Home » Three reasons Brugguncatesque presuppositionalists can be simply ignored

Three reasons Brugguncatesque presuppositionalists can be simply ignored

1. Brugguncatesque presuppositionalists have completely rejected evidence as legitimate. This group of Christians had the foresight to see that, with the advent of the internet that makes very clear the superiority of evidence above any other form of coming to conclusion, that they would have to abandon evidence in order to salvage their position. They have done so by creating a new form of pseudo-apologetics (There is no “defense”, but only assertions) that starts with the assertion that we all know through some divine sense that their god is real. This is easily tested and dismissed by the average person, but they will reap the souls of those who have such a deep longing for the answers to their emotional longings that they, after squinting hard into the darkness, and conjure up the form of a god that asserts he has those answers. However, for the average healthy mind, there is no recognition of the god of the Bible. And this is easily demonstrated by even a cursory look at children in societies isolated from the propaganda of Christianity. There is no recognition of any god remotely resembling the god of the Bible. 
2. Brugguncatesque presuppositionalists begin with an irrational notion of belief. Sye says in a recent podcast “What is a weak faith? What is a faith that needs bolstering?” His belief is absolute. He holds no doubt. This is inherently irrational for all things inductively assessed since things inductively assessed are validated by evidence that arrives incrementally. Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant perceived evidence. And there can never logically be an “absolute” degree of inductive evidence that would ever justify absolute belief. Sye will respond by asking whether his god is powerful enough to give subjective minds absolute knowledge. Sye won’t give you a mechanism. He just states that his god somehow violates everything we know about subjectivity, and suggests that there is some mechanism through which his god communicates absolute knowledge. I’ve asked him whether and how a subjective being could have confidence in the existence and reliability such a mechanism without testing it, presumably with some mechanism that itself needs to be tested (ad infinitum). but Sye refuses to answer. He is happy with his presuppostion, and feels he does not need to provided a logically coherent explanation. You can also be content with your dismal of this nonsense, and you, unlike Sye, can do so with intellectual integrity.
3. Brugguncatesque presuppositionalists claim there is no knowledge that does not presume the existence of Sye’s god. Sye actually believes that, if you think you might be wrong in what you are fairly certain of, you don’t have “knowledge”. So Sye has stipulated “knowledge” to denote something that is impossible for human minds as they assess an external world, and yet he claims he “knows” in this absolute sense that his god is real…and so do you. This is the depth of the foolishness Sye swims in. Based on this theory, the child who inductively learns upon multiple tests that a released spoon will clatter on the floor can not every actually “know” that this is true. Animals can not know anything. And you, according to Sye, do not know anything unless that proposition lies within the category of epistemic facts granted to your through Sye’s mysterious notion of sensus divinitatis, a notion that Sye can not explain in any logically coherent manner. Sye knows better to venture to rigorously define this category of absolutely known items. It appears that, absurdly, he does not actually absolutely know what items belong to this category of absolutely known propositions. So Sye does not absolutely know what exactly he absolutely knows. Ponder the incoherence in that for a moment, then walk forever away from the nonsense of presuppositionalism without worry as we understand the incoherence of a god of logic basing his message to humans on the illogic of presuppositions divorced from evidence and not grounded by any demonstrably reliable transmission of absolute knowledge inhabiting an undefined category of absolute knowledge.  
Brugguncatesque presuppositionalism is the sound of of a dying ideology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: