Paul Manata offers an interesting assessment of the “transcendental argument for God” (TAG).
In a blog post of his titled Do All Men Know That God Exists? Manata writes:TAG, as I understand it, is something like the Osama Bin Laden of apologetic arguments. It’s been bombarded with rockets and is hiding out in the caves, licking its wounds.
Would someone please tell Sye Ten Bruggencate? If I try to, he’ll probably accuse me of indigestion or dysentery (when in fact, I’m quite healthy).
by Dawson Bethrick
481 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 481 Newer› Newest»@Nide
so are you basically saying the passage is referring to locus (grass hoppers) and the large rear legs don't count? That could make sense, given what is lost in translations. But if so why do the large rear legs not count? I am legitimately curious.
@ anyone who chooses to read and respond,
If God, as the Bible claims, spoke the word into existence, does doing so lend itself to being consistent with the idea that the heavens could have been stretched in any literal fashion? Would said stretching not be interpreted figuratively as a means to simply communicate the heavens and earth as having been created (a means of giving credence to theistic creationism), just as the use of the words "to the ends of the earth" tends to be interpreted to mean "the entirety of the planet without exception?"
In addition, and again I'm posting/positing extemporaneously, but concerning the passage from leviticus (11:20, I believe it was) regarding the four legged insects: it seems clear that the passage is essentially a directive or command of some sort, an edict to be obeyed. This said, if we assume this is a real text that concerns real events, it may be logical to submit that the people hearing the command (those to whom it is given/directed) would understand what was being the command was, well, commanding. That said, the Israelites likely understood the directive issued to them, which is to say they understood precisely what was being indicated by speaker concerning said four-legged insects. This does not validate or substantiate the existence of four-legged insects as any arthropod without six legs cannot be classified as such. I simply wonder if they didn't interprete or define insects differently than we do today. I have heard some offerings that state that insects possessed of limbs that have a functionality different from other limbs also possessed by the same insect might not be considered legs. It seems odd, but regardless it seems like something so obviously fallacious (at least ostensibly so) would be concealed or perhaps altered via convenient interpolation given that it isn't the sort of thing that would be overlooked or ignored.
Any thoughts? Just curious what you guys think.
@Virtuosity
I think you are on to something. The more I learn about the bible the more I am coming to the conclusion that much is not only lost in translation but that much is lost due to cultural relevance. It can be difficult to truly get what the intended message actually was, at least in detail.
I asked: "Since you do not take Dawson's word for it as to the fact that your god is imaginary, how is it that you know Dawson is right when he says that Blarko is merely imaginary? Can you tell me how he knows such a thing, without your appealing to your bible? Can you tell me how you know that he knows Blarko is merely imaginary? Perhaps Dawson is mistaken? How can we tell? Please explain."
Trinity responded: "By faith."
Faith is a major aspect of your god belief, so it appears you haven't yet answered my question yet without appealing to your storybook, since it is your storybook that informs your faith.
Faith is also something other religions could point to as to why their god is the true god and not imaginary.
Faith is also something people could say that they rely on when they evaluate others' belief in the existence or non-existence of deities.
Faith is also something that believers in Blarko do not deny. Blarkoists have faith that Blarko is not imaginary, that he is the one true god and not a lesser god.
You have failed to answer this question with anything that might be called reliable. So please go back to the drawing board and try again to answer not only how you know Dawson is correct in maintaining that Blarko is imaginary, but also how *you* know for a fact that Blarko is imaginary while your your god isn't.
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Dawson says Blarko is false! Heretic! burn the blog down!
ok just kidding :)
Hello everyone,
I had to tear away on a business trip to Cha’am (I know, life’s so tough – I have to do business at a beach resort!), and have been super busy since returning Sunday. I spent some time over the past couple of days catching up on the activity here at IP. I’m extremely gratified to see that I’m not really needed! Justin’s and Ydemoc’s efforts in exposing Nide’s absurdities have been very fruitful. Luis rightly pointed out – just give Nide the rope he wants, he’ll do the hanging on his own.
So many issues have come up, and I wish I had time to comment on all of them, but I’m a very busy boy these days. Plus Bangkok is threatened to get massive flooding, so I need to make preparations. Luckily I live on the fifth floor, so my home is fine, but I need to stock up on water, food, batteries, etc. Some supermarket shelves are already empty, so people are bracing themselves for the worst.
Justin has interacted with Nide on the issue of insects having six legs. Nide asked: “Have you observed that every insect has six legs?” Justin answered that he has not seen all insects, correctly noting that “no one has seen all insects.” Justin also pointed out that he rejects the empiricism of the logical positivists, specifically the view that the only legitimate knowledge is knowledge that is restricted exclusively to what is immediately perceived ("observed").
The error of the logical positivists is the same error which is lurking behind Nide’s question, namely a denial of the conceptual nature of man's knowledge. But since knowledge is in fact conceptual in nature, the worry that Nide’s question implies does not exist, at least for a worldview which provides solid understanding of the nature and formation of concepts (such as Objectivism).
While concepts are formed *ultimately* on the basis of perceptual input from the world, their greatest value is the expansion of man’s awareness beyond the immediately perceived that concepts make possible. I form the concept ‘insect’ for instance based on two or more specimens that I have actually perceived myself. But since the abstraction process by which concepts are formed omits the *specific* measurements of the attributes which are integrated into the concept ‘insect’ (e.g., exoskeletal invertebrates possessing three pairs of legs, three main body segments, compound eyes, etc.), the concept ‘insect’ naturally allows for variation among those measurements, in keeping with the essentials denoted by the concept (which are stated in its definition). Given the nature of concepts, then, I don’t need to perceive (or have perceived) every insect to know that every insect fits the general characteristics denoted by the concept ‘insect’.
So we can wholly and justifiably reject the hidden premise underlying Nide’s question here, if in fact he’s seeking to undermine our knowledge (which his comments on my blog have consistently indicated from day one). Since knowledge is conceptual in nature, there’s no need for anyone to "observe" that every insect has six legs to know that every insect – barring accidental loss of limb or aberrant mutation – has six legs. Our ability to conceptualize allows us to expand our knowledge beyond the range of mere immediate observation. Nide does not grasp this fact, and its significance to the present discussion, because his worldview provides him with no understanding at all of the nature of concepts. The significance of this fact – that Christianity has no theory of concepts – cannot be overestimated in the context of detecting the errors of presuppositionalism and providing their non-theistic corrections. That is why I stress it as much as I do in my interaction with presup apologists. But they never seem to get it – they just dig their feet in and immerse themselves deeper into their faith, squandering a precious opportunity to learn something amazing.
Regards,
Dawson
Justin wrote: "Dawson says Blarko is false! Heretic! burn the blog down! ok just kidding :)"
Yes. "But once a Blarkoist, always a Blarkoist."
Then again, I have heard Balvinists (a denomination of Blarkoism) say of some who claim to have lost their faith in Blarko, that they were never true Blarkoists in the first place.
I think the best thing to do is in situations like this is to follow Blarko the Wonderbeings' instruction to his followers to drop onto our backs, rub our hands and feet together really fast, and wonder. We must wonder for all those who seem to have strayed from the faith. After we wonder, the rest is in Blarko's hands.
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
America,
I'm provided you with the some sources a google search will do the "trick" but here is the verse in context:
NASB Lev 11:20-23 " 20 ‘All the [j]winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. 21 Yet these you may eat among all the [k]winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22 These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 But all other [l]winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.
Gadget,
Why don't pull out one of your go, go gadgets and figure it out.
While your at it here's a question:
Is it ok if I lie to you?
Dawson,
Welcome back! And it sounds like you are well-prepared for and well-protected against any flooding that may ensue.
Stay dry!
Ydemoc
@Nide
I get it, I looked up the passage days ago. Now granted I am reading it in English and not ancient Hebrew, but no matter how I try to interpret that passage it in English at any rate comes out like it is claiming their are 4 legged insects. This is only reinforced after reading your posting of it "in context"
"But all other [l]winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you."
their is just is no known winged insect which are four footed
America,
Did you notice what is said " all the [k]winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth"
4 feet to walk + 2 legs to jump = 6 legs.
That's pretty interesting.
America your thoughts
Dawson aka Magneto,
Magneto your back. Happy to see you.
Don't sweat I'll keep you in prayer. God is the lord of the elements.
Can you repeat what you said I didn't hear you?
OK that makes sense, if we are not counting the hind legs to jump and of course then this would not even apply to things like ants because the passage is not saying there are no 6 legged insects only that their are 4 legged ones as the hind jumping legs are not counted as such. I am going to concede this one, it is a bad example, much like the bats vs birds one. This Nide is an example of error correction in ones thinking, you have made your case and it made sense, I asked you once before if we would ever see such intellectual honesty from you? I asked you if you could describe god without using the axiomatic concepts and if not then would you retract you charge of circular reasoning. Will you? or can you make a valid argument for it as you have done here, your thoughts?
Earlier I had asked Trinity: "Since you do not take Dawson's word for it as to the fact that your god is imaginary, how is it that you know Dawson is right when he says that Blarko is merely imaginary? Can you tell me how he knows such a thing, without your appealing to your bible? Can you tell me how you know that he knows Blarko is merely imaginary? Perhaps Dawson is mistaken? How can we tell? Please explain."
Trinity responded: "By faith."
I had responded with, among other things, that this wouldn't do since faith is a part of his storybook.
I then wrote: "...try again to answer not only how you know Dawson is correct in maintaining that Blarko is imaginary, but also how *you* know for a fact that Blarko is imaginary while your your god isn't."
Trinity wrote: "Why don't pull out one of your go, go gadgets and figure it out."
And this, fellow bloggers, is where faith leads: To childish and incoherent answers from the likes of Trinity, who mindlessly follows storybook commands of an imaginary being, all the way to it's logical destination: the epistemological dead-end of theism.
Ydemoc
Totally off topic but I am finding the subject of language translation to be very interesting. The subtle nuances of meaning when moving from ancient Hebrew to modern English.
@Nide
"Dawson aka Magneto,
Magneto your back. Happy to see you.
Don't sweat I'll keep you in prayer. God is the lord of the elements.
Can you repeat what you said I didn't hear you?"
He was talking about concept formation you know, what directly relates to my question to you. Would you please learn about how concepts are formed and relate to each other. Then maybe you would grasp why using the law of identity without giving your god any credit is not circular reasoning.
@Nide
ok I am sleepy, and I missed it
question for you
you said "Did you notice what is said " all the [k]winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth""
jointed "LEGS" with which to jump on the earth. In English clearly then both the walking legs and jumping legs are well legs! Anyway Nide I don't really care about this one. Like the bats / birds I suspect something is lost in translation. The issue of concept theory is much more important here. And I am tired so good night all.
America,
I'm glad you're wrong again. You were wrong about the bats, PI, insects.
I been honest, America, I told you the bible is never wrong.
Believe me now?
Dr.claw(Dawson),
Said he doesn't need to see every insect to know they all have six legs and so forth. Well, I don't need to see God.
Objectivism is based on Faith and I know Mr.Curmudgeon will get a fit over it but it's true. Just listening to the language.
Gadget,
I can't get your song out my head. It's pretty hilarious.
Inspector Gadget......
Where is the fool(Luis)?
Ydemoc asked: "Since you do not take Dawson's word for it as to the fact that your god is imaginary, how is it that you know Dawson is right when he says that Blarko is merely imaginary? Can you tell me how he knows such a thing, without your appealing to your bible? Can you tell me how you know that he knows Blarko is merely imaginary? Perhaps Dawson is mistaken? How can we tell? Please explain."
Nide answered: "By faith."
Nide seems to be accepting the premise underlying Ydemoc’s line of inquiry that there’s a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary. The issue has become whether or not I am correct in categorizing the Christian god as imaginary. But this would only be a concern if in fact one’s worldview carefully distinguishes between the real and the imaginary, and I don’t see where a worldview based on the bible does this. On the biblical worldview, there seems to be no reason to suppose that there is such a distinction in the first place, and every indication to suppose it has no importance if there is such a distinction. Since, for instance, the believer has no alternative but to imagine his Jesus dying on a cross and resurrecting in a tomb a couple days later, reliance on imagination already plays a central role in Christian faith.
To object to the identification of the Christian god as something residing in the believer’s imagination, is to borrow from a non-Christian worldview which recognizes the fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary. What worldview does this more explicitly – and as consistently – than Objectivism, which explicitly affirms the primacy of existence metaphysics and consistently applies its implications in all areas of philosophical inquiry?
We can safely say that faith stands for False Assurance In The Heavenly, and the Christian’s resort to faith in place of reason only confirms this.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “[Dawson] Said he doesn't need to see every insect to know they all have six legs and so forth. Well, I don't need to see God.”
I don’t think anyone has stated that you do need to see your god. Indeed, how do you see something that doesn’t exist? Blank out.
But speaking more to the gist of your point here, you’re exhibiting a profound category confusion. Not needing to observe all insects to know that they all have six legs, and seeing your god, are not analogous with respect to the nature of knowledge. We do in fact observe some insects firsthand (you’ll see a lot if you ever visit SE Asia), and it is from our firsthand awareness of the specimens which we have directly perceived that we form the concept ‘insect’. Among its essentials is the possession of three pairs of legs, as I noted in a previous comment. Our knowledge that all insects have six legs is based on input gathered from reality and integrated by means of abstraction. If we discover a specimen that naturally has more or less than six legs, we would be wrong to class it as an insect on that basis. You’ll notice that there are several subphyla of arthropods, one of which includes the class insecta. So requiring omni-awareness of all the world’s insects, past, present and future, in order to know that they all have three pairs of legs, simply misconstrues the nature of conceptual knowledge.
To react to these points by saying “then I don’t need to see God either!” is most juvenile, and shows no appreciation for the amazing ability human beings have in developing conceptual knowledge. Numerous points can be brought in objection to your pronouncement, but I’ll limit it to the following.
For one thing, since your god is not something you can perceive with your senses (it’s supposed to be immaterial, invisible, infinite, incorporeal, non-physical, etc., right?), you could not have developed your knowledge of your god on the basis of direct perceptual awareness of your god in the manner that we directly observe insects in the world. So immediately there's a profound distinction here which indicates the non sequitur of your response.
[Continued…]
Also, your god is not supposed to be a concept anyway – otherwise you’d be conceding that your god properly belongs in the class of psychological phenomena, which would only confirm my analysis of theism. Since your god is supposed to be an independently existing being, your knowledge of it could not be analogous to knowledge of a class of existents (like insects generally), for such knowledge could not be the product of abstracting from a handful of similar existents which you perceive directly to a broader class of existents as an integrated unit of knowledge (e.g., the concept ‘insect’).
Moreover, your god is supposed to be sui generis - something completely unique and incomparable to anything else in existence – not one of many and thus not one unit that can be integrated with similar units to form a concept. On the other hand, there are billions of insects presently existing on this planet, and an inestimable number throughout their history on earth. With regard to conceptual knowledge, this is a significant point which you overlook.
Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the Christian god is imaginary, and therefore not real, while insects are in fact very much real – no matter how much I wish they didn’t exist, at least in my little soi (I never saw cockroaches this big in the States). Nor is our knowledge that insects have three pairs of legs based on imagination, since we formed this knowledge based on something that is real – namely a sample of actually existing specimens which possess the attribute integrated as an essential to the concept ‘insect’. Indeed, we can imagine arthropods that have more or less than three pairs of legs, but even those could not be properly integrated into the concept ‘insect’, even in the context of a fiction, since they would not fit the essentials defined by the concept.
Finally, we come to the fact that your god is said to possess attributes which themselves are imaginary and have no rational basis in fact, such as omniscience and omnipotence. The notion of omniscience is irrational because it affirms the possession of knowledge without allowing for a means by which knowledge can be acquired and validated. The notion of omnipotence is irrational because it directly assumes the primacy of consciousness in that it grants a form of consciousness the ability to create and reshape its objects at will. Both notions are choking in stolen concepts. The fact that these notions are irrational does not keep mystics from pretending they're real anyway.
Nide wrote: “Objectivism is based on Faith and I know Mr.Curmudgeon will get a fit over it but it's true. Just listening to the language.”
Yes, listen to the language: Objectivism holds that there is a reality (axiom of existence), that a thing which exists is itself (axiom of identity), that consciousness is consciousness of something (axiom of consciousness), that reality exists independent of consciousness (primacy of existence), that wishing doesn’t make it so (primacy of existence), that knowledge has an objective basis, that reason is the means by which man acquires and validates knowledge of the world, that logic is the method by which non-contradictory knowledge is validated, that man has a right to live his life, that the purpose of life is to live and enjoy it, etc., etc.
So where’s the faith part? Remember, “faith is believing what you know ain’t so” – Mark Twain.
Regards,
Dawson
Ydemoc wrote: “Welcome back!”
Thanks! It’s good to be back. Business travel has never been my thing.
“And it sounds like you are well-prepared for and well-protected against any flooding that may ensue.”
For the most part, I think I and my daughter should be safe. It’s my car I’m concerned about – it won't fit into the elevator!!
Where’s the Christian god when you need it?
Regards,
Dawson
Ydemoc wrote: “And this, fellow bloggers, is where faith leads: To childish and incoherent answers”
The bible itself explains such childishness as follows:
Matthew 18:3: “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (emphasis added)
Nide is just doing his level best to conduct himself in lock step with what the bible teaches, at least on this one point. And I must say, he does quite well at conforming to this NT requirement.
Sort of puts the kibosh on the “Christianity is the only coherent worldview” claim, though: it simply cannot measure up to adult standards.
Regards,
Dawson
BB,
Said: "For the most part, I think I and my daughter should be safe. It’s my car I’m concerned about – it won't fit into the elevator!!"
This is pretty funny. Maybe Gadget can help with his bionic arms.
How's the storm?
Dawson,
You wrote: "For the most part, I think I and my daughter should be safe."
That's good to hear.
You wrote: "It’s my car I’m concerned about – it won't fit into the elevator!! Where’s the Christian god when you need it?"
Yes. One can only imagine where he is and what he can do: "Lord, please make this elevator bigger so that my car can fit into it. And Lord, please make the elevator shaft bigger, too. Either that, Lord, or please make my car smaller, so that it fits in the elevator. And when the sky clears and the floods recede, could you please change the elevator, the elevator shaft, or my car back to normal?"
What Christian would deny his god's ability to do such things?
Ydemoc
????????????
Job 38:2 " “Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?"
Job 38:2 "Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?"
Why, you of course, Nide. That's who.
Regards,
Dawson
I guess it's true after all:
There is no fool like an old fool.
In a previous post in this thread of comments, Trinity wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Is this a lie?
Ydemoc
Gadget,
How old are you I want to see if I can call you an old fool it's pretty entertaining?
By the way Is it ok if i lie to you?
In a previous post in this thread of comments, Trinity wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Is this a lie?
Ydemoc
Gadget,
How old are you I want to see if I can call you an old fool it's pretty entertaining?
By the way Is it ok if i lie to you?
Trinity writes: "By the way Is it ok if i lie to you?"
Well, since the standard of morality is man's life, the answer entirely depends upon whether or not your lie helps me to protect my objective values or whether it seeks to take or destroy my objective values. (See my previous example regarding Anne Frank).
Honesty is not a virtue that is divorced from the facts of reality, and the facts of reality include context, i.e., lies are always about something.
And as Rand herself writes, "...good is neither an attribute of 'things in themselves' nor of man's emotional states, but an *evaluation* of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value..." (Rand; Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," p. 22).
For example, if you and I were ever prisoners of war (reality forbid!), and I asked you a question like, "So, Trinity, is tonight the night you and I make our great escape?" -- and, unbeknownst to me, I say this within earshot of our captors, then I would hope that you would lie and say that you didn't know what the hell I was talking about.
So for me to evaluate your question with specificity, I would ask that you tell me what it is that you might lie to me about?
But keep Rand's words in mind should you travel down a different path and decide to posit your god as a value that you are trying to keep by lying:
"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud—that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee—that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling—that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others." (Galt's Speech, "For The New Intellectual," p. 129)
But since you continue to believe that the unreal is real, and this invisible magic being that you believe in can never lie, can you find some time to explain these particular passages from your storybook?
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
Jeremiah 20:7
7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
Proverbs 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Trinity,
May I add a little of what Professor of Philosophy (University of Texas at Austin) Tara Smith, writes about morality, in her book entitled, "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics," (p. 96):
"...the authority of moral principles is premised on certain conditions, and those principles properly govern when those principles are in place. Reason is man's fundamental means of survival. The derivative moral virtues (honesty, justice, integrity, etc.) carry authority only when their exercise represents the application of reason.
Bear in mind that moral principles' claim on a person arises entirely from the fact that adherence to those principles is the way to advance his life. When another person uses force to try to manipulate him, however, the aggressor obliterates the relationship between moral principles and life; he cancels rational principles' ability to guide a person to that end. For the victim to nonetheless follow moral principles as usual would be to aid in his own destruction. Morality is a tool of self-preservation. It would make no sense to abide by the principles of morality when the conditions under which those principles *are* one's means of survival have been erased. The principles of morality do not, once recognized, acquire an inherent authority which is morally obligatory independently of their service to life."
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Gadget,
Rand. What a Fool.
Talk about explanations, rationalization etc.
Well. I would need to see some context first.
By the way you didn't answer my question here it is again:
Is it ok if i lie to you?
How's willie nelson did the storm pass?-
Trinity wrote,
You wrote: "Rand. What a Fool."
Yes. We know that you have asserted this. As far as I recall, you haven't backed up this assertion by interacting with anything she has said. What SPECIFICALLY do you find in her writings that is foolish?
You wrote: "Talk about explanations, rationalization etc."
What is wrong with explanations? Do not your fellow apologists explain things? Would you rather she resort to mystery, like the bible and your fellow apologists ultimately do? Can you point to me where there are SPECIFIC rationalizations?
Trinity wrote: "Well. I would need to see some context first."
And I need some context for this statement, because it isn't clear what this is referring to. Would you care to clarify?
Trinity wrote: "By the way you didn't answer my question here it is again: Is it ok if i lie to you?"
Oh, but I did answer your question. But you choose not to interact with it.
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Nide Corniell wrote: "Well. I would need to see some context first."
This is funny – as if you were some critically-minded thinker. Of course, you're not.
Here’s a question for you and your worldview, whether it’s authentic Christianity or your heretical version:
On your view, can evil ever be morally justified?
Yes or no?
Please explain your answer.
Regards,
Dawson
P.S. Do you still object to your god being called imaginary?
Willie,
How long will you vex my spirit?
You've read the bible, Van Til, and Bahnsen. You know the answers to your questions.
The personal attacks are really funny. Do you enjoy harrasing your brothers in Christ?
What a spiteful "little" man.
When did I ever object?
See you do believe in the imaginary "Nide Corniel".
Gadget,
The context to the verses you provided.
