Friday, April 3, 2009

Presuppositionalist Arguments

How do people deal with these kinds of arguments for God? I know the arguments are ridiculous because they make far too many assumptions about the necessity of deity, but how does one get that through the thick skull of a presuppositionalist? Or is it better to just ignore them?


  1. I've never had any luck pointing out that presuppositionalist arguments are fallacies from the start (fallacious?), and can't be addressed. Of course, it might help if people studied logic and knew what fallacies are . . .

  2. I kinda figured that was how it would roll out. I read over a long debate Stephen Law had with a presup. It was painful how the guy just dodged arguments based on initial assertions without good basis.

  3. How to get through to the person making the argument? Impossible, simply because their argument is based on faith rather than logic.

    With that said, there are several counter arguments I've seen be successful in stopping the onslaught. Here are the basic ideas:

    Q: Could an omnipotent being provide information such that we could be absolutely sure of its truth?

    A: Yes.

    1) He/she/it/they could also provide false information that you could be absolutely sure of as well. Demonstrate that this information is not false.

    2) In order to provide you with universally true information, you would need to be made omniscient in order to know it as such. A limited human believing himself to have universal information without the ability to confirm or demonstrate its truth is unable to tell whether he is being misled or not; let alone demonstrate that he is not lying in making this claim. Solution: have the presupper demonstrate his/her omniscience.

    Claim: The law of non-contradiction is proof of absolute truth (and thus God's existence).

    Rebuttal: The law of non-contradiction fails at the quantum level (and thus is not absolute). A single electron can both "go through slit A" and "not go through slit A) simultaneously. This is physical fact, not philosophical abstraction.

    Rebuttal: "I always speak the truth. The previous sentence was false"


    Just a few off of the top of my head. Interesting blog so far, EC :)

  4. I suppose that's a good place to start. Presup is just so incredibly obnoxious that I get tired of it quickly.

    Thanks for the compliment. I do try to keep it lively.