The full version of George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God has been converted to a PDF file and is available here.
A link to the file of Smith's book was posted by Smith himself in this forum.
I have also added a link to it from the main page of my blog under "Recommended Resources."
For those who have not read Smith's book, it's an enjoyable read. So take a look.
by Dawson Bethrick
A link to the file of Smith's book was posted by Smith himself in this forum.
I have also added a link to it from the main page of my blog under "Recommended Resources."
For those who have not read Smith's book, it's an enjoyable read. So take a look.
by Dawson Bethrick
346 comments:1 – 200 of 346 Newer› Newest»
I've had an opportunity to read the first few chapters a while back. I had heard a lot of it before, although the book predates my sources. Thanks for the heads-up.
I have that book sitting on my bookshelf, about three feet away from me. I bought it and read it a couple years ago.
It truly is a "good book," and it's great to know that it's available as a PDF. This way I can make some text clippings that may come in handy when a direct quote is needed.
I read Smith's book cover-to-cover back in the mid-90s, and have reviewed certain sections since that time on occasion. But I haven't read it recently - not even sure where my copy is!
An added benefit of having in PDF is that it's now *searchable* - so if you're looking for a passage containing that pesky word, you can go right to it. For writers, that's omnipotence!
I went over to ObjectivistLiving and read some of the comments.
Unless I read them wrong, Smith says he wrote this book when he was only 23. That's quite impressive.
Yes, he was quite young. I think he mentioned something about not wanting to publish a revised edition because he was concerned about the original losing its "youthful enthusiasm."
I have to say, the book does not read like it was written by a 23-year-old.
Yea, I know a George Smith is he the guy that the late great apologist Greg Bahnsen embarrassed on the radio?
It's an enjoyable hearing. So take a listen.
I liked that "youthful enthusiasm" quote by him. It shows great perspective on oneself, while still acknowledging the quality of the work.
George Smith had a radio discussion with Bahnsen in the early 90's. I have a link to it on my blog's main page. Smith resolutely handed Bahnsen his hat. At no point did Bahnsen ever prove his god's existence, and Bahnsen had serious difficulties even grasping the points that Smith raised. Of course, to recover himself, Bahnsen tried to deploy his usual arsenal of canned slogans, but they fell completely flat.
So yes, take a listen!
Well, look who's here. That didn't take long.
I wonder how his responses to my questions are coming along?
Ydemoc, please e-mail me if you can: firstname.lastname@example.org
I will email you.
I just emailed you.
Actually, it's the opposite. Your comment only shows your bias. It's interesting that after George was pressed to present his "case against God" the best he could come up with was "read my book" it kind of reminds of you Dawson.
Nide: “Actually, it's the opposite. Your comment only shows your bias.”
Actually, it’s the opposite. Your comment only shows your bias.
Nide: “It's interesting that after George was pressed to present his ‘case against God’ the best he could come up with was ‘read my book’”
What’s wrong with that? Smith had already done his work and had already presented it to the world. Why try to verbalize the entirety of his case on a radio program? After all, you don’t have a problem with Sye Bruggencate when he responds to charges of contradictions in the bible by saying “We have bible study sessions for things like that. You’re welcome to come,” do you?
So, Nide, not only are you a heretic, you also appear to be quite the hypocrite.
By the way, where's Bahnsen's refutation of Smith's book?
Nide: "it kind of reminds of you Dawson.”
Why thank you, Nide. Being compared to George H. Smith? You’re making my day!
Ydemoc, You've got mail!
If it makes you happy to be compared to a fool then rejoice!!!!!. If Dr.Bahnsen felt that Smith's book was somehow a "threat" I'm pretty sure he would have done a critique of his book.
George's book breaks down to "I can't see God therefore he doesn't exist" it's ridiculous. It's exactly your argument Dawson.
So, Dawson, are you ever gonna present your "case against God" or should I just read your writings?
Nide: “If it makes you happy to be compared to a fool then rejoice!!!!!.”
Okay, Nide. Thanks!
Nide: “If Dr.Bahnsen felt that Smith's book was somehow a ‘threat’ I'm pretty sure he would have done a critique of his book.”
So, Bahnsen didn’t refute Smith? Interesting.
By the way, what do Christians typically consider a “threat” to their worldview? I see you spend a lot of time over here at my blog.
Nide: “George's book breaks down to ‘I can't see God therefore he doesn't exist’ it's ridiculous. It's exactly your argument Dawson.”
Nide, what alternative to imagination do you think I have for accessing your god? If I read a book, I’m interacting with a physical object – a bundle of paper with ink splotches all over the place. So “reading the bible” won’t cut it. And even then, when I read the bible, I still have to use my imagination to put together what I’m reading. For instance, when I read about Jesus being nailed to a cross outside Jerusalem, I naturally imagine what’s being described. So how is what I’m imagining not imaginary? Indeed, I can “see” Jesus – but in my imagination. So since I can “see” your Jesus in my imagination, I’m obviously not arguing that Jesus doesn’t exist because I can’t see him. I “see” him clear as day in my imagination. So you need to do better than this, Nide. You’ve been corrected time and time again, but you persist in your desire to mischaracterize. This is an indication that you simply cannot interact with criticism of your god-belief *honestly*. Remember what Sye did? When I told him that my opponents need to be honest, he at least had the good sense to amscray. So we can conclude that I’ve dealt with wiser fools than you.
Nide: “So, Dawson, are you ever gonna present your ‘case against God’ or should I just read your writings?”
Well, for one thing, I’ve presented my case (numerous, in fact) against god-belief. And you can find it in my writings. So your bifurcation here is fallacious: I’ve presented my case, and you should indeed read my writings if you’re interested in learning about it. But you’re not interested in learning, you’re only interested in making an ass of yourself.
Great. Dawson. I don't mind being an "ass" and a "fool" for Christ.
Why I am here? I think this place is hilarious. It's quite entertaining and thank God I'm the entertainment as you rightly pointed out. If left up to you we would all fall asleep.
So, You do See Jesus and God but your not sure if it's them. Well, it's them so its time to repent.
It's interesting that after seeing Jesus and his miracles people still didn't believe. Dawson even if God chose to show himself to you even that won't change your mind.
Lord help Dawson's unbelief.
Nide: "If left up to you we would all fall asleep."
Well, you would of course, and that's only because you turn off your mind when it's time to think, which is all the time.
So while you are the entertainment - basically a court jester working for free - your case offers some very important lessons. That is why we're glad you've tried to go the distance. Your predecessors didn't stick around for long - once they figured out they had no chance here, they headed for the tall grass. So that's why I'm happy you're hear, Nide. No one would believe me that someone is as asinine as you. They'd think I was exaggerating. Now they will see I'm not.
Nide: "So, You do See Jesus and God but your not sure if it's them. Well, it's them so its time to repent."
Well, when I see Jesus, I'm seeing your god, right, for isn't the case that Jesus = "God"? But indeed I do see Jesus. But the problem is that I see Jesus only when I imagine him. And even you'd agree that what I'm imagining is not real, wouldn't you? So the logic is as simple as 2+2=4: The Jesus I "see" is imaginary, and the imaginary is not real. Thus, Jesus is not real.
To compound the problem, you offer no alternative to the imagination as the means of accessing Jesus. I have no alternative but to rely on my imagination, and I' honest to the fact that what I am imagining is not real.
So again you misconstrued my argument while also helping me bolster it with these clarifications. Good going, Nide! Your god must be really pleased with you by now.
Thanks Dawson. Just a small Correction I have Gone the distance. And as you can see it seems your not happy about it. So, you feel the need to call me names. Simply amazing.
Stick and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
P.S. I apologize for burning Down the "Bahnsen Burner".
No, Dawson, it's called unbelief and not "failing to
seperate the real from the imaginary"
So, How does Jesus look?
Nide: “Just a small Correction I have Gone the distance.”
If you’re suggesting that you’ve been successful in challenging my position, I don’t know where you got that impression. If existence exists, my position is secure. And existence exists. That’s my starting point. If you can’t challenge my position at its root, you have no chance.
Nide: “And as you can see it seems your not happy about it.”
Are you kidding? You’ve given us a gold mine!
Nide: “So, you feel the need to call me names. Simply amazing.
I call you by your name, Nide. What’s wrong with that? Are you sore that I applied the adjective ‘asinine’ to you? That’s an adjective, not a name.
But on what basis could you have an objection against name-calling anyway? According to the gospel stories, your Jesus had quite a habit of name-calling. Do you want me to cite some examples? I’ll do better than that – I’ll quote Christian apologist John Robbins, who says that name-calling is a “virtue” and backs up this viewpoint with numerous citations from dialogues attributed by the gospels to your Jesus. Robbins writes:
“Unfortunately, most professed Christians today seem never to have gotten past Matthew 7. That’s too bad, for they should proceed to read Matthew 23. In that chapter alone, Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees names 16 times. The names are ‘hypocrites’ (7 times), ‘son of Hell’ (once),’blind guides’ (twice), ‘fools and blind’ (3 times), ‘whited sepulchres’ (once), ‘serpents’ (once), and ‘offspring of vipers’ (once). Since Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everything Christ did was righteous and virtuous, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that accurate name-calling is a virtue.” (The Virtue of Name-Calling)
Look how many instances of name-calling appear in just one chapter of one gospel! So I’d say Christianity has quite a precedent for assuming the validity of name-calling. And when you, Nide, object to any instance of name-calling, you’re departing (again) from what your own worldview models as “righteous behavior.” It's just another indication of your heresy against the Christian faith.
Nide: "No, Dawson, it's called unbelief and not 'failing to
seperate the real from the imaginary'."
Specifically *what* are you calling "unbelief"? When you use a pronoun (as in the case of "it" in your above sentence), you should clarify the antecedent.
Now again, I've asked you several times to identify an alternative to the imagination as the cognitive means of accessing your god. If you want to deny the fact that your god is imaginary, then at minimum you need to identify the faculty by which one can have awareness of your god and distinguish it from the imagination. Otherwise, you performatively concede that all evidence stands in favor of my analysis.
Nide: "So, How does Jesus look?"
However I imagine him to look.
Ok, Dawson are you retarded?
Am I still a heretic?
No, Dawson, I don't imagine God and Jesus. I feel them.
Do you feel love, joy, happiness or do you imagine them?
Existence exists. Yea, God. See the "Proof"?
Nide: “No, Dawson, I don't imagine God and Jesus. I feel them.”
Go on, Nide. Don’t stop there. Identify the means by which you “feel” your god and Jesus.
Nide: “Do you feel love, joy, happiness or do you imagine them?”
I get it. Your god is a mood. But I’ve already shown this. As I wrote in my blog Carr vs. Cole over five years ago:
<< A physical Jesus was in no way needed for the church congregants to "feel" his presence. For these people Jesus is a mood, not a person. If it is this way for today's believers, why think it was any different for the earliest Christians, who never placed their Jesus in a historical setting? >>
Again, you confirm my analysis, Nide. As I said, you’re a gold mine!!!
Yea, and your a dumb stupid retarded brute.
Am I still a heretic?
No, Dawson, Jesus is a person that we feel.
Once again is love, joy, etc imaginary?
Feel free to throw the towel in anytime.
Nide: "No, Dawson, Jesus is a person that we feel."
Nope. You just confirmed that your god is a mood. I already knew this. Welcome to the truth. It's a nice place. Let me show you around.
Tell me, Nide, since you’ve confirmed that your god is merely a mood, how much energy does it take for you to maintain this mood? Moods come and go, you know. What if you’re not “in the mood”? How do you get back into the mood? Is that what prayer, church and fellowship are for? Does trying to prove your god's existence to non-believers bring back that mood? Really, it's sort of like a drug addiction. You need you fix - your crucifix. Jesus is really a monkey on your back.
Dawson are you really this stupid.
Am I still a heretic?
What part of Jesus is a person that we feel don't you get?
It takes nothing on my part God does it all see how Good he is?
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
You've got mail!
Nide: “What part of Jesus is a person that we feel don't you get?”
Oh I get it alright. You have a set of feelings, a mood, and you have imagined that it’s a supernatural person in you. It’s a mood, nothing more. You’ve established this, remember?
Nide: “It takes nothing on my part God does it all see how Good he is?”
Are you trying to convince me of something?
@At everyone in general
sorry I am late to the party, I didn't see the new post. About 9 years ago when I mustered out of the navy I discovered George H Smith's book the case against god. The book challenged me to reexamine my reasons for being an atheist. It was also the first time I had come into contact with Rand’s ideas about concept theory and the true underlying foundations for knowledge. After integrating what I had learned I came to a startling conclusion. I did not need to use evidentual arguments such as evolution, big bang etc...... What I realized was that Christian's own paradigm demolished epistemology by having a metaphysically subjective foundation. Smith’s argument is not that I cant see god therefore he does not exist. His argument is if I believe in god then I have no sound logical justification to make knowledge claims and that would also include the claim god exists himself. Metaphysical subjectivism in whatever guise is lethal to knowledge. It is this foundation that makes Christianity absurd and any other paradigm that also embraces it such as Islam and most other religions as well as many secular beliefs. This was the key lesson I took away from Smith, your own world view (paradigm) can not invalidate the objective preconditions to knowledge, the conceptual axioms of existence, identity and consciousness as well as the objective relationships between them. If your world view does then it is contradictory and thus invalid. Soon I was looking for stolen concept fallacies not only in Christianity but in other philosophies as well as my own beliefs in other intellectual areas. For this I thank Mr Smith, he opened my eyes to the hierarchical nature of concepts / knowledge
After Trinity wrote: "I have Gone the distance. And as you can see it seems your not happy about it."
Dawson responded: "Are you kidding? You’ve given us a gold mine!"
Indeed, as a believer and spokesperson for his faith, Trinity has produced vast number of comments and inconsistencies that can be referenced whenever another Christian decides to come on this board and peddle his or her apology.
It's interesting to note that Trinity alludes to his "feelings" with regard to his belief. This tells me that as long as he can produce or maintain these "feelings" or this "mood," he can put down in writing anything he wants, no matter how inconsistent, inane, or absurd, and it will be okay in his eyes and the eyes of his imaginary deity, since that's all that really counts to him and his alleged god, is that his heart be in the right place.
Slavery, killing witches, playing the fool, lying for his faith, ignoring what's real -- it's all good, because his god can't be immoral, because he feels it.
And when the next apologist comes along, though he or she might agree that Trinity is way off the mark in many of things he's written, in the end, this apologist will most likely end up dismissing or rationalizing such errors of Trinity's via the same driving force that Trinity uses: feelings.
@Ydemoc and Dawson
sorry dont mean to confuse the dialog, it appears I have my own running interaction with Nide that differs in topic.
earlier you stated god cant make time go in reverse. If I asked you how you validated this knowledge claim would you answer Jesus? If you do that would be circular reasoning. This is only a slight variation on my earlier example. Would you ask someone that it was very important to know if they were telling the truth if they in fact were telling the truth? When I joined the navy to become a fire controlmen I was asked was I a national security risk? I answered no. Guess what, they still did a FBI background check on me, interviewed people I had not seen in 20 years. Now imagine if I had the power to determine what these people said and all other aspects of reality. There would no longer be in principle anyway of verifying that I am telling the truth. This is the problem with god and metaphysical subjectivism in general. You may think he cant or wont mess with time but how do you know? Did you ask him and just take his word for it? Did you examine the reality that is already under his control? In my thought experiment I asked what if god existed in some sort of meta time and the universe we inhabit was analagous to a computer simulation. If that is the case then logically there is nothing about our reality that is not malleable to god. Everything is silly puddy and the law of identity is on permanent vacation.
A couple more questions for you to ponder:
54. Why do *you* suppose your god's alleged ability to save lost souls is only limited to this life and not the next? Or do *you* maintain that your god has the ability to save a soul even after a person has died without being saved? Or, if you don't believe this is possible for your god to do, why do you suppose this is? In other words, why do you think your alleged god made death the cutoff point, and after death it's too late to be saved if you weren't saved in this life?
55. Did your god plan to have death come into the world? If so, is death a reflection of your god's thinking and actions? If not, then how can any Christian maintain that god "created all facts," and/or "controls everything that comes to pass."
Looking forward to your feelings on these questions.
No. 54, that is a good question. 20 years ago someone close to some christian friends of mine stole a car and died in the resulting car chase. I asked if they were going to pray for him and I was informed that it was to late for that. I thought wait a minute, we are talking about an all powerful all loving god, how can it be to late to hear pleas from those who knew him. Have you ever read Larry Niven’s Inferno? It is a work of fiction about someone that goes to hell. The story explores the question can someone redeem themselves in hell and eventually escape form it. I liked the story and its idea of a god that never gave up on anyone no matter how long it took.
Thanks for your comment. Sorry it's taken this long to reply, but I was away from the blog for a while.
Thanks for noticing my question. I hope Trinity answers it. I'd be interested to see his response. As I told him earlier, Blarko doesn't place time limitations on human souls. You see, Blarko is in charge of time, not time in charge of Blarko. In the afterlife according to Blarko, he will be able to redeem souls, post-death, through rehab.
I haven't read the novel you mentioned, but I should check into it because it sounds interesting.
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)
2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Infidels and Gays Should Die
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)
Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
Thanks for posting all that!
Is that more than 10 Commandments? I didn't count.
so I'm wondering if Hez will just completely evade these verses.
Hez do you think when people were killed for the reasons above, that it was not an act of evil?
clearly the bible commands and instructs it's followers to kill people for the reasons listed above.
Hez, when people were killed for those reasons, did that make god happy?
Thanks for posting all that!
Is that more than 10 Commandments? I didn't count."
your welcome...I lost count. : ]
ActionJackson wrote: "Hez do you think when people were killed for the reasons above, that it was not an act of evil? clearly the bible commands and instructs it's followers to kill people for the reasons listed above.
Hez, when people were killed for those reasons, did that make god happy?"
Good questions, Action! After all, according to Christians, Jesus is God in the Old Testament, is he not? So clearly it's Jesus commanding and instructing people to kill, right?
Yes. I do wonder if all that killing made Jesus happy.
Then again, maybe Jesus and God have an alibi. But that still leaves the Holy Spirit as suspect, doesn't it?
Yes, thanks for posting these passages. They show the bible's uniformity of the "obey or die" policy.
The Christian's view of the OT is perplexing to me. She will of course be inclined to distance herself from passages like these, claiming something to the effect that we’re “no longer under the law,” and, if pressed, may cite Paul’s bizarre argument in Romans 7 (I think that’s where it is) where the apostle attempts to make the case that Christians are not “under the law.”
But it seems that, if the commands which you cited no longer apply because Jesus’s “work” on the cross somehow lifted “the curse” of the law (laws are curses now?), then on what basis can they at the same time say that the 10 commandments are objective, unchanging moral laws which apply universally? Any downplaying of the commandments which AJ has cited only demonstrates that biblical ethical norms are subject to change.
As for the question as to whether killing persons under these commandments, which no doubt happened way back when, was evil, it shouldn’t matter, because on the Christian view evil is morally justifiable. But given the case that evil is morally justifiable (it must be – for Bahnsen hath told me so), then why have any moral principles at all?
As for Nide, he’s probably trying to get back into the mood.
I sent you another email.
Great info, thanks AJ. Now I await the next post from Nide:)
To dumb and dumber(Ydemoc and AJ)-Am I still a heretic?
It's a chance universe and then you die and consciousness ceases so who cares if one animal kills the other quit complaining.
Trinity wrote: "It's a chance universe and then you die and consciousness ceases so who cares if one animal kills the other quit complaining."
Notwithstanding your sarcastic misrepresentation of the Objectivist position with regard to a "chance universe," as long as I'm alive, I care.
Is sarcasm a reflection of your god's character and action?
Concerning Nide’s comment about a chance universe. I see this false dichotomy presented by presuppositionalists often. The universe is either god ordered and commanded or it is just chance. Like it is just chance that trees continue to be trees moment to moment, generation to generation. It is a blatant denial of existence, identity and the objective relationship between them, namely existence is identity. To be is to be something. This along with wishing does not make it so are the objective relationships between the axiomatic concepts. You know this of course but I wish Nide would integrate them. I truly wonder why they don't seem able to grasp or accept that reality just is, but whatever. An additional point of interest is what modern science has shown us. Altho the universe is not some god program or random chaos, it is also far from being a clockwork reality either. Chaos theory shows up that non linear systems which is most as well as the interesting ones can not be predicted even in principle as they are too sensitive to initial conditions. You would have to have infinite knowledge about the system to predict it and well there are no actual infinities, existence is identity after all. The best you can do is model it such as weather forecasting for example. Then there is quantum mechanics. Now regardless of whether the Copenhagen interpretation is sound or not, we cant escape the fact that at its most fundamental level, reality is statistical and not deterministic. At the quantum scale we can talk about probabilities but not determinants. It may be that the world we can directly perceive with our sense, that Aristotelian logic works for so well is actually an emergent property of quantum phenomena working on a large enough scale and that A is A is not fundamental to reality at all. This is not something that I ascribe to but am given a lot of thought lately. Reality is possibly stranger then fiction. :) So here is a question for anyone that feels like answering. Is it possible for Aristotelian logic to lead us thru valid and sound reasoning to a place where it does not strictly apply?
I just poked my head in here and noticed your comment to me. I will read it a little later, since I have to run out and do a few things.
err, rereading what I posted, what a long winded rambling post. Really I had two points to make. One is that presuppers fail to acknowledge that to be is to be something in their “it is either god or chance” false dichotomy. The second is altho we employ the law of identity in every act of cognition, is it really fundamental to reality. There is no doubt that it is an accurate reflection of the part of reality we can interact with directly with our senses. However figuratively speaking, can we use it to take us to the edge of the realm in which it is valid and peer into realms in which it is not, such as quantum mechanics? Assuming that it is not valid in quantum mechanics which is its self controversial at best. I am doubtful that there is any part of reality where A is A does not apply strictly, just wanted to bounce it off the group and see what anyone else had to say.
Justin maybe a hospital you sound a little crazy?
Justin on what basis do you expect change in the future since A is A?
“Justin on what basis do you expect change in the future since A is A?”
A is A or the law of identity is not restricted to what something is at a given moment but includes its entire identity over how ever long that thing lasts. For example it is part of the identity of man that man ages and on average in the US at any rate has an average life span of some 75 years. Another example it is part of the identity of planets that they orbit a sun, thus it is part of their identity that their position is space changes over time. You have a simplistic and erroneous understanding of the law of identity. Causation is identity applied to action, or put another way causation is identity expressed over time.
I have two logic texts with me right here and they don't mention your claim.
What are you trying avoid?
We all know God is the one doing all the causing. Whether directly or indirectly.
Justin he even controls the hairs on your head.
I have two logic texts with me right here and they don't mention your claim.
What are you trying avoid?”
Avoid? nothing. Regardless of what you mean by A is A or the sources you would site, what I have covered earlier is what I mean by A is A. The identity of a thing covers every aspect of its existence over its entire history. Think about this, do planets orbit? does man age? If these are not part of what identifies them, what are they? Are you claiming it is not a property of man that he ages?
“We all know God is the one doing all the causing. Whether directly or indirectly.
Justin he even controls the hairs on your head.
That is a proposition you are free to argue for anytime you wish, just don't expect me to accept it on your say so.
Come to think of it, one thing to avoid is confusing instances of a thing with the concept that refers to the class of the thing. For example the earth got hit by another planet and this resulted in the creation of our moon, this is part of the identity of the earth but not planets as such.
Let's not waste time. Everybody knows men age. Now can you point me to a logic text that supports your claim?
From Iving Copi, I learned basic rules of logic from his introduction on it
Irving Copi once defined the problem of identity through time by noting that the following two statements both seem true but appear to be inconsistent:
If a changing thing really changes, there can't literally be one and the same thing before and after the change.
However, if there isn't literally one and the same thing before and after the change, then no thing has really undergone any change.
Traditionally, this puzzle has been solved in various ways. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between “accidental” and “essential” changes. Accidental changes are ones that don't result in a change in an objects' identity after the change, such as when a house is painted, or one's hair turns gray, etc. Aristotle thought of these as changes in the accidental properties of a thing. Essential changes, by contrast, are those which don't preserve the identity of the object when it changes, such as when a house burns to the ground and becomes ashes, or when someone dies. Armed with these distinctions, Aristotle would then say that, in the case of accidental changes, (1) and (2) are both false—a changing thing can really change one of its “accidental properties” and yet literally remain one and the same thing before and after the change.
Of course, this solution to the puzzle depends on there being a coherent distinction between accidental and essential changes, and between accidental and essential properties. Some philosophers find this distinction problematic and have developed other solutions that don't require this distinction
Some philosophers find this distinction problematic and have developed other solutions that don't require this distinction........
Such as Ayn Rand and it is her definition of the law of identity that I am using. You don't have to like that but well tough. The question was about whether it applies universally or not was not really directed at you anyway but at Ydemoc who understands and is using the same definition.
Question, is it in man's nature to age or not. You answered everyone knows man ages. This does not answer the question at least no directly. Your answer can be implied to mean yes, well that's part of what identifies man then. Everyone knows this fact about man.
the way you were speaking earlier, it could be interpreted that you reject both accidental and essential changes as being part of a things identity. So logically if A is A then the whole of existence would be frozen in a timeless moment, static never changing. Nothing could of course be further from the truth. I don't make any arbitrary distinction between accidental and essential changes in a thing as to whether one is part of its identity or not. Every aspect of that thing, an singular insistence or part of a general class, a concept is part of its identity. That is what I mean and that is how I am going to use it in my arguments. Nide please remember I am not an authoritarian. I am not impressed by arguments of well so and so said so or no logic source says this. I think for myself. If you wish to use a different meaning for the law of identity fine, I will keep that in mind. Got a question for you tho, what changes are part of a things identity and what are not if any and how do we distinguish them?
Fine I'll leave to you and dumb(Ydemoc).
the source I qouted is not Iving Copi himself but someone else writing about him and philosphy in general, sorry for the error.
honestly tho what do you think on my question. Is it possible using logic based A is A to come to a logical conclusion about some aspect of reality were A can be A and not A in the same time and the same respect? Or are the objectivists right and no condridictions can exist in reality?
Does identity apply to events?
Maybe this is where the confusion is.
I drove my car yesteday and not today.
How do you explain the change?
Nide: "Does identity apply to events?"
Conceptually, your question contains its own answer. But let me help you see it.
What is an 'event'?
Great. Jump in.
It rained yesterday and not today.
Can you explain the change?
Nide: "It rained yesterday and not today. Can you explain the change?"
It depends on what exactly you're asking. I'm not a meteorologist. So you need to clarify what you're asking.
But before we even get that far, you used the word 'event'. Specifically, you asked "Does identity apply to events?"
What is an 'event'?????? Can you explain this?
- noun 1. something that happens, esp. something important
- Related Forms e·vent·less- adjective su·per·e·vent- noun
Ok, is change an identity?
thus events have identity, :)
all change by its very existence has identity. Some change that is inherent in the nature of a thing being described is part of of its identity, such man aging and planets orbiting. In your example that it rains sometimes at various parts of the planet is inherent in the nature of earths hydrological cycle and is thus part of the earth's identity as such.
doesn't identity lock things in?
I posted some questions for you did you see them?
Why doesn't it rain everyday?
Nide: "noun 1. something that happens, esp. something important"
Good. So, when something happens, is it distinct from something else that happens?
I realized on my way home today from work that my question harbors a stolen concept fallacy. Any logical argument using Aristotelian rules that ends with the conclusion of and therefore A is not A and A in the same respect at the same time invalids a basic premise of the very argument itself. However Aristotelean logic is not reality, it is our conceptual framework for understanding it. It is find to say quantum mechanics violates Aristotelean logic "game rules" but can we still use it to find out something about reality that could in fact not be best described by that very same logic?
Are you ever going to get to your conclusion?
What would you do if you woke up let's say around 1am and the sun was out?
Nide: "doesn't identity lock things in?"
If by "lock things in" you mean change is no longer possible if something has identity, the answer is no - identity does *not* "lock things in." An entity acts according to its nature.
I recall having a discussion about this very topic with Dr. David Kelley some years ago. Often detractors of Objectivism attempt to argue against Objectivism without understanding what Objectivism teaches. The identity of an entity includes all of its attributes, including its actions and its potential to act. Objectivism does not assume the 'freeze-frame' view of identity which holds that an entity's identity must be static if it has any identity at all.
doesn't identity lock things in?
I posted some questions for you did you see them?
Why doesn't it rain everyday?"
not at all, in fact the very topic I keep discussing furnishes us with a good example. It is in the identity of a neutron to decay with a 50%/50% chance in 13 minutes. That is part of what makes a neutron a neutron. However there is no way to tell in advance which of say 5 out 10 neutron will actually decay after 13 minutes, only that the most likely outcome is that half of them will. Nothing is locked in so tightly as you would suggest.
Nide: "Are you ever going to get to your conclusion?"
That depends in part on you. I'm trying to help you understand each step of the way. It would do you no good if I race ahead of your understanding. You don't understand Objectivism, so you need to take your baby steps. I'm just trying to hold your hand, for otherwise you'll fall on your butt. So it depends on how much you really want to understand.
What would you do if you woke up let's say around 1am and the sun was out?"
I would have to make some serious readjustments to my understanding of reality. No different then if I said to the best of my knowledge all swans are white thus it is in our concept of them that they are white, ha! but here is a black one! Oh well guess we were wrong, time to expand and revise our concept of what it means to be a swan. However Nide until I do find the sun out at 1am there is no reason to take the proposition that it will seriously, it is an arbitrary claim and can be dismissed as such. I don't let my imagination rule my mind.
ok guys, I am going to go eat, back in an hour
I just read your earlier comment. Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not knowledgeable enough where QM is concerned to comment on what you posted.
Justin: "Any logical argument using Aristotelian rules that ends with the conclusion of and therefore A is not A and A in the same respect at the same time invalids a basic premise of the very argument itself."
It must be borne in mind that logic has no value in a vacuum. As you indicated, logic provides us with a framework for identifying and integrating what we learn about reality - it does this by making the hierarchical relationships of knowledge explicit and therefore consistently scalable in a conscious manner (cf. integration and reduction).
But this depends on using input from reality to inform the structure of our logical operations. If something other than reality provides that input, there will be a semblance of knowledge given its structure, but it will in essence be a form of rationalism - what Rand called "deduction without reference to reality." So logic alone is not sufficient to provide man with knowledge of reality - we need content, we need input from reality itself, we need to discover *facts* to provide the content for our integrations.
Does that help?
Trinity wrote to Justin: "What would you do if you woke up let's say around 1am and the sun was out?"
Speaking for me, I would think I was in Alaska during the summer.
Nide: "What would you do if you woke up let's say around 1am and the sun was out?"
Nide, if I woke up and saw that the sun was out, how do you suggest I would know that it was 1 am?
I brought my food back to the computer room:)
Sorry, I have been reading up on the topic and forget that not everyone else has been following. The conclusions they make are challenging to my very notion of common sense. Frankly it makes my head hurt. When I have had more time to think on this topic I will have more to post. Much smarter people then I have tried to reconcile Aristotelean logic with quantum mechanics but I am going to try, hehe
Nide: "What would you do if you woke up let's say around 1am and the sun was out?"
Ydemoc: "Speaking for me, I would think I was in Alaska during the summer."
Don't forget, every hour, it's 1am somewhere on earth, and somewhere the sun is always out.
If you're living on the west coast of the United States (Justin?), it's about 6:50 pm where you are now. But here in Bangkok, it's 8:50 am - the next day!!!
So we have to be clear about the assumptions we're allowed to factor into such questions.
your in the future.... wow! I am talking to tomorrow!
ok I could not resist.
You wrote: "If you're living on the west coast of the United States (Justin?)"
I live there, too (Los Angeles area)
Portland Oregon for me, and no it is not raining right now (has to look outside to make sure:)
Simple by looking at your watch.
I appreciate you wanting to hold my hand. I'm sorry but that's not my nature. A is A.
You are in alaska. Remember the movie universe of atheism anything can happen in your world.
It's interesting because I'm currently taking a class on Aristotle, man how boring, were going through his ethics right now.
I say A is A is locked in.
Causality and Identity are not the same.
God is causality. He's causing right at this second.
Justin: "your in the future.... wow! I am talking to tomorrow!"
See! I am ahead of you all!!!
As for an update from my end... So far I've been spared from the ravages of flooding, but many places in Thailand - especially Ayutthaya and Phathum Thani - have been especially hard hit, and it's been estimated that it will take at least a month for flood waters in those areas to subside - assuming no more rain. But more rain will no doubt be coming. And when it rains here, it's a massive downpour - it would give your standard bathroom shower something to think about! And the electrical storms are intense.
You are in the future. The movie universe remember back to the future?
Nide: "Simple by looking at your watch."
In that case, I would check to see if my watch had lost its wind. Perhaps its battery is running low.
Nide: "I appreciate you wanting to hold my hand. I'm sorry but that's not my nature. A is A."
Just offering to help you understand, as you need it. But if you don't want to understand, then I won't help you. Your call.
Nide: "Remember the movie universe of atheism anything can happen in your world."
Actually, that's the cartoon universe of theism that you're talking about. Remember? "miracles are at the heart of Christian theism" - Cornelius Van Til.
Nide: "The movie universe remember back to the future?"
Not "back to the future" - for I'm not returning to a place I've been before. I'm just blazing the trail.
You know what they say: pioneers always take the first arrows.
Causality and Identity are not the same."
strictly speaking I am not saying they are, there is a subtle nuance to each concept. Earlier I said causality is identity expressed over time. Dawson likes to say it is identity applied to action. Both mean essentially the same thing. Anyway I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
"You are in the future. The movie universe remember back to the future?"
sorry I have no clue as to the point you are trying to make here.....
yes Aristotle is boring. Something we can agree on. However he contributed greatly to man's quest to codify logic, hammer out its axioms. If not him it would have been someone or someones else, but we should recognize his accomplishments.
Trinity wrote: "You are in alaska. Remember the movie universe of atheism anything can happen in your world."
I'm surprised you allow yourself to see any movies at all. Do you plug your ears during bad language and shut your eyes during violent or sexy scenes? (actually, being a believer in the Old Testament as well as the eternal torture taught by the New, you probably get off on the violence.)
But how do you justify it to your imaginary god, going to see such heathen forms of entertainment?
I have a confession to make. I never finished Atlas Shrugged. I found it terribly boring. It is Rand's arguments and ideas I was interested in. To this day if anyone asks I will tell them I think she is a terrible author of fiction. This does not on its own invalidate her arguments however. Aristotle might be boring but pay attention anyway:)
Ydemoc the little legalist. How nice.
You wrote "As for an update from my end..."
Well, it sounds like you are doing okay. When you informed everyone here of the floods that were going on, I did a search on Google News and all the news outlets were describing it as catastrophic.
When you mentioned that you were worried about your car, I was going to suggest wrapping it up in some kind of plastic waterproof enclosure, but then I thought to myself, "Don't you think he's probably already thought of that?"; at which point my suggestion sounded to me like something Trinity might come up with, so I didn't post it.
Ydemoc didn't I say your gadget arms would work.
By the way do you love Dawson?
Would you die for him?
Nide: "By the way do you love Dawson? Would you die for him?"
No one needs to die for me, and I would not desire that anyone would. It would not gain me anything, and obviously it wouldn't gain the person dying anything either.
Only a primitive - like a Muslim suicide bomber - would expect that dying for someone else has any value. See the similarities?
