With the recent news that Matt Dillahunty will be debating Sye ten Bruggencate on presuppositional apologetics, I took a look at some of the recent debates and discussions around Sye’s claims and found Sye, perhaps even more than before, a laughing stock. AronRa recently ripped him a new one on a Dogma Debate where Sye was just floundering pathetically, unable to answer any of AronRa’s questions without trying to change the subject. In fact, Sye refuses to discuss evidence or debate the Bible with non-Christians who don’t share his views, making any possible debate with him utterly pointless.
As far as I’m concerned, the only thing that matters is the evidence. If the theist has none, the debate is over. I don’t care how they hem and haw about the Bible and their faith or any of that nonsense, I care if they can produce objective evidence to support their claims or not. Failure to do so means they have nothing worth talking about left. That’s exactly why I turned down the invitation from Matt Slick to come on his radio show, I know he’s got jack shit, he’s proven that in every debate I’ve ever seen him in, all he can do is wave his hands around and vomit word salad and pretend that it actually proves a thing. It doesn’t. Saying you talk to God means no more to me than if the Raelians are saying they talk to their alien overlords telepathically. Both are nonsensical claims until they are backed up by objective evidence and I reject both of them entirely until they are proven correct.
As I thought about it more though, isn’t that what a lot of modern philosophy does? Is it really any better than presuppositional apologetics when it comes to trying to reason one’s way to reality? In fact, isn’t presuppositional apologetics just a particularly idiotic form of philosophy?
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about all philosophy, just the forms that try to argue for or against things that actually exist in reality. A thing does not come into existence because you can string together logical arguments in their proper syllogistic forms. It either exists or it doesn’t exist, you can’t define it into being, yet that’s largely what every religious debate these days is about. It’s theists making up characteristics for their gods that they simply cannot independently verify and when asked how they actually know any of these things, they say they have faith. Sorry, faith is not a synonym for knowledge. It’s sad that so many people view philosophy as a means to get a conclusion, simply because they want a conclusion, but without actually going through the steps to get to an actual conclusion. Sye ten Bruggencate and Matt Slick and all of their ilk won’t actually prove a god exists by making presuppositional claims and those claims are no better than if I stated, with no evidence given, that the only way to reason is to accept the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. There is no fundamental difference between the two, or any other god you can think of or make up. Logic requires belief in Thor! You can’t reason without Krishna! You cannot have a debate unless you have faith in Mickey Mouse! That’s actually the best response to these presuppositional idiots, just pick a god at random and repeat every argument verbatim with your god’s name inserted instead of God. It works just as well for you as it does for them.
I really wish people would stop thinking that lots of long and complicated words are a substitute for evidence. It isn’t. It never will be. I’m tired of going around and around and around with idiots. Show me the evidence. Put up or shut up. That’s the only thing that’s going to be acceptable.