Wednesday, December 23, 2015


-----{This page will be updated periodically.}-----


Here one can learn more about presuppositionalism, in a concise space, than if one had read all the volumes of Van til, Bahnsen and Frame combined. Theologians always seem to tell us precisely what theology is not.  


[1] Here one must read carefully: one must distinguish the presuppositional apologist's reduction from the presuppositional apologist's justification. In other words, the reductio ad absurdum, performed by the presuppositional apologist, is separate from the reason they give for justification. If this is not the case then they are essentially making an argument from ignorance. When the presuppositional apologist uses skepticism to say that all claims of non-christian knowledge break down (this is not a justification for their position), this is simply a rationalistic reduction. In order to show that their position survives this criticism, they must provide a positive justification, which they think they do, by ignorantly asserting that the statements of the Bible are authoritative because they are "self-justifying." But clearly this cannot be a justification without equally negating itself! Hence, the presuppositional apologist attempts to make use of the fallacy of special pleading... indeed, the presuppositional apologist desperately needs this fallacy in order to avoid the force of his own criticism! But if special pleading is the reason for the presuppositional apologist's justification, then clearly his position is self-refuting.

[2] If the Christian view of the world is correct then there is no such thing as evil, but only the appearance of evil, as "God works out all things according to the council of his own will." One must consider the barbaric logic of this position, for it implies that Nagasaki was good! Insofar as one tries to claim that Nagasaki is evil, one denies that God is all powerful, or one admits that God brought about the horror of Nagasaki for the sake of good, but this would imply that all evil is merely an appearance, nay, this would imply that there really is no such thing as evil! Either one can call something evil, independent of God, or else one must admit that God has control of evil, in which case, either God is evil or there is no such thing as evil. 

[3] ALL apologetics amount to the same thing: an attempt to foster consent, that justification by means of special pleading is not only legitimate, but that this [fictional] justificatory procedure, remains the exclusive right of the apologist alone.

[4] In order to be a presuppositionalist one must be completely given over to the error of authority, in other words, one must be powerless against the claims of authority. Instead of challenging the claims of authority, as authority always bears the burden of proof, a presuppositionalist affirms the claims of authority by default. A presuppositionalist is simply a person with a psychological disability in the realm of resisting authority.*

*{for more on this personality type see Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View.}

[5] All great Christians have been presuppositionalists insofar as they aim to obey. If a self-proclaimed prophet tells them to slaughter children in the name of God, then being totally subservient (and defenseless) to this form of authority, they deem it morally right and intelligent to obey. Christians always confuse obedience for morality.

[6] Presuppositionalism is nothing more than an authoritarian language; it is an idiosyncratic vocabulary of terms meant to snare the reader; it is a form of sophistry based on reduction.

[7] I have never met a presuppositionalist that had the ability to take his presuppositionalism all the way. In other words, every presuppositionalist lacks the ability to analyze his own presuppositions. Indeed, this is what it means to be a presuppositionalist! It is precisely the fact that one lacks this ability which makes them a presuppositionalist! To identify oneself as a presuppositionalist then, is merely to confess that one has an inability.

[8] The only thing a consistent presuppositionalist discovers is 1) that Christianity is false according to rational and empirical standards and 2) that things are not as they should be, if the universe is in fact, the work of a benevolent God. Contrary to presuppositionalism, man's epistemological dilemma cannot be resolved by appealing to blank authority.

[9] I encourage the reader to find comedy in the presuppositionalist's demeanor. These men prostrate their ignorance before us with the utmost confidence... and all the while... do they really have what they claim to know, merely because they appeal to the assertions of ancient documents? Dear God, they claim nothing less than the total resolution and final solidification of all philosophical problems! [Very much like the stupidity of Plantinga, they speak of the magic of the Holy Spirit.] These bold blockheads really believe that an authoritarian emphasis of the Bible is equivalent to knowledge. Watching them is like watching a bird peck at a rock in hopes of getting crumbs (the funny part is that they claim we are foolish for not doing the same thing).

[10] We owe it to the presuppositionalist, in our concern for his well being, to let him know just how unserious his presuppositional terminology is. Presuppositionalism is a hilarious spectacle of sophistry; "the self-authenticating witness of scripture." [Remember the reduction performed by the presuppositionalist is separate from the actual epistemology of presuppositonalism. Van til hi-jacked this technique of reduction from David Hume, and David Hume learned it from Empiricus. A presuppositionalist's reduction is no different from any other philosophical reduction... well, I suppose there is one attribute which sets his reduction apart, an unprecedented epistemological ignorance regarding the nature of his own view!] 


Saturday, December 19, 2015


There is so much sorrow and suffering in the world that man chooses to look away. I want us to begin by confessing to ourselves that we choose to look away; that we are so disturbed and defeated by the horror of what we see and hear that we have to look away. This is perhaps the beginning of reality.

But what does this mean? It means delusion is preferable to reality. It means reality is painful. Who can be blamed for not wanting to live in reality, when reality is full of despair?

It is true that there are also many good things which take place in the world, but it would seem that these are vastly eclipsed by the forces of evil.

Not only do we choose to look away, but we seek to punish the man or woman who would call us back to reality; we hold such a person in greater contempt than the very evil which turned us away from reality in the first place. Our mentality is thus, "Let us punish the man or woman who reminds us of evil" (which only serves to demonstrate the power of evil).

Apathy parades herself through the streets. Apathy is a garment man wears. Apathy permits the regime of evil in that it means the lack of all opposition to evil.

If there is a God he is a being of supreme evil.

Apathy is the result of personal greed, which means it has its origin in selfishness. An apathetic man or woman is a confused social creature. Apathy stands as a negation of all that one would seek from a just society; it is the subtle negation of justice in any society. Apathy does not mean consent, but indifference. However, eventually this indifference will lead to forced consent, even as apathy leads to the triumph of evil.

It is easy to manipulate an apathetic man or woman, precisely because they stand for the good feeling of their own apathy. All one needs to do, to manipulate such a man or woman, is sell them back their apathy in a modified form, that is to say, make them think their apathy hinges on something else [apathy as enlightened morality or existential practice]. It is the shrewd entrepreneur who can sell the idea of happiness as that which hinges on material possession. 

Apathy is a means of psychological protection; like the child who tries to hide under his blanket to escape the terror of the dark.

Apathy is a form of cowardice, in very few occasions is apathy ever a form of intelligence. In order for apathy to be a form of intelligence one must not only have the courage and strength to resist apathy, but one must also be conscious of all that is at stake; one must be aware of the fact that apathy (at this level) becomes a conscious choice for delusion.    

Apathy is a defect in morality.
Apathy is a defect in character.
Can we ever truly trust an apathetic man or woman?

They that cry apathy in the face of cruelty and injustice must somehow be insulated from cruelty and injustice. Apathy, in this sense, is a mark of privilege. One manifests this proposition: "My conditions are so favorable that I don't have to worry about the terror or horror of evil. I am insulated from suffering."

Would that all people could be insulated from suffering! But this is not the reality of the world in which we live. Man is troubled on all sides; he is attacked both from without and within, from the day of his birth the sparks fly upward, nature stands against him.

Due to an increase in materialism man is not discontent enough to be sympathetic, but his abundance has lead to apathy. Man has been deceived by the very object he created to deceive himself.

Many people have lived and died under the banner of apathy without consequence. Many more will live and die under the banner of apathy without consequence. It is not until society is linked as a chain, wherein one suffers, therein all suffer, that apathy can be defeated. Society is not a chain because societies are fractured, because there are many different societies in the world. It would seem that apathy is here to stay. In the context of the brevity of life, one must ask if this is not the greatest argument for apathy that has ever been made?


Tuesday, December 15, 2015


At this point in my life I am inclined to believe that the existence and pursuit of Truth is unimportant (as so many thinkers have thought before me) while the use and pursuit of truth is part of the common fabric of life. Truth as truth is a pragmatic property of man's social function, while Truth as Truth is an abstract ideal, entirely linguistic in construction, having the high purpose of delivering man over to the pursuit of Ghosts. Truth as truth means truth within the context in which truth is presupposed; it means allegiance to precepts that we use for justification, it does not mean, allegiance to precepts because they are justified. In other words, when we say that ghosts do not exist, this statement is true according to the precepts on which this statement is based... the precepts which make this statement intelligible in the first place (we can rightly call these presuppositions). That is to say, we can know truth just so long as we do not confuse it with Truth. All truth is uttered within a paradigm of truth. If one is not aware of this one may end up chasing Ghosts. 


Friday, December 11, 2015


Atheist: Would you consider yourself a religious man?

Napoleon: Only in the sense that I find religion to be useful.

Atheist: Useful to what end?

Napoleon: Useful for the pacification of the masses. You see, once cities are conquered they must be sustained, and in order to do this religion serves a high purpose.

Atheist: So you admit that your use of religion is entirely pragmatic?

Napoleon: I have no knowledge of this word, pragmatic. I admit that my use of religion is precisely that, a use for the purpose of controlling the masses. Men readily submit to the declarations of the Bible, and the Bible says that Kings and Rulers are put in place by God, hence religion serves the purpose of establishing my authority without actually having to establish my authority. If you can get men to submit without violence, through the use of ideas and assertions, then this is the best way to get men to submit.

Atheist: But personally, you do not believe the universe is ordered?

Napoleon: Precisely not, I have no need of that hypothesis. Part of my power is specifically linked to my knowledge of the way the world works. In other words, I know that power is supreme. I know that there is no such thing as absolute good and evil. I am aware of the fact that we must create our morals, but this does not mean that the use of ideas to establish one's power, should be neglected as a strategy for power. It serves my purpose when men affirm an absolute good and evil, because I am then able to use this belief to my advantage. The fact that I know that such ideas are false (have no bearing in reality) makes me superior to those who submit to such ideas. This gives me the power to stand above their ideas; to use their ideas against them. Men by nature are fools; they are trapped by their belief. The key is to stand above this belief.

Atheist: So you admit that religion is false, but useful to accomplish your purpose. Isn't this deceptive?

Napoleon: You can call it that if you so wish, but in the context of life, I refer to it as a form of intelligence. It is no good to stand within the infrastructure of religion, it is only good to stand outside the infrastructural of religion. In other words, to be a convert is to be utterly deceived; is to give up one's power to those who understand the manipulation of power. The only superior use religion can have is a use where one controls religion, as opposed to being controlled by religion. In the latter case religion destroys one's power. If I were to submit to the infrastructure of religion (to practice religion within the context of religion) I would always be the servant of weaker men; men who use the assertions of religion to pacify and control stronger men. My life would be forfeit to a power structure that kept me subservient. Any time I tried to gain... any time I tried to step outside this power structure I would be contained by this power structure. This is the way to destroy men, even as the practice of religion is the way to destroy oneself. We must get something straight, the last thing religion does is liberate any man; religion, by its very nature, is a form of ideological control. To be religious is to give up power to those who wield power within the context of religion. The only way to be superior to religion is to use religion; is to stand above religion as an authority to religion. I am the civil magistrate put in place by God; this is what religion says, and just so long as I operate within this frame of reference, I am the voice of God. Religious people do not understand this; they think religion is a matter of truth, but here their belief makes me superior. Religion is the pacification of the masses on the basis of bold assertions. The difference is that I know these assertions have no power (aside from the power to deceive the man or woman who affirms their power)... my advantage is that religious people have no knowledge of this. They are like mindless sheep being led by mindless commands. God is a useful hypothesis, but not so useful as the hypothesis which knows that the idea of God is totally lacking in substance outside its capacity for deception... allegiance to God leads to a kind of social control. He that believes in God has ceased to challenge authority!


Wednesday, December 9, 2015


I've lost several friends in the last few weeks to irreconcilable differences, but dear god have I learned a great deal about standing my ground. My conclusion is this, whether I like it or not I'm a rationalist, and being critical tends to have the effect of pushing irrational people away. So be it, I take full responsibility for my rationalism. If this means I must lose friends, then it means I must lose friends. I aim to live my life in the presence of reason, not the absence of reason.

When a person complains, that someone is being "too critical," they had better mean that the person is being too critical in an irrational way, because there is nothing wrong with being critical in light of reason. It is a stupid thing to complain about someone else being correct. Arrogance is the sin of not being able to learn from the wisdom of other people. It is delusion to assume that we must always be correct, or that the genesis of truth must be born in us. Tyranny is the result of unjustified authority. If being critical makes me a bad person, then I'm better off being a bad person, because those who judge us as such, are often merely complaining that we would not submit to their unjustified authority. Be gone with these hyper critical uncritical people! We are safer and wiser to keep company with those who share our value of reason. Thought is the only safeguard against an unconscious life of stupidity.


Monday, December 7, 2015


Theist: You just used the word evil, but you can't speak of evil apart from God.

Flight: What do you mean by evil?

Theist: Something that is wrong at all times for all places and all people.

Flight: What does God have to do with a thing like that?

Theist: He is the one who ensures the constancy and existence of goodness, and therefore we can speak of evil. I hear you speak of morality, but in this you are ignorant because you cannot have morality without God.

Flight: You are correct that I speak of moral things, but why do I need your God for morality?

Theist: Because without God you have no Absolutes.

Flight: Oh dear! Why do I need Absolutes to have morality? Are you saying that I need to recognize, prove that an idea is Absolute, before it can be moral?

Theist: There is no such thing as morality if there are no Absolutes. I'm saying you can't have morality without God!

Flight: I think you meant to say that I can't have Absolute Morality without your belief in God? Well my friend, I'm afraid I simply have no experience of Absolutes. I don't know how to speak about Absolutes, and I certainly don't know how to speak about God. Everything I say is contingent to some time, place and limited portion of people.

Theist: Then you can't have Absolute Morality, all you can have is subjectivity.

Flight: I never claimed that my knowledge is able to rise above the status of subjectivity (but I hardly see how this equalizes all claims in the context of existence)? I can see you think this is a serious problem, but I still have morality, even as I'm a moral person, and what is more, my morality continues to progress! Surely this should be impossible if your view was correct?

Theist: No, you can have morality, but you can only have it because God exists. The reason you are a moral person is because God exists. The fact that you are moral is proof that God exists.

Flight: I see... but I don't consult your God when deriving or practicing my morals. While I agree with the idea that I'm a moral person, I have an exceedingly difficult time understanding how this furnishes proof for God?

Theist: Because you can't have Moral Absolutes without God.

Flight: It seems to me you can't have Moral Absolutes even if you believe in God? (At least this seems to be the case insofar as you have defined Absolutes). Surely you are not claiming that your belief in God is proof that he exists? So which one is it; does the existence of God prove the existence of Absolutes, or does the existence of Absolutes prove the existence of God? Are you sure you are not confusing your belief in Absolutes for the existence of Absolutes? Are you sure you are not confusing the existence of morality for the existence of Absolute Morality? As to say, "because morals exist, therefore Absolute Morality exists?" But this gets worse; you seem to be saying that if Absolute Morality does not exist, then morality itself cannot exist? But why is Absolute Morality required for the existence of morality?

Theist: Because you believe in Absolutes therefore God exists, and you can't have Absolutes without God. You need God in order to have Absolute Morality, and you need Absolute Morality in order to have morality.

Flight: I suspect I am not interested in your belief in Absolute Morality, just as I am not interested in your belief in God (both things appear to be a fiction). You are very good at making assertions, but I already have morality without your God. You keep on insisting that I need him for something, but I have lived my whole life without him, why do I need to believe in him now?

Theist: Because God is the source of goodness, because it is not possible to have goodness without God. Only God can tell us what is good and evil.

Flight: Moral people are not merely obedient; there is a sharp contrast between moral people and obedient people. You are saying I need to be obedient in order to be moral. I suspect you are very confused about the nature of morality. You are free to believe in God and Absolutes, but please do not pretend that your belief is proof that they exist, insofar as it is not proof that your belief is authoritative. Though you say, "I need your God," it is clear that this is merely your belief, this assertion does not make contact with existence. I will not only continue to practice morality, but I will also continue to discourse about morality. Your God is not merely defunct (as he would first have to exist in order for this to be the case) but even if he does exist, he is totally irrelevant, not only to morality, but existence itself! You may take him as an aesthetic idea if it brings you joy, but such mindless authoritarianism is too juvenile for me.

Theist: You will be very sorry for your arrogance when you die. God will make you submit, but by then it will be too late. You will burn in eternal fire. Either believe now or believe later, but no matter what you will eventually believe!

Flight: O man of conviction, I'm done lending you my ear, you will have to find a new audience for your tyranny.