tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post1320433460407799132..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Critique of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s www.proofthatgodexists.orgBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger200125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-79435305563952129352014-09-05T22:43:13.930-04:002014-09-05T22:43:13.930-04:00Ever hear anything from the overgrown adolescent?Ever hear anything from the overgrown adolescent?95BSharpshooterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10757806090270175757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-81395070203860326202014-08-19T17:05:46.755-04:002014-08-19T17:05:46.755-04:00The question to Sye should not be 'How can YOU...The question to Sye should not be 'How can YOU tell the difference between your god claims and your imagination?'<br /><br />But rather What method can WE use to differentiate between YOUR 'god claims/ revelation' and YOUR imagination?'<br /><br />I usually phrase it along the lines of 'Can you propose a repeatable METHOD that will allow ME, and others, to reliably differentiate YOUR 'god claims/ 'revelation' from YOUR 'imagination', to ME, and others?'<br /><br />So far other than calls to repent, bible quotes, argument and anecdote, not one has come even close. O, and the odd honest one will admit they cannot.<br /><br />It really is the ultimate stumper question for the theist, and it gets to the very root of the issue.<br /><br />And $ye is dishonest: he cannot help but be so, given what his world view entails. Sad for him<br />Tommy Hunslapperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00015000273613107226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75762218165337463912012-09-04T06:47:45.171-04:002012-09-04T06:47:45.171-04:00Hello Luke,
Thank you for taking the time to expr...Hello Luke,<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion. <br /><br />I must say, it is rather curious that someone would think that I should agree to some verbal exchange with someone who does not even take the time to examine my refutation of his argument. That seems quite puzzling to me, since it would amount to advocating that Sye should debate someone without the benefit of understanding his opponent’s criticisms. This leaves him completely disarmed even before the debate would begin. <br /><br />I explained all this to Sye when I discussed the matter with him last November in <a href="http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-ill-not-be-bothering-with-bahnsen.html" rel="nofollow">this blog</a>. Most oddly, Sye has accused me of making “excuses” for not participating in some verbal exchange with him (without explaining what value such an exercise would be) while throwing out excuses for choosing not to examine my critique of his argument and discussing them with me on my blog. It has become clear to me that he avoids the matter for the obvious reason that his worldview would not survive such engagement. <br /><br />As for your opinion that a verbal debate “would solve both desires,” this seems rather hasty and uninformed. As I indicated to Sye in the blog to which I linked above, I’ve already fulfilled my desires: I have refuted his argument and have published my refutation for the entire world to see, all for free. So my desires have been “solved,” to use your words, and have been “solved” for over two years now. So the problem here is not mine. It’s all Sye’s. The ball is in his court, and so far he’s still on the bench, reluctant to get back into the game.<br /><br />When I point out the fact that Sye has yet to address the points I raise against his argument in my refutation, I am also pointing out that I have achieved my desires while Sye’s precious argument has been blasted into smithereens. So I’m happy with the situation as it stands. It’s not that I “want him to answer [my] questions,” for it’s not so much my “questions” which he needs to answer as my <i>refutation</i> of his argument. I have not gone to Sye with questions, for I don’t think there’s anything to learn from him in the first place. Meanwhile, if he doesn’t even want to take the time to read a <a href="http://katholon.com/ip/A_Critique_of_Sye_Ten_Bruggencates_www.proofthatgodexists.org.pdf" rel="nofollow">nine-page document</a> which interacts with the argument for which he created an entire website, well, that’s his problem, not mine. Wouldn’t you agree? <br /><br />If he cannot even respond to my criticisms of his argument, then clearly the call for a verbal “debate” is simply too premature. He wants a showdown after he’s been completely disarmed. Hardly a rational thing to do. He has no gun to shoot.<br /><br />Perhaps now you can see the futility of Sye’s position.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-5351069863176285482012-09-04T05:14:48.801-04:002012-09-04T05:14:48.801-04:00Dawson,
I think you should take Sye up on his deb...Dawson,<br /><br />I think you should take Sye up on his debate offer. You want him to answer your questions, and he's willing to debate. No reason for name calling and accusations when a debate would solve both desires, right?<br /><br />- LukeAmericanRiverNewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13413159082067234419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63466945933086609952010-10-11T02:35:46.984-04:002010-10-11T02:35:46.984-04:00Rick: “The ‘art’ of logic Rand and you propose is ...Rick: “The ‘art’ of logic Rand and you propose is by definition subjective not objective.”<br /><br />Did you not see the definition I presented? It did not indicate subjectivity. Why do you suppose it did?<br /><br />Rick: “Look up ‘art’ in the dictionary Dawson.”<br /><br />I have. See for instance <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art" rel="nofollow">this online dictionary</a>. You’ll note that it offers numerous definitions of ‘art’. None that I could see include the concept of <i>subjectivity</i> in defining ‘art’. <br /><br />I think the following comes pretty close to what Rand meant: “7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: <i>the art of baking; the art of selling</i>.” <br /><br />Surely you’d agree that logic is a “branch of learning” which has “principles or methods” which govern it, no?<br /><br />Betsy Speicher, who was a student of Ayn Rand’s, once asked Rand about her definition of ‘logic’ and her use of ‘art’ to inform it. Speicher writes:<br /><br />“I once asked Ayn Rand why she used the word ‘art’ in the definition of logic and she said she was using the word to mean a skill based on specialized knowledge.” (<a href="http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=2071&st=0&p=60690&hl=+noncontradictory%20+identification&fromsearch=1&" rel="nofollow">source</a>)<br /><br />So unless you think “the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning,” or “skill based on specialized knowledge” necessarily implies subjectivity (and even if you do; Rand didn’t), your reaching objection here fails. <br /><br />Rick: “Inventing definitions for logic and reason in order to try and justify a philosophy is a pretty good sign the philosophy has problems.”<br /><br />You make it sound like Rand was just making things up ad hoc as she went “in order to justify” her philosophy. This is more of your ignorance speaking, Rick. Since you do not have intimate familiarity with her philosophy, you lack the contextual understanding needed to appreciate how her definitions were not her starting points, but in fact arose out of the application of her conceptual theory’s principles. She wrote an entire book on her concept theory, and devoted a whole chapter specifically to definitions. Without the benefit of understanding her theory, you’ll most likely remain in the dark on the whole matter.<br /><br />Also, you have yet to show any genuine deficiency with Rand’s conception of logic. <br /><br />Rick: “There are at least 7 signs I've noticed so far that show Objectivism is a misleading philosophy and more like a cult than a traditional philosophy.”<br /><br />Care to enumerate them? I’d love to discuss it.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60157319008475749062010-10-11T02:35:11.977-04:002010-10-11T02:35:11.977-04:00Hello Rick,
Rick: “You imply the ‘norms of defini...Hello Rick,<br /><br />Rick: “You imply the ‘norms of definition’ supplied by the objective theory of concepts are suitable replacements for the time-tested science and principles of logic, as defined by the standard definition of logic.”<br /><br />No, I didn’t imply this. The norms of definition supplied by the objective theory of concepts are wholly compatible with logic and science. I did not offer those norms as a “replacement” of these disciplines. What you are probably missing is the fact that a concept’s meaning is broader than its definition. Rand noted that a definition<br /><br />“<i>implies</i>, but does not mention all the characteristics of a concept’s units. If a definition were to list all the characteristics, it would defeat its own purpose: it would provide and indiscriminate, undifferentiated and, in effect, pre-conceptual conglomeration of characteristics which would not serve to distinguish the units from all other existents, nor the concept from all other concepts. A definition must identify the <i>nature</i> of the units, i.e., the <i>essential</i> characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are. But it is important to remember that a definition implies <i>all</i> the characteristics of the units, since it identifies their <i>essential</i>, not their <i>exhaustive</i>, characteristics,… since it is a condensation of, not a substitute for, a wider knowledge of the existents involved.” (<i>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology</i>, p. 42)<br /><br />Consider the concept ‘man’. Objectivism follows Aristotle in his definition of man as “the rational animal.” The definition does not take the form of an exhaustive list of characteristics of all the units subsumed by the concept ‘man’. The definition <i>implies</i> those characteristics by isolating the <i>essential</i> characteristic(s) upon which the rest depend. <br /> <br />We see this in the case of Rand’s definition of ‘logic’: it is an art (i.e., “skill based on specialized knowledge” – see below) of non-contradictory identification (which implies specific aspects of the identification process, such as induction, deduction, validity, demonstration, soundness, cogency, etc.). <br /><br />[Continued...]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-315018530308909902010-10-11T00:04:49.651-04:002010-10-11T00:04:49.651-04:00Dear Dawson,
You imply the "norms of definit...Dear Dawson,<br /><br />You imply the "norms of definition" supplied by the objective theory of concepts" are suitable replacements for the time-tested science and principles of logic, as defined by the standard definition of logic. I disagree from the onset. The principles of logic are the generally accepted measuring stick of philosophical truth. The "art" of logic Rand and you propose is by definition subjective not objective. Look up "art" in the dictionary Dawson.<br /><br />I have no interest in attempting to measure a jellyfish with a jellyfish. Nor do I have any interest in drinking acid-laced Kool-aid in order to understand if acid-laced Kool aid will bring me closer to understanding reality. <br /><br />Inventing definitions for logic and reason in order to try and justify a philosophy is a pretty good sign the philosophy has problems. There are at least 7 signs I've noticed so far that show Objectivism is a misleading philosophy and more like a cult than a traditional philosophy.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />RickRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-24612105304644878572010-10-08T12:19:40.182-04:002010-10-08T12:19:40.182-04:00I wrote: "I’m confident that the odds (of fin...I wrote: "I’m confident that the odds (of finding a $5 bill) would blow your 1/864,000 figure out of the water in terms of astronomical improbability."<br /><br />Rick: “You are grossly oversimplifying probability theory. You are comparing apples and oranges. A ‘frequentist’ prediction is random and well defined, like your $5 bill. Prophecy is predictive and compound probability related to specific knowledge and belief.”<br /><br />Rick, you’re the one who raised the issue of probability in characterizing the “fulfillment” of what you call a “prophecy” of Israel becoming a nation in 1948, calculating the odds to 1/864,000. You did this specifically to make the “fulfillment” seem all that more improbable, and thus more impressive. My response to this was to point out to you the fact that unlikely things happen all the time. My $5 bill example was just an example, and you resist taking up my challenge to calculate the odds of <i>that</i> specific $5 bill winding up in my hands. You call it “comparing apples and oranges,” but not if sheer statistical probability (which you introduced to the conversation) is concerned. I won’t accept your squirming on this, Rick. As I mentioned, you want to believe Israel’s founding in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy, go ahead, be my guest. I really don’t care. But don’t cite the odds on this unless you’re willing to deal with the fallout.<br /><br />Rick: “You enjoy repeating the promise, John 14.13 ‘Ask anything in my name...’”