Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Fox News Mocks Us



I gotta say, I wish I was on that broadcast because I would have embarrassed them in a matter of seconds. It is easy to poke fun at a group and erect strawmen when there is no chance for members of the group to respond. Listening to those three nitwits chuckle and distort made me mad. I took them up and emailed them. Sure, no way will they respond...but it made me feel better. Twits.



Dear Fox News,

Your distortion of the facts is nothing new to me. However, I am curious as to where you received your information regarding the bus ad that asks "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." You claimed that atheists put this up because we are "lonely on the holiday" and we feel "left out". However, if you read the statement from the American Humanist Society, their message is clear: "Humanists have always understood that you don't need a god to be good," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "So that's the point we're making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn't come from religion. It's a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience." Hence, the whole "just be good for goodness' sake" part. Here is the link below:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/BusAds.php

Also, one of the correspondents said something about celebrating Jesus' birthday. Perhaps you should study just a bit of history, or comparative mythology. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was born on Dec. 25? Dec. 25 is the winter solstice. It is a PAGAN holiday celebrating the birth of the SUN (not son). I don't hold any religious beliefs. I am not lonely during the holidays. In fact, Christmas is a capitalist holiday. Jesus isn't mentioned anymore. I love Christmas, as it is about time away from work, with friends and family, exchanging gifts and drinking eggnog. I am not handicapped in my participation in the festival due to my atheism. I wish I could have been on your broadcast with those three correspondents, because I would have pointed out that they are, each of them, atheists when it comes to Attis, Mithras, Isis, Thor, and all the other gods that we now ignore, let alone the other ones that millions of people still worry about. Let them make the case that their God supervises us all. The notion is absurd. I cannot disprove that the Christian god exists....but I don't have to. The onus is on the believer. In all my debates with theists, even lettered ones, once the veneer of proof is sanded away and no more straws can be grasped they always fall back to "faith"...which is a belief WITHOUT evidence. Which is simply irrational and absurd. It's easy to mock a group of exceptionally intelligent and moral people....when we aren't there to make you look ridiculous. The same way that Richard Dawkins made Bill O'Reilly look, on his own show, on your network.

Respectfully,

Dr. Clos

347 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. urgh, you made me watch FOX...
    Didn't manage to watch all of it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd like to see what outrage there was in England over the bus campaign, cause I don't remember hearing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I couldn't watch all of it either, it's just so stupid!
    Nice letter though, everything I would have said only more eloquently put!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I'd like to see what outrage there was in England over the bus campaign, cause I don't remember hearing about it."


    Yea I wondered what the hell they were talking about, all they said was 'there was an outcry' but they didn't elaborate!

    ReplyDelete
  6. There wasn't much of note. The worst I saw was people being a bit sniffy and saying things like, 'well, if they want to waste their money, let them. I'd rather give mine to a proper charity...'

    My mother-in-law, a committed church goer thought it was funny.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nicely done, Clos.

    Faux news.
    Steve Doocy is an idiot. He makes the most absurd facial expressions; like a little kid will do.
    According to many "real" Christians like Ray Comfort, he is not a Christain since he is a devout Catholic.

    In my experience most Christians celebrate the holidays exactly the same way I do except they take an hour to go to church.

    In fact, some Christians do not celebrate Christmas because of it's Pagan roots.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love how they qualify the whole thing by mumbling something about 'loving free speech' right at the end.

    I know that most of their viewership is most likely Christian-affiliated and they have no real desire to present a balanced report of the news, I know this. But still;

    Bunch. Of. Cunts.

    *off to wash mouth out*

    ReplyDelete
  9. I noticed they had to say everything twice, not smart enough to come up with anymore comments?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Imagine their tone and demeanor if say Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris had been in the room with them. You have a room full of whimsical idiots and you get diarrhea of the mouth (and mind).

    ReplyDelete
  11. You can't even give them credit for satire here. They just read the story and yukked it up after every line. This type of "humor" depends on having an audience whose views and reactions can be taken for granted and easily exploited.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Has everyone seen Ray's latest attempt at resolving the contradictions in Genesis?

    Too funny.

    The guy is really phoning it in these days.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ahhh atheists, the new Jews....

    Anyway, there was no "outcry" in the UK, or it was really, really quiet and private, because I didn't notice a thing

    (except for the busses of course.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ray said, "God is light (1 John 1:5, Revelation 22:5). He eternally existed, before He created the Sun to give light to the earth."

    So god said, "Let there be me, and there was me, and I said 'I'm good.'"

    ReplyDelete
  15. ""Humanists have always understood that you don't need a god to be good," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "So that's the point we're making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn't come from religion. "

    Even I would agree with that. The question is whether an objective standard of goodness can exist without god. If goodness is left up to the individual it means jack to be good because it is just the result of subjective opinion.

    "Dec. 25 is the winter solstice. It is a PAGAN holiday celebrating the birth of the SUN (not son)."
    From what I know the early converts to Christianity celebrated the birth of Jesus on Dec 25th so they could put the focus away from the false religions.It is similar to how Christians in Muslim countries usually have a month of fac=sting that corresponds to Ramadan.

    "atheists when it comes to Attis, Mithras, Isis, Thor, and all the other gods that we now ignore"
    What the ****?
    Logically if there is one true god you believe in, all the other gods would be false gods. I don't see your point.

    "I cannot disprove that the Christian god exists....but I don't have to. The onus is on the believer."
    Depend on the context. If I am trying to convince you, the onus would fall on me. If you are trying to convince me , it is your duty to present some defeaters for belief in god.

    ""faith"...which is a belief WITHOUT evidence."
    Faith (the first dictionary definition and the more commonly used one) is trust in someone, (in the Christian sense) it is trust in god and his word.

    "Which is simply irrational and absurd."
    Are all beliefs without evidence irrational?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Imagine their tone and demeanor if say Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris had been in the room with them. You have a room full of whimsical idiots and you get diarrhea of the mouth (and mind)."
    I don't really like Hitchens or Harris either. They seemed to be more about rhetoric than anything of substance to me. I wouldn't call them idiots though.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MFT said...

    "'I cannot disprove that the Christian god exists....but I don't have to. The onus is on the believer.'"
    Depend on the context. If I am trying to convince you, the onus would fall on me. If you are trying to convince me , it is your duty to present some defeaters for belief in god.


    No, only positive assertions are provable, and thus need to be proven. "There is a God" is the positive assertion, and the task is yours to prove it. If you said a large purple gorilla was currently employed by you to do your housework, it is your job to prove that statement, not my job to prove it isn't so.

    Also, I was under the impression that almost every non-theist at Raytractors was actually more like a strong agnostic. They do not definitively claim God does not exist (the way you claim that he does) they are just pointing out that the evidence is insufficient to support positive statements of such, and also that organized religion is especially lacking in logical proof.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Excellent response you sent them.

    No the 'outcry' against the UK campaign didn't happen. There was some ridicule from theists, and some criticism from atheists about the formulation and effectivity. If that was an outcry, then for example the Catholic threats against a bookstore in Wales were a World War by comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi kelly r,

    ""No, only positive assertions are provable,""

    Where is the proof that only positive assertions are provable??

    ""and thus need to be proven.""

    By what absolute standard of logic do positive assertions NEED to be proven??

    ""There is a God" is the positive assertion, and the task is yours to prove it.""

    Again, you seem to be appealing to an absolute standard of logic here. May I ask how you account for this standard??

    ""If you said a large purple gorilla was currently employed by you to do your housework, it is your job to prove that statement, not my job to prove it isn't so.""

    May I also ask how you account for the concept of "proof" in your worldview??

    ""Also, I was under the impression that almost every non-theist at Raytractors was actually more like a strong agnostic. They do not definitively claim God does not exist (the way you claim that he does) they are just pointing out that the evidence is insufficient to support positive statements of such, and also that organized religion is especially lacking in logical proof.""

