Hello my readers.
Happy 2555 to all!
Yes, here in Thailand, it’s not 2012. Thailand goes by a version of the Buddhist calendar, and it’s already the year 2555 here. Perhaps you could think of me as writing to you from the future.
As I predicted in earlier messages to you on my blog, I’ve been busier than Wall Street on a bull rally since getting back to Bangkok late November. The flood waters are for the most part gone, and life for most people is back to normal. But there’s a sense of urgency to make up for lost time, both in the private sector and also in public works. Schools are even going six days a week here, which means my daughter, who’s only in kindergarten, has a brutal schedule to keep.
Happy 2555 to all!
Yes, here in Thailand, it’s not 2012. Thailand goes by a version of the Buddhist calendar, and it’s already the year 2555 here. Perhaps you could think of me as writing to you from the future.
As I predicted in earlier messages to you on my blog, I’ve been busier than Wall Street on a bull rally since getting back to Bangkok late November. The flood waters are for the most part gone, and life for most people is back to normal. But there’s a sense of urgency to make up for lost time, both in the private sector and also in public works. Schools are even going six days a week here, which means my daughter, who’s only in kindergarten, has a brutal schedule to keep.
Unfortunately, that means I haven’t been able to keep up with my blog. I see that Nide is still going at it, and that Justin Hall and Ydemoc are continuing to engage him. They’re all welcome to continue doing so. I’m sure it will all make for some interesting reading one day, supposing I get the time.
In the meanwhile, I’ve been feasting – really, nibbling and grazing, when opportunity arises – on a paper recently published by James Anderson and Greg Welty called The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic. In this paper, the authors set out to “argue for a substantive metaphysical relationship between the laws of logic and the existence of God” (p. 1). Specifically they aim to prove “that there are laws of logic because God exists,” that “there are laws of logic only because God exists” (Ibid.). Presumably this is the Christian god of the New Testament whose existence their argument will finally prove. They say of their own argument that it is “a fascinating and powerful but neglected argument for the existence of God.” Of course, this is not meant to be self-congratulatory, but rather a device intended to hook the reader’s interest so that he’ll continue on for the next twenty-plus pages of fun-filled reading. (I’m guessing that, for Sye Ten Bruggencate, 22 pages devoted to the development of a single argument does not constitute “argumentum ad verbosium,” since it’s intended to establish, once and for all, the existence of a deity.)
After an introduction, the paper is divided into the following sections which function essentially as steps to the paper’s desired conclusion, namely that a god exists:
1. The Laws of Logic are Truths2. The Laws of Logic are Truths about Truths3. The Laws of Logic are Necessary Truths4. The Laws of Logic Really Exist5. The Laws of Logic Necessarily Exist6. The Laws of Logic are Non-Physical7. The Laws of Logic are Thoughts8. The Laws of Logic are Divine Thoughts
While there’s nothing that I saw in Anderson and Welty’s presentation which challenges my own exploration of the question of whether or not logic presupposes the Christian god, it is gratifying to see an argument from logic to the existence of a god so nicely and systematically laid out. Anderson and Welty have been hard at work in their effort to prove that their god exists.
While I have not had the time I need to develop a full response to every point which Anderson and Welty raise in their piece, I did have some initial general concerns when I peruse their work. Of course, I have many, many objections to much of what I have read in their paper, but a more penetrating analysis of their paper will have to wait till another time.
For now, I just wanted to note some of the following concerns of mine, hopefully to get the discussion moving in the right direction.
1. Necessary vs. Contingent: Throughout their paper, Anderson and Welty clearly take the necessary-contingent dichotomy for granted. This distinction (dichotomy) plays a central role in the build-up to their desired conclusion (I found 20 instances of the word ‘necessary’ and 16 instance of the word ‘contingent’, most of which are used in the context of the necessary-contingent dichotomy, throughout their paper). So granting the truth of the necessary-contingent dichotomy appears to be vital to their conclusion. But if this dichotomy is rejected, how could one accept their paper’s conclusion as they have set out to draw it?
Objectivism rejects the necessary-contingent dichotomy, and for many good reasons. Leonard Peikoff, in his essay “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” spells out those reasons, fundamentally arguing that the dichotomy and all its variants (including the necessary-contingent dichotomy) rest on a false theory of concepts. Given this fact, it is not surprising to find Christians making use of the necessary-contingent dichotomy in their theistic arguments, for Christianity itself (as I’ve pointed out numerous times before; see for instance here) has no native theory of concepts, and thus as a worldview cannot account for conceptual awareness. This can only mean, with regard to the necessary-contingent dichotomy, that Christian thinkers are at a profound disadvantage when it comes to detecting the epistemological defects of this commonly accepted mechanism of analyzing knowledge.
What struck me specifically in Anderson and Welty’s paper is the fact that they seek to establish the laws of logic as “necessarily existent” on the one hand, and as “thoughts” on the other (see points 3 and 7 of their paper’s outline above). Assuming the necessary-contingent dichotomy which underwrites much of Anderson and Welty’s methodology, these two premises seem quite at odds with one another. Something that is “necessarily existent” is something that could not have failed to exist. Anderson and Welty make the first point explicitly when they say:
While I have not had the time I need to develop a full response to every point which Anderson and Welty raise in their piece, I did have some initial general concerns when I peruse their work. Of course, I have many, many objections to much of what I have read in their paper, but a more penetrating analysis of their paper will have to wait till another time.
For now, I just wanted to note some of the following concerns of mine, hopefully to get the discussion moving in the right direction.
1. Necessary vs. Contingent: Throughout their paper, Anderson and Welty clearly take the necessary-contingent dichotomy for granted. This distinction (dichotomy) plays a central role in the build-up to their desired conclusion (I found 20 instances of the word ‘necessary’ and 16 instance of the word ‘contingent’, most of which are used in the context of the necessary-contingent dichotomy, throughout their paper). So granting the truth of the necessary-contingent dichotomy appears to be vital to their conclusion. But if this dichotomy is rejected, how could one accept their paper’s conclusion as they have set out to draw it?
Objectivism rejects the necessary-contingent dichotomy, and for many good reasons. Leonard Peikoff, in his essay “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” spells out those reasons, fundamentally arguing that the dichotomy and all its variants (including the necessary-contingent dichotomy) rest on a false theory of concepts. Given this fact, it is not surprising to find Christians making use of the necessary-contingent dichotomy in their theistic arguments, for Christianity itself (as I’ve pointed out numerous times before; see for instance here) has no native theory of concepts, and thus as a worldview cannot account for conceptual awareness. This can only mean, with regard to the necessary-contingent dichotomy, that Christian thinkers are at a profound disadvantage when it comes to detecting the epistemological defects of this commonly accepted mechanism of analyzing knowledge.
What struck me specifically in Anderson and Welty’s paper is the fact that they seek to establish the laws of logic as “necessarily existent” on the one hand, and as “thoughts” on the other (see points 3 and 7 of their paper’s outline above). Assuming the necessary-contingent dichotomy which underwrites much of Anderson and Welty’s methodology, these two premises seem quite at odds with one another. Something that is “necessarily existent” is something that could not have failed to exist. Anderson and Welty make the first point explicitly when they say:
The Law of Non-Contradiction… could not have failed to exist—otherwise it could have failed to be true. (p. 19)
So the Law of Non-Contradiction must be something that is “necessarily existent.”
They proceed to argue that “If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind” (Ibid.). Anderson and Welty argue, in their characteristic way, that the laws of logic are “necessarily existent” and also that they are also “thoughts,” but arguing that something is a “necessarily existent thought” seems to go beyond even the most generous charitableness. Thoughts cannot come into being unless a thinker thinks them, which means: thoughts are dependent on thinking. Also, thinking is volitional in nature: a thinker - especially a thinker that is a free agent, as the Christian god is supposed to be – must choose to think what it thinks. Given the fact that thinking is volitional in nature, any specific thought that a free thinking agent thinks cannot be “necessary” in the sense that it “could not have failed to exist,” for supposing this would deny volition to said thinker. It would render said thinker to a mere automaton, a robot performing actions that it “needs” to perform given some extraneous constraints which hold it in check.
The result is that Anderson and Welty’s argument, so far as I understand it, results in one of two very difficult binds: either the laws of logic are “necessarily existent thoughts” (in which case the thinker responsible for thinking them is not a free agent), or the deity which supposedly thinks the thoughts which we call “the laws of logic” is a free thinking agent (in which case its thoughts are volitional and consequently could have been different, which would mean that no thought it thinks could qualify as a “necessarily existent thought”). Neither alternative seems to jive well for Anderson and Welty’s Christian position (since Christianity affirms the existence of a deity which can do whatever it pleases – cf. Ps. 115:3). Perhaps Anderson and Welty have built some prophylactic into their argument which safeguards against such uncomfortable outcomes, but from what I can tell in my reading, none is necessarily existent.
2. “Intuitions”: Also throughout the paper, there are several vague references to “intuitions,” not only treating them as apparently unquestionable (maybe even infallible), but also suggesting a uniformity of intuitions among all thinkers which they nowhere establish. These “intuitions,” which are never specified, appear to have a certain significance for the overall goal of their paper. For instance, on page 1, Anderson and Welty write:
They proceed to argue that “If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind” (Ibid.). Anderson and Welty argue, in their characteristic way, that the laws of logic are “necessarily existent” and also that they are also “thoughts,” but arguing that something is a “necessarily existent thought” seems to go beyond even the most generous charitableness. Thoughts cannot come into being unless a thinker thinks them, which means: thoughts are dependent on thinking. Also, thinking is volitional in nature: a thinker - especially a thinker that is a free agent, as the Christian god is supposed to be – must choose to think what it thinks. Given the fact that thinking is volitional in nature, any specific thought that a free thinking agent thinks cannot be “necessary” in the sense that it “could not have failed to exist,” for supposing this would deny volition to said thinker. It would render said thinker to a mere automaton, a robot performing actions that it “needs” to perform given some extraneous constraints which hold it in check.
The result is that Anderson and Welty’s argument, so far as I understand it, results in one of two very difficult binds: either the laws of logic are “necessarily existent thoughts” (in which case the thinker responsible for thinking them is not a free agent), or the deity which supposedly thinks the thoughts which we call “the laws of logic” is a free thinking agent (in which case its thoughts are volitional and consequently could have been different, which would mean that no thought it thinks could qualify as a “necessarily existent thought”). Neither alternative seems to jive well for Anderson and Welty’s Christian position (since Christianity affirms the existence of a deity which can do whatever it pleases – cf. Ps. 115:3). Perhaps Anderson and Welty have built some prophylactic into their argument which safeguards against such uncomfortable outcomes, but from what I can tell in my reading, none is necessarily existent.
2. “Intuitions”: Also throughout the paper, there are several vague references to “intuitions,” not only treating them as apparently unquestionable (maybe even infallible), but also suggesting a uniformity of intuitions among all thinkers which they nowhere establish. These “intuitions,” which are never specified, appear to have a certain significance for the overall goal of their paper. For instance, on page 1, Anderson and Welty write:
The bulk of the paper will be concerned with establishing what kind of things the laws of logic must be for our most natural intuitions about them to be correct and for them to play the role in our intellectual activities that we take them to play.
I’m taking the “our” here in “our most natural intuitions” as intended to refer to human beings in general – to all of us; if it referred only to Anderson and Welty, readers might find their exercise to be of little interest: why care if Anderson’s and Welty’s most natural intuitions about the laws of logic are correct? On the other hand, if “our most natural intuitions” means everyone’s “intuitions,” then anyone reading this paper has a stake in its outcome. This latter interpretation seems to be what our authors have in mind.
Of course, what is meant by “intuition” as Anderson and Welty understand it, is of great significance here. They do not offer a definition, but I’m guessing that’s because the notion is used as a matter of routine in the philosophical literature they prefer to read. Perhaps they are so accustomed to seeing the word used and granted casual legitimacy that it would seem silly to explain it. But even philosophers who invest the notion of intuition with philosophical validity are not monolithic in their view of what it is or how it operates. So if “our most natural intuitions” about logical principles have any bearing on the argument which Anderson and Welty are presenting, it might help readers like me to clarify their understanding on the matter.
I say this because I tend to be rather suspicious of the term ‘intuition’ to begin with. A standard dictionary definition of ‘intuition’ is “direct perception of truth,” which might strike most readers as rather innocuous. But I’m an Objectivist, and as such, I recognize that what human beings perceive are concrete objects, while truth is an aspect of identification, which is a function of conceptual cognition and thus post-perceptual. In other words, on the Objectivist view, we do not perceive truths; rather, we perceive objects (specifically, primary-type objects – objects of which our senses give us perceptual awareness), and subsequently identify those objects using a conceptual method resulting in identifications which may be true or not true. To the extent that this analysis of what “direct perception of truth” means is correct (and without further clarification of the notion which endows the notion with better chances for philosophical solvency, I’d say it is correct), I’d say that appeals to “intuitions” need to be reconsidered in light of rational philosophy.
But thinkers who invoke “intuitions” might not have this definition in mind. Some hold “intuition” to denote some kind of a priori knowledge – knowledge that is supposedly known without any firsthand experiential participation of the knower in the knowing process. This is essentially the view that one “just knows” something, in which case questions like “How do you know?” simply do not apply, since there’s really no epistemology to speak of in assessing (or accessing) such “knowledge.” I’m quite persuaded that there is no such thing as “a priori knowledge,” and tend to view appeals to “a priori knowledge” essentially as an admission on the part of the one making such appeals that he really doesn’t know how he knows what he claims to know. (Sort of like John Frame, such as when he announces: “We know without knowing how we know” - Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I).)
Still others hold that “intuition” refers to some kind of a posteriori knowledge, though don’t be surprised when explanations of how one supposedly goes about collecting this kind of knowledge wax murky. Defenders of this understanding of “intuition” may have in mind some automatized item of knowledge; for in fact, the human mind does automatize many epistemological processes (consider your knowledge of how to tie your own shoes, or how you know not to touch a hot stove with your bare hands). But it does not follow from the mere fact that one has automatized the path to some ideational content that he holds as knowledge, that what he holds as knowledge is therefore true, or that the process which he has automatized in arriving at such ideational content is rational. Rationality has not only to do with the logic of the process, but also the objectivity of the inputs which are integrated by that process. The process by which we automatize a certain item of knowledge, is not automatically rational.
But maybe I’m wrong on all this. Perhaps I’m just some dunderheaded Neanderthal who in his contemptible naïveté has the annoying habit of wincing when thinkers treat some unspecified mass of assumptions which they style “intuitions” as some kind of sacred bull that must be preserved and protected, as though their dismantling would mean the entire artifice of human thought will come crumbling down into a worthless heap.
Perhaps my detractors would find this view comforting. But I don’t think so.
3. Presuppositionalist Reaction: My attention was first brought to Anderson and Welty’s paper when I visited the blog Choosing Hats, where Chris Bolt had posted an entry about the paper. What I found most interesting here is a comment posted on the blog entry by Brian Knapp. In his comment, Knapp was responding to Mitch LeBlanc. LeBlanc had expressed pleasure with and enthusiasm for the paper in a previous comment. In his response to LeBlanc, Knapp announced that he “shall be the presupper who will criticize [Anderson and Welty’s] argument,” which I would like to read when it’s finally available.
In response to LeBlanc’s statement that Anderson and Welty’s paper is “a refreshing read,” Knapp commented:
Of course, what is meant by “intuition” as Anderson and Welty understand it, is of great significance here. They do not offer a definition, but I’m guessing that’s because the notion is used as a matter of routine in the philosophical literature they prefer to read. Perhaps they are so accustomed to seeing the word used and granted casual legitimacy that it would seem silly to explain it. But even philosophers who invest the notion of intuition with philosophical validity are not monolithic in their view of what it is or how it operates. So if “our most natural intuitions” about logical principles have any bearing on the argument which Anderson and Welty are presenting, it might help readers like me to clarify their understanding on the matter.
I say this because I tend to be rather suspicious of the term ‘intuition’ to begin with. A standard dictionary definition of ‘intuition’ is “direct perception of truth,” which might strike most readers as rather innocuous. But I’m an Objectivist, and as such, I recognize that what human beings perceive are concrete objects, while truth is an aspect of identification, which is a function of conceptual cognition and thus post-perceptual. In other words, on the Objectivist view, we do not perceive truths; rather, we perceive objects (specifically, primary-type objects – objects of which our senses give us perceptual awareness), and subsequently identify those objects using a conceptual method resulting in identifications which may be true or not true. To the extent that this analysis of what “direct perception of truth” means is correct (and without further clarification of the notion which endows the notion with better chances for philosophical solvency, I’d say it is correct), I’d say that appeals to “intuitions” need to be reconsidered in light of rational philosophy.
But thinkers who invoke “intuitions” might not have this definition in mind. Some hold “intuition” to denote some kind of a priori knowledge – knowledge that is supposedly known without any firsthand experiential participation of the knower in the knowing process. This is essentially the view that one “just knows” something, in which case questions like “How do you know?” simply do not apply, since there’s really no epistemology to speak of in assessing (or accessing) such “knowledge.” I’m quite persuaded that there is no such thing as “a priori knowledge,” and tend to view appeals to “a priori knowledge” essentially as an admission on the part of the one making such appeals that he really doesn’t know how he knows what he claims to know. (Sort of like John Frame, such as when he announces: “We know without knowing how we know” - Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I).)
Still others hold that “intuition” refers to some kind of a posteriori knowledge, though don’t be surprised when explanations of how one supposedly goes about collecting this kind of knowledge wax murky. Defenders of this understanding of “intuition” may have in mind some automatized item of knowledge; for in fact, the human mind does automatize many epistemological processes (consider your knowledge of how to tie your own shoes, or how you know not to touch a hot stove with your bare hands). But it does not follow from the mere fact that one has automatized the path to some ideational content that he holds as knowledge, that what he holds as knowledge is therefore true, or that the process which he has automatized in arriving at such ideational content is rational. Rationality has not only to do with the logic of the process, but also the objectivity of the inputs which are integrated by that process. The process by which we automatize a certain item of knowledge, is not automatically rational.
But maybe I’m wrong on all this. Perhaps I’m just some dunderheaded Neanderthal who in his contemptible naïveté has the annoying habit of wincing when thinkers treat some unspecified mass of assumptions which they style “intuitions” as some kind of sacred bull that must be preserved and protected, as though their dismantling would mean the entire artifice of human thought will come crumbling down into a worthless heap.
Perhaps my detractors would find this view comforting. But I don’t think so.
3. Presuppositionalist Reaction: My attention was first brought to Anderson and Welty’s paper when I visited the blog Choosing Hats, where Chris Bolt had posted an entry about the paper. What I found most interesting here is a comment posted on the blog entry by Brian Knapp. In his comment, Knapp was responding to Mitch LeBlanc. LeBlanc had expressed pleasure with and enthusiasm for the paper in a previous comment. In his response to LeBlanc, Knapp announced that he “shall be the presupper who will criticize [Anderson and Welty’s] argument,” which I would like to read when it’s finally available.
In response to LeBlanc’s statement that Anderson and Welty’s paper is “a refreshing read,” Knapp commented:
I will say you find this refreshing because it doesn’t challenge your autonomy. Just because the argument is not transcendental in nature, there is no requirement for you (at least as far as the argument goes) to give up yourself as the standard of what is rational. That means you can evaluate the argument and toss it aside (or even accept it), and nothing will really change, as the argument doesn’t prove the Triune God of the Bible exists – even if the argument is sound.
I find this curious in part because the under-title to Anderson’s blog (where he posted a link to the paper) reads: “Faltering Attempts to Think God’s Thoughts After Him.” “Autonomy” in presup-speak is typically contrasted with “analogical thinking,” which John Frame defines as “Thinking in subjection to God’s revelation and therefore thinking God’s thoughts after him” (per his A Van Til Glossary). Presumably the “analogical thinker” is still actually thinking, but apparently he’s not allowed to think his own thoughts; or, rather, he is to make “God’s thoughts” his own by accessing them somehow and giving them primacy in his overall cognitive activity (without question, according to Bahnsen). And even though Anderson’s blog indicates that he’s doing his best to accomplish this, Knapp is essentially saying he’s failed to do so in the paper he’s put together with Welty. One wonders what Van Til would think of all this. But as Knapp indicates, hardcore V’illains will likely take abundant exception to the methodology employed by Anderson and Welty in their joint effort to prove the existence of their god. Knapp assures us that Anderson and Welty’s “argument doesn’t prove the Triune God of the Bible exists – even if the argument is sound.” Having some familiarity with Anderson’s background in apologetics, I’d think he’d have a lot to say in response to this. But this wouldn’t be the first time that we saw more believer vs. believer conflict erupt with the Choosing Hats crowd. A feud between Jamin Hubner (to whose book The Portable Presuppositionalist several of Choosing Hats’ “staff” have contributed writings) and Triablogue’s Steve Hays (see specifically here) and TurretinFan has been heating up in recent months.
Depending on what ‘autonomy’ specifically means (the notion of “yourself as the standard of what is rational” is more vague than helpful), I’d have to agree with Knapp’s point that Anderson and Welty’s paper offers nothing to challenge my “autonomy” (which I take to denote my ability and willingness to think for myself). But then again, nothing that Knapp or any member of the clan at Choosing Hats has written does either. Or, for that matter, any presuppositionalist paper that I’ve read or argument that I’ve examined. Perhaps Knapp would say that my “autonomy” has been challenged and I just don’t realize it. That would be the easy path to take.
While I am still examining Anderson and Welty’s paper, and surely there are many other things to say in response to it, I have to say already that I’m quite sure I won’t be persuaded by their argument. After all, the argument and its conclusion still leave us with no alternative but to imagine the god whose existence they are attempting to prove. While theists who delight in indulging in fantasies about “the supernatural” will no doubt have no problem with this, it signifies that the argument is a non-starter so far as rational philosophy is concerned. One can imagine all kinds of things in some realm “beyond” the one which actually exists. But at the end of the day the fact remains: what we imagine is merely imaginary.
Although my time in the ensuing months is going to be very constrained (to put it mildly), if I do get a chance, I would like to post some further reactions of mine to specific aspects of Anderson and Welty’s argument. I have many thoughts in response to every paragraph in the paper, but insufficient time to prepare them for my blog. So it will have to wait until some future date that I cannot specify now.
by Dawson Bethrick
Depending on what ‘autonomy’ specifically means (the notion of “yourself as the standard of what is rational” is more vague than helpful), I’d have to agree with Knapp’s point that Anderson and Welty’s paper offers nothing to challenge my “autonomy” (which I take to denote my ability and willingness to think for myself). But then again, nothing that Knapp or any member of the clan at Choosing Hats has written does either. Or, for that matter, any presuppositionalist paper that I’ve read or argument that I’ve examined. Perhaps Knapp would say that my “autonomy” has been challenged and I just don’t realize it. That would be the easy path to take.
While I am still examining Anderson and Welty’s paper, and surely there are many other things to say in response to it, I have to say already that I’m quite sure I won’t be persuaded by their argument. After all, the argument and its conclusion still leave us with no alternative but to imagine the god whose existence they are attempting to prove. While theists who delight in indulging in fantasies about “the supernatural” will no doubt have no problem with this, it signifies that the argument is a non-starter so far as rational philosophy is concerned. One can imagine all kinds of things in some realm “beyond” the one which actually exists. But at the end of the day the fact remains: what we imagine is merely imaginary.
Although my time in the ensuing months is going to be very constrained (to put it mildly), if I do get a chance, I would like to post some further reactions of mine to specific aspects of Anderson and Welty’s argument. I have many thoughts in response to every paragraph in the paper, but insufficient time to prepare them for my blog. So it will have to wait until some future date that I cannot specify now.
by Dawson Bethrick
766 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 766 Newer› Newest»Trinity writes: "Ydemoc nobody cares what you have to say."
See above -- a few comments back. I really don't think you read it. Or maybe you did, but some of that fog of faith has seeped deeper into the inner recesses of your brain, mingling with the rocks that are already up there, clouding even further (if that's possible) your ability to comprehend.
Trinity writes: "Justin objectivism begs the question in a million places."
I get the sense that Trinity is a very lonely person, who thinks he's pestering and annoying us with his vapid, disconnected questions. But the joke is really on him, because as much as he thinks he might be disrupting things, he is really hurting his own cause (which I welcome and encourage him to keep doing), and he is helping me tremendously as I've stated before.
Trinity writes: "I have shown this already over and over don't waste your time writing a paper it will worse then useless."
See what I mean? How lonely are you, Trinity? Do you have many friends -- other than the imaginary ones you claim to have?
Ydemoc
Justin and You commit the Stolen Capitol fallacy.
You keep trying to reason but have no clue why we can reason or use it.
"Ydemoc" you're worse than useless.
Trinity writes: "Ydemoc nobody cares what you have to say."
See above -- a few comments back. I really don't think you read it. Or maybe you did, but some of that fog of faith has seeped deeper into the inner recesses of your brain, mingling with the rocks that are already up there, clouding even further (if that's possible) your ability to comprehend.
Trinity writes: "Justin objectivism begs the question in a million places."
I get the sense that Trinity is a very lonely person, who thinks he's pestering and annoying us with his vapid, disconnected questions. But the joke is really on him, because as much as he thinks he might be disrupting things, he is really hurting his own cause (which I welcome and encourage him to keep doing), and he is helping me tremendously as I've stated before.
Trinity writes: "I have shown this already over and over don't waste your time writing a paper it will worse then useless."
See what I mean? How lonely are you, Trinity? Do you have many friends -- other than the imaginary ones you claim to have? Come to think of it, maybe it's only us and the pretend beings that you worship whom you consider to be your only friends.
Ydemoc
Trinity writes: "Ydemoc nobody cares what you have to say." and "'Ydemoc' you're worse than useless."
See above -- a few comments back. I really don't think you read it. Or maybe you did, but some of that fog of faith has seeped deeper into the inner recesses of your brain, mingling with the rocks that are already up there, clouding even further (if that's possible) your ability to comprehend.
Trinity writes: "Justin objectivism begs the question in a million places."
I get the sense that Trinity is a very lonely person, who thinks he's pestering and annoying us with his vapid, disconnected questions. But the joke is really on him, because as much as he thinks he might be disrupting things, he is really hurting his own cause (which I welcome and encourage him to keep doing), and he is helping me tremendously as I've stated before.
Trinity writes: "I have shown this already over and over don't waste your time writing a paper it will worse then useless."
See what I mean? How lonely are you, Trinity? Do you have many friends -- other than the imaginary ones you claim to have? Come to think of it, maybe it's only us and the pretend beings that you worship whom you consider to be your only friends.
Ydemoc
actually I do have a clue
1. I have a consciousness. This axiomatic, in other words not argued for. It is required to argue in the first place, so to avoid the stolen concept fallacy I will not ask why consciousness.
2. there exists an objective relationship between the objects of consciousness and the subject of consciousness. Primacy of existence principle which is secured by the impossibility of the contrary or what we would call a disjunctive syllogism. A or B, not B, therefore A. There fore I will not ask why objective, because to ask would be to presuppose that it is objective, again wishing to avoid the stolen concept fallacy.
The two items list above is what is required for logic and reason is the application of logic to one’s thinking
For the record can you give a definition of the stolen concept fallacy?
Oh wait you are taking about this stolen capitol thing again. If you could show that Christianity and ONLY Christianity can provide for the 3 axioms and further show that somehow we are asking for an accounting which we are not, then sure... That goal is miles off for you however. However we are not asking for an accounting for existence, identity and consciousness so it wouldn't matter at all. See Ydemoc not only does he not understand our world view, he does not understand that we are not asking the same questions. I suspect it is inconceivable to him that we would not ask why existence, why identity, why consciousness.
The 3 axioms can you post them again.
1. Existence exists.
2. ?
3. ?
Objectivism- worse than useless.
The three pretend "persons" (stolen concept) of the Trinity, can you point them out to me again? What are they? And where are they?
1. The Father
2. ?
3. ?
And where did you learn about them and the Conversational Donkey?
Christianity - does not even rise to the level of knowledge to be evaluated or considered for its usefulness or uselessness.
It is arbitrary.
Ydemoc
Everything you do is arbitrary.
you don't even have the first one right. Existence exists is a necessary tautology. but not the axiom. The actual axiom is existence, just that
so they are in order
1. Existence
2. Identity
3. Consciousness
I will not give you an accounting for these as they are the necessary preconditions of cognition as such. These our for my world view what god is for yours.
Trinity wrote: "Everything you do is arbitrary."
You have just issued another contradiction. "Everything" would have include the question I asked just asked you which elicited your response. My question was asked for a purpose, so it was not arbitrary.
Do you not ever think about things before you respond? Do you not care about the record you're leaving here on this board? You are embarrassing your faith. I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for you.
How lonely are you? Do you have any friends besides us and the 3 you pretend to have?
Ydemoc
Everything you do is arbitrary you can't even account for why you even live.
Justin lets be honest here. For the sake of argument and a new convo let's put aside your gimmicks for a bit.
Why something?
Where did it all come from?
What is this that were in. Is it a dream, movie, cartoon , the matrix what is it?
Trinity writes: "Everything you do is arbitrary..."
I think I dispelled this notion in my previous comment. And I think I just dispelled it again by the very fact that I purposefully posed a question to you which you answered. In fact, you yourself have acknowledged the purpose to my question by answering it.
Trinity writes: "...you can't even account for why you even live."
This sounds like a complaint you should level against your invisible magic being which you think is also alive. It (or they?) are alive, aren't they? At least with me, I am not immaterial, invisible, and imperceptible. Besides, life is an end in itself. I'm sure you would say this about the god you believe in, too -- that its life is an end in itself, and that it need no justification outside itself, outside its own being alive? That's all fine and dandy. The only problem is your god is nowhere to be found in reality. Never has been. Never will be. I am.
Trinity wrote: "Justin lets be honest here."
Justin has been completely honest.
Trinity wrote: For the sake of argument...."
Translated: For the sake of me being a pest and an annoyance.
Trinity continues: "...and a new convo..."
Translated: ... and new statements disconnected from reality by me...
Trinity continues:"...let's put aside your gimmicks for a bit."
Justin is not using "gimmicks." Furthermore, your own worldview is based upon nothing but gimmicks, while denying that which must be true for gimmicks to even be possible: i.e., the axioms and the primacy of existence.
Trinity, do you not ever think about things before you respond? Do you not care about the record you're leaving here on this board? You are embarrassing your faith. I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for you.
How lonely are you? Do you have any friends besides us and the 3 you pretend to have?
Ydemoc
Nobody cares what you have to say.
Trinity writes: "Nobody cares what you have to say."
As a way to avoid interacting with what I've presented, as well as trying to diminish its impact, Trinty writes: "Nobody Cares."
This hand waving is typical behavior from those who cling to the futile notion that the arbitrary can come true as long as reality is ignored.
And since I exist and do care about what it is I write, his statement is terribly imprecise.
Furthermore, even on his own terms, (i.e., god belief), his statement is also imprecise and incomplete.
Trinity is so eager to dismiss anything that presents a challenge to his worldview, that he is willing to ignore his own theistic claim that his invisible magic being supposedly cares for everything! Talk about a failure to integrate!
So, (again, even on his terms) there would be at least 3 persons other than myself who cared about what I wrote, (god, the holy spirit, and jesus -- and I haven't even mentioned other invisible magic beings such as angels, demons, and Satan).
Bottom line: On his terms as well as mine, his statement that "Nobody Cares," is, at worst, intellectually dishonest; and, at best, terribly imprecise and incomplete.
Trinity, with the kind of thinking he displays, clearly underscores what I said in a previous post: Not only does he misrepresent objectivism, but he also does a very poor job of representing his own worldview.
But he shouldn't feel too bad about that one though, because trying to make the arbitrary come true is ultimately doomed to failure for all who try.
Ydemoc
Trinity writes: "Nobody cares what you have to say."
I will also point out that not one of my posts has been removed by anyone on any blog. Can the same be said for Trinity? Let's find out:
---------------------------
Ben Wallis said...
Hezekiah Ahaz did not remove his comments, I did, due to their inflammatory nature.
To anyone who is tempted to call people names (like "stalker" or "creep"), I AM NOT YOUR MOM. You are supposed to learn how to behave like an adult from her, not me. So get with the program, or move along.
January 2, 2012 4:22 PM
------------------------------
And how about over on another blog:
-------------------------------
Hezekiah Ahaz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10 January 2012 19:51
-------------------------
Trinity, so when you say nobody cares, aren't you really talking about yourself?
Do you really have any "friends" besides the imaginary ones you worship, and us?
Ydemoc
Goodnight.
"Why something?"
Nide have you not been paying attention to what I have written? I am not asking that question. I am not going to be asking that question and I am not interested in how you or anyone else might try to answer that question.
"Where did it all come from?"
it all, as in everything? everything is the sum total of everything. Nothing by definition can be excluded from everything, thus asking where everything came from would be asking did everything make itself. This is just another way of asking from where did existence come from. But what ever you propose to have made existence would have to itself exist. Thus we have yet another stolen concept fallacy. My world view does not allow for such questions thus I am not asking it. I am not going to ask it and I don't care how you answer it.
"What is this that were in. Is it a dream, movie, cartoon , the matrix what is it?"
This is reality. The concepts dream, movie, cartoon, matrix presuppose a valid realty in which to contrast them to and from. Thus asking if reality is such a thing again is a stolen concept fallacy and again I will not ask questions that are based on this fallacy. If these questions interest you then by all means ask away, but ask someone else, I don't care. See this is why we keep talking past one another. We are not not even concerned with the same things.
It's you Jhall that keeps stealing capitol.
Justin is reality static?
As I stated before:
My suspicions are that Trinity is making things up as he goes along. I just Googled the search string "Stolen Capitol Fallacy," and guess how many hits came back? None! for that exact search string. Given Trinity's propensity for spelling errors and mangling the English language, I then did a search under "Stolen Capital Fallacy," and guess how many hits came up for that exact search string? None!
Perhaps he will shed some light on this for us by doing something he seldom does: elaborate.
Trinity, you don't have many friends, do you?
Ydemoc
What a genius so you went and looked for the stolen capitol fallacy...How funny.
Trinity writes: "Nobody cares what you have to say."
I will also point out that not one of my posts has been removed by anyone on any blog. Can the same be said for Trinity? Let's find out:
---------------------------
Ben Wallis said...
Hezekiah Ahaz did not remove his comments, I did, due to their inflammatory nature.
To anyone who is tempted to call people names (like "stalker" or "creep"), I AM NOT YOUR MOM. You are supposed to learn how to behave like an adult from her, not me. So get with the program, or move along.
January 2, 2012 4:22 PM
------------------------------
And how about over on another blog:
-------------------------------
Hezekiah Ahaz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10 January 2012 19:51
-------------------------
And how about another blog...
RosaRubicondior said...
Hezekiah Ahaz
I have deleted yet another abusive post from you.
I appreciate you are using religion as an excuse for this antisocial behaviour, and thank you for yet another demonstration of how sanctimonious bigots do that, but please try to act like a person with a conscience and respect my polite request to desist.
25 December 2011 23:33
Hezekiah Ahaz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
26 December 2011 06:48
Trinity, so when you say nobody cares, aren't you really talking about yourself?
Do you really have any "friends" besides the imaginary ones you worship, and us?
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
how did you find out about these other blogs he is getting censored on, just curious?
@Nide
I don't really care if you think I am stealing from your world view. I understand why you believe this and I understand why you are wrong.
"Justin is reality static?"
we have been over this before. You persist in a simplistic and erroneous understanding of the concept identity. Causality is identity applied to action or as I like to say causality is identity expressed over time. So no reality is not static is the sense that things do in fact change. They change in a predictable or forcastable way due to knowing their identity. This relates directly to concept formation so I am not surprised that you still have no understanding.
Trinity wrote: "What a genius so you went and looked for the stolen capitol fallacy...How funny."
Oh yes, Trinity, it is quite funny. With few exceptions where I have lapsed, I am very thorough. And when presented with new items of knowledge, I set out to investigate. I even double-check much of what I put forward. And when I notice something which I've put forward that needs to be corrected, I try to do so right away.
All this stands in stark contrast to what you do. You posit things that don't even exist: Your invisible magic being and its two invisible buddies that you believe in, and "The Stolen Capitol Fallacy" -- just to name four items. You aren't so foolish as to to believe I would accept these things simply on faith, are you? Of course you are! You peddle your god belief the same way you peddle the existence of "The Stolen Capitol Fallacy," wanting us to accept it merely on your say so.
Do you know how I know they don't exist? I investigated. Reality is the final arbiter, Trinity. See the "POOF?"!
But you are right about one thing: the fact that you continue to believe in your three, invisible magic buddies is kinda funny.
Ydemoc
Justin wrote: "...how did you find out about these other blogs he is getting censored on, just curious?"
He accused me of being a stalker. I brought it to Ben's attention. Been laid down the law. You can read the thread here:
http://benwallis.blogspot.com/2011/12/james-anderson-and-non-contradiction.html
I'm a regular on "An Atheist Viewpoint," so I see his posts deleted on a regular basis.
The "RosaRubicondior," site was one I came across and noticed he'd been deleted.
I'm sure there are others. Perhaps I'll investigate.
Ydemoc
Justin causality and the law of identity have nothing to with each other.
Your begging the question again.
