoning to justify my reasoning; but such an assertion is merely an example of the tu quoque (you too) fallacy.

//

//No sir, it is not a fallacy but a demonstrable fact. You claim--without any justification whatsoever--that you're not using your reasoning to justify your reasoning only because you have imagined an arbitrary external source, one which not only can't possibly exist, but which clearly does not provide for your reasoning either, as we will soon see. Instead you use your reasoning to interpret a haphazard compilation of man-made mythology, while pretending that you "presuppose" what you hadn't even read yet. and you clearly don't understand even what you have read.//

The majority of your last comment here is nothing more than prejudicial conjecture founded by your philosophical bias towards atheistic dogma. My epistemology is revelational, so my justification for my capacity to reason rationally is grounded in that revelation. You are free to disagree with that of course, but your only basis for doing so stems from reasoning you can't know is valid, and nor can you assert such without begging the question.

At its base, your justification for your reasoning is logically fallacious, and as a consequence, all subsequent claims you assert are by default arbitrary, question begging conjecture founded by bias and utterly lacking objective authority requiring any effort for consideration.

//

You're talking about yourself now; not me. Your position is based entirely on question-begging conjecture, (and we can prove that) where mine does not even permit that.//

Except for the fact that the basis for your reasoning is logically invalid.

//My position seeks to minimize or eliminate bias wherever and however possible.//

So you're bias towards eliminating bias? Or you're bias against bias? Either way, you're bias. Neutrality doesn't exist and to assert that it does is to take a position.

//Your position however requires confirmation bias for its very maintenance, and this is by public admission even by other presuppositionalists, as well as many authorities in philosophy too.//

Appealing to unnamed sources adds nothing to your statements.

My justification for my reasoning is founded on Scripture (the ultimate foundation for my philosophical framework).

//No, it isn't. Because apart from the fact that everything your scripture says is at least unsupported absurdity if not demonstrable falsity too, your scripture doesn't support you in this or anything else. If it did, you'd at least be able to cite that. But you can't.//

There again, arbitrary conjecture founded by your philosophical baggage. My epistemology is revelational, as I've stated previously. Words like absurdity assumes a violation of absolute laws of thought by which we ought to reason. How do account for the existence of such absolute laws, especially on the basis of your illogical justification for your capacity to reason rationally?

//Nor could Sye ten Bruggencate or Isaac Newton, who both drew opposite conclusions which they both said were based on the same scripture. In the video linked above, you agreed that at least one of them had to be wrong, which is a damning admission, although I'm sure you don't realize that yet.//

Well, you actually interupted me before I could elaborate on my response (surprise surprise). People come to differing conclusions on scripture all the time; this says something about people. To use Syes analogy, if your radio is picking up interference you call to complain to the radio station, because you know the problem is with your radio. It's the same with scripture or any book. There's a wrong way and a right way to read the Bible, it's called hermeneutics. I've mentioned the word hermeneutics and exegesis a few times in our discussion, but you just sorta glazed over the terms. Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation. Read up on it sometime.

//Because both men claimed to have received special revelation by God through scripture, when in fact what really happened is that both men relied on their reasoning to justify their interpretation of the works of ignorant primitive men which were later misrepresented as being the word of God.//

ALL people have enough revelation from God to their condemnation. People like Sye and myself are only different from you because by God's grace He removed our hearts of stone and gave us hearts of flesh. The Holy Spirit dwells within us and illuminates the scripture for us.

We are specially created and designed with the purpose of knowing God, learning about what's been created, and acting as stewards over His creation.

//Do you remember what I said about asserting empty unsupported and indefensible speculation as though it were factual?//

My position is proven by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary. Your persuasion isn't necessary for the validity of my argument. You don't, nor can you comprehend this simple fact apart from God allowing you to.

//Do you understand why that is already tantamount to lying? Especially when your claims are clearly false! My very existence, as well as the 2/3 majority of people on this planet who don't believe in your god stand as testament to that.//

In regards to lying, if it is the case that I am; what's wrong with that on your worldview? What moral obligation does one meat machine have to another, and from where does this obligation come?

//You should understand that it is dishonest to cite facts that are not facts.
You should understand that it is dishonest to claim "truths" that are either not evidently true or are evidently not true.
You should also understand that it is dishonest to say you know things you don't know. That the only time you can claim to know something is when you can demonstrate your accuracy and SHOW that you know what you say you do.//

Seriously, why OUGHT I not be dishonest in light of your position?

The problem with any of your claims is that you can't show them, therefore you can't know them. The principle of empirical verifiability is not empirically verifiable.

//Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass: in other words, effectively lying. You're an example of what Hitchens' was talking about when when he said, "Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."//

Hitchens never understood the nature of evidence and the role of worldviews in relation to evidence. The interpretation of evidence is subject to the presuppositions you take to it. As stated previously, evidence assumes truth, knowledge, and absolute laws of logic. None of which you can account for on the basis of your self refuting epistemology.

We are imago dei (image of God),

//Why is God in the image of an evolved ape?//

Well if that's your view of what we are, then we're just animals and you can no issue with lying, poor reasoning, murder, rape, slavery, etc.

therefore the concept of valid reasoning is a logical inevitability of my worldview as we can recognize and utilize universal logical constants,

//Yet what you call universal logical constants include mathematics and the laws of nature, none of which are to be found in your scripture.//

You most certainly don't know what you're talking about. The laws of logic are mathematics are not the same, though they are both abstract. The laws of nature are the name we give to the way which God upholds the universe. We recognize them and label them, but like logic, we don't create them. But you can find a great deal of the laws of nature in scripture with a simple internet search.