    However, none of them have been able to account for the validity of evidence or absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason because of their worldview. Perhaps you'd like to give it a shot??

    ReplyDelete
  20. MFT,

    "Even I would agree with that."

    You should have quit there lil buddy.

    "The question is whether an objective standard of goodness can exist without god."

    The answer to your question is, yes, it can, and humans have set the standard.

    "If goodness is left up to the individual it means jack to be good because it is just the result of subjective opinion."

    My goodness is left up to me and I know Jack Shit. I ca go on a murder spree if I so choose, and declare it good.

    When one testifies in court he is asked to swear on the bible not to lie. Some lie anyway, but most don't like to, not because of their fear of what God will do, but because they fear going to jail.

    Ethics and morals have changed over time and are still changing.

    That is the nature of the huiman race.

    ReplyDelete
  21. is scmike a variant of Godwin's law?

    ReplyDelete
  22. MFT said...

    Wher'd ya get them logix from? God gived you them logix, stop usin' 'em aginst him.

    [/paraphrase]

    First of all, +10 points for excessive overuse of question marks.

    But -10 points for heading down a trail, Scmike's already been blazing with Maragon and a couple other Raytractors for for hundreds of comments.

    Just heading it off before the time-sucking black hole of anti-reason forms...

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'My goodness is left up to me and I know Jack Shit. I ca go on a murder spree if I so choose, and declare it good. "
    Exactly Froggie.

    And we don't have too look far to see what happens when people adhere to this philosophy.
    Hitler and the Nazis went out and killed 6 million jews. They felt what they were doing was subjectively good.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ... and there goes MRT with the Godwin.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "MFT said...

    Wher'd ya get them logix from? God gived you them logix, stop usin' 'em aginst him.

    [/paraphrase]"

    I didn't say that, Scmike did.
    Are you going to address him and account for logic?

    " Scmike's already been blazing with Maragon and a couple other Raytractors for for hundreds of comments."
    Yeah I know. Sye and Scmike sure pwned them

    "Just heading it off before the time-sucking black hole of anti-reason forms..."
    I guess that's what you got to do when you can' account for reason.

    ReplyDelete
  26. scmike,

    What are "absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason" and why do they need to be accounted for? I don't think I fully understand what you are referring to when you (repeatedly) state these things.

    Of course, if you're just going to say that you're not going to tell me because I can't account for... then don't bother, it's just boring.

    ReplyDelete
  27. expattmatt,

    ""What are "absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason" and why do they need to be accounted for? I don't think I fully understand what you are referring to when you (repeatedly) state these things.""

    No problem. Tell me which part you're having difficulty with and I will try to clarify.

    ReplyDelete
  28. MFT,

    If goodness is left up to the individual it means jack to be good because it is just the result of subjective opinion.

    When will you understand? It is not left to the individual but to the society.

    Hitler and the Nazis went out and killed 6 million jews. They felt what they were doing was subjectively good.

    Bullshit. They thought they were doing something "objectively" good. It is the same you guys do when you justify the worst stuff in the bible. If your god commands, it is "objectively" good (meaning your definition of "objective" is "whatever god says"). Will you try and earn something?

    Hi scmikei! Would you please just once come and have a conversation? I truly really absolutely abstractly immaterially universally think you might be damaging your own mind by getting used to the treachery. (Unfortunately I am genuinely worried.)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Logic, used in philosophy and debate or otherwise, is a subset of mathematics.

    Objective morality, by definition, can be quantified, and is therefore a subset of mathematics.

    Therefore, asserting that God is necessary for objective morality or rules of logic is akin to asserting that God is necessary for 1 + 1 = 2.

    No. God is not required to make 1 + 1 = 2, and here's the proof.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Zounds! Sorry MFT, I mistook Scmike's post for yours, when he replied to my comment to you. My apologies. :O)

    Scmike,

    Seriously, you're starting that again? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I refuse to get involved when you already have several intelligent and well spoken (written?) Raytractors fielding your garbage at the link I left in my comment.

    ...Well, that's not entirely true: I don't categorically refuse; I'm interested so I'm sure I'll be back after class tonight, but having read your responses to Maragon and the others previously I can already tell it promises to be a fruitless and frustrating endeavor (thanks mostly to your question dodging and insistence on ambiguous, somewhat bizarre definitions for just about every topic you argue.)

    ...In the meantime, though, logic is an extension of math - which is an objective form of reasoning that does not rely on any supernatural influence, so your ascription of logic to the divine already seems like fuzzy application of the "goddidit" anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kaitlyn,

    Oh, thanks for saying that, yours is much better than mine, I guess I didn't need to bother. ;O)

    ReplyDelete
  32. "When will you understand? It is not left to the individual but to the society."
    So do you believe that society decides what is moral G.E.?

    ReplyDelete
  33. get education,

    ""When will you understand? It is not left to the individual but to the society.""

    Which society??

    Mr. Freethinker said: "Hitler and the Nazis went out and killed 6 million jews. They felt what they were doing was subjectively good."

    You said: ""They thought they were doing something "objectively" good.""

    How do you know they weren't??

    ""It is the same you guys do when you justify the worst stuff in the bible.""

    Not that I agree with you, but by what standard of morality do you condemn any actions or call them good or bad (much less label them "the worst stuff")?? What right do you (or anyone else, including society) have to impose your arbitrary standard of morality on anyone else??

    ""Hi scmikei!Would you please just once come and have a conversation?""

    Well, I guess it would have to be a conversation void of logic, as no one here has yet accounted for the absolute laws of logic.

    ""I truly really absolutely abstractly immaterially universally think you might be damaging your own mind by getting used to the treachery.""

    Now, if you could only tell us how any of those concepts make sense in your worldview.....

    ""(Unfortunately I am genuinely worried.)""

    Thanks for the concern G.E. If you were a Christian, I would ask you to pray for me. :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. scmike, you said;

    "expattmatt,

    "What are "absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason" and why do they need to be accounted for? I don't think I fully understand what you are referring to when you (repeatedly) state these things."

    No problem. Tell me which part you're having difficulty with and I will try to clarify."

    I didn't think it was an unclear request, but I'll try again:

    What are "absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason" and why do they need to be accounted for?

    Seriously, that's as clear as I can make the question. If you'd rather refer me to a resource you know of that explains these things in detail, I'd be happy to be directed there.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  35. kaitlyn,

    ""Therefore, asserting that God is necessary for objective morality or rules of logic is akin to asserting that God is necessary for 1 + 1 = 2.""

    Welcome to the discussion. How do you account for the absolute, univeral, immaterial laws of mathematics apart from God. I look forward to your response.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Therefore, asserting that God is necessary for objective morality or rules of logic is akin to asserting that God is necessary for 1 + 1 = 2.

    No. God is not required to make 1 + 1 = 2, and here's the proof."
    Mathematical and logical proofs assume logic and mathematical concepts. For example scmike can say 'x' is '1' and 'not 1' at the same time.
    Mathematical proofs assume logic.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'd love to see Kaitlyn answer your questions. She seems a lot more intellectually honest than Maragon

    ReplyDelete
  38. "How do you account for the absolute, univeral, immaterial laws of mathematics apart from God. "

    Why do you need God for math? Mathematics is a purely mental abstraction of set theory. It doesn't literally exist in the same way you or I do.

    Without humans, you wouldn't hate math or logic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Scmike,

    I mean this as an open invitation, not as a rhetorical tactic, but could you spell out your argument without putting the burden of explanation on others? I would be interested to hear it. I don't claim to have a conclusive answer to the origin of logic, etc. Since you do, it'd be more interesting to hear what you have to say than to hear what I have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  40. kelly r,

    ""Seriously, you're starting that again? Seriously?""

    Believe me, I understand why you don't like these arguments. I would feel the same way if I were in your shoes.

    ""I'm sorry, but I refuse to get involved""

    Sorry, but you got involved when you decided to use absolute laws of logic and the concept of proof (neither of which can be accounted for in your worldview) in your argument against Mr. Freethinker.

