It has been an entire year now since I posted my critique of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s argument for the existence of the Christian god.
And Sye has yet to interact with my criticisms.
Before posting this blog entry, I visited Sye’s website and clicked through the steps of the argument for the existence of the Christian god which he presents there. I do not see that Sye has modified his case in any way since I posted my critique of his argument. For instance, his Step Five still has his visitors choose between the following alternatives:
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science, and Absolute Morality are Immaterial
and
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science, and Absolute Morality are Material
Also, the “proof” that Sye showcases on his website is still what it was when I published my critique:
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
This of course still seems as unhelpful to establishing the existence of the Christian god today as it did a year ago when I presented my critique. As I pointed out in my critique, this statement “seems merely to be the opinion of someone who already believes the claim that said god exists in the first place.” I see nothing in Sye’s case as it appears today to suggest that my assessment is in any way incorrect. Indeed, as I had pointed out, I see no reason why the ardent Blarko-believer couldn’t use essentially the same “reasoning” on behalf of his mystical affirmations, such that he might say
The Proof that Blarko exists is that without Blarko, you couldn’t prove anything.
I find it quite dubious indeed to suppose that a thoughtful person would really think that such statements would be at all persuasive.
But they apparently make for great show-stoppers in public debates. And I suppose this is what accounts for the staying power of this kind of sloganeering that is so characteristic of the presuppositionalist methodology.
But seriously, I see no reason why someone who believes in some non-Christian form of mysticism could not adapt essentially the same logical format that Sye uses to validate his god-belief, to validating an alternative set of religious beliefs. And nothing in Sye’s presentation of his “argument” preempts such assimilation by non-Christian mystics. So it defies the serious intellect to suppose that such a debating strategy can actually have any rational value.
Now it’s not like Sye has dropped off the face of the earth. On the contrary, he seems to be the talk of the town, at least in presuppositionalist circles. His big thing is the show debate, where he can verbally spar with non-believers and ply his arsenal of gimmicks and deploy the usual slogans. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Sye’s ambition is to become the modern-day William Lane Craig of presuppositionalist apologetics, though without the weighty wall decorations from academic institutions. If so, I’d say it’s not a very lofty aspiration, since the gaping void is aching for someone to fill it.
by Dawson Bethrick
But they apparently make for great show-stoppers in public debates. And I suppose this is what accounts for the staying power of this kind of sloganeering that is so characteristic of the presuppositionalist methodology.
But seriously, I see no reason why someone who believes in some non-Christian form of mysticism could not adapt essentially the same logical format that Sye uses to validate his god-belief, to validating an alternative set of religious beliefs. And nothing in Sye’s presentation of his “argument” preempts such assimilation by non-Christian mystics. So it defies the serious intellect to suppose that such a debating strategy can actually have any rational value.
Now it’s not like Sye has dropped off the face of the earth. On the contrary, he seems to be the talk of the town, at least in presuppositionalist circles. His big thing is the show debate, where he can verbally spar with non-believers and ply his arsenal of gimmicks and deploy the usual slogans. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Sye’s ambition is to become the modern-day William Lane Craig of presuppositionalist apologetics, though without the weighty wall decorations from academic institutions. If so, I’d say it’s not a very lofty aspiration, since the gaping void is aching for someone to fill it.
by Dawson Bethrick
325 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 325 of 325If the time and space has always existed then why does the bible say the opposite if Moses' thinking was reliable then why don't you rely on it?
because a valid arguement is not nessisarly a sound arguement.
Justin,
Your caught in a most vicious circle.
I don't see any reason to continue this conversation with you.
I proved my point.
Acts 17: "30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
Nide: “Your caught in a most vicious circle. I don't see any reason to continue this conversation with you. I proved my point.”
Nide, in order to make these statements, you had to assume that your consciousness is valid. But how did you validate your consciousness? If you claim that your consciousness is validated by your god, you would be begging the question, for you must employ your consciousness – and thus assume its validity (the very point in question) – in order to make such statements, whether those statements are true or not. So on what basis do you assume the validity of your own consciousness? How do you avoid the very vicious circle that you say Justin has been caught in?
Objectivism has a solution to this. But you don’t want to understand Objectivism. You only want to attack it. So I don’t know what the point would be in trying to educate you on the matter. All we need to do is point out that you’re caught in the very problem – with no solution native to Christianity whatsoever – that you say everyone else faces. Meanwhile Objectivism avoids it.
So again, Nide, on what basis do you assume the validity of your own consciousness?
Without Objectivism, you're stuck.
Regards,
Dawson
Mr. B,
I know a great a psychiatrist that can help you.
Let me know if you want the info I will email it to you.
Nide,
You're evading the issue, as I would expect if you had no answer to my query.
One more time: how do you validate your consciousness without using it?
Your answer?
Regards,
Dawson
After 200 comments you suddenly jump in.
If any body was evasive it was your followers
I asked hundreds of questions that still remain unanswered
maybe you can answer it for them since all they do is regurgitate your writings anyway.
I live by faith the same exact way you do. You won't admit but you affirm it by the way you live.
I don't need to validate my mind I was created in God's image. To be created in his image means I have emotions and intellect and a will. It's a given. I am self
aware because God is self aware.
have a great day
Hezekiah "It's a given....."
like our axioms
existence
consciousness
identity
It appears that the heart of your apologetic is asking us to provide justification of these thru argument while at the same time reserving for yourself your own set of far more conceptually complex givens, that is a case of special pleading. You want a justification for our use of our minds, that is answered by the axiom consciousness. You want an answer for where the universe came from, that is the axiom of existence. You want an accounting for the order of the universe, that is the axiom of identity. In our paradigm the questions simply have no merit. You want them, you can have them, and answer them anyway you want, I for one am just not interested in the answers. I think you have made the correct decision, to stop this discussion, tho I hope there are other topics we could discuss. There really cant be much dialog between two people on a given question unless both are actually asking the question, so ok Hezekiah lets drop it.
one more thing I agree with you on
"I don't need to validate my mind"
that is right you don't have to and you don't need god to say this as well. All you need to do is recognize that consciousness is an axiom.
Nide: “I asked hundreds of questions that still remain unanswered”
Many questions have been posed to you, Nide, and you have evaded them in most blatant and shameful manner. It is you who claims to be coming to us from the perspective of a worldview founded on an omniscient and infallible mind. And yet, just like Sye, you never try to educate and enlarge our knowledge. On the contrary, you simply denigrate and condemn. What you condemn is man’s mind, beginning with your own.
Nide: “maybe you can answer it for them since all they do is regurgitate your writings anyway.”
If you use your mind in an adult manner, I’m confident that you will find that I have addressed your questions already in my writings.
Nide: “I live by faith the same exact way you do.”
No, I do not live like you do. I do not willfully ignore the vast distinction between imagination and reality. This is your territory, not mine.
Nide: “You won't admit but you affirm it by the way you live.”
You’ve been called repeatedly to produce an argument for such claims. And yet you never do.
Nide: “I don't need to validate my mind I was created in God's image.”
But wait a minute, Nide. Go back and check the record.
When Justin stated "At base I have to assume my mind works and that my senses are valid, but then again so do you"
You responded:
Yea, but I can give you a reason for it and that's something the atheist can't do.
Now when you’re challenged on it, and faced with your own inescapable circularity, you simply announce that you “don’t need to validate [your] mind.” And yet you expect others to do so, and taunt them if they don’t appeal to your god in doing so.
Just by stating “I was created in God’s image,” you’re assuming the validity of your mind – the very point that you’ve been called to substantiate.
Nide: “To be created in his image means I have emotions and intellect and a will. It's a given. I am self
aware because God is self aware.”
Again, you’re simply assuming what you’ve been called to validate.
No wonder you want to leave the room now. Notice that Sye did the same thing when he was challenged on a few points. Just paper bags filled with refuse.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson your an impossible "little" man you have pressed me beyond my limits. I'm not even sure if I want to post in your blog any longer. I will have to wait and see after I get over this.
Justin,
Time, space and self-awareness are not axioms they have an origin and explanation and can be "proven". The problem is your unwilling to accept them.
Like I said yesterday Rand, to avoid the "God Problem" takes these things for granted. Which is interesting because it contradicts her philosophy. Taking something for granted assumes faith which she precludes in her thinking.
Your programmer analogy is a really bad one.
The only reason that I could correct my buddy's code is because there is a standard that I can look at. There are rules that I must follow in order to get my program running.
Trust me I am a computer science major I have written many programs and without those rules I would never get anywhere or be able to correct my classmates program.
There is an absolute way of thinking correctly. The rules are found in the laws of logic. Since people don't think logically all the time we know that Logic does not originate in the
human brain.
Nide: “Dawson… you have pressed me beyond my limits.”
It was not difficult, Nide. I simply asked you how you could validate your consciousness without assuming what you were called to validate in the first place. You taunted Justin to do essentially the same thing. But when the target was trained on you, you hit a wall while Justin kept his cool and tried patiently to explain something to you that you clearly do not understand.
And still you do not try to meet my challenge. You won’t be able to without borrowing from Objectivism (which would constitute an abandonment of Christianity).
Nide: “I'm not even sure if I want to post in your blog any longer.”
You won’t be missed.
Nide: “I will have to wait and see after I get over this.”
My suggestion is that you grow up: stop allowing yourself to be pushed and pulled by the winds of your emotions, make peace with the fact that you still have much to learn, and make a determination to interact with others in a civil manner, even if you disagree sharply with something they affirm.
You like to dish it out, but you simply can’t take it. If you get over anything, get over this despicable habit of yours.
I'm going to listen to some Queen now - circa 1980. It's very fitting for the occasion. Figure it out.
Regards,
Dawson
Justin,
If I may jump in here and offer another "regurgitation" for silly believers. This is from the writings of Anton Thorn as he interacts with Bahnsen's assertion that reality has an "origin."
(http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/bahnsen_dialogue.htm):
Bahnsen: "Created reality is revelational of the living and true God, and thus scientists deal with that which inescapably communicates God (Psalm 19:1-3)." [76]
Thorn: "Ah, so, you think reality is "created"? This suggests that you think that whatever is real is created. That would mean that whatever created what is real must be something other than real. I take it that this is where you get the idea of "forces outide the scope of man's experience or outside the universe." That's going to put you in a bind if you want to say that god is real, since the universe is the sum total of all that exists. I'm still wondering, by what means would one acquire awareness of what you call "forces... outside the universe" and how does all this qualify as knowledge of reality, Dr. Bahnsen?"
Bahnsen: "How do we know this worldview? We don't build it up block by block by block, piece by piece by piece, evidence by evidence by evidence. We know this worldview because it's been delivered to us in the pages of Scripture." [77]
Thorn: "I see, then it is clear: you do not establish any of the Bible's claims by offering evidence to secure them. This means that your earlier talk about evidence was in vain, since in the final analysis evidence plays no role in grounding the foundations of your worldview. You're not integrating facts that you discover firsthand in reality and forming rudimentary principles on this basis. Instead, you start with consciousness with nothing to be conscious of, a vacant, empty consciousness which creates its own objects and thus invents knowledge according to no objective standard whatsoever. You simply swallow the whole Bible in one gulp, and claim it is all true on no basis at all. Apparently it's true because you want it to be true, is that right, Dr. Bahnsen?"
Bahnsen: (silence)
Thorn: "This does not qualify as knowledge of reality, Dr. Bahnsen. It is a massive confusion on your part. In the end, all you have is a vain appeal to empty authority."
Bahnsen: "A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality." [83]
Thorn: "Yes, see, that's a very telling notion - this idea that reality has an "origin." I don't think this is a coherent idea. I don't know what exactly your conception of reality would be if you were to identify it explicitly. Reality is the beginning and the end. But it's clear from what you said earlier - "created reality" - and from the notion you offer here, that reality in your view has an "origin" - that it is contrary to my view on the matter. As I mentioned earlier in regard to the idea that reality is "created," I think such an idea could only mean that its creator is something other than real. The same is the case with the notion that reality has an origin. If you want to say that reality has an "origin," how could you say that it originates from something real? I'm not buying it, Dr. Bahnsen. Watch the infinite regress."
Ydemoc
You always put a smile on my face your tone is hilarious.
It's interesting that you decided not to interact with any of my points. I wonder why?
I took an intro class on philosophy don't remember Rand's
name ever coming up. I guess shes not that important.
I understand of course. When you write a book and ask your readers to take their senses for granted. I would see why no one would take your work seriously.
Rand thinks she can redefine any word she wants and assume her position is valid without question.
Here Is the critique of her book:
http://www.epinions.com/review/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_by_Ayn_Rand/book-review-30E2-EB75595-398D1CBA-prod1
You can try to refute it but I highly doubt you will be able to.
Hezekiah said...
Time, space and self-awareness are not axioms they have an origin and explanation and can be "proven". The problem is your unwilling to accept them.
axioms come into play when one is talking of justification. If it is origin or explanation you want, well that is best left to the science of neurology. Further I said existence, not time and space. Existence as in the sum total of all that exists, not just time and space.
Hezekiah said...
Like I said yesterday Rand, to avoid the "God Problem" takes these things for granted. Which is interesting because it contradicts her philosophy. Taking something for granted assumes faith which she precludes in her thinking.
It is not so much taking for granted, as it is an explicit recognition that they are necessary and unavoidable tautologies. To "account for them would be to presuppose them already. You thus cant argue for them without begging the question.
Hezekiah said...
Your programmer analogy is a really bad one.
The only reason that I could correct my buddy's code is because there is a standard that I can look at. There are rules that I must follow in order to get my program running.
Trust me I am a computer science major I have written many programs and without those rules I would never get anywhere or be able to correct my classmates program.
I have been writing code for 27 years. I cut my teeth on Apple ][ and IBM 6000s. I learned C, C++ and Java. I later worked on Sun Microsystems spark stations. Later still from 1998 to 2002 I was a computer technician on the USS Lake Erie CG-70 where I worked on ATES the operating system for the AEGIS weapons system. One of the things I helped in the accomplishment of was in Feb 2002 the first ever interception of an ICBM with a ship launched SAM. After the service I have done technical support for Adobe, HP and Microsoft. In my spare time I put together Linux servers. So you have a degree.... nice...
Now either the code works or it does not and pointing out where it does not work does not require that my code is flawless. And for that matter if the code works but I see a way it could work better I could point that out even if I could not have written the original code. The “standard” that you refer to is reality, just as in science. If it works, it works, and if not, you're wrong until you've got something that does.
Justin,
I didn't ask for your auto-biography. You failed to see my point. If you don't know just admit it. As you can see I am picking my words carefully. I don't accept Rand's philosophy. Which you already know. So, you can try again or hold your peace.
Oh I see the point alright, You want a philosophical justification "accounting for" consciousness, existence and identity, tho you prefer different words to describe them. Forget Rand for a moment. I don't even consider myself to be an objectivist, only someone that agrees with most of what they call metaphysics and epistemology. The real question is, is there a non question begging way of approaching this, you have yet to provide it. If consciousness is not a axiom, try and justify it through argumentation without yourself using it. I think almost everyone else on the blog would appreciate the silence that would result.
Oh and I do think my reply was bombastic, but seriously don't lecture me on my field, most likely been at it longer then you have been alive.
September 02, 2011 11:28 PM
It has occurred to me that you just might be completely ignorant of the fact that concepts exist in a hierarchy. To bad really. If you did you would understand that trying to account for consciousness is like trying to pick up a chair you are sitting in.
Some earlier points you made that garner a response..
Hezekiah said....
I took an intro class on philosophy don't remember Rand's
name ever coming up. I guess shes not that important.
I understand of course. When you write a book and ask your readers to take their senses for granted. I would see why no one would take your work seriously.
I too took a few courses in the subject, in fact at one time I was going to minor in philosophy and not once was she mentioned, this was about 1990. Does not matter really however. Consider If only 5 people knew Jesus would this in your mind make his message any less true? I too find fault with some of her writings, on the subject of ethics and especially on politics.
Not sure of the point here, "for granted" Everything I learn either comes through them or is an integration of knowledge directly from them, without exception. No I don't take them for granted, they are very important to me. I take them very seriously.
Rand thinks she can redefine any word she wants and assume her position is valid without question.
Valid criticism, I have had some lengthy debates with one of my best friends on this very topic. Much confusion could have been avoided if we knew what each other meant by the same word from the outset. If you want to debate this point I will leave it to Dawson.
Justin,
I am not asking how a mind is created or even how it works or if it works.
We can sit here all day and charge each other with making fallacies. That won't get us anywhere.
To try and validate our mind with our mind would also get us know where.
My point is that we both live in the same world, we breath the same air, etc.
We live in God's world it's inescapable and ,yea, I know you don't accept that truth.
What I have shown is that the "atheist" can't live according to his world. In a sense there is no air in a "atheist" world and he must steal the air in mine to be able to continue to live.
I live by faith and so does the "atheist" he won't admit it but affirms it by the way he lives.
By faith I can take the reliability of my senses for granted. The "atheist" does also which he won't admit. The problem is the "atheist" precludes faith or at least claims he does
but contradicts himself when he takes anything for granted because it assumes faith.
Blessings
Justin,
You bring up a good point about silly believers attacking Rand for her lack of popularity in academia. An overwhelming majority of the world's population rejects and has rejected Christianity. In the last 100 years the trend has remained steady, with only 33% of people in the world calling themselves Christian (Hitler was one of them, by the way). Does the fact that 67% of the world rejects Christianity make the bible wrong? Of course not. Popularity, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with whether an idea is true or false.
The bible is wrong due to a problem much more fundamental than it's popularity. Specifically, as has been demonstrated by its adherents and its critics, the bible is false because it espouses a metaphysics that rests on pure subjectivism.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
I don't know what I would do without you.
Here we have Ydemoc failing to live in his world again. I will get to that in a second.
But first I Just wanted to thank you for confirming Jesus' words in Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Ok, so let me get to the funny part. Ydemoc has decided to appeal to statistics. Once again we have the objectivist taking a leap of faith.
Ydemoc have you seen or observed 67% of the world
rejecting Christianity?
Or are you simply taking those statistics for granted?
Guess what happened last night a magic elf ran across my room then dissaperred in a cloud of smoke I thought it was your for a minute.
Enjoy
To Silly Believers Everywhere,
If you should ever happen to see a magic elf running across your room late at night, and then watch him as he disappears into a cloud of smoke; and you think that you are alone in your imagining of such things, I urge you to open your Christian bible to Numbers 22:30, where you will find a donkey talking. This and numerous other chapters of said storybook should allow you to find comfort in the fact that others, too, have written of things that they only imagined.
Ydemoc
Justin,
It appears that silly believer failed to remember what he wrote earlier or failed to read everything I wrote. Or perhaps I'm giving silly believer too much credit for reading comprehension skills.
In any event, the main point was that the popularity (or lack of it) of an idea has no bearing on whether or not the idea is true.
Ydemoc
Just a general question: If, as believers assert, faith is the basis for relying on the senses, and ultimately for all knowledge, does God have faith?
That is actually oxymoronic: faith as a basis.
Ydemoc
Another general question: I remember the day another group of faith followers decided to fly planes into the World Trade Center.
I know this happened. This faith-motivated massacre happened.
Would someone care to tell me how faith as described by Heb 11:1 that: "Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see."-- please tell me how this is the basis for my knowledge about what happened on 9/11/2001?
Ydemoc
The concept (or anti-concept) "faith" could not even be arrived at if not for the truth of existence, consciousness, and identity.
It seems where "faithers" really trip up, though, is with the Primacy of Existence Principle and the subject-object relationship.
Lately, we've seen such stumbling in full display in comments by "faithers."
Ydemoc
To Faithers,
Does Satan have knowledge of God? If so, does this knowledge depend upon faith?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
This is getting old I know your a christian . It's ok you can come out the closet.
Faithers,
I haven't seen an answer to my question from faither. Actually, no faither has been able to answer this question, either here or elsewhere where I've posted it.
Does Satan have knowledge of God? If so, does this knowledge depend upon faith? If not, I thought all knowledge depended upon faith, according to faithers.
Furthermore, if God has knowledge, does this mean he has faith?
Ydemoc
Atheist,
I haven't seen you answer mine either.
Atheist how does it feel to be a Christian in denial?
Dear Faitheist,
Do animals have faith? Please explain your answer.
Does Satan have faith? Please explain your answer.
There are several curious fence sitters -- lost souls if you will -- who are probably lurking on this blog, reading the answers you give. This is a great opportunity for you to preach to them, to sway them, to give them a helping hand out from the swamp of denial they are drowning in. You, Faitheist, could be key that opens the door to God working on their hearts. The testimony you give may be the difference between them going to heaven or hell.
If saving these souls is important to you (and why wouldn't it be?) why not answer the questions the best you can?
Be careful though, because, as an instrument of God, the answers you give may not have the effect you hope for. God may decide that the answers you give -- or not give, for that matter -- may be insufficient to prevent a fence-sitter from his or her hell-bound destiny.
And I guess you won't know the fate of these folks until judgment day (unless, of course, they decide to contact you and inform you), you won't know if the answers you give have opened the door for God's grace to work on the hearts of any fence sitters who may be reading this blog. But try not to fret to much about that right now. Just give it your best shot.
By the way, will you learn anything in heaven? Is there logic in heaven? Will faith continue there as it has in this life? Does God have faith? Please explain your answers.
Ydemoc
Dear "atheist",
You seem to know a lot about God are you an angel sent to test me?
There is no salvation plan for animals they don't need faith.
There is no salvation plan for Satan he doesn't need faith.
God doesn't need faith he's not a sinner.
The bible never mentions the saved becoming omniscient.
Logic is a reflection of God's character or thinking.
Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Paul talks about the save being eternally with God
In the new heavens and earth the saved will see Gof they don't need faith.
Love in Christ.
Gof. I mean God
Nide: “You seem to know a lot about God are you an angel sent to test me?”
Perhaps Ydemoc is your god in internet form trying to test you. How would you know otherwise?
Nide: “There is no salvation plan for animals they don't need faith. There is no salvation plan for Satan he doesn't need faith.”
Ydemoc asked if animals and Satan *have* faith, not whether or not they *need* faith.
How do you know there’s no salvation plan for animals or Satan? Really, how would you know this?
Nide: “God doesn't need faith he's not a sinner.”
So you worship a faithless god. Do you also worship a brainless god?
Nide: “Logic is a reflection of God's character or thinking.”
I can *imagine* this, and in fact I have no alternative to imagining it. What reasons can you offer for supposing this is true?
It can’t be the Christian god you’re talking about, because its nature is inherently self-contradictory. I pointed this out before. The Christian god is supposed to be a trinity, and no one’s been able to explain this without leaving the idea in a hopelessly “apparently self-contradictory” state. Also, the second member of the trinity – Christ – is also a jumble of contradictions, as I’ve shown here, here and here.
So there are some desperate problems here, and they won’t disappear as a result of uttering a few slogans or attacking non-believers personally.
Nide, quoting Heb. 11:1, wrote: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
What is “the assurance of things hoped for”? This is most puzzling, if not self-booby-trapped idea. One can hope for all kinds of things, but the things one hopes for are not yet realized, and may never come to pass. So it makes no sense that the things hoped for constitute or offer some kind of assurance. I can hope for a million dollars when I play Lotto. What assurance is there that I’ll win? If faith is a form of assurance grounded in hope, I’d say it’s a very poor bet.
As for “conviction of things not seen,” this is simply too open-ended for its own good. There are many things that are not seen, but what conviction do they give a man? For instance, I don’t see any cows that might be roaming the rolling hills of western Iowa. Those cows for me are not seen; I’m in Bangkok, I can’t see them. But what conviction do they offer me? And suppose someone sets up a webcam so that I am able to see them – would any supposed conviction that they gave me when they were not seen, suddenly vanish?
I can imagine Blarko the WonderBeing cheerfully cruising through the universe. But I cannot see Blarko, I can only imagine Blarko. So Blarko is not seen for me. How does this constitute conviction?
Regards,
Dawson
Dear Faitheist,
Faitheist wrote: "You seem to know a lot about God are you an angel sent to test me?"
Since angels do not exist, the answer is no. I am merely asking you this questions so that you will have the opportunity to provide the best answers you can to any fence sitters who may be reading. Let's see if your answers make sense, or shall I say "make faith"?
Faitheist wrote: "There is no salvation plan for animals they don't need faith."
There are some of your fellow Christians that would disagree with you on this. They have said that animals like dogs, cats, lambs, horses will be with humans in heaven. How do you explain these different views between believers if the Holy Spirit is guiding their every thought?
In any event, how is it that animals are able to navigate through life without faith, which you consider to be so important to sense perception, which higher animals have?
Faitheist wrote: "There is no salvation plan for Satan he doesn't need faith."
But doesn't Satan have knowledge? How did he acquire this knowledge without the faith that you say is so crucial to having knowledge?
Also, according to Calvinists, there is no salvation plan for many, many humans. They are predestined for an eternity in hell. Only the elect are saved and this was set before they were born. (I guess from a Calvinist perspective, this would make sense, for if God created everything, then that means he created hell -- I mean, he didn't create hell for it to be empty, did he? That would be quite a waste, but not the only time.) Yet you claim that all humans -- believers and non-believers -- use faith. Your faith assertion as a basis for human knowledge seems inconsistent, given your standard being a "plan for salvation."
(continued)
Faitheist wrote: "God doesn't need faith he's not a sinner."
But I thought you said that to have knowledge of anything requires faith?
Whether God is a sinner or not, I don't know how it is that *you* can decide what God "needs." It seems you are treading on very dangerous ground here, by delimiting the attributes of God and announcing what he needs. (Perhaps this is how the bible actually came to be? Man made God in his image, with exagerrated attributes thrown in?)
Be that as it may, if God doesn't need faith, what does God need? What is it that he lacks?
Fatheist wrote: "The bible never mentions the saved becoming omniscient."
I didn't ask you if the bible spoke of you being omniscient.
But basically, you don't really know if there will be the things I asked about in heaven, do you? You only know what the bible tells you about heaven, don't you? Yet this doesn't stop you from talking about and asserting all kinds of things that aren't mentioned in the bible: logic, morality, sense perception, Objectivism.
Faitheist wrote: "Logic is a reflection of God's character or thinking."
You almost seem to be saying nothing here. Couldn't it be said that everything is a reflection of God's character or thinking? Including such things as rape, murder, suicide, hell, the growth of Islam? Didn't he create and doesn't he control every fact and everything that comes to pass?
Faitheist wrote: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Yes, this is what we read in the bible. But would you mind connecting the dots for me, and tell me how this comes anywhere near being a basis for such things as: Laws of Logic, Reason, Sense Perception, the Law of Supply and Demand, The Law of Unintended Consequences, The Laws of Thermodynamics, The Law of Gravity. While you're at it, would you please direct me to a biblical chapter and verse where a theory of concepts is presented.
Faitheist wrote: "Paul talks about the save being eternally with God
In the new heavens and earth the saved will see Gof they don't need faith."
So actually perceiving things means that faith can be disposed of and not relied upon for knowledge. You do realize that this is very close to what Objectivism teaches, don't you?
That's quite an admission, and quite a slam against faith. It is so important that it won't be needed anymore.
Finally, if by chance your answers here happen to have what you consider to be a positive effect on any fence sitters, and you happen to meet these converted in your place of worship or elsewhere, would you greet these brethren with a kiss as you do with those you currently share fellowship with? (Assuming that's what you do already. Maybe you consider this a silly question, I don't know.)
Ydemoc
Dawson,
You wrote to Faitheist: "So you worship a faithless god. Do you also worship a brainless god?"
This cracked me up so much that I had interrupt my reading of what you wrote so I could tell you.
Ydemoc
Perhaps Ydemoc is your god in internet form trying to test you. How would you know otherwise?
Let the "atheist" answer then we can deal with the rest.
Ydemoc asked if animals and Satan *have* faith, not whether or not they *need* faith.
Why would Satan have faith he has direct access to God
Read the book of Job. Well, in Revelation we "see" Satan and his cronies getting tossed into the lake of fire.
There is no mention of a plan of salvation for animals.
So you worship a faithless god. Do you also worship a brainless god?
Actually, your wrong again God is faith. He's a faithful God.
He can't lie or deny himself. The funny thing is, and actually quite scary, and I am glad that he hasn't done what he should, how you think having a sharp tongue is cool or something. You keep taunting and challenging him. Like you really know something.
I can *imagine* this, and in fact I have no alternative to imagining it. What reasons can you offer for supposing this is true?
Well, you continually claim how irrational Christians are which assumes there is a standard of correcting thinking.
If everyone's senses are realiable on what basis then can you label my thinking as irrational? We will get to the "proof" later.
Can you define Blarko?
On what basis would you label anything as contradictory
In light of the axiom?
I wrote: “Perhaps Ydemoc is your god in internet form trying to test you. How would you know otherwise?”
Nide: “Let the ‘atheist’ answer then we can deal with the rest.”
From my position, that’s easy: gods are imaginary.
Now I’ve answered the question. How do you answer it?
I wrote: “Ydemoc asked if animals and Satan *have* faith, not whether or not they *need* faith.”
Nide: “Why would Satan have faith he has direct access to God”
You’ve been intimating all along that faith is some kind of indispensable precondition for knowledge. If Satan has knowledge, then why wouldn’t Satan also have faith? As Ydemoc pointed out, your position regarding faith and its relationship to knowledge seems quite inconsistent. It seems that you haven’t given the matter much thought at all.
Also, are you saying that you don’t have direct access to your god? That would be quite an admission. Most believers tell me that they have a “relationship” with their god. How does one have a relationship with someone to whom he has no direct access?
In an earlier comment, you stated “faith and reason can’t be separated.” (See your comment dated August 29, 2011 12:01 PM.) It would be quite a feat of incredibility for you to say that Satan, according to Christianity, does not reason.
Nide: “Well, in Revelation we ‘see’ Satan and his cronies getting tossed into the lake of fire.
Are you saying then, that once someone is tossed into the lake of fire, there’s no possible way for your god to save that person? Is your god really that limited in what it can do?
Nide: “There is no mention of a plan of salvation for animals.”
So, from the lack of a mention of a salvation plan for animals, you infer as a truth that there is therefore no salvation plan for animals? Do you form a lot of conclusions from ignorance in this manner?
I asked: “So you worship a faithless god. Do you also worship a brainless god?”
Nide: “Actually, your wrong again God is faith. He's a faithful God.”
Oh, so now “God *is* faith”? Your god is the “assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”? I don’t recall ever seeing this equation in the Christian bible. At any rate, see my earlier comments about how unreliable faith so defined really is.
It seems that you just want to disagree with me for the sake of not agreeing with something I say.
The kind of faith that the Christian bible requires of believers is the kind of faith which Abraham acted on when he unflinchingly obeyed his god’s commandment to prepare his son as a sacrifice. The lesson of Genesis 22 is that faith is essentially the willingness to destroy values on command.
Now it’s not clear from your comments, so I’ll ask again: Would you agree that your god is brainless? I see that you did not address this question.
[Continued…]
Nide: “He can't lie or deny himself.”
This can only mean it could not be a moral action on your god’s part when it tells a truth, since it has no choice in the matter. Where there’s no choice, no morality is possible.
I asked: “I can *imagine* this, and in fact I have no alternative to imagining it. What reasons can you offer for supposing this is true?”
Nide: “Well, you continually claim how irrational Christians are which assumes there is a standard of correcting thinking.”
Indeed, there is such a standard. It’s called the primacy of existence. It’s utterly incompatible with theism.
Nide: “If everyone's senses are realiable on what basis then can you label my thinking as irrational?”
One’s senses and one’s thinking are two different things. Sense perception is non-volitional; if it were volitional, there’d be no need for such things as painkillers. But thinking is volitional – we choose to think (or in your case, not to think), and we choose what to think about. Also, we’re neither infallible nor omniscient. So we need to conform our thinking to a standard – namely the primacy of existence – which is something we must choose to do. Many make the choice to ignore the primacy of existence. The result is irrationality. Christianity for example.
Nide: “We will get to the ‘proof’ later.”
How much longer do we need to wait? And why?
Nide: “Can you define Blarko?”
