Below is my transcription of two excerpts from Fundamentally Flawed’s Episode 47: Hezekiah Ahaz, Round Two.
In the first excerpt, beginning around 16:25 and running to about 18:46, we have about two minutes and 20 seconds of show hosts Jim Gardner and Alex Botten doing their level best to help Nide (aka “Hezekiah Ahaz”) literally come to his senses about reality. As you can see, Nide has thrown up an impenetrable wall of faith blocking out the light of reason such that he can’t be sure of anything other than that he simply wants to start with his presumption that his god is real. In Christianity, such devotion to faith is considered a virtue. Observe what it does to the human mind:
Nide: [excited] “G-… You… Jim, you just told me you were no fr… How do you know you’re real, Jim, you can’t even, you can’t even account for your own existence!”
Alex: [calmly] “Okay, well, let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question, Hezekiah.”
Nide: “Okay.”
Alex: “Can you hear somebody called Jim speaking to you?”
Nide: “Yeah.”
Alex: “Okay, are you real?”
Nide: [pause] “Ummmmmm… yeah…. but…”
Alex: “Do you trust your senses?”
Nide: [pause] “I do.”
Alex: “Do you trust that Jim is real?”
Nide: [pause] “Ummm… that’s what I’m trying to establish.”
[Alex and Nide talking over each other]
Alex: “Just let me finish. You’ve admitted that you can hear somebody called Jim speaking. You’ve admitted that you accept that your senses are giving you correct information. So, you’ve got two alternatives: either Jim is real, or you’re imagining him.”
Nide: “And and and and that’s… [nervous giggling] and that’s the whole…”
Jim: “Which is more likely to be true based on the empirically valid evidence for my existence? Which is more likely to be true, that you are imagining this entire conversation, or that I really am sitting here up in this conversation…”
[Jim and Nide talking over each other]
Nide: “I just take it for… I just take it for granted. I don’t have… I h… I don’t have any evidence that you’re real, Jim. I just take it for granted.”
Jim: “So that’s twice now that you’ve admitted that your entire worldview is based on something which is taken for granted, and yet you are the one which…"
Nide: [flustered] “But we’ve been saying that the whole time!”
[Jim and Nide talking over each other]
Jim: “Is that what you’re saying?”
Nide: [drowning in his own flustered words]
Jim: “If you took more time to listen to the reply, then you might be able to provide more coherent answers.”
Nide: “Okay, go ahead.”
Jim: “Are you essentially saying that you’re entire worldview is based upon a presumption?”
Nide: “We’ve [nervous giggling] When have… when I… When have I ever denied that? When have I ever denied that?”
Jim: “So therefore you’ve finally admitted that the very next valid question to ask, is can you give an example of when that is a bad way of viewing the world, and when a much better way of viewing the world is to make objectively valid observations?”
Nide: “But en… that’s when problems arise because we all… we all assume things, and then we go from there. So you’re… you’re… Whatever you start with, you assume it too.”
Jim: “When you present evidence for things, they’re no longer assumptions, they’re empirical observations.”
[Jim and Nide talking over each other]
Nide: “You could be imagining the evidence. And how is it that you’re not? That’s the whole point.”
[deafening silence]
Nide: “See… So, it… it… it… We’re at…”
Alex: “You see, this is the thing. The reason why we’re going quiet there is not because it’s a good question, it’s because it’s actually incomprehensible practically."
Nide: [limp and defeated] “Okay, if you say so.”
It’s quite amazing to me that this fellow Nide really carries on as if he had no empirical evidence that Jim exists, especially when he just got done admitting that he could hear a fellow called Jim speaking to him. Apparently Nide does not understand that any evidence of which we have awareness by means of any of the sense modalities, is empirical evidence. Or, he simply denies, on a pick-and-choose basis, what empirical evidence he will accept, and what empirical evidence he won’t accept, given the expedience of his apologetic aims. For Nide, the possibility that he is simply imagining the entire conversation is a possibility that he cannot wipe off the table, because he has no defeater for it. And he has no defeater for it precisely because he’s abandoned reason in preference for faith.
In the very last few minutes of the podcast, Alex and Jim pulled out the “Ghost that Never Lies” parody of the Christian god in order to demonstrate the circularity of the presuppositionalist apologetic. The result was literally a show-stopping touchdown which would send any self-respecting presuppositionalist (if there are any) recoiling in chronic embarrassment. Beginning at marker 14:22, we have the following exchange:
In the very last few minutes of the podcast, Alex and Jim pulled out the “Ghost that Never Lies” parody of the Christian god in order to demonstrate the circularity of the presuppositionalist apologetic. The result was literally a show-stopping touchdown which would send any self-respecting presuppositionalist (if there are any) recoiling in chronic embarrassment. Beginning at marker 14:22, we have the following exchange:
Nide: “And how is it that you’re not imagining this ghost?”
Jim and Alex: “Because the Ghost that Never Lies revealed it to me such that I can be certain of it.”
Nide: "And how do you know that you’re not imagining that?"
Jim and Alex: “Because the Ghost that Never Lies revealed it to me such that I can be certain of it.”
Nide: “But now you’re reasoning in a circle. [giggling] Now you’re reasoning in a circle.”
Jim and Alex: [rejoicing] “Exactly! Yay! We have a goal!”
Nide: “But see, but, but, look…”
Is Nide the new Greg Bahnsen? Does this represent the state of the art in presuppositional apologetics? Nide certainly does not convince either of the FF hosts that he’s in possession of all his faculties, let alone proving the existence of his god or the truth of the Christian worldview. Far from it. But we must keep in mind that even presuppositional apologists admit that their “arguments” are not intended to persuade non-believers; they maintain that only supernatural force can make a person accept the alleged “truth” of their religious beliefs. So their “truths” are “known” by means of force (which grants moral validity to the initiation of the use of force), not by means of reason (and theists say that reason and faith are compatible!).
We must remember that presuppositional apologetics is primarily geared toward securing the believer within the fold, toward keeping him ever bamboozled, toward ever deepening the canyon which separates him from rational individuals (i.e., people who accept reason as their only means of knowledge, their only judge of values and their only guide to action).
At any rate, the entire podcast is fascinating to listen to, not so much from a philosophical standpoint (since the issues that come up are so basic, and Nide has desperate difficulties in even grasping them), but from a psychological angle as we observe a mind stubbornly defying reason with virtually every breath. We watch in action a man under the influence of presuppositionalism.
Also, on Alex Botten's blog, there’s been some interesting reactions and discussion about Nide’s performance in the podcast. Several who frequent my blog are already aware of this and in fact have contributed to the discussion. Others may find it of interest as well.
by Dawson Bethrick
We must remember that presuppositional apologetics is primarily geared toward securing the believer within the fold, toward keeping him ever bamboozled, toward ever deepening the canyon which separates him from rational individuals (i.e., people who accept reason as their only means of knowledge, their only judge of values and their only guide to action).
At any rate, the entire podcast is fascinating to listen to, not so much from a philosophical standpoint (since the issues that come up are so basic, and Nide has desperate difficulties in even grasping them), but from a psychological angle as we observe a mind stubbornly defying reason with virtually every breath. We watch in action a man under the influence of presuppositionalism.
Also, on Alex Botten's blog, there’s been some interesting reactions and discussion about Nide’s performance in the podcast. Several who frequent my blog are already aware of this and in fact have contributed to the discussion. Others may find it of interest as well.
by Dawson Bethrick
445 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 445 Newer› Newest»Photo,
How does one borrow from what you are imagining?
Nide Nide Nide: you fucked up. Ha LOL. [que Darth Vader's voice] I have you now.
You declared The catholic "Church" is no church at all.
Since the second century the Catholic Church has been around. That’s tradition! If as you say, it is no church at all, then why didn't the alleged Holy Spirit inform the early second century Christians they were wrong?
If the Catholic Church is not really a church, then why did not the alleged Holy Spirit inform or say to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli that Mark 16:9-20 was a spurious addendum? These guys all died prior to the conclusion of the Council of Trent. But if the Catholics were not in compliance with proper doctrine, why didn't the Holy Spirit communicate that to those Catholics? Why didn't Jesus appear to Popes Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV to tell them the sorts of doctrinal preferences as depicted in the first three chapters of Revelations?
How do you account for and justify that Jesus didn't appear to the Popes and Cardinals who devised the doctrines Luther and the other Protestant reformers found egregious as he allegedly appeared to Paul as depicted in Acts?
How do you account for your overt cowardice, lies, and inability to engage the questions put to you?
How is it you are not imagining that your a Christian when clearly you don’t obey the alleged teachings of Jesus and his disciples?
How do you account for that? How do you justify that?
If anyone on this blog is a fool, it’s you. Ha Ha you’re a laughing stock and a joke. ROFLMAO.
Yet the fact still remains Wolford didn't test God, he, unlike you, only complied with the stern commandment of his Lord to take up serpents.
Ydemoc,
Apparently your warning about more than 200 comments was indeed needed.
Thanks.
Nide: But it is interesting you bring up the testing of the Christian God thing. Nide Stated that
The holy spirit also says not to tempt God
According to Paul the Mosaic law is repealed by virtue of the death of Christ.
Gal 3:13 Christ did redeem us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed is every one who is hanging on a tree,'
Col 2:14 having blotted out the handwriting in the ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us, and he hath taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross;
The notion Nide references comes from a Gospel containing passages he rejects, 5:42 and 10:16. In Matthew 4:7 Jesus is depicted as being tested by the Devil. In reply Matthew’s Jesus is made to say
Jesus said to him again, `It hath been written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.'
This is a reference to Deuteronomy 6:16 where YHWH allegedly tells Moses
Ye do not try Jehovah your God as ye tried in Massah;.
This in turn is a reference to Exodus 17:1-7 which reads in part:
…the company of … Israel …, on their journeyings, by the command of Jehovah, …, and there is no water for the people to drink; 2 and the people strive with Moses, … 4 And Moses crieth to Jehovah, saying, `What do I to this people? yet a little, and they have stoned me.' 5 And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `… take with thee of the elders of Israel, and thy rod …6 Lo, I am standing before thee there on the rock in Horeb, and thou hast smitten on the rock, and waters have come out from it, and the people have drunk.' … 7 and he calleth the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the `strife' of the sons of Israel, and because of their `trying' Jehovah, saying, `Is Jehovah in our midst or not?'
passage truncated to fit comment field
Nide rejects the idea that he must obey the commandments of his alleged god Jesus as listed in the canonical gospels, but he seemingly accepts the teaching of Paul that the Mosaic law is repealed and that all one need do to achieve salvation and become a Christian is to believe something about Jesus. If Paul is correct, then, Deut. 6:16 and Exodus 17:1-7 are repealed, and Nide’s convenient reliance upon Matthew 4:7 to get him off the hook from testing his God’s ability to perform miracles, like informing him of my special numbers or straightening out my paper clip wire, does not exist.
Thus Nide’s claim that The holy spirit also says not to tempt God would put Nide’s alleged perception of the Holy Spirit at odds with Paul’s teaching in the New Testament. This would make Nide’s stance the same as that of which he accused Dena Schlosser, the woman who thought God told her to cut her kids arm off, in his debate with Meatros where he wrote in response to
Meatros ~ Does Hezekiah believe that Dena's experience was genuine?
Nide ~ No, I don't. God speaks through his word in the bible. I would like for Dena to provide scriptural support for her actions. Specifically, in the new testament. The claim is that God has last spoken to us by Christ.
In debate he indicated spiritual revelations should be in harmony with New Testament scripture and that he believe his God to speak to humanity through Christ. By refusing to obey the commands of Christ in the canonical Gospels and by asserting a doctrine at odds with the teachings of Paul he shows himself to be very confused and to be either lying or woefully ignorant of his own declared religious beliefs.
Hi Robert,
You wrote, regarding Hezekiah: "By refusing to obey the commands of Christ in the canonical Gospels and by asserting a doctrine at odds with the teachings of Paul he shows himself to be very confused and to be either lying or woefully ignorant of his own declared religious beliefs."
Confused, lying, woefully ignorant?
I cast my vote for all three!
From his works, we have witnessed the consequences of attempting to prop up the imaginary: reality is sacrificed to fantasy, honesty to deception, principle to expedience, knowledge to dogma, and reason to faith.
Ydemoc
"By refusing to obey the commands of Christ in the canonical Gospels and by asserting a doctrine at odds with the teachings of Paul"
Right, when Jesus himself says not to tempt God.
Where did Paul say to tempt God?
Comedy,
"reality is sacrificed to fantasy"
The "reality" rooted in your imagination right?
Thank you for your welcome, Robert. I have not been following this debate very closely until recently so I must apologize if I make remarks that have content that has already been covered.
The standard of debating here is, generally, extremely high. I hope that I can manage to insert the occasional rough diamond into the mix.
Hello Rosemary: It's an honor to have others about reading the discussion. Thank you. This is a free wheeling discussion generally about how screwy Hezekiah (aka Nide, although its unknown as to the rascals actual identity as he conceals it in stubborn defiance to the alleged teaching of his God, Jesus Christ, found at Matt. 10:16.)
Best Wishes and Regards.
Rose,
Don't mind Robert he has a couple of loose screws.
Hezek,
How does one borrow from what you are imagining?
Why would I want to solve the problems of your worldview? Since it is the fundamental claim of presuppositionalism that everybody else borrows from what you imagine, it is you who has to answer this question. Fell free to have a go at it. I will make sure to tell you if you get to make any sense, or else. Don't worry, I will give you plenty of opportunities to turn the "other" cheek.
Photo,
How do you know?
Hezekiah, "Because there are better things to do" is not a sensible or satisfactory answer to my question. You have provided no way in which any of us could determine which of these two mutually exclusive perceptions is correct, or if neither of them are. The default position is to assume that both are false as neither appears to be based on anything other than subjective non-universal, unverifiable opinion.
Here is my response to the five strange "questions for non-christians" that Hezekiah asks on his Blog pages. I have no reason to believe that the man is intellectually honest enough to approve the response (unless he does not understand it) so I am posting it here.
Due to limitations on comment length I will break it up.
1. How do you account for identity through change?
Everything concrete changes over time. By the time you finish reading this sentence you will be a slightly different person. In seven years time there will be no cells that are identical with the ones that you have now.
The brain is very good at coping with approximations and slow changes. Babies are still seen as the same person as they grow up in spite of the fact that they slowly become someone radically different. Since all life grows this is an important cognitive ability.
The same cognitive principles are applied to the recognition of the letter R in a variety of fonts and hand writing.
Self-identity is based on the capacity of the brain to remember events. Identity slowly changes over time as memories are lost and new ones are stored. It also changes as brain cells develop, mature and then decline and die. The child is not capable of the same quality of thought as the adult and vice versa. The difference in cognition is so marked that a 15 year old has no memory and therefore no concept of themselves as a 2 year old other than the stories told to him by those adults who observed them at the time. The self perception of a 60 year old is necessarily very different from the self-identity of the same person at the age of 6. We consider these people to be the same person because it can be demonstrated by various means and multiple sources that they have a continuous history, even if much of it is forgotten or lost.
Non-living things pose more of a problem as they change from one state to another. In this case we may have to make arbitrary lines between the identity of one state and the identity of another. This usually involves abandoning the concept of identity when the elements of something are diffused and combine with other elements to form or become part of something that we consider to be a different thing. For example, we consider a sun to still be the same sun as it runs out of fuel and starts canablizing its elements. When it goes supernova and distributes its elements throughout the universe we do not call its parts a “sun”, unless they have been assimilated into another star but in that case, the assimilating star is the one with the identity. The same goes for animals that are eaten by another animal. All the parts of the original identity are still together but they have now been assimilated into a host animal and taken on that animal’s identity.
In the end, identity is the product of the human mind which decides what clumping of matter constitutes is a discrete and humanly recognizable object.
2. What is reality?
Reality is what we perceive through our senses that can be multiply verified through the perceptions of others and confirmed with empirical observation, exploratory manipulation and objective measuring tools.
If our perceptions are not empirically verifiable and objectively measurable then our perceptions do not reflect the real material world but only some unique subjective mental state or shared group delusion. People whose perceptions do not meet these criteria for objective sensations are mentally impaired, cognitively deluded or of limited sentience. It is not possible to live a normal life without a perceived sense of reality that is objectively verifiable.
Internal sensations and imaginations are real only in the sense that they are generated by material brain cells via measurable chemical and electrical current. They do not necessarily reflect external reality and often do not.
In the case of some poor sods, reality is not what they perceive. Such people are blind to the fact that they do not perceive reality and will steadfastly and willfully deny any hard measurable evidence of this.
3. Is reality static or is it always changing?
Yes and No, depending on what we are referring to. See the answer to question one for one aspect of this.
Concrete realities are constantly changing.
Abstract realities are relatively or completely stable, depending on the concept and its interaction with social mores and fashions and with language and socio-linguistic categorical concepts. Humans discover, categorize and formularize abstract realities that are intrinsic features of the universe. The concepts are changed and modified if they fail to remain stable, relevant and predictable in some circumstances. Constructs of time break down in relative space and in gravity wells. Mathematical constructs and the rules of place and time break down at sub atomic particle level. Quantum mathematics and physics is counter-intuitive to a mind that is only familiar with the normal macro world that works on Newtonian rules.
4. How do you account for accounting?
This is non-sense question, or at least a highly ambiguous one. I can see no reason why anyone would ever need to “account for accounting” any more than to “speak for speaking” or to “propose for proposing”.
To begin with, what do you mean by the word “accounting”? Do you mean book keeping (doing the accounts or sending an account)? Do you mean justifying an action or a belief? Do you mean telling a story (an account) of what happened when I tried to do something?
5. How do you account for the simplicity and multiplicity in the universe?
What do you mean by this question? It is highly ambiguous. Simple goes with complex. Single goes with multiple. But simple does not go with multiple.
Perhaps you meant simplicity and complexity of the universe. If it is both simple and complex then there does not seem to be any need to explain why there should be a range between these two states. Most of what we know about starts out simple and gets progressively more complex unless or until it decays or is destroyed. In any cross sectional event where the predisposing factors are all equal, random chance will neatly provide both states in equal amounts, given enough chances.
If you meant singularity and multiplicity then, once again, there is no explanation necessary other than blind chance for why both our single and other multi-verses might exist (if they do). At this point in time the concept of a multi verse is consistent with mathematical modeling but no falsifiable test has been devised.
If you meant to ask something different then you need to be more semantically precise.
I fail to see how any of these topics has any bearing on whether your presupposed supernatural being has any existence outside the subjective imagination.
A question for you, Hezekiah. If change is a property of life and change is necessary for learning and making decisions and change is necessary for the expression of emotion then is your concept of an unchanging god consistent with one that is alive, learning, capable of making decisions and emotional? What is the point of talking to or requesting anything from an entity that has no emotions, cannot make decisions, change its mind or express any kind of emotion? You would get the same response from a rock (except that at least it changes over time.)
"In the end, identity is the product of the human mind which decides what clumping of matter constitutes is a discrete and humanly recognizable object"
How do you know?
"Reality is what we perceive through our senses that can be multiply verified through the perceptions of others and confirmed with empirical observation, exploratory manipulation and objective measuring tools."
How is any of this real and not an apperance?
"Humans discover, categorize and formularize abstract realities that are intrinsic features of the universe."
How do you know they are intrinsic?
How do you account for abstractions in a material universe?
"To begin with, what do you mean by the word “accounting”? Do you mean book keeping (doing the accounts or sending an account)? Do you mean justifying an action or a belief? Do you mean telling a story (an account) of what happened when I tried to do something"
Why can we explain things?
What's your explanation for explanations?
"If you meant singularity and multiplicity then, once again, there is no explanation necessary other than blind chance for why both our single and other multi-verses might exist (if they do). At this point in time the concept of a multi verse is consistent with mathematical modeling but no falsifiable test has been devised."
Do you exist?
"I fail to see how any of these topics has any bearing on whether your presupposed supernatural being has any existence outside the subjective imagination."
Does God exist?
"A question for you, Hezekiah. If change is a property of life and change is necessary for learning and making decisions and change is necessary for the expression of emotion then is your concept of an unchanging god consistent with one that is alive, learning, capable of making decisions and emotional? What is the point of talking to or requesting anything from an entity that has no emotions, cannot make decisions, change its mind or express any kind of emotion? You would get the same response from a rock (except that at least it changes over time.)"
Yes it is.
"Hezekiah, "Because there are better things to do" is not a sensible or satisfactory answer to my question. You have provided no way in which any of us could determine which of these two mutually exclusive perceptions is correct, or if neither of them are. The default position is to assume that both are false as neither appears to be based on anything other than subjective non-universal, unverifiable opinion. "
You're right Islam is false.
You're the "falsity" of Christiantity is something you're imagining.
Hezek,
I see that you are keeping it at single sentences so afraid to let your imbecility and incompetence transpire. Yet you manage to be just as incoherent, come across as a coward, and overall ridicule your worldview, including those claims about being thinking the thoughts of your god.
Good job Hezek. Need more lubricant for that irritated ass of yours?
Rosemary,
Just want you to know that your expressions are not being wasted despite being directed at Hezek. I have been enjoying reading your comments.
I have also enjoyed the origami.
Hi Rosemary,
Don't mind Hezekiah too much. He's confessionally invested and committed to the imaginary. As a consequence, his worldview forces him into denying the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses -- and he commits himself to something other than man's only means of knowledge and guide to action.
Basically, his mind has taken flight on faith.
To give you some idea of what I'm talking about, here is just a sampling of some of his "greatest hits":
"Well, the bible is not some philosophy book that attempts to make sense of man's experience." -- Hezekiah Ahaz
"Through enslavement comes freedom." -- Hezekiah Ahaz, May 20, 2012 8:40 PM
"You gotta get rid of logic....it's sickening" -- Hezekiah Ahaz, May 1, 2012 3:46 PM -- a posted comment on his blog.
"Yes sir, Hell is good." -- Hezekiah Ahaz, from his blog, March 10, 2012 6:33 PM
Then, on a different occasion, in response to the question, "Is hell a blessing": "[Y]ou have to be more specific." -- Hezekiah Ahaz
“Faith is a belief” (then, roughly 13 hours later) "...that’s why they have beliefs and opinions. Those two aren’t certain." -- Hezekiah Ahaz, http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-day-with-steve.html#c7077590545622779264
"I don't accept Science's definition of truth." -- Hezekiah Ahaz
"I use faith to validate reason." -- Hezekiah Ahaz
"The best approach to believe in the moon is by faith like everyone else does. You seriously didn't no that?" -- Hezekiah Ahaz, August 28, 2011
"Abstractions could not possibly depend on human minds. There is no such thing as a conceptual understanding of logic." - Hezekiah Ahaz
"yea I hate everybody" -- Hezekiah Ahaz, 3, January 20012, Alex's blog.
"I hope you get sent to the lowest deepest darkest abyss." Hezekiah Ahaz, Dawson's Blog, December 30, 2011 7:20 PM)
"Ydemoc I hope you get sent to the lowest deepest darkest hell."-- Hezekiah Ahaz, Jan 2, 2012, 9:43 AM, An Atheist Viewpoint blog
"Alex I try to love everybody but some people can really act like an ass i.e. Ydemoc." -- Hezekaih Ahaz, Jan 2, 2012, 11:44 AM, An Atheist Viewpoint blog
And finally, to cap it all off:
"I have been rational extremely rational" -- Hezekiah Ahaz
These quotes have come in handy and will no doubt continue to in the years to come -- especially if he should ever parlay his pleasant podcast personality into something more popular, presuppositionally speaking.
So perhaps your interactions with him will bring out even more gems that will also come in handy.
Ydemoc
Hezek,
Your overall incompetence and stupidity is so deep that you manage to put the shit of your worldview back into you ass all by yourself. So I see no need to continue helping you ridicule yourself and your worldview.
Also, others here have given you a lot to think about. I suspect that you now know how incompetent you have been, because now you try and keep it almost monosyllabic. Maybe you will be able at some point to make the jump and embrace some reason.
See ya.
Photo,
Thanks!!!! You said you would give me more chances to turn the other cheek. Good boy.
Rose,
Don't mind comedy he's obsessed with me.
Rosemary,
Hezekiah wrote: "Don't mind comedy he's obsessed with me."
Hezekiah shouldn't flatter himself.
Some background: He came here. To this blog. About one year ago. I have not pursued him on his blog.
In fact, Hezekiah has,in the past, leveled the unsubstantiated charge that I've "stalked him." On one blog, after accusing me of this, his accusatory comment was removed -- and he was reprimanded -- then he attempted to play the victim.
Over at his place, he has produced at least two blog entries that attempt to address things I've written. They miss the mark. Check them out. You'll see.
And although I regularly visit his blog, I have not posted one comment. (Others have posted stuff of mine, quotes, etc.; but I have posted nothing of my own, directly.)
Still, if my memory serves me well, he has invited me to come over to his blog and leave comments. Like you, I have chosen not to -- at least not until certain conditions are met, one of which is that he express himself not only with a little more clarity, but also with a lot more honesty.
When he comes over here on this blog, or if I happen to see one of his comments on other blogs; and if I think I can offer something of value to that thread, I post my comment.
So, as you can see, I'm hardly someone who is obsessed. To accuse me of this reveals, once again, more about what he wishes were the case than what actually is the case.
Yes, wishful thinking... very symptomatic of a mind devoted to the kind of worldview he subscribes to.
But, I will say this, he does have an easy-going podcast personality. It stands in stark contrast to how he presents himself online.
However, in both arenas, he doesn't bring much to the table -- except of course, the "gems" I noted earlier.
Ydemoc
Rosemary,
You see. he's obsessed. he saves everything I say and drools over it. he's probably saving what I say to read to his kids and grand kids. It's bizarre
Hezekiah, you wrote: = =You see. he's obsessed. he saves everything I say and drools over it. he's probably saving what I say to read to his kids and grand kids.= =
It appears that you have given him good cause. The collection of his quotes of your past work is sadly hilarious. If you don't want his grand-kids to laugh like crazy you will have to improve your game.
Rosemary,
Comdey is a viper a slithering snake. he rips what I say out context to fulfill his fantasies.
Hezekiah wrote" "You see. he's obsessed."
Again, you shouldn't flatter yourself.
Hezekiah wrote: "he saves everything I say,"
Not everything. I have to be selective. I couldn't possibly have that much room on my hard drive for all that nonsense!
Hezekiah continued: "and drools over it."
This I've never done -- not unless you're counting the numerous times saliva has flown out of my mouth due to the speed at which I've done double-takes over the nonsense you've written.
Hezekiah wrote: "he's probably saving what I say to read to his kids"
You know not that of which you speak.
Hezekiah continued: "and grand kids."
Again, you know not that of which you speak.
Hezekiah wrote: "It's bizarre"
Only if every single one of your claims and accusations were true -- and only then might my blog behavior even be approaching what you've characterized as "bizarre." Unfortunately for you, though, and your credibility (at least, the little that remains), your claims and accusations aren't true.
But, Rosemary, don't you find it kinda odd that Hezekiah would label my actions on these blogs as bizarre; yet Conversational Donkeys, Chit-Chatty Snakes, and City-Strolling Corpses he accepts, seemingly without hesitation, simply on some Storybook's say-so? Not one mention of those fables being bizarre. Interesting.
However, I must say, during podcasts, Hezekiah's affability shines through, in spite of all his nonsense.
Ydemoc
Rosemary,
Yea, he's also obsessed with my podcast appearances.
Hezekiah offers this: "Comdey [sic] is a viper a slithering snake."
Apparently, still clinging to the notion that snakes can talk, eh?
Hezekiah writes: "he rips what I say out context to fulfill his fantasies."
If Rosemary is interested, she can certainly check out the quotes. Are you ashamed of any of those quotes, Hezekiah? If so, which ones? And which ones do you stand by?
Furthermore, you really have no credibility when it comes to accusing others of fabricating and taking things out of context.
When you get a chance, Rosemary, check out his blog and read all the phony dialogues he crafted, putting words into atheists' mouths. These dialogues were on display about 2 months or so ago. It's pure distortion.
But he sure is a likable guy on those podcasts!
Ydemoc
Hezekiah: "Yea, he's also obsessed with my podcast appearances."
I've listened to each podcast one time. And I'm just stating that I found your personality quite likable. And I give you credit for stepping out there and doing it, even though I think you could've been much more prepared.
But I'm sure it was a good learning experience.
Would you rather I tell a lie?
Ydemoc
Fantasy fka comedy,
The "distortion" you can't distinguish from your fantasies right ?
"Would you rather I tell a lie?"
So, you don't fantasize about me?
Hezekiah,
I believe I read on your blog where you admitted that they weren't actual conversations, but that they were just "based" upon conversations you've had with people.
But I never saw a disclaimer for this in any of those dialogues. Did you put a disclaimer in to explain to visitors to your blog that those were not, in fact, actual dialogues you had... not word for word?
Am I wrong with regard to this issue? I will stand corrected if you can show me that I am.
Ydemoc
I wrote: "Would you rather I tell a lie?"
Hezekiah wrote: "So, you don't fantasize about me?"
Hezekiah, I think you've just provided me with another "gem"!
Ydemoc
Fantasy,
I don't need to put a disclaimer.
Hezekiah wrote: "I don't need to put a disclaimer."
See, Rosemary, his response implicitly acknowledges that I was correct -- that dialogues on his blog (a few of them, anyway) are fabrications.
That's one reason I've refrained from posting comments there. At this point, he hasn't demonstrated himself to be honest. (Then again, it could be just youthful ignorance combined with his faith commitment)
But did I mention he's likable on podcasts?
Ydemoc
Hezekaih, you do not seem to understand what you are doing to offend him (and all other agnostics and atheists and theists who believe that their faith is logically justified.)
As we see it, you are deliberately spreading falsehoods that give your particular type of Christian a rationalization for treating us badly and expressing hatred and prejudice towards us. This makes you guilty of inciting hate crimes against humanity, even if you are foolish enough to believe that what you are saying is true.
You are being vigorously opposed because the message you are pushing is, in your language, sinful, wicked and evil. (In my language this translates to criminally anti-social.) If we cannot get you realize this and change your immoral ways then we will try to inoculate others against your hate mongering.
You should reflect long and hard about why you are engaging with people you think have deliberately and willfully rejected the god you insist that they actually believe exists. Your thought system does not allow such people to be converted or reconverted, (Most atheists are in this category as most have already tried out theism and found it could not support its claims.)
This leaves you with selfish and elitist motives: making yourself and the rest of your presuppositionalist buddies feel intellectually superior (that would not be difficult) or persuading fence sitters of your superiority and authority (good luck with that one.) Either way, it boils down to the expression of features of a narcissistic personality disorder: the delusional belief that a person is superior to others and entitled to special privilege in relation to them. This is not a mentally healthy position and should not be allowed to prevail in a society that aims to maximize its health.
The bottom line is that you continue to provide evidence that you should be considered as intellectually unstable and a dangerous threat to the integrity of a sane and healthy society. We would be irresponsible not to oppose you in every way possible.
Rose,
I love you too.
Blessings.
@Rosemary @photosynthesis @Ydemoc @Justin @Dawson @Hezekiah
Good Morning; Rosemary, you're a good writer. Keep it up. Your ideas are interesting and well spoken. I appreciate that you are taking time to communicate with us. Thanks.
Photosynthesis, very good points. Whenever Nide honestly engages a discussion he trips himself up.
Ydemoc, Why doesn't Nide attempt to use the tired old analytic-synthetic dichotomy?
Justin, what's up?
Dawson, Do you have any interest in writing an essay refuting or arguing agaisnt a presuppositionalist who uses or has used a version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy? If so, I'd love to read it.
Hezekiah-Nide: you've failed to answer the questions that have been put to you, so again:
How do you account for, justify, and explain the fact that your alleged God did not appear or communicate to the Popes and Cardinals of the Catholic Church during the 25 year time span of the Council of Trent wherein the New Testament canon was finally established in order to inform them that Mark 16:9-20 was a spurious pseudigraphical forgery fraudulently appended to the end of Mark?
and
If your god were real and cared what people like the late pastor Wolford thought and how they acted, then why did it not inspire the leaders of the Protestant Reformation to reject Mark 16:9-20? How do you justify such failure?
and
How do you explain the fact that if your alleged supernatural god were actually real, that is did not intervene to inspire the leadership of the Protestants and Catholics to make peace and avert the 30 Years War?
and
How do you account for, justify, and explain your own gross immorality in believing in such an obvious fantasy being when if it were the case that if it existed, it'd be directly responsible for an incalculable quantity of horror, suffering and evil?
Answer the questions Nide.
Robert,
You asked Dawson: "Do you have any interest in writing an essay refuting or arguing agaisnt a presuppositionalist who uses or has used a version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy? If so, I'd love to read it."
Robert, I think Dawson's most recent examination can be found here in his blog entries:
Are the Laws of Logic “Thoughts” of the Christian God? -- http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/01/are-laws-of-logic-thoughts-of-christian.html
and
Reaction to My Critique of Anderson and Welty’s “The Lord of Non-Contradiction” -- http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/02/reaction-to-my-critique-of-anderson-and.html
Also see this earlier blog entry:
The “Necessary Being” vs. “Contingent Being” Argument -- http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2009/05/necessary-being-vs-contingent-being.html
Hope that helps.
Ydemoc
"Answer the questions Nide."
First send me 500 dollars.
That's another for fantasy's archives.
Robert wrote: "Answer the questions Nide."
Hezekiah wrote: "First send me 500 dollars. That's another for fantasy's archives."
Nope. You're mistaken. That one didn't rise the level. But we shouldn't have to wait too much longer before you grace us with another beaut'!
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc Hey thanks. Its very nice of you to go to that much trouble. It'll be good reading for tonight.
Rosemary asked two questions of Hezekiah-Nide
"A question for you, Hezekiah. If change is a property of life and change is necessary for learning and making decisions and change is necessary for the expression of emotion then
1. is your concept of an unchanging god consistent with one that is alive, learning, capable of making decisions and emotional?
2. What is the point of talking to or requesting anything from an entity that has no emotions, cannot make decisions, change its mind or express any kind of emotion?
You would get the same response from a rock (except that at least it changes over time.)"
Hezekiah-Nide replied > Yes it is.
His answer to question 1. affirms a direct contradiction. That which is immutable cannot change but change is required for life, cognition, thinking, emotions, learning, and processing information.
If it were possible for an incorporeal, immaterial (meaning non-substantive and without mass-energy or fields), transcendent (meaning a-spatial as lacking location, coordinates, or dimensions and a-temporal as lacking duration or specific placement in space-time) consciousness to exist without existence and to process information encoded and embodied in material particles, there would still be no such material particles to encode information as there would be no existence wherein material particles could exist. Hence there could not be any awareness and consequently no consciousness.
Hezekiah-Nide’s god cannot exist. Its only a fantasy in his troubled mind.
I’ve posted this argument several time before, yet Hezekiah-Nide continues to evade it. Likely because he is deathly afraid of it as it shows his faith to be utterly fraudulent.
Robert,
I looked at your so called argument. It's a joke. A couple of how do you know questions and your so called argument would come crumbling down.
Hezekiah-Nide typed First send me 500 dollars.
You got it wrong there delusion-boy. If you are indeed a Christian, you owe me $500 because you have the commitment to obey Matthew 5:42
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
But you disobey your alleged god, Jesus Christ in this as you violate Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
by concealing your identity. Come clean tell us who you are and post a scan of your State issued ID to prove it.
And you violate 1 Peter 3:15
but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear:
by failing to answer the question we have put to you.
Hiding behind Matthew 4:7 to avoid the shame of knowing your fantasy god can't do anything in actual reality like informing you of my special number when Apostle Paul's soteriology specifically claims believers are exempt from the Law. This includes the fairy tale story at Exodus 17:1-7(*) that was referred to at Deuteronomy 6:16 which the Matthean author/editor/redator placed reference unto in the mouth of his/their Jesus at 4:7.
Evading this way shows how true Rosemary's analysis of you at time stamp June 01, 2012 6:19 AM actually is.
(*)The propto Hebrews were never slaves to the Egyptians; there was no Moses; there was no Exodus; there was no military conquest of Canaan; there was never a grand unified Israel kingdom under David-Solomon-Reboaham.
Robert,
Have a wonderful day.
Hezekiah wrote: "Have a wonderful day."
I'm uncertain about this one. On the one hand, it's a little pedestrian; on the other, it might fit well in juxtaposition to these other quotes from you:
"I hope you get sent to the lowest deepest darkest abyss." -- Hezekiah Ahaz, Dawson's Blog, December 30, 2011 7:20 PM
"Ydemoc I hop you get sent to the lowest deepest darkest hell." -- Hezekiah Ahaz, An Atheist Viewpoint Blog, Jan 2, 2012 9:43 AM
Ydemoc
Fantasy,
Those are probably two of by best qoutes.
Fantasy do you love me?
Hezekiah asked me: "So, you don't fantasize about me?"
Later he asked: "...do you love me?"
By the looks of it, Hezekiah's belief in invisible magic beings has sent him spinning off into an entirely new direction. If this trend continues, perhaps he will finally feel comfortable enough to answer an inquiry I made to him months ago... the particular question about Jesus... the one that he found so offensive, he nearly banned Alex from his blog for asking it.
Time will tell.
Ydemoc
Hezek,
I can't believe your level of incompetence. You answered thus to Robert:
I looked at your so called argument. It's a joke. A couple of how do you know questions and your so called argument would come crumbling down.
Just there you perfection of an ass-hole revealed the dishonest nature of the presuppositionalist bullshit method. Whenever your worldview is caught in blatant absurdity avoid giving any answers by asking for "knowledge justification." Let me point this to you ass-hole: your worldview is realized to be absurd because if it allowed for logic and reason, then it would self destruct once such logic and reason showed these absurdities. GOing through the motions would show that actually your worldview cannot "justify," nor "account," for logic and reason because it self-destructs. It "crumbles down." This is exactly what you ass-holes, hypocrites, try whenever someone answers your "account" questions. You try to show that the accounts fail at some point. But when shown that your account crumbles down you just keep asking for accounts and justifications. See what your worldview reduces to? Absurdity combined with hypocrisy and imbecility. All packaged in your incompetence. And you managed to put that amazing amount of bullshit back into your own ass all by yourself.
Now go fuck yourself you sad excuse of a human being.
Photo,
"When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly." 1 Peter 2:23
Thanks!!!
Hezek,
Your further evasion only strengthens the image of stupidity that you give to your worldview, to your supposedly sacred beliefs. When you cite scripture to evade answering questions you reveal the disdain you have for your professed beliefs. You can't account for the many absurdities of your worldview that others here have pointed out to you. You are reduced to monosyllables and half sentences that manage to keep revealing yourself as an ass-hole, and thus further confirm the absurdity of your belief system, and the absurdity and hypocrisy of your supposed defence of your belief system. If anybody is reviling you it is not anybody else but yourself. My task has only been to translate your self-afflicted reviling, and the reviling you commit against your own belief system, into clearer terms.
This part applies to you and the rest of presuppositionalists:
Romans 1
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Don't answer your vain buffoon. Think about it for self-respect sake.
Hi Photosynthesis,
Let me just jump in here and state for the record (and just in case anyone may have missed my stating it before), that despite his continual mental lapses and all the intellectual deficiencies he has put on display (in large measure, no doubt due to his subscribing to a worldview that is inherently dishonest, for its anti-reason tenants are built upon the anti-reason foundation of Christianity, i.e., faith begetting even more faith), I did find him to be quite likable on his podcasts.
I just wanted to put that out there again, you know, just in case.
Ydemoc
Photo,
"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you."- Proverb
Thank you, Robert. I think you did an excellent job of expanding and amplifying the logical dilemma I posed to Hezekiah-Nide.
The bottom line is that an unchanging god with a mind is an incoherent concept. An unchanging god that was once a man with a human brain is impossible.
Hezekiah quoted the bible: "'If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,and the Lord will reward you.' - Proverb"
So, would you say that those on United Flight 93 should have offered the hijackers food and water instead of fighting to preserve their lives?
If you were an armed student at Virginia Tech during Seung-Hui Cho's massacre, if given the opportunity, would you have offered him food and water during his rampage, or would you have shot him dead?
Same question for the Comumbine killers.
Would you say Seal Team Six should've offered Osama bin Laden food and water instead of a bullet to the eye-socket?
If someone comes barges into your home with a loaded shotgun, no doubt with evil intentions of doing harm to you and your family, would you follow the dictates of this Proverb, or would you defend yourself?
Or do you not consider all these terrorists and murderers as your enemy?
If you would shoot them dead instead of offering food or water, can you please cite a scriptural basis for doing so which **does not conflict*** with the Proverb you've provided? And can you also square any citation that you provide that would support physically fighting or killing someone to protect your values, with the "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" passages?
I'm looking forward to your response and any new "gems" that may be forthcoming.
Ydemoc
Hezekiah, the largely atheist socialist states do a far better job of meeting the requirements for humane treatment of enemies than the hyper-religious U.S.A. The most Christian President in the history of the U.S.A. allowed and supported the use of torture at his Guantanamo Bay out-post. The effects are seriously debilitating and permanent post traumatic stress disorders.
Your statement that you love me is obviously a lie as it is compatible with neither your behavior or your expressed belief system.
For my part, I see no reason to pretend that I love your or that I have anything other than common or garden variety human compassion for your ability to be duped by fiscally motivated sociopaths like Syn Ten Bruggengate. I see you as a very sorry case of someone who has been swept off the moral rails as the result of an inability to properly evaluate the motives and message of a leader who offers you something you emotionally crave.
"The bottom line is that an unchanging god with a mind is an incoherent concept. An unchanging god that was once a man with a human brain is impossible."
Rose how do you know?
Fantasy,
That's been answered already. See the archives here and other blogs you follow me around to.
Rose,
No, it is. Christ tells me to love my neighbor.
"Your statement that you love me is obviously a lie as it is compatible with neither your behavior or your expressed belief system. "
How do you know?
By the way how's Sye doing?
I wrote the following, which I am providing in full without interacting with it. I will respond at the end.
------------------------------------
Hezekiah quoted the bible: "'If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,and the Lord will reward you.' - Proverb"
So, would you say that those on United Flight 93 should have offered the hijackers food and water instead of fighting to preserve their lives?
If you were an armed student at Virginia Tech during Seung-Hui Cho's massacre, if given the opportunity, would you have offered him food and water during his rampage, or would you have shot him dead?
Same question for the Comumbine killers.
Would you say Seal Team Six should've offered Osama bin Laden food and water instead of a bullet to the eye-socket?
If someone comes barges into your home with a loaded shotgun, no doubt with evil intentions of doing harm to you and your family, would you follow the dictates of this Proverb, or would you defend yourself?
Or do you not consider all these terrorists and murderers as your enemy?
If you would shoot them dead instead of offering food or water, can you please cite a scriptural basis for doing so which **does not conflict*** with the Proverb you've provided? And can you also square any citation that you provide that would support physically fighting or killing someone to protect your values, with the "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" passages?
I'm looking forward to your response and any new "gems" that may be forthcoming.
--------------end-----------------
Hezekiah responded to all this by writing: "That's been answered already. See the archives here and other blogs you follow me around to."
I recall your response was to refer me to gotquestions.org. And if memory serves me, the answer I read there was not only insufficient, but it did not address my specific questions above.
So, these are fairly easy questions to answer according to the code of values I subscribe to. Why are you ducking answering them? If I were a Christian who was secure in my belief -- certain that what I believed in had no inconsistencies or contradictions -- I would jump at the chance, even if it was repetitive, to share such a rock solid worldview with others -- especially considering that, according to what you believe, there are souls looking on who may be hanging in the balance between salvation and damnation.
Why pass up an opportunity like this, to champion your faith, even if it has been stated before? There probably new souls visiting this blog all the time.
Or are you unwilling to go the extra mile, to search out these answers -- be they archived or in your bible or on other blogs -- because you're really more of the "said-faith" variety of believer?
Ydemoc
Fantasy,
You've been answered.
How can you NOT know? It is self-evident to anyone whose brain is not filtering the evidence for self-serving reasons.
"How can you NOT know? It is self-evident to anyone whose brain is not filtering the evidence for self-serving reasons."
A classic circular non-answer.
Evading while stitching trying to switch the burden.
Hezekiah wrote: "You've been answered."
Insufficiently. But forget me for a moment. Don't you want to take this opportunity -- with your Lord watching your every move, in fact, directing your every move according to you -- to share not only the insufficient answers you provided before, but also any other scriptural answers that may be beneficial to those who may be looking on and whose souls may be hanging in the balance between salvation and damnation?
This is one of the rare moments that I suggest asking yourself: What would Jesus do? Would he pass up such a golden opportunity?
( -- which, given predestination, that actually raises a whole other issue, doesn't it? But that discussion can wait for another time, I suppose.)
So what will it be? Do you risk letting down your Lord or not? And I'm not even asking for food and water, but only answers for those precariously perched souls!
In a way, it's kinda like an alter-call isn't it, Hezekiah?
Ydemoc
I said: "The bottom line is that an unchanging god with a mind is an incoherent concept. An unchanging god that was once a man with a human brain is impossible."
You asked: Rose how do you know?
It is self-evident. An unchanging god cannot change. A human man who is not dead MUST change. Ergo, either your version of god is not unchanging or your god was never a changing human being. Take you pick. Remember that according to your basic axioms, A cannot also be not A.
Nide-Hezekiah typed I looked at your so called argument. It's a joke. A couple of how do you know questions and your so called argument would come crumbling down.
Silly child. Its not at all unexpected you'd object along those lines as it's blatantly obvious you're delusional and quite stupid too boot. Your ridiculous reliance upon How do you know? questions somewhat indicates how sick indeed is your troubled mind.
I've pointed out repeatedly what is axiomatically obvious. Information can only exist as encoding embodied in atomist, reductionist, material particles. This means we know idealism is patently false and the metaphysical primacy of existence cannot be refuted. We know this because we are conscious of our perceptions of reality.
Not only is there not the slightest wisp of evidence for any of the supernatural gods, including your perverse distortion of the God of the Abrahamic religions, but the fact is there can't be any such evidence because super-naturalism is impossible.
I'm curious. What direct and blatant contradiction are you going to affirm next?
@Ydemoc Hello friend. You mentioned
...perhaps he will finally feel comfortable enough to answer an inquiry I made to him months ago... the particular question about Jesus... the one that he found so offensive, he nearly banned Alex from his blog for asking it.
Sir, could you restate the question or post a link to it?
Best and Good
Rose said "It is self-evident"
how do you distuinguish what you say is "self-evident" from what you are imagining?
Fantasy,
We don't do altar calls.
Hezekiah wrote: "We don't do altar calls."
Do you provide answers to questions with souls hanging in the balance?
Do you walk away?
Is that what Jesus would do with souls hanging in the balance?
Or is that what Sye would do?
Ydemoc
I don't know. I don't keep track of Sye.
I said: "It is self-evident."
Hezekiah asked: "How do you distuinguish what you say is "self-evident" from what you are imagining?"
Hezekiah, you have no reason to ask. I already reminded you that you start by presuming that A cannot also be not A. On your very own basics premises, something that is unchanging cannot change. It is self-evident according to your very own rules. I ask you again: "How can you NOT know, that your version of god could not be an unchanging entity who was similtaneously a changing human being?"
While we are discussing conceptual absurdities, how do you account for the biblical pen-pictures of Jesus that claim that he went off by himself into the Garden of Gesemenee to talk to himself about releasing himself from his impending death and relinguishing his will to himself in this respect? Who was talking to who? Is this the first recorded instance of a multiple personality?
And another question: How is it that the words of someone who has gone off to pray in private have been recorded for posterity by those where not there? Did Jesus speak with a very loud voice that was out of character with someone who wanted privacy? Did someone with very acute hearing eves-drop on the conversation that Jesus made plain he wanted to have in private? Or did someone just make up a story that was consistent with the doctrines that his religious group favored? How does your internal "personal revelation" explain these things to you? Does it give you permission to break your own rules whenever there is no logical way out of a dilemma that threatens to explode the integrity of your world view?
For grammar Nazis: I should have written: "Who was talking to whom". I hereby facetiously deny that I ever taught college level English :-)
Hi Robert,
You quoted me: "...perhaps [Hezekiah] will finally feel comfortable enough to answer an inquiry I made to him months ago... the particular question about Jesus... the one that he found so offensive, he nearly banned Alex from his blog for asking it."
And then you asked: "Sir, could you restate the question or post a link to it?"
Certainly. My question was: Given that Christians claim Jesus was fully-man and fully-god, I asked Hezkeiah to tell us whether or not he thinks Jesus ever had an erection.
The original question was posed to him in this comment thread:
Strange Bedfellows?
Monday, October 03, 2011
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/10/strange-bedfellows.html
And fallout carried over into the comments section of this blog entry:
George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" - Online - Free PDF Sunday, October 16, 2011
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/10/george-h-smiths-atheism-case-against.html
To fully access all the comments, I believe you'll have to click on the "Post Comment" link. Otherwise, I think the main page only displays up to 200 posts, and there are well over that number in these particular blog entries.
Ydemoc
You wrote: "I don't know. I don't keep track of Sye"
Fair enough. But why not post your answers. Would Jesus do it? It's not like I'm even asking for food and water. I'm just asking for answers. There are souls hanging in the balance.
What would Jesus do? Don't you think you'll have to answer for your dereliction of duty come the afterlife?
Or are you more of a "said-faith" kinda guy?
Ydemoc
Rose said:
"Hezekiah, you have no reason to ask."
How do you know?
" I already reminded you that you start by presuming that A cannot also be not A. On your very own basics premises, something that is unchanging cannot change. It is self-evident according to your very own rules. I ask you again: "How can you NOT know, that your version of god could not be an unchanging entity who was similtaneously a changing human being?"
No, I start with God that's why I can account for identity.
But once again a classic circular evasive non-answer.
But I'm curious how do you account for invariant, immaterial and universal laws in an irrational material blind chance universe?
For the rest of your arbitry and desperate questions is anything to hard for God?
Hezekiah wrote: "But I'm curious how do you account for invariant, immaterial and universal laws in an irrational material blind chance universe?"
For the love of your invisible magic being, Hezekiah, are your really trotting this junk out again?
Rosemary, Dawson has thoroughly dealt with this question and shown it to be nonsense, filled with concepts that have no firm tie to reality in the context of the question; hence, presuppositianlists do not even know what it is they are asking when they pose this question.
If they had a theory of concepts, and recognized that knowledge is hierarchical in nature, they might understand why this is so. But instead, due to their faith commitment, they are forced to ignore or wave off such basic understandings. Kinda like they do with all kinds of other things.
Here's the thread, Rosemary, in case you're interested:
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/04/answering-dustin-segers_08.html
Perhaps Hezekiah has read it -- who knows? Whether is fog of faith lifted so he could understand it, well, I think we know the answer to that.
Ydemoc
Yea, fantasy wants us to believe Ayn Rand's theory of what she was imagining.
Rose don't mind fantasy he has no training in logic or philosophy. He simply regurtitates what he reads from the owner of this blog.
Fantasy how do you account for rand's theory of imaginations?
Rosemary,
I think a reasonable inference can be drawn from Hezekiah's latest response. And that is that he doesn't want you to read just one of Dawson's many take-downs of presuppositional apologetics.
Much like in his refusal to answer the simple questions which I've posed to him, his latest volley shows a tremendous insecurity on his part.
Why does he seem to want you to shy away from reading it?
Consider: I'm an atheist. And I encourage everyone to read and study the Storybook known as the bible. He's a believer, yet he won't answer questions -- even with souls hanging in the balance; meanwhile, he denigrates and discourages the reading of opposing worldviews other than his own.
Very interesting. How long before he starts burning books?
Who knows, maybe he already has.
Ydemoc
Hezekiah-Nide: Answer my questions and stop evading, dodging, running away. Act like a man, that is if you can?
Why didn’t the Holy Spirit tell Wolford that Mark 16:17-18 was part of a spurious addendum fraudulently added to the text?
Why in fact doesn’t the Holy Spirit convict you of your egregious sins of lying, bearing false witness, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit via ignoring the stern commands of your alleged God, Jesus Christ?
How do you account and justify the fact that the alleged Holy Spirit doesn’t inform you and didn’t inform Wolford (especially since its likely he was acting in good faith) that what he was and you are doing was and is oh so very wrong?
Indeed why did not, if it were to be the case that YHWH/Jehovah-Jesus-Sophia did in fact exist, the Holy Spirit inform the Council of Trent (1543-1568) members/participants about the spurious ending of Mark in 16:9-20? The council went on for 25 years for crying out loud. How long would it take for the alleged Holy Spirit to communicate via its inner witness to the Pope and his Cardinals that Mark 16:9-20 was spurious? How do you account for and justify such an epic failure? Or are you just going to turn tale and run like a scared rabit?
How do you account for that your alleged god did not inspire, inform, influence the leaders of Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation to make peace and avert the 30 Years War?
How do you justify your ridiculous idea of god from culpability for allowing the Holocaust when it would have taken only a small finite effort to inspire, inform and influence the 95% of the German population who were good Christian people to abandon antisemitism?
How do you account for such epic failures like the 30 Years War, Slavery, the Holocaust when its obvious that if any being with a normal human's average quality of goodness in their character had had the power to prevent such atrocities, they surely would have? Yet if it were the case that your alleged idea of god did exist, it did nothing. How do you explain such gross contradiction?
What theodicy does your twisted imagination posit to alleviate crimes against humanity charges from your perverse idea of god that can leave intact any vestige of moral authority?
Answer my questions and stop evading, dodging, running away. Act like a man, that is if you can?
Rose,
In spite of fantasy's dishonesty, I am encouraging you to read Dawson's writings. They are pretty well written and filled with much to get a good laugh even though I don't agree with his overall scheme.
Fantasy is desperate for us to believe what his teacher is imagining.
Robert,
No answers will be giving.
Have a wonderful evening.
THE CRUX OF THE MATTER
Hez, we’ve already established that my knowledge of your problem is not in doubt because it is based on the very obvious failure of your claims to conform with at least one of your own stated basic premises. The fact that you claim that it conforms to one of your other basic presuppositions does nothing to detract from the problem. (the premise that you start with a particular version of god which brings with it the unproven assumption that it does exist)
Given your statement that all your arguments conform to premises that include the statement that “A” does not equal “Not A”, the crucial question that you continue to evade and avoid is “How can you NOT know that a god who cannot change is incompatible with a form of this god who MUST change?”
The evasion is very clearly coming from you. You are the one who has answered question with irrelevant question rather than supply anything even remotely approaching a sensible answer. The obvious conclusion is that you are competely stumped and are trying desparately failing about in the hope that something might disable your oppoenent before others catch on that you have been caught in your very own web or presuppositions.
I will humor you by dealing with the tangents you deliberately throw out, but I expect you to be honest and diligent enough to make a decent effort to deal with the question above, one that I continue to rephrase until you either answer it or restort to ad hominems of the kind you so easily fling around at others on this forum.
In case you are having some kind of trouble reading, I will repeat my latest simplification here:
= = How can you NOT know that a god who cannot change is incompatible with a form of this god who MUST change?” = =
OR, if you prefer to answer a positive question that addresses the same inescapable conundrum:
= = How does your scheme allow you to “know” a god that is both necessarily unchangeable and necessarily changeable without breaking at least one of your basic presuppositions? = =
THE TANGENTIAL RED HERRING MATERIAL
“I start with God - - - “
* You cannot legitimately start with anything that you have not already proved exists by empirical means external to your humanely flawed imagination and cognitive filtering system. This caveat includes a particular version of the particular god of a particular version of a particular religion,
Since there is a truck load of evidence that proves that human mental process are flawed and subject to all manner of distortions, no human can trust their materially unverified “experience” in the absence of measures that are carefully designed to control for these things.
You cannot claim to KNOW anything unless you first establish the credibility and existential probability of your source of knowledge. You have not done this. In fact, you do not even try to do this. Your hidden presupposition is that both your personal experience and your interpreative ability are infallible. Infallibility is a characteristic that has never been observed in humans and has not even been observed in objective computers. Please explain how you know that you possess this unique gift.
+++++++In order to continue this debate in any sensible way, you must provide a credible defense of your claim to infallible perception and infallible interpretation of your intra-cerebral experience. Please do not fail to address this absolutely crucial flaw in your basic schema. +++++++++++++
“ - - - -that's why I can account for identity”.
* We have already established that a god concept is not required for the establishment of “identity”. We established that this is largely a human construct that is dependent on language and the cognitive structures that lead to the basic human urge to categorize things. (A notable exception is the dolphin family who have been shown to have a sense of self-identity and self-recognition, but without the use of complex language.) These things are empirically evident to anyone who observes what happens in nature. Unlike religious observations, the conclusions are relatively consistent from one observer to another.
“But once again a classic circular evasive non-answer.”
Claim not in evidence. OTOH, it describes your own defense fairly well. Freud would have diagnosed this as a classic case of projection in order to save the fragile ego from cognitive dissonance that it finds intolerable. Coming from a professional life as a licensed neuro-psychologist and behavioral scientist, I am not a fan of the religion of psycho-analysis but I admit that it seems to make some sense in this instance.
“But I'm curious how do you account for invariant, immaterial and universal laws in an irrational material blind chance universe?”
Complete change of topic. In any case the basics have already been dealt with in my earlier exchanges. It seems that you have not understood them. Or not read them. Sigh.
To repeat, a second time (and I am counting): The universe is both rational and irrational and contains material that is the result of “blind chance” and material that is contigent or influenced by other factors. The process of biological speciation, for example, is shaped by environment. The “laws” of the universe are intrinsic to this particular universe and have merely been discovered and codified as such by humans, who are themselves part of that universe. Many “laws” are eventually found not to be universal and are modified by human scientists so that they are a better fit to observed reality. In other words, you question is based on false premises about the universe and its contents.
RECAPITULATION
Hezekiah, you have a basic questions to answer and a defense to provide before this can go any further forward (if that is even possible, given your initial position).
Here they are again.
****How does your scheme allow you to “know” a god that is both necessarily unchangeable (Anselm’s god) and necessarily changeable (Jesus as fully god and fully man) without breaking at least one of your basic presuppositions?
**** Provide a credible defense of your hidden presupposition that you possess infallible perceptive powers and the non-human ability to infallibly interpret the meaning of your intra-cerebral experience. Arguing that you are guided by a being whose existence can only be determined by the integrity of the perfect system you are trying to establish is not rationally permissible because it begs the question and leads to circular reasoning. It implies reasoning that goes something like this:
I know my brain can detect the presence of god because the presence of god provides my brain with ability to detect him.
"How does your scheme allow you to “know” a god that is both necessarily unchangeable and necessarily changeable without breaking at least one of your basic presuppositions?"
By faith.
"You cannot legitimately start with anything that you have not already proved exists by empirical means external to your humanely flawed imagination and cognitive filtering system. This caveat includes a particular version of the particular god of a particular version of a particular religion"
How do you know?
"Since there is a truck load of evidence that proves that human mental process are flawed and subject to all manner of distortions, no human can trust their materially unverified “experience” in the absence of measures that are carefully designed to control for these things."
Ok, good then we don't have trust anything you say.
"You cannot claim to KNOW anything unless you first establish the credibility and existential probability of your source of knowledge. You have not done this."
How do you know?
"In fact, you do not even try to do this. Your hidden presupposition is that both your personal experience and your interpreative ability are infallible. Infallibility is a characteristic that has never been observed in humans and has not even been observed in objective computers"
How do you know?
"We have already established that a god concept is not required for the establishment of “identity”."
Where?
"We established that this is largely a human construct that is dependent on language and the cognitive structures that lead to the basic human urge to categorize things. (A notable exception is the dolphin family who have been shown to have a sense of self-identity and self-recognition, but without the use of complex language.) These things are empirically evident to anyone who observes what happens in nature. Unlike religious observations, the conclusions are relatively consistent from one observer to another. "
Why?
"Claim not in evidence. OTOH, it describes your own defense fairly well. Freud would have diagnosed this as a classic case of projection in order to save the fragile ego from cognitive dissonance that it finds intolerable. Coming from a professional life as a licensed neuro-psychologist and behavioral scientist, I am not a fan of the religion of psycho-analysis but I admit that it seems to make some sense in this instance. "
Was Freud's human mental process flawed and subject to all manner of distortions?
Could he trust his senses?
"In other words, you question is based on false premises about the universe and its contents."
How do you know?
"How does your scheme allow you to “know” a god that is both necessarily unchangeable (Anselm’s god) and necessarily changeable (Jesus as fully god and fully man) without breaking at least one of your basic presuppositions?"
By faith.
"I know my brain can detect the presence of god because the presence of god provides my brain with ability to detect him."
A classic strawmen.
Rosemary,
Hezekiah will now just ping-pong back and forth between his invisible magic being and his magic dumping-ground concept "faith," which he uses for that which he has no sufficient answer.
When he gets cornered, he throws up the "faith" shield. An extra layer of nothingness to block the nothingness behind it.
But direct perception and reason expose this shield, like with the Emperor's New Clothes. He and the nothingness of his invisible magic being are exposed. There's nothing there.
Question: How does he justify denying reason? How does he justify appealing to "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen" when this little piece of nonsense is a non-starter when it comes to identifying and integrating the facts of reality, but is perfect for rationalizing the figments of ones imagination?
Faith as Hope in the Imaginary and Belief Without Understanding -- Dawson Bethrick
Ydemoc
Yea, the "reality" fantasy is wishing about.
Ydemoc:
You are clearly correct. Hez has no defense at all.
He cannot even get his barbs right. He tries to ridicule others by implying that their perceptions cannot be trusted.
For some reason (fill in your conjectures here) he failed to read past the bit about the precarious reliability of human perception, interpretation and attribution. If he had, he might have noticed that the "cure" for this is to match one's unreliable perceptions against objective external measurements, including the perceptions of others. That, of course, is exactly what he avoids and exactly what skeptics, scholars and scientists do everything possible to seek, find and encourage. He therefore missed the fact that it was his faulty method of determining reality that was under attack, not the perceptual integrity of other humans.
I do him the courtesy of noting that some of my college level Clear Thinking students still made this mistake at the end of their first year. Of course, none of these students passed. :-)
Skeptical, scholarly and scientific methods of truth discovery have inbuilt error detection; pre-suppositional theology has inbuilt error denial.
There is only so far one can go in a discussion with someone who is hiding behind a thick wall or error denial and obdurate refusal to test their "infallible revelations" by objective empirical methods.
Hez is a typical CAF (Conservative Authoritarian Follower). He is poorly educated, inflexible in this thinking, highly gullible and easily fooled by charismatic Talking $nake Salesmen.
The result is that he does not even have the cognitive capacity to recognize that the grounds for his belief system have been utterly decimated. Of course, the un-indoctrinated will not be so blinded.
Hezek,
I told you to think about it buffoon. But so be it:
You said:
No, I start with God that's why I can account for identity.
But how can you start with your god without identity? Was then your god not your god before you could "account" for identity? Was "start" not "start" before you could account for identity? Was the "problem" of accounting for identity not a problem and not about accounting and not for identity at the same time and in the same way ass-hole? Were you you and not you?
But once again a classic circular evasive non-answer.
Yes, your answer was a classical self-refuting non-answer. Good job showing the stupidity and circularity of your worldview.
Before that this imbecile asked:
how do you distuinguish what you say is "self-evident" from what you are imagining?
Easy ass-hole. Try and deny that identity is self-evident and you will see what happens. Just as you showed above, you reduce your worldview to absurdity. All by yourself. I hope you had that lubricant handy. Your ass-hole must now look huge and red like a mandril's.
Photosynthesis,
I'm thoroughly enjoying your smackdowns of Hezekiah's worldview. Your style is quite refreshing!
Don't you think so, Hezekiah? I'm mean, you gotta give it up to him, right?
Ydemoc
I cannot find the latest posts on this site. What I get in emails is not turning up here for some reason. Would someone please suggest ways I might fix this. At least I will get that via email.
Ydemoc,
Thanks! I have also enjoying your comments (I mean yours, Robert's, and Rosemary's) a heck of a lot. Your list of Hezek's "golden ones" is beautiful. I knew of incompetent presuppositionalists, but this guy is too obvious. I bet that a few exchanges more, and we will be able to reproduce "the manual." I am now just waiting for him to say something like "wait, let me see ... page 231 ... [mumbling to himself] if you have been shown to be too much of an ass-hole pretend that nothing happened and ask how do you know? ... "
No Hezek! You already did that to no avail! Jump to page 327 you idiot! Say that the "debate" is here for all to see who won and leave!
Rosemary,
We were all having the same problem a few months back. Why it's affecting you, I do not know.
One workaround at the time for me was to post a "Test" post. This would take me to the most recent posts.
I bet that your latest post above allowed you to see the most recent posts from everyone else, correct? The same principle applies.. Whenever you need to read anything anyone else has written, try doing a "test" post to get you there.
It's hassle, I know, but...
Ydemoc
Hello Rosemary,
Seems like a defective blogger thing. But if you click on "300 COMMENTS" or in "POST A COMMENT" the window where you would post a comment has an "arrow" close to the top to "Newest."
Rosemary,
For some reason (fill in your conjectures here) he failed to read past the bit about the precarious reliability of human perception, interpretation and attribution.
No conjectures. That's part of the manual for presuppositionalism apologetics. Page 13 I think. "Look for words you can deform for your purposes and don't pay attention to anything else. This will attain three objectives: (1) Ridicule your opponent by deforming what was said; (2) Anger your opponent with an obvious in-your-face quote mining technique; (3) Make Christians who have no clue what's going on applaud you thus stroking your ego."
@Rosemary
"Skeptical, scholarly and scientific methods of truth discovery have inbuilt error detection; pre-suppositional theology has inbuilt error denial."
I love this! Can I quote you on my blog?
Photo,
Thanks!!!!!
You seem to be the only one clever one here. If I may paraphrase you:
When dealing with Christian apologist after the tradition of Cornelius Van Til be carefull don't say much because it will come back to haunt you.
Rose stay tuned you keep giving me the fuel that I need.
Hezekiah wrote: "Rose stay tuned you keep giving me the fuel that I need."
I thought your invisible magic being, and the dumping-ground concept of faith were your fuel?
Like your Book of Fables, you just cannot keep your story straight, can you?
Inconsistency and Irrationality: The the hallmarks of faith.
Ydemoc
Yes, I got that figured out. But having to post something in order to see all the stuff was annoying, to say the least. I don't like the program at all. I have lost a couple of posts, one of which I did not first back up :-( THen there is the severe problems I have with the "human" checker. I am often unable to read or decipher the numbers and text and I cannot understand the sound bites at all. At one point I went through 8 attempts before the program let me in.
Nest time I will try the other suggestion, now that I can see the blue lettering saying "Newer, Newest"
I guess this will post in ..... my guess is about 4 goes this time. :-(
I forgot to ask: Am I insufficiently human to make it through the human checker or is the human checker insanely alien?
Wait a minute! I must be because I used to have a U.S. customs card stamped ALIEN. I have been anxiously checking for the stealthy development of slanty eyes and green scales every since. Perhaps they can only be seen late at night out the corner of my eyes after an extra dose of heavy duty pain killer.
Hezekaih, you failed the challenge spectacularly. It is pointless continuing with you. You have no where to go and nothing to say.
"Faith" as a lietmotiv (consult your dictionary for the meaning) is completely inadequate in a system that does not allow its development in the first place. Your mind does not seem capable of recognizing this rather fatal flaw.
You have been naive enough and arrogant enough to provide clear evidence of the incoherence and incompetence of your system. It is perhaps fortunate that you are unaware of the humiliation that you have suffered.
I don't seem any good reason, at this point, to continue to punch holes in what you consider to be axiomatic. From this point onwards it could only to be to provide added entertainment to the reading audience. It is fortunate for you I am interested in bashing someone who is already beaten.
I will revise my decision if you go over the top with your nasty little habit of making mean and vicious ad hominem attacks on those who do not share your inflated opinion of yourself. OTOH, I am quite happy for you to continue doing this at your current level as it provides an excellent window into your real level of moral development. You are either naturally a nasty little man or your religious beliefs have given you an excuse for behaving in this fashion. You are an excellent bad example of your faith. Do keep it up.
Sure, Justin, quote away. It's actually a slight modification of a something I wrote on another forum a few days ago. I am glad that it rings bells for you.
Correction: It is fortunate that I am NOT interested in bashing someone who is already beaten.
Rose,
"He cannot even get his barbs right. He tries to ridicule others by implying that their perceptions cannot be trusted."
I can trust my perceptions. How about you?
How do you distuinguish a real perception from a false?
" If he had, he might have noticed that the "cure" for this is to match one's unreliable perceptions against objective external measurements, including the perceptions of others."
How do you distinguish what you claim is objective from something your imagining?
How do you determine the reliability of others people's perception if your perceptions are unreliable?
How do you distinguish other people's perceptions from simple conjecture or something they are imagining?
" He therefore missed the fact that it was his faulty method of determining reality that was under attack, not the perceptual integrity of other humans."
How do you know your reality is real?
"Hez is a typical CAF (Conservative Authoritarian Follower). He is poorly educated, inflexible in this thinking, highly gullible and easily fooled by charismatic Talking $nake Salesmen"
How do you know?
"The result is that he does not even have the cognitive capacity to recognize that the grounds for his belief system have been utterly decimated. Of course, the un-indoctrinated will not be so blinded."
How do I distuinguish the "decimation" of my worldview from something you simple are speculating?
Rosemary,
I would really be interested to see what you, as a psychologist, think of his podcast personality versus his online personality -- that is, if you have any interest or time to listen.
Like I've said before: On podcasts, he doesn't really provide any more substance than he does online, but he comes across much more likable. Maybe he's accidentally stumbled upon this little Jekyll and Hyde gimmick, accepted it, and is using it as part of his overall package?
No, actually, I think the truth is much closer to him being young, uniformed, and in over his head (combined with an inability or unwillingness to type and/or use his iPhone to pound out anything other than terse responses, most of the time). All in all, a simple case of youthful exuberance that the intellect has yet to catch up with.
Anyway, here's the link to the second podcast he was on:
http://fundamentally-flawed.com/2012/04/27/fundamentally-flawed-podcast-47-hezekiah-ahaz-round-two/
Ydemoc
Ydemoc: Hex does not know when he is beaten, does he? He comes back with more of the same meaningless questions that spectacularly miss the point. He just cannot grasp that he failed to provide a credible starting point for his Presuppositions that does not require the logical system that he says cannot be had until the system is in place. There is just no way in, unless a person is magically converted to his particular version of his particular religion without any thought or "faith" on their part. That makes an utter mockery of the doctrine of "free will" so perhaps he does not believe in it.
He really is not worth the challenge. I'd rather talk to someone with a little more between the ears than Hex has.
Rose,
Don't mind Ydemoc he has no training in philoshy or logic.
But That's not unusual Rose to go around claiming victory or aborting when you realize you really didn't know anything.
It's the Same reason they put Christ and Socrates to death. That is, for "corrupting" the people.
Hezekiah wrote: "Don't mind Ydemoc he has no training in philoshy [sic]..."
He's right on this one, Rose. I have no training in "philoshy."
More of that youthful exuberance that the intellect has yet to catch up with. I will cut him a little slack on this one, since I think he uses an iPhone, and he probably doesn't want to deal with the spell-checker all the time.
But still, I think this one is a keeper!
Ydemoc
I began listening to the podcast you linked you. It quickly became painful to listen to. At 9:54 Hezekia says: "I don't think I understand what the argument is about". This sums things up neatly. Hez gave every indication of not understanding the questions he was asked or the implications of his answers (or dodges). He comes across as a bear with very little brain whose arrogant profession of knowledge is starkly at odds with the sophistication of those whom he insists he is superior to. He sounds like someone who has barely graduated from American level High School, if at all.
I had to stop there for the night. I will continue tomorrow. Hopefully it won't result in nightmares.
@Rosemary
An accurate and deserving assessment, but damn, ouch!
@Rosemary
Earlier you used the term authoritarian when describing Hezekiah. This is a term I have repeatedly used in my writings. Are you by chance familiar with the writings of Bob Altemeyer?
"He comes across as a bear with very little brain whose arrogant profession of knowledge is starkly at odds with the sophistication of those whom he insists he is superior to. He sounds like someone who has barely graduated from American level High School, if at all."
Yes, when in doubt immediately attack the person. This is not unusual.
Rose,
How do you distuinguish your "sophistication" from a human, fallible, distorted, flawed, unreliable and false perception?
Rosemary thoughtfully commented with sagacity that:
Hex does not know when he is beaten, does he? He comes back with more of the same meaningless questions that spectacularly miss the point. He just cannot grasp that he failed to provide a credible starting point for his Presuppositions that does not require the logical system that he says cannot be had until the system is in place. There is just no way in, unless a person is magically converted to his particular version of his particular religion without any thought or "faith" on their part. That makes an utter mockery of the doctrine of "free will" so perhaps he does not believe in it.
He really is not worth the challenge. I'd rather talk to someone with a little more between the ears than Hex has.
I must agree. Nide's religion is some perverse form of Calvinism. His views preclude use of human autonomous reasoning by volitional free will to a purposeful decision to convert to some religious position or other. In his theology only the elect are to be spared damnation, and only his views encompass the doctrinal universe wherein those fortunate few (perhaps the 144,000 male virgins who have not defiled themselves with women mentioned in Rev. 14:1-4)source their beliefs.
I echo Rosemary. I'd rather discuss these issues with someone who at least makes sense in some fashion or other and whom at least uses arguments that have not been thoroughly refuted. However, I will review the thread as time permits today and tomorrow and toss out a pithy comment or two.
Back later.
Ydemoc, I note that you admit to having no training in “philoshy”, as claimed by Hezekiah. I, on the other hand, taught college students elementary logic for a couple of years. I find your knowledge and use of the skill to be far superior to Hezekiah’s pitiful showing in the area. Hex is a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.
Here is a slightly edited extract from the Wikipedia entry for this topic.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.
David Dunning and Justin Kruger have quoted Charles Darwin ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge") and Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision") as authors who have recognised the phenomenon.
Kruger and Dunning noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.
Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.
Dunning has since drawn an analogy to a condition in which a person who suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic impairments such as blindness or paralysis.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Rose,
It's not unusual to take sides.
But since you claim to have taught logic.
How do you account for your circular evasive non-answers?
How is it not hilarious to have watched you pull the rug from under your own feet?
Hezehiah wrote:
"Don't mind Ydemoc he has no training in philoshy or logic.
But That's not unusual Rose to go around claiming victory or aborting when you realize you really didn't know anything."
The statement is hilarious because Hex has just proved, over and over again, the he is the one with the logical and "philoshical" deficit.
"It's the Same reason they put Christ and Socrates to death. That is, for "corrupting" the people."
Er, no. Not exactly. But then how could he possibly KNOW?
"The statement is hilarious because Hex has just proved, over and over again, the he is the one with the logical and "philoshical" deficit."
Hahahahhaha.
Er, no. Not exactly.
How do you know?
But then how could he possibly KNOW?
God told me.
hey Hez, did he walk into your living room, sit done on the sofa and have a nice little chat over a beer? Don't you think you are a little old now to be carrying on about your invisible friend? Seriously grow up.
Rosemary,
Thank you for your kind words as well as your detailed responses and analysis of Hezekiah and his nonsense.
I find it telling that, on the heels your Dunning–Kruger comment, Hezekiah posts a defensive, incurious comment that aligns itself quite nicely with the very conditions to which the Dunning-Kruger effect speaks.
I quote from the article you posted:"....ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence."
And a confessional investment... a faith commitment clearly exacerbates both ignorance and incompetence -- as evidenced by Hezekiah and other fundamentalists with whom he shares his worldview.
Any critical-thinking skills he possesses, he fails to apply them to that which he has accepted on someone's (or some Storybook's) "say-so."
Questions to ask himself are, "Wait a minute... So, why do I believe in and defend the notion of a Conversational Donkey, a Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses, again? Is it because these notions make sense? Is it because I have critically examined the evidence for these notions? Is it because I've factored in the overwhelming evidence against these notions? Is it because these notions are aligned with reason? Is it because I've directly perceived these things? Or do I believe these things solely because the same Storybook where I read of such notions, tells me I must? And because others who follow the same Storybook tell me I must?"
He could be honest with himself and ask these questions, but he clearly hasn't and he probably won't. The answers would be too painful. So he ignores the questions and brushes them aside, choosing instead to ask questions of his own in order to take the spotlight off and avoid critical analysis of his own worldview.
He's on a futile quest, trying to make the arbitrary come true, and for what? Simply because the words on the pages of some Storybook tells him he must. That's it.
So how does he fill that unbridgeable gap between what actually is and what his Storybook tells him he must believe -- no matter how outlandish or nonsensical such notions may be?
He fills that empty space, and suffocates any cognitive discomfort he may sense from subscribing to such notions -- with that empty, non-starter, dumping-ground concept: Faith.
Ydemoc
I finished listening to the podcast. My forehead hurts... It was embarrassing to listen to Hezekiah proving at just about every point that he had little understanding of his own position and virtually no understanding of the questions asked or the points being made by his hosts. I almost felt sorry for him.
The hosts ended up proving pretty much exactly what I’d concluded from my brief encounter with Hezekiah: the presuppositional position is self-contradictory and unworkable. There is no way in without supposing a god who makes people believe or disbelieve in it, whether they want to or not.
This god-forced belief completely removes any need for evangelism. In fact, evangelism is doomed to fail because the presuppositionalist position is that the arguments cannot make sense to anyone who is not already a Believer. Of course, once you are a Believer it is no longer necessary for your “salvation” to understand the arguments. So there is also no point to making the arguments in the first place. The actual point of the position is to make current Believers with limited educational achievement feel good in relation to others.
In summary, Presuppositionalism is Theology Very Lite or Theology for Bigger Than Usual Fools. It provides the average poorly educated authoritarian with a delicious feeling of superiority over those who would normally make them feel inferior. What fool could resist that?
"the presuppositional position is self-contradictory and unworkable"
How do you know?
"The actual point of the position is to make current Believers with limited educational achievement feel good in relation to others."
How do you know?
"In summary, Presuppositionalism is Theology Very Lite or Theology for Bigger Than Usual Fools. It provides the average poorly educated authoritarian with a delicious feeling of superiority over those who would normally make them feel inferior. What fool could resist that?"
Yes, when in doubt the stragety is to immediately attack your opponents intellgience, sanity, character. Not unsual
But how do distuinguish your assesment from a human, flawed, fallible, distorted, unreliable and false perception?
"Questions to ask himself are, "Wait a minute... So, why do I believe in and defend the notion of a Conversational Donkey, a Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses, again? Is it because these notions make sense? Is it because I have critically examined the evidence for these notions? Is it because I've factored in the overwhelming evidence against these notions? Is it because these notions are aligned with reason? Is it because I've directly perceived these things? Or do I believe these things solely because the same Storybook where I read of such notions, tells me I must? And because others who follow the same Storybook tell me I must?""
First we have to distuinguish what you claim reality is from something rooted in your imagination.
And Hezekiah simply cannot resist asking a set of completely tangential questions of those making the poor reviews of his nonsensical world view. This firmly reinforces the strength of these reviews as he continues to prove his cognitive incompetence. He keeps asking for explanations of things that have explained to him many times over. I repeat, it is useless talking to someone who repeatedly demonstrates that they don't know what you are saying. He is, indeed, a very sorry case.
Rose,
Making believe doesn't count.
Hi Rosemary.
You wrote: "I almost felt sorry for him."
I also found myself heading in that direction at times. In fact, it almost got to the point where I was rooting for Hezekiah to make a better, more coherent case -- and I'm talking about his making a case for his own worldview!
You wrote: "The actual point of the position is to make current Believers with limited educational achievement feel good in relation to others."
Yes. Presuppositionalism was clearly formulated to provide believers with something other than just imagination to which to hang one's faith-hat on.
It fails miserably.
It poses as a contender but is actually just a pretender. What's funny is that that which it borrows from a rational worldview in an attempt to prop itself up is what brings it crashing back down: Reason -- the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.
And why would such individuals set out to co-opt reason and attempt to underwrite it with an invisible magic being? Faith, of course.
Reason is Christianity's "problem child" (as is sense perception, existence, consciousness, the law of identity, and the fact that wishing doesn't make it so). Reason is devastating to their worldview. So they set out to do something about it by assimilating it then subordinating it to faith.
It has backfired. What keeps people like Hezekiah from recognizing that it has backfired? Faith, of course!
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
How do you know any of this?
I wrote: "Questions to ask himself [Hezekiah] are, "Wait a minute... So, why do I believe in and defend the notion of a Conversational Donkey, a Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses, again? Is it because these notions make sense? Is it because I have critically examined the evidence for these notions? Is it because I've factored in the overwhelming evidence against these notions? Is it because these notions are aligned with reason? Is it because I've directly perceived these things? Or do I believe these things solely because the same Storybook where I read of such notions, tells me I must? And because others who follow the same Storybook tell me I must?""
Hezekiah responded: "First we have to distuinguish what you claim reality is from something rooted in your imagination."
*We* do? Okay. You first.
Ydemoc
Hezekiah asks: "How do you know any of this?"
If I said I knew it by faith, what would be your response, Hezekiah?
According to you, would I be wrong or would I be right?
Ydemoc
"You first"
God told me.
Now, how do you know?
"According to you, would I be wrong or would I be right?"
Both.
I wrote: "You first"
You wrote: "God told me."
So the way you, Hezekiah, "distuinguish [sic] what you claim reality is from something rooted in your imagination" is by reading the words in a book and then imagining they were inspired by a being you can only imagine. Okay.
Be that as it may, I'd be curious to know, What did your God tell you, exactly, that answers the question you posed to me, i.e., what, precisely, did this alleged being tell you that allows you to "distuinguish [sic] what you claim reality is from something rooted in your imagination"
You wrote: "Now, how do you know?"
I can distinguish reality from imagination by comparing what I perceive with what I imagine. Can you say the same? Do you perceive your god or do you imagine your god? By what means do you perceive an undetectable, unmeasurable, invisible, imperceptible being, pray tell?
An appeal to "faith" will only tell us that you are pulling our legs, and it will be yet another explicit (re)affirmation by you that faith is the anti-reason, anti-reality concept rational people recognize it as.
Faith: The anti-reason concept which believers appeal to in order to posit the notion that they can perceive an invisible, unmeasurable, undetectable, and imperceptible being that they claim is not only actually a person but three persons in one.
So how is it again that you distinguish reality from imagination?
"According to you, would I be wrong or would I be right?"
You wrote: "Both."
Please, do explain. I wrote a scathing attack on your worldview. You asked how I knew any of it. I asked you if I answered "by faith," what would be your response and would I be right or wrong in doing so. Now you answer "Both."
Like I requested, please do explain. Let's see what what your imagination produces this time 'round.
Ydemoc
"So the way you, Hezekiah, "distuinguish [sic] what you claim reality is from something rooted in your imagination" is by reading the words in a book and then imagining they were inspired by a being you can only imagine. Okay."
No, from the internal testimony of God and the impossibly of the contrary.
"Be that as it may, I'd be curious to know, What did your God tell you, exactly, that answers the question you posed to me, i.e., what, precisely, did this alleged being tell you that allows you to "distuinguish [sic] what you claim reality is from something rooted in your imagination"
That if you reject him you'll be reduce to absurdity.
A great showing of it was seen here yesterday.
"I can distinguish reality from imagination by comparing what I perceive with what I imagine. Can you say the same? Do you perceive your god or do you imagine your god? By what means do you perceive an undetectable, unmeasurable, invisible, imperceptible being, pray tell? "
How do you know your perceptions are real, true, accurate and reliable?
How do you know God is what you say he is?
"Faith: The anti-reason concept which believers appeal to in order to posit the notion that they can perceive an invisible, unmeasurable, undetectable, and imperceptible being that they claim is not only actually a person but three persons in one. "
How do you know?
"So how is it again that you distinguish reality from imagination?"
By comparing what I am imagining with what I am perceiving.
"Like I requested, please do explain. Let's see what what your imagination produces this time 'round."
How do you know I am imagining God?
Because you live by faith just like I do. However, your faith is placed in the wrong place.
I recorded a second podcast with Nide in which he became so incredibly lost that it would have looked bad on us if we'd posted it. He is a perfect example of what happens when someone tries to use the Sye ten Bruggencate method without understanding just how flawed it really is. He was trying to make sense of it as he went along, and realised about half way through that it makes none. The problem for people like Nide, is when they realise they've just had it explained to them, that their "argument" is literally nonsensical, they're frightened to admit it in case it looks like a "win" for the "atheists". In reality, all we're trying to do, is show them how deeply they're being lied to by presuppositional apologetics. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Jim,
I see your still imagining.
Hezekiah-Nide typed in reply to my questions at time stamp June 01, 2012 2:13 PM and here listed for the reader's convenience that:
No answers will be giving. That means I win. Yeah!
My questions were:
Hezekiah-Nide: Answer my questions and stop evading, dodging, running away. Act like a man, that is if you can?
Why didn’t the Holy Spirit tell Wolford that Mark 16:17-18 was part of a spurious addendum fraudulently added to the text?
Why in fact doesn’t the Holy Spirit convict you of your egregious sins of lying, bearing false witness, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit via ignoring the stern commands of your alleged God, Jesus Christ?
How do you account and justify the fact that the alleged Holy Spirit doesn’t inform you and didn’t inform Wolford (especially since its likely he was acting in good faith) that what he was and you are doing was and is oh so very wrong?
Indeed why did not, if it were to be the case that YHWH/Jehovah-Jesus-Sophia did in fact exist, the Holy Spirit inform the Council of Trent (1543-1568) members/participants about the spurious ending of Mark in 16:9-20? The council went on for 25 years for crying out loud. How long would it take for the alleged Holy Spirit to communicate via its inner witness to the Pope and his Cardinals that Mark 16:9-20 was spurious? How do you account for and justify such an epic failure? Or are you just going to turn tale and run like a scared rabit?
How do you account for that your alleged god did not inspire, inform, influence the leaders of Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation to make peace and avert the 30 Years War?
How do you justify your ridiculous idea of god from culpability for allowing the Holocaust when it would have taken only a small finite effort to inspire, inform and influence the 95% of the German population who were good Christian people to abandon antisemitism?
How do you account for such epic failures like the 30 Years War, Slavery, the Holocaust when its obvious that if any being with a normal human's average quality of goodness in their character had had the power to prevent such atrocities, they surely would have? Yet if it were the case that your alleged idea of god did exist, it did nothing. How do you explain such gross contradiction?
What theodicy does your twisted imagination posit to alleviate crimes against humanity charges from your perverse idea of god that can leave intact any vestige of moral authority?
Answer my questions and stop evading, dodging, running away. Act like a man, that is if you can?
This is a pervasive pattern with Nide. For someone who claims to be inspired, informed, influenced, guided and transformed by a magic consciousness that allegedly rules reality, Nide acts very cowardly.
Consider the slavery issue. Humanity knows with 100% certainty that slavery is wrong in all circumstances, yet the same alleged ruling consciousness to which Nide claims to surrender his moral autonomy was supposed to inspire, inform, influence, guide, and transform the Christian Roman emperors from Constantine onwards. Yet those rulers with absolute power did not reform the Roman empire to outlaw slavery. Same story with the rulers, kings, and leaders of Christian Europe. Why, if it were to be the case that the Christian God did exist, did not the Christian God via its divine consciousness communicate to Roman emperors and European Christian kings and rulers that slavery was always wrong? How does Nide account and explain for this historic failure of his religion given his alleged God is claimed to be morally perfect, omnibenevolent, all loving and all compassionate? 1 John 4:8 even claims God is love. How could an all powerful being equated with love fail to communicate to its adherents to stop enslaving others? How do presuppositional apologists account for and explain such astonishing failures of their faith?
Hi Jim,
Dawson's take on Hezekiah's appearance on yours and Alex's Fundamentally Flawed podcast is fantastic, in case you haven't had a chance to read it yet.
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/05/presuppositionalisms-finest.html
As Dawson writes: "We watch in action a man under the influence of presuppositionalism."
Friends don't let friends become presuppositionalists (or Christians).
Ydemoc
Hezekiah-Nide misspelled the contraction of you are, you're as your.
I see your still imagining.
For someone who claims to be inspired, informed, influenced, guided and transformed by a magic consciousness that allegedly rules reality, Nide fails to remember to use a spell checker and uses poor grammar. This reflects very badly on the reputation of Nide's alleged God.
How is it that, if it were to be the case that the Christian God exists, that one of his adherents could be such a loser, such a fool, such a delusional loon? I think Nide is very strong evidence for the non-existence of the Christian God because the alleged Holy Spirit is supposed to transform the thinking and lives of the believers. If Nide is indeed a believer, then since he is fraked up big time and his performance is so poor his life cannot but be testimony to the non-existence of the Christian God.
Robert,
Congrats!!!!!! on your win.
Hezek,
Stop already man. Read slowly and you will notice that you have been answered, that your worldview was shown to be absurd, and that you can't do anything else. All you are doing now is look desperate. Stop it already. Be a man and stop it already. Be a human being and stop it already. Have some self-respect really. If self respect does not help you much, then have some respect for what you presume to believe and stop. Once your arguments have been shown absurd so obviously, your repeating the same tirade as if nothing happened makes you worse than pathetic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
You look like the black knight, only you were fighting with an imaginary spoon instead of a sword.
Hezekiah-Nide asks continuously: How do you know?
Answer: Information is only possible as an encoding embodied in atomist, reductionist, material particles. Because we are aware of information and of the fact that only material existence can affect and interact with material existence, then we can be confident our cognitive faculties are processing by virtue of existing as ensembles of material particles. Therefore we can be confident existence actually exists and that induction is valid. Here are simple modal arguments defending induction and showing the non-existence of God.
1. If induction is a fallacy, then nothing can be known for sure with complete certainty.
2. Something is known for sure with complete certainty.
3. Therefore, induction is not a fallacy.
What is know for sure with complete certainty? We know for sure with complete certainty that logic, morality, the uniformity of nature, are absolutely essential for human cognition and survival. In order for induction to operate, material existence must exist, and logic must be the non-contradictory means of identifying that which exists. The following serves to show this true.
4. Logic, defined as the non-contradictory means of identifying the facts of reality, is absolutely essential for human cognition and survival.
5. If the proposition “God exists.” is true, then divine creation obtains.
6. If divine creation is true, then all in existence is essentially and completely dependent upon God’s act of creation, and nothing in existence must deterministically casually follow from cosmic inflation and big bang cosmology or be be absolutely essential for human cognition and survival.
7. If “God exists.” is true, then logic cannot be absolutely essential for human cognition and survival. (from 5 and 6)
8. The proposition “God exists.” is false. (from 4 and 7)
If god does not exist then information is essentially and completely dependent upon material existence by virtue of only being possible an encoding embodied in atomist, reductionist, material particles. So by another modus tollens:
9. If god does exist, and logic is not absolutely essential for human survival and cognition, then information is not essentially and completely dependent upon material existence.
10. God does not exist. (from 8)
11. Logic, defined as the non-contradictory means of identifying the facts of reality, is absolutely essential for cognition and human survival. (from 4)
12. Information is essentially and completely dependent upon material existence.
13. In order for information to be essentially and completely dependent upon material existence, existence must deterministically casually follow from cosmic inflation and big bang cosmology and actually exist.
14. Information is essentially and completely dependent upon material existence.
15. Existence must deterministically casually follow from cosmic inflation and big bang cosmology and actually exist.
For logic to work, existence must be casual and the Law of Identity must work.
16. Logic works. Therefore by Modus Ponens, existence must be casual and A must equal A.
17. If A=A and existence is casual, then induction must also work.
18. A=A and existence is casual.
19. Induction works.
If the ghost of Socrates came about and said:
"You know, positing that induction does not work in some circumstance or other requires having omniscient knowledge of all natural causation relative to the effect in question to rule out any possible naturalistic cause. But since omniscience is impossible, no such knowledge can obtain."
Then maybe you'd believe your own autonomous reasoning.
Photo,
How do you know?
"6. If divine creation is true, then all in existence is essentially and completely dependent upon God’s act of creation, and nothing in existence must deterministically casually follow from cosmic inflation and big bang cosmology or be be absolutely essential for human cognition and survival."
How do you know?
"But since omniscience is impossible, no such knowledge can obtain."
How do you know?
Hezekiah,
I saw your recent questions over on your blog. I noticed you failed to explicitly address them to objectivists. If your omission was intentional, it was a wise choice. For that means you recognize that your questions are packaged with premises which objectivists do not subscribe to.
However, if such an omission was an oversight on your part, and you did in fact, intend your questions to be directed specifically to objectivists, then this means you do not know what it is you are asking.
It's as if I were to ask you, with your claim of being a Christian: How do you account for the Koran being the one true word of the one true god. (Hey, that's not a bad tit-for-tat question: How do you account for it?)
Furthermore, if your questions were indeed intended for objectivists, it is a good indication that you may have read some of Dawson's writings, but that you either haven't done so carefully enough to fully grasp the objectivist position or you are being intellectually (a stretch, I know) dishonest by intentionally distorting the objectivist position.
Or at the very least, it was simply a mistake by someone who hasn't fully integrated what he has, presumably, read and been exposed to for, to the best of my knowledge, nearly one year.
How do I know?
I'm familiar enough with the objectivist position that -- after reading the questions presented on your blog, and after reading your comments here, there, and elsewhere -- I have enough facts before me to come to that determination.
Given that your questions do not apply to objectivists (and even the title of your blog entry is misleading if directed at them), I wouldn't be surprised if no objectivist answers them -- that is, not unless they want to unpack and explain to you the errors of your ways as far as the questions' hidden premises are concerned.
Ydemoc
"objectivisms theory of concept" is a reworking of Aristotle's theory of concepts.
Rand loved Aristotle. What didn't you know this?
So, yea rands reconstruction doesn't escape Aristotle's problem. No matter how much Rand her latter day followers wish it to.
Hezekiah writes: "So, yea rands reconstruction doesn't escape Aristotle's problem. No matter how much Rand her latter day followers wish it to."
If your answer to my question, "How do you know?" ends up being, "By faith" -- that would be priceless!
With that said: "How do you know?"
Ydemoc
How do I know ?
By means of reason.
Yes, indeed, Photosynthesis, Python's sketch sums it up pretty well - with a substituted spoon, of course.
Ydemoc: You didn't really think you would get a sane or sensible answer to your questions, did you? After all of the experience you have had with this faux politician? I doubt if he could accept a lottery prize without stupidly demanding that the pay out officer check with Jesus to see if he were not imagining that his numbers were the winning ones.
I hate to break it to you, my friend, but this guy's God-given perfect knowledge does not include sufficient language (or punctuation) to understand most of your questions. He has no incentive for understanding them and nor does he sees any need to answer them with something more substantial than one of his almost mindlessly produced stock responses:
faith;
god told me;
the bible agrees with me;
the scene out the window informed me;
or, his all time favourite:
how do you know that you know?
He is an idiot trying to pretend that he is channelling someone with perfect knowledge and he is too dumb to notice that he isn't measurably brighter as the result.
Rosemary,
I agree with your assessment. But I am finding some entertainment value in this. Plus, as I think you alluded to earlier with regard to fence-sitters, (and as I've made clear to Hezekiah), his nonsense and my interaction with it, provides them with a fantastic contrast of worldviews, and a wonderful example for them of what not to aspire to. Also, it helps me hone my writing skills as well gain more knowledge that helps me battle irrational minds wherever they may roam.
Lastly, my experience here, especially Dawson's writings (and even my interactions with Hezekiah) has equipped me to deal with Calvinists within my very own family.
They, like Hezekiah, are all over the map now, if and when the topic comes up.
Ydemoc
"He is an idiot trying to pretend that he is channelling someone with perfect knowledge and he is too dumb to notice that he isn't measurably brighter as the result"
Hahahahhaha...How do you know?
But how do you distuinguish this from a human, flawed, distorted and false perception?
In fact , how do you know anything in spite of your admission that your perceptions are unreliable and subject to all manners of human distortions and flaws?
Rose i.e. truly a gift that keeps on giving.
"Since there is a truck load of evidence that proves that human mental process are flawed and subject to all manner of distortions, no human can trust their materially unverified “experience” in the absence of measures that are carefully designed to control for these things."
I think I'm gonna hang this up on my wall.
Ydemoc,
you don't know anything.
Hez says he's going to hang this on his wall.
= = = Since there is a truck load of evidence that proves that human mental process are flawed and subject to all manner of distortions, no human can trust their materially unverified “experience” IN THE ABSENCE OF MEASURES THAT ARE CAREFULLY DESIGNED TO CONTROL FOR THESE THINGS. = = =
That is just too funny to ignore. It doesn't mean what he thinks it means. :-)
If he stares at it for long enough there is a remote possibility that his brain will will finally register that the full sentence completely undermines his position.
Of course he has no idea what the end of that sentence means. He is clearly not in the habits of using any such measures to remove the biases and deficits in this own thinking and just as clearly has no idea that scholars, scientists and clear thinkers are not only very familiar with them but would lose professional credibility if there did not use them at every point of their work.
Hez is once again proving that he has no idea of the depth of his ignorance. It is almost embarrassing to see him drawing attention to his deficits in such a prominent manner.
Roseee,
Here's a blog post I did some time ago:
http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/2012/03/greatest-lesson-ever-taught-besides.html
Enjoy!!!
But yea you told me what those controls are that is:
What you claim to be objective but can't distinguish from what you are imaging
and
others people's perceptions which you admitted are unreliable and subject to all manner of distortions and flaws.
Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
http://patricialeever.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Daniel__s_Facepalm_by_xAikaNoKurayami.jpg
Yes, the only fight Roseee has left in her are kindergarden tactics.
How hilarious. But I see you finally took photo's advice. You finally did something clever
But I wonder if Ydemoc is in agreement with you Rosee since the Philsophy he holds claims are perceptions are reliable?
Nide-Hezekiah stated in reply to Yedmoc
"So the way you, Hezekiah, "distuinguish [sic] what you claim reality is from something rooted in your imagination" is by reading the words in a book and then imagining they were inspired by a being you can only imagine. Okay."
No, from the internal testimony of God and the impossibly of the contrary.
Nide, Nide, Nide you silly fool. You've fracked up again. No surprise there. Invoking the doctrine of the inner witness of your alleged god's magic consciousness is admission of complete and total failure of your silly religion and world view.
The late pastor Wolford's own veridical experience of what he sensed as the inner witness of what he believed to be the Holy Spirit failed to inform him that Mark 16:9-20 was a pseudepigraphical forgery. Why was that? How do you account for that sucker? Wolford is dead just like his father and from the same cause. Why was Wolford's childhood socializaiton more influential than the alleged inner witness of ole spooky?
The Council of Trent declared Mark 16:9-20 canonical and the Word of God. How is it that the Pope's and Cardinal's own veridical experiences of the alleged magic consciousness of their god failed to inform them of not only Mark 16:9-20 but of the spuriousness of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Chapter 21 of Gospel of John and of the many interpolations in the remainder of the New Testament?
How do you account for that? How do you explain the continuing abject failure of your god, your religion, your faith, your mind to deal with this issue?
I wrote and you evaded.
Consider the slavery issue. Humanity knows with 100% certainty that slavery is wrong in all circumstances, yet the same alleged ruling consciousness to which Nide claims to surrender his moral autonomy was supposed to inspire, inform, influence, guide, and transform the Christian Roman emperors from Constantine onwards. Yet those rulers with absolute power did not reform the Roman empire to outlaw slavery. Same story with the rulers, kings, and leaders of Christian Europe. Why, if it were to be the case that the Christian God did exist, did not the Christian God via its divine consciousness communicate to Roman emperors and European Christian kings and rulers that slavery was always wrong? How does Nide account and explain for this historic failure of his religion given his alleged God is claimed to be morally perfect, omnibenevolent, all loving and all compassionate? 1 John 4:8 even claims God is love. How could an all powerful being equated with love fail to communicate to its adherents to stop enslaving others? How do presuppositional apologists account for and explain such astonishing failures of their faith?
How is it that, if you're not imagining your alleged god and that your veridical experience of the internal testimony of God is real, you can't deal with my questions?
Why are you such a fracking coward, a liar, a failure?
Why, if you have the internal testimony of God, do you disobey the stern commands of Jesus at Matthew 5:42, 10:16, Luke 14:26, 14:33, 1 Peter 3:15? Give me my $500 bucks!
If your alleged god is omniscient and you have the internal testimony of God, how is it that you are afraid to pray to your god to request it reveal to you my special numbers? Especially so when Exodus 17:1-7 is known with certainty to be a fairy tale as there was never an Exodus or a wondering in the wilderness of Sinai and since the Apostle Paul's theology entails the Law is repealed for believers. Thus no Paulian Christian is obligated to observe Deuteronomy 6:16. How is it that you can't explain this glaring contradiction between your veridical experience of the internal testimony of God and Paul's theology.
Ayn Rand wrote:
Sensations are the primary material of consciousness and, therefore, cannot be communicated by means of the material which is derived from them. The existential causes of sensations can be described and defined in conceptual terms (e.g., the wavelengths of light and the structure of the human eye, which produce the sensations of color), but one cannot communicate what color is like, to a person who is born blind. To define the meaning of the concept “blue,” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: “I mean this.” Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.” ~ ITOE 40-41
"The existential causes of our sensations can be defined and described in conceptual terms." This means we can employ coherence truth theory to understand why we sense what we do. The same cannot be said of what Nide suggests as "appearances". Theophanies such as the visionary experiences of those whom Paul claimed optanomai the risen Jesus in 1 Cor 15:5-8, or the optanomai of the angle to Zacharias at Luke 1:11 cannot be explained or distinguished from pure fantasy. Hence, veridical physical sensation is inherently trustworthy while ravings about appearances or visions of religious fanatics are not.
Hezek,
Nice to see that you consider Bahnsen your best teacher ever because he taught you how to avoid answering questions about the absurdity of your worldview. He taught you that being a hypocrite was all right.
Here a translation so that you might understand (yeah, right, Hezek would understand? Are you kidding Photo?) what you just said:
As Christians, don't even acknowledge any problems, no matter how clearly explained. Just ask "how do you know?" It does not matter that your god is indistinguishable from any other imaginary thing, it does not matter how many contradictions are there in the Bible, it does not matter how your claimed "revelations" fail to be consistent and fail to be reliable among Christians, it does not matter that your "accounts" and "justifications" are viciously circular, instead of answering any of that, just keep believing that you are right, don't even remember these problems. Just ask "How do you know?"
Good to know so clearly that you don't care about truth, but about debating "techniques." Your little question is not "devastating" it's a red-herring to avoid confronting the self-anihilation of your worldview. Funny that you are enough of a hypocrite to think that you can point to inconsistencies in other's worldviews, but you think that the undeniable inconsistencies in yours vanish if you just ask "How do you know?"
Regardless. I thank you for posting direct evidence and direct admission on your part that your apologist tactics are hypocritical trickery. That Bahnsen himself declared them to be hypocritical trickery and avoidance. Nice to see the respect you have for yourself and your presumed worldview. (You can't even understand what self-respect means, do you?)
I have tried to reach your mind, but it seems like it is unreachable. You are too much of an ass-hole, and I bet you did not understand what I said here. So you will demonstrate in your next answer. So be it. I have had enough of both, your incompetence and your hypocrisy.
Photosynthesis,
Earlier, I gave reasons for my continued interaction with Hezekiah. One of the reasons I gave is that these exchanges continue to offer fence-sitters a chance to see for themselves, very clearly, the difference between a rational worldview (mine) and an irrational one (his).
Perhaps this approach might be enough motivation for you to continue your interaction with him?
In addition, and as I've said before, I'm thoroughly enjoying your replies, (as I'm sure others are as well).
Ydemoc
Nide-Hezekiah (serial violator of his own religious rules and chronically self contradictory) noted I had observed that:
"But since omniscience is impossible, no such knowledge can obtain."
He replied with characteristic childish ineptitude with:
How do you know?
My answer is by means of reasoning with my own autonomous mind assisted by consultation with others whom by virtue of their cultivated educated expertise have provided valid and sound arguments that the incoherent property of omniscience cannot exist within any mind.
Photo,
How do you know?
Robert,
"My answer is by means of reasoning with my own autonomous mind assisted by consultation with others whom by virtue of their cultivated educated expertise have provided valid and sound arguments that the incoherent property of omniscience cannot exist within any mind."
How do you know?
Photosynthesis' translation and comment are very good and worth repeating.
Here a translation so that you might understand (yeah, right, Hezek would understand? Are you kidding Photo?) what you just said:
As Christians, don't even acknowledge any problems, no matter how clearly explained. Just ask "how do you know?" It does not matter that your god is indistinguishable from any other imaginary thing, it does not matter how many contradictions are there in the Bible, it does not matter how your claimed "revelations" fail to be consistent and fail to be reliable among Christians, it does not matter that your "accounts" and "justifications" are viciously circular, instead of answering any of that, just keep believing that you are right, don't even remember these problems. Just ask "How do you know?"
Good to know so clearly that you don't care about truth, but about debating "techniques." Your little question is not "devastating" it's a red-herring to avoid confronting the self-anihilation of your worldview. Funny that you are enough of a hypocrite to think that you can point to inconsistencies in other's worldviews, but you think that the undeniable inconsistencies in yours vanish if you just ask "How do you know?"
Its very true Nide does not care about truth or honesty of sincere religious feelings or service to others or any of the good things about religion. He only cares about winning stupid debates. However, he lacks any sense or knowledge of how to go about winning. I almost feel sorry for him, but I know he is cut from the same cloth that composed the empty suits we call John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Whitgift, James Ussher, George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon. Those like these evil men if granted power would quickly form a Taliban like polity and thus must be opposed. As inept as Nide is, arguing against his lunacy exercises the might of the pen that I need not resort to the sword.
Hezekiah-Nide obsessively and probably with delusional glee typed
How do you know?
See my argument at time stamp June 02, 2012 4:54 PM.
Nide you have zero credibility and there are no reasons to believe anything you type. Since you cannot win this exchange, why don't you try to make an argument for existence of your god rather than blithely assuming that if you can show some problem with another's world view that you then win by default. The problem is that you're assuming a bifurcation fallacy. There are many other world views that are just a likely true as the bat guano lunacy you foolishly believe.
Back the omniscience thing. Dawson has shown that that an omniscient being cannot hold knowledge in conceptual form.
Modern physics has also shown that information can only exist as an encoding embodied in material, atomist, reductionist particles and that information cannot be transmitted faster than light speed. It is also true that information cannot be transmitted by non-locality or strange entanglement.
Hence, even if a very powerful being with a super intelligence could exist, then it could not have concurrent information sourced simultaneously from all of existence. Besides, it is estimated that the observable cosmos contains ~ 10^84 particles and that the volume of our cosmic domain we can observe stands in ratio to the total estimated volume of all of our universe as the volume of a proton does to the observable cosmic domain. If these estimates obtain, then there are approximately 3.7 x 10^123 particles of baryonic matter in existence. Each particle has about 10 properties that each requiring about 400 hexadecimal bytes to describe. In binary bits that would be about 6.4 Kbits per property to describe. A data base describing all the property states of all the particles in existence would itself require a quantity of particles far greater than the number of particles in the universe. An recall such a database could not be updated in real time due to the constrain on the speed of transmission of information.
More about the omniscience thing. Since no being that complies with the purported definitions of the Christian God can hold knowledge in conceptual form and since such a being cannot obtain real time updated data on the status of all the many particles in existence simultaneously then no such being can have complete knowledge of everything in existence.
Christians can escape this by redefining omniscience to mean capable of knowing what is consistent with all the beings other properties and limitations. No posit a being called McEar. McEar has the property of being an ear and can hear sound. Under the revised definition of omniscience, McEar is omniscient even though it knows nothing as its only properties are that it exists and that it can hear sound. In this case omniscient means a complete dearth of knowledge. N'est-ce pas?
Time: later.
Hezekiah,
Let's get down to starting points, shall we? Name your criteria for a starting point.
If you say "God is my starting point," and "My criteria is His word," you've got some major hurdles to overcome.
If you say "the bible is my starting point," you again have some major hurdles to overcome.
If you say "faith" is your starting point, you've got some major hurdles to overcome.
I've seen you say before that you start with God. Is this still your position?
If so, I will ask you how you justify knowledge starting or being grounded in an entity that is never, ever defined by its followers, but is only described as that which is imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible.
How is this starting point -- as described by Christians themselves -- any different that grounding knowledge in and starting with nothing at all?
Is it because you only call it "god," when, in fact, it is nothing at all? Of course it is.
Ydemoc
Nide: once again you have been completely defeated. You're a loser. You can't account for, explain, or justify any facet of your world view.
Your god is not real. You've completely failed to present even the slightest wisp of evidence or to make any valid arguments. The best you can do are bogus appeals to authority and to question the foundation of your own consciousness while implicitly relying upon the most grotesque of superstitions and making a mockery of morality and even your own family.
You truly are a disgusting moron.
Leonard Peikoff on The Senses as Necessarily Valid
The validity of the senses is an axiom. Like the fact of consciousness, the axiom is outside the province of proof because it is a precondition of any proof.
Proof consists in reducing an idea back to the data provided by the senses. These data themselves, the foundation of all subsequent knowledge, precede, the unchallengeable, the self-evident.
The validity of the sense is not an independent axiom; it is a corollary of the fact of consciousness. (As we have seen, it is only by grasping the actions of his senses that a child is ale to reach the implicit concept of consciousness.) If man is conscious of that which is, then hes means of awareness are means of awareness, i.e., are valid. One cannot affirm consciousness while denying its primary form, which makes all the others possible. Just as any attack on consciousness negates itself, so does any attack on the senses. If the senses are not valid, neither are any concepts, including the ones used in the attack. ~ OPAR, 39.
Hezekiah, Ydemoc wrote at timestamp June 03, 2012 8:52 AM the following.
Let's get down to starting points, shall we? Name your criteria for a starting point.
If you say "God is my starting point," and "My criteria is His word," you've got some major hurdles to overcome.
If you say "the bible is my starting point," you again have some major hurdles to overcome.
If you say "faith" is your starting point, you've got some major hurdles to overcome.
I've seen you say before that you start with God. Is this still your position?
If so, I will ask you how you justify knowledge starting or being grounded in an entity that is never, ever defined by its followers, but is only described as that which is imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible.
How is this starting point -- as described by Christians themselves -- any different that grounding knowledge in and starting with nothing at all?
Is it because you only call it "god," when, in fact, it is nothing at all? Of course it is.
These are good questions. How does Nide account for his starting point of God? There is no evidence for it and very good reasons to reject it as impossible nonsense. All versions of the ontological argument are refuted. Consequently, there are no a priori reasons for thinking God exists. We know this because our hierarchy of knowledge starts with the metaphysical primacy of existence and builds from there.
@Robert
please disregard my post, copy and paste did terrible things to it:)
@Robert, what I ment to post
Peikoff considered the validity of the senses as in axiom? I did not know this. I would agree that the validity of the senses is a physical prerequisite for all cognition but I don't know if I would go so far as to say they are an axiom. To qualify as an axiom sense perception would have to be conceptually irreducible and well they are not. I don't mean to split hairs here but definitions are important.
Justin,
I hope this helps, from what Robert cited:
"The validity of the sense is not an **independent** axiom; it is a **corollary** of the fact of consciousness."
And, from the page before: "Since concepts, according to Objectivism, are integrations of perceptual data, there can be no concepts apart from sense experience."
Peikoff says that "[t]he topics of sense perception and volition constitute what we may call the anteroom of epistemology."
Ydemoc
Hello Ydemoc, Justin, Rosemary, Photosynthesis, and Nide
Peikoff explained the problem.
Sensory Qualities as Real:
Since the objects we perceive have a nature independent of us. It must be possible to distinguish between form and object; between the aspects of the perceived world that derive from our form of perception (such as colors, sounds, smells) [I think Peikoff here meant qualia: “subjective conscious experiences as 'raw feels'. Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia ] and the aspects that belong to objective metaphysical reality itself, apart from us. What then is the status of the formal aspects? If they are not “in the object,” it is often asked, does it follow that they are merely “in the mind” and therefore are subjective and unreal? If so, many philosophers have concluded, that sense must be condemned as deceivers – because the world of colored, sounding, odoriferous objects they reveal is utterly unlike actual reality. This is the problem, a common place in introductory philosophy classes, of the so-called “two tables”: the table of daily life, which is brown. Rectangular, solid, and motionless; and the table of science, which it is said, is largely empty space, inhabited by some colorless, racing particles and or charges, rays, waves, or whatnot.
Ayn Rand’s answer is: we can distinguish form from object, but this does not imply that subjectivity of form or the invalidity of the senses. ~ OPAR, 44
I think what Nide was trying to communicate when he was blurting about appearances and asking how do you know was an appeal to qualia verses the metaphysical reality of objects. Where he is wrong is in not understanding the difference between forms of our perceptions and the volitional actions of integration of those perceptions into concepts. Objections similar to Nide's have no merit because a casual chain of effects stemming from objects in metaphysical reality affects our sensory organs. No matter how efficient our organs operate, we still sense reality.
In order for Nide's complaint to be sound, those on his side must show how universal forms are transmitted from a transcendent a-spatial and a-temporal realm outside of existence to specific objects at specific locations in space and time in an unmediated manner without a mechanism of transmission like what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. Non-locality or strange entanglement won't do because information can't be transmitted thereby.
Best/Good - Time/Later
Robert, while I find your explanations fascinating I very much doubt that Hez Nide could make sense of them. His stock response in such instances is "How do you know"?, which is so inappropriate in the context that is a clear admission of confusion.
If Hez's presuppositional world were true and he has access to perfect knowledge before he starts to make sense of the world then he should be able to demonstrate this by his understanding of complex thought> Since he demonstrate that he has trouble with simple spelling and grammatical constructions his claim is disproved just by observing his impaired behavior.
Hello Rosemary. Your excellent points are most probably true. Although it may be wrong for me to hope Hezekiah is only faking or playing the dunce, you're probably correct.
I followed your blog, and I admire your origami. Way cool folds.
This game is over. High Five. Some might think running up the score was borderline unethical, but hey, a win is a win. Now it's time to put this behind and prepare for the next game.
Many Thanks and Best Wishes.
@Ydemoc and Robert
Thank you both for your responses. I will need to think about what has been said before I have anything meaningful to add to the discussion.
Hello my friends,
This game is over. High Five. Some might think running up the score was borderline unethical, but hey, a win is a win. Now it's time to put this behind and prepare for the next game.
See ya next game!
@Ydemoc
Leper Watchman is back
http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2012/05/answering-leper.html?showComment=1338848635347
Justin,
Thanks for the heads-up! I'll check it out. And I haven't had a chance to read your follow-up blog entry to his comments, but I hope to soon.
Ydemoc
Becsuse there are better things to do.
How many comments did you post in this thread, Hezekiah? If you had something better to do, isn't it safe to assume you'd have been doing it instead?
You're such a coward.
Hello friends: Bruggencate is likely a young earth creationist. That means, he's vulnerable on the evidence of an old earth and cosmos.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/uks08/i_am_sye_ten_bruggencate_internet_apologist/
justify means To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid
demonstrate means To show clearly and deliberately; manifest
prove means To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.
Validity means Well grounded; just
Right means In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct:
Fact means Knowledge or information based on real occurrences and something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
Truth means Conformity to fact or actuality
When presuppositionalists claim only their world view can justify some facet of human cognition, it is then appropriate to point out the chain of definitions that provides support for the counter claim: That which is manifestly self evident needs no justification. Human reasoning, morality, logic as the non-contradictory means of identification of the facts of reality, existence, the uniformity of nature, induction are all manifestly self-evident and hence need no justification.
The further presuppositionalist claim that non Calvinist christians need to provide and accounting, in the sense of a convincing explanation that reveals basic causes, can be addressed by the tenants of Objectivism. However, non O-ist world views need not fear the Calvinist’ canard, for under all other philosophical systems, there is just a much likelihood that one is as true as another. Only Objectivism certain forms of materialism offer means to escape agnosticism.
Caught a glimpse of Hezek when he was leaving:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Baboon_buttocks.jpg
Robert: $ye is not interested in your evidence. In fact, he is not interested in evidence at all, unless he is the one supplying and it was his idea to do so. He justifies this by pretending that no-one else but him and his unmerry band can "interpret" said evidence.
Photosynthesis:
I think you got the wrong simian - unless Hez is an (undressed) cross dresser in sexual heat. All things are possible, right?
Addressed to all
Has anyone else taken notice of the growing spat between Chris Blot and our Hez over at choosing Hats and on Hezekiah's blog?
my apologies, that is Chris Bolt, not blot...
Post a Comment