The laws of logic are rooted in God's unchanging character and nature and we know this because we have access to some of His thoughts in scripture and the universe itself is logically intelligible because it had it's origin in the logical mind of God. God is logical, and we being made in His image also ought to strive to be logical.

//Much of your scripture was written before the number zero was invented, and is consequently based on the Mesopotamian sexegessimal [base 60] numeric system. That's why all the ages in the Old Testament are exaggerated by multiples of either ten or twelve depending on translation.//

And?

//Each of the laws of nature were observations made by men,//

True! But the observations are just that, observations. Men didn't create these laws.

//and some of these had to be corrected,//

Our understanding had to be corrected.

//because not even one of them was ever decreed by your god in any scripture.//

There are many such natural laws that we can find in scripture by implication. The Bible isn't a science text book. There is where hermeneutics comes in to play, but I'm under the impression that you're unaware of the term.

and on my worldview, it's also an objective moral imperative to do so.

//You don't know what valid reasoning is.//

Valid reasoning is the ability to come to valid conclusions.

//For one thing, it isn't objective if your judgment is only influenced by personal feelings or opinions and regardless of facts. That's SUBjective, and quite the opposite.//

My position is actually more intellectual than you care to recognize. Christianity isn't just a religious conviction, but a system of thought on matters of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Your justification for your reasoning is subjective by default because it begs the question and is thus completely arbitrary.

Now I'll ask you this...

If naturalism is true, meaning that all causation between events is naturalistic; then on what basis do you presume that you have the capacity to freely choose the better between two propositions? Keep in mind that in light of naturalistic presuppositions, your thoughts are merely the necessary byproducts of matter moving through time in accordance to fixed laws of chemistry, biology, and physics.

//As I told you before, I have no "naturalistic presuppositions". I was open to the idea of supernatural things when I was a child, and have since grown up to realize that they are both wholly unsupported and impossible. So that is not a presupposition.//

Irrelevant. And I'll tell you why...

"If naturalism is true?"

// Are you saying the natural world doesn't or might not exist?//

Nope. I'm speaking of philosophical naturalism, the position which asserts that all that exist is the natural world and cause and effect relationships between events. Such as your thought processes.

//Because I think we're both pretty certain the natural universe is real. But we don't have any reason to believe there is also a magical supernatural realm too. So what you really mean to say is "if supernaturalism is false..." Because naturalism is already true either way.//

Nope. You misunderstood what I meant by naturalism evidently.

//Once again, I have to point out that even Hume said that we have no choice but to make the same assumption as a child or a beast would, that what our senses report about the world around us must be real to some degree. Therefore Hume's answer is to favor consistency. That everything we do in life is based on the assumption that we can learn from experience and that the future will conform to the past. We can't even go about our day otherwise.//

Having blind faith in the reliability of your sensory perceptions is arbitrary. You and Hume both are going to have the same philosophical issues in regards to cogent justification because the rejection of God is the common theme. Having consistency in experiences does nothing to justify anything. If it's even a remote possibility that reality as you know it could be illusory, then none of your claims about reality are valid, as all claims stand the chance of being wrong. Knowledge is justified, true belief. You can't know something to be true if it could be false.

//In the words of Dr Peter Millican, professor of Philosophy at Oxford, "the rational thing to do is accept that we are part of nature and that this assumption is one that we simply cannot live without. So we should systematize what we learn about the world in conformity with our model of an assumption of consistently uniform laws of nature. Hume himself advocates that we must assume this," and "it gives a reliable basis for preferring science to superstition".//

As smart as these guys were/are, they simply can't account for WHY anything must be assumed to begin with. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. No matter how intelligent a person is, if they reject God they're reduced to absurdity.

In Hume's own words, "Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone, which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past. Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. We should never know how to adjust means to ends, or to employ our natural powers in the production of any effect. There would be an end at once of all action, as well as of the chief part of speculation."

He also explains how, by this assumption, we can actually know things reliably and without resorting to any logical fallacy.

"But here it may be proper to remark, that though our conclusions from experience carry us beyond our memory and senses, and assure us of matters of fact, which happened in the most distant places and most remote ages; yet some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first proceed in drawing these conclusions. A man, who should find in a desert country the remains of pompous buildings, would conclude, that the country had, in ancient times, been cultivated by civilized inhabitants; but did nothing of this nature occur to him, he could never form such an inference. We learn the events of former ages from history; but then we must peruse the volumes, in which this instruction is contained, and thence carry up our inferences from one testimony to another, till we arrive at the eye-witnesses and spectators of these distant events. In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact, present to the memory or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however the particular links might be connected with each other, the whole chain of inferences would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence."

//Another thing Sye ten Bruggencate liked to say was, "how do you know the laws of physics won't change five seconds from now." But of course if we assume that the laws of physics WILL change, that would be irrational, as it is not based on or in accordance with reason, and it violates all experience on which our knowledge is based.//

It's not assuming that they will change as the consistent Christian who stands on the authority of Scripture knows on the basis of Scripture that God upholds the universe by the power of His Word in a consistent fashion throughout time.

"While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease." (Genesis 8:22, NASB)

Based on Scripture alone, we have the solution for induction, because of what God has declared.

On your worldview however, you have no basis to presume that the future will reflect the past to any extent simply because you haven't experienced it yet. By asserting the future will always to some extent reflect the past because it always has, is a clear example of circular reasoning.

//Further someone determined not to assume any degree of uniformitarianism would likewise be perceived as insane and incapable, since it would be impossible to get anything done.//

Uniformitarianism is the position that rates and conditions remain the same throughout time. This is not only unprovable, but demonstrably not the case. Uniformity in nature and uniformitarianism are not the same thing.

//So of course I have to side with the pragmatist. Since Hume said we must inevitably and irresistibly assume uniformitarianism, and since it is impossible not to make this assumption and still function, then induction could be considered the only rational position by definition, especially since assuming anything else would be considered irrational.//

Of course this begs the question. Remember, Hume had no solution for induction. Inevitably and irresistibly assuming something by necessity does not answer the problem.

//So it's not a circular position at all.//

Yes it is, and I explained how.

//You and I both agreed--because we have to--that reality is real. That means that we both rely on our senses for information, with the awareness that there are other minds independent of our own. The only difference between us is that I can use objective verification to test what I think I know, while you reject all of that. Yet you call ME irrational?//

The question isn't one of whether or not reality is real, or if our senses convey what's real. The question is which philosophical framework makes cogent sense of and offers justification for these presuppositions.

On the basis of my worldview, I know my senses are at least basically reliable because they're the result of an intelligent creative act by an omniscient and omnipotent God who has revealed Himself and His purposes to everyone.

On your worldview, our senses may only be a byproduct of other functions which actually have survival value, and our senses are merely conveying illusory perceptions.

//And again, I must remind you that if we are just brains in a vat, then your god does not exist, since it is based on the Bible and the Bible is false in the Matrix.//

My argument is not that we are brains in a vat. My argument is that on your worldview, you can't know with epistemic certainty that you're not. Out of everything you claim to know, there could be something you don't know which can contradict the knowledge you think you have. Therefore you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, and if you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, you can't know anything. The only solution is to have revelation from God, who is omniscient.

//But if reality is real, which it is by definition//

That's an arbitrary thing to say. By definition, God is real. How do you like your reasoning now?

// then your god still doesn't exist, because it is based on the Bible, and the Bible is demonstrably wrong about practically everything back to front. //

That's simply ignorant conjecture.

//Now, be sure to answer each my questions when you reply. I hate when apologists habitually duck and dodge every point or query that shows how vacuous your position really is.

//

If i missed anything, let me know. But if you do, please first provide the justification for your capacity to do so without begging the question.


Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

The adage seems to once again be exemplified: Creationism is anathema to forum quote functions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's a waste of time going through Joshua's post when he can't put in the modicum of effort needed to make it legible for people, but a basic scan through suggests that his argument is everything you say is question begging, whereas whatever I say is the gospel according to the creator of everything.

Aside from it being the typical unwarranted hubris and condescension of the fundamentalist, it's also utter bollocks.

On the basis of my worldview, I know my senses are at least basically reliable because they're the result of an intelligent creative act by an omniscient and omnipotent God who has revealed Himself and His purposes to everyone.

Anti-rational.

You can't know your senses are reliable because you needed those senses to read about the supposed intelligent creator before you came to believe it existed, or to listen to people brainwash you into believing it. Ergo, your senses are not predicated on the belief in an intelligent creator, but necessarily exist prior to it. Further, according to your own argument, your senses are potentially flawed so your conception of the alleged creator could also be wrong. Funny how hard this seems for you.

Regardless, you also cannot 'know' there is an intelligent creator. Quite the contrary - you believe there is an intelligent creator. Belief is not knowledge, rather as it says in my signature: beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.

Further, we don't even need to go beyond your sentence to see that your belief is founded on a terminal lack of rational thought on your part because you've unthinkingly regurgitated ontological claims that are not verifiable but are assuredly part of the human cultural bias in which this particular god belief was manufactured.

You have referred to the alleged ineffable creator of everything with a male pronoun twice in one sentence. In what way is this immaterial being outside of space and time a male? According to your own metaphysics (regardless of whether you're aware of them or not), God would be neither male nor female, but would instead be something to which no gender could be applied.

Regardless of anything else, this indicates to anyone paying attention that you have uncritically bought into a faith position, and your brain simply regurgitates what it was told without consideration for reason, rationality of accuracy. Thus the notion that you are capable of inspecting the rationality of other peoples' positions when you are manifestly incapable of inspecting the basis of your own beliefs is really rather hard to swallow.

So let us play a thought experiment here. If a person was untrained in employing reason, had none of the intellectual faculties developed for engaging rational approaches to topics, then the only way in which their proclamations could be true would be by chance alone, because there'd be no rigorous process by which they came to their positions. Further, they would be unable to perceive or comprehend rationality or reason, because to do so would require a metacognitive capacity they genetically lack. If one is bad at math, then one is also bad at judging how good other people are at math.

So I submit, Joshua, that the reason you contend that Aron Ra's position is irrational is because rationality is utterly alien to you. You wouldn't recognize it if you saw it because it is not within your comprehension. In truth, the basis for your beliefs has nothing to do with reason; it is purely faith where you believe because you believe because you believe, and you cannot offer a single jot of reasoning that would be able to convince someone who doesn't already believe. Cognitive bias does the rest to protect your beliefs from being inspected because you tell yourself (thanks to the dogma you've swallowed) that those non-believers can't possibly be right or have anything worth listening to when you are the mouthpiece of the creator of everything.