    I am simply calling you to task for this inconsistency.

    ""when you already have several intelligent and well spoken (written?) Raytractors fielding your garbage at the link I left in my comment.""

    Well, I would be hesitant to ascribe the term "intelligent" to someone who professes that they can't know anything, but that's just me.

    By the way, if your beliefs about God were wrong, would you want to know??

    ""...Well, that's not entirely true: I don't categorically refuse; I'm interested so I'm sure I'll be back after class tonight,""

    I hope so. There's something different about you.

    ""but having read your responses to Maragon and the others previously I can already tell it promises to be a fruitless and frustrating endeavor""

    Only if you plan to bring the same absurd arguments to the table that they did (e.g. I'm certain I can't know anything for certain, I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid, I'm absolutely sure that absolute laws of logic and reason don't exist, etc.).

    If that's the case, there's no need to bother. I do not have the time or patience to perform the mental gymnastics required to process such nonsense.

    ""(thanks mostly to your question dodging""

    Perhaps you forgot about the questions you dodged from my first post? I can post them again if you like.....

    ""and insistence on ambiguous, somewhat bizarre definitions for just about every topic you argue.)""

    Could you be a little more specific? Please?

    ""...In the meantime, though, logic is an extension of math - which is an objective form of reasoning that does not rely on any supernatural influence, so your ascription of logic to the divine already seems like fuzzy application of the "goddidit" anyway.""

    I disagree, but since you brought up the subject, how do you account for the absolute (unchanging), universal (applies everywhere at all times), immaterial (not made of matter)laws of mathematics?? Let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ kaitlyn:

    I've never seen a Freudian slip that was typed out before.

    Actually, on second thought... maybe I have...

    Any way, that was still amusing to watch, and you need to know that you made my face crack a smile. ^_^



    I think the whole thing is absurd Christians are made because people are restricting signs in certain places that say "Jesus is the reason for the season." Atheists are putting up signs that say "Just have Christmas giving spirit without bringing God into it," and people are going to tear this down in the same way?


    Here's my thing, if the Government is going to not take a stance on religion, then it should be just as unbiased with atheism as with Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and other religions. This isn't an outrage, it's an opportunity! The buses are partially paid for with taxes, the guy said. If that's true, then they either need to take the signs down, or share the space with other religions who want to pay for advertising space. When their campaign runs out, let a church put up some ads, or some other religion.

    To me, this is not a crime unless they turn around and tell theists (of all varieties) that they aren't allowed to do the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  42. geoff,

    ""I mean this as an open invitation, not as a rhetorical tactic, but could you spell out your argument without putting the burden of explanation on others? I would be interested to hear it. I don't claim to have a conclusive answer to the origin of logic, etc. Since you do, it'd be more interesting to hear what you have to say than to hear what I have to say.""

    I'd be glad to, and I really appreciate your tact. :)

    If you don't mind, I will use a quote from a friend of mine named Sye, which was posted on another blog recently, in response to a similar question. Here it is:

    "Basically stated, Humans reason. Reason requires logic. Logic is universal (applies to all people at all times, invariant (does not change), and abstract (not made of matter). Those attributes of logic can only be made sense of with God (as all of these attribues are found in God, and comport with His revelation)."

    I agree that alot of this stuff is complicated, and it often takes alot for me wrap my brain around these concepts as well. Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  43. expatmatt,

    ""Seriously, that's as clear as I can make the question. If you'd rather refer me to a resource you know of that explains these things in detail, I'd be happy to be directed there.""

    See my comment to Geoff. Hopefully it will clarify things a little. :)

    ReplyDelete
  44. mr freethinker,

    ""I'd love to see Kaitlyn answer your questions. She seems a lot more intellectually honest than Maragon""

    I agree. Kaitlyn?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I did answer your question, SCMike, here's what I wrote:

    "How do you account for the absolute, univeral, immaterial laws of mathematics apart from God. "

    Why do you need God for math? Mathematics is a purely mental abstraction of set theory. It doesn't literally exist in the same way you or I do.

