Saturday, August 27, 2011

STB: One Year and Still Waiting…

And Sye has yet to interact with my criticisms.
Before posting this blog entry, I visited Sye’s website and clicked through the steps of the argument for the existence of the Christian god which he presents there. I do not see that Sye has modified his case in any way since I posted my critique of his argument. For instance, his Step Five still has his visitors choose between the following alternatives:
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science, and Absolute Morality are Immaterial
and
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science, and Absolute Morality are Material
Also, the “proof” that Sye showcases on his website is still what it was when I published my critique:
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This of course still seems as unhelpful to establishing the existence of the Christian god today as it did a year ago when I presented my critique. As I pointed out in my critique, this statement “seems merely to be the opinion of someone who already believes the claim that said god exists in the first place.” I see nothing in Sye’s case as it appears today to suggest that my assessment is in any way incorrect. Indeed, as I had pointed out, I see no reason why the ardent Blarko-believer couldn’t use essentially the same “reasoning” on behalf of his mystical affirmations, such that he might say
The Proof that Blarko exists is that without Blarko, you couldn’t prove anything.
I find it quite dubious indeed to suppose that a thoughtful person would really think that such statements would be at all persuasive.

But they apparently make for great show-stoppers in public debates. And I suppose this is what accounts for the staying power of this kind of sloganeering that is so characteristic of the presuppositionalist methodology.

But seriously, I see no reason why someone who believes in some non-Christian form of mysticism could not adapt essentially the same logical format that Sye uses to validate his god-belief, to validating an alternative set of religious beliefs. And nothing in Sye’s presentation of his “argument” preempts such assimilation by non-Christian mystics. So it defies the serious intellect to suppose that such a debating strategy can actually have any rational value.

Now it’s not like Sye has dropped off the face of the earth. On the contrary, he seems to be the talk of the town, at least in presuppositionalist circles. His big thing is the show debate, where he can verbally spar with non-believers and ply his arsenal of gimmicks and deploy the usual slogans. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Sye’s ambition is to become the modern-day William Lane Craig of presuppositionalist apologetics, though without the weighty wall decorations from academic institutions. If so, I’d say it’s not a very lofty aspiration, since the gaping void is aching for someone to fill it.

by Dawson Bethrick

Labels: , , , ,

327 Comments:

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Happy to see your new entry.

Dr. Bahnsen said it best the pressup apologist is not here to convince the unbeliever but to "shut his mouth".

What part of it are you still having trouble with?

You will never be convinced unless the holy spirit does his work in you.

Titus 3:5 " He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit"

August 27, 2011 7:23 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Good update, Dawson. Your post has raised some thoughts and motivated me to go back and re-read your original "Sye" blog entry.

The thoughts I had concern immaterial vs. material, and perhaps I'll present them in a future comment of my own.

In the meantime, I plan on just enjoying my read.

Ydemoc

August 27, 2011 9:34 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

?

August 27, 2011 9:55 AM  
Blogger Nide Corniell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 27, 2011 11:34 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Recently, I listened to a lecture on van til by Dr. bahnsen, which you can find here http://www.cmfnow.com/vantilspresuppositionalapologetic-1.aspx, in which he said a couple of interesting things.

1. There are no arguments for the existence of God because It's a fact (romans 1).

2. You need God to argue. In other words you can't draw up a syllogism for God because he is the precondition for syllogisms. Simply put No God No logic.

So, if anyone here wants to argue about God's existence don't even bother.

However, I will be more than happy to talk about the regularity in nature, moral absolutes, universals and logic.

August 27, 2011 11:36 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I recently listened to a lecture on Van Laden by Gregduhl Bahnsennalla in which he said a couple of interesting things.

1. There are no arguments for the existence of Allah because it's a fact (the koran)

2. You need Allah to argue. In other words you can't draw up a syllogism for Allah because he is the precondition for syllogisms. Simply put No Allah No logic.

So, if anyone here wants to argue about Allah's existence don't even bother.

However, I will be more than happy to talk about the regularity in nature, moral absolutes, universals and logic.

Ydemoc

August 27, 2011 1:37 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Where can I find this lecture at you didn't give a link?

Have you read the whole Koran?

Can you give me the chapter and verse in the Koran where it says all men Know Allah exists?

August 27, 2011 1:51 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I've noticed that some silly people, in their haste to respond to questions, often fail to do their homework. To save embarrassment, these silly people should, perhaps, follow the advice of skilled attorneys, who know better than to ever ask a question that they do not themselves know the answer to.

Here are several passages from the Koran that are on point as to whether or not all men know Allah exists:

2:99 (Asad) For, clear messages indeed have We bestowed upon thee from on high; and none denies their truth save the iniquitous

2:109 (Asad) Out of their selfish envy, many among the followers of earlier revelation would like to bring you back to denying the truth after you have attained to faith - [even] after the truth has become clear unto them. None the less, forgive and forbear, until God shall make manifest His will: behold, God has the power to will anything. and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind.


2:266 (Asad) Would any of you like to have a garden of date-palms and vines, through which running waters flow, and have all manner of fruit therein - and then be overtaken by old age, with only weak children to [look after] him-and then [see] it smitten by a fiery whirlwind and utterly scorched? In this way God makes clear His messages unto you, so that you might take thought.

4:174 (Asad) O MANKIND! A manifestation of the truth has now come unto you from your Sustainer, and We have sent down unto you a clear light. -

And He has made everything in the heavens and everything on the earth subservient to you. It is all from Him. There are certainly Signs in that for people who reflect. (Surat al-Jathiyya: 13).


And it is He Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His Mercy (rain). Till when they have carried a heavy-laden cloud, We drive it to a land that is dead, then We cause water (rain) to descend thereon. Then We produce every kind of fruit therewith. Similarly, We shall raise up the dead, so that you may remember or take heed.) (7:57)

Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He alone has the right to be worshipped."

Qur’an, 2:21-22



"And among the mountains are streaks white and red, of varying colours and (others) very black. And likewise, men and ad-Dawwabb (moving, living creatures, beasts) and cattle are of various colours. It is only those who have knowledge among His servants that fear Allah." (35:27-28)

Ydemoc

August 27, 2011 2:24 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Said: "I've noticed that some silly people, in their haste to respond to questions, often fail to do their homework. To save embarrassment, these silly people should, perhaps, follow the advice of skilled attorneys, who know better than to ever ask a question that they do not themselves know the answer to."

Ok, this is seriously stupid. People ask questions all the time to get information they don't know. That was my whole point. What part of my question confused you?


Thanks for the verses.

So, Allah can will anything. Great

I hope he enjoys making square circles and rocks he can't lift.

I guess Allah doesn't believe in logic.

So, I see you believe in "zombies" after all.

I guess you were just joking when you said Jesus never was resurrected.

It's Interesting how you continually reduce yourself to absurdity.

August 27, 2011 3:07 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I've also noticed that some believers are so "confessionally invested" in their belief in invisible magic beings, so devoted to storybook absurdities, and so attached to doctrines propagated by leaders and fellow followers of such beliefs, that they are darn near incapable of grasping coherent points made by more rational people.

They also display tremendous insecurity, manifested by knee-jerk reactions, willful evasions, false accusations, and utter rationalizations when confronted with religious beliefs other than the one they hold to.


Ydemoc

August 27, 2011 3:47 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Coherent points? more rational people?

Are you one of those more rational people?

Because you haven't showed it. You have no arguments give up

August 27, 2011 4:24 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I'm not sure certain aspects of this quote necessarily apply with regard to believers in invisible magic beings, but just in case...

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." --Saul Bellow

Ydemoc

August 27, 2011 5:34 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

left grass cart food

ofififofofofoodfufikc?

August 27, 2011 6:11 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I just wanted to quote something you wrote back on October 22, 2006 in your blog entry, "Is the Expression ‘Invisible Magic Being’ “Pejorative”? It's something that silly believers should consider, especially the last sentence:

"...the claim to magic frequently involves the designation of a personal agent whose consciousness has supernatural powers. According to its spokesmen, this magic-endowed personal agent can wish things into existence (cf. “creation ex nihilo”). Also, it can revise the identity of entities or substances (e.g., turning water into wine), or enable an entity to behave like an entity which it is not (e.g., men walking on unfrozen water), just by wishing. Oddly, we never get to see these amazing feats, but we've been assured that they are possible and that someone (who is unfortunately no longer around for questioning) has seen them."

Ydemoc

August 27, 2011 7:50 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

It's called faith which the atheist also lives by.

Dawson,

Tell Ydemoc he's a Christian in denial.

August 27, 2011 7:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I have also come to observe -- particularly lately -- that some silly believers in invisible magic beings are prone to repeating claims which they pick up from others like them. Fortunately, the bright light of reason exposes such claims to be nothing but empty rhetoric. As you wrote way back on July 30th, 2006 in "Responding to Chris":

"Yes, I do require facts, evidence and logic, because knowledge of the world is based on facts, evidence and logic. I want knowledge, so I go by the facts, the evidence and the logic that connects them together. I have found no gods there. Theists tell me that I need something in addition to these, namely something they call 'faith', which they treat as a kind of faculty like reason, but which operates completely mysteriously, even to the user. What’s noteworthy is that the products of faith contradict the products of reason, so there’s no valid way to integrate the two. Also, different people claim to know different things by means of faith, so those who claim to know things by faith quite often tend to disagree with each other, unless of course they're reciting from the same playbook. Since it remains completely unclear what faith's 'processes' are (supposing it has any processes to begin with), there’s no way to determine whether a mistake has been made, or whether its basis is true, or whether its conclusions (if they can be called that) in fact rest on their stated basis in a rightful manner (we can’t say “validly” here because validity is a property of rational thought, not of faith-mongering). So appeals to faith only complicate things, and bring us no closer to actual knowledge of the world. Besides, if one is honest, he has no need to resort to faith to substantiate his position. Either he knows on the basis of reason, or he simply doesn't know - he merely "believes," and even this is questionable."

Ydemoc

August 27, 2011 10:09 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I see the great faith you have in Dawson.

Amazing.

August 27, 2011 10:42 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I've also noticed that silly believers like to trot slogans that belittle "faith,"; yet at the same time, they want to hold "faith" in such high regard. I know you've examined this tendency in believers to do this in many of your writings. Iron Chariots Wiki has also touched upon this phenomena.

From http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_based_on_faith:

"Theists commonly consider faith to be a virtue. It seems odd, then, that they would criticize atheism for being based on faith. Moreover, the argument implies that the more faith a proposition needs the less likely it is to be true, a claim many counter-apologists welcome considering the evidence. "

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 7:01 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

Can you interpret his jibberish for me?

Ydemoc dkjDKLJdijwjjd?

August 28, 2011 7:18 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"They also display tremendous insecurity, manifested by knee-jerk reactions, willful evasions, false accusations, and utter rationalizations when confronted with religious beliefs other than the one they hold to."

I agree...brilliant quote.

Nide/Hez/RC said:
"It's called faith which the atheist also lives by."

the atheist does not live by faith but by reason.

if only you could retain some of the arguments and points that Dawson and Ydemoc raise, and then present an actual argument, then maybe you could get somewhere...parrotting slogans and bible verses is not an argument.

Ydemoc great point about muslim presup...also Hez FYI Adam Deen ( a muslim apologist ) uses Van Tillian arguments in his debates as he did when he debated Dan Barker. ( I'll try & post a link later )

Also many presuppers like Ravi Z and WLC try to say that you can "prove" the resurrection.

Newsflash: The muslims claim the same thing about when muhammad "split the moon". there is also supposed eye witness testimony by the king of India at the time.

So Hez, how do we know that the bible is true and that the koran is not? especially when they follow the same line of reasoning?

"Faith is belief in the absence of reason."

Ayn Rand on Donahue

August 28, 2011 7:44 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

Thank you for your kind and supportive comments.

Sometimes it's as if theists themselves sense that there is something wrong with faith -- that it isn't enough, so they try (and fail miserably) to buttress this "belief in the absence of reason" with "reason" itself, not realizing of course that if they would just jettison faith, they would be well on their way to rationality.

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 8:14 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

To Silly Believers Everywhere,

Let us not forget the words of one of the greatest theists who has ever lived, Martin Luther:

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”

If this doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what does.

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 9:40 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

...AWESOME.

August 28, 2011 10:05 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

Martin Luther

Another great quote by a a famous theist which contradicts the ten commandments.

August 28, 2011 10:08 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Action Jackson,

Yes. Good point. And to live with such lies, theists resort to their favorite friend: rationalization.

