In the comments sections of the previous three entries on my blog (beginning with the most recent: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude, My Discussion with Michael Rawlings, and Is Math Christian?), we have had the opportunity to observe the spectacle of a most pompous individual.
From the beginning, Rawlings has come to us wielding multi-syllabic jargon and point-missing braggadocio in a most characteristic fashion. But according to Rawlings and the defenses he’s provided, what does the Christian worldview have to offer in terms of philosophical value? Let the reader decide, but the reader should be informed before settling his opinion prematurely. So here is an overview (but I caution the reader: this is by no means an exhaustive catalogue of Rawlings’ indiscretions and deficiencies – not by a long shot!):
- In metaphysics, Rawlings has explicitly affirmed the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the metaphysics which reduces to “wishing makes it so.” At root, this is what Christianity is all about: out there, beyond the knowable universe, there exist, according to believers, a super-consciousness to whose wishes and dictates the realm of existence conforms. And yet, at the same time, he acknowledges (how could he not) that “human consciousness” (he repeatedly ignores all the other types of consciousness we find in reality) does not have metaphysical primacy over existence, but yet he fails to produce an epistemology which is consistent with this recognition. Indeed, his own behavior is indicative of a person who struggles against the primacy of existence, apparently never having grasped that reality is not going to re-order itself in response to his tantrums and meltdowns. To top it off, he cannot explain what he as a Christian could possibly mean by ‘objective’ when he uses this term (and he has used it numerous times, and I’ve asked him several times to explain it – he never does).
- In epistemology, the fulcrum upon which all “knowledge” rests according to Christianity is eloquently summed up by John Frame’s open admission (speaking on behalf of believers) that “We know without knowing how we know” Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)). This is at best the epistemology of self-inflicted ignorance, at worst an admission to having no epistemology whatsoever. Rawlings has not improved on this at all; instead, he has affirmed the view that conceptualization is an “automatic” process, the mechanics of which he cannot articulate or explain, and in spite of insisting that Christianity has its own theory of concepts, he speaks of knowledge in long chains of referenceless and convoluted abstractions which are clearly not intended to inform his readers with understanding, but rather to lose them in in a maze of go-nowhere complexity (indeed, Rawlings offers himself as an example of a victim who’s been utterly lost in its endless labyrinths – acting as though complexity in and of itself were a sign of a system’s virtues). Meanwhile, he has failed to connect any talk of the conceptual level of cognition to anything we can read in the bible. I have asked Rawlings to explain what Christianity has to say about the nature and formation of concepts, but he doesn’t even provide us with Christianity’s definition of ‘concept’, let alone point to where we can learn about the conceptual level of cognition in the bible. It is something which its authors and subsequently its believers take completely for granted, clearly believing that the whole process “just happens” – i.e., it’s “automatic,” meaning: there’s nothing to know about it. So much for “Christian epistemology.” We’ve seen enough to know that such a notion is, fortunately, nothing but a vanishing chimera.
- Rawlings’ only angle for securing any semblance of rationality (and that’s using the term exceedingly broadly) on behalf of his god-belief is to somehow conceive of the concept of ‘infinity’ as though it necessarily implies the existence of an “infinite consciousness.” But investigation of this line of “reasoning” has proved that it is nothing of the sort; indeed, merely probing Rawlings’ claims on this matter has set him off in a rage of straw-manning the opposition, non sequiturs, reification of stolen concepts, full-scale launches of insults and innuendoes, and tirades of bawling and invective. To make matters worse for his position, it was pointed out to Rawlings early on that the meaning of ‘infinity’ is conceptual and in fact derives from the nature of conceptual reference as such. Far from pointing to some supernatural “divine perfection” which exists only in the believers’ imaginations, the concept of infinity finds the impetus of its meaning in the nature of human cognition, specifically in the open-endedness of conceptual reference given the operation of measurement-omission. There’s nothing mysterious or otherworldly here. But to grasp this, Rawlings would need to know something about the nature of concepts, but again he doesn’t know anything about concepts (again, he thinks they’re “automatic” and has no explanation for the mechanics of their formation; he does not even offer a definition of ‘concept’). The deficiencies of his argument can be traced directly back to the deficiencies of his “epistemology,” which, as we’ve seen, is nothing but a mirage mistaken by Rawlings as something “unique and profound,” even though there’s certainly nothing unique or profound about it (the various mystical cults throughout history have produced the same thing in terms of essentials). When confronted with a defense of Peikoff’s view that the actual is always finite, he blatantly mischaracterizes it, completely ignoring the defense I assembled for it (even after he asked for one several times), and insists that his straw-man is what Peikoff really means. If Rawlings had a rationally defensible position, would he need to rely on such tactics? I trow not.
- Rawlings exhibits a repeating pattern of interaction throughout his discussion, and it has no redeeming virtues whatsoever. In the beginning he was fairly cordial and presented himself as though he were serious about intellectual interests and curious about Objectivism. (Of course, this turned out merely to be a front. We will see below that Rawlings is no stranger to internet discussion forums, and his behavior on this blog is in no way “unique” or “profound.”) At the same time he believed (or wanted us to believe that he believed) that certain mistakes were being made in attempts to interact with what Christianity teaches, and thereby sought to correct those mistakes. (Of course, this is quite odd in itself, since the chief perspective from which I have consistently critiqued Christianity is by exposing its basis in the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which Rawlings himself explicitly affirmed when hoping to defend Christianity.) When Rawlings’ assertions were challenged, he suffered a meltdown, presumably since we were not accepting him as some kind of credentialed authority on the topic (yes, don’t forget he made a big deal, very oddly I might add, early on about his “credentials,” which he never identified). Clearly he wants his say-so to be accepted as the final word on matters, as if it were unimpeachable, unquestionable, unchallengeable. It’s not. Throughout the discussion, the more Rawlings was challenged on any point, the more he resorted to insults and other types of childish behavior, including re-posting entire series of previously submitted comments of his, even after they had been addressed and demolished, as though they were beyond scrutiny.
- When confronted with my argument that the Christian god does not and cannot exist because it is imaginary, Rawlings does not challenge the premise that the Christian god is imaginary. Rather, he curiously focuses on the premise that the imaginary is not real, apparently but not explicitly angling that something he imagines actually exists (he famously used the DVD cabinet he apparently wants to build as an example). According to Rawlings, the DVD cabinet he imagines somehow exists, and yet he still needs to buy parts in order to build it. It never seems to dawn on our genius guest that one does not need to build something when it already exists. In substantiating his case, he produced a mock dialogue in which the individual he encounters readily accepts that the DVD cabinet he’s imagining is real. Rawlings is so accustomed to being surrounded by members of his cult who share in his fantasies, that he projects the same indiscriminate and uncritical acceptance of the imaginary as real onto the characters of his mock dialogue to make the point that the imaginary is in fact actual. If his god’s existence is in any way analogous to the DVD cabinet that Rawlings imagines, there’s certainly no hope for rescuing his theism.
Off-list several interesting facts have been brought to my attention about Michael David Rawlings. Apparently Rawlings runs his own blog, which I have never visited. But from what I have learned, Rawlings has posted on his blog a commenting policy which reads:
From the beginning, Rawlings has come to us wielding multi-syllabic jargon and point-missing braggadocio in a most characteristic fashion. But according to Rawlings and the defenses he’s provided, what does the Christian worldview have to offer in terms of philosophical value? Let the reader decide, but the reader should be informed before settling his opinion prematurely. So here is an overview (but I caution the reader: this is by no means an exhaustive catalogue of Rawlings’ indiscretions and deficiencies – not by a long shot!):
- In metaphysics, Rawlings has explicitly affirmed the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the metaphysics which reduces to “wishing makes it so.” At root, this is what Christianity is all about: out there, beyond the knowable universe, there exist, according to believers, a super-consciousness to whose wishes and dictates the realm of existence conforms. And yet, at the same time, he acknowledges (how could he not) that “human consciousness” (he repeatedly ignores all the other types of consciousness we find in reality) does not have metaphysical primacy over existence, but yet he fails to produce an epistemology which is consistent with this recognition. Indeed, his own behavior is indicative of a person who struggles against the primacy of existence, apparently never having grasped that reality is not going to re-order itself in response to his tantrums and meltdowns. To top it off, he cannot explain what he as a Christian could possibly mean by ‘objective’ when he uses this term (and he has used it numerous times, and I’ve asked him several times to explain it – he never does).
- In epistemology, the fulcrum upon which all “knowledge” rests according to Christianity is eloquently summed up by John Frame’s open admission (speaking on behalf of believers) that “We know without knowing how we know” Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)). This is at best the epistemology of self-inflicted ignorance, at worst an admission to having no epistemology whatsoever. Rawlings has not improved on this at all; instead, he has affirmed the view that conceptualization is an “automatic” process, the mechanics of which he cannot articulate or explain, and in spite of insisting that Christianity has its own theory of concepts, he speaks of knowledge in long chains of referenceless and convoluted abstractions which are clearly not intended to inform his readers with understanding, but rather to lose them in in a maze of go-nowhere complexity (indeed, Rawlings offers himself as an example of a victim who’s been utterly lost in its endless labyrinths – acting as though complexity in and of itself were a sign of a system’s virtues). Meanwhile, he has failed to connect any talk of the conceptual level of cognition to anything we can read in the bible. I have asked Rawlings to explain what Christianity has to say about the nature and formation of concepts, but he doesn’t even provide us with Christianity’s definition of ‘concept’, let alone point to where we can learn about the conceptual level of cognition in the bible. It is something which its authors and subsequently its believers take completely for granted, clearly believing that the whole process “just happens” – i.e., it’s “automatic,” meaning: there’s nothing to know about it. So much for “Christian epistemology.” We’ve seen enough to know that such a notion is, fortunately, nothing but a vanishing chimera.
- Rawlings’ only angle for securing any semblance of rationality (and that’s using the term exceedingly broadly) on behalf of his god-belief is to somehow conceive of the concept of ‘infinity’ as though it necessarily implies the existence of an “infinite consciousness.” But investigation of this line of “reasoning” has proved that it is nothing of the sort; indeed, merely probing Rawlings’ claims on this matter has set him off in a rage of straw-manning the opposition, non sequiturs, reification of stolen concepts, full-scale launches of insults and innuendoes, and tirades of bawling and invective. To make matters worse for his position, it was pointed out to Rawlings early on that the meaning of ‘infinity’ is conceptual and in fact derives from the nature of conceptual reference as such. Far from pointing to some supernatural “divine perfection” which exists only in the believers’ imaginations, the concept of infinity finds the impetus of its meaning in the nature of human cognition, specifically in the open-endedness of conceptual reference given the operation of measurement-omission. There’s nothing mysterious or otherworldly here. But to grasp this, Rawlings would need to know something about the nature of concepts, but again he doesn’t know anything about concepts (again, he thinks they’re “automatic” and has no explanation for the mechanics of their formation; he does not even offer a definition of ‘concept’). The deficiencies of his argument can be traced directly back to the deficiencies of his “epistemology,” which, as we’ve seen, is nothing but a mirage mistaken by Rawlings as something “unique and profound,” even though there’s certainly nothing unique or profound about it (the various mystical cults throughout history have produced the same thing in terms of essentials). When confronted with a defense of Peikoff’s view that the actual is always finite, he blatantly mischaracterizes it, completely ignoring the defense I assembled for it (even after he asked for one several times), and insists that his straw-man is what Peikoff really means. If Rawlings had a rationally defensible position, would he need to rely on such tactics? I trow not.
- Rawlings exhibits a repeating pattern of interaction throughout his discussion, and it has no redeeming virtues whatsoever. In the beginning he was fairly cordial and presented himself as though he were serious about intellectual interests and curious about Objectivism. (Of course, this turned out merely to be a front. We will see below that Rawlings is no stranger to internet discussion forums, and his behavior on this blog is in no way “unique” or “profound.”) At the same time he believed (or wanted us to believe that he believed) that certain mistakes were being made in attempts to interact with what Christianity teaches, and thereby sought to correct those mistakes. (Of course, this is quite odd in itself, since the chief perspective from which I have consistently critiqued Christianity is by exposing its basis in the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which Rawlings himself explicitly affirmed when hoping to defend Christianity.) When Rawlings’ assertions were challenged, he suffered a meltdown, presumably since we were not accepting him as some kind of credentialed authority on the topic (yes, don’t forget he made a big deal, very oddly I might add, early on about his “credentials,” which he never identified). Clearly he wants his say-so to be accepted as the final word on matters, as if it were unimpeachable, unquestionable, unchallengeable. It’s not. Throughout the discussion, the more Rawlings was challenged on any point, the more he resorted to insults and other types of childish behavior, including re-posting entire series of previously submitted comments of his, even after they had been addressed and demolished, as though they were beyond scrutiny.
- When confronted with my argument that the Christian god does not and cannot exist because it is imaginary, Rawlings does not challenge the premise that the Christian god is imaginary. Rather, he curiously focuses on the premise that the imaginary is not real, apparently but not explicitly angling that something he imagines actually exists (he famously used the DVD cabinet he apparently wants to build as an example). According to Rawlings, the DVD cabinet he imagines somehow exists, and yet he still needs to buy parts in order to build it. It never seems to dawn on our genius guest that one does not need to build something when it already exists. In substantiating his case, he produced a mock dialogue in which the individual he encounters readily accepts that the DVD cabinet he’s imagining is real. Rawlings is so accustomed to being surrounded by members of his cult who share in his fantasies, that he projects the same indiscriminate and uncritical acceptance of the imaginary as real onto the characters of his mock dialogue to make the point that the imaginary is in fact actual. If his god’s existence is in any way analogous to the DVD cabinet that Rawlings imagines, there’s certainly no hope for rescuing his theism.
Off-list several interesting facts have been brought to my attention about Michael David Rawlings. Apparently Rawlings runs his own blog, which I have never visited. But from what I have learned, Rawlings has posted on his blog a commenting policy which reads:
Comment Policy (Due to the restructuring of this blog, comments posted prior to November 6, 2012 are longer available. I apologize for the inconvenience, but the new format is permanently fixed, and future comments will be secure.) 1. Debate. Discuss. Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. This doesn't mean that satirical or sardonic remarks won't be allowed, but rude or hurtful epithets, particularly those launched without substance, will be deleted. 2. Irrationally slanderous or sexually explicit comments will be deleted. Comments containing threats of physical violence will be deleted. Comments containing excessive or gratuitous profanity will be deleted. I will not delete a post simply because someone finds it to be offensive, but boorish behavior will not be tolerated. It's really simple, folks. Be decent. Be mature. 3. Spam, advertisements or comments whose sole purpose is to direct traffic to other sites will be deleted. 4. Stay on topic. 5. Anonymous comments will not be allowed. Finally, I reserve the right to delete comments or close comments on posts for any reason, regardless of whether or not they conform with the above.
This does not need any additional editorial comment.
Also it is pointed out to me that Rawlings’ pattern of juvenile behavior is not unique to his commenting activity on my blog. One observer notified me of Rawlings’ posting activity on another forum where he has unleashed a similar display of tantrums and meltdowns. At one point he wrote:
Liars. You've all been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research. LOL! But we all know why you phonies evade the findings of abiogentic research, don't we? Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority. Your response is to simply repeat the same questions over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. None of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall. So too-da-loo, loopy-doos!
So apparently Rawlings is an advocate of so-called “Intelligent Design” – a design which human beings, curiously, are continually improving. How could that be?
In another thread on the same message board, Rawlings writes:
And I will always be civil to persons who present their ideas in a civil tone, no matter how much I may disagree. Most times I ignore incivility. What I have no tolerance for are the moral outrages and flagrant lies of bootlick statists. A man who will abuse language or logical categories, that is, a man who will lie, twist and pervert reality, slander truth, will murder too given the power.
We must never lose sight of the fact that Michael David Rawlings’ words, since they are so conspicuously bereft of substance, are primary autobiographical. Just as when Christian apologist Phil Fernandes states in his debate with Jeffery J. Lowder that
I just believe that we are very good about lying to ourselves, and only accepting, uh, or interpreting the evidence the way we would like to.
Michael David Rawlings is speaking for and about himself.
A comment which Robert Bumbalough recently quoted states:
Being hostile toward #atheism is basically like having a hissy fit because I won't play "make believe" with you. Sorry. I'm not 5.
Indeed. Let’s face it: in the theist’s experience, the mere existence of atheists is cause for panic. Atheists are for religious believers essentially spoil sports. We aren’t going to play “make believe” with the believer, and what really riles someone like Michael David Rawlings is the fact that we don’t think philosophy is the handmaiden to make-believe. This is what prompts what in other contexts might appear to be an otherwise nominally capable adult to showing his true colors: suffering temper tantrums and breakdowns in public, melting down at the slightest resistance to his presumed “authority,” and unleashing his entire arsenal of insults and bad attitude, all the while undermining any shred of credibility he might claim to have as a thinker. Since his pattern of behavior has been positively reinforced by probably years of habit, I expect that none of this will matter to Michael David Rawlings, and that he’ll just continue showing himself to be pompous bawling ass he really is.
by Dawson Bethrick
by Dawson Bethrick
676 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 676 of 676What's wrong, Michael????
No more words of wisdom for me?
What happened?
Don't you like me any more?
Here's your "LOL!"
Regards,
Dawson
Hey Nidiot,
How do you like me now?????????
What's wrong?
Did you want to say something??
Problems????
Regards,
Dawson
What's that, Nidiot? Did you say something?
What's wrong?
No one can hear you.
How do you like me now?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Have a nice day.
Regards,
Dawson
Sure is nice around here now that the trash has been taken out.
Photo, chime in any time you like. You get automatic entry.
We can dance on their graves.
Regards,
Dawson
I'm reminded of MDR's own blog comment policy:
<< Debate. Discuss. Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. This doesn't mean that satirical or sardonic remarks won't be allowed, but rude or hurtful epithets, particularly those launched without substance, will be deleted. >>
Of course, MDR cannot follow this policy himself, because he has no position worth discussing or defending. He can only vent his contempt for anything that is good. So out he goes with the trash.
Regards,
Dawson
Good morning. Yesterday was a hard day, but I completed the ten hour renewal class for my concealed handgun license. I only scored 247 of 250 points on the target shoot. My middle aged eyes aren't what they used to be, so I have to find a good gun smith who can put some honking big sights on my 1911's slide.
I'll have some free time today and perhaps, I'll post a pithy comment or two. Now it's time for tea an breakfast.
Best and Good
«Sure is nice around here now that the trash has been taken out.»
That had to be repeated. A breath of fresh air finally.
I wanted to make a point, but knowing that Michael's continued re-posting already refuted crap, would not allow for new points to be swiftly made.
Robert said: «That's just what he wants, and why he's all about a flame war. He wants to feel victimized, so he can stroke off his delusional fantasy of being a martyr for his faith. Why else would he come with such bad arguments as teleological design from Platonic universal forms unless he really is that mentally deficient?»
(Of course Michael is that mentally deficient. That's abundantly clear.)
Michael answered: «LOL! And Plato? Christianity utterly eschews Plato’s epistemology.»
Well, it seems like Christianity, as presented by Michael, rather embraces Plato. From WIkipedia:
«Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.»
Notice that such is exactly Michael's argument for divine perfection, and a cue to analogical thinking. So much for eschewing.
«... Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.»
This is the infamous "analogical knowledge" that Michael portrays. But if we were left in any doubt:
«A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether. Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location. They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).»
Holy shit! Might as well be Michael talking there. Look at the keywords!
Thus, when Michael declared that "Christianity utterly eschews Plato’s epistemology" he was doing nothing else except jam a full load of his own crap back up his own ass. As always.
The Plato affair is even more revealing, since Michael insisted:
«No doubt he thinks that’s true based on Aquinas’ over-reliance on Plato. What does that have to do with the Bible? Nothing!»
Here, besides jamming a full load of crap back up his own ass, Michael is confirming what I had already pointed out, that "theologians" would take the philosophies available at their times, and try and eisegete them into their bibles. These ideas about analogical and univocal knowledge are eisegetes of Plato into the bible. This non-sequitur about math-infinity to divine perfection is World of Forms non-sequiturs.
I also suspect that Michael did this act so that readers would not go and read about Plato, fearing we would notice that he, Michael, was plagiarizing Platonic stuff to make his point. That had a Streisand effect: While I only semi-remembered Plato's World of Forms, when I went and read about Plato, to make sure that I did not have it wrong, I found Michael's wordings all over the place.
(By this point Michael would say that he lied. That he said "eschew" to set a trap.)
Sure Michael. Subliminal mastermind that only works to blow up Michael's own ass.
4:20 am here in Bangkok.... Just getting up to start my day.
Immediately I checked new comments and saw Photo's and Robert's - immediate publish.
There were six new messages from MDR - each of them a re-post from of his earlier comments. So there they stay, stuck in Limbo for all eternity. Fitting justice. Oddly, the guy is proud of his idiocy. This is what happens to a mind on Christianity. It's worse than drugs.
Michael, SHUT UP!
Same to you, Nidiot.
Ah, that's better!
Alright, time for some coffee, and I'll read your latest, photo and Robert.
Regards,
Dawson
Correction, make that seven new messages from MDR - I found one of his submitted comments, the last of the bunch, in my junk mail. Ha! Fitting justice again! This was not a repost. It was just a brief message, saying:
<< That's your friggin' Objectivism right there! >>
Gee, that'll show me!
I seriously think the guy is dangerous. A potential menace to society, one that very well may be realized, unlike his "infinity" whatever.
Michael: SHUT UP!
There, that's better.
Regards,
Dawson
@ Dawson
Wow, I did not think anyone would ever wear out your patience. You wrote
"Good grief, this guy M.D. Rawlings is a real basket case. Perhaps it’s shell-shock from his army days. I thought Nidiot took the cake as the looniest of loonies. But clearly Nidiot has stiff competition!"
Basket case is such an imprecise term. May I suggest the more succinct Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) with a possible comorbidity of schizotypal personality disorder. I agree however, anyway you cut it that guy was nuts.
I also think that Michael is authentically dangerous. How deranged would he have to be to think that reposting makes any difference in favour of his position(s)?
In any event, good to be able to read without that deja-vu feeling. Did I not just answer that? What the heck? He is not even reading! He just comes and pastes the same crap! Hey I just quoted that crap! Am I in the right thread? What's this? Et cetera. et cetera. Well, the feeling changed from perplexity to just what's with this guy? Until he revealed that his whole intention was to bury any answers to his crap so that his imaginary admirers would not see that there were answers to his crap.
This feels good. Now we can make our points without being interrupted by Michael's stuttering stupidity.
Justin wrote: “Wow, I did not think anyone would ever wear out your patience.”
Neither did I. I resisted the idea of turning on comment moderation for a while. But MDR would not grow up and behave himself in an adult manner. His utter disrespect for other commenters here and of the blog owner was over the top, and something had to be done. His boorish and crass self-righteousness is enough to turn any civilized person’s stomach. He’s a playground punk who’s learned a set of vocabulary without understanding any of the meaning of the words he uses. He certainly never did get to the part which explains how to assemble an argument. He never presented any arguments!!! He just huffed and puffed his way through here.
Justin: “Basket case is such an imprecise term. May I suggest the more succinct Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) with a possible comorbidity of schizotypal personality disorder. I agree however, anyway you cut it that guy was nuts.”
Yes, that’s an improvement. Thank you, Justin! And yes, regardless of what we call it, there’s something seriously wrong with the guy. But this is not a first for MDR. I have received several private correspondences documenting his behavior elsewhere on the net going back some time. He clearly just wants to have a flame war. All his talk in the beginning about wanting to “learn” and “make friends” and touting his “credentials” (which I thought was clearly odd even back then) were just part of his dishonesty all along. Photo had him pegged from the beginning, but I wanted to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I am patient. But even I have my limits. MDR has his own blog, and he can create as many “Kyle Jamisons” and “Toby Jacobs” as he wants to have a flame war with himself over there. If he can’t discuss, then out with the trash he goes. He can take Nidiot, a buzzing mosquito, with him if he likes.
Regards,
Dawson
Photo wrote: “I also think that Michael is authentically dangerous. How deranged would he have to be to think that reposting makes any difference in favour of his position(s)?”
MDR’s re-posting of his own previously published comments is an instance of performative projection. It goes back to the old adage which states that, if you tell a lie often enough, somebody’s going to believe it. This is how he came to believe what he believes about the world: the adults in his life lied repeatedly to the guy, and he swallowed it – how did he put it? Oh yes: hook, line and sinker – and now that he’s in a position to go out and propagate his beliefs, he uses the same method: repeating the lie until it sinks in. Of course, that’s not going to work on anyone around here, save perhaps Nidiot, who is looking for a master to take him under his wing anyway.
When it finally dawned on MDR that merely asserting his views did not result in everyone here nodding *automatically* (the way he thinks the mind works) in agreement with everything he says on his mere say so (again, he touted his “credentials” early on because appeal to authority is big with this guy), he had to try something else: comment inbox suffocation. His “you’re trying to bury my post continuations” – while a most hilarious expression in its own right that he’ll never be able to live down – is a clue to how he thinks: he thinks this blog is his property, that it’s his microphone, that he doesn’t need to share attention, that all eyes need to be on him, and everyone should be listening only to him. Well, there’s a solution to that: take him out with the trash.
The guy does not know what an argument is. He clearly doesn’t know how to connect what he says or believes to reality. He is acting on the primacy of consciousness, so there’s no need to connect his “mental content” (I use the expression exceptionally broadly in his case) to reality; reality needs to conform to what he says and believes. In precisely this way, MDR is a man stuck in reverse.
Regards,
Dawson
Did anyone catch his claim about ontological vs. teleological arguments? On the one hand, he says that “biblical epistemology” is a “rational-empirical construct,” which of course he (a) never explained; (b) never laid out; and (c) never connected to anything we can read in the bible (i.e., pure, undiluted eisegesis). But then on the other hand, he says that “The biblical arguments for God existence are ontological.” For one thing, the bible nowhere presents any arguments for the existence of the god it talks about; it assumes it’s existence from the very beginning, and that’s the case with everything after Gen. 1:1 – its existence is assumed throughout. Even many apologists have acknowledged that the bible does not present arguments for its god’s existence. I thought this comment of MDR’s was strange enough. But notice also how it conflicts *directly* with his claim that “biblical epistemology” is a “rational-empirical construct.” If you recall, back on 5 Nov. (in this blog), MDR wrote: “the orthodox Christian rejects rationalism.” But ontological arguments are expressly rationalistic; they are not “rational-empiricist” arguments by any stretch. They don’t take certain facts which we discover in the world and from them try to draw an inference to a conclusion establishing the existence of a god. Rather, they perform an analysis of the concept ‘God’ and thus try to establish the conclusion that it must exist based on its meaning. That’s rationalism from head to toe!
