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 401 – 481 of 481Thank you Justin for your posts. Nide is missing a good opportunity to get enlightened. That is the result of christian "humility". They reject pride to embrace arrogance.
I loved your explanation about knowledge not needing to be perfect in order to be valid.
I don't think there could be something like "perfect knowledge"
It is logically impossible. For knoledge to be knoledge it MUST NOT be perfect.
Making distinctions like "human knowledge" only serves to disguise the contradiction involved in the a idea of a beeing with "perfect knowledge"
Could you please comment on that?
"Of course, on your view, truth is created, not discovered."
And belief is not something you come to but something you choose.
They ask us to believe in god as if believing were something you "decide". You choose what belief makes you happy and makes all the rest fit into your created truth
They believe in god but also become gods in a way, by side effect.
The only way out of this delusion is to accept that reality is what it is and nobody, no mind, human or otherwise, can mess with it. Any claim to the contrary would implode itself in a contradiction. Why do Nide find it so hard to understand this simple fact?
Luis wrote: “And belief is not something you come to but something you choose.”
Right. Exactly. The believer *chooses* to believe that his god is real.
That’s why, when he discovers that you don’t believe in his god, he accuses you of doing something on purpose. It’s an immediately *moral* issue when you don’t believe, because belief for the Christian is really a matter of choice. He chose to believe, so why don’t you? You don’t choose to believe, so you’re doing something wrong. You’re a spoilsport. A party-pooper. What's worse: you’re rejecting the believer. He feels slighted, rejected, invalidated. You are therefore evil in his eyes. You must be vanquished. You must be reduced to dust. The believer must prevail. By any means necessary. Hence presuppositionalism.
Luis: “They ask us to believe in god as if believing were something you ‘decide’.”
Right. Faith is an act of will. Until everyone realizes this, Christianity’s epistemological gimmicks will continue to hide in the shadows. That’s how they’ve been able to fool believers. They weren’t watching where they stepped. And they stepped in it. They got trapped. They got fooled. Now they don’t want to admit it. They don’t want to lose face. Why else does Nide continue to post here? He’s desperate to save face. He has no idea how late is too late.
Luis: “You choose what belief makes you happy and makes all the rest fit into your created truth.”
Right. When believers ask, “Why don’t you believe?” they’re really asking, “Why don’t you want to believe? Why don't you want it to be true?” We are a threat because we implicitly remind them that honesty has always been an option, and they chose against it.
Luis: “They believe in god but also become gods in a way, by side effect.”
If anything, “side effect” is the understatement of the day. It starts with a choice – a choice to be dishonest to oneself, though only indirectly, by focusing on a fantasy and ignoring the fact that it’s a fantasy. Everything else is a side effect of sorts. From the benign persona of the bible to holy terror. It’s the genie let loose from the bottle, all because the believer’s guard was down and he succumbed to mystical suggestion. He had no philosophical defense, so his soul was ravaged and ingested by the devotional program. So sad. But it happens.
Regards,
Dawson
@Nide
My objections to your response to my answers are essentially the same as Dawson's and nothing more need be said on that.However I would love to answer anymore relevant questions you might have. I see this as a way of improving my writing and reasoning skills.
BB,
Said: "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."
Yea I think Peter Pike's statement is hilarious. Anyway, Jesus had a material body too. So, he also was real.
1 for god
0 for you.
You said: " 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.
Dawson are you a fool? God's omnipotence has already been explained to you. But you feel the need to continue to harrass. God's omnipotence doesn't mean what "atheists" want it to mean. No, Dawson, God can't do everything.
Qouting a part of your post:
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.
My response:
Dawson are you a fool?
"God created all facts"
Interpretation:
He spoke them into existence. He has always known all facts.
That's what we mean when we say God created.
You made the charge that by chance God is moral and so forth.
Not really he has always been. It has nothing to do with chance. God is uncreated.
Ydemoc,
As much as I would love to see the sun smack you accross your head. I would never desire that for you. Because it won't be a laughing matter afterwards.
The sun was not created to hit people over the head with. It has it's purpose.
P.S. God can't change gravity. he can suspend it. Why do you think Jesus could walk on water.
Luis(the Fool) Jumps in.
Luis you beleive in God. I have never asked anyone to believe because they already do.
Why *do* luis find it so hard to understand this simple fact?
Yea Justin,
If God Could make time go backwards what would the consequences be?
By the way I came up with a slogan for dawson. It would look good on a card.
"Dawson Bethrick Destroying Minds since 1991"
What do you think?
"the imaginary is immaterial?"
Only God imagines matter into existence. Only God's imagination can be material and it populates the Universe with his infinit mind.
Back to the question, how do you tell the imaginary from the immaterial? Until a rational answer is given, the immaterial is just a word people give to their imagination when they wish it so hard to be true to the point of abandoning reality in favor of it.
"I have never asked anyone to believe because they already do"
Everyone wishing something is on his way to faith. All you need to do is to give a little push. I used to believe that brazilian people were so realigious because they were mostly unneducated. But this mistic thing is universal, has no barriers. People secretly dream of ruling over reality, that s why silly answers like we hear everyday, silly even to some christian people, are so powerful.
