Recently Jeremiah(Nitemere6) had posted a debate that many of us wanted to get our hands on for along time. This debate covers the differences between Christian Apologist Methodology. Primarily Evidentialism vs Pressupositionalism.
In the below clip Eric Hovind happens to be using a lay version of a pressupositionalist argument. In short the argument is: "You can't know anything unless God exists". Thunderf00t who appears slightly more versed in philosophy responds with what he calls are the shared common assumptions all human beings have.
Thunderf00t does a pretty good job, but probably as a scientist hasn't read up on epistemology. What Thunderf00t is attempting to explain to Hovind is simply: Axioms. Hovind without realizing it doesn't understand that he has any, or he believes that God ought to be an axiom to know anything . Unfortunately when Thunderf00t pointed out to Hovind that he could also merely assert himself or the flying spaghetti monster as a universal axiomatic personage (instead of God), Hovind had no response and just repeating himself.
Anyway enjoy the debate, and I will be writing a post on this subject in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment