1 year ago
Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    @let_me_get_this_straight Great conversation. Thanks for accepting.

    • a year ago

      @madmike great talk brother, in your endeavours arguing against Christians, I'd recommend the Westminster Confession of Faith for an objective and solid interpretation of the core topics of the Bible and Christianity.

    • a year ago

      Hmmm, so two criteria... Confused... and Stupid

      Confused would be inconsistent, contradictory, etc...
      Stupid would be illogical, uneducated, irrational..

      Seems like the start of the discussion is an attempt to reach a common understanding of the terms and ideas discussed. (which is a good starting point for any discussion)

      I'm about half way here.. While Pro describes how he sees it as confused con doesn't seem especially confused about his understanding of presuppositionalism. He knows what it means to him and is pretty specific about it.

      So while I may agree that the naturalist worldview is likely correct, and that it has no serious contradiction, Mike hasn't really show that there is anything confused about the pre-sup question or that it is stupid.

      So I have to vote con, for Pro not meting the burden he sets in the resolution.

      Further, I'd say Mike needs to work on his naturalist apologetics. He falls into a number of traps that GetStraight sets for him. Not saying he's wrong, but PRe-sup arguments are very practiced, and hinge on very specific language and ideas. You have to answer in some rather specific ways to show how they don't apply to the argument.

      Mike gets at some of these, but he's not quite ready and practiced at the answers so he's on the back foot a little too often here.

      • a year ago

        @sigfried thanks for the critique, noted for future debates.

      • a year ago

        @sigfried eh, agree to disagree. Con admitted presups main argument is circular and tries to save it by calling it virtuous. Whatever you call it, it is still begging the questions, so appealing to virtuousness in an effort to give it validity is confused.

        I’m not sure how com denying the obvious position that presup beliefs are perfectly subject by definition is a mark against me. I could have certainly just kept telling him he was wrong but I’m not sure how that would have been productive.

        As for the “traps”, they are only convincing to people who already believe in universal morality. I guess I could have found a better way to point out that any idea a presup has about moral truth is at best exactly equal to that of the atheist, at most likely worse because it’s almost certainly born from religion.

        But as always, thanks for the critique. I can see how it’s valid for people who already hold certain understandings about reality and morality

      • a year ago

        @madmike I'm probably being over critical of your arguments because I argue this topic almost more than any other, so I have some specific views about how to argue it effectively.

        I just think your job in this debate was to attack his view, and you spent the latter half defending yours.

        As to traps, I mean like when he says "You have to use evolution to defend your moral system" and then you immediately go and use evolution to defend your moral system. You let him set that subject and you followed into it, defending a naturalist morality based on survival as a value. But that plays right into his narrative so he's controlling the conversation and you are far away from your resolution. You are also affirming his framing of your worldview.

        The circular argument is a pretty good one, and you were right to question what Virtuous means, but you didn't go in for "the kill" and press him on this. The resolution calls for you to do that in a way (if we are looking at the debate this way)

        If the resolution was "Naturalism is a reasonable worldview" I'd vote pro. You give enough of a defense to hold the ground for me. But I was expecting you to dismantle his worldview, and I think he did a decent job defending it as coherent and not straight out stupid.

        The big pre-sup claim is that their worldview is internally consistent and ironclad in its reasoning. (Tautologies generally are!) And they like to try and deconstruct others to show that theirs better holds this virtue of consistency.

        The big mistake they commit is smuggling in their own sense of what "value means" into your worldview. You have to be very forceful in establishing that your worldview doesn't see value as having the same meaning as theirs.

        You can then get to the point you were making most often, that when you look at the value in practice, it looks a whole lot more like a subjective at than an objective one. So your understanding of value is a better one, because it more closely matches with the reality we can observe. But that is more an attack than a defense, and you have to establish the idea that a good worldview should comport with observed phenomena and a bad one is out of sync with observation.

      • a year ago

        I think the main thing is just to work on the clarity of your argument. This subject is very.... nuanced. And Theists have a really hard time comprehending a naturalist world view. You have to spell it out in excruciating clarity to get them to stop and get a bit stumped.

    • a year ago

      @let_me_get_this_straight (One more thing haha) like the tag name. Excellent apologia. I thought in the time available you laid out the Christian view of both apologetics and what is usually referred to as Presuppositionalism, a tool and not an argument. It's a necessary tool for all sides of any argument to presuppose something then take that and argue forward. The question is does the following argument fit or make sense within the presupposes set of claims. Does the world make sense given a Theistic worldview? Does the world make sense given an atheistic worldview?
      I do understand @madmike's presuppositional Criticism given his assumed def of it. And also his claims on the varying Christian, or "christian" views and that often these views are different BUT IFF there is a God then there is One Single correct view, not that I can legiti.ately say that for sure I and I alone have 100% of it but that if God exists he has a specific and an understandable description even if some interpret Him in minimally different ways. The Christian Worldview has essential elements that every Christian to be a Christian Absolutely MUST, with no hesitation, claim to be True: The Gospel as proclaimed by the early Church Fathers and set forth in the catechism

      • a year ago

        Good conversation to you both.