I asked a believer if telling the Nazis that Anne Frank was NOT hiding in their house when she was, would that be a lie? The theist said, no, it would not be a lie. I asked the theist for biblical support, but the theist couldn't produce any.

Just like when I ask theists about self-defense. They struggle to biblically justify it, yet they hold that it's justified.

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 10:16 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

By the way, given that Luther laid much of the ground work for what the Nazis did to the Jewish people, he no doubt would've said to the Nazis, "Anne Frank? She's right up stairs in the attic."

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 10:24 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Said:Also many presuppers like Ravi Z and WLC try to say that you can "prove" the resurrection.

First of all Ravi Z and WLC are not pressupositional apologist.

Give me one reason why I Should take you serioulsy? You can't even get your facts straight.


Ydemoc,

I'm trying to figure out what Luther has to do with any of this are you a Lutheran all of a sudden because yesterday you were a Muslim?


There are a lot of Luther quotes floating around on line. I would be careful and check the source first if I were you.


Oh yea, AJ almost forgot Blark told me the bible was true.

Enjoy

August 28, 2011 11:24 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

Hez said:

"Give me one reason why I Should take you serioulsy?"

You got me...I can't...because I don't know what "serioulsy" means...

Will you please continue to enlighten us all with your brilliant posts?

August 28, 2011 12:04 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

Hez said:
"First of all Ravi Z and WLC are not pressupositional apologist."

Well, in my book, Ravi fits the bill. see below.

"Ravi Zacharias uses both Classical and Presuppositional methods. R.C. Sproul, a Presbyterian, leans to the Classical Approach. My personal assessment is that all three methods discussed in this series have their strengths and should be learned and utilized by those wanting to defend the Christian faith."

Article Source: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=4374

Hez said:
"You can't even get your facts straight."

I think it's you who can't get the facts straight.

August 28, 2011 12:09 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

I looked at the course description for Ravi Z's apologetic school I didn't see one book by van til or bahsen. Here's the link take a look for your self.
http://www.rzsa.org/coursedescriptions.cfm

The methods don't mix. Listen to the bahsen/sproul debate and you will see this.



You said: "you got me...I can't...because I don't know what "serioulsy" means...

Well I know your clueless you don't have to tell me.

August 28, 2011 12:50 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 28, 2011 4:00 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

So since there is "not one book by van til or bahsen" ( who is "bahsen"?) in his apologetic school, that means he's automatically not a presupper?

Because to me, Ravi is a presupper. Maybe you have different standards as to how you qualify a "presupper".



I've heard Ravi use presupppositional gimmicks in his 15 minute tirades. I've heard him do this....and who is "bahsen"? You would think that such a steadfast apologist like Hez would take the time to correctly spell the names of those who he champions as the be all end all of apologists.


I guess spelling the names of the people who made presuppositionalism famous is not one of those standards one must adhere to when qualifying as a "presuppositionalist".

Or maybe this "bahsen" is someone who is yet to unleash a fury of ACTUAL ARGUMENTS upon all of us lowly atheists. It seems Hez is unequipped to pose or even learn what an argument is.

August 28, 2011 4:01 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Here Is a link to an article by van til maybe it will help you get a clue. Your so confused about his method it's amazing.


http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html

August 28, 2011 4:28 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

It has been my experience lately that when believers are presented with various points, they often neglect to read what is written, especially if what is written poses what they perceive to be a threat to their belief in invisible magic beings who control a cartoon universe.

And if believers do happen to read what is written, they often fail to integrate points made, and are quite skilled at distortion and context dropping.

Perhaps these believers are taking Proverbs 1:7 a little too seriously, and it has warped their minds to such an extent that they think reading and processing opposing viewpoints will place their (imaginary) salvation in jeopardy.


Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 4:39 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

Ydemoc is an atheist again. yay




Me

August 28, 2011 5:05 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

Ydemoc you are on fire.

Hey Hez why don't you try directly answering the questions we raise.

You have yet to deal with anything. You've got a lot of work to do. No one is going to take you seriously until you stop with the comedy routine and start presenting {your|an} argument(s)

August 28, 2011 7:48 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

One other thing I've noticed about silly believers, primarily lately, is that they seem to imagine that there is someone talking directly to them, when in fact that isn't necessarily the case.

I guess this is just another example of how believers interact with what they can only imagine to be the case.

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 7:59 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

Thanks for your comment. I enjoy your posts, too.

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 8:05 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

I also enjoyed the video you made about Dawson on YouTube -- assuming that it's you who did it, of course -- which I'm pretty sure it is.

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 8:10 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

And I'm still waiting for you to accept my debate challenge, so I guess we're even :-)

August 28, 2011 8:26 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Did you read the article? When you do feel free to address me.

I am really enjoying Ydemocs little game. He seems a little sore too bad I really enjoy shutting his mouth.

August 28, 2011 8:40 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

Thanks Ydemoc - Yes I made a few vids where I paraphrased/ cut and pasted some of the content here on BB in response to Chad Williams AKA rational responder.


After doing so I was banned by Chad both on his youtube account and his blog streetapologetics.com.

O hey Hez Chad knows how to present his arguments...problem is he only knows how to debate with atheists who have no idea about this blog, the axioms, objectivism, and what it teaches.

I was really looking forward to debating presuppers on youtube. I became very sad when they all ban me and run to the hills when I mention Bethrick.


I really don't get it...whatever happened to "throwing down the gauntlet"? [sic] and challenging the atheist head on?

...ahem... o hey speaking of which Sye stopped by...

August 28, 2011 8:41 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

You claimed that William lane Craig was a presuppositional apologist.

You have lost all credibility well you did that a long time ago. Why are you so confused?

August 28, 2011 9:10 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

One other thing I've seen exhibited (and you've also examined this extensively in your writings) by silly believers is that, even though they are supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit -- a supernatural force that is perfect in every way -- believers and their spokespeople cannot seem to agree on which approach is proper with regard to their religion.

You never see people doing this with, let's say, the moon. It would be silly to ask, what is the best approach to believing it's actually there?

If some supernatural force is guiding these believers, then why all the fuss?

Ydemoc

August 28, 2011 9:48 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Just for kicks, here is a video of evidentialist William Lane Craig, cross-pollinating a bit, employing some presuppositional tools against scientific naturalism:"

http://modernpensees.wordpress.com/category/presuppositionalism/

Craig HAS employed presup "tools".

Craig uses presuppositional "tools". At least your affiliates claim that he does...to be fair, no one can really nail down Craig, one minute he believes in evolution the next minute he doesn't...one minute he's a presupper the next minute he's refuting it...this should come as no surprise to you Hez, since your worldview is rife with contradictions.

Finally, you can throw Craig into almost any category really...probably even deist and agnostic at times...and he has said that evolution makes more sense to him that creation ex nihlio...the next day he probably said the opposite.

August 28, 2011 9:49 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"You have lost all credibility well you did that a long time ago. Why are you so confused?"

I'm not...it is you that is confused and will not directly answer questions we raise to you.

August 28, 2011 9:52 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

The best approach to believe in the moon is by faith like everyone else does. You seriously didn't no that?

AJ,

You've really gone mad.

Why are you talking to me about WLC?

Read van til's article maybe you will learn something for once.

August 28, 2011 11:08 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Sye wrote: “And I'm still waiting for you to accept my debate challenge, so I guess we're even :-)”

Actually, if there’s anything comparable to a score of some sort, you are not even with me, not by a long shot. While I have published a thorough refutation of the “argument” which you have showcased on your website, you have neither rebutted my critique nor shown how my own position is wrong in any way. So you’re trailing far, far behind. “Bringing up the rear,” as they say.

As for your “debate challenge,” you wouldn’t be able to afford me. My challengers must accept all my expenses and commit to my fee. Trust me, I'm way beyond your pay grade.

Regards,
Dawson

August 28, 2011 11:30 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

For those interested in Van Til's "Why I Believe in God," check out Anton Thorn's point-by-point review of Van Til's oft-cited piece. You can find it here (also in the Recommended Resources on my blog's main page).

In his piece, Van Til himself tells us how his own imagination and the fears it generated in him are what drove him as a little boy to immerse himself in his god-belief. He relates a story about when he wanted to sleep in a barn one night, and when he did, he heard noises and imagined that someone was coming after him. This frightened him into saying his prayers, and from then on he never looked back. He spent the rest of his life trapped in the labyrinth of mysticism that is Christianity.

Yes, nice piece to examine. I encourage folks to look at it. It not only demonstrates the defenselessness of his position, it also exposes its imaginative roots.

Regards,
Dawson

August 28, 2011 11:44 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

"you wouldn’t be able to afford me"

Erm, okay, pay me and I'll address your 'critique.' :-) Sounds even to me :-)

August 29, 2011 5:07 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

That Anton Thorn piece is great. I remember reading it a couple years ago. If I'm not mistaken, Thorn has several other good pieces where he uses this style, carrying on a "dialogue" with apologists.

Also, Dawson, I have posted a few things over on Debunking Christianity. In a few of those postings I have linked or referenced your writings (with full and appropriate citations, of course).

Do you have any objections with me continuing to do so? (again, with appropriate citations).

Thanks

Ydemoc

August 29, 2011 5:49 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

The great internet atheist apologist Dawson Bethruck has finally spoken. I'm in awe.

Yea, and it's been 2 months and you still haven't critiqued my presentation of you over at my blog.

Can't it get any more weirder now we have Ydemoc
spreading the "good" news of Dawson Bethrick.

Amazing. Ydemoc the atheist evangelist. That's pretty funny.

August 29, 2011 6:51 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I particularly like this quote from the Anton Thorn piece you linked to:

"Any argument you thus present in the attempt to defend that faith belief, then, constitutes an effort to use reason in order to validate that which is opposed to reason."

Ydemoc

August 29, 2011 10:29 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

Another great exchange from the Anton Thorn link you provided:

--

Van Til: "I was to learn to think God's thoughts after him in every field of endeavor."

Thorn: "Ever stop and ask yourself how silly that sounds, Dr. Van Til, this notion of a god thinking? Think about it. You say this god is omniscient and infallible, right? If that's the case, why would it think? We think in order to figure out problems, to identify things, to contemplate our values and determine which ones are more important to us. An omniscient being wouldn't need to do this, it would already know. To say that you "think God's thoughts after him" is to ignore the fact that the act of thinking and the notion of omniscience cannot be integrated. Also, it's symptomatic of a deep, psychological pursuit of the unearned, in this case, of unearned authority. If you can get others to believe that you "think God's thoughts after him," they will naturally consider your thoughts unquestionable, for to question your thoughts becomes paramount to questioning god's, and this devoted believers are reluctant to do."

-------

Take note, believers, there's some really good stuff over there.

Ydemoc

August 29, 2011 11:35 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Actually that's a false statement.

1. I use faith to validate reason.

2. Faith and reason can't be separated.

3. The atheist also lives by faith he's only in self-denial.

So, go ahead and use your reason to validate your reason and reduce your self to absurdity as you continue to do.

So, how is your "intervangelism" going?

August 29, 2011 12:01 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc said:"Take note, believers, there's some really good stuff over there.

Yea, be right over.

August 29, 2011 12:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 29, 2011 12:08 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Concerning Dr. Van Til's statement of thinkng god's thoughts after him. Regardless of wether Anton Thorn is correct that god could not think, assuming god even exists at all, I stil have an objection. Simply put, I think for myself! I do not think someone else's thoughts after them. I no more want to think god's thoughts after him then I want to automatically wear the same brand of t-shirt as my favorite pop singer, and for much the same reason. I take responsibility for my own thinking, thank you very much.

August 29, 2011 12:10 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 29, 2011 12:23 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Good point. What you wrote underscores what Leonard Peikoff wrote in "The Ominous Parallels", p. 308:


"Thinking is a delicate, difficult process, which man cannot perform unless knowledge is his goal, logic is his method, and the judgment of his mind is his guiding absolute. Thought requires selfishness, the fundamental selfishness of a rational faculty that places nothing above the integrity of its own function.

A man cannot think if he places something—anything—above his perception of reality. He cannot follow the evidence unswervingly or uphold his conclusions intransigently, while regarding compliance with other men as his moral imperative, self-abasement as his highest virtue, and sacrifice as his primary duty. He cannot use his brain while surrendering his sovereignty over it, i.e., while accepting his neighbors as its owner and term-setter."

Now let's see if believers are able to think about that.

