How does a presuppositionalist answer a muslim or even a christian with another denomination than his own who claims their diety is self-evident? >Inb4 mention of scriptual contradictions o algoAlways possible to bypass with tortured Hermeneutics. The presuppositionalist can claim Daniel 11:36-45 is about the anti-christ even though the most natrual reading is that it's about Antiochus IV and is hence a false prophesy, if the protestant can do that, so can the muslim or the catholic or the orthodox etc. do aswell. Other problems can be plastrered over with appeals to poetic license or something similar.
>>17984744Probably something along the lines of "nuh-uh."
Presuppositionalism is the sovereign citizen movement of epistemology. It's just dweeby crossroaches imitating each other, oblivious to how worthless it sounds to their interlocutors.As for how Christians would receive their Muslim mirror image - I mean yeah, you gave a typical exchange. Tradition is allowed to be wrong if and only if it's not theirs, and eisegesis rarely satisfies skeptics.
>>17984744Presuppositionalists are not interested in providing answers to people who don't share their presuppositions. The whole point of presuppositional apologetics is to provide believable sounding answers to people who are already in their camp but having doubts.
>>17984852I mean a lot of them are extreme debate-lords.
>>17984847>I am not driving, I'm travelling!>Why do you think saying that shit will get you out of a ticket?>By the impossibility of the contrary!
"no it isn't, trust me bro"
>You need god to justify logicNo I don't, the very act of being able to distinguish different things necessarily means logic is real, any possible universe will necessarily follow the laws of logic, the proof of logic is that I can reason.>Prove reasoning is possible without appealing to reasonI'm doing it right now, the proof is in the pudding (material universe).
>>17984994This lmao, those videos of them getting dragged out their car is delicious
.
>>17984915Debating and trying to convince skeptics is not the same thing. In fact most debate formats are not very good for rational discussions in the first place, just a way of seeing who is the better talker.
>>17984847Is this how people justify religous wars? If both sides are presuppers the frustration felt towards the opposing side must eventually build up before it explodes.
