Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Answering Nide's Questions about the Uniformity of Nature

A visitor to my blog named Nide who posts comments under the pseudonym “Hezekiah Ahaz” has asked a series of questions relating to one of my favorite topics, the uniformity of nature.
Nide: “Well, of couse Ayn for you to take measurements you have to assume the nature is uniform. Something you can't account for.”
For this question to have stable meaning, he needs to explain specifically what he means by “account for” in the context of the uniformity of nature. What exactly is he asking here?

Nide: “So you have no choice but to take it for granted. Which assumes faith something your philosophy precludes.”

I can’t say which is the bigger impediment for Nide’s understanding, whether it’s his self-inflicted ignorance of his opponent’s position, or his commitment to mischaracterizing his opponent’s position by proposing simplistic implications which in fact are not suggested by that position. But either way, his lack of understanding is persistent and systemic.
What Objectivism precludes is the primacy of consciousness, confusing imagination for reality, substituting emotion for knowledge, etc. I don’t know how anyone could possibly object to these, but here’s Nide trying to malign a position which is distinguished by steadfast allegiance to the fact that wishing doesn’t make it so.
By ‘faith’, Objectivism means acceptance of ideational content without evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. It does not mean “taking something for granted.” Not even the bible equates faith with taking something for granted. But here’s Nide, acting as though it does.
So just to make this crystal clear: Objectivism rejects accepting ideational content without evidence or contrary to sound reasoning.

When Christians kick against this policy, they tell us about themselves.
The Objectivist view of nature is not void of evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. We perceive and deal with nature directly every moment of our lives. Nide has not shown that the Objectivist view of nature is void of evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. There is nothing about the Objectivist view of nature which is inconsistent with its epistemology, and this is why Nide cannot present a validation of his deliberately slanderous construals. If Nide or anyone else thinks that Objectivism’s view of nature is inconsistent in some way with its epistemology, he needs to show this, not simply say that such an offense exists without showing where such an offense occurs. He needs to do his homework instead of thriving on drive-by charges that only expose his gaping ignorance of what he’s talking about.
In the case of the uniformity of nature, the question that I raise with theists who want to make this matter a topic of debate, is whether the uniformity of nature is something which consciousness establishes in nature on the one hand, or a feature of nature which obtains independent of conscious activity. Theists of course, in particular presuppositionalists for whom the uniformity of nature is an apologetic centerpiece, typically avoid discussing the matter in these terms. (See for instance the questions I have posed to apologist Chris Bolt here back in March 2010, which still to this day have not been addressed.)
The Objectivist view is that nature is uniform independent of conscious activity, that nature’s uniformity is not something which consciousness provides to nature. On this view, nature is inherently uniform, and the uniformity of nature is something we discover and identify, not create and/or alter.
The Christian view is clearly the opposite: that some form of consciousness is needed to provide nature with its uniformity, which can only mean that nature is not inherently uniform, that nature is inherently chaotic, that the default of nature is disorder, that the law of causality is something foreign to nature and must be installed into nature by some volitional action of consciousness. This is the subjective view of the uniformity of nature, the view of nature found in Christianity, and it is in fact a distinguishing characteristic of Christianity since “miracles are at the heart of the Christian position.” (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 27)

Of course, we can imagine that a magic consciousness gives nature its uniformity. But this would be a figment of one's imagination, not a rational identification of reality. If an individual is content with confusing what he imagines for reality, Christianity may very well be a fitting home for him.
Nide asked: “Ayn on what rational basis do you as an ‘atheist’ Justify belief in the inductive principle?”
To the extent that this question has any rational legitimacy (which would require some revision to make that the case), the answer is very simple: on the basis of the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the objective theory of concepts. I’ve stated this before, but so far no theist has been able to bring a lasting challenge to it. All theists can do is try to ridicule it. Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that their worldview attempts to defy the axioms, endorses the primacy of consciousness (e.g., wishing makes it so), and has no theory of concepts to begin with! If there’s a weaker position from which to try to attack Objectivism, I’d like to what it could possibly be.
Nide: “Ayn without begging the question or avoiding a circle can you explain to me why nature is uniform?”
This question is fallacious complex, for attempting to answer it on its own terms invites the fallacy of the stolen concept. To say “why” something is the case implies that it is the result of some cause. But causality is a law of nature. So you can’t affirm a cause prior to nature. This would constitute a stolen concept. I certainly reject the idea that some form of consciousness causes nature to be uniform. This is a blatant absurdity given the mountain of stolen concepts one would have to accept in adopting such a view.
Nature and uniformity are inseparable, like water and its wetness (to use Sye Bruggencate’s own metaphor – it fits, and in this context it finally has some legitimacy as a metaphor). To ask why nature is uniform not only invites stolen concepts (and is therefore fallaciously complex), it also misses the nature of uniformity.
by Dawson Bethrick

506 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 506   Newer›   Newest»
Bahnsen Burner said...

Ydemoc wrote: "I 'except' it (i.e., I leave bible out) from what is considered truth."

I love it! I *except* the bible.

Now that's funny!

Regards,
Dawson

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

I am really happy Dawson has gone home.

I'm getting sick man. Keep me in prayer.



Thanks

P.S. I think your starting to convince me is there an objectivist prayer I need to say how do I convert?

Justin Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Hall said...

Hezekah said........

How did humans get here?

Well "here" for me is the northwestern US. The first humans got here by walking down the coast from the Bering Strait which at the time was a land bridge to Asia some 25,000 years ago give or take. Later other humans from Europe got here by ship. At least this is what the science of archeology has to say about it, you know the guys actually studying the topic logically. However the general topic of this thread is the uniformity of nature and how this relates to logic. This question has nothing to do with this topic thus you have committed your second red herring fallacy.

Stolen concept = 2
Appeal to authority = 2
Non Sequitur = 1
Red Herring = 2

Total = 7

You may have more, I have yet to parse everything you have recently said.

Anonymous said...

Justin,

How do you know how to count?

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide asked Justin: "How do you know how to count?"

I guess Justin is supposed to just throw up his hands and say, "Duh, I donno! Must be God did it!"

Is that right?

Is ignorance truly as vital to your worldview as I suspect it is? If not, why do apologists continually use this strategy? It's found throughout the presuppositionalist apologetic.

Regards,
Dawson

Justin Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

You wrote, quoting me: "I 'except' it (i.e., I leave bible out) from what is considered truth."

Then you wrote: "I love it! I *except* the bible. Now that's funny!"


I know, right? Hezekiah, as I've said before, is the Norm Crosby or Yogi Berra of apologetics.

He's funny when he doesn't intend to be; not so much when he tries to be.

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said

Justin,

How do you know how to count?

Actually I recall very clearly the day I learned how to count. I had just turned 6, I could count only up to 8 by memorization. Clearly I was having difficulty as most children are doing better by this time. I was living at the San Diego Center for Children and a counselor there named Mark took it upon himself to teach me. I already understood the concept to repeat so Mark explained that all you need to do is memorize the first 10 numbers (0-9) and then the system repeats on a base of 10. This is an excellent example of concept integration. Mark had explain 10 and 100 to me but not 1,000 or 10,000, that I could extrapolate from the prior concepts, all I needed from him were the names thousand and 10 thousand. I was over joyed at this discovery that I remember it clearly after over 33 years. I would lay in bed at night counting upward, reinforcing the concepts in my mind. I actually think I got to 40,000 before I got bored with it. Hezekiah, you really should take the time to learn about concept formation and theory.

reposted to correct grammatical errors

Anonymous said...

Dawson,

Welcome back. I guess you got bored at home.

You said: " Is ignorance truly as vital to your worldview as I suspect it is? If not, why do apologists continually use this strategy? It's found throughout the presuppositionalist apologetic.

It's not ignorance the unbeliever really can't account for counting.




Justin,

Thanks for the auto-bio but you didn't answer the question.
You just told me something you remembered.



Ydemoc,


What happens after we die?



How about you can you account for counting?

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote: "It's not ignorance the unbeliever really can't account for counting"

This from someone who worships a 3 in 1 super-duper deity, but can't really explain how such a split occurs yet at the same time they are all one. And we can't "account" for counting?

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "What happens after we die?"

Consciousness ceases to function. The world goes on.

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

I gave you the benefit of the doubt about your question sense the only intelligible way to read it was how did I learn. If on the other hand you are asking how do I know that I know well then this is a fallaciously complex question. Concepts such as addition are methods of the mind (consciousness). In this case you are posting the concept knowledge prior the the concept consciousness, however the concept knowledge depends on the concept consciousness for its validity. So you guessed it once again stolen concept fallacy. That makes 3 of those for you

Stolen concept = 3
Appeal to authority = 2
Non Sequitur = 1
Red Herring = 2

Total = 8

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “It's not ignorance the unbeliever really can't account for counting.”

Nide, Nide, Nide. You really just don’t know how to do your homework, do you?

Well, luckily for you, I do, and I’ve done it. It is you who is ignorant.

This has already been answered. See here: Are Non-Christians Unable to “Account For” Their Counting?

So again, Nide, I must ask: Is ignorance truly as vital to your worldview as I suspect it is? If not, why do apologists continually use this strategy? It's found throughout the presuppositionalist apologetic.

You’re not ignorant only of your own worldview’s deficiencies, but also of the virtues of your opponent’s worldview. That’s a terrible place to be. Tell me, what’s it like?

Regards,
Dawson

Justin Hall said...

After reviewing the link Dawson provided I see you have raked up one more non sequitur as well

God, therefore we can account for accounting. Yup non sequitur.

Stolen concept = 3
Appeal to authority = 2
Non Sequitur = 2
Red Herring = 2

Total = 9

Bahnsen Burner said...

he he! Nide seems unable to post a single comment without committing some kind of logical error. But then again, he did tell us that logic does not guide his mind.

In fact, it very much appears that it is the Christian, having no theory of concepts, who cannot "account for" counting. Since counting is a conceptual operation, any worthy "account for" counting would have to show some understanding of concepts, and the Christian cannot do this within the confines of his professed worldview.

Regards,
Dawson

Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc , Dawson, AJ, PR and others

I am interested in which fallacy he commits more often, so far stolen concept is in the lead but not by much, could be an exciting race.

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

To All,

I've run into Christians who say that even the worst things that happen to us in life is a blessing, since we don't deserve life in the first place -- we are wretched, depraved, and deserve hell. I'm wondering how Christians might answer this: Is hell a blessing?

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

I have an additional question along side yours

What can Christianity offer a man that does not apologize for existing.

Dylan said...

"I'm not asking you about the axioms. Did Aristotle exist?

Dylan was asked the same question and he never came back."

Since when is two days considered "never"?

People have already answered this question, but here it is again: it doesn't matter. The internal coherency of syllogistic logic, its axioms, its applications etc. are not contingent on whether Aristotle existed.

Anything else you care to be corrected on, or are you going to take my advice and read a textbook so you don't keep making ignorant statements?

"To any atheist, What is logic?"

The study of methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.

Once again, you could have gotten this from a textbook. As a matter of fact, I did.

Justin Hall said...

@Dylan

this attitude that who says something is more important then what is said or in someway informs whether it is valid or not is common to authoritarian thinking. You see this with the statement "Did you know that on he deathbed Darwin recanted his theory of evolution" Of course the correct answer is that it does not matter whether he did or not, the truth of the proposition that we evolved is true or not regardless of Darwin's thoughts on the matter at any given time. I think this stems from the metaphysical subjectivist status of their world view. Note how Hezekiah dodged the question Dawson posed with an appeal to authority that bible absolved him of needing to answer questions from “fools”. I expect we will see many more red herring fallacies from Hezekiah and that an objective relationship to reality is a foreign concept to him.

Anonymous said...

Justin,

Is Rand an authority?

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote to Justin: "Is Rand an authority?"

Allow me to butt in and ask, an authority on what and in what sense?

Speaking metaphorically, reality is always the final (and first, for that matter) authority.

She certainly could be considered an authority on her philosophy, as I understand the concept "authority."

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

Is Rand an authority?

In areas of her expertise like anyone yes she is. However if I were to say something is a fact because she said it was I would be committing the appeal to authority fallacy. On the other hand if I were to explain through valid argumentation and reasoning that what she said was correct I would not be. So when Rand says that existence is a conceptually irreducible idea, I don't just take her word at it, I needed to see the reasoning behind that conclusion. That is why in my mind she is an authority on certain matters and only those matters, she made her case. Authority is earned. You on the other hand like to quote the bible as if that were the beginning and the end of it, no argumentation, no reasoning, the bible said it, so it is so! That is an appeal to authority.

What I mean by authoritarian thinking is a person who latches onto some claimed / self proclaimed authority and shuts down their mind. They plant the flag of whatever paradigm they love be it communism, objectivism, Christianity, whatever and say to the world, this has all the answers, I need not look any further, its infallible and I do not need to ever reason again, it is all done for me by this wonderful paradigm. With such people there is no reasoning because they can never admit their world view could in principle be in error. Sound familiar? I on the other hand do not rent my mind out to any god or government. If I may quote Dawson, I am a man and I think for myself. This even brings me into disagreement with Dawson. On matters of Politics he would call me a collectivist. What does this mean for me? It means I have to earn my knowledge through the use of reason, It means I have to acknowledge that what I know may be in error and is subject to the constant chance of revision. This is what it means to not be an authoritarian. I truly suspect that at this point in your life it would be too much for you to bear.

Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

"
Speaking metaphorically, reality is always the final (and first, for that matter) authority."

Such a simple and self evident idea and yet so many either explicitly or implicitly deny it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Ydemoc said "Allow me to butt in and ask, an authority on what and in what sense?


Yea sure help yourself.


Justin,

What are the preconditions for knowledge?

Justin Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Hall said...

Knowledge is held in the form of concepts, so the real question is what is required to form concepts. A functional mind and sensory organs to bring in input for the functional mind to work on. You will ask next how we know this, not realizing or caring for that matter the inherent stolen concept fallacy within. You still do not understand that concepts exist in a hierarchal relationship to each other. You cant even ask how we know of something without presupposing explicitly those very same senses and functional mind you want me to "account for". However lets not pretend about whats going on here. I know the presup play book as well as you. The disingenuous tactic to keep asking questions until you hit on one that the non believer either cant answer because the question is semantically meaningless or does not know how to answer, then you will in a grand example of non sequitur jump up and claim ah AH! and therefor god.