    Without humans, you wouldn't have math or logic."

    In addition I'd like to point out that mathematics and logic do not govern the universe, they merely describe it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. SCMike,

    "Those attributes of logic can only be made sense of with God (as all of these attribues are found in God, and comport with His revelation)."

    So then my questions--and these are somewhat rhetorical--are:

    But how can the existence of God be proven without resorting to reason and logic? And if you used reason and logic to prove God, on what basis did you determine what was logical and reasonable?

    One of my objections to the presup approach is that it is intellectually unsatisfying and doesn't really answer the mystery of logic's origins. For instance, I would want to know whether God could have made the nature of logic different. And if He could have, what sense can be made of that?

    In short, I don't think that saying that an immaterial, eternal, omnipotent intelligence helps to make sense of the questions under discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  47. scmike,

    Thanks for that.

    Leaving aside the fact that I'm reasoning (apparently without justification) right now, could I not just as easily say that universal, absolute and immaterial laws of logic are an intrinsic part of the universe and humans merely make use of them in order to survive? They're just a property of reality that just...is.

    It just seems sort of convenient for you to be able claim that your God embodies these properties and therefore these properties are reliant on Him and therefore everyone is acknowledging God when they make use of them. I mean, anyone could say that about any God and you'd never know if it was true or not.

    I believe that you have covered this in the past by saying something like; an omniscient being could reveal this to us in a way that we can be certain, right? Has an omniscient being (presumably God) done this for you? If so, how did you know who it was and how did you know they were certain?

    Thanks again,

    ReplyDelete
  48. "But how can the existence of God be proven without resorting to reason and logic? And if you used reason and logic to prove God, on what basis did you determine what was logical and reasonable?"
    I think the point of the presup approach is that if god didn't exist logic wouldn't exist and it would be impossible to prove anything. So it is a kind of "impossibility of the negation" proof.

    ReplyDelete
  49. kaitlyn,

    ""Why do you need God for math? Mathematics is a purely mental abstraction of set theory. It doesn't literally exist in the same way you or I do.

    Without humans, you wouldn't have math or logic.""

    Really? Too bad the dinosaurs didn't know that the laws of mathematics (namely subtraction) didn't apply to them. Don't you think?

    Regarding logic, are you saying that the law of non-contradiction
    did not exist before humans?

    ""In addition I'd like to point out that mathematics and logic do not govern the universe, they merely describe it.""

    How??

    ReplyDelete
  50. SCMike, thanks for your follow up. I'll try to reply as clearly and concisely as I can.

    "Really? Too bad the dinosaurs didn't know that the laws of mathematics (namely subtraction) didn't apply to them. Don't you think?"

    Mathematics did not make the dinosaurs go extinct. Mathematics was not invented 65 million years ago. A brutal meteorite impact and climate change most likely killed the dinosaurs.

    "Regarding logic, are you saying that the law of non-contradiction
    did not exist before humans?"

    Did the law exist before someone could define it? No. The law is a way for us, humans, to make predictions of outcomes. It doesn't actually govern anything.

    "'In addition I'd like to point out that mathematics and logic do not govern the universe, they merely describe it.'

    How??"

    If I say I have two red balloons. Two is the adjective. It simply describe what's there. And we can use our knowledge of set theory to make a very good prediction of what would happen if we took one balloon away.

    ReplyDelete
  51. geoff,

    ""But how can the existence of God be proven without resorting to reason and logic?""

    Good question. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself directly to all mankind (any one who is intellectually honest would have to admit that it is at least possible for an omniscient God to do this). In other words, the reality of God is inescapable, and those who deny the existence of God do so in willful supression of the Truth.

    I'll give you an example. In your question above, you mentioned "proof" for God's existence. A belief in the concept of proof shows an underlying belief in absolute laws of logic and reason, as well as the ability to know things for certain.

    In other words, the very concept of proof cannot be accounted for apart from God. Therefore, any disproof that one would offer regarding God would be self-refuting, as they would be undermining the only possible source of proof (as well as logic and reason).