Ydemoc

August 29, 2011 12:25 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 29, 2011 12:26 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

How does one use faith to validate reason? I understand faith to mean believing in a proposition in the absence of or counter to reason. Thus they seem to be polar opposites. How can faith (believing without reason) be used to support reason? Are you arguing that we have faith in reason's usfulness? I ask because I see the results of using reason as opposed to faith daily. One does not have faith in what is immediately apparent to one's senses. Sense preception is prior to either faith or reason and what I see continually through out my life is that faith will not get you knownledge but reason will. At least that is what my life's exppearences have taught me.

August 29, 2011 12:31 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

The atheist thinks God's thoughts everyday too.
See the problem?

Ydemoc,

Another statement that belongs in the trash with the rest of the junk.

Ydemoc did you check to see if you were still Ydemoc this morning?

August 29, 2011 12:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Yea, but you have to make sure your mind is working first.
Did you check to see if your mind was working this morning
Or did you just get up and go to work assuming it did?

Do you have faith(belief) that your mind works?

August 29, 2011 12:39 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Depends, did I have my morning coffee or not. Seriously that fact that I can interact with reality and think about it would mean to some degree my mind functions. On the other hand are you asking if I am insane? Would an insane man be able to reason to the conclusion that he was insane? More importantly if you suspect I am insane why would you attempt to communicate with me? And where is my coffee!

August 29, 2011 12:48 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

You're finally getting the picture see where reason apart from faith leads to?

The atheist lives by faith and you just showed us that.

August 29, 2011 12:58 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

At base I have to assume my mind works and that my senses are valid, but then again so do you. futher you have also have to assume my mind and senses work, for if not, why would you try to convince me that god exists. So I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I do not need the concept god in order to have a conceptualization of my own mind and it's functioning. However their is one area that dispite my functioning brain I cant get a handle on and that is the concept of god. The arguments for it make no sense to me at all. So prehaps my mind is not functioning as best as it could, but if so then there is really nothing you can do to help me is there?

mmmm.... coffee

ok it has been fun but I am at work and well I actually have to do some.

August 29, 2011 1:11 PM  
Blogger Nide Corniell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 29, 2011 1:43 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

You said: "At base I have to assume my mind works and that my senses are valid, but then again so do you."

I said: Yea, but I can give you a reason for it and that's something the atheist can't do.

You said: "futher you have also have to assume my mind and senses work, for if not, why would you try to convince me that god exists."

I am not trying to convince you there is no reason to.
All men know God exists.

You said: "I do not need the concept god in order to have a conceptualization of my own mind and it's functioning."

Well, it's inherently in you that's why you can wake up and go to work without "seeing" if your mind is working.


You said: "However their is one area that dispite my functioning brain I cant get a handle on and that is the concept of god. The arguments for it make no sense to me at all. So prehaps."

I said: its not an argument it's a precondition for arguments that's what a transcendental "proof" is.

You said: " So prehaps my mind is not functioning as best as it could, but if so then there is really nothing you can do to help me is there?

Well, In a sense no. However, at that point I am only being a faithful christian and LORD willing the holy spirit would use my witness to save you.


Enjoy your coffee.

August 29, 2011 1:45 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

If your interested I encourage you to listen to the exchange between Dr. Bahnsen and George smith.

You can get it here

http://www.cmfnow.com/gb925acaseforagainstgod.aspx

Or you can search for it online it's problaby on you tube.

I think it will help with any confusion you might have regarding the faith/reason discussion.



Blessings

August 29, 2011 3:12 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "you wouldn’t be able to afford me"

Sye responded: “Erm, okay, pay me and I'll address your 'critique.' :-) Sounds even to me :-)”

It is up to you whether you want to defend your argument or not. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on more garbage.

Meanwhile, I have already published my refutation in writing, free of charge, and available for the world to see. If you think we’re “even,” you’re fantasizing: your precious argment has been systematically destroyed, while both my critique and my position remain unchallenged. If you prefer to remain silent, then my refutation can only prevail. Suit yourself.

Regards,
Dawson

August 29, 2011 5:21 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

"If you prefer to remain silent, then my refutation can only prevail."

Nah, I prefer to debate you on it, but you choose to remain in the coop ;-)

August 29, 2011 5:24 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Sye: "Nah, I prefer to debate you on it, but you choose to remain in the coop ;-)"

I'm here, Sye. I'm available. People interact with me all the time. If anyone's hiding, it's not me. If you want an oral debate, I'm available as well. But I do have my terms. They are exorbitant. I'm worth it. You aren't.

Regards,
Dawson

August 29, 2011 6:24 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

"But I do have my terms. They are exorbitant."

Well my terms for sifting through your diaper of verbal diarrhea are exorbitant too, so again, I guess we're even :-)

Look, you aren't fooling anyone. You are known for ducking live debates, and this "fee" is just a sham to cover your cowardice. Interesting to see your response when it is turned back on you though :-)

August 29, 2011 6:55 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 29, 2011 7:55 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

(above comment deleted due to copying error - accidentally pasted same text twice)

Dawson,

Excuse me for interrupting, but it seems Sye wouldn't have to, as he puts it, "...sift(ing) through your diaper of verbal diarrhea." It seems to me, all he would really need to do is write a response to a little of what you wrote in "A Critique of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s www.proofthatgodexists.org"; August 27, 2010).

Here is what you wrote:

"Why doesn’t he frame his question about the ontology of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality in terms of conceptual versus material instead of “immaterial” versus material?

The reason why Sye does not cast the alternatives in these terms is most likely because (a) he probably has no conceptual understanding of logic, mathematics, science and morality, and (b) doing so would jeopardize his case for theism. Not only does Christianity not have a theory of concepts (which would explain why Sye does not treat these issues as conceptual phenomena), his god is not supposed to be merely a concept, but an independently existing being.

The problem is even worse for Sye. As noted above, at Step Five Sye contrasts “material” with “immaterial.” Another expression which he uses to designate “the immaterial” is the term “abstract entities.” Does Sye really want to say that his god is “abstract” in nature, like the number 3 or any other abstraction? I wouldn’t think so. Abstractions are not living entities, they have no consciousness of their own, and they are not independently existing entities: they require minds to form and make use of them. But the Christian god is supposed to be an independently existing entity possessing its own consciousness, not needing a mind which forms it (such as in the believer’s imagination).

So just by citing a concept as an example of something “immaterial,” Sye is letting on that “God” refers to something psychological rather than existential, to something in his mind rather than an independently existing entity. Concepts are products of a mental process. By characterizing both “God” and concepts as “immaterial,” Sye is saying that his god is analogous to products of a mental process. Only instead of constituting genuine knowledge about the world (as in the case of concepts formed on the basis of perceptual input), Sye’s god-belief finds its residence in his imagination."

***end quote***

Ydemoc

August 29, 2011 8:24 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Perfect timing. George smith asked Dr.bahnsen something along those lines.

God is immaterial. However he is not an abstraction.
He is a person. I talked about this already and, yea, I know you don't accept that answer.


Abstractions could not possibly depend on human
minds.

There is no such thing as a conceptual understanding of logic. Only in Rand's head.

So is logic really a mental process?

Does everyone think logical all the time?

August 29, 2011 10:25 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

Lately, when certain silly believers have been provided food for thought from your writings, it appears they suffer from a malady I like to call "intellectual bulimia." This self-imposed ailment cause them to reject something before they've processed it.

So let's try again to see if these silly and intellectually malnourished believers can find sustenance by chewing on what you wrote in your blog entitled: "Non-Cognitivism or Metaphysical Primacy: What's the Better Strategy?" (May 15, 2009)

In that blog entry (which includes an exchange between Bahnsen and George H. Smith) you wrote:

"Concepts are mental phenomena; they are psychological. They are the form in which the human mind economizes the vast array of perceptions one experiences in his conscious life. Statements like “the concept of an absolute God” may actually constitute an unwitting admission that one’s object of worship is all in the mind, like the things one imagines.

Of course, theists will resist this interpretation of their statements, and if called on it will likely insist that their god is not just a concept. I’m reminded of the following exchange between George H. Smith and Greg Bahnsen in their radio debate. Smith asks Bahnsen an important question:

Smith: “Is God an abstraction, Greg?”

Bahnsen: “Uh no, God is a personal, non-physical being.”

Smith: “Non-physical? Could you be more specific? I mean, non-existence is non-physical as well. So how do we distinguish God from non-existence?”

Bahnsen: “Well, obviously, you uh distinguish God, a non-physical being, from say the concept of love, or say the concept of number, or the laws of physics or the laws of logic, you distinguish them according to their characteristics. God is a person, makes choices, and does things. Numbers do not.”

Here Bahnsen is explicitly asked to address the question of whether or not “God” is an abstraction. Bahnsen’s response is “Uh no” in this case. But it seems difficult for Christian apologists to avoid treating their god conceptually, i.e., as if it were a concept. For instance, in his book Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, Bahnsen makes the following statement:

It should be particularly noted, therefore, that only a system of philosophy that takes the concept of an absolute God seriously can really be said to be employing a transcendental method… The opponent of Christianity will long ago have noticed that we are frankly prejudiced, and that the whole position is "biblicistic." On the other hand, some fundamentalists may have feared that we have been trying to build up a sort of Christian philosophy without the Bible. Now we may say that if such be the case, the opponent of Christianity has sensed the matter correctly. The position we have briefly sought to outline is frankly taken from the Bible. And this applies especially to the central concept of the whole position, viz., the concept of an absolute God. Nowhere else in human literature, we believe, is the concept of an absolute God presented.,, It thus appears that we must take the Bible, its conception of sin, its conception of Christ, and its conception of God and all that is involved in these concepts together, or take none of them. (p. 517; italics original)

(continued)

August 30, 2011 12:12 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

"Other examples can be produced, but this one passage should be sufficient to show how casually Bahnsen treats his god as if it were in fact conceptual in nature, in spite of his answer to Smith when explicitly called upon the matter. Of course, I raise this point because on my view, concepts are abstractions, since concepts are formed by a process of abstracting from specific objects (i.e., from objects possessing specific measurements which are omitted – or “despecified” as Porter puts it – in the process of forming concepts). My view is that theists implicitly tend to treat their god as something conceptual because it is ultimately psychological, specifically rooted in the believer’s imagination. This would explain the believer’s willingness to flip back and forth between treating his god as something conceptual on the one hand, and as something concrete and specific on the other.

Either way, though, there is a problem in so far as Objectivism is concerned. And this is not a problem which the theist can simply dismiss as internal to Objectivism, since the problem is rooted in the manner in which the human mind works, and everyone must work with his mind. Whether “God” is supposed to be a concept or a proper name, it is being used as a mental symbol to refer to something that is supposed to be extra-mental, something supposedly existing independent of the mind of the believer. It’s supposed to refer to something which exists objectively, rather than to a figment of the believer’s imagination. So right here the theist is employing the primacy of existence whether he realizes it or not, and in so doing he is in a sense “borrowing” from a non-Christian metaphysical position.

Given these facts, certain questions come up which need to be contended with, whether or not one is an Objectivist. For instance, to what specifically is this mental symbol supposed to refer? The theist will of course say it refers to a supernatural conscious being which has all sorts of various attributes and accomplishments, such as (in the case of attributes) omniscience, infallibility, absolute sovereignty, infiniteness, etc., and (in the case of accomplishments) the creation of the universe, the atonement for sins, etc. So the word “God” (whether concept or proper name) is supposed to refer to or denote this supernatural thing which is said to exist independent of any human being’s consciousness.

The question then becomes: by what means does the theist have awareness of this supernatural being? One issue needs to be clarified at this point: does he claim to be aware of this supernatural being directly? Or, does he just “know of” it by means of inference from other things of which he has direct awareness? It’s not always clear which position a particular theist holds given certain statements he may make, or his treatment of the matter. Some seem to act as if they have direct awareness of their god, as you and I have direct awareness of objects we perceive with our senses. If the theist says he has direct awareness of his god, by what means does he have this direct awareness? Presumably it cannot be by means of sense perception, since the word “God” is supposed to refer to something imperceptible to human beings: it’s invisible, it’s immaterial, we cannot see it, we cannot touch it, we cannot hear it (though various biblical passages, particularly in the Old Testament suggest that some individuals, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc, did have the ability or opportunity to see this god or hear its voice). The point here is that, if we cannot have direct awareness of this supernatural being by means of sense perception (and descriptions of the Christian god preclude this ability), then by what means does the believer have direct awareness of it (if he claims to have such awareness of his god)? This is a question for the believer to answer."

***end quote***

Ydemoc

August 30, 2011 12:16 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Well, I don't accept Rand's answer. I don't eat rotten food.

If Logic is a mental process,Ydemoc, you just disproved it.
In fact, you did that a long time ago.