You have asked enough questions, now one for me, is the metaphysical relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness objective or subjective? If you don't know what that means ask Dawson. You of course will evade this at all costs. Instead you will continue with the snake oil salesman tactics of the presuppers who try to shift the burden of proof from where it rightly belongs to others. Just another example of the moral bankruptcy of Christianity.

Justin Hall said...

um correction.....


You cant even ask how we know of something without presupposing
"IMPLICITLY" those very same senses and functional mind you want me to "account for".

Not explicitly, if you were we would not be having this discussion:)

Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah, I have company over so its good night, if you post anything more tonight I wont get to it until tomorrow, Hey at least I haven't found in fallacies in your last two questions:)

Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Nicely done in your replies to Hezekiah.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Justin,

Asked: "is the metaphysical relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness objective or subjective?"

This is something to the effect of what Ydemoc asked yesterday by the way I am really enjoying his cheerleading skills.

So, I can't answer this question because we have a different view of reality. You limit reality to what you can see and experience. Which is interesting because if I ask you what happens after we die. You will problaby say nothing happens consciousness ceases and life goes on for the rest. As Ydemoc claimed which is really arbitrary and subjective. I can't wait to see the gymnastics he will pull to justify his claim he's already good at cheerleading so it shouln't be that hard.

So, if I'm wrong on your position on the after life feel free to correct me. I'm pretty sure you'll be more than happy to. Maybe you can add to your counter and ,hopefully, you will get the arithmetic right this time.

Here is a question Is everybody moral?

Which

Bahnsen Burner said...

Justin asked Nide: “is the metaphysical relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness objective or subjective?”

Nide responded: “So, I can't answer this question because we have a different view of reality.”

Every thinker who is honest should be able to address this question on its own terms.

For one to say that he cannot answer this question, he is implying either that he does not want to answer it for some reason, or that on his view of reality there is no consciousness to begin with. But it’s unlikely that Nide would take this latter stance since it would be an outright absurdity to deny the reality of consciousness – it would take consciousness to deny consciousness, in which case any concepts used in making such a denial would be stolen concepts.

If Nide acknowledges the reality of his own consciousness, then the question becomes: of what is he conscious? If he says he’s conscious of nothing, then what he has is not consciousness. If he’s conscious of something, then his consciousness has an object. In which case he needs to think about the *relationship* between his consciousness and any objects he has consciousness of. This is the question that Justin is asking about, and which Nide is trying to squirm out of answering.

[Continued...]

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “You limit reality to what you can see and experience.”

This is a characterization that is closely similar to an earlier mischaracterization which I have already corrected. If you recall, earlier you had stated that for us “seeing is believing.” You’ve never shown this to be an accurate representation of anyone’s position here, and even you should be mature enough to recognize that it is not accurate at all.

And clearly this statement – that we “limit reality to what [we] can see and experience” is at best very misleading. I have not seen or experienced the people who lived on earth 200, 1000, 2500 or 4000 years ago, and yet I don’t deny their existence. I have neither seen nor experienced New Zealand, but I don’t “limit reality” in such a way that I exclude New Zealand from what is real. Indeed, we don’t presume to have conscious power over reality such that we have the ability to “limit” reality in the first place.

To the extent that it is meaningful to say that reality is limited, it is limited to existence. Existence exists, and only existence exists.

What you resent about our worldview, Nide, is the fact that we distinguish reality from fantasy, imagination, and other cognitive departures from what is real.

Nide: “Which is interesting because if I ask you what happens after we die. You will problaby say nothing happens consciousness ceases and life goes on for the rest. As Ydemoc claimed which is really arbitrary and subjective.”

You must have read something different from what I read, for I’ve been reading Ydemoc’s entries, and I saw nothing that struck me as either arbitrary or subjective. In fact, you were just asked about the relationship between consciousness and its objects, whether it is objective or subjective, and while you resisted this question on the basis that our worldviews are so different from each other, you now make use of the concept ‘subjective’ without explaining your use of this term. What does it mean in the context of your characterization of Ydemoc’s view, and what on earth could a Christian have against a view which is in fact subjective????? Blank out.

As for what happens to consciousness when we die, this question only makes sense if one first acknowledges that we’re conscious in the first place. But so far, Nide, it’s unclear whether you’re willing to do this, for you resisted Justin’s question about the relationship between consciousness and its objects by saying that your worldview is so different from ours. So we must leave open the possibility that you simply deny the reality of consciousness to begin with. So you need to clarify your position here.

Also, if you’re aware of any scientific evidence for the continuation of conscious activity after death, please produce it for us.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote, regarding my complimenting Justin: "...I am really enjoying his cheerleading skills."

Thanks. I'm glad you enjoy the compliments that I give to those who have earned it. I hope they enjoy my compliments, too. But maybe you're being insincere and using sarcasm. If so, I'm wondering where you got this ability to be sarcastic (and I think I've asked you this before, but I don't think I received a clear answer). Can you point me to a bible passage that teaches you how to be sarcastic? Can you tell me where in the bible I can find the word "sarcasm," or any examples of sarcasm?

You wrote: "Here is a question Is everybody moral?"

Moral actions are the chosen, with life being the standard of value. Since man can make mistakes in his choices, the answer is no.

For example, to stand idly by or to tell a loved one to turn the other cheek when someone slaps your loved one in the face would be immoral.

Acting in one's own self-defense is moral. Can you tell me where in the bible I might find a standard or any support at all for the morality of self-defense, e.g., using a gun to kill someone who has broken into my home; fighting back against the murderers aboard United 93? If you can find such a passage, would you mind reconciling it with such passages as "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies"?

Also, could you please answer the question below, which Dawson presented to another believer like you? They are available in the blog entry, "Answering Ecualegacy, Pt. 4" May 20, 2007:

a) What is your working definition of ‘morality’?

b) What is the purpose of morality?

c) Does man need morality? Yes or no?

d) If you think man does need morality, why do you think he needs it?

e) By what means does man come into awareness of moral knowledge?

f) Who or what should be the primary beneficiary of moral action? The one who takes the moral action, or someone else?

***end quote***

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

BB,

You said: "I have not seen or experienced the people who lived on earth 200, 1000, 2500 or 4000 years ago, and yet I don’t deny their existence. I have neither seen nor experienced New Zealand, but I don’t “limit reality” in such a way that I exclude New Zealand from what is real."


Ok, good. So that means you believe that adam, eve, moses, abraham, the prophets, The lord Jesus, John, luke, mark, matthew, and paul all existed.


You said: "Also, if you’re aware of any scientific evidence for the continuation of conscious activity after death, please produce it for us.


This is not a valid question. Science only deals with what can be experienced, seen or observed.

So, when you deny the afterlife your just really taking a giant leap of faith.

Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said....

Ok, good. So that means you believe that adam, eve, moses, abraham, the prophets, The lord Jesus, John, luke, mark, matthew, and paul all existed.

However Dawson said

“ I have not seen or experienced the people who lived on earth 200, 1000, 2500 or 4000 years ago, and yet I don’t deny their existence.”

What Dawson meant is the “actual people” not myths and legends of people. You have committed your 10th fallacy, equivocation.

Stolen concept = 3
Appeal to authority = 2
Red Herring = 2
Non Sequiter = 2
Equivocation = 1

Total = 10

I am at work and so do not have much time to devote to this, I will have more to say about your question to me about morality the evening.

Justin Hall said...

On a additional note, Paul most likely existed. He in my opinion however comes across as an opportunistic David Koresh of his time.

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

One other question I forgot to ask in my above comment: Is sarcasm also a reflection of god's qualities? How about irony?

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

What's wrong don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Lighten up man it's only a joke. Maybe now you will learn to love your neighbor.


Blessings.

Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "I have not seen or experienced the people who lived on earth 200, 1000, 2500 or 4000 years ago, and yet I don’t deny their existence. I have neither seen nor experienced New Zealand, but I don’t ‘limit reality’ in such a way that I exclude New Zealand from what is real."

Nide: “Ok, good. So that means you believe that adam, eve, moses, abraham, the prophets, The lord Jesus, John, luke, mark, matthew, and paul all existed.”

No more than I believe that the Centaur, Minotaur, Cyclops, Medusa, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins actually existed. The question of the existence of any specific individual needs to be weighed on the merits of the evidence for that specific individual’s existence.

Affirmation of a generality does not allow another to insert specifics into that generality without consent. This is a form of interpersonal breach as well as a logical fallacy. It reveals Nide's willingness to use dishonest means to promulgate his irrational worldview.

Justin wrote: “What Dawson meant is the ‘actual people’ not myths and legends of people. You have committed your 10th fallacy, equivocation.”

I would add to this another commission of non sequitur as well. For it does not follow from the fact that I generally acknowledge the existence of people in the ancient past, that I therefore acknowledge the existence of certain specific individuals whose existence I have not specifically acknowledged. So bump Nide’s counter of non sequiturs up to 3, Justin.

Nide is blinded to logic, not only by the fact that his worldview is actually opposed to logic, but also by his zeal to get others to accept his logic-denying worldview. He strikes me as a most desperate individual. Everything he tries in the interest of defending his faith, ends up crashing in flames shortly after take-off. But he continues to try and try and try again, in spite of persisting failure. He’s trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. There’s a word for this, isn’t there?

[Continued…]

Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "Also, if you’re aware of any scientific evidence for the continuation of conscious activity after death, please produce it for us.

Nide: “This is not a valid question. Science only deals with what can be experienced, seen or observed.”

In other words, Nide’s answer is no, he has no scientific evidence for the continuation of conscious activity after death. At least this is clear.

As for what science deals with, it’s interesting how Nide seeks to limit science in such a way that it cannot apply. Science is the systematic application of reason to claims about nature and reality. If it is claimed that conscious activity survives the death of a biological organism, this is a claim about the nature of consciousness. I see no reason why the systematic application of reason cannot apply in such a case, and the reasons Nide offers for dismissing the application of science are insufficient. Is Nide saying that one cannot experience his own consciousness surviving his own death? That would be rather absurd, since consciousness is the precondition of experience in the first place. If one is conscious of something, one is experiencing that something.

Nide’s attempt to evade here hinges on the arbitrary nature of the claim that consciousness survives the death of the biological organism possessing it. Not only does it trade on ignoring the fact that consciousness is biological in nature, it seeks to use the fact that there is no means by which one could have awareness of consciousness surviving the death of a biological organism to protect this claim from scrutiny. The arbitrary is thus affirmed without evidence and defended from the call for evidence by virtue of its arbitrariness. It reduces to a circle of sorts: the arbitrary envelopes its proponents in a swirling whirlpool of absurdities and aims at swallowing innocent bystanders as well. Nide got taken in by it, and now he seeks to drag others down as well. I don’t think he’ll find much success here at IP.

Nide: “So, when you deny the afterlife your just really taking a giant leap of faith.”

Actually, it’s the opposite: I would have to take a great leap of faith to believe that consciousness survives the death of the biological organism possessing, since, as you have acknowledged, there’s no scientific evidence for this.

Of course, if you can identify the means by which you are aware of this alleged fact that consciousness survives the death of the biological organism which possesses it, then please do. Perhaps we can check to see if this mode of awareness that you claim for yourself is subject to rational investigation. Should we be surprised if we find out that this mode of awareness that you claim on behalf of your ability to "know" that consciousness survives the death of a biological organism, is indistinguishable from your imagination?

I trow not.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "What's wrong..."

Did I write something that suggested something was wrong? (other than what I've written regarding your metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics).

Hezekiah continued: "...don't like the taste of your own medicine?"

If by this you mean that I am unable to laugh at things that are directed at what I sometimes say or do, it's you who are mistaken, for I have done this quite often. Not only that, but for me to laugh or find something humorous, it usually needs to be funny first. Was there something you said that was (intentionally) funny?

Hezekiah wrote: "Lighten up man it's only a joke."

And stating that what you wrote was only a joke and that I should perhaps lighten up and laugh at it, differs from everything else you've written, how exactly?

Indeed, sarcasm can be an effective way to get humor across. When attempting humor, sometimes it helps to be a little more clear in your intentions -- especially in your case, since you have exhibited an ability to say funny things when you apparently didn't intend to, (much like the bible itself).

Hezekiah wrote: "Maybe now you will learn to love your neighbor."

Could this be another example of what I just pointed out above, i.e., unintentional humor? Because I'm not sure how this ties in to your saying that I should lighten up and that what you said was "only a joke."

In any event, if my neighbor ever happened to be anyone like an Islamic Terrorist, Charles Manson, O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, etc., then, no, I will not learn to love my neighbor. Ever.


Hezekiah wrote: "Blessings."

Is hell a blessing? And don't forget to address my questions in my previous comment regarding sarcasm and irony. Are these a reflection of god's qualities? Where in the bible can I find any mention of sarcasm or irony?

If your god is a sarcastic god, I think this is going to present a plethora of problems for you.

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

I forgot: When you get some time, could you also please address my self-defense questions?

If you don't want to go back and find them, here they are again:

Acting in one's own self-defense is moral. Can you tell me where in the bible I might find a standard or any support at all for the morality of self-defense, e.g., using a gun to kill someone who has broken into my home; fighting back against the murderers aboard United 93? If you can find such a passage, would you mind reconciling it with such passages as "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies"?

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

Oh, one more thing: Did you take a gander Dawson's questions about morality? Here they are again for you to answer. And, as always, take your time:

a) What is your working definition of ‘morality’?

b) What is the purpose of morality?

c) Does man need morality? Yes or no?

d) If you think man does need morality, why do you think he needs it?

e) By what means does man come into awareness of moral knowledge?

f) Who or what should be the primary beneficiary of moral action? The one who takes the moral action, or someone else?

(These questions also available in Dawson's blog entry, "Answering Ecualegacy, Pt. 4" May 20, 2007)

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

I would need to have points A and C answered at the very least before I could give a meaningful answer for the question is everyone moral.

