In the comments section of a previous blog entry of mine, Cognitive Reliability vs. Supernatural Deception, Christian blogger Michael Russell has offered numerous points of reaction. His last two comments, dated 7 December, were so loaded with topical material that I decided to post my response to him in a new blog entry here on Incinerating Presuppositionalism.
Michael wrote:The question you left me with, was a clarifying comment on whether the human mind is subject to supernatural deception.
Yes, I was hoping for a clear and definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from you on this, since your previous messages on the matter have left your position a little murky here.
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Again, you've pushed me beyond my previous thought with our interaction on this specific point. I can see that my previous post on 1 Tim 4 would be better if complemented with discussion of the rest of the Biblical witness on the subject of demons, in particular, demon possession.
I think specifically the area of my inquiry can be narrowed to the supernatural abilities which Christianity ascribes to demons (“deceptive spirits”) and the abilities of men to detect and resist those abilities. From what I can tell, the NT characterizes human beings as pretty much sitting ducks for the supernatural pick-off. Human beings are always “in season,” and it’s just a matter of which supernatural spirit gets to them first; or, it’s just all a matter of “God’s plan,” which no man can alter. The lesson to take home, on the Christian view, is that man never has the upper hand when confronted with a supernatural will. If a supernatural spirit wants to move in and make its home in a human being’s mind, what’s going to stop it? How can any human being resist a supernatural force?
I’m reminded of an old Star Trek episode – one from the original sixties series, perhaps you’ve seen it – where the Enterprise crew picks up a group of children who were orphaned by a scientific team that encountered disaster on some distant planet. The crew of the Enterprise don’t realize it, but these kids have supernatural powers. In one scene, the crew on the bridge of the starship are deceived into thinking that the ship is still orbiting a planet when in fact it’s traveling at maximum “warp” speed to another system. Poor Sulu and Chekhov are none the wiser – they’ve been supernaturally deceived.
What I’m saying is that, if my worldview sincerely affirmed the existence of supernatural beings, I don’t see how I could ever rule out the possibility such belief invites that I myself could be the victim of such deception. It seems extremely tenuous to think that Romans 1 alleviates such a possibility. Indeed, the whole approach that you’ve offered so far relies on inference, and thus assumes that one’s own mental faculties, including the ability to draw inferences, are immune to supernatural deception, which is the very thing in question. To date your approach seems to rely on assuming the very thing in question.
Michael wrote:
I’m reminded of an old Star Trek episode – one from the original sixties series, perhaps you’ve seen it – where the Enterprise crew picks up a group of children who were orphaned by a scientific team that encountered disaster on some distant planet. The crew of the Enterprise don’t realize it, but these kids have supernatural powers. In one scene, the crew on the bridge of the starship are deceived into thinking that the ship is still orbiting a planet when in fact it’s traveling at maximum “warp” speed to another system. Poor Sulu and Chekhov are none the wiser – they’ve been supernaturally deceived.
What I’m saying is that, if my worldview sincerely affirmed the existence of supernatural beings, I don’t see how I could ever rule out the possibility such belief invites that I myself could be the victim of such deception. It seems extremely tenuous to think that Romans 1 alleviates such a possibility. Indeed, the whole approach that you’ve offered so far relies on inference, and thus assumes that one’s own mental faculties, including the ability to draw inferences, are immune to supernatural deception, which is the very thing in question. To date your approach seems to rely on assuming the very thing in question.
Michael wrote:
I can also see that I have not accounted for how the demonic teaching first enters into humans. So let me amend (and perhaps contradict) would I previously said. It seems I need to propose some kind of ability in demons to 'propose false teaching to a person's heart and mind'. How this actually works is beyond me. The Bible says little.
Why do you suppose that is? Why would this god, which is said to have authored the bible and “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,” choose to keep his believers in the dark on such matters? Speaking as a parent myself, I do everything in my power to inform my daughter about the world and the hazards she might encounter. I certainly wouldn’t tell her something like, “Well, there are these supernatural spirits that might be a real menace to you, and I know precisely how they operate, but I’m not going to give you any details – I’m just going to leave you completely uninformed on the matter.” Since I genuinely love my daughter, I have every intention of disclosing everything I know about the hazards that could harm her. I certainly wouldn’t choose to withhold vital information from her that she could use to protect herself, as though to say, “Enjoy the darkness of your ignorance. Good luck! You’ll need it!” But perhaps on the Christian view there really is nothing that a human being can do to protect himself from supernatural forces. So why go into it? Either way, the state of affairs as we find it in the bible does not speak well for the worldview it endorses.
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Let me turn to your actual question. A one word answer to your question is 'yes', I think the human mind is potentially subject to supernatural deception. This is because the Bible teaches that human minds do get deceived by demons and their teaching.
Yes, it does teach this, so I don’t see how one could avoid answering ‘yes’ to my question, even though previous efforts on your part to answer my blog Cognitive Reliability vs. Supernatural Deception implied that you were essentially trying to answer it with a ‘no’.
So it’s good to have a clear answer to this: Yes, you do think that the human mind is potentially subject to supernatural deception, given what the bible teaches.
Of course, I’m guessing there will now be a need to qualify this affirmation somehow, perhaps with a set of disclaimers which are intended to preserve other teachings also found in the bible, namely teachings which hold man culpable for his spiritual state, even though it is ultimately in the hands of supernatural forces beyond his control.
Michael wrote:
So it’s good to have a clear answer to this: Yes, you do think that the human mind is potentially subject to supernatural deception, given what the bible teaches.
Of course, I’m guessing there will now be a need to qualify this affirmation somehow, perhaps with a set of disclaimers which are intended to preserve other teachings also found in the bible, namely teachings which hold man culpable for his spiritual state, even though it is ultimately in the hands of supernatural forces beyond his control.
Michael wrote:
Demonic possession would obviously severely change the experience of the person who is possessed.
I don’t know why you would say this. It seems that the contrary would be the case, given the supernatural abilities of deceptive spirits. You yourself have acknowledged that “the Bible teaches that human minds do get deceived by demons and their teaching.” Effective execution of such deception would, I’d think, by virtue of such efforts qualifying as successfully deceptive, result in seamless and undetectable reshaping. Presumably demons (“deceptive spirits”) have had millennia or longer to perfect their craft. So I’m not disposed to readily accept the view that demonic possession, or merely supernatural deception (if these are distinct somehow – the latter is what I’ve been concerned about), “would obviously severely change the experience of the person” who is deceived. On the contrary, I’d expect that it would be so subtle as to be completely undetectable by any human faculty. Otherwise it seems that efforts on the part of supernatural spirits to deceive men would never get off the ground: they would result in such an “obvious” and “severe” change in a person’s experience that it would be detected right away.
Perhaps this comes down to a distinction between “supernatural deception” and “demonic possession.” Perhaps Michael has something like The Exorcist in mind here. By contrast, I don’t have such spectacular depictions in mind. Rather, I’m thinking of the average human being who simply doesn’t realize that supernatural spirits have infiltrated his consciousness and imperceptibly influenced his cognition somehow. I’ve been talking about “supernatural deception” all along, but you’ve introduced the notion of “demonic possession” while interacting with my questions on the matter. I don’t know that they are one and the same. Again, “the Bible says little” here.
Michael wrote:
Perhaps this comes down to a distinction between “supernatural deception” and “demonic possession.” Perhaps Michael has something like The Exorcist in mind here. By contrast, I don’t have such spectacular depictions in mind. Rather, I’m thinking of the average human being who simply doesn’t realize that supernatural spirits have infiltrated his consciousness and imperceptibly influenced his cognition somehow. I’ve been talking about “supernatural deception” all along, but you’ve introduced the notion of “demonic possession” while interacting with my questions on the matter. I don’t know that they are one and the same. Again, “the Bible says little” here.
Michael wrote:
But would such possession be rightly called 'deception'? In certain ways, yes. We're limited in how much we can say about this, given the limitations of what the Bible says about demon possession. We have very little in the Bible about what it feels like to be demon possessed.
Again, the concerns which I originally raised in my blog had to do with supernatural deception. It’s unclear whether or not this is distinct from or identical to “demonic possession.” In fact, it’s not for me to answer, since none of this is part of my worldview. The concept ‘deception’ inherently implies that those who have been deceived do not realize that they’ve been deceived. If victims of “demonic possession” are aware that they’ve been taken over by some demonic force, then clearly my concerns do not apply in such cases. Rather, I have in mind situations analogous to the Star Trek episode I mentioned earlier: the victims of deception have no idea that they’ve been deceived, they have no way of detecting the deception on their own, since the deceivers possess skills that are far beyond the ability of those who have been so deceived to sense or detect in any way.
So in response to your point here, I would say that the person who’s been supernaturally deceived doesn’t feel any different. Since he’s been deceived, he has no idea that he’s been deceived, and whatever deception has taken root in his being feels perfectly natural. It’s seamless in is experience.
Michael wrote:
So in response to your point here, I would say that the person who’s been supernaturally deceived doesn’t feel any different. Since he’s been deceived, he has no idea that he’s been deceived, and whatever deception has taken root in his being feels perfectly natural. It’s seamless in is experience.
Michael wrote:
I'll try a few comments, nonetheless: I don't know what it feels like to be demon possessed, or whether one manifestation of that might be to have one's faculties playing tricks on you.
My concern at this point is that the discussion is incrementally drifting from man’s inability to know whether or not he’s been supernaturally deceived, to what it “feels like to be demon possessed,” the latter of which was never the focus of my concern. It’s one thing to say that when a human being is possessed by a demon, he senses this, recognizes that he’s been taken over by a demon, and essentially says, “Hey, I like this! It feels great! Take me for a ride, Asmodeus! Have your way with me!” It’s quite another to say that a human being has been deceived “unawares,” which can only imply that he’s been led down the wrong path without realizing it by some supernatural influence that he can neither detect nor successfully resist on his own.
If human beings can be deceived by other human beings “unawares,” how much more can they be deceived by supernatural beings “unawares,” especially when the very nature of those supernatural beings is not only malevolent, but also beyond the reach of man’s senses as well as vastly more powerful than any human being? By nature it’s a ludicrously uneven match. But on the Christian worldview, this is all part of “God’s plan.”
Previously, Michael, you focused on I Timothy 4:2 (“by means of the hypocrisy of liars (A)seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron”) in order to draw the inference that supernatural deception finds its way into the stream of human thought through other human beings. Your interpretation of this verse apparently assumes that the “liars” mentioned in it were human in nature (even though the content of the verse does not necessarily require such an interpretation so far as I can tell). Specifically you had stated (in your 3 December comment to this blog, timestamped 3:25 am), regarding I Timothy 4:
If human beings can be deceived by other human beings “unawares,” how much more can they be deceived by supernatural beings “unawares,” especially when the very nature of those supernatural beings is not only malevolent, but also beyond the reach of man’s senses as well as vastly more powerful than any human being? By nature it’s a ludicrously uneven match. But on the Christian worldview, this is all part of “God’s plan.”
Previously, Michael, you focused on I Timothy 4:2 (“by means of the hypocrisy of liars (A)seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron”) in order to draw the inference that supernatural deception finds its way into the stream of human thought through other human beings. Your interpretation of this verse apparently assumes that the “liars” mentioned in it were human in nature (even though the content of the verse does not necessarily require such an interpretation so far as I can tell). Specifically you had stated (in your 3 December comment to this blog, timestamped 3:25 am), regarding I Timothy 4:
Notice from verse 2 [I Tim. 4:2] that the deceitful spirits are doing their deceiving through teachings which come through human hypocritical liars.
We must keep in mind that certain verses in the NT indicate that supernatural beings have the ability to disguise themselves in human form. For instance, Hebrews 13:2 instructs believers as follows:
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
This is one of those “just in case” instructions that the NT gives to believers, given the potential that things aren’t as they appear to be in terms of “spiritual” (i.e., supernatural) matters. As I wrote in my 3 December comment to the same blog (timestamped 7:06 am):
I do not see that Paul specifies that the ‘hypocritical liars’ he mentions are to be understood as *human*. I say this partly because I recall, when I was a believer, how my pastor & his crew would continually refer to certain “worldly folks” as “demons” and “devils,” and very often imply that the “wicked” individuals we encountered were actually malevolent supernatural agents disguised as human beings (perhaps sort of like Jesus being the Christian god “become flesh”). In other words, given Christianity’s overt supernaturalism and the powers it ascribes to supernatural spirits, I could not take it for granted that every individual I encountered was actually a human being. I really had no way of knowing one way or another. And I don’t think this kind of self-doubt and confusion is either unbiblical or accidental.
So the biblical worldview in fact ascribes tremendous powers and abilities to supernatural beings. If I were a believer (and I’m speaking from personal experience as a former insider here), I certainly wouldn’t presume to have the intellectual confidence to discount or downplay the abilities of supernatural beings. On the contrary, their very presence in the Christian worldview seems to be deliberately affirmed for the purpose of undermining any confidence in one’s own mind on the part of the believer who takes such teachings seriously, which I’d suppose anyone calling himself a Christian would need to do, given his confession qua Christian. In other words, I think it’d be wrong – indeed “arrogant” – on the part of any human being taking Christian teachings as actually true, to say “Well, those supernatural spirits really can’t do anything harmful; they’re just a nuisance is all. They really have no power. Don’t take them seriously.”
