09 June, 2009

If They Won't Admit You've Beat Them, Join Them...

During a debate with presuppositionalist scmike in the comments section over at Ryk's blog, a few things came to mind. As I discussed in the last post, a common presupper claim is that, through revelation, they have a source of absolute truth, i.e. God. Any attempt to debate how they can be certain of their revelation will lead to the presupper claiming that an omniscient omnipotent being could reveal things to a person in such a way so that person could know them to be certain. It's an 'easy-way-out' claim since it is seemingly impossible to refute, although many have tried with varying levels of success.

Instead, I have simply counter-claimed that a different omniscient omnipotent being has revealed something to me in such a way that I know it to be certain, including a revelation that the presupper in question is a liar. In the same way, it is impossible for the presupper to refute my claim. In fact, both claims are equally plausible, reinforced by the fact that the presupper will just say something like 'at least you are not an atheist anymore'. This shows the underlying motives of these internet presuppers; they care little for the truth, they just like trolling atheist websites and blogs.

So since they cannot refute the claim of a revelation by a different omniscient omnipotent being, then they cannot seriously insist that their worldview is proven by 'the impossibility of the contrary'. In the debate with scmike, my different omniscient omnipotent being was Ryk's big toe, but in an earlier debate with Sye TenB I said it was The Invisible Pink Hammer (Presuppers please note that these two beings are in fact the same being but just different, kinda like Jesus and God). Neither have been able to refute my claims. Were they to try, they would simply be refuting their own claims. This shows the empty nature of their supposed argument.

Scmike said that I had no proof to substantiate my alleged subjective revelation, implying that his revelation was substantiated by the bible. Well OK, I am now going to write down the words of Ryk's big toe here, as channeled through me:

Ryk's big toe created the heavens and the earth and the universe. Logic, morals and any other abstract immaterial stuff you can think of reflect the nature of Ryk's big toe. Also, scmike and Sye TenB are liars.

There...now there is objective proof to substantiate my claims. This will have to suffice, unless of course scmike is of the opinion that an omniscient omnipotent being cannot channel it's words and revelation through humans in order to create a written record of such revelation?

3 comments:

robert estrada said...

Grandfather lurker just dropping in.
Formal logic is not my forte but I would like to observe that the brand employed by scmike is very familiar to me. It is the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” variety. A variant of the “I know you are but what am I?” ploy used by spoiled brats. I am baring my inner secrets as I once used those formulae and several of my descendants also did. All of us abandoned them before our teens. So how old is scmike?

rhiggs said...

Hi Robert,

Scmike's profile says he is 30. Sye TenB looks about 40-50 from his profile picture and he is just as bad.

These presuppers have convinced themselves they have an argument, but I honestly think don't they understand why it doesn't hold. So they continue with it regardless. The very fact that my alternate omniscient omnipotent being is possible, which they cannot refute, makes their argument non-sensical. This is because it is a contrary worldview which they need to be impossible, even though they have admitted previously that it is possible.

Nonsense.

They shy away from addressing this though and continue on their semantic merry-go-round...

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA