Below is my transcription of two excerpts from Fundamentally Flawed’s Episode 47: Hezekiah Ahaz, Round Two.
In the first excerpt, beginning around 16:25 and running to about 18:46, we have about two minutes and 20 seconds of show hosts Jim Gardner and Alex Botten doing their level best to help Nide (aka “Hezekiah Ahaz”) literally come to his senses about reality. As you can see, Nide has thrown up an impenetrable wall of faith blocking out the light of reason such that he can’t be sure of anything other than that he simply wants to start with his presumption that his god is real. In Christianity, such devotion to faith is considered a virtue. Observe what it does to the human mind:
Nide: [excited] “G-… You… Jim, you just told me you were no fr… How do you know you’re real, Jim, you can’t even, you can’t even account for your own existence!”
Alex: [calmly] “Okay, well, let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question, Hezekiah.”
Nide: “Okay.”
Alex: “Can you hear somebody called Jim speaking to you?”
Nide: “Yeah.”
Alex: “Okay, are you real?”
Nide: [pause] “Ummmmmm… yeah…. but…”
Alex: “Do you trust your senses?”
Nide: [pause] “I do.”
Alex: “Do you trust that Jim is real?”
Nide: [pause] “Ummm… that’s what I’m trying to establish.”
[Alex and Nide talking over each other]
Alex: “Just let me finish. You’ve admitted that you can hear somebody called Jim speaking. You’ve admitted that you accept that your senses are giving you correct information. So, you’ve got two alternatives: either Jim is real, or you’re imagining him.”
Nide: “And and and and that’s… [nervous giggling] and that’s the whole…”
Jim: “Which is more likely to be true based on the empirically valid evidence for my existence? Which is more likely to be true, that you are imagining this entire conversation, or that I really am sitting here up in this conversation…”
[Jim and Nide talking over each other]
Nide: “I just take it for… I just take it for granted. I don’t have… I h… I don’t have any evidence that you’re real, Jim. I just take it for granted.”
Jim: “So that’s twice now that you’ve admitted that your entire worldview is based on something which is taken for granted, and yet you are the one which…"
Nide: [flustered] “But we’ve been saying that the whole time!”
[Jim and Nide talking over each other]
Jim: “Is that what you’re saying?”
Nide: [drowning in his own flustered words]
Jim: “If you took more time to listen to the reply, then you might be able to provide more coherent answers.”
Nide: “Okay, go ahead.”
Jim: “Are you essentially saying that you’re entire worldview is based upon a presumption?”
Nide: “We’ve [nervous giggling] When have… when I… When have I ever denied that? When have I ever denied that?”
Jim: “So therefore you’ve finally admitted that the very next valid question to ask, is can you give an example of when that is a bad way of viewing the world, and when a much better way of viewing the world is to make objectively valid observations?”
Nide: “But en… that’s when problems arise because we all… we all assume things, and then we go from there. So you’re… you’re… Whatever you start with, you assume it too.”
Jim: “When you present evidence for things, they’re no longer assumptions, they’re empirical observations.”
[Jim and Nide talking over each other]
Nide: “You could be imagining the evidence. And how is it that you’re not? That’s the whole point.”
[deafening silence]
Nide: “See… So, it… it… it… We’re at…”
Alex: “You see, this is the thing. The reason why we’re going quiet there is not because it’s a good question, it’s because it’s actually incomprehensible practically."
Nide: [limp and defeated] “Okay, if you say so.”
It’s quite amazing to me that this fellow Nide really carries on as if he had no empirical evidence that Jim exists, especially when he just got done admitting that he could hear a fellow called Jim speaking to him. Apparently Nide does not understand that any evidence of which we have awareness by means of any of the sense modalities, is empirical evidence. Or, he simply denies, on a pick-and-choose basis, what empirical evidence he will accept, and what empirical evidence he won’t accept, given the expedience of his apologetic aims. For Nide, the possibility that he is simply imagining the entire conversation is a possibility that he cannot wipe off the table, because he has no defeater for it. And he has no defeater for it precisely because he’s abandoned reason in preference for faith.
In the very last few minutes of the podcast, Alex and Jim pulled out the “Ghost that Never Lies” parody of the Christian god in order to demonstrate the circularity of the presuppositionalist apologetic. The result was literally a show-stopping touchdown which would send any self-respecting presuppositionalist (if there are any) recoiling in chronic embarrassment. Beginning at marker 14:22, we have the following exchange:
In the very last few minutes of the podcast, Alex and Jim pulled out the “Ghost that Never Lies” parody of the Christian god in order to demonstrate the circularity of the presuppositionalist apologetic. The result was literally a show-stopping touchdown which would send any self-respecting presuppositionalist (if there are any) recoiling in chronic embarrassment. Beginning at marker 14:22, we have the following exchange:
Nide: “And how is it that you’re not imagining this ghost?”
Jim and Alex: “Because the Ghost that Never Lies revealed it to me such that I can be certain of it.”
Nide: "And how do you know that you’re not imagining that?"
Jim and Alex: “Because the Ghost that Never Lies revealed it to me such that I can be certain of it.”
Nide: “But now you’re reasoning in a circle. [giggling] Now you’re reasoning in a circle.”
Jim and Alex: [rejoicing] “Exactly! Yay! We have a goal!”
Nide: “But see, but, but, look…”
Is Nide the new Greg Bahnsen? Does this represent the state of the art in presuppositional apologetics? Nide certainly does not convince either of the FF hosts that he’s in possession of all his faculties, let alone proving the existence of his god or the truth of the Christian worldview. Far from it. But we must keep in mind that even presuppositional apologists admit that their “arguments” are not intended to persuade non-believers; they maintain that only supernatural force can make a person accept the alleged “truth” of their religious beliefs. So their “truths” are “known” by means of force (which grants moral validity to the initiation of the use of force), not by means of reason (and theists say that reason and faith are compatible!).
We must remember that presuppositional apologetics is primarily geared toward securing the believer within the fold, toward keeping him ever bamboozled, toward ever deepening the canyon which separates him from rational individuals (i.e., people who accept reason as their only means of knowledge, their only judge of values and their only guide to action).
At any rate, the entire podcast is fascinating to listen to, not so much from a philosophical standpoint (since the issues that come up are so basic, and Nide has desperate difficulties in even grasping them), but from a psychological angle as we observe a mind stubbornly defying reason with virtually every breath. We watch in action a man under the influence of presuppositionalism.
Also, on Alex Botten's blog, there’s been some interesting reactions and discussion about Nide’s performance in the podcast. Several who frequent my blog are already aware of this and in fact have contributed to the discussion. Others may find it of interest as well.
by Dawson Bethrick
We must remember that presuppositional apologetics is primarily geared toward securing the believer within the fold, toward keeping him ever bamboozled, toward ever deepening the canyon which separates him from rational individuals (i.e., people who accept reason as their only means of knowledge, their only judge of values and their only guide to action).
At any rate, the entire podcast is fascinating to listen to, not so much from a philosophical standpoint (since the issues that come up are so basic, and Nide has desperate difficulties in even grasping them), but from a psychological angle as we observe a mind stubbornly defying reason with virtually every breath. We watch in action a man under the influence of presuppositionalism.
Also, on Alex Botten's blog, there’s been some interesting reactions and discussion about Nide’s performance in the podcast. Several who frequent my blog are already aware of this and in fact have contributed to the discussion. Others may find it of interest as well.
by Dawson Bethrick
445 comments:
1 – 200 of 445 Newer› Newest»How do you know?
Nide what do your parents and/or siblings think of your involvement in such a ridiculous cult? Do you not care that they are grossly embarrassed by your silliness?
I don't talk to demons.
Hezekiah wrote: "I don't talk to demons."
No. You don't. They are made up. Just storybook characters.
But under the worldview you embrace, I don't see how you can say that you "don't talk to demons" with any credibility (no big surprise, here). I would think, at least according to your worldview, all non-believers would essentially be demon-possessed, by virtue of them not being saved. So if you've ever talked to a non-believer, (again, according to your worldview) you would've had to have talked to demons.
In fact, according to your worldview and given what I've just written, prior you being saved, if you ever talked to yourself, you would've also been talking to a demon.
Ydemoc
Comedy,
Was it by a demon that you casted out demons?
Hezekiah wrote: "Was it by a demon that you casted out demons?"
Your questions translates as follows: "Was it by entities that do not exist that you casted out entities that do not exist."
To those of us who are rational, your question is incoherent. And I'm afraid it's also not very clear what it is you are trying to say, even within the Storybook worldview you subscribe to. But that's nothing unique. The fiction that faith forces you to accept as fact is riddled with all kinds of internal inconsistencies and incoherent notions.
You're just too fogged in to notice.
Ydemoc
Comedy,
Your say so is useless.
Now, how is it that you didn't cast out demons by a demon?
Hezekiah wrote: "Your say so is useless."
Useless to whom? What I've written above is based entirely upon the facts of reality. So you don't have to take it on my say-so, like you do with the say-so you willingly accept from your indoctrinators and your Storybook. Check it out for yourself.
You wrote: "Now, how is it that you didn't cast out demons by a demon?"
As I've already explained, this question is incoherent. Check it out for yourself.
See, unlike the invisible magic being that you worship, reality is always there, sitting here, ready for inspection. Check it out sometime.
Ydemoc
Yea, the "reality" you are imagining.
Hezekiah: "Yea, the 'reality' you are imagining."
If you actually think that I'm imagining or that one even needs to imagine the realm of existence, then 'tis not I who imagines. Check it out for yourself sometime. If you get off your knees and quit trying to pull your own as well as other people's legs all the time, perhaps you'd recognize it.
For, unlike the god you worship and which mystics made up, reality is all around you and easily accessed via the senses. It doesn't play hide-and-seek like your invisible magic being. It's perceptible, detectable, identifiable, measurable, knowable -- just the opposite of what you and your ilk tell us about your invisible magic being. It truly is inescapable -- and not just asserted to be the case and expected to be accepted on say-so, i.e., faith -- whether you or anyone else chooses to recognize it or not.
Check it out sometime.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
looks like he has run off back to his blog where he has 5 new questions for non Christians. Problem is that some of them are rather incoherent or at the very least difficult to tell what it is he is asking.
Justin,
Yes. I saw those questions, and you're right: A couple of them are just basically question marks at the end of a string of words. Did he even put question marks at the end of all of them? It wouldn't surprise me if he failed to do so.
But I'm sure he imagines his questions are legitimate, that they have a basis in reality, just like he imagines the non-existent god he worships has a basis in reality also. It appears to be some kind of imagination bleed-over effect.
He should really check reality out sometime.
Ydemoc
Yea the "reality" your imagining.
Justin,
I wonder, if given the opportunity, do you think Hezekiah would attempt to kill me, if he had "faith" or the assurance that attempting such an act -- not going all the way and actually killing me, but just attempting it -- would shake me to my foundation and unshackle the chains that he claims are binding my heart and mind, and if doing so would lead to my salvation?
I also wonder if Hezekiah would actually kill me if he truly believed it would lead to my salvation. Or if by doing so, it might help lead others to their salvation.
What do you think his responses might be, Justin? (that is, if you have the time or desire to answer -- if not, no big deal. And no rush. I kinda wanted to put the questions out there anyway.)
Ydemoc
Comedy,
How is it that you are not under Satanic influence?
@Ydemoc
If he was consistent I would have to say yes to that. He sees nothing wrong with what god asked of Abraham after all.
Hezekiah wrote: "How is it that you are not under Satanic influence?"
You can figure out the answer to your own question if you only try (and focus). It's right in front of you.
A guy with your on-air joviality, someone who seems to enjoy being in front of a microphone as much as you do -- despite the evasiveness and dimwittedness you display -- should be trying to correct the latter and accentuate the former, instead spending time like you do, leaving a track-record of mean-spirited and incoherent writings here online.
Perhaps if you work hard to correct your failings, you could make quite a living as a spokesperson for the imaginary someday -- that is, if there's still exists a market for peddling such irrational notions.
Ydemoc
"It's right there"
Yea in your imagination.
I had written, regarding reality: ""It's right there"
Hezekiah responded: "Yea in your imagination."
Imagination wouldn't even be possible (mine and yours) if not for existence being right here, there, and everywhere. It's inescapable. So there is no need to start with anything else, other than what is, i.e., existence. The notion of an invisible magic being is not only unnecessary for knowledge; it's actually a complete reversal of what actually is the case.
Check reality out some time when you get the chance. Doing so immediately will help to repair that mind of yours, which has clearly paid a tremendous price in trying to cheat it.
Ydemoc
Yea, the "reality" your imagining.
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the "reality" your imagining."
Really? Am I imagining your improper use of "your" in the sentence above? The correct words to use would be "you are" or the abbreviation "you're." Am I imagining the reality of your grammatical error here, Hezekiah?
Ydemoc
Here are some answers to Nide’s Five Questions for Non-Christians:
1. How do you account for identity through change?
By applying the law of identity to action. In other words, by the law of causality. Identity is not a static snapshot of something taken out of time. This is because the axiom of identity, upon which the law of identity is based, does not arbitrarily exclude anything from the full context of an entity’s nature. As such, the law of identity includes all of an entity’s attributes, including its actions and its potentials. Since action has identity (verbs and other parts of speech denoting actions would be impossible if it didn’t), there is no conflict between identity and change. A conflict would only arise if one refuses to apply the law of identity to action, but his very action in doing so would itself have identity, which would amount to a performative inconsistency. Moreover, assuming that change has no identity or denying the fact that change has identity, commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.
2. What is reality?
Reality is the realm of existence. ‘Existence’ is a collective noun which includes everything that exists, including every entity which exists, every attribute of every entity, every action of every entity, the relationships that every entity has with anything else.
3. Is reality static or is always changing?
This question treats the concept ‘reality’ as though it denoted only a single entity, which is not the case. Reality is a collection of entities. The concepts ‘static’ and ‘change’ apply to entities, not to all collections of entities, and certainly not to reality treated as a whole. That being said, some facts about reality are indeed static, such as the facts that there is a reality, that to exist is to be something distinct from other things which exist, that consciousness is consciousness of some object, that existence exists independent of consciousness, that man is a biological organism, that reason is man’s proper means of knowledge, that man needs values in order to live, etc. These unchanging truths are known through rational philosophy. They will not be properly understood by those who stubbornly adhere to irrational philosophies.
4. How do you account for accounting?
By the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the objective theory of concepts.
5. How do you account for the simplicity and multiplicity in the universe?
What the author of this question means by “the simplicity and multiplicity in the universe” is unclear, and remains unanswerable until such time that its terms are defined and clarified. Regardless, the primacy of existence means that the universe exists independent of consciousness, so whatever exists in the universe is not a product of conscious activity, such as wishing, imagining, fantasizing or commanding. This necessarily and absolutely rules out mystical worldviews like Christianity. To contend otherwise amounts to a denial of the primacy of existence, which can only mean the denier ultimately believes that wishing makes it so, and carelessly accepts the stolen concept on which such denial depends, and the endless string of stolen concepts which it implies for the rest of one’s knowledge. (Theology is a systematic effort to outrun the damning consequences of the stolen concepts necessarily implicit in the fundamentals of theism.)
Regards,
Dawson
Now that I’ve answered the Five Questions for Non-Christians, here are five questions for Christians:
1. According to Christianity, is there a difference between reality and imagination?
2. If there is, according to Christianity, a difference between reality and imagination, please cite book, chapter and verse from the bible which clearly and unmistakably states that such a difference exists.
3. If, according to Christianity, there is a difference between reality and imagination, what specifically is that difference? Please cite book, chapter and verse from the bible which clearly identifies and defines this difference.
4. If, according to Christianity, there is a difference between reality and imagination, can the believer distinguish between reality and imagination? If so, please cite book, chapter and verse from the bible which clearly affirms this.
5. If, according to Christianity, there is a difference between reality and imagination, and, according to Christianity, the believer can distinguish between reality and imagination, by what means can the believer do this such that it can be assured that he is not confusing reality with his own or someone else’s imagination? Please cite book, chapter and verse from the bible which clearly identifies the believer’s means of distinguishing between reality and imagination, and which explains how this process works.
Regards,
Dawson
Comedy,
Tries to "clever" again.
Yes and No.
"Tries to "clever" again."
Hezekiah, you just got spanked and how and that is all you can say?
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the 'reality' your imagining."
I responded: "Really? Am I imagining your improper use of 'your' in the sentence above? The correct words to use would be 'you are' or the abbreviation 'you're.' Am I imagining the reality of your grammatical error here, Hezekiah?"
Hezekiah responded: "Tries to 'clever' again."
Is this what you meant to write? It doesn't compute.
Hezekiah wrote: "Yes and No."
"Yes" and "No" what, exactly? Is this how you go about trying to make *your* case for Christ? You must be imagining that you will stand before your invisible magic being, and he will say to you, "Well, done, faithful servant. Even though you were irrational and you said many ridiculous things while many souls hung in the balance and, frankly, could barely understand you half the time, you were jovial on podcasts, and your heart was in the right place."
Is that what you're counting on, Hezekiah? That you can come across as silly and as indecipherable as you'd like, because you're operating under the false comfort of thinking that your heart is in the right place? This line of thought has led many professed Christians to do many atrocious things.
But you cannot cheat reality, Hezekiah.
So, "Yes" and "No" what, exactly? Or do you not want to clarify, choosing instead to continue down the same path you've been on for quite some time, meandering along while never making your case?
"Yes" and "No" -- and this coming from someone who talks about absolutes! It's right up there with the Christian take on the "Uniformity of Nature" -- except when it comes to miracles.
What a joke.
Ydemoc
BB "saves the day"
1. Greg refuted this claim in his radio exchange with George Smith. You might wanna take another listen.
2. How do you know? The real question is how do you know what you call "reality" is real?
3. See question 2
4. See question 2.
5. The one and the many. Why is there one concept of man but we perceive many men? Why isn't there many concepts of men?
Now, to your Questions:
God can't lie so when he speaks of "is" we know it's real. And when he speaks of "is not" we know it's imaginary.
For example,
God says I am. Therefore, we know that he is real.
God says there are no other gods beside him. Therefore, we know other gods are imaginary.
If it doesn't accord to what God knows is real then it's imaginary.
That's why if you don't start with him your swept into a sea of imaginations.
Blessings.
"
1. Greg refuted this claim in his radio exchange with George Smith. You might wanna take another listen."
why don't you put in your own words just how Greg refuted that.
Justin,
Spanked?
That's a strange use of words.
Comedy,
You know that it is real but then you don't know that it's real.
See you have an irrational mindset. That's the way it goes for everybody form of non-Christian thinking.
ill ask my question again
"1. Greg refuted this claim in his radio exchange with George Smith. You might wanna take another listen."
why don't you put in your own words just how Greg refuted that."
Justin,
The law of identity has nothing to do with the law of causality we've discussed this already. See the archives.
oh I remember them. I also remember presenting an argument from the foundationalist position of a conceptual hierarchy and all I got from you was... oh yes nothing. All you had was "Well I never read that in any of my textbooks" Got a question for you, the concept causality... what is it? hint, you cant answer that without presupposing the concept identity.
Nide: “1. Greg refuted this claim in his radio exchange with George Smith. You might wanna take another listen.”
Here’s what Bahnsen stated to Smith:
<< It’s a tremendous philosophical mistake to assimilate the law of causality to the laws of logic. But if you study the history of philosophy you’d know that this idea that things have a determinate nature and that’s why they behave why they do, is associated with the conclusion that there can be no change… that is, it’s impossible to change. Because the law of identity prevents them from changing…. How is it possible to extrapolate into the future, if you use the law of identity? There’s no change to look for in the future. >>
Bahnsen makes several mistakes here. First, he uncritically accepts what some philosophers in the past have held, subsequently assuming it’s true. Or, he springs what some philosophers in the past have held on Smith as if what they held were unchallengeable. This tells us that Bahnsen was either sloppy in his thinking or opportunistic in his debating strategy. Either way, he fails to refute the Objectivist conception of identity – he just says that some philosophers in the past drew the erroneous conclusion that there can be no change given the law of identity. Bahnsen doesn’t realize that those same philosophers took for granted the very arbitrary snapshot conception of identity which the axiom of identity actually disallows.
Second, by denying the law of identity’s applicability to action, Bahnsen puts himself in the extremely dubious position of affirming that actions do not have identity. So for Bahnsen, there’s no distinction between swimming, thinking, playing golf, murdering, sleeping, flying, sitting, surfing the web, raping, giving birth, or any other action. That’s because, for Bahnsen, actions don’t have identity, for he holds it’s “a tremendous mistake” to associate identity with action, since “the law of identity prevents [entities] from changing.” Does Bahnsen provide any argument for this? No, he doesn’t. He borrows the conclusion from past philosophers hoping no one notices that he provides nothing to validate it.
Meanwhile, Bahnsen uses concepts which denote actions, such as “assimilate,” “study,” “have,””behave,” “do,” “change,” “extrapolate,” “use,” “look for,” etc. So as I pointed out in my initial reply to Nide’s question, Bahnsen is performatively inconsistent: on the one hand, he’s really saying that action has no identity, while on other hand he assumes that actions have identity by using concepts which denote actions. If actions did not have identity, they could not be distinguished from other things, and thus could not be denoted by concepts.
Bahnsen thus fails in his attempt to refute Objectivism. Really, it’s a piss-poor attempt if you ask me.
Regards,
Dawson
In your imaginations. Yea.
The three basic laws of logic:
identity
excluded middle
non contradiction
Are applied to propositions.
They don't exist in things.
They are not from this world.
When I say anything it pressuposes God.
By the way Justin if you haven't check out my exchange with tony lloyd . it was pretty hilarious. it's always great too see the wisdom of this world pulling the rug from under it's own feet.
@Dawson
thank you, that was beautiful. I was hoping to actually get an argument out of Hezekiah... I know, what was I thinking, because I was too lazy to actually listen to the debate. Thank you for doing my work for me.
Nide asked: “2. What is reality?”
I responded: “Reality is the realm of existence. ‘Existence’ is a collective noun which includes everything that exists, including every entity which exists, every attribute of every entity, every action of every entity, the relationships that every entity has with anything else.”
Nide now asks: “2. How do you know?”
I know this through rational philosophy. As I mentioned, those who stubbornly adhere to irrational philosophies will not properly understand these truths. Also, those who stubbornly adhere to irrational philosophies will not understand how knowledge is acquired (cf. John Frame: “We know without knowing how we know” - ), and as confirming evidence of their lack of understanding, they will continue asking “How do you know?” on even the most basic items of knowledge.
Nide asked: “The real question is how do you know what you call ‘reality’ is real?”
This is tautological: to exist is to be something real. Tautologies whose reference is to reality are true. Examples: A = A (the law of identity – one must assume it in order to deny it – but that doesn’t stop those who adhere to irrational philosophies from doing so). Also consider any math equation: 2 + 2 = 4. Or: 45 + 45 = 90.
Regards,
Dawson
identity
excluded middle
non contradiction
these are concepts, methods employed and used by a conceptual consciousness that in turn is the activity and function of a certain class of animal, namely homo sapiens. So I'd say they are very much of this world. What are you going to do next pull out Plato's ideal forms??? LOL
Nide wrote: “5. The one and the many. Why is there one concept of man but we perceive many men? Why isn't there many concepts of men?”
Ah, I see, you really meant “unity” and “diversity,” but wrote “simplicity” and “multiplicity” by mistake.
The problem of the one and the many is solved by the objective theory of concepts. I’ve written much about this theory on my blog, though I realize most of it is well beyond your present grasp. There is one concept ‘man’ and we do perceive many men. This is not a conflict. The concept ‘man’ is a mental integration formed on the basis of those men which we have perceived; it includes all men, including those who exist now, who have existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Concepts are the mind’s way of economizing its cognitive labor, so it would defeat the purpose to multiply concepts beyond necessity (cf. Rand’s razor).
Regards,
Dawson
"This is tautological: to exist is to be something real. Tautologies whose reference is to reality are true. Examples: A = A (the law of identity – one must assume it in order to deny it – but that doesn’t stop those who adhere to irrational philosophies from doing so). Also consider any math equation: 2 + 2 = 4. Or: 45 + 45 = 90."
So, in other words you don't know.
Your drawing inferences from a "reality" you haven't established.
Your say so doesn't count as evidence.
"By the way Justin if you haven't check out my exchange with tony lloyd . it was pretty hilarious. it's always great too see the wisdom of this world pulling the rug from under it's own feet."
Was this on your blog or some other, where would I find it?
"Ah, I see, you really meant “unity” and “diversity,” but wrote “simplicity” and “multiplicity” by mistake."
No it wasn't.
Simplicity(oneness)
Multiplicity(many)
"Rand's razor" is imaginary.
It's always interesting to see the fool wise in his own eyes.
Justin,
it's on my blog.
search for Tony Lloyd
I asked: “1. According to Christianity, is there a difference between reality and imagination?”
Nide responded: “God can't lie so when he speaks of ‘is’ we know it's real. And when he speaks of ‘is not’ we know it's imaginary.”
This response does not answer the question. The question I asked is a yes or no type question, and Nide has failed to answer it accordingly. To say that when the Christian god speaks of ‘is’ it means it’s real, and of ‘is not’ it means it’s imaginary, is well and good so far as it goes, but hardly of any value if the worldview to which these statements belong does not hold that there is a difference between reality and imagination.
Moreover, what is stated here is embarrassingly self-defeating for Christianity. Consider:
When Jesus says after raising the ruler’s daughter in Mt. 9:24 that “the maid is not dead, but sleepeth,” it’s imaginary.
When Jesus tells his disciples not to worry about what they’ll speak in a time of need, according to Mt. 10:20, “for is not not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you,” this is imaginary.
When Jesus says in Mt. 10:24 Jesus says “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord,” this is imaginary.
When Jesus says in Mt. 13:11 “it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given,” this is imaginary.
As you can see, with 143 instances of “is not” in the New Testament alone, according to Nide’s answer above, there’s a lot that’s imaginary in the bible!
Nide: “God says I am. Therefore, we know that he is real.”
You wouldn’t accept this argument from Jim Gardner when he told you that he existed. And yet here you are using it as an argument for your god. How choosy you are in applying logic. What Jim said about you – “having like zero ability to apply your own internal logic to your own questions, let alone have the audacity to ask questions of other people” – is entirely true, and you continue to confirm its truth over and over again.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “God says there are no other gods beside him.”
Would a lying spirit who wanted you to believe he were the only real god, tell you any different?
Nide concluded: “Therefore, we know other gods are imaginary.”
This is not only circular reasoning (the very fallacy which Nide himself cited against the Ghost that Never Lies), it shows its believers to be extremely gullible. They apparently believe what they want to believe.
Nide: “If it doesn't accord to what God knows is real then it's imaginary.”
Notice that Nide has not answered any of my questions, nor has he cited any book, chapter and verses from the bible to support anything he’s said. Indeed, we can find numerous passages in the bible, as I have shown, which vie directly against what he has affirmed. Pretty hilarious actually.
Any other Christians out there want to address my questions? They remain unanswered at this point.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: “In your imaginations. Yea.”
How do you know?
Nide: “The three basic laws of logic: identity excluded middle non contradiction”
How do you know?
Nide: “Are applied to propositions.”
Are you imagining this?
Nide: “They don't exist in things.”
How do you know?
Nide: “They are not from this world.”
So, they’re from a world that you imagine?
Nide: “When I say anything it pressuposes God.”
So you are imagining. Got it.
Regards,
Dawson
I wrote: "This is tautological: to exist is to be something real. Tautologies whose reference is to reality are true. Examples: A = A (the law of identity – one must assume it in order to deny it – but that doesn’t stop those who adhere to irrational philosophies from doing so). Also consider any math equation: 2 + 2 = 4. Or: 45 + 45 = 90."
Nide responded: “So, in other words you don't know.”
No, in other words, you don’t understand, and you don’t understand because you don’t want to understand. And you don’t want to understand because you know it would expose the intellectual bankruptcy of your worldview and the foolishness of your rejection of reason.
Nide: “Your drawing inferences from a ‘reality’ you haven't established.”
There’s no need to “establish” reality. Can’t you read? What part of “reality exists independent of consciousness” don’t you understand?
Nide: “Your say so doesn't count as evidence.”
How do you know?
Regards,
Dawson
I wrote: "Ah, I see, you really meant ‘unity’ and ‘diversity’, but wrote ‘simplicity’ and ‘multiplicity’ by mistake."
Nide: “No it wasn't. Simplicity(oneness) Multiplicity(many)”
Simplicity does not mean “oneness.” Even on Christianity’s terms. Christianity holds that its god is “simple,” and yet it is not a unity, but rather a trinity. Man, you really need a Basic 101 course on your own worldview!
I quote Van Til:
<< If God is left out of the picture it is up to the human mind to furnish the unity that must bind together the diversity of factual existence. It will not do to think of laws existing somehow apart from the mind. And even if this were possible it would not help matters any, because even these laws would be thought of as independent of God and as just there somehow. In other words, the only alternative to thinking of God as the ultimate source of the unity of human experience as it is furnished by laws or universals is to think that the unity rests in a void. >>
(from A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p. 216)
Notice that Van Til uses the words ‘unity’ and ‘diversity’ here, not “simplicity” and “multiplicity.” So yes, Nide, you made a mistake. Just own up to it for once.
Nide wrote: “’Rand's razor’ is imaginary.”
Then go and multiply concepts beyond their necessity to your heart’s content, Nide. You’ll only deepen the chasms of your own irrationality by doing so. It won’t bother us.
Nide: “It's always interesting to see the fool wise in his own eyes.”
Nide has finally taken a look in the mirror!! To quote Alex Botten, “We have a goal!”
Regards,
Dawson
Justin wrote:
<< @Dawson
thank you, that was beautiful. I was hoping to actually get an argument out of Hezekiah... I know, what was I thinking, because I was too lazy to actually listen to the debate. Thank you for doing my work for me. >>
You’re welcome, Justin! The pleasure’s all mine.
Nide has no idea how much material I have against his “homeboy” Bahnsen. Believe me, there’s a LOT more where that came from.
No one can say I haven’t done my homework!
Regards,
Dawson
"As you can see, with 143 instances of “is not” in the New Testament alone, according to Nide’s answer above, there’s a lot that’s imaginary in the bible"
I anticipated that the rulers and principalities of this world i.e. Satan and his demons would distort my statement.
"You wouldn’t accept this argument from Jim Gardner when he told you that he existed. And yet here you are using it as an argument for your god. How choosy you are in applying logic. What Jim said about you – “having like zero ability to apply your own internal logic to your own questions, let alone have the audacity to ask questions of other people” – is entirely true, and you continue to confirm its truth over and over again."
Because Jim aintttttt God!!!!!!!!
Only God can say what or who exists and doesn't exist.
"Would a lying spirit who wanted you to believe he were the only real god, tell you any different?"
This has already been answered.
"This is not only circular reasoning (the very fallacy which Nide himself cited against the Ghost that Never Lies), it shows its believers to be extremely gullible. They apparently believe what they want to believe."
Yes, the fool wise in his own eyes.
"Notice that Nide has not answered any of my questions, nor has he cited any book, chapter and verses from the bible to support anything he’s said. Indeed, we can find numerous passages in the bible, as I have shown, which vie directly against what he has affirmed. Pretty hilarious actually.Any other Christians out there want to address my questions? They remain unanswered at this point."
You've been answered. However, it's not the answers you want.
In regards to your second set of arbitry questions. I know because God told me.
In regards to your third set of arbitry questions. I know because God told.
When you figure out how to swim out of the sea of imagination you are in. let me know.
"Notice that Van Til uses the words ‘unity’ and ‘diversity’ here, not “simplicity” and “multiplicity.” So yes, Nide, you made a mistake. Just own up to it for once."
And why do I have to use those exact words?
of course your ignorant of the Trinity:
One substance that is the simplicity that is the oneness
Three persons the multiplicity ie the diversity.
He uses these terms in other writings.
Now, how long will a fool be wise in his own eyes?
Nide wrote: “I anticipated that the rulers and principalities of this world i.e. Satan and his demons would distort my statement.”
You mean, you imagined this, and didn’t take any precautions to protect what you wrote from distortion, like explaining it better?
Also, it’s not distortion when one exposes how one’s words, taken as they are presented, vie against his own position, as I showed in the case of your words and their implications for the biblical text.
Nide: "You wouldn’t accept this argument from Jim Gardner when he told you that he existed. And yet here you are using it as an argument for your god. How choosy you are in applying logic. What Jim said about you – “having like zero ability to apply your own internal logic to your own questions, let alone have the audacity to ask questions of other people” – is entirely true, and you continue to confirm its truth over and over again."
Nide: “Because Jim aintttttt God!!!!!!!!”
Then not only do you deny reality when it’s pointed out to you (as if you needed evidence for Jim’s existence pointed out to you), you beg the question.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Nide: “Only God can say what or who exists and doesn't exist.”
That’s your worldview’s subjectivism again: according to Christianity, wishing makes it so.
I asked: "Would a lying spirit who wanted you to believe he were the only real god, tell you any different?"
Nide: “This has already been answered.”
I believe the answer was: YES, a lying spirit who wanted you to believe that he were the only real god WOULD tell you that there are no other gods but him. So you really don’t know if you’ve been duped by some lying spirit.
I wrote: "This is not only circular reasoning (the very fallacy which Nide himself cited against the Ghost that Never Lies), it shows its believers to be extremely gullible. They apparently believe what they want to believe."
Nide: “Yes, the fool [is] wise in his own eyes.”
Do you think of yourself as a wise person? Or, an unwise person? What do YOU think about your own level of wisdom? If you think you’re wise, then according to what you say here, you’re a fool. If you don’t think you’re wise, well, you’re not the only one.
I wrote: "Notice that Nide has not answered any of my questions, nor has he cited any book, chapter and verses from the bible to support anything he’s said. Indeed, we can find numerous passages in the bible, as I have shown, which vie directly against what he has affirmed. Pretty hilarious actually. Any other Christians out there want to address my questions? They remain unanswered at this point."
Nide: “You've been answered.”
Actually, I haven’t. No one has answered my questions. Even you: you haven’t stated whether or not, according to Christianity, there’s a difference between reality and imagination. It’s a yes or no question. You never said yes or no to this question. Nor did you follow up with answers to the remaining questions.
Nide: “However, it's not the answers you want.”
Right. I wanted genuinely biblical answers. You gave me your merely autonomous speculations.
Nide: “In regards to your second set of arbitry [sic] questions. I know because God told me.”
Which really translates to: I know because some spirit which could be lying to me, told me. You’d be better off going with the Ghost that Never Lies, because, by definition, it Never Lies. But you already dismissed it because arguments for its existence are circular.
Nide: “In regards to your third set of arbitry [sic] questions. I know because God told.”
In other words, some spirit which might be lying to you, told you this, and you have no way of determining whether or not you’ve been lied to. Got it.
Nide: “When you figure out how to swim out of the sea of imagination you are in. let me know.”
How do you know?
Regards,
Dawson
I wrote: "Notice that Van Til uses the words ‘unity’ and ‘diversity’ here, not ‘simplicity’ and ‘multiplicity’. So yes, Nide, you made a mistake. Just own up to it for once."
Nide: “And why do I have to use those exact words?”
Because they denote what you really had in mind.
Nide: “of course your ignorant of the Trinity: One substance that is the simplicity that is the oneness”
I see, so you subscribe to oneness theism? Be careful here, Trinitarians would call you a heretic for this.
Nide: “Three persons the multiplicity ie the diversity.”
It’s got to be one of Van Til’s stupidest arguments ever. I’ve already written on it here.
Nide: “He uses these terms in other writings.”
Indeed, consistency was never one of his virtues.
Nide asked: “Now, how long will a fool be wise in his own eyes?”
Good question. Let’s see, you posted your first entry on your block back in August of last year, right? (See here.) So let’s keep an eye on it. How long will you last? This will answer your question.
Regards,
Dawson
"Also, it’s not distortion when one exposes how one’s words, taken as they are presented, vie against his own position, as I showed in the case of your words and their implications for the biblical text."
It is . distortion mixed with desperation.
"Then not only do you deny reality when it’s pointed out to you (as if you needed evidence for Jim’s existence pointed out to you), you beg the question. Two wrongs don’t make a right."
I separate existence from reality. Not everybody holds to your irrationality.
"Which really translates to: I know because some spirit which could be lying to me, told me. You’d be better off going with the Ghost that Never Lies, because, by definition, it Never Lies. But you already dismissed it because arguments for its existence are circular."
By definition God never lies. More distortion and desperation.
"That’s your worldview’s subjectivism again: according to Christianity, wishing makes it so."
How harsh.
"I believe the answer was: YES, a lying spirit who wanted you to believe that he were the only real god WOULD tell you that there are no other gods but him. So you really don’t know if you’ve been duped by some lying spirit."
I believe the answer was NO. This is what I call Satanic dishonesty.
"Do you think of yourself as a wise person? Or, an unwise person? What do YOU think about your own level of wisdom? If you think you’re wise, then according to what you say here, you’re a fool. If you don’t think you’re wise, well, you’re not the only one."
I think of myself as a humble person.
"How do you know?"
God told me.
"Because they denote what you really had in mind."
You'll get it right one day, lord wiling.
"I see, so you subscribe to oneness theism? Be careful here, Trinitarians would call you a heretic for this."
if I denied that there were 3 persons then yea.
"It’s got to be one of Van Til’s stupidest arguments ever. I’ve already written on it here."
why is it "stupid"?
"Indeed, consistency was never one of his virtues."
not at all. It keeps Satan on his toes. you need a little suspense.
"Good question. Let’s see, you posted your first entry on your block back in August of last year, right? (See here.) So let’s keep an eye on it. How long will you last? This will answer your question."
the thing is you can't let a fool be wise in his own eyes.
I wrote: "Which really translates to: I know because some spirit which could be lying to me, told me. You’d be better off going with the Ghost that Never Lies, because, by definition, it Never Lies. But you already dismissed it because arguments for its existence are circular."
Nide: “By definition God never lies.”
Of course, a lying spirit would want you to believe this, and you’d have no way of knowing any better.
Nide: “More distortion and desperation.”
More projection. It indicates you’re more desperate than even I figured.
I wrote: "That’s your worldview’s subjectivism again: according to Christianity, wishing makes it so."
Nide: “How harsh.”
Harsh? Well, maybe you’re smarting from the fact that sometimes truth hurts.
I wrote: "I believe the answer was: YES, a lying spirit who wanted you to believe that he were the only real god WOULD tell you that there are no other gods but him. So you really don’t know if you’ve been duped by some lying spirit."
Nide: “I believe the answer was NO.”
And if you were deceived by a lying spirit, you would likely say just this.
Nide: “This is what I call Satanic dishonesty.”
When you say “I believe the answer was NO,” it’s “Satanic dishonesty”?
I wrote: "Do you think of yourself as a wise person? Or, an unwise person? What do YOU think about your own level of wisdom? If you think you’re wise, then according to what you say here, you’re a fool. If you don’t think you’re wise, well, you’re not the only one."
Nide: “I think of myself as a humble person.”
Is it wise to be humble?
I asked: “How do you know?"
Nide answered: “God told me.”
How do you know?
Regards,
Dawson
I wrote: "Because they denote what you really had in mind."
Nide: “You'll get it right one day, lord wiling.”
But I got it right the first time. I quoted the object of your worship – Cornelius Van Til. Indeed, I had to quote Van Til in order to correct you, since you wouldn’t accept it from me. Just pointing out that you made an error. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge your own fallibility?
I wrote: "I see, so you subscribe to oneness theism? Be careful here, Trinitarians would call you a heretic for this."
Nide: “if I denied that there were 3 persons then yea.”
So the god you imagine is not a “oneness” after all? Three persons is not a “oneness.”
I wrote: "It’s got to be one of Van Til’s stupidest arguments ever. I’ve already written on it here."
Nide: “why is it ‘stupid’?”
Because it was affirmed by someone who was clearly educated beyond his intelligence, who should have known better, and so clearly falls short of meeting its own goals that it’s utterly laughable. That’s why.
I wrote: "Indeed, consistency was never one of his virtues."
Nide: “not at all.”
Right, not at all a virtue of his.
Nide: “It keeps Satan on his toes.”
So you imagine…
Nide: “you need a little suspense.”
1944’s Gaslight is one of my favorites.
I wrote: "Good question. Let’s see, you posted your first entry on your block back in August of last year, right? (See here.) So let’s keep an eye on it. How long will you last? This will answer your question."
NIde: “the thing is you can't let a fool be wise in his own eyes.”
Exactly why I enjoy correcting you – it keeps you from thinking you’re as wise in your eyes as you would like to believe.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide have you considered using force of arms to compel others to join your cult? You'd probably be more successful by abducting people and forcing them at gun point to recite your preferred creedal prayer. Its obvious you've got nothing in the way of valid religion to offer to even illiterate fools or loons. Newsflash! People who are down and out losers don't frigging care about your silly renditions of the really stupid and weak TAG argument. They want help in the form of food, shelter, medicine, education, jobs, and a roadmap to self-sufficiency. Your phoney god and ridiculous religion can't provide any of that.
Nide has asked many times how it is that someone is not imaging some thing or event. So what if they are? Information is still only possible as an encoding embodied in atomist, reductionist, material particles. If it is asserted that Dawson or the Cartesian Demon is the ultimate solipsist, then his or its brain is the ultimate information processor, and reality is still really real. Existence still exists, and its metaphysical primacy still cannot be refuted and God cannot exist.
What if we’re all brains in vats and are connected to the Matrix’s computers? So what if we are? Information is still only possible as an encoding embodied in atomist, reductionist, material particles, and the reality wherein the Matrix’s computers exist is still really real. In that case, existence still exists, and its metaphysical primacy still cannot be refuted and God cannot exist.
What if we’re all computer program simulations in an advanced quantum computer? Well so what if we are? Information is still only possible as an encoding embodied in atomist, reductionist, material particles, and the reality wherein the advanced computer exist is still really real. In that case, existence still exists, and its metaphysical primacy still cannot be refuted and God cannot exist.
What if its said we’re all only in the imagination of some super consciousness that somehow exists without existence? So what? Primacy of consciousness is a false metaphysic and whosoever asserts that we’re products of the imagination of some super consciousness is patently wrong due to stolen concepts, floating abstractions, bogus package deals or other such fallacies.
@Nide: You and your presuppositional apologetics buddies are wrong. All empirical evidence observed or gathered by humanity says Randian Objectivism’s metaphysical axioms are the real deal. Even if the bat guano lunacy scenarios listed above were possible, so what? No one with half a brain is primarily interested in what’s merely possible. The question of what is probable is far more significant.
Now then. Lets talk about your God. Do you have any empirical objective evidence that it is real? If so present it and we’ll go about analyzing whatever case you argue.
@Robert
good post! I in fact drew attention to this very same conclusion when I wrote about the difference between justifiable truth claims and correspondence truth claims on my blog. People trapped in the matrix who had no evidence to this fact would morally be completely justified in rejected the claim outright even if they were in fact in the correspondence sense of truth actually stuck in the Matrix. As I keep having to repeat over and over to Hezekiah, we place our conclusions on what we know, not on what we don't know.
"Of course, a lying spirit would want you to believe this, and you’d have no way of knowing any better."
This has been refuted already. give it up.
"Harsh? Well, maybe you’re smarting from the fact that sometimes truth hurts."
Yea, the "truth" your imagining.
"Is it wise to be humble?"
It's humble.
"How do you know?"
In the bible.
"Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge your own fallibility?"
My question had to do with the one and the many. I don't know why you brought van til up.
"So the god you imagine is not a “oneness” after all? Three persons is not a “oneness.”
One in substance. Three in persons. This has been already explained.
"Because it was affirmed by someone who was clearly educated beyond his intelligence, who should have known better, and so clearly falls short of meeting its own goals that it’s utterly laughable.That’s why."
Arbitrary opinions are laughbale too.
"Exactly why I enjoy correcting you – it keeps you from thinking you’re as wise in your eyes as you would like to believe."
Correcting what? Your imaginations?
"Now then. Lets talk about your God. Do you have any empirical objective evidence that it is real? If so present it and we’ll go about analyzing whatever case you argue."
Yea his word.
Nide > "Yea his word."
So now you're a Bibliolater?
I asked "Do you have any empirical objective evidence that it [your god] is real?"
While the Bible is and the quest to unravel the history of its composition, sources, redaction, literary influences and so forth is fascinating, its in no sense evidence of your allged god or of any divine being. The Bible is loaded with thousands of contradictions, absurdities, fallacies, falsehoods in matters of nature or history. Try again, but first read the following.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_ball/bible.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
I read that stuff.
God told me he is real.
Now, are you?
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the 'reality' your imagining."
I responded: "Really? Am I imagining your improper use of 'your' in the sentence above? The correct words to use would be 'you are' or the abbreviation 'you're.' Am I imagining the reality of your grammatical error here, Hezekiah?"
Hezekiah responded with some sentence that was grammatically incorrect and, evidently, missing a few words.
He then responded to my question above with, "Yes and No."
I responded: "'Yes' and 'No,' what, exactly?
Hezekiah finally answered: "You know that it is real but then you don't know that it's real."
So, according to you, I know that you improperly used "your" instead of "you're" or "you are"; but I do not know that you improperly used "your" instead of "you're" or "you are."
Are you really this blind to see what god-belief rationalizing has done to your thinking process? How can you find what you've written here in any way acceptable or coherent?
Faith has tied your mind into knots, forcing you to spew out a blatant contradiction in an effort to protect and defend it. Such are the results of adhering to "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen" -- a thoroughly evil notion which its adherents point to, to justify anything, be it posting time-wasting nonsense or committing horrific atrocities.
Hezekiah wrote: "See you have an irrational mindset."
No, Hezekiah. I'm quite rational. I'm committed to identifying and integrating the facts of reality and acting accordingly. What facts of reality have I identified and integrated here today? Not only your grammatical error, but also the notion that forces you to hold to your blatant contradiction: Faith.
This not only makes me rational, it makes you, by virtue of your faith commitment and the anti-reason mindset you have and the garbage you continually spew out, irrational. You are not committed to reason as your only means of knowledge. From Dictionary.com:
ir·ra·tion·al
/ɪˈræʃənl/ Show Spelled[ih-rash-uh-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
I think it's pretty clear that 1, 2 and 3 clearly apply to most of what you've written, here and elswhere. Also noteworthy, I do not see "faith" mentioned at all.
Hezekiah wrote: "That's the way it goes for everybody form of non-Christian thinking."
You're not making your case, Hezekiah. Not at all. And I'm not talking about the silly notion of salvation (although you've failed there, too); I'm talking about basic reasoning skills that you have yet to display in most if not all of what you've presented. Based upon what you've written above, I can't see how anyone could be persuaded by what you've written -- unless of course, they eschew reason and embrace faith.
Faith: Justifying and accounting for evasion, ignorance and irrationality, well-before and well-after the day man invented god.
Ydemoc
Comedy,
Yea, the "reality" you're imagining.
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the "reality" you're imagining."
Please answer these four questions:
Are you, as a Christian, under any obligation to tell me the truth?
Are you, as a Christian, under any obligation to tell any atheist the truth?
Are you, as a Christian, under any obligation to be honest with me?
Are you, as a Christian, under any obligation to be honest with yourself?
Ydemoc
Yes.
You're a rebellious wicked sinner who is at enmity with God.
God is commanding you to repent and turn in faith to Christ.
Because Judgement is coming.
"You're a rebellious wicked sinner who is at enmity with God.
God is commanding you to repent and turn in faith to Christ.
Because Judgement is coming."
Because when all is said and done, all they ever had was threats, not reason.
"Faith and force are corollaries"
Ayn Rand
Justin,
Tony Lloyd came by this morning. He wanted to debate induction.
by the way Ayn rand was imagining things.
No threats but promises.
I doubt you even know what to imagine even means.
To imagine:
To believe what God says "is not" to be "is".
God says he is.
You say he is not.
Therefore, we know your imaging things.
If your reality doesn't accord to God's reality then your reality is no reality at all.
I wrote: "Of course, a lying spirit would want you to believe this, and you’d have no way of knowing any better."
Nide: “This has been refuted already. give it up.”
A mere denial does not constitute a philosophical refutation. If you want to show me how a lying spirit would not want to deceive a person, then by all means, show me this. But until you do precisely this, you have no case. Consequently, since your worldview posits the existence of supernatural beings which can and do have the intent to deceive human beings, then you need to show how I can know that you are not someone who has been so deceived. How are you going to go about doing this? Try your best. I will let you know if you are successful or not. So far, you’ve been unsuccessful. What’s your next move?
I asked: "Is it wise to be humble?"
Nide: “It's humble.”
So, it’s not wise? Just looking for an answer here, Nide. Is it wise or unwise to be humble? Which is it?
I asked: "Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge your own fallibility?"
Nide: “My question had to do with the one and the many.”
My question has to do with why you’re so reluctant to acknowledge your own fallibility. Why don’t you answer it? That you resist answering this question only confirms your reluctance.
Nide: “I don't know why you brought van til up.”
Then clearly you need to read up on your Van Til.
I asked: "So the god you imagine is not a ‘oneness’ after all? Three persons is not a ‘oneness’.”
Nide replied: “One in substance. Three in persons. This has been already explained.”
Actually, the doctrine of the trinity is one of the crucial doctrines of Christianity that no theologian has been able to explain. You say “one in substance.” What kind of substance is this? What are its qualities? Does it have a melting point? Does it have mass? Does it have a freezing point? Does it have a flash point? How does it respond to pressure? If it’s a “substance,” then you need to answer these questions without merely brushing them off. If you’re going to borrow a concept from reality, you need to retain its conceptual integrity, otherwise you’re misappropriating the concept and committing fallacy (e.g., stolen concept, floating abstraction, reification, frozen abstraction,etc.).
Also, have you ever noticed how Van Til attempted to solve the contradiction in “the Trinity”? He affirmed something different from what you’re saying here. He affirmed that the trinity consists of “three persons,” as you yourself affirm here, but instead of “one substance,” Van Til infamously affirmed “one person.” As Frame points out, this amounts to the affirmation of:
<< One person. Three persons. >>
Frame believes that Van Til’s “reasoning” for this formulation runs as follows:
<< If we deny that God is one person, then the unity among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit becomes an impersonal unity. The diversities among the three in that case would not be functions of personal planning and interpretation; rather these diversities would "just happen" to exist. Such a view would in effect place an impersonal "chance" or impersonal "fate" behind and above the persons of the Godhead. Somehow, then, the three persons must function in such intimate interdependence that it may be truly said that the three are one person. >>
(Details and references to Van Til’s works in Frame’s Van Til: The Theologian, pp. 14-15)
So, Nide, not only do you affirm an internally incoherent and self-contradictory idea at the very foundation of your worldview, you err in not knowing Van Til’s “scriptures.”
Some big problems here for you.
I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
Robert asked: “Now then. Lets talk about your God. Do you have any empirical objective evidence that it is real? If so present it and we’ll go about analyzing whatever case you argue."
Nide: “Yea his word.”
Nide, again you confuse a set of claims with objective evidence which supposedly supports them. If you have objective evidence – i.e., some non-man-made concrete that is tangible, accessible to the senses, open to investigation and measurable by objective means – then please produce it. If all you can do is point to a set of texts, then you self-eliminate.
Your call.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “You're a rebellious wicked sinner who is at enmity with God. God is commanding you to repent and turn in faith to Christ.”
And then wrote:
<< Because Judgement is coming. >>
It looks like judgment has already been made. Why would judgment be “coming” if it’s already been passed?
Again, I’m so glad these aren’t my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: "You're a rebellious wicked sinner who is at enmity with God. God is commanding you to repent and turn in faith to Christ."
Justin: “Because when all is said and done, all they ever had was threats, not reason.”
Right.
Justin quoted Ayn Rand: "Faith and force are corollaries"
Exactly! The sanction of the initiation of force is the tacit legacy of Christian theism when let loose on a culture. That’s precisely what history shows us.
Regards,
Dawson
BB,
That's actually one of my favorite vant til saying:
God is one person and three persons.
The suspense. You gotta love it.
Nide: “To imagine: To believe what God says ‘is not’ to be ‘is’.”
Where does the bible provide this definition of “to imagine”? Please cite book, chapter and verse to substantiate your putting words into the your god’s mouth.
Also, I already showed how the implications of this conception of “imagine” are completely damning for the bible. I gave the following examples above:
When Jesus says after raising the ruler’s daughter in Mt. 9:24 that “the maid is not dead, but sleepeth,” it’s imaginary.
When Jesus tells his disciples not to worry about what they’ll speak in a time of need, according to Mt. 10:20, “for is not not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you,” this is imaginary.
When Jesus says in Mt. 10:24 Jesus says “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord,” this is imaginary.
When Jesus says in Mt. 13:11 “it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given,” this is imaginary.
Nide dismissed all this as a “distortion,” but clearly it’s not. It’s simply applying his own “internal logic” to his own worldview. That’s not a distortion. He’s just sore that he can’t provide a coherent defense of his worldview.
That’s not my problem. So don’t blame me.
Nide wrote: “God says he is.”
And you still cannot explain how we can be certain that you’ve not been deceived by a lying spirit in all this. Your worldview posits the existence of lying spirits, so you need to deal with this. But you don’t. Instead, you just attack those who have no certainty that you’ve not been deceived. That doesn’t help. That’s what we’d expect from someone who’s been deceived!
Wow, so many problems for your worldview, Nide. When are you going to stop digging your hole of irrationality any deeper than it already is?
Regards,
Dawson
Nide wrote: “That's actually one of my favorite vant til saying: God is one person and three persons. The suspense. You gotta love it.”
In other words, you love contradictions.
Got it.
No wonder you’re a Christian!
Regards,
Dawson
BB,
You've been answered. Figure the rest out.
Have a nice day,
Blessings
P.S. God is wholly rational- Van Til
Nide: "You've been answered."
I see you're fantasizing again. How quaint.
Nide: "Figure the rest out."
In other words, if there's anything to learn, we won't be learning it from you. I already know this, Nide.
Nide: "Have a nice day,"
I am, thank you.
Nide: "P.S. God is wholly rational- Van Til "
Are we expected to accept this claim on Van Til's say so? After all, he didn't provide any arguments reducing to perceptually self-evident facts to support such claims.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
You wrote: "If you’re going to borrow a concept from reality, you need to retain its conceptual integrity, otherwise you’re misappropriating the concept and committing fallacy (e.g., stolen concept, floating abstraction, reification, frozen abstraction,etc.)."
What you've written here is something that cannot be stressed enough and really needs to be borne in mind when dealing with Christians. They are masters at misappropriating concepts, and whenever they do so, they need to be called on it.
I'm very glad that you have, once again, pointed this out.
Ydemoc
Comedy,
Yea, the reality your imagining.
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the reality your imagining."
Your worldview says that souls hang in the balance. Yet you continually fail to make your case.
How do you justify this?
How do you account for your denial of the primacy of existence, while affirming at the same time?
How do you justify asking people over and over again to "prove" that which is self-evident, when you yourself have said "the self evident needs no proof"? -- from your blog, dated 4/18/2012 at 10:45 p.m.
Ydemoc
@Robert
I thought you might find this interesting. A good example of liars for christ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2012_02.html
@Nide One in substance. Three in persons.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Substance is a term of art meaning an object as opposed to properties or events and thus acquires significance only within context of analytic philosophical discussion. It's part of a word game used to dodge or evade dealing with reality. By saying his God is a or has "substance" Nide is saying it is part of reality and thus not transcendent.
Outside of philosophy, any object related to our ordinary concern, existence, perceptions on our planet or which we observe in the universe around us is composed of mass-energy, of quarks, leptons, photons. Exotic sub-atomic particles are observable in cyclotron accelerator experiments. Some of these later may be found to make up "dark matter" which is inductively inferred to exist from its gravitational effects. Dark Energy or Quintessence that is 70-is percent of the mass-energy in existence is likewise inductively inferred from the accelerating expansion of existence, aka the universe. These two later categories are unlikely to be included in whatever Nide may have meant by the term substance in reference to his God.
If it were the case that Nide's God existed as the ultimate solipsist, then if and only if it were to be transcendent, meaning a-spatial, a-temporal, and outside of existence could it be the uncaused cause of cosmic inflation that in turn produced the Big Bang and hence be validly speculated to be "creator." But the term of art, substance, meaning object as opposed to property or event, when transferred into practical usage can only imply atomist, reductionist, material existence that exits. Though Nide did not intend his usage to invoke the metaphysical primacy of existence, it most surely does. Therefore, using the term substance to characterize the nature of the Christian triune God, alleged a being of pure consciousness, as object is a direct contradiction. That which is self-contradictory cannot exist.
@Nide God is one person and three persons.
One cannot equal three. Nide is muddling one of the most basic tenants of his faith. But since there is no reasoning involved in faith, the religious mind has no problem with self-contradiction; however, that which is self-contradictory cannot exist.
Nide, would you do Dawson and his readers a favor? Please recruit a qualified person to argue the Christian case. You're probably a nice guy even if you're totally bonkers about religion. To make this interesting find someone with a brain who at least gets Christian doctrine correct. See 1 Peter 3:15. If you'll do that, I'll let you off the hood for the $500 bucks you owe me by virtue of my invocation of Matt 5:42.
@Justin Thanks man. That's a good story. I posted it to the Bible Geek listener's group on facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/thebiblegeeklisteners/
Happy Memorial Day. This is the holiday where we celibate the lives of our war dead. Good men and women gave their lives that we may live in the greatest country. Its awe inspiring.
Ydemoc said...
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the reality your imagining."
[Your worldview says that souls hang in the balance. Yet you continually fail to make your case.
How do you justify this?]
Very good point. Nide and his buddies continually fail even though they claim to have special knowledge, reformed epistemology, an inner witness of the alleged Holy Spirit of their alleged God. Their continual failure is especially poignant given they do not obey the stern commands of their Lord and Savior, Jesus, as listed in the New Testament Gospels and yet fail to feel or detect even the slightest conviction of wrong doing sourced to any Holy Spirit.
Jesus was reported to have stated
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
Yet even the most well educated, intelligent, professional Christian scholars, evangelists, philosophers and apologists completely fail to perform even the smallest insignificant of supernatural events or actions. Surely even those as densely unwise as Nide can understand the self apparent fiasco evident from the contradiction between Paul's teaching at 1 Cor. 1:19-25
[For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.]
and the promise of Jesus at John 14:12.
So how does Nide justify his continually failing religious faith?
Robert,
Thanks for your response.
Indeed, how do Christians like Hezekiah justify or account for:
Forgetting? Ignorance? Doubt? Being wrong?
How do they justify or account for:
Their own, or anyone else's, lack of faith?
A non-believer's power to (according to them) suppress faith?
Suppression itself?
More on this later.
Ydemoc
The beauty of all of nide's bullshit is that he does not believe in autonomous reason. Meaning that all the stupidity, inconsistencies, bullshittery, dishonesty, red-herrings, et cetera, were not perpetrated by nide himself, but by his god. So, if you are a chirtsian, you believe that your god is an overall ass-hole. Good job hezek!
Hi photosynthesis,
I read your posts over on Dan's blog and the one above, and I'm glad I did, because it prompted this thought:
Hezekiah (and those of his ilk) is like someone who would, for example, freeload a ride aboard a spacecraft on a trip to the moon.
Then, after landing on the moon -- after exploring it, identifying it as the moon and calling the moon, collecting rocks from it, and doing experiments on its surface; and after arriving safely back home on earth -- he has the effrontery to ask the commander and all the NASA engineers at Mission Control: How do you know that what we landed on was the moon? How do you justify it? How do you account for it? How do you know it wasn't imaginary?
This is essentially what's happening when Hezekiah and his ilk ask us: "How do you know?"
Should what I've written prompt the usual line of inquiry from him, he will have proven yet again the very point I'm making.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
that was awsome! May I quote you on that in the future?
Justin,
Absolutely. Have at it!
Ydemoc
Justin,
Here's another question that I failed to ask under the scenario I presented in my post above: How do you account for the trip we just took to the moon?
I'm sure you can think of some of your own presuppositional inanity to add to this as well.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
I think you just gave me a great idea for a comic story arc!
Justind and comedy two sad individuals.
you are just jealous because you don't have a nice letter d on the end of your name, oh wait, neither do I!
Justin,
I look forward to seeing your comic.
I notice that Hezekiah, in his latest comment, shied away from the questions we usually see from him. Wise choice.
Instead he wrote: "Justind and comedy two sad individuals."
In this instance, I wonder how he justifies attributing sorrow, without warrant? To justify that which is unwarranted, does he appeal to his invisible magic being?
Probably.
And is his invisible magic being responsible for the misspelling of your (Justin's) name? Probably -- all that comes to pass, right? Or are errors (in this case, in his grammar and spelling) not a part of "all that comes to pass"?
From Dawson's blog, Whipps' characterization of knowing by way the "sensus divinitatis"...
"the equivalent of having the author of the book standing over your shoulder, and correcting your faulty understandings, and continually adjusting your noetic “issues” as He also works to sanctify you in obedience to that revealed Word. (Question and Answer section of the Whipps-LeBlanc Debate)"
But, hey, today is Memorial Day, so perhaps the Holy Ghost is taking a noetic holiday, and Hezekiah's "sensus divinitatis" isn't receiving signals.
Next holiday, maybe he should consider donning a tinfoil hat. After all, the results are identical.
Ydemoc
Justin,
By the way, either Hezekiah is resorting to some ol' fashioned Christian worldview fudging or he doesn't consider us "demons" or "divisive," (Titus 3:10), since he keeps communicating with us.
Hey, I guess it's never too late to for him to change his ways, though, and regain some of that Christian integrity that he claims he has.
And just because I've questioned the integrity (or lack thereof) that he displays under the influence of his worldview, I want him to know that my doing so takes nothing away from his quite affable podcast personality.
But, even though he's easy-going on-air, this doesn't help answer the question that arises on those rare occasions when he does present us with something of substance: Why should we believe him?
He really does seem to have a terrible time trying to make his case.
Ydemoc
It's been almost a year and Comedy still hasn't provide an argument. He thinks that by regurtitating Dawson's imaginations, wishing and begging for me to take things on his say so, for example, that "he" and his "reality" are real. He is going to convince me of anything "he" says. What a fool.
"It's been almost a year and Comedy still hasn't provide an argument."
Not true. I provided you Anton Thorn's argument. How do you account for your forgetfulness? How do you account for not remembering this? It appeared in the comments section of Dawson's blog, time stamp: December 3, 2011 6:53 PM.
A scant 11 minutes later, at 7:04 PM, you responded with some Storybook verses and something from Willy Wonka. But I don't see at all where you addressed the following argument that I, in fact, "provided":
Here it is, my post and the argument:
------------------------------------
Anton Thorn presented (and something Trinity has been pining for) in "Considering Mr. Smallwood's Apologetic"(www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/Morgue/Smallwood.htm). Thorn writes:
"...an Objectivist argument from objective reality (from the fact of existence)... may proceed along the following lines:
1) Existence exists. (We perceive existence directly, via our senses.)
2) To exist is to be something specific. {from 1)}
3) To be something specific is to have identity. {A is A; from 2)}
4) The identity of an entity is not distinct from that entity; an entity and its
identity are one and the same. {from 3)}
5) Consciousness is consciousness of an object (i.e., of existence).
5a) Therefore, consciousness presupposes existence. {from 5)}
5b) Corollary: Existence does not depend on consciousness. {from 1)}
6) The task of consciousness is not to create existence, but to identify it. {from 5)}
7) Theism posits consciousness prior to and/or as causally responsible for the
fact of existence (e.g., "God"). {theistic claims}
8) Theism is in contradiction with fundamental facts of reality. {from 6)}
C: Therefore, theism is invalid.
Premises 1) though 3) are implicit in all perception, but made explicit in objective philosophy through axiomatic concepts. These truths are inescapable and presumed in all cognition.
Premises 4) through 6) logically follow from the Objectivist axioms.
Premises 7) and 8) are only necessary once the notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness is posited by the mystic.
One does not "presuppose" anything about the "Christian triune God" - either that God exists or that God does not exist - when he recognizes the fact that existence exists, even when that recognition is completely implicit. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept (for such an assertion would fail to recognize objective conceptual priority and the hierarchical nature of knowledge)."
-----------end archived comment and argument-----------------
(continued)
You wrote: "He thinks that by regurtitating [sic] Dawson's imaginations..."
So now you can read minds?
You continue: "....wishing and begging for me to take things on his say so,"
Can you tell me where I have once begged you for anything? Can you cite one instance of me telling you to take things on my say-so? You really are projecting, Hezekiah, because "taking things on say-so" is the very essence of your belief system. Your entire faith is built upon the say-so of a Storybook and your brainwashers. To deny this would be denying your Christianity. The ironic thing is, where do both you and I have to look to confirm this? To reality! For is it not a fact that you take the bible solely on its say-so?
You continues: "...for example, that "he" and his "reality" are real."
Yes. Reality is real, Hezekiah. What else could it be? Perhaps something you conjured up while in "Stolen Concept Land?"
Existence exists. And you need not take it on mine nor anyone's else's say-so, for it is inescapable, as you have already demonstrated. The only question is whether or not you will choose to acknowledge this fact.
You wrote: "He is going to convince me of anything "he" says. What a fool."
I am not trying to convince you.
I just want to know why should I believe you about anything you say, if the only place to check is not reality but in some Storybook?
How do you justify not making your case?
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc Hello and good morning.
Sir, you wrote
From Dawson's blog, Whipps' characterization of knowing by way the "sensus divinitatis"...
"the equivalent of having the author of the book standing over your shoulder, and correcting your faulty understandings, and continually adjusting your noetic “issues” as He also works to sanctify you in obedience to that revealed Word. (Question and Answer section of the Whipps-LeBlanc Debate)"
Please help me out here. I've not been following these many discussions with Nide particularly close even though I've chimed in with what I thought might be a pithy comment from time to time. Does the quote you provided above correspond to what Nide thinks? His diatribe chattering is so confused that I don't really understand what he actually thinks.
@Nide All kidding aside, what are your creedal beliefs? Could you post a list of doctrines you think form the gist of your religious convictions? Can you ask someone in your cult who is both smarter and a better writer than yourself to join the conversation. You are in need of a stronger defense.
Ydemoc asked @Nide
I just want to know why should I believe you about anything you say, if the only place to check is not reality but in some Storybook?
How do you justify not making your case?
This is a very good point. Why should I or anyone else believe Nide or any other Christian apologist verses a Mormon, or Islamic, or Scientologist, or Seek, or Brahmaic apologists? Why does Nide and the members of his cult think their sacred and mystical woo-stories true while rejecting the assertions of all other religious teachers who assert their mystical woo-stories are the real deal?
I checked Nide's blog and he is doing a more structured debate regarding
The Presuppositional worldview cannot justify its knowledge claims.
Perhaps Nide will make more coherent statements verses Meatros.
Hi Ydemoc,
Glad to inspire such ideas.
It is quite sad to notice how slowly the mind of Hezek's god flows according to his worldview. After all, showing him the natural consequence of his worldview: that any stupidity he writes is not his own, but because it is "thought after his god," it's thus his god's stupidity, he insists on making much more of a fool of this supposed god. Keep it up Hezek!
@Ydemoc
hey there thanks for posting Thorns primary argument from existence. I remember asking Nide/Hezekiah to go check that out back in July or August of last year when he asked for an argument. Never once heard him interact with it or even mention it in all the time since. By the way I still intend to some time write up a comparison of TAG to PAE. Good work.
As mentioned, I took on Hezekiah, here: http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Presuppositional-worldview-cannot-justify-its-knowledge-claims/1/
The debate is now over.
Hezekiah is also challenging other people on that site.
I'm curious, what did everyone think of the debate?
Only registered members with 3 debates or more can vote, so I feel as though in asking, I'm not trying to whip up any support here.
Hello Friends:
@Justin @Ydemoc Thorn's work was seminal in the sense of being highly influential in an original way. I need to reread his stuff and reacquaint myself. Thanks for reminding.
@photosynthesis Could you elaborate on Nide's views that he thinks the Christian God responsible for his [Nide's] own cognition? It's beyond telling that if Nide beleives YHWH/Jehovah-Jesus-Sophia, is accountable for Nide's continuous stream of insanely bad thinking, that Nide must believe his God to be utterly incompetent.
@Phlegon of Tralles Thank you for doing the debate with @ Hezekiah Ahaz. I've only starting reading it, but I'm so far appreciative of your proper debate demeanor and clear presentation. As a Michael Martin fan, I enjoyed your citation of his eassy on infidel.org.
Are there other reasons to suppose that a Christian based epistemology provides no objective foundation for epistemology? A cursory glace at the controversies within the Christian religion must surely banish any illusion of the objective nature of Christian belief. The many sectarian and denominational squabbles, the numerous heresies, the schisms within the major churches shows that any certainty associated with Christian belief is nonexistent. Indeed, even in the pages of Antithesis (March/April 1991) one finds deep controversy over whether the Bible permits moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, there seems to be no objective means of reconciling any of these differences. If this uncertainty and the lack of objective standards of reconciliation are found at the very heart of basic Christian doctrine, there seems to be small hope that the Christian religion can provide any objective foundation of epistemology in general. Yet Jones remains confident that a non-Christian based epistemology leads to subjectivism whereas a Christian based epistemology does not. One can only wonder why. ~ http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/jones-parsons-martin/martin.html
Many Thanks and Best Wishes.
Hi Robert,
You quoted the following, which I used in my exchange with Hezekiah. It comes from Dawson's blog: "Whipps' characterization of knowing by way [of] the 'sensus divinitatis'...
"'the equivalent of having the author of the book standing over your shoulder, and correcting your faulty understandings, and continually adjusting your noetic 'issues' as He also works to sanctify you in obedience to that revealed Word. (Question and Answer section of the Whipps-LeBlanc Debate)'"
You then asked: "Please help me out here. I've not been following these many discussions with Nide particularly close even though I've chimed in with what I thought might be a pithy comment from time to time. Does the quote you provided above correspond to what Nide thinks?"
"Nide thinks" -- seeing "thinks" associated with Hezekiah made me chuckle.
Given that Hezekiah is all over the map (like you mention below), my best answer to whether or not what I quoted corresponds to what Hezekiah thinks is... who knows?
I responded to Hezekiah's latest volley with this quote from Dawson's blog because Hezekiah claims that he has the indwelling of a perfect being. So I just wanted to know how this could be, given that many of his incoherent comments are overflowing with grammar and spelling mistakes. He has often said that everyone lives by "faith." So I just want to know if he thinks such carelessness and attendant incoherency is also attributable to "living by faith."
He also stated, ""Justind [sic] and comedy [sic] two sad individuals" -- but he supplies no evidence for his claim. So I just want to know if he justifies such unsubstantiated claims via faith or the "sensus divinitatis."
You continued: "His diatribe chattering is so confused that I don't really understand what he actually thinks."
Exactly.
Ydemoc
Justin,
You wrote: "hey there thanks for posting Thorns primary argument from existence. I remember asking Nide/Hezekiah to go check that out back in July or August of last year when he asked for an argument. Never once heard him interact with it or even mention it in all the time since."
You're welcome. So when Hezekiah states that "Comedy [me] still hasn't provide [sic] an argument," we know he's wrong. So is he lying or forgetting? In either case, how does he account for it? How does he justify either one? How does he account for being wrong? Is it through faith, which he claims everyone lives by?
Ydemoc
Since comedy is not the sharpest knife in the box he has no choice but to use Anton's arbitry argument.
Anton wants all of us to believe that what he calls "reality" is real. I'm under no obligation to interact with people's imaginations.
I posted a few comments on Nide's blog at
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5891695301028606857&postID=3719241023744684287&page=1&token=1338308139033
"Anton wants all of us to believe that what he calls "reality" is real. I'm under no obligation to interact with people's imaginations."
my what a little solipsist you have become Hezekiah
Hezekiah had claimed: ""It's been almost a year and Comedy [Ydemoc] still hasn't provide [sic] an argument."
I then refuted Hezekiah's claim, by citing the exact date and time that I provided him with an argument. As noted a few posts back, I provided Hezekiah with an argument in the comments section of Dawson's blog, time stamp: December 3, 2011 6:53 PM. The argument I provided to Hezekiah is Anton Thorn's "Objectivist Argument From Objective Reality (from the fact of existence)." So an argument has clearly been, as Hezekiah's put it: "provide."
But does Hezekiah address the fact that he was mistaken, and that I did, indeed, provide an argument? Does he tell us how he justifies being wrong? Let's find out...
Hezekiah writes: "Since comedy is not the sharpest knife in the box he has no choice but to use Anton's arbitry [sic] argument."
... apparently not -- he doesn't address forgetting or being wrong; instead, he chooses to attack me personally for not supplying an argument of my own. But crafting my own argument is irrelevant, for Hezekiah's claim was, simply, that I had not provided an argument.
We now know this claim of his was inaccurate. Will he tell us how he justifies or accounts for his inaccuracy? Or will he just ask his invisible magic being for forgiveness? Or is he not under any obligation to tell the truth when dealing with atheists?
Hezekiah continues: "Anton wants all of us to believe that what he calls "reality" is real. I'm under no obligation to interact with people's imaginations."
Hezekiah's response here, his redirection, is just his way of (a) glossing over his own failure to justify and account for his inaccurate statement that I have not "provide[d]' an argument, and (b) showing us that he is incapable of dealing with Anton Thorn's argument with little more than hand-waving.
How does he account for so many "no-shows"?
Ydemoc
Hi Robert,
I don't see anything to elaborate. Hezek continues to use such phrases as "thinking his thoughts after him," and insists on saying that he does not believe in "autonomous reasoning." Thus, if he can't think by himself (which actually shows), and he "thinks Christ's thoughts after him," that means he does nothing but be a vehicle for Christ to give us his effect reasoning. Given the utter incompetence Hezek shows, we can only conclude that under Hezek's worldview, every time he utters some nonsense, the nonsense is not his own, it is Christ's nonsense. Thus, Hezek's worldview implies that his god is an incompetent ass-hole.
As for the debate with Phlegon, what a waste of good arguments on such an imbecile as the Hezek-Christ duo. He did not understand anything and answered the questions not asked. That's the price of lending yourself to be a vehicle for an imaginary being to talk on your behalf. What else do we need to show how deeply presuppositionalism is incoherent babble?
Nide stated in debate with Meatros First of all I don't beleive in "autonomous reasoning".
What is it then that operates Nide's autonomous nervous system? Why does his involuntary bodily functions continue working?
@ydemoc Good points and hard questions for our pal Nide.
@photosynthesis More good points. Nide is not a worthy opponent. What is needed are competent presuppositionalists. Are there any?
Photo,
Thanks!!
@Phlegon of Tralles I finished reading your debate with Hezekiah/Nide. In my opinion you won hands down, no contest. Hezekiah failed to address or rebutt or even understand your points.
Robert,
On a much less significant point, I also wonder how Hezekiah justifies continually ignoring the authoritarian dictates of Titus 3:9 - 3:11. Then again, I also wonder how he justifies being unable to achieve the authoritarian dictates of 1 Peter 3:15?
Perhaps it's due his commitment to that which has justified and accounted for man's irrationality, well-before and well-after the day god was invented: Faith.
Ydemoc
It's always nice to see "athiest" bonding and sharing their imaginations with each other. It's really an elite group. That Robert really knows how to express what he is imagining.
Nide stated
God told me he is real.
and in debate with Meatros stated
No, I don't. God speaks through his word in the bible. I would like for Dena to provide scriptural support for her actions. Specifically, in the new testament. The claim is that God has last spoken to us by Christ.”
Dena cut her kid's arm off because God told her to do it by direct revelation. She hallucinated the experience as did those who thought God was telling them to write out documents or to place documents into a church canon. How is that Nide can claim to reject autonomous reasoning and yet claim to distinguish an internal revelation of YHWH from any other supernatural incorporeal magic woo.
Nide you're getting continuously more screwy, but I'm confident you can understand the inherent contradiction here. On the one hand you appeal to the Bible as authoritative and your own special divine revelations and on the other condemn the special alleged divine revelations of others while rejecting the religious stories of all other religions. Yet you fail to realize Biblical authors, editors, redactors, glossing scribes and interpolators were acting on their own special alleged divine revelations in the same fashion as Dena.
Again there is no way for you or any other religious believer of any faith to objectively determine that any particular supernatural special woo is the real woo. That's why you should take the Outsider Test For Faith. Then you could at least honestly claim not to be applying a double standard (or in your case arbitrary and continuously morphing multiple standards, i.e.: no standards at all) in your attempts at witnessing apologetics.
Now answer my question I posed at the top of this thread. What do your parents and/or siblings think of your involvement in such a ridiculous cult? Do you not care that they are grossly embarrassed by your silliness?
@Ydemoc Titus 3:9-11 (NASB) says 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
@Nide certainly is engaged in foolish controversy. Factious means Of, relating to, produced by, or characterized by internal dissension. 2. Given to or promoting internal dissension.
Does Nide argue with Arminian or Orthodox Christians like he does with non-believers? If so, then his claim that his reasoning sources to his God is patently false and would be another example of complete failure of his Holy Spirit epistemology.
Nide stated That Robert really knows how to express what he is imagining
Nide's objection that all others are imagining whatever has already been put away. Mind's process information. Information can only exist as an encoding embodies in atomist, reductionist, material particles. Only if minds are produced by corporeal brains, whether biological or computer based, existing in a really real reality can such minds process information. Only if existence actually exists, can there be minds or information.
Nide should cease with his silly contradictory faith claims and produce empirical evidence for his god.
Hey folks,
I’m really enjoying the discussion – continue as much as you want. I’m super busy this week, so I can’t stick around. But I wanted to chime in briefly on what I saw Nide say here:
Nide wrote: “Anton wants all of us to believe that what he calls ‘reality’ is real. I'm under no obligation to interact with people's imaginations.”
In the argument that Ydemoc quoted from Thorn’s interaction with Smallwood, you’ll see that the very first premise of that argument immunizes Thorn’s overall approach to what Nide is trying to insinuate here. Thorn writes very clearly here:
“1) Existence exists. (We perceive existence directly, via our senses.)”
We do not perceive what we imagine with our senses. When I imagine a 900-foot Jesus approaching NYC on the New Jersey Turnpike, I don’t see this thing with my eyes – it’s all in my imagination, and no one *perceives* it via their senses. It's not real. By explicitly stating that the realm he has in mind is the realm which is accessible to us by means of sensory perception, Thorn is clearly eliminating the realm of the imaginary from the table here. He clearly does not mean something that he or anyone else is merely imagining; rather, he means the realm against which we contrast our imaginations - i.e., against the reality which we can see, touch, hear, smell and taste. That rules out the imagination altogether.
So Nide is deliberately distorting what Thorn says in order to poison the well. This tells us that Nide is incapable of dealing with Thorn’s argument on its own terms - i.e., as it informs its premises and supports its conclusions. If Thorn’s argument were so riddled with errors, indeed errors as basic and obvious as the one that Nide is trying to foist on it, he would not need to distort it in order to discredit it. That Nide finds he needs to distort it, only tells us that he’s defeated from the very beginning, for he has to shift into dishonesty mode in order to proceed.
Moreover, distorting something in the manner that Nide has done here, is a form of bearing false witness, which means he has sinned against the Christian god. Consider: an argument which impacts theists such that they must transgress their own god’s commandments in order to evade its conclusion and subsequent damning implications… That must be a powerful argument indeed!
Regards,
Dawson
BB suddenly shows up.
Actually it's no arguemnt at all. Since you, thorn and the rest of your follwers don't know what reality is. For example, how do you know what you are perceiving is not an apperance?
I'll be waiting for the slogans to come crashing down.
shaking my head at all the stolen concepts in that post. No sloganS, just an understanding of the groundwork upon which those concepts you used to construct the post rely on.
Nide: “Actually it's no arguemnt at all. Since you, thorn and the rest of your follwers don't know what reality is.”
We do, Nide. Only Van Til et al. want you to say we don’t. Your urgencies here are purely psychological, not philosophical. You are desperately anxious to settle in your mind that you really aren’t as big a fool as you are for falling hook, line and sinker for Christianity’s lies and stepping out publicly in defense of them. But deep down you really do sense that you’ve been made into a monumental fool.
Nide asks: “For example, how do you know what you are perceiving is not an apperance?”
You mean appearance? We do not perceive appearances, Nide. As Justin indicated, such a notion commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. We perceive objects, and “appearance” is the form in which we visually perceive them. Such distinctions are all part of rational epistemology 101, which you might not get in your college course (college philosophy courses are riddled with a lot of very bad philosophy).
So we know this to be the case through rational understanding.
Regards,
Dawson
"We do, Nide"
Really?
"As Justin indicated, such a notion commits the fallacy of the stolen concept"
How can I steal from your imagination?
"We do not perceive appearances"
How do you know?
"We perceive objects, and “appearance” is the form in which we visually perceive them"
This is incoherent.
"So we know this to be the case through rational understanding."
hahahahahahha...more say so.
Everyone,
Hezekiah wrote on May 29, 2012 8:55 AM: "Since comedy [Ydemoc] is not the sharpest knife in the box [sic] he has no choice but to use Anton's arbitry [sic] argument.
Then, Hezeiah wrote on May 29, 2012 3:30 PM: "Actually it's no arguemnt at all."
At 8:55 AM Hezekiah claimed that it was an argument (albeit, he claims, an arbitrary one, but an argument nonetheless.) At 3:30 PM, he claims that it is *not* an argument!
Is anyone else suffering whiplash from all the double-takes which Hezekiah's writing triggers? Outside the bible, I don't think I've ever witnessed so many contradictions coming from one source. Like his bible, he just can't keep his story straight. But unlike the fables we read in his Storybook, what he writes -- you just can't make it up!
I think this one's a keeper!
Ydemoc
Hezek you say,
Photo,
Thanks!!
Not a problem. Anytime just pop out and I will be happy to expose your incoherence and the stupidity you blame your god for.
Robert,
What is needed are competent presuppositionalists. Are there any?
Well, the "competent" ones are those who have made this bullshit into a series of tricks/methods to keep people in the defensive. They will deform anything you say in-your-face. You need to be very cynical in order to "debate" those ass-holes. You have to be conscious that for them this is not about reaching truth, not about winning souls to Christianity either, but about "winning" debates.
If you want to debate them, my advice is not to trust them. They do not care about truth, nor about converting anybody. Their only goal is to feel triumphant even if by deception. Thus, be very careful of what you say. Expose their flaws rather than give them material that they can deform later. They have a method. So understand the method and defeat them from the root. Be concise and don't miss any opportunity to make their words work against them. Don't write too much unless you are as confident and precise as Dawson. Don't hesitate to mock them. They have no respect for you. They have no respect for their supposed beliefs either. Thus, they deserve no respect from you. Check a few of their interactions before trying to talk to them. Learn what they do and how they do it.
Photo,
It's always good when I get a chance to turn the other cheek. I have never been called an imbecible. how hilarious.
Hezekiah,
And based upon your podcast personality, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to refer to you as, "The Affable Imbecile."
Ydemoc
Hey hezek,
t's always good when I get a chance to turn the other cheek. I have never been called an imbecible. how hilarious.
Nice to be the first one to help you notice your imbecility, as coupled, according to your worldview, to that of your imaginary friend Jesus Christ. Don't worry, I have more adjectives proper to describe you and your mental states. Again, just pop out and I will repeat this one you enjoyed so much, and add a few more according to any other characteristic that you decide to show that day.
Photo,
Since I know you can't even account for the dirt under your feet. I won't even bother asking you to account for your arbitrary claims.
I'll leave you to our own devices. But feel free to give me
more chances to turn the other cheek. Thanks!!!!
Nide stated how do you know what you are perceiving is not an apperance?
Note that I'm not doing the spelling police thing. Although since you claim to be channeling Jesus, then Jesus needs to be reminded to use the spell check.
Lets suppose all perception is not of objects but of "appearances." Furthermore, let us posit that Nide's God is somehow the source of these "appearances". In this case, since there would be no objects from which "appearances" could be perceived and because these hypothetical "appearances" are sourced from YHWH, then no actual events or objects would be detectable. Furthermore all thought would source to YHWH. Nothing would be real and there'd no minds other than YHWH.
This would mean that Nide's God would function rather like "the Architect in the Matrix movies (sans power plant), and all "appearances", events, thoughts would be effectively lies. In that case, euthyphro's dilemma would be solved by acknowledging goodness would be whatever YHWH says is goodness. If YHWH declared it good for Catholics to kill Protestants, then the Vatican would become an armed camp directing a worldwide progrom. In this scenario where there is only YHWH's imagination, appeal to the nature of YHWH as a source of goodness would not be meaningful as good and evil only have significance if and only if (iff) reality is really real and iff human beings with free will are about to exist in an actually existing existence.
Nide, stop it with the extreme silliness of over the top skepticism. All that nonsense has been refuted by Christian philosophers long ago.
So why is it you do not obey Matthew 10:16 or Titus 3:9-11 or 1 Peter 3:15? Don't you care if you go to Hell after you die?
"All that nonsense has been refuted by Christian philosophers long ago."
Which philosophers?
Remeber Satan tempted Jesus with scripture too. So, I am still waiting for you to tell me how is it that you are not under Satanic influence?
"Nide, stop it with the extreme silliness of over the top skepticism. All that nonsense has been refuted by Christian philosophers long ago."
yup, the fact that he has been reduced to such over the top and easily refuted skepticism is indicative of how bankrupt his "arguments" have proven to be
@Ydemoc
I have replied to Leper:)
Justin,
Are you certain? if so how do we verify it?
@photosynthesis Thank you. Very good advice and worth repeating.
If you want to debate them, my advice is not to trust them. They do not care about truth, nor about converting anybody. Their only goal is to feel triumphant even if by deception. Thus, be very careful of what you say. Expose their flaws rather than give them material that they can deform later. They have a method. So understand the method and defeat them from the root. Be concise and don't miss any opportunity to make their words work against them. Don't write too much unless you are as confident and precise as Dawson. Don't hesitate to mock them. They have no respect for you. They have no respect for their supposed beliefs either. Thus, they deserve no respect from you. Check a few of their interactions before trying to talk to them. Learn what they do and how they do it.
@Nide Burden of proof is on you. You're the one now claiming to be thinking the thoughts of Christ and that your mind is really the mind of God.
Yet you continually screw up as if you're a complete nitwit.
I'm waiting for you to enlighten us as to how it is that you can verify your alleged revelations. I noted on your blog page regarding your losing debate (You lose many debates, that must be stressful for you, no?) with Meatros that
There is no way for you, Nide, or any other Christian to honestly reject other religions, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Seek Faith, Brahma worship by the same standard you apply to accepting Christianity.
How do you justify rejecting Islam when the Gospel of Barnabas clearly shows Jesus was neither killed, buried, or resurrected and prophised the coming of Muhammad the final prophet?
How do you justify rejecting the Apostleship of Joseph Smith when the witness of Archangel Moroni and the Golden Plates testifies to genuineness of Smith's revelation? Especially in light that sixteen others saw Moroni.
In addition to Joseph Smith, several other early Mormons said they had visions where they saw the angel Moroni. Three Witnesses said they saw the angel in 1829: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. Other early Mormons who said they saw Moroni include Emma Hale Smith, Hyrum Smith, Luke S. Johnson, Zera Pulsipher, W. W. Phelps, John P. Greene and his wife Rhoda, John Taylor, Oliver Granger, Heber C. Kimball, Lucy Harris, and Harrison Burgess. Mary Whitmer may also have seen Moroni, although she referred to the angel she saw as "Brother Nephi." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni#Appearances_to_Joseph_Smith_and_others
The claims of these others are as good or better than the claims of Paul and the unverifiable alleged witness to the appearances (ὁράω horaō) of the allegedly risen Jesus. How did Jesus appear to the witnesses in 1 Cor 15:5-8? The alleged Paul told the Philippians (2:7) Jesus appeared in the likeness (ὁμοίωμα homoiōma) of men.
What does ὁμοίωμα homoiōma mean?
Liddel Scott Jones lexicon tells us it means a likeness, image, resemblance, counterfeit or in accordance with the practice in similar cases, by analogy. Paul, James, Cephas, all the apostles, the five hundred did not see Jesus as an object, they perceived an image of Jesus as in a vision.
There is no basis for you to reject Joseph Smith and Muhammad while applying the criteria of blind faith and uncritical acceptance to your form of Christianity.
How do you justify and account for such blatant inconsistency and incompetence?
Robert for once I'm gonna interact with your blatant ignorance.
"How do you justify rejecting Islam when the Gospel of Barnabas clearly shows Jesus was neither killed, buried, or resurrected and prophised the coming of Muhammad the final prophet?"
Islam is a ripoff of Christianity. We have every reason to reject it. For example, Muhammad for a long time thought he was possessed by a demond. look it up you may learn something.The "gospel" of barnabas is no gospel at all. Here learn something:
http://answering-islam.org/Green/barnabas.htm
"How do you justify rejecting the Apostleship of Joseph Smith when the witness of Archangel Moroni and the Golden Plates testifies to genuineness of Smith's revelation? Especially in light that sixteen others saw Moroni."
Joseph smith was a con artist. He distorted the scriptures to his own destruction. He is easily rejected. Especially, after tampering with scripture to fullfil his fantasies.
"Liddel Scott Jones lexicon tells us it means a likeness, image, resemblance, counterfeit or in accordance with the practice in similar cases, by analogy. Paul, James, Cephas, all the apostles, the five hundred did not see Jesus as an object, they perceived an image of Jesus as in a vision."
I don't think so. In fact, John says whoever denies that Christ came in the flesh is an anti-Christ ie a satanic demon.
So, how do you account for being an ignorant ass?
Robert wrote, regarding Hezekiah: "How do you justify and account for such blatant inconsistency and incompetence?"
Excellent question. And how does he account for even minor inconsistencies and incompetence?
Here are a few more questions for Hezekiah to consider:
I wonder how he accounts for not making his case for Christ?
I wonder how he justifies imagining in a vicious circle in his attempts to defend his belief?
How does he account for the fact that Christianity and rationality are inherently incompatible?
I wonder how he justifies defending a non-value?
How does he justify **his view** that all knowledge need not come from nor be knowledge of reality?
I wonder how he accounts for being ignorant?
I wonder how he accounts for the fact he could pray to a milk bottle and get the same answer and result?
I wonder how he justifies believing in something that has no nature?
I wonder how he justifies being a stumbling block to those who may be open to a belief in the imaginary?
I wonder how he justifies his ill thought-out comments being an incentive to those who want to embrace reason?
I wonder how he accounts for being so misinformed?
How does he account for positing the existence of an entity that has no measurement and is fundamentally no different than nothing at all?
I wonder how he justifies his denial that human beings identify things by means of concepts?
I wonder how he justifies his unwillingness to recognize that the human mind integrates concepts into the larger sum of our knowledge?
How does he account for his misidentifying the objects of his awareness?
According to the world view he subscribes to, I wonder how he justifies the notion that “to exist” means to be something “non-specific”?
How does he square other reformed Christians telling me, an atheist, that "this life is the closest I will get to heaven," while at the same time telling me, "Life has no meaning without god"?
How does he justify denying that reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses?
How does he justify his denial that reason is man's only means of knowledge and only guide to action?
How does he justify his denial that man's mind is his basic means of survival?
How does he justify his denial of the virtue of rationality?
Ydemoc
Comedy,
How do you account for asking useless questions?
Hezekiah wrote: "How do you account for asking useless questions?"
Useless questions? You need to check your premise, for your charge is baseless. And since it is baseless, I need not travel down the road of accounting for or justifying a charge that doesn't obtain.
My questions are in accordance with the facts of reality -- I have a basis for asking them, for there's plenty of evidence which you've left here, there, and elsewhere, that justifies my inquiries. Do you deny any of them? If so, which ones? Please supply evidence that none of my questions accurately reflect your stated position.
In the meantime, I will grant you this: If I was the kind of person (i.e., you) who resorted to asking "useless questions," like you have on so many occasions, there would really be only one way to justify or account for doing so -- and it would even be a way which is in accordance with your worldview and the very words which you have written here on this blog! And how would I account for and/or justify the kinds of useless questions you so often ask? Why, through faith, of course!
For you have told us, haven't you, that everything you do is through faith, that one lives by faith? And if you live by faith, that would, necessarily, have to include all the useless questions you have asked, right?
So why don't you answer a few of them?
Ydemoc
Comedy,
Yea, the "facts" and "reality" that are rooted in your imagination.
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the "facts" and "reality" that are rooted in your imagination."
Well, based upon your assertion, I must be imagining that you're a Christian, right, Hezekiah? Yes? Are the facts of reality contrary to this?
Is it a fact of reality that you really ***are not** a Christian? That I'm only imagining this to be the case?
I happen to think your *claim* of being a Christian is a fact of reality. But by your words above, you must think otherwise.... that I'm just imagining this, right?
Why don't you bother asking me to account for my knowledge that you're a Christian, hmmmm?
Ydemoc
Comedy,
Tries to get "clever" again.
It's a fact of my reality.
What you claim to be reality is no reality at all.
So, you know what reality is but then you don't.
Your without excuse.
@Nide Your pitiful excuses for rejecting Islam and Mormon faith betray your gross hypocrisy.
I posted at time stamp May 29, 2012 11:22 what you stated in formal debate with Meatros that
First of all I don't beleive in "autonomous reasoning". [sic]
Now you have the unmitigated gall to bald face lie to the blog participants by invoking Green. Silly dude, Green employed his autonomous reasoning in his analysis of the Gospel of Barnabas. You are employing your own autonomous reasoning in your acceptance of Green's opinion. How do you account for and justify such hypocrisy?
Today there’s a news report that Muslim religious authorities in Pakistan have sentenced six people to death for singing and dancing at a wedding.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watoday.com.au%2Fworld%2Fsentenced-to-death-for-singing-and-dancing-at-wedding-20120529-1zfu3.html&h=DAQFP0j-6AQGOdzcU5uEedFpfomGthQ_PVlgt5QsMIYgnmg
Islamic tradition does not hesitate to enforce Sharia law with deadly force. This uncompromising stance is strong evidence they firmly believe they are right. There is no doubt in my mind they would not hesitate to kill you for your slanderous blasphemy against the Gospel of Barnabas and the Prophet Muhammad.
Since you have also stated in the same debate with Meatros that
We believe that over time the church recognized by the leading of God what would be included in the canon.
I remarked about your appeal to tradition that:
Appealing to Church tradition in lieu of personal interpretation of scripture is abrogation of the protestant reformation’s main thrust. How come you are not a Catholic? How do you account for appealing to Church tradition while rejecting Church tradition of acceptance of doctrines of Apostolic Succession and Transubstantiation central to Catholicism?
Islamic religious tradition is still just as good as Catholic religious tradition and even more so by virtue of the willingness of the Mullahs to use deadly force at the prompting of what they believe to be Allah's Holy Word. Arguing their faith is bogus while yours is correct is only an ad hoc special pleading, yet it qualifies as an application of your own personal autonomous reasoning.
You libeled Joseph Smith by saying he was Joseph smith was a con artist. Again you choose to employ your own autonomous reasoning when you elected to libel Smith and thereby his followers in the Mormon religion. You said Muhammad for a long time thought he was possessed by a demond. [sic] You called me an ignorant ass. This ad hominem thing is a regular feature of your discussions isn't it? That's not surprising at all. Smears, insults, bogus appeals to authority and your silly fantasy world are all you've got. You have to steal logic, morality, confidence in existence via acceptance of the uniformity of nature to go about your daily life, yet you blithely deny the same and by blind faith alone assign responsibility for them to your fantasy god.
You’ve demonstrated yourself a pathetic liar and fool. Now focus and answer Ydemoc's questions and mine as well.
How do you account for being a completely ineffective witness for your fantasy god while claiming that As long as we are thinking God's thoughts after him we can be assured that our conclusions are valid and sound.?
How do you account for rejecting Islam and the Mormon faith when your position is First of all I don't beleive in "autonomous reasoning". [sic]? Your criteria for accepting Christianity is to simply believe whatever cherry picked bits and pieces of Christian and Jewish fairy tales that you've been told to believe by whatever delusional mystics were in charge of the cult you've attached yourself unto? N'est-ce pas?
Nide further to my post at time stamp May 30, 2012 6:58 AM
How do you account for and justify being such a rotten silly little man who behaves with such foolish ignorance when your religious fairy tale holds that
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. ~ John 14:26 ?
If the magic consciousness of your god is with you or inside you such that you believe that As long as we are thinking God's thoughts after him we can be assured that our conclusions are valid and sound.?, then how is it that you're such a fuck up and consistently get even basic stuff wrong?
How is it your god won't tell you my special numbers? Surely a supreme being who created existence and is omnipotent and omniscient who is supposed to love you so much he died for you would inform you of my special numbers just to shut me up?
How is it that you won't answer Ydemoc's questions when your faith entails you should be informed and empowered by the pneuma of your god?
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the "facts" and "reality" that are rooted in your imagination."
I responded: "Well, based upon your assertion, I must be imagining that you're a Christian, right, Hezekiah? Yes? Are the facts of reality contrary to this?
Is it a fact of reality that you really ***are not** a Christian? That I'm only imagining this to be the case?
I happen to think your *claim* of being a Christian is a fact of reality. But by your words above, you must think otherwise.... that I'm just imagining this, right?
Why don't you bother asking me to account for my knowledge that you're a Christian, hmmmm?"
Hezekiah responded: "Tries to get "clever" again."
Yes, it's amazing what happens when one correctly identifies and integrates the facts of reality. Doing so allows me to highlight how the worldview you've chosen to accept forces you to continually take untenable positions. Reason is indispensable when it comes to exposing the folly of faith. And, indeed, cleverness is often the result.
Hezekiah continued: "It's a fact of my reality."
What is? That you're a Christian? Well, like I said before, I have identified this as a fact of reality -- that you're a Christian.
Hezekiah wrote: "What you claim to be reality is no reality at all."
So.... you're not a Christian?
Hezekiah wrote: "So, you know what reality is but then you don't."
So, based upon what you've written, you are a Christian? But then again, you're not a Christian?
Hezekiah wrote: "Your without excuse."
But then again, based upon what you've written, I do have an excuse?
Look at the mess your worldview has made of your mind, Hezekiah. Given what you've written above, why should anyone believe anything you say?
Why should we believe you?
Ydemoc
Comedy,
Tries to get "clever" again.
"So.... you're not a Christian?"
I am.
"So, based upon what you've written, you are a Christian? But then again, you're not a Christian?"
I'm a Christian.
Finally, happy to see you admit that you know YHWH exists.
Now, how do you know that you're "reality" is real?
Nice try.
Robert continues in his asinine ignorance.
It's not slander or libel.
It's called history and facts.
You've been answered. Have a nice life.
Nide I'm a Christian.
No. I've already proven your not. You are in fact a pathetic liar and you slander Islam's Prophet and Mormon Faith's Apostle. You are in gross violation of Matthew 10:16
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. ,
Titus 3:9-11 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.,
Nide. You are a fractious man.
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
Nide you are very disrespectful and apparently are unable to engage in civil conversation.
You also are in violation of Matthew 5:42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Where's my $500? You welsher.
To be a Christian you must obey the teachings of Jesus and his disciples. Yet you are rude, foolish, insulting, prone to ridiculous diatribes and totally unconvincing. Perhaps you have forgotten what the cult of James, the putative Brother of the Lord (kyrios adelphos) reports at James 2:14
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
But you foolishly, uncritically, just simply believe what you were told to believe rather like a credulous dupe. Ha Ha. LOL at you, Loser.
But there is a way for you to redeem yourself. Take the Outsider Test for Faith
You should apply own personal autonomous reasoning that you use to reject (however wrongfully) Islam and Mormonism to your own faith.
Now back to Green's criticism of the Gospel of Barnabus. He uses aspects of higher criticism, redaction, form, historical to show GofB is a late forgery. He did well to do so. He and you should apply similar techniques to the canonical Gospels as David Frederick Strauss did. You can listen to his book as read by volunteers at Librivox.org
The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
@Ydemoc and Robert
Thank you both, your posts have got me starting my day with a smile and a laugh.
Justin,
Me too.
Especially after Comedy's "blunder" i.e. him admitting that my reality is real.
I wonder how he's gonna squirm out of this. What a foolish boy.
Hezekiah=Nide > So you think you're a Christian do you now?
Well then lets see what behavior does the New Testament lay out as evidence of those who believe?
Behold Mark 16:17-18 17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
How well does this work? According to Acts 28:3-6 3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another, “ Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, and though he has been saved from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live.” 5 However he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting that he was about to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.
Sometimes it no workie. Snake-handling Pentecostal pastor killed by rattlesnake bite
Even though the dude had speaking in tongues going on, his magic woo failed.
What about you Nide? Will you take the rattle snake bite test to see if you're really a Christian?
After all your God, the Risen Christ, is reported to have said that such signs would follow those who have believed. Sadly those signs didn't follow the unfortunates who were foolish enough to have followed Jim Jones down to Guyana.
@Nide You really should engage with Ydemoc's questions. They're so good, here I'll repeat them for your convenience. I'd love to see you take these on line by line in serious fashion. Are you capable of doing that? I doubt it.
Robert wrote, regarding Hezekiah: "How do you justify and account for such blatant inconsistency and incompetence?"
Excellent question. And how does he account for even minor inconsistencies and incompetence?
Here are a few more questions for Hezekiah to consider:
I wonder how he accounts for not making his case for Christ?
I wonder how he justifies imagining in a vicious circle in his attempts to defend his belief?
How does he account for the fact that Christianity and rationality are inherently incompatible?
I wonder how he justifies defending a non-value?
How does he justify **his view** that all knowledge need not come from nor be knowledge of reality?
I wonder how he accounts for being ignorant?
I wonder how he accounts for the fact he could pray to a milk bottle and get the same answer and result?
I wonder how he justifies believing in something that has no nature?
I wonder how he justifies being a stumbling block to those who may be open to a belief in the imaginary?
I wonder how he justifies his ill thought-out comments being an incentive to those who want to embrace reason?
I wonder how he accounts for being so misinformed?
How does he account for positing the existence of an entity that has no measurement and is fundamentally no different than nothing at all?
I wonder how he justifies his denial that human beings identify things by means of concepts?
I wonder how he justifies his unwillingness to recognize that the human mind integrates concepts into the larger sum of our knowledge?
How does he account for his misidentifying the objects of his awareness?
According to the world view he subscribes to, I wonder how he justifies the notion that “to exist” means to be something “non-specific”?
How does he square other reformed Christians telling me, an atheist, that "this life is the closest I will get to heaven," while at the same time telling me, "Life has no meaning without god"?
How does he justify denying that reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses?
How does he justify his denial that reason is man's only means of knowledge and only guide to action?
How does he justify his denial that man's mind is his basic means of survival?
How does he justify his denial of the virtue of rationality?
Ydemoc
Robert,
Comedy pulled the rug from under his feet this morning. I'm pretty sure he is still recovering. He thought he was clever but ended like a fool. It's pretty hilarious. So, you can put his junk in the trash.
blessings.
@Hezekiah-Nide: You're dodging, ducking, and evading again. You're as good at that as you are at imagining your fantasy God. Besides your fantasy world delusions in no way diminish the devastation Ydemoc's salient cogent questions have for your folly filled and foolish false world view.
But I'm more interested to see you take the rattle snake bite test. After all your God, the alleged risen Jesus the Christ, supposedly said in Mark 16:17-18 These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.
So deal with the questions and the test or simply be dismissed. You're not worth the waste of time anyways. So if you want to play some more, you'll have to man up and actually be honest.
Can you act like a man, or are you some sort of monkey like throw back?
Robert,
Where did you learn how to be extremely annoying?
I answered your snake objection. A year ago. See the archives.
Farewell.
Nide, dude. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. You're just a much a cowardly liar now as you were then. But despite that the fact still remains that faithful Christian believers who get bit by rattle snakes die just as often as any other religious adherent. That fact falsifies the Markan Gospel fairy tale in similar fashion to the falsification Green pointed out re: Gospel pf Barnabus. N'est-ce pas?
BTW, you have failed to answer almost every question offered. How do you account for this if as you stated your God makes your conclusions correct? Ha LOL, what a fool you are.
Hezek,
Since I know you can't even account for the dirt under your feet. I won't even bother asking you to account for your arbitrary claims.
Well, if you started trying the presuppositionalism crap on me, you would first have to make sure to have some lubricant handy to prepare your ass before I introduce your shit back there. Also, since I know you can't even suggest any problems with my worldview without shooting yourself in the foot, and without stealing from my worldview, you did well not to ask your charged question.
I'll leave you to our own devices. But feel free to give me more chances to turn the other cheek. Thanks!!!!
You have shown such levels of incompetence and imbecility that I don't think we have any risk of running out of opportunities for you to turn the "other" cheek, whichever top or bottom cheek that might be. So, you're welcome.
Photo,
"Also, since I know you can't even suggest any problems with my worldview without shooting yourself in the foot, and without stealing from my worldview, you did well not to ask your charged question."
Your wordlview is imaginary. So, how do you account for the filth coming out of your mouth?
Hezekiah is pure comedy, and is kind enough to say so at the beginning of most of his comments. He cannot be sure that he exists unless he consults a part of this brain that he cannot be sure exists that tells him that a concept that he cannot be sure exists tells him that it exists and that therefore he also exists.
Apart from the fact that it is very entertaining, why are we talking to someone that we cannot be sure exists?
Hezekiah and I engaged in the following exchange:
Hezekiah wrote: "Yea, the "facts" and "reality" that are rooted in your imagination."
I responded: "Well, based upon your assertion, I must be imagining that you're a Christian, right, Hezekiah? Yes? Are the facts of reality contrary to this?
Is it a fact of reality that you really ***are not** a Christian? That I'm only imagining this to be the case? I happen to think your *claim* of being a Christian is a fact of reality. But by your words above, you must think otherwise.... that I'm just imagining this, right?
Why don't you bother asking me to account for my knowledge that you're a Christian, hmmmm?
" Hezekiah responded: "Tries to get "clever" again."
I wrote: “Yes, it's amazing what happens when one correctly identifies and integrates the facts of reality. Doing so allows me to highlight how the worldview you've chosen to accept forces you to continually take untenable positions. Reason is indispensable when it comes to exposing the folly of faith. And, indeed, cleverness is often the result.”
Hezekiah continued: "It's a fact of my reality.
" I wrote: “What is? That you're a Christian? Well, like I said before, I have identified this as a fact of reality -- that you're a Christian.”
Hezekiah wrote: "What you claim to be reality is no reality at all."
I wrote: “So.... you're not a Christian?”
Hezekiah wrote: "So, you know what reality is but then you don't."
I wrote: “So, based upon what you've written, you are a Christian? But then again, you're not a Christian?”
Hezekiah wrote: "Your without excuse."
I wrote: “But then again, based upon what you've written, I do have an excuse?
Look at the mess your worldview has made of your mind, Hezekiah. Given what you've written above, why should anyone believe anything you say? Why should we believe you?”
(continued)
Hezekiah interacted again with my comments.
He wrote: “Tries to get "clever" again.”
I wrote: "So.... you're not a Christian?" Hezekiah wrote: “I am.”
So, like I said previously, this is a fact of reality -- I recognize this, you recognize this -- that you abide by the teachings and dictates of Christianity.
I had written: "So, based upon what you've written, you are a Christian? But then again, you're not a Christian?"
Hezekiah responded: “I'm a Christian.”
Yes. Its not a bad idea to reaffirm a fact of reality, especially if you have a tendency to depart from said fact. The fact of reality, in this case, being that you are a Christian.
Hezekiah wrote: “Finally, happy to see you admit that you know YHWH exists.”
Your desperation for getting on the scoreboard is showing. Not only do you attribute to me something which I’ve never said -- nor even come any where close to saying or affirming -- but even if I would have, why would you even be at all happy about? -- especially considering your quote: “Yes sir, Hell is good.” (from your blog, March 10, 2012 6:33 PM). Your worldview forces you to accept and live in a make-believe world of complete reversals: Bad is good. Good is bad. Suffering is joy. Being born is a sin. Life is a sin. Hell is a blessing. Morality is a duty. Love is destruction of a value for a lesser or non-value. Valuing money is the root of all evil. Unearned guilt. Collective guilt. Genetic guilt. Consciousness has power over objects. Etc., etc., etc.
(continued)
Hezekiah wrote: “Now, how do you know that you're "reality" is real?”
You mean like, How do I know that water is water? Or that the earth is the earth? Or that the sky is the sky? Or that A is A? Or that Hezekiah Ahaz is “The Affable Imbecile”? Stuff like that? Broadly speaking, consciousness; specifically, identifying and integrating the data provided by the senses. Check your premises, Hezekiah.
Hezekiah wrote: “Nice try.”
Try? My efforts have been a complete success! Your worldview is being exposed for all to see. The firepower of reason is smoking it out of its faith-hole. You can either make a commitment to reason, or you can dig in deeper, becoming more entrenched, surrendering your mind to imagination, as you fight for absolutely nothing at all.
Hezekiah wrote: “Especially after Comedy's "blunder" i.e. him admitting that my reality is real.”
Reality is the realm of existence. And I have identified a fact of reality: That you claim to be a Christian. My doing so does not commit me to acknowledging that Christianity itself any basis in reality. It is as if I were to acknowledge that you believed in reincarnation. If you did, your belief in it would be a fact. However, there is no basis in reality for supposing that reincarnation itself, is a fact. I’m sure even you can understand this. So why would you misrepresent what I said? To score points? Distorting what others say is symptomatic of faith commitment. And your prognosis isn’t good.
Hezekiah wrote: “I wonder how he's gonna squirm out of this.”
Such pondering on your part assumes (a) that I was in something to begin with, and (b) that if I was, I would need to “squirm” out of it. I have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong on both counts. So go and ponder no more.
Hezekiah wrote: “What a foolish boy.”
... said Hezekiah Ahaz, the same person who uttered: “Through enslavement comes freedom.” -- May 20, 2012 8:40 PM
Maybe I should give Bartlett’s a call?
Ydemoc
Hezekiah wrote: "Comedy pulled the rug from under his feet this morning. I'm pretty sure he is still recovering. He thought he was clever but ended like a fool. It's pretty hilarious. So, you can put his junk in the trash."
And the delusion marches on.
Ydemoc
Rose,
I exist.
Comedy,
What "reality" the one rooted in your imgaination?
Justin wrote: "Thank you both [Robert and Ydemoc], your posts have got me starting my day with a smile and a laugh."
Thanks. It was a pleasure.
Ydemoc
Hezek,
Your wordlview is imaginary.
I hope you don't expect me to buy this on your say so. But we both know you can't attempt to show this to be so without stealing from my worldview, which will make any of your attempts an exercise of self-defeat. Maybe you should go back to your prior commitment and not try the presuppositionalism crap on me. If you will insist, remember to get that lubricant. It must hurt hard enough with the shit the others around here have sent back up your ass.
So, how do you account for the filth coming out of your mouth?
Didn't you say that you wanted more opportunities to turn the "other" cheek?
Photo,
God told me your worldview is imaginary.
Now, how is it that's it's not?
Everyone,
I just remembered that the last time comments went above 200 in number, there was a problem accessing any comment beyond that point. If I remember correctly, one work-a-round was to post a test comment. Doing so would take you to the appropriately numbered comment page.
If the problem has been fixed, my public service announcement is moot.
Ydemoc
Hezek,
God told me your worldview is imaginary.
I hope you don't expect me to buy this on your say so. But we both know you can't attempt to show this to be so without stealing from my worldview, which will make any of your attempts an exercise of self-defeat. Maybe you should go back to your prior commitment and not try the presuppositionalism crap on me.
Photo,
How do you account for not being able to account for what your "worldview"?
Hezekiah, one of my Islamic friends tolls me that Allah told him that your both your worldview and your version of god are imaginary. Why should I disagree?
Rose,
Because YHWH told me "Allah" is imaginary.
Hezekiah, your response was priceless:)
Justin,
Yea, my replies usually are. Why do you think comedy saves them all. I bet he dreams about them.
There goes another one.
Hezekiah, my Islamic friend says to tell you that you are being deceived by the evil one. It is untrue that Allah is imaginary, peace be unto Him. He says that if your version of god were real then it would not tell you untruths. He says that you have permitted your imagination to blindly presuppose the wrong god. The Koran says that you will burn in the real hell for your constructing false images of a god to rival Allah who reveals himself to all who truly seek him.
Why should I disbelieve him?
Hello Rosemary. Nice to see you here with us in discussion, and nice to meet you too. Best and Good to You and Yours.
Hezekiah-Nide: Good morning. Here's the article link again.
Pastor Mack Wolford, the son of a snake-handling pastor who died from a rattler bite, lived by faith and died on Sunday, like his father before him, from a serpent bite.
In debate with Meatros you wrote that We believe that over time the church recognized by the leading of God what would be included in the canon.
Church tradition and the Council of Trent (1545-1563) settled upon the canon including the spurious ending to Mark. The Protestant Reformation leaders accepted Mark 16:9-20 as do most modern translations. The late Pastor Wolford thought it the inspired Word of God.
You've been caught in many lies and self contradictions. Despite that and that last year we agreed Mark 16:9-20 was a spurious addendum, I decided to bring it back into play because of what you wrote about Church tradition setting the canon. I think its fair that Mark 16:17-18 be brought back into play because of your constant lies, self contradictions, and unwillingness to honestly engage Objectivism.
So how do you account for Wolford's death. He was a faith believing man who honored his God and his God's word as set by the canon as set by Church tradition. How do you justify not following his example and that of Paul in Acts 28:3-6?
How do you explain that your God is a failure that cannot help you or even have saved the late Wolford?
Hezek,
How do you account for not being able to account for what your "worldview"?
Writing incoherence to avoid me saying that you steal from my worldview? Or is this rather your natural self (as improved by the mind of your god according to your worldview). Keep at it. This way I don't need to do anything for you to show that your worldview is absurd.
@Hezekiah-Nide: Dude, there is another aspect of Wolford’s death for which you need to account. If Wolford’s and your God exists and if Wolford was directed and inspired by the Holy Spirit of his God, then why did not Wolford’s experience of the inner witness of conform to John 15:26?
And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father -- the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me;
As I’ve pointed out previously, your failure to obey various New Testament commands, that you believe stem from your God means you constructively, in the sense that actions speak louder than words, assign liar status to what you believe to be the Holy Spirit. This qualifies as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as per Mark 3:28-30.
Consider 1 John 2:3-4 (YLT) and in this we know that we have known him, if his commands we may keep; he who is saying, `I have known him,' and his command is not keeping, a liar he is, and in him the truth is not;
Since you do not obey the commands of Jesus (Matthew 5:17-18, 10:16 for starters), then the truth is not in you. Recall John 8:43-45 and 1 John 3:3-9.
At Least Wolford had sufficient loyalty to his Lord to obey what Church Tradition decreed was the Divine, Inspired Word of God in Mark 16:17-18.
Why didn’t the Holy Spirit tell Wolford that Mark 16:17-18 was part of a spurious addendum fraudulently added to the text?
Why in fact doesn’t the Holy Spirit convict you of your egregious sins of lying, bearing false witness, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit via ignoring the stern commands of your alleged God, Jesus Christ?
How do you account and justify the fact that the alleged Holy Spirit doesn’t inform you and didn’t inform Wolford (especially since its likely he was acting in good faith) that what he was and you are doing was and is oh so very wrong?
Nide: Indeed why did not, if it were to be the case that YHWH/Jehovah-Jesus-Sophia did in fact exist, the Holy Spirit inform the Council of Trent (1543-1568) members/participants about the spurious ending of Mark in 16:9-20? The council went on for 25 years for crying out loud. How long would it take for the alleged Holy Spirit to communicate via its inner witness to the Pope and his Cardinals that Mark 16:9-20 was spurious? How do you account for and justify such an epic failure? Or are you just going to turn tale and run like a scared rabit?
Rose,
Becsuse there are better things to do.
Robert,
The catholic "Church" is no church at all.
In regards to your foolishness.
The holy spirit also says not to tempt God
Have a nice day.
Post a Comment