How old are you?
I didn’t see your answer, Nide, though from your comments it appears you must think there’s a clear answer to my question. Perhaps you didn’t see my question, so I’ll ask it again:
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Yes or no?
Please explain your answer.
Regards,
Dawson
Trinity wrote: "How old are you?"
Your pretend god supposedly knows -- ask him.
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
To the bad guy in the movie(BB),
Hopefully, this is the last time I have to you a fool today.
King Solomon says "Don't answer the fool(Dawson) according to his folly or you will be like him(God Forbid).
Gadget,
Yea ,I think you ran your course.
Trinity.
To the bad guy in the movie(BB),
Hopefully, this is the last time I have to you call you a fool today.
King Solomon says "Don't answer the fool(Dawson) according to his folly or you will be like him(God Forbid).
Gadget,
Yea ,I think you ran your course.
Trinity.
Nide wrote: “Hopefully, this is the last time I have to you a fool today.”
Nide, your participation in these comments is entirely voluntary. You do this on your own volition. Neither I, Ydemoc, nor Justin is compelling or coercing you in any way to do something against your will. And of course, I don’t think any of us have asked you to “you a fool,” either today or on any other occasion.
Now, as for my question, I still have not seen your answer. Perhaps again you still did not see it, so I will post it again:
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Yes or no?
Please explain your answer.
Regards,
Dawson
Willie,
Ask John Calvin.
Trinity, why won't you answer Dawson's question? What are you afraid of?
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Apparently Nide is stumped by my question, whether or not evil is ever morally justified. What could be so difficult about this question, especially if one's worldview affirms an infallible law-giver and an absolute morality?
Perhaps Nide has no answer to this question, does not know what the answer is, or is afraid to give his answer. Either way, he does not explain his reluctance to answer a straightforward question about his worldview's moral position.
I'd say this is a keeper. I wonder how the illustrious Sye Ten Bruggencate would answer it.
Regards,
Dawson
Ydemoc,
You know the old adage:
Don't negotiate with terrorists. Suppose I answer his question Is there any guarantee that he will stop harassing Christians probably not?
See Dawson is not out to learn but to destroy men's minds
Ever notice how he, continuously, flatters himself?
It's embarrassing.
Blarkings. I mean blessings.
Dawson,
Did you see Sye's CD?
Run while you can.
Trinity wrote: You know the old adage: Don't negotiate with terrorists. Suppose I answer his question Is there any guarantee that he will stop harassing Christians probably not?"
He isn't harassing anyone. As he's explained to you repeatedly, you are the one that has come on his blog, not he on yours. Any harassing being done is by you. It seems that your imagination isn't just limited to a belief in unreal deities; it's also prone to conjuring up unreal events.
But let's suppose for a moment that your assertion is true, that he is harassing you? Why should this bother you as a Christian? Didn't the disciples die for their faith? Isn't this harassment to be expected, according to your bible? Isn't it expected by Christians that people will persecute you because of your faith? Aren't you blessed because of this? If so, why all the complaining?
Trinity wrote: "See Dawson is not out to learn but to destroy men's minds"
One sees in others what is present in oneself -- another old adage.
Trinity wrote: "Ever notice how he, continuously, flatters himself?"
No. I have never seen Dawson give himself excessive and insincere praise. This would be quite out of character for him. In fact, the pride I've seen him taken in himself and his work is right on the money and quite sincere.
Trinity wrote: "It's embarrassing."
If one is embarrassed by self-esteem, I suppose one would come to this conclusion.
Ydemoc
"Dawson,
Did you see Sye's CD?
Run while you can."
why don't you go get Sye to help you answer the question that Dawson asked about evil...simple answers...YES or...NO. With an "all knowing god capable of miracles" on your side, it should be a cinch. ( because you need a miracle to answer it without contradiction according to your worldview )
It's You and Sye who are running from the truth...not Dawson.
It's obvious to any honest thinker.
Ydemoc,
Your response is embarrassing.
Trinity wrote: "Your response is embarrassing."
Trinity, have you noticed that not one other apologist has come onto this website to defend or support you? Have you ever asked yourself why? Perhaps it's because that it is, in fact, you who is an embarrassment to them and the imaginary god you both believe in.
Ydemoc
I have the bible, Ydemoc, that's all I need.
Your response is embarrassing.
Trinity wrote: "I have the bible, Ydemoc, that's all I need."
What did people need before the bible was put down in writing? What did the Chinese need, whose civilization predates the bible by tens of thousands of years?
Ydemoc
I asked: “Do you still object to your god being called imaginary?”
Nide responded: “When did I ever object?”
I see. So, you’re conceding that your god is imaginary now. You’re making great progress!
Nide asked: “Did you see Sye's CD?”
No, I haven’t. Did he lose one of his CDs? What makes you think I have it?
Nide wrote: “Run while you can.”
Run? Run where? And why? Are you suggesting I should fear someone like Sye Ten Bruggencate? You’re kidding, right?
So, how about it, Nide – what’s your answer to my question? On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Here’s your chance to demonstrate the moral superiority of your worldview.
You aren’t going to let a simple question stop up your mouth this easily, are you?
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Afraid would be sugar coating. Actually, your terrified.
I'm pretty sure Eric Hovind or the guys over at choosing hats would be more than happy to set up the debate. So, when you're ready you know where to find them.
Ydemoc,
Not only is your question dishonest but it also shows your rebellion and need of repentance. Today is the day of salvation.
P.S. Remember I don't negotiate with terrorist.
Ydemoc,
Trinity wrote: "Not only is your question dishonest but it also shows your rebellion and need of repentance."
No it doesn't. Repentance is an invalid concept if it has anything to do with the imaginary god you worship.
Trinity wrote: "Today is the day of salvation."
No it's not. There is no such day -- for anyone. No one needs to be saved by an imaginary being from an imaginary torture chamber. It's all in your head.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc wrote: “Trinity, have you noticed that not one other apologist has come onto this website to defend or support you? Have you ever asked yourself why?”
I’ve noticed this too, and for quite some time. My guess is that Nide would prefer to interpret the non-support of other Christians as an indication that he’s doing just fine on his own.
In his own way, Nide is doing everyone a great service by posting his comments in a publicly accessible forum like this. Now we have a record of just how gawd-awful an apologist who attempts to go the distance really is. Usually apologists go a couple rounds and then scram, like Sye TenB, Rick Warden, Chris Bolt, Vytautas, and numerous others who come to mind. Most apologists seem to have at least enough sense to get out of the game when becomes obvious that they're overmatched, and then we never hear from them again. But Nide is different. His profuse masochism keeps him coming back for ever-increasing helpings of self-humiliation time after time. It is his gift to the world. Whoever sent him must delight in watching people sacrifice themselves.
Nide wrote: “I have the bible, Ydemoc, that's all I need.”
Unfortunately, however, many of your pronouncements have been quite unbiblical. For instance, you have stated the following:
“God is existence”
“God is logic”
“God is morality”
If the bible is all you need, and you really think your position is faithful to what the bible teaches, then let’s see where these doctrines are presented in the bible. I’ve never even seen the concepts ‘logic’ and ‘morality’ in any of my bibles, and I’ve looked for them. Please, show me what I must have missed.
Regards,
Dawson
Trinity,
Did you know that John from Patmos, you know, the supposed author of the book of revelation, did you know he, or whoever wrote that book, was a heavy user of hallucinogens?
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Dawson,
And may I add to your latest posted comment, another question that Trinity still has not answered:
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Nide: “Afraid would be sugar coating. Actually, your terrified.”
Terrified? Of Sye TenB? Boy, you believe a lot of really strange things.
Nide: “I'm pretty sure Eric Hovind or the guys over at choosing hats would be more than happy to set up the debate. So, when you're ready you know where to find them.”
My work is here, at IP. I’ve attempted on numerous times to interact with the fellows at Choosing Hats. But they always find an excuse, like Sye TenB and David Smart (who posts under the name “Ryft Braeloch” over at Aristophrenium). They want soundbites that are easy to construe into gaffs that they can pounce on in glee and say “Atheists are so stoooopid!” It’s obvious that this is really what they’re after. They won’t interact with my blogs. They know they can’t. No one does. I can’t find anyone who does. Can you?
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Apologist?
You should be ashamed that a laymen. Has took you out of business. It's embarrassing.
Ydemoc,
It's past your bedtime.
Trinity,
Did you know that Paul was an epileptic and prone suffering seizures that resulted in seeing visions?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
Did you know that your imaginary god had an imaginary wife?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc: “And may I add to your latest posted comment, another question that Trinity still has not answered: On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?”
Good question. I wonder how any Christian would answer it.
I am presently compiling a brief list of questions for presuppositionalists. Once I’m done, I’ll post it on my blog. Presuppers like to hit non-believers with questions that they think will stump us. So, let’s see how well those who designate themselves as “chosen” by an omniscient, infallible magic being can answer questions put to them.
And yes, the question "is evil ever morally justifiable?" will be represented on that list.
Regards,
Dawson
Trinity,
What does "this generation" mean?
Ydemoc
I'm stoked for than new list of Q's
: ]
Dawson,
You wrote: "I am presently compiling a brief list of questions for presuppositionalists."
I'm looking forward to your questions. Also, and as I'm sure you already know, Anton Thorn had a list of interesting questions for believers which had to do with the biblical basis (or lack thereof) for individual rights. I made a point to save these questions as a text clipping.
Ydemoc
Trinity,
Did Adam have a naval?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
Did Jesus have DNA?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Go tuck yourself in and don't forget your Teddy Bear.
Here is something you can think about while you fall asleep:
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b]and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
Blessings.
Trinity,
Did Jesus ever have an erection?
Ydemoc
Trinity wrote: "Go tuck yourself..."
Did you just tell me to go "tuck myslef"!?!
Ydemoc
Nide wrote: “Apologist? You should be ashamed that a laymen. Has took you out of business. It's embarrassing.”
So far as I can tell, a great many of the internet apologists that I know of are mere "laymen." Perhaps some may be “youth deacons” who take 12-year-old boys out to “prayer camp” on three-day weekends. (Perhaps that is where "laymen" first come into being...) If one is inclined to suppose that such activity bolsters their credentials, I guess we can be happy for them.
But I know of only a handful of “professional apologists,” and so far as I know they are not active on the web other than by having an online "office," posting previously published articles (often about some obscure point having to do with "church doctrine" - i.e., with little to no apologetic value to begin with), advertising upcoming events (pointing visitors to where they can buy tickets), and promoting sales of their books. I don't expect William Lane Craig or John Frame to participate in discussions like this, on a non-believer's blog. After all, they have their reputations to protect.
Let’s not forget that presuppositionalists apparently think all believers should be apologists, regardless of their station in the church. For they are constantly pointing to I Peter 3:15, which commands believers to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you.” After Romans 1:18-21, I Peter 3:15 is probably presuppositionalism’s most oft-cited NT passage. Bahnsen himself used the phrase “always ready” for the title of one of his books.
Besides, don’t believers who are doing “the Lord’s business” have the “Holy Ghost” indwelling in them? What possible significance could church station have when you have an infallible supernatural being cuddling in some dark corner of your soul and guiding your steps?
As for putting me “out of business,” is there something I don’t know about? I just checked, my blog is still here and doing well. In fact, after more than six years now, it’s thriving. And keep this in mind: IP is a one-man show. My blog isn’t like Christian blogs, where they have a “staff” of contributors who seem to need the security of a group to do anything. I’m all by myself here, and I haven’t missed posting for any month since I started my blog back in March 2005. And I intend to continue so long as I can, even if Nide Corniell doesn’t approve.
