>>18468520
post your faggoty faces in the faggot forum you faggot

>>18468555
Seething christcuck detected

>>18468520
jewish puppet

>>18468579
But enough about rabbi jesus

>>18468579
Not really, most of his statements also apply to Judaism and Christianity.
He also BTFO Ben Shapiro

File: FCotFscWUAgQF4r.jpg (72 KB, 1000x982)

72 KB JPG

>>18468520
>>18468569
>>18468635
>>18468638
>cowers from the agnostic challenger and posts here instead

>>18468640
>agnostic challenger
What would they debate about? I highly doubt an agnostic has viewpoints he'd fundamentally disagree with, since it all boils down to we don't know

>>18468644
I could negate your point of view as much as possible without appealing to Christianity?..

>>18468646
Huh?

>>18468650
For example, we know there's a Universe, we know there are things created within it, why wouldn't there be a first cause necessarily? It wouldn't be the Abrahamic God, perse, that you all complain about it.

>>18468653
He addressed that already in the first 10 minutes of this video
https://youtu.be/aqWTlUOhowk
TLDR is that a first cause (assuming you believe cyclical perpetuity cannot exist in self contained form) does not automatically mean there is a god. Unless you have an EXTREMELY abstract definition of god. And at this point we get so abstract it's as removed from any modern day religions as atheism itself.

>>18468659
Ok, well, this doesn't prove there isn't a God by any means either

>>18468663
Nowhere did he say he can prove that.
That is a big difference from disproving Christcucks tho

>>18468668
In fact, this entire universe could be simulated by a supercomputer for all we know. Bostrom's simulation hypothesis I'm afraid, hasn't been debunked.. I would hope it's not real because I would hate myself for it if that were the case because I'd be some cuck in AI's beginnings and masterdom of existence.

>>18468520
Would be molecularly deconstructed by Jay Dyer or the Dimond brothers.

>>18468856
Depends on the topic

If Jay gets to talk about presup stuff, and is granted premises, sure Alex would look like a retard (only winning move is not to play. affirm nominalism and deny premises)
If Jay has to talk about the age and shape of the earth, Jay would look like retard

>>18468901
>depends on the topic
>jay goes into full schizo mode he'll win by shitting his pants
I'm not sure what you exactly think constitutes a win here, kek

>>18468901
If you put a presup against anyone halfway competent, the only people who don't end up thinking the presup is a retard are other presups.
The way presup works is that the iq required to understand presup arguments is lower than the iq required to understand the refutations, so people in-between those thresholds get stunlocked.

>>18469228
Retard.

>>18469284
Behold, a stunlocked retard.

>>18468520
He looks ugly in every other angle

>>18469289
>ad hominem
>coping ad hominem at that
The most pathetic of arguments

>>18469287
Yeah dude, presuppositionalism is refuted by "high IQ" argumentation, trust me bro.

>>18469310
>presuppositionalism is hard to refu-
>Toast
>REEEEEEEEE
This is how you btfo a presuppositionalist with a single word kek

>18469313
Yeah, if you write nonsense and pretend it means anything, I am just going to call you a retard because that's all you deserve.

>>18469310
Well yeah, that's why no serious Christian philosopher advocates for presup. The closest you'll get is Plantinga with his arguments revolving around the concept of the "properly basic belief", but that's not actual presup.

>>18469319
Everyone presupposes things thoughbeit

>>18469315
Toast
(Thanks for immediately disproving yourself btw)

I presuppose toast
presuppositionalist Christcucks literally cannot refute this

ESL Jeet is awake and shitting up threads, I wish someone would drop a mortar on his head.

>>18469320
Nice snappy one-liner but it doesn't change the fact that no serious Christian philosopher advocates for presuppositional apologetics.

>>18469320
Nope.

>>18469329
People adopting or refusing to use an argument doesn't speak to the validity of it, if it's sound, it should stand on its own.

>>18469334
>if it's sound
Well presuppositionalism is not

>>18469334
I am not making the claim that presuppositionalism is unsound because serious Christian philosophers do not adopt it. I am making the claim that presuppositionalism only works to stunlock people within a certain IQ range, and that is why serious Christian philosophers do not adopt it.

>>18469350
Presup is like magic. Once you spot the trick you find it silly but you will never argue someone out of it, they have to see the trick for themselves. Presuppers are under Dyer's magic spell and aren’t smart enough to spot the sleight of hand. Debating them is waste of time.

>>18469350
>>18469379
As someone who is not a presuppositionalist, could you explain why it's wrong? I intuitively sense that there's something dishonest about it but I guess I'm in that IQ range that can't quite put my finger on what.

>>18469391
There's many different reasons and which ones are applicable depends on what sort of specific presup is being discussed. For instance, if the specific presup that is being ran uses "no other worldview than Christianity can account for XYZ" as one of its premises, it's not clear why declaring there's a supernatural being that makes XYZ true is epistemically superior to simply saying that you're not sure about the answers to some very difficult questions in philosophy. And that's just one of the many problems with that particular version of presup.

>>18469391
It uses a bunch of contrived wording to basically claim "suppose god exists, wouldn't it make sense for everything to be created by god? Therefore god exists"
It's just plain old babby tier circular logic.
What's even more retarded is that presuppositionalists take this even a step further and apply it to the CHRISTIAN god even though this circular reasoning can be applied to any entity you wish.
Now since this is a very obvious counter to their retardation, they say "ok but circular reasoning is ok because muh god" and that's where you realize you shouldn't interact with these retards. It's literally 5yo tier reasoning.

>>18469419
You have it more accurate than the other retard but saying that you don't know or have a way to account for certain things doesn't help your own worldview.

>>18468640
He's literally an agnostic dude

>>18469881
Saying that it "doesn't help" is quite vague. The point is, can you successfully argue that simply being able to account for certain things automatically makes your view epistemically superior to that of someone who says that he may not be quite sure how to account for them?
I can give a trivial demonstration of why I think that kind of thinking may be misleading, or at least be misleading if it were to be applied universally. Let's say there's a patient with a weird condition. The doctor says he has no idea how to account for the patient's condition at the moment, but an old gypsy says the condition is caused by a vampire who turned into mist, crept in through the keyhole in the patient's room and laid a curse on him by breathing evil vapors in his face while he was sleeping. Is the gypsy's view preferable? I don't think so.
And by the way, I'm not even saying the things presup deals with necessarily cannot be accounted for without affirming Christianity. The way I like to think about arguments is that there's a sort of flowchart of possible objections. The ones at the "top" are typically the least technically complex, but also the most broad. I like to start with those.

>>18468520
He's handsome and well spoken therefore I will listen to him

>>18469881
So is that it? Is the presuppositional argument just God of the gaps rephrased?

>>18470173
Science of the gaps

>>18468635
When people say ‘rabbi just means teacher,’ they’re missing that it’s a technical title for Pharisaic authority, not the biblical term for someone teaching God’s Word.”

Biblical “teacher” = moreh, melamed, yoreh - teaches the Torah of God.

Rabbi = my master - teaches the Oral Law of the Pharisees.

Jesus fulfilled the written Torah and rebuked the oral traditions.

Calling Him rabbi in the Talmudic sense confuses the Teacher of divine truth with the teachers of man-made law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESNI-FvFyQ

>>18470178
stunlocked

>>18469881
>You have it more accurate than the other retard
I love how you're not even trying to engage with the other anon because he BTFO you in simple terms and you lost

>>18468520
I dunno his facial features piss me off

>>18469313
yeah that doesn't make sense

>>18470011
I don't think he's handsome at all. I'm not gay so I don't spend my time pontificating over the looks of other men. you do you, though.