Tying oneself in knots

[DMB]

I hadn't heard of presuppositional creationism until I read this. Itseems really weird to me. (I'm afraid you need to read the whole article to get the sense of it.)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... onism.html

[JamesBannon]

Arguing with a presuppositional apologist is like arguing with a wall: it's extremely frustrating, and the wall doesn't, or rather refuses to, learn anything. What is more, is assumes its own conclusions. In short, presuppositional apologetics is bullshit.

[Jobar]

I know many here remember Theophilus, from II. His method-

Step 1. Presuppose the Bible is true.
Step 2. Therefore, the Bible is true.

In fact, much of my own writings concerning the tentativity of scientific knowledge, and the Prime Axiom (the assumption that our senses are truly reporting an external universe, and we aren't just solipsistic awarenesses trapped all unknowing in the Matrix), were originally aimed at Theophilus. I recall that bd-from-kg presented some brilliant deconstructions of Theo's presuppositionalism, too.

But the best way to attack it, I think, is to demonstrate that the Bible is not coherent or consistent; lots of contradictions in there. I kept trying to get Theo to tell me who was Jesus' grandfather, for instance.

[MattShizzle]

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. As I have said, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence. Presupposing a claim, especially an extraordinary one, is very illogical.

[Jobar]

It's astonishing how tenaciously presuppositionalists will chase around and around that circle, though.

Here's a 2004 thread begun by Jack the Bodiless, Presuppositionalism: Behind the Curtain. (To read that archived thread you have to be a member at Talk Freethought, and also have to be signed in at the active board first.)

In that thread I asked him

Jack, as we have seen from theophilus, this self-contained and self-affirming belief system seems to be airtight. Reason bounces off. Do you have any ideas about the best way to break this sort of armor? Where do the most glaring inconsistencies with the real world lie?

His response:

Jobar:

I think the whole purpose of the doctrine is to provide an excuse (for the devotee) to ignore rational debate.

IMO, it's a use of the "Argument from Authority" fallacy to gain "permission" to introduce further fallacies. There's no need to worry about the possibility that any of your statements or arguments will fail, because The Great Authority has declared them to be correct. You wouldn't normally begin a debate by declaring that you are infallibly correct and your opponent is undeniably wrong, and that your opponent is incapable of rational thought unless he accepts this at the outset: but the VanTillian thinks this sort of bone-headedness is OK because the Great Thinkers (Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen etc) have said that it is. The TAG is a "special kind of argument", with "special rules".

Hence the sophistry, the use of pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-theological jargon to obfuscate the actual core issue: as rainbow walking put it, "You can't be right because that would mean I am wrong". This can be exposed by using plain English to describe it, or by using similar tactics in retaliation.