Every human presupposes the possibility of coming to rationally justified conclusions. Presuppositionalists recognize this fact.
However, any belief ultimately caused without reason is ultimately held to irrationally. Under most worldviews, all human beliefs are ultimately caused without reason. This demonstrates the irrationality of atheism, polytheism, pantheism, and unitarianism, as well as empiricism.
Note that cause, or answering the "how" question, and reason, or answering the "why" question, are not the same thing. For example, why do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? A response like "because of electrical processes in my brain" utterly fails to rationally answer the "why" question. It will never convince anyone with any sense that the answer is correct.
Under Christianity, unlike the worldviews mentioned above, human beliefs are ultimately caused by a rational entity, namely, the Christian God. He gives us our first principles. This means that under Christianity it is hypothetically possible for humans to hold to rationally justified beliefs. Our beliefs can ultimately have reason behind them. Under Christianity, the why question can be rationally answered.
Another way of saying this is that if there is no reason for anything, then there is no reason for anything -- including our own beliefs. Or, alternatively, we could say that if everything is just a random accident, then our own beliefs are just random accidents.
Are your beliefs without reason, or is there a God like the Christian God?
When did you become a presuppositionalist?
Why have my recent comments been removed/deleted, and is there any way of restoring them?
The thrust of the question was to point out that, despite claims to the contrary, presuppers don't actually presuppose god. I know they *say* they do, but they don't, and in fact can't. They presuppose logic and reason, and they have to do so, because it would not be possible to think anything or to communicate thoughts to anyone (including that one presupposes god) without logic and reason.
Presuppers simply tack god on as a justification for using the logic and reason which leads them to conclude that presupposing god is necessary to be able to use logic and reason.
In many ways, this makes presuppositionalism the logical equivalent of lifting oneself up by one's bootstraps, or a logical Perpetual Motion Machine.
Look at it this way. If one were not a presupper, one's use of logic and reason (which is what one would use to evaluate the claims of presuppositionalism) would be as unjustified and therefore (according to presuppositionalism) irrational as any non-theist. Therefore any conclusions that one could reach about presuppositionalism would also be unjustified and irrational.
This is why presuppositionalism is nonsense.
Well, may I ask you the same question that I asked Tim - when did you become a presuppositionalist?
But you didn't, because you don't, because presuppositionalism is an intellectually bankrupt worldview adhered to by the intellectually dishonest..."kindergarten theology coupled with kindergarten philosophy".
By the way, are you unaware that your god commands you not to call people "fools" (Matt 4:22) or do you just not care?
But just because I'm feeling magnanimous I'll give you a hypothetical straight answer. Last Sunday. Last Sunday I realized that everyone presupposes god and I started pointing it out (since that's what it means to be a presuppositionalist) So explain to me how my position is bankrupt.
And while you're at it, explain to me what reason the Big Bang had for causing you to come to the conclusion that there is no God.
Anyway, if you read what I wrote a few comments ago (and more importantly, understood it) you'd see why the claims of presuppositionalism are bankrupt. But I'll reiterate, if you insist.
Do you get it now? I hope so because I'd have to try really hard to make it any simpler.
You appear to have plucked out of thin are the notion that I ever claimed that the Big Bang caused me to come to the conclusion that there's no god. I've never written or said any such thing. As straw men go, that's probably one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard.
Apologies for the spelling mistake.
Then you ask another really misguided question about presuppositionalism based on your straw-man-invented-definition. I point out that your question is misguided and exactly how it is misguided. Again you refuse to accept correction, insisting on remaining a fool - Proverbs 1:22. You apparently think that you are the expert on what other people believe, and you expect those of us who believe certain things to agree that we don't really believe what we believe, but instead we believe what you say we do. What a fool!
So go ahead. Continue to conflate presupposing-God with the-recognition-of-presupposing-God. Continue to conflate the-existence-of-God with the-recognition-of-presupposing-God as well, since you are clearly doing that too. Continue to build ridiculous straw-men. Then logically annihilate your idiotic straw-man-version of that stupid thing you foolishly call "presuppositionalism" that no one here holds to. Nobody cares, Tony, least of all actual presuppositionalists.
If it had no reason for causing your conclusion, then your conclusion is ultimately without reason, making your conclusion irrational. If you believe it had a reason, then you believe in God, and denying that is irrational.
Gonna dodge my simple question again? Or make up a straw-man to attack? Or change the subject? Or pretend to be offended? Or refuse to accept correction, Mr. Fool? Or accuse me of something utterly irrelevant? C'mon, Tony, what's the next foolish thing in your foolish atheist playbook?
Just answer the question -- what was the ultimate cause's reason for causing you to come to the conclusion that there is no God? Did it have a reason for it? Or is your conclusion ultimately without reason?
It's a simple question. But how much of a fool will you insist on making yourself, Tony?
Well, there it is - the stupidest thing I'll read all day.
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"
Harry S Truman (attrib)
have explained it to have understood it, so it is not unintelligible. Do you need me to explain it more? If so I am happy to. It seems that I have done a poor job explaining this. Thank you for pointing that out. If we have evolved unguided then our belief in non contradictions is a general principal this means that if ur belief in non contradictions is irrational
. I am trying to establish that any object will probably have infinite contradictions in it. That is my goal. Let's say hypothetically that we have an object that cannot be any smaller then itselt. An object that cannot be divided. Can you imagine that? I am aware that it is logically impossible, but can you imagine it? (Continued)
Please stop pretending to know what you are talking about. Your grasp on Scripture is juvenile at best, and you seem to think you are quite clever with that canned attack on NonHumanist. If you are even close to as smart as you think you are, maybe this will seep through.
The basis behind presuppositionalism is that God is the source of logic and reason;therefore, b/c people are capable of being logical and reasonable, & b/c the universe is orderly & behaves very predictably, we are able to create all kinds of technology and modern wonders. None of this would be possible if not for God. He created the universe according to certain mathematical principles BECAUSE He is logical and reasonable and desired an orderly cosmos.
In closing, belief in God is not necessary for rational thinking b/c God created the universe so that it bears witness to His majesty, that NO man will be with excuse. We are made imago dei, so we have a mind akin to God's: capable of reason & logic.