𓁟 host1.bitchan.one

If God does not exist, then nothing exists.

⧖expiring ~19d0/25 kept1w ago

𓀐 @47cVHU3q

⏱ 1w 👍 0

⬆ upvote 0

[⇥] sort oldest ⏱

⬆[⏱]₿⚠

👍👎✔

𓀐↩⛓⚠

[⇥] flip, oldest first

filter [-]
𓀐 @7GtxEndM: >If Khaos and Gaia don't exist, nothing exists+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @PPEnRE2D: >shitposting to deflect and avoid facing reality+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @SE_~spBM: Have a nice day.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @TfBATCnR: das rite goy+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @uzt-FiAt: I think you might be autistic, or disingenuous. The point is that knowledge is impossible without God. If knowledge is impossible, then you couldn’t even know that knowledge is impossible, or that I’m saying this, or that you exist. What do feelings have to do with any of this?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @Pk5hkHAJ: Do you know that you think that? Because without God there is no basis for universal, objective, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, and nature, without which knowledge is impossible.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @Hz4dPYxA: bro just discovered presup apologetics and doesn't realize how retarded it is+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @?toXFpG*: First thing I always have to say is that, outside of a few internet apologists (the Matt Slicks, Darth Dawkins, Sye Ten Bruggencates, and Jay Dyers) that nobody takes presup seriously. You'll find people in academia arguing about fine tuning, modal ontological arguments, psycho-physical harmony, and so on, but nobody really even cares to write about presup. Because presup isn't really an argument. It's a rhetorical device that says "Solve whatever philosophical problems I throw at you or else I…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @U8U*xCv-: It is self-explanatory.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @VAiggXjV: OP is an orthodox presbyterian, not an Eastern Orthodox Christian.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @g9pHosoZ: Knowledge is reliable predictive power. Historical knowledge predicts what sources and digs will show, and recent history predicts more, as with alibis. Lucky guesses don’t count, because they aren’t reliable. So knowledge exists to the extent the world has stable regularities. It needs no guarantee of that stability, because it measures it.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @Z97JWB?B: >Its first premise quietly presupposes the very conclusion It is anything but quiet, as I said the very purpose of the argument is to allege that presupposing the existence of God is necessary for every proposition whatsoever. If the argument did not presuppose it, it would be self-contradictory, but there is a difference between presupposing the conclusion and begging the question because the latter consists in contingency of the truth of the premise on the truth of the conclusion, which is no…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @faEKhXLx: What we are defending is the entire Christian worldview. It is a mistake to treat the ultimate presuppositions of the Christian worldview as though they were lesser propositions under a worldview. In reality a person’s ultimate presuppositions, which together form their worldview, either go together or not at all. The ultimate presuppositions of the Christian worldview are the articles of faith described in the Creed, and the ultimate authority upon which he builds his knowledge is the revelati…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @MfdPe~Nc: Because of the impossibility of the contrary.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @khdQomMB: >repeat “You’re just assuming the conclusion!” x1000 >ignore all response given >repeat “You’re just assuming the conclusion!“ This is how clowns think they epically destroy presup+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @s3p9XK?u: >God Which one?+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @2bFf?rnM: Yet you clearly hate God, because you know He is real. He is not far from any one of us.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @GxopztLh: Kek the funniest thing about presups is that when you're cornered you always start to presuppose your opponents' worldview for them. >You already believe what I believe bro don't ask me to corroborate my claims+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @SN73Lsec: what did the immaterial lawgiver mean by this?+ 1

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 1

𓀐 @KFt~KCDT: The preconditions of intelligibility just wouldn't be possible without worldwide genital mutilation.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @pNMdpFHS: >act like a brick-wall until people stop talking to you Accurate description of the atheists.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @_4=RoRbn: But that’s literally what happened here. I made arguments, I gave arguments, you said “nuh uh” and repeated yourself over and over. You chose to mock rather than engage the argument because you’re a bunch of incorrigible impudent miscreants who would’ve been publicly flogged in a just society.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @fM-7Cy5x: >I answered you point for point in places where you weren't simply repeating yourself and gave valid reasons as to why I found the TAG unconvincing No, you literally didn’t. This is the best example of “acting like a brick wall” in the thread and Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine for this very reason. >For the most part you either repeated yourself, engaged in equivocation, or else you simply ignored what I was saying. This is called projection. You simply ignored everything I said bef…+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @TZ5wrSUM: Explain in good faith.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0