Sunday, December 04, 2011

Christianity's Psychological Price Tag

Alex Botten recently commented on my blog. He wrote:
I find it slightly disturbing that the Christians are complaining that they can't deal with anything other than bite sized points.
At a guess, their religion's absolute failure to account for knowledge causes them to run from any situation where they might learn something.

No doubt Alex is reacting here to statements by Christian apologists - individuals who style themselves as “ordained” by the Christian god to go out into the world to defend the Christian faith and preach their god’s “word” to everyone – wherein they complain about the length (of all things!) of writings critical of Christianity, such as those which can be found on my blog.

Such complaints may indeed seem puzzling given the vast amounts of writing found in, say, Bahnsen’s Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis (at over 700 pages), N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God (also over 700 pages), Craig Keener’s Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (at over 1200 pages!), or the bible itself (my copy is well over 1000 pages). Such writings would take an individual weeks to read, supposing he has the time available to devote to them. In the case of the bible, a man is essentially expected to accept all of its contents as “knowledge,” even though statistically few individuals set down to digest it cover to cover, and the human mind does not have the ability to integrate all its contents into a cohesive whole, even if one accepts all the conflicts and contradictions one would have to navigate through in trying to understand it.

In the blog in which Alex posted his comment, a Christian apologist who has essentially set up camp in my blogspot’s comments files and posts under the moniker “Hezekiah Ahaz,” made the following statement:
I don't have my snow gear with me right now so I'm afraid I won't survive the avalanche of words(your writings).
Hezekiah Ahaz had challenged me to a debate and asked me to provide an “opening statement,” to which I directed him to several blog entries which I have already written and would be happy for him to consider as my opening statement. The above statement was his reaction to this proposal in response to his invitation. He’s clearly not up to a debate if he cannot read more than two sentences. But if he reads Christian writings, his inability to read more than a few sentences seems to be rather selective.

Perhaps Alex is write: folks like “Hezekiah” really don’t want to learn. In fact, I wish I knew of any evidence which suggests otherwise, but sadly I must confess: I don’t.

Elsewhere, and similarly, Christian apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate has proudly denounced my writings as “verbal diarrhea” and “argumentum ad verbosium,” without of course actually interacting with my arguments. Apparently he thinks a “debate” can be won by issuing epithets and aspersions. No counter-argument or thoughtful interaction need be presented in dealing with criticisms of Christianity.

If a non-Christian used this “method” of “rebuttal,” apologists would no doubt have a field day in pointing out the myriad fallacies it commits.

But Alex’s comment provides even broader insight here. Consider:

While some Christian apologists – primarily the “theorists” who travel in packs and limit their direct interaction with outsiders to cordial one-on-ones which remain ever-detached from the kind of heat that is often generated by newbies valiantly trying to defend the faith – emphasize the importance of at least maintaining an appearance of scholarship, those who are out trying to make a name for themselves in internet skirmishes with vocal critics of Christianity, seem to have little grasp of the concept of scholarship to begin with.

At least in the case of the drive-by apologists who like to post their tried-but-bogus charge of “begging the question,” and those who continually seek to redirect the focus of conversation on the personalities of their opponents, it's as though they resented persons who really do understand things, as though understanding itself constituted some kind of threat.

For instance, Hezekiah Ahaz’s running commentary continues to remind me of Proverbs 3:7, which states:
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
Driven by faith in the imaginary, the believer seeks to embody this teaching in himself throughout his life, and in so doing he must pay a hefty price tag. And what he gets out of it is surely not worth what he’s invested in it. This is, ironically, why he continues to invest more of himself in it: he’s hoping for a big pay-off that will never come.

The result is a psychologically painful emotional investment which leaves a man in spiritual ruin.

When the gung-ho apologist encounters other individuals who are not making the same sacrifice as he is, he naturally wants to validate his choice to make such an investment himself. Since he’s caught in a rotten deal to begin with, he cannot validate his choice by pointing to results that those who haven’t made the same investment would find positive or attractive. Instead, he finds that, in order to validate his gamble on the imaginary, he needs somehow to denigrate those who have not made the same sacrifices as he has. They need to be cut down, overcome, vanquished, by any means necessary.

This is why it's so imperative in the believer's mind to make encounters with non-believers a personal matter, for intellectually he has no ammunition whatsoever. He's been suckered, and this is what he's trying to hide himself. So he does what he can to put the spotlight on his adversaries personally, and his goal is to discredit them as individuals rather than interacting with their position in a mature and intellectual manner.

The apologist thus fulfills the teaching which the New Testament puts into Jesus’ mouth, namely:
Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Mt. 18:3; emphasis added)
Observe how often internet apologists for Christianity display a most childish attitude, asking the question “How do you know?” in response to everything one says on behalf of his own position, if not simply making the empty charge of “you’re begging the question.” These apologists would have us all believe we’re simply too stupid to be Christian in the first place.

Are they really doing their interest in defending their faith any good?

by Dawson Bethrick

Labels: ,

96 Comments:

Blogger Alex B said...

Spot on, as always.

Ever thought of writing a book?

December 04, 2011 8:38 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 04, 2011 8:42 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I know that when I professed to be a Christian, when faced with questions or information that didn't mesh with my belief, I would shy away from thinking about it, placing it into a separate category in my mind -- compartmentalize it. For example, I would be dismissive of evolution, thinking that it was just man's silly attempt to explain that which he didn't understand; the real truth is over here in the bible. I guess I saw them both as "beliefs" with one being wrong and one being right.

And as you point out in your blog entry: "...it's as though they [drive-by apologists] resented persons who really do understand things, as though understanding itself constituted some kind of threat."

This threat is exactly what it was that motivated me to dismiss any knowledge that conflicted with belief. It was the threat that if I went too far down the road of knowledge and understanding, I would find out things that were difficult to explain from a believer's perspective.

It's like when I was a child and other kids told me that Santa wasn't real. I didn't want to hear it. I didn't want to find that out. It was a threat to what I believed. I thought it would destroy my happiness and shatter my world.

It didn't and it doesn't. And knowledge and understanding never can.

Ydemoc

December 04, 2011 9:21 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Another one bites the dust. Ydemoc the "ex" Christian not surprising at all.


AJ,

Since it seems that dawson doesn't want to debate me. How about it me and you five questions each?

Alex,

What is knowledge?

And what knowledge can't Christians "account for"?

December 04, 2011 1:26 PM  
Blogger Alex B said...

"What is knowledge?"



1 Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2 What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.


"And what knowledge can't Christians "account for"?"

Well, as Dawson has pointed out, you have zilch when it comes to a theory of concepts, also basic maths seems to be an issue (really, PI is 3??), as well as understandings of cosmology, biology, history, archaeology, physics, chemistry, geology, geography....

Let's not even get into the fact that you have to assume the Primacy of Existence BEFORE you can even start building your theistic tower of idiocy!

December 04, 2011 1:52 PM  
Blogger Alex B said...

Oh, I should also add that the Bible's information on how to treat various illnesses is so far beyond wrong to be actually dangerous.

December 04, 2011 1:54 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc, Dawson and others

my apologies, I have been working on difficult project and have not had any time to devote to this or pretty much anything else. I have greatly enjoyed reading the latest posts however.

@Alex B

love the post, however you said


"Let's not even get into the fact that you have to assume the Primacy of Existence BEFORE you can even start building your theistic tower of idiocy!"

I disagree, we need to keep coming back to this. The presupper accuses us of stealing from their world view and that is really galling when one realizes that it is the exact opposite in fact.

December 04, 2011 3:48 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Alex,

Why is science possible?

Your PI objection has been answered here already try the archives sometime.

Actually, I assume the sovereignty of God to build my theistic tower of "idiocy".

Remember God is existence. See why objectivism presupposes Christianity?


So, Why aren't you delusional?


What illnesses can you give an example?

December 04, 2011 3:58 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

My inbox has been empty for weeks. What ever happen to your reply?

December 04, 2011 4:00 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Alex,

"Theory of concepts" Dawson's favorite subject. But that's all it is a theory.

How do you remember things?

December 04, 2011 4:04 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 04, 2011 4:27 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Alex

Nide said "Your PI objection has been answered here already try the archives sometime."

he is referring to an exchange that happened between us where I brought up that objection as well as two others that I later retracted. I however never retracted the claim that the bible states pi is equal to 3 and is thus wrong. Very selective memory on the part of Nide

@Nide

and it will remain empty. Nide I realized what was going on, you have me running all over the place answering this, and that, and it would never end, nor get you any closer to the main point. That main point being you came here claiming we were wrong, if anything you should be answering our questions. If you are truly interested in neurology and child development, devote some time to reading up on it. As it is coding a game for x86 architecture is of far more value to me then running down any old inane question you have.

you said "Remember God is existence. See why objectivism presupposes Christianity?"

and I and others have raised objections to this. For Alex's benefit here it is again

existence is the sum total of everything that was, is or will be. God is a singular being and thus is only one existent among many if he exists at all. You have answered us with a complete non sequitur that violates the law of identity, "god is existence, he is however not equal to existence". Sound familiar. Then when called on this illogical answer you will retreat to saying it is a mystery as if that was satisfactory. Got anything new? I doubt it. You know for someone that claims god makes existence intelligible you sure like to make statements that are in effect A is A and not A at the same time and within the same respect.

I am not going to be your errand boy for acquiring knowledge, if you want it go earn it. I know what I need to know about this topic, namely theism is a form of metaphysical subjectivism and thus can be dismissed out of hand just like that.

oh by the way, germ theory is just a theory as well, but how many diseases has the bible cured?

December 04, 2011 4:29 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Thanks. The honest thing to do is say that you don't know or that it's a mystery.

So, after all you don't know what a fetus is concious of.

Let's say it's only concious of itself what then?

Will you renounce randbelief!

December 04, 2011 4:40 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Thanks. The honest thing to do is say that you don't know or that it's a mystery."

there is a difference between saying we have insufficient information to come to firm conclusions and spouting non sequiturs in a vain attempt to evade a logical contradiction in your reasoning.

"Let's say it's only concious of itself what then?"

before a child has self awareness it must first be aware something else. It is a known fact of neurology that we are not born self aware, but you would know that if you took even a slight interest in the subject that you want me to educate you on.

December 04, 2011 4:46 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

ever going to explain what you meant by

"god is existence he is just not equal to existence"

in a way we can understand? Because until you do I feel completely justified in rejecting Christianity on the basis that it is metaphyscially subjective.

December 04, 2011 4:48 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 04, 2011 4:59 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

And exactly what else is it exactly aware of?

Do you expect me to take it on your say so?


By the way How many lies does it take before we can label someone a liar?

December 04, 2011 5:00 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

one additional consideration that I raised some time ago. If god is a mystery as you say and thus can not be understood, then on what basis can you claim to have knowledge of said same. Why are you qualified to speak about god and or tell us we are wrong to reject the claim. No basis that I can see. So if it is a mystery, I have a suggestion, come back when you know what you are in fact talking about.

Claiming god is existence but is not equal to existence does not negate the accusation of metaphysical subjectivism leveled at Christianity unless that claim can be made intelligible.

December 04, 2011 5:02 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin are you a liar?

December 04, 2011 5:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"And exactly what else is it exactly aware of?"

I remember when my little cousin nicky's eyes began to focus when she was a few months old. At that point she had visual awareness of the world, and before that she had auditory awareness, seriously Nide this is not hard stuff.

"Do you expect me to take it on your say so?"

No I don't, what I expect you to do if you are genuinely interested in this is go find out for yourself, earn some knowledge. Take those bible blinders off.

"By the way How many lies does it take before we can label someone a liar?"

hard to say and unless you think me dishonest not really relevant. Stay on topic, if Christianity is metaphysical subjective why should I not dismiss it. That is the topic.

December 04, 2011 5:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin are you a liar?"

got to make this about me, again..... think Dawson covered this already.

stay on topic

December 04, 2011 5:09 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin do you know what a fetus is?

I never asked about a newborn so maybe you should stay on topic.

What is metaphysics?

By the way are you a liar?

December 04, 2011 5:20 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson and others

you may find this interesting

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kA0-I9iNNAYJ:www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/5%2520levels%2520of%2520self-awareness.pdf+

from early in the document

There is a general consensus on a few major landmarks in young childrenÕs psychological de-
velopment such as the manifestation of the first social smile, the first independent steps, or the first
words. All parents also notice an important change at around 2 years of age when children
manifest ‘‘self-consciousness,

"Justin do you know what a fetus is?"

yes I do, I also know they do not have any self awareness, that does not develop until about age 2.


"What is metaphysics?"

you have asked me this before and I answered. The fact that you do not recall the answer to such an important question given our topic is a little distressing.

"By the way are you a liar?"

I realize it is impolite to answer with a question but are you an asshole?

topic is why should I accept Christianity given that it is metaphysically subjective.

Still waiting..........

December 04, 2011 5:29 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Your link is bad.

So, then justin are you saying a fetus doesn't really exist?

I will tell you what I am right after you tell me if you are a liar?

How do you know that Christianity is "metaphysically subjective"?

December 04, 2011 5:46 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

link

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kA0-I9iNNAYJ:www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/5%2520levels%2520of%2520self-awareness.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShhb_30V0-JeEVkuqbWQ6PQzC-vE_SLspJULZYpb5lKTWbj2vHUqgYCkxwblbxN-CyJJv4wbuJFsrwrX6V8we3R0D9qID--cB8X8o34HmFaJ2g8N6cRraS2G2lr_vjTZAajJuan&sig=AHIEtbSdbJxK3jvy_h09d_Xp-0hrAdBbmQ&pli=1



I said

"
yes I do, I also know they do not have any self awareness, that does not develop until about age 2."

you replied

"So, then justin are you saying a fetus doesn't really exist?"

how, just how did you misconstrue that to mean I am claiming fetuses don't exist? HOW! All I said was they were not self aware, thats all.

"I will tell you what I am right after you tell me if you are a liar?"

I don't really care about your answer, I already have an opinion on that score. Nide arguments stand on their own independent of the speaker or listener. Earlier you asked me if I would renounce rand belief as if I has sworn some allegiance to her or something. I have said it before and I guess I have to say it again, I am not an objectivist. I use her primary argument form existence because it is convincing, thats all. If you want to tackle this you will have to tackle the argument, not ask if I am a liar, or if rand was a smoker, non of that matters. I am going to simply ignore personal questions from you as you don't seem mature enough to refrain from them on your own.


"How do you know that Christianity is "metaphysically subjective"?"

seriously, you are asking this now, after it has been discussed to death for how long? How many articles has Dawson posted on this very subject?
Nide I am not going to indulge you intellectual laziness or diversionary tactics, either you understand the topic or you do not. If you do not then there is nothing for me to learn from you.

Read

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_existence/

December 04, 2011 5:58 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

If you look at some comments from yesterday on the previous post I answered that question. But I will repost it here:

So, what if Christiany is "metaphysically subjective. Really who cares?

It's God's world and everything in it - Psalm 50

How does it feel Justin to live in YHWH's world?

Justin since you have lied in the past why should I believe anything you say?


Your link does it say what a fetus is aware of?

December 04, 2011 6:32 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide wrote: “AJ, Since it seems that dawson doesn't want to debate me. How about it me and you five questions each?”

Nide, I’ve tried twice now (in the comments to this blog) to meet your request for a “debate.” When you asked for an opening statement, I offered you six different opening statements. You declined to take up the challenge. Then you asked me to ask a series of five questions. You wrote: “So how about starting with those 5 questions?”

I offered my first question: Why should I hold myself to an arbitrary limit?

Now again, you seem unwilling to continue participating in the “debate” you asked for in the first place! You don’t answer my question, but instead announce that you think I don’t want to debate you. On the contrary, you have now twice refused to accept my end of the deal. Your desire for a debate does not at all seem very serious. If I’m wrong, then please address my first question and offer a rebuttal to any one of the blog entries I proposed as my opening statement.

If you don't want to continue the debate that you yourself called, then not only do I stand unanswered, I also continue to stand unrefuted.

Your call.

Regards,
Dawson

December 04, 2011 6:33 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"
So, what if Christiany is "metaphysically subjective. Really who cares?"

I care.


"Justin since you have lied in the past why should I believe anything you say?"

what have I lied about?


"Your link does it say what a fetus is aware of?"

nor was it intended to, you will note that I was not originally addressed to you at all. All that it was intended to convey is that self awareness does not began until about age two. Weather fetus's can be said to be aware of anything at all is debatable, I would suppose they have auditory inputs but this is not the main issue. Clearly at age two when a child develops self awareness they have already been aware of the world around them for almost 2 years. Thus perceptual awareness of something other then your self prestages conceptual self awareness.

December 04, 2011 6:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

As I explained before, if you go over to...

http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/2011/11/should-christian-debater-assume-whole.html

... you will be witness to a different Trinity in many ways. He is more polite, less defensive. He's also more willing to explain things to his fellow believer. Incredibly, even his grammar and spelling are improved, if only slightly.

And I suspect -- despite his god's directive that he "love his enemy" and "turn the other cheek,"and despite the overall thrust of the New Testament as it pertains to witnessing, that he should do his part to soften the hearts of lost souls without being rude or harsh about it -- that this is because, like what Dawson explains in his most recent blog entry, all of that "savings souls" and "softening hearts" through witnessing stuff comes in a distant second to his own fear of protecting his own confessional investment. He's afraid and defensive and rude and terse over here because his aim is not to gain knowledge (which threatens him), but to try and tear knowledge down (which he thinks will elevate him). And though his attempts at tearing down knowledge are futile, his actions here on this blog make him feel secure with the delusion that fuels him from within his own Christian cocoon.

Ydemoc

December 04, 2011 6:41 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

so I ask again because I care, why should I take Christianity seriously given its metaphysical subjective status

December 04, 2011 6:42 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

I will have to take your word for it, and it does sound plausible. I just don't normally go over to presupper sites, got better things to do. But about what you say, it is an incredible liberating experience once you realize that reality is the final court of appeal or so I am told:) Honestly I have always felt that way even as far back as age 8. I can only imagine what you went thru in ditching your theism. I have the utmost respect for those that were indoctrinated and yet somehow managed to break free of it. Makes me wonder if I had been raised a Christian if I could have done so.

December 04, 2011 6:47 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB,

How do you know it's arbitry?

Ydemoc,

Thanks for the promotion.

Justin,

Well, you said you would send me a reply and never did.

You said that I said God is a mystery. Parts of his plan and actions are. However, we know something.


So, Justin, are you a liar?

Rembember even lies pressupose the truth of the bible.

December 04, 2011 6:54 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

It's not why should but why you have to.

God commands everybody to repent. Acts 17

It's appointed for everybody to die once then the judgement.

What will a man give in exchange for his soul?

December 04, 2011 6:57 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Well, you said you would send me a reply and never did."

I changed my mind. I decided that working and earning money concerning a short term gaming project held more value for me. I explained why I changed my mind.At the time I told you I was committed to doing so, so no falsehood was spoken. In fact it was shortly after that last exchange that I started to think, Why should I do all the Internet leg work, if he was intellectually honest he would investigate it myself. My mistake was in thinking you honestly cared what I would find. You would have simply asked yet another list of questions without ever getting closer to the only one that matters between us. I however have posted a link to an article addressing just how self awareness grows in stages into full conceptual self awareness in infants. Read it, I found it very interesting. However you make a valid point, I said I would do something and did not follow thru, and for that I offer you my sincere apology.

"You said that I said God is a mystery. Parts of his plan and actions are. However, we know something."

In order to have knowledge we would have to have some conceptualization. The statement "god is existence but is not equal to existence" is without meaning. I have no conception of what you mean by this. Thus I cant even claim partial knowledge of god.


"So, Justin, are you a liar?"

I will not answer personal questions from you, on the flip side if I tell you I am going to email you and you doubt me, I would not blame you.

"Rembember even lies pressupose the truth of the bible."

actually the concept lie rests on the concept truth, for what is a lie in opposition to. The concept truth however rests on the objective relationship that exists between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness and that is in direct opposition to biblical teachings that are premised on metaphysical subjectivism. So no I dont agree with this statement.

December 04, 2011 7:20 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"It's not why should but why you have to."

ad baculum

more like unsubstantiated threat. Sorry no one is going to force me to believe something. It is reason or nothing.

December 04, 2011 7:22 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide wanted a debate with me and asked that I start by asking a series of five questions. I've had to ask my first question twice so far, and he still has not answered it.

My question was: Why should I hold myself to an arbitrary limit?

Nide did respond to it, but without answering it. Instead, he just asked a question of his own by way of reply. He asked:

"How do you know it's arbitry?"

I suppose this is how this debate is expected to proceed: once one party asks his question, the other party "answers" it by simply asking another question.

Perhaps Nide is using "debate" in the loosest manner possible. I don't know of any serious debate that has actually proceeded in the manner that he is modeling here.

With all their concern over debates, presuppositionalists don't seem to know very well how to participate in one.

Regards,
Dawson

December 04, 2011 7:26 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

did you check out the link about development of conceptual self awareness in infants I posted?

December 04, 2011 7:31 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hi Justin,

Sorry, no, I haven't. I have so many distractions here today, and beginning tomorrow I'm going to be super busy for who knows how long. But if I can, I will, when I get a chance.

Regards,
Dawson

December 04, 2011 7:34 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB,

I don't know what kind of game your playing but really it's not funny.

Your blog. Your rules.

So, how about we get started?

Justin,

Back to square one.

Why aren't you delusional?

December 04, 2011 7:47 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “I don't know what kind of game your playing but really it's not funny.”

Actually, it seems that you’re the one who’s playing games here, duck-and-cover games to be exact.

Nide: “Your blog. Your rules.”

It is my blog, but the five questions thing was your idea. I complied to see how far you could go, and clearly you couldn’t go far at all. As I expected.

Nide: “So, how about we get started?”

Fine. You have my first question: Why should I hold myself to an arbitrary limit?

I’ve restated it four times now. When are you going to answer it?

Regards,
Dawson

December 04, 2011 7:51 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "I can only imagine what you went thru in ditching your theism."

To be honest, though I professed being a Christian, I don't think I ever fully embraced theism. Or did I? Christians will tell you that all you need to do is accept Jesus into your heart and that very act makes you a Christian and saves you. I certainly did that, many times in fact, just to cover my bases. And if that's all that's needed, then I guess I could say I fully embraced Christianity. (But as a Christian, is one ever really certain about their own salvation? Especially when it's based on a false metaphysics? Especially when that certainty rests on so-called "hope"? Especially when the leader of the cult hasn't come back like he said he would 2000 years ago? By the way, how much more time needs to pass before Jesus is finally tagged with the label "false prophet"?)

Anyway, gradually, I began questioning, while those Christians around me didn't. They just accepted that what the bible said and what their favorite pastors taught was true, without much questioning of it at all.

Eventually, the facts of reality led me to reject all forms of mysticism.

Justin wrote: "I have the utmost respect for those that were indoctrinated and yet somehow managed to break free of it."

My examination and ultimate rejection of the kind of mysticism I was indoctrinated with as a child (Christianity), took a lot of time. I can say though, it wasn't as difficult for me, once I began to suspect my leg was being pulled, as it appears to have been for many believers I've read about. Like you, I too have respect for what they have gone through.

Justin wrote: "Makes me wonder if I had been raised a Christian if I could have done so."

I think you hit upon what is probably the most difficult aspect of rejecting that which you were brought up to believe. The tendency to believe like others (friends and family) and to not buck the trend, is very strong. And so is the desire not to "disappoint" those whom you know would be disappointed if you were to reveal to them that you reject something that they value so much. And, just from my own observations in life, this seems to be a phenomena that happens in other areas of life also, not just theism.

Ydemoc

December 04, 2011 7:53 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB,

Really, I don't even know what you are asking its unintelligible.

Can you clarify?

Gadget,

I'm happy for you you finally fessed up.
Remember only by mail.

December 04, 2011 8:32 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"Why aren't you delusional?"

again, lets not make this personal, stick to the topic, why should I accept a metaphysically subjective paradigm like Christianity.

December 04, 2011 8:44 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

It is personal so let's get past this "taking things personal" business it's your life that's at stake here. And Since I, actually, care about you, dawson, ydemoc, and the rest things sometimes need to be asked or said that you might not like. It's ok lord willing you'll thank me later.

So, here is my answer again:

It's God's world and everything in it.

You are what the bible says you are, that is, desperately wicked and in need of salvation.

It's not why you should but why you have to accept it.

God commands every man to repent.

God has appointed a day when he will judge the world by the one he has raised from the dead. Jesus Christ.

So, what will a man give in exchange for his soul i.e. his life?

December 04, 2011 9:13 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 04, 2011 9:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "I'm happy for you you finally fessed up."

Well, it isn't saying much that you should be happy over my fessing up (whatever that is supposed to mean), since the standard of happiness for those deluded by Christianity is quite low, especially given what the bible teaches, including the passage that says people will be happy when they dash the little ones against the rocks, that people should be happy based upon hope in the imaginary, that Christians should remain happy even though, according to your own bible, Jesus qualifies as a false teacher.

I could cite more examples, but you get the idea.

Ydemoc

December 04, 2011 9:38 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 04, 2011 10:17 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

wow, if so much is at stake you think you might have a convincing reason to accept these claims of yours. However to date that has been lacking, and not just by you, no one has provided a good argument for god belief in recorded history.

A couple of points you raised

"You are what the bible says you are, that is, desperately wicked and in need of salvation."

What does Christianity have to offer a man who does not apologize for his existence? Nothing I can see.


"So, what will a man give in exchange for his soul i.e. his life?"

what is this soul you speak of? If it is my life, well that is mine, not going to give it to anyone and in due time it will end. Nothing more to it then that. In the mean time I am going to live my life in the pursuit of what I value, entertaining self refuting superstitions of 2,700 year old middle eastern goat herders is not on my list of things I value. Nide for you this is mission impossible. Any reason you could give is going to be premised on metaphysical objectivism and thus contradict your argument for god. So I can see why you are evading this issue like it was plutonium. Anyway take care and good night.

December 04, 2011 10:18 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Why should I accept your arbitry claims?

What specifically I'm I avoiding?

Any reason I give is based on the providence of God
so any argument that rejects God is a contradiction.

Now I see why Justin your avoiding the this issue like a plague.

Good night.

December 04, 2011 10:37 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 5:50 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide


"Why should I accept your arbitrary claims?"

what claim am I making that is arbitrary and why it is arbitrary, be detailed here. Explain also why it is relevant to the discussion.

"Any reason I give is based on the providence of God
so any argument that rejects God is a contradiction."

yes and that is something you have been repeatedly asked to argue for, altho note that in order to make that argument you would first have to successfully argue for god's existence in the first place to avoid begging the question. What we have right now is just a claim made by you, one that can have anything substituted in for god, blarko, the flying spaghetti monster, etc....


"Now I see why Justin your avoiding the this issue like a plague."

Avoiding? Avoiding what, you came here and informed me that I was in error rejecting the claim that god exists. I explained why I reject the claim, namely that it is metaphysically subjective and in order for me to accept the claim you would have to address this. You have to date launched into a series of diversionary lines of questioning, non sequitur statements, personal attacks and retreats to "mystery". Who is avoiding here? I have asked this what now 20 times?

Why should I accept Christianity given its metaphysically subjective basis?

December 05, 2011 5:52 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

All -

Nide has repeatedly submitted his request for me to have some kind of “debate” or structured exchange with him. When he suggested that I produce an opening statement, I gave him links to six of my blogs and offered him to pick any one of them he wanted as my opening statement. He declined to accept this, and asked instead that we each ask each other five questions, and that I go first. I submitted my first question, which was: Why should I hold myself to an arbitrary limit?

Nide did not hold up his end of the deal which he proposed by answering my question, but instead asked a question of his own in reply to mine, namely “How do you know it’s arbitry?” [sic]

When I pointed out that I was now learning how the procedure of this “debate” is supposed to go, judging by Nide’s own actions in it (he responded to a question, not by answering it, but by asking another question, so apparently I should do the same), Nide accused me of “playing” some kind of “game,” and then stated “So, how about we get started?” as though I were somehow the one holding things up, when in fact I did my part by asking a question. By this point my question had been asked at least three times, and Nide hadn’t answered it ONCE! And I’m the one playing games here???????

Then Nide again avoided answering the question and instead of answering it, he stated:

“BB, Really, I don't even know what you are asking its unintelligible. Can you clarify?” [sic]

And just over two hours later (!), Nide wrote to Justin:

“Why should I accept your arbitry claims?” [sic]

By stating that he doesn’t “even know” what I was asking and calling it “unintelligible” tells me that he’s not in any position to enter into any kind of serious debate or structured exchange with me – it simply wouldn’t be a fair match, and believers would probably wonder why I’m not “picking” on someone my own size (as though I were the one who initiated the idea of a “debate” in the first place). Perhaps it’s Nide’s own fantastical rendition of David meets Goliath, only in Nide’s case, he’s mistaken his own sling for a jockstrap.

But for him to then turn around and ask a significantly and relevantly similar question to Justin, in the space of two hours and five minutes, only indicates that there’s something going on here that just doesn’t ring true. Presumably Nide thinks his own question to Justin is intelligible. But if so, how could he *honestly* consider my question “unintelligible”? And if he really thinks my question is unintelligible, why didn’t he point this out the first time I posed it?????

In the meantime, he posts a comment where he says “I, actually, care about you, dawson…,” and postures himself as someone both eager and capable of “correcting” me and other participants in these discussions on some “spiritual” condition which he apparently wants us to think we are suffering from.

I have to say, Nide, you’ve blown it. You’ve blown it many times before, but this time I’ve taken the time to document the whole matter succinctly. You simply have no credibility; you started with very little, and you lost that very quickly, but now anyone who comes along can simply read this comment and see how childish, evasive and dishonest you are. You offer nothing of value, save your self-sacrifice as a specimen for future readers to examine and shake their heads in wonder.

Regards,
Dawson

December 05, 2011 5:56 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

" he’s mistaken his own sling for a jockstrap."

I realize it was not your intention to nearly kill me with a choking fit, but ouch! that was funny. I was eating breakfast when I read that and it made me laugh out loud followed by a 5 mintue choking fit:)

December 05, 2011 7:50 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB,

When ever you're ready to begin the debate feel free to ask me those five questions. Thanks

Justin,

You said life ends then it's over. How do you know?
Have you died before ? Why should I accept your arbitraty claim?

December 05, 2011 8:04 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "You said life ends then it's over. How do you know? Have you died before ? Why should I accept your arbitraty claim?"

Your questions only reaffirm our assessment that your belief and it's claims have no relation to what qualifies as knowledge. You are seeking to smuggle the arbitrary into the realm of knowledge. It can't be done. Enough has been said to you about this in the past. Read OPAR, p.164 for more information.

Blarkings.

Ydemoc

December 05, 2011 8:37 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc
thanks for responding to that. I was going to add to this that the question of whether life ends or not is not strictly relevant to the question of why I or any rational person for that matter should accept a metaphysically subjective claim.

December 05, 2011 9:03 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "thanks for responding to that."

Sure. I thought I would just jump in and put in my two cents. I was going to write more, with quotes from the book; but then I thought, why devote more time than is necessary when dealing with someone who continues to embrace the arbitrary.

Ydemoc

December 05, 2011 9:36 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 12:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams- Willy Wonka

To all,

Notice how Justin wants to keep being arbitrary. Instead of answering my question he makes believe that, Gadget, has answered it. But that's all it is make believe. It's a pretty subtle diversionary tactic but thanks to my eagle eyes I spotted Justin's slick and dishonest move.

Also, notice how Justin keeps making the claim that my position is "metaphysically subjective". In other words he thinks that my view of reality is some how invalid. However, thanks to my eagle eyes I spotted another of Justin's slick moves. You see while he claims that I'm wrong he , at the same time, is slyly trying to smuggle he's beliefs in.
Which is intersting because that's exactly what he has been accusing me of. Well, no, Justin, I reject all your arbitraty claims. I'll let God define and say what reality will be.
Rember, Justin appealing to personal experience is not an explanation at all.

By the way I've noticed you enjoy red herrings.


Regards,
HA

December 05, 2011 12:44 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 1:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams- Willy Wonka"

It's interesting that Trinity keeps quoting characters from works of fiction. This is right in line with his frequent postings of bible passages.

Trinity wrote: "Notice how Justin wants to keep being arbitrary."

Trinity is experiencing some kind of mental block here, for I'm not sure if he's making an announcement or asking a question. If it's a question, no, I have not noticed this. For me to notice something, it would have to happen first.

Trinity wrote: "Instead of answering my question he makes believe that, Gadget, has answered it."

No he didn't. Not only has he not done this, but within the very content of what I posted, there was no make-believe involved.

Trinity wrote: "But that's all it is make believe."

Here, Trinity fails to identify precisely what it is that he's claiming to be make-believe.

Trinity wrote: "It's a pretty subtle diversionary tactic but thanks to my eagle eyes I spotted Justin's slick and dishonest move."

These eagle eyes of yours go well with your bird brain.

Trinity wrote: "Also, notice how Justin keeps making the claim that my position is "metaphysically subjective".

He's right.

Trinity wrote: "In other words he thinks that my view of reality is some how invalid."

That's putting it kindly. Your worldview's claims are actually arbitrary.

Trinity wrote: "However, thanks to my eagle eyes I spotted another of Justin's slick moves."

Let's see what you're going to squawk or parrot this time...

Trinity wrote: "You see while he claims that I'm wrong he ,..."

You are worse than wrong. Your thoughts and beliefs are arbitrary. You only wish your beliefs rose to the level of being considered right or wrong. They don't. They don't qualify.

Trinity continued: "...at the same time, is slyly trying to smuggle he's beliefs in."

No he's not.

Trinity wrote: "Which is intersting because that's exactly what he has been accusing me of."

No it's not. What he's been accusing you of, and the fallacy you have been committing time and time again is nothing like the nonsense you just tried to describe.

Trinity wrote: "Well, no, Justin, I reject all your arbitraty claims."

In other words, besides accepting the imaginary, you apparently also reject it. But we knew this already, for you also reject your imaginary god's imaginary adversary.

Trinity wrote: "I'll let God define and say what reality will be."

Translation: I need an imaginary middle-man to help me deal with existence.

Trinity wrote: "Rember, Justin appealing to personal experience is not an explanation at all."

Yes, Justin, please do try to "Rember" [sic] this, because you will not be able to appeal to the personal experience of remembering it when you are asked to recall whatever it is Trinity is attempting to say.

Trinity wrote: "By the way I've noticed you enjoy red herrings."

Funny, so do those with eagle eyes and bird brains.

Blarkings.

Ydemoc

December 05, 2011 1:49 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

Hsaw Aknow. Willy Wonka

December 05, 2011 2:53 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 3:00 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Hsaw Aknow. Willy Wonka"

I would imagine your imaginary god must be quite proud of how you've taken so seriously your duty to help soften the hearts and minds of souls in need of salvation.

I sure am glad my mind isn't bound by such delusions as yours seems to be.

Ydemoc

December 05, 2011 3:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

No, it's Wonka Wash spelled backwards. Not delusion. I dont debate other Christians but since you won't go away.


Feel free when ever you're ready post your 5 questions.

December 05, 2011 3:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"Justin keeps making the claim that my position is "metaphysically subjective". In other words he thinks that my view of reality is some how invalid."

So you do not dispute that metaphyiscally subjective claims are invalid?

December 05, 2011 4:11 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Whether its invalid or not is irrelevant.

In others words Ultimetaly things have to taken for granted, that is, by faith.

Justin why should I accept your metaphysical claims?

How do you know Justin that reality is exactly what you say it is?

Is it based on personal experience because if it is then you have a problem appealing to experience is arbitraty and not an explanation?

December 05, 2011 4:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"Whether its invalid or not is irrelevant."

It is very relevant to me. Sense I do hold to the position that metaphysical subjective claims are invalid and I have identified Christianity as one.

"In others words Ultimetaly things have to taken for granted, that is, by faith."

If you understood objectivist theory of concepts you would realize how wrong that statement is. However it is not relevant to the question at hand.

"Justin why should I accept your metaphysical claims?"

You don't have to have. I told you in the past, I do not lose sleep over the fact that you don't agree with me. I remind you that I did not come to your blog and challenge you. You came here and it does not bother me in the least if you reject my world view. The question is why should I accept yours?


"How do you know Justin that reality is exactly what you say it is?"

How I answer this question is irrelevant. My world view is not on trial here, yours is. However once again I will explain.

Thru the the logical employment of the objectivist axioms existence, identity and consciousness. It should be pointed out that I would have to presuppose them even to understand and agree with your position tho I would be contradicting myself in so doing.

"Is it based on personal experience because if it is then you have a problem appealing to experience is arbitraty and not an explanation?"

All knowledge is ultimately gained thru sense perception, there are no a priori. Even you had to read or have the bible read to you before you could have knowledge of it. However this also is irrelevant to the topic. Attempting to tear down my world view does not advance yours one iota. In principle we could both be wrong.
If your world view is so robust you should be able to argue for it without contradiction. So here is my question

why should I accept Christianity given its metaphysical subjective basis.

December 05, 2011 4:47 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

in a nut shell, you want me to believe in god. In response I have raised an objection. You have only a limited number of ways of dealing with this, they are

1. Give up and go away

2. Explain that metaphysical subjectivism is not invalid

3. or show that Christianity is not metaphysically subjective.

launching personal attacks on me, calling into question my mind or attacking my world view are not options

December 05, 2011 4:57 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@everyone

It should be pointed out that the claim god does not exist is not a fundamental aspect of my world view. My lack of belief in god is simply a consequence of a guiding principle of my world view. Namely the objective relationship metaphysically.

December 05, 2011 5:02 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

What's existence?

By the way are "explanations" based on personal experience "explanations" at all?

Are you admitting that your lack of belief in God is based on personal experience and hence arbitrary?

December 05, 2011 5:26 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "What's existence?"

Just by looking around you'll have your answer.

December 05, 2011 5:53 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

“What's existence?”

This has already been answered several times in my correspondence with you, both the concept and its referent.

“By the way are "explanations" based on personal experience "explanations" at all?”

how does this answer or get you closer to answering why I should accept your world view. My world view is irrelevant to how you defend yours.

“Are you admitting that your lack of belief in God is based on personal experience and hence arbitrary?”

nope, the only reason I need, the only reason anyone needs is there is simply no reason to accept the claim god exists. No one ever needs a reason to not believe a non perceptually self evident claim, what they need is a reason to believe in it. I go one further by pointing out that god belief is metaphysically subjective and thus invalid. I listed 3 ways you could deal with my objection and yet you have not availed yourself of any of them.

My unanswered question.....

Why should I accept Christianity given its metaphysicaly subjective basis. Still unanswered.

December 05, 2011 5:59 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Inside this room, all of my dreams become realities, and some of my realities become dreams. Willy Wonka

December 05, 2011 6:00 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

In others words what you believe, Ultimetaly, doesn't really matter but to, hopefully , get rid of me you'll spit out any old arbitry claim. Amazing

So, if something is not perceptually self evident you won't believe it. Nice

How is it that your not delusional?

I answered your "metaphysical subjective" question the problem is the answer I gave is not the want you want. It doesn't go well with your arbitrary beliefs.

December 05, 2011 6:15 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 7:37 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 7:41 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 7:44 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"In others words what you believe, Ultimetaly, doesn't really matter but to, hopefully , get rid of me you'll spit out any old arbitry claim. Amazing"

what I believe most definitely matters... to me. However it has no direct bearing on your world view. The case for Christ rests on its own merits or none at all. Its strength is not to be found in the weakness of the world views of others.

"So, if something is not perceptually self evident you won't believe it. Nice"

Again, how, just how can you misconstrue what I said to mean that. What I said, what I meant was I need a reason to believe in things not perceptually self evident. There are many things I believe in that are not perceptually self evident, but in each and every one I have a reason for believing in them. Provide me with a valid non contradictory reason to accept god and I will.


"I answered your "metaphysical subjective" question the problem is the answer I gave is not the want you want. It doesn't go well with your arbitrary beliefs."

And I replied that it was important to me. Remember you came here and challenged us. If you want to convince me you are going to have to take that into account or cant you meet the burden your challenge to us has placed on you?

my question is still unanswered. I gave Nide 3 ways of dealing with it and he continues to go off on tangents, oh well. Lets try a different tack.

1. is Christianity metaphysically subjective, yes or no?

2. are metaphysically subjective world views invalid, yes or no?

December 05, 2011 7:50 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I am rephrasing my second question

Are world views that are metaphysically subjective invalid because they are metaphysically subjective, yes or no.

December 05, 2011 7:56 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Christianity is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ not on my "metaphysical subjectivism". I don't determine what God or the world is.

All metaphysical subjective views of reality, existence are invalid. For example, your world view is one of them. The problem is your view of reality is based on personal experience. Saying that , for example, things are the way they are because that's the way you have experienced doesn't explain anything. It's arbitraty

So, since reason is your guiding principle my question is who's reason yours or somebody else's?

If yes how do you know your not delusional?

If no how do you know that the "somebody" your relying on is not delusional, for example, Ayn Rand?

To answer your rephrased question which I just did. Yes "explanations" based on personal experience are arbitrary and hence invalid.

December 05, 2011 8:35 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 8:56 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Some of what you said is on topic,for example....


"Christianity is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ not on my "metaphysical subjectivism". I don't determine what God or the world is."

From this I conclude that you are taking the option that Christianity is not metaphysically subjective based on the fact that you do not determine what the world is. However this is not how I assessed that Christianity is metaphysically subjective. I came to that conclusion based on the alleged relationship god is supposed to have between his consciousness and the objects of his consciousness. Metaphysical subjectivism is defined by the relationship between any consciousness and reality, not just yours or mine, but any. If just one has it we have metaphysical subjectivism.

You continue on topic with....

"All metaphysical subjective views of reality, existence are invalid. For example, your world view is one of them. The problem is your view of reality is based on personal experience. Saying that , for example, things are the way they are because that's the way you have experienced doesn't explain anything. It's arbitraty"

Well we agree on something, all metaphysical subjective world views are invalid, how then do you deal with the problem of god's relationship with the rest of existence. He created it by mere thought, you cant get more subjective then that. Further my world view is most definitely not based on metaphysical subjectivism. My world view holds that no consciousness anywhere at anytime ever held a subjective relationship with the objects of its awareness. So just how do you rationalize that I hold to such a metaphysically subjective world view. You may think it arbitrary but subjective it is not. But this is not about my world view and you know that. The rest of your post is just an attempt to shift the onus from where it rightly belongs.

So you agree metaphysically subjective world views are invalid, good, now how is it that god does not enjoy a metaphysically subjective relationship with the rest of existence if he created it by mere will and can effect changes at will such as parting the red sea or Noah' flood?

December 05, 2011 8:59 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 9:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

If it would be alright, could you email me a contact email I could use to reach you. I want to discuss some other issues with objectivism that are not strictly related to the topic of presuppositionalism.

December 05, 2011 9:08 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Said: "My world view holds that no consciousness anywhere at anytime ever held a subjective relationship with the objects of its awareness."

Ok based on what? How did your world view come to this conclusion? Is it based on emotion? Some kind of revelation? Is it based on personal experience?

Then you asked: "So you agree metaphysically subjective world views are invalid, good, now how is it that god does not enjoy a metaphysically subjective relationship with the rest of existence if he created it by mere will and can effect changes at will such as parting the red sea or Noah' flood?"


Like I said me and you cannot define or determine what reality, ultimately, is or what it will be or what is possible or not.

Christians don't define God or what reality is. God tells us who he is and what reality is. We know this based on his revelation.

Metaphysics based on personal experience is invalid, arbitrary and subjective in respect to human beings.

Since God is an ominiscient creator and knows what is best for his creation and is guided by who he is. That is perfect good, just and moral. His relationship to what he creates and has power over is not only valid but sound.

December 05, 2011 10:31 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 05, 2011 10:42 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

At this time I am not interested in your thoughts on my world view or what you think my world view is. I have only one thing at this time that I want to find out from you. After that we can discuss my world view to your hearts content. My remaining question is if god created all of existence apart from himself by mere will then how is it not metaphysically subjective? Answer that and we can move on to any topic you wish.

December 05, 2011 10:43 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I just got back from a movie, and I just read your posting. Do I use your email that is listed under your blogger profile?

Ydemoc

December 05, 2011 10:56 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

The king does what he pleases so call it want you want. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

Specifically, what's your problem?

December 05, 2011 11:02 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

yes,use that email, thanks


@Nide

"The king does what he pleases so call it want you want. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts."

Am I to infer from this statement that you affirm that Christianity is a metaphysically subjective paradigm?

"Specifically, what's your problem?"

I don't think I have a problem as such. If god exists and has the powers ascribed to him in the bible, well that would be that. What I want from you is an answer to my question and I think I just got it but I would appreciate it if you would clarified it for me.

December 05, 2011 11:08 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said...

"The king does what he pleases so call it want you want. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts."

The irony of this sentence was not lost on me:) facts indeed.

December 05, 2011 11:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Okay. I'll use that email. I could email you right now, but I'll email you sometime tomorrow. I'm on the phone right now, and I'm going to go to bed soon.

Ydemoc

December 05, 2011 11:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

And I answered it.

Christianity is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Spefically, what's the problem with God controlling everything that happens?

December 05, 2011 11:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

same here, have to work tomarrow, night

December 05, 2011 11:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Everyone

dawson has a new post, I will continue my posting there.

December 06, 2011 8:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home