August 30, 2011 3:23 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Sye: “Well my terms for sifting through your diaper of verbal diarrhea are exorbitant too,”

There’s no call for this kind of language. You can choose either to interact with my refutation, or not. It is your choice. I don’t know how much simpler it can be put to you for you to understand. So far you’ve chosen not to interact with it.

Let me give you a little background. You’ve published your argument for your god’s existence on a website some time ago, and I received repeated requests from visitors to my blog over a period of time for me to post a response to your website. Frankly, I couldn’t see how anyone would have found your case at all persuasive, so for a while I wasn’t interested. But the requests kept coming, so I finally drafted a rebuttal, cleaned it up and posted it on my blog.

To date, no one, including you, Sye, has brought any significant challenge to it. Meanwhile, numerous visitors to my website have written to me telling me that they think it’s the most thorough and penetrating response to your website. Perhaps this is true. But either way, my refutation of your case remains unchallenged all the same. I guess this makes you sore, and that’s why you choose to resort to slander instead of providing an intelligent response.

Sye: “ so again, I guess we're even :-)”

You continue to express concern for being “even” with me in some way. Yet meanwhile you characterize my work as a “diaper of verbal diarrhea.” This is the level to which you seem to be aspiring in that case.

Sye: “Look, you aren't fooling anyone.”

Indeed, I’m not trying to fool anyone. It is not I who claims that an invisible magic being “controls whatsoever comes to pass” (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 160).

Sye: “You are known for ducking live debates,”

Really? That’s odd. How could I have generated such a reputation? How many “live debates” do you think I’ve been “ducking”? And how can you say that I’ve ducked your debate challenge? I told you that I’m available. I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to figure out that my services come at a price.

Sye: “and this ‘fee’ is just a sham to cover your cowardice.”

You’re projecting here. My fee needs neither your approval. I’m a busy man, with many, many people after my time. If you can’t cough up the dough to cover my fee and expenses, don’t blame me. It all depends on how badly you want to debate me.

But it is interesting to note that, for reasons that you have not explained, you’ve changed your mind from last year. Recall that a year ago, on August 28, 2010, you stated that you were “done with” me. You announced this after I stated that one of my terms is that the person with whom I will debate would at minimum need to be honest. It was at this point that you eliminated yourself, which I take as an acknowledgment on your part that you would not meet my terms.

In the meantime, I don’t see any reason why a debate with you would even be of any value. Your argument has already been refuted. What value would a live debate add? You’re simply trying to redirect attention away from the fact that your case for Christian theism has already been demolished. I certainly have no onus to interact with you in some live forum. It’s clear that you can’t even interact with what I’ve posted in response to your argument! Talk about absurdities!

Sye: “Interesting to see your response when it is turned back on you though :-)”

It’s not clear what you mean by this. My response to you is simply a reflection of the fact that I’m content to rest on the refutation of your argument that I’ve already posted. It’s been up for over a year now. Meanwhile you busy yourself with the low-hanging fruit.

Regards,
Dawson

August 30, 2011 4:11 AM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

”There’s no call for this kind of language.”

Descriptive???

” You can choose either to interact with my refutation, or not. It is your choice. I don’t know how much simpler it can be put to you for you to understand. So far you’ve chosen not to interact with it.”

“You can choose either to debate me, or not. It is your choice. I don’t know how much simpler it can be put to you for you to understand. So far you’ve chosen not to debate me.”

”Let me give you a little background. You’ve published your argument for your god’s existence on a website some time ago, and I received repeated requests from visitors to my blog over a period of time for me to post a response to your website. Frankly, I couldn’t see how anyone would have found your case at all persuasive, so for a while I wasn’t interested. But the requests kept coming, so I finally drafted a rebuttal, cleaned it up and posted it on my blog. “

Hmmm, I wonder why so many people asked you to respond to my website when you claim the argument is so bad? I guess the “low-hanging fruit” must frequent your blog.

”To date, no one, including you, Sye, has brought any significant challenge to it.”

From what I have read of it, I see no challenge at all. It’s like an obnoxious blind man standing in the town center screaming out for people to challenge how good his eye-sight is.

”Meanwhile, numerous visitors to my website have written to me telling me that they think it’s the most thorough and penetrating response to your website. “

Wouldn’t that be like people complimenting you for how far you stuck your thumb in the jello? Your visitors must be really dumb to think that your argument is “penetrating” and “thorough” of what you claim to be such a weak argument.

”Perhaps this is true. But either way, my refutation of your case remains unchallenged all the same. I guess this makes you sore”

You give yourself far too much credit. I have even told some of your readers that if they want me to give a refutation, to take your “arguments” and write them in short point-form points, and I will endeavour to address them. I’d say that my response to your “argument” is far more consistent with what I think of it, than yours to mine with what you think of it.

” and that’s why you choose to resort to slander instead of providing an intelligent response. “

It’s not slander when it’s accurate.

”You continue to express concern for being “even” with me in some way.”

Nope, not concern, I was just being generous :-)

”Indeed, I’m not trying to fool anyone. It is not I who claims that an invisible magic being “controls whatsoever comes to pass” (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 160).”

Either is Van Til. Nice quote-mining though.

”Sye: “You are known for ducking live debates,”

Really? That’s odd. How could I have generated such a reputation? How many “live debates” do you think I’ve been “ducking”?


Erm, all of them. Unless, of course, you care to direct me one of them.

cont'd

August 30, 2011 5:34 AM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

”And how can you say that I’ve ducked your debate challenge? I told you that I’m available. I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to figure out that my services come at a price.”

Seems everyone who wants to debate you has figured that out :-) How convenient.

”Sye: “and this ‘fee’ is just a sham to cover your cowardice.”

You’re projecting here.”


My record for live debates is there for all to see.

” My fee needs neither your approval. I’m a busy man, with many, many people after my time. If you can’t cough up the dough to cover my fee and expenses, don’t blame me. It all depends on how badly you want to debate me. “

Not badly at all, I prefer referring to your cowardice actually.

”But it is interesting to note that, for reasons that you have not explained, you’ve changed your mind from last year. Recall that a year ago, on August 28, 2010, you stated that you were “done with” me. “

Ya, I forgot about that, but I’m having some fun with this :-)

”You announced this after I stated that one of my terms is that the person with whom I will debate would at minimum need to be honest. It was at this point that you eliminated yourself, which I take as an acknowledgment on your part that you would not meet my terms.”

Oh, so it’s not the fee now? Well, let me know which excuse you are using so that I can more accurately represent your cowardice.

”In the meantime, I don’t see any reason why a debate with you would even be of any value. Your argument has already been refuted. What value would a live debate add? You’re simply trying to redirect attention away from the fact that your case for Christian theism has already been demolished. “

Which seems to be abundantly clear in all the live debates I’ve had ;-)

”I certainly have no onus to interact with you in some live forum. It’s clear that you can’t even interact with what I’ve posted in response to your argument!”

Um, no, it’s: “Can’t be bothered.” (Which again, is more consistent with what I think of your “argument” then what you think of mine).

” Talk about absurdities!”

I only called it “verbal diarrhea” but “absurd” works well too :-)

”Sye: “Interesting to see your response when it is turned back on you though :-)”

It’s not clear what you mean by this. My response to you is simply a reflection of the fact that I’m content to rest on the refutation of your argument that I’ve already posted.”


Seems to be the case with all your “refutations,” you are content not to expose them to live debate.

”It’s been up for over a year now. Meanwhile you busy yourself with the low-hanging fruit. “

Erm, those same ones that thought my website needed a refutation?

Okay, I’ve had some fun with this, but I can honestly see why you are ducking the debate challenge. Your comments make it abundantly clear that your followers are giving you far too much credit, and you are not giving them enough.

August 30, 2011 5:34 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Here is a critique of Rand's book. It's pretty hilarious.

http://www.epinions.com/review/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_by_Ayn_Rand/book-review-30E2-EB75595-398D1CBA-prod1

I would of have asked If Am I the only one that notices Rand is a lunatic.

August 30, 2011 5:47 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Here is a sample:

"In short, Rand is a moron. She is a dogmatic crypto-facist whose pseudo-religion is on the same level as scientology. But whereas L. Ron Hubbard's pseudo-religion hung its hooks on techno-babble, Rand hangs her pseudo-religion on philoso-babble. The end results are much the same: small groups of highly loyal followers who never bother to seriously question the gaping holes of logic, sense and decency which riddle their movement."

This is pretty funny.

August 30, 2011 5:57 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"highly loyal followers who never bother to seriously question the gaping holes of logic, sense and decency which riddle their movement"

Hez, specifically, what "gaping holes of logic, sense and decency" is the OP referring to here?

Please, be specific.

August 30, 2011 6:04 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Did you "see" if your brain was working this morning?

August 30, 2011 6:09 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Here is another sample:

"Furthermore, Rand during her own lifetime struggled to control the lives of those around her, using "rationality" as a justification for emotional cruelty and power over the people she called friends. She did things like arrange the marriage of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden tho', according to Barbara, they had no attraction towards each other. Rand believed they should have an affair that was "rational," like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. Likewise, when Rand learned that Murray Rothbard's (an economist) wife was a devout Christian she demanded Murray divorce his wife because it wasn't rational to love a Christian -- Murray, to his credit, cut Rand and her psychopathic movement."


Psychopathic movement is exactly precise.

August 30, 2011 6:16 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Hez, specifically, what "gaping holes of logic, sense and decency" is the OP referring to here?

you still have not pointed out the "gaping holes of logic, sense and decency"...can you do this?

Rand's personal life has nothing to do with the "gaping holes of logic" etc. specific to Objectivism.

August 30, 2011 6:29 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

What makes you think that I should know, specifically, what holes in logic he is referring to when he doesn't give examples?

At that point I would disagree there are no holes in logic.

Well, according to Objectivism everyone is logical.

So, aren't you refuting yourself when you find a problem with his critique?

Is everyone logical?

August 30, 2011 6:43 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Daniel 4:31 Even as the words were on his lips, a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.”

33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.


See that?









Psalm 32 "10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked; But he who trusts in the LORD, mercy shall surround him.

August 30, 2011 7:19 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

My time is short now, and I intend to respond to more of what you said later. But for now, this caught my eye:

Sye: “My record for live debates is there for all to see.”

I occasionally receive requests to dissect your live debates. Perhaps one of these days I will do this. Some readers may find the exposition of your debating tactics very valuable. I’ll put it on my “to do” list.

Which one would you suggest is your best debate, where you presented and defended your case at its best? Give me the link. Tell me why you suggest it over your others.

Regards,
Dawson

August 30, 2011 8:25 AM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

Just accept the debate challenge, then you can dissect your own :-)

You haven't debated anyone live have you? I think you would have been better off if you just said that you don't do live debates and let people speculate as to why, rather than offer your lame excuses.

August 30, 2011 8:52 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Sye: “Just accept the debate challenge, then you can dissect your own :-)”

Why not point to a debate you’re proud of, so that I can take a look at your performance? If you’re happy with your performance, you should be able to do this I’d think. This should be easy: you’ve only done a certain number of debates. So take a look at the ones you’ve participated in and let me know which one you’re most satisfied with. I would really like to examine it for myself. It would be even better if there’s a written transcript you can point me to.

You aren't afraid of me looking at your finest work, are you? (And that couldn't be your website I'd hope...)

Regards,
Dawson

August 30, 2011 2:26 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

"Why not point to a debate you’re proud of"

Erm, cause pride is a sin?

My last debate with Justin Schieber is on my website complete with transcription if you'd like to check that out. It was very informal and only planned a few days before, but was well received.

"You aren't afraid of me looking at your finest work, are you?"

Terrified, just like you are of debating me :-)

August 30, 2011 2:39 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "Why not point to a debate you’re proud of"

Sye: “Erm, cause pride is a sin?”

So, you’re not proud of your work? That’s quite an admission. Indeed, I haven't seen anything to your name that I would be proud of.

Sye: “My last debate with Justin Schieber is on my website complete with transcription if you'd like to check that out. It was very informal and only planned a few days before, but was well received.”

Check what I wrote again. I did not ask which debate of yours was the most recent. I asked for you to point to the debate where you presented and defended your case at its best. If that’s your debate with Justin Schieber, just say so. If it’s a different debate, please let me know. I want to review Sye *at his best* in his own opinion of himself (whether you’re proud of your work or not).

Regards,
Dawson

August 30, 2011 2:47 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

"Check what I wrote again. I did not ask which debate of yours was the most recent."

Erm, check what YOU wrote again. You asked me which I was most proud of. Then check what I wrote again about pride. THAT is why I responded as I did. Verbose AND obtuse. Not a good combination!

