Defending Sabine Hossenfelder's Honor From A Rando Presuppositional Grifter.

Continuing a comment-discussion from there:
 
@DonovanWard-xp64 

[First draft] Re: 1. "Presuppositional apologetics is not about commandeering anyone 's mind. " -- Literally every Christian apologetic is directly about that. Meanwhile, I didn't merely 'say' it's that. I explained how it works. In other words, I supported my assertion. Whereas, you can only 'say' yours. Let's review, here, what I said about it: 6:05 - 6:46 -- None of us can break through, conquer, or resolve this limit. It will always always be the case that we can only have "knowledge" within the context of our limited access to facts and our limited capacity for reasoning and understanding. Appealing to a Magic Dad ... provides absolutely zero improvement in our access to data, nor our ability to comprehend, nor our ability justify our own cognition. If I accept SpongeBob as my Eternal Hall Monitor, my ability to rationally justify my belief that there IS a hallway, or that I'm walking in a hallway, or that it's "good" to walk down hallways, ... is not improved.

Religious apologists are jacking around with your head. Presuppositional apologetics are a modern invention. No Bible-writers or character ever tried that con game. It is a speed-run, blunt-force effort to shortcut the process of creating brain-fog, and to undermine personal confidence in our own cognition. In fact, the presupper will usually even ADMIT they are trying to get the other person (whoever they are arguing with) to lose all confidence in their own ability to think for their self. - And then to become "humbled" at the feet of the apologist's "God-given" authority. -- When they talk about "softening hearts", that's brain-jacker code for "softening minds" aka "softening the mark".

They admit it. They are trying to get their mark to lose confidence in their own ability to reason. With that, they offer that mark "only one way" to regain that confidence. What is that "one way"? By transferring that control over to their "God" ... by transferring that control over to the Presupper; who claims to speak for that God. Why? So they can start dictating your reality to you. In other words, it's a form of gaslighting. That is literally the definition of gaslighting. Worse yet, it's also a form of programming. They are teaching you to gaslight yourself, and then to spread that malicious brain-code to other people's mental operating systems. They are weaponizing you against yourself and your fellow humans. Some of you 'know the score'. You know that you're using cult brain-jacking techniques to recruit and exploit useful idiots. Whereas, some of you ARE those useful idiots. And you have no clue about how you've been hijacked. This science article explains how that works: <link>

------------------------ 2. "This apologetic position starts with God as the foundation of all truth. " That's just the fallacy of Question Begging, being used to build a circular argument. Now, if you want to say "truth" exists, fine. If you want define "truth" as "whatever is objectively real; regardless of any human's perceptions", then I can agree with that too. Although, there are better words we could use for that; to avoid accidentally conflating different definitions of truth. So how about we use the term "objective reality" instead? Either way, it won't help you. As I pointed out before (one of many points you strategically chose to ignore), "It will always always be the case that we can only have "knowledge" within the context of our limited access to facts and our limited capacity for reasoning and understanding. Appealing to a Magic Dad ... provides absolutely zero improvement in our access to data, nor our ability to comprehend, nor our ability justify our own cognition. " And, by the way, "Magic Dad" Abso-fucking-lutely IS a totally fair way to phrase it. And you know it. However, so that you don't keep using that as a distraction AWAY FROM the point, ... I'll rephrase it: "It will always always be the case that we can only have "knowledge" within the context of our limited access to facts and our limited capacity for reasoning and understanding. Appealing to a Mystical Father ... provides absolutely zero improvement in our access to data, nor our ability to comprehend, nor our ability justify our own cognition. " ------------------------ 3. "Without God, there would be no laws of logic, mathematics, and rationality . " -- Please be more specific with your words. If you just say "God", I won't know what you mean. Now, if you mean your Christian Fundamentalist conceptualization of "God", then that is EXACTLY like saying "SpongeBob". There's no reason for me to take it seriously. But if you mean something like "at least one self-aware, super-intelligent, pre-existing Prime Mover and Cosmic Architect", then we can at least have a rational discussion about that. Or, least, I can make sure my half of that discussion is rational. Your half will continue to be utter nonsense being dignified via gaslighting. But since I already expected that going in, ... and since that literally all you've done so far, ... I have nobody but myself to blame for every one of my braincells that will be popping like rice krispies in milk.

Just don't try to swap-out that meaning of "God" with your far-more-specific Christian conceptualization. Because that would be a dishonest maneuver. And I'd notice it right away.

Now, as for what who-or-what must have been the most fundamental root-cause or basis of "logic, mathematics, and rationality", ... Exactly ZERO humans are anywhere even CLOSE to qualified to solve that mystery, Atheists can't justify ruling anything out. "For all we know", there was an Eternal Leprechaun, or an exploding Evil Cupcake with Cosmic-frosting. We don't even know if this universe's fundamental energy had a beginning. Christians can't justify insisting they know something that none of us have a high enough IQ nor enough DATA to know. At the most fundamental level, none of us can account for whatever DID make those things possible, nor what "is needed". ------------------------ 4. "There would be no a priori categories of the human mind." -- If you mean there were no human minds until there were some human minds, ... I agree. But I'm not sure why you felt a need to say it. -------------------------- 5. "God is ground of all created things visible ( corporeal things) and invisible things abstract entities (numbers)." -- Your religious echo chamber needs to be disinfected. First, ... "God" just means there's a conceptualized BOOT you'd like to lick.

However, ...

Next, your use of the term "created" is (again) the fallacy of "begging the question". Next, If you're drawing your beliefs about that ... partly from Colossians chapter 1, then you've entirely misunderstood that chapter. If you're drawing from the opening of Genesis, you've misunderstood that too. In fact, nothing in bibles says the things you are saying.

Nothing in science says those things either. Meanwhile, (and ever since your cult first came up with that nonsense), ... if any of your fellow Christian fundamentalists think they can make their case from purely scientific data and mathematical proofs, then: You would have already summited a paper for that. Even now, you could still submit one. After that, would you pass scrutiny in the peer-review process? Wait for it to reach the highest tier in science (aka "scientific theory")? Collect your Nobel Prize? Ask Emperor Trump to declare it as the first scientific "fact"? Start rubbing it in every atheists' face?

Nope. And we both know why. Your authoritarian cult's most "technically qualified" voices won't even bother to SUBMIT such a paper. Because even they know it's all bullshit. So they-and-you strut around in the dark corners of the interwebz, where anyone can say anything, ... with an assortment of "valuables" displayed from the inside of "mobile distribution centers". "Pssst. Hey you. Random person walking down the virtual streets of YouTube City. Wanna buy some bullshi ... err... I mean some scientific and spiritual truths"? -- You're just hoping each next passerby fails to realize: If this were legit, you'd be offering it through official channels. You aren't. Because you can't. ---- Next, saying "God is the ground" is just an assertion. Lastly, numbers are neither "invisible things" nor "abstract entities". Math is a language. It evolved over time. Humans developed that language. But we did not invent the natural objects and happenings that we use that language to describe. In the brain, when we think about a number or an equation, or system of measurement, that thought-process is an entirely physical happening. When we are developing, sharing, and using that language to describe things, we are always thinking and speaking about physical objects and physical happenings; -including things we've witnessed existing, things we heard exist, and things we imagine potentially existing. Abstractions are generated by entirely physical processes in the brain. Those words and images merely represent: physical objects and physical happenings; -including: things we've witnessed existing, things we heard exist, and things we imagine potentially existing (which are always compromised entirely of pieces of things we remember seeing in the real world). Humans evolved that entirely physical ability for describing entirely physical things. We didn't need a Super-Being to craft each symbol out of special "non-stuff" first.