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
To lose control of one's speech and action etc. to another being who is within you, that seems to be what happens to some of the demoniacs in the Bible.
What you describe here (i.e., losing control of one’s own speech and actions, one’s own will, as it were), does not seem to be restricted, going by the stories I’ve read in the bible, only to demoniacs. Indeed, there are passages, such as in the gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles, which suggest something similar, only the supernatural agent involved is the “Holy Ghost,” not some devil or demon. Some examples might include:
John 14:26: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (How will it “teach” these things to those whom it teaches?)
John 15:26: “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (How will it do this “testifying”?)
Acts 1:2: “until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.” (Jesus “gives orders” through the “Holy Spirit”? How does anyone become aware of them?)
Acts 1:16: “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.” (So, did David just mouth the words that were given to him by the “Holy Spirit” to speak, regardless of his knowledge of what they meant? Or was such knowledge just implanted into his head supernaturally?)
Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.” (So, these people supposedly spoke in some actual language that they had not already learned, and they did so because the “Holy Spirit” spoke through them?)
Acts 2:17: “’AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;” (So, this “Holy Spirit” will be “poured forth” onto “all mankind,” and as a result, this will cause them to “prophesy” and “see visions” and “dream dreams”? How is this not an example of a supernatural being taking over human cognition?)
Acts 4:31: “And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.” (So, this “filling” with the “Holy Spirit” results in the ability “to speak the word of God with boldness”? Is it the ability to speak, or the ability to speak “the word of God,” or the ability to speak this word “with boldness” that the “filling” with the “Holy Spirit” gives to men?)
Acts 8:29: “Then the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go up and join this chariot.’” (How does an immaterial, incorporeal, non-biological, and invisible “spirit” tell a man to do something like this?)
Acts 8:39: “When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.” (Here the “Spirit of the Lord” performs what is apparently a physical action, namely “snatching” someone from where they are. Perhaps many of the individuals who go missing each year have really just been “snatched away” by the “Holy Spirit.” How would anyone believing any of this know otherwise?)
Acts 10:19: “While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you.” (How did “the Spirit” say this to Peter? How did the author of Acts know what a “spirit” said to one of the characters of his story, if not by imagining this?)
Acts 13:4: “So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus” (How did the “Holy Spirit” send them “out,” such that “they went down to Seleucia”? How does that work?)
Acts 16:6: “They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;” (How does the “Holy Spirit” forbid a person to speak? Is it through persuasion or by means of force? Again, “the Bible says little” here.)
Acts 16:7: “and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;” (Here the “Spirit of Jesus” inexplicitly prohibits people from doing something. Apparently people do not have the ability to make their own decisions. And how does one person know whether another person is being prevented from doing something because of some supernatural force?)
According to these verses (and others which I simply haven’t had time to rummage through), the “Holy Spirit” (which is not supposed to be “deceptive,” since it represents “the Truth,” regardless of its compulsive practices), seems to work in a manner similar to the “deceptive spirits” which are said to infiltrate human minds and turn them into puppets. If the concern is to figure out how it “feels” to be supernaturally commandeered, it’s hard to see how there would be any significant difference between demonic and divine possession in this regard.
Also, consider the very phenomenon by which the “Holy Spirit” is said to manifest itself in believers, namely through “speaking in tongues.” If this is not a clear example of losing control of one’s own speech, I don’t know what is. Indeed, it seems quite strange, given the breadth of the unfolding epic of the Christian bible. In the Old Testament, diversity of tongues was a sign of divine punishment (cf. Genesis 11:1-9), while in the New Testament speaking an unknown tongue is evidence of the “indwelling” of the “Holy Spirit.” First it’s representative of something bad, then it’s representative of something good.
At any rate, I see no indication in anything I’ve read in the Christian bible which necessitates that a person who’s been taken over by a supernatural spirit will feel any different or notice the intrusion to begin with. Rather, it seems that supernatural spirits have the ability to take over one’s speech and other cognitive faculties while maintaining the impression that one is in full control of himself. Otherwise, how could it be legitimately called ‘deception’?
The curious thing to note here is that the “Holy Spirit” is characterized in the NT as behaving in a manner very similar to “deceptive spirits” in that it allegedly moves into the mind of a human being and essentially takes over. It is unclear whether or not the person so affected is actually aware of this or not. But this actually seems to be what believers are encouraged to desire: that they should invite a “spirit” to enter into their minds, hearts and/or souls and “indwell” therein, taking control or at least taking the lead in one’s life.
I remember a common piece of instruction I heard so often when I was a church-goer. The expression was “Let go and let God.” Even then I couldn’t keep images of Luke Skywalker flying an incredibly sophisticated piece of hardware through space, preparing to bomb a massive space station, and suddenly the voice of his deceased mentor could be heard, “Let go, Luke. Let go. Use your feelings.” For all the Christians who claim that atheists have no consistent foundation for reason, logic, science, morality and the rest, the appropriate response may simply be, “May the Force be with you!”
But clearly the NT indicates that spirits, both wicked and divine, essentially inhabit human beings somehow. The stories of the “Holy Spirit” guiding missionizing travelers in the Acts of the Apostles wouldn’t make sense otherwise, nor would he many instances in the gospels where Jesus is portrayed as “casting out demons” from characters inserted into these narratives.
Michael wrote:
Also, consider the very phenomenon by which the “Holy Spirit” is said to manifest itself in believers, namely through “speaking in tongues.” If this is not a clear example of losing control of one’s own speech, I don’t know what is. Indeed, it seems quite strange, given the breadth of the unfolding epic of the Christian bible. In the Old Testament, diversity of tongues was a sign of divine punishment (cf. Genesis 11:1-9), while in the New Testament speaking an unknown tongue is evidence of the “indwelling” of the “Holy Spirit.” First it’s representative of something bad, then it’s representative of something good.
At any rate, I see no indication in anything I’ve read in the Christian bible which necessitates that a person who’s been taken over by a supernatural spirit will feel any different or notice the intrusion to begin with. Rather, it seems that supernatural spirits have the ability to take over one’s speech and other cognitive faculties while maintaining the impression that one is in full control of himself. Otherwise, how could it be legitimately called ‘deception’?
The curious thing to note here is that the “Holy Spirit” is characterized in the NT as behaving in a manner very similar to “deceptive spirits” in that it allegedly moves into the mind of a human being and essentially takes over. It is unclear whether or not the person so affected is actually aware of this or not. But this actually seems to be what believers are encouraged to desire: that they should invite a “spirit” to enter into their minds, hearts and/or souls and “indwell” therein, taking control or at least taking the lead in one’s life.
I remember a common piece of instruction I heard so often when I was a church-goer. The expression was “Let go and let God.” Even then I couldn’t keep images of Luke Skywalker flying an incredibly sophisticated piece of hardware through space, preparing to bomb a massive space station, and suddenly the voice of his deceased mentor could be heard, “Let go, Luke. Let go. Use your feelings.” For all the Christians who claim that atheists have no consistent foundation for reason, logic, science, morality and the rest, the appropriate response may simply be, “May the Force be with you!”
But clearly the NT indicates that spirits, both wicked and divine, essentially inhabit human beings somehow. The stories of the “Holy Spirit” guiding missionizing travelers in the Acts of the Apostles wouldn’t make sense otherwise, nor would he many instances in the gospels where Jesus is portrayed as “casting out demons” from characters inserted into these narratives.
Michael wrote:
But it's hard to guess what you would see and feel and think and know if that happened to you.
I’d think that, were supernaturalism true and some supernatural being deceived a person, that person would be deceived, and thus think everything he’s experiencing is completely normal. Since the supernatural spirit is actively deceiving him, that spirit would no doubt ensure that there weren’t anything available to the deceived’s consciousness calling attention to the deception. Certainly a supernatural being would be capable of concealing its own presence in one’s life, no? Indeed, what objective evidence do Christians provide to support the claim that the “Holy Spirit” is dwelling in them? None that I’ve ever been able to find. Frankly it all seems to be in the imagination of the believer.
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
I can't think that anyone would choose to be demon possessed, or 'demonized' (to use a more accurate translation of the Greek verb), knowing all that it would imply.
But you do think that the vast majority of persons have in fact chosen to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” no doubt knowing all that this implies, right?
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Therefore I think it's fair to say that demons work in a deceptive way, in order to end up possessing/'demonizing' a person.
This would mean that there is in fact a distinction between “supernatural deception” (which is what I have been inquiring about all along) and “demonic possession,” which you have recently introduced into the discussion. According to what you say here, the latter (“demonic possession”) is a goal of the former (“supernatural deception”). The nefarious spirits do not begin by “possessing” their victims (which implies full custody of the person’s mind, heart and soul, like locking a cage door and allowing no escape), but by coaxing, misleading, perhaps seducing or beguiling their victims without letting on that their being deceived (which implies that the victim is not under full custody, but may in fact be able to escape somehow). Would you say this is at least roughly accurate? At any rate, it seems that you do in fact hold that, according to your worldview, the human mind is subject to supernatural deception.
That being the case, and given the fact that “the Bible says little” on all of this, particularly on the epistemology of discovering and identifying what’s taking place in the “supernatural” realm, how can someone who believes that there are supernatural spirits malevolently seeking out victims of their deceptive tactics, have any confidence that their mind is free of any and all deceitful intrusions on the part of supernatural spirits?
Michael wrote:
That being the case, and given the fact that “the Bible says little” on all of this, particularly on the epistemology of discovering and identifying what’s taking place in the “supernatural” realm, how can someone who believes that there are supernatural spirits malevolently seeking out victims of their deceptive tactics, have any confidence that their mind is free of any and all deceitful intrusions on the part of supernatural spirits?
Michael wrote:
I would discuss this topic under the theme of whether a person ends up with an excuse on the last Day before God.
In other words, the preservation of this doctrine – that man is without excuse before the Christian god – is your guiding non-negotiable in determining whether or not supernatural spirits can deceive human beings, and if so, when, where and how; whatever view you end up affirming regarding deceptive spirits and whether or not supernatural beings can deceive human minds, it must be conform to this doctrine. Correct?
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
For example, if a person were demon possessed at birth or at a very young age, they could complain on the last Day to God that they had no opportunity as an adult to process God's revelation of Himself to them, so they are not to blame for their rejection of him.
So I suppose that, on your understanding of Christianity, you would rather believe that human beings, perhaps even from a very young age, are actively deceiving themselves – “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” – presumably on purpose. That’s how I understand the Christian view which is explicitly informed by the interpretation of Romans 1 that you have adopted: that everyone pretty much starts out actively deceiving themselves, apparently without influence from supernatural spirits. Would you say this is an unfair assessment, and if so, why? Would you rather say that there’s a point in people’s lives when they make some choice or decision to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”? If so, can you elaborate on this?
Or consider this: Do you think it’s simply not possible for someone genuinely to believe that Christian theism is irrational, that its claims about supernatural beings are false? My view is that supernaturalism finds its source in people’s imaginations. Do you think I’m suppressing some truth by coming to this recognition? If so, is that because you’re simply trying to be faithful to Romans 1? Or, do you have any objective input from reality (i.e., actual facts about the case rather than claims made by someone 1900 years ago to keep believers from straying from the churches he wanted to grow) to support this assessment?
Michael wrote:
Or consider this: Do you think it’s simply not possible for someone genuinely to believe that Christian theism is irrational, that its claims about supernatural beings are false? My view is that supernaturalism finds its source in people’s imaginations. Do you think I’m suppressing some truth by coming to this recognition? If so, is that because you’re simply trying to be faithful to Romans 1? Or, do you have any objective input from reality (i.e., actual facts about the case rather than claims made by someone 1900 years ago to keep believers from straying from the churches he wanted to grow) to support this assessment?
Michael wrote:
Lacking control over one's actions would also seem like a potentially good excuse for evil actions.
That’s interesting you say this. Would you agree with Van Til when he says “God controls whatsoever comes to pass” (The Defense of the Faith, p. 160)?
Or how about when Greg Bahnsen writes: “God’s thoughts make the world what it is and determine what happens” (Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 243)?
Or how about when he writes: “God controls all events and outcomes (even those that come about by human choice and activity)” (Ibid., p. 489n.43)?
If the Christian god is controlling everything that happens, determining “all events and outcomes,” including “those that come about human choice and activity,” it seems that a human individual really doesn’t have any control over his own actions. In fact, I don’t see how one could. And yet, Van Til & co. affirm this all-encompassing theistic determinism while still maintaining the “no excuse” doctrine. It all strikes me to be sheerly self-contradictory, or at any rate a complete mockery of morality (which is already evident in their view that evil is morally justifiable).
So again, it seems hard to maintain the “no excuse” doctrine with any logical consistency here.
Michael wrote:
Or how about when Greg Bahnsen writes: “God’s thoughts make the world what it is and determine what happens” (Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 243)?
Or how about when he writes: “God controls all events and outcomes (even those that come about by human choice and activity)” (Ibid., p. 489n.43)?
If the Christian god is controlling everything that happens, determining “all events and outcomes,” including “those that come about human choice and activity,” it seems that a human individual really doesn’t have any control over his own actions. In fact, I don’t see how one could. And yet, Van Til & co. affirm this all-encompassing theistic determinism while still maintaining the “no excuse” doctrine. It all strikes me to be sheerly self-contradictory, or at any rate a complete mockery of morality (which is already evident in their view that evil is morally justifiable).
So again, it seems hard to maintain the “no excuse” doctrine with any logical consistency here.
Michael wrote:
Therefore, I would conclude that God does not allow very young children to be demonized.
So if a demonic spirit wants to “demonize” a little toddler, for instance, you think something’s going to prevent it? If so, what? The “hand of God”? Why would that same god allow any of its human children to be harmed in such a way, even when they are older?
Suppose a person in his 20s becomes demonically possessed and driven to suicide. Why couldn’t this person point to his being possessed by a demon as an “excuse”? Couldn’t that person say something like, “If you [God] protected me from the demon, I would have been able to call on Jesus as my Lord and Savior. But since you [God] allowed me to be demonized, all opportunity for me to repent was taken from me, so I have a legitimate excuse”? Clearly he could say this (since people can say pretty much anything they want). But I’m guessing you would say your god would not accept it for some reason, right?
Michael wrote:
Suppose a person in his 20s becomes demonically possessed and driven to suicide. Why couldn’t this person point to his being possessed by a demon as an “excuse”? Couldn’t that person say something like, “If you [God] protected me from the demon, I would have been able to call on Jesus as my Lord and Savior. But since you [God] allowed me to be demonized, all opportunity for me to repent was taken from me, so I have a legitimate excuse”? Clearly he could say this (since people can say pretty much anything they want). But I’m guessing you would say your god would not accept it for some reason, right?
Michael wrote:
Since people will have no excuse before God, it follows that God does not allow demons to possess children when they are very young, because that would give them an excuse on the last Day before God.
I guess I just don’t see how being demonized for, say the last twenty years of one’s adult life, could not also constitute an excuse. At any rate, you’re implying that there is an age at which the gloves come off, so to say, and a child or young person is no longer immune to supernatural deception. Can you elaborate on this? What is that age, and how do you know?
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
I think what likely happens is that God only allows a significant level of demonic possession/influence on people when they have done something wicked enough to deserve such possession/influence.
But what, beyond being born as a human being, can a person do such that he “deserve[s] such possession/influence”? Consider the story of Job. Did Job deserve the injustices he suffered at the hands of demonic forces? My understanding of the story (and it’s been a while since I’ve read it) is that Job was “right with God” and thus did not deserve any injustice. But biblegod stood by and allowed it to happen, watching every moment of it. Perhaps it’s more like the line from Unforgiven: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.” In fact, that’s precisely how I read the Calvinist view of the world. On the Calvinist view, since every soul’s eternal destiny has been determined long before anyone has been born (and therefore before anyone’s had a chance to exercise his own volition in his life), man does nothing to “deserve” his eternal fate, whether it’s heaven or hellfire. His eternal destiny has been predetermined for all eternity. The Christian god does no choose to save anyone because he “deserves” it – there’s nothing anyone can do to “merit” salvation. It’s simply the Christian god’s arbitrary choice (only Christians will likely resist calling it arbitrary).
Also, your statement here suggests there are degrees of wickedness, some “level” of which will “earn” one the opening of the demonic floodgates. Of course, while some NT verses may confirm such a view, it does seem to go against the view expressed quite explicitly in James 2:10, that “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” This NT verse suggests that there are no “degrees” of transgression, no “levels” of “sin.”
Michael wrote:
Also, your statement here suggests there are degrees of wickedness, some “level” of which will “earn” one the opening of the demonic floodgates. Of course, while some NT verses may confirm such a view, it does seem to go against the view expressed quite explicitly in James 2:10, that “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” This NT verse suggests that there are no “degrees” of transgression, no “levels” of “sin.”
Michael wrote:
That's why seances and witchcraft are so dangerous…
I know that the bible mentions witchcraft (and prescribes that witches be put to death), but I don’t think I’ve ever read about “séances” in the bible. Perhaps under a different name?
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
…if you explicitly invite demonic power to manifest itself in and around you, there is a justice in the demons taking some control over you and (perhaps) taking some control of your cognitive powers.
I will have to take your word for it. I have to admit that I really don’t understand what the word “justice” could possibly mean in a world ruled by the god described in the Christian bible. According to the NT, for instance, we’ve all been judged guilty even before we were born. I don’t understand how this can be just. Christians insist that it is. But they seem hard-pressed to explain how it’s an expression of justice.
And why suppose that “séances and witchcraft” are the only way to “explicitly invite demonic power” into one’s soul or life? If I recall, somewhere in the book of Proverbs it is intimated that the stubbornness of a defiant child is sufficient to “merit” death. Merely being born and “dying in one’s sins” is sufficient to “merit” eternal torment. Why isn’t using the Christian god’s name in vain or failing to observe the “Sabbath” sufficient to “invite demonic power” into one’s life? An “unsaved” person presumably does not have the protection of the “Holy Spirit” or the Christian god’s retinue of holy “angels,” so why not suppose that such a condition constitutes “open season” on behalf of the countless demons and devils seeking souls to consume and devour in their orgy of sin-making and soul-destroying? James tells us that one offence is sufficient to suffuse a soul with guilt.
Michael wrote:
And why suppose that “séances and witchcraft” are the only way to “explicitly invite demonic power” into one’s soul or life? If I recall, somewhere in the book of Proverbs it is intimated that the stubbornness of a defiant child is sufficient to “merit” death. Merely being born and “dying in one’s sins” is sufficient to “merit” eternal torment. Why isn’t using the Christian god’s name in vain or failing to observe the “Sabbath” sufficient to “invite demonic power” into one’s life? An “unsaved” person presumably does not have the protection of the “Holy Spirit” or the Christian god’s retinue of holy “angels,” so why not suppose that such a condition constitutes “open season” on behalf of the countless demons and devils seeking souls to consume and devour in their orgy of sin-making and soul-destroying? James tells us that one offence is sufficient to suffuse a soul with guilt.
Michael wrote:
You invited them, after all! (There are various embedded assumptions here that witchcraft and seances have real power on account of their using the real power which demons have)
But this line of reasoning you offer here somewhat implies that deceptive spirits need to be explicitly invited in the first place, when that’s not the understanding I get from the NT. They are not characterized as beings respecting the sovereignty of human beings who need to consent before being deceived or “possessed.” Rather, they are characterized as aggressive, opportunistic predators “seeking whom [they] may devour” (I Pet. 5:8). They’re actively on the prowl, not sitting back and waiting for invitations.
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
I strongly recommend warning your daughter against witchcraft and seances, Dawson!
I warn her about all forms of mysticism, Michael, including Christianity. Ultimately she will have to make her own decisions in life. But what a cache of resources she’ll have in what I have given her!
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Incidentally, I also believe Christians can escape any potential demonization of themselves or their children, since if they 'resist Satan, standing firm in the faith... he will flee from them' (that's a conflation of a couple of Bible verses).
Yes, I’m familiar with those passages. But then I’m reminded of Matthew 5:39 where the following injunction is put into Jesus’ mouth: “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person.” Isn’t Satan a personal being? Aren’t devils and demons personal beings? It seems that Jesus would have believers not resisting evil persons.
Of course, one could be deceived into thinking that he’s really saved in the first place. There are, after all, hundreds if not thousands of different denominations, sects, factions and divisions within Christianity, many of them vehemently criticizing others for getting Christian doctrine wrong and essentially sending people to hell. Given the enormous variation among Christian teachings, and the exclusivity to truth that they claim to enjoy, the question as to which version is the correct one (assuming one of them is correct in the first place) seems entirely unanswerable. It’s a spiritual crap shoot. One might think he’s found the right church, the right doctrine, the right interpretation of that doctrine, only to have been deceived by some conniving spirit that he can’t see, hear, taste, touch or smell. He could be deceived and simply not realize it. A person in this situation may think he’s going through the right motions in protecting himself against supernatural spirits bent on deceiving him, but he could be playing into their hand all along, given the premise of supernaturalism to begin with. There really seems to be no “epistemology of the supernatural” to equip believers with the cognitive resources they would need to navigate the spirit world with any confidence. That’s what it all really boils down to.
Michael wrote:
Of course, one could be deceived into thinking that he’s really saved in the first place. There are, after all, hundreds if not thousands of different denominations, sects, factions and divisions within Christianity, many of them vehemently criticizing others for getting Christian doctrine wrong and essentially sending people to hell. Given the enormous variation among Christian teachings, and the exclusivity to truth that they claim to enjoy, the question as to which version is the correct one (assuming one of them is correct in the first place) seems entirely unanswerable. It’s a spiritual crap shoot. One might think he’s found the right church, the right doctrine, the right interpretation of that doctrine, only to have been deceived by some conniving spirit that he can’t see, hear, taste, touch or smell. He could be deceived and simply not realize it. A person in this situation may think he’s going through the right motions in protecting himself against supernatural spirits bent on deceiving him, but he could be playing into their hand all along, given the premise of supernaturalism to begin with. There really seems to be no “epistemology of the supernatural” to equip believers with the cognitive resources they would need to navigate the spirit world with any confidence. That’s what it all really boils down to.
Michael wrote:
One strength of my take on all of this, is the number of people who actually describe 'weird' things happening through witchdoctoring, seances and so on.
I’m guessing what you’re calling a “strength” here is the number of reports of such things, and its supposed value in confirming the truth of the beliefs you’ve developed in your Christian walk. I’m guessing there are people who are so anxious for confirmation that, even if there were only one or two such reports, they would happily point to them as vindication. But perhaps you think a higher number is required. If so, what is that number, and why? Is it 10? 20? 100? 1000? Would one less than the number you find significant impact your beliefs negatively?
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Dismissing the reality of all these testimonies would be a weakness of your position, Dawson.
Why? People who put stock in such things are already predisposed to confusing what they imagine with reality, so it would not surprise me if persons who consider such expressions of mysticism to be legitimate forms of communing with the supernatural to report “strange occurrences” happening through such activities. Here in Thailand, mysticism is pretty much rampant throughout the culture. I see some pretty bizarre things here, and I hear some of the most outlandish stories. It’s not only generated by the mysticism of their worldview, it’s also interpreted as confirmation of its “truth.” Many people put faith in fortune-tellers, for instance. But it’s amazing how often they get things wrong, and yet still people return to them and pay for additional services. I don’t know how they rationalize the failures, but I have known people in the west who rationalize the failures of their palm-readings and horoscopes. Christian apologist Phil Fernandes, in his debate with J. J. Lowder, describes the attitude of the mystic very well when he says: “I just believe that we are very good about lying to ourselves, and only accepting, uh, or interpreting the evidence the way we would like to.” Of course, I take it that he’s speaking for himself here.
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Have you not had any friends who've gone to seances and reported strange occurrences?
I certainly don’t recall any. But I’m not questioning that people who engage in such activities will come away with stories about what happened. But anything along the lines of what we see in movies like The Changeling and The Haunting in Connecticut? None that I’m aware of. The imagination seems to run wild once one buys into any form of supernaturalism.
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Have you not met any Africans who ascribe real power to witchdoctors?
I work with a fellow from Cameroon. If I get a chance, I’ll ask him about this. But I don’t doubt the fact that people around the world put a lot of stock in mysticism. They do it today just as they did 2,000 years ago in Paul’s time.
Michael wrote:
Michael wrote:
Do you treat with sheer disbelief all the accumulated accounts all over the world of the power of witchcraft in its various forms and guises?
It’s not clear what I’m being asked to affirm or disaffirm here. My view is that mysticism (including belief in the supernatural) is irrational. Does that answer your question?
by Dawson Bethrick
by Dawson Bethrick
316 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 316 of 316Trinity,
I do not even know what your challenge is. Besides, it is irrelevant to you answering my questions, for you said you would answer my questions "right after" I answered yours. Witness:
Trinity wrote: "Right after you answer a couple of preliminary questions:
Have you ever taken a formal class in Logic, for example, at at a university?
And
Have you ever taken a formal class in "human evolution" for example, at at a university?
December 28, 2011 11:04 AM"
---
I responded with the following:
Trinity wrote: "Have you ever taken a formal class in Logic, for example, at at a university?"
No.
"Have you ever taken a formal class in "human evolution" for example, at at a university?"
No.
I have a B.S. in Business Administration from Arizona State University.
Your questions have been answered. Now, how about answering mine.
Ydemoc
December 28, 2011 11:11 AM
-------end quoted material---------
Now, instead of answering you evade by trying to steer the conversation into a different direction -- posting new questions to me, along with an analysis of my not rising to some challenge. This is dishonest on your part.
So, in case you would like to hold up your end of the bargain, here are my questions, which you said you would answer "right after" I answered your questions:
I am asking about the referent(s) for the concept "death" under very specific conditions. Observe:
"If humans are "'pre-programmed' to learn" concepts "thanks to the Good Lord above..." does this apply to the concept "death"? Should we all be thanking the "Good Lord above" for the concept "death"?
In other words, according to Christians, does the concept "death" ultimately find its origins in the "mind" of the Christian god? I guess this would have to be the case, right? For Genesis 2:17 reads: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(continued)
Do you see the concept "die"? That is the same as "death." Would you mind telling us what the referent(s) for this concept was prior to The Fall? Remember now, the concept "death" shouldn't even exist until after The Fall, right? since it was man who brought it into the world? Yet here we have your god using the concept before The Fall! Hmmmm."
After you are done with this question, would you mind answering the others? Here they are again:
What evidence would satisfy you, Trinity? What would the quantity and quality of evidence have to be in order for you to be satisfied as to the truth of evolution?
Once you tell us what your evidential standard is and/or what kind of evidence would convince you that evolution is true, then ask yourself this: Am I demanding more or better evidence for accepting the truth of evolution than I am for positing the existence of a god?
And then ask yourself: Am I demanding more and better evidence for evolution than I am for positing that this god I believe exists, is in fact, the god of Christianity?
And then ask yourself: Am I demanding more and better evidence for accepting evolution than I am for my belief in "Conversational Donkeys," "Conversational Snakes," "The Walking Dead," "Water Turning Into Wine," "Invisible Three-For-The-Price-Of-One Magic Beings," etc.?
Now that you have told us what evidence you would accept and what your evidential standard is, can you tell us if this is your evidence and standard because you want or wish this to be the case? If wanting or wishing play no part in your evidence and standard, then what is your basis for the evidence and standard you have posited?
Ydemoc
The problem is Weazel how do you know what you are saying is what you are saying since you admitted by your refusal to meet my challenge that you are using words that you can't define or really don't know what they mean but are using anyway.
Is it because concepts are automatic and intuitive?
More plainly how do you know what you are saying is intelligible?
Trinity wrote: "The problem is Weazel how do you know what you are saying is what you are saying since you admitted by your refusal to meet my challenge that you are using words that you can't define or really don't know what they mean but are using anyway."
Whether I do or don't know what they mean is irrelevant to *you* answering the questions. What difference does it make to you if I am, say, just a computer asking the questions? You know what I'm asking, do you not? Plus, you said you would answer them.
Trinity wrote: "Is it because concepts are automatic and intuitive?"
Not according to my view, no. But this doesn't matter in order for you to answer my questions, as you said you would do; for even under your view, concepts refer do, indeed, refer to things, don't they? For example, when we use a concept like "cow" we all know that we are talking about a four-legged creature that "moos" and gives milk, right? As opposed to a "horse"? Or a "bench" and all other things in reality that are not four-legged, do not "moo," and do not give milk? I'm sure you would agree that concepts such as cow refer to things in reality, right? And "death" would certainly, under your view, be a concept that refers to something in reality, right? So with this in mind, here are my questions again which you said you would answer "right after" I answered your questions:
I am asking about the referent(s) for the concept "death" under very specific conditions. Observe:
"If humans are "'pre-programmed' to learn" concepts "thanks to the Good Lord above..." does this apply to the concept "death"? Should we all be thanking the "Good Lord above" for the concept "death"?
In other words, according to Christians, does the concept "death" ultimately find its origins in the "mind" of the Christian god? I guess this would have to be the case, right? For Genesis 2:17 reads: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(continued)
Do you see the concept "die"? That is the same as "death." Would you mind telling us what the referent(s) for this concept was prior to The Fall? Remember now, the concept "death" shouldn't even exist until after The Fall, right? since it was man who brought it into the world? Yet here we have your god using the concept before The Fall! Hmmmm."
After you are done with this question, would you mind answering the others? Here they are again:
What evidence would satisfy you, Trinity? What would the quantity and quality of evidence have to be in order for you to be satisfied as to the truth of evolution?
Once you tell us what your evidential standard is and/or what kind of evidence would convince you that evolution is true, then ask yourself this: Am I demanding more or better evidence for accepting the truth of evolution than I am for positing the existence of a god?
And then ask yourself: Am I demanding more and better evidence for evolution than I am for positing that this god I believe exists, is in fact, the god of Christianity?
And then ask yourself: Am I demanding more and better evidence for accepting evolution than I am for my belief in "Conversational Donkeys," "Conversational Snakes," "The Walking Dead," "Water Turning Into Wine," "Invisible Three-For-The-Price-Of-One Magic Beings," etc.?
Now that you have told us what evidence you would accept and what your evidential standard is, can you tell us if this is your evidence and standard because you want or wish this to be the case? If wanting or wishing play no part in your evidence and standard, then what is your basis for the evidence and standard you have posited?
Ydemoc
My teacher was fond of saying common ancestor.
While the whole time I'm thinking not at all it's a common creator.
The theory of evolution has no truth value. Remeber the evidence suggests never proves.
By the way what is truth?
Trinity asked: "By the way what is truth?"
"Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics." (Ayn Rand, "Definitions,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 48)
Or as Dawson points out: "It is a higher abstraction which is ultimately based on axiomatic concepts (again, conceptual knowledge is hierarchical - another fact that I did not learn from the bible). It identifies the accuracy of correspondence between statements and their intended objects of reference." ("Omnipotence and Sovereignty in the Cartoon Universe," April 4, 2005,
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/04/omnipotence-and-sovereignty-in-cartoon.html)
Or...
"...truth is the identification of any actual state of affairs that obtains independent of our wishing, ignorance or denial." (Dawson Bethrick, "Probing Mr. Manata's Poor Understanding of the Axioms," October 04, 2005, http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/10/probing-mr-manatas-poor-understanding.html)
You still have not answered my questions. But that's okay, for my questions will remain for all to see, as will your "blank outs" in response. I understand my questions pose problems for Christians.
Ydemoc
@Nide
totally off topic but thought you might find it interesting. I came across this while browsing tech news
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/28/1634247/recent-discovery-contains-oldest-depiction-of-the-tower-of-babel
Thanks, Justin.
Thanks Jhall. By the way I'm about to deliberately commit all the kinds of ad hominems you can commit.
Ydemoc you are a complete idiot a true moron. It doesn't really matter anyway it isn't like you know or ever presented an argument.
So, How about telling me what truth is.
Your questions are junk questions besides you admitted to using words without knowing what they mean.
So, once again how do you know what you are saying is what you are saying?
Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc you are a complete idiot a true moron."
Is this not redundant? I'm pretty sure this is redundant. If it isn't redundant, can you explain the difference to me -- you know, between "complete idiot" and "true moron"? Their might be some subtle differences between the two that I am completely unaware of.
Trinity wrote: "It doesn't really matter anyway it isn't like you know or ever presented an argument."
It doesn't matter to whom? It doesn't matter to me, because I know what you are trying to avoid. Besides, I'm not the one who broke his word.
Trinity wrote: "So, How about telling me what truth is."
I did -- didn't you see it above? I gave you three answers for "truth." Are you skimming again?
Trinity wrote: "Your questions are junk questions..."
No, I think you recognize that they are actually *not* junk questions, otherwise you would have answered them already. But you didn't. And this tells me they are far from being junk questions. They are high quality, and difficult for you to answer.
Trinity wrote: "...besides you admitted to using words without knowing what they mean."
No, I didn't. Not at all. I believe if you check the record you will see that I said it didn't matter if **I** knew what I was talking about, but only if you knew what I was talking about. What difference would it make if these questions came from someone who knew what he or she was talking about, or if the questions were computer generated, much like they are on Jeopardy (not technically the case, since Jeopardy uses answers) or merely existing on a card, like in Trivial Pursuit? The important thing is, and by all indications, *you do know* what I'm talking about, but you just refuse to answer. I understand these questions pose difficulties for the Christian.
(continued)
Trinity wrote: "So, once again how do you know what you are saying is what you are saying?"
Well, if for some reason I didn't, I do now, since you just told me so.
More to the point, do you think what I'm saying can be something other than what I'm saying? A is A, remember?
You aren't very clear, are you? Perhaps if you continue to educate yourself, you will eventually learn to become better at conveying your thoughts. I think you will.
And I say this no matter your what your beliefs are. I say this because you are a fellow American, and the difficulties you are having do not reflect kindly upon our educational system.
But, then again, since I am in favor of privatizing all education, maybe showcasing your deficiencies like you have is actually a good thing where privatizing education is concerned.
Ydemoc
Charlatan,
Without referring to a dictionary can you please define every word you have asked of me.
Thanks.
Trinity wrote: "Without referring to a dictionary can you please define every word you have asked of me."
I can, but I won't. It's irrelevant to you answering the questions I posed to you, for you know what I'm asking, and you have stated that you would answer them.
Ydemoc
Why won't you is because you really can't?
Trinity wrote: "Why won't you is because you really can't?"
No. Because it would take a lot of time, and you have already demonstrated that you are not worth me taking that much time for you -- it isn't in my self-interest.
Furthermore, I am confident that all the rationally minded fence-sitters looking on know exactly what is meant by the questions I've posed to you. And they will certainly recognize the blatant evasion exhibited by you.
I got what I what I intended to get, for I know the answers to my questions. But you don't.
Ydemoc
Your questions are junk questions.
By way can you define every word you just read without referring to a dictionary.
Thanks.
Trinity wrote: "By way can you define every word you just read without referring to a dictionary."
To all rationally minded fence-sitters, please see my previous response to this question from Trinity.
Ydemoc
Fine I understand that intellectually handicapped so I will make it easier for you.
Without referring to a dictionary define the word yes and no.
Thanks.
Trinity wrote: "Fine I understand that intellectually handicapped so I will make it easier for you."
Good.
Trinity wrote: "Without referring to a dictionary define the word yes and no."
Yes: A response affirming something or a state of affairs, for instance an answer to a question; an exclamation expressing joy or agreement.
No: A response indicating that something or a certain state of affairs is not affirmed, for instance in an answer to a question; a exclamation, used as a directive to discourage unwanted or dangerous behavior.
Notice how both concepts are defined in terms of other concepts (something that is not the case with the axioms). But also notice how axioms are affirmed in every concept used? As well as the Primacy of Existence?
Happy now?
Ydemoc
I said without referring to a dictionary did you miss that part?
I have never ever looked up those words and magically I understand them and no one either has ever explained them to me and I still I understand them it's a miracle.
After all, we do live in a supernatural world it's amazing.
Trinity wrote: "I said without referring to a dictionary did you miss that part?"
I did not look at a dictionary in formulating my definition of the words "yes" and "no." You are clearly implying that I did. You could not be more wrong (except perhaps in your god belief). Not only do you not keep your word, but you also falsely accuse people of things. I guess I understand this coming from someone who rests his entire identity on a being that is only imaginary. You are so used to defending that which isn't there, that it's just a short leap from that to accusing me of something that didn't happen. And you accuse me of this on much less evidence than the evidence required to accept as true such things as "Walking Dead" "Conversational Donkeys and Snakes" "A Global Flood." And I haven't even mentioned the Primacy of Consciousness metaphysics which you are forced to embrace, even though the very act of saying so or doing so forces you and everything within your storybook into a performative contradiction. The bible is one, long performative contradiction. It starts with "...God created..."
Trinity wrote: "I have never ever looked up those words...
You should.
Trinity continues: "...and magically I understand them..."
And do you think Helen Keller would have "magically" understood them if left without someone to help her make the necessary connections via the sense of touch?
Trinity continued: "...and no one either has ever explained them to me..."
Have you ever heard them uttered in a variety of situations, perhaps, by people that raised you? Or were you raised in the desert by a herd of "Conversational Donkeys"? Maybe this is where you perceived the concept being used.
Trinity continues: "...and I still I understand them..."
Do you? Can you validate them for us by reducing them back to the intuition which you claim is responsible for them? Be sure not to use anything having to do with perception when you do so.
Trinity wrote: "...it's a miracle."
Miracle? Now there is a concept that has no ties to reality whatsoever. It is only in your storybook informed imagination that the concept "miracle" has any life. "The enemy you seek to defeat is the law of causality: it permits you no miracles." (Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," For the New Intellectual)
Trinity wrote: "After all, we do live in a supernatural world it's amazing."
Translation: "I live with one foot in reality and one foot in a storybook informed fantasy land."
You are so misinformed. Please do yourself a favor and read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." You have a lot to learn.
Will you ever answer my questions regarding the concept "death" being present before the fall?
Ydemoc
This is coming from somebody that believes rationality and intelligence came from non-rationality and non-intelligence.
"You are so misinformed."
Well, now your begging the question have any idea what that means? Problably not.
How about an argument within this lifetime.
"Please do yourself a favor and read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." You have a lot to learn."
This is hilarious.
Trinity,
I got what I intended to get from you. As I've said, those were some really good questions I asked, and you provided no answers to them. You cannot explain, neither on your terms nor mine, how the concept "death" was available prior to The Fall, when The Fall was the very event that brought death into the world. You see, the concept "death" would not have been available prior to this time. Everything was perfect, remember? Unless you want to say that your god was responsible for death. But this would fly in the face of what you and other Christians tell us this invisible magic being: "God is life." See the "POOF"?
And you also won't address the evidentiary double-standard you hold when it comes to god belief versus evolution.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc you're an idiot.
Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc you're an idiot."
Insults do not qualify as answers to the questions I've posed. In fact, they only serve to underscore how difficult my questions are for you to address. See the "POOF"?
Ydemoc
You won't present an argument so the only alternative I have is to insult you.
It's actually quite legitimate besides your questions like rand's book are junk.
@Nide
if I may interject here, I am curious about something you said
"This is coming from somebody that believes rationality and intelligence came from non-rationality and non-intelligence."
I would say at age 1 I was neither rational nor very intelligent. But by the time I was 3 I had some degree of rationality and intelligence. Both qualities have only increased during my life. Some I learned from other people of course but my implicit awareness of say the law of identity came from actual interacting with the world myself. My explicit understanding of it came later after reading about the topic for example. So I really don't see what the problem is for rationality and intelligence to develop from a state where earlier neither attained.
Justin can the possible come from the impossible?
By the way does the theory of evolution have a truth value?
Trinity wrote: "You won't present an argument so the only alternative I have is to insult you."
Is this really the only alternative Trinity has? Notice how prone professed Christians are to jettisoning or ignoring their god's alleged powers.
The most important thing in their lives, a being that is so powerful, that it can act on behalf of man through petition and prayer. Yet Trinity does not include prayer as one of his alternatives. He limits his alternatives to either an argument by me or insults by him.
But why doesn't he consider prayer? Why doesn't he pray for an argument to magically appear on the screen? Maybe he doesn't do so because he really doesn't wish for one; or maybe it's because he knows praying for an argument to magically appear on screen won't make it happen. Who knows.
Trinity continues: "It's actually quite legitimate..."
What the "it" refers to here, I can only guess.
Trinity continues:"...besides your questions like rand's book are junk."
This characterization, once again, underscores the difficulties my questions pose for the Christian.
The Christian is basically saying that my questions are junk because he wants them to be junk.
As far as your sweeping generalization about Rand's book, have you read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" in its entirety? Or are you saying that Rand's book is junk because you want it to be junk?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc wants to keep begging the question.
Appealing to emotion and every other fallacy one can commit.
It's amazing.
Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc wants to keep begging the question. Appealing to emotion and every other fallacy one can commit. It's amazing."
It's almost as if Trinity is using some sort of "Random Sentence Generator" program for his responses to me, for what he writes really has no connection to anything I've written. And he seems to have employed such a program in most of his previous comments on this blog. However, I hesitate attributing all his nonsense to such a program, for that would be an insult to such a program.
Ydemoc
Alas, we come to a point where it might be appropriate to summarize Trinity's approach to concepts. I find the following passage from Peikoff right on point as it pertains to Trinity's refusal or inability to name the referents for the concept "death" as well as many other concepts I have asked him about:
"The perceptual level of consciousness is automatically related to reality; a sense perception is a direct awareness of a concrete existent. A concept, however, is an integration that rests on a process of abstraction. Such a mental state is not related to concretes, as is evident from many cases of "floating abstractions." This is Ayn Rand's term for concepts detached from existents, concepts that a person takes over from other men without knowing what specific units the concepts denote. A floating abstraction is not an integration of factual data; it is a memorized linguistic custom representing in a person's mind a hash made of random concretes, habits, and feelings that blend together imperceptibly into other hashes which are the content of other, similarly floating abstractions. The "concepts" of such a mind are not cognitive devices. They are parrotlike imitations of language backed in essence by patches of fog.
If a concept is to be a device of cognition, it must be tied to reality." (OPAR, p. 96)
It is no wonder Trinity does not answer my question concerning the concept "death," for he doesn't like the answer he receives when he wonders to himself: "What does one have to know in order to reach the concept 'death'?" Or: "What events must have already taken place to reach the concept 'death'?" Or: "What sort of existants must there be, in order to reach the concept 'death'?"
Just as the concept "airplane" presupposes other such knowledge, so it is with the concept "death." It wouldn't make much sense to speak of the concept "airplane" without an actual airplane existing. And it would be a stolen concept to speak of "airplane" while denying the existence of wings, fuel, transportation, and flight.
(continued)
One item of knowledge necessary for the concept "death" is that "something" would have had to have died. And in the context currently under consideration, that "something" would have to be that which has life (as opposed to a non-biological existent, such as a star).
But what could have died prior to Genesis, prior to The Fall, when The Fall was the very event that Christians tell us brought death into the world? You see, the concept "death" would not have been available prior to the event known as The Fall. Yet prior to The Fall, biblegod warns, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Again, biblegod is using the concept "death" prior to the very event that gave rise to death and hence, the concept!
I suppose one could assert that biblegod knew what death was prior to the fall. But this would just be dabbling in more stolen concepts, for it neglects the proper preconditions necessary for one to form the concept of death, for at that point nothing would have died.
Also, it doesn't mesh well with what Christians tell us about their god and it's creation: That both were perfect. How can a perfect being that is considered "Life Itself" have anywhere in it's "mind" that which is the polar opposite of life? Blank out.
The the more one examines the theistic road, the more one realizes it leads to nowhere, just a dead-end debris field, strewn with frozen abstractions and stolen concepts, in the wasteland of the metaphysically subjective.
Ydemoc
Charlatan how is it that your not delusional?
Trinity wrote: "Charlatan how is it that your not delusional?"
Trinity's needs to re-program his "Random Sentence Generator," because it seems to spinning out things that have already been asked and answered.
Ydemoc
Mind reposting why you are not delusional I'm pretty sure it's riddled with fallacies. I'll be waiting
Trinity wrote: "Mind reposting why you are not delusional I'm pretty sure it's riddled with fallacies. I'll be waiting."
Delusional about what? A delusion is always about something. So what is it you have in mind that I am delusional about? Once you name what this delusion is about, please tell me what evidence you have for proffering such an inquiry. As much as I enjoy responding to your questions and writing the things I write, this is the minimum threshold that you would need to meet before I waste words addressing your question again. In other words, you need to narrow the scope of your question; and then you need to meet a minimum evidentiary threshold for me to take it seriously. As it stands now, your question is too vague, both in evidence and subject matter to qualify for answering.
But I will answer it if you meet my very reasonable standards.
Ydemoc
Now Weezel wants to evade my making believe that he doesn't know what I'm asking him. It's hilarious
I thought you said you answered that question before wanna explain yourself.
Trinity wrote: "Now Weezel wants to evade my making believe that he doesn't know what I'm asking him. It's hilarious"
I'm not evading; you should know that by now. I said I am completely willing to answer your question if you will meet the minimum standard. In fact, I look forward to answering you.
And these standards which I'm requesting you meet are for the both of us. I can focus on specifics and you can have your specific question addressed.
Trinity wrote: "I thought you said you answered that question before wanna explain yourself."
I did answer this question before. This does not mean that *I* can't seek to add some clarity to my previous answer by asking you to limit the scope of the question and to meet an evidentiary threshold. What's wrong with me doing this?
If you do this, I will answer your question the best I can. I look forward to doing so.
Ydemoc
Fine then we will just play how do you know games those are "funner".
You claimed that God could not possibly know about death till it happened.
Is this a belief or knowledge claim?
If the latter then how do you know?
How do you know that your claims about existence and reality are what they say you are?
How do you know "causality is identity applied to action" George Smith who you admire admitted that he could be wrong about this how about you?
Trinity,
These are some decent questions (though I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your first sentence).
But I'm not sure what they have to do with being delusional about something. Perhaps you would like to clarify your questions as it pertains to delusion?
In any event, I will answer you, but I am currently on the phone, talking to my Calvinistic relative. So don't expect an answer right away.
Ydemoc
Yea, Embarrasing yourself.
"You claimed that God could not possibly know about death till it happened."
Well, as you know, based on my terms, I think that the notion of "God" is invalid, and believing in one is irrational. Furthermore, the idea of the concept "death" being available before death entered the world via The Fall is just one more instance of such irrationality, one more nail in the coffin of a storybook filled with stolen concepts.
I also maintain, even on Christianity's terms, (what Christians and the bible tell me about such a notion as god, and that the first instance of death entered the world via The Fall), that biblegod could not know what death was prior to The Fall. Yet the bible says this is the case. This is a major inconsistency, if not outright contradiction.
How could a perfect being even entertain such a concept as "death?" Tell me how this would even be possible under Christianity's terms? "God is Life," yet "God is Death"? or "God Thinks of Death"? It really makes no sense. Yet your bible claims this is, indeed, the case, which is a clear indication that someone is trying to pull a fast one.
If you want to tell me that your god had knowledge, you are going to have to tell me what form that knowledge takes. Concepts would not be applicable. So it must be some other way that your god has knowledge. But once you attempt such a maneuver, you would again be trading in stolen-concepts. You're kinda boxed in here. To borrow from Dawson, it's sort of a "double-whammy."
Just to review, here is what I previously wrote:
"But what could have died prior to Genesis, prior to The Fall, when The Fall was the very event that Christians tell us brought death into the world? You see, the concept "death" would not have been available prior to the event known as The Fall. Yet prior to The Fall, biblegod warns, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Again, biblegod is using the concept "death" prior to the very event that gave rise to death and hence, the concept!
I suppose one could assert that biblegod knew what death was prior to the fall. But this would just be dabbling in more stolen concepts, for it neglects the proper preconditions necessary for one to form the concept of death, for at that point nothing would have died.
Also, it doesn't mesh well with what Christians tell us about their god and it's creation: That both were perfect. How can a perfect being that is considered "Life Itself" have anywhere in it's "mind" that which is the polar opposite of life? Blank out.
Trinity wrote: "Is this a belief or knowledge claim?"
My analysis above is a knowledge claim. The knowledge claim amounts to "Your bible is filled with stolen concepts, and posits the primacy of consciousness." This is all the knowledge I need to reject it.
(continued)
Trinity wrote: "If the latter then how do you know?"
How do I have knowledge that my claim that the Christian god as described by Christians and their bible, would not have had the concept "death" available to it prior to The Fall? I know this based upon a reasoned examination of the text of the bible along with what Christians tell me about their god. I then check what they tell me with the axioms, the Primacy of Existence, and the Objectivist Theory of Concepts, and the hierarchical nature of knowledge. In doing so, I notice that what Christians tell me about their god, and what the bible says about The Fall, violates all of the above. To be sure, I ask myself, ""What does one have to know in order to reach the concept 'death'?" Or: "What events must have already taken place to reach the concept 'death'?" Or: "What type of existants must in place in order to reach the concept 'death'?" Comparing my answers to what is presented in Genesis 2: 16 -17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.'" I then notice that it is even inconsistent on Christianity's own terms. From doing all this, I make my determination.
As a matter of fact, now that I notice it, I might even ask how a perfect being (at that point) Adam, could even know what "death" was? When the Lord said warned him about the consequences of eating from the tree, what went through Adam's mind? "Death? Hmmm. I dont' know what that is. What does the Big Guy mean by this concept 'death'?" Or did Adam, also, know what death was before it ever happened for the *very first time ever*?
Everyone in the bible story is acting like they know what the concept "death" refers to before death even entered the world!
It's -- not exactly the elephant in the room, but elephant in the garden! Do you not see the silliness being peddled by your bible here?
(continued)
Trinity wrote: "How do you know that your claims about existence and reality are what they say you are?"
To answer this question, I'm going to let Dawson speak for me:
"I think what you’re missing here is the general conception of knowledge which Objectivism is working off of. Objectivism teaches that we form our knowledge (by means of a process of concept-formation) on the basis of perceptual input. We have a theory of concepts which details this process. It is by means of conceptualization that we know what we know. How do you know that a truck is a truck? How do you know that a duck quacks? How do you know that machines reduce human labor? You know this by means of a process of conceptualizing, beginning with sense perception, and continuing with abstraction from abstractions. As I pointed out previously, Objectivism does not conceive of knowledge in terms of “beliefs,” but in terms of concepts.
In the case of existence, the answer to your question has to do with the meaning of the concept ‘existence’ as much as it does with the process by which we formed it. The concept ‘existence’ is the widest of all concepts and denotes everything we perceive (and lots more). We know that the concept ‘existence’ denotes everything we perceive because we formed it to do specifically this. We know this because we form the concept ‘existence’ on the basis of what we directly perceive, to identify and integrate everything we perceive, including ourselves as conscious beings, including our action of perceiving.
So how do we know that existence is self-evident? We know this because we formed the concept ‘existence’ on the basis of direct perceptual input.
Since the concept ‘existence’ is so formed, and since we formed it through our own mental actions, all we need to do is attend to the process by which we formed it to be recognize beyond any doubt (i.e., with certainty) that existence – i.e., the objects which the concept ‘existence’ subsumes – is self-evident. Since the concept ‘existence’ is axiomatic (it identifies that which is perceptually self-evident, it is not definable in terms of previously formed concepts, it is conceptually irreducible, etc.), and since all perception is perception of some object, the concept ‘existence’ is implicit in any perception by a consciousness which possesses the ability form concepts. What the axiom of existence does is make the implicit explicit, as knowledge that is both understood and incontestable. It is the tie between abstract knowledge and primitive awareness.
(continued)
Also, concept-formation does not take place in a vacuum, producing results (i.e., concepts) which then need to somehow correlated with or married to what we perceive on the hopes that they perchance match. This ties into the Objectivist view that knowledge has a hierarchical structure – with its basis in perception (which gives knowledge its content), and its scaffolding conceptual in nature (which ensures a logical structure).
How do we know that our senses are reliable? What would mean to say that our senses are unreliable? If I perceive an object, my senses are reliable – they are doing what senses do by virtue of their nature: responding to external stimuli, transmitting sensations to the brain, and automatically integrating those senses into percepts. If we perceive entities qua entities (i.e., a car as a car rather than a chaotic blob of sensory qualities with only fleeting duration of the immediate moment). Objectivism argues that conceptualization would not be possible without the integrating function of perception (which is an autonomic, non-volitional process of the body).
Beyond that, it’s not clear what your objection is, unless it’s based on the assumption (which Objectivism holds to be erroneous) that all knowledge must be proven. Again, I explained what the function of proof is according to Objectivism. The alternative to proof is not faith, but axiomatic knowledge – concepts formed directly on the basis of perceptual input, on the basis of objects which we perceive directly. There’s no circularity here, since axioms are not conclusions of argument or derived by a process of inference.
But don’t take my word for any of this. Check out Objectivism from its primary sources, beginning with Rand’s own writings. I think that will go a long way in clearing up some elementary confusions. (Dawson Bethrick, Comments Section of Blog Entry: "A Critique of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s www.proofthatgodexists.org," September 02, 2010 9:21 AM)
--------end quoted material---------
(continued)
Trinity wrote: "How do you know "causality is identity applied to action"
By perception. I have yet to see, for instance, "walking" without someone or something that walks. Have you? To posit "walking" without a "walker" is the same thing the bible does with the concept "death." We have knowledge of death without someone being dead. Same thing.
On this point, Peikoff writes: "The validation rests on two points: the fact that action is action of an entity; and the law of identity, A is A. Every entity has a nature; it is specific, noncontradictory, limited; it has certain attributes and no others. Such an entity must act in accordance with its nature.
The only alternative would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against it; both of these are impossible. A thing cannot act apart from its nature, because existence is identity; apart from its nature, a thing is nothing. A thing cannot act against its nature, i.e., in contradiction to its identity, because A is A and contradictions are impossible. In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature." (OPAR p. 14)
(continued)
On page 15 of OPAR, Peikoff notes: "Causality is best classified as a corollary of identity. A "corollary" is a self-evident implication of already established knowledge. A corollary of an axiom is not itself an axiom; it is not self-evident apart from the principle(s) at its root (an axiom, by contrast, does not depend on antecedent context).... it does not permit or require a process of proof; like an axiom, it is self-evident (once its context has been grasped)."
Trinity wrote: "George Smith who you admire..."
Yes. I really liked his book: "Atheism: The Case Against God." Have you read it?
Trinity continued: "...admitted that he could be wrong about this how about you?"
I'm not doubting your claim that he may have said this, but I would like to see the exact quote in context. Would you mind citing for me the exact quote and context of this comment of his?
Ydemoc
The Fool Said: "Well, as you know, based on my terms, I think that the notion of "God" is invalid, and believing in one is irrational. Furthermore, the idea of the concept "death" being available before death entered the world via The Fall is just one more instance of such irrationality, one more nail in the coffin of a storybook filled with stolen concepts."
Well, of course you don't even bother to tell us what your terms are, why the idea of God is invalid, why belief in him is irrational. More appeal to emotion here we have a finite fallible deciding what's possible and impossible.
The fool said: "I also maintain, even on Christianity's terms, (what Christians and the bible tell me about such a notion as god, and that the first instance of death entered the world via The Fall), that biblegod could not know what death was prior to The Fall. Yet the bible says this is the case. This is a major inconsistency, if not outright here contradiction.
Of course you don't even bother to show us where and how this "contradiction" takes place. Another instance of a finite fallible mind making random claims.
The fool said:"How could a perfect being even entertain such a concept as "death?" Tell me how this would even be possible under Christianity's terms? "God is Life," yet "God is Death"? or "God Thinks of Death"? It really makes no sense. Yet your bible claims this is, indeed, the case, which is a clear indication that someone is trying to pull a fast one."
This is the "I don't get it so it must not be true" fallacy. More fallacious reasoning it's sickening.
The Fool said: If you want to tell me that your god had knowledge, you are going to have to tell me what form that knowledge takes. Concepts would not be applicable. So it must be some other way that your god has knowledge. But once you attempt such a maneuver, you would again be trading in stolen-concepts. You're kinda boxed in here. To borrow from Dawson, it's sort of a "double-whammy."
This is the "dawson said it to it must be true" fallacy. Here we once again have a finite fallible mind deciding what's possible and impossible for God. The creature vs the Creator who's gonna win?
The fool said: "I suppose one could assert that biblegod knew what death was prior to the fall. But this would just be dabbling in more stolen concepts, for it neglects the proper preconditions necessary for one to form the concept of death, for at that point nothing would have died.
Once again this is "I don't get it so it must not be true" fallacy. More fallacious reasoning it's sickening.
The fool said: "My analysis above is a knowledge claim. The knowledge claim amounts to "Your bible is filled with stolen concepts, and posits the primacy of consciousness." This is all the knowledge I need to reject it."
Who told you this " "Your bible is filled with stolen concepts, and posits the primacy of consciousness."?
The fool said: "How do I have knowledge that my claim that the Christian god as described by Christians and their bible, would not have had the concept "death" available to it prior to The Fall? I know this based upon a reasoned examination of the text of the bible along with what Christians tell me about their god. I then check what they tell me with the axioms, the Primacy of Existence, and the Objectivist Theory of Concepts, and the hierarchical nature of knowledge."
How do you know the axioms etc. are giving you reliable information?
The fool said: "Everyone in the bible story is acting like they know what the concept "death" refers to before death even entered the world!
It's -- not exactly the elephant in the room, but elephant in the garden! Do you not see the silliness being peddled by your bible here?
No, but I see your fallacious reasoning.
Trinity wrote: "How do you know that your claims about existence and reality are what they say you are?"
The Fool said: "To answer this question, I'm going to let Dawson speak for me:"
Dawson's land slide didn't answer the question. "We know because we know is not an answer. "Existence is what is". How do you know? "Well that's just the way it is. We don't have any other alternative but to accept that what we percieve is ultimetaly the way things are"
The fool said: Trinity wrote: "How do you know "causality is identity applied to action"
The fool responded: By perception.
This is the "That's the way i see it so it must be true" fallacy. More fallacious reasoning.
The fool said: "I'm not doubting your claim that he may have said this, but I would like to see the exact quote in context. Would you mind citing for me the exact quote and context of this comment of his?"
Listen to his exchange with Greg bahnsen.
Trinity wrote: "Who told you this, "Your bible is filled with stolen concepts, and posits the primacy of consciousness."?
If by "told" you mean who did I learn this from? Who helped make explicit for me that which was only implicit? I have had many sources that have been quite valuable in this regard.
Sources include people, broadcasts, blogs, and books -- especially the bible itself, for its tales stand in such stark contrast to reality and how man acquires knowledge.
Why do you ask?
Ydemoc
I wrote: "I'm not doubting your claim that he may have said this, but I would like to see the exact quote in context. Would you mind citing for me the exact quote and context of this comment of his?"
Trinity responded: "Listen to his exchange with Greg bahnsen."
I have listened, and perhaps I'll listen to it again at some point. And since I am in no rush to listen to it again, and I don't want to take the time to do so right now, perhaps you can listen to it for me and transcribe the exchange in its full context, because I can't recall the exchange (again, I'm not saying he didn't say this; it's just that I do not remember it).
Thanks.
Ydemoc
So, here we have a fallible finite mind relying on other finite fallible minds. I guess two wrongs make it right.
What reality?
No I'll let you listen to it.
Trinity,
It's not helpful (I know, I know, you're not trying to be helpful or learn anything of substance) for you to slap "fallacy" on most everything you disagree with, or which doesn't fit within your worldview, without giving us the reasoning behind you doing so. I have enjoyed responding to your questions, but you do realize, don't you, that we could do this with nearly everything you post? and call it "The Trinity Response Fallacy."
What is the "Trinity Response Fallacy"? It is labeling something as a fallacy without explaining the reasoning for labeling it as such. In this way it's similar to "Just because you say it, doesn't make it so," which is similar to "Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so."
But given the meaning of, and your propensity for invoking said fallacy, perhaps I explained too much.
Ydemoc
Well, Ydemoc I understand that for some one who has no training in logic and philosophy it could be frustrating.
I know you admire Dawson and that you take his word like I take God's word.
Could Dawson be wrong if not how do you know?
I failed physics miserably I just didn't get it so it must not be true. Is this a true statement?
I wrote: "Well, as you know, based on my terms, I think that the notion of "God" is invalid, and believing in one is irrational. Furthermore, the idea of the concept "death" being available before death entered the world via The Fall is just one more instance of such irrationality, one more nail in the coffin of a storybook filled with stolen concepts."
Trinity responded: "Well, of course you don't even bother to tell us what your terms are, why the idea of God is invalid, why belief in him is irrational."
My terms have been clearly laid out for you over these many, many months. The fog of faith has clouded your understanding, (or perhaps it is just a comprehension or "skimming" problem on your part).
Trinity wrote: "More appeal to emotion here we have a finite fallible deciding what's possible and impossible."
Is it possible that you are wrong in this characterization of what I wrote?
Ydemoc
Not at all.
But here I'll show you once again that your reasoning is fallacious:
Why are you rational?
Trinity wrote: "Well, Ydemoc I understand that for some one who has no training in logic and philosophy it could be frustrating."
Training? Who said I had no training? Can one not train oneself in a variety of ways without taking college level courses in such subjects? And who said it was "frustrating"?
Trinity wrote: "I know you admire Dawson and that you take his word like I take God's word."
No. I don't "take his word," just like I didn't take my first grade teacher's word that 2 + 2 = 4. I checked on my own to verify that that was indeed the case. Just like I do with what Dawson writes.
Furthermore, comparing Dawson's work to the work of an invisible magic being is irrational, for Dawson exists.
Trinity wrote: "Could Dawson be wrong if not how do you know?"
Wrong about what? You need to be more specific. For example, if Dawson wrote that 2 + 2 = 4, then no, Dawson could not be wrong about that. If he wrote that 2 + 2 = 5, then, yes, he would be wrong about that. If Dawson said "A thing is not what it is," then, yes, Dawson would be wrong about that. If Dawson said, "Existence does not exist," then, yes, he would be wrong about that. If Dawson said that, "God belief is rational," then he would be wrong about that. If Dawson said that "Awareness with nothing in existence to be aware of makes sense," then he would be wrong. If Dawson said that "objects of consciousness conform to consciousness," then he would be wrong. If Dawson said that "Wishing makes it so," then he would be wrong. If Dawson said, "Birds are trees" or "The earth is a square," he would be wrong. Etc.
(continued)
So when you ask me "Could Dawson be wrong?", I ask you, "Wrong about what?" When you ask how I could have knowledge if Dawson was wrong, I would compare what he said to reality, just like I would if he said that 2 + 2 = 5. That's how I would know.
By the way, if your god wrote that 2 + 2 = 5, would your god be wrong? If your god told you to kill someone, would your god be wrong to do so? If evidence about something contradicts scripture, is scripture ever wrong? If the bible was wrong and your god didn't exist, would you want to know this?
Trinity wrote: "I failed physics miserably..."
I'm sorry to hear this.
Trinity continues: "...I just didn't get it so it must not be true."
Your sarcasm is noted.
Trinity wrote: "Is this a true statement?"
Of course not. Neither is "The bible said it, so it must be true." And neither is "My senses are valid, so they must have something extra to ensure their validity. If I don't get how the senses are valid without something beyond them to ensure their validity, then whoever posits such a notion, must be wrong."
Ydemoc
Weezel said: Training? Who said I had no training? Can one not train oneself in a variety of ways without taking college level courses in such subjects? And who said it was "frustrating"?
idk you tell me. Well you keep complaining about all the fallacies you keep commiting. This is the "I know don't what a fallacy is so I can't be commiting one" fallacy.
How do you know A is A?
How do you know Dawson exists?
How do you Know you exist?
What does Existence exists mean?
How do you know that God is not control of everything that happens?
Weezel said: "By the way, if your god wrote that 2 + 2 = 5, would your god be wrong? If your god told you to kill someone, would your god be wrong to do so? If evidence about something contradicts scripture, is scripture ever wrong? If the bible was wrong and your god didn't exist, would you want to know this?"
God makes facts what they are. Are numbers invented or discovered?
God has told people to kill other people and rightly so.
What evidence?
if God didn't exist we wouln't be here.
Weezel said: 'Of course not. Neither is "The bible said it, so it must be true." And neither is "My senses are valid, so they must have something extra to ensure their validity. If I don't get how the senses are valid without something beyond them to ensure their validity, then whoever posits such a notion, must be wrong."
Well, now your begging the question again. This is what you need to be showing that God lies.
Are your senses valid if yes how do you know?
I had written something, to which Trinity responded: "More appeal to emotion here we have a finite fallible deciding what's possible and impossible."
Notice here that Trinity seems to be implying that there is something wrong or irrational or invalid with a "finite fallible deciding what's possible and impossible."
So I responded: "Is it possible that you are wrong in this characterization of what I wrote?
Trinity writes: "Not at all."
So here we have Trinity, a "finite fallible" doing exactly what he was seemingly belittling me for doing: Deciding what is possible or impossible!
By answering, "Not at all" to my question, he is essentially saying, "I, Trinity, as a finite fallible, who belittled Ydemoc for deciding what was possible or impossible, have just decided that it is impossible for me to have done something, i.e., it is not possible for me, Trinity, to have been wrong in my, Trinity's characterization of what Ydemoc wrote." This is just too much! If this kind of thinking that result from what he is learning in college, he might want to consider other options. Or maybe he hasn't been paying attention. Who knows.
Trinity wrote: "But here I'll show you once again that your reasoning is fallacious: Why are you rational?"
Trinity is essentially asking me the purpose for my commitment to reason as my only means of knowledge and my only guide to action.
The short answer: So I can live and be happy.
I have explained all this to him in a previous comments' thread. And so has Dawson throughout this blog. And so has Justin.
Ydemoc
Well instead of doing an actual legitamite critique Weezel decides rather to continue being fallacious.
Ad hominem
Strawmen
You too
Question begging
That's the point in question your rationality so how is it that your rational?
Trinity wrote: "Well you keep complaining about all the fallacies you keep commiting."
This is incoherent.
Trinity wrote: "This is the "I know don't what a fallacy is so I can't be commiting one" fallacy."
You keep saying I'm committing them without explaining to me where I have committed them. Please, elaborate when I have committed one like I have with you, when you use stolen concepts. I have explained to you what stolen concepts are and how you have committed the "Stolen Concept Fallacy." You have not done the same with me when you label what I've written as a fallacy. Hence, my designating such responses by you "The Trinity Response Fallacy."
Trinity wrote: "How do you know A is A?"
You just validated it.
Trinity wrote: "How do you know Dawson exists?"
All evidence indicates he does exist. There is zero evidence for the contrary. After evaluation of the evidence, I have concluded he exists. All indications are that he exists. Quite the opposite is the case for the god you believe in.
Trinity wrote: "How do you Know you exist?"
I just demonstrated it.
Trinity wrote: "What does Existence exists mean?"
You just demonstrated it.
Trinity asked: "How do you know that God is not control of everything that happens?"
Because the notion of god is not qualified for a seat at the table of knowledge. Attributing control to that which does not qualify as knowledge and or does not exist is arbitrary. What does a unicorn control?
(continued)
I wrote: "By the way, if your god wrote that 2 + 2 = 5, would your god be wrong? If your god told you to kill someone, would your god be wrong to do so? If evidence about something contradicts scripture, is scripture ever wrong? If the bible was wrong and your god didn't exist, would you want to know this?"
Trinity responded: "God makes facts what they are."
Interesting. Is god a fact? Careful, here Trinity.
Trinity asked: "Are numbers invented or discovered?"
By "numbers" are you speaking of the actual existents which are percieved, like /////, or are you speaking of a "mental symbol that integrates units into a single larger unit (or subdivides a unit into fractions) with reference to the basic number of 'one,' which is the basic mental symbol of 'unit'? (Ayn Rand, "Cognitive Role of Concepts," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 63)
Trinity wrote: "God has told people to kill other people and rightly so."
Yes. And this is why Christians have a problem with the question: Is evil ever morally justifiable?
I had written: "If evidence about something contradicts scripture, is scripture ever wrong? If the bible was wrong and your god didn't exist, would you want to know this?"
Trinity responded: "What evidence?"
How about the evidence that the concept "death" would not be available, both on my terms and yours, prior to The Fall?
How about the fact that objects of consciousness (any consciousness) do not conform to consciousness?
How about the fact that knowledge is hierarchical?
How about the fact that donkeys don't talk, humans do not rise from graves and walk about a city without causing an uproar? How about that there are no contemporaneous historical reports of dead people rising from graves and walking about the city of Jerusalem?
How about the fact that A is A?
How about the fact that we know men lie and make up stories, just like the ones we find in the bible?
How about the fact that every time you or your bible posits the existence of your god, you and it employ the Primacy of Existence; yet you both seek to deny the Primacy of Existence in stating that the Primacy of Consciousness (i.e., a god) is a fact.
How about the fact that the earth is not flat?
(continued)
How about the fact that your storybook tells us that god is "perfect," yet it created imperfection: man.
How about molars?
How about these other facts:
"...Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University who has been at the forefront of the evolution wars...
Dr. Miller said, genetic errors point to the lineage of different species.
The human genome includes five copies of the gene that produces beta-globin. In the middle of these genes is a stretch of genetic code that clearly was once a sixth beta-globin gene. But this so-called pseudogene now contains mistakes that prevent it from producing RNA that can be transcribed into beta-globin protein. Dr. Miller continued:
It turns out that there is an organism that has matching mistakes in its beta-globin pseudogene. That organism actually turns out to be the chimpanzee, and also the gorilla – beta-globin pseudogenes with exact matching errors. And there is only one explanation for that at the molecular level, which is common ancestor.
In 2005, a couple of weeks before the start of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools, the journal Nature published the full chimpanzee genome. Humans and chimps share about 98 percent of the DNA and most of the genes. That general fact had been known for some time and by itself is not immensely convincing. But there are stronger arguments in the details, and Dr. Miller discussed one argument presented at the trial. Again, the evidence centers around a glitch.
We had to put this into terms – no offense intended here – that were so simple that even an attorney could understand them. And I want to show you how we did this.
(continued)
We humans have 46 chromosomes – 23 pairs. All of the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. So how is it that we are missing a pair of chromosomes that all these recent relatives actually have?
Is it possible that a pair of chromosomes just got lost in our lineage? Well, no. There are so many important genes on every chromosome that the loss of both members of a homologous pair would be fatal, wouldn’t even get past embryonic development. So the only possibility is two chromosomes that are still separate in other primates must have gotten accidentally stuck together to form a single fused chromosome in us. And that’s the explanation that exists in evolution. Here is why evolution is science and not conjecture. If that’s true, we want to be able to find that fused chromosome. So if we can, that is a powerful confirmation of an evolutionary prediction.
Well, can we find it? It turns out it is much easier to recognize a fused chromosome than you might think. The tips of all chromosomes are covered with a very special DNA sequence, in a region called the telomere. It is really easy to recognize. Near the center of every chromosome is an equally recognizable region called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes, you know what it would have? It would have telomere DNA at the center, and it would have two centromeres. Should be very easy to recognize.
We scanned the human genome. Do we have a chromosome like that? The answer is, you bet we do.
It is called human chromosome number two. Our second chromosome has telomere DNA at the center. It has two centomeres. We have placed it as being from primate chromosomes 12 and 13 and so exact is the correspondence that people who work on the chimpanzee genome now call the chromosomes they used to call 12 and 13 2A and 2B, because they correspond to those two halves of the human second chromosome.
(continued)
Is there any question, to explain these facts – and these are facts, this is not hypothesis or conjecture – any way to explain these facts in light of the view that our species was uniquely designed or intelligently created? The answer is no. You can only explain this by evolutionary common ancestry. About the only thing you could say is maybe the designer wanted to fool us into thinking we evolved and he rigged chromosome number two to make it look that way.
And the only thing I can tell you is if that was his intent, he did a heck of a job. Because the marks of evolution are literally all over our chromosome." (from "Evolution,"
by KENNETH CHANG)
There are many, many more facts I could present to you. But would it really matter to you what the evidence was? It sure doesn't seem that way to other members of your faith. For instance, from http://creation.com/what-we-believe :
"6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
(continued)
Trinity wrote: "if God didn't exist we wouln't be here."
We are here. And god doesn't exist. Now what?
Weezel said: 'Of course not. Neither is "The bible said it, so it must be true." And neither is "My senses are valid, so they must have something extra to ensure their validity. If I don't get how the senses are valid without something beyond them to ensure their validity, then whoever posits such a notion, must be wrong."
Trinity wrote: "Well, now your begging the question again."
How so? Explain it to me.
Trinity wrote: "This is what you need to be showing that God lies."
Why do I need to show that the non-existent does anything?
Trinity asked: "Are your senses valid if yes how do you know?"
Asked and answered.
Ydemoc
Ok, since you admitted that men lie and make things up why should I believe you on top of the already ridiculous amount of fallacies you commited?
By the way what does Existence exists mean?
Trinity asked: "Ok, since you admitted that men lie and make things up why should I believe you on top of the already ridiculous amount of fallacies you commited?"
I never said you should believe me. You can disregard everything I say for all I care. It's evident you already do this for most of what I've written, anyway. Besides, reality is the final court of appeal. Every man needs to decide for himself if what others say is in accordance with reality or not. I have no control over what you or anyone else thinks. Furthermore, you are not my target audience; rationally minded fence-sitters are, not in terms of dictating to them what they should accept or not accept, but to the extent that what I write can have any influence on their thinking.
Trinity wrote: "By the way what does Existence exists mean?"
Your question has been answered many times. If you can't remember the answers, I need not provide them for you. And I'm confident any rationally minded fence-sitters looking in know why this is the case. If you're interested, read some past posts; or take a look at Dawson's archives.
Ydemoc
The gift that keeps giving i.e. Charlatan.
This little chit chat is over I don't dialogue with liars.
Blessings
Trinity wrote: "The gift that keeps giving i.e. Charlatan."
And you don't even say thanks? -- how do you like that.
Don't worry though, I haven't built a place of eternal torment for you and all the others that refuse to accept this "free gift" of mine.
Trinity wrote: "This little chit chat is over..."
So soon? Parting is such sweet sorrow.
Trinity wrote: "I don't dialogue with liars."
You don't pray? You do know that you're only talking to yourself when you pray alone, right? That there really is no one else there with you, when you're alone? You recognize this, right?
And if you do start dialoguing with me again, would it be reasonable to assume that you no longer think that I am a liar? Or would it be reasonable to assume that I am still a liar, but that you have gone back on your word, again, and are, in fact, willing to dialogue with liars?
By the way, has your god ever dialogued with liars? If I'm not mistaken, God had quite a chit-chat with Satan over Job. But I suppose righteous Job got what he deserved as a result of that little exchange. Not sure I can say the same for Job's family members, though.
And Jesus had quite a dialogue with Old Scratch on a couple of occasions. Mark 16:23 and Matthew 4:1 -11.
Yet here is Trinity not following the bumper-sticker mentality: "What would Jesus do?"
Interesting.
Oh, by the way, what prompted this little outburst of accusation of yours? What is the "lie" you're referring to? Or is it that your beliefs dictate to you that I am a liar no matter what I say, and not anything specific that I have said to you in my past few posts that would warrant such an outburst?
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Trinity has taken his ball and gone home. As the clear victor in our little exchanges, I would like to thank him for helping me sharpen my writing skills, and also for allowing me to reach all the rationally-minded fence sitters who have had the pleasure of witnessing the drubbing his mystical worldview took when faced off against reason.
Thanks again, Trinity. And we'll see you again, I'm sure, in the next go-round.
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Justin,
I have been re-reading the comments of this thread, and I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed back-to-back posts you made, starting with the timestamp, December 27, 2011 3:08 PM.
Some really good points in there.
Ydemoc
Justin,
He could be lying to you since he admitted that he's a liar and fabricator.
Justin,
Trinity seems to be talking to me through you. So I will answer him through you, if you don't mind.
Trinity wrote: "He could be lying to you since he admitted that he's a liar and fabricator."
Trinity has claimed I lied. I have asked him to identify where it is I did this. He has not answered this charge, but chose to take his ball and go home after his worldview took such a drubbing.
Can you identify where I lied or where he might have thought (I know, this is a stretch) I lied?
Ydemoc
Justin,
Also notice that he has left my Helen Keller question unanswered.
Drubbing, indeed!
Ydemoc
Justin,
If I told you that I was a thief would you trust me with your belongings?
Justin,
I think where Trinity got the idea of calling me a liar is when I wrote the following:
"How about the fact that we know men lie and make up stories, just like the ones we find in the bible?"
Not only has he taken his ball and run home with it, but he has also taken what I wrote and run with it. Just because men lie does not mean that *all* men lie. Thanks to reason, we have the ability to test what men say against the facts of reality. Apparently, Trinity refuses or has lost the ability to do this. Might be the fog of faith clouding his mind.
Have you ever noticed how, if one wanted to, one could tell untruths to a dog all day long? I could say to my dog, "You know, the bible is true! It really, really is! All you have to do is accept Jesus, and you will have eternal life!"
The dog would not understand a word I said, because it doesn't have the faculty of reason to test such a claim against reality.
But you know what obtains for a dog that obtains for me? The axioms and the primacy of existence. They are inescapable for a dog as they are for me. Existence? Yes. Consciousness? Yes. Identity? Yes. The Primacy of Existence? Yes.
I wonder if Trinity thinks there will be dogs in heaven? How about flies? Or E. coli?
Ydemoc
Justin,
Ydemoc is an idiot one of the most terrible "debaters" I have had to deal with.
The all is already in men but he is ignorant of analytical truths.
You deal with him I'm done.
Justin,
does this make sense thiefs steal but not all thiefs steal?
Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc is an idiot"
Earlier in this thread you said I was a moron. Can you tell me the difference between the two?
Trinity continues: "...one of the most terrible "debaters" I have had to deal with."
I didn't realize we were having a debate. Can you also tell me where it is I might find other debates you've participated in?
Trinity wrote: "The all is already in men but he is ignorant of analytical truths."
This sentence -- like so many you've written that have come before it -- is incoherent.
Trinity wrote: "You deal with him I'm done."
You keep saying this, and yet you keep addressing what I write.
As you know, I am enjoying myself, while you, on the other hand, seem vexed.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Can you please explain to this moronic fool what analytical truth is. Really, how stupid can you be what part of the word all is already in the word men doesn't this guy get?
bachelors are unmarried but not all bachelors are unmarried
If this isn't a blatant contradiction then I don't know what is.
Really what part don't you get?
Justin help your boy out please.
If there is one thing you ever got right and that's that hell is a blessing.
Here we have a rebellious wicked sinner admitting that he is relying on other wicked rebellion sinners for "truth".
The bible couldn't more right men rather believe lies than the truth.
I hope you get sent to the lowest deepest darkest abyss.
@Ydemoc
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analytic-synthetic_dichotomy.html
there Nide, I helped him out:)
Justin,
How many predicates can "left of" take?
Justin reverse that how many subjects can left of take?
@Ydemoc and Nide
First of to Ydemoc, thanks for the comments. It may interest you to know that I have started an outline for a paper that will compare and contrast the arguments TAG and PAE, primary argument from existence. And further to show using a disjunctive syllogism that POE does not beg the question however it is on the back burner for the time being.
Now to both of you
My apologies but I can not allow myself to be pulled back into this discussion for a while. I have a project right now that is taking up all of my free time. A naval wargame simulating combat in World War II, a lot of code to audit and frankly building gunnery vs armor tables is more interesting to me at the moment, no offense intended to either of you but I just cant spare the attention right now. I of course will continue to follow the discussion.
All I wanna know is Justin do you deny or affirm
analytical consequences?
Trinity wrote to Justin, complaining about me: "Can you please explain to this moronic fool what analytical truth is."
I see that Justin has already provided a link. But if you don't mind explaining it to me, that would be great. I'd like to see what you have to say about analytical and synthetic truths.
Trinity wrote: "Really, how stupid can you be...
Shouldn't there be a question mark, and perhaps even an exclamation point, at the end of this... what... sentence?
Trinity continued: "... what part of the word all is already in the word men doesn't this guy get?"
What exactly is a "word all"? And what part of a "word all" are you referring to? I'm not sure you are being as clear as you can be. But then again, maybe you are.
In any event, I'll take a stab at what I think you are attempting to make into a coherent sentence. I think you are asking me, "What part of the word "all" is already included in the word men, that Ydemoc doesn't get?" Do I have that about right?
Well, if I have properly reworked your attempt at a sentence, and if I understand it correctly, it still doesn't make sense. The word "all" is not included in the word "men." Do you see it? A word is a symbol. I see three letters, "M - E - N, in the *word* "men." Now, would you care to tell me where in this word I can find the letters that make up the word "all?"
But perhaps meant to say that the concept "men" includes the concept "all"? Well, in certain contexts, you might be right. But not in the context I was using the concept "men." There are also other contexts where this applies, for example: When I read an orange sign on the highway that says "Men Working" or "Men In Trees," should I -- if I don't want to be a moron or an idiot -- assume that this sign is referring to every single man on earth? Or is there a context involved, like there was in what I wrote above about men being liars?
(continued)
Another example might be if someone says, "Men play football." If I don't want to be a moron or an idiot, should I assume that the person is referring to *all* men?
Trinity wrote: "...bachelors are unmarried but not all bachelors are unmarried"
I think what we have here is Trinity trying equate this with what I wrote. Here is what I wrote:
"How about the fact that we know men lie and make up stories, just like the ones we find in the bible?"
Honestly, Trinity, if you think our respective entries are in any way, shape or form, the same thing, then it's no wonder that you swallowed Jesus rising from the dead hook, line and sinker.
Where did I say "all" men? Tell me. I would like to know. As indicated above, saying "men" does not mean, "all men." Understand, if I had wanted to generalize and make it applicable to "all men" I would have written it. All you have done is ignored context.
Like Mose Allison, the talented jazz musician sings, "Your mind is on vacation, but your mouth is working overtime."
Ydemoc
@Nide
it is a good question deserving of a lengthy discussion. It is something we can discuss at a later time. I know what the objectivist answer is, it is just not something I am sure that I agree with yet. So sorry but you are going to have to accept a I don't have an opinion on the matter as of this time. We have been at this for months now, you can wait a few weeks:) Happy new year to both of you and anyone else reading this blog.
Jesus never lied so you're right we have to subtract 1 from men.
It's gonna take a lot of work to prove that the rest have never lied and fabricated things.
We can start with you have you ever lied and fabricated something?
Ok Justin same to you.
I forgot to include the rest of Trinity's response to Justin in my most recent post. It's probably better that I did, that way I can give it the attention it deserves:
Trinity wrote: "If there is one thing you ever got right and that's that hell is a blessing."
Go on...
Trinity wrote: "Here we have a rebellious wicked sinner admitting that he is relying on other wicked rebellion sinners for "truth"."
You are mischaracterizing what I wrote, as I outlined above. But, anyway, go on...
Trinity wrote: "The bible couldn't more right men rather believe lies than the truth."
When you and your bible speak of "men," you and it wouldn't be referring to "all men," would you, Trinity? Because if you and your bible are referring to "all men" that's going to present a few problems for you, Jesus, and many others -- unless you want to maintain that you, Jesus, and other Christians are liars. But let's see if you are more charitable to your use of the concept than you were to mine. Anyway, go on...
Trinity: "I hope you get sent to the lowest deepest darkest abyss."
Wow. Nothing like "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." But, hey, this is to be expected from a lot of Christians: Hoping that those with whom they disagree get sent to an imaginary place of eternal torture.
If I may float an idea here: It is this hope in an imaginary heaven and hell clashing with reality that drove so many Christians to take matters into their own hands and make sure their wishes realized, not in such imaginary places known as heaven and hell, but here on earth through the torturing and killing heretics and witches.
Furthermore, in comments past, Trinity has indicated people send themselves to hell. But in the comment above, he seems to be saying that we are sent there by someone other than ourselves.
Oh, well... such are the inconsistencies of Christianity.
Ydemoc
The fool seems to have missed this:
Jesus never lied so you're right we have to subtract 1 from men.
It's gonna take a lot of work to prove that the rest have never lied and fabricated things.
We can start with you have you ever lied and fabricated something?
December 30, 2011 8:36 PM
Trinity wrote: "Jesus never lied so you're right we have to subtract 1 from men."
Well, this seems silly to say, for even on your terms, that being what Jesus is purported to have said in the bible, he appears to have lied about how soon he would be back. For instance, in Matthew 24:34, we read: "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled,"; and in Matthew 16:28 we read, ""Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
These and other passages not only present tremendous problems for your contention that Jesus did not lie, but they also support my position that the mystics who put words into his mouth, did lie! (or fabricated)
And there's no need to post apologetic responses; I am quite familiar with them. Besides, there are other instances of inconsistent statements made by Jesus and what the bible says about him.
Trinity wrote: "It's gonna take a lot of work to prove that the rest have never lied and fabricated things."
The burden is not mine; its yours. To charge someone with a lie, you need to have evidence.
(continued)
Have I presented evidence that the bible is filled with fabrications and lies? I certainly have. Have I submitted incontrovertible proof (in that denying the proof leads to a performative contradiction by the denier) that theism is invalid and the notion of god arbitrary at it's metaphysical foundation? I certainly have. (cf. Thorn's "Argument from Objective Reality," http://www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/Morgue/Smallwood.htm)
Because your storybook known as the Bible peddles -- from the get-go -- a metaphysics known as the Primacy of Consciousness, I can safely say that Christian god belief is, at it's very foundation, arbitrary.
And whether or not the mystics who wrote these tales believed them to be fabrications or not is irrelevant to the fact that they are lies, fabrications, at at the foundation, arbitrary.
So, again, the burden is on you, not me. The burden is not on me to prove that no one has lied, but the burden is on you to prove a particular person has lied and to tell us what they lied about.
Do I maintain that some men have lied? Of course, but I do not maintain this without evidence. For example, all the evidence shows that O.J. Simpson lied.
(continued)
So contrary to what you say below, the first thing you need to do is (1) name a specific man or woman who you claim lied (2) name what it was they lied about (3) present evidence to support your claim that they lied.
You see, unlike your bible, I do not condemn a man or a woman for just being alive. I don't condemn someone until they do something worthy of condemnation. Just as I do not praise them until they are worthy of praise. Nor do I forgive them until they are worthy of forgiveness. Nor do I love someone who is not worthy of love. I am not a proponent of giving to the unearned what they have not earned; nor of heaping guilt upon those because of what they have earned.
Trinity wrote: "We can start with you have you ever lied and fabricated something?"
At this point in time, you'll have to do more than just ask me this question. You'll have to narrow your scope and present evidence for what you think I may have lied about. You will also have to meet the standard of relevance: Tell my how my lying or not lying has any relevance to my contention that mystics who wrote the bible were merely fabricators, scribbling down many tales that are flat-out lies, for example "Conversational Donkeys."
Ydemoc
By the way you have you ever lied and fabricated something?"
Trinity writes: "By the way you have you ever lied and fabricated something?"
Sorry. But like I said before, you'll have to do more than just ask this question. You'll have to narrow your scope and present evidence for what you think I may have lied about.
Also, and more importantly, you will have to meet a standard of relevance: Explain how your evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance to my contention that mystics who wrote the bible were merely fabricators, scribbling down many tales that are flat-out lies, for example "Conversational Donkeys" and "Chit-Chatty Snakes."
Also explain how your evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance as to whether all men lie.
You have a lot evidence to gather and a lot of thinking to do.
Ydemoc
Ok
By the way have you ever lied and fabricated?
Trinity,
You have to meet my evidentiary standards if you want me to answer this question.
Here, again, is my explanation of this reasonable standard:
"You'll have to narrow your scope and present evidence for what you think I may have lied about.
Also, and more importantly, you will have to meet a standard of relevance: Explain how your evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance to my contention that mystics who wrote the bible were merely fabricators, scribbling down many tales that are flat-out lies, for example "Conversational Donkeys" and "Chit-Chatty Snakes."
Also explain how your evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance as to whether all men lie."
Asking the same question over and over won't get you to that reasonable standard.
This is really basic stuff, Trinity. Present your evidence. The burden is on you.
But like I said, even you can produce evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or even if I were to admit to telling a lie, this does not mean that all men have done so.
Slightly related to this topic (and I know I have asked this before): Is sarcasm a lie or a form of dishonesty? Is your god capable of using sarcasm? Is telling a joke a lie? Is your god capable of telling a joke? Is lying immoral in all cases? Or can telling a lie be highly moral?
Ydemoc
Blah blah blah blah blah
Yes or No
Have you ever lied and fabricated?
Once again, Trinity inquired: "Have you ever lied and fabricated?"
I am willing to answer you. But you have to meet the reasonable standard. Perhaps you think my standard is not reasonable. If so, then tell me why, and I may reconsider my standard.
Look, either way it doesn't matter to me if you continue asking the same question. I will still keep answering you the way I have, because I enjoy writing responses -- I always think of something new to say while I'm doing so.
Ydemoc
Yes or no?
In our latest discussion, Trinity has asked: "By the way have you ever lied and fabricated?"
But I have requested that he meet a minimum evidentiary standard before I answer this question. The following are the conditions of this reasonable standard:
"He will have to narrow his scope and present evidence for what he thinks I may have lied about.
Also, and more importantly, he will have to meet a standard of relevance: He will have to explain how his evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance to my contention that mystics who wrote the bible were merely fabricators, scribbling down many tales that are flat-out lies, for example "Conversational Donkeys" and "Chit-Chatty Snakes."
Also, he needs to explain how his evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance as to whether all men lie."
This is what I would consider to be a reasonable standard. But perhaps there are factors that I have not considered. Like I said before, if Trinity would like to make his case that my standard is not reasonable, he can do so. If his case is persuasive, I would consider changing my standard. But until he does so, or until he meets my current standard, he can ask me the same question all day long, (or even shorten it to "Yes or no?") and he will still get the same basic response from me.
Like I said, I enjoy crafting a response to his repeated question, because when I do, I tend to think of new things to say.
Ydemoc
Yes or No
Trinity's "Yes or No" demand demonstrates not only his failure to meet my evidentiary standard; but it also delays any challenge he might formulate and present as to the reasonableness of my standard. But that's quite all right, for I enjoy crafting my responses.
For those wishing to review what all the fuss is about, I am re-posting the following:
------------
In our latest discussion, Trinity has asked: "By the way have you ever lied and fabricated?"
But I have requested that he meet a minimum evidentiary standard before I answer this question. The following are the conditions of this reasonable standard:
"He will have to narrow his scope and present evidence for what he thinks I may have lied about.
Also, and more importantly, he will have to meet a standard of relevance: He will have to explain how his evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance to my contention that mystics who wrote the bible were merely fabricators, scribbling down many tales that are flat-out lies, for example "Conversational Donkeys" and "Chit-Chatty Snakes."
Also, he needs to explain how his evidence for any lie(s) I may have told, or any admission I may make as to lying, has any relevance as to whether all men lie."
This is what I would consider to be a reasonable standard. But perhaps there are factors that I have not considered. Like I said before, if Trinity would like to make his case that my standard is not reasonable, he can do so. If his case is persuasive, I would consider changing my standard. But until he does so, or until he meets my current standard, he can ask me the same question all day long, (or even shorten it to "Yes or no?") and he will still get the same basic response from me.
Like I said, I enjoy crafting a response to his repeated question, because when I do, I tend to think of new things to say.
-----------
Ydemoc
blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Yes or No?
Test.
Post a Comment