User blog:Fraterchaos/The Fundamental Flaw at the Base of Presuppositional Apologetics

A Fundamental Flaw at the Base of Presuppositional Apologetics.

We've all seen and heard the arguments of Presuppositional Apologetics, and we all know there is a lot of dishonesty in these arguments. Many have been pointed out before, in some cases by people far more intelligent than I. But when it comes to the specific brand of Presup that is pedalled by Sye-Ten and others like him (SyeClones) I think there is something that is so dishonest, so blatant, and so wrong that I felt I should take the time to point it out.

In some ways, it goes back in principle to the arguments put forth by Ozymandias Ramses II on YouTube, and I highly reccommend checking out his videos on this topic. And while he explains quite well the basic problems of the Presup as practiced by SyeClones... I think a certain area of the argument might be made a little easier to understand (especially for those who have not studied things like epistemology as intensely as Ozzy has).

We've seen that one of the basic arguments of the Presup as practiced by these people is "you cannot use reason and logic to justify reason and logic" or some such argument that means the same thing. The claim is based on the idea that an atheist or skeptic has no authority, and therefore no basis to trust his or her reason. This may seem like a valid argument in a way, but in fact it is not.

There is a sneaky little form of "bait and switch" going on here, that can be hard to notice. The presup is claiming HIS logic and reason are valid because they were given to him by God... and yet he denies that the skeptic can use logic and reason to justify anything he says because the skeptic does not believe in a God. Think about that concept... to the presup, there IS a God and he is the source of all reason and logic. So I have to ask at this point, what does it matter if the skeptic believes in God or not?

Let us assume we all agree on what the laws of logic are. And further, we agree that a sound and valid logical argument, based on a true premise, necessarily leads to the conclusion being true. This HAS to be the case as it is essential to the very practice of logical argument. How can the belief or non-belief of the skeptic affect his argument if it is based on a true premise, is sound and valid? No matter the state of the belief of the person arguing, the conclusion reached must then be true, and in fact, the fact that the presup believes all logic comes from God, means he MUST agree regardless of the belief or disbelief of his opponent. He MUST, because he believes ALL logic comes from God, even the logic of a skeptic!

Let me give a simple example. Two people are sitting in a room arguing the existence of God. On the table there is a hammer. The believer (the presup) claims all hammers are made by God, using God's special magic. The skeptic maintains that this is not so. At some point, the skeptic picks up the hammer, and strikes the presuppositonal apologist with the hammer. Does the skeptic's disbelief in God having created the hammer mean that the hammer will not harm the other person? Of course not! (and no, I am not implying that atheists like to hit people with hammers, just trying to illustrate a point)

So, when a presup like Sye claims you cannot justify reason and logic without a belief in God, he's simply wrong, because he DOES believe in God and he MUST believe that the logic the skeptic uses comes from God just as does his own. It does not matter that the skeptic does not believe his logic comes from God, anymore than it matters if the hammer was made by God... both are simply tools, and it does not matter what you believe about the origins of the tool as to whether you can use that tool.

If we agree on the laws of logic, and we agree that logic is absolute and unchanging, and we agree that a sound and valid argument, based on a true premise must lead to a true conclusion, then there is simply no way the presup can claim a skeptic's argument is not logical based on the skeptic's lack of belief in God... either the theist must abandon God altogether, or abandon the idea that the logic God gave him is absolute, or make the startling claim that logic can change when used by a skeptic simply because he is a skeptic, even if the laws remain the same and the argument is sound and valid and based on a true premise. Can absolute laws of logic be affected by the beliefs of the person using that logic, all else being equal? If so, then logic cannot be absolute... and if it is not absolute, then either it did not come from a perfect God, or God is not perfect.