But we humans can be much better than this, we can get real and really go back to reality business
@Luis
thank you for your kind words.Now it sounds like you asked me a question there but I am sorry not sure as to your meaning. Were you asking me what I thought of the concept of perfect knowledge or a being that possessed such perfect knowledge? I would love to answer but I don't want to bore you if I misconstrued your meaning.
Luis,
Your a Christian. Congrats.
@Justin
Were you asking me what I thought of the concept of perfect knowledge or a being that possessed such perfect knowledge?
The ideia of a mind that knows everything, without never having learned and never learning anything, from eternity, thinking the thoughts the he knew he would think, never coming to coclusions, never deciding anything, never actin with his mind since his mind is in a perfect state, out of space, out of time, out of touch or understanding, out of everything except my wish to believe. Can we really call such a being conscious?
"Your a Christian. Congrats"
I used to be a sicere christian, but even when I was in my most fervorous moments I knew I was fooling myself.
And so do you
Your words say it secretly, for those who have ears to hear.
Dawson
"that you don’t believe in his god, he accuses you of doing something on purpose. It’s an immediately *moral* issue when you don’t believe, because belief for the Christian is really a matter of choice"
Looks simple once you realize it. But most don't. I once stambled on this blog and it helped me understand not only how christianity is evil. That I already knew. But it helped understand the roots of its malignancy, its subjectivism and altruism.
And you gave me the the opportunity to watch many apologists giving the game away while thinking they were scoring against you. Mystics will always make a fool of themselves on this blog, because there can be no rationalization against sound reason. That's why they don't come here and insist on personal, superfical and fallacious attacks against your reasoning
Luis said....
The ideia of a mind that knows everything, without never having learned and never learning anything, from eternity, thinking the thoughts the he knew he would think, never coming to coclusions, never deciding anything, never actin with his mind since his mind is in a perfect state, out of space, out of time, out of touch or understanding, out of everything except my wish to believe. Can we really call such a being conscious?
What we know from the science of neurology as well as child development is that the inner dialog we call conceptual consciousness is something that arises in the first 3 years of our lives mainly thru feed back with our environment via our senses. This is the consciousness we have knowledge of as opposed to some alternate from we imagine. So I wonder what environment could god interact with? He was already conscious when he made the universe, so what environment? Frankly I find this description of this being hard to conceptualize at all, kind of like trying to visualize in your mind a square circle. We don't really have to worry about resolving this issues as the onus is not on us.
You posted to Nide
I used to be a sicere christian, but even when I was in my most fervorous moments I knew I was fooling myself.
And so do you
I always wonder what a struggle people with your history must have gone thru. I am one of those rare people that was always an atheist. I was raised by non religious people and at the young age 8 conceptualized that I was an atheist. I can only imagine the difficulties that must have been over come, the unearned guilt that the Christian paradigm saddles you with.
@Justin
In a way, it was more of a realease, from deshonesty. Christianity is only a symptom though. I find it very difficult to be realistic about things, principally money. I still find it difficult to bear the burden of building a future for myself. I am struggling
Luiz,
Dawson will give you money he has already destroyed your mind. Why not compensat you for your loss.
Justin you ever gonna get around to that question?
So I wonder what environment could god interact with?
How can a consciousness "interact" with an enviroment it is creating with its mind in real time? This is like worst than a nightmare. This poor mind of good is slave of the reality it is creating
This Christian god a a logical mostruosity
@Nide
sorry Nide in all the posts I must have missed it, could you please repost it for me and ill try to answer you.
Hezekiah
I was a poor soul, blaming people for hot helping me enough, not being christian, bening enough to help me as much I needed. Dawson showed me people should not be judged by how much they help others but how much they help building a happy life for THEMSELVES and how much effort they put to avoid being a burden to others. I began to look at people with other eyes, less jugdmental, less demanding and became more responsible in relation to myself. All aspects of my life got better and I got a peace no amount of belief in an imaginary being could ever give you. My preocupation with money is because I am experiencing financial success now and I would hate to see remants of subjectivism and altruism spoiling what is meant to be good.
ah got it,it was not showing up earlier
"If God Could make time go backwards what would the consequences be?"
ok, let me think on that and I'll get back to you
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."
I responded: "You mean like if we go outside tomorrow, your god can make the sun fall on our heads?"
Now, play close attention to what Trinity says in response, for he seems to be making light of the fact that I would pose such a question, and he then asserts that the sun wasn't made for the purposes of falling on someone's head. These are Trinity's words:
"As much as I would love to see the sun smack you accross your head. I would never desire that for you. Because it won't be a laughing matter afterwards.
The sun was not created to hit people over the head with. It has it's purpose."
Now, I call everyone's attention to a comment made by Trinity dated August 03, 2011 at 12:53 p.m. In his posted comments, Trinity writes:
"we have his [god's] word that promises the sun to rise/set we can confidently go outside tomorrow and not worry that it will fall on our heads.
and If he chooses otherwise he has every right to do so. It's his creation. So, you can pout all you want there is nothing you can do about it."
****end archived quoted comment****
So here we have it: Trinity, not only making light (pun intended) of his own assertion, but also implying that the sun won't fall on someone's head because it was made for a different purpose! Yet earlier he told us that his god could choose otherwise, by giving it a different purpose. Astounding!
And since he said in his earlier comment that his god can change things willy-nilly, I asked this question:
"And since it doesn't happen [the sun falling on our heads] but could happen if your god so chooses, you have assurance? Based upon "supernatural" whimsy?"
Trinity's assertion that "we have his [god's] word that promises the sun to rise/set we can confidently go outside tomorrow and not worry that it will fall on our heads" contradicts his assertion that "If he [god] chooses otherwise he has every right to do so."
Just because Trinity claims his god has every right to change the nature of things, that doesn't mean that if he did so, it wouldn't break a promise that Trinity claims his god made to him. For example, I may have a right to free speech, but if I've promised someone that I won't exercise this right, but then I go ahead and exercise it anyway, then I have broken a promise. And in such a case, I would be branded a liar for breaking that promise, and rightfully so.
Also, if your god can break promises like your own words say he can do if he so chooses; if he can suspend gravity and cause the sun to fall on our heads, how does this give you any confidence whatsoever in the nature of any thing? How could it?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Are you stupid?
How about you quit reading words into what I say. Do you enjoy vexing me?
God can't lie. Therefore he can't break his promises.
Here is a question:
What's time?
@Nide
you keep saying god cant lie, and just how did you validate that knowledge?
Don't worry I will answer your question, I am actually quit enjoying it and I hope you don't mind a lengthy response :)
What does lying mean to a being that determines what is real? There is something backwards here. First immutable (and I really mean immutable) reality, then falsehood and truthfulness?
God is like a crazy man lost in a world of his own. But in his case, it is all real
Justin,
Heb 6:18 "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."
Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"
Titus 1:2 "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,"
you can check for more....
@Nide
I trust you are quoting the correct passages. My question is this, how do we know god is not lying to us with these very passages? How would we test his word to know that he is trust worthy and that he has a proven track record of telling the truth. After all accomplished liars often are at pains to boast how truthful they are.
Trinity wrote: "God can't lie. Therefore he can't break his promises."
I think you've got things backwards -- again. One must first make an evaluation about someone, given all the relevant data about that person (and god is a person, according to you, right?), and then when you have enough information about them, you can make a determination about their honesty.
You fail to employ this method of evaluation; and your god fails this test of honesty. Sorry. Your god fails this test not only outside the confines of your storybook, but within it also -- people of the Jewish faith recognize this; you don't. Believing in Jesus is no different than believing in Joseph Smith's supposed revelations. They're wrong; you're wrong. (actually, neither rise beyond the level of the arbitrary -- right and wrong, true and false are too reality based for your god claims)
And your question about time has been answered. Go back in the archives of the comments and you'll find it there. Hey, you might even find some more comments that you've made which contradict what you have later said.
When you locate your inconsistencies, would you mind posting them agina so we can all have some more laughs?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
Blarko says your god lies all the time. Blarko says your bible is a "book of lies." Blarko says the men who wrote your bible were being deceived by their imaginations. Blarko says that one doesn't need to believe in him, nor have faith in him to make it to Heaben, which makes Heaven look like biblical hell in comparison.
Blarko says that all one has to do to make it to Heaben, is to do the best they can do as human beings.
Blarko says that one of the trademarks of the biblical god not being the one true god is that the biblical god requires that you have faith in it. Blarko says this is insecurity on the biblical god's part and no all-powerful being would be that insecure that he would require of his creatures to have faith in him. Blarko says you can have faith if you want, but it isn't a requirement.
Blarko also says that no father would ever send his son to sacrifice for the sins of humans. Blarko says this wasn't needed at all. All Blarko says to do is to do the best you can.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Jesus Christ.
Ydemoc,
You seem a little vexed.
Can someone translate what luiz is saying.
Ydemoc,
Are you smart?
If you re going to act hostile don't bother. I will try to be more careful with the language and spelling though. I am sorry
@Nide
you answered "Jesus Christ" when I asked you how we could know that god is truthful. As doctrine says they are the same being you are basically asking us to take the word of someone that they them selfs are not a lair when asked if they are a lair. Besides the fact that as far as argument goes that is a case of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning it is also foolish if ascertaining someones word is crucial.
Can someone translate what luiz is saying.
Yes, that metaphysical subjectivism is absurd and none nonsensical.
Trinity,
Is your god capable of kidding or doing practical jokes?
Ydemoc
urg, none nonsensical, double negative. must proof read......
Trinity,
Is your god capable of kidding or doing practical jokes?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
You ever plan presenting an argument or are you just going to keep up goofing around?
I wrote: "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."
Nide: “Yea I think Peter Pike's statement is hilarious.”
Peter is one of yours. He’s a Christian. He’s a defender of Christianity and has been for many years. He must know what he’s talking about. And he’s only being consistent with his worldview. I mean, you don’t think the imaginary is material, do you?
Nide: “Anyway, Jesus had a material body too. So, he also was real.”
That an actual human being named Jesus walked the earth in 1st century Palestine is not a problematic supposition. We know that human beings lived back then, and that they had individual names.
But the idea that this person was actually a supernatural being “in flesh” is contradictory to reality. The primacy of existence tells us this. Of course, we can *imagine* that there was an incarnated supernatural being walking around 1st century Palestine and doing the things which the NT storybook says it did, but this is imaginary. As I have asked before, when I imagine Jesus dying on the cross and resurrecting in the tomb, how is what I’m imagining not imaginary?
So we can *imagine* - along with you - that “Jesus had a material body” as the NT portrays it, but this is no better than imagining what we read in a Harry Potter novel. In the end, it’s still imaginary. And Peter Pike has told us that the imaginary is immaterial. You surely wouldn’t say the imaginary is material, would you?
So with this correction, I’m afraid your god’s score is still 0. Sorry chap!
I wrote: "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: “Dawson are you a fool?”
Only according to those who reject reason.
Nide: “God's omnipotence has already been explained to you.”
Yes, I’ve seen many Christians attempt to double-talk their way out of the logical inconsistencies which inevitably arise when we explore th irrational characteristic known as “omnipotence” which they claim for their god. The problem is theirs, not mine. I only point out the contradictions. Don’t get sore at me for this. I’m simply doing my job.
Nide: “But you feel the need to continue to harrass.”
Well, there you go again with this “harass” business. You seem not to understand what it means, even though it was explained to you. You still use this word incorrectly.
[Continued…]
Nide: “God's omnipotence doesn't mean what ‘atheists’ want it to mean.”
I’m not going by what atheists say about the Christian god. I don’t have to. There are plenty of Christians who presume to speak for their god. Just like you. But it’s interesting to note that each Christian tends to imagine his god a bit differently from the next guy. This is the real cause of schisms and denominational splintering.
Besides, there can’t be any such thing as “atheists” since, according to you, we all believe in your god already. You really seem to have difficulty keeping your story straight. Why?
Nide: “No, Dawson, God can't do everything.”
Interesting. If you’re saying that your god cannot change gravity, the same is the case with anything one imagines: nothing one imagines can change gravity. Try it. See if something you imagine can change gravity.
The problem is that Christians have a very difficult time formulating a clear principle which consistently distinguishes what their omnipotent god can do from what it cannot do. For instance, when they say their god cannot create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it because that’s logically impossible, they fail to recognize that there’s nothing logically impossible about the idea of a person creating something so heavy that he cannot lift it. People manufacture pianos, automobiles, train locomotives, jumbo jets, etc., and yet they cannot lift these things – they need machines to do it. Perhaps you can improve on this situation somehow? Good luck!
Nide wrote: "’God created all facts’ Interpretation: He spoke them into existence. He has always known all facts.”
That’s quite a fantasy you have there, Nide.
Nide: “That's what we mean when we say God created.”
Yes, I know. I can imagine it, too. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that the imaginary is not real, and you seem unable to do this consistently.
Now, if we all already know and believe all this, why do you have to explain it? Why would you have to explain something you say we already know?
Nide: “You made the charge that by chance God is moral and so forth. Not really he has always been. It has nothing to do with chance. God is uncreated.”
If I accepted your view, there’s nothing to prevent me from thinking: ‘It’s just by chance that there happens to be this eternal, uncaused, uncreated god that rules the universe. It wasn’t created, so no wisdom went into making its existence into what it is. It’s just by chance that it’s eternal. It’s just by chance that it’s uncreated. It’s just by chance that it even exists.’ It’s certainly not by design. Christians have told me for years that I must believe in a “chance universe” because it wasn’t designed and created, even though I hold that the universe is eternal. By their own reasoning, Christians believe in a chance god, for the very reasons they tell me I hold to a chance universe.
Nide: “God can't change gravity. he can suspend it. Why do you think Jesus could walk on water.”
You say that your god cannot *change* gravity, but that it can *suspend* gravity. When it allegedly *suspends* gravity (such as when the NT storybook depicts Jesus walking on water – your example), how is this not a *change*? Could you clarify the distinction you have in mind here? What would constitute *changing* gravity that your god is unable to do?
Regards,
Dawson
By the way, Nide, question for you: On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Nide wrote: “By the way I came up with a slogan for dawson. It would look good on a card. ‘Dawson Bethrick Destroying Minds since 1991’ What do you think?”
That’s interesting that you chose the year 1991. That’s the year I converted to Christianity.
Hilarious!
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “Luis, Your a Christian. Congrats.”
If we’re all Christians already, even though we do not confess Christ as our “Lord and savior,” then there’s no purpose to the Great Commission, to evangelizing, to apologetics, to the billion-dollar industry of Christian publications.
Nide, you just give us more examples of performative inconsistencies. That’s fine. We don’t mind when Christians expose the foolishness of their worldview.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “Justin you ever gonna get around to that question?”
Hey Nide, question for you. On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
Yes or no?
What’s your answer?
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “How about you quit reading words into what I say. Do you enjoy vexing me?”
Nide, I remind you again that you choose to come here. We’re not over at your blog, which was remarkably short-lived, and “harassing” you. You’re the one coming over here and trying to stir things up. If you feel like you’re being abused here, you know where the door is. It’s up to you. Meanwhile, you’re welcome to stay – after all, you’re the entertainment. Plus you’re providing a record for all the world to see what a Christian does when he attempts to go the distance here at IP.
Nide wrote: “God can't lie. Therefore he can't break his promises."
No imaginary being can lie or break its promises. To distinguish your god from something that’s merely imaginary, however, we could investigate whether or not it *keeps* its promises. I’ve done that here.
Regards,
Dawson
Trinity wrote: "You ever plan presenting an argument or are you just going to keep up goofing around?"
I'm not goofing around. This is a very serious question with profound implications: Is your god capable of kidding or playing practical jokes? Is kidding or practical jokes a reflection of your god's character or not? And is he (or them) capable of kidding and doing practical jokes?
Can your god make people better after they die? Blarko can. Blarko does punish people for not being all they can be, but after they die, he doesn't throw them in a place of eternal torment for things they've done or haven't done, believed haven't believed.
Any punishment handed down by him is meted out in accordance with the injustice humans have committed, and not believing or having faith is not one of those injustices. He doesn't care about such petty things -- he's not insecure.
Anyone who dies, not being all they can be, will be punished. But then, after their punishment, they will be rehabbed by Blarko.
Ydemoc
BB,
God never gave Job a reason. What makes you think I can give you an answer.
Trinity,
Is your god capable of kidding or playing practical jokes? Is kidding or practical jokes a reflection of your god's character or not? And is he (or them) capable of kidding and doing practical jokes?
Ydemoc
@Nide
well he sure as hell owed Job a reason
Goodbye Gadget. Go watch a movie.
Justin,
Why?
Trinity,
Why won't you answer my question?
Ydemoc
BB,
Justin gave a figure yesterday on gravity. I'm referring to that.
Remember Jesus ascended into heaven?
Gravity has no power over him.
You mentioned a piano. I'm not sure why.
But you challenged me and I just happen to
like challenges.
The reason God can't create a rock that he can't lift is because God can't stop being God. If he created a rock that he couln't lift then there would be something more powerful than him. God can't deny who he is.
No, Dawson, it's not by chance. There are no other possibilities. God has always been. This is the part that you and your mad agents can't handle.
Any more challenges?
For Ydemoc:
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 1:22
“ How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge.
Proverbs 1:32
For the turning away of the simple will slay them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them;
Proverbs 3:35
The wise shall inherit glory, But shame shall be the legacy of fools.
Proverbs 3:34-35 (in Context) Proverbs 3 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 7:22
Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks,
Proverbs 8:5
O you simple ones, understand prudence, And you fools, be of an understanding heart.
Proverbs 8:4-6 (in Context) Proverbs 8 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 9:6
Forsake foolishness and live, And go in the way of understanding.
Proverbs 9:5-7 (in Context) Proverbs 9 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 9:13
[ The Way of Folly ] A foolish woman is clamorous; She is simple, and knows nothing.
Proverbs 10:1
[ Wise Sayings of Solomon ] The proverbs of Solomon: A wise son makes a glad father, But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.
Proverbs 10:8
The wise in heart will receive commands, But a prating fool will fall.
Proverbs 10:7-9 (in Context) Proverbs 10 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 10:10
He who winks with the eye causes trouble, But a prating fool will fall.
Proverbs 10:14
Wise people store up knowledge, But the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.
Proverbs 10:13-15 (in Context) Proverbs 10 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 10:18
Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, And whoever spreads slander is a fool.
Proverbs 10:21
The lips of the righteous feed many, But fools die for lack of wisdom.
Proverbs 10:23
To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom.
Proverbs 10:22-24 (in Context) Proverbs 10 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 11:29
He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind, And the fool will be servant to the wise of heart.
)
Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise.
Proverbs 12:16
A fool’s wrath is known at once, But a prudent man covers shame.
Proverbs 12:15-17 (in Context) Proverbs 12 (Whole Chapter)
Proverbs 12:23
A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims foolishness.
Proverbs 13:16
Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool lays open his folly.
Need Anymore?
Nide: “God never gave Job a reason.”
*Never*? You seem very certain here. How do you know this?
Nide: “What makes you think I can give you an answer.”
Well, many reasons. Shall I list them?
For one, if you’re a Christian, you are commanded to give an answer (I Pet. 3:15). You do obey commands, don’t you?
Also, if you’re a Christian, you have the Holy Ghost cuddling in some corner of your soul. Isn’t the Holy Ghost a member of the trinity? Isn’t the Holy Ghost omniscient and infallible? If you have an omniscient ghost lurking in the chasms of your mind, you should be able to answer all kinds of questions.
Also, aren’t you supposed to have the mind of Christ? If you’re a Christian, that’s what the apostle Paul told us – that Christians have the mind of Christ. Isn’t Christ omniscient and infallible? You’re a new creature. The original Nide died. Now you are a new creature, if you’re a Christian, and have the mind of Christ. You can’t not know, and you can’t be wrong.
Also, you’re a representative of your worldview. You come here seeking to defend your worldview. So you need to be on your toes. Let’s see how well you can defend it. Well, we already know, but go ahead and keep trying.
Nide: “Justin gave a figure yesterday on gravity. I'm referring to that. Remember Jesus ascended into heaven? Gravity has no power over him.”
This does not address my question. You stated that your god cannot *change* gravity but that it can *suspend* it. I’m wondering why you think your god can’t *change* gravity, and also what difference you think there may be between *changing* gravity and *suspending* it. You have a persisting habit of not explaining yourself.
Nide: “You mentioned a piano. I'm not sure why.”
Then go back and read what I said. It’s there. It should be very easy for a smart guy like you to comprehend my point.
Nide: “But you challenged me and I just happen to like challenges.”
Good. You’ve come to the right place.
Nide: “The reason God can't create a rock that he can't lift is because God can't stop being God.”
Okay, very good, Nide. For the age-old question “Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?” you answer in the negative. Your god can't create a rock that heavy. Very interesting! You’re one of the first I’ve seen who has answered it this way. It’s a keeper!
Nide: “No, Dawson, it's not by chance. There are no other possibilities.”
It’s just by chance that there are no other possibilities. So yes, it’s all a matter of chance.
Nide: “God has always been.”
It’s just by chance that God has always been. See?
Nide: “This is the part that you and your mad agents can't handle.”
Yes, that’s the part. We’re really mad about it. Tee hee!
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: “Any more challenges?”
Sure. But there are still some open questions remaining. So let’s look at those and then some:
1) On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable? Yes or no?
2) On your view, is it moral for a father to stand by and allow his child to be tortured and executed at the hands of unjust persons when he has the opportunity and ability to intervene and prevent it? Yes or no?
3) Did Jesus ever have an orgasm?
4) Did Jesus enjoy it?
Regards,
Dawson
Trinity wrote: "Any more challenges?"
Yes, as a matter of fact. Besides answering...
Is your god capable of kidding or playing practical jokes? Is kidding or practical jokes a reflection of your god's character or not? And is he (or them) capable of kidding and doing practical jokes?
...would you also mind addressing the following questions? (Many are Dawson's, some are mine)
1. When I imagine your god, how is what I’m imagining *not* imaginary?
2. Why do you maintain that your god is free from moral judgment if, as you maintain, your God can make choices?
3. How what I imagine when I imagine the god you describe, is it anything other than imaginary?
4. Do you have any argument which can establish that nature needs a consciousness to give it uniformity? If so, what is that argument?
5. Can you tell me how the faculty by which you are allegedly in full and direct awareness of your god can be reliably distinguished from your imagination.
6. What is the proper relationship between awareness and the objects of your awareness? What does the bible have to say about this orientation?
7. Please name all the preconditions necessary for setting goals and planning. That is, what factors need to be in play before goals and planning can even take place about anything at all? Please list all that you can think of.
8. Was the Tsunami that hit Japan this past year and killed thousands, was it evil?
9. Does god love all the souls that are burning in hell for eternity?
10. Does god hate all the souls that are burning in hell for eternity?
11. Did god love the souls -- that are currently burning in hell -- at the moment he predestined them to hell?
12. Did god hate all the souls -- that are currently burning in hell -- at the moment he predestined them to hell?
13. When god created souls and predestined some of those souls to hell, was that an act of love or hate on his part when he did so?
14. Did Judas have any choice in what he did if he was predestined to do what he did?
15. On Christianity's view, if god were to tell me to sacrifice my son or daughter, would it be moral for me to do so?
(continued)
16. Is a father under any obligation to intercede and protect his child from danger?
17. What is the difference between sending someone to hell and making them so that they are predestined to go to hell?
18. How could Mary, mother of Jesus, have said "no" to being implanted with Jesus if it was all predetermined from the foundations of the world"?
19. What, to *you*, is the "dead givaway" that a person is saved? Would there be anything they could do, while still professing Christianity and faith in their Lord and Savior, that would make *you* conclude that they are not really saved? If so, can you give examples?
20. Why isn't Judas considered a hero?
21. How does your faith in Jesus differ from someone else's faith that Blarko, not Jesus, is the one true god?
22. Tell me how it is that a primacy of consciousness metaphysics can be the foundation for anything absolute, anything truthful, or anything absolutely truthful.
23. When you frequently tell us on this board that you don't have time for our "quirks" and "antics," and the "little games" you accuse us of playing, aren't you really saying that you don't have time for your god's plan?
24. Can you give me some valid reason (i.e., evidence, e.g., genetic, archeological... anything scientific) as to why I should ignore the overwhelming evidence that exists in favor of humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor?
25. Where in the bible does it say that "God is time"?
26. Is a rock true or false?
27. You say you love god. Can you point out to me the object of your affection?
28. How cold I even reach any level of conviction about anything if there were no objects for me to sense, or no senses with which to perceive, and no perceptions to provide my mind with content. If I had no way to identify anything how could I identify anything?
29. How would Helen Keller have been able to acquire any knowledge at all had she (or any human being) been without some ability to sense objects around her, and without a consciousness capable of forming concepts?
30. If god is no respecter of persons, does this mean he has no self-respect?
31. During his ministry, did Jesus ever destroy someone else's private property without restitution? If he didn't or it doesn't say he did in the bible, can we conclude he was a thief? If not, why not?
32. Have you ever wondered if Jesus had an erection?
33. On your view, is evil ever morally justifiable?
34. On your view, are evil thoughts ever morally justified?
35. What does "this generation" mean?
36. When God instructs people to kill unbelievers in the Old Testament, is it really Jesus giving this order?
37. You wrote: "Men are liars including me." Is this a lie?
38. Are the people who have translated the various bibles from the non-existent original manuscripts, are they liars, too?
