Response to Paul Baird on Presuppositional Apologetics

PAUL BAIRD, who DEBATED SYE TENBRUGGENCATE, has posted a RESPONSE to some of my comments that can be found HERE. Up to this point, i've been a bit hesitant to be discussing this issue outside of the comment sections. Though I find this apologetic to be most consistent with the Bible, I still have a lot of reading that I would like to get done before delving into this more fully. However, I feel the necessity to address some of Paul's arguments, which I hope to do in a cautious way. My old comments will be in BOLD, with Paul's words following:

Mike, you've made many mistakes in your 'rebuttal', which is only to be expected as it's your worldview that you're seeking to defend so by definition it must be true.

Worldviews are not established in this way. That is:

X is my worldview and I am defending it; therefore, X is true.

I don't think anyone would argue in this way. And to represent Presuppositional apologetics (now referred to as "PA") in this way is to display simplistic ignorance.

If you listen to the debate again, or even read the threads on Premier, Sye again and again makes the assertion that Christianity must be true because all other worldviews must be false. He even has an entire page on his website dedicated to refuting 10 other worldviews - so that part of your rebuttal is a fail I'm afraid.

I admit to not having followed all the threads, and don't really have the time to sort through them all. Perhaps you could quote Sye if he has ever made this claim. If he has, then i'm going to have to disagree with him. But i'll leave it up to Sye to defend his position on this...if you are representing him accurately.

My position would be that if Christianity is the only worldview that can provide an objective basis for epistemology, then this would be the only true religion. After all, if no other worldview could account for the concept of "truth," then there would be no basis for truth and falsity.

Here is the challenge: we stand on our claim that without the Christian God, you can't know anything. If you have another worldview claim, bring it forward and let's discuss it.

The first part has been thoroughly debunked on the forums and the second part is irrelevant (but also debunked on the forums) - you need to prove your worldview.

The proof for my worldview is that without it, you cannot prove anything. And as long as you are unable to account for "proof," then why should I believe that your worldview is true? This was certainly discussed on the interaction with Sye, but I failed to hear anything of substance or consistency in your position.

However, did you notice what you just offered to do ? Prove your worldview by disproving mine - that would be proof of my first point don't you think ? So, fail again.

I never said such. All disproving your worldview does, in and of itself, is disprove your worldview. This comment of yours completely neglects the positive case PA makes for its position. That is, PA establishes itself apart from having to disprove any other worldview.

The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation.

No it is not, but if you repeat that statement enough times then you might start to believe it.

I state this without detail because you already know the arguments behind this. It would be one thing for me to assert this with no previous qualification. But you know full well that my statement is backed up; even though you don't agree with the explanation.

I don't need the Laws of Logic to be absolute (note the difference between needing the laws of logic and needing them to be absolute, there is a difference) - so fail there, I don't need Morality to be absolute - so fail there

Are you absolutely sure about that? Or are you just kinda convinced that this is the case? If you don't need them to be absolute, then how do you know that you need them? Did you use the "absolute laws of logic" to determine this? Or the "relative" laws of logic?

(out of interest - name one thing that you believe is absolutely morally wrong, and remember my line of argument on this is battle hardened (Sye could't refute it and neither could David Robertson who wrote the Dawkins Letters)).

How about molesting babies for fun? Or someone raping, murdering, and eating your mother for breakfast?

So what you're left with is exactly the same as every other God seller. They make the same claims, and your claims is no more valid than anyone elses. Your parlour trick is to erect a strawman, "Ooooh, you have to use our worldview to reject our worldview"

Again, it is completely fallacious to claim that PA is "exactly the same as every other God seller." If this is not what you're claiming, then please correct me. If you can't see a stark contrast between evidentialism and PA, then i'm not sure what else I could say. Also, how is your borrowing from my worldview a strawman? Obviously, PA's realize that the atheist isn't going to admit that they are "borrowing," or else they wouldn't be atheists!

So,what am I waiting for ? The second round of the debate with Sye. Last time I was not as well prepared as I thought I was. Now I am. I've investigated this PA in depth, particularly Syes advocation of it, and I've found the holes in his argument (none of which he has been able to refute).

I will be looking forward to this. And I suppose I can't blame you for not being prepared, unless of course, you knew about Sye's position and refused to look into it. I'd also be curious to know what works of PA you've read?

Thank you for your willingness to interact.