"Only a primitive-like a Muslim suicide bomber"
This is hilarious. Extremely funny.
Ok. on a serious note:
Was Jesus a primitive?
Trinity wrote: "Was Jesus a primitive?"
Isn't human existence a necessary precondition of being a primitive?
Ydemoc just imagine the red ball and you'll be fine.
Nide: "Ydemoc just imagine the red ball and you'll be fine."
Nide, is the imaginary material or immaterial?
I don't even know what the imaginary/imagination is.
Can you give us a class. I would appreciate it.
I'm not sure if I ever will be able to take you seriously especially after your little stunt last week, that is, asking me about another man's genitals. So, bizarre.
Is there a doctor here?
Nide: "I don't even know what the imaginary/imagination is."
In other words, you don't know how to distinguish the imaginary from the real. But we already know this. It's a consequence of your worldview.
Nide: "Can you give us a class. I would appreciate it."
No, I don't think you would appreciate it. You sleep through every lesson and don't learn anything.
Ok. Dawson if you say so.
Let's say I think about an elephant with 50 legs or jack's beanstalk or let's say you Dawson with rabbit ears are you saying that those thoughts don't exist?
Trinity wrote: "I'm not sure if I ever will be able to take you seriously especially after your little stunt last week... "
Oh, please... You haven't shown a tendency to take anyone seriously on this blog since you first began posting. And you certainly didn't need any so-called stunt by me to be any kind of catalyst or excuse for your lack of substantive interaction. Like existence, it was there all along.
Trinity continues:"...that is, asking me about another man's genitals."
Another man's? As opposed to a different man than the one I asked about or as opposed to your own?
Trinity wrote: "So, bizarre."
It may be bizarre to you because you are not engaging your mind enough to retain the context under which the question was asked.
This question is asked all the time, for example, by doctors.
I asked you that question because you said Jesus was fully man. Given this context, I think it's entirely appropriate to ask that question.
Furthermore, writers of the bible itself chose to include much more graphic details regarding male anatomy than any details in any question I have posed to you.
Also, I later modified my question so that it became an inquiry into whether or not you yourself had ever wondered the same thing.
You have refused to answer either question, yet felt compelled to bring the issue up again. I don't know what to make of you bringing it up again, other than perhaps the answer is "Yes" -- you indeed have wondered to yourself whether Jesus ever had an erection. Am I right? Did it cross your mind?
Trinity wrote: "Your sick."
Considering the source, that is high praise.
Trinity wrote: "Your [sic] sick."
Is my "sickness" a part of your god's plan?
Is my "sickness" a part of your god's plan?
this is something I never understood. I can grasp that god wants us to make our own decisions, free will and all that. However god is also all knowing, that means he knew even before me made me that I would be an atheist. He had the choice to make me or not but choose to do so in the full knowledge that I would be an atheist. Thus logically it is part of his plan that I be an atheist. Seriously how can you go against the wishes of an all powerful being? Roger Waters once said "god gets what god wants" Pretty much sums it up for me.
Ydemoc are you a doctor?
I Know you will object to this but It's interesting that yesterday you did exactly what you always seem to want to charge me with.
For example, you dismissed the two logic texts that I have only because they don't agree with your beliefs.
I think it's hilarious.
Mind explaining yourself?
Trinity wrote: "... are you a doctor?"
No. Why would I need to be a doctor to ask the question I asked to you about Jesus having an erection or about you ever wondering whether or not he did?
Again, you seem to be dropping context (which you have a habit of doing) by insinuating that I need to be a doctor to ask this question. I was using a doctor as an example of someone who wouldn't be considered inappropriate if he or she asked the same question(s) as it pertains to a man having an erection.
As I explained before, I was asking this in the context of you claiming Jesus was "fully man." And I also pointed out to you that the bible itself is not with out precedent in delving into such matters. For example:
"Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts” (Ez. 23:19-21, ESV).
As apologist and evangelical Douglas Wilson notes: "Is that pornographic? Did we really need to know how the Assyrians were hung, and how they ejaculated? Well, apparently God thinks so. Every word is profitable, right?"
Also, consider that even Jesus himself touched upon the topic, in a roundabout way:
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Mathew 19:12)
So, as you can see Trinity, my question isn't as outrageous as you've painted it to be. Now, since you keep bringing issue up, I can only assume you have had a very hard time NOT wondering whether or not Jesus ever had an erection.
You might want to also check out your fellow Christian, Sexpert Pastor Mark Driscoll, and see what he has to say about such things -- though I don't know whether or not he addresses my particular question. Perhaps you can Google him or watch his videos YouTube.
Man are you right about objecting. I wrote up a lengthy response, but you know what? I think ill just go with this one.
please post the sources and I will investigate.
I'll be back :)
You ever though about climbing jack's beanstalk?
I realize this is sort of a pain, but could you post here from the first book you referenced its definition of identity. I do have two universities and the worlds largest book store in my town but I might not be able to get my hands on a copy.
Trinity wrote: "You ever though about climbing jack's beanstalk?"
Wow. If this isn't evidence of Trinity pondering whether or not Jesus ever had an erection, I don' t know what is.
You know, Gadget, you're intrinsically sick. You take an innocent children's story and turn it into pornography. Stay away from kids.
Trinity wrote: "...you're intrinsically sick."
Again, a compliment coming from you -- though I don't think the "intrinsically" applies. You see, some things I've written have been of great value to others -- enough so that they have compensated me. What you deem to be sick, others have deemed to be humorous.
Trinity wrote: "You take an innocent children's story and turn it into pornography."
Where is there any pornography in what I wrote, or anything that is anywhere close to being on par with the bible quotes I provided above? You asked this question on the heels of my asking a very legitimate question -- if Jesus ever had an erection. I didn't make this connection until you asked about "Jack and the Beanstalk." If you would've just answered my initial question, my "Jack and the Beanstalk" comment may have never surfaced. But, you didn't answer the question, did you? So, as someone who has written humor, I think I would be remiss if I had failed to address your question in such a manner. It was such a nice set-up.
Trinity wrote: "Stay away from kids."
Why? Kids seem to enjoy me and parents have never objected to me being around their kids.
Furthermore, I have many nieces and nephews. As they've grown up, they seem to really enjoy my brand of humor.
But maybe your order to me to "stay away from kids" is just another one of your directives from your authoritarian mindset.
Well, I'm free to disregard it. And I shall.
Now, why won't you just simply answer the question?
Sick to the core.
All it says a is a.
Trinity wrote: "Sick to the core."
Thanks. But all kidding aside, I'm just wondering also, given how you assert that Jesus was not only "fully man" but also "fully god," how do you think he would've handled it?
How old are you?
Trinity wrote: "How old are you?"
Old enough recognize a reluctance on your part to answer many of the questions I've posed to you, with this latest being only one of 55 or so -- and with many more to come.
Old enough to recognize evasion, evasion for what reason, I can only guess. It could be fear of allowing yourself to think such thoughts, or maybe you're scared of the implications of your answer or maybe you think it's a silly question. Me? Yes, I think it's a humorous question, but I wouldn't place it in the silly category.
See, I'm old enough to understand that humor can not only be entertaining, but also quite effective in making a point.
I'm also old enough recognize that your reluctance to answer the question only raises another: Why not? Why won't you tell me whether or not Jesus ever had an erection, or whether or not you have ever thought about whether he has had one?
As for the question itself, I cannot claim originality, for if you do a search on Google you will see that others have also have made inquiries into this as well. In fact, I think on Yahoo Answers, you will find the question along with many interesting answers. But I can tell you, proudly, that I thought of my question independently of anyone else.
So if you don't feel like answering it yourself, why don't you Google an answer for me. Your answer might be worth exploring as it pertains to the god-man you believe in.
Oh, by the way (and let this be the 56th question I've posed to you, which you probably also won't answer intelligibly): If Jesus was a man as well as the Holy Spirit, god, and himself, why isn't it called "The Quadrinity" instead of "The Trinity"? Why not a "Quadrune God" instead of a "Triune God."
Hey, maybe you can be the first on your block to propose this to all the big shots that create and modify doctrine. That way, when the change is made, I can include the older name "Faitheist" (which I used to refer to you as) along with your other names... Nide, Hezekiah, Trinity... and, when appropriate, I can refer to you as the "Four Person's of the Knucklehead."
What do you think?
No, I have never though about another man's genitals. You are seriously sick.
Are you really this dumb?
Are you acting the part of a fool?
In response to my inquiry as to whether or not Jesus ever had an erection, and as to whether or not Trinity has ever thought about Jesus having an erection, Trinity writes: "No, I have never though [sic] about another man's genitals. You are seriously sick."
I'd like to thank Trinity for finally answering my question in a way that is not evasive. However, I find it difficult to believe that he's being entirely candid here, since I don't see how he could avoid thinking about such a thing given the fact that he had to consider the concepts contained in my question as well as the question's meaning as a whole, in order to even begin to answer it.
Also, I would point out to Trinity, that according to his belief, Jesus wasn't just "another man"; he was a god-man. So if I wanted to be picky about it, I could say that Trinity still hasn't answered my question.
Be that as it may, I don't really see why Trinity finds it "seriously sick" (especially in the context of our discussion) to think of another man's genitals, when according to Christianity, its god would've had to (somehow) "think" about each and every man's genitals prior to creating them. He (somehow) made a choice (or did he arbitrarily decree?) that man will have such an apparatus, did he not? Or don't Christians maintain that their god designed genitals? Did man's genitals come as kind of a "package deal" so to speak, with the rest of his body?
In fact, according to Christianity, its god is so fastidious, that it knows every hair on our heads! So why wouldn't it have knowledge of every man's genitals? Knowledge implies thought, does it not? And thought implies thinking, does it not? I maintain that, according to Christianity own terms, its god did and does think about each and every man's genitals.
Yet Trinity chooses to call me, "seriously sick" but chooses not to label his god in a similar manner, the god who "thought" and continues to "think" about each and every man's genitals.
Lastly, is it a part of your god's plan that you would be questioned about whether or not Jesus ever had an erection? And since you're calling me "seriously sick" for asking it, aren't you really calling god's plan "seriously sick?"
What do you do for a living?
Trinity wrote: "What do you do for a living?"
As I indicated in previous comments, what I do for a living may sometimes bear on the way I ask or answer a question. However, if you're thinking (as your comments have suggested) that I make my living in any way, shape, or form or am otherwise associated with anything having to do with pornography or associated industries, you couldn't be more wrong.
Are you an attorney because if you are your a real bad one?
all it says is A is A
If that is all it says, then the text book says nothing that contradicts what I have been saying. the concept event presupposes the concept identity. It has been said multiple times before, knowledge in the from of concepts is hierarchical in nature. You said everyone knows man ages. The process aging has identity, after all if not what is it we are taking about? You seem to imply that events, processes, actions etc... are something that is forced down on the identities of objects and not an expression of their own identity. For example you said god made the hair grow on my head. Imagine a question on a biology test.....
what makes hair grow on the heads of men
B. Hair follicles
take a guess which is right. Events or histories of things is not something forced on them from outside reality It is those very things interacting with each other and those interactions identities are determined by the identities of the things. Existence is identity, to be is to be something. Men age because cells do not copy them selves perfectly and oxygen the very thing we need to live also slowly oxidizes our tissues. No god is required to explain this, it is in the very nature (identity) of men to age because of how his cells function. It is part of what it means to be a man. As your text book said, A is A.
Curiously about something. Here you are quoting a source as authoritative that does not to the best of my knowledge in turn claim the bible as authoritative. Can a conformist serve two masters? Does the bible provide a definition of identity?
sorry, an even more important question. What does this sentence mean to you
" knowledge in the from of concepts is hierarchical in nature"
Trinity wrote: "Are you an attorney because if you are your a real bad one?"
No, I am not an attorney. But what was it in any of my comments that led you to conclude that if I was an attorney, I'm a "real bad one"?
Also, did and does your god think about every man's genitals? And is it a part of your god's plan that you would be questioned about whether or not Jesus ever had an erection? And since you're calling me "seriously sick" for asking it, aren't you really calling god's plan "seriously sick?"
I'm trying to narrow down what you do for a living.
Have you ever watched or been adicted to pornography?
Trinity wrote: "I'm trying to narrow down what you do for a living."
Keep trying. The clues are all over this page. Like I said before when you asked my age, why not try asking your god or a milk carton.
Trinity wrote: "Have you ever watched or been adicted to pornography?"
What is with your pornography obsession? Do you find all your talk about it titillating or something? Geez, then go out and get some, for crying out loud.
I was asking a theological question, and here you are asking someone if they've ever watched pornography. My question was quite, may I say, "theologically clinical" for lack of a better term, and here you are with your mind going right into the proverbial gutter, asking if I've ever watched pornography. Interesting.
Let's see, so far you've asked me if I'm stupid and if I watch porn. Sometimes the questions people ask tell us quite a bit about the questioner. So let me ask you, do you write funny things?
Why you think I'm funny?
You asked some really important questions. That I really need to response to.
Well, Justin, I distinguish between primary and secondary causes. This is referring to your question on hair growth.
You asked: What does this mean to me " knowledge in the from of concepts is hierarchical in nature"
Not really sure. I guess it means. Knowledge is built on Knowledge .
Ok, What am I suppose to get from this?
It's interesting that you would charge me with being obsessed with pornography but your the one asking all the sick and inappropriate questions. Some people really amaze me.
I had written: "Sometimes the questions people ask tell us quite a bit about the questioner. So let me ask you, do you write funny things?"
Trinity responded: "Why you think I'm funny?"
Well, that really wasn't my statement nor my question. You asked what I did for a living. I then responded that sometimes questions people ask reveal certain things about them. On the heels of this statement I asked, "Do you write funny things?"
Trinity wrote: "It's interesting that you would charge me with being obsessed with pornography but your the one asking all the sick and inappropriate questions."
I reject your characterization that my question was sick and inappropriate for the reasons I have already cited. As far as you saying that I charged you with being obsessed with pornography, that was just me using my sense of humor to drive my point home.
Trinity wrote: "Some people really amaze me."
You are easily amazed.
Are you going to answer my most recent question? Or shall I add it to my list of questions you haven't yet answered with anything intelligible?
Do I say funny things?
Am I intelligent?
Nide: " I distinguish between primary and secondary causes."
Nide, given that you make this distinction, I have a few questions to explore:
1) What justifies this distinction?
2) How do you *objectively* distinguish between what you call "primary causes" and "secondary causes"?
3) When both primary causes and secondary causes are involved in producing an effect, which of the two types of causes is *ultimately responsible* for bringing that effect about?
Remember, this is not about me, but the issues raised in the discussion. So please try to quell your inclination to make this a personal matter.
Nide: "It's interesting that you would charge me with being obsessed with pornography but your the one asking all the sick and inappropriate questions."
Nide, I don't understand your complaint here. According to your worldview, Ydemoc did not originate erections, your god did. Are you saying that your god originated something that's "sick"? Ydemoc simply asked a perfectly legitimate question, given the claim that Jesus was a male human being. Male human beings have penises, and penises become erect. It's no different from asking whether Jesus ever had the flu, had acne, ever got constiptated, ever stubbed his toe, had a runny nose, and all sorts of other things that human beings experience in their bodies. Christians continually remind us that we did not create ourselves, but were created by an omnipotent, holy and perfectly wise deity. So clearly erections were part of your god's design for us. So it appears that just by reacting to a mere question about your Jesus as you have, you're calling your god "sick."
Fine with me, but there are plenty of better reasons to suppose that the god described in the holy storybook is "sick." See the series of posts that AJ submitted the other day for examples.
Nide: "Am I intelligent?"
I'd say you're intelligent enough that, were you *honest*, you would acknowledge the fundamental errors of the Christian worldview that have been exposed on this blog. I've known youngsters who could grasp the errors once they were pointed out to them, and given their honesty, they did in fact acknowledge them to be real errors.
So I'd say the issue is not really one of intelligence - you have at least basic intelligence - but *honesty*. You've chosen not to be honest to the facts. This is perhaps the most fascinating psychological aspect in examining theistic belief: the persistence of dishonesty that it requires of the believer, and why the believer chooses to be dishonest.
It's nice to hear from you.
1 and 2 are by faith because I can't see God upholding the celestial body.
3. Well I have to be careful on this one. How is that God predetermined what I am going to eat for lunch tommorrow and no violence is done to my will is a mystery.
The primary cause is always ultimately responsible. However, God is not always the primary cause.
That's also a mystery.
A couple of nights ago I asked you if I thought about an elephant with 50 legs or you with rabbit ears if those thoughts existed you didn't answer. Maybe you fell asleep.
How about you Dawson what level of intelligence do you have?
I wrote: "Sometimes the questions people ask tell us quite a bit about the questioner."
Trinity wrote: "Do I say funny things?
and Am I intelligent?"
Good one! But I said "sometimes." And sometimes you do and sometimes you are. All in all though, I think Dawson summed it up quite nicely.
Did you think about Dawson with rabbit ears?
Trinity wrote: "Did you think about Dawson with rabbit ears?"
Not until you mentioned it. And even then, the imagination isn't complete, because for me to fulfill the exact requirements of your question, I would have to have some idea of what Dawson looks like. I don't.
On the other hand, thanks the conceptual nature of my consciousness, I can imagine a man with rabbit ears, just as you can imagine a man that rose from the dead, talking donkeys and talking snakes. However, whereas my imagination is tied to reality in that I recognize it is only imagination, you can't make this distinction when it comes to your belief. For your imagination is being fed and thrives via the inputs that your storybook and it's adherents supply.
I can also picture Steve Martin during his stand-up years. He used rabbit ears.
Does the part of your mind that imagines exist?
Does your mind exist?
Ok if the imaginary is not real does that mean your mind doesn't exist?
Better yet what is the imaginary and imagination?
I can distinguish, for example, what I am thinking about at this second, that is, a giraffe playing a guitar and what can really happen.
Ydemoc if you think about a dog playing a trumpet does that thought exist?
I won't be answering your questions tonight. It's time for me to go to dreamland, where my imagination gets to run wild.
Trinity wrote: "I can distinguish, for example, what I am thinking about at this second, that is, a giraffe playing a guitar and what can really happen."
Good for you! But can you tell me how you are able to distinguish this product of your imagination from what can really happen? What is that keeps your imagination under control, such that you are able to make this distinction in this case? Against what do you "check the work" of your imagination? Furthermore, where did you get the concepts "giraffe," "guitar," "playing," "really," etc?
But let's imagine for a moment, since the day you were able to understand and even before that, you were told that there once lived a guitar-playing giraffe who died for you so that your sins were wiped away and you would have eternal life in heaven with everyone you love. And let's suppose that there was a book written by all the followers of this guitar-playing giraffe. In this book, they testify about all the wonderful things this guitar-playing giraffe did and said. And they also tell you that if you don't believe in this guitar-playing giraffe, you will end up burning in eternal torment. And let's suppose that you are instructed to pray to this guitar-playing giraffe and to praise it and give it glory. And let's suppose that when good things happen in your life, people tell you it is a blessing from this guitar-playing giraffe. And when bad things happen in life, it is all a part of this guitar-playing giraffe's plan.
And let's imagine that many of the adults in your life take this book about the guitar-playing giraffe very, very seriously to the point that, at least at a very young age, you don't question what they tell you. And let's suppose these followers of this guitar-playing giraffe write all kinds of things to defend their belief against those who don't believe in this guitar-playing giraffe.
And let's suppose that in this book about a guitar-playing giraffe, there is also a talking donkey.
I submit to you that if you believed all the above, you would have a much more difficult time distinguishing this guitar-playing giraffe from what you may merely be imagining.
How about answering the other questions.
Is anything to hard for Ydemoc?
Trinity wrote: "Does the part of your mind that imagines exist?"
My consciousness exists and one of the things it's capable of doing is imagining.
Trinity wrote: "Does your mind exist?"
Mine does. Obviously yours does, too. But sometimes yours seems to spew out garbage, due in large part to your acceptance of inputs provided by your imaginative storybook which you choose to take seriously. If you don't bother to check these fantastical inputs against reality, well, as they say, "garbage in, garbage out."
Trinity wrote: "Ok if the imaginary is not real does that mean your mind doesn't exist?"
No. Saying the imaginary is not real simply means the imaginary is not real. Do you quibble with this? Do you think what you imagine is real? As Dawson writes, "Truth rests on facts which obtain independent of the mind, not on fantasies the mind can produce."
How can the imaginary be anything but imaginary? To call anything that is imaginary real is a contradiction.
Trinity wrote: "Better yet what is the imaginary and imagination?"
As Dawson writes: "Imagination is a selective rearrangement of things that one has perceived and encountered in reality." So the imaginary would be the mental product of such selective rearrangement.
Trinity writes: "Ydemoc if you think about a dog playing a trumpet does that thought exist?"
Of course. But does the information you have gathered from reality indicate such a thing is possible? Does it mean that an actual dog who plays a trumpet exists in reality? Does this dog who plays a trumpet exist independent of consciousness? Furthermore, just because that thought exists in your head, does it mean an actual live dog playing a trumpet exists there too? As Dawson writes, "Its [imagination's] proper use is to aid in the achievement and preservation of human values [entertainment and art being two such values that apply]. If held in check by the knowledge we gather from reality and validate according to an objective process, imagination can be very useful."
All the above applies to a trumpet playing dog as well as a conversational donkey.
Trinity, here's a little experiment that I thought of for you if you want to do it. All you have to do is read what I write, and then report back to me what it is you imagined after you read it. Here it is:
Relax. Now, imagine a grunk, capafating klodikily. Bockleu grupula, fosb rukante cawkee weghedren. Pader funcet shlapova.
What did you imagine?
Meanwhile, given your imagination and the examples you've given for it, perhaps you can be a cartoonist. Who knows, maybe you can start your own "Cartoon Universe of Theism" Comic Book -- with actual bible verses!
You sound a little vexed
Can you prove that your mind exists?
Can you prove that your mind exists?"
you asked me that very same question. Do you remember how I answered? I recall you didn't interact with or even acknowledge that I had answered. Now for the umpteenth time, that question is fallaciously complex, it commits the stolen concept fallacy. Conceptually consciousness is presupposed in even asking for a proof of it or for any proof for that matter. You know or should know by now that is how it will be answered yet you ask again.
Earlier I asked you what knowledge in conceptual form is hierarchal meant to you. You answered that knowledge builds on knowledge. Well without a doubt a lot does but that is not what I meant. The relationships between concepts are somewhat analogous to the grammatical relationships between words. In English you cant just string words together in any old order and expect to have any meaning. Likewise you cant use concepts to invalidate or call into question concepts that they in fact depend upon for meaning. That was the point I was driving at. Your question can you prove your mind exists is like asking if you can pick up a chair you are sitting in. It is like asking have you stopped beating your wife.
Additionally I echo Dawson's questions about primary vs secondary causes. I would like to know your answers to them.
@Ydemoc and Dawson
for you viewing enjoyment
Trinity wrote: "You sound a little vexed"
What specifically in what I wrote made you come to this conclusion.
Trinity wrote: "Can you prove that your mind exists?"
Consciousness isn't found at the end of an argument. Quite the contrary, it necessarily exists before any argument, proof, or questioning, etc. could even take place. Without a mind, how could you ask me the question you just asked? How could I be answering? Consciousness is an axiom. Everything a human being does, thinks, says, contemplates, imagines, sees, hears, touches, tastes, smells, confirms this. The very concepts you used in your question demonstrate that you are conscious. How can you not see this?
Let me repeat: Before any proof, talking, thinking, questioning, concepts, etc., consciousness would necessarily have to be in place.
I like your answer better, more to the point and clear:)
I just went to see that video. A thought popped into my head: I had an image of Trinity doing the same thing in 40 years, vest, glasses, English accent and all.
Maybe I should start calling Trinity "The Conversational Donkey."
That's kinda funny, actually.
You wrote: "I like your answer better, more to the point and clear:)"
Thanks, Justin. But what you wrote also was good. And it made me think some more on this. When Trinity asks: "Can you prove that your mind exists?" he's essentially saying:
"I'm using my consciousness right now to ask you to use your consciousness to provide conclusive evidence to me that consciousness -- which I am using right now to write these concepts down on my computer, which I have thought about in advance with my consciousness, which I can see with one of my senses thanks to my having consciousness -- exists."
Look up. I gave a response.
Good. So, you're in agreement existence can't be proven and everytime you attempt to prove it you beg the question.
It's interesting because God is existence.
Objectivism presupposes The Christian God.
Existence exist, that is, God.
So, Keep laughing and talking your doing greattt tiger.
Do you prefer sicko or sicky?
What would you if you woke up one day and the moon was next to you ?
If you answered it Nide, I missed you reply, can you repost for us please.
When we say existence, we mean that which exists. You say god exists, sense this is not perceptually self event that assertion would require proof. So far it has been lacking.
"What would you if you woke up one day and the moon was next to you ?"
also you have asked this question worded differently before and I have answered it already. This is essentially the black swan issue. My answer is I would have to revise my conceptualization of reality. nuff said.
Nuff said? Are you a rapper?
By the way the burden is on you.
I remember Dawson telling me how I use diversionary tactics while at the same time I try and switch the burden. Everytime I think about it I laugh it's hilarious.
The thing is Justin you and Ydemoc do the same thing.
Justin what's the proof that God isn't real. Not the argument. The proof
thank you. I feel that my writing skills are poor and one of the real reasons I keep participating in this dialog is to improve those very same skills. Also I must admit some 10 years ago when I was first becoming acquainted with rand I had difficulty integrating an understanding of the hierarchical nature of concepts, but damn even I got it eventually.
By the way the burden is on you."
sorry but you are wrong. I have never seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt god. Thus I have zero perceptual evidence for his existence. If you are claiming there is you have the burden showing such evidence. Claiming I have the burden is like a salesman saying that unless I can give a reason for why I should not buy his product then I am obligated to do so.
Justin what's the proof that God isn't real. Not the argument. The proof"
I was not saying god does not exist. I was saying that he is not perceptually self evident, at least not to me. That is not the same thing. What I have argued in the past and will continue to so is that god belief is self contradictory and incompatible with knowledge.
additionally I did not come barging into your blog loudly proclaiming everyone there was wrong and then demanding that they prove me wrong as they not I had the burden of proof. Some basic politeness would be appreciated.
One last thing, with a lack of perceptual evidence nor valid and sound argumentation from perceptual evidence that god exists the claim is arbitrary. Arbitrary claims can and will be dismissed by me out of hand. I don't need to prove your lack of evidence to your satisfaction. Lets see the evidence and lets see if it stands up or not.
just a recap for you
I have zero perceptual knowledge of god, ie sight, hearing, olfactory, taste or touch. Additionally I have never heard of a valid argument for god that thru valid reasoning links the concept god back to what can be directly perceived thru the senses. In other words logical proof. Thus I have no valid reason for believing in god. If you want me to believe in god the burden is on you my friend.
Trinity wrote: "Good. So, you're in agreement existence can't be proven and everytime you attempt to prove it you beg the question."
Trinity, if everywhere I looked I saw tasted, heard, felt, or otherwise smelled your god, I would say the same about it, that your god wasn't subject to proof; that it is implicit in every perception, thought, etc. (if I was even able to even do this under such conditions, which is an absurd notion since such a scenario would completely obliterate identity, consciousness, existence. I mean, if everything was god, then my senses would be god. God would essentially, at every turn, be experiencing, in all senses, himself). But this isn't the case; every thing that exists is not god (thank existence for that!).
Perhaps the next best thing and the least your god could have done was put a little, "Made by God" label on each and every existent. For example, on my creationists'- claimed "irreducibly complex" eye, he could have stamped "Created by God" Think about it: if he would have done this, your highly valued "Faith" and "belief" would still be in play. But we don't see this "Made by God" label anywhere! It isn't there!
Trintiy wrote: "It's interesting because God is existence."
So god is all that which exists? Each and every thing? Hmmm. Trinity, you exist. Are you god? Tables exit. Are tables god? If, as you say, god is existence, then everything that exists would be god, right? I will ask it again: You exist; you say god is existence; are you god? Rape exists. Is rape god? Murder exists. Is murder god? Erections exists. Are erections god? Cancer exists. Is cancer god? According to you, Judas existed. Was Judas god? According to you, Satan exists. Is Satan god? If you tell me that none of these things are in fact god, then you have contradicted your statement that "God is existence." Don't you ever recognize the implications of such muddled thought?
If you are saying that god is just an attribute of every existent, then you've got other problems on your hands, which I think I would just be wasting my time trying to explain to you.
By the way, if God is existence as you say, which would necessarily mean that god is directly perceived by all believers, then how does this jibe with Hebrews 11:1 or Romans 8:24, where it states "Hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?"
But here you are telling me that you see god in everything, right? That god is everything, i.e., existence. So are your thoughts in accordance with Romans 8:24? Hope that is seen is not hope. But here you are telling me that hope is perceived! Directly! On the other hand Romans 8:24 says that hope that is not seen, i.e., perceived is *not* hope? I would ask you to explain your confusion to me, but I'm afraid it's hopeless.
Trinity wrote: "Objectivism presupposes The Christian God."
No, Objectivism doesn't. But I realize this is what you *want* to be the case -- that you want the presupposition of your god by Objectivism to be true, but it's not. You want it to be true because you have a nagging sense of the problems Objectivism poses for your god belief, so you want to co-opt it by decree, thinking that if you do that it will make all your doubts about your god-belief problems go away. Though it might make you feel better to say that "Objectivism presupposes The Christian God," feelings don't and won't make it so.
Trinity wrote: "Existence exist, that is, God."
And here is an example of believers borrowing from a rational worldview. But let's take a look at your assertion. You are essentially saying the same thing you said above. But let's break it down:
Each and every thing that exists is that which it is not.
Welcome to "Reversal Land: Home of Christian God Belief... Please Check Your Thinking at the Door"
Trinity wrote: "So, Keep laughing and talking your doing greattt tiger."
Here's what you might write to me, if I had written the same thing, "It's intrsting bcause God is tigerr. See The Conexion?"
You stupid idiot. You dumb brute. Am I still a heretic?
I'm extremely busy today. The last thing I need is for you to vex my soul. However, I'll be responding soon.
While you wait here's a question.
To exist is that an action?
I'll respond soon but it's hilarious because last night I had a dream that I was back in the military and we were deployed to the moon. It's really rocky up there man.
Trinity wrote: "Justin what's the proof that God isn't real. Not the argument. The proof"
The very fact that you are able to think of and use concepts in this sentence, since the very act of doing so implicitly assumes existence, consciousness, and identity, as well as the primacy of existence and not the primacy of consciousness. Furthermore, as strange as this may seem to your brainwashed mind, you yourself are proof. You exist, you have consciousness, you have identity, and wishing otherwise doesn't make it so. Furthermore, everything is evidence of god not being real. Look around you, wherever you are: That is direct "proof."
"Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable." Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 109
I think I've covered just about everything.
Trinity wrote: "To exist is that an action?"
"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents. . . . The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." (“Axiomatic Concepts,”
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 56)
"The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it." Galt's Speech, "For the New Intellectual, p. 151.
"Attention, worshipers, Reversal Land: Home of Christian God Belief has a reminder for everyone...Don't forget to ask for your thinking back as you leave today."
Once again is All knowledge based on perception?
If yes have you percieved All knowledge?
If no. Good. then I am under no obligation to perceive God.
I really dont know what else to call you but it's interesting that you have to steal my argument to argue against me.
Objectivism assumes the Christian God - Hezekiah Ahaz.
Existence exist(YHWH) - Hezekiah Ahaz.
To exist is to act - Hezekiah Ahaz.
Hebrew 6:13 "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself"
Trinity wrote: "Hebrew 6:13 'For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself'"
That's because the people who concocted such fables and put them all together in this book which you call the bible, turned themselves away from Blarko by suppressing their knowledge of him. If they had not suppressed the knowledge of Blarko, these believers in lesser gods, such as the lesser-god known as, "The One Without Vowels" (YHWH), then they would not have written such balderdash. For...
"Blarko does not make promises about anything, for he doesn't need to. To do so would drop him to the level of mere humans, since promises are but human constructs. Blarko is above the trivialities of promising, for his work is manifest in our hearts and minds. There is no delay in action and fulfillment when it comes to Blarko, unlike the lesser god known as "The One Without Vowels."
“Once again is All knowledge based on perception?”
Yes, ultimately all conceptual knowledge must link back to perception. The only exception to this I think is we are born with some instinctive knowledge such as a fear of heights and such, although even this is not universal, some people have no fear of heights at all and maybe they never did. In other words they did not over come their instinct, they never had it to began with. Take note Objectivists take the position that we are born literally a clean slate and this I disagree with. You could assert that we are all born with an instinctive knowledge of god but what is the evidence for this? Anthropologists have identified cultures that prior to contact with us had no concept analogous to god. An all powerful all knowing being that created all of existence apart from himself. If it was instinctive we would see very similar religious beliefs the world around and we don't. The science of child psychology has through experimentation show that most new born children are born with a fear of heights. New born children don't know their name, don't have the concepts father, creation, power, past, present and future. These are some of the concepts needed to be integrated first before you could conceptualize god. I was born with no clue as to who or what god was and would not until about 5 or 6. So speaking from my own personal experience I would say that the claim knowledge of god is instinctive is dubious at best.
“If yes have you percieved All knowledge?”
One does not perceive conceptual knowledge, one integrates it and no I have not integrated all conceptual knowledge. However one does not need to know everything to make generalized statements of fact if they logically follow from what you do know. For example I can say for a fact that even though I have not been to every corner of the universe that no where in it will you ever find a square circle. Remember A is A. Man has five senses through which he gains his conceptual knowledge. I know of no other. If you are claiming man has an additional means to conceptual knowledge then it is up to you, you have the burden of identifying and isolating these and to show how they are validated.
“If no. Good. then I am under no obligation to perceive God.”
No of course not, I completely agree with you. You are are under no obligation to be rational. You can confuse the imaginary with the real to your hearts content. On the other hand you came to this blog proclaiming that we are incorrect in our dismissal of your god beliefs. If you want to convince us of this then you will have to assume some obligations. Namely provide valid and sound reasoning that ends in and therefore god. Speaking only for myself, though I suspect Ydemoc, Dawson and others would agree, I don't really care what you believe so long as you don't shove your nonsense into my life. So go with god Nide, but remember please go.
Trinity wrote: "I really dont know what else to call you but it's interesting that you have to steal my argument to argue against me."
No one is "stealing" your argument -- what argument, by the way?
Nor has any rational person on this board borrowed from your worldview. Quite the contrary. The original mystics who fabricated stories of this imaginary deity you worship, jumped in mid-stream, using concepts, words, and knowledge that was well-established, in order to create their stories about your god. So if their is any borrowing going on, it's from your side -- and it continues unto this day.
Where did the author of the book of Genesis get the concept, "In"?
Trinity, was the bible written in real-time, i.e., as events happened was there a biblical author writing down everything that was going on? Or were words, concepts, parchment, knowledge, etc., were these things all being used by humans prior to your bible being written down?
Trinity wrote: "Objectivism assumes the Christian God - Hezekiah Ahaz.
Existence exist(YHWH) - Hezekiah Ahaz.
To exist is to act - Hezekiah Ahaz."
I am not going to attempt to do your job of cleaning all this up so that it has some semblance of intelligibility. So until you make this more clear, I will not address it, though on the surface it appears some of your points (if they can bee called that, given your sloppiness) have been addressed and thoroughly refuted.
Post a Comment