Have any of you heard the presuppositionalist Sye Ten Bruggencate? He has appeared (with Eric Hovind) on the Magic Sandwich Show earlier this year

(linky here to Part 1 of 9)

but I warn you it is a frustrating video to watch, probably whichever side you sit on; Aron Ra completely loses control almost from the beginning, and even DPRJones has difficulty keeping control of his composure.

I don't think presuppositionalism really counts as "an argument" (wrt being on topic for this thread), but as far as a YT video goes, there is plenty of argument!

I cannot believe someone could actually convince themselves this is the right way to go about the world.

Facts? I don't need no stinkin' facts!

He could have additional reasoning you don't know about.

You've indicted him without allowing him to explain himself.

asdfasdf32: "WLC, You are charged with a crime and I'm charging you in absentia. I don't want to hear what you have to say in your defense."

Splendour you are falsely conflating 'honesty' with 'intellectual honesty':

No-one is questioning Craig's sincerity when he speaks of the witness of the Holy Spirit, but his approach breaks at least the bolded part of the definition of intellectual honesty.

Furthermore, this isn't something I just point out with theists; recently I called out a quote in the Image thread (posted by an atheist) that misrepresented Bart Ehrman's views on the historical existence of Jesus. You won't get this, but I care about what's true, not what confirms and conforms to my worldview.

I don't think you understand what a world view is.

wiki quote on world view:

According to Michael Lind, "a worldview is a more or less coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which permits its holders to interpret new information in light of their preconceptions. Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises." This is why politicians often seem to talk past one another, or ascribe different meanings to the same events.

Lol. "David Hume says that square circles are inconceivable, but I can conceive of square circles, so his claim is false." This is not a serious response. But, I guess if you are only interested in whether your argument works for you maybe that doesn't matter.

You increasingly seem drawn to a mode of argumentation where you don't try to argue on the basis of premises that your opponents will accept, which seems intellectually dishonest to me. Jokerthief asks for a good argument for the existence of God, and you say, well I have a good argument, but it is only good for me, not you. That just sounds to me like a bad argument.

The ontological argument is a serious philosophical argument (although a bad one), but the version you are presenting here is not very good. Your argument is essentially this: God's essence is to exist, thus it is impossible that God not exist (notice the similiarity to Plato's argument for the immortality of the soul, to which a similar response applies).

Here is the response. It would be nonsensical to say that there is a being who doesn't have its essence, as by definition it would then not be that being. So, if a being's essence is existence, it would be nonsensical to say that that being doesn't have existence.

Now, is this what the atheist is doing? Is she claiming that there is a being whose essence is existence which doesn't exist? No. The atheist is saying that there is no such being whose essence is existence.

The theist responds by saying that the atheist can only do this by denying that existence really is God's essence. And many atheists (including me) are fine with this. I think the conception of God as a being whose essence is existence is confused about the logical and metaphysical properties of existence.

However, even granting the point, the response is wrong. The atheist can acknowledge that if God existed that his essence would be existence without thereby implying that God actually does exist. This is because the atheist is not claiming that there actually exists a being that is God that doesn't have God's essence (existence), but rather that no such being that exists. In other words, God as a being (an existent object) is different from God as a concept (an idea in the mind). We can say that when we think about God as existing, we are thinking of a god whose essence is existence. This doesn't mean that we have to think that this god actually does exist.

I don’t think the atheist can accept the theist’s terms without ceding the argument.

(A) Man is rational animal.
(B) A bachelor is an unmarried man.
(C) God exists.

Since the predicates of A, B and C are included in the definition of their respective subjects (accepting the theists’ terms) the propositions are logically necessary, i.e. it’s not logically possible they’re false. Likewise, their negations…

(~A) Man is non-rational animal.
(~B) A bachelor is a married man.
(~C) God is non-existent.

… are logically impossible, i.e. it’s not logically possible they’re true, and hence, they’re inconceivable. So whatever it is the atheist is thinking of as non-existent; it’s not God. Just as whatever one is thinking of as non-rational is not man, or whatever one is thinking of as married is not a bachelor.

the bible says so! DUHH

I feel like my point is just getting ignored here. Yes, I am not denying that (~C) is a contradiction, and if an atheist asserts it when assuming your definition of god, then they contradicting themselves. However, if an atheist asserts "There is no god," they are not contradicting themselves. This amounts to saying "There (are) no actually existing omnimax, necessarily existing beings." This is not a denial of the definition given by the theist, but rather amounts to saying that the set of gods is empty.

Now, this might seem strange to you because you might think that (~C) is equivalent to the claim "There are no gods." This is, however, not the case (although to show this you would have to use modern logic which I know you are averse to).

I was thinking "the flying spaghetti monster", but yeah. +1

Doesn't everyone believe or know there is God, these days? The believers do, and the scientists do. The latter because they know natural sciences like chemistry and known that everything follows their laws, that there is "God" in everything. The game is over these days, people not being that ******ed (IQ below 80 or so) anymore that they would think that God is something outside of the universe and from there rules all things and it has never been like that in the original religions or even in any religion, and many philosophers have known it and pointed it out for thousands of years already.

Define God.

No, I understand. I just don’t think what you’re saying has an impact on my argument.

But that’s the end of my argument. That is, to avoid contradiction and accepting theists’ terms, atheists can’t affirm and must deny “(~C) God is non-existent,” and must affirm and can’t deny “(C) God exists.” Assuming theists will avoid contradiction and accept their own definition of God, they’ll do the same.

The nature of discussion is that you share your thoughts with others. Obviously I think it defeats your argument. If you disagree, you should say why.

Nope. Atheists can deny (~C) and (C). I.e. They can affirm this statement:

"Not God exists."

No one knows. If you think you know then you are dumb.

If there were a god, I would ask him what came before him.

On second thought--never mind. I'm pretty sure I know where you're going anyway and am not that interested.

fyp

You're not a little concerned that this makes it impossible to deny the existence of my necessary mandate to rule the world?

I'm defining it as necessary you see, so if you think you're challenging it, you've misunderstood and are actually challenging something else.

Tithes can be made via paypal.

This is what Hashem ( "YHWH G-d" ) makes clear in his name revealed to Moshe ( from Ex 3 ): Ehyeh asher ehyeh (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה) which is sometimes rendered in English as "I will be who I will be" or as expressed in the Greek LXX as " ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν " ~ "I am The Being". Hashem necessarily "exists" and then the ontological question is what is the nature of "existence" and is this nature of the "existence" for Hashem in an altogether different category.

I think, to exist is to be knowable, and that which is knowable is knowledge. So, the nature of existence is knowledge.
Taking “category” loosely, I’d say no, because that which is in God (knowledge) is God (Divine knowledge). I would say, however, that God’s existence is in a different mode. I.e. as the particular is to the universal, and individual knowledge is to the All-knowing, an individual being is to All-being. Same category, different modes.

No. A horse and the concept of a horse are different things. Assuming your previous contention, I will grant the restatement that the existence of a horse means the concept of a horse is conceivable. But the horse does not become a concept as a result of this, it is still a horse.

I distinguish between intellectual knowledge and rational knowledge. Intellectual knowledge is where we know a being is a being or that it is, whereas rational knowledge is to proceed from one understanding to another determining what it is.

So? Even if I accepted your dichotomy as meaningful and well defined (I don't), neither side of the dichotomy helps your claim that an entity, like a horse, being knowable implies that the entity IS knowledge. I suspect a linguistic confusion. Knowledge of either variety represents states of the mind (or, on monism, states of the brain) and a state of the mind that conceives of a horse is simply different from an entity like a horse.

The first sentence is not altogether correct: Hashem exists and He does know Himself; however, Hashem is not "knowledge" ( Christians might also loosely point out 1 Cor 13:8 ).

Hashem's existence is unlike the existence of physical objects, human beings, abstract mathematical entities, philosophical concepts and even spiritual beings and all of these "exist" in some "category". Human beings may have better understanding through anthropomorphisms and analogies; however, they are only useful constructs and not all that is "divine" is necessarily expressible in human language.

1) Hashem's existence is necessary; 2) everything that physically exists depends on Hashem; and 3) He manifests Himself in the real world ( makes his "existence" known in the world ) through "Word" and "Action". These are some common theological beliefs which seem to indicate that the existence of Hashem ("G-d") is unlike the existence of anything else, i.e., the kind of existence that is uniquely Hashem's.

I’m not asserting “a horse is knowledge.” I said, “to exist is to be knowable, and that which is knowable is knowledge.”