39. Do you deny your god's ability to shape-shift a car so that it can fit into an elevator?
40. Why haven't you answered these questions, many not at all, others with anything cogent?
Trinity,
Oh, and one more, #41: Is sarcasm a reflection of your god's character and actions?
Ydemoc
Trinity,
I might as well just add a few more questions.
42. Is evasion a part of your god's character and action?
43. Is embarrassment a part of your god's character and actions?
I kind of like enumerating every question that you haven't answered or haven't answered with any response that's the least bit cogent. Perhaps I'll continue this for a while.
Ydemoc
Trinity,
44. Blarko says your recent comment where you posted passages from your "book of lies" is nonsense? How do you know he's wrong?
Ydemoc
Dawson,
Why won't you do the live debate with Sye?
I know your terrified I dont blame you I would be too. If the best thing I could come up with is:
God is imaginary.
Because I can't see him.
Therefore he doesn't exist.
If this isn't your argument then what is it.
So, Why is God "imaginary"?
Trinity,
45. 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?
46. How come I can think of better ways to make myself evident to the world better than your god can?
47. Wouldn't you lay down your life for your lying and depraved friends?
48. Come to think of it, why would you have friends that are liars and depraved in the first place?
49. What is it that you find objectionable about slavery in today's modern age?
50. Would you tell the truth, that Anne Frank was in your attic if the Nazis came and asked? Or would you lie? If you would lie, why would you do it? If you wouldn't lie, why wouldn't you?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Are you stupid?
Trinity,
51. If there is even the slimmest chance that a child brought into this world could be predestined and end up hell for all eternity, why would a Christian take that risk by having any children at all?
52. If there is even the slimmest chance that a child has already been brought into the world is predestined to hell, how is it that a Christian mother or father can even enjoy the life of that child?
Ydemoc
Time for a short break in my questions, so that I can share a little bit of Thomas Paine, from "The Age of Reason":
"Admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Ydemoc
Ydemoc: "I kind of like enumerating every question that you haven't answered or haven't answered with any response that's the least bit cogent. Perhaps I'll continue this for a while."
Great list of questions, Ydemoc. And yes, it's important to enumerate them. The list I am creating will be numbered, and also the questions will be divided into different categories.
I don't know when I'll have time to finish it, but once I have it ready, I will post it.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: “Why won't you do the live debate with Sye?”
I’ve never said that I won’t. I already indicated that I have my terms, and if Sye is willing and able to meet them, then I could make time for it. Besides, it was Sye who indicated that he could not meet the basic requirement of being an honest opponent. I had stated this requirement informally, but very clearly:
"if I’m going to debate someone, he or she would at minimum need to be honest."
Sye's immediate response to this was:
"And with that, I am done with you."
So like incontinent stools, he self-eliminated.
If you haven't seen this, check the record. It's right here, plain for all to see.
But first, I’d want to know what the point of a live debate would be. This was my first question to him when he floated the idea. He never answered it. Also, I’d want to know why a live debate is preferred over simply interacting with my refutation of the argument he posted on his webpage. He still hasn’t done so. It remains unrefuted. In fact, to my knowledge no one has attempted to refute it. Why do you suppose that is?
Nide: “I know your terrified I dont blame you I would be too.”
My, you are given to fantasies, aren’t you?
Nide: “If the best thing I could come up with is: God is imaginary. Because I can't see him. Therefore he doesn't exist.”
I would use my own argument. It has no premise regarding what I can or cannot see. Instead, it cites 13 points of evidence in favor of my conclusion, any one of which is sufficient to secure it.
But it would only be convincing to someone who already acknowledges the fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary, and Sye won’t tell us whether he recognizes this distinction or not. So far all I know, Sye my say “Yeah, God is imaginary. But he still exists!” After all, Sye makes a very big deal about his god being immaterial, and as we have already seen, the illustrious Christian apologist Peter Pike says that the imaginary is immaterial. So Sye is on some very shaky grounds here. I don’t know how his position could recover from analysis. And so far, he hasn’t even tried to protect it from mine. He seems to want nothing to do with me.
Nide: “If this isn't your argument then what is it.”
I already gave it to you. You know where it is. But you’re afraid to try to interact with it, and I know why.
Nide: “So, Why is God ‘imaginary’?”
Because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
You wrote: "Great list of questions, Ydemoc."
Thanks, Dawson. I knew you had planned on posting your list, but I just thought I'd take a look back at some of Trinity's responses to questions posed to him and see what he answered and didn't answer. Lo and behold, they started piling up.
The process also made me think of new questions that I've also included in the list. The list is really just the tip of the iceberg.
You wrote: "And yes, it's important to enumerate them."
And I'm glad I did, too -- makes it easier to locate them and refer to all of them when Trinity refuses to address them.
You wrote: "The list I am creating will be numbered, and also the questions will be divided into different categories."
Nice!
You wrote: "I don't know when I'll have time to finish it, but once I have it ready, I will post it."
Like I said, I'm looking forward to it.
Meanwhile, I have another question for Trinity that occurred to me while I was out walking the dogs. I will post it below.
Ydemoc
Dawson,
"Because the impossibilty of the contrary"
That's pretty hilarious. Van til was brilliant wasn't he.
Ok, So really why is God "imaginary" is it because you can't see him?
Dawson are you a nervous person is that why your afraid of a live debate you can always bring your writings and Ayn Rand books. Your always claiming how logical you are so really what is there to be afraid of?
Trinity asked me: "Are you stupid?"
This question prompts me to ask the following:
53. What basis do you have to ask me if I'm stupid? Is it my grammar, spelling or sentence structure? Is it my willful evasion of reality? Is it my refusal to follow the dictates of a 2,000 year-old storybook, whose foundations lie in the wasteland of a primacy of consciousness metaphysics and a anti-life, anti-value, self-sacrificial ethic, and whose deity can only be imagined? Or is it something else? Please tell me, I'd really like to know your basis for asking me this question.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
I see your a little self-conscious.
Curiosty that's all. It's not based on anything here.
Anyway, are you smart and logical?
How about Dawson you think he's smart and logical?
Trinity wrote: "I see your a little self-conscious."
Not at all in this case. I'm merely asking for your basis for asking someone if they are stupid. Perhaps you had a basis that I wasn't aware of.
You wrote: "Curiosty that's all. It's not based on anything here."
Is this curiosity an isolated incident, strictly a result of interacting with rational people? Or is this a habit of yours, to ask people if they're stupid?
Trinity asked: "Anyway, are you smart and logical?"
I do my best with the knowledge I have. This is all Blarko expects of me.
Trinity wrote: "How about Dawson you think he's smart and logical?"
Of course. I've learned a tremendous amount from reading his blog, and I have yet to find anything in it where he has willfully ignored reality.
See how easy it is to answer questions and not evade? You should give it a try.
Blarkings,
Ydemoc
I wrote: "Because the impossibilty of the contrary"
Nide: “That's pretty hilarious.”
I thought so too! But look - now it works (all you can say is “That’s hilarious”). I've given the slogan a genuinely valid application.
Nide: “Van til was brilliant wasn't he.”
Van Til? What a waste.
Nide: “Ok, So really why is God ‘imaginary’ is it because you can't see him?”
Really, the Christian god is imaginary because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Nide: “Dawson are you a nervous person is that why your afraid of a live debate you can always bring your writings and Ayn Rand books.”
Why suppose I’m “afraid” of a live debate? Why don’t you accept what Sye himself said instead of projecting your own fears into the scenario? Sye made it clear that he didn’t want anything to do with me once I announced that a minimum requirement is that my opponent at least be honest. I can see that you yourself would not be able to meet this requirement.
But really, Sye knows where to find me. I'm right here where I've always been. Do you expect me to do something different?
Nide: “Your always claiming how logical you are”
Where have I said this?
Nide: “so really what is there to be afraid of?”
Indeed, why is Sye afraid? Why doesn’t he come back here and defend his position? Why do you suppose he’s afraid?
Regards,
Dawson
Earlier Nide asked me what would the consequences be if god ran time in reverse
Well I like this question it reminds me of all the what if time travel questions posed in science fiction and just like them it creates paradoxes and more problems to answer. The first thing I notice is the stolen concept fallacy inherent in the question. If god chooses to run time in reverse then that is an action and that presupposes time its self. But if time is in reverse effect presages cause and that makes mush of god doing anything about time. We can rescue the question however by hypothesizing that god exists in a sort of meta time and that the universe we inhabit is analogous to a VM, or virtual machine . An emulated reality that god can rewind, fast forward or stop much like an old cassette tape. This raises some questions however. If god rewinds the tape of the universe and this is one way of interpreting Nide's statement of time in reverse, would we even be aware of it? Example, if god ran time back to 1980 all events from 1980 to 2011 simply no longer exist from gods perspective in meta time and we would have no memory of them as they are from our perspective none existent. The universe plays out again and most likely quite differently. The consequence from our perspective is nothing. We would not be able to tell anything had happened. God could have done this a 1000 times in meta time and we would not know.
If on the other hand are we aware of time being rewound, would we be passive passengers witnessing all of our decisions and memories rewound backwards, would we still have memories once we were back to 1980? That would be neat, I could avoid a lot of mistakes and most likely make all new ones:)
Another possibility is that the concept of block time accurately describes time. In this model of time, all moments in history are real and existing. The passage of time is simply a artifact of how our minds work, if this is the case then again I think we simply would not notice a thing. I do not ascribe to the block time model but I find it interesting and wont dismiss it out of hand.
So Nide sorry that I answer you question with questions but to clarify, please answer the following
1. does god rewind time to a certain point in time and let it start going forward again
2. are we aware of time being run in reverse
3. are we able to retain our memories of the time that was rewound
@Dawson
I remember I asked Sye if he could point me to a source where the primary argument from existence was refuted. He seemed to imply that he had heard it all before and had ready canned responses to it. He completely ignored my question as I recall. I have still to see Anton Thorn's argument taken apart point by point.
Hello Justin,
Thanks for your response. Well, Justin, I would say that God can't make time go backwards but he could suspend it. He's always known about time like every other fact and he's in control of them.
For example, gravity we know it has no power over him or time God is not in a rush he has all the time there is to have.
Regards,
Dawson I mean Trinity.
Post a Comment