<br /><br />Rick, this should not bother you. You’re the one who kept urging the importance of “testing” your god’s word, to see if it’s true. But you know it’s a bogus promise, so you keep adding new qualifications which need to be met, but this is a con, for no matter how many qualifications are met, it will still never happen as promised, and you know it. Consider what you wrote next:<br /><br />Rick: “Another qualification I would add, in addition to being a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ, is understanding what it means to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. This means in agreement with His authority and perfect will. It may be that this is another qualification unmet by you and your prayer for perfect eyesight.”<br /><br />But how do you know if it’s unmet by me? And look at the very notion of “agreement with His authority and perfect will.” For one thing, the John 14:13-14 passage does not include such a qualification, nor does it imply it. You have added it, other Christians have added it, too, in order to frontload a disclaimer to explain why the promise goes unfulfilled. <br /><br />So, two points: <br /><br />First, you need to show how a prayer to Jesus asking for the restoration of eyesight is not “in agreement with His authority and perfect will.” You do agree that your god <i>can</i> restore my eyesight, right? So where’s the failure of agreement with your god’s will here?<br /><br />Second, while it may be plausible that I as a non-believer will not be capable of asking your god “in agreement with His authority and perfect will,” you, as a devoted Christian presumably are already “in agreement with His authority and perfect will.” So, as I suggested previously, <i>you</i> make the prayer on my behalf. <br /><br />Think of it, Rick. You pray to your god that it restore my vision to 20/20, I wake up tomorrow with 20/20 vision, with no natural explanation, and given this conversation, the conclusion that your god is real will be inescapable, and I become a believer. It’s a win-win. What do you say?<br /><br />I wrote: "Objectivism is the philosophy of reason."<br /><br />Rick: “Really?”<br /><br />Yes sir.<br /><br />Rick: “In your new "Rick Warden..." article, linked in your comment, we can examine how Objectivism is based on Ayn Rand's faulty definitions of logic and reason utilizing a subjective, self serving methodology:”<br /><br />Bring it on. But understand: to succeed, you would have to show that they fail to meet the norms of definition supplied by the objective theory of concepts. You’ve not done this, not even close. But go ahead and try.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50793457431694986972010-10-08T05:39:54.003-04:002010-10-08T05:39:54.003-04:00Dear Dawson,
In the article located at the link p...Dear Dawson,<br /><br />In the article located at the link posted here you wrote: "Rick Warden who has attempted to commandeer the comments section of my blog..."<br /><br />You've written a four part reply to my comment, plus an entire article. Look back over my comments. They have generally been much shorter than yours.<br /><br />At the risk of further such accusations I will attempt to keep my reply here brief and continue further at the new article.<br /><br />The film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is political, not religious. The main theme is the academic censure of valid scientific data.<br /><br />DB: "I’m confident that the odds (of finding a $5 bill) would blow your 1/864,000 figure out of the water in terms of astronomical improbability."<br /><br />RW: You are grossly oversimplifying probability theory. You are comparing apples and oranges. A "frequentist" prediction is random and well defined, like your $5 bill. Prophecy is predictive and compound probability related to specific knowledge and belief. A scientific "Bayesian" model is a better example for this situation. If you ever become interested in testing prophecy on more than a superficial level, you can look into it:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability<br /><br />You enjoy repeating the promise, John 14.13 “Ask anything in my name...” Another qualification I would add, in addition to being a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ, is understanding what it means to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. This means in agreement with His authority and perfect will. It may be that this is another qualification unmet by you and your prayer for perfect eyesight.<br /><br />DB: "Objectivism is the philosophy of reason."<br /><br />RW: Really? In your new "Rick Warden..." article, linked in your comment, we can examine how Objectivism is based on Ayn Rand's faulty definitions of logic and reason utilizing a subjective, self serving methodology:<br /><br />“Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification” (Ayn Rand, “Philosophical Detection,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 15). <br /><br />"Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." (Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 20)<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />RickRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-88480203690497101792010-10-07T03:20:03.340-04:002010-10-07T03:20:03.340-04:00Rick,
As I promised, here is the link to my inter...Rick,<br /><br />As I promised, here is the link to my interaction with your objections against Objectivism:<br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/10/rick-wardens-critique-of-objectivism.html" rel="nofollow">Rick Warden’s Critique of Objectivism</a><br /><br />I'm happy to report that I was able to keep it short and sweet.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-82704221400839149422010-10-06T13:02:15.073-04:002010-10-06T13:02:15.073-04:00Rick: “Your corollary argument shows you don't...Rick: “Your corollary argument shows you don't understand why the prophecies are evidence of God's existence outside the constraints of time.”<br /><br />They aren’t evidence of your god’s existence, Rick. No lack of understanding on my part here.<br /><br />DB: “Meanwhile, I still need to wear glasses. Where’s my 20/20 vision, Rick?”<br /><br />Rick: ”The most important question for you, I believe, is not whether or not you have glasses, but whether or not you want to turn on the light.”<br /><br />Well, so far, Rick, you’ve generated a lot of heat in our discussion, but you’ve added no light to my understanding (other than to confirm that your worldview is philosophically bankrupt, but I already knew that).<br /><br />Rick: “Objectivism, ultimately, is a choice to stay in the dark.”<br /><br />Objectivism is the philosophy of reason. What you’re saying is that reason is the path to darkness in understanding. You tell me about yourself, Rick. Also, it means that reason is on the side of your adversaries. Muslim terrorists have made the same choice as you have.<br /><br />Rick: “You ask, What's wrong with using a stapler on a desk as an example for reality? I'll show you. shut the lights off, draw the blinds and now observe your tan stapler. Objectification, in a strict sense, is impossible, if you consider what I am writing.”