I could not care less which one you review, as it will likely be another lengthy diarrheatribe that only the most ardent of your supporters will bother to read.

So which of your excuses do you want me to refer to when people ask me why you won't debate me? The honesty one, or the money one?

August 30, 2011 3:11 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Here is the link again if anybody wants a good laugh.

http://www.epinions.com/review/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_by_Ayn_Rand/book-review-30E2-EB75595-398D1CBA-prod1

Here is another sample:

"As a philosopher, Ayn Rand is a good typist."

"I should have known that there wouldn't be a single idea of any importance, depth, weight or real substance in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But I guess hope springs eternal -- that can be my only rationale for once against subjecting myself to Rand."


Enjoy

August 30, 2011 3:29 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Sye: “Erm, check what YOU wrote again. You asked me which I was most proud of. Then check what I wrote again about pride. THAT is why I responded as I did.”

I saw that. The only conclusion I can draw from this regarding your work is that you’re not proud of it. I acknowledged this admission of yours. You can’t point to anything of yours that you’re proud of. Got it. If I’m mistaken in this, please correct me.

Sye: “I could not care less which one you review,”

So be it. I just wanted to make sure it was on the record that I consulted you first before examining any of your debates, to make sure that I was focusing on the best of your work rather than one which you could later say "Well, that was just a throw-away debate." So far, after examining your website (something which you could prepare at your own leisure and without the time constraints of a live debate), I’d say that you have no case to begin with. But I’ll take a look at the transcript of your more recent exchange. I will be looking to see if you’ve purged your case of the flaws that I exposed in my critique of your website.

Then again, certain statements of yours suggest that you still have not, after a whole year, taken the time to peruse my examination of the case on your website. Certainly a year is enough time to read a blog entry. So there must be some reluctance on your part for some reason. What could possibly be generating such strong reluctance? I mean, you’ve taken the time to wade through all these comments. In the time that you’ve done that, you could have read my critique of your case probably several times.

Sye: “So which of your excuses do you want me to refer to when people ask me why you won't debate me? The honesty one, or the money one?”

It would be a mischaracterization of my position to call anything I’ve stated in response to your call for a live debate an “excuse.” If you check the record, when you first floated the idea of a debate with me (a rather premature move on your part if I may say, given the fact that you had not even read through my critique of your website, let alone interacted with it), you’ll note that I told you that I don’t see the point of such a spectacle. Live debates are primarily a form of entertainment; they are not a systematic means of determining the truth of a position, which is what concerns me. I find little value in them. For instance, you’ll find that I prefer to examine theistic defenses that are produced when one has the luxury of carefully developing his points rather than trying to score points with a listening audience. Very often in live debates, participants resort to casuistry and bombast, since they tend to become more concerned with “winning” than with truth. They’re concerned with their staging and performance, and don’t have the time to critically examine what their opponents say. I’m sure you’ll say this doesn’t happen with you, but as you said, your “record for live debates is there for all to see.” If your conduct in your comments is any indication, I don’t think anyone would be surprised to find this tendency in play in your debates. But let’s see.

Also, as I pointed out to you, you were the one who announced that you were “done with” me, and you did so when I stated that any opponent that I would debate would at minimum need to be honest. By characterizing this as an “excuse,” you imply that the moral imperative of choosing to deal with honest individuals instead of those who use deceit and trickery as their stock in trade, is of little importance to you. Do you think I should ignore one’s character deficiencies in my associations? I certainly don’t.

At any rate, I really don’t care what you tell people. But I’ll go ahead and check out your exchange with Justin Schieber. If I find anything of interest in it, I just may devote some space on my blog to a review. In that case, you’ll be trailing even further behind than you are now.

Regards,
Dawson

August 30, 2011 5:51 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

”I saw that. The only conclusion I can draw from this regarding your work is that you’re not proud of it. I acknowledged this admission of yours. You can’t point to anything of yours that you’re proud of. Got it. If I’m mistaken in this, please correct me. “

Nope, that’s exactly right. I am proud of My Lord and Saviour who enables me to cast down foolish arguments.

”I’d say that you have no case to begin with.”

Which is why you keep pestering me no doubt.

” But I’ll take a look at the transcript of your more recent exchange. I will be looking to see if you’ve purged your case of the flaws that I exposed in my critique of your website. “

Flaws assume logic, which you simply cannot account for.

”Certainly a year is enough time to read a blog entry.”

It’s also enough to eat a yard of manure. Time doesn’t make it more appetizing.

” So there must be some reluctance on your part for some reason. What could possibly be generating such strong reluctance?”

Have I not made this clear enough? Your verbal diarrhea is incredibly nauseating. I concur with the folks over at Aristophrenium.com: “It has almost nothing to do with the actual merits of his arguments and everything to do with the fact that locating and identifying an argument within his landslide argumentum verbosium is just too laborious a task,” and “until Bethrick decides to express arguments or criticisms with succinct perspicuity instead of proof-by-verbosity, I simply can’t be bothered to engage his material. It requires more time than I have available.”

” I mean, you’ve taken the time to wade through all these comments. In the time that you’ve done that, you could have read my critique of your case probably several times. “

Again, this is different. I’m having some fun with this, and I don’t have to read your excruciatingly boring posts. Although even these are starting to push the envelope.

”It would be a mischaracterization of my position to call anything I’ve stated in response to your call for a live debate an “excuse.”

I wholeheartedly agree.

cont'd

August 30, 2011 6:50 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

” you’ll note that I told you that I don’t see the point of such a spectacle. Live debates are primarily a form of entertainment”

Okay, slow down, I’m trying to keep track:
1. I’m too dishonest
2. I can't afford you.
3. Live debates are for entertainment.

Okay, carry on.

” you’ll find that I prefer to examine theistic defenses that are produced when one has the luxury of carefully developing his points rather than trying to score points with a listening audience.”

Only one of my debates has had a live audience. This position does fascinate me though. I wonder what would happen if someone bumped into you on the street and wanted to challenge your thoughts. Would you go into panic mode and refuse the discussion until the person pulled out his laptop and you retreated to your respective cubicles?

” Very often in live debates, participants resort to casuistry and bombast, since they tend to become more concerned with “winning” than with truth. “

Well, of the two of us, I’m the only one who has a worldview where the concept of truth can be made sense of, so if anyone is concerned with truth, it can’t be you.

”Also, as I pointed out to you, you were the one who announced that you were “done with” me, and you did so when I stated that any opponent that I would debate would at minimum need to be honest. By characterizing this as an “excuse,” you imply that the moral imperative of choosing to deal with honest individuals instead of those who use deceit and trickery as their stock in trade, is of little importance to you.”

Ah no, I deny your lame accusation. I do wonder how evolved bags of primordial slime can generate a prescription for truth-telling though. You are actually starting to make me want to debate you :-)

” At any rate, I really don’t care what you tell people. But I’ll go ahead and check out your exchange with Justin Schieber. If I find anything of interest in it, I just may devote some space on my blog to a review. In that case, you’ll be trailing even further behind than you are now.”

Woe is me :-)

August 30, 2011 6:53 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Live debates are primarily a form of entertainment; they are not a systematic means of determining the truth of a position, which is what concerns me. I find little value in them. For instance, you’ll find that I prefer to examine theistic defenses that are produced when one has the luxury of carefully developing his points rather than trying to score points with a listening audience. Very often in live debates, participants resort to casuistry and bombast, since they tend to become more concerned with “winning” than with truth."

could not agree more...there is not a time limit in a blog exchange or what I will call a "blog debate". It's unlimited and we can clearly see each party's case as it's there for all to see. Also, here is Sye's chance to lay Dawson to waste.


"The Reformed apologist throws down the gauntlet and challenges his opponent to a duel-to-the-death."

Defense of the Faith

The presuppositional apologists have the "challenge" part down...however when it comes down to actually taking a challenge and backing up their assertions the presup. apologists do what they do best...EVADE.

I personally would like for you, Dawson to at least touch on the debate that Sye did with the existentialists.

Not sure if you have seen this debate Dawson.

I have left a link to the first youtube vid below if you have time to watch it:

CLICK HERE

while I am in agreement with some of the points the existentialists raise, many of their points and arguments made me cringe.

August 30, 2011 7:04 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46n5mrMFRzc&feature=related

link didn't work.

August 30, 2011 7:08 PM  
Blogger Tom said...

Sye,

Don't you receive monetary proceeds from the debate series with Paul Baird that Eric Hovind is selling? Seems only reasonable that Dawson should be compensated for his time in a live debate.

But why wait for a live debate to unveil a response to his critique anyway? I'd love to hear your response.

August 30, 2011 7:27 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Evade?

Well, I asked a you few questions this morning and you never answered.

Maybe you can answer this one.

The atheist continually ridicules the theist for making
Claims from the Known to the "unknown".

The problem is the atheist does the same thing. For example, the atheist claims to know what happens after death the problem is he has never died. I can tell you what happens because I have God's revelation.

How is it possible in your world to know this?

Did blarko or Allah tell you or did you die and comeback?

August 30, 2011 7:28 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Well, I asked a you few questions this morning and you never answered."

That's because I'm much more interested in the exchanges between Dawson and Sye and I want to give them the floor. Also I am refraining from posting as much because I don't want to muck up the thread.

Furthermore, you're a comedian and no one is going to take you seriously until you can present an argument..I feel like a broken record saying that.

August 30, 2011 7:37 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

I know your clueless but it won't hurt to try sometime.

Haven't you heard everything Mr.Bethrick has to say. Is he really going to say any thing new?

I have presented many arguments like the one you just ignored.

August 30, 2011 7:47 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

Tom said: Don't you receive monetary proceeds from the debate series with Paul Baird that Eric Hovind is selling? Seems only reasonable that Dawson should be compensated for his time in a live debate."

The agreement would be that both sides could sell the debate if they wished. Surely Dawson would not pay for me to show up?

"But why wait for a live debate to unveil a response to his critique anyway? I'd love to hear your response."

Well, as you can glean from my earlier posts, I don't even know what to respond to. There is just so much verbiage along with some very uninteresting 'points' that I honestly would not know where to begin. Perhaps you would be the one to put his arguments into concise short-form points, and post them on a blog, and I'd be happy to have a look at them.

Cheers,

Sye

August 30, 2011 7:59 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Sye Ten-Bruggencate

(Irritated sigh) How many times does this have to be pointed out to you Bruggencate?

Your STEP FIVE is a false dichotomy fallacy.

The Laws of Logic, Mathematics, etc are neither material nor immaterial, but rather are concepts.

Because an Atheist/Naturalist can account for Laws without appealing to a supernatural realm or being, your proof for God fails.

Abstractions/Concepts do not require an immaterial God to account for them. And because of that, your argument is destroyed.

Was that "succinct perspicuity" enough?

August 30, 2011 8:23 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I found an interesting little quote In Dawson's favorite book.

That is of course Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Here it is:

"For the purposes of this series, the validity of the senses must be taken for granted—and one must remember the axiom: Existence exists."- Ayn Rand in the Foreword to her book.


So, in other words Rand is asking the reader to take a leap of faith. Amazing.

Taking something for granted assumes faith. Something that Rand's philosophy precludes.

Can it get any worse for the objectivist?

Existence exists is that right Ayn how do you know this?

Do you take that for granted also?

August 30, 2011 8:33 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: ”I saw that. The only conclusion I can draw from this regarding your work is that you’re not proud of it. I acknowledged this admission of yours. You can’t point to anything of yours that you’re proud of. Got it. If I’m mistaken in this, please correct me. “

Sye: “Nope, that’s exactly right.”

I see. So you promote your website and your debates, but they’re not something you are proud of. Got it.

Sye: “I am proud of My Lord and Saviour who enables me to cast down foolish arguments.”

So, you do have pride, and yet pride is a sin according to your view. You edify your god by means of sin. Fascinating.

I wrote: ”I’d say that you have no case to begin with.”

Sye responds: “Which is why you keep pestering me no doubt.”

I’m pestering you? I’m not over at your website posting comments. You’ve come to me, and you continue to come back to me. My words go out into the world, and they do not come back void.

Sye: “Flaws assume logic, which you simply cannot account for.”

You’ve obviously not done your homework. I have the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts. It is you who cannot account for logic, unless of course you borrow from my worldview. I’ve already sealed this matter here. Logic does not presuppose, nor can it stand on, a foundation which is inherently self-contradictory (cf. the trinity, the person of Christ). Also, since Christianity has no theory of concepts, you have no way of accounting for the application of the law of identity to the process of identification or logical relations in knowledge.

I wrote: ”Certainly a year is enough time to read a blog entry.”

Sye: “It’s also enough to eat a yard of manure. Time doesn’t make it more appetizing.”

You’re clearly reluctant even to read my critique. So you’re in no position even to know whether or not my critique is faulty. Of course, this doesn’t stop you from presupposing that it’s faulty, which is why all you can do is denigrate it with epithets rather than actually interact with it. You rightly sense that it’s quite damning.

Sye: “Okay, slow down, I’m trying to keep track: 1. I’m too dishonest 2. I can't afford you. 3. Live debates are for entertainment.”

So far so good, Sye. You’re catching on.

[Continued…]

August 30, 2011 8:39 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

The secular walker said:

The Laws of Logic, Mathematics, etc are neither material nor immaterial, but rather are concepts.

Oh really, since concepts are in your brain and they are not material or immaterial does that mean your an air head?

Not trying to be funny just asking.

August 30, 2011 8:41 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Sye: “I wonder what would happen if someone bumped into you on the street and wanted to challenge your thoughts. Would you go into panic mode and refuse the discussion until the person pulled out his laptop and you retreated to your respective cubicles?”

I’ve had a number of spontaneous encounters with believers. I wrote about one on my blog here in fact. I do my best to reason with people, but theists typically avoid the issue after their first encounter with me. None can tell me how I can distinguish their god from what they may merely be imagining. Your own half-hearted response to this question was as weak as they come. Even at the end of your argument, we are left with no alternative but to imagine the god whose existence you think you’ve proved. You do acknowledge that the imaginary is not real, do you not?

Here’s Christian apologist Peter Pike on the issue of “the immaterial”:

“When something ‘exists’ it is. Note that this does not mean that we are dealing with physical or material existence. Indeed, immaterial existence also exists. (For evidence of this, imagine a red ball. The red ball you have imagined does not have any physical existence; it exists immaterially. Granted, one can argue that the immaterial existence is based on a material brain, but the ball that is imagined is not material. It does not exist physically anywhere.)” (See here.)

Notice how Pike points to something he acknowledges to be imaginary as “evidence” for what he calls “immaterial existence.” When you, Sye, argue for your immaterial god, how can one be assured that it is not something that is merely imaginary? When I imagine Jesus sitting on his heavenly throne, how is what I’m imagining not *imaginary*? These are questions I raised in my critique of your argument. You have yet to address them. If you acknowledge that there is a distinction between what is real and what a person imagines, then surely you should recognize the importance of dealing with such questions when you argue for your god’s existence. Where do you address such issues though?

Sye: “Well, of the two of us, I’m the only one who has a worldview where the concept of truth can be made sense of, so if anyone is concerned with truth, it can’t be you.”

You’re utterly deluded. Your worldview doesn’t even have a theory of concepts. So how could you make sense of any concept without borrowing from outside your worldview? Blank out.

Sye: “You are actually starting to make me want to debate you :-)”

We know better: you don’t. You like it just the way it is. It is my gift to you, along with my refutation. Accept them both like a man.

Regards,
Dawson

August 30, 2011 8:43 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

Concepts are units of knowledge.

Concepts are used to describe and represent facts of reality, as a unit of knowledge that can allow for an open ended integration of cognitive data.

August 30, 2011 9:01 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 30, 2011 9:05 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

(previous comment deleted because of spelling error)

Dawson,

Just to continue with things I've noticed about silly believers: They have a tendency provide quotes which do not give the whole story. I've noticed they do this with their precious storybook, too.

For example, one silly believer whose name doesn't appear in the Book of Life because there is no Book of Life except in this silly believer's imagination, quoted Rand without providing the entire quote.

So please allow me to provide the quote's preamble, which the silly, deceitful believer failed to provide:

"These are the reasons why I chose to introduce you to Objectivist epistemology by presenting my theory of concepts. I entitle this work an "Introduction," because the theory is presented outside of its full context. For instance, I do not include here a discussion of the validity of man's senses -- since the arguments of those who attack the senses are merely varients of the fallacy of the "stolen concept." (Ayn Rand, ITOE)


Ydemoc

August 30, 2011 9:09 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

For example, take the Law of Identity.

The Law of Identity is a concept that describes and represents the fact of reality that everything that exists has an identity. A specific nature with specific characteristics.

The Law of Identity is a concept that is as well, a Universal.

August 30, 2011 9:13 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

Attention Sye Ten-Bruggencate


I gave you what you need to respond to about why your argument for God has been destroyed; And I gave it with succinct perspicuity.


But it looks like it's about to be buried under other peoples comments. Which will allow your "Eric Hovind hanging out" behind to possibly evade it.

Which you're good at anyway, AS I KNOW ONLY TOO WELL.

Bruggencate is like a snake oil salesman. Long on talk and sophistry, and short on substance, like Van Til and Bahnsen.

August 30, 2011 9:17 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

That doesn't change the fact that she asked the reader to take their senses for granted.

Did you take your senses for granted before reading her book?

Or did you first check and see if your brain was working? which would be a waste of time because there is nothing but air there.


Secular Walk,

Can you give an example of something immaterial and material?

Is knowledge an electric impulse fired off by your brain?

August 30, 2011 9:20 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz


"Can you give an example of something immaterial and material?"


Why would I need or want to give an example of something immaterial and material, you annoying troll?

August 30, 2011 9:24 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

"So, you do have pride, and yet pride is a sin according to your view. You edify your god by means of sin. Fascinating."

When a seemingly intelligent person cannot differentiate wrongful pride from rightful pride, it only serves to support the Biblical teaching that unbelievers are indeed fools. Do you honestly think that I contradicted myself there and that you scored some kind of point? Could you honestly not discern my meaning even there? And you honestly expect me to refute your verbal diarrhea when in this short exchange you already expose your pathetic "argumentation?"

This is where you scream: "BUT YOU SAID PRIDE IS A SIN NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA."

Oh brother.

No wonder you fear a live debate.

August 30, 2011 9:36 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Secular walk,

Troll?

What's wrong afraid to answer the question?

Many here are. I like Justin but I think he saw where reason apart from faith leads. Pure insanity.

How about you do you check and "see" if your brain is working in the morning?

August 30, 2011 9:36 PM  
Blogger Sye TenB said...

"The Laws of Logic, Mathematics, etc are neither material nor immaterial, but rather are concepts."

Would those concepts happen to be made of matter by any chance?

August 30, 2011 9:40 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Sye Ten Bruggencate


No. They are not made of matter.

Concepts are units of knowledge.

August 30, 2011 10:04 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

"do you check and "see" if your brain is working in the morning?"


What does this have to do with what I explicated?

What is your major malfunction sir?

August 30, 2011 10:06 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Secular walk,

How about you answer my questions.

Is knowledge material or immaterial?

August 30, 2011 10:13 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

Neither. Knowledge is Epistemological/Conceptual.

August 30, 2011 10:53 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Secular walk,

I know your an air head but the least you can do is give an explanation instead of continually begging the question.


Here is another sample of Rand's Critic.

"Rationality," the catchword of Objectivists, really means mind control. Rand was the ultimate arbiter of what was right and what was wrong. Failure to live up to her ideologies resulted in that person being expelled from Rand's circle, whatever that might be. She was a ideologue of the first order, reifying words (such as "rational") to her own twisted perceptions and projecting them on people who were susceptible to such demagogery."

http://www.epinions.com/review/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_by_Ayn_Rand/book-review-30E2-EB75595-398D1CBA-prod1



I definitely agree with this one.

August 30, 2011 11:14 PM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

The Christian God, based on the fairy tales in the Bible, is a Global killer.

The Christian God made his son go through a horrific blood sacrifice.

Your turn you stupid troll.

August 30, 2011 11:23 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Stupid troll? This is getting good.

I finally get it concepts are made of nothing.
You didn't have to tell me there is nothing between your ears. I knew that already.


What does the bible have to with any of this?

If you want we could talk about the bible I'll be more than happy to.

Are Plato and Aristotle fairy tales?

August 30, 2011 11:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 30, 2011 11:51 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

(previous comment deleted for late-night spelling error)

Dawson,

You have asked about this of silly believers before in your writings, and you have had exchanges with believers where the answers they gave undercut the points they were attempting to make.

So perhaps it's time to inquire again and ask silly believers to explain: How, exactly, did they arrive at the concept "immaterial"?

Ydemoc

August 30, 2011 11:55 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

How about you answer the questions I asked you.

So, I am a deceiver? That's hilarious.

Still amazed at the leap of faith you took to read Rand's book.

August 31, 2011 12:07 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "So, you do have pride, and yet pride is a sin according to your view. You edify your god by means of sin. Fascinating."

Sye: “When a seemingly intelligent person cannot differentiate wrongful pride from rightful pride, it only serves to support the Biblical teaching that unbelievers are indeed fools.”

See, it’s this kind of behavior – the eagerness to turn any occasion into an opportunity to belittle and ridicule – that leads me to suspect that we’re dealing with an adult who has not matured socially beyond the 8th grade.

Rather than using the occasion to call me a fool, Sye, why not try to educate? You’ve affirmed a distinction between “wrongful pride” and “rightful pride.” Earlier you made the unqualified statement “pride is a sin.” Now you affirm that there are two kinds of pride, but you don’t explain what distinguishes them, how to identify either type, or what makes one type “wrongful” and the other type “rightful.” You offer nothing to inform. You just ooze spite, contempt and resentment. You make it clear that if we want to learn something, we should not look to you. Indeed, I wouldn't.

You strike me as one very miserable soul.

Regards,
Dawson

August 31, 2011 12:34 AM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz


"What does the bible have to with any of this?"


Since you are a troll, you are too dense to realize that you have tried to denigrate and slight Ayn Rand by quoting what people have said about her behavior.

What reason would you have to do this other than to engage in a genetic fallacy or to poison the well.

But if you want to do that, two can play at that game, considering how horrible the Christian God is.

August 31, 2011 3:13 AM  
Blogger The Secular Walk said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz


"I finally get it concepts are made of nothing."


No. You are making the huge mistake of confusing Ontology with Epistemology.

Concepts are epistemic. Thus they are not supposed to be made of anything. Concepts are a form of abstraction that stand as a unit of knowledge. Knowledge does not have independent existence in reality, but rather tells us about reality, and describes reality.

Thus, concepts are epistemic, not ontological.

To ask if concepts are material or immaterial, or to think they are made of something, is to commit a category error, as you are implying that you think concepts like Laws, exist independently in reality as ontic entities.

This is like trying ask what the word Apple is made of, or what 2 + 2 equaling 4 is made of. Or thinking that our knowledge of the Sun is an entity unto itself. That is a category error. You are confusing concepts with concretes.

August 31, 2011 3:27 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Secular Walk

Like confusing a process for the thing doing the process. A car has weight so he asks how much the act of driving weights.

August 31, 2011 5:57 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Secular Walk,

You said: "Since you are a troll, you are too dense to realize that you have tried to denigrate and slight Ayn Rand by quoting what people have said about her behavior.What reason would you have to do this other than to engage in a genetic fallacy or to poison the well. But if you want to do that, two can play at that game, considering how horrible the Christian God is."


Rand denigrated herself. Only a person with a mental imbalance would continue to follow her. In spite of the evidence.

Actually, God is Good and is standard of Good.

Sound familiar?

So, problem solved.

The real problem here is you sir.

Your philosophy precludes emotions which you keep appealing to. Which is quite amazing. See what happens when you seperate reason from faith?

The atheist can't live in his world without stealing from mine.


You said: "Concepts are epistemic. Thus they are not supposed to be made of anything."


Supposed? So, your really just taking a leap of faith and hoping for the best. Great

You said: "To ask if concepts are material or immaterial, or to think they are made of something, is to commit a category error, as you are implying that you think concepts like Laws, exist independently in reality as ontic entities."


So, the laws of logic inherenetly exist in the human brain?

Are you saying everyone is logical?

If so on what basis would you categorize my thinking as illogical?


Well, a dog is a horse and a mouse is a cow.

1 + 3 = 19

August 31, 2011 8:03 AM  
Blogger pattern recognition said...

I dont see any real argument there at all. The "proof" seems to be just assuming a vague idea that if something "immaterial" or abstract entities exist then the Christian God also exists.
How does it follow from existence of impersonal abstractions that there are any personal gods?
Why would the existence of something that is "not material" mean that a personal creator also exists and that it must be the God of Christianity?

September 01, 2011 6:42 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

PR,

Gordon Stein was having the same problems in the debate vs Greg bahnsen. I encourage you to listen to the debate as Dr.bahnsen answers many of these questions. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hSx2evTGM

For my other friends.

Listen to an atheist reduce himself to abusurdity. Specifically the caller. Here are the links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD6UkETelUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEubUd3VGkk&feature=related


Enjoy

September 01, 2011 7:44 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

pattern recognition,

Silly believers have zero basis on which to call anything absurd. Hence, any silly believer that does label something as absurd has zero credibility.

They are guardians of the imaginary defending a fantasy.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 9:33 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I'm still reading the Anton Thorn piece that you linked to.

I like this exchange:

Van Til: "On the basis of God's counsel I can look for facts and find them without destroying them in advance."

Thorn: "Tell me, Dr. Van Til, what facts which you point to in order to prove that an unspecified number of corpses rose from their graves, walked into the streets of the city and "showed themselves unto many," as we read in Matthew 27:52-53? Can you point to any facts which support this story element?"

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 9:49 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

When you're ready to defend your faith.

Here is the link:

http://paulsapologetic.blogspot.com/

You're wasting way too much time and space here posting junk.

September 01, 2011 10:31 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Concerning Hezekiah's challenge to you

See Hezekiah's very first post to this thread. He does not intend to provide a reasoned argument. So if not reason, then what does that leave him, only force. See the comment about getting the unbeliever to shut his mouth. Fortunately for us he has no power to compel us to believe. So given that he poses no threat to us and that he will give no reasons to believe in god, I see little reason to interact with him beyond its entertainment value.

@Hezekiah

As I stated above, this continues now just for the amusement. It is also pointless and goes nowhere until you provide an actual argument and are willing to interact with the points we would or do raise. Your past behavior makes it very clear you will not, so ok let the farce continue. I wounder if you understand nothing short of reasoned debate will advance the case for god with the majority of the atheists that visit this blog. That being moved by the holy spirit just ain't go'in happen. We for the most part do not use emotions as a guide to knowledge. Even if I felt in some gut instinctive sort of way that god exists I would not declare it so beyond that it was a feeling and thus arbitrary and likely wrong. What I need, what I require is a reason. I need a reason before I could go forth and say to others, yes god is real and you should know this too.
I predict you will simply tell me "but Justin you also believe in god already, you simply wont admit it". Note only is this a cop out, it is also rude in the extreme and completely arbitrary. I can throw this right back at you tho I wont. I could say but Hezekiah you already don't believe in god and you know it. You are consumed with doubt about weather god is real or not. So driven by doubt that you are compelled to come to atheist's blogs and harangue its members with incoherent rhetoric. To try and shout them down with enough volume to finally silence the doubting voice in your own head. I could say this, but I prefer to take a persons word at what they believe, it is the polite moral, and ethical thing to do.
Doubt however, the thing you seem to if not fear then want to stamp out completely, the thing you accuse me and others of as if it was some sort of sin is in fact a virtue. Doubt in moderation is a good thing. Earlier I layed out 3 preconditions to reasoned debate, you reneged on the first one. That was the debater has to accept that in principle he could be wrong. To a person who is certain absolutely of their beliefs there is no distinction between their view of the world (paradigm) and the actual world. The map literally is the territory. To someone who values a degree of doubt in there knowledge there is a clear distinction between their paradigm and the world it is supposed to map. Because they are two different things we require a means of correcting and continually updating our paradigm to better fit the world it models. This method is reason, its rules are logic. A debate is when two peope have differing paradigms of the world and want to find out if one or both are false. Why would someone want to debate another that came in and said "my paradigm is correct that's the final answer, I will give no reasons as to why you should accept this, you simply should. Further I am going to just keep on shouting this until something I image moves you to agree with me." Does not sound to good when put that way does it?

Remember doubt in moderation is not only a virtue, it is necessary to reason.

September 01, 2011 11:14 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 01, 2011 11:55 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

did you see the quots around that part. You sure love to either drop context or you are just blind to it. I was puting words in the mouth of my hypothetical debater who employs the same tactics as you. Please read what I say more carefully. I assure you no one else here missed my meaning, only you.

September 01, 2011 12:01 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah, is English your native language? Please let me know, I can take that into account when I craft my posts to you.

September 01, 2011 12:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Thanks for pointing that out. I will delete it.

September 01, 2011 12:07 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Yes, I've noticed that silly believers, since they don't have reason but faith on their side, they must resort to force. Anyone who has read Deuteronomy 13 can see this plainly for themselves, in what biblegod ordered be done to non-believers.


But you are right, we do not have to worry too much about that in this country, save for the occasional kook who, driven by ideas in a storybook, goes on a rampage against those with whom he or she disagrees.

And we can thank men who had the wisdom and courage to include the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Silly believers must really suffer from inner conflicts over this. For their storybook tells them that they should obey their master, kings, and government officials because such people in power are appointed by the storybook god.

Yet at the same time, these same government officials write things like the Establishment Clause as well as words such as this in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Then this from Wikipedia:

"The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government."

Wikipedia cites the source for the last paragraph as: Willard Allen Colcord; Religious Liberty Association (Washington D.C.) (1911). American state papers bearing on Sunday legislation. Religious Liberty Assn.. pp. 162–163

One wonders how silly believers resolve such conflicts (one among many, I might add) in their minds?

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 12:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Yes being a student of US history, it is always a hoot when someone claims the founding fathers of this nation were christians. Some undoubtably were, but the major ones, Jefferson, Franklin and others, no way.

September 01, 2011 12:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

You wrote: Why would someone want to debate another that came in and said "my paradigm is correct that's the final answer, I will give no reasons as to why you should accept this, you simply should. Further I am going to just keep on shouting this until something I image moves you to agree with me." Does not sound to good when put that way does it?


Justin, actually, that sounds about right with some minor changes.


My whole purpose is to show you, Justin, that you can't live in you world without stealing from mine.

Which I have allready shown remember the exchange we had a few days ago?



You said: "Remember doubt in moderation is not only a virtue, it is necessary to reason."


So, you're saying that you could be wrong is that correct?

September 01, 2011 12:17 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

http://paulsapologetic.blogspot.com/

September 01, 2011 12:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Basically what the bible boils down to is, that if you don't believe in talking snakes, conversing donkeys and a voice emanating from a burning shrub, then you should be killed. Because if you don't believe in these things, you don't believe in biblegod. And biblegod ordered non-believers to be killed.

Nice.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 12:57 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

Yes, Hezekiah I would not ask you to agree to these preconditions unless I too was willing to accept them.

September 01, 2011 1:05 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Yes, I dont always agree with Rand on everything, but she was spot on when she said that faith and force are corollaries.

September 01, 2011 1:20 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

http://paulsapologetic.blogspot.com/


Justin,

So, in others words your living by faith.
Something that your world precludes.

See the insanity here?

September 01, 2011 1:32 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

False dichotomy, you present it as either faith or absolute certainty. There is a 3rd option. Actual knowledge gained thru reason, tempered with varying degrees of doubt. This is however a conceptualization of knowledge that I suspect is nearly completely foreign to you. Also you should bear in mind that I have a very different concept in mind when I use the word faith. Once again for the record. Faith is the act of believing in a proposition in the absence or counter to reason.

September 01, 2011 1:42 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

one other thing to bear in mind concerning faith. A person either has a reason to believe something or not, if you have a reason, discuss it, there is no need to bring faith into. If you dont have a reason I am not interested in the faith part, keep it to yourself.

September 01, 2011 1:45 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Does logic grow on trees?

September 01, 2011 1:48 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

a continuation of the point was making in my prior post

I suppose you will say but I have faith reason or my senses. Faith is a form of cogitation, a flawed one at that. Sense perception is a precondition to cogitation. You have to have input for you to have content to be thinking about, thus faith as a concept does not pertain to sense perception at all. In fact faith is believing without sense perception in many cases. Reason is a process of linking that which we cant see with the senses back to that which we can thru the use of deduction. This is how we get knowledge. We don't have to just accept it on faith without any input or counter to input from our scenes nor do we have to be absolutely certain our conclusions are correct in order to use the knowledge and later improve on it.


Now to your question

does logic grow in trees?

this seems to be on the same vain you were trying to argue with Ydemoc. No it does not grow in tress. If anything it grows in the neural network my mind. Logic is the set of rules that my mind devised to understand the world around it. Remember the map is not the territory. The universe is not obeying the rules of logic the way a driver obeys traffic laws. The universes just is! The universe is a brute fact. I use logic to make sense of it. I can say it is logical because the rule set of logic has been very good at gaining understanding about how the world works. We validate this knowledge by how well our predictions and retrodictions compare to the real thing. And all along we could be wrong about anything we have concluded because reality is the final count of appeal. Further I can deal with that doubt, it is not a problem for me. I have spent 40 years in that court, I have devised a paradigm for understanding it, logic works. I can say this because I have used it and I am still here breathing. I have seen what faith gets you. The christian scientists that refuse to take their children to a doctor, their children paid the price the court of reality takes if you ignore it. That is what faith gets you.... dead. To compare the actions of those christian scientists parents with the actions of a family that took their child to a doctor and call both faith is to broaden the meaning of faith so much as to make the word meaningless. If we accept that definition of faith, it would become synonymous with cognition of any sort.

September 01, 2011 2:49 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Additional considerations.

If all cognition is faith then how are we to escape from the extreme skepticism that would result. If we cant rely on any knowledge we have because it just might be wrong, if we are going to take that extreme and absurd standard for knowledge, well then we cant know anything. God wont help either, how do I know I believe I god? You say I feel it, but how do I know that I am really feeling it? how do I know you really are Hezekaih, how do I know I am Justin, because god says so? How do I know he says so? If he speaks directly to me how do I know that? If I sense it, how do I know my senses are correct? This reduces any thinker to a paralysed cognitive mess.

What I am hearing from you can be distilled down to basically “Justin stop thinking, its flawed and will not give you 100% perfect knowledge. I require that and thus so do you, instead stop thinking and just wait for the imaginary holy spirit to move you to accept my set of arbitrary beliefs instead of some other.”

well, that's just nuts

September 01, 2011 3:27 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 01, 2011 3:35 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 01, 2011 3:45 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

sorry, on a roll here, one more thing, if I truly do barrow from your world view, you can in principle convince me of that, but you have to provide an actual argument free of fallacies, and no Bensen’s poof does not count. What is required is a valid syllogism that can logically be shown to be a sound argument. Like I said two people that wants to see which paradigm if either better fits reality. If you are correct you should be able to meet this burden. However if simply repeating the claim that I barrow from your world view over and over is your strategy, just keep it to yourself. I don't care.

September 01, 2011 3:49 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Is english you're first language?

I asked if logic growns on trees not in trees that's a big difference.

You said: "I suppose you will say but I have faith reason or my senses"

Actually, no, I will say, I have to have faith in God to be able to use my senses and reason. The bible says
I was created in God's image which means I have an intellect. Since faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.(Hebrews 11:1)
I can wake up everyday and not have to "see" If by brain is working. So, to an extent the "atheist" has this same faith because he also wakes up and doesn't check to "see" if his brain is working.

So, your view of faith/reason is false.

I think you need reason to use your senses. So, I am not sure what you are trying to say.

You said: "Sense perception is a precondition to cogitation"

I agree and having a mind "proves" that I am created in the Image of God. I know you won't accept my answer but from time to time we have bible studies that you are more than welcomed to come to where we can explain these things to you.


You said: "No it does not grow in tress (logic). If anything it grows in the neural network my mind.

Does that mean then that everyone is logical?


You said: "Logic is the set of rules that my mind devised to understand the world around it."


So, your mind uses your mind to see if it is working?

You said:" The universes just is! The universe is a brute fact.


Isn't this a logical fallacy?


Ok, this is getting weird.


Is there an absolute certain way of thinking correctly?

September 01, 2011 3:55 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I will need time to digest what you have said, but yes English is my first language, I was born and raised in the United States and tho I can speak a little German and Spanish, English will always be my primary language, tho I admit my skill with it could use improvement.

September 01, 2011 4:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

You said: "I suppose you will say but I have faith reason or my senses"

ah speaking of my English skills,

I ment to say I suppose you will say but I have faith in reason or my senses.

I am at work, and will be heading out soon, then I will need time to read what you have said, so please dont expect a reply any earlier to very late tonight.

September 01, 2011 4:09 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

ok

September 01, 2011 4:12 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I have noticed lately that silly believers like to make statements to the effect that they don't have to wake up every morning to see if their brain is working.

I would suggest that such silly believers begin doing so. Immediately. Beginning tomorrow morning. Because all evidence is pointing to a major malfunction in the silly believer's mind that fails to take into account the "..form in which man identifies and integrates what he perceives. It is in the form of concepts that he does this. It is in the form of concepts that man develops and retains his knowledge." (Dawson Bethrick, May 22, 2009).

Silly believers like to rest their confidence on hope? The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen? And this is how they are assured that their brain will work tomorrow when they get up?


Wow. This is absolutely hilarious.

"It must be stressed that hoping is not the same thing as knowing. In fact, we have to know something before we can hope for anything, but when we hope for something, that is not the same thing as knowing it. As I pointed out in my essay,

Hoping for something does not produce assurance. I could hope for a million dollars, but there’s no assurance in this of receiving it. Needless to say, my hoping does not assure its own fulfillment.

Christian faith, then, is the hope that the gospel story is true, nothing more. It is the hope that Jesus was real, that Jesus really died for the sinner’s sins, that Jesus really rose in resurrection, that there really is an afterlife, and that the promise of living in paradise for eternity is really the reward for devotional worship, etc."

Dawson wrote that quoted text on October 4, 2007, in a blog entry entitled "Lord Oda's "Problem with Pain."


Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 6:09 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

May I also add something I wrote back in April 2011, in a comment I made here on Dawson's blog. And that is:

Hope divorced from reality is no hope at all.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 6:27 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

But then again you will wake up tomorrow and assume your still Ydemoc.


Quit wasting time and space.

Didn't your parents teach you to be quiet when Adults are speaking?

September 01, 2011 6:31 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Silly believers like to tell others what others should and will do. This isn't too far removed from force. Very dictatorial.

It's funny how silly believers know such things about others: that I will wake up and assume anything. Is this also knowledge via faith?

Perhaps silly believers might find it more plausible if I woke up tomorrow morning and a talking donkey declared I was one of god's prophets? Would they deny that their god could make something like that happen?

I doubt it.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 6:39 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

All Knowlegde is made possible because of faith.

But go ahead and giggle all you want in the morning you will do exactly as I predicted.

You seem obsessed with talking donkeys well your not far from being an ass yourself.

September 01, 2011 6:47 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I notice that silly believers like to condemn others for giggling. Is it no wonder that there is nothing resembling intentional humor in the bible? Giggling and enjoying things happens to be one of life's pleasures. But silly believers are taught to hate this life and this world.

They also, despite it pointed out to them how dictatorial they are being, continue to tell others that others will do things.

And something else stands out about silly believers: They do not deny the possibility of a talking donkey declaring, that upon my waking up tomorrow, that I am one of god's prophets. I wonder why silly believers will not deny this as outside the realm of possibility?

As Larry David from "Curb Your Enthusiasm" might say, "Interesting."

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 7:02 PM  
Blogger Melody said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 01, 2011 7:04 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

hey Hez, I'm going to take a page out of your book...guess what?

this article posted above completely reduces your worldview to absurdity.

does faith grow on trees?

you have really gone mad.

September 01, 2011 7:05 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Action Jackson,

Ladies and gentlemen, Action Jackson making a very rare, weekday appearance!

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 7:12 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Well open your bible and see what it says.

If it says tomorrow morning Ydemoc will be talking to a donkey then Yea it's possible

AJ,

You put the article in the wrong place that's what we have trash cans for.

Faith is a gift from God Ephesians 2 you may just learn something.

September 01, 2011 7:14 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

haha am I really rare during weekdays? I'm busy as hell.

Your comment really cracked me up Ydemoc.

: ]

September 01, 2011 7:15 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"You put the article in the wrong place that's what we have trash cans for."

yeah I here in church they have trash cans labeled "knowledge", "truth" and "rationality".

Your right, that's right where that article belongs!

HA!

September 01, 2011 7:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Do you usually laugh at yourself?

September 01, 2011 7:30 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Do you usually laugh at yourself?"

when I read your comments and my, Dawson and/or Ydemoc's responses to them...YES! I find myself laughing...mostly at your comedic posts which no one takes seriously because you do not even know the fundamentals of debate and/ or presenting an argument.

why do you ask?

please, post an article by Van Til or something.

September 01, 2011 7:37 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

So you laugh at your own entries. Don't you find this a little strange?



Well, I posted some links this morning.
That's enough for the day.

September 01, 2011 7:46 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Action Jackson,

It's good that you are busy, with the economy the way it is.

If I see an opportunity to use humor to emphasize a point, I usually try to do so. And thanks for noticing.

And I will say it again: intentional humor is something I see missing from the bible. And this observation of mine has not been addressed by silly believers. You would think, being as silly as believers are, that they would be able to point out some intentional humor or intended silliness in the bible. But nooooo.

Hey, perhaps they think Deuteronomy 13, with all it's rules about killing non-believers, maybe they think this is a riot. Who knows?

The other thing I find interesting about non-believers is that they actually admit that if something is written in the bible, then that, and that alone, would make it possible in reality.

Let that sink in for a bit. If it is written in the bible that a talking donkey will tell me tomorrow morning upon my waking that I am a prophet of god, then, according to silly believers, that is not outside the bounds of reality.

Let's extrapolate: If the bible says the bible is false, would silly believers also consider this as a possibility?

Hmmm, I wonder....

September 01, 2011 7:59 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

I'm afraid I disagree...I think there is humor in the bible...observe:

<< Ezekiel 23:20 >>

New International Version (©1984)
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

New Living Translation (©2007)
She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse.

English Standard Version (©2001)
and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.

King James Bible
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

American King James Version
For she doted on their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

American Standard Version
And she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Bible in Basic English
And she was full of desire for her lovers, whose flesh is like the flesh of asses and whose seed is like the seed of horses.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And she was mad with lust after lying with them whose flesh is as the flesh of asses: and whose issue as the issue of horses.

Darby Bible Translation
and she lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is as the issue of horses.

English Revised Version
And she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Webster's Bible Translation
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

World English Bible
She doted on their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Young's Literal Translation
And she doteth on their paramours, Whose flesh is the flesh of asses, And the issue of horses -- their issue.

come on, I know you're laughing Ydemoc! : ]

September 01, 2011 8:06 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

I mean come on that had to be intentional.

September 01, 2011 8:12 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 01, 2011 8:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

Yes. Those are funny. Intentionally so? I'm not sure they were intended to be funny by the writes of the bible.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 8:16 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

of course I was kidding. : ]

September 01, 2011 8:17 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are right, god made the universe and man in his own image and thats the reason why we can well, reason. I would be very frustrated if I were you, for it appears to me that there is no way to craft a valid argument that reduces to if mind then god. Your position that you can be assured your mind works because of god would require a functional mind to understand this in the first place. Thus by employing it as a justification of claiming to have a functional mind you commit yourself to begging the question. Of course this applies to me as well, I also have to assume my mind works in order to reason with you , myself or anyone. Objectivism answers this by correctly identifying a working mind , they call it consciousness as an axiom or necessary and unavoidable tautology. Also if I do not assume this axiom my prior question stands, how do I know god is responsible for my ability to reason, how can I be sure? How can I be sure? Truth is once you start questioning the efficiency of your mind or laying responsibly for it on someone else you have given up your mind, you have surrendered.

You said that assuming the universe is a brute fact is a fallacy. No its is just another axiom, necessary and unavoidable tautology. Objectivists call it existence exists, but I think for myself and will choose my own words to convey the idea.

Objectivism in my opinion does get some things wrong, see I think for myself. However one of the things they are spot on about, nor are they alone is arguing for is the fundamental epistemological nature of consciousness, existence and identity. When you go on and on about how do I know if my mind works, just another way of asking how I justify my use of reason, I think well duh, its an axiom. It is basically not a question I am asking so I don't have to worry about answering you.

You also asked if there is an absolute way to reason. I honestly not sure. I once thought Aristotelian logic was the one and only form of logic and it could give us all the answers. I does work remarkably well for the middle world we live in and lead us to understanding the quantum world were it just might not strictly apply. There are other forms of logic as well, however anything is better then faith. Remember I use a different definition then the one provided by the bible.

Now sorry guys, I am not feeling well right now, my stomach is killing me and I am going to bed. Hezekiah if you post I wont get to it until tomorrow and I will post my reply on your blog. I suspect Dawson might be getting tired of using his blog for a discussion that has nothing to do with Sye and his argument for god. Also Hezekiah you can always just email me a question if you like.

September 01, 2011 8:29 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Action Jackson,

Of course.


I will say this: If I were to wake up one morning and there was a creature next to me in bed whose member was like that of a donkey, the first thing I would think to myself would be, "Man, I must've really been drunk last night."

(Credit for the above joke goes to Fred Wolf, who originally wrote it using a spider, not a donkey)

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 8:31 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Did happen you to miss what those un-believers were like?
Context maybe. That always helps.

No it's impossible for the bible to be false. God can't lie remember?


It's interesting though you continue to talk about donkeys is there presently a donkey in your room? Are you expecting him to talk to you? Is there something your hiding from us?
Have you always had the innate desire to be the king of the jungle?

This is really funny. I can play this game all day

September 01, 2011 8:36 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

To clarify, the original joke went like this:


"This morning I woke up with a spider in my bed. Man, I must've really been drunk last night."

Fred writes some funny stuff.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 8:36 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Actionjackson

damn, I forgot about those, think I might have read my bible again :)

September 01, 2011 8:36 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

Correction: Two or three comments ago I wrote: "The other thing I find interesting about non-believers is that they actually admit that if something is written in the bible, then that, and that alone, would make it possible in reality."


I intended to write: "The other thing I find interesting about silly believers is that they actually admit that if something is written in the bible, then that, and that alone, would make it possible in reality."

On the heels of this comment, comes circular reasoning from silly believer: God cannot lie, because it's written in the bible. How do you know what's written in the bible is true? Because God wrote it? And how do you know God wrote it? Because it's written in the bible.

Ydemoc

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 8:44 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson and Justin,

I happen to notice that silly believers also like to invoke "context" whenever some point is made that doesn't quite mesh with whatever is left of their rationality.

Now keeping context is extremely important -- that is something I and silly believers seem to agree upon.

But I recall nothing that would justify killing anyone for what they believed, no matter what they were like. If one was, say, a murderer who was properly charged, tried, convicted and punished for said crime, well, okay. But that's not what's happening in Deuteronomy 13. Far from it. It's a lynch mob mentality we read about.

And what context could justify something that falls well short of even summary judgment. Here it is, Deuteronomy 13:

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

It isn't a far leap from doing this to flying planes into buildings in an attempt to bring down America, The Great Satan.

And I haven't even touched upon, "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live."

Hmmm. Yes, I wonder what these people were like, these folks who were friends, neighbors, wives, next of kin, etc. Silly believers should really fill me in on this one.

Furthermore, it seems a little redundant or selective (if one is silly enough to believe the bible in the first place - then again perhaps I've answered my own question) to single out a certain group of people for stoning, no matter how evil they are. If everyone is evil due to original sin, why make a distinction such as "do you know what they were like?" According to the bible, they're evil, as is everyone else!

Silly believers are so darn silly sometimes.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 9:35 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson and Justin,

Here's a thought that just occurred to me:

The bible was so much easier to believe when I didn't read it.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 9:47 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Here we have again the objectivist appealing to emotions.
Something that his faith precludes. Does any one see a problem here?

On what basis would you categorize an argument as circular?

Are you admitting that there are universal, abstract, invariant laws called Logic?

Justin,

Rand is a slick character to avoid the problems of the reliability of sense perception and the origin of the universe
she simply takes them for granted. Which is really begging the question.


If your not sure that there is an absolute way of thinking correctly then on what basis can you label my thinking as incorrect?

I hope you see the problems that your world faces.



The proof of the Christian God is that without him you couldn't prove anything. - Greg Bahnsen

September 01, 2011 10:13 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin and ActionJackson,

My short answer to lurking silly believers about the basis for categorizing arguments as circular would be on an objective basis.

As Dawson writes in "Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God? Part II: Reasons Why Logic Cannot Presuppose the Christian God, #1: Christianity’s Lack of Objectivity"; July 2, 2009:

"Logic requires an objective basis
(ii) Objectivity is the application of the primacy of existence to human cognition
(iii) Theism is inherently subjective (because it assumes the primacy of consciousness)
(iv) The most fundamental law of logic is the law of identity
(v) The law of identity has its basis in the axiom of existence
(vi) The axiom of existence is a perceptually self-evident fact"

Axioms, silly believer.

Ydemoc

September 01, 2011 10:50 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ok. If what I am saying comes from a reliable mind then why don't you rely on it?

If the time and space has always existed then why does the bible say the opposite if Moses' thinking was reliable then why don't you rely on it?

September 02, 2011 5:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home