Transcendental Arguments


Presuppositional Apologetics

– Presuppositional apologetics fails because its straight up retarded. We presuppose god exists, therefore he exists, and therefore anything we talk about from this point on is dependent on that fact. that is an absolutely moronic and useless position unworthy of addresing´╗┐. It fails because its philosophically and logically bankrupt. Read a little about epistemic circularity.
– The presup argument revolves around the idea that the atheists world view is unable to account for truth, logic and reason, and as such is confronted with solipsism. Essentially he is asked to justify he is not a brain in a vat yet all the while the theist is simply “asserting” that God exists, that God, through revelation has “revealed it to him in such a way that he knows God to be true”. But the theist himself is unable to provide a solution of the problem of solipsism other that to simply “assert” God. God told me he’s real, and I know this because he told me he’s real and I know this because he told me… ad infinitum. Does the theist truly understand solipsism ?
– asserting things doesn’t make them true, yet this is what the presuppositionalist stance is. Assert god exists and that nobody can know anything if that one statement is correct.´╗┐ The presup argument is a bunch of wordplay and jargon to get around the inevitable conclusion that the theist ultimately has no real evidence to support the existence of god. They just found an argument to make their god necessary. “Hey let’s debate about the existence of God but before we start he is absolutely necessary and must exist, ok go”. Like wtf? No.