Just when you think that all the Sye-lons and Van Tillians have fucked off into the sunset, comes a drive by posting by yet anyother TAG’er, bravely calling himself ‘anonymous’, in the comments of this post about Syecular’s bullshit ‘argument’.
It’s the same old shit, but I’ll reproduce some of it here for your ‘amusement’ (though, if you’re anything like me, you’d rather have teeth pulled than listen to yet another one of these YHWH-automatons rattle through his script)
Presuppostional apologetics has two goals:
1. It shows the atheist that they have no justification for their knowledge. In particular relating to your discussion it shows the atheist who idolizes rationalism that he cannot justify with logic…
a. His disbelief in God.
You choose to disbelieve in God by faith. Though you are a rational being…even IF that rational capacity was relatively trustworthy you could not possibly know all the facts much less reason through them in order to say that God does not exist. Your rational capacity is finite not infinite, you are not all omnipotent. Therefore if you were rationally consistant and were humbly operating within your own epistemological constraints you would at the most say that you are an agnostic. But the title of this blog makes clear that you are an atheist. Therefore while claiming to be rational you are really making an assertion that is irrational!
b. His trust in logic as an epistemology in a world without a God, specifically the God of the Bible.
Christian’s believe that we can trust that our reason is generally accurate because of the authority of our Creator who reveals in his word that he created us as rational creatures, created and orderly world that can be understood, and gave us a task to rule over it.
This got me thinking….
The presubullshitter claims that knowledge is only possible via express revelation from the Christian god, that we can only trust our senses because his god grounds that trust. It is VERY important to note here that the presubullshitter is absolutely sure that we CAN trust our senses – that what we experience is absolutely real.
Now, assume for a moment that the universe exists entirely naturalistically, and that the reality we experience is actually real. We are able to experience it via multiple, corroborating senses, can compare our experience against the experience of other sentient beings and their senses, and can successfully interact with, alter, and predict what will happen in the future (given uniformity) in this reality. If the universe is as we perceive it to be, then we should expect EXACTLY what we find – reality that is independent of conscience, that exists whether we’re thinking about it or not.
Realising that existence must ALWAYS come before consciousness allows us to be secure enough that our experience of reality is that of a conscious mind observing objects and events that are entirely separate from that conscience. If mankind vanished tomorrow the Sun would still shine down on the surface of the Earth, seasons would carry on regardless, the oceans would continue to ebb and flow. This is, very simply, the Primacy of Existence.
The Primacy of Existence provides a sentient mind with a firm foundation for building further knowledge – once you are confident beyond reasonable doubt that the reality you are experiencing is ‘real’, you are able to measure that reality, experiment upon it, identify its unique properties, and use them to explore further. It thoroughly grounds our ability to learn, gain knowledge, successfully apply the scientific method.
The presubullshitter denies all of this, according to him we cannot know anything without his god first existing….but wait one second! What’s that? The Christian god has to EXIST before the presubullshitter can claim a grounding for his knowledge? Uh oh. Can you see what the presubullshitter has done?
He’s called upon the Primacy of Existence as the foundation of his knowledge claim – yes, it may be a claim that a supernatural super-being exists, but he is still absolutely relying on the basic axiom of the Primacy of Existence! Disagree, presubullshitter? Then tell me, would your god continue to exist if there were no conscious minds to comprehend him? Is he entirely independent of the human mind? If ‘yes’ then you agree with the Primacy of Existence! If ‘no’ then you admit that you’ve MADE YOUR GOD UP!!
Once the presubullshitter is forced to agree that the Primacy of Existence is an inarguable axiom, it is a simple matter to apply Occam’s Razor to excise the unnecessary tumour of religious belief!
So, the presubullshitter accepts that our senses are correctly reporting our surroundings to us, has been forced to acknowledge the Primacy of Existence, and yet he still insists that only his particular version of his particular god can account for knowledge, despite having based this claim completely on a foundation built on MY worldview!
And these people wonder why I think they’re insane!