<br /><br />Actually, that would just end up confirming the appropriateness of my stapler example. <br /><br />I wrote: “Regardless, what Newton believed or didn’t believe, has no impact on the truth of Objectivism.”<br /><br />Rick: ”Actually, the methodology of Newton's approach and the manner in which he received his revelations have been insightful to me recently as I begin to ask questions, contemplate and uncover some of the fallacies of Objectivism.”<br /><br />In your Part 3 comment, you made an attempt to critique the Objectivist position. I will be posting my own interaction of your objections in a new post on my blog. I’ll post the link here once it’s up.<br /><br />Regards<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68748476768792518802010-10-06T13:01:38.913-04:002010-10-06T13:01:38.913-04:00I wrote: “causality is a natural law. You want to ...I wrote: “causality is a natural law. You want to say this event (creating fire with your bare hand) was *caused*, which automatically puts it in the realm of nature.”<br /><br />Rick: “In your mind, Dawson, the possibility of the supernatural is ‘automatically’ rejected, no matter what you may see, as you've confessed.”<br /><br />This is uncharitable, Rick. I have already linked to my own examination of the notion of “the supernatural” (again, see <a href="http://www.katholon.com/Bahnsen_Supernatural.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>), where I lay out numerous reasons for concluding that the very notion of “the supernatural” is irrational. Consequently, since I’ve done my homework on the matter, I am fully justified in rejecting claims about “the supernatural” as irrational, especially if the arguments I laid out in my analysis have not been refuted. And they haven’t been refuted.<br /><br />Rick: “I would really like to know your naturalist cause for this event. Can you enlighten me here and explain it to me?”<br /><br />For one thing, Rick, I honestly don’t care. (Perhaps that’s what bothers you most.) And no, I have no explanation for you. And I don’t know if one day some scientist is going to come up with one. It could be doctored video footage for all I know, another hoax. There are a lot of religious hoaxes out there, you see. But unlike you, I do not take the lack of a natural explanation as license to invent an imaginary cause. Your approach very much seems to be in the vein of <a href="http://www.katholon.com/duh15.wav" rel="nofollow">Duh, I donno! Must be God did it!</a>. I still haven’t seen any argument from you for the conclusion that it <i>is</i> a supernatural phenomenon. So don’t get sore at me here.<br /><br />I wrote: “It’s been a full week now, and your god hasn’t done what I’ve asked.” <br /><br />Rick: ”I had replied that the context was important. I pointed out Jesus was speaking to His disciples. They were fully surrendered to God's will, not given to an ideology of selfishness. There was also no time limit on this promise and I pointed out time is insignificant to you anyway.”<br /><br />So, you agree that it is a promise – is it one that your god will stand by and fulfill as promised? <br /><br />If so, I’m happy to put a time limit on it. Here’s my revised prayer:<br /><br /><i> O Lord, I ask, in the spirit of John 14:14, that you restore my eyesight to 20/20 vision by sunup October 6, 2010, so that I can once and for all do away with glasses for ever. I ask in Jesus' name. Amen.</i><br /><br />It’s now almost 10:00 am Oct. 6. And my eyes? No change. They have not been restored to 20/20. I’m guessing there will still be some reason why your god won’t be correcting my need for glasses.<br /><br />If you think the problem is that your god won’t hear my prayers, then why don’t you make this prayer request on my behalf, Rick? You’re “fully surrendered to God’s will,” aren’t you? And you’re not “given to an ideology of selfishness,” right? Also, you’ve expressed your desire that we <i>test</i> your god’s word, right? What better way than to see if your god will stand by its stated promises?<br /><br />By the way, why do you get to decide whether or not time is significant to me? Indeed, you don’t.<br /><br />[Continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-33570422907743218862010-10-06T13:00:04.877-04:002010-10-06T13:00:04.877-04:00I asked: “Can you find one example of a genuine Ob...I asked: “Can you find one example of a genuine Objectivist organization which advocates government-sponsored censorship?” <br /><br />Rick: “I wrote ‘secular humanist’ not Objectivist education.”<br /><br />So I’m guessing the answer to my above question is no.<br /><br />What was the purpose of griping to me about “secular humanist teachings” and censorship? What relevance does either have to our discussion?<br /><br />Rick: “My point was that atheism, in general, is not a result of perception,”<br /><br />I don’t believe I ever argued that it is.<br /><br />Rick: “it is ‘accepted’ by society usually due to an educational agenda and forced censorship.”<br /><br />Really? Which society? Not any society I’ve ever lived in. On the contrary, some form of god-belief, typically one version of Christianity or another, has been shoved down my throat since my earliest memories, both in the home and outside it. Atheists are continually being villanized, as if merely not having a god-belief poses some kind of threat. It apparently does. Look how threatened you are by the fact that I don’t believe in your brand of hocus pocus. <br /><br />Rick: “Documentary ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ shows this is the norm.”<br /><br />I have not seen the program that you’ve referenced now two or three times, and I won’t be going out of my way to do so. But I do know that religious institutions have an interest in producing and distributing all kinds of propaganda. There’s an entire market of suckers waiting to lap it all up.<br /><br />You wrote more about the Ezekiel/Israel prophecy, but it’s clear that this is a dead horse as far as I’m concerned. You believe it’s a fulfilled prophecy, I don’t, and you’ve not at all persuaded me to reconsider my position on it. I understand that bothers you, and somehow this is my fault and I’m doing something completely wrong in your mind. I’m prepared to live with that, Rick. Beyond that, I haven’t seen any explanation from you as to why your omniscient god, who was supposedly inspiring the content of the Ezekiel passage in the first place, could not have corrected the mentioning of a “king” to an elected leader if this were really a prophecy about Israel in the 20th century AD. I know you don’t consider this important, but there’s an enormous difference between a president and a king. <br /><br /><br />I wrote: “Rick, you overlook my point, which was that unlikely things happen all the time.” (finding a random $5 bill)”<br /><br />Rick: “It's really not ‘unlikely’, at all, according to your example, that a random $5 bill with a specific serial number ends up in your possession.”<br /><br />Rick, you’ve demonstrated that you’re into the numbers thing. Please calculate the odds of <i>this specific $5 bill</i> winding up in my possession. Show your work. Given the enormous quantity of $5 bills circulating out there, and the fact that I could have been given five $1 bills instead of a $5 bill as change, or that I could have paid the exact amount and gotten no change, etc., I’m confident that the odds would blow your 1/864,000 figure out of the water in terms of astronomical improbability. And yet you want your figure to impress me, and you just poo-poo my example. That’s the sign of a religious mind, Rick. You see significance where you want to.<br /><br />[Continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-5431896708981022952010-10-06T00:15:00.087-04:002010-10-06T00:15:00.087-04:00Part 3
I'm still in the learning mode regardi...Part 3<br /><br />I'm still in the learning mode regarding Objectivism. I would be interested to know your criticisms on this response to your premise from an article:<br /><br />DB: “It is an undeniable fact that a subject is distinct from the objects of its awareness: a subject and its objects are not one and the same – the two are engaged in a relationship.” <br /><br />RW: Is it really “an undeniable fact?”<br /><br />As far as we may surmise, pure, unadulterated logic does not submit into an absolute metaphysical subject/object dualism explanation. Ask an objectivist: “In terms of human perception, is logic considered a subject or an object?”<br /><br />If the objectivist says logic is a “subject,” then it is considered a part of the mind. Logic, from a utilitarian view, is a tool, an aspect of reasoning. Without a mind, logic would have no use whatsoever. This implies, from a materialist perspective, it should be a cart the horse of reason pulls. But objectivists have a problem here. While Logic is used personally, as a tool for subjective reasoning, it is not ONLY personal, it consists of universal laws, it endures from one generation to the next, as do known “external” natural laws. <br /><br />If the objectivist says logic is an “object,” then it is presumed to be a part of the “external” world and they have another problem. No one has ever perceived logic, or its effects, with his or her senses and thus cannot “objectively” account for its existence. If the objectivist says gravity is similar because it is not seen but known by its effects, it seems to be a weak corollary. Neither gravity, nor any other law, is known exclusively in the human mind. Neither gravity, nor any other law, can be considered a tool required exclusively for the mind's use.<br /><br />What does this imply metaphysically?<br /><br />The laws of logic govern the process of- and ability to reason. Just try to use reason without logic. Therefore, if there is a question of which has primacy metaphysically, logic does. If the existence of logic refutes the assumed metaphysical subject/object duality and logic metaphysically predominates over reason, then an absolute subject/object duality, strictly based on human reasoning, should not be considered a metaphysically reliable premise.<br /><br />2.The Primacy of Existence theory supposedly disproves Theism because it assumes a single world view cannot entertain both a primacy of existence example (man) and a primacy of consciousness example (God). But there is a third possibility, based on the existence of logic, that something may, in fact, be independent of- and indefinable by the apparent subjective and object duality. <br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />RickRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39875323067674001572010-10-06T00:12:12.059-04:002010-10-06T00:12:12.059-04:00Part 2
Part 2
DB: “causality is a natural law. Y...Part 2<br /><br />Part 2<br /><br />DB: “causality is a natural law. You want to say this event (creating fire with your bare hand) was *caused*, which automatically puts it in the realm of nature.”<br /><br />RW: In your mind, Dawson, the possibility of the supernatural is “automatically” rejected, no matter what you may see, as you've confessed. I would really like to know your naturalist cause for this event. Can you enlighten me here and explain it to me? BTW “Science will explain it one day” is not a very convincing answer in the 21C.<br /><br />DB: “It’s been a full week now, and your god hasn’t done what I’ve asked.” (praying for 20/20 vision, according to a scriptural promise, john 14.13 “Ask anything in my name...”)<br /><br />RW: I had replied that the context was important. I pointed out Jesus was speaking to His disciples. They were fully surrendered to God's will, not given to an ideology of selfishness. There was also no time limit on this promise and I pointed out time is insignificant to you anyway. Your corollary argument shows you don't understand why the prophecies are evidence of God's existence outside the constraints of time.<br /><br />DB: “Meanwhile, I still need to wear glasses. Where’s my 20/20 vision, Rick?”<br /><br />RW: The most important question for you, I believe, is not whether or not you have glasses, but whether or not you want to turn on the light. Objectivism, ultimately, is a choice to stay in the dark. You ask, What's wrong with using a stapler on a desk as an example for reality? I'll show you. shut the lights off, draw the blinds and now observe your tan stapler. Objectification, in a strict sense, is impossible, if you consider what I am writing.<br /><br />DB: “Regardless, what Newton believed or didn’t believe, has no impact on the truth of Objectivism.”<br /><br />RW: Actually, the methodology of Newton's approach and the manner in which he received his revelations have been insightful to me recently as I begin to ask questions, contemplate and uncover some of the fallacies of Objectivism.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36375011835834090612010-10-06T00:10:38.034-04:002010-10-06T00:10:38.034-04:00Part 2
DB: “causality is a natural law. You want ...Part 2<br /><br />DB: “causality is a natural law. You want to say this event (creating fire with your bare hand) was *caused*, which automatically puts it in the realm of nature.”<br /><br />RW: In your mind, Dawson, the possibility of the supernatural is “automatically” rejected, no matter what you may see, as you've confessed. I would really like to know your naturalist cause for this event. Can you enlighten me here and explain it to me? BTW “Science will explain it one day” is not a very convincing answer in the 21C.<br /><br />DB: “It’s been a full week now, and your god hasn’t done what I’ve asked.” (praying for 20/20 vision, according to a scriptural promise, john 14.13 “Ask anything in my name...”)<br /><br />RW: I had replied that the context was important. I pointed out Jesus was speaking to His disciples. They were fully surrendered to God's will, not given to an ideology of selfishness. There was also no time limit on this promise and I pointed out time is insignificant to you anyway. Your corollary argument shows you don't understand why the prophecies are evidence of God's existence outside the constraints of time.<br /><br />DB: “Meanwhile, I still need to wear glasses. Where’s my 20/20 vision, Rick?”<br /><br />RW: The most important question for you, I believe, is not whether or not you have glasses, but whether or not you want to turn on the light.<br /><br />Objectivism, ultimately, is a choice to stay in the dark. You ask, What's wrong with using a stapler on a desk as an example for reality? I'll show you. shut the lights off, draw the blinds and now observe your tan stapler. Objectification, in a strict sense, is impossible, if you consider what I am writing.<br /><br />DB: “Regardless, what Newton believed or didn’t believe, has no impact on the truth of Objectivism.”<br /><br />RW: Actually, the methodology of Newton's approach and the manner in which he received his revelations have been insightful to me recently as I begin to ask questions, contemplate and uncover some of the fallacies of Objectivism.<br /><br /><br />cont...Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54027570041926711372010-10-06T00:08:46.358-04:002010-10-06T00:08:46.358-04:00Dear Dawson,
Part 1
DB: “Can you find one exampl...Dear Dawson,<br /><br />Part 1<br /><br />DB: “Can you find one example of a genuine Objectivist organization which advocates government-sponsored censorship?” <br /><br />RW: I wrote “secular humanist” not Objectivist education. My point was that atheism, in general, is not a result of perception, it is “accepted” by society usually due to an educational agenda and forced censorship. Documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” shows this is the norm. As you verified, no one read your philosophy to the primitives to enlighten them.<br /><br />DB: “Israel is not a united territory - Gaza is a separate administration...”<br /><br />“...they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.” (Ezekiel 37:22)<br /><br />RW: Gaza is just a tiny sliver on the corner compared to the rest of Israel. Rafah is the only point on Gaza's borders not controlled by Israel. This is why Gaza is referred to as a “Palestinian prison.” The West Bank is generally controlled by Israel while scattered Arab towna within the WB are not. I would not consider Israel divided into two nations in these instances because Israel is still the ultimate authority. The main reason there is tension is because the Arabs want Israel to surrender or share authority.<br /><br />DB: “Rick, you overlook my point, which was that unlikely things happen all the time.” (finding a random $5 bill)<br /><br />RW: The volume of your writing is substantial but sometimes the content really causes me wonder about your reasoning. It's really not “unlikely,” at all, according to your example, that a random $5 bill with a specific serial number ends up in your possession. It would be unlikely, and remarkable, however, if 2500 years ago a prophet wrote that a man in San Francisco would find a certain bill with a certain number on a certain day. But in that instance, ironically, you would probably say it is nothing special, a man found a bill, so what, he did it himself.<br /><br />DB: “Theodore Drange writes the following about the Israel nation prophecy in Ezekiel...” <br /><br />RW: He (and Conifer) did not in anyway prove here in these quotes that this was the specific return in 6C or when the book of Ezekiel was written. When some of the Jews returned in that century, they continued to be ruled by foreign authorities: the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. In A.D. 70, Titus and the Roman legions destroyed the Temple and scattered the Jewish people as slaves among the various provinces of the Roman Empire. It was in 1948 that Israel regained full autonomous authority, fulfilling the prophecy. At least your authors here made a gallant attempt though. <br /><br />You pointed out many Jews have not returned, but there is no time limitation on the prophecy's complete fulfillment. We are seeing a rise of antisemitism leading to increased aliyah. Increased percentages of Jews are returning now, firstly, due to the Gaza blowback and racism against Jews, secondly, due to the financial crisis, as the Jewish elite, bankers, lawyers, etc. become scapegoats, and, thirdly, due to an increasing opinion that Mossad may have possibly been complicit in the 9/11 attacks.<br /><br /> http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=178005Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63411546106884325112010-10-05T18:37:03.349-04:002010-10-05T18:37:03.349-04:00Rick,
Back on 28 Sept., I posted my prayer to you...Rick,<br /><br />Back on 28 Sept., I posted my prayer to your Lord and Savior to restore my eyesight to 20/20 vision. (Scroll up to see my prayer.) <br /><br />I did this in keeping with the promise put into Jesus’ mouth in John 14:13-14, which reads:<br /><br />“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”<br /><br />It’s been a full week now, and your god hasn’t done what I’ve asked. My unaided vision is still just as bad as it was on 27 Sept., there’s been no change, which can only tell me that your god has not kept its promise. Consequently, according to the passage quoted above, “the Father” is not “glorified in the Son.” <br /><br />So you see, you rail against me for not believing in “the supernatural” on your say so, and when your god’s promises are tested, it fails to deliver as promised.<br /><br />No doubt you probably want to see this as me being unreasonable, even though I'm not the one who's shirking out on his promises. But what’s your explanation for this?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25568847160453128142010-10-05T03:15:17.061-04:002010-10-05T03:15:17.061-04:00Theodore Drange writes the following about the Isr...Theodore Drange writes the following about the Israel nation prophecy in Ezekiel:<br /><br />“The obvious objection is that Ezekiel is not here talking about the twentieth century but is predicting the return of the Jews from their captivity, exile, and dispersal at the hands of the Assyrians (in the 8th and 7th centuries, B.C.) and the Babylonians (in the 7th and 6th centuries). That return occurred in 537 B.C., shortly after the book of Ezekiel was written. In itself, it is a prophecy that became fulfilled, though not a particularly remarkable one. The book was written during the exile, and there may have been good evidence available to Ezekiel that the exile would soon come to an end. Other parts of the prophecy, that the returning Jews would faithfully observe God's laws and that they would live in their restored homeland forever (Eze 37:24-28) were not fulfilled. It is understandable why McDowell stayed clear of this alleged prophecy, though it is sometimes cited by missionaries today.” (<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html" rel="nofollow">The Argument from the Bible</a>)<br /><br />Drange published this piece in 1996. When he says that this prophecy “is sometimes cited by missionaries today,” he must have been predicting Rick Warden using it on my blog in 2010. <br /><br />Rick had cited Ezekiel 37:21-22 as the “fulfilled prophecy” that he wanted to defend. But let’s not forget the following verse #23, which reads:<br /><br />“Neither shall they [the Jews who returned to the new nation of Israel] defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.”