So, stick around. You’re doing the world a favor by making your apologetic “skills” visible for all to see.
Regards,
Dawson
After Trinity wrote: "Here is something you can think about while you fall asleep," he sent me Isaiah 53:1-12 for me to read.
So I will return the favor by offering him something to think about after he wakes up:
"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it . . . Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."
(Galt's Speech, "For the New Intellectual," Ayn Rand, p. 124)
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Dawson,
How does it feel to lose to a novice?
Dawson,
When Trinity disappears from this board it will probably be because someone from his ilk -- someone that he looks up to -- informs him that he is embarrassing himself and his faith.
As Rand said, "Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others."
One thing we can say for certain: Any reason for Trinity's departure from this board certainly won't be because of any rapture.
Trinity, what does "this generation" mean?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
Did god have a wife?
Ydemoc
Nide asked: “How does it feel to lose to a novice?”
It’s not clear what relevance this question has for the discussion. Am I to take it as a general question about my character? If so, here’s my answer:
It depends on what I sought from the experience and what I actually got out of it. For instance, did I seek enjoyment from it, and did I actually enjoy it? Did I seek to learn something from it, and did I actually learn anything from it? If I enjoy myself or learn something from it, I’m happy to take the loss.
Let me give an example. I was out with my daughter a few weeks ago and some of the neighbor kids were playing Mah Ghep with each other. My daughter wanted to play so she dragged me over there, and being a lover of fun, I asked the kids to teach me how to play. Most of them were good, but I was soon matched with a young girl who had apparently played only a couple times herself, so she was only a bit less new to the game than I was. In effect, she was a novice. And she won, hands down. But I learned some new techniques, and both I and my daughter had a great time. That’s what I wanted, and that’s what I got.
Now, I’ve answered your question. How about answering mine?
Here it is again:
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Are you going to continue hiding in the tall grass on this one?
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
You wrote: "Usually apologists go a couple rounds and then scram, like Sye TenB, Rick Warden, Chris Bolt, Vytautas, and numerous others who come to mind."
That Vytautas character was really an odd bird. Half the time I couldn't understand what he was trying to say, but you answered every question and every assertion he tried to make.
A while back, I was actually entertaining going through your writings and making a list of the names of all the apologists that have visited your blog and whom you have spanked.
And I still may do it at some point, but I don't know -- that's a lot of apologists.
Ydemoc
Dawson,
I really enjoy your side kick's antics. It only shows his rebellion and need for repentance.
Now your "argument" breaks down to God is imaginary.
Is it because you have never had physical contact with God or perceived him?
Trinity,
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Nide: “Now your ‘argument’ breaks down to God is imaginary. Is it because you have never had physical contact with God or perceived him?”
Not only are your reasoning skills far below average, but your inability to retain what has already been explained to you is remarkable.
I’ve nowhere argued that the Christian god (or even your heretical deity) is imaginary *because* I “have never had physical contact with God or perceived him.” That has never - *never* - been my argument. So unless you want to continue in the futility of battling a strawman, get this out of your head with respect to my position.
In the past I have pointed you to a blog of mine where I offer 13 pieces of evidence securing the conclusion that the Christian deity is imaginary. I will give you that link again here:
The Imaginative Nature of Christian Theism
So again, I have answered yet another question of yours. Now it’s your turn to return the favor and answer mine. Here it is again:
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
You didn't answer my question instead you pulled one of your evasive tactics. I read your entry it breaks down to God is invisible. I can't see him. Therefore he must be imaginary.
Here is the question again:
Is it because you have never had physical contact with God or perceived him?
Like I told Justin. Strawmen are only found in movies see why the analogy "the movie universe of atheism" fits remember the wizard of oz?
Trinity,
If Jesus was "fully man," did he ever have an erection?
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Trinity,
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
Is your god a mind-independent entity?
Ydemoc
Nide wrote: “You didn't answer my question instead you pulled one of your evasive tactics.”
How did I not answer your question? You asked if my argument is that your god is imaginary because I “have never had physical contact with God or perceived him,” and I answered with an emphatic no. How is that not answering your question?
In addition I directed you – for the umpteenth time – to a blog of mine where I lay out 13 points of evidence for supposing that your god, and the Christian god as well, is imaginary. I see that you have not interacted with even one of the points that I present in that blog.
Nide wrote: “I read your entry it breaks down to God is invisible. I can't see him. Therefore he must be imaginary.”
Quote my words, Nide, and show me exactly where I made the argument you are attributing to me. It’s startling to suppose that anyone would honestly walk away with this understanding from my blog post. But then again, Nide, you are not known around here for being honest.
Does anyone else who has actually read this blog post understand me to be arguing that the Christian god is imaginary *because* I “have never had physical contact with God or perceived him”? If so, please show exactly how one gets this understanding from what I actually wrote. I don’t think Nide is going to explain himself, so if someone else got the same interpretation as Nide says he got from it, please show yourself and explain, using quotes directly from my blog, to show that this is what I have argued.
Nide: “Here is the question again: Is it because you have never had physical contact with God or perceived him?”
And here’s my answer, again: No, I’ve nowhere argued that the Christian god (or even your heretical deity) is imaginary *because* I “have never had physical contact with God or perceived him.” That has never - *never* - been my argument. So unless you want to continue in the futility of battling a strawman, get this out of your head with respect to my position.
Nide: “Like I told Justin. Strawmen are only found in movies”
It appears you don’t know what is meant in logic by “strawman.” See here and start on an education.
Nide: “see why the analogy ‘the movie universe of atheism’ fits remember the wizard of oz?”
No, I don’t see the analogy. The analogy between what and what?
Now again, please address my question:
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Regards,
Dawson
Nide
"By faith"
By pretending to yourself to believe what you know isn't so. The amount of "faith" you have will depend on how competently you play this game.
Don't bother, we all know what you are up to.
Nide: “So you have no choice but to take it for granted. Which assumes faith something your philosophy precludes.”
So faith is taking something for granted without rational explanation?
Dawson,
You wrote: "Perhaps some may be “youth deacons” who take 12-year-old boys out to “prayer camp” on three-day weekends. (Perhaps that is where "laymen" first come into being...)"
That's funny! I didn't catch this last evening. I must've missed it in my haste in firing off my questions to Trinity.
Ydemoc
Luiz,
Matthew 27: "46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
48And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
49The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. 50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Hey Nide, thanks for the posting of random story book script...I picked out one for you too! see below:
"Alice: Why, why that's me! I'm asleep!
Queen: Don't let her get away! Off with her head!
Alice: Alice, wake up! Please wake up, Alice! Alice! Please wake up, Alice! Alice! Alice! Alice!
Sister: Alice! Alice! Will you kindly pay attention and recite your lesson?
Alice: Huh? Oh. Oh! Uh... how doth the little crocodile, improve his shining tail. And pour the waters of the...
Sister: Alice, what are you talking about?
Alice: Oh, I'm sorry, but you see, the Caterpillar said...
Sister: Caterpillar? Oh, for goodness sake. Alice, I... Oh, well. Come along, it's time for tea.
Alice in Wonderland, over the hill or here or there, I wonder where.
Alice in Wonderland, how do you get to Wonderland?
Over the hill or under land, or just behind the tree?
Alice in Wonderland, where is the path to Wonderland?
Over the hill or here or there, I wonder where. "
notice how imaginary things happen in storybooks...like talking snakes, donkeys, and caterpillars.
Trinity,
What did they offer him to drink before crucifying him?
Matthew: "Vinegar mingled with gall" (xxvii, 34).
Mark: "Wine mingled with myrrh" (xv, 23).
Luke: "Vinegar" alone (xxiii, 36).
The draughts mentioned by Matthew and Mark refer to a Jewish mixture intended to produce stupefaction and lessen pain. Had the Romans crucified him it is not probable that they would have observed this Jewish custom.
("The Christ" John E. Remsberg, Chapter 6 - "The Crucifixion of Christ" available at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg06.htm)
Blarkings.
P.S. On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
More Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Trinity,
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Is this a lie?
Blarkings,
P.S. On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Ydemoc
Dawson,
Another thought that occurred to me: Are evil *thoughts* ever morally justifiable?
I haven't explored the possible replies to this question to any great extent, but the question was prompted by my thoughts about the Christian god's so-called "omniscience"; and how such a being, if it was all-knowing, would be unable to avoid evil thoughts and images, since it would know *everything* and everything would have to include that which is evil, including the immoral actions of human beings.
(Of course, the assumption that such a being exists rests on a primacy of consciousness metaphysics as it bypasses a host of other problems for Christians, not the least of which is that believers have no reliable way of telling us how to distinguish between their god and what is imaginary; and the fact that such a being would not hold it's knowledge in the form of concepts. Nonetheless, I would be interested in hearing how a Christian might answer this question.)
Ydemoc
To those in need of repentance,
Isaiah 55: " 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Nide,
I’m not in need of “repentance,” but I already know that the “thoughts” of an imaginary malevolent being are not the same thoughts of mine. My thoughts are guided by reason, while the holy storybook of Christianity makes it entirely clear that the god which the ancient primitives imagined in compiling that storybook, was not guided by reason.
Also, I already know that its ways are not my ways. The NT makes it clear that it stood idly by while its child was being tortured and executed, when it had the power and opportunity to prevent such injustice. In contrast to this, I love my child, I take care of her, I protect her, I see to her every need, and I ensure that no harm comes to her, to whatever extent I am able. So there’s a stark contrast here. It’s a contrast of character: your god lets its child suffer and die unjustly, while I love and protect my daughter. And notice how your worldview praises your god’s choice to let its son suffer and die unjustly, while it condemns me for protecting my values.
Your storybook wants to say its god’s ways are “higher” than mine. Well, if you think standing by and allowing one’s child to suffer and die unjustly at the hands of the unjust when such injustice could easily be prevented is “higher,” then you tell us all we need to know about your character. You see, Nide, it’s as much a matter of character as it is about the philosophical solvency of our respective worldviews.
Meanwhile, a visitor to my site sent me a link to a short video called The Atheist Delusion. The author calls it “indisputable Biblical proof that atheists are deluded and stupid.” Since I thought of you when I watched it, I was wondering what you might think of it.
Regards,
Dawson
Trinity,
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Is this a lie?
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Are the people who have translated the various bibles from the non-existent original manuscripts, are they liars, too?
Blarkings,
P.S. On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Someone in the comments section over at Debunking Christianity wrote that "Since Christians generally believe in a triune God" that it might be "helpful to replace 'the Lord' with 'Jesus'" in the Old Testament.
(All credit for the following goes to him or her -- I failed to note where it came from and I couldn't locate it when I tried to find it again in the comments section.)
For example...
Numbers 15:32-36 NAB: "While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was discovered gathering
wood on the Sabbath day. Those who caught him at it brought him to
Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. But they kept him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him. Then Jesus said to Moses, "This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp." So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death as Jesus had commanded Moses."
"Then he said to them, “This is what Jesus, the God of Israel, says:
‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to Jesus today, for you were against your own sons and
brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
Or how about this, from Judges 9:23:
9:23 Then Jesus sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
9:24 That the cruelty done to the threescore and ten sons of Jerubbaal might come, and their blood be laid upon Abimelech their brother, which slew them; and upon the men of Shechem, which aided him in the killing of his brethren.
Or how about this from 2 Kings:
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of Jesus. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
*************
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Dawson,
Thanks for the vid. It's pretty hilarious. "The parody" would of been a better title. I am not sure why atheist make fun of themselves. It's strange.
Anyway, I don't think atheist are stupid. Maybe Ydemoc but honestly, I just think he needs to see a MD.
P.S. Ydemoc how old are you?
Just in case anyone is interested,
http://www.proofconference.com/?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=f7605def2e-ProofConference_Save_The_Date_110_13_2011&utm_medium=email
Dawson look it's Sye.
Trinity,
Do you deny that Jesus is/was the Lord of the Old Testament? If not, then wouldn't it be okay to substitute "Lord" for "Jesus"? According to Christianity, aren't they one and the same?
Perhaps I was a little unfair in asking you if Jesus had an erection. I just thought that since you seem to know things via faith, you would know this. But maybe your faith isn't as strong as other Christians who have answered this question. (By the way, the bible's assertions about the strength or weakness of faith as it pertains to claims that it is a basis for knowledge opens up a whole other can of worms for believers. But such a discussion can wait for another time)
So I'll ask a different question: Have you ever wondered yourself whether or not Jesus ever had an erection? Yes or no?
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Is this a lie?
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Are the people who have translated the various bibles from the non-existent original manuscripts, are they liars, too?
Blarkings,
P.S. On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
More Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Earlier Trinity wrote: "Men are liars including me."
In a more recent comment, Trinity wrote: "Anyway, I don't think atheist are stupid. Maybe Ydemoc but honestly, I just think he needs to see a MD."
Is this a lie? When a self-proclaimed liar uses the word "honestly," should anyone believe that liar?
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
We have proof that your definitely a liar. For example,
Your "little" Larry King blunder.
So, my question is answered:
It's ok if lie to you. So, why are you complaining?
@Nide
If I write a function within a program to do task X but it fails to do task X, am I lying? I would have thought everyone in this discussion knew the difference between making a mistake and willfully deceiving others. Was I mistaken and if so was I therefore lying?
Trinity,
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
I asked: "Is this a lie?"
I asked: "Are the people who have translated the various bibles from the non-existent original manuscripts, are they liars, too?"
Trinity responded: "We have proof that your definitely a liar. For example, Your "little" Larry King blunder."
Trinity, you contradict yourself, for a "blunder" is not a lie, but a mistake. Furthermore, why would you even have to cite proof that men are liars? Isn't this a part of what your god tells you? And what your god tells you isn't subject to proof is it?
Trinity, you can't keep your stories straight. (Neither could the gospels.)
You said that "men are liars, including me" and I'm simply asking if this is a lie?
If you choose to stand by this
answer you have given, how can anyone trust you when you witness to them about the "word" of your supposed god?
Additionally, you made an assertion that "men are liars" and have indicated elsewhere that this applies to everyone. So, are the people who have translated the various bibles from the non-existent original manuscripts, are they liars, too?
I also noticed you didn't answer other questions:
Have you ever wondered yourself whether or not Jesus ever had an erection? Yes or no?
Do you deny that Jesus is/was the Lord of the Old Testament?
If not, then wouldn't it be okay to substitute "Lord" for "Jesus"?
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
You asked me how old I was before, and I answered it like this: "Why don't you ask your god how old I am?" You might also try asking a milk carton because you will get the same answer from that as you would from your imaginary god.
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Justin,
If tell your boss it works then yea.
I don't see them being the same thing.
Inspector Gadget was more than happy to tell a lie. Before opening his mouth he could have checked it out. He chose not to.
See why it's ok if i lie to him?
This room is hilarious. The convos that come up are too much.
Justin your back I thought you had repented.
Ydemoc,
Back to wasting time. Nice
Justin,
As I pointed out to Trinity above, he undercuts his point by including the word "blunder" and equating it with a lie. Talk about a blunder!
Like the Joker often did in referring to Batman's sidekick, Robin -- The Boy Wonder -- I too find it fitting to refer to Trinity as "Boy Blunder."
Ydemoc
Nide said .....Justin your back I thought you had repented.
@Nide
I admitted that my criticism of the bible concerning its claims about flying animals and insects was in error. That is a far cry from accepting the christian paradigm. As I eluded to earlier I don't view my knowledge as a seamless whole. I view it as contextual, thus I see no problem in logical principle that some parts of the bible maybe in error while others are factual.
Good work. Gadget. You have saved the world from Dr.claw once again.
Congrats.
Trinity,
Why can't you thoughtfully answer questions posed to you? Is it because you are insecure about your answers? Are you afraid that exploration by you of such questions would threaten your faith? Is it because you have yet to acquire the knowledge necessary to answer these questions thoughtfully? Or is a combination of all the above?
Whatever it is, why don't you give it the ol' college try with these questions:
Have you ever wondered to yourself whether or not Jesus ever had an erection? Yes or no?
Do you deny that Jesus is/was the Lord of the Old Testament?
If not, then wouldn't it be okay to substitute "Lord" for "Jesus"?
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
You asked me how old I was before,
If you had thoughtfully answered questions posed to you, responding with some semblance of cordiality, then perhaps I might have given you an answer. But since you haven't, I choose to respond this way...
Why don't you ask your god how old I am? Or you might try asking a milk carton because you will get the same answer from a milk carton as you would from your imaginary god.
Ydemoc
John 14: "8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip?
Trinity posted from John 14: "8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Phillip?"
And so I think I should return the favor with a little action and dialogue from "South Park." Here's the scene:
[License place BM 475. The camera pans up to reveal Terrance driving Phillip, Katherine and Katie down a country road. They pass a sign saying "Entering CANADIAN WINE COUNTRY. Over THREE WINERIES to explore." The four continue down the road until they reach Canadian White Wine Winery. They go in and sample the wine. Terrance finishes his glass and farts into it. The two men laugh. The foursome get back on the road. Sometime later, Katie queefs on Terranace]
Terrance: AAH! [the sisters laugh. The foursome then stops at Canadian Red Wine Winery. Inside they sample more wine and ]
Phillip: Damnit I'm trying to enjoy my wine, Katie!
Terrance: No, that was me, Phillip. I farted.
Phillip: Oh. [laughs his head off. Terrance laughs too. The foursome leave and get back on the road. Terrance is still driving. They're all drinking straight from bottles]
Katherine: Oh, this is a dream come true. I've always wanted to meet you, Phillip. [Terrance steps on the brakes hard]
Terrance: Phillip?! I'm Terrance!
Katie: What? I thought you were Terrance.
Phillip: No, I'm Phillip!
**********
Blarkings.
Ydemoc
Is anybody going to see Sye?
Here is the link again get your tickets early:
http://www.proofconference.com/?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=f7605def2e-ProofConference_Save_The_Date_110_13_2011&utm_medium=email
Trinity,
During his ministry, did Jesus ever destroy someone else's private property without restitution?
Ydemoc
Nide wrote: “Is anybody going to see Sye?”
Why? Is someone finally going to prove that the Christian god exists? After all the effort for two thousand years to prove this claim, someone’s finally going to do it???
Nide: “Here is the link again get your tickets early…”
Thanks for the link. But earlier you had mentioned something about a CD. You never elaborated on this. Was this just more of your vain puffery, Nide?
Speaking of Sye, when do you think he’ll ever interact with my critique of his “proof”? It’s been well over a year now, plenty of time I’d think for him to prepare a response. But from what I can tell, he hasn’t even read it. Do you suppose he’s afraid of facing something he can’t overcome?
Regards,
Dawson
P.S. Question for you, Nide: On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Ydemoc,
Mark 11: "12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[c]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’[d]”
How about you, ydemoc, would you destroy a thieves "property"?
P.S. I dont negotiate with terrorists.
Here is the link for Sye's CD it's only 8 dollars:
http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/1222/nm/Think_Discover_How_You_Can_Prove_To_Anyone_That_God_Exists_Audio_CD_/category_id/85
I had asked Trinity, "During his ministry, did Jesus ever destroy someone else's private property without restitution?"
Trinity cited Mark 11:12-16, where Jesus drove out the "money changers" from the temple courts, and then asked me, "would you destroy a thieves [sic] 'property?'"
That is (finally) an excellent question, Trinity, and one that can be explored further down the line. However, it does assumes these folks in the temple were thieves.
In any event, the problem with this question-answer, as it pertains to Jesus and his actions, is that you are asking that I compare myself to Jesus (I can't say I'm flattered). You see, I have never maintained that I am without an ability to make the wrong moral choice, but believers in Jesus do claim this about him. They say he was without sin, that he was and is morally perfect. And it seems to me that being without sin would have to include not taking someone else's property without asking first or without restitution.
Furthermore, the passage you cited isn't necessarily the one I had in mind. There is a much more powerful passage that applies. And that is Mark 5:11-14. Observe:
5:11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
5:12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
5:14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
So there you have it, Trinity. And I don't recall anywhere in the bible reading about how those who owned those 2000 pigs were paid back by Jesus for his destruction of them.
But this isn't the only passage, Trinity, where the anonymous writers of the bible failed to think things through when constructing their stories of the, supposedly, only moral being that ever walked the earth.
Your response?
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Nide: “How about you, ydemoc, would you destroy a thieves ‘property’?”
In a civilized society, one does not take the law into his own hands. This would be a matter for the courts to decide. Perhaps you have not heard of the concept of due process. It’s not in the bible. In a civilized society, an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Only then can punishment be legitimately determined.
Contrast this with the Christian view of man: everyone is guilty by virtue of the fact that he exists. We were already judged as guilty centuries before we were even born. Then we’re supposed to get judged again after we die. And surprise, that judgment is just going to be a repeat of the original judgment that was made long before we even existed. That’s the Christian style of “justice.”
Nide: “P.S. I dont negotiate with terrorists.”
We don’t know that. But, you do *enable* them. For you champion a worldview which holds that evil is morally justifiable. Without folks like you, terrorism would never get off the ground.
And there’s even more to the kinship between your worldview and that of the terrorists. Terrorists want to inflict fear. Christianity holds that fear is “the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7). It’s all about peddling fear and treating fear as a primary.
Nide: “Here is the link for Sye's CD it's only 8 dollars:”
Thanks for the link. I’m wondering, though: how is anything presented in that CD different from what Sye presents on his website? Has he changed his argument in some way, and instead of posting the changes on his website, he now wants people to buy his CD?
It seems that Christians are continually pumping out more “arguments” which are finally supposed to prove the existence of their god. They keep trying and trying and trying again, but the results are always the same: more fallacy-riddled, jargon-saturated, soundbite-laden platitudes passed off as “reasoning” that’s supposed to stop non-believers in their tracks. Funny that never happens.
Regards,
Dawson
Ydemoc: “And since this is the case according to Christians, why do they and the bible they believe in, make any distinction at all with regard to sins? Why not just come out and say, ‘You're alive, you're a sinner and everything you do is a sin. Living is a sin’."
Well, for one, that would give away the game. It would make the injustice of the notion of ‘sin’ all too easy to detect. The Christian policy is to conceal its injustices. Taking a stand on an issue will often jeopardize this intention. Consider how Nide is reluctant to answer the question about whether or not evil is ever morally justifiable according to his worldview.
Also, the Christian worldview wants to make sure that all blame for sin rests squarely on man’s shoulders. So it props up the ruse underlying the notion of ‘sin’ that it is something man does, whether freely (cf. the “free will defense” theodicy) or by predestination (where the Christian god is supposedly exonerated by being an ultimate cause while man is the “proximate” cause – this never gets off the ground very well, so they adopt the notion of “compatibilism” to help explain away the contradictions). If they came out and said “you’re guilty by virtue of the fact that you exist,” this would openly point the finger of blame back at the Christian god. They want man to be the blame. So the notion of “sin” was invented to bridge the contradictions.
Regards,
Dawson
Ydemoc "
Exactly. And since this is the case according to Christians, why do they and the bible they believe in, make any distinction at all with regard to sins? Why not just come out and say, "You're alive, you're a sinner and everything you do is a sin. Living is a sin."
Wowsers!!! Gadget(Finally) you got something right. It would have not crossed my mind in a million years. Yea, Your a wicked sinner in need of repentance.
Dawson said: "It seems that Christians are continually pumping out more “arguments” which are finally supposed to prove the existence of their god. They keep trying and trying and trying again, but the results are always the same: more fallacy-riddled, jargon-saturated, soundbite-laden platitudes passed off as “reasoning” that’s supposed to stop non-believers in their tracks. Funny that never happens.
Is this a joke?
I "proved" God so many times here at the "Bahnsen Burner" I got proofs "coming out of my ears".
Maybe you were sleeping.
Dawson said: "For you champion a worldview which holds that evil is morally justifiable"
It's interesting that the same thing you kick and scream about you yourself do. Simply Amazing.
P.S. Ydemoc are you stupid?
Dawson,
I deleted my last comment because I didn't quite put it the way I wanted to.
Anyway, you had written: "Contrast this with the Christian view of man: everyone is guilty by virtue of the fact that he exists. We were already judged as guilty centuries before we were even born."
Exactly. And what I wanted to say is that I realize Christians do say things like, "since you are alive, you are a sinner -- just by virtue of being born."
But why doesn't the bible just say this, instead of making a distinction between all the sins men are capable of. If the bible just said, "You're alive. You're a sinner by virtue of the fact that you're alive. Everything you do is a sin. Living is a sin" -- then that would be more consistent with this doctrine.
But it doesn't *only* say this. As I've said, it lists the kinds of sins that men are capable of. At the same time, it says that certain people and nations are blessed.
To me, this is just more evidence that the mystic writers of the bible were just making it up as they went along. Instead of baseball, football, or some other diversion, this was their pastime: Making up elaborate fantasy stories.
By the way, I'm still not sure if this came out as clear as I intended.
Ydemoc
Dawson,
I see you've addressed my question. Thanks.
Ydemoc
I wrote: "It seems that Christians are continually pumping out more ‘arguments’ which are finally supposed to prove the existence of their god. They keep trying and trying and trying again, but the results are always the same: more fallacy-riddled, jargon-saturated, soundbite-laden platitudes passed off as ‘reasoning’ that’s supposed to stop non-believers in their tracks. Funny that never happens.”
Nide: “Is this a joke? I ‘proved’ God so many times here at the ‘Bahnsen Burner’ I got proofs ‘coming out of my ears’. Maybe you were sleeping.”
I don’t recall seeing any proofs of the Christian god’s existence from you, Nide. You’ve assumed it exists, but proving it is a different thing.
At any rate, in case I was sleeping, could you repost just one of the arguments that you say you’ve presented which proves your god’s existence? I’d really like to take a look at it.
I wrote: "For you champion a worldview which holds that evil is morally justifiable"
Nide: “It's interesting that the same thing you kick and scream about you yourself do. Simply Amazing.”
Gee, Nide, I don’t know what you’ve been watching, but I have kicked and screamed since I was a little kid. So what is it that you’re saying I do while at the same time I object to it? I certainly don’t champion a worldview which holds that evil is morally justifiable.
Regards,
Dawson
Ydemoc: "I see you've addressed my question. Thanks."
Soitinly! My pleasure!
Now if only Nide could learn to address questions.... We've modeled it for him time and time again, but he continues to spew incoherence, as though he were a robot programmed to do just that. He must be out to set some kind of record.
Regards,
Dawson
I had asked Trinity, "During his ministry, did Jesus ever destroy someone else's private property without restitution?"
Trinity cited Mark 11:12-16, where Jesus drove out the "money changers" from the temple courts, and then asked me, "would you destroy a thieves [sic] 'property?'"
That is (finally) an excellent question, Trinity, and one that can be explored further down the line. However, it does assumes these folks in the temple were thieves.
In any event, the problem with this question-answer, as it pertains to Jesus and his actions, is that you are asking that I compare myself to Jesus (I can't say I'm flattered). You see, I have never maintained that I am without an ability to make the wrong moral choice, but believers in Jesus do claim this about him. They say he was without sin, that he was and is morally perfect. And it seems to me that being without sin would have to include not taking someone else's property without asking first or without restitution.
Furthermore, the passage you cited isn't necessarily the one I had in mind. There is a much more powerful passage that applies. And that is Mark 5:11-14. Observe:
5:11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
5:12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
5:14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
So there you have it, Trinity. And I don't recall anywhere in the bible reading about how those who owned those 2000 pigs were paid back by Jesus for his destruction of them.
But this isn't the only passage, Trinity, where the anonymous writers of the bible failed to think things through when constructing their stories of the, supposedly, only moral being that ever walked the earth.
In response to all this, Trinity decided to ask me if I was stupid.
Trinity, do you have a real response to what I've presented to you? Or are you going to continue to lose souls by default?
Ydemoc
Trinity, Hezekiah, Nide (three substances of the Knucklehead:
"Losing Souls By Default, Ever Since I Began Defending The Faith"
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
How long will you vex my spirit?
Psalm 22: "12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment."
Trinity wrote: "How long will you vex my spirit?"
Why is it that Christian's spirits only get vexed when it comes to the challenges non-believers make to their imaginary god?
They seldom get vexed if a someone were to challenge the existence of, say, the moon, the sun, earth, dirt, water, money, the universe, wood, concrete. I find this quite interesting.
And why do they blame others for vexing them, when it is really they themselves who are responsible for the agitation they are suffering from?
"My name is Trinity, and I've been losing souls by default, ever since I've been defending the faith."
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
@Nide
"Trinity wrote: "How long will you vex my spirit?"
I strongly suspect Ydemoc will continue right up to the minute you stop visiting this blog. Just a suspicion.
I had asked Trinity, "During his ministry, did Jesus ever destroy someone else's private property without restitution?"
Trinity cited Mark 11:12-16, where Jesus drove out the "money changers" from the temple courts, and then asked me, "would you destroy a thieves [sic] 'property?'"
That is (finally) an excellent question, Trinity, and one that can be explored further down the line. However, it does assumes these folks in the temple were thieves.
In any event, the problem with this question-answer, as it pertains to Jesus and his actions, is that you are asking that I compare myself to Jesus (I can't say I'm flattered). You see, I have never maintained that I am without an ability to make the wrong moral choice, but believers in Jesus do claim this about him. They say he was without sin, that he was and is morally perfect. And it seems to me that being without sin would have to include not taking someone else's property without asking first or without restitution.
Furthermore, the passage you cited isn't necessarily the one I had in mind. There is a much more powerful passage that applies. And that is Mark 5:11-14. Observe:
5:11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
5:12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
5:14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
So there you have it, Trinity. And I don't recall anywhere in the bible reading about how those who owned those 2000 pigs were paid back by Jesus for his destruction of them. Can you tell me where I might find where the owners were compensated?
But this isn't the only passage, Trinity, where the anonymous writers of the bible failed to think things through when constructing their stories of the, supposedly, only moral being that ever walked the earth.
***************
In response to all this, Trinity decided to ask me if I was stupid.
Then he accused me of "vexing his spirit."
Trinity, do you have a real response to what I've presented to you? Or are you going to continue to lose souls by default?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Do you love me?
Do you love Dawson?
How about Justin and AJ?
P.S. Are you smart?
Justin,
Can you prove existence?
Justin,
"Trinity wrote: "How long will you vex my spirit?"
You wrote: "I strongly suspect Ydemoc will continue right up to the minute you stop visiting this blog. Just a suspicion."
Which just underscores my point about it being Trinity who is responsible for his feelings of agitation, not I. What's also noteworthy is that Trinity has aligned "spirit" with "feeling" by use of the term "vex."
And, as is typical of believers of all religions, we see Trinity relishing the role of martyr.
Ydemoc
@Nide
"Justin,
Can you prove existence?"
This has been covered before. The fact that you are asking yet again illustrates quit clearly for me that you have either forgotten what was said, don't care what was said or are just asking to be an ass.
For the record however for anyone else that might be reading this, one does not require proof of what one can directly sense. I see the computer in front of me, ergo there is existence. Proof is what is require for what cant be directly sensed/
@Ydemoc
yes agreed,if he cant stand the heat he has only to leave.
Justin,
I'm not being an "ass" I'm serous bro. Maybe another question would help.
Are you logical?
Ydemoc,
Do you love me?
Justin,
You wrote about Trinity: "...if he cant stand the heat he has only to leave."
Right. And the funny thing is, he probably thinks he's "vexing my spirit," but he's not, for he doesn't have that kind of power, even with the pretend guidance of his imaginary 3-for-the-price-of-1, super-duper deity.
Ydemoc
Nide asked "Are you logical?"
I try to be. Most of my friends tell me that I am. However it is true that at times in my life I have had emotions overwhelm my reason and I have acted in illogical ways. Logic is something that I am capable of but it is not automatic. It requires continuous effort on my part. So to answer you question, sometimes, hopefully more often then not.
Ydemoc?
Are you smart?
Justin,
Would you agree that your illogical most of the time then?
@Ydemoc
My roommate brings up an interesting question. Scene the Christian god is accepted arbitrarily, why not some other. He informs me their are Indian religious texts that predate the old testament even. Why not them? I mean one arbitrary claim is as good as another right?
Justin,
Is life arbitrary?
Ydemoc?
Are you smart?
@Nide
what is the point of this line of questioning? Regardless of whether I am smart (at what?) or not. Regardless of whether I practice logic on a consistent basis or not. None of this has the least bit of bearing on whether god exists or not. He either does or he does not. The question is can you give any reason for why we should think he does. As for you question of am I smart, at some things, yes I am smart. Computers, software I am very smart. Ask me to cook, well I think I could burn water. As for being logical? most of the time I am, and where it really counts very much so, like when my life and limb are on the line. In other words I look both ways before crossing a street. There are countless thousands of little logical acts like this that permeate my decisions thru out my days. I have gotten so frustrated with setting up a network once that I thru a bundle of Ethernet out a window, not logical but it did make me feel better and not much was on the line regarding that action. Those are the illogical actions I speak of. In terms of my own beliefs I constantly critically self examine them, something you I should add do not do, conformist remember? I am on the other hand constantly asking, is what I believe true, and how will I objectively test it. That is being logical Nide.
Inspector Gadget,
Where does it say anybody owned those swine?
The passage is Mark 5.11 right? I am going to go read it for myself. Getting late tho, guys I think this is it for me tonight
Justin,
Great response.
I "proved" Jehovah a long time ago. You must have missed it. It's subtle you have to keep both eyes open.
Dawson "proves" him all the time. He continues to say he loves and he's logical. Ever notice his great sense of humor? It's interesting because God has a sense of humor.
Justin,
You wrote: "My roommate brings up an interesting question. Scene the Christian god is accepted arbitrarily, why not some other. He informs me their are Indian religious texts that predate the old testament even. Why not them? I mean one arbitrary claim is as good as another right?"
That's why I was asking how Trinity could tell me how he knows that Blarko isn't true, but Christianity is. After several exchanges, it we got the answer from him, that it boiled down to faith.
Well, other religions, like Blarkoists and Indian religions can also point to faith as the reason for their religion being the only proper and true religion.