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

You asked: "Acting in one's own self-defense is moral. Can you tell me where in the bible I might find a standard or any support at all for the morality of self-defense, e.g., using a gun to kill someone who has broken into my home; fighting back against the murderers aboard United 93? If you can find such a passage, would you mind reconciling it with such passages as "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies"?

You also asked: "Oh, one more thing: Did you take a gander Dawson's questions about morality?



I said: Ydemoc I have eternal life I am not in a rush I will answer be patient.

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote, regarding some questions I posed to him: "Ydemoc I have eternal life I am not in a rush I will answer be patient."

I find this an interesting comment, especially in light of the fact that there may be fence-sitters looking on, reading everything we write.

Supposing you had something to say that could soften a fence-sitters heart and allow them to quit denying your god, so that he or she ends up embracing Christianity and being saved. But instead, you delay sharing this information, whatever the duration.


But suppose your life ends today, and the very thing you were going to say in response to my questions -- the linchpin to a fence-sitter's salvation, if you will -- goes with you. So because you didn't answer quickly, the fence-sitter misses his or her opportunity for salvation.

Frankly, I think such a scenario is pure rubbish; however, whether you think the same is still up in the air.

In any event, given my view on the matter, please, do take your time.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

I am really enjoying how Dawson can't control his mouth. It's amazing how emotional he is. It's interesting because about a month or two ago he told me something to this effect " feel free to post when your ready to present an argument". Well, I guess I have been presenting arguments because he has been unable to " bridle his tongue".









Psalm 14: "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "Psalm 14: "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

And you read this in the...?

And you know this is true because...?

And you learned about faith from....?

(Still waiting on self-defense and morality responses.)

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "I am really enjoying how Dawson can't control his mouth. It's amazing how emotional he is."

Do you think your god is enjoying you writing this kinds of rubbish while the fate of fence-sitters' salvation hangs in the balance.

I would imagine your god wouldn't be too pleased with the time you waste, nor with the puffery you exhibit.

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

Hezekiah said....

"I am really enjoying how Dawson can't control his mouth. It's amazing how emotional he is. It's interesting because about a month or two ago he told me something to this effect " feel free to post when your ready to present an argument". Well, I guess I have been presenting arguments because he has been unable to " bridle his tongue". "

what do you think Dawson, is this an ad hominem?

Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

ah yes thanks for pointing that out

"Hezekiah wrote: "Psalm 14: "The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

another appeal to authority

so we now have

Stolen concept = 3
Appeal to authority = 3
Red Herring = 2
Non Sequiter = 3
Equivocation = 1
Ad hominem = ?

Total = 12

might be 13, waiting on Dawson's input.

Justin Hall said...

@hezekiah

why is the question what is the metaphysical relationship between consciousness and existence not relevant in your world view? Do you believe god created all of existence apart from himself? Do you believe in the efficiency of prayer? A yes answer to either or both would mean the answer is subjective, not objective. Just curious.

Anonymous said...

I live by faith Ydemoc. Remember?

Seeing is believing is not required for me.

I am pretty sure that could spark another convo.


Morality, my friend, is about The holiness of God.
Nothing unclean can "live" in his presence. Read Leviticus for more details.

God is moral. He's morality. Morality is a reflection of his thinking and actions.

God says don't lie, cheat, steal, murder etc. because he doesn't do it. He is the standard himself and since me and you are created in his image we have a sense of morality.


There is something about self-defense in exodus or Leviticus I need to look for it.

There is a big difference between murder and kill. What I am saying is. The "turn the other cheek" verse may be taken figuratively and literally. For example, some here,in the past, have cursed me and ,in a sense, I turned the other cheek.

A literal example would be, for example, The lord Jesus he was beat, spit on, etc. and never retaliated. Yes, of course he had a purpose for all that but that would be the ideal example.






Romans 12:19 "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Anonymous said...

Ydmoc,

http://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html


Justin,

Acts 17: " 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote: "I live by faith Ydemoc. Remember?"

Of course I remember your saying this. But how is this an answer to my question(s)?

You wrote: "Seeing is believing is not required for me."

Neither seeing nor hearing was required for Helen Keller to make sense of the world around her. Thanks to her sense of touch, taste and smell, along with her consciousness's ability to form concepts, plus the crucial and courageous work of Anne Sullivan, Helen was able to acquire knowledge and function. Would you care to tell me how Helen Keller could have come to any knowledge of the world around her via faith had she not only been without the ability to see and hear, but also had been without the sense of touch, smell, and taste, as well as the ability to form concepts?

You wrote: "Morality, my friend, is about The holiness of God.
Nothing unclean can "live" in his presence. Read Leviticus for more details."

Is the devil alive? They had quite a pow-wow regarding Job. Seems he was alive then. Seems he was also alive when god decided to form the universe. God knew what was going to happen. If I knew that Osama bin Laden was going to do what he did, and I could prevent it by not creating Osama bin Laden in the first place, I don't think I would've created Osama bin Laden in the first place, especially if I supposedly value those he is going to destroy, which I knew he was going to do, since I know everything for all time.

You wrote: "God is moral. He's morality. Morality is a reflection of his thinking and actions."

Dawson has already shown that this assertion is just that: an assertion, by virtue of the fact that your god wouldn't need to think.

Is sarcasm a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?

You wrote: "God says don't lie, cheat, steal, murder etc. because he doesn't do it. He is the standard himself and since me and you are created in his image we have a sense of morality."

For the answers to this, please see the previous 10,000 comments by all of us except you.

If God is the standard of morality, it must then be okay to hold slaves, yes? He gave instructions on how to do so in the bible, did he not? On how to beat them?

You wrote: "There is something about self-defense in exodus or Leviticus I need to look for it."

Yes, you be sure to hurry to your good book and look that up, while someone is breaking into your house with the intent to do harm to you and your family.

You wrote: "There is a big difference between murder and kill. What I am saying is. The "turn the other cheek" verse may be taken figuratively and literally."

Can the story about Adam and Eve be taken figuratively? How about Jesus rising from the dead?

You wrote: "For example, some here,in the past, have cursed me and ,in a sense, I turned the other cheek.

A literal example would be, for example, The lord Jesus he was beat, spit on, etc. and never retaliated. Yes, of course he had a purpose for all that but that would be the ideal example."

Why are Christians always so selective when quoting the bible? On one hand they want me to dismiss some of the Old Testament ("there are no others beside me") while on the other hand they want me to abide by it.

How do you reconcile "love your enemies" with the principle of self-defense. How do you reconcile the killing of Osama bin Laden with what you quoted right here:

Romans 12:19 "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

And even with these answers you've supplied, you have yet to answer: Is hell a blessing? (as well as many others)

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You... must... be.... kidding. Here is just part of the rationalizing I read on gotquestions.org:

"Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes Peter for that act. Why? Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped. We must be wise as to when to fight and when not to."

If all this was supposed to play out and happen, why isn't JUDAS a hero!?! Why were the Jews so disparaged for their contribution to the cruci(fiction), especially in the Gospel of John?!? Shouldn't everyone who contributed to Jesus's death be considered heroes!?!

Hezekiah, your gotquestions.org itself says, "As far as self-defense when one’s life or property is threatened, there is not a whole lot in the Bible concerning this."

Surprise, surprise. And if when there is a rationalization offered, they cite the Old Testament. But hasn't the old law passed or is it still in effect? Conflicts, conflicts.

Gotqestions.org goes on to say: "The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In many karate classes, one of the principles is “Restrain your physical abilities by spiritual attainment.”

In other words, we can't really biblically justify self-defense, but must look elsewhere.

By the way, since you and I both consider self-defense moral but for different reasons, would you mind telling me if the principle of self-defense is also a reflection of god's thinking and actions? If so, explain to me why an all powerful being would have any need for self-defense."

Is hell a blessing?

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

You asked "is a hell a blessing" you have to be more specific.


By the way Dawson is wrong he's a "little" man with a finite mind. Actually, he's extremely deluded and swears christianity is impossible and expects others to believe him on his say so.



God has a purpose for everything that comes to pass and that's what unbelievers can't handle and even some Christians.

Isaiah 46:  8 “Remember this, keep it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. 9 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."


I agree rape, murder, death etc. Is horrible but God is not obliged to give us a reason for what he does or allow.

Look at Job he questioned God and ended up with his hand over his mouth.The LORD never told him why destruction came upon him and household.


It's interesting because we do have a sense of "self-defense". The bible does say God hates. However, he's not a man. In other words he doesn't hate like we do.

Jesus said something interesting " I saw satan fall like lighting from heaven".



Blessings

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

I asked: "Is a hell a blessing"

Hezekiah wrote: "you have to be more specific."

Is the burning for all eternity in front of god (since you previously said god was in hell) a blessing? Since many Christians tell me that we, as humans, are wretched and depraved and do not deserve life, but deserve hell, is god granting unbelievers', what most Christians would consider their just deserts, a blessing?


Hezekiah wrote: "By the way Dawson is wrong he's a "little" man with a finite mind."

Your imaginary god must be proud of you for such childish ridicule. Is ridicule also a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?

Hezekiah wrote: "Actually, he's extremely deluded and swears christianity is impossible and expects others to believe him on his say so."

You must be looking to increase your "Hezekiah Fallacy Tally."

Hezekiah wrote: "God has a purpose for everything that comes to pass and that's what unbelievers can't handle and even some Christians."

Have you, or Isaiah whom you quote below, ever considered what having "a purpose" entails?

Hezekiah quotes from his story book: Isaiah 46: 8 “Remember this, keep it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. 9 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."

And yet we have the Son of Man sitting at the Father's right hand, and the Holy Spirit hanging around too. So much for "none like me"

(continued)

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "I agree rape, murder, death etc. Is horrible..."

Just when I think you're entering the realm of the rational with this comment, you then write:

"...but God is not obliged to give us a reason for what he does or allow."

The imaginary need not offer reasons either.

Hezekiah continued: "Look at Job he questioned God and ended up with his hand over his mouth.The LORD never told him why destruction came upon him and household."

Nice guy, this imaginary god of yours.

You wrote: "It's interesting because we do have a sense of "self-defense".

This is news to me. I thought we only had a sense of taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell.

I actually find this statement of yours astounding. Do you really think that if you pointed a gun at Helen Keller, or even a 2 month old baby for that matter, either of them would have any idea of the danger they were in? If we have an innate "sense of self-defense," as you put it, a little baby would *understand* the threat that a gun wielding murderer or robber poses and act accordingly. But we don't see this happening, do we? I wonder why?


Hezekiah wrote: "The bible does say God hates. However, he's not a man."

He's not a man, but he is a person? But he was a man and god at the same time? How do you operate on a daily basis with this kind of confusion?

Hezekiah wrote: "In other words he doesn't hate like we do."

What other kind of hate is there? Do you as a human being have access to knowledge of a different kind of hate, other than the one I'm familiar with? Would you mind telling me a little bit about the kind of hate your god has? And how it differs from yours or mine?

Furthermore, do you know this by faith? The same faith that the bible teaches you to have? Which you say is true, because of faith and because it's in the bible?

Ydemoc: "Jesus said something interesting "

If you're a Christian, don't you think calling something Jesus said "interesting" is understating it a bit? After all, according to you, he is the creator of the universe, and has your eternal fate in his hands.

You wrote, quoting Jesus: "I saw satan fall like lighting from heaven".

One can think of all kinds of things to say and do if one has a fertile enough imagination accompanied by the wrong philosophy.

Still not answered: Is sarcasm, self-defense, and ridicule a reflection of your god's thinking and action? Think these through before you answer.

Ydemoc

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “I live by faith Ydemoc. Remember?”

And I live by reason. Remember?

Nide: “Seeing is believing is not required for me.”

For you, imagining is believing. That’s what faith is all about: pretending that the imaginary is real.

Nide: “Morality, my friend, is about The holiness of God.”

Then morality as you conceive of it has nothing to do with man. Man is not “the holiness of God.” On your view, morality is irrelevant. Perhaps this is why so many prisons are full of Christians.

Nide: “Nothing unclean can ‘live’ in his presence.”

One could say this about anything he imagines.

By the way, how does the unclean have its source in the clean?

Nide: “Read Leviticus for more details.”

Read my blog for details.

Nide: “God is moral.”

So standing by while vicious people torture and murder your own child, and doing nothing to stop it, is moral?

I’m glad I’m no Christian.

Nide: “He's morality.”

Oh, now your god is morality? Earlier it was “God is existence,” “God is faith,” then “God is logic.” Now “he’s morality”?

Nide: “Morality is a reflection of his thinking and actions.”

Well which is it? First you say your god *is* morality, then you say “morality is a reflection of his thinking and actions.” A reflection of something is not the same thing as that thing being reflected. When I look in the mirror, I see my reflection, but my reflection in the mirror is not identical to myself.

By the way, you’ve just indicated why morality on your worldview is utterly arbitrary. Given how Christian mythology describes its god, it would have no reason to think or act. Its actions and thoughts would be completely arbitrary. It would have no purpose whatsoever.

Nide: “God says don't lie, cheat, steal, murder etc. because he doesn't do it.”

Hmmm… Does your god breathe? Does it eat? Does it sleep? Does it go to the bathroom? Does it drive a car? Does it go to school? Does it study? Does it punch a time clock? Does it have a spouse? Does it change anyone’s diapers?

By the way, the imaginary can’t lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. And the imaginary can be made to say anything its imaginer wants it to say.

Nide: “He is the standard himself and since me and you are created in his image we have a sense of morality.”

In other words, Nide has a sense of what rational philosophy would call arbitrary, for what his worldview calls morality could only be arbitrary.

Nide: “There is something about self-defense in exodus or Leviticus I need to look for it.”

But we’re not “under the law” any more. Leviticus is a law book. Since the advent of Jesus, we’re supposed to be under grace. Leviticus is out.

Jesus’ commandment was “that ye resist not evil” (Mt. 5:39). So when evil threatens you, your Jesus doesn’t want you to resist it. You’re supposed to surrender to it so that it can prevail, as it always does in the bible.

Nide: “some here,in the past, have cursed me and ,in a sense, I turned the other cheek.”

What do you take to be cursing from anyone dialoguing with you here?

Nide: “A literal example would be, for example, The lord Jesus he was beat, spit on, etc. and never retaliated.”

And the first member of the trinity, loving father we’re all told, stood by and watched it all happening without intervening to rescue his own son. That’s morality, Christian style. I’m glad I’m not its kid.

Nide: “Yes, of course he had a purpose for all that”

In other words, on Christianity’s view of “morality” (falsely so-called), evil is justifiable. That’s all anyone really needs to know about Christianity.

Regards,
Dawson

Bahnsen Burner said...

By the way, Nide, you never did explain how the attacks on America on 9/11/01 were “a selfish act.” When are you going to get around to this?

Regards,
Dawson

Anonymous said...

BB,

Asked:By the way, Nide, you never did explain how the attacks on America on 9/11/01 were “a selfish act.” When are you going to get around to this?


Does this have anything to do with objectivism and how it teaches it's followers to be selfish?

Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: “By the way, Nide, you never did explain how the attacks on America on 9/11/01 were ‘a selfish act’. When are you going to get around to this?”

Instead of answering my question, Nide asked: “Does this have anything to do with objectivism and how it teaches it's followers to be selfish?”

That’s a rather topical question. Since you were the one who characterized the actions of the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 as “selfish,” did you intend this to have anything to do with Objectivism and its views on selfishness?

And now for your answer to my original question? How were the attacks on 9/11 a “selfish act”?

Regards,
Dawson

Anonymous said...

BB,

Asked: "And now for your answer to my original question? How were the attacks on 9/11 a “selfish act”?


The act was more than selfish it was more like an extremely wicked and heinous crime. When one is deluded things like that happen.

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

You asked this a few days ago Hey, Hezekiah, was Thomas Jefferson a fool? Are some fools smarter than you?


Thanks for the compliment. I have a question for you now.

Are there smart fools?

Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "And now for your answer to my original question? How were the attacks on 9/11 a ‘selfish act’?”

Nide responded: “The act was more than selfish it was more like an extremely wicked and heinous crime.”

Again, you’re not answering my question. In what way do you think the attacks on 9/11 were a “selfish act”? How were they specifically selfish?

Nide: “When one is deluded things like that happen.”

I agree. Religious delusion is extremely toxic to human life. An examination of history will show this without leaving any lingering doubt.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote: You (Ydemoc) asked this a few days ago Hey, Hezekiah, was Thomas Jefferson a fool? Are some fools smarter than you? Thanks for the compliment."

I'm don't quite see the compliment here. And lest there be any doubt about whether or not I was complimenting you in this particular instance, let's move on to something that should clarify the issue...

You wrote: "I have a question for you now."

Okay.

You wrote: "Are there smart fools?"

It would be much to easy here (although not entirely inaccurate) if I were to say, "Yes, Hezekiah, there are smart fools. And since the time of my question, it's become clearer that you are not one of them."

You see how easy it is to disparage others, Hezekiah? How unproductive it can be? Where would a response like mine get us? I believe I originally posed this question to make this very point to you, since you were calling people fools and/or utilizing a bible verse to do it for you.

Perhaps more on this later, and the importance of keeping context.

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

Just an "unanswered questions" reminder:

Is sarcasm a part of your god's thinking and actions?

Is ridicule a part of your god's thinking and actions?

Is self-defense a part of your god's thinking and actions?

I will give you this compliment, Hezekiah: Without you I might never have thought of asking if sarcasm is a part of god's thinking and actions. Thanks.

Ydeomoc

Anonymous said...

BB,

From Dictionary.com

selfish: - devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.




See the key words "disregard of others"? They disregarded the 3000+ families they would scar for life.

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

What's Sarcasm?

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Here is another one for you. God is humor. He's humorous.
Where do you think we get our sense of humor from?
A good example is in the garden of eden when he asked Adam and eve where they were. It's quite hilarious.






Genedis 3: " 8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the [a]cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "What's Sarcasm?"

Well, I'm sure if anyone can figure it out, you can.

(the above sentence is an example of sarcasm)

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "Here is another one for you. God is humor. He's humorous. Where do you think we get our sense of humor from?
A good example is in the garden of eden when he asked Adam and eve where they were. It's quite hilarious."

Yeah, that's some funny stuff. The way biblegod from this point forward makes it look like mankind is at fault for original sin, when all the while biblegod is and has controlled everything. Meanwhile, biblegod's puppets, most of whom, because they don't believe in biblegod, or the book inspired by him during their lives, are sent to fry for eternity after they die. That's some good stuff. You should take it to the Improv on open mic night and see how it goes over. I'm sure it will kill.

(this, again, is an example of sarcasm, coupled with some good old fashioned and well-deserved mocking)

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

In the genesis story, the serpent always came across as the hero to me at least.

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

God will not be mocked. It's not sarcasm the problem is you're extremely deluded.

Ydemoc how does it feel to see justice being served?

Justin,

Psalm 22:  "12 Many bulls surround me;
   strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
   open their mouths wide against me."

Bahnsen Burner said...

Again Nide quotes from his favorite internet dictionary: “selfish: - devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.”

Then he asked: “See the key words ‘disregard of others’?”

What makes “disregard of others” (or “regardless of others,” which is what is actually given in the quoted definition) the “keywords” of the definition of ‘selfish’? Why don’t any of the other words in the quoted definition enjoy this prestigious position?

If the concept ‘selfish’ packages “concern for oneself” with “disregard for others,” what concept do we use simply to denote “concern primarily for oneself” proper?

I am a selfish person, and I am concerned primarily with my own interests. But my interests of course include other individuals (“others”). The definition for ‘selfishness’ cited by Nide seems to arbitrarily rule out such perspectives from qualifying as selfish. But what justifiable basis is there for doing this?

For instance, one of my interests is my daughter.

And yes, I do disregard others in making decisions for my and my daughter’s welfare. For instance, I don’t consider what some guy in Iowa might be doing or thinking or concerned about. I couldn't care less what "others" think on the matter of taking care of and raising my daughter. I certainly don't expect them to have her best interests in mind, so why should they be a factor?

Similarly, I don’t consult my neighbors when I make decisions. Does this constitute disregarding them? If not, why not, and what does? They don’t consult me when they make decisions either. So are they disregarding me? It seems so. But if not, then why not? It seems we need more specificity on the definition if “others” is at all to be a factor in a *proper* definition of selfishness. For it’s unclear why my actions would not be considered selfish, and it’s certainly not clear why the 9/11 hijackers’ actions would be considered selfish. But clearly there are fundamental differences here as far as the nature of one's actions in regard to one's welfare and interests is concerned.

To me, it seems that the 9/11 hijackers were not concerned about their welfare (after all, they were willing to die for their god-belief), so it seems that they weren’t concerned with their interests and thus weren't selfish at all.

But perhaps Nide has the solution to these puzzles that his statement has introduced to the discussion. So I’ll wait for him to clarify his position on the matter, since he seems to think, for some reason, that the actions of the 9/11 hijackers were selfish.

Nide: “They [the 9/11 hijackers] disregarded the 3000+ families they would scar for life.”

How do you know that they disregarded those families? What is “regard” and “disregard” as it pertains to this definition? It may very well be the case that they considered the families of their victims. If so, then they could hardly be charged with “disregarding” them.

What I want to know is: How does flying a plane into a building and killing oneself in the resulting impact qualify as “caring for oneself” or as action “concerned primarily with one’s own interests”? Typically when one acts on behalf of his own interests, he acts to protect himself and his values from destruction. So this is most curious to me. It’s still not clear to me how the 9/11 hijackers’ actions are specifically *selfish*, even on the definition cited.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote: "God will not be mocked. It's not sarcasm the problem is you're extremely deluded... how does it feel to see justice being served?"


Hezekiah! You're catching on! You are exhibiting an outstanding use of sarcasm in this response of yours! And your stating "it's not sarcasm" is borderline brilliant, in that it leaves the reader wondering if you are referring to what you wrote here, or something someone else has written. Now, to be sure, some might see this as "sloppy" writing because it's too vague. If this is true, that this is an example of you being "vague" and "sloppy," are these also a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?

But if you are not using sarcasm, but actually being straightforward in your reply, I have this question: What is the punishment for mocking your god that differs from not believing in it? Can one simply refrain from mocking your god as I understand "mocking" and be saved? And if god "controls everything that comes to pass," isn't it he (god) who is really to blame for any mocking that ensues?

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

One other thing about what you wrote here: "the problem is you're extremely deluded"

Again, assuming you're not being sarcastic, is being "deluded" also a reflection of biblegod's character and actions? Has he not sent "strong delusions?" If so, where does this ability to be deluded come from? Who created the very first delusion?

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "In the genesis story, the serpent always came across as the hero to me at least."

Me too. If rationality is the goal, how could having knowledge of good and evil be a terrible thing to have.

Maybe Hezekiah will come back and say,"But don't you see? It wasn't a terrible thing to have, because god planned it all for some greater purpose." Or maybe he'll offer up some other "apologetic."

Yes, pretty much anything can be asserted in the topsy-turvy worldview known as theism.

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Ther serpent never lied. It told Eve eat of that tree and you will know good and evil. Of course then they also would know death. It is almost as if the authors of the gensis myth knew that morality can only be of use to beings who's existence is contingent. If you cant die you really dont need to worry about your decisions, you need no guide to action. The serpent basically said take responsiblity for your actions. Excerise your "autonomous reasoning". This is a good thing.

Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Since we're all the way back to the "beginning," so to speak, perhaps Hezekiah will answer these simple questions:

Was Adam created perfect? Could you please explain your answer?


Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

BB,

Objectivism's definition of selfish is different than the normal and correct use. That's really what you are having a problem with. You will go to any lengths to justify your convictions.


Justin,Ydemoc,

I am really enjoying the bible study you are having. Let me see if I can Jump in somewhere.


Ydemoc asked: "Again, assuming you're not being sarcastic, is being "deluded" also a reflection of biblegod's character and actions? Has he not sent "strong delusions?" If so, where does this ability to be deluded come from? Who created the very first delusion?"


It's called divine judgment on sin.

I can develop this more if you want. Since you seem ignorant of those verses.



You also asked: "Was Adam created perfect? Could you please explain your answer?


Well, One thing is for sure he was created In God's image. Notice that the ten commandments don't come till later. Where there is no sin no law is needed.


You said: "Hezekiah! You're catching on! You are exhibiting an outstanding use of sarcasm in this response of yours! And your stating "it's not sarcasm" is borderline brilliant"


Thanks for the compliment. It's interesting because God is brilliant. I see a connection.

Justin see the "proof"?






Blessings

Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

Uh... no honestly I dont see the proof, sorry.

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

I asked: "Was Adam created perfect? Could you please explain your answer?


Hezekiah replied; "Well, One thing is for sure he was created In God's image."


Right. This is asserted by followers of biblegod. But I wanted know if Adam was created perfect.

Also, some question reminders:

Is hell a blessing?

Also, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?

Is the principle of self-defense a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?

Also, the divine judgemnt reply didn't address my question about who created the first delusion. Would you mind answering who was the first "thinker" ever to come up with the practice of deluding?

Another question (and I've added something to it to perhaps make it more clear for you) not addressed by you is: What is the punishment for mocking your god that *differs* from the punishment for not believing in your god?


Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Asked: Is hell a blessing?


I would say it's justice being served.


Here is my question, again, that you refused to answer.


Ydemoc how does it feel to see justice being served


You asked: "Also, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?



I answred this allready. The problem is you're trying to find fault with God.


Well, I advise to give up because you won't find it.




blessings

Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked Nide several direct questions about his characterization of the 9/11 hijackers’ actions supposedly being “selfish,” including why he thinks they qualify as “selfish” (specifically, how they qualify as actions concerned primarily with one’s own interests), and this is what I got in return:

“Objectivism's definition of selfish is different than the normal and correct use. That's really what you are having a problem with. You will go to any lengths to justify your convictions.”

The problem is not mine, Nide. For I can assure you: I have no problem acting on behalf of my interests. I do it everyday and it is how I manage my life. No one else is going to look after my interests, certainly not as careful as I will, and frankly I wouldn’t want anyone else looking after my own interests. There’s certainly no reason why I would need to justify myself to the likes of you. So the problem is not mine. I’m entirely comfortable – i.e., without any contradiction whatsoever – with what I understand by ‘selfish’ insofar as its place in rational philosophy is concerned.

What I’ve pointed out is a glaring deficiency in what you call “the normal and correct use” of “selfish,” namely the tendency to arbitrarily ignore the fact that one’s interests can very well include “others.” I’ve asked some questions for you to consider in order to help you see that deficiency, and even gave my care for my own daughter as an example. You have chosen not to address my questions, but rather have ignored them and are seeking to make this an opportunity of somehow saying the problem is mine. Apparently you are either unable or unwilling to look at the matter critically, and instead prefer to perpetuate a package-deal (btw, Justin, this is a fallacy – add it to your list) in order to protect illicit presuppositions. Essentially, you want to shut down the mind, beginning with yours.

Tell us, Nide, and be honest: do you consult your neighbor every time you make a decision about your life? This is a yes or no question: either you do or you don’t. There’s no conceivable in-between here.

Do you think a person *should* consult others every time he makes a decision about his life? Yes or no. Why? Explain your answer.

And again, how were the actions of the 9/11 hijackers specifically selfish? On behalf of what interests of their own were they acting?

It’s good that Nide continues to participate, for he is providing the world with a textbook case of how a persistent evader operates. One could no doubt take his behavior as a “reflection” of his god’s “character” (if one could use that word). This could only mean that the moral character of Nide’s god is suffocating in evasions.

Regards,
Dawson

Bahnsen Burner said...

Ydemoc asked: “Is hell a blessing?”

Instead of answering Ydemoc’s question, Nide responded with: “I would say it's justice being served.”