<br /><br />Speaking of this prophecy, Steven Conifer writes:<br /><br />“However, the truth of the matter is that there is nothing remarkable whatever about these alleged prophecies. In fact, the momentous return to which Ezekiel is here referring is almost assuredly that of the Jews from their captivity, which occurred in 537 B.C.E., but a single year after that in which the authors claim the book of Ezekiel was composed. That book was most likely written during the exile, and Ezekiel could have easily been in possession of ample and reliable evidence that it would end in the near future (i.e., within a year or so). It is also of significance that other parts of the prophecy in question were <i>not</i> fulfilled, e.g., that the Jews returning from captivity would strictly follow God's laws and that they would forever onward reside in their restored homeland. In fact, neither of these things ever happened.” (<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/fundamentalism.html" rel="nofollow">A Critique of Fundamentalism</a>)<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77092218872590558012010-10-05T02:59:24.230-04:002010-10-05T02:59:24.230-04:00Regardless, what Newton believed or didn’t believe...Regardless, what Newton believed or didn’t believe, has no impact on the truth of Objectivism.<br /><br />Rick: “Though unsubstantiated, secular humanist teachings are used to promote atheism as the only viable world view in the education system today. But they must use censorship to eliminate all debate on the subject, because it has no philosophical or scientific foundation. Documentary ‘Expelled: no Intelligence Allowed’ documents this censorship.”<br /><br />Can you find one example of a genuine Objectivist organization which advocates government-sponsored censorship? By citing “secular humanist teachings,” I suspect you simply don’t have any firsthand familiarity with Objectivism.<br /><br />Rick: “This false, unsubstantiated presupposition of atheism is just the beginning of the problems of this philosophy, which has many false assumptions and internal inconsistencies.”<br /><br />Again, I don’t see any problems in Objectivism here. I thought that’s what you were trying to present.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39834498033148478672010-10-05T02:58:48.158-04:002010-10-05T02:58:48.158-04:00Rick: “One of the presuppositions of Objectivism i...Rick: “One of the presuppositions of Objectivism is that human perception and observation infer naturalism.”<br /><br />Can you provide a quote from an Objectivist source which does this? I mean, you do want to represent the position you’re critiquing accurately, don’t you? <br /><br />Rick: “Objectivists usually talk about a small object, such as a stapler on a desk, when making their analogies to support their philosophy.”<br /><br />What’s wrong with that?<br /><br />Rick: “But when you objectify nature as a whole or the universe as a whole, the complex interdependent systems, in reality, infer an intelligent creator.”<br /><br />Really? Who does this? Do “complex interdependent systems infer an intelligent creator,” or do *people* do this? What premises are factored into this inference? Show your argument.<br /><br />Rick: “’Primitive’ cultures which have lived in dependence on- and close harmony with nature have always acknowledged belief in the supernatural, because nature is highly organized, intelligent and implies, at face value, the pre-existence of intelligence and a creator.”<br /><br />Yes, primitive (i.e., pre-scientific, pre-rational) cultures have typically embraced one form of supernaturalism or another, to one degree or another. But if their close contact with nature were responsible for this trend, and there really were a supernatural realm inhabited by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring personality, we would expect to uniformity in the beliefs of those cultures across the board. But we don’t. On the contrary, we see a vast range of variations, often in the form of folk tales about past heroes, legendary figures and anecdotal narratives involving ancestors from those very cultures. <br /><br />What’s actually responsible for the supernaturalism and superstition among primitive cultures, is not some actual supernatural realm dispensing revelatory messages to selected human recipients, but the implicit acceptance of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. Name one influential thinker from any of these primitive cultures who discovered the primacy of existence, advocated it as a fundamental, general principle of thought, and consciously incorporated it into writings that helped shape the culture in question. You won’t find one. But don’t take my word for it. Go ahead and check for yourself. <br /><br />Rick: “Sir Isaac Newton, who wrote the greatest science book ever written, Principia Mathematica, summarized ‘The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being’.” <br /><br />So, we’re supposed to accept this as an authoritative pronouncement? We already know that Newton believed in a god. So what? He was a man, wasn’t he? The culture that Newton grew up in was heavily superstitious, with people of all stripes believing in one god or another. He was raised with a god-belief, and, like all believers, compartmentalized it in his daily life so as to contain its conflicts with the real world in which he lived. What’s interesting about Newton, however, is that he was not an orthodox Christian. In fact, he was very likely an antitrinitarian and considered worship of Christ to be a form of idolatry. At any rate, like so many other human beings throughout history, Newton implicitly accepted the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, at least to some degree, even though he probably never realized this himself.<br /><br />[Continued...]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47452611102192882232010-10-05T02:57:34.245-04:002010-10-05T02:57:34.245-04:00Rick: “So, to summarize your position, the man mak...Rick: “So, to summarize your position, the man makes fire with his hands, and you offer no explanation but you assume, because of your theory, it is natural.”