So faith leaves us with what? The arbitrary, (i.e., I know because I know; I believe because that's the way I was brought up; I believe because my book told me so; I believe because the "impossible of the contrary" etc. -- it's all arbitrary.
I actually had a Christian tell me that the reason that Muslims are evil is because their book advocates the killing of unbelievers, and that the Koran says that salvation is based on works. Can you fathom that!?! I responded, "That's what *your* book tells you! According to them and their book, it is you who's the infidel." I even brought up Deuteronomy 13, but was given nothing but rationalizations, including the ol' standby "That's the Old Testament."
Well, at one time, the god that Christians call Jesus instructed those people to kill non-believers. At one time, this practice was being urged by their god, and carried out by followers of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
Even the actions of the very god(s) Christians believe in are, at the foundation, arbitrary. Christians actually worship an imaginary, arbitrary deity.
Worshiping a whim, and an imaginary one to boot, seems quite silly. And the fact that they take such worship so seriously, seems even sillier.
Ydemoc
@Nide
my apologies, the question was directed at Ydemoc,not myself.
Is life arbitrary. That is a good question actually. Let me get back to on that one. Talk tomarrow
Trinity asked: "Where does it say anybody owned those swine?"
"14 Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened."
Those "tending the pigs"? I don't think one just "tends" or takes care or looks after or feeds something if it wasn't of some value to them, especially if it was 2,000 frickin' pigs!
Furthermore, here are other translations:
New Living Translation (©2007)
The herdsmen fled to the nearby town and the surrounding countryside, spreading the news as they ran. People rushed out to see what had happened.
English Standard Version (©2001)
The herdsmen fled and told it in the city and in the country. And people came to see what it was that had happened.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Their herdsmen ran away and reported it in the city and in the country. And the people came to see what it was that had happened.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
International Standard Version (©2008)
Now when those who had been taking care of the pigs ran away, they reported what had happened in the city and countryside. So the people went to see what had happened.
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Inspector Gadget,
Where does it say anybody owned those swine?
Did just happen to miss this one?
Hey Gadget,
What's your objection again?
Trinity,
Ownership of something does not have to be spelled out for it to be clearly inferred.
There were people taking care of the pigs and there were people feeding the pigs. Are you this dense (and selective, I might add) that you cannot draw an inference that people do not feed nor take care of things that are not of value to them? And if it was of value to them, whether the word "owner" appears or not, is insignificant, for Jesus destroyed something that was a value to someone else. That's destruction of property.
You're wrong.
Ydemoc
Justin asked: “what is the point of this line of questioning? Regardless of whether I am smart (at what?) or not.”
Nide cannot deal with the issues that have been raised in the discussions, and he cannot answer the questions which have been posed to him about his worldview.
Nide continually poses questions like he has because he wants to make the discussion about the participants who oppose his position, rather than about anything having to do with his position. He’s not interested in answers, but instead wants to shift the focus away from his religious views and their inability to withstand scrutiny. Our questions are sufficient to knock his worldview down for the count. So he wants to retaliate (he’s been rejected, remember?) by trying to knock us down personally. Notice that it’s Christians who continually try to make the debate personal.
Notice also that, after he had claimed that he had presented many “proofs” of his god’s existence in his comments and I asked him to repost just one of his arguments, he hasn’t done so. He was outmatched before even submitting his first comment to my blog back in July.
Instead of presenting an argument for his god’s existence, he offers a “proof”. Observe:
Nide wrote: “I ‘proved’ Jehovah a long time ago. You must have missed it.”
Yes, I must have.
Nide: “It's subtle you have to keep both eyes open.”
Okay. My eyes are wide open.
Nide: “Dawson ‘proves’ him all the time.”
Why do you put quotes around “proves”?
Now how do I “’prove’ him all the time”?
Nide: “He continues to say he loves and he's logical.”
Is this how I “’prove’ him all the time”? You grant much power to my sayings. But how does this serve as a proof – or, “proof”?
Nide: “Ever notice his great sense of humor?”
What, mine? Where? Behind the rabbit?
Nide: “It's interesting because God has a sense of humor.”
Don’t stop there, Nide. Keep going. You’re now supposed to say “God is humor.” You did that with existence, logic, and morality. Why not “God is humor” too?
Regards,
Dawson
Gadget,
I may be wrong but the bible isn't.
How do you know Jesus didn't provide restitution?
Trinity,
But let's not quibble over insignificant details. (My first "inferred" above should have read "implied.")
Instead, let's go back a few comments to see if you've come up with answers to the following significant details:
Have you ever wondered if Jesus had an erection?
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
On your view, are evil thoughts ever morally justified?
What does "this generation" mean?
When God instructs people to kill unbelievers in the Old Testament, is it really Jesus giving this order?
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Is this a lie?
Are the people who have translated the various bibles from the non-existent original manuscripts, are they liars, too?
Do you deny your god's ability to shape-shift a car so that it can fit into an elevator?
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Dawson,
Are you imaginary?
Trinity wrote: "I may be wrong but the bible isn't."
There are no maybe's about it -- you are wrong -- and here you prove it again by making such a claim.
Trinity wrote: "How do you know Jesus didn't provide restitution?"
Would you care to read something into the bible that isn't there? I have made my case for Jesus sending someone else's valuables over a cliff. And nowhere does it say that he made restitution, that I have found.
Can you direct me to a passage where I can find mention of him making monetary restitution or restitution in the form of a new herd of pigs for those who were tending to them and feeding them?
I'd like to see it.
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
Remember, Ydemoc, he can make rocks dance.
Why do you all of a sudden want to evade.
Are you a man?
I kinda like what Peter Pike said if you imagine a red ball it exists immaterially. Justin didn't imagine hard enough that's why he only found lint in his pocket.
Dawson,
God is not argument. He's LORD over arguments.
Keep your eyes open. See the "proof"?
Ydemoc,
Is it possible that he did make restitution?
You think the Gospels said everything that happened in Jesus' life?
No you're wrong. Tag your it.
Nide: "God is not argument. He's LORD over arguments."
If you say so, Nide.
Nide: "Keep your eyes open. See the 'proof'?"
I see plenty of proof that you don't have a proof for your god's existence. Is that the proof you're talking about?
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: "Is it possible that he did make restitution?"
I don't think Ydemoc was asking whether or not it is "possible" that Jesus made restitution. Rather, he's asking if there's any evidence that Jesus *did* make restitution. I'm supposing that if there were, you'd have brought it out by now.
Nide: "You think the Gospels said everything that happened in Jesus' life?"
Like having erections? Nocturnal emissions perhaps?
Regards,
Dawson
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Here are just the most recent questions that Trinity has failed to answer with anything approaching coherency -- and many have not been answered with even an incoherent response. And keep in mind, these are just the most recent questions that have been posed to him. And like his god, his answers remain hidden, although in Trinity's case, I suspect the reason isn't all that mysterious.
***Trinity, can you answer these?***
Have you ever wondered if Jesus had an erection?
On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
On your view, are evil thoughts ever morally justified?
What does "this generation" mean?
When God instructs people to kill unbelievers in the Old Testament, is it really Jesus giving this order?
You wrote: "Men are liars including me."
Is this a lie?
Are the people who have translated the various bibles from the non-existent original manuscripts, are they liars, too?
Do you deny your god's ability to shape-shift a car so that it can fit into an elevator?
As an Agent for the Imaginary, does it ever bother you that instead of making 10% by promoting your "Client in the Sky" that you are actually required to pay 10% -- and not even to your "Client in the Sky," but to other Agents for the Imaginary?
How come I can think of better ways to make myself evident to the world better than your god can?
Wouldn't you lay down your life for your friends?
What is it that you find objectionable about slavery in today's modern age?
Would you tell the truth, that Anne Frank was in your attic if the Nazis came and asked? Or would you lie?
Ydemoc
Dawson,
You wrote in response to Trinity: "I don't think Ydemoc was asking whether or not it is "possible" that Jesus made restitution. Rather, he's asking if there's any evidence that Jesus *did* make restitution. I'm supposing that if there were, you'd have brought it out by now."
Nide: "You think the Gospels said everything that happened in Jesus' life?"
"Like having erections? Nocturnal emissions perhaps?"
Well said, Dawson. And maybe I should add the last two questions to my list of questions that Trinity has failed to answer.
Ydemoc
John 18: " 28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”
30 “If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”
31 Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”
“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. 32 This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.
33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”
40 They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.
Then Jesus saith unto them: My kingdom is not of this world, but of a world accessible only to the imagination, for it is in fact merely imaginary. Any man who chooses to imagine, can enter my kingdom, for his imagination is the door to my kingdom, for it is only imaginary. Then the chief priests counseled among themselves, and wondered who this Jesus was who spoke so openly about the secret truth that all had hitherto suppressed, that the supernatural was in fact only a figment of men's imaginations. And they conspired against him, and planned to kill him. And the rest was history. Selah.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawsonnnn,
Is it a contradiction that Jesus walked on water?
When are you going to post your new entry?
Nide wrote: "Is it a contradiction that Jesus walked on water? When are you going to post your new entry?"
My, you're more anxious than even I supposed.
What happened to Sye, Nide? Why did he abandon the discussion? What did he find so difficult to answer?
Regards,
Dawson
@Nide
yesterday you asked me if life was arbitrary. Here now is my answer.
This question of whether life is arbitrary or not is a straight forward one, it can be answered either yes, no, or the question is invalid (fallaciously complex / non sequiter). So in order to figure out how to answer this I needed to examine the concepts arbitrary and life. Arbitrary at least in this context means to make decisions without regard to the facts that would inform that decision. So taking into account the hierarchical nature of concepts I see that the concept arbitrary relies on conceptually the concept decision, and that concept in turn relies on the concept consciousness, for only conscious beings make decisions. Thus arbitrary would only apply to life if life were the result of a conscious decision and that decision was made without regard to the facts that would inform it.
If we are and life in general is the result of natural causes, abiogensis and evolution then no conscious decision arbitrary or otherwise was involve in our existence as such, thus the question is a non sequiter and can not be answered either yes or no for it is invalid. If on the other hand say the description of our creation in Genesis is correct then a decision was involved and the question does apply. It then is to be determined if the decision was arbitrary or not. God is described as all powerful. The unavoidable consequences to this would be that there would be no facts as such to inform his decisions. Any pertinent facts could be changed at a whim by god himself. It follows then that any decision made by god is by its very nature arbitrary. Thus if we are created by god then yes life is arbitrary. Hope this answers your question to your satisfaction.
Additionally, thanks Nide, I think I know what I am going to go as to this years Halloween party, Yup CAPTAIN AMERICA!!!!!
Dawsonnnnn,
Sye is extremely busy didn't you see the link?
Are you going to see Sye?
Nide: "Are you going to see Sye?"
I see more than Sye.
Dawson
Justin,
Is truth discovered or invented?
Are you saying that tomorrow God could make lies true?
@Nide
I like your questions, expect answers later this evening.
Trinity,
This question comes from my reading of a comment Dawson posted way back on July 21, 2011:
Why do you maintain that your god is free from moral judgment if, as you maintain, your god can make choices?
There will be many, many more questions to come.
Ydemoc
@Nide
Is truth discovered or invented?
some truths are discovered, example the fact that the strength of the earth's gravitational field at it's surface is 9.81 meters per second squared with only slight variations from location to location. This is what we would call a metaphysically given fact and they are always discovered. The reason for this is the relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects of consciousness is always metaphysically objective (wishing does not make it so). On the other hand it is a truth that in the United States of America possession of cocaine by private citizens is illegal. This truth was invented by man and is not metaphysically given. Things like laws, building codes are invented truths, the load bearing strength of steel is discovered however.
you asked
Are you saying that tomorrow God could make lies true?
Yes, yes I am, if he existed that is.
If I told you that the strength of gravity at the surface of the earth was 6 meters per second squared that would be a lie. For I would be telling a falsehood knowingly. However god could within a second of my pronouncement change the value from its current strength of 9.81 to 6 on the spot making me a teller of truth. God could even remove the memory from all of us that it was ever 9.81 and thus make a liar of everyone that previously told the truth that it was in fact 9.81. This is the epistemological catastrophe of metaphysical subjectivism. It makes mush of the law of identity thus rendering non contradictory identification meaningless and thus logic impossible. Now I can foresee your objection that god would not do this. However how am I or you or anyone to gauge the truthfulness of god's word when the very yard stick that we measure someones word against (objective reality) is completely under his control. If I tell a lie you can in principle catch me at it by comparing my words about reality to reality its self. That does not work with a god that controls reality. Furthermore the biblical authors are at pains to make clear to us that no man can fully understand god or his motives, thus no one is in a position to say what he can or can not do, or what he will or will not do. Literally knowledge is incompatible with belief in god. Hope this answers your question to your satisfaction.
sorry Dawson for reposting this so many times, I need to improve my proof reading :)
Ydemoc,
You posted this question: "Why do you maintain that your god is free from moral judgment if, as you maintain, your god can make choices?"
Everything he does is based on who he is. He's the source of morality. God says lying is wrong not because he wishes so but because he doesn't lie. In fact he can't lie. His choices are based on his nature/character. God can't stop being God.
Justin,
Your mistaken God can't make lies true. God has always known about gravity. That's what trips up the "atheist". The verses are there look them up. God can't lie and God can't deny himself. God is truth. He's the source of truth.
So, the fact is that his choices are based on facts. So, nothing he does arbitrary. The fact is God is Perfect his choices are based on his perfections.
Back to gravity like I said God has always known about gravity. He can't change gravity, however, since he is in control of it he can suspended it. It's a supernatural world welcome.
About truth. I don't agree with you truth is not invented. Truth is what we measure statements etc. by to see what their value is. We say a law exist and its true because we already know what truth is. Truth and a truth are not the same thing.
Ydemoc asked: "Why do you maintain that your god is free from moral judgment if, as you maintain, your god can make choices?"
Nide responded: “Everything he does is based on who he is. He's the source of morality. God says lying is wrong not because he wishes so but because he doesn't lie. In fact he can't lie. His choices are based on his nature/character. God can't stop being God.”
None of this tells me why your god is above moral judgment. Indeed, if we are to accept the claim “He’s the source of morality,” one good way to test this claim is to see how well its choices and actions measure up to objective moral standards. So just by making the claim “He’s the source of morality,” you’re inviting either moral judgment to bought to bear on the matter, or blind, unquestioning, mindless acceptance of a claim on your say so. Why should anyone suppose that you have such authority on anything?
You say “God says lying is wrong not because he wishes so but because he doesn’t lie. In fact he can’t lie.”
This “reasoning” for “why” your god says lying is bad, seems extremely weak. You’re essentially arguing “God doesn’t do X, therefore X is wrong.” You seek to bolster this by saying “In fact, God cannot do X.” This seems to confuse is with ought in a blatantly crass fashion. It’s unclear how consistently you could apply this argument.
Since your god is not biological, I take it that your god does not breathe. But does it therefore say breathing is wrong? “God says breathing is wrong not because he wishes so but because he doesn’t breathe. In fact he can’t breathe.” Other actions could be cited to make the point – e.g., walking, eating, bathing, sleeping, learning, correcting one’s own errors, guessing, blowing one’s nose, going to the bathroom, brushing one’s teeth, seeing a doctor, etc.
Also, since you claim that morality is based on your god’s character, and it did not create its character nor can it change its character, the nature of morality is ultimately a product of chance. It’s just by chance that your god has the character it has (it is not the product of design, it was not created, no choice or wisdom went into constructing its character or nature), and it’s just by chance that morality happens to find its source in your god’s nature (your god didn’t choose that to be the case – it’s an unchosen consequence of your god’s nature). Your god cannot lie, and it cannot change this (your god is unchanging, right?), and it’s because it cannot lie that lying is wrong. It's just by chance that it cannot lie. So ultimately, on your view, it’s just by chance that lying is wrong. Your god’s wise counsel certainly has nothing to do with it, for it has no choice in the matter – it cannot lie, it cannot change, it did not elect at some point to base morality on its character. It’s all just a random state of affairs with no objective basis to call it good.
Regards,
Dawson
Some more questions about moral judgment and the Christian god:
According to Christian mythology, as found in the NT, the Christian god had a son named Jesus, whom it allowed to suffer torture and execution at the hands of unjust men. Being omnipotent and in sovereign control of all affairs in its creation, it could have intervened and prevented any harm from falling on its son Jesus if it chose to, but according to the story it didn’t. It stood by and watched the torture and execution of its son and did nothing to prevent it.
Are you saying that we are not to judge this storybook character’s actions, as they are portrayed in the NT storybook? If so, why not? It did choose not to intervene and prevent its son from being tortured and executed, did it not? Nothing forced it to stand by and do nothing, right? So its inaction and consequently its allowance of its son's torture and execution was the result of a choice. Since action which is chosen is subject to moral evaluation, why would a Christian object to his god’s choices and actions (or choice not to act, as in this case) when we are told things like “God is the source of morality” and “God is good”?
Do you think a *good* father would stand by and allow his child to be tortured and executed at the hands of unjust persons, especially if that father had the opportunity and ability to intervene and prevent it from happening?
According to objective moral standards as I understand them (which is, of course, how my worldview informs them), a father – if he truly loves his child – would not stand by and watch his child be tortured and executed at the hands of unjust persons if he had the ability and opportunity to intervene and prevent it. This is because a loving father acts to protect his values, his child being one of his values – very likely one of his highest values. His actions would be the opposite of a father who allows his son to be tortured and executed at the hands of unjust persons. Nor would a moral father unquestioningly obey a command to prepare his own child as a human sacrifice, regardless of who ordered it (remember the story of Abraham and Isaac?).
Your god, as it is depicted in the bible, falls far short of objective moral norms. We can be sure of this because of the choices and actions it makes in relation to what should be its values, and what it orders men to do with the values that they are said to love.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide, you asked me a question the other day that I must have overlooked. My apologies!
You asked: “Dawson, Are you imaginary?”
My answer: No, I can’t be imaginary, for I have a body composed of matter. And according to Christian apologist Peter Pike, the imaginary is immaterial. See here for details. So I must be real, not imaginary.
Which means:
Dawson - 1
Christian god - 0
Hope that helps!
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote to Justin: “Your mistaken God can't make lies true.”
Justin gave a very eloquent explanation showing just how your god, if it actually existed, could turn a lie into truth. To deny this is to deny the omnipotence and sovereignty of the Christian god. Either your god can in fact turn lies into truth as Justin explained, or your god is impotent. Your call.
Nide: “God has always known about gravity.”
That was not the question, and pointing this out does not refute Justin’s argument.
Nide: “That's what trips up the ‘atheist’.”
Justin is not “tripped up”. His explanation shows how trying to integrate what is claimed about the Christian god, which assumes the primacy of consciousness, with the concept of truth, which assumes the primacy of existence, results in absurdity. The metaphysical paradigms of each are incompatible. Truth and Christianity are in utter antithesis to one another.
Nide: “The verses are there look them up.”
If you have specific verses in mind, you should cite them.
Nide: “God can't lie and God can't deny himself.”
Of course: a non-existent being can’t do anything.
Nide: “God is truth. He's the source of truth.”
You clearly do not understand what is meant by ‘truth’ in the context of Justin’s argument.
Nide: “So, the fact is that his choices are based on facts.”
This is so nonsensical I’m surprised even Nide stated it. According to Christianity, “God” created all facts. Greg Bahnsen makes no bones about telling us this:
“All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends; as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity.” (The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection)
You’re saying, then, that the Christian god bases its choices on facts which it created in the first place. On such a view, “facts” are as pliant and malleable as silly putty.
Nide: “So, nothing he does arbitrary.”
It is arbitrary, for what you say your god bases its choices on is something it created ex nihilo in the first place, and did not have to exist, or be the way that it is when does exist. You can’t get more arbitrary than this. It’s arbitrary from the get-go. You can’t get non-arbitrary if you start out arbitrary and base everything on what you started out with.
Is your soul vexed again?
[Continued…]
Nide: “The fact is God is Perfect his choices are based on his perfections.”
But above you said that your god’s “choices are based on facts.” Now you say they're “based on his perfections.” If “his perfects” belong to the category of “facts,” then according to Bahnsen those perfections were created along with all the other facts, for “all facts are created facts.”
This can only mean that, if this were a “fact” that your god bases its choices on “his perfections,” then this “fact” itself would be arbitrary, given what Christianity claims, for “all facts are created facts,” according to Bahnsen.
Then again, one can make any claim he wants about something that is merely imaginary. The Blarkian, for instance, could just as easily say: “The fact is Blarko is Perfect, his choices are based on his perfections.” So none of this is impressive as an argument or reply to Justin’s points. Rather, it just shows how intellectually vacuous your position really is.
Nide: “Back to gravity like I said God has always known about gravity.”
And again, I don’t see what relevance this point would have in trying to recover your position from Justin’s damning points. It’s irrelevant for it does not speak to what’s in question.
Nide: “He can't change gravity,”
I don’t understand this. I thought your god was not only omnipotent, but also the creator of gravity in the first place. Your god invented gravity, and is sovereign over everything it created. Isn’t it? So how can it not change gravity? What specifically are you trying to say when you say “He can’t change gravity”? Can your god not alter gravity’s strength, intensity, range, measurements? If not, then it apparently created something it cannot control and is not sovereign over.
Nide: “however, since he is in control of it he can suspended it.”
So, your god is in control of gravity, and can “suspended” it, but it cannot change it? It cannot, for instance, change the earth’s gravity as it currently is, and make it stronger or weaker? If that’s the case, then what in the world do you mean when you say that your god is “in control of” gravity?
Nide: “It's a supernatural world welcome.”
How do we distinguish this “supernatural world” you speak of, from something you may merely be imagining about the world we live in?
Nide: “About truth. I don't agree with you truth is not invented.”
Of course, on your view, truth is created, not discovered. That truth of the statement “the earth has gravity” is contingent upon something creating the earth and giving it any gravity in the first place. On your view, truth and its basis are an arbitrary creation. You're only giving Justin's argument more firepower.
Nide: “Truth is what we measure statements etc. by to see what their value is.”
How do we measure a statement? Do we measure it by comparing it to other statements? How is that not ultimately circular?
Nide: “We say a law exist and its true because we already know what truth is.”
Who is “we” here and by what means do “we already know what truth is”? How does this relate to your disagreement with the view that at least some truths (as Justin indicated) are not invented?
Nide: “Truth and a truth are not the same thing.”
Please spell out the difference as you understand it.
I await further truckloads of confusion in your future postings.
Regards,
Dawson
Trinity wrote: "God has always known about gravity. He can't change gravity, however, since he is in control of it he can suspended it."
You mean like if we go outside tomorrow, your god can make the sun fall on our heads? And since it doesn't happen but could happen if your god so chooses, you have assurance? Based upon "supernatural" whimsy?
Ydemoc
Only in the "Cartoon Universe of Theism" do whimsy and purpose mean exactly the same thing.
Post a Comment