You and yours need to understand that, according to your own dogma, faith is itself sufficient. That means you do not actually need reason, rationality, or correspondence with reality to believe, and consequently you should stop pretending you possess them.

 

[Collecemall]

Another vote here for a peanut gallery thread. I know the low hanging fruit is tasty and fodder is fairly rare these days but can we hold off until we get another thread for that? I'm stoked someone actually showed up. Be a pity to see him use having to defend himself to a group as an excuse to duck out.

 

[AronRa]

Here's the problem, you're employing YOUR reasoning to evaluate "objective verification", which is to say that you are assuming the validity of your reasoning as the means to justify your reasoning. I'm all about verification, but on your position, no verification is verifiable, especially objectively. My argument still stands.

Your argument still fails. The problem is that I'm not relying on my own reasoning, because I have the advantage of objective verification. I can inquire of others to check my math and counter my conclusions and explain any corrections in a manner I can understand and accept. And if it turns out that I am insane, that method will also get me the help that I need. You have none of these advantages as you insist on your own subjective interpretations and reject any and all evidence that you're wrong.

You've just demonstrated that again.

Are you saying that your reasoning is not the standard you measure your reasoning against? That's contrary to your professed epistemology.

Wrong. First I was talking your failed analogy with the measuring tape. Then as I said, we BOTH use our reasoning to justify our reasoning: except that I don't rely only on that, as I have a means to check, test, and correct my conclusions, and you don't.

The Christian worldview is virtuous in its circularity because not only is it self attesting and self proving, but the rejection of it reduces one to absurdity, which we'll see in this discussion.

You've just demonstrated again how your position is based on question-begging speculation, while mine is not.

Your position of employing your reasoning to justify your reasoning and your senses to justify your senses is no more rational then stating that the sky is blue because the sky is blue. If you can't escape the vicious circle which you appeal to in order to justify your reasoning, you can't know with epistemic certainty that any of your claims about reality are valid.

Since you didn't understand any of my philosophical references, and keep repeating the same errors as if they hadn't just been corrected, then let me change tack. Do you accept that reality is real? Or do you imagine that what we perceive as reality is an illusion? And in either case, how do you determine that?

No sir, it is not a fallacy but a demonstrable fact. You claim--without any justification whatsoever--that you're not using your reasoning to justify your reasoning only because you have imagined an arbitrary external source, one which not only can't possibly exist, but which clearly does not provide for your reasoning either, as we will soon see. Instead you use your reasoning to interpret a haphazard compilation of man-made mythology, while pretending that you "presuppose" what you hadn't even read yet. and you clearly don't understand even what you have read.

The majority of your last comment here is nothing more than prejudicial conjecture founded by your philosophical bias towards atheistic dogma.

Ignoring for the moment that all the biases and conjecture are on your side alone, and that there is "atheistic dogma", how do you justify this false allegation in your own mind?

My epistemology is revelational, so my justification for my capacity to reason rationally is grounded in that revelation. You are free to disagree with that of course, but your only basis for doing so stems from reasoning you can't know is valid, and nor can you assert such without begging the question.

So what you just admitted is that the basis of your epistemology is subjective impressions about empty assertions you can't demonstrate or verify to any degree at all by any means whatsoever. Thus your "epistemology" is based on what you do NOT know and can't honestly claim to know.

You're talking about yourself now; not me. Your position is based entirely on question-begging conjecture, (and we can prove that) where mine does not even permit that.

Except for the fact that the basis for your reasoning is logically invalid.

By your own admission, your own basis for reasoning is invalid, and you're forgetting that mine must be factually backed and checked by critical analysis in peer review, where you simply reject all of that.

My position seeks to minimize or eliminate bias wherever and however possible.

So you're bias towards eliminating bias? Or you're bias against bias? Either way, you're bias. Neutrality doesn't exist and to assert that it does is to take a position.

I'm not looking for neutrality; I care about truth. So my information must be factually correct and logically supported, where yours doesn't require either one. Because you DON'T care about the truth. You don't even want to know what the truth is. You're determined to pretend that it's something else.

Just to help you out here, a bias is a prejudice that is typically considered to be unfair. Wanting to eliminate unfair prejudice is not being prejudiced. Just like being rational is not irrational, and objecting to the dishonesty of religious faith is not a religious faith in itself. You like repeating the fallacies of projection and false equivalence like all other apologists do. That's because your position is based on logical fallacies. It is not and does not like the truth.

Also, since theistic apologists demonstrate general incompetence in all matters, if you want to quote me, type "quote" in brackets before the sentence you want to quote, and type "/quote” in brackets after it.

Also let me help you with this too.

Appealing to unnamed sources adds nothing to your statements.

I named David Hume and Professor Millican in the very post you're replying to now. I'll cite others if and when they become relevant.

apart from the fact that everything your scripture says is at least unsupported absurdity if not demonstrable falsity too, your scripture doesn't support you in this or anything else. If it did, you'd at least be able to cite that. But you can't.

There again, arbitrary conjecture founded by your philosophical baggage. My epistemology is revelational, as I've stated previously.

Once again, I repeat, you're relying on subjective impressions of things your scripture doesn't actually say anywhere.

Words like absurdity assumes a violation of absolute laws of thought by which we ought to reason. How do account for the existence of such absolute laws, especially on the basis of your illogical justification for your capacity to reason rationally?

