tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post5338099751930619067..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: The Futility of the Apologetic Appeal to “Revelation”Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-37912231668888523702014-11-26T19:32:57.790-05:002014-11-26T19:32:57.790-05:00I thought you might be interested in this, you'...I thought you might be interested in this, you're of course free to delete it or ignore it as you see fit:<br />Physical evidence of the Resurrection<br />www.itbn.org/index/detail/lib/Networks/sublib/TBN/ec/VqcXByMzombYzTjXF9ZBeNMYfVAIJXEd<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyiZtagxX8<br />Yeshua ha Mashiach, died on the cross for your sins as according to the Scriptures, on the 3rd day He raised again And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom are fallen asleep.After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of Paul also, as of one born out of due time. (Like when I saw Him) If you repent and trust him, you will have eternal life and reign w Him in His Kingdom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-52408846985387580942014-03-10T07:19:00.540-04:002014-03-10T07:19:00.540-04:00Peter Boghossian said well when he noted that '...Peter Boghossian said well when he noted that 'Faith is pretending to know something you really don't know.'<br /><br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian-ebook/dp/B00GBBAP9I/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394450262&sr=1-1&keywords=manual+for+creating+atheistsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-10850223741466022942014-03-09T22:33:03.707-04:002014-03-09T22:33:03.707-04:00Many apologists will openly admit that they do not...Many apologists will openly admit that they do not expect their arguments to win anyone over. They’re seeking “a change of heart,” as some call it, meaning a complete revision in one’s orientation to the world. The goal of presuppositional apologetics is to <i>dis</i>orient non-Christians so that they’ll be vulnerable to mystical suggestion. They hope to achieve this by sniffing out instances of ignorance – especially on matters that an individual takes for granted. This is why they are constantly hounding non-believers to explain how they know things, how they can “account for” things, etc., even though the bible itself nowhere addresses these same matters in an “epistemologically self-conscious” manner. (For example, where does the bible speak of logic, induction, inference, axioms, science, the uniformity of nature, values, etc.? And what about John Frame’s “We know without knowing how we know”?) This is all done under the guise of concern for “intellectual” matters, which is simply part of the pretense. They couldn’t care less – these are just opportunities in which they seek to deploy their devices.<br /><br />Of course, they’re not going to come out and admit that it’s all ultimately based in the imagination. For one, they’ve already accepted a worldview which readily blurs the imaginary with the real, so this objection is alien to their thinking – they’re so accustomed to treating what they imagine as real that they are unable to recognize the distinction between the two in any consistent manner. Second, we have to understand that the believer has made a personal commitment to his god-belief: he has invested himself emotionally and intellectually (to the degree that there’s any intellect there) in the premise that his god-belief is true. Who wants to abandon one’s own investments? It takes tremendous courage to do this, and Christianity has already seen to it that the believer has no courage to begin with. Third, there’s the element of “holy terror” involved here – a psychologically paralyzing fear that it may all be true, and if one turns his back on it, he will regret it for all eternity. This is how Christianity seeks to close the door on an individual once he’s entered the labyrinth. It’s the seal intended to keep him in. Once one accepts its irrational premises, he’s like putty, frightened out of his wits and unable to challenge those premises. So, he figures, he might as well just press on with the pretenses, even though he does not allow himself to admit that they’re merely pretenses.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-78161267892434794172014-03-09T22:32:55.267-04:002014-03-09T22:32:55.267-04:00Hi Claudio,
Good question.
Keep in mind that, al...Hi Claudio,<br /><br />Good question.<br /><br />Keep in mind that, along with the sustained insistence that an irrational position is true comes the willingness to be dishonest about the nature of that position and one’s insistence about it. The dishonesty of Christianity is a precondition of adherence. As I’ve pointed out before, when an individual sacrifices himself to a god, the first thing to go is his mind. Christian apologists sacrificed not only their minds, but their entire character (after all, how can you sacrifice the one without sacrificing the other?), long before they hit the streets to defend their god-belief. Their “reasons” for accepting their god-belief were not intellectual in nature; they were explicitly <i>anti-</i>intellectual. Probably the vast majority of them were raised in Christian households to begin with, or converted at a tender young age before knowing anything about what they were getting into. They accept it first, then later try to find reasons to justify what they’ve accepted. <br /><br />As Bahnsen puts it, “Faith is the precondition of a proper understanding” and “faith precedes knowledgeable understanding” (<i>Always Ready</i>, p. 88), which can only mean that, accordingly, one must accept “faith” <i>before</i> he understands what it is he accepting or why. But Bahnsen goes on to say that “faith requires that one be born of God” (ibid., p. 89), which is supposed to mean that the believer does nothing to initiate his acceptance of the “faith” which is “the precondition of a proper understanding.” This can only mean that belief in Christianity is not volitional on the part of the believer. But then why do apologists act like we’re doing something on purpose when we don’t accept their worldview? Again, any way you slice it, it comes up contradictions.<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91687896657329780912014-03-09T21:34:33.892-04:002014-03-09T21:34:33.892-04:00The absence of an objective method makes them free...The absence of an objective method makes them free to believe whatever they feel like. Why they just don't go and admit it? samonedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14502545219196104567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-79120941143685902912014-03-03T00:08:54.148-05:002014-03-03T00:08:54.148-05:00Hi Wak and everyone else,
I've been quite bus...Hi Wak and everyone else,<br /><br />I've been quite busy lately, but I have been doing my best to watch what's going on.<br /><br />I saw Jason Lisle's response to Robert. It's as expected. Lisle simply re-affirms that he prefers the subjective view of truth. The fact that he denies a premise which affirms the dependence of truth on facts tells us all we need to know. <br /><br />But if that's not enough, I have posted an interaction with Lisle's blog on being "epistemologically self-conscious." You can read it here:<br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2014/03/is-jason-lisle-epistemologically-self.html" rel="nofollow">Is Jason Lisle Epistemologically Self-Conscious?</a><br /><br />Hopefully you'll find it helpful.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83096396403335386062014-03-02T14:10:41.699-05:002014-03-02T14:10:41.699-05:00Dawson you also should look at Jason lisle's r...Dawson you also should look at Jason lisle's response.... you really shouldwakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-52221294138674393232014-03-02T12:12:08.997-05:002014-03-02T12:12:08.997-05:00@Robert oh my it seems Jason Lisle has responded.....@Robert oh my it seems Jason Lisle has responded.....wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-61266117826887467392014-03-01T12:29:42.606-05:002014-03-01T12:29:42.606-05:00@Robert
Unfortunately Fundamentally flawed recent...@Robert<br /><br />Unfortunately Fundamentally flawed recently podcast their last show. They are calling it quits. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89300046475662704002014-03-01T10:50:23.208-05:002014-03-01T10:50:23.208-05:00Hello Friends. I posted the following comment upon...Hello Friends. I posted the following comment upon Dr Lisle's blog. <br />***************<br />Greetings Dr. Lisle<br /><br />I request you approve my following comment for posting upon your blog without inserting any additional text. Thank you for your honesty.<br /><br />You are respectfully invited to read Mr Dawson Bethrick’s blog “Three Steps Proving that Theism Cannot Be True” located at<br /><br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-steps-proving-that-theism-cannot.html<br /><br />The readers of Mr Bethrick’s blog would be grateful if you could spare time to read Mr Bethrick’s argument and post a thoughtful reply.<br /><br />Best Wishes to You and Your Family<br /><br />Robert Bumbalough<br />*****************<br /><br />Dr Lisle is an astrophysicist who advocates young earth creationism.<br /><br />Here's the rational wiki page about him. <br /><br />http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle<br /><br />Many Thanks and Best Wishes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-43986761213181702202014-03-01T10:05:50.262-05:002014-03-01T10:05:50.262-05:00Good Morning Dawson, Waka, Ydemoc, Freddie, Justin...Good Morning Dawson, Waka, Ydemoc, Freddie, Justin, Photo, Blarkofan<br /><br />In a comment above Dawson noted how Lisle inserts softball questions into comments posted by visitors to his blog and how he ridicules responses with which he disagrees. He's really got nothing more, so I suspect, than a lengthy flame file. Like all presuppers he probalby argues his ad hoc fantasy with a liberal dose of insults and derogatory innuendo. Thus your suggestion that a response piece be defended in a forum where he does not have control has merit. Such a discussion requires much work and time and so to keep it from being too much of a burden upon anyone, it'd seem desirable to under take such an effort as a team. The Fundamentally Flawed and Beyond Facebook group is constantly working against Sye Ten Bruggencate who refuses to acknowledge his positions have been refuted. They might enjoy taking on Lisle as well. I'll post a request and links to Lisle's crap in the group. <br /><br />BTW, if you haven't yet read Dawson refutation of STB, it's lovely. Here's the link.<br /><br />http://katholon.com/Critique_of_STB_Proof.htm<br /><br />I will drop by Lisle's blog and post an invitation to discuss his views on Dawson's blog with a link to Dawson's "Three Steps Proving That Theism Can't Be True."<br /><br />Now it's time for me to go fix my bicycle. The bottom bracket came loose, so the cup and ball bearing spindle needs adjustment. I pulled the crank arms last night and found that I don't have proper wrenches for this job. Got some on order for next time, but perhaps I can do it with a large Cresent or adjustable spanner. (Sometimes it's tough being a tool-fool. I have to resist my geekish obsession with having tools until I find I need a tool I don't have. Frak.)<br /><br />Best Wishes and Have a Great Day Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89449944981440107882014-02-28T20:09:26.967-05:002014-02-28T20:09:26.967-05:00or you could first if you still are interested in ...or you could first if you still are interested in talking to Jason ask him if he wants to debate else where on a different website and do it there where its harder for him to play his mind gameswakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-13375184267136619112014-02-28T18:44:55.492-05:002014-02-28T18:44:55.492-05:00sounds interesting and good but remeber Lisle due ...sounds interesting and good but remeber Lisle due to "trolling" might not let it through, and his mocking and distraction is very subtle wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23102017569444573872014-02-28T14:40:25.394-05:002014-02-28T14:40:25.394-05:00Thank you waka.
Waka > "his MO is to con...Thank you waka. <br /><br />Waka > "his MO is to confuse, mock and make himself look smart in front of his followers."<br /><br />Elements of a game plan might include<br /><br />1. Use some time and effort dedicated to doing the home work reviewing refutations of presuppostionalism. <br /><br />http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/#presup<br /><br />2. Start with Non-Cogntivism<br /> http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/<br /><br /> A. Challenge target on starting point of cognition. What is the starting point of cognition? When target says his god, then respond with charges of ad hoc and question begging. Reiterate multiple times; ignore evasions-red herrings-digressions. <br /><br /> B. Challenge on concept formation. Where in the Bible can an epistemology or definition of concepts and description of concept formation be found? Describe objective concept formation to show "God" isn't a valid concept. Use incompatible properties argument showing "God" isn't a valid concept.<br /><br />http://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html<br /> <br />4. Challenge with Argument from Fact of Existence emphasis on Issue of Metaphysical Primacy. <br /><br /> A. Support 1st Axiom, Existence Exists with description of its obvious truth and validity via subject-object relationship.<br /><br /> B. Support 1st Axiom, Existence Exists, with charge target is begging the question regarding the diaphanous model of consciousness as per David Kelly in Evidence of the Senses Chapter One.<br /><br />5. Materialist apologetics.<br /><br />http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/materialist_apologetics/<br /><br />http://robertbumbalough.blogspot.com/2008/08/logic-arises-from-material-existence.html<br /><br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/07/proof-that-christian-god-does-not-exist.html<br /><br />6. Have stock replies ready as text files to cut and paste immediately.<br /><br />That might be a rough outline of a game plan. What do you think? As for the mocking, that is inappropriate. If it continues, the discussion cannot. Rational people have no use for such. Lisle and his groupies can busy themselves licking each others rectums. <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40302964088560347072014-02-28T12:40:11.503-05:002014-02-28T12:40:11.503-05:00for example just check out the link to an amazon r...for example just check out the link to an amazon review of his book i found, there are plenty of examples of this sophistry i had mentioned when Lisle "rebuts" a critic of his bookwakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-6027527250257498962014-02-28T12:24:54.546-05:002014-02-28T12:24:54.546-05:00his MO is to confuse, mock and make himself look ...his MO is to confuse, mock and make himself look smart in front of his followers. He will ask you for an account of the absolute unchanging laws of logic and claim that only Christianity provides objective morals and then say no other worldview but his own can solve the problem of induction . (which of course its all impossible for him to prove anyways, but he disguses it in lots of sophstry) wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34638945332670560422014-02-28T10:13:52.083-05:002014-02-28T10:13:52.083-05:00Hello Waka. Please fill me in. What would be a goo...Hello Waka. Please fill me in. What would be a good strategy with which to engage Lisle? What's this guy's M.O.? I'm willing to work in a team effort to present the Objectivist naturalism case that concludes with strong atheism. In order to be effective I or we would need to have a game plan. What would be the starting point? What would we specify as our first set of plays or arguments?<br /><br />Best Good Happy :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7895319142342954462014-02-27T14:16:00.010-05:002014-02-27T14:16:00.010-05:00oh and one last update it seems Lisle reopened his...oh and one last update it seems Lisle reopened his blog today, i dunno if any one of you guys care or not, but just to let you guys knowwakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-17532566359178773352014-02-26T11:37:00.458-05:002014-02-26T11:37:00.458-05:00waka said > " it took me awhile to appreci...waka said > " it took me awhile to appreciate how really clever your arguments are Dawson, you too photosynthesis!"<br /><br />Oh yeah. primacy of existence argument can't be refuted. It drives theists nuts and makes lurkers think. Antics of apologists make for jolly good sport and offer rich veins from which to mine rational philosophical commentary. Especially they try to drive a wedge between epistemic and physical probabilities. This offers opportunity to defend the evidence of the senses and induction. The apologists attack response then tears down their reliance upon ancient reports of sensory experience of miracle events. In turn offering an educational opportunity to lurkers who learn how they can't have their cake and eat it too and that wishing doesn't make it so.<br /><br />Best and Good<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76433362693547265422014-02-26T01:42:37.988-05:002014-02-26T01:42:37.988-05:00anyways i am reading through dawsons blogs and re ...anyways i am reading through dawsons blogs and re read photosynthesis posts on lisle's website and i think its finally starting to sink into my head! it took me awhile to appreciate how really clever your arguments are Dawson, you too photosynthesis!wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40916453810342156272014-02-24T00:20:16.302-05:002014-02-24T00:20:16.302-05:00well you should read the comments on that amazon r...well you should read the comments on that amazon review of lisle's book I found its quite funny actually and the rebuttals given to lisle are pretty good, join n if you dare/want to though photosythsiswakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2706197882180841482014-02-23T22:02:02.371-05:002014-02-23T22:02:02.371-05:00wakawaka,
I don't really know. Lisle has a li...wakawaka,<br /><br />I don't really know. Lisle has a limited set of answers. If he inserts "answers" into my comments, then they might be the very same things I already refuted. He might try and isolate each of my sentences to distract from the whole, and put mockery and hasty generalizations having nothing to do with my comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60324431125908555362014-02-23T20:35:46.240-05:002014-02-23T20:35:46.240-05:00Hello everyone. I just posted a defence of my reje...Hello everyone. I just posted a defence of my rejection of the infinite relying heavily on objectivist and Aristotelean logic. You can read it here<br /><br />http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2014/02/infinity.htmlJustin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54839004274131528162014-02-23T17:02:24.957-05:002014-02-23T17:02:24.957-05:00so photosynthesis,what do you think Lisle will try...so photosynthesis,what do you think Lisle will try and say when he tries to splice his inane comments in your responses? (its probably gonna happen)wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47236035092166619732014-02-23T08:21:03.394-05:002014-02-23T08:21:03.394-05:00Faith Is A Slippery Pig with Peter Boghossian
ht...Faith Is A Slippery Pig with Peter Boghossian <br /><br />https://soundcloud.com/cherryteresa/faith-is-a-slippery-pig<br /><br />This is good stuff. Boghossian is probably some sort of Kantian representaionalist, but that's ok. He's on the side of reason and rationality. He says "Faith is pretending to know something you don't really know." - Spot On!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.com