Where is the uniformity of nature established in the Bible? If anything atheists can expect a more uniform universe because there is nobody to throw the switch and upset various inductive patterns, as God has actually promised to do in Revelation (turn the sun dark for example) and in any case can decide Bahnsen's toothpaste will cease to emerge from the tube for reasons morally sufficient to his secret council. At least nothing has the apparent power to upset the physics of toothpaste dispensation arbitrarily under the atheist worldview. In fact, simply because toothpaste disappearing into the void, would have an apparently supernatural explanation, I could see it being a means God would use for Christian revival, and therefore I think Abrahamics have no more explanatory power or scope when it comes to the problem of induction.
This board used to be crawling with presups, what happened.
They already made their point.
And presupp isn't as engaging as the classical method. Presupp just shuts up their opponents, that's about it.
Or if the atheist doesn't understand it, it turns into a lecture which they or I aren't really up for.
Honestly though, it should be something taught in schools like in philosophy class or something.
atheists are a living walking contradiction and an eyesore and a their ignorance or pigheadedness is a headache.
Agreed. I'm not an atheist.
If you mean "shuts up" by being pigheaded and "over-talking" them then sure. Presup gets bodied 100 ways from Sunday.
Presupp doesn't get taught because it's philosophically weak. It's no surprise that the people pushing presupp aren't serious academic philosophers - even Plantinga, a Reformed Christian, puts forward a much more modest version of the argument than whatever slop online apologists try to push.
The hell do atheists mean when they say "weak". What's that supposes to mean when you don't have a refutation?
Your conviction doesn't matter in an argument, you KNOW?
*supposed
The problem with presuppers is that they are too low IQ to understand why the argument doesn't work. In a way it's brilliant - it stunlocks people of a certain disposition because the barrier to entry is lower than the barrier to leaving, so to say.
Ways presup has been refuted
>Why does God have the properties he does?
>Outsider presups
>Internal critique of Christianity
>Say it has convinced you and pretend to convert at which point the presup has to call bullshit because even they know it's not convincing.
And the list just goes on and on. Presup ever winning an argument was real in your mind.
>Why does God have the properties he does?
I don't know. The point is that he is necessary.
>Outsider presups
Concession.
>Internal critique of Christianity
Good luck with that.
>pretend to convert
Just like how the loser "pretends" to lose?
>I don't know. The point is that he is necessary.
Let me guess. Because... He just is okay?!!!!!111
>Concession
No? Pointing out that Muslim presups exist doesn't make you into a theist. The problem with invoking the "appeal to moron fallacy" is that the person pointing it out can just as easily be the moron as anyone else.
>Good luck with that.
You have yet to rebut the OP for one thing...
>Just like how the loser "pretends" to lose?
Looks like he won to me by demonstrating the absurdity of presup.
>You have yet to rebut the OP for one thing...
It's the same old cognitive dissonance effect the question manifests in atheists.
When OP said
>nothing has the apparent power to upset the physics of toothpaste
He is without realizing (the effect) already relying on the inductive reasoning that nature is uniform. He hasn't given any reasons why it has to be uniform. He is just relying on it as if it's a given when that is the core of the question, when that assumption is the very thing which is being questioned.
His answer would have made sense if the question was "Why DON'T you believe in the uniformity of nature?".
Albeit him answering at all would contradict his supposed non-belief.
*He is without realizing (the effect) already relying on the inductive reasoning that nature will be uniform.
*He hasn't given a basis on why he believes the thing he believes.
*"Why DON'T you believe that nature will be uniform?".
>He hasn't given any reasons why it has to be uniform.
But you haven't either is the point, in fact you don't even have the pretense of having accomplished that because their is no promise made by the triune God that nature will be uniform.
> don't know. The point is that he is necessary.
Okay, well I'll just say the cosmos or time are necessary, nananananaNAAA!
I presuppose that God doesn't exist and the universe always existed and wasn't created.
I presuppose that I'm the most intelligent man in existence and everyone else is moronic and wrong.
Word salad
Now you are starting to see the problem with presup
Let's presuppose that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.
Now it all makes sense, doesn't it?
What's that? "Thanks"?
Appreciate it, glad I could help.