Once again, I repeat, the laws of logic, much like the laws of nature are determined by observation. There is nothing irrational about one's ability to reason rationally, unless they pretend that it's really their magic imaginary friend doing the reasoning for them. That is irrational by definition, and so are you.

Nor could Sye ten Bruggencate or Isaac Newton, who both drew opposite conclusions which they both said were based on the same scripture. In the video linked above, you agreed that at least one of them had to be wrong, which is a damning admission, although I'm sure you don't realize that yet.

Well, you actually interupted me before I could elaborate on my response (surprise surprise). People come to differing conclusions on scripture all the time; this says something about people. To use Syes analogy, if your radio is picking up interference you call to complain to the radio station, because you know the problem is with your radio. It's the same with scripture or any book. There's a wrong way and a right way to read the Bible, it's called hermeneutics. I've mentioned the word hermeneutics and exegesis a few times in our discussion, but you just sorta glazed over the terms. Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation. Read up on it sometime.

I obviously already have read up on that. I didn't "glaze over" anything. I addressed the failure in your hermaneutics in the very beginning, before you even brought it up, yet you said I was "off topic".

ALL people have enough revelation from God to their condemnation.

Obviously not, since an irreligious or non-theistic position is the 3rd largest demographic with respect to religion.

The very term "revelation" refers an unsupported assumption asserted without any possible justification. So you're lying again. Or should I say, still?

People like Sye and myself are only different from you because by God's grace

That, and your mutual lack of cognizance or competence.

He removed our hearts of stone and gave us hearts of flesh. The Holy Spirit dwells within us and illuminates the scripture for us.

There is no such thing as a holy spirit, and you never had hearts of stone, but you apparently do have brains of mush.

Do you remember what I said about asserting empty unsupported and indefensible speculation as though it were factual?

My position is proven by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary. Your persuasion isn't necessary for the validity of my argument. You don't, nor can you comprehend this simple fact apart from God allowing you to.

You're the one proposing all the impossibilities here. Your position is proven by nothing whatsoever, as you have neither logic nor evidence nor even philosophy to help you. Just remember that an unsupported assertion has no more validity than a claim that has already been proven false.

In regards to lying, if it is the case that I am; what's wrong with that on your worldview? What moral obligation does one meat machine have to another, and from where does this obligation come?

Many times believers have argued that they should be allowed to lie and what's wrong with lying if it is in defense of what they believe. And they often claim moral superiority while demonstrating that they lack even the minimal moral humanity to be a humanist.

The obligation may be too difficult for you to comprehend, given all you've said so far, but in short it is party that having evolved as a social species means that there has been significant selective pressures insuring that we have a natural compassion for our family, friends, and fellows. Deviant aberrations still arise and are often supported by religion which stands against much of human morality.

Religion certainly stands against anything and everything we perceive as truth. And that's the other thing. Only accurate information has practical application. So the only value any information can have is however accurate you can show it to be, and if you can't show that it is accurate at all, then it has no value at all. So every postulation must be backed by evidence and every claim has to be verifiable. Arguments from authority are worthless, as Carl Sagan famously said. If it can't be indicated or vindicated verified or falsified, then it is meaningless and any attempt to call that "truth" is only a lie.

Lies are like violence in the sense that both are immorally repugnant and abusive and should only be employed as a last resort of desperate defense; never something to be glorified or even tolerated otherwise--as they both are in religion.

You should understand that it is dishonest to cite facts that are not facts.
You should understand that it is dishonest to claim "truths" that are either not evidently true or are evidently not true.
You should also understand that it is dishonest to say you know things you don't know. That the only time you can claim to know something is when you can demonstrate your accuracy and SHOW that you know what you say you do.

Seriously, why OUGHT I not be dishonest in light of your position?

Because of objective morality instead of imaginary authorities.

Since objective morality is obviously an alien concept for an apologist, then do you accept that a particular action or choice is moral or right if it somehow promotes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or both? And that a particular action or choice is immoral or wrong if it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being, or health, or if it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or both?

The problem with any of your claims is that you can't show them, therefore you can't know them. The principle of empirical verifiability is not empirically verifiable.

You're talking about yourself again. I CAN show that I know what I know. You're the one who can't defend anything you assert. You can't even distinguish your beliefs from the illusions of delusion, because that's what they are.

Hitchens never understood the nature of evidence and the role of worldviews in relation to evidence. The interpretation of evidence is subject to the presuppositions you take to it. As stated previously, evidence assumes truth, knowledge, and absolute laws of logic. None of which you can account for on the basis of your self refuting epistemology.

Obviously you're the one who doesn't understand ANYTHING that you're talking about.

Evidence is a body of objectively verifiable facts which are either positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with one available position over any other. Your "worldview" is irrelevant, or at least it should be. Whatever "presuppositoins" you have is the error in your prejudicial speculation, subject to correction as the facts demand. You may pretend that you can ignore evidence in favor of your imaginary alternative, but you do so fallaciously, and you're still wrong about that. No one gets to ignore the truth no posit baseless lies and call them truth.

Ignoring evidence is dishonest.
Asserting baseless speculation as fact is dishonest.
Pretending to know what you don't know is dishonest.
That's why faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. The only way to be more dishonest is to act in a subset of faith. Creationism is more dishonest than mainstream theism, and presuppositionalism is even more dishonest than mere creationism.

Why is God in the image of an evolved ape?

Well if that's your view of what we are, then we're just animals and you can no issue with lying, poor reasoning, murder, rape, slavery, etc.

Wrong again. That we are animals, and more specifically apes is not my "view". It's a fact and I can prove it. I don't tolerate poor behavior in any animal, and the more intelligent the species, the less excuse it has to act like you do.

what you call universal logical constants include mathematics and the laws of nature, none of which are to be found in your scripture.

You most certainly don't know what you're talking about.

Alright then. Since you said you use scripture as your basis, then where does your scripture describe the laws of logic or math or nature or anything that is actually true for that matter?

The laws of logic are mathematics are not the same, though they are both abstract. The laws of nature are the name we give to the way which God upholds the universe.

Wrong. The laws of nature are the way we describe observations of certain consistencies or how things seem to work. The same can be said of the laws of logic.

We recognize them and label them, but like logic, we don't create them. But you can find a great deal of the laws of nature in scripture with a simple internet search.

I obviously know that too, as demonstrated by the laws of evolution that I mentioned to you in our live discussion.

The laws of logic are rooted in God's unchanging character and nature

You mean the nature and character that changed twice in the Old Testament and twice again in the New Testament?

and we know this because we have access to some of His thoughts in scripture

No, we don't. The reason the Bible is so laughably wrong about damn near everything is that it was written by ignorant and bigoted superstitious savages who obviously had no idea what they were talking about, ever.

and the universe itself is logically intelligible because it had it's origin in the logical mind of God.

Again, obviously not. The boiling chaos of the universe clearly wasn't the creation of your djinni-like imaginary friend, who was himself created by men imagining men made of magic.

God is logical, and we being made in His image also ought to strive to be logical.

If "logical" means according to the rules of logic or formal argument, then there is nothing logical about magic invisible man who is bigger than big and older than time and exceeds every dimension we can exaggerate.

Much of your scripture was written before the number zero was invented, and is consequently based on the Mesopotamian sexegessimal [base 60] numeric system. That's why all the ages in the Old Testament are exaggerated by multiples of either ten or twelve depending on translation.

And?

So scripture doesn't provide the basis of mathematics either, and in fact got much of that wrong because of the fallible humans who wrote it.

Each of the laws of nature were observations made by men,

True! But the observations are just that, observations. Men didn't create these laws.

Because the laws were not "created" at all.

and some of these had to be corrected,

Our understanding had to be corrected.

Exactly, regardless of anyone's presuppositions.

because not even one of them was ever decreed by your god in any scripture.

There are many such natural laws that we can find in scripture by implication. The Bible isn't a science text book. There is where hermeneutics comes in to play, but I'm under the impression that you're unaware of the term.

After our conversation, I am now convinced that I am more aware of what the Bible says and doesn't say than you are. Since you claimed to base your epistemology on scripture, then everything you know about nature (which obviously ain't much) must be there. So show me. Shall we start with the example of how striped sticks effect genetics?

Valid reasoning is the ability to come to valid conclusions.

Correct, and you don't, since none of your conclusions are either logically nor factually sound. Nor are they rational, since rational is defined as having the capacity to reason, of being amenable to reason and able to reasoned with. None of that applies to you.

My position is actually more intellectual than you care to recognize. Christianity isn't just a religious conviction, but a system of thought on matters of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Your justification for your reasoning is subjective by default because it begs the question and is thus completely arbitrary.

Once again, I repeat, YOU'RE the one doing all the question begging. As I noted in my book.

"I would also say that all faith-based beliefs stem from the logical fallacy of a question begging, circular argument routing back to an assumed conclusion. This is true of all forms of apologetics, but especially presuppositionalism. Their whole position can be summarized with the circular assertion “I know because I know,” and further summarized with “’cuz I said so.” There really is no more justification of their position than that."
--Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

Now I'll ask you this...

If naturalism is true, meaning that all causation between events is naturalistic; then on what basis do you presume that you have the capacity to freely choose the better between two propositions? Keep in mind that in light of naturalistic presuppositions, your thoughts are merely the necessary byproducts of matter moving through time in accordance to fixed laws of chemistry, biology, and physics.

As I told you before, I have no "naturalistic presuppositions". I was open to the idea of supernatural things when I was a child, and have since grown up to realize that they are both wholly unsupported and impossible. So that is not a presupposition.

Irrelevant. And I'll tell you why...

"If naturalism is true?"

Are you saying the natural world doesn't or might not exist?

Nope. I'm speaking of philosophical naturalism, the position which asserts that all that exist is the natural world and cause and effect relationships between events. Such as your thought processes.

Then not surprisingly you don't know shit about my thought processes. I'm a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical naturalist. I'd actually LIKE to believe that supernatural things were possible. Then I could embrace my old Jedi religion again. But if the supernatural really did exist, then Spock or Gandalf or Obiwan or one of the myriads of faith-healers out there would be able to demonstrate that. Even if we can't explain the supernatural, we'd still have reason to know it exists. But the fact is there is no truth to any of that. There evidently is no god, but there is plenty of evidence that absolutely every last one of his apologists are lying frauds.

Because I think we're both pretty certain the natural universe is real. But we don't have any reason to believe there is also a magical supernatural realm too. So what you really mean to say is "if supernaturalism is false..." Because naturalism is already true either way.

Nope. You misunderstood what I meant by naturalism evidently.

I understood what you wanted to say. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Having blind faith in the reliability of your sensory perceptions is arbitrary.

Let's see.

Faith
/fāTH/
"A firm belief for which there is no proof".

ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbəˌtrerē/
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"

Hmm. So regardless of any personal whim, all we have is a system of evidence [proof] being constantly tested to confirm that whatever actions are based on perceive from our senses does in fact comport with our continued existence, and any attempt to ignore that quickly results in pain and death. But you want to project your own faults onto those who will not share them by pretending that I have faith too, and that I'm therefore just as bad as you. And you accused me of using the tu quoque fallacy? You believers sure are masters of irony.

You and Hume both are going to have the same philosophical issues in regards to cogent justification because the rejection of God is the common theme. Having consistency in experiences does nothing to justify anything. If it's even a remote possibility that reality as you know it could be illusory, then none of your claims about reality are valid, as all claims stand the chance of being wrong.

Once again, I have to repeat what I already told you in our live discussion. It is not possible that reality is an illusion--for all the reasons I have already explained.

However I must remind you of what I tell every apologist that your position is so weak that the only way you can be right is if reality is wrong. So you all immediately plead that everything we perceive is only an illusion. But even if that were true, your god wouldn't be real in that case either.

Knowledge is justified, true belief. You can't know something to be true if it could be false.

Why are you quoting me as if you said this first? In this conversation so far, you've made a LOT of empty assertions you can't possibly defend, but everything I've said is verifiably accurate. So where does that leave you?

In the words of Dr Peter Millican, professor of Philosophy at Oxford, "the rational thing to do is accept that we are part of nature and that this assumption is one that we simply cannot live without. So we should systematize what we learn about the world in conformity with our model of an assumption of consistently uniform laws of nature. Hume himself advocates that we must assume this," and "it gives a reliable basis for preferring science to superstition".

As smart as these guys were/are, they simply can't account for WHY anything must be assumed to begin with.

You say that immediately after the explanation was given of why we have to assume that reality is real, because we cannot function otherwise. Try it.

I know, you're already trying it. But if you're reading this at all, then you're assuming that I'm real in a reality that you'd rather deny.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.

Obviously the opposite is true.

No matter how intelligent a person is, if they reject God they're reduced to absurdity.

EDIT: I misread this the first time. No matter how intelligent a person is, there is no intelligent defense for God. Every logical fallacy has been used as an argument for God and every argument for God is a logical fallacy.

Another thing Sye ten Bruggencate liked to say was, "how do you know the laws of physics won't change five seconds from now." But of course if we assume that the laws of physics WILL change, that would be irrational, as it is not based on or in accordance with reason, and it violates all experience on which our knowledge is based.

It's not assuming that they will change as the consistent Christian who stands on the authority of Scripture knows on the basis of Scripture that God upholds the universe by the power of His Word in a consistent fashion throughout time.

You don't know what you pretend to know. You only "believe" that, and even that is only make-believe. Scripture has no authority either. What you call "scripture" is but one tome of several works of man-made mythology for various religions, all claiming to be the absolute truth and the revealed word of the one true god, but they're really just the irrational ravings of ignorant primitives.

"While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease." (Genesis 8:22, NASB)

Based on Scripture alone, we have the solution for induction, because of what God has declared.

On your worldview however, you have no basis to presume that the future will reflect the past to any extent simply because you haven't experienced it yet. By asserting the future will always to some extent reflect the past because it always has, is a clear example of circular reasoning.

Asserting that the Bible is true because the Bible is true is a circular argument, and a fallaceous one because the Bible is so embarrassingly wrong about almost everything. The only things it got right are the verses that contradict everything else.

But science is only concerned with what supported by evidence and what is not supported, and whatever is not supported doesn't warrant serious consideration. Come back when you have something to show. Then we'll have something to talk about. Because we have evidence that the universe works this way, and we have evidence that nothing can change this facet or that for all things across the cosmos. So it is not a circular argument like your position still is.

Uniformitarianism is the position that rates and conditions remain the same throughout time. This is not only unprovable, but demonstrably not the case.

Then name your citation. I'll be happy to read about uniformitarianism was proven wrong. Who did it? And how?

Uniformity in nature and uniformitarianism are not the same thing.

I didn't say they were. Neither did Hume.

So of course I have to side with the pragmatist. Since Hume said we must inevitably and irresistibly assume uniformitarianism, and since it is impossible not to make this assumption and still function, then induction could be considered the only rational position by definition, especially since assuming anything else would be considered irrational.

Of course this begs the question. Remember, Hume had no solution for induction. Inevitably and irresistibly assuming something by necessity does not answer the problem.

Being inevitable and irrestible means that you've assumed it too, haven't you?

So it's not a circular position at all.

Yes it is, and I explained how.

No it isn't. No you didn't, but I did explain how it is NOT circular, and that it wouldn't matter even if it was.

The question isn't one of whether or not reality is real, or if our senses convey what's real. The question is which philosophical framework makes cogent sense of and offers justification for these presuppositions.

Well then you've failed again.

co·gent
/ˈkōjənt/
1. Reasonable and convincing; based on evidence.
2. Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning.
3. Forcefully persuasive; relevant, pertinent.

You'e failed all points across the board, haven't you!

You can't demonstrate your accuracy about anything you've said, while I and others have shown where you're definitley wrong about almost all of it.

On the basis of my worldview, I know my senses are at least basically reliable because they're the result of an intelligent creative act by an omniscient and omnipotent God who has revealed Himself and His purposes to everyone.

What little you know, you know because it is verifiable, and not because of anything you canNOT verify.

On your worldview, our senses may only be a byproduct of other functions which actually have survival value, and our senses are merely conveying illusory perceptions.

Regardless of any worldview, all evidence is that my senses are not and cannot be conveying illusory perceptions such as you want to pretend.

My argument is not that we are brains in a vat. My argument is that on your worldview, you can't know with epistemic certainty that you're not. Out of everything you claim to know, there could be something you don't know which can contradict the knowledge you think you have. Therefore you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, and if you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, you can't know anything. The only solution is to have revelation from God, who is omniscient.

Absolutely wrong. I tried to explain this to Sye too, but of course he was too stupid to get it. If you can't know anything unless you know everything, then you don't know anything. Because not only are you demonstrably wrong about most of what you've said today, but because you can't know anything/everything not even whether your own senses are lying to you, then you can't know what the scriptures say before you read them, and you can't know whether you know someone who knows everything either. Because you'd have to know everything yourself to even know that.

But of course I don't have to know the capital of Syria to know the capital of my own state, nor to know that I definitely know more than you do, at least on this topic, and likely lots more too.

But if reality is real, which it is by definition

That's an arbitrary thing to say. By definition, God is real. How do you like your reasoning now?

re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/Submit
noun
1.
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Reality is real by definition.

God
ɡäd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead;
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

God is NOT real by definition. Just one more thing you're objectively wrong about.

then your god still doesn't exist, because it is based on the Bible, and the Bible is demonstrably wrong about practically everything back to front.

That's simply ignorant conjecture.

No, the things I can prove to be true are demonstrable facts, not conjecture.

For example, I'll give you another quote from my book.

Some Persians at that time said that the god Mithras had the stars sewn into the lining of his cloak, which he would drape over the crystalline firmament to bring on the night. But we know that night is not a veil to be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain (Psalms 104:2) or a tent. We also know that the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse (Isaiah 48:13) because they are not “high” in the firmament (Job 22:12); there is no firmament, and they are so far beyond our puny world that “height” is meaningless and inapplicable. They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm (2 Esdras 15:34–35) and they couldn’t be taken down by anything at all.

We’ve also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either (2 Samuel 22:8), and neither does the earth (Job 38:4–6). There are no pillars holding Earth above the deep (1 Samuel 2:8) because there is no deep (Genesis 1:2). Outer space is not full of water!

We also now know what lies outside our gravitational field, and that proves that you can’t have any passage of days and nights without a sun (Genesis 1:13–14) to measure them against an Earth that constantly moves (Psalm 104:5). We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon (Amos 8:9), and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky (Joshua 10:12–13). We also now know what is beyond our solar system, which means we know the stars can’t fall from the sky (Matthew 24:29). Even if they did, we still couldn’t stomp on them (Daniel 8:10) because they’re each thousands to millions of miles around, which makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of them having conscious minds (Judges 5:20) and ganging up in combat with a mere human being.

We even know now what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever “seal up the stars” (Job 9:7). We also know that the earth with its fictitious firmament didn’t predate the “lights in the heavens” by any amount of time (Genesis 1:17–19) and that the stars weren’t “set” specifically to light the earth, because the earth is not at the center, or the beginning (Genesis 1:1) of the universe in any respect. The way the Bible depicts Earth in relation to the rest of the universe is wrong, and has been known to be wrong for thousands of years.

Now, be sure to answer each my questions when you reply. I hate when apologists habitually duck and dodge every point or query that shows how vacuous your position really is.

If i missed anything, let me know. But if you do, please first provide the justification for your capacity to do so without begging the question.

Yeah, you missed pretty much everything. You didn't adequately answer any of my questions and you ignored every time I explained to you how to verify the truth of any claim in the reality we both live in and can't deny--much as you would like to.

In your reply, don't say anything you can't show to be correct. Because if you refuse to be reasoned with no matter how wrong you obviously are, then I'm done with you. I'll offer all the patience necessary to someone who is sincere, but you've already admitted that you're not. So why waste another moment trying to help you?

 

[Deleted member 619]

A few observations.

The most interesting thing here is the apparent need to pin down an 'ism'. Of course, Aron is well aware of the indefensibility of isms, and knows that the only rational approach is to remain pragmatic.

The constant claim of question-begging is among the most pernicious failures of logical understanding in the apologist's arsenal, and it find its zenith in presuppositionalism. It's one of those things that marks somebody out as having heard the names of a few fallacies with precisely no understanding of how they apply.

The most important thing to note about question-begging is that it's a deductive fallacy. It requires that one be forwarding a deductive argument, and the charge simply doesn't apply to inductive or abductive reasoning. The reason for this is fairly obvious once you grasp it, and it's that only in a deductive argument are you attempting to arrive at a conclusion that cannot fail to be true. In a circular argument, the fact that the conclusion is contained in the premises means that the argument is no better than simply asserting the conclusion as true, because the premise becomes a blind assertion, thus the conclusion is as well. If the premise were supported, there'd be no utility in evincing the argument in the first place, we could simply assert that the premise is true and that would be that.

Where presuppositionalism fails most spectacularly is that it is more prone to its own arguments than any of the positions it purports to debunk. Moreover, presuppositionalism, far from providing a basis for anything, simply asserts said basis. Science, and indeed reason, are both pragmatic. They demonstrably work, and no presuppositions are required.

More on both these topics:

C=2πr
The Executioner's Argument