So by saying that “The biblical arguments for God existence are ontological,” MDR is telling us that the bible’s “rational-empiricist construct epistemology” (which he never authenticated in the first place) is completely at odds with the types of arguments the bible uses to establish the existence of its god (when in fact it presents *no* arguments for its god’s existence in the first place).
The guy is quintessentially talking out his ass!!! This is why he’s had no “friends” come over here to try to rescue him. No orthodox Christian would have anything to do with this guy. He’s so full of self-contradiction and inner conflict that even a presuppositional apologist would have enough sense to stay away from this guy!
So that brings us back to Nidiot, who immediately clung to MDR’s every word, stroked MDR’s ego and readily played cheerleader. For Nidiot, it was like “Finally! My knight in shining armor has arrived! He’s here to rescue me!” Recall how Chris Bolt dumped Nidiot out with the trash a year or so ago. Bolt didn’t want anything to do with the guy. Nidiot is an embarrassment to Christians. But MDR was happy to have a cheerleader. MDR is simply in it for his own narcissistic purposes. Every flame warrior needs his fawning damsel back home who cheers him on. That was Nidiot’s role here. Nidiot’s never going to call MDR on his contradictions, like the one above. Nidiot doesn’t care about anything; he’s a nihilist just like MDR. That’s really what’s at the root of all this: nihilism – hatred of anything principled, anything good, anything of value. Destroy, destroy, destroy. That’s their prime directive. It all started with their own minds which were destroyed at birth, or at rebirth. It’s hard to say which. But little more than a brain stem was ever allowed to grow in either case.
Yes, authentically dangerous indeed!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson asked,
«Let's see how much more of his shit Michael can cram back into his ass now.»
The repercussions of his shit-load here are not going to stop any time soon. You are saving him a lot of self-cramming, but he is still going to be getting a lot if it for a good while. His lie that his argument for divine perfection was a trap (meta-lie) started a chain reaction that seems impossible to stop. Maybe now Michael will finally go to the hospital and get some attention for that blown-up ass of his.
@Photo
"Maybe now Michael will finally go to the hospital and get some attention for that blown-up ass of his."
doubtful, pyschopathic narcissists never see themselves as the problem. After all they are the smartest person they know!
Last night I think I may have been a little hasty dismissing Richard's post to me -- you know, the one where he called me "Ydummy"?
It seems that there are, indeed, several instances of humor in the Old Testament. Page after page after page of the bible unwittingly lampooning itself.
If you'd like to follow along with me, please open your bibles and turn to Numbers 22, verse 27:
___________________________________
22:27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
22:29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
22:30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
____________________________________
For full-on humorous effect, try reading it out loud with a straight face, preferably for rationally minded individuals at, say, a dinner gathering or perhaps some other social function.
But be forewarned: There's always the outside chance that there may be a few individuals present who do not find this fable as funny as you or others do. In fact, due to religious indoctrination, they may be downright offended at your reading.
If this should happen, don't fret. Because when individuals take such a story seriously and believe it actually happened as written, isn't *that* really the funniest thing of all?
Ydemoc
Good morning. Well Sunday turned out to be a full and busy day. By the time I found some 'me' time, it was almost 11 pm and time to catch those zzzzzzzz.
Here's what I think about what Dawson wrote.
I seriously think the guy is dangerous. A potential menace to society, one that very well may be realized, unlike his "infinity" whatever.
If Dawson's speculation proves true, remember having a concealed handgun at the right time and place can prevent tragedy. But it's also true, in case anyone uses their concealed handgun, that unless they can convince the Grand Jury that they "reasonably believed" themselves or others were in "imminent" danger of death or serous bodily harm, that the Grand Jury will most likely return and indictment. This means we can't shoot dickheads like Michael or Richard unless they're about to harm us or others by using a weapon. Lets hope there's a vestige of sanity or good sense in these poor delusionals.
Upon closing, I think Michael's lengthy discussions remind me of Christopher Hitchen's remark: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Time for work.
Best Wishes and More Later.
I guess all good things must come to an end and the humour quotient was dropping, post by already rebutted post. It might take a while to get the funky smell to go away though.
No doubt loony Mike will take his special psychosis elsewhere on the net, meaning some other poor, unsuspecting blog/forum owner will have to clean up after Michael when he has yet another tantrum over people refusing to acknowledge his credentials and refusing to engage in his make believe fantasies. Ho hum. I'm glad they aren't my problems.
Hello Dawson and friends. Thanks for turning comment moderation on. Its good to not have to wade through MDR.
Since he didn't have a decent argument for the Christian God, it's back to searching for a smart person of faith who is willing to discuss the issue in a civil manner.
Over at debunkingchristianity John Loftus made an interesting observation.
All Christians have as the basis for their faith are private subjective experiences and testimonies from pre-scientific superstitious people in the first century who had private subjective experiences, and that's it. THAT'S IT! There is no objective evidence for anything specific to their faith at all. All of the so-called "objective evidence" is nothing more than private subjective experiences to the core. Based on these experiences we find a whole host of believers who have been so convinced of them that they have repeatedly lied about their faith, which has destroyed any credibility it could have had in the first place. There is therefore no reason to believe it even if it's true! LET. THIS. SINK. IN.
http://www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-inaugural-speech-on-state-of-case.html#more
Hello all,
I received a comment request from Nidiot. He wrote: “Boy you're a coward just like Bolt.”
It’s unclear why anyone would think I’m a “coward.” Of course, Nidiot presents no case for his accusation, which is entirely typical. He just asserts it. Comments were put on moderation simply because MDR could not contain himself and flagrantly abused the privilege – read that: the privilege - of posting here. It’s clear to anyone that MDR was not interested in a two-way discussion. Rather, his ambition was simply to flood the comment box with his say-so, even if that meant going back and re-posting entire series of previously published comments of his, and comments which had already been answered!! I frankly have never seen anything like this, and while at times it seemed sufficient to simply re-post comments which had originally refuted MDR’s comments, he turned the faucet to full-blast and simply did not know how to discipline himself. My sixth grade teacher told me once that “maturity is knowing when to stop.” MDR demonstrated beyond any doubt that he has no maturity whatsoever; and I demonstrated that I do have maturity by knowing when to stop MDR. In Nidiot’s nidiotic worldview, maturity = cowardice. That’s fine. I hope it serves him well.
Nidiot had a year a half of unbridled posting privileges on my blog. If he could not prove his worldview and/or refute Objectivism in that time, well, that’s his loss. He certainly had the opportunity, and he too abused his privileges on many, many occasions. He simply squandered his opportunity to learn something. Same with MDR: MDR had plenty of opportunity to make his points, and he failed with every attempt. And like MDR, Nidiot doesn’t want to learn – he only wants to tear down and destroy. The Christian worldview has nothing of positive value to offer the world. Folks like MDR and Nidiot and many other Christian apologists are living proof of this. To the extent that they have anything of value to say, they only show themselves as borrowing from the worldview they want to destroy. In just this way, they prove themselves to be intellectual parasites. I am not obligated in any way to provide them with a microphone here. They had their chance, and they failed. Next.
NIdiot also stated: “Here lays ‘IP’. May it rest in peace.”
Nidiot does not understand that he did not build my blog, he has never maintained it, he has never contributed an entry on my blog, he has never been responsible for its chief content, and he has never managed it. Without him, my blog lives on. He is not needed here. If he could participate as an adult, I would gladly publish his comments. Same with MDR. By calling me “coward” etc., Nidiot only shows that he’s not willing to take responsibility for his own actions. This too is a mark of immaturity.
I have more to say on your recent comments, but I have a busy week, so it will have to wait. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to make a comment, I’ll publish it as soon as I am able.
Caution to MDR and Nidiot: don’t try to use some newborn sock-puppet to get by the guards. They know what you look like. You won’t be able to disguise yourselves.
Regards,
Dawson
The moment Michael started just flooding the blog by repeated series of posts that had already been addressed, he clearly declared that he had nothing else to say. That he would do that any time we dared post one little answer was worse. The last iteration before Dawson started moderation was just unimaginably immature from Michael. By that point I was just playing Michael to see if he would continue, and continue he did. I would just post one little refutation, there Michael would go with many many more of the crap that he had just reposted. Crap that was answered eons before.
One Michael particularly did not like was this:
_________________________________
Michael brayed,
«Now that's funnier than photoZero's functions are variables!»
I never said that ass-hole. "You told that to yourself." Mistaking elements of functions with the functions themselves was always your problem, not mine.
Here that piece of the exchange for you to check your own stupidity:
[Michael] «The functions themselves are constants, photozero, with variables, photozero, in which you plug values, photozero»
Here's what I answered: «Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them. More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!»
See ass-hole? There is no way anybody could mistake what I said for what you interpreted it to say. There's no tricks. I was direct and clear. Your mathematical illiteracy is what "played you like a violin." Yes, ass-hole, you shovelled all that crap back up your ass all by yourself.
Michael did not like the idea that somebody might see any of our answers. He had to bury them no matter what. But he only could embarrass himself much further.
I was checking what had happened before. It is quite telling that at some point back on Dec 8th (1:58 PM) I told Michael this:
«Again, it would be less embarrassing to see your stupidity displaying if you just read the whole of what we say, rather than read a few words and assume the rest.»
See what I asked him to do so far back? Not to just assume but to read?
Well, then he lied about what I was doing in the math like so:
«You were vaguely thinking the irrational and utterly useless idea that it was a successive division of a successively derived quotient, which then becomes the next dividend and so on. . . . LOL!»
Notice the fucking "LOL"! Anyway, I said he lied about it ans asked him to look at the math he was supposed to be answering, and here his answer:
«No. I just assumed you were doing some such stupid thing ...»
Noticed that his assumption reads as if he knew what he is talking about. "LOL" and all. He was caught, not only he did not pay attention to the math that he was supposedly answering, he just "assumed" that I did this and that. If so, how the hell can he pretend to be giving me an answer to anything? But back in Dec I told him that he should stop assuming and try and actually read. So he has no excuse. Worse. Even while assuming he acts as if he knew, as if he read what we said, when he did not pay any attention (which is also lying). As I have said, if Michael is an expert on something, that's cramming shit back up his own ass.
Oh, and just by the way. Michael cited a web page:
math-is-fun functions
He cited this web page as support for his stupid assertion that "functions are constants." However, he tried to twist it into me being mistaking functions with variables (as shown above he was mistaking parts of functions, constants, with the functions themselves). Anyway, nowhere in that web page it is stated that functions are constants, of course. Ah, and Michael said that:
«Though it was not an easy search, I did finally find what I was looking for: the basics of what a function and its various parts are and how they are related.»
But, curiously, he forgot what he had claimed, that functions are constants. My guess is that in his excitement with so much new math for him, he did not pay attention to what constants are, and he just spouted whatever shit came to his confused mind, thinking that it did not matter. Remember that this guy thinks that taking a course on Calculus in college makes one an expert (referring to Richard). So, he clearly did not expect any of us to know about functions, constants, and variables. As shown in my comment above, as soon as he knew of his mistake, he tried to make it appear as if it was me who was confused about functions and their parts.
Anyway, curiously, he did not find this web page:
Extended real number line
Or this one:
Affinely Extended Real Numbers
(The latter served as basis for the wikipedia one.)
I let the reader check those for operations with infinite should the reader have any need.
Why did I not point there before? I did not care to check. I assume that most people here are computationally literate, and would find these links if they had the need. Besides, Michael was showing math illiteracy ad vomitum. It was really not necessary to give citations. He had previously held to the arithmetic division by infinity (it was a trap!! a trap I tell you!!), only to then take it back because he thought that he could "get me" instead and show that he knew more "advanced" math, as if it was not obvious that he was just trying to learn it. He was hoping to just impress me/us with the mathematical vocabulary alone and silence us that way. (He even "gave me" the "opportunity" to take my statements back, showing to be quite desperate not to have to show the math! Thinking that I would be as afraid of math as he was! Michael is the prime example of projection.)
Hezekiah Ahaz Revisited
Since Richard has brought up Bolt's name again and again, I thought it might worthwhile to take a little trip down memory lane.
As I'm sure we're all aware, this isn't the first time that a blogger (atheist or Christian) has admonished or banished Richard as a result of his own actions.
The following comes from Richard's now-defunct blog which went by the name "Pressing the Antithesis" I believe. At the time, Richard was using the name "Hezekiah":
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Replying to Chris Bolt.
Richard: "Bolt's response to my blog post 'a strange comment.'"
Bolt: “I say it because you write some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read under fake names and irritate the snot out of people in their comboxes to no benefit.”
Richard: "How do you know? When did you become the arbiter of people’s intelligence? Is it a sin, Chris, to use a pseudonym? Well, that’s because I stick to the program, that is, 'dropping the gauntlet and challenging my opponent to a duel to the death'. That’s something you’re woefully lacking. Just for the record, I don’t consider Chris Bolt a representative of the apologetic method I endorse. He’s not brave enough."
Bolt: “I didn’t say “a” representative, and I didn’t claim to be “the arbiter.””
Hezekiah: "Well, I am happy you came back to your senses."
Bolt: “You don’t know what you’re doing.’
Hezekiah: "How do you know?"
Bolt: “You need to do less chatting and more reading”
Hezekiah: "That’s why I have a Bible for. However, In my book shelf I have some Van Til. So, where specifically do you want me to start reading? Also, I have over 1000 hours of Bahnsen lectures that you can benefit from. Here is a good one:
http://www.americanvision.com/products/Defending-the-Christian-Worldview-AgainstAll-Opposition.html
Bolt: “Thus far you’ve done more to harm the Christian apologetic than what you have done to advance it.”
Richard: "How do you know? What have you done? Judging from your exchanges with Dawson Bethrick, I am really wondering why you would criticize other people?"
Bolt: “That’s really quite the claim considering I have an email from you dated Monday, December 26, 2011 10:22 PM and a comment from you here – http://www.choosinghats.com/2012/01/one-more-petty-post/#comment-3137, not to mention the fact that you found this thread and commented on it.”
Richard: "I meant personally. Also, If i am not doing Christian Apologetics to your satisfaction. That’s your problem not mine. However, you are always welcome to post your criticisms of me over on my blog."
___________________________________
(continued...)
The next day Chris Bolt published a response. The full exchange is available here:
http://www.choosinghats.com/2012/05/how-do-you-know-that-for-certain/
In the meantime, here are a few excerpts:
Bolt: "...Presumably you want to know how I know that you write some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read under fake names and irritate the snot out of people in their comboxes to no benefit. That’s an easy one. I know it because I’ve read where you write some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read under fake names and irritate the snot out of people in their comboxes to no benefit. That wasn’t difficult to answer. It wasn’t clever. You aren’t impressing anyone. You haven’t scored any points. You’re just coming off as ignorant and annoying. You need to drop it."
Richard: "“When did you become the arbiter of people’s intelligience?”
Bolt: "I never claimed to be “the arbiter of people’s intelligence.” When are you going to stop repeatedly ascribing things to me that I did not say? That’s a sure mark of dishonesty... But I did say that you write some dumb comments.
***
Richard: "Well, that’s because I stick to the program, that is, ‘dropping the gauntlet and challenging my opponent to a duel to the death’.”
Bolt: "No, you make yourself look like a fool by spamming comboxes under various fake names and asking people, 'How do you know?' until they think you’re insane."
***
Richard: “How do you know?”
Bolt: "How do I know that you’ve done more to harm the Christian apologetic than what you have done to advance it? Because many of your posts don’t make sense, you constantly make terrible category errors, your most clever reply is, “How do you know?”, you’re generally dishonest, you’re arrogant, you’re unteachable,..."
***
Richard: "However, you are always welcome to post your criticisms of me over on my blog.”
Bolt: "No thanks. Not worth my time. Clearly you are not willing to listen to anybody. I thought a little criticism from a Christian, as opposed to the fundy atheists you spend so much time with would wake you up to what you’re doing, but apparently not. So I’m done."
____________________________________
Ydummy
@Dawson
This author does not call it the cartoon universe but that is what he is describing. It seems others sense the absurdity of metaphysical subjectivism even if they don't use those terms, worth a read
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/jason-lisle-the-higgs-boson-is-proof-of-god/
Michael / Kyle,
How do you like me now that you can't "bury my post continuations"?
What kind of an imbecile are you to think that I would be afraid of math, like you are, when it was so obvious that you were just trying to learn it?
How did you feel when you realized that you misread "functions can have constants and variables" as "functions are constants with variables"? Your only option from then on was to bury my post continuations, wasn't it? You knew that I knew that you misread that.
Welcome to the real world, where your wishing won't make it so. People can know things you don't know. You are but an imbecile with some vocabulary and catch phrases. And I suspect that you copy/paste most of that.
Have a great and productive busy week Dawson.
Good morning.
Photo remarked regarding one of Michael's strange comments:
The functions themselves are constants, photozero, with variables, photozero, in which you plug values, photozero
For me, its been 37 years since college algebra and calculus; if I recall, a function was defined as a one to one correspondence such that when the function operated it produced a single dependent variable from a single independent variable. If f(x) = y, then for each x, there is one and only one consequent y.
A constant was defined as a number that does not change which is found on one side of the equation or inequality. A constant could be a multiplicand, a divisor or a factor of another number or term.
Its been a long time since I studied that stuff, so certainly it's best to consult a reference for these basic definitions and most unwise to argue and hurl insults and accusations about them. Especially if communication is the goal. That Michael and Richard only want shout down whoever disagrees with them rather than take time to discuss shows them to likely be cut from the same stuff as Tomás de Torquemada or Oliver Cromwell.
If someone like this gets up in your face and screams and abuses you with threats of Hell and "Wait till my Daddy gets home!", just laugh at them and their silly ineffective nonsense. Men like Michael and Richard want to be respected, but they lack the basic character traits that are prerequisite to being able to earn respect from others. It pisses them off when they realize their game doesn't accomplish their whim. This is when they become dangerous and when its best to disengage and put distance between then and one's own self.
In Texas, the State Legislature passed a Stand Your Ground Law. A person is not required by law to retreat from an attacker. However, for a concealed handgun license holder to have an affirmative defense against charges of aggravated assault with a weapon or murder or man slaughter, it must be provable that the CHL holder had a reasonable belief that they themselves or some other person were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury from an assailant. It's best to retreat from confrontation, but usually simply informing the agitated aggressor that one has a concealed handgun is sufficient to persuade them they should leave you alone. Displaying one's weapon in a non-threatening manner is a class c misdemeanor, but is unlikely to result in charges if the police think the aggressor initiated any incident.
The law regarding what happens on one's own property is much more liberal. If home invaders break in, they can legally be killed, however, Texas criminal law does not provide an affirmative defense from civil law suite. So if a Texas home owner, kills an intruder, the deceased survivors may sue the homeowner for wrongful death. I think, in that case, it unlikely a jury would award damages to those plaintiffs. If a thief is caught stealing from or trespassing (for purposes of criminal mischief) on property of a Texas homeowner at night, then the homeowner may legally use deadly force even if the criminal is not breaking into or entering the home or building. However, the homeowner must be able to prove theft or criminal mischief.
part 2) It's best for Richard and Michael to let it alone and deescalate because holding their religious presuppositions as they do reduces to Pascal's Wager. This is so because they can't know that metaphysical naturalism isn't true. But they forget we live in a big and old universe where life may be abundant on many planets. Even if it isn't, and there is on average only one planet per galaxy with a sentient intelligent species, then those people's religious gods are also part of Pascal's calculation. From the assumed agnostic perspective from which Michael and Richard and those like them operate, there are many billions of other religious views that might be correct, and their calculations of Pascal's Wager most likely fails to take this into account. This means that even if they reject Objectivism, they have no reason for smug self serving arrogant assertions of religious confidence.
How desperate would this Michael guy have to be that he claimed that because some abstraction has physical "encodings" therefore the abstraction is "actual" in that form, therefore gods are actual? It's exactly like saying that if I write the symbol for infinite an actual infinite exists as the ink, it's shape, and the piece of paper where the symbol has been written. What an ass-hole. And he celebrated this stupidity as if it were some kind of triumph for him, rather than the incredibly stupid claim that it is!
Heck, more shit crammed back up Michael's ass.
Hi photo,
Perhaps this quote from Rand might be applicable with regard to your latest comment:
"To compound the chaos: it must be noted that the Platonist school begins by accepting the primacy of consciousness, by reversing the relationship of consciousness to existence, by assuming that reality must conform to the content of consciousness, not the other way around -- on the premise that the presence of any notion in man's mind proves the existence of a corresponding referent in reality. But the Platonist school still retains some vestige of respect for reality, if only in unstated motivation: it distorts reality into a mystical construct in order to extort its sanction and validate subjectivism." (ITOE, p. 53 - 54)
Ydemoc
Richard's / Nide's / Nidiot's called me this:
«Photo aka zero is infinity»
Then this:
«photodimwit aka zero is infinity»
But I never equated zero with infinity.
When Michael actually said this:
«0 does not equal nothing, but infinity»
Richard did not call him "michdimwit aka zero is infinity."
Isn't that curious?
Back on November 8, in a reply to Richard, Michael wrote:
"I'm here because I thought this might be a good place to expand my understanding of Objectivism, as my wife and I recently befriended an Objectivist couple."
Even though Michael is no longer with us to answer this, I am kind of curious -- given his display of utter contempt for Objectivism -- how his relationship with this "Objectivist couple" is coming along.
"Swimmingly" certainly isn't the first term that came to mind.
Ydemoc
Hey Ydemoc,
Yes, that's helpful.
So, no more knots to tie. It was all Michael flooding the site with repeated series of comments. I checked and we did not leave anything unanswered. Dawson had answered a lot of those things I later tackled too, and much more. Actually, that's what got Michael into the meltdown: that Dawson took care of every word in Michael's attempts at explaining, for example, why Dawson's essay of the lonely god "failed." Dawson would find almost every term to be nonsensical, explain why the terms were nonsensical, and all Michael would read is "I do not understand what a [whatever] god would be like," without the whole explanation, and accuse Dawson of lying.
Anyway, I could go on with the rest of the math, but what's left is so obviously nonsensical that I see no need. Besides it would be futile since that was the least of Michael's problems, and was creating a distraction from his unwillingness to talk about what he promised to talk about, Christian epistemology, Christian theory of concepts, as informed by the bible, directly, no eisegesis allowed. Of course, that's impossible. Christianity is a religion, and it is based on "accepting" a book of mythologies as if it was real.
So, I will await for a next theme. Best guys.
Hi all,
Having another very busy week, but I was thinking about just this topic this morning and wanted to chime in on what Photo stated.
Photo wrote: “Actually, that's what got Michael into the meltdown: that Dawson took care of every word in Michael's attempts at explaining, for example, why Dawson's essay of the lonely god "failed." Dawson would find almost every term to be nonsensical, explain why the terms were nonsensical, and all Michael would read is ‘I do not understand what a [whatever] god would be like’, without the whole explanation, and accuse Dawson of lying.”
Right – MDR did call me a liar on this, though it always baffled me why he would think I was lying. Even his own attempts to interact with the problem of divine lonesomeness were completely incoherent. In addition to what Photo states here, and right in line with MDR’s projection that Objectivists are “slogan spouters,” MDR sought to defend his form of theism from the problem of divine lonesomeness by replying with a series of slogans – e.g., “divine perfection,” “the eternally existent now!,” “infinite consciousness,” and making bizarre claims like “For God, there was never ‘a time’ when David did not exist. There was never ‘a time’ when David was not the King of Israel. There was never a time when David’s body did not die and his soul tarry in Sheol awaiting Christ’s crucifixion.” (See this blog, MDR’s comment dated 23 Nov., 2012.)
This is bizarre since it can only lead to what might be an infinity of eternal contradictions for the Christian god. (MDR wanted the infinite to be actual; perhaps here he stumbled upon it unwittingly.) For the Christian god, David is forever not created and also created; not-yet-born and also only just born; still a child and also an adult; a non-king and also a king; alive and also dead and buried; awaiting salvation and already saved, etc., etc., etc. And this is not the case only for David, but for every entity which exists now, has existed and will exist, and also for every attribute of every entity, every action any entity is performing, has performed and will perform, every relationship that exists now, has existed and will exist, etc.
At one point I had asked MDR, if “For God, there was never ‘a time’” when the world did not exist, why would the world need to have been created? I remember waiting for MDR to address this, but I never saw an answer to it.
Regardless, if this is the best that MDR could offer in response to the problem of divine lonesomeness, well, that’s too bad for his position. If affirming bizarre and eternally self-contradictory positions is what believers think it takes to answer this problem, it only underscores how strong it is when aimed at Christian theism.
Regards,
Dawson
By the way, Ydemoc, great point! Thanks for reminding us of that. I too wonder how MDR's friendship with the Objectivist he mentioned is going.
At various points MDR indicated that he had conversations going on with "friends" of his who were laughing at what was being stated here. I'm doubtful that MDR included his new Objectivist friend in those alleged exchanges. If not, I wonder why. Wouldn't he want to include all his friends? Wouldn't he want to get some additional opinions?
Seriously, the guy has no credibility. One cannot trust a thing he says. He is damaged goods when it comes to character issues.
Okay, I really have to run off to work now!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
That "eternally-existent-now" compounds with yet-another-problem about this god that I heard before from "theoreticalbullshit." If this god knows everything past-present-and-future, then how does this god itself know that/if it created anything? It can't decide any differently, therefore creating is not an act of will, but an act that it has no power for or against. It has no freedom. All is/was/will-be/has-been preordained. No way for anything to be different. This god might as well not be in the picture. It's useless. Praying? What for? This god cannot/will-not do anything differently.
Hello Photo, Ydemoc, Justin, Dawson, Freddie, and to Michael and Richard too.
Photo took note of one of the many paradoxical conundrums afflicting any form of Theism positing a deity with omniscient foreknowledge and libertarian freewill.
If this god knows everything past-present-and-future, then how does this god itself know that/if it created anything? It can't decide any differently, therefore creating is not an act of will, but an act that it has no power for or against. It has no freedom. All is/was/will-be/has-been preordained. No way for anything to be different.
Michael Martin presents a discussion of this issue in his book, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification." Of course, Martin's arguments would have no effect on Michael as his fantasy of God entails the deity is not bound by logic. It's easy to imagine anything one likes when it comes to religion. Nevertheless Martin's arguments are worthy, so his book is a buy. I'll scan some pages and post them when at the office tomorrow.
Good Luck and Best Wishes too
Hi guys. Just want to mention that although Dick and Mich can't be reasoned with, I learned a lot. Much Googling was done to follow the thread and my understanding of concepts like objectivity and primacy clarified quite a bit. When the battle seems pointless always remember the lurkers! Oh yeah, it was good for quite a few laughs too!
kHello friends: here's a link to a pdf in my google docs of Martin's discussion of the incoherence of omniscience and its contradictory nature regarding volitional free will.
Link
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the link!
Ydemoc
Hey Gnardude,
Yes, the battles seem pointless in terms of whether there will be anything that the creationists will understand, but worth something because of the learning we can do, the loads of fun we can have, et cetera. I enjoy the mental exercise and the laughs. Sometimes I do get frustrated, example, seeing this guy come back after declaring himself to be a liar, as if nothing had happened. Then it was a bit of fun again, but then the guy went nuclear with those re-postings, until Dawson decided to close the access, which was the proper thing to do at that point. Michael had gone completely insane (if that was even possible).
Looks like Nide has closed shop again. I'm looking forward to his next incarnation.
Hello Gnardude, Photo, Ydemoc, Justin and Dawson.
Gnardude > Looks like Nide has closed shop again. I'm looking forward to his next incarnation.
The Net abound with Nides and Michaels. There are an abundance of minds lost in confusion on social media, but some of the more persistent loonies may be found over on Debunking Christianity. Asserting Objectivist metaphysical axioms or theory of concepts will draw the crazy like moths to a flame. They just can't stand that someone or anyone has courage to state the obvious or to hold rational ideals apart from their preferred mythology.
Featured at Debunking Christianity is W.L.Craig's Kalam argument.
link
It goes thusly:
1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2) The universe has a beginning of its existence;
C) Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
Premise 1) presupposes existence by invoking the concept of everything while premise 2) smuggles in a package deal and stolen concept by claiming existence had a beginning inferring a floating abstraction that existence began to exist within boundaries of an encapsulating other existence. Rather than building on a premise 1) foundation, premise 2) attacks the broadest of concepts, existence, and then packages it into Abrahamic religious theogony. This argument is an insidious attack on human cognition.
How best to demolish it?
@Robert
funny you should post that. I am currently working on answering this very argument with a three part responce over on my blog. I will have part one up sometime early next week if not sooner.
Aggtually,
The thingie is an equivocation to being with (remember that this is much older than modern physics about the beginnings of the Universe). They have an "everything that begins to exist has a cause for beginning to exist" which means that whatever cause/effect shit we witness is interpreted as "beginning to exist", but the experience with causes for existences we humanity have witnessed, is not really beginning to existence, but the transformation of some things into other things. Try and convince people that a baby will grow if the mother does not eat anything, for example. But then they apply those cause/effects relationships into a different kind of beginning to exist, namely, the Universe. Remember that the shit is predicated on a Universe that "begins to exist" out of nothingness, since the argument is very very old (which is one of the reasons why when creationists ask "Then how did the Universe begin!?" I answer "Why should I solve the problems of your worldview?"). Anyway, there is also the little problem that our witnessed transformations always have "internal" causes relative to the Universe, and often internal causes to themselves too. I hope that was clear. Therefore, if they were to say, to avoid the equivocation, that instead of a nothing, the Universe just transformed from one state (singularity, whatever) into another state, and if such transformation had a cause, there's no need for it to be an external cause relative to the Universe. We can be quite happy with an internal one, and we have very good reasons to think that if there's such a cause it has to be internal, given that such are the causes we are familiar with as "causes to its existence." The cause could be some random instability to being a singularity, or what-have-you. Then creationists might try and complicate things, but they can't pass the most basic of problems. that there's no need to go beyond internal causes even in the most friendly scenario to their claims. That they just jump from the real into the very speculative, all to try and give credence to that which they can only imagine. Which is quite shitty and nonsensical to begin with.
Damn spellcheckers!
"equivocation to begin with"
---
We are also forgetting that cause/effect assumes existence to begin with, which is the shortest version, Dawson's one, of what I am saying above ... I think.
:)
... details, details ... well, if it's a transformation we are talking about, then we should not use the words "begin to exist" in the first place. If it's actual beginning to exist, then cause and effect don;t apply because cause/effect assume existence, and so on and so forth. As I said, no winning for creationists. Always dealing with the absurd when trying to give credence to their absurd beliefs ...
Could go on and on ... but that requires giving them too much credit.
Good morning Justin, Ydemoc, Dawson, Freddie, Photo, Gnardude, and friends.
Justin, I look forward to reading your blog on the Kalam. Thanks to Photosynthesis for his excellent points concerning the Kalam.
A perhaps persistent response that I've seen several times from various theistic believers when confronting notification of observations that casualty, information, and consciousness are contingent to existence is to assert that it's sill logically possible for information, casualty, and consciousness to obtain sans existence. I think this is a good thing because it brings the crazy to the forefront bypassing all the red herrings muddying the waters.
Question: How best to frame the discussion as to empathize the objectivist point: "How? Somehow. Blank out."
Hi folks,
I encourage everyone who might be interested to check out this link:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Primacy_Inanimateness_or_Consciousness#arg0
Within the last week, a certain someone has submitted a debate question (and replied to it as well). Here is that reply:
"The immediate problem with Objectivism's metaphysics is not the notion that existence exists, which is to say that something exists, and that consciousness exists. These things are self-evident as is the law of identity. (Objectivism asserts the obvious as if it were something unique to itself or profound.)
The apprehension that something exists is the apprehension that human consciousness exists. So what? Existence exists doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. So what exists? The fact that we have to ask that question demonstrates that human consciousness certainly does not have primacy. But again, so what?
1. Existence has primacy over human consciousness.
2. Existence has primacy over consciousness.
These are not the same assertions at all. The ultimate issue of primacy can hardly be settled without definitively establishing what the nature and the extent of existence are.
The objectivist arbitrarily declares all of existence to be material and, therefore, all instances of consciousness in existence to be finite.
Huh? And what are these assertions based on precisely? The certainly doesn’t follow from the fundamental axioms of being."
The person's moniker? "Rawlings1234."
It goes without saying: all indications point to this certain someone as being none other than Michael David Rawlings.
If so, it's too bad that he didn't take more care over there in his assertions, most notably the one where he states: "The objectivist arbitrarily declares all of existence to be material and, therefore, all instances of consciousness in existence to be finite."
If Michael is still paying attention to what is written on Dawson's blog, I would ask: Where in the Objectivist literature can we find it "declared" that "all of existence [is] material"?
I would urge him to clarify this himself, before someone wades in and quizzes him on it and/or clarifies it for him.
Ydemoc
Bawlings wants to feel successful. So he goes somewhere where they will be happy to hear whatever he says. I saw some pretty bad thinking over there.
Over on his blog he is also still carrying on talking to himself through his sock puppet Kyle Jamison
Hello friends. I'm sobering up after drinking too much wine at dinner. I love a good Cabernet Sauvignon. It's funny Michael is spewing his same crap, and it'd be jolly good fun to ram it back up his ass. To that end, here is an interesting video by You Tube objectivist Dhorpatan where he rebuts a rather nasty Christian You Tube apologist using two clever objectivist atheistic arguments. If you've time, watch the five minute video and post an assessment of Dhorpatan's points.
Here's the Link
Best and Good
Michael is posting on createdebate.com. Here's the godaddy whois domain registration info link
Createdebate.com was registered by Andrew Dondlinger
2400 E. Main St. Suite. 103-156
Saint Charles, Illinois 60174
United States
This guy seems to be a non security threat based on website informer report.
http://website.informer.com/Andrew+Dondlinger.html
It probably would not be dangerous to register on create debate using a sock.
Hello friends: I registered on createdebate.com with my twitter sock account, fxinfidel. (I fancy myself able to learn how to make coin from forex trading.) I then posted an attempt at a response to Michael's fallacy.
Now it's time to get some work done prior to heading to the gym. Today is an abs and legs day.
Best and Good.
Robert,
You mentioned that you live in Texas. If you reside anywhere near Austin, I thought I'd draw your attention to this notice which is part of the regular mailings I receive from "The Objective Standard":
_____________________
TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Livestream of D’Souza–Bernstein Debate on Christianity
Posted by TOS Admin at 4:52 pm
The Livestream option for viewing the debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Andrew Bernstein—Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?—is now available for purchase.
This event, which will be held on February 8 at 7:00 PM CST in Austin, TX, will be the first time a major religious intellectual has debated a major Objectivist intellectual. Never before has a theist of D’Souza’s stature grappled with a philosopher espousing a secular, observation-based, absolute morality—and never before has an Objectivist of Bernstein’s caliber grappled with a Christian as knowledgeable as D’Souza is about philosophy.
Religion vs. Objectivism is the battle for the future of the West, and this debate will put the central issues on the table for all to see.
Please help spread the word about it by inviting your friends to attend either live in Austin or via Livestream on the Web.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php
Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?
Dinesh D’Souza vs. Andrew Bernstein
When: February 8, 2013, 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Where: Hogg Auditorium, University of Texas–Austin
Tickets: General Admission $30.00, Students $8.00
This event will be accessible via livestream for $5.00. To purchase Livestream access, click here.
Brought to you by The Objective Standard and UT Objectivism Society
The Issue in Question
Is Christianity the source of important truths, moral law, and man’s rights and thus profoundly good for mankind—or is it antithetical to all such values and thus profoundly bad? Christian conservative Dinesh D’Souza will argue that Christianity is good; Objectivist atheist Andrew Bernstein will argue the alternative.
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events/dsouza-bernstein.asp
________________________________
Ydemoc
Hello Ydemoc, thanks for posting the link to an interesting upcoming debate. D'Souza is whack job. I'm not familiar with Bernstein, but if he's a competent Objectivist, then he'll steamroll D'Souza. Looks like fun.
Cheers Robert that was a very interesting and somewhat enlightening read.
Michael claimed Christianity did not borrow from Platonism contrary to What Augustine wrote in "On Christian Doctrine", book II 40.60
60. Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God's providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also—that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life—we must take and turn to a Christian use.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm
Robert,
Thanks for sharing this excellent quote. It really hits home on the very topic you intended it to address. Here Augustine provides the essential formula for Christianity's intellectual hijacking from non-Christian achievements.
Compare Augustine's point with the point Van Til makes in The Defense of the Faith (p. 23n.1), where he writes:
<< I do not understand why my critics object when I use such terms as “concrete universal” or employ such terms as “the universal,” “the particular,” “the one and many.” Especially do I not understand this on the part of those who are “experts in philosophy” and whose business it is to teach philosophy from the Christian point of view. The charge of “intellectual anabaptism” might well be lodged against me if, as a teacher of Christian apologetics, I failed to translate Christian truth in the language of the day. Is not the important thing that Christian meanings be contrasted with non-Christian meanings? The Apostles did not shun the usage of language borrowed from non-Christian sources. When they used the term logos must they be thought of as followers of Philo’s non-Christian thought simply because he also used that term? >>
The Christian “principle” then may be condensed as follows: “The non-Christian achievements are to be taken over and retrofitted with Christian meanings and interpretations drawn from the biblical worldview and stamped with the label of Christianity, not in order to adopt the vices of the non-Christian’s depravity, but using a semblance thereof in order to advance the Christian agenda.”
That’s essentially what’s going on. Augustine was clearly influenced by Plato. Moreover, and importantly, since Christianity actually has no epistemology of its own, the Platonic model, given its overt mysticism, was a natural fit. One could say that bible-based Christianity has a Plato-shaped hole that needed to be filled. Augustine recognized this need and, given his familiarity with Platonism, sought to fill that hole.
Okay, another very busy week. Keep up the convo, I’m watching but can’t participate much at this time.
Regards,
Dawson
Hi everyone,
I don’t know how many of you have been following the story that’s been in the news lately regarding Notre Dame star linbacker Manti Te’o and the “girlfriend” he claimed to have had for some three years, but I have noticed similarities between what we’ve heard about so far, and what we see and hear from those who embrace god-belief.
First a quick summary -- this from Wikipedia: “One of the enduring stories of Notre Dame's 2012 season was Te'o's strong play following the death of his grandmother and girlfriend, as well as his emergence as a Heisman Trophy candidate. In January 2013, Deadspin revealed that the existence and death of his girlfriend had been faked. Te'o released a statement[3] claiming to have been the victim of a hoax that lured him into an online relationship with a nonexistent woman.[4]”
For more details, scroll down to the section “Girlfriend hoax” at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manti_Te%27o
-- Manti never actually met his “girlfriend” in person, though they did speak on the phone.
-- Manti claims that what he *felt* for his “girlfriend” -- both the love for her while she was alive and the grief upon learning of her “death” -- was “real.” As he put it in an interview with Katie Couric: "What I went through was real. You know the feelings, the pain, the sorrow, that was all real and that's something that I can't fake.""
(continued...)
-- Manti continued to perpetuate the story -- of not only having had this girlfriend, but also of the grief he suffered when she “died” -- with friends, teammates and the media, even *after* he was notified that it was all a hoax! He tells Couric: “"Katie, put yourself in my situation. I, my whole world told me that she died on Sept. 12. Everybody knew that. This girl, who I committed myself to, died on Sept. 12. Now I get a phone call on Dec. 6, saying that she's alive and then I'm going be put on national TV two days later. And to ask me about the same question. You know, what would you do?"
-- Manti says he *felt* fear upon learning that his “girlfriend” hadn’t really “died” like he thought, but was actually alive, and he was at a loss on what to do. He tells Couric: ”I thought, what would everybody think? What are you going to tell everybody? At that time on Dec. 8, when I found out she was alive. I wasn’t ready for that. I didn’t know who to turn to. I was scared.”
-- Others have claimed to have actually “seen” the girlfriend. (Granted, to fool Manti, those behind the hoax *did* use an actual picture of a girl)
For more on Couric’s interview, see: http://abcnews.go.com/US/manti-teo-tells-katie-couric-hoax-emotions-real/story?id=18293500
I think the parallels to god-belief are clear enough and do not require elaboration. And there may be even more that I’ve overlooked.
Ydemoc
I recall having watched a television documentary about the origins of religion. The idea was similar to the parallel Ydemoc noted with Manti Te’o and the “girlfriend” hoax. We humans have love and feelings for each other. In the deep past many thousands of years ago the ancestors grieved for their loved ones lost and simultaneously puzzled and pondered the whys of nature. Those early people as do we today have proclivity towards presupposing purposeful consciousness exists beyond our minds, so it seemed natural and easy to imagine gods, ghosts, and spirits who exerted control over the environment. And so, superstitions and magics were born. The next step to shamanism, ritual belief, and religion was easy, and humanity lived in fear and awe of an imaginary great beyond ever after.
Ok now this is too strange to believe
http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/
This is too strange to believe
http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/
arg... Dawson I did not mean to double post, I got a error 503 the first time and assumed it did not go thru:)
The blog I linked to appears to have been up for some time but has he exact same name as a certain so and so we know, how strange
Holy shit Justin,
Looks a lot like the work of an excellent hacker, doesn't it? I mean, it has posts by Dawson ...
@Photo
holy shit indeed. Yeah I saw that he had some of Dawson's original stuff from back in 2005. What I suspect is that this guy has been a regular reader here since the start but never commented. The second that Nide, Richard or whatever deleted his old blog this guy probably starting trying to get it for the pure comic value. Eventually it was once again put back in the pool of available blog names and he snatched it up.
Ha LOL. Nide's blog name has been taken and used by an atheist hacker. Stay the frack away from http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/ cause it'll redirect to some web nasty phishing-id-theft malware sites.
There are millions of Nides out there lost in their mythos. It's interesting to me that Christians depend upon the fallacy that their arbitrary assertions are plausible because they're possible. But this ignores that the word possible means
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.
4. Of uncertain likelihood.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/possible
Since it's not possible for information to occur as other than encoding in material particles, or casualty to obtain sans existence, or consciousness to be other than awareness of objects, then the religious claim that YHWH/Jehovah existed prior to existence is an attempt to smuggle in a redefinition of the word possible as meaning anything goes.
@Robert
you got redirected, seriously, sorry about that guys. I am running linux with a very very locked down browser and so I tend to not worry about or give consideration for how dangerous the web can be for windows systems. I never saw the redirect attempt at all. They might have an OS string detector and ignore anything but windows as that is their intended target. Sorry folks.
Richard Carrier made an interesting observation among many regarding Christian epistemology.
Richard Carrier in Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? writes in rebuttal to J.P. Holding about historical standards employed by early Christians.
John uses the same vocabulary as Paul when he tells Christians to "test" prophetic spirits by seeing whether they promote or stifle love. Indeed, his test is absurdly question-begging: "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God, but is the spirit of the Antichrist" (1 John 4:1-3). As standards of inquiry go, this hits rock bottom. The only further test subsequently offered is the criterion of whether the spirit promotes love or worldly desires (1 John 4:4-5:13), since only the former comes from God. It is impossible to accept any of these tests as evidence today. Whether someone in a prophetic trance confesses Christ and advocates love has no bearing at all on whether Jesus really rose from the dead. Indeed, the mere fact that these tests were more than sufficient for Christian converts proves exactly the opposite of Holding's point: they were satisfied with far, far less than anything we would call "irrefutable" evidence.
What Paul and early Church leaders used for epistemology was faith. They sought to 'proves' the truth by appealing to the efficacy of apostolic miracle-working, to subjective revelation, to scripture, and to his upstanding behavior or 'suffering' as proof of his sincerity. Link to Carrier's article
Post a Comment