To say that things have identity and then
when asked why you claim well we just know
is unacceptable reasoning.
That's to make a claim of reality that you can't account for and which commits the Stolen Capitol fallacy.
"Ydemoc" get a life your seriously a creep.
Trinity wrote: "What a genius so you went and looked for the stolen capitol fallacy...How funny."
Yes, it is quite funny. You see whenever someone makes a claim I don't just take it on faith like you do with your three, invisible magic buddies. I investigate.
And like the three, invisible magic buddies you believe in, the "Stolen Capitol Fallacy" doesn't really exist either, except within the confines of your imagination.
So yes, this is quite funny.
Ydemoc
"Justin causality and the law of identity have nothing to with each other."
ooookkkkeeeyyyyy........ I am walking away now, this guy is crazy. Come back when you know something about logic ok, night night.
@Ydemoc
seriously, wow.... just wow.... Did he actually say that?
Trinity wrote: ""Justin causality and the law of identity have nothing to with each other."
Justin replied: ooookkkkeeeyyyyy .... .... I am walking away now, this guy is crazy. Come back when you know something about logic ok, night night."
What great response! Perfect!
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
still getting over that one:) So according to Nide what thing is has nothing to do with how it will behave, wow.... just wow....
Now Justin wants to play with a straw
men.
You can't account for identity how about answering that instead of manufacturing a little moment for you and creep to get a giggle.
How about admitting you can't but beg the question.
Find me one Logic text that makes your claim.
I got 2 here and they say nothingggg of your arbity claim.
That's a challenge.
Justin,
He's just here to be a pest and annoy. As I've stated before, he's just doing his duty as a Christian and showing us all what Christianity is really all about.
It's about feelings. If he feeeeeeeels he's doing the right thing, then anything goes. He doesn't have to bother with logic, identity, causality, axioms, etc. It's all about doing his duty. In his mind, it's his **intention** that counts. It's basically the same reason that people flew planes into the Twin Towers, why people burned witches, why Calvin executed heretics, and why Martin Luther laid the foundation for the Holocaust by his, in his mind, feelings and good intentions writing about the Jews as less than human:
Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...
Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...
Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...
Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Martin Luther:
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church - a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
----------end quoted material-------
This is basically Trinity's whole M.O., and his reason for being here spewing the nonsense he does. On top of all that, he's got rocks for brains.
Ydemoc
Instead of dealing with Arguments creep decides.
To poison the well.
Ad hominem
Red herring
Almost every fallacy in my book this guy has commited it's Embarrasing.
Trinity wrote: "Instead of dealing with Arguments creep decides."
I answered Justin's question.
"To poison the well. Ad hominem
Red herringAlmost every fallacy in my book this guy has commited it's Embarrasing."
I answered Justin's question.
Ydemoc
Trinity,
You cannot continually call people morons and not expect a little blow back. We aren't living in the Dark Ages anymore, where your faith ruled with club and stick. You will be challenged at every turn. I will expose your faith every chance I get.
Or maybe you don't expect blow back, since you have rocks for brains, and you are enshrouded in your fog of faith.
Ydemoc
It's a dual to the death.
Hell is real that's the last place you ever wanna wake up in.
All the Atrocities and wrongs will be finally
made right. Hell is Good
Like that preacher said it burns to lowest parts.
I love that video. HELLLLLLLL
Doesn't matter if you believe it or not it's there.
Trinity wrote: "It's a dual to the death."
Yes. Christians don't really value this life. This is why they talk of death so much.
Trinity wrote: "Hell is real that's the last place you ever wanna wake up in."
What do you remember before you were born?
Trinity wrote: "All the Atrocities and wrongs will be finally
made right. Hell is Good"
But if Hitler or Osama confessed to Jesus right before they died, they won't be there. Got it. Such are the notions of a mind that clings to the primacy of consciousness. As far as Hell being "good"? It doesn't qualify as being good or bad, since it doesn't qualify as something that exists. It is an arbitrary notion based upon a storybook filled with stolen concepts and grounded in primacy of consciousness metaphysics.
Trinity writes: "Like that preacher said it burns to lowest parts."
An arbitrary notion doesn't burn anything.
Trinity wrote: "I love that video. HELLLLLLLL"
Then you love immorality. But we already knew that.
Trinity continues: "Doesn't matter if you believe it or not it's there."
Primacy of Existence as a truth claim. Primacy of Consciousness as the content of the truth claim. Therefore, a performative contradiction.
By the way, where is hell? Can you point it out to us? Or is this notion -- like most others in the bible -- also invisible, immaterial, imperceptible and altogether undetectable, and safely tucked away within the confines of your imagination?
Does god exist whether I believe in him or not? Or do I have to believe he exists before I see him? Or does belief have nothing whatsoever to do with it?
Ydemoc
Call it what want you kick, scream there is nothing you can do about it
Like that preacher said you can say God doesn't exist till your blue in the face. It won't change the facts
The bible is self-attesting you believe it or you don't.
The lowest hell burns with the Lord's anger.
Actually God is extremely Good that if one like hitler repented and believed he would save them.
Trinity wrote: "Like that preacher said you can say God doesn't exist till your blue in the face. It won't change the facts"
Translation: Like that subjectivist said, "You can say the Primacy of Consciousness isn't true till you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that the Primacy of Consciousness isn't true and the Primacy of Existence is.
Translation: Like that deluded man said, "You can say that objects don't obey consciousness until you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that objects don't obey consciousness."
Translation: Like that fantasy peddler said, "You can say that what is imaginary is only imaginary until you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that what is imaginary is only imaginary.
Translation: Like the mind lost in a fog of faith said, "You can say that the arbitrary doesn't rise the the level of knowledge until you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that the arbitrary doesn't rise to the level of knowledge."
Everything Trinity writes after this is just more imagination- fueled claims and Primacy of Consciousness nonsense.
Ydemoc
"...the bible nowhere speaks intelligibly of logic as an epistemological method. The claim that this passage ["I AM WHO I AM" Ex: 3:14] conveys a divinely inspired statement of a fundamental principle of logic, is a blatant case of trying to assimilate legitimate philosophical principles into a Christian context and back-fill them with Christian presuppositions. The law of identity is axiomatic, so it’s not as if we need an invisible magic being to communicate it to us, or to “make it true” (which would simply abrogate the objectivity of the law in the first place).
...the statement “I AM WHO I AM” could not be a statement isolating the law of identity, for it is restricted to a specific unit (one which is specified by the personal pronoun “I”), while the law of identity is open-ended (i.e., universal), and thus not restricted to a specific unit, but applicable to any and all units, whether persons, places, or things. The clause “I AM WHAT I AM” is, to put it mildly, far too narrow in its scope of reference to constitute a statement of the law of identity as such. It is because the law of identity is universal in its scope of reference that it is is customarily stated in the form of an equation using an open-ended term, e.g., A is A. For this reason, the clause in Exodus 3:14 cannot legitimately be taken an explicit statement of the law of identity as such, for the universality of the law is not entailed by “I AM WHO I AM.” And while the statement “I AM WHO I AM” can by rightly and logically uttered by anyone who can speak, such as actually existing persons (such as human beings), the law of identity applies not only to animate objects, but also to inanimate objects.
Lastly, in the case of the biblical passage, the statement “I AM WHO I AM” has simply been inserted by an author into the mouth of a storybook character, so ascribing the origin of the law of identity to a person who proclaims it a law (as if the law of identity could be legislated by an act of will) simply reduces to subjectivism."
("RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge – Part 5: Exodus 3:14," by Dawson Bethrick, August 21, 2009, http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/08/razorskiss-on-christian-god-as-basis-of_21.html)
Good stuff!
Ydemoc
"...the bible nowhere speaks intelligibly of logic as an epistemological method. The claim that this passage ["I AM WHO I AM" Ex: 3:14] conveys a divinely inspired statement of a fundamental principle of logic, is a blatant case of trying to assimilate legitimate philosophical principles into a Christian context and back-fill them with Christian presuppositions. The law of identity is axiomatic, so it’s not as if we need an invisible magic being to communicate it to us, or to “make it true” (which would simply abrogate the objectivity of the law in the first place).
...the statement “I AM WHO I AM” could not be a statement isolating the law of identity, for it is restricted to a specific unit (one which is specified by the personal pronoun “I”), while the law of identity is open-ended (i.e., universal), and thus not restricted to a specific unit, but applicable to any and all units, whether persons, places, or things. The clause “I AM WHAT I AM” is, to put it mildly, far too narrow in its scope of reference to constitute a statement of the law of identity as such. It is because the law of identity is universal in its scope of reference that it is is customarily stated in the form of an equation using an open-ended term, e.g., A is A. For this reason, the clause in Exodus 3:14 cannot legitimately be taken an explicit statement of the law of identity as such, for the universality of the law is not entailed by “I AM WHO I AM.” And while the statement “I AM WHO I AM” can by rightly and logically uttered by anyone who can speak, such as actually existing persons (such as human beings), the law of identity applies not only to animate objects, but also to inanimate objects.
Lastly, in the case of the biblical passage, the statement “I AM WHO I AM” has simply been inserted by an author into the mouth of a storybook character, so ascribing the origin of the law of identity to a person who proclaims it a law (as if the law of identity could be legislated by an act of will) simply reduces to subjectivism."
("RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge – Part 5: Exodus 3:14," by Dawson Bethrick, August 21, 2009, http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/08/razorskiss-on-christian-god-as-basis-of_21.html)
Good stuff!
Ydemoc
I am.
Believe it or not.
@Ydemoc
this is a useful link relivent to our recent discussion
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html
Justin wrote: "this is a useful link relivent to our recent discussion
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Causality.html"
Thanks, Justin! I know you've probably read this one yourself, but here's another useful link for all the rationally minded fence-sitters out there:
"The Storybook Worldview" by Dawson Bethrick, July 21 2010
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/07/storybook-worldview.html
Ydemoc
Justin,
One more thing that might interest you: There's a very interesting discussion going on over at Objectivism online that goes into some depth with regard to the Law of Identity, concepts and percepts.
I don't post there, but I enjoy reading the posts. Here's the link for what is, currently, the last page of the discussion:
http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=22709&pid=287364&st=175&#entry287364
Ydemoc
Justin,
Thanks for that link. I bookmarked it.
Ydemoc
it's all an allusion A is Z
@Ydemoc
this site is pretty good actually, more good info relivent to Nide's latest post
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Pritchard/Of_Brains,_Vats_and_Stolen_Concepts.shtml
"It is a difficult one to refute unless you have the powerful thinking tools of Ayn Rand’s philosophy at your disposal"
This is hilarious.
Justin enough of the games.
Repent Judgement is coming.
Jesus says in Matthew 5.
Hellfire.
Today someone died and woke up in hell what a shock it must have been. - Preacher
when all is said and done all you have left to you is unsubstantiated threats. How very predictable.
@Ydemoc
it always amazes me that Christians think threats of hell are going to sound convincing to an atheist. Clue we don't believe in hell either, but that should be an obvious logical conclusion to make.
@Ydemoc
A thought occurred to me, in debating with someone that insists on employing the stolen concept fallacy is like someone arguing with a structural engineer. Our concept steeler wants a bridge a certain way and the engineer is patiently trying to explain that the bridge if made that way would collapse and there are in fact only a limited range of viable ways to build a bridge. Likewise we can string concepts together anyway we want, but there are only a limited number of ways that don't result is self negation thru fallacies. Then to extend the metaphor our concept stealer replies that you don't need to take into account structure considerations, the only thing to worry about is how the bridge will look, and more to the point how the concept stealer wants it to look. Further he continues that your structural engineering degree is worse then useless! He dismisses without investigation years of accumulated knowledge verified against reality because it is inconvenient to his wish to have a bridge a certain way. At this point the engineer can either go, ok it’s your funeral or just shake his head and walk away muttering under his breath “ooookkkkeeeyyyyy this guy is crazy”.
How do you know Justin
How do you know
How do you know
Did Ayn Rand tell you?
Rand "preached" values but had no values herself
The rational/irrational thinking of the fool is simply amazing.
Where you gonna be
Where you gonna be
What will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Another false analogy.
Worse than useless.
Justin,
Thanks for that link. I'm going to check it out right now.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Thanks for that link. I'm going to check it out right now.
Ydemoc
Justin wrote: "it always amazes me that Christians think threats of hell are going to sound convincing to an atheist."
I agree. It is as if they think we have impressionable young minds. It's no wonder these kinds of messages are geared toward children. It really is kind of crazy -- no different than what is preached and taught to kids in Madrassas.
I have a close relative refuses discuss his biblical matters with me; yet he is the one that keeps bringing the issue up. But when I challenge the things he brings up, he shuts down. Very much like Trinity does. He says I'm trying to drag him to hell. When I tell him there's no such thing, that it's all just in his imagination, he stops me and says he doesn't want to discuss it.
He goes to John Macathur's place out here in California, where he receives a large portion of his brainwashing.
Ydemoc
HAHAHA
Ydemoc "challenges" me.
Not only is Hell real but it's Good.
All the atrocities all the wrongs will be finally made right.
Now CHALLENGE that.
Justin,
Did I "challenge" Trinity? I think Trinity is imagining things again. I was talking to you about my relative, wasn't I?
Besides, that' which is arbitrary need not be challenged. It doesn't rise to the level of knowledge. You would think that hell would be a place that someone could point out. But they never do. That's because it is all in their imaginations. Like the bible itself.
Storybookers are all very odd.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Did I "challenge" Trinity? I think Trinity is imagining things again. I was talking to you about my relative, wasn't I?
Besides, that' which is arbitrary need not be challenged. It doesn't rise to the level of knowledge. You would think that hell would be a place that someone could point out. But they never do. That's because it is all in their imaginations. Like the bible itself.
Storybookers are all very odd.
Ydemoc
Where is hell asketh the unbeliever?
If you don't repent and believe it will be at the end of your "life".
Justin,
Did I "challenge" Trinity? I think Trinity is imagining things again. I was talking to you about my relative, wasn't I?
Besides, that' which is arbitrary need not be challenged. Hell and other biblical notions do not rise to the level of knowledge.
You would think that hell would be a place that someone could point out, or if it is a concept, reduce back to that which exist. But they never do. That's because it is all in their imaginations. Christianity really isn't a love based faith like its followers tell you and want you to buy into, but a fear based faith. The funny thing is, their faith or belief is on par with taking a horror movie seriously. And there really is much, much more horror in their belief system then there is anything even approaching love. It's quite pathetic.
Sometimes Christians, or Storybookers, are very odd. When they are, it really is no wonder why.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Did I "challenge" Trinity? I think Trinity is imagining things again. I was talking to you about my relative, wasn't I?
Besides, that' which is arbitrary need not be challenged. Hell and other biblical notions do not rise to the level of knowledge.
You would think that hell would be a place that someone could point out, or if it is a concept, reduce back to that which exist. But they never do. That's because it is all in their imaginations. Christianity really isn't a love based faith like its followers tell you and want you to buy into, but a fear based faith. The funny thing is, their faith or belief is on par with taking a horror movie seriously. And there really is much, much more horror in their belief system then there is anything even approaching love. It's quite pathetic.
Sometimes Christians, or Storybookers, are very odd. When they are, it really is no wonder why.
Ydemoc
You can't run forever.
Even if you go to lowest part of the earth The LORD is there
sayeth the King.
Justin,
One other note: A few Christians who I have been close to over the years, have reported to me that, when some crisis or another happens, they feel quite lonely.
Lonely? But how could this be? I have asked one of these believers: How could you ever, ever, ever feel lonely if you know, i.e., it is self-evident, that you have your divine buddies with you and or indwelling in you? This person didn't answer me. He evaded.
Is this just a case of being lonely in a crowd? Or is it simply reality making its presence known on minds that enshrine the imaginary; providing these minds with a with a reminder that there is really no one else there but them, and really no escape from that which is, no matter how much they try and make the arbitrary come true.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Thanks for that link. You know what? I think I have that bookmarked already, but I had totally forgotten about it. So I'm glad you sent me this.
Reality and Reason work in non-mysterious ways!
Ydemoc
Justin,
Thanks for that link. You know what? I think I have that bookmarked already, but I had totally forgotten about it. So I'm glad you sent me this.
Reality and Reason work in non-mysterious ways!
Ydemoc
Justin,
Thanks for that link. You know what? I think I have that bookmarked already, but I had totally forgotten about it. So I'm glad you sent me this.
Reality and Reason work in non-mysterious ways!
Ydemoc
Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God.
Justin,
These last few comments that Trinity has posted about hell makes me realize more than ever that, fundamentally, he and others like him are really no different than Mohamed Atta.
Ydemoc
Justin,
I just think Trinity is really a lonely person with few friends except his invisible magic buddies.
And this loneliness experienced by him and other Christians whom I have known, is just a simple case of cognitive dissonance, as such minds are unable to come to grips with reality shining it's light on the darkness, revealing that there really is nothing there but reality, and that there are no invisible magic buddies, just like, as a child, there really were no monsters under their beds.
Ydemoc
Isaiah the prophet after seeing the Glory of The Lord
could only say:
WOE IS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For I am undone I am a man of unclean lips.
You can't run forever hell is hungry and waiting.
I am so scared! seriously movies have frightened me more
Justin,
Predictably, Storybookers like Trinity cite passages from their storybook. But they always fail to show us where in reality we can find such places that they are referring to. Instead, they are forced to leave us with nothing more than what we can imagine.
Ydemoc
Justin that's right be scared be very scared.
The scripture sayeth:
The lord is a consuming fire.
It's a fearful and terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Ydemocs new argument:
If I imagine it I won't believe it therefore I know it's not true.
Escape while you can from the wrath that is coming.
What a day full of terror and joy where the wicked will know what true justice is that is Divine Justice.
"If I imagine it I won't believe it therefore I know it's not true."
No, that is not what I take away from his comments, especially taken within the context of our months long discussion. What he and I for that matter are saying is, you put forth the claim that something exists, namely hell, and you cant give us any reason to accept this claim as truth. Lately all you have done is throw around threats that are themselves additional unsubstantiated claims.
Justin,
You are correct. Trinity, like so many other Storybookers, needs to mischaracterize many of the things you and I write. We ask for him to point us to something in reality, but all he does is cite from his Storybook.
This is a dead giveaway that what he has to offer is nothing but a product of his imagination, and ultimately arbitrary.
Such are the minds of guardians of the imaginary, lost in the fog of faith, who try to make the arbitrary come true.
Ydemoc
Threats are good Justin they shake up the soul.
But now I know how wicked you truly are after all these months you boldy claim that I haven't giving you "good enough reasons" to believe that God exists.
My hands are clean Justin.
By the way how is it that you are rational I'm having a real hard time believing that you are?
Justin,
Notice that Trinity can't even be consistent with his own worldview.
He says that, "...now I know how wicked you truly are..."
This goes against the very Storybook notion that informs his imagination! ***Now*** he knows? You mean he didn't know before? But his Storybook tells us that we all are wicked at birth! Why the distinction?
It's funny what happens to someone who takes cues from a Storybook, who uses it as a filter to reality: The Storybook is so divorced from reality, it makes it impossible for Storbookers to keep even their own story straight, let alone the tales in their storybook.
Ah, but such are the minds of guardians of the imaginary, lost in the fog of faith, who try to make the arbitrary come true.
Ydemoc
It's interesting how desperate "Ydemoc" is he charges me with "mischaracterization" then turns around and does the same.
You gotta love the foolishness of unbelief you know the rational/irrational thinking.
Justin,
Trinity is just following in the footsteps of his heroes in their devotion to the same Storybook, which forces them to put on pious glasses that they filter everything through, no matter what the price:
Martin Luther when he wrote:
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church - a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
Trinity not only lies to us, but he lies to himself. And that is his delusion to deal with.
Ydemoc
Polluting the waters again "Ydemoc"?
Just for the record:
Is YHWH a liar?
@Ydemoc
oooohhh, I am wicked now! and I thought I was six foot one:) This has become comical.
That's fine Jhall laugh now weep and gnash your teeth later.
What's wrong afraid to call your maker a liar?
Not so tough now are you I knew you would evade but that's good.
You should be afraid very afraid.
I wonder what your relative would say if he ever found out how you much you really fear The Lord.
That's Good that's real good.
Hell is Good how sweet is Divine Justice.
Justin,
Trinity asks another fallacious question: "Is YHWH a liar?" The arbitrary does not rise to the vaunted level of knowledge. The arbitrary does not sit at the table of knowledge. The arbitrary is not an item of knowledge. He might as well ask me if palm trees on Venus can lie. What?!
Now let's add this claim to those palm trees on Venus: If one believes in them, then one will have eternal life. And one of the goals of all those who believe in palm trees on Venus is to witness to others about how belief in these palm trees has changed their lives and how fantastic it is and how one will suffer forever if you don't believe in said palm trees, then under this scenario, I have no doubt that believers in palm trees on Venus would lie to non-believers, just like Christians have done. Don't take my word for it -- just look at what Martin Luther said above!
That Trinity keeps peddling the primacy of consciousness metaphysics is another indication of how thick the fog of faith is that enshrouds his mind. He can keep try to make the arbitrary come true his whole life, with lies and whatnot, but all he's doing is simply wasting his time.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity asks: "I wonder what your relative would say if he ever found out how you much you really fear The Lord."
Well, you can't really fear the arbitrary now, can you? But since Trinity asks, perhaps this might be a question worth exploring, notwithstanding it is a fallacious question.
Ydemoc
A scared little boy aren't you.
This is an epic evasion.
Justin,
I think I have been quite clear, here and elsewhere, that such a being is arbitrary. Don't you think?
Now, within the framework of the Storybook itself, one could certainly argue that this Storybook character (and that's all it is, a storybook character) known as YHWH was deceitful and lies. There are many storybook passages that support this. But this evaluation would be made strictly within that framework -- a framework of tales and fables that were brought together to form the Storybook known as "The Bible."
And one can look at people who take this Storybook seriously and ask them, "What is the difference between this Storybook character named YHWH and the other Storybook character known as Satan?" After all, they seem to do many of the same things.
The only way to take this Storybook seriously is to suspend one's recognition of reality; and beyond that, one has to overlook a tremendous amount of internal inconsistencies and contradictions within the framework of the Storybook itself. In other words, evasion, within and without -- and not by me, but by Trinity and his ilk:
"Dropping below the level of a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality, they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter—and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it." (For the New Intellectual, Galt’s Speech,
p. 154)
"I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it." (For the New Intellectual, Galt’s Speech, p. 165)
Ydemoc
WOE IS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Justin,
Trinity's Storybook worldview serves as the basis for the following hyperbolic exclamation,
"WOE IS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Who it is that is supposed to be full of woe is not entirely clear. Is it him? Or is it me? Is it both of us? Or is it someone else? Is it his invisible magic buddy? Due to his lack of specificity, one can only imagine.
What is clear is that his Storybook is rife with such ambiguities, ambiguities which kick open the gates of imagination -- and his exclamation is a perfect representation of this.
Ydemoc
If you hear the voice of the Lord today don't harden your heart.
There's no salvation in hell.- preacher
Justin,
I just think Trinity is really a lonely person with few friends except his invisible magic buddies, and perhaps us.
And this loneliness experienced by him and other Christians whom I have known, is just a simple case of cognitive dissonance, as such minds are unable to come to grips with reality shining it's light on the darkness, revealing that there really is nothing there but reality; and that there are no invisible magic buddies, just like, as a child, there really was no pretend friend; and there really were no monsters under their beds.
It is all make-believe. Reality has a way of doing away with the make-believe. And if one takes the make-believe seriously and as a basis for that which is real, sooner or later reality makes itself known to such deluded minds. And when that happens, it can make one quite lonely indeed, though those who are so used to pretending probably don't recognize that this is what is happening.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity must really like our attention. Does he not have any other friends besides us and his invisible magic buddies? He knows I enjoy answering his Storybook informed nonsense, so he keeps trotting out more. For example, consider his latest:
"If you hear the voice of the Lord today don't harden your heart."
Voice? I wonder if he can tell us what the referents are for the concept, "voice"? I wonder if he could tell us the difference between the voice of "the Lord" and other voices in his head?
And "harden your heart"? This is metaphorical, right? I mean, there are many non-believers whose hearts are still beating, and not afflicted in any way with any sort of "hardening." If this is metaphorical, what about other parts of your Storybook that might also be metaphorical? Like Original Sin. Did Jesus die for a metaphor? Do you believe in a metaphor?
So selective, these Storybookers are!
And he goes on with: "There's no salvation in hell.- preacher"
Does preacher and Trinity not realize that one need not be saved (whatever that means in this context) from that which is arbitrary? If he can take us to this place that he says exists, well, then let him. That would be quite convincing if he could show us that this is a real place and not just a product of mystical imagination existing only in a Storybook where it safely resides as a concept devoid of all ties to reality.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity must really like our attention. Does he not have any other friends besides us and his invisible magic buddies? He knows I enjoy answering his Storybook informed nonsense, so he keeps trotting out more. For example, consider his latest:
"If you hear the voice of the Lord today don't harden your heart."
Voice? I wonder if he can tell us what the referents are for the concept, "voice"? I wonder if he could tell us the difference between the voice of "the Lord" and other voices in his head?
And "harden your heart"? This is metaphorical, right? I mean, there are many non-believers whose hearts are still beating, and not afflicted in any way with any sort of "hardening." If this is metaphorical, what about other parts of your Storybook that might also be metaphorical? Like Original Sin. Did Jesus die for a metaphor? Do you believe in a metaphor?
So selective, these Storybookers are!
And he goes on with: "There's no salvation in hell.- preacher"
Does preacher and Trinity not realize that one need not be saved (whatever that means in this context) from that which is arbitrary? If he can take us to this place that he says exists, well, then let him. That would be quite convincing if he could show us that this is a real place and not just a product of mystical imagination existing only in a Storybook where it safely resides as a concept devoid of all ties to reality.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity must really like our attention. Does he not have any other friends besides us and his invisible magic buddies? He knows I enjoy answering his Storybook informed nonsense, so he keeps trotting out more. For example, consider his latest:
"If you hear the voice of the Lord today don't harden your heart."
Voice? I wonder if he can tell us what the referents are for the concept, "voice"? I wonder if he could tell us the difference between the voice of "the Lord" and other voices in his head?
And "harden your heart"? This is metaphorical, right? I mean, there are many non-believers whose hearts are still beating, and not afflicted in any way with any sort of "hardening." If this is metaphorical, what about other parts of your Storybook that might also be metaphorical? Like Original Sin. Did Jesus die for a metaphor? Do you believe in a metaphor?
So selective, these Storybookers are!
And he goes on with: "There's no salvation in hell.- preacher"
Does preacher and Trinity not realize that one need not be saved (whatever that means in this context) from that which is arbitrary? If he can take us to this place that he says exists, well, then let him. That would be quite convincing if he could show us that this is a real place and not just a product of mystical imagination existing only in a Storybook where it safely resides as a concept devoid of all ties to reality.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity must really like our attention. Does he not have any other friends besides us and his invisible magic buddies? He knows I enjoy answering his Storybook informed nonsense, so he keeps trotting out more. For example, consider his latest:
"If you hear the voice of the Lord today don't harden your heart."
Voice? I wonder if he can tell us what the referents are for the concept, "voice"? I wonder if he could tell us the difference between the voice of "the Lord" and other voices in his head?
And "harden your heart"? This is metaphorical, right? I mean, there are many non-believers whose hearts are still beating, and not afflicted in any way with any sort of "hardening." If this is metaphorical, what about other parts of your Storybook that might also be metaphorical? Like Original Sin. Did Jesus die for a metaphor? Do you believe in a metaphor?
So selective, these Storybookers are!
And he goes on with: "There's no salvation in hell.- preacher"
Does preacher and Trinity not realize that one need not be saved (whatever that means in this context) from that which is arbitrary? If he can take us to this place that he says exists, well, then let him. That would be quite convincing if he could show us that this is a real place and not just a product of mystical imagination existing only in a Storybook where it safely resides as a concept devoid of all ties to reality.
Ydemoc
It's all a dream
it's all a dream
it's all a dream
it's all a dreammmmmm
@Ydemoc
that which is accepted arbitrarily can be dismissed arbitrarily
Christopher Hitchens
Mr. Hitchens:
I wonder.
Justin,
Trinity fails to identify what it is that he is calling "all a dream." If he is positing our experience is a dream, I would ask him where he got the concept "dream" and "experience." "Dream" as distinguished from.... what, exactly? Where did he first observe that he could "dream"? Was it in a dream?
If he is saying that hell is a dream (or nightmare), then this tells us what we thought all along: Hell doesn't really exist. It's all in his head (and the preacher's) -- just figments fueled by Storybook inputs.
He relies on the primacy of existence in his assumption that there are such things as "dreams,"
while positing something that attempts to deny that which makes dreams possible. Whenever he defends his religion, (and make no mistake, it is a religion and he is religious), he does the same thing: relies on the primacy of existence while trying to deny the primacy of existence.
And he continues to be so vague, obviously comes as no surprise. His Storybook is rife with such ambiguities, ambiguities which kick open the gates of imagination -- and his latest comment is a perfect representation of this.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
yup, it is pretty clear he does not understand the stolen concept fallacy at all.
Justin,
You wrote: "yup, it is pretty clear he does not understand the stolen concept fallacy at all."
The stolen concept fallacy along with a host of other things.
He really has no explanation why the Storybook character YHWH would have the concept "death" available to it prior to when "death" itself entered the world. Was there death in heaven? Did the perfect and pure YHWH conceive of death? How could that be? It's totally inconsistent with what Storybookers maintain about this Storybook character that they worship.
Ydemoc
Lord who has believed our report?
Justin,
Notice that to defend the existence of his invisible magic buddy, Trinity must first consult his Storybook.
Consulting his Storybook does not qualify as a demonstration, but only underscores that what he cites here is nothing more than a made up passage intended to fuel the imagination of its readers, much like the Storybook notion of "hell," which plays upon the imagination.
If hell was right in front of you, me, or him, does anyone think he'd be pressing this hard to convince us to believe in it? Probably not.
On the other hand, given his backwards metaphysical mindset, maybe he would be among the first to ask us to account for what it is we perceive, even if it was actually "hell" that we were directly perceiving, right in front of us!
It is like he said a few months ago, when I asked him if there would be faith in heaven, he basically denied that there would be faith in heaven, saying something to the effect that faith would not being needed since god would be right there, and available directly to perception. This is essentially the same as saying, "No faith is required for that which is directly perceived by the senses."
That he ignores this, and many more issues I've raised, is quite telling.
Ydemoc
If you don't repent and believe In Christ hell will be at the end of your "life".
Justin,
Notice Trinity does not demonstrate his claim for us. He refuses to point to anything in reality that would make it plain for all of us to see what it is he's talking about. All he can do is provide us with products of his Storybook-fueled imagination.
He also ignores what I wrote above: "If hell was right in front of you, me, or him, does anyone think he'd be pressing this hard to convince us to believe in it? Probably not.
On the other hand, given his backwards metaphysical mindset, maybe he would be among the first to ask us to account for what it is we perceive, even if it was actually "hell" that we were directly perceiving, right in front of us!"
His whole "no faith in heaven" comment that he made a while ago, is a dead-givaway that he's pulling our legs, whether he himself actually recognizes that this is what he is doing or not.
That he is pulling our legs is true, whether he recognizes it, believes it, talks about it, thinks about it -- or not. It's interesting how the axioms and the primacy of existence obtains everywhere you look and in everything you do. But his Storybook characters remain undetectable, imperceptible, invisible, mysterious, and safely harbored within the pages of a book, and the confines of Storybookers' imaginations. When asked to produce these characters and places that Storybookers believe exist, they can't do it. And this is exactly what we would expect to be the case if what they claim was not anything other than pure fantasy.
Ydemoc
Hey Jhall I'm challenging you personally to prove to me that you exist.
Don't be an epic failure i.e. "Ydemoc".
“Hey Jhall I'm challenging you personally to prove to me that you exist. “
You really don't get the stolen concept fallacy at all do you? By even asking me this question you are performatively presupposing that I do in fact exist or do you think you are talking to your self? Basically your question is fallacious. Not all questions are valid, end of story.
Justin,
He calls you by name, asks you for response to his question, using language assumes you understand; he comments on your photo, and now he asks that ***you*** prove you exist?! This is too much! Who was he talking to all that time? No one? Has his religious filter caused him to blur the lines between reality and fantasy so much that he thinks you are on par with one of the supernatural characters from his Storybook!? Talk about relying upon the axioms in attempt to deny them!
And what's even funnier that he would never issue such a challenge to himself about the Storybook character known as YHWH. Nor would he issue this challenge to this YHWH character itself.
But you write and respond to him. You have a photo of yourself up for all to see -- which he has commented on. So it is you who must prove that you exist.
Meanwhile, YHWH is imperceptible, invisible, undetectable, and violates the primacy of existence. This Storybook character named YHWH doesn't write or respond, except for what some mystics conjured up and wrote down some 2000 - 3000 years ago in some Storybook, and he accepts this character YHWH without a second, or even first thought for that matter.
Like I wrote before: ""If hell was right in front of you, me, or him, does anyone think he'd be pressing this hard to convince us to believe in it? Probably not.
On the other hand, given his backwards metaphysical mindset, maybe he would be among the first to ask us to account for what it is we perceive, even if it was actually "hell" that we were directly perceiving, right in front of us!"
And also: "It is like he said a few months ago, when I asked him if there would be faith in heaven, he basically denied that there would be faith in heaven, saying something to the effect that faith would not being needed since god would be right there, and directly perceivable. This is essentially the same as saying, "No faith is required for that which is directly perceived by the senses."
And so, it is, evidently, without any thought, again, on his part that Trinity asks you to prove you exist; and by doing so demonstrates yet again -- not the existence of hell or YHWH -- but the main reason why the label "The Three Person's of the Knucklehead" fits Trinity like a glove.
Ydemoc
It's you Justin that keeps stealing Capitol.
In order for you to even say anything you need to have reason which Jhall you have miserably failed to account for.
You are here to simply disrupt and cause confusion it's a shame.
“In order for you to even say anything you need to have reason which Jhall you have miserably failed to account for.”
I have “accounted for it” whatever that exactly means by acknowledging that all reason (applying logic to ones thinking) needs is the axiomatic concepts: existence, identity and consciousness as well as a presumption of the primacy of existence principle. That is all, no god required. I doubt very much if you after several months have any conception however of what I mean by this. And before you ask me to account for existence, identity or consciousness, remember some questions I am not even asking, like I said not all questions are valid, end of story.
“You are here to simply disrupt and cause confusion it's a shame.”
project much:)
Justin,
Trinity appears to be making things up again, i.e., "stealing Capitol."
His tendency for playing make-believe reaches new heights with every post he makes.
I wonder how many people are using his computer this evening? And if it's more than just Trinity, I wonder if they are sharing more than just the computer? It's a good thing I'm not a fly on the wall in that household, because I think I would ask someone to swat me and put me out of my misery of having to watch and listen to the kind of "brilliant ideas" arising from that little Christian think-tank.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity appears to be making things up again, i.e., "stealing Capitol."
His tendency for playing make-believe reaches new heights with every post he makes.
I wonder how many people are using his computer this evening? And if it's more than just Trinity, I wonder if they are sharing more than just the computer? It's a good thing I'm not a fly on the wall in that household, because I think I would ask someone to swat me and put me out of my misery of having to watch and listen to the kind of "brilliant ideas" arising from that little Christian think-tank.
Ydemoc
That wouln't be question though.
The question is why can man reason which you have already admitted you have no desire to answer.
You live happily ever after "starting with existence" which is actually a scheme an epic diversionary tactic.
Objectivism aka Ayn Rand's antics aka the epitome of gimmickery.
Why won't you and "Ydemoc" be honest?
“The question is why can man reason which you have already admitted you have no desire to answer.”
this is just another way of asking why consciousness or how do you justify your consciousness, and that is axiomatic. Further I have been completely honest with you. This is actually what I think on the matter.
Justin,
Trinity still doesn't get it. He asked us to tell him why man is able to reason. Man is able to reason because he is a biological creature of a certain kind. His consciousness has identity, like everything else does. His mind is capable of forming concepts and retaining knowledge in that form. Does Trinity deny any of this? Do dogs form concepts? How about flies?
But he should tell us why his imperceptible, invisible, undetectable, Storybook character known as YHWH can reason. How does YHWH reason without any means of reasoning i.e., biological, and without anything to reason about? After all, thinking or reasoning does presuppose something to think or reason about, does it not, i.e., content?
Trinity is asking fallacious questions again, while demonstrating his inability to answer these questions for the Storybook character he worships.
Ydemoc
"Man is biological in nature."
How do you know?
How do you know?
How do you know?
This is a sly way of saying "that's just the way it is"
"That's just the identity of man" blah blah blah
That doesn't even deserve to be called fallacious but just epic junk.
""Man is biological in nature."
How do you know?
How do you know?
How do you know?"
seriously? this ranks up there with your identity vs causality guffaw! Have you ever witness surgery on a human being? I have, guess what I saw when they cut into this person? robotic circuitry? nope! pulsing supernatural spiritual light? nope! What I saw was fat, muscle, sinew and bone. Guess what you would see if you were to look at that under a microscope, cells with organelles and mitochondria, DNA molecules and all that other biological stuff. You know that Ydemoc and I think you are an idiot right?
Well of course Justin instead of dealing with my objections you decide to spread a little ad hominem it's a very common thing among the "atheist".
Did you know that I know that your reasoning is extremely fallacious and depraved in other words it's straight up immoral now that's not only hilarious but buzzard.
By the way Justin aka "Genuis" what exactly causes life does science know?
By the way it's interesting that you would even bring up the causality identity thing up even after I challenged you to find me one logic text that was in agreement with you are you really that immoral?
Why won't you and the epic failure be honest?
"Well look I mean all you gotta do is open someone's brain to know man is biological"
It's nothing but a circular answer "we know because we know" nice try jack.
and just want are you objecting too, that man is biological in nature? As for you question about what causes life, I suppose you are referring to abiogensis. The short answer is no,they do not. We don't even have a good outline. However just 60 years ago we had no idea how the mechanics of heredity worked either, then DNA was discovered and now we know. Do think the mystery of life's origins will remain one forever? Is that where you wish to hid your god? In the ever shrinking sphere of what we don't yet know? That is an ever shrinking god as well.
Ok Nide, identity the concept referees to what things are. Everything that exists exists as something, therefore identity has something to do with everything, without exception. This is a first order abstraction. I have a geometry text book here that does not say anywhere in it that 37.3 degrees plus 12.7 degrees is 50 degrees. However that can be inferred from the rules of geometry, a first order abstraction. The fact that you are too thick to figure this out is just appalling. Seriously unless it is spelled out for you and told to you from some authority it would appear you cant figure anything out for yourself.
additionally the last kind of person I am going to take a lecture on morality from is a Christian.
No Justin were just playing your game that's all.
Besides you're the one that believes in evolution you know A evolved to B it should be interesting to see how you squirm out of this one I'll be waiting.
You're an identity destroyer shame on you.
squirm out of what? The theory of evolution does not address abiogensis. Evolution is the defined as the change in the frequency of alleles (genes) in a population expressed over time. Thus evolution already presupposes that there is life. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how this phenomenon takes place. We don't yet have a theory of abiogensis.
you are making a common fundi mistake of equating the theory of evolution to the whole body of scientific knowledge.
"You're an identity destroyer shame on you."
just what the hell is that even supposed to mean?
Ok great so now you wanna evade and deny that one species A turned evolved into another species B
You're in trouble here "Jhall" better hurry and find another evasion.
"Ok great so now you wanna evade and deny that one species A turned evolved into another species B"
I did not say that, please improve your reading comprehension, it would help
I see the problem, you cant tell the difference between abiogensis and evolution, mmm... ok
Justin answer the question were not talking about "abiogenesis" but how A turned into B are you denying this yes or no?
evolution as I said is the change in the frequency of alleles (genes) in a population expressed over time. A sufficient change would and does result in new species. There are numerous documented occurrences of speciefication.
here if you are interested is a short and by no means exhaustive list
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
In other words A turned B.
Not only can't "atheist" account for identity but they destroy it at the same time.
How does it feel Justin?
Who knows in 100 years we could be a whole other species
it's amazing.
"In other words A turned B.
Not only can't "atheist" account for identity but they destroy it at the same time.
How does it feel Justin?
Who knows in 100 years we could be a whole other species
it's amazing."
I see the words, I see a sentence that is grammatically correct, but damn if I can glean any meaning from it. Ok I can guess....
Still clinging to that simplistic notion of what identity means I see. Cant abstract the consequences of a thing's identity into the future or into the past. In your world view when an apple falls to the earth, this has nothing to do with the earth's identity (gravitational field). For you the identity of large groupings of other entities must be fixed in time, for all time in order of it to have an identity. truly lolz. Nide you bring a smile to my face.
January 14, 2012 12:50 AM
hey Nide go into any physics class and tell the instructor that the identity of the things involved has nothing to do with how they will interact! lolz
It is in the nature (identity) of many things to change over time. I have an identity and I am 6 foot 1 inch, but when I was 14 I was only 5 foot, wow I have changed, yup, humans grow for about the first 16 years of their lives, that is part of the identity of man. Simple stuff Nide, logic 101
Justin if the sun turned cold tomorrow would that be a case of A turning B?
Nice evasion by the way on my last question it's simple did A turn into B yes or no you can giggle with "Ydemoc " later.
The problem is Justin you keep trying to smuggle in your beliefs unwarranted it's kind of rude.
A turned into B why won't you admit it take another loss it's fine you should be used to losing already anyway.
In logic, the law of identity is the first of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that an object is the same as itself: A → A (if you have A, then you have A); While this can also be listed as A ≡ A (A if-and-only-if A,) this is redundant.[1] Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity. When discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology.
From wiki.
that would be a case of the sun changing its identity, how you chose to express that as a logical equation is quibbling. It would still be the sun, just a changed sun. We can use the variable "B" to describe this post change sun and "A" as the pre change sun or if we find it convenient to just refer to the sun "A" regardless of the point in its history if that is not relevant to the discussion. I have never said that the identity of things cant if influenced change. Again Nide this is simple stuff. What caused the sun to go cold? what ever it is, it is that and that only, ie it has identity.
If you want something that has not changed in some fundamental ways, you have to discuss physical constants like C, or the very small, like elections. Elections have a given rest mass and they have always had that given rest mass for all time, or at least scene the big bang. The large complex things, stars, planets, people, they change under their own influence and the influences that other complex things exert on them all the time, no problem for identity.
January 14, 2012 1:03 AM
yup, you got it Nide, now why cant you extrapolate the consequences of that?
"The problem is Justin you keep trying to smuggle in your beliefs unwarranted it's kind of rude.
A turned into B why won't you admit it take another loss it's fine you should be used to losing already anyway."
cute, I have not lost one debate if you can call it that to you, Dunning–Kruger
truly the fact that you can not grasp the concept identity in full has resulted in you losing all credibility with me
The problem is Justin you are deliberately trying to confuse the discussion.
You complain that if God was in control of everything we could not be guaranteed Knowkegde.
But it's really you Justin who destroys Knowledge with your theories in 100 years everything could suddenly change heck even tomorrow.
"You complain that if God was in control of everything we could not be guaranteed Knowkegde."
as long as your god remained completely impartial and made everything work just the way we would expect once we have identified the things involved then, no there is no problem. This however can not be distinguished from an universe that just is, that acts in accordance with its identity. So given the two propositions and assuming all other things being equal lex parsimony would apply. We basically have to assume there is no god that could at a minutes notice screw everything up in an unexpected and arbitrary way. Furthermore we would have no way of knowing if god would keep his word, not even in principle. Please bear in mind that I differ from Ydemoc in this regard. I don't claim god does not exist. Only that I must act as if he did and that there is no reason to accept that he does. He might, but if he does he hid himself so well that no rational man could find him.
"But it's really you Justin who destroys Knowledge with your theories in 100 years everything could suddenly change heck even tomorrow."
no, I have not said this. things will change but only in accordance with their identity and the identities of the things that influence them. Thus we can to a degree predict what will happen. Some things to a very high degree of precision and others less so, some vastly less so. Man just look at economics, they cant predict anything it would seem. But that does not mean that economies don't change according to rules determined by the identities involved and if we knew them we could at least forecast they economy.
man if you think no god is scary, Nide read up on chaos theory sometime. Learn about dynamic non linear systems, I know you can because you are good at math. These systems cant even in principle be predicted, only forecast. But hey that is their identity:)
Same problem for you Justin.
You can't escape:
"A thing will act only in accordance with its nature(identity)"
Why?
"Well, that's just the way it is"
Whatever dude bed time.
Goodnight jack.
""Well, that's just the way it is""
correct you are, identity is axiomatic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BEIWjjUCPM
if we have already denied the holy spirit, we are doomed to hell...not jesus, or even an invincible apologist can save us...so Hez, why are you wasting your time here?
I left a video for you above. Is that kid too young to be doomed to hell? Or does he get a second chance? hehe
Justin,
I read your exchanges with Trinity. Try as he might with his Storybook-fueled imagination, Trinity will never be able to make the arbitrary come true.
As I stated in an earlier comment, reality has a way of exposing the vanity of such devotion and worship of the imagination. Often, feelings of loneliness bubble their way to the surface, reminding the believer that there really isn't, nor has there ever been, anyone else with him but himself.
Ydemoc
Justin it's a scheme A turned to B.
Justin,
Given your recent exchanges with Trinity, I think an excerpt from Dawson's "God's and Square Circles" might be in order:
"I exist and have a specific nature, namely a biological nature, and the objects which I encounter in the world do not obey my wishes. My consciousness did not create them, so why would I suppose that another consciousness did? And why would I suppose that a worldview which affirms that objects of consciousness find their source in consciousness – a view that is diametrically opposed to my everyday experience – provides “the best explanation for what we know about our world”? How does a worldview which portrays a world that I have never existed in serve as “the best explanation” for the world I know and exist in? Do you hear yourself, man?
I do not observe any conscious entity in nature enjoying subjective primacy over its objects, so on what basis would I suppose that there is an invisible conscious being existing beyond everything I do see and sense that does enjoy subjective primacy over the objects that I do observe? Would I suppose this on the basis of an orientation that my consciousness does not have with its objects? That would entail denying what I know to be the case firsthand. If someone told me that I have four arms instead of the two that I can verify firsthand, why would I accept his claim? If his claim contradicts what I can verify firsthand, what motivation would I have to deny what I can verify firsthand in order to accept what I cannot verify firsthand? Blank out. How does “the existence of God” explain any of this? Indeed, it does not explain it, unless I think an explanation needs to be found in a story-filled worldview which discards what I know on a firsthand basis to be real in order to explain the real. But that amounts to appealing to the unreal in order to explain the real, and that does not make any sense to me. Indeed, the notion of a god is explicitly nonsensical, by the theist’s own confession: he alleges that there is a supernatural subject beyond the reach of all my senses, i.e., nonsensical, and he expects me to accept this allegation as knowledge. But knowledge is knowledge of reality, and knowledge of reality requires an objective process. I.e., a process that is consistent with the nature of man’s consciousness, and the nature of man’s consciousness is that the objects of his consciousness neither depend on nor conform to consciousness, either for their reality or for their nature. The only means which theists offer me in “knowing” their god is an imaginative means." (http://katholon.com/squarecircles.htm)
--------end quoted material--------
Ydemoc
Nice argument.
If it's "true" of me I believe it's true for other things therefore I "know" it's "true".
Beautiful.
One finite fallible mind trusting another fallible mind.
I'm done here this is insane.
Justin,
Dang! Did you see what Trinity wrote? He's drawn a line in the sand with the following comment:
"I'm done here this is insane."
Does he really mean it this time? Or will he go back on his word, like he's done so many times before?
Given that he is a Christian, and as such willingly embraces rationalizing and dishonesty as part of his devotional program, I wager that he will return very soon. After all, when one worships the arbitrary one has a built in justification for acting arbitrarily.
And I hope he comes back, too. For all his persistent pestering with his nonsensical comments and questions, it really has given me hours upon hours of fun. And in the process of responding to his inanity, I have sharpened my writing skills enough to expose for all to see what it is that happens to a mind such as his that tries so hard to make the arbitrary come true.
So if he decides to go back on his word (again), and can find his way back to this blog through the dense fog of faith that enshrouds him, I will welcome him with open arms.
However, I'm not sure many of his more astute fellow Christians would want him to do so. They are probably thinking to themselves: "With Christians like Trinity, who needs atheists."
Ydemoc
"Justin it's a scheme A turned to B."
????
Justin,
Dang! Did you see what Trinity wrote? He's drawn a line in the sand with the following comment:
"I'm done here this is insane."
Does he really mean it this time? Or will return to us, going back on his word, like he's done before?
Given that he is a Christian, and as such willingly embraces rationalizing and dishonesty as part of his devotional program, I suspect that he will return very soon. After all, when one worships the arbitrary one has a built in "justification" for acting arbitrarily.
And I hope he comes back, too. For all his persistent pestering with his nonsensical comments and questions, it really has given me hours upon hours of fun. And in the process of responding to his inanity, I have sharpened my writing skills enough to expose for all to see what it is that happens to a mind such as his that tries so hard to make the arbitrary come true.
So if he decides to go back on his word (again), and can find his way back to this blog through the dense fog of faith that enshrouds him, I will welcome him with open arms.
However, I'm not sure many of his more astute brethren would want him to do so. More than likely, if they have been witness to only a tiny fraction of Trinity's inanity, they have asked themselves: "With Christians like Hezekiah Ahaz, who needs atheists?"
Ydemoc
Justin,
Dang! Did you see what Trinity wrote? He's drawn a line in the sand with the following comment:
"I'm done here this is insane."
Does he really mean it this time? Or will return to us, going back on his word, like he's done before?
Given that he is a Christian, and as such willingly embraces rationalizing and dishonesty as part of his devotional program, I suspect that he will return very soon. After all, when one worships the arbitrary one has a built in "justification" for acting arbitrarily.
And I hope he comes back, too. For all his persistent pestering with his nonsensical comments and questions, it really has given me hours upon hours of fun. And in the process of responding to his inanity, I have sharpened my writing skills enough to expose for all to see what it is that happens to a mind such as his that tries so hard to make the arbitrary come true.
So if he decides to go back on his word (again), and can find his way back to this blog through the dense fog of faith that enshrouds him, I will welcome him with open arms.
However, I'm not sure many of his more astute brethren would want him to do so. More than likely, if they have been witness to only a tiny fraction of Trinity's inanity, they have asked themselves: "With Christians like Hezekiah Ahaz, who needs atheists?"
Ydemoc
He will be back, he is motivated by the more base human emotions. He does not want to lose face.
Justin,
You wrote: "He will be back, he is motivated by the more base human emotions. He does not want to lose face."
Yes, these are my suspicions, too. I do wonder if he will change his moniker as a way, in his mind, to justify his return.
Let's see, he has already used r_c321, Hezekiah Ahaz, Nide. Hey, instead of Nide Corniell maybe he'll start using Richard Corniel.
Ydemoc
Whoever hath the son hath life whoever doesnt hath the son
the wrath of God remaineth on him.
Justin,
Well, look what the arbitrary brought back! His invisible magic buddies and us must really be his only friends.
Meanwhile, he quotes from his Storybook that tells him not to lie. When enshrouded in a fog of faith, I guess it's difficult to keep your word.
Does he think we pay any more heed to his Storybook than we would to the Koran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Fantastic Four?
Ydemoc
I'll be honest "Ydemoc" everytime I think of you burning in the lowest hell. I kinda crack a smile it's almost like it brings me just a little bit of pleasure.
However, I don't wish it on you or any body else repent and live don't be a fool.
"I'll be honest "Ydemoc" everytime I think of you burning in the lowest hell. I kinda crack a smile it's almost like it brings me just a little bit of pleasure."
how very Christ like
Repent and Live Justin.
Justin,
I see that Trinity has returned to his old ways -- backsliding, if you will, from what he said he was going to do, i.e., "I'm done here [sic] this is insane."
And so he chooses to begin his latest comment with, "I'll be honest..." I find this an interesting choice of words. Even though this is a common expression, it does make one wonder if he has been less than honest up to now. But I guess we already know the answer to that, don't we?
In any event, I find his latest remark one of the most honest posts that he has ever made, in the sense that it is a full expression of Christianity.
He writes to me: "...everytime [sic] I think of you burning in the lowest hell. [sic] I kinda crack a smile..."
Why is this honest? Because it really is another true expression of what Christianity is all about. Storybookers buy into the doctrine that they really should hate this life. And since they themselves are other-worldly and hate this life, they don't like it when others place value on this life and this world. It really bothers them.
They say things like, "This life is as close a non-believer will get to heaven; and this life is as close as the believer will get to hell."
And so Trinity's remark is just the logical expression of the premises he has accepted. He even goes on and writes: "I kinda crack a smile [sic] it's almost like it brings me just a little bit of pleasure."
From this comment, we can see Trinity has been hard at work feeding his imagination with Storybook and doctrinal inputs. But it really isn't that far, really, from this kind of fantasy that seems to titillate Trinity, to an attempt to carry out such a fantasy in this life. Look at what Christians did to heretics and non-believers in the past -- murder, torture, enslavement -- all attempts to carry out the Christian fantasy here on earth.
But then Trinity does an interesting thing in his next comment: He issues what amounts to an about-face when he writes:
"However, I don't wish it on you or any body else repent and live don't be a fool."
Much can be said about such a flip-flop. Suffice it to say, this kind of comment is inevitable given the Storybook premises he has accepted.
But it certainly stands in sharp contrast to what he said a moment earlier: That he almost smiles at my burning in hell; yet, in the next breath, he doesn't wish for it to happen.
Such schizophrenic-like statements are inevitable given the nature of god-belief. On the one hand, Christians attempt to adhere to their Primacy of Consciousness Storybook; on the other hand, they cannot escape the axioms and the Primacy of Existence.
Trinity demonstrates by his statement a common trait that I have observed in those who adhere to god-belief. In the past, I've heard similar statements like, "Hate the sin, not the sinner," "Love your enemy," "God is one and the many," etc -- all these statements are very schizophrenic, and they come as no surprise from those who attempt to make the arbitrary come true.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc I'm smiling.
Some thoughts on my earlier conversation with Nide
Nide, Richard, Robert, or whoever he is seems to not understand that the concept identity applies to the change of entities as well as what an entity happens to be at one given moment in time. He does not seem to grasp that identity as a concept applies to everything without exception, entities, processes and change itself. Take for example a grub, this small animal is a worm like being in its juvenile state but will after metamorphosis change into a beetle. Nide seems to see this as a violation of the law of identity A = A if I understand his objections correctly. Further Nide seems to imply that it takes or requires a consciousness act of god to turn the grub into a beetle in each and every case that this occurs. However anyone that takes even a cursory interest in this or any topic of change will understand that it is the nature (identity) of the grub that causes it to morph into a beetle. The grub’s DNA causes new proteins to be made that in turn cause the creation of hormones that in turn modify the cellular activity, turning on and off genes thus creating a positive feedback loop with the end result of the grub becoming a beetle. In each and every step of this complex process, each and every step has its own identity and acts in accordance with its own. In fact it is their very behavior that defines there identity. Nide quite possibly fails to distinguish exploration with explanation. At a certain point you reach rock bottom, usually at the quantum level, at that point exploration has ended and explanation begins. In my example the end of the road is that elections and quarks act the way they do and will interact to build complex structures who’s possible expressions are limited by what elections and quarks can and can not do, due to their identity. Put simply, cause and effect have identity. Casualty is an expression of the law of identity A = A. This identity of causality is determined by the identities of the things involved in the particular cause and effect. Why Nide can not understand this very simple and intuitive realization is beyond me.
If Nide finds the brute facts of election and quark properties at the end of the road less than appealing I should like to point out that Nides world view ends in a claim to a brute fact as well, namely god just is. For both of us there is an end of the road where exploration ends and explanation begins. The difference however is that we can actually measure, interact with and quantify elections and quarks in a predictable way (identify them), can we do the same with god? We can actually explain things and produce useful knowledge. We attempt to explain the unknown by recourse back to the known, not the other way around. Positing god as the explanation for everything just moves the problem (end of the road) back one step into a realm that cant be identified, cant be understood, cant be proven one way or the other. Further it does not produce much of any useful knowledge. Did the wisdom found in the bible help cure polio?
I had a interesting encounter this morning that is relevant to this. In downtown there is a open block called pioneer square. In the north west corner there is a purposely built echo chamber. A tour guide was explaining this phenomena to his group and there was a young couple in their 20s standing near enough to me to hear him. The tour guide having finished his explanation of the echo chamber concluded “amazing isn't, its magic!” The guy man in the couple said to the woman with him “no isn't, it is echo reflection, nothing magical about it” I just had to smile. It seems that with each passing year the new generations are dumping irrational beliefs and embracing common sense pragmatic belief systems.
Justin,
I enjoyed your post.
When you wrote: ...We attempt to explain the unknown by recourse back to the known, not the other way around..."
Exactly. You start with existence. As Anton Thorn puts it: "It is our identification of existence which depends on consciousness, but the identity of existence does not depend on our consciousness. A mountain exists, regardless of who perceives it, or even if no one perceives it. Existence exists, and to exist is to be something, something specific... I do not hold that the "supernatural reality" you posit does not exist because it cannot be perceived; indeed, I hold that your assertion that it exists is unjustified because you can never perceive it."
Bottom line: What justifies Trinity's assertion that his invisible magic buddies, hell, heaven, angels, demons, and other things he posits, that are said to be beyond our perception, actually exist?
What ***justifies*** his assertion? Nothing, as far as I can see.
If Trinity elects to point to the imperceptible, invisible, undetectable to justify his assertions, or if he points to his Storybook's assertions as a proxy for his justification, well, he will just be making my point.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
you wrote
"Exactly. You start with existence. As Anton Thorn puts it: "It is our identification of existence which depends on consciousness, but the identity of existence does not depend on our consciousness."
yup, but expect him to ask us to account for existence, identity and consciousness yet again. Even tho I have made it abundantly clear that we do not view these questions as even being valid in light of our understanding of a conceptual hierarchy. He keeps trying to dig under the axiomatic concepts and just keeps finding himself above them conceptually in the hierarchy no matter how hard and how insistently he tries to get beneath them in that very same conceptual hierarchy.
In one ear and out the other.
By the way there "Ydemoc" I'm smiling the glee it brings me.
"In one ear and out the other."
I will refrain from making the obvious comment.
Justin my apologetic endeavors here are done you and the other guy are no match for the genius of Dr.Vantil.
From now it will be only for evangelistic purposes.
Repent and live Justin why die.
This morning Jhall somebody died and woke up in a place beyond their wildest dreams.
However we can continue on your blog mine still waiting for you to meet my challenge.
Justin,
Little does Trinity realize, but his use of the rather passe' idiom, "In one ear and out the other" can only be uttered and understood because (a) existence exist (b) consciousness is consciousness of existence (c) a thing is what it is, and acts according to what it is (d) objects do not conform to consciousness, but the other way around.
And when he writes, "By the way there "Ydemoc" I'm smiling the glee it brings me," I guess he figures I didn't see this the first time he posted it, even though I did and it comes as no surprise from those that take such imaginary notions seriously.
But I chose not to respond to it, though I'm sure he must be disappointed by my non-response, since he seems to be such a glutton for punishment. But his repeating it indicates he takes some pride in his little comment, and displays, yet again, something he does which his Storybook condemns: pride.
Ydemoc
All I can think about is the wicked getting their Just returns.
Repent and Live sayeth the Lord.
The light came but the darkness comprehended not.
“Justin my apologetic endeavors here are done you and the other guy are no match for the genius of Dr.Vantil.”
I am sure you believe that:)
“From now it will be only for evangelistic purposes.”
Does this mean you are sticking around but we wont be hearing about good old TAG from you anymore?
“Repent and live Justin why die.”
I am going to die regardless of what I do, and what I do will have no bearing on me after my death. The non existent is the non existent. Simple enough Nide, why would you think threats of hell fire would scare me? I don't believe remember.
“This morning Jhall somebody died and woke up in a place beyond their wildest dreams.”
Stolen concept fallacy. The concept to wake referes to the action that presupposes that that someone is alive. Waking or sleeping conceptually refer only to the living.
“However we can continue on your blog mine still waiting for you to meet my challenge.”
Not sure of the grammatical meaning here. If you mean I should come over to your site, no thanks. Nide I do not go out of my way to challenge theists in their beliefs. I don't troll Christian websites. I am completely content to ignore your places of worship and online sites for like minded people. If you mean my blog, well my blog is not focused on atheism. My blog which will soon be very active is concerned about my main interests as of late, military naval history and war-gaming and politics. I will only occasionally discuss atheism as that is really not the defining characteristic of me. I am an atheist only as a collateral consequence of my adherence to reason and in the grand picture not that important.
Justin yea TAG Greg Bahnsen is a legend.
I think I'm gonna retire Hezekiah and bring in Legend.
Justin,
Trinity just keeps making and breaking more promises, doesn't he?
He writes: “Justin my apologetic endeavors here are done you and the other guy are no match for the genius of Dr.Vantil.”
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity just keeps making and breaking more promises, doesn't he?
He writes: “Justin my apologetic endeavors here are done you and the other guy are no match for the genius of Dr.Vantil.”
Ydemoc
My God, My God why have you forsaken me?
Ydemoc every time I see your comments I can't help but crack a smile.
It pleased God to crush his son in order that undeserving sinners may live.
Woe to the man who rejects Christ it's an insult an attack on God himself.
If you don't repent and believe I could only imagine the shock on your face when you wake up in the pit of fire it's heart breaking I take no pleasure in seeing the wicked perish.
@Ydemoc
now this is more like it, old school apologetics, down to vicious threats:)
As I said before Justin threats are Good they shake up the soul.
You can laugh all you want now but cry and gnash your teeth later while the worms of TAG gnaw at your concious for an eternity.
Death is a life under God'd wrath and judgment which is no life at all.
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Post a Comment