This can only mean that any time biblegod chooses to “save” someone from his “sins” and thereby allows that individual to escape the flames of hell, it is effectually overturning justice. If we all “deserve hell” (for reasons that continue to remain unclear – how can a perfect creator create something so imperfect that it deserves to be destroyed in such a manner?), and yet some are denied getting what they deserve, justice is being withheld, not executed. On Christianity's own terms, salvation could only be an instance of injustice, not justice.

Nide asked Ydemoc: “Ydemoc how does it feel to see justice being served[?]”

Where do you think Ydemoc is *seeing* justice being served? Where?

Ydemoc asked: "Also, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?”

Nide responded: “I answred this allready.”

Can you answer it again? I didn’t see. Was your answer “yes, sarcasm is a reflection of God’s thinking and actions,” or “no, sarcasm is not a reflection of God’s thinking and actions”?

Which is it?

Nide: “The problem is you're trying to find fault with God.”

Actually, the problem is that you are dishonest and resent those who practice critical thinking. You don’t want critical thinking applied to your worldview: it cannot handle it philosophically, and you cannot handle it psychologically. That’s a two-fold problem that I’m glad I don’t have.

Nide continued: "Well, I advise to give up because you won't find it."

Any father, whether real or merely imagined, who stands by while his own child is being tortured and murdered by vicious persons, and refuses to do anything especially if he has the ability and opportunity to intervene and prevent such destruction, is beyond redemption. You are free to argue otherwise. Doing so will only tell us about your character, Nide.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

I had asked: "Is hell a blessing?"


Hezekiah responded: "I would say it's justice being served."

So would you say that your god, whom Christians hold as responsible for creating you, me and serving as the very standard of justice, when biblegod applies this justice and says "depart from me for I never knew thee," and dispatches souls into the lake of fire, is this a blessing -- for them? For the saved?


Hezekiah wrote: "Here is my question, again, that you refused to answer. ... how does it feel to see justice being served"

Can you be a little more specific? Justice happens all day long, in all kinds of ways. Depending upon the context, it can result in a wide range of "feelings."

If I fail to make a complete stop at a stop sign and get a ticket for it, I'm not happy about it. But that's justice.

On the other hand I can enjoy justice. For instance, even in a mixed economy, I can still enjoy the benefits of justice via capitalism. I can go to the store and buy something that I value. I'm happy. The store owner is happy because he gets something of value from me. That's justice.

When Osama bin Laden was killed, I was pleased that he received justice for his murder. But this was tempered considerably by the fact what he took from those he murdered can never be replaced.

I had asked: "Also, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's thinking and actions?

Hezekiah replied: "I answred this allready."

Well, if you did, I don't know if you were that clear about it. Or maybe I didn't make a mental note of it. Would you mind telling me what the answer was? (that is, if you weren't using sarcasm when wrote, "I answred this allready.")


Hezekiah asserted: "The problem is you're trying to find fault with God."

I do not accept your view, nor do I see it that way myself, that what I'm doing is a problem.


Hezekiah wrote: "Well, I advise to give up because you won't find it."

Thanks for the unsolicited advice.

Unfortunately for you, there are many, many things to find fault with that are products of the imagination, as your god is. For example, if someone told me they could fly by flapping their arms, I would find fault with that. If someone told me that someone rose from the dead, I would find fault with that. If someone told me that a donkey talked to them, I would find fault with that.

I remember years ago, there were bumper stickers and signs around that said, "I found it!"

These declarations were intended provide witnessing opportunities to anyone who happened to ask, "What did you find?"

Well, when it comes to recognizing the fault in god belief, I too can say, "I found it!"

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I had written: “Is hell a blessing?”

Nide responded with: “I would say it's justice being served.”

You wrote: "This can only mean that any time biblegod chooses to “save” someone from his “sins” and thereby allows that individual to escape the flames of hell, it is effectually overturning justice. If we all “deserve hell” (for reasons that continue to remain unclear – how can a perfect creator create something so imperfect that it deserves to be destroyed in such a manner?), and yet some are denied getting what they deserve, justice is being withheld, not executed. On Christianity's own terms, salvation could only be an instance of injustice, not justice."

You nailed it! Great response!

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Your responses deserve a bahnsen moment.


See, Ydemoc, criminals never think that cops do any good or treat them fair.


Well, Ydemoc your a criminal in God's world and until The
Lord grants you repentance you will always find fault with God.

I call it the tabash argument. "I don't like God therefore he doesn't exist.



It's amazing how deluded Dawson is. He also continues in his ignorance. Well, he is also a criminal in God's world.



Blessings

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "Your responses deserve a bahnsen moment."

Okay. Proceed...

Hezekiah wrote: "See, Ydemoc, criminals never think that cops do any good or treat them fair."

Was Judas a criminal? Who made him a criminal? If he was a criminal, who made him do the crime that he did, and what would've happened to Jesus and those who are saved if he hadn't performed the crime?

Hezekiah wrote: "Well, Ydemoc your a criminal in God's world and until The Lord grants you repentance you will always find fault with God."

This is a wonderful example of the authoritarian mindset. It isn't but a hop, skip, and a jump until those who believe such things as you do start locking up those who don't.

And why wouldn't they if those who get locked up are truly viewed as criminals? You think this can't happen? Look at most Islamic nations today. Look at the overwhelmingly Christian Germany in the 20's and 30's, with a leader that "confessed with his mouth" his trust in his Lord, Jesus Christ; and then look what happened to the Jewish population throughout Europe when this Christian took what you said to it's logical conclusion.

Are the Jews criminals, Hezekiah?

Hezekiah wrote: "I call it the tabash argument. "I don't like God therefore he doesn't exist."

Mr. Tabash, like you, ought to think things through before trotting out pithy, illogical comments. And, to boot, it makes no sense even according to your own storybook!

Case in point: According to Christianity, Satan doesn't like god either, yet we are told that Satan knows god exists. This is also the case with other imaginary, nefarious agents of the underworld, so we are told in your storybook.

What Mr. Tabash, and you, should realize with such a comment is that it posits liking or disliking something *before* that something has been established as a fact of reality, and not merely a figment of the imagination. I suggest you find another quote.



You wrote: "It's amazing how deluded Dawson is. He also continues in his ignorance. Well, he is also a criminal in God's world."

Are you going to address the points we made and the questions we asked? Or are you going to continue to use the evasive, authoritarian tactic of hurling insults?


Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Here is something that will cheer you up.

Today was my first day in Ethics class. Guess what the subject was? Yea you got it morality my favorite. The professor was stunned when I told him and the class that morality has to with the character of God. He doesn't lie therefore he expects not to.






"Many are the sorrows of the wicked but he who trust in the LORD lovingkindness shall surround him."





Read acts 4 your answer is there.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Today was my first day in Ethics class. Guess what the subject was? Yea you got it morality my favorite.”

You’re kidding! Studying morality in an ethics class? Amazing!

(Btw, Nide, since you’re unclear on what sarcasm is, this is another example for you to mull over.)

Nide: “The professor was stunned when I told him and the class that morality has to with the character of God.”

The professor probably thought to himself, “Good grief. Another unteachable one.”

Nide: “He doesn't lie therefore he expects not to.”

Just like Blarko: Blarko doesn’t breathe, therefore he expects us not to. Blarko doesn’t eat, therefore he expects us not to. Blarko doesn’t sleep, therefore he expects us not to. Blarko doesn’t sneeze, therefore he expects us not to.

Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

Nide wrote: “The professor was stunned when I told him and the class that morality has to with the character of God.”

You responded: "The professor probably thought to himself, 'Good grief. Another unteachable one.'"

That made me laugh.

I am curious though...Hey, Hezekiah, what did your professor say in response when you told him this?

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

said: "I am curious though...Hey, Hezekiah, what did your professor say in response when you told him this?"



I replied: He threw his hands up in air and started praising God. It was remarkable. Actually, he reacted like the prodigal son. He confessed all his sins and then we had a feast. I'm just kidding, hopefully, you don't think I am being
"sarcastic".


Actually, he dismissed my claim and retreated into "we really don't know were still tying to figure it out."

Maybe next time we can play van tillian games and I'll ask him why does he think his memory is reliable or press him to account for counting. Which I am, actually, still waiting for Dawson to do. In his entry on the matter he resorted to complaining about invisible magic being and I felt he really didn't answer the question.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Maybe next time we can play van tillian games and I'll ask him why does he think his memory is reliable or press him to account for counting. Which I am, actually, still waiting for Dawson to do. In his entry on the matter he resorted to complaining about invisible magic being and I felt he really didn't answer the question.”

Nide, when you have more than mere feelings to go on, please let me know specifically what you found deficient in my post. It’s one thing to appeal to one's own feelings and say “I felt he really didn’t answer the question,” and entirely another to go through the article in question and interact with what is actually stated. The former characterizes your entire apologetic; the latter is as foreign to your apologetic as fish are to the moon. If my position were in fact so wrong as you continually say it is (you've called me “delusional” and “deluded”), then you’d be able to produce some actual substance to back up your dismissals.

Meanwhile, would you care to explain the Christian “account for” counting and show how it is superior to the conceptual approach that I have indicated?

Somehow I doubt it.

Regards,
Dawson

Anonymous said...

BB,

It's interesting because God knows how to count. See the connection?

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: "It's interesting because God knows how to count."

Blarko knows how to count too.

If simply knowing how to count constitutes an "account for" counting, then everyone who knows how to count can "account for" counting.

By the way, how can one be sure that biblegod can count?

Nide: "See the connection?"

What connection? Between what and what?

Regards,
Dawson

Anonymous said...

BB,

Blarko is part of your Imagination. As you have already admitted.

You said: "If simply knowing how to count constitutes an "account for" counting, then everyone who knows how to count can "account for" counting."

Your "conceptual approach" merely recounts something you remember doing. I am not asking for an explanation.

Here is a question:

Before you count do you check and see if your "conceptual approach" is intact or do you assume it is and continue on?

Justin Hall said...

@Hezekaih

what is meant by

"conceptual approach" is intact"

or more to the point what in the blazes would be a non intact conceptual approach? What is meant by intact or not intact within this context.

Anonymous said...

Justin,


If you tell someone that is characterized as insane that he is insane do you think he will believe you?

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Blarko is part of your Imagination. As you have already admitted.”

Exactly. The same with your god when I imagine it. When I imagine your god, it’s part of my imagination. I admit this as well.

Do you think I should suppress this truth?

I asked: "If simply knowing how to count constitutes an ‘account for’ counting, then everyone who knows how to count can ‘account for’ counting."

Nide: “Your ‘conceptual approach’ merely recounts something you remember doing.”

Not really. Since the process of abstraction is automated at an early age, we typically do not remember doing it, not only because we learned it at an age when our memory was just beginning to lay down its roots in the mind, but also because it happens subconsciously once it is automated. That’s actually a virtue of the human mind: by automating various repetitive tasks, it economizes its own operations and allows us to focus our volitional consciousness on specific issues which require our present attention.

Think about the act of chewing food. A child needs to learn how to do this when he starts to consume solid food. For my daughter, it was a little before her first birthday, a time in her life that she'll never remember. But once she learned how to do it, she didn’t need to learn how to chew food all over again every time she ate. She automated the action, and the result is that she doesn’t have to think about it in order to do it. Why wouldn’t other biological functions work similarly?

Anyway, I’m still wondering about the “connection” you asked about. What connection did you want me to "see"?

Nide: “I am not asking for an explanation.”

You said you were still waiting for me “to account for counting.” So if explanation is not a part of what you’ve say you’ve been waiting for, please clarify what you are waiting for me to present. Stop hiding in negations. Clarify what you’re looking for, and while you’re at it, present your own “account for counting,” and let’s see what passes as a viable “account for counting” in your worldview. I asked for this earlier, but unsurprisingly you haven’t come through with it.

Nide: “Before you count do you check and see if your ‘conceptual approach’ is intact or do you assume it is and continue on?”

My conceptual capacity was automated long ago, when I was still a child. So was yours. The conceptual approach to knowledge shows me how to understand the process of by which I count, particularly by identifying the specific steps of the process explicitly and codifying them in the form of general principles. (Perhaps this is what you don't like about Objectivism.)

Chewing is a good example to consider. I don’t even have to assume that chewing works. I just do it, now that the process has been automated. I don’t have to spend precious resources trying to learn how to do it. And now that I understand the process by which I form concepts, it’s certainly not something I accept on the basis of ignorance (cf. “faith”), for I am informed on the matter. I’ve even made a number of fine-tuning corrections which were needed, which has greatly increased my productivity and efficacy in the world. See my blog for example.

See what it’s like to have a worldview which actually offers something intelligent on the issues that come up in discussions like this? That you’re unable to educate on the basis of your worldview, is not only evidence that you really haven’t thought through these things at all carefully, it is a testament to the deplorable inadequacy of your worldview as a worldview. It is because your worldview is so intellectually impoverished that you habitually trade in negations and offer nothing of value that anyone can learn from.

Regards,
Dawson

Justin Hall said...

@Dawson
""conceptual approach" is intact"
I suspect another stolen concept fallacy loaded into a fallaciously complex question on the way. By the way I am aware of the package deal fallacy, however my conceptualization of it is a little hazy, thus I am hesitant to charge someone with it. Was wondering if you could expound on it a little more. See Hezekiah without doubt there is no way to improve ones understanding and knowledge.

Doubt, don't leave home without it.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Justin: “By the way I am aware of the package deal fallacy, however my conceptualization of it is a little hazy, thus I am hesitant to charge someone with it. Was wondering if you could expound on it a little more.”

I’d love to.

First, let’s get an understanding of what the fallacy of package-dealing is:

“’Package-dealing’ is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or ‘package’, elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.” (Ayn Rand, “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.)

I suggested, albeit indirectly, earlier in the discussion how the definition of ‘selfishness’ which Nide cited may very well commit the fallacy of package-dealing. In fact, the definition which Nide cited finds its usefulness insofar as the package-deal which it commits is accepted by those who adopt it. As I indicated, the definition seeks to “package” “concern for oneself” with “disregard for others,” which is tacitly intended to mean: at the expense of others. The implication here is that one can act in one’s own interests only so long as someone else is being harmed by his actions. Those who desire that the individual sacrifice himself to their interests will of course want him to accept the package-deal that one cannot act on behalf of his own interests without harming others in the process. It is to be taken for granted in the resulting moral calculus that harming others is intolerably wrong, so the package leads one to infer that one should not act on behalf of his own interests, for doing so will result in an inexcusable offense.

It is because of this nefarious undertow towards altruism embedded in the definition of ‘selfishness’ which Nide (along with many others) prefers, that I asked Nide to propose a new concept which denotes the orientation of action taken by an individual on behalf of his own interests which does not result in harming others. As I asked Nide, “If the concept ‘selfish’ packages ‘concern for oneself’ with ‘disregard for others’, what concept do we use simply to denote ‘concern primarily for oneself’ proper?” Since “concern primarily for oneself” does not imply willingness to harm others in the process of acting on behalf of one’s own interests, I suspect there’s a package-deal here, and the two orientations which the definition seeks to bundle into a single concept need to be disentangled, for the one does not necessarily imply the other.

Additionally, I pointed out the crucial fact, which Nide’s preferred definition seems to preclude outright, that one’s own interests could very well include other individuals. I gave my daughter as an example. My wife would be another. Many other individuals whom I know would also fit that category. And yet the definition of ‘selfishness’ which Nide prefers seems to disallow such considerations, and for no stated reason that I know of, which leads me to suspect that arbitrary motivations are lurking behind the scenes here.

Definitely an issue with exploring deeper.

As for doubt, I don’t think it has near the value that reason does. I’d say instead: Reason, don’t get out of bed without it.

Regards,
Dawson

Justin Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Hall said...

thank you for the clarification. My point about doubt was not to take anything away from reason. I agree reason comes first, doubt follows as a consequence. I keep harping on doubt because Hezekiah's quest for absolute epistemological certainty provides for no error correction in his thinking. It is this authoritarian way of thinking that I call exception too, not reason by any means.

reposted to fix errors:)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It's interesting that BB assumes he will always be able to chew.

I could have asked a 5 year old and he would have gave me a better answer.

Is this another case of "the law of causality is the law of identity in action"?

I can't remember how I learned to tie my shoes but since I have done it over a million times I guess that's the way it will always be. A is A or so says the objectivist.

In the bahnsen/smith dialogue this came up. I agree with bahnsen. You can't assimilate the law of causality with the law of identity. Things change.

Greg bahnsen did have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I am pretty sure for the most part he knew what he was talking about.

But Dawson attacks his scholarship because you know he's a christian and christians can't be right.

It's ridiculous.

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

Hezekiah wrote: "It's interesting that BB assumes he will always be able to chew."

I didn't come away with this from what Dawson said, but assuming that's true, why is it interesting to you?

Hezekiah wrote: "I could have asked a 5 year old and he would have gave me a better answer."

Why didn't you?

Hezekiah wrote: "Is this another case of "the law of causality is the law of identity in action"?"

You tell us.

Hezekiah wrote: "I can't remember how I learned to tie my shoes but since I have done it over a million times I guess that's the way it will always be. A is A or so says the objectivist."

Do you deny that A is A?

You wrote: "In the bahnsen/smith dialogue this came up. I agree with bahnsen. You can't assimilate the law of causality with the law of identity. Things change."

What does "change" presuppose?

Hezekiah wrote: "Greg bahnsen did have a Ph.D. in philosophy."

And Larry King never graduated high school -- what's your point?

Hezekiah wrote: "I am pretty sure for the most part he knew what he was talking about."

Because you have "faith" that he knows what he's talking about?

Hezekiah wrote: "But Dawson attacks his scholarship because you know he's a christian and christians can't be right."

Hmmm. And all this time I thought Dawson was showing how such mystical worldviews rely on a subjective metaphysics, whether Christian or not.

Hezekiah wrote: "It's ridiculous."

What is? Your metaphysics, epistemology and ethics? Yes. At long last, you finally utter something that makes sense.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Asked: Do you deny that A is A?

No.

You asked" What does "change" presuppose?

That causality and identity are not the same.

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Said: "And Larry King never graduated high school -- what's your point?"

Have you always been a wise guy?

You think Larry could teach a physics class?

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide wrote: “It's interesting that BB always assumes he will be able to chew.”

This is more of your dishonesty on display for the world to see. You’re ridiculously dishonest.

Where did anything I write say anything about what I assume *about the future*? I even explained that I don’t have to assume in the first place. So if I’m not assuming in the first place, I can’t be making any assumptions about the future. Automatizing what we learn does not mean we automatically assume that in the future we’ll always be able to do what we’ve learned to do and automatized. It simply means that when we perform the action again, we don’t have to busy ourselves with having to go through the steps by which we learned it, again.

To make things a little clearer for you: Either we automatize what we’ve learned and repeat over and over again, or we don’t. I recognize that we do. The alternative, which apparently is what your worldview offers since you characterize mine as “ridiculous,” could only be that one must relearn every task he performs every time he does it, without retaining what he learned the last time he did it. So for you, Nide, you must need to relearn how to chew your food every time you eat. Now that’s ridiculous! But since you’re a defender of the Christian faith, I take it that you’re speaking on behalf of your worldview.

Nide: “I could have asked a 5 year old and he would have gave me a better answer.”

Why assume this? You put assumptions in my mouth that I have nowhere affirmed, and then you announce assumptions which you make on your part which are both ridiculous and left unexplained.

Specifically what question did you have in mind for your five-year-old, and what answer do you think your five-year-old would give you? Why do you think it would be better? Better than specifically what, and in what way? Try it. There are plenty of five-year-olds around. What do they know about epistemology? I grant that they might know more than you, but I doubt any will explain how the mind automatizes what it learns and repeats. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

Or, are you saying that a five-year-old would, like you, have no knowledge of automatization, and because of this whatever explanation he provides would be better? Now that’s ridiculous.

[Continued…]

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Is this another case of ‘the law of causality is the law of identity in action’?”

Any instance of action is a case of the law of identity in action.

Nide: “I can't remember how I learned to tie my shoes but since I have done it over a million times I guess that's the way it will always be.”

Again, where did what I wrote say this or even suggest this? You’ve inserted a future assessment into my mouth that I nowhere offered. This is your dishonesty at work, Nide. If my position were truly full of holes, you wouldn’t need to mischaracterize my position in order to make it appear ridiculous. Anyone could do this. But it’s a fallacy known as straw man.

I even pointed out that after learning about the process by which we form abstractions, I made corrections to what I had automatized since my youth. So again we have more ridiculous dishonesty spewing from the keyboard of Nide here. Your zeal for dishonesty disallows you from integrating what you read. Now that’s ridiculous!

Nide: “A is A or so says the objectivist.”

While the Christian says 1+1+1=1. I’ll go with A is A, thank you. You can have your contradictions.

Nide: “In the bahnsen/smith dialogue this came up. I agree with bahnsen. You can't assimilate the law of causality with the law of identity. Things change.”

Where did you get the concept ‘change’, and what does it denote? Are you saying that action does not have identity? Do you really want to go in that direction, Nide? How would you be able to speak? Every action verb which you use in your speech is a concept which denotes action.

Above you used the causality “remember,” learn,” “tie,” “do,” “guess,” say,” come up,” “assimilate,” and “change.” By using these concepts, you assume they have meaning, which can only mean that you’re performatively acknowledging that action has identity. But by denying the Objectivist understanding of causality, you could only be saying that action has no identity. So your metaphysics is completely at odds with your actions. To be consistent with your agreement with Bahnsen’s rejection of the Objectivist view of causality, you would have to forgo the use of all concepts denoting action from your thinking. This would mean that you would have to swear off action verbs in your speech. Now that would be ridiculous!!

[Continued…]

Bahnsen Burner said...

Your statements make you look like a complete dumbass, Nide. Many of Bahnsen’s do too.

Consider for instance the following.

Bahnsen writes: “In actuality, this autonomous man is dull, stubborn, boorish, obstinate and stupid.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 56)

John Frame defines “autonomy” in the presuppositionalist context as the “attempt to live apart from any law external to the self.” The only “autonomous mind” on the Christian view, then, could be the triune god of Christian theism, for it does not live in obedience to any law external to itself.

Apologetic theorists who are inspired by Van Til’s apologetic embrace with the enthusiasm of a toothpaste commercial the idea that the Christian god is autonomous. He’s Mike Warren for example:

“The Christian view is solipsistic in the sense that there is no other autonomous mind except God’s… God’s mind is the only autonomous mind…” (Christian Civilization is the Only Civilization – In A Sense, Of Course)

“As Copernicus overturned the geocentric view with the heliocentric view, Van Til has overturned the atheist view that man's mind is autonomous with the view that God's mind is autonomous. The universe is theocentric rather than anthropocentric.” (Van Til Diagrammed)

According to Warren, that the Christian god is autonomous is integral to the Vantillian approach to apologetics.

The only position available to the Christian is that the Christian god is autonomous.

So now look at Jesus. Is not Jesus both God and man according to Christianity? Is not your god an autonomous mind? Or, do you think your god must abide by laws external to itself? That would be ridiculous given the context of Christian metaphysics.

So since according to Christianity Jesus is both God and man, here’s Greg Bahnsen in effect telling us that Jesus is “dull, stubborn, boorish, obstinate and stupid.”

This is Greg Bahnsen’s problem, not mine. I simply expose it for all to see.

[Continued…]

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Greg bahnsen did have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I am pretty sure for the most part he knew what he was talking about.”

You put much faith in academic hoop-jumping and certificates hanging on a wall. Bahnsen was what is rightly known as a quack in professional circles. You won’t be asked to read anything by Bahnsen in a standard philosophy course. He’s a nobody as far as academics are concerned. Only Christians, and among them only Calvinists who have a fetish for Vantillian presuppositionalism, find him enlightening.

But if you think Bahnsen knew his stuff, then by all means feel free to browse through my blog’s archives. You’re saying that a guy who thinks Jesus is “dull, stubborn, boorish, obstinate and stupid” is someone who “knew what he was talking about.”

I know of more things which Bahnsen said which are similarly ridiculous, especially given his confessional investment in Christianity. But these can wait for another time. For now, it's enough to observe Bahnsen calling Jesus "stupid." What a gas!

Nide: “But Dawson attacks his scholarship because you know he's a christian and christians can't be right.”

I expose Bahnsen’s dishonesty, fallacious reasoning, falsehoods, evasions and gimmicks. I expose yours, too. That’s why you resent me. It's ridiculous.

Regards,
Dawson

Justin Hall said...

Dawson said

"Above you used the causality “remember,” learn,” “tie,” “do,” “guess,” say,” come up,” “assimilate,” and “change.” By using these concepts, you assume they have meaning, which can only mean that you’re performatively acknowledging that action has identity. But by denying the Objectivist understanding of causality, you could only be saying that action has no identity. So your metaphysics is completely at odds with your actions. To be consistent with your agreement with Bahnsen’s rejection of the Objectivist view of causality, you would have to forgo the use of all concepts denoting action from your thinking. This would mean that you would have to swear off action verbs in your speech. Now that would be ridiculous!!



and this ladies and gentalmen is a classic example of the stolen conceopt fallacy, not that Hezekiah really cares or anything

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

When you're done contemplating Dawson's devastating reply to your comments, and after your head stops spinning from cognitive dissonance, could you please address my questions about Judas?

1) Why isn't Judas a hero?
2) Was Judas "faithful" to god's overall plan? Did he disobey god, or was he "the faithful servant" in playing his part to perfection in god's overall plan?
3) What would would have happened had Judas not betrayed Jesus? Would he have been going against god's overall plan? And what would his thwarting such an event mean for Christianity?

On question 3, I believe you or someone else mentioned that we would still be under the Law. If that's the case, then would John the Baptist have been preaching in vain? Would everything have been different, including even Jesus' birth? What would all those old testament prophecies that Christians like to point to as foretelling the virgin birth, coming messiah, and the crucifixion -- what would they actually refer to had Judas not betrayed Jesus?

Even though you told me I could find the answers to my questions in Acts 4, I was unable to do so.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Not only is Dawson wrong but is extremely deluded.
As I have stated all ready. He kicks and screams when he feels misrepresented. Then he turns around and does the same. You know the proverb " don't answer a fool according to his folly or you will be like". Instead of giving an answer he resorts to insults, personal attacks and so forth. I am still waiting for him to account for counting, uniformity, morality and etc.



Acts 4 "27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."


See verse 28?

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

Your complaints against Dawson are just your way of saying, "I am not able to answer the points you made. They don't fit with what people have told me, what my storybook says, and what I choose to believe."

Meanwhile, I had written:

"1) Why isn't Judas a hero?
2) Was Judas "faithful" to god's overall plan? Did he disobey god, or was he "the faithful servant" in playing his part to perfection in god's overall plan?
3) What would would have happened had Judas not betrayed Jesus? Would he have been going against god's overall plan? And what would his thwarting such an event mean for Christianity?

On question 3, I believe you or someone else mentioned that we would still be under the Law. If that's the case, then would John the Baptist have been preaching in vain? Would everything have been different, including even Jesus' birth? What would all those old testament prophecies that Christians like to point to as foretelling the virgin birth, coming messiah, and the crucifixion -- what would they actually refer to had Judas not betrayed Jesus?"

And you answered: "Acts 4 "27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."

And then you wrote: "See verse 28?"

Yes. Now, would you mind applying this passage to my questions? This should be pretty easy for you.

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

I am still waiting for him to account for counting, uniformity, morality and etc. "

and it has been repeatedly show that most of the these questions are fallacious complex and in most cases commit themselves to the stolen concept fallacy. What do you do when confronted with this? Do you correct this behavior, no. If you disagree with the assessment do you argue in a valid manor against them, no. We are not going to answer these questions on your terms because they harbor erroneous premises, get used to it, you will be waiting a long time. I have said it before and it bears repeating, they are for the most part stupid questions devoid of any meaningful semantic content. I will grant you that the question of morality is valid and of interest to me. However I doubt we would agree even on what morality is. Authoritarian morality of the commanded and the obeyed verity has nothing in common with a rational morality based on the understood and the chosen.

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

You think Larry king could teach a calculus course?

Anonymous said...

Justin,

Where do humans get their sense of morality from?

Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

A question, If I were hypothetically convinced by what you have said in our discussions do you expect me to stop questioning my own beliefs from that day onward? If I were to later discover something that contradicted my new found Christian belief would you expect me to disregard it? Just curious.

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide asked: "Where do humans get their sense of morality from?"

The rational ones get it from existence.

The irrational ones get it from their imagination or from teachers who can't distinguish their imagination from reality.

Regards,
Dawson

Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

"The rational ones get it from existence. "

given that I don't think Hezekaih can see past direct causation, I suspect he will interpret that literally to mean you find it under a rock or something.

@Hezekiah

How about my question?

Anonymous said...

Justin,

I believe in gremlins.

Ok, now answer mine.

morality

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

If your god's thinking and actions are the standard of what's moral, and Judas was merely carrying out your god's plan, why wasn't Judas moral?

If Judas was just a robot (a predestined human), guided by godly software (god's plan), could you explain how one could even label Judas' actions as moral or immoral when Judas had no choice in the matter?

And, could you please answer my other questions about Judas?

Also, is god restricted by his own plan? (even though, on Christianity's own terms, such a being wouldn't think nor "plan.")

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

You think Larry king could teach a General Chemistry class?

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

Correction: Found out Larry King did, in fact, graduate from high school, (at least according to Wikipedia.)

Could he teach a General Chemistry, calculus, or physics class?

I have no idea. But given that he does have a high school education, I'd say that's a step in the right direction. And, though highly unlikely at this point in his life, if he ended gaining the knowledge necessary to teach such subjects, at no step along the way would faith be a prerequisite.

Now that I've answered your question, could you answer mine regarding Judas?

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

It's interesting, Ydemoc, that you had to correct yourself. I actually think it's hilarious. The fact that you would spew anything out without checking it's truthfulness is quite amazing.




I'll respond soon. Let me enjoy this one for a little bit.


You think Greg Bahnsen could teach a class on Aristotle?

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "It's interesting, Ydemoc, that you had to correct yourself."

Wasn't the first time. And it won't be the last.

Hezekiah wrote: "I actually think it's hilarious. The fact that you would spew anything out without checking it's truthfulness is quite amazing."

Yes. This is a lesson that you should learn from.

Hezekiah wrote: "I'll respond soon. Let me enjoy this one for a little bit."

Knock yourself out.

Hezekiah wrote: "You think Greg Bahnsen could teach a class on Aristotle?"

Not anymore. He's dead. While he was alive? Certainly. Objectively? Hard to fathom, given his premises.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Said: "Not anymore. He's dead. While he was alive? Certainly. Objectively? Hard to fathom, given his premises.


Well, you might want to check the truthfulness of this claim also.


The Christian claim is that those that "die" in christ merely are "asleep". So, if Greg Bahnsen was saved, from the info that I have he seemed to be, he's not dead.


2 Cor 5: "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord"

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah had written: "You think Greg Bahnsen could teach a class on Aristotle?"

I responded "Not anymore. He's dead. While he was alive? Certainly. Objectively? Hard to fathom, given his premises."


Hezekiah responded: "Well, you might want to check the truthfulness of this claim also."

I place my Larry King remark in the category of a mistake -- the mistake being that I thought I had heard it mentioned that he never finished high school. I consider it akin to getting an answer wrong on "Jeopardy." You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I also notified everyone of the correction. Will you do the same when you come to realize that the bible is filled with errors of all kinds?

Hezekiah wrote: "The Christian claim is that those that "die" in christ merely are "asleep"."

Yes. It is a claim. And every time you utter a supernatural claim like this, you are *willfully* pomulgating something that is false, if not arbitrary.

Hezekiah: "So, if Greg Bahnsen was saved, from the info that I have he seemed to be, he's not dead."

Here's another opportunity for you to promulgate the arbitrary: You couch this question with terms like "if" "seemed to be"... What gives you any pause in saying with certainty that Greg Bahnsen wasn't saved?

And even if he wasn't dead and instead just asleep, would he have the ability to teach a class on Aristotle while in a state of sleep? I don't think so. You need to think things through, Hezekiah.

And even after Greg Bahnsen wakes up (in heaven?), what use will there be for any teaching of any kind, or learning of any kind, especially of such trivial, earthly matters as the philosophy of Aristotle?

Hezekiah quoted the bible: "2 Cor 5: "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord"

Your whole worldview rests on false premises, and has a multitude of internal problems and errors as a result. This is what you're peddling nearly every time you post: the false and the arbitrary. That's far worse than the mistake I made.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

You seem a bit sore over your "little" blunder. It's interesting that you keep on charging the bible with being false and expect me to believe it on your say so. You've already shown your untrustworthiness. What you really need to do is repent.

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "You seem a bit sore over your "little" blunder."

Not at all. But you are very ignorant over your big biblical blunders.


Hezekiah wrote: "It's interesting that you keep on charging the bible with being false..."

It's typical that you keep positing something outside of reality.

Hezekiah wrote: "...and expect me to believe it on your say so."

I expect you to "believe" nothing of the sort, for believing doesn't make it so. Reality makes it so. It is a fact that you cannot escape, despite your protests and beliefs to the contrary.

Hezekiah wrote: "You've already shown your untrustworthiness."

Why do you extend your characterization of my trustworthiness beyond the context of pop culture references? I might agree with you if you were to limit it to my credibility or trustworthiness on Larry King. In the future, any Larry King information I use in my comments should be judged suspect, until I prove otherwise.

But to make the claim that I am untrustworthy simply because I made a mistake in knowledge about Larry King really says more about you than it does me. It says that you are prone to judging people disproportionately in any mistake they might make.

I bet if you were around in 33 c.e. or whatever year it was, you would have been one of the people in Jerusalem yelling, "Crucify him!" (if this yelling happened at all).

And why wouldn't you yell that? Wasn't the crucifixion necessary for the "greater good?"

Hezekiah wrote: "What you really need to do is repent."

You are getting good at using sarcasm. I'm not sure your super-duper imaginary deity would like it though.

Now, can you answer my Judas questions?

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Is there anything else your wrong about that we need to know about?


While we wait and since you keep pressing me about Judas I'll give you answer.

Judas did exactly what he wanted to do. He acted in accordance with his nature. He was simply carrying out the desires of his heart.

The real problem is your asking me for the "mechanics" of God's plan.

How is it that God predetermines and controls everything that happens and Man is held responsible for his sin?

I don't know.

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "Is there anything else your wrong about that we need to know about?"

I am (was) wrong in thinking that you have (had) the ability to engage Dawson in a point by point exchange without resorting to fallacies.

Hezekiah wrote: "While we wait and since you keep pressing me about Judas I'll give you answer."

Let's review the questions first and see if what you wrote answers them. I had asked:
********
1) Why isn't Judas a hero?
2) Was Judas "faithful" to god's overall plan? Did he disobey god, or was he "the faithful servant" in playing his part to perfection in god's overall plan?
3) What would would have happened had Judas not betrayed Jesus? Would he have been going against god's overall plan? And what would his thwarting such an event mean for Christianity?

On question 3, I believe you or someone else mentioned that we would still be under the Law. If that's the case, then would John the Baptist have been preaching in vain? Would everything have been different, including even Jesus' birth? What would all those old testament prophecies that Christians like to point to as foretelling the virgin birth, coming messiah, and the crucifixion -- what would they actually refer to had Judas not betrayed Jesus?"

To which you answered: "Acts 4 "27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."

And then you wrote: "See verse 28?"

And then I responded: "Yes. Now, would you mind applying this passage to my questions? This should be pretty easy for you."
**********


And this is the way you answered all my questions: "Judas did exactly what he wanted to do. He acted in accordance with his nature. He was simply carrying out the desires of his heart."

Do you really think this answers the question of whether or not Judas was a hero? Or my question pertaining to who it was that was in charge of Judas "carrying out the desires of his heart?" Was this not a part of your god's plan?
Was Judas, perhaps unbeknownst to even himself, being "faithful" to god's overall plan of having him betray Jesus? Is god happy the way it all worked out?

You wrote: "The real problem is your asking me for the "mechanics" of God's plan."

No. That's not a problem, at least not for me, because the imaginary has no "mechanics" for me to concern myself with. And that's not what I was asking, but it does raise other issues.

But you do exist, and I am wondering what *your* answers are to these questions.

Take them question by question. Answer them the best you can.

You wrote: "How is it that God predetermines and controls everything that happens and Man is held responsible for his sin? I don't know."

May I offer one explanation? It's all made up and rationalizations are used to shore up any problems. When that doesn't work, resort to mystery.

Meanwhile, back to what you think: Are you saying that your god is not ultimately responsible for creating Judas and having it play out the way it did? But man is? The creature that god created? Knowing this would happen? Like a robot?

More questions on this topic later. I have to go read up a little more on Larry King.

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

One other question about "Judas' betrayal of Jesus": Are you happy (an emotion which you say you exhibit because it is a reflection of your god's thinking and actions) that Judas betrayed Jesus? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

Just a reminder: As I understand your worldview, any answers you give to my questions are preordained by your maker.

This should be fascinating.

Ydemoc

Nide Corniell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ydemoc said...

To Hezekiah, Nide, and r_c321 (aka "The Trinity"):

Leaving aside the fact that the content of the site you linked to has its foundation in metaphysical subjectivism and is chock-full of stolen concepts and anti-scientific (read: anti-factual) assertions and dogma, can you point me to the page on this site where I might find *your* answers to my questions about Judas?

As a side note of interest, The Three Stooges were also a trinity.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Good use of sarcasm.

It's interesting that you keep bringing up charges without bothering to prove anything.

If you weren't so delusional I would have stopped our dialogues a long time ago. You, Dawson, AJ, and Justin need to get saved. That is the only reason I continue to post here.


I answered your Judas questions. So, what, specifically, are you having trouble with?

Ydemoc said...

And so we come full circle to see that not much has changed for the Trinity of Hezekiah, Nide, and r_c321.

To perhaps put a fitting end on this particular comment thread, I quote Dawson, from his entry under which these comments sprang -- "Answering Nide's Questions about the Uniformity of Nature"; September 6, 2011:

"I can’t say which is the bigger impediment for Nide’s understanding, whether it’s his self-inflicted ignorance of his opponent’s position, or his commitment to mischaracterizing his opponent’s position by proposing simplistic implications which in fact are not suggested by that position. But either way, his lack of understanding is persistent and systemic.
What Objectivism precludes is the primacy of consciousness, confusing imagination for reality, substituting emotion for knowledge, etc. I don’t know how anyone could possibly object to these, but here’s Nide trying to malign a position which is distinguished by steadfast allegiance to the fact that wishing doesn’t make it so.
By ‘faith’, Objectivism means acceptance of ideational content without evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. It does not mean “taking something for granted.” Not even the bible equates faith with taking something for granted. But here’s Nide, acting as though it does.
So just to make this crystal clear: Objectivism rejects accepting ideational content without evidence or contrary to sound reasoning.

When Christians kick against this policy, they tell us about themselves.
The Objectivist view of nature is not void of evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. We perceive and deal with nature directly every moment of our lives. Nide has not shown that the Objectivist view of nature is void of evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. There is nothing about the Objectivist view of nature which is inconsistent with its epistemology, and this is why Nide cannot present a validation of his deliberately slanderous construals. If Nide or anyone else thinks that Objectivism’s view of nature is inconsistent in some way with its epistemology, he needs to show this, not simply say that such an offense exists without showing where such an offense occurs. He needs to do his homework instead of thriving on drive-by charges that only expose his gaping ignorance of what he’s talking about."

***end quote***

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

I think it's more fitting If I end it.

Dawson is wrong.






Blessings

Paul Baird said...

Not commenting, but lurking :-)

ActionJackson864 said...

"You, Dawson, AJ, and Justin need to get saved."

We can't be saved from your imagination.

Anonymous said...

AJ,

This is a brilliant question that Dawson has devised.

"When I imagine your god, how is what I am imagining not imaginary?"


Now I have something to ask Muslims, JW's, Mormons etc.

It should be interesting.

So, AJ when I asses your unbelief how do I distinguish your delusion from what may be insanity?

Ydemoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ActionJackson864 said...

Ydemoc you crack me up.

Hez said:

"So, AJ when I asses your unbelief how do I distinguish your delusion from what may be insanity?"

I don't know what your question means since it doesn't make sense.

What does it mean to "asses"[sic] my unbelief from what may be insanity?

My unbelief is not "insanity" because it's not foolish to deny belief in deities that cannot be distinguished apart from what is imaginary.

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Are you still waiting to be crowned the next prophet?

AJ,

How do you know your not crazy?

Ydemoc said...

Action"Jackson wrote: "Ydemoc you crack me up."

Well, thanks, and I'm glad you saw my comment before I deleted it (if that's what you're referring to).

About two minutes after I posted it, I thought to myself, "Nah, I don't think I want to post this. Despite it being humorous, it will just be inflammatory rather than instructive or investigative, and take the discussion into areas we've already been before."

Ydemoc

ActionJackson864 said...

"AJ,

How do you know your not crazy?"

Because I deny belief in deities that cannot be distinguished apart from what is imaginary.

But there are a slew of other reasons...too many to type.

Drew said...

Wow, you guys are still at it! There are some humorous gems in there. It reminds me of being in college; all that's missing is the bong and Christmas lights on the wall.

I also wish the discussion about mathematicians believing in the existence of abstract universals continued. My interest piqued because my brother is a math PhD and super brilliant, but I find his worldview to be utterly different than mine. It's like his mathematical acumen lends itself well also to a mystical tendency, even insofar as he is a committed catholic. Sometimes I think he goes along with the catholic ceremonies to appease his wife, who does it to please her parents, but he no doubt has strong theistic leanings.

Myself being hopeless at math, but having stronger linguistic and common sense abilities, tended to find myself rejecting God-belief, while he embraced it. Anyone else noticed this pattern?

Anonymous said...

Drew,

Which one was it Ydemoc and Justin's bible study?

AJ's "little" getaways?

or

Dawson's temper tantrums?

Justin Hall said...

Hey, cut me some slack, I am on the 5th year of my one year bible study guide!

Ydemoc said...

To All,

Just thought I'd post something apropos from Dawson's "Faith as Hope in the Imaginary," June 05, 2008:

"The reason why Christians become so upset with non-believers when they refrain from indulging in the imaginary, is because anyone can imagine anything he wants and believers are disturbed when people don't go along with the pretense. The believer wants his religious beliefs to be true, so he can't understand why others wouldn't want this as well and why anyone would resist confusing the imaginary with the real. And because he wants his religious beliefs to be true, he resents those who don't go along with the pretense that they are true. By its very nature, non-belief pours heaping coals on the mind of the bible-believer. This is why internet apologists have acquired the reputation for condescending attitudes, vitriolic defensiveness, contentiousness and pettiness."

and...

"...in the mind of the believer, faith validates fantasy through his hope in what he imagines. The Christian devotional program provides, in the form of biblical verses intended to reassure the believer that the imaginary is real and comfort him in times of doubt and distress, the formulae for reinforcing the delusion that Jesus is real and in the believer's life. For this to be successful, it is crucial that the believer imagine that his god is present with him at all times, observing what the believer observes, and empathizing with his situation on a day to day basis."

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Can you put it in the form of an argument maybe a couple of premises and a conclusion?

Justin Hall said...

Premises

1. People are often frustrated when their desired wants are not met

2. Christians are people

3. Christians want others to believe that same as they do

4. Christian arguments are extremely weak

5. Week arguments often fail with people committed to reason

Inference, the weak arguments of Christians often fail causing a number of them to become frustrated in there goal of having their beliefs spread

Conclusion. Many tho not all Christians will be frustrated in their goal of spreading the Christian faith.
Given your behavior to date Nide,


I would wager this applies to you.

Anonymous said...

Justin,

You admitted that you could be wrong.

Can you put it in the form of an argument. Maybe a couple of premises and a conclusion?

Anonymous said...

Justin,

You ever going to present your argument?


Ydemoc,


It's interesting that you, suddenly, posted another Bethrick
"clip" is that suppose to be a response to my questions to Drew?

Ydemoc said...

The Trinity (Hezekiah, Nide, r_c321) wrote: "It's interesting that you, suddenly, posted another Bethrick "clip" is that suppose to be a response to my questions to Drew?"

I was re-reading Dawson's "Faith as Hope in the Imaginary," came across these two great pieces of writing again, and thought it might be a great time for people to see them -- whether anyone here has read them before or not.

So the answer is no, I wasn't *specifically* using them as a response to what you wrote to Drew -- though, given your worldview, I will say that much of what is written in these quotes certainly applies to you.

Ydemoc

Justin Hall said...

@Hezekaih

premises

1. I do not have knowledge of everything

2. I am capable of learning knowledge

3. What I learn will change my understanding of what I previously knew

Inference, conclusions that I have now can be changed by what I will learn

Conclusion, knowledge that I have now is to varying degrees tentative and thus some of the conclusions I now have are undoubtedly in error.

One conclusion that I have is that you are an idiot. You have not given any new information that might cause me to reassessment that as an error.

Note, this is not an ad hominem, your arguments are not invalid because you are an idiot, I have concluded that you are an idiot because you keep provided invalid arguments.

Justin Hall said...

Additionally the argument about knowledge being tentative applies to you and everyone else as well, Yes you too Nide can be in error, so no, you have not made some awesome point, you just keep on making a spectacle of yourself.

Justin Hall said...

on Sept 16 at 10.04 I asked

"A question, If I were hypothetically convinced by what you have said in our discussions do you expect me to stop questioning my own beliefs from that day onward? If I were to later discover something that contradicted my new found Christian belief would you expect me to disregard it? Just curious."

on Sept 17 at 4:06 Hezekaih answered

"Justin,

I believe in gremlins.

Ok, now answer mine.

morality"

seriously WTF? What kind of an idiot answers an simple yes or no question that way?

Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote, regarding Trinity's answer to your question: "seriously WTF? What kind of an idiot answers an simple yes or no question that way?"

Perhaps the kind who chooses to detach his mind from reality and -- fueled by inputs from a storybook -- enters the realm of imagination, where a super-duper deity resides, preordaining and controlling whatever comes to pass, including answers that spring forth in response to the kind of questions you pose to such an individual.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Justin,

I think it's hilarious that you even provided that "argument".
After being pressed to provide your "argument" I understand why you would resort to name callingty and personal attacks. It's quite a spectacle.


Justin without wasting time can you provide your view of morality?


Ydemoc I always enjoy your side-commentary it's pretty funny.

How about you can you also be wrong?

Well, since you have already shown that you are. I was thinking maybe you can put it in the form of an argument you know a couple of premises and a conclusion.

I read Dawson's cartoon universe entry it's pretty hilarious. In one of the following entries He asked P.Manata a really funny question:

"Can your God make rocks sing"?


Well, not only can he make them sing, Dawson, but he can also make them dance.



Blessings

Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “I think it's hilarious that you even provided that ‘argument’.”

Nide, I think it’s hilarious that you’ve never even provided an argument for your position to begin with. That’s hilarious.

Nide: “After being pressed to provide your ‘argument’ I understand why you would resort to name callingty and personal attacks. It's quite a spectacle.”

After you’ve been challenged to present an argument for your views, you continue to resort to fallacy and dishonest. It’s quite a spectacle.

Nide: “I read Dawson's cartoon universe entry it's pretty hilarious.”

Indeed, it is hilarious: that people would adopt a view of the universe which conceives of it in a manner analogous to a cartoon. That’s pretty hilarious. What’s even more hilarious is when adults who adopt such a view, defend it publicly and expect other adults to accept it as truth on their say so, and then deny that the univese as thier worldview conceives of it is analogous to a cartoon in a cartoonist's hands. Now that’s really hilarious!

Nide, quoting me: "Can your God make rocks sing?”

Nide answers: “Well, not only can he make them sing, Dawson, but he can also make them dance.”

Well that’s pretty hilarious. On Nide’s worldview, rocks can sing and dance. At least he admits it. In the context of a cartoon, a cartoonist can also make rocks sing and dance. In fact, stop-action animators can make rocks dance. Check out this choice selection from Sesame Street:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgQm59thT5g

It’s like the old commercials: Is it live, or is it Memorex?

When it comes to Christianity, we can now ask: Is it God, or is it Sesame Street?

That’s hilarious.

Keep the jokes coming, Nide. You play the court jester better than anyone could ask for. I’m really enjoying your antics.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

You wrote: "When it comes to Christianity, we can now ask: Is it God, or is it Sesame Street?"

Yep. A quick read-through of Wikipedia under the topic of Jim Henson's creation, "Fraggle Rock" reveals the following characters:

The Avalanche Monster (performed by Bob Stutt) - An animated pile of walking boulders. This creature has very poor eyesight but quite acute hearing and lives in Avalanche Pass on the Wonder Trail.

Singing Cacti (voiced by Sharon Lee Williams) — The Singing Cacti have a song that mesmerizes all those who hear it. They live on the Wonder Trail that leads up to Wonder Mountain.

The Invisible Garboil - A fearsome demon of Fraggle lore that lives in the Great Outer Maze. No-one knows its size or shape — due to its invisibility. Gobo accidentally releases it but tricks it back into its rocky tomb.

The Beast of Bluerock - It lives in a mysterious lair that is only visible for the two days after the Doozer equinox, and then unseen for another year. It is later proven to be the fear in the Fraggles' hearts, a test by the Trash Heap.

Ydemoc

Bahnsen Burner said...

Ydemoc: "A quick read-through of Wikipedia under the topic of Jim Henson's creation, 'Fraggle Rock' reveals the following characters:"

Fascinating. Nide's worldview has to compete with the likes of Fraggle Rock.

Now that's hilarious!

Regards,
Dawson

Bahnsen Burner said...

Hey Ydemoc,

Quick question for you. Remember when you asked Nide if he thought Thomas Jefferson was a fool?

Did Nide get back to you on this? I was briefly scanning some of the comments, but I couldn't find where Nide addressed this question.

Regard,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

You wrote: "Quick question for you. Remember when you asked Nide if he thought Thomas Jefferson was a fool?

Did Nide get back to you on this? I was briefly scanning some of the comments, but I couldn't find where Nide addressed this question."

I think he did. He retorted something to the effect of, "Can smart people sometimes do (say) foolish things?"... or something like that.

And I'm not sure of my exact reply to that, if I replied at all.

As soon as I locate his exact reply, I'll post it.

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I found Trinity's reply to my Thomas Jefferson question. This is from his comment on September 14, 2011 at 5:41 p.m.:

Trinity wrote: "You asked this a few days ago Hey, Hezekiah, was Thomas Jefferson a fool? Are some fools smarter than you? Thanks for the compliment. I have a question for you now. Are there smart fools?"

And here was my reply on the same day, at 8:25 p.m.: "It would be much to [sic] easy here (although not entirely inaccurate) if I were to say, "Yes, Hezekiah, there are smart fools. And since the time of my question, it's become clearer that you are not one of them."

You see how easy it is to disparage others, Hezekiah? How unproductive it can be? Where would a response like mine get us? I believe I originally posed this question to make this very point to you, since you were calling people fools and/or utilizing a bible verse to do it for you.

Perhaps more on this later, and the importance of keeping context."

***end quote***

Ydemoc

Bahnsen Burner said...

Yes, I saw your comment responding to his question. I'm just wondering if Nide has stated for the record whether or not he thinks Thomas Jefferson is a fool. That was the question you posed to him, and I think it's a good question. His reply was 'Thanks for the compliment. I have a question for you now." This doesn't answer your question at all.

I was wondering if I've missed something, but apparently there was nothing to have missed, since he apparently hasn't answered your question in the first place.

But just in case I missed it, let me know. I'm curious about this as Jefferson has been a topic of discussion recently in some conversations I've had with one of my co-workers.

Regards,
Dawson

Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

If I locate anything, I'll let you know. But I actually think the topic died on the vine.

By the way, I believe Trinity's storybook tells him that he is in danger of damnation for calling people fools. So he had better watch out!

Then again, maybe his calling others fools is an indication of his selectivity when it comes to various biblical verses applying to him. In which case, he's turned himself into the judge of his god's words and directives.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Happy to see Dawson out if his den. I knew that would bring him out.


Ydemoc let's not keep Dawson waiting what's your issue with jefferson?


I asked a question that you refused to answer.


Here it is again:

Are there smart fools?


Ydemoc what is it with you and animals?

I answered your fool complaint already. Why are you bringing it up again?

Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Read back a few comments and you will see why it was brought up again.

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

Are there smart fools?

Ydemoc said...

Sometimes when replying to Trinity, there are many, many things that are left unexamined in my initial response. Fortunately, reviewing older comments often reveals opportunities for further inquiry.

For instance, in a comment left in reply to something I asked about morality and self-defense [September 13, 2011 7:16 PM], Trinity wrote:

"There is a big difference between murder and kill."

What is this "big difference"? And how is it that Trinity became aware of this "big difference"? Is this "big difference" explained for us in the bible? If so, where?

At what point in the 200,000 years prior to the Old Testament being written did humans recognize the "difference between murder and kill"? Or was this "difference" only recognized by humans once the Ten Commandments were in place?

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Are there smart fools?"

Answered already. Did my response slip your mind?

Ydemoc

Anonymous said...

Ydemoc,

I see you continue to refuse to give an answer. Your silence says it all. So, on to the next topic.

200,000 years that's a pretty big figure. Do you have a source or this another case of you spewing out something that you heard on tv?

Anonymous said...

Can you repost your answer because I haven't seen it.

Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Can you repost your answer because I haven't seen it."

This tells me quite a bit about your selectivity as it concerns your reading. It also seems to fit in perfectly with what my answer was.

I had written:"It would be much to [sic] easy here (although not entirely inaccurate) if I were to say, "Yes, Hezekiah, there are smart fools. And since the time of my question, it's become clearer that you are not one of them."

I wrote this back on September 14, 2011. I also re-posted it in response to an inquiry from Dawson, which you seemed to have also failed to carefully read.

Ydemoc

Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "200,000 years that's a pretty big figure. Do you have a source or this another case of you spewing out something that you heard on tv?"

This from: NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=1522)

How long have humans existed on Earth?

Human have existed for roughly half a million years, but this answer depends on the exact definition of "human". Fossil evidence shows that several human-like lineages developed during the past million years or so. >From fossils, the appearance of Homo sapiens is dated at about half a million years, and of anatomically modern Homo sapiens at about a hundred thousand years, values that are also supported by genomic evidence. Another data point, although not something you asked directly, is that the recent complete sequencing of the genome of the chimpanzee, which is the closest living relative of humans, suggests that chimps and humans diverged from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago. Of the many intermediate related species that have existed since then, only chimps and modern humans survive today. (David Morrison
NASA Astrobiology Institute; Senior Scientist
June 12, 2006)

********

Next, from Universetoday.com, we have...

How Long Have Humans Been on Earth?
by Fraser Cain on August 22, 2009

Humans have spread across the entire planet, colonizing every corner. But humans have really been on the planet for a fraction of the lifetime of the Earth. Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years.


Humans are a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae. You, me and everyone on Earth is a homo sapiens. This is Latin for the term, “wise human”. As humans, we have a highly developed brain, a bipedal gait, and opposable thumbs.

It’s believed that humans originated about 200,000 years ago in the Middle Paleolithic period in southern Africa. By 70,000 years ago, humans migrated out of Africa and began colonizing the entire planet. They spread to Eurasia and Oceania 40,000 years ago, and reached the Americas by 14,500 years ago.

One of the oldest sites of human settlement is located at Middle Awash in Ethiopia, where humans lived 160,000 years ago.

*****

And this from TalkOrigins.com
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html)

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)

Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).

*******

Ydemoc

Paul Baird said...

@Ydemoc

I do wish you wouldn't keep confusing the issue by quoting sources.

:-)

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 506   Newer› Newest»