<br /><br />Rick, causality is a <i>natural</i> law. You want to say this event was *caused*, which automatically puts it in the realm of nature. If fire (a natural phenomenon) is caused in the world, why would I suppose it is by some force other than natural? Because you say so? What makes you think it’s “supernatural”? You think this because you don’t know what in nature could have caused it, right? If so, then it is out of your own ignorance that you draw the conclusion that it must be supernatural. Have you ever really considered the *argument* you might make for concluding that it is supernatural? I haven’t seen your argument for this; you just chide me for not accepting your claim that it is supernatural. I’ve asked you to explain why this would bother you, but you haven’t.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I still need to wear glasses. Where’s my 20/20 vision, Rick? I prayed to your god, and your god promises to do what is asked of him (cf. John 14:14). A non-existent god performs no miracles, Rick. <br /> <br />Rick: “A prophecy is fulfilled in modern history with a 1 in 864,000 chance of coming to pass (randomly) and the best you can do is say ‘king’ and not ‘president’ was used in the prophecy,”<br /><br />Just pointing out the relevant facts, Rick. The passage in Ezekiel specifies that a “king” will rule over the newly formed country. So far, there’s been no king governing Israel since its founding in 1948. That’s not my problem, Rick. Don’t get sore at me for this fact. You came back with the remarkably feeble claim that “king” was not an option back in the 6 century BC, apparently forgetting that your omniscient god is supposed to be behind the “prophecy” in Ezekiel. So quickly you jettison your beloved god in order to shore up the defects in your position. D. James Kennedy did essentially the same thing when he told his congregation that Jesus couldn’t appear before everyone he wants to save (details <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2007/11/d-james-kennedys-impotent-jesus.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). So suddenly, the omnipotent deity becomes impotent.<br /><br />Rick: “The fact you don't see any difference between an example of a completely random 5 dollar bill and a highly specific prophecy from 2,500 years ago verified in our lifetime, shows you must use unsound reasoning in order to justify your philosophy.”<br /><br />Rick, you overlook my point, which was that unlikely things happen all the time, yet you selectively attribute significance to those which bolster your confessional investment. <br /><br />Enough with the tired Ezekiel/Israel prophecy. It’s done, Rick, you’ve not convinced me that this is a genuinely fulfilled prophecy. Indeed, you’re convincing me that it isn’t and that you’re desperate to think it is. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-57111111953810618382010-10-05T02:55:53.114-04:002010-10-05T02:55:53.114-04:00Rick, once again you're cherrypicking your pro...Rick, once again you're cherrypicking your proofs for the prophecy.<br /><br />There are still more Jews outside of Israel than inside.<br /><br />Israel is not a united territory - Gaza is a separate administration, ditto most of the West Bank - both even by the judgement of the modern state of Israel.<br /><br />The designation of who the ruler of Israel is and the nature of that rule is important - can you cite a single instance in the Bible when the description applied to a ruler is incorrect ? I would suggest not - a King is a King and a non-King is a non-King.<br /><br />If Ezekiel was unsure he would have used the descriptor "Leader", not "King". King implies inheritance of power and lands, whereas "Leader" does not.<br /><br />So quote your amazing odds if you want to but the only people who are displaying a willingness to be deceived are the Christians.<br /><br />Now, do you want to do the Ezekial prophecy regarding Tyre ?Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-55993464303551790112010-10-05T00:43:42.985-04:002010-10-05T00:43:42.985-04:00One of the presuppositions of Objectivism is that ...One of the presuppositions of Objectivism is that human perception and observation infer naturalism. Objectivists usually talk about a small object, such as a stapler on a desk, when making their analogies to support their philosophy. But when you objectify nature as a whole or the universe as a whole, the complex interdependent systems, in reality, infer an intelligent creator. <br /><br />“Primitive” cultures which have lived in dependence on- and close harmony with nature have always acknowledged belief in the supernatural, because nature is highly organized, intelligent and implies, at face value, the pre-existence of intelligence and a creator. Sir Isaac Newton, who wrote the greatest science book ever written, Principia Mathematica, summarized “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” <br /><br />Though unsubstantiated, secular humanist teachings are used to promote atheism as the only viable world view in the education system today. But they must use censorship to eliminate all debate on the subject, because it has no philosophical or scientific foundation. Documentary "Expelled: no Intelligence Allowed" documents this censorship.<br /><br />This false, unsubstantiated presupposition of atheism is just the beginning of the problems of this philosophy, which has many false assumptions and internal inconsistencies.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34948651038118635192010-10-05T00:30:41.984-04:002010-10-05T00:30:41.984-04:00Dear Dawson,
So, to summarize your position, the ...Dear Dawson,<br /><br />So, to summarize your position, the man makes fire with his hands, and you offer no explanation but you assume, because of your theory, it is natural. <br /><br />A prophecy is fulfilled in modern history with a 1 in 864,000 chance of coming to pass (randomly) and the best you can do is say "king" and not "president" was used in the prophecy, an argument of peripheral semantics, not even addressing the main issues: A nation disperse, a nation re-established, people returning and nation remaining undivided against incredible odds. When you were a Christian, did you read about the people who "strained out a gnat but swallowed a camel?"<br /><br />You propose an example of a random 5 dollar bill coming into your possession as a corollary: "If there are 50 million 5-dollar bills in circulation, that’s 1 in 50 million! Amazing odds!"<br /><br />The fact you don't see any difference between an example of a completely random 5 dollar bill and a highly specific prophecy from 2,500 years ago verified in our lifetime, shows you must use unsound reasoning in order to justify your philosophy. <br /><br />If you must scratch at the bottom of the barrel, it probably infers your barrel is empty. <br /><br />Now let's move on to clarify some of the unsound assumptions of your philosophy...Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.com