    ""And if you used reason and logic to prove God, on what basis did you determine what was logical and reasonable?""

    The only way that it is possible for anyone to know anything is through Divine revelation from God.
    God has revealed Himself to us in ways that we can be certain via both natural and special revelation.

    ""One of my objections to the presup approach is that it is intellectually unsatisfying and doesn't really answer the mystery of logic's origins.""

    I appreciate your honesty, and I am relatively new to the presuppositional method, but I'll try to address your objection the best I can.

    In order for one to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is intellectually unsatisfying, they must place their intellect above God, rather than being in submission to God. Hence the presupposition that God is not the source of all logic and reason.

    In contrast, it is my presupposition that God does exist and is the source of all logic and reason. The benefit of the presuppositional method is that it allows us to compare our respective presuppositions to see which one accounts for the very logic and reason that we are discussing. In doing so, we find that it is logically impossible to account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason without God.

    ""For instance, I would want to know whether God could have made the nature of logic different. And if He could have, what sense can be made of that?""

    It is not my position that God created the laws of logic, but that the laws of logic are a direct reflection of the absolute, universal, immaterial nature and character of God. They reflect how God thinks and reasons and how He expects us to think and reason being made in His image.

    ""In short, I don't think that saying that an immaterial, eternal, omnipotent intelligence helps to make sense of the questions under discussion.""

    If you don't mind, I would like to hear your claim regarding laws of logic, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ray has used the Fox clip as a post, but he didn't mention that Steve Douchebag is a false convert Catholic.

    scmike: Did you accuse someone of being inconsistent? Really? How about giving us a list of those things in the Bible that you follow, and those that you don't?

    Lets start with, have you sold all you have and given to the poor so that you can follow Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  53. kaitlyn,

    ""Mathematics did not make the dinosaurs go extinct.""

    Correct. But the fact that they went extinct (which means there are 0 left) shows that the laws of math (namely subtraction) applied to them. Any quantity of objects which is reduced by the same quantity of objects leaves none of that object. Surely you don't dispute this??

    ""Mathematics was not invented 65 million years ago. A brutal meteorite impact and climate change most likely killed the dinosaurs.""

    So, did the meteorite cause there to be more dinosaurs or less dinosaurs?? If the same event happened today and a meteorite hit earth and killed millions of people, could we expect the same mathematical results regarding the amount of humans on earth (i.e. would the amount of humans be increased or decreased)??

    I said: "Regarding logic, are you saying that the law of non-contradiction
    did not exist before humans?"

    kaitlyn: ""Did the law exist before someone could define it? No. The law is a way for us, humans, to make predictions of outcomes. It doesn't actually govern anything.""

    Problem is Kaitlyn, if the law of non-contradiction did not hold true before man existed, that means that the universe could have been both the universe and not the universe at the same time and in the same way.

    If that's the case, then the universe could still be both itself and not itself. That means, you could not predict the outcome of anything, as all outcomes would be equally valid and invalid. Are you sure you don't want to rethink your position on this a little more??

    ""If I say I have two red balloons. Two is the adjective. It simply describe what's there. And we can use our knowledge of set theory to make a very good prediction of what would happen if we took one balloon away.""

    Would the same hold true for objects that existed before man? Say.....dinosaurs, perhaps??

    ReplyDelete
  54. Scmike,
    I think you really need to understand that logic and mathematics are human inventions.

    They are tools invented by us to describe the world and make predictions. Math and logic in this sense are no different than language.

    We use math and the written word as tools to describe the laws of physics. It is not the other way around as you seem to understand it to be.

    Saying that math wouldn't exist without God is as nonsensical as proclaiming that the English language is a divine gift by the almighty.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hey scmike, don't forget about me!

    See my post at November 13, 2008 3:51 PM

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  56. scmikei,

    Believe me, you are now so used to be so intellectually dishonest that it will soon permeate into your whole life (if not already). You might loose yourself to dishonesty.

    Kaitlyn,

    NICE ANSWERