tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4921855125013712802.post8940341691567701431..comments2023-04-05T04:40:48.583-07:00Comments on Just my thoughts: Some notes about presuppositional apologetics as practiced by Sye (and now Dan)Pvblivshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4921855125013712802.post-48527142797994927362009-03-08T12:18:00.000-07:002009-03-08T12:18:00.000-07:00as practiced by... DanI think the verb choice is e...<I>as practiced by... Dan</I><BR/><BR/>I think the verb choice is especially appropriate here, but I thought the following list of alternative verbs (with adverbs, where needed) might be likewise appropriate:<BR/><BR/>1. regurgitated<BR/>2. parroted<BR/>3. copy/pasted<BR/>4. blindly embraced<BR/>5. clumsily wielded<BR/>6. misunderstood<BR/>7. confused<BR/><BR/>It's not exhaustive, but representative...<BR/><BR/>What especially annoys me about Dan's 'use' of presuppositionalism is the fact that he's shown that he is above its inherent dishonesty (whereas Sye has not). Dan must know that TAG fails to discriminate the "correct" version of god from the "incorrect" versions, so it is effectively worthless, even if it <I>were</I> valid. Similarly, Dan must also realize that TAG is <I>not</I> valid -- it is victim to the foundational presupposition we all share: that our ability to reason is valid.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, as you note, the notion of "certain" revelation is shot. No TAG-using arguer can show how he can distinguish "certain revelation" from "maliciously false revelation." That is, a malicious deity could just as easily have provided disinformation "in such a way that [they] can be certain." To deny this possibility is to deny the TAGer's own notion that a "good" deity could provide <I>actual</I> information in such a manner.<BR/><BR/>The whole thing is slipshod smokescreening, and there is a reason that presuppositionalism is not generally taken seriously (from my own experience and research) in philosophical/theological circles.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, nice take, and I rather wish Dan would perform an internal critique regarding his "use" of TAG and/or presuppositional apologetics -- if he were to do so -- <I>honestly</I> -- he should conclude that "using" such a method is counter-productive, and corrodes his [already shaky] integrity.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4921855125013712802.post-28167035837719400092009-03-07T17:08:00.000-08:002009-03-07T17:08:00.000-08:00 No, it would remain circular. Circular reaso... No, it would remain circular. Circular reasoning just places the desired conclusion in the premises. It does not mean that the conclusion in inconsistent.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4921855125013712802.post-85897295564003523162009-03-07T12:55:00.000-08:002009-03-07T12:55:00.000-08:00"any attempt to account for logic would be inheren..."any attempt to account for logic would be inherently circular."<BR/><BR/>Unless logic is internally consistent.Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.com