Definitions are an attribute of concepts. Blarko is not a concept.
Nide: “On what basis would you label anything as contradictory In light of the axiom?”
On the basis that it denies the law of identity.
Regards,
Dawson
Faitheist,
Faitheist wrote: "Perhaps Ydemoc is your god in internet form trying to test you. How would you know otherwise?"
It isn't through faith that anyone knows. There is no "middle-man" between man and reality.
Faitheist wrote: "Let the "atheist" answer then we can deal with the rest."
The atheist has answered, many, many times. Faitheist, you should again bear in mind any fence sitters who may be reading your words. Your words may be the key to opening hearts, allowing God's grace to fill them. According to your book, you will have to answer for your answers on judgment day. Are you doing the best you can with these types of answers? Is the Holy Spirit guiding you to give these answers?
Faitheist wrote: "Ydemoc asked if animals and Satan *have* faith, not whether or not they *need* faith. Why would Satan have faith he has direct access to God."
Right! You are actually admitting that faith is not needed when one has direct access to reality. As human beings we have direct access to reality. (Please try not to twist my point around to say that I am saying your God is real. *You* are the one who makes this claim. I am merely showing how, even in your own worldview, you have admitted that faith isn't necessary when one had direct access to reality.)
Faitheist wrote: "Read the book of Job. Well, in Revelation we "see" Satan and his cronies getting tossed into the lake of fire."
Ah, yes. The threat of eternal damnation, to win hearts and keep the faithful in line. That should scare the dickens out of any fence-sitters -- unless of course they happen to recognize a folk tale when the read one.
Faitheist wrote: "There is no mention of a plan of salvation for animals."
So animals, other than humans, can't sin? Is that what you're telling us? Careful here.
Also, I asked this question because you said faith was necessary for the senses being reliable. If animals don't have faith, yet they are able to navigate there way throughout their respective environments, how are they able to do this without faith? Please explain.
(continued)
Dawson wrote: "So you worship a faithless god. Do you also worship a brainless god?"
This still cracks me up.
Faitheist responded: 'Actually, your wrong again God is faith. He's a faithful God."
I think many, many comments ago you wrote that God is love, did you not? Now God is faith? He's a faithful God? Leaving your confusing answer aside for a moment, I'll assume you mean that God will not break a promise. Could you please tell this to the Jewish people, who have been persecuted for thousands of years because God decided to change things up a bit with the New Testament. Also explain how in the Old Testament God says "There is none beside me"; yet in the New Testament we have "Threes Company."
Faitheist wrote: He (God) can't lie or deny himself.
Yes, we read this oft trotted out slogan in the New Testament. Too bad in the Old Testament God sends out lying spirits. And being the originator of *everything* he would actually be the one who came up with the very idea and practice of lying, would he not?
Faitheist wrote: "The funny thing is, and actually quite scary, and I am glad that he hasn't done what he should, how you think having a sharp tongue is cool or something. You keep taunting and challenging him. Like you really know something."
Ah, a veiled threat and an appeal to force, which is where faith always ends up.
One cannot challenge or taunt that which does not exist. You, however, do exist. So any taunting and challenging is really directed at you and these ideas you hold; and any taunting by me originated in response to your initial and continued ridicule and name calling.
But as a guardian of the imaginary, you are really not up to the challenge of defending your beliefs. But don't feel too bad -- no one is up to the challenge of defending the imaginary, particularly when your foe is reality, for reality always prevails. It's like watching the Harlem Globetrotters versus the Washington Generals.
I believe your storybook also instructs you to not be prideful and boasting about your belief, does it not? It also tells you to go into a closet and pray. Earlier you said I should come out of the closet; perhaps you should enter one.
Also, would you mind answering my question about kissing your fellow Christians?
Ydemoc
Dawson,
I accidentally attributed to Faitheist what was actually your quote: "Perhaps Ydemoc is your god in internet form trying to test you. How would you know otherwise?"
This happened a couple posts back and I just wanted to correct this.
If Faitheist would be so kind as to properly cite the names of people alongside their respective quotes, this kind of thing wouldn't happen as much.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc wrote: "I accidentally attributed to Faitheist what was actually your quote:"
No problem. Easy mistake to make, especially when you're interacting with a guardian of the imaginary (I love that one!).
But don't let it happen again!!
Okay, just kidding!
By the way, what happened to Sye? He was on a roll with all his playground insults. I wonder what could have called him away. He apparently isn't as firm in the faith as Nide is.
Regards,
Dawson
(The following comment is an edited version of the one I just deleted. It was edited for clarity)
Dawson,
I had written to you: "I accidentally attributed to Faitheist what was actually your quote:"
You write: "No problem. Easy mistake to make, especially when you're interacting with a guardian of the imaginary (I love that one!). But don't let it happen again!! Okay, just kidding!'
Thanks for letting me off the hook with some levity.
As far as the "guardian of the imaginary," I give partial credit for this to you. Before ever reading what you have written here on your blog, I had never seriously considered that what theists are actually defending is, in fact, imaginary. So due to reading your work, this phrase popped into my head one day while I was thinking about faith's defenders, and how they are guarding the non-existent.
You wrote: "By the way, what happened to Sye? He was on a roll with all his playground insults. I wonder what could have called him away. He apparently isn't as firm in the faith as Nide is."
And now even Faitheist seems to have retreated.
Ydemoc
The imaginary is what makes all knowledge possible. Logic is derived from the imaginary. I have faith in the imaginary, therefore I can account for morality and logic in my worldview.
The atheist is a detractor of truth in the imaginary and can not account for his counting without borrowing from the imaginary worldview.
You all do believe in the imaginary. It says so in the holy book of the imaginary that all men know the imaginary is real.
Yet the atheist stands on the knee of the imaginary and slaps the imaginary's face.
Imaginary Apologetic
wiping the coffee off of my monitor after reading ActionJackson's last post. Man don't make me laugh like that:)
ActionJackson,
I had to look at your name a couple times to make sure your post was you and not Faitheist just mocking himself. But then I saw that you were using complete sentences with proper punctuation and I realized it was you and not Faitheist after all.
Good stuff.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc: "But then I saw that you were using complete sentences with proper punctuation and I realized it was you and not Faitheist after all."
Yes, a dead give away for sure.
Really enjoying the fun!
Regards,
Dawson
Looks like I missed the party.
"atheist" as time allows I'll respond.
I been busy all day playing with the gremlins that live under my bed.
Dawson,
You said: "Oh, so now “God *is* faith”? Your god is the “assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”? I don’t recall ever seeing this equation in the Christian bible. At any rate, see my earlier comments about how unreliable faith so defined really is.
I'm shocked you finally got something right. Your a Christian after all. Did we really have to go through all this?
Read the psalms for more details.
Here is a sample:
Psalm 62:5 " For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him.
Love in Christ.
Faitheist wrote: "Looks like I missed the party."
If you think this is a party, you don't get out much, do you?
Let me also preempt any criticism you may level at me about my not catching your sarcasm. I caught it. By the way, does the bible speak of sarcasm? Or humor?
Have you ever tried this exercise? Start reading the bible as if every word in it is dripping with sarcasm. That might be fun!
Fatheist wrote: "'atheist' as time allows I'll respond."
You do realize that your very ability to utter such statements rests on Existence, Consciousness, and Identity, as well as the Primacy of Existence, do you not? I just thought I'd point that out to Fatheist, who subscribes to pure subjectivism.
Faitheist wrote: "I been busy all day playing with the gremlins that live under my bed."
When you subscribe to the imaginary, gremlins need not live only under your bed. If you max out your imagination (if that's possible at this point), they can also live in closets or other quiet places that Christians are instructed to go and pray in.
Faitheist wrote: "Read the psalms for more details. Here is a sample:
Psalm 62:5 " For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him."
There is no need to consult a story book to establish that reality is. You see, something (existence) would already be, even before such a book could be written. Concepts used in said storybook would have already been well established. One doesn't need a filter, a "middle-man" if you will. All one has to do is think, and you won't find that kind of guidance in a storybook.
Would you mind answering my question about kissing fellow Christians?
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
"Anton Thorn writes, in his dialogue with Bahnsen: "We could not have awareness of religious affirmations without perception. And any affirmations which attempt to discredit perception would themselves have to be acquired on the basis of perception, and thus be self-defeating."
forget it, he will never understand the stolen concept fallacy. More to the point he does not wish too. Possibly also he does not wish to confront the fact that avoiding this fallacy is important to us even if it is not to him.
Justin,
Yes, it does appear that we have in our midst someone who, again, is guided by wishing.
I too wish. I wish Faitheist would answer my question about kissing fellow Christians. I also wish that he would explain many answers he's given.
The difference is, I know wishing won't make it so.
Perhaps in my case of wishing, it could be said that I have conviction of things not seen. For I firmly believe I have not seen Faitheist respond.
His non-responses are on par with his god's existence: non-existent.
Ydemoc
Justin,
One little correction on second thought: When I wrote, "Perhaps in my case of wishing, it could be said that I have conviction of things not seen. For I firmly believe I have not seen Faitheist respond," maybe I was a little too charitable in asserting that my wishing corresponded to this biblical passage.
I do not "firmly believe" that Faitheist has not responded to my question. I know he hasn't.
Ydemoc
"Atheist",
You said"You do realize that your very ability to utter such statements rests on Existence, Consciousness, and Identity, as well as the Primacy of Existence, do you not? I just thought I'd point that out to Fatheist, who subscribes to pure subjectivism.
I said: do you realize that your very ability to utter such statements rest on faith do you not? I just thought I'd point that out to "atheist", who subscribes to a self-refuting philosophy.
You said:"Would you mind answering my question about kissing fellow Christians?
Would you mind answering my question are the writings of Plato a fairy tale?
Dear AJ,
You said: "The imaginary is what makes all knowledge possible. Logic is derived from the imaginary. I have faith in the imaginary, therefore I can account for morality and logic in my worldview.
The atheist is a detractor of truth in the imaginary and can not account for his counting without borrowing from the imaginary worldview.
You all do believe in the imaginary. It says so in the holy book of the imaginary that all men know the imaginary is real.
Yet the atheist stands on the knee of the imaginary and slaps the imaginary's face.
Imaginary Apologeticee
I said: I know you can do better than this.
Since seeing is believing for you and what ever can't be seen you claim it's imaginary. Now When asked if you have ever "seen" your brain working you kept silent. I am assuming you haven't. Does that mean your brain is imaginary?
To the Christian anonymous,
Is it rational for the objectivist to laugh uncontrollably?
Doesn't your philosophy preclude emotions?
It's interesting that you have a sense of humor because God has one also. I'm seeing a connection here.
This is another case of theft. To be able to get a good laugh you had to steal my air. Objectivist are a bunch of shameless criminals.
Faitheist,
Where did you get the concept "faith?"
How did you arrive at this concept?
Please answer my question about kissing fellow Christians. Do you or do you not kiss them when you greet them? Yes or no?
Mr. B,
You said: If Satan has knowledge, then why wouldn’t Satan also have faith?
Men need faith to reason satan is not a man. So, how does he acquire knowledge I have no Idea.
You said: "Also, are you saying that you don’t have direct access to your god? That would be quite an admission. Most believers tell me that they have a “relationship” with their god. How does one have a relationship with someone to whom he has no direct access?
That's easy by faith. It's a personal relationship that rest on faith. I have direct access to him through his word.
You said:Are you saying then, that once someone is tossed into the lake of fire, there’s no possible way for your god to save that person? Is your god really that limited in what it can do?
If God pardoned them outside his salvation plan then he would cease to be God. It's appointed once for men to die then the Judgement. Today is the day of salvation. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
You said: "So, from the lack of a mention of a salvation plan for animals, you infer as a truth that there is therefore no salvation plan for animals? Do you form a lot of conclusions from ignorance in this manner?
It's not ignorance, sir, Man sinned not an animals.
By one man, Adam, death entered into the world.
The creation was cursed that's why animals die.
To be continued
"Atheist",
Faith is a gift from god. Ephesians 2
It can't be generated in the mind.
By faith I am able to use my mind and understand these things.
Well, if you say, no, Plato's writings are not a fairy tale.
The next question would be is "How do you know?"
The objectivist would say it's an axiom. We simply accept his writings by faith. Which is something you ridicule known Christians for. See the problem here?
Enjoy
Nide: “Since seeing is believing for you”
Whom are you addressing with this characterization? Who has affirmed “seeing is believing”? If you think Objectivism teaches this, please find an Objectivist source which affirms such a view and quote it.
Nide: “and what ever can't be seen you claim it's imaginary.”
This is more mischaracterization. Where has any argument been provided which argues that something must be imaginary because it can’t be seen? Again, cite and quote the relevant sources.
Really, I’d say you need to sharpen your critical thinking skills. But you've already made this plain for all to see.
Nide: “Now When asked if you have ever ‘seen’ your brain working you kept silent.”
What do you mean, like an MRI or other kind of imaging technology?
Nide: “I am assuming you haven't. Does that mean your brain is imaginary?”
Not at all. Again, I don’t know anyone present who has argued anything to the effect that X is imaginary because X is not or cannot be seen.
What is imaginary is what one imagines. The argument that your god is imaginary is based on the fact that we have no alternative but to imagine it, plus numerous other pieces of relevant evidence which I have collected here. I’ve cited this resource for you before. It appears you’re still unfamiliar with it.
Nide: “Doesn't your philosophy preclude emotions?”
More blatant ignorance. How can any philosophy “preclude” emotions in the first place? People do not have a choice over the fact that they experience emotions. Objectivism does not advocate that one try to be emotionless. Once again, if you think Objectivism teaches this, you’ll need to cite and quote your source. If you can’t, why not admit that you’re simply going out of your way to mischaracterize your opponents’position?
Regards,
Dawson
I asked: “If Satan has knowledge, then why wouldn’t Satan also have faith?”
Nide: “Men need faith to reason satan is not a man. So, how does he acquire knowledge I have no Idea.”
So you don’t know if Satan has faith or not. You “have no idea.”
I asked: "Also, are you saying that you don’t have direct access to your god? That would be quite an admission. Most believers tell me that they have a “relationship” with their god. How does one have a relationship with someone to whom he has no direct access?”
Nide: “That's easy by faith.”
Then I was right when I argued that faith is essentially hope in the imaginary. When you say that you have a relationship with your god “by faith,” you’re really saying that you have a relationship with your god by imagining it. You’ve never been able to show otherwise, and you won’t be able to.
Nide: “It's a personal relationship that rest on faith.”
You can call it a “personal relationship” all you like. But if it’s ultimately dependent on your imagination, then it’s really nothing more than the kind of “relationship” a child has with an imaginary friend.
Nide: “I have direct access to him through his word.”
Even if we grant your premises that your god is real and that it authored the various books collected in the modern Christian bible, this is essentially no different from saying that I can have direct access to Stephen King by reading his novels. You will of course say that this is not analogous because Stephen King is a human being while you’re god is not. Never mind the early creeds which affirm that Jesus is “wholly God, wholly man,” it’s enough at this point to know that you’re simply imagining.
I asked: “Are you saying then, that once someone is tossed into the lake of fire, there’s no possible way for your god to save that person? Is your god really that limited in what it can do?”
Nide: “If God pardoned them outside his salvation plan then he would cease to be God.”
Why? Again we have more assertions without any attempt to provide any substantiation to support them.
Nide: “It's appointed once for men to die then the Judgement.”
I don’t see how this rules out commutation or exculpation.
Nide: “Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”
If your performance in these comments is any indication of what might become of one’s mental faculties when caught in Christianity’s fishing nets, that’s enough for me to want nothing to do with it. (Fence-sitters, hear ye, hear ye!)
I asked: "So, from the lack of a mention of a salvation plan for animals, you infer as a truth that there is therefore no salvation plan for animals? Do you form a lot of conclusions from ignorance in this manner?
Nide: “It's not ignorance, sir, Man sinned not an animals. By one man, Adam, death entered into the world. The creation was cursed that's why animals die.”
This only suggests, at bare minimum, the opportunity for a salvation plan for animals, since they've been cursed according to Christianity. It does not in any way seal the inference that there is no salvation plan for animals, assuming your god is real.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: “Well, if you say, no, Plato's writings are not a fairy tale.”
It’s not clear what you mean by your question as to whether or not Plato’s writings are “a fairy tale.” The writings which have been attributed to Plato do in fact exist. I have not read all of the writings which are commonly attributed to Plato, but some of what I have read of those works do in fact read like fairy tales (I remember thinking that specifically of his allegory of the cave the first time I read it - if I recall it's widely understood to be fictional). At any rate, the philosophy which is commonly associated with Plato in fact shares many characteristics with fairy tales, namely its fictive nature. At the end of the day, whether or not the writings commonly attributed to Plato really belonged to the personage typically rendered as the historical Plato, matters not to me. I do not base my life on those writings or on the assumption that Plato was a real human being.
So what’s your point?
Nide: “The next question would be is ‘How do you know?’"
That’s easy: by means of reason.
Nide: “The objectivist would say it's an axiom.”
What specifically are you saying that the Objectivist would say is an axiom? Objectivism is very specific about what qualifies as a legitimate axiom. Inferences and assessments pertaining to Plato and the writings attributed to Plato are not among them.
Nide: “We simply accept his writings by faith.”
Who’s the “we” here? Certainly not I. I’m no Platonist.
Regards,
Dawson
Faitheist,
I wrote, regarding something Faitheist wrote: "You do realize that your very ability to utter such statements rests on Existence, Consciousness, and Identity, as well as the Primacy of Existence, do you not? I just thought I'd point that out to Fatheist, who subscribes to pure subjectivism."
Faitheist responded: "do you realize that your very ability to utter such statements rest on faith do you not? I just thought I'd point that out to "atheist", who subscribes to a self-refuting philosophy."
Again, how is "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" in anyway applicable here? I do not "hope" that existence is, that consciousness is, that identity is. These things would all have to have been "established" if you will, before I could even begin to "be sure" or "Hope" or "be certain" of anything. You on the other hand seem to be saying that, through faith you have faith that faith is true. What a jumbled mess.
I wrote:"Would you mind answering my question about kissing fellow Christians?
Faitheist responded: "Would you mind answering my question are the writings of Plato a fairy tale?"
I concur with Dawson here. I would also ask you, how do you distinguish between a fairly tale and non-fiction? What is the standard you use to distinguish between myth and reality?
A couple of questions you failed to address.
Dawson has answered you. I will ask you this: If faith is a gift from God and necessary for reason and knowledge, and all men operate on faith, but some evil men deny faith, how are these evil men able to reason? How, in your worldview, would it even be possible for man to refuse this faith that you claim all men operate by?
Did Adam and Eve need faith for the knowledge they possessed prior to the fall? And make no mistake, according to the bible, they did indeed have knowledge -- had they not possessed knowledge, they would not have been able to converse or "name animals." Was their use of reason and their knowledge dependent upon faith? Or did they also not need faith, even though they had knowledge, since they could directly perceive God? Did this "free gift" of faith enter the world at the same time sin did? Are faith and sin "kissing cousins"? For that matter, is sin a "free gift" from God?
Also, can you tell me how animals navigate the world without the use of faith?
I take it from your answer to my question about kissing fellow Christians upon greeting them, that you do not do this. Am I correct in my assumption? Please let me know if you do or do not kiss your fellow Christians upon greeting them.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc: "Also, can you tell me how animals navigate the world without the use of faith?"
Good question. It seems that any time an animal is walking about the earth, it is in effect taking the reliability of its senses for granted, whether it does this knowingly or not. But earlier in the discussion Nide has clearly equated taking something for granted with faith. So again it seems we're back to the same question: do animals have faith? So far Nide's response to this question has been characteristically hollow.
As for kissing fellow Christians when he meets them, I'm wagering that Nide doesn't do this. And yet this practice is urged at least five times in the NT (Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; I Peter 5:14). Why are some passages in the NT taken so seriously and authoritatively (e.g., Romans 1:18-20), while others are given the short shrift? What justifies this apparently pick-and-choosy habit of treating "Scripture" among believers?
Regards,
Dawson
Mr. B,
You said: "Whom are you addressing with this characterization? Who has affirmed “seeing is believing”? If you think Objectivism teaches this, please find an Objectivist source which affirms such a view and quote it.
Are you saying, sir, that you believe in things you haven't seen or don't see?
I am happy to see that objectivist have emotions after all.
I remember one of your disciples ridiculing me for being emotional. I got my answer thanks.
You said" So what’s your point?
Ok, how about aristotle did he exist
are his writings a fairy tale?
Atheist,
What's your obsession with the kiss deal? Get to the point already.
You said: " You on the other hand seem to be saying that, through faith you have faith that faith is true. What a jumbled mess.
Thanks for twisting my words. It seems like any "chance" you get that's exactly what you do.
Well, I would day there is common faith and saving faith.
It's because of God that we, animals, angels, satan.
Can be self-aware and therefore use our minds.
Mr. B asked for a theistic "proof". Well, you continue to argue which assumes that nature is uniform.
axioms are a way to escape having to justify one's beliefs.
Objectivist, ultimately, don't know anything and can't prove anything. Without stealing from my world.
So, the proof of the Christian God is that without him you can't prove anything. Stands
Enjoy
Do you believe in anything invisible?
Dawson,
You wrote: "As for kissing fellow Christians when he meets them, I'm wagering that Nide doesn't do this. And yet this practice is urged at least five times in the NT (Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; I Peter 5:14). Why are some passages in the NT taken so seriously and authoritatively (e.g., Romans 1:18-20), while others are given the short shrift? What justifies this apparently pick-and-choosy habit of treating "Scripture" among believers?"
That's right. And all I want Faitheist to do is tell me if he practice what he preaches. I would guess that he probably wasn't familiar with or forgot about these passage.
And this brings up something else I just thought of while I was writing this. And that is, how could someone forget *anything* that is written in the bible? Something so crucial to the world? Something that is, for many Christians, a starting point? How can "forgetting" even apply?
From where I sit, to say that I forgot to perceive is absurd. To say that I forgot to interact with existence today is absurd.
What's interesting here, is that the bible speaks of "not having enough faith."
So, apparently, not only are our senses dependent upon faith, but faith doesn't have to completely be established for these senses to be operating reliably. For Peter had little faith and began to sink (Mathew 14:20). But his senses were operating normally prior to this incident, were they not?
But Faitheist tells us we all operate on faith, whether we know it, accept it or not. Wouldn't there have been some evidence that Peter's diminished faith caused his senses to go out of whack? After all, it was Jesus himself he had little faith! Or maybe Peter's senses did get a little screwy, since after all, he did attempt something quite absurd: Walking on water.
Yes. Faith can lead to all sorts of absurd actions.
This isn't the case with existence. There are not degrees of it.
I've also noticed that the bible is in conflict with itself where self-defense is concerned.
A Christian I know seems very offended by movies that contain obscene language or sex; yet shows no similar disdain for movies that contain violence and killing.
Ydemoc
This may be one for the ages.
Atheist,
You said: "From where I sit, to say that I forgot to perceive is absurd. To say that I forgot to interact with existence today is absurd.
Are you claiming omniscience?
Have you ever forgot anything?
If a Christian's salvation depended on whether he kissed or didn't kiss his fellow Christian then you may have something going. Thank God it doesn't.
Fatheist wrote: "What's your obsession with the kiss deal? Get to the point already."
Without accepting your labeling my inquisitiveness as an obsession, I explained in my above comment that I was interested in knowing if you practice what you preach. That's it. Your reply (or lack thereof) seems to affirm what Dawson wrote about you giving certain passages and instructions in the bible, "short shrift."
Is this the kind of example you want to set for any fence-sitters whose salvation may be haning in the balance?
I wrote: "You on the other hand seem to be saying that, through faith you have faith that faith is true. What a jumbled mess.
Fatheist wrote: "Thanks for twisting my words. It seems like any "chance" you get that's exactly what you do."
You, actually, twist your own words and concepts quite often, so you really don't need any assistance from me to help you do this. I've had plenty of chances to assist you in this regard, and I think I have not only failed to twist your words, but have been consistent in remaining true to what you've written whenever I have an opportunity to summarize a point you've tried to make.
Faitheist wrote: "Well, I would day there is common faith and saving faith."
Why divide faith up into two kinds? I notice that believers also do this with grace. It seems as if they need to do this because, through the years, they've recognized certain problems and discrepancies inherent in the bible's claims and needed a way to explain away these problems. This is called rationalization.
Faitheist wrote: "It's because of God that we, animals, angels, satan.
Can be self-aware and therefore use our minds."
So it's not because of faith that you asserted earlier? Self-awareness is just one aspect of consciousness, and as far as I know, it applies only to a select group of higher animals. I think this is still being studied, whether higher animals, other than humans, are self-aware or not.
You appeal to God as a reason for man's ability to use his mind. But this is what's in dispute. Earlier you said it was faith in this God that provided reliability of the senses. And you said everyone has it, but many deny it. Then you say you have direct awareness of your god through his word. But that faith isn't needed when we have direct awareness.
So now we have faith and God as middle-men between man and reality. Hmmm.
Correct me if I have incorrectly summarized your view. Do you not see the holes in your view? You are running around trying to plug them up, but then another leak springs up over there. The only way you are able to find comfort aboard your sinking ship is through evasion and rationalization. Because the structure you rely upon isn't holding together, not with what you're using to keep it afloat. (boat analogy inspired by Dawson's "Bolt's Leaking Boat," available at Katholon.com)
Ydemoc
You said:This is called rationalization.
I thought christians were irrational.
I guess we rationalize irrationaly.
Evasion?
Here are two questions you seemed to evade.
Are you claiming omniscience?
Have you ever forgot anything?
(deleted comment above edited for grammar and clarity)
Faitheist,
Faitheist wrote: "If a Christian's salvation depended on whether he kissed or didn't kiss his fellow Christian then you may have something going. Thank God it doesn't."
This raises a question: Tell us, what *does* constitute salvation according to Christianity? Is it faith alone? According to you, everyone has this. Is everyone saved, even though they may deny faith? Is it works? Is it works and faith? Is it belief? Is it hope?
How do explain the difference between what you believe, as against 30,000 other Christian sects who happen to believe something different then you, even though all of you are supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit? Does your God want there to be all these divisions?
And whatever answer you give regarding what is sufficient for salvation, it probably won't be more than but a few sentences in length -- maybe a paragraph or two at the most. Why then is the bible so long-winded, if everything else isn't really that important in comparison?
Ydemoc
Faitheist,
Faitheist: "I thought christians were irrational."
You think right.
Faitheist wrote: "I guess we rationalize irrationaly."
Rationalize: Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate: "she couldn't rationalize her urge to return to the cottage".
Rational: Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation."
(Source: Google Search)
Faitheist wrote: "Evasion? Here are two questions you seemed to evade. Are you claiming omniscience?"
No. Omniscience is an invalid concept. It has no ties to reality. It exists only in the imagination.
Faitheist wrote: "Have you ever forgot anything?"
I have forgotten lots of things. The things I've forgotten would have to exist before I forgot them. Hence, I could never forget existence. It is always there, reminding me. I am in *direct* contact with existence all the time. It is inescapable.
Ydemoc
Note: I made a few grammatical errors in my comment above, one being my use of "then" instead of "than." I find it sloppy when others do it, and I hold myself to the same standard. However, I have forgiven myself.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Be careful! The grammar nazis are real. At least that is what I imagine:)
Atheist,
You said: This raises a question: Tell us, what *does* constitute salvation according to Christianity? Is it faith alone? According to you, everyone has this. Is everyone saved, even though they may deny faith? Is it works? Is it works and faith? Is it belief? Is it hope?
Well, of course you can just ignore the distinction I made between common and saving faith.
Eph 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10
Titus 3: "5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit"
You said: "How do explain the difference between what you believe, as against 30,000 other Christian sects who happen to believe something different then you, even though all of you are supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit? Does your God want there to be all these divisions?
"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. - Westminster confession of faith
Not sure what point you trying to make by giving the definition of rationalize and rational.
However, Rationalizing irrationaly is an absurdity.
So, when you say that I am rationalizing are you implying that I am logical, that I making good points
and because of your pressuptions you won't accept those truths?
Are christians rational or irrational?
If we are irrational then how do you reconcile your statement in which you said I am rationalizing?
You said: "No. Omniscience is an invalid concept. It has no ties to reality. It exists only in the imagination.
So, in other words you have never met or seen anyone omnisciencent therefore you reject that truth
Is that correct?
I asked: "Whom are you addressing with this characterization? Who has affirmed “seeing is believing”? If you think Objectivism teaches this, please find an Objectivist source which affirms such a view and quote it.”
Nide: “Are you saying, sir, that you believe in things you haven't seen or don't see?”
Nide, I do not use the expression “believe in” as a signifier of knowledge. It’s the wrong vehicle of reference. We infer things about what we do not directly perceive, so that we can learn about them and have knowledge of them. If you understood anything about Objectivist epistemology, one thing you should realize is that conceptualization is the ability to expand one’s awareness beyond that which one immediately perceives.
I quote Ayn Rand:
"The purpose of measurement is to expand the range of man’s consciousness, of his knowledge, beyond the perceptual level: beyond the direct power of his senses and the immediate concretes of any given moment. Man can perceive the length of one foot directly; he cannot perceive ten miles. By establishing the relationship of feet to miles, he can grasp and know any distance on earth; by establishing the relationship of miles to light-years, he can know the distances of galaxies." ("Cognition and Measurement," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 7-8)
"Conceptual awareness is the only type of awareness capable of integrating past, present and future. Sensations are merely an awareness of the present and cannot be retained beyond the immediate moment; percepts are retained and, through automatic memory, provide a certain rudimentary link to the past, but cannot project the future. It is only conceptual awareness that can grasp and hold the total of its experience—extrospectively, the continuity of existence; introspectively, the continuity of consciousness—and thus enable its possessor to project his course long-range." ("Axiomatic Concepts," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 57.
The reason why such points are lost on you is the fact that your worldview, Christianity, provides you with no understanding of the nature of concepts. Your worldview has no theory of concepts. So your understanding of the knowledge process is woefully undernourished. This is a real problem for you, but you seem to be unaware of its implications for your mental activity.
Again, you need to cite your sources when you characterize your opponent’s position. Where does Objectivism equate seeing with believing? You have ascribed this position to at least one person here. I’m expecting you to justify it. The alternative is that you acknowledge that you really don’t know what you’re dealing with, and thus drop all your contrived mischaracterizations.
Nide: “I am happy to see that objectivist have emotions after all. I remember one of your disciples ridiculing me for being emotional. I got my answer thanks.”
What do you mean “objectivist [sic] have emotions after all”? No one is representing himself here to be other than a human being, at least on the pro-reason side of the fence. Again, where does Objectivism teach that we are to be emotionless, or hold emotionlessness as some sort of ideal? It’s another instance of your ignorance of your opponent’s position taking primacy in your attempts to defend your faith commitments.
Regarding Plato and fairy tales, I asked NIde: "So what’s your point?”
Nide: “Ok, how about aristotle did he exist are his writings a fairy tale?”
Nide, no more wild goose chasing. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Learn to make your point, or let it go.
Regards,
Dawson
Not sure what point you trying to make by giving the definition of rationalize and rational.
Nide: “Rationalizing irrationaly is an absurdity.”
Yes, it is an absurdity. But this does not prevent millions of Christians from indulging in this awful habit.
Nide: “So, when you say that I am rationalizing are you implying that I am logical, that I making good points and because of your pressuptions you won't accept those truths?”
Nide, there is a crucial difference between merely being “logical” and being rational. You know this, don’t you?
Here’s Tara Smith on rationalization:
“Rationalization: having a preset conclusion and rigging an explanation or argument such that the conclusion appears well-founded; pouring your energy into making a conclusion look rationally justified rather than investigating whether it truly is.” (Rationality and Objectivity)
On that note, Nide, why don’t you produce some quotes from the bible for us which tell us about the biblical view o rationality and objectivity. I would like to examine these.
Nide: “If we are irrational then how do you reconcile your statement in which you said I am rationalizing?”
Rationality and rationalization are not one and the same, Nide. There’s a very significant difference. Rationality requires honesty – honesty to the facts, a pro-reason orientation to reality made possible only by adherence to the primacy of existence, and logical integration in a manner consistent with its implications. Rationalization dispenses with honesty, preferring an appearance of being rational on the surface (often to perpetuate one’s own deception on himself) over actually being rational.
Ydemoc wrote: "No. Omniscience is an invalid concept. It has no ties to reality. It exists only in the imagination.”
Nide: “So, in other words you have never met or seen anyone omnisciencent therefore you reject that truth Is that correct?”
No one has ever met an actually omniscient individual. But this is not the reason which Ydemoc gave for concluding that it is an invalid concept. Read what he said again, especially the following points: “it has no ties to reality” and “it exists only in the imagination.” You need to learn to deal with your opponent’s position as he informs it himself, not as you distort and parody it.
If you believe ‘omniscience’ is a valid concept – i.e., formed in a proper manner consistent with reality, based on facts gathered from reality and not based on something one can only imagine, please produce your validation for this notion. The onus is on you if you want the idea taken seriously. Good luck.
Regards,
Dawson
Justin,
Well, since I've come down on Faitheist so many times about his sloppiness, I figured it only fair that I hold myself to the same standard. "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" as Rand's saying goes.
In this case, I was prepared to judge. I judged. Then I forgave myself.
Ydemoc
Faitheist,
Faitheist wrote, quoting from Westminster confession of faith: "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:"
You do realize that a bunch of people got together to come up with this, don't you? It went through many changes. Men produced this. No where in the bible is this available as a stand-alone doctrine.
Faitheist's quote continues: "...yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
Would you mind telling us, in your own words, what this means? Fence sitters may be looking on. Not only that, but your words will be available on the internet for as long as it remains in existence. Future fence sitters may one day be seeking salvation, and they may stumble upon your words that you are about to write. So take good care in crafting them as you tell us what this part of the Westminster Confession actually means.
Ydemoc
Mr B,
You said: I quote Ayn Rand :"The purpose of measurement is to expand the range of man’s consciousness, of his knowledge, beyond the perceptual level: beyond the direct power of his senses and the immediate concretes of any given moment. Man can perceive the length of one foot directly; he cannot perceive ten miles. By establishing the relationship of feet to miles, he can grasp and know any distance on earth; by establishing the relationship of miles to light-years, he can know the distances of galaxies." ("Cognition and Measurement," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 7-8)
Im not surprised.
Well, of couse Ayn for you to take measurements you have to assume the nature is uniform. Something you can't account for. So you have no choice but to take it for granted. Which assumes faith something your philosophy precludes.
Ayn on what rational basis do you as an "atheist" Justify belief in the inductive principle?
Ayn without begging the question or avoiding a circle can you explain to me why nature is uniform?
Mr. B you said: "The reason why such points are lost on you is the fact that your worldview, Christianity, provides you with no understanding of the nature of concepts. Your worldview has no theory of concepts. So your understanding of the knowledge process is woefully undernourished. This is a real problem for you, but you seem to be unaware of its implications for your mental activity.
Well one would have to assume or take for granted that his mind is functioning before he uses it.
Can you give an account for doing this?
Mr. B you said: "Nide, no more wild goose chasing. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Learn to make your point, or let it go."
I will save you the embarrassment and let this one go.
Your unwillingness to answer the question says it all.
You said: "Yes, it is an absurdity. But this does not prevent millions of Christians from indulging in this awful habit."
Are you saying that absurdities are possible?
Is a square circle possible?
Mr. b you said: "Here’s Tara Smith on rationalization:
“Rationalization: having a preset conclusion and rigging an explanation or argument such that the conclusion appears well-founded; pouring your energy into making a conclusion look rationally justified rather than investigating whether it truly is.” (Rationality and Objectivity)
Here is another case of an objectivist redefining words.
Compare the definition that our fellow Christian ydemoc provided:
Rationalize: Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate: "she couldn't rationalize her urge to return to the cottage".
Don't seem that same to me.
You said: "No one has ever met an actually omniscient individual. But this is not the reason which Ydemoc gave for concluding that it is an invalid concept. Read what he said again, especially the following points: “it has no ties to reality” and “it exists only in the imagination.” You need to learn to deal with your opponent’s position as he informs it himself, not as you distort and parody it.
Well, If Jesus was God he had to be omniscient the gospels writers mention many people meeting Jesus.
Ydemoc continually asserts many things without bothering to prove them.
I have really had it with him he has pressed me beyond my limits.
Enjoy
Ydemoc,
Would you mind telling us, in your own words, what this means? Fence sitters may be looking on. Not only that, but your words will be available on the internet for as long as it remains in existence. Future fence sitters may one day be seeking salvation, and they may stumble upon your words that you are about to write. So take good care in crafting them as you tell us what this part of the Westminster Confession actually means.
Simple. It's a mystery
I actually allow for them.
Here is the link to the Westminster larger Catechism
with proof text maybe it wil help the fence-sitters:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html
Faitheist,
Faitheist wrote: "Well one would have to assume or take for granted that his mind is functioning before he uses it. Can you give an account for doing this?"
The very act of taking *anything* for granted, or doing *anything* assumes that a mind is working.
What you are doing is akin to asking someone to justify or account for "running," but not allowing for the fact that running presupposes someone doing the running.
More later.
Ydemoc
I wrote: "Would you mind telling us, in your own words, what this means? Fence sitters may be looking on. Not only that, but your words will be available on the internet for as long as it remains in existence. Future fence sitters may one day be seeking salvation, and they may stumble upon your words that you are about to write. So take good care in crafting them as you tell us what this part of the Westminster Confession actually means."
Faitheist wrote: "Simple. It's a mystery I actually allow for them."
Hey, good for you. But seriously, would you mind telling us in your own words what that part of the Westminster Confession means? I know you posted a link to it, but that's sort of like telling someone who is starving in Africa that you know a great place that serves burgers. Seriously, there might be some fence sitters who would like to hear it from you. It really shouldn't be that difficult -- after all, it could be the difference between eternal salvation or eternal damnation for someone reading. Even if you save one soul, it seems to me it would be worth it, for your God would look favorably upon you for doing so.
Ydemoc
1mys·tery noun \ˈmis-t(ə-)rē\
plural mys·ter·ies
Definition of MYSTERY
1 a : a religious truth that one can know only by revelation and cannot fully understand.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mystery
What part is confusing you?
Dear Faitheist,
My bad. I thought you would be able to explain the that part of the Westminster Confession in your own words. After all, it was constructed and debated by men, and continued to change over hundreds of years. It evolved. I wonder what they were debating all that time. Perhaps they were sitting around, going, "Gee, I don't know what we should put down here on this doctrine of faith. It's a mystery. Welp, we better write something even if people won't know what it means."
Seriously though, can't you at least try to tell us what that part of the Westminster Confession means?
Ydemoc
It means you have a sovereign God who is in control of every thing even your mind. Read Daniel 4 which I posted the other day.
In spite of that men are still responsible for their sin.
That's the mystery.
Genesis 50
Acts 4
Are other examples of this mystery.
Enjoy
Fatheist,
Thank you so much for your answer. However, I'm not sure an appeal to mystery is going to sway many fence sitters. And, from what I can tell, you didn't address this part of the Westminster confession:
"yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Westminster confession of faith
Would you mind giving it another shot? And be as clear as possible -- not only are souls possibly in the balance, but so is my understanding of what the heck you are trying to say.
Ydemoc
What part don't you understand?
Faitheist,
The part I quoted is the part I do not understand. Could you explain to me and any fence-sitters?
Ydemoc
"Compare the definition that our fellow Christian ydemoc provided:"
"our fellow Christian"...?
if you think ydemoc is your "fellow Christian" you are delusional. (Even more so than you are already..)
If you think he and/ or we are "Christians", then what are you doing here "defending" the faith?
Why don't you go ask some big wig apologists to come debate or discuss with Dawson here?
That way you may start to understand what is going on and what is at stake here.
You aren't making any points you continue to parrot slogans as if there is some kind of "magic" in the words you type. We know your argument inside and out. You do not have a clue about the Objectivist view. If you do, then break it down point by point and prove us, ( preferably Dawson ) wrong. You continue to fail to be able to refute one or any topic of debate here and then ask an absurd question that has nothing to do with the point you originally set out to refute...you are doing this constantly and no one takes what you say seriously.
There have been many presuppers who have come here who we do take seriously on this topic. You are not one of them. You are a joke. An embarrassment and serve as comedy to us and your affiliates. If you believe otherwise, ask them to come and join.
This is my invitation, and I think Dawson will second that.
AJ,
It's interesting because God has emotions. I see a connection here.
I posed a question to you last night that you seem to overlook you keep arguing which assumes that you believe
nature is uniform and that your memory is reliable.
Maybe you can answer these two.
Why do you believe in the unity formity of nature?
Why do you believe that your memory is reliable?
Ydemoc,
it means your free and not free.
Blessings
Faitheist,
I asked Faitheist what this means. It's from the Westminster Confession of Faith: "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
Faitheist said: "It means your free and not free."
So this is what all those words mean to you. That's it? You're free and not free? Your A and non-A? What does that even mean?
Ydemoc
Your free to do whatever you want. However, your freedom is determined and controlled by God.
See the mystery?
Faitheist wrote: "Your free to do whatever you want. However, your freedom is determined and controlled by God."
So God controls and determines one's freedom to rape and murder?
Faitheist wrote: "See the mystery?"
No. There is no mystery here at all. But there is a contradiction. There can be no freedom to rape and murder. Only a purely evil being would allow this.
Ydemoc
Faitheist,
Let me also add that freedom "controlled and determined" is no freedom at all.
Ydemoc
"Why do you believe in the unity formity of nature?"
I don't know what the "unity formity" of nature is...is that in the bible?
"Why do you believe that your memory is reliable?"
I could give many reasons...one reason is that I can remember how to spell words...like UNIFORMITY.
Faitheist,
Let me make another comment on what you wrote regarding the Westminster Confession of Faith. You said it means that,"Your free to do whatever you want. However, your freedom is determined and controlled by God."
Now, Van Til says that, "God controls whatsoever comes to pass."
Do you disagree with Van Til?
If you do disagree with Van Til (and maybe you do) it seems this would mean, as Dawson noted in "Answering Ecualegacy, Pt. 1" (May 13, 2007), that:
"a) God created everything in the universe,
b) Evil exists in the universe, and
c) God didn’t create evil.
Seriously?
That evil exists in the universe and yet was not created by the Christian god, must mean that it exists independent of the Christian god. So why suppose that the Christian god can control it? We’re constantly being told that “God created everything” and that “God controls whatsoever comes to pass.” And yet what Christians spout is something like:
“Whoa, there! He didn’t create evil! Nope! No, we did that! We created evil!”
***end quote***
Then a few paragraphs later in the same blog entry, Dawson observes:
"So... there are things that happen in his god’s universe (its “creation”) which it did not plan to happen, did not want to happen, or did not expect to happen. So it does not have total control, which can only mean: its creation has gone out of its control. Okay. Van Til believed in a sovereign god, while Ecualegacy does not. Got it."
"Ecualegacy" in the above quote is the name of the believer who was interacting with Dawson.
I'll say it again: No mystery do I see. I see inconsistencies, contradictions, rationalizations, and fundamental disagreements among those guided by, a so-called, Holy Spirit.
One more parting quote from the same blog entry. Dawson writes:
"It appears that, like other Christians, Ecualegacy is content to excuse his god from any responsibility for what it created, even though he wants to claim that it created everything that exists, is omniscient (and therefore knows everything about anything that it created, including its future actions), is omnipotent (and therefore has the means and the power to ensure its creation will do what it wants), and is all-good (and therefore would act to ensure that whatever happens in its creation is in fact also good), etc. Christians are always telling us that their god created the universe and that it created man in its own image, giving him his intellect and the capacity to use it. But again we must ask: what responsibility are Christians willing to acknowledge on the part of the deity they said put all of this into reality in the first place? The position that "God is not responsible" constitutes the most egregious of moral evasions that one could possibly conceive, especially given the context informed by their grandiose claims about their god's nature, abilities and talents."
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
It's interesting because Christians also know that rape and murder is evil.
Your stealing my air again. In your world who cares if people rape and murder it's every animal for himself.
God knows rape and murder is evil. I see a connection
So, you have decided to put God on trial. Would you mind presenting your case?
AJ,
I could only conclude that you don't why nature is uniform.
So, your checking your memory with your memory of course you had to assume your memory was working first.
Without begging the question or avoiding a circle why do you believe your memory is valid?
Dawson,
In your blog entry I quoted above, you also wrote: "Psychologically, this is what is happening, in various degrees, in the mind of a believer: he might claim to be owned by his god, but since his god is a figment of his imagination, he really owns it rather than it owning him."
An interesting study came out that, if I read it correctly, seems to confirm what you said. Here's a link:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php
Here's the lead-in: "For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs."
Ydemoc
Do I agree with van til?
Well his qoute is out the westminster confession. Which I qouted.
Well, labeling any action as evil assumes there is a standard.
Why do you believe rape and murder are evil?
Is abortion evil?
How do you determine what's evil if in your world evil exist in a concrete?
Dawson,
Just one last comment before I sign of for the evening.
Speaking of the "Cartoon Universe," the website, Fundies Say The Darndest Things (fstdt.com), has a quote from some Christian who goes by the name Vox Populi. This character writes:
"If I am correct that my God is the Creator God, that we are all his creations, then killing every child under two on the planet is no more inherently significant than a programmer unilaterally wiping out his AI-bots in a game universe."
This fundy seems to be on board with your "Cartoon Universe Premise."
Ydemoc
Faiheist,
I said I was signing off for the evening, and then I saw your comments.
With the stuff you write, are you trying to get on the website, "Fundies Say The Darndest Things"? (fstdt.com)
Any answers I may have to your comments will have to wait until tomorrow.
Ydemoc
I quoted Tara Smith on rationalization: “Rationalization: having a preset conclusion and rigging an explanation or argument such that the conclusion appears well-founded; pouring your energy into making a conclusion look rationally justified rather than investigating whether it truly is.” (Rationality and Objectivity)
Nide complained: “Here is another case of an objectivist redefining words.”
Who said that Smith’s statements about rationalization were to be taken as a *definition*? I myself thought she was simply describing rationalization. Descriptions and definitions are not equivalent operations; a thinker can describe the meaning of a concept in a manner which expands upon its essentialized meaning. In fact, Smith’s statement reads as a series of examples of rationalization.
Of course, it is quite common for a word to have more than one definition. I just checked the dictionary for another word that ends in –tion – namely *agitation*. Here are three definitions that I found:
1. a state of excitement, disturbance, or worry
2. the act of moving something vigorously; the shaking or stirringof something
3. the act of attempting to stir up public opinion for or againstsomething
“Don’t seem that same to me.” – Nide Corniell
If that doesn't prove my point, check out the definition page for the word relief. One source given on that page lists 17 different definitions for this one word.
Now, if you have any substantial objection to the description of rationalization which I cited from Tara Smith, I’d be happy to examine it. But simply pointing out the fact that what Smith says about rationalization is not identical to what you found in a dictionary, that’s no argument at all. Again, you come unprepared and without an argument when in fact you should be more prepared – much, much more prepared than you are – and armed with at least a weak argument. But you don’t even have that much going for you!
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: “It's interesting because God has emotions.”
Emotions are a reaction to new knowledge as it impacts one’s hierarchy of values. How could the believer think that the Christian god would have emotions? The answer to this question is that the believer imagines his god in the absence of a rational understanding of the human mind, including the nature and causality of emotions.
Given how the Christian god is described, it could not value anything, since it is said to be immortal, eternal and indestructible. Also, since it is said to be omniscient (a notion which Nide still has not attempted to validate from what I can see), there could be no new knowledge for it to integrate. So on both scores, we find the theist affirming more irreparable absurdity.
If the Christian god existed, at best it would be capable only of utter indifference. And this is reflected in Christianity’s soteriology – some are saved while others are damned, for no rhyme or reason. All are said to be guilty and deserving of eternal damnation, but justice is carried out on some while justice is withheld for others, not for something they have done to merit such exoneration, but simply because the “Good Lord” wills it. Why would it will damnation for some and exoneration for others? Who knows. It’s “a mystery” we’re told.
If the Christian god had any emotions, it would be profoundly and eternally miserable. Sort of like Sye Ten Bruggencate. (I’m seeing a connection here.) It is said to be angry, and also eternally unchanging. An angry god which does not and cannot change, is a god which is eternally angry. It cannot escape its own anger. The Christian god would be the epitome of unrelieved frustration.
And Christians are people who worship this? They can have it.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “Your free to do whatever you want. However, your freedom is determined and controlled by God. See the mystery?”
What the Christian calls “mystery” is essentially a contradiction according to rational philosophy. The Christian prefers to label it a “mystery” so that he can distance himself from the fact that what he claims as knowledge in fact cannot be integrated without contradiction. Notice that he does not allow what he wants to call a contradiction in a rival worldview to be dismissed as simply “a mystery.” This is a privilege that the Christian is willing to reserve only for himself.
The real “mystery” here is how an adult mind can truly accept this garbage in place of knowledge. I suspect that many who do go to some effort to defend such a view, do not in fact really believe it, but are so afraid to admit that they don’t believe it that they carry on as though they did believe it, perhaps in the hopes that one day they’ll convince themselves, or finally discover some key piece of evidence which will seal the matter for them psychologically. But in the meantime, we’re dealing with a very unstable mind bent on deceiving not only himself, but also others.
Regards,
Dawson
Ydemoc quoted a Christian on fstdt.com:
"If I am correct that my God is the Creator God, that we are all his creations, then killing every child under two on the planet is no more inherently significant than a programmer unilaterally wiping out his AI-bots in a game universe."
Fascinating.
Ydemoc: "This fundy seems to be on board with your 'Cartoon Universe Premise'."
Yes, he certainly seems to be. But then again, so is Steve Hayes, if you recall here.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: "Without begging the question or avoiding a circle why do you believe your memory is valid?"
It's "valid" because it's biological. It's as "valid" as digestion, respiration, circulation, photosynthesis, and other biological processes.
Come on, throw some hardballs for once!
Regards,
Dawson
Mr. B,
You said: "But in the meantime, we’re dealing with a very unstable mind bent on deceiving not only himself, but also others."
This is hilarious. Classic Dawson
Of course, sir, this is coming from a man who claimed that absurdities are possible. This is the only conclusion that I could arrive at. Since you didn't answer.
I wonder why you chose to ignore that part of my post. However, I will save you the embarrasment and let it go.
I guess you didn't think things through. It's ok we all make mistakes.
Blessings
Nide: “Well one would have to assume or take for granted that his mind is functioning before he uses it.”
Think about that for a moment, Nide. Just think about it. Work it through. Don’t you realize that one is using his mind in some way when he makes an assumption or takes something for granted?
It was pointed out earlier that you will probably never grasp the nature of the breach caused by accepting stolen concepts in your thinking. Apparently it's true.
Nide: “Can you give an account for doing this?”
For doing what?
I wrote: "Nide, no more wild goose chasing. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Learn to make your point, or let it go."
Nide: “I will save you the embarrassment and let this one go. Your unwillingness to answer the question says it all.”
Nide, you asked a question about Plato and urged someone to answer it. I answered it, and asked you to explain your point in asking it. Now you say I’m unwilling to answer your question, and you say that my alleged “unwillingness to answer the question says it all.” It appears that it is you who is unwilling to answer questions.
I wrote: "Yes, it is an absurdity. But this does not prevent millions of Christians from indulging in this awful habit."
Nide: “Are you saying that absurdities are possible?”
It depends on what “absurdity” refers to. There are things which I would characterize as absurd which do in fact exist. Muamar Qaddafi for example. The Mormon Church. The government of North Korea. Barack Obama. The Christian bible. Etc. These things all exist. And they are absurd.
Are you starting to understand a little better yet? It appears not. You continue to shove your foot deeper and deeper into your own backside orifice after embarrassingly removing it from your mouth. Do you ever get tired of exposing your shame like this?
Regards,
Dawson
Mr.B,
You said: "Are you starting to understand a little better yet? It appears not. You continue to shove your foot deeper and deeper into your own backside orifice after embarrassingly removing it from your mouth. Do you ever get tired of exposing your shame like this?"
It's interesting because God has emotions. I see a connection.
Dawson,
Yep. I had forgotten that, via his painting analogy, Mr. Hayes, as you put it in your blog entry, "...signs on the dotted line of his own worldview's commitment to the cartoon universe premise, cashing in on the legal tender of its vivid connotations."
Ydemoc
Man, fuck this debate. What I want to know is, why do these relatively unknown Christian apologists always have these really weird, unlikely names? Sye Ten Bruggencate. Really? I can understand it if we were living in Asimov's Foundation universe, but this is getting ridiculous.
Luis,
Said: "Man, fuck this debate"
Is this what you think about all day?
actually Hezekiah Ahaz in the Quran it says that god can do anything, but not that he WILL do anything that will make him not the greatest and most powerful-so you are wrong there and also thats saying if Moses existed in the first place....he seems no more realistic than Emperor Jimmu!
well actually Hezekiah the Quran says that allah can do all things but not that he will do all things, and that he wont do anything that makes him not god, also doesnt acts 17 prove that god is a moral relevtist? since he has overlooked the supposed bad things gentiles did? And if he overlooks sins by certain people than it would mean that the same standard does not apply to everyone at all times
Post a Comment