Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jason Petersen Revisited - Presuppositionalism

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Jason Petersen Revisited - Presuppositionalism Subject: Possible Worlds http://answersforhope.com/the-epistemological-argument-against-atheism - A possible
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 6, 2013
      Jason Petersen Revisited - Presuppositionalism

      Subject: "Possible Worlds"


      - "A possible world is a description
      - of how the world might have been."
      -- Jason Petersen
      -- June 9, 2013
      -- Reposted October 5, 2013
      -- https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=393951914067778&id=194801873982784

      Inasmuch as Jason presupposes God, his definition of "possible world" allows for no possible world where God is not.  That's why, in our recent debate, he refused to consider any possible world without God.

      That being the case, all that he has to say about an atheist worldview being problematic is irrelevant.  For all Jason knows, in a possible world such as ours where God is not, atheism works just fine, and must of necessity, and it's theism that fails.

      Consider that, even accepting Jason's stipulative definition regarding possible worlds, there are two competing transcendental claims that thwart Jason's verbose attempts to logically refute atheism:


      Jason's Transcendental Claim:

      - God exists and there is
      - no possible world where
      - God does not exist.


      Atheist Transcendental Claim:

      - God does not exist and
      - there is no possible world
      - where God does exist.

      (Note to Remember: The Bahnsen Presuppositional Rule is that transcendentals are not falsifiable.)

      I think this is fundamental to understanding Jason Petersen's, and others' like Sye Ten Bruggencate, Ted Curtis, Tony Miano, Presuppositionalism and why it fails as a legitimate apologetic.

      That is, they call it Presuppositionalism because it presupposes, for purposes of engaging their opposition, that there is their God and no possible world where their God does not exist. 

      Starting there, their only interest is complaining about what they perceive as defects in the opposition view.

      It's not about proof, knowledge, logic, uniformity of nature, certainty, absolutes, or any other hobby they may wish to try and use to confound and confuse their opposition as well as their followers. 

      Their real, fundamental position is that if their God did not exist there would be nothing. 

      When push comes to shove, they admit they are not out to "prove" their God exists; they are just out to presuppose their God exists, strike up a conversation/argument, and explain why they think, if that be the case, the opposition fails.

      The conversation, however, effectively stops where the other side does not accept their presupposition that God exists and it is the God of Jason Petersen and Sye Ten Bruggencate and Ted Curtis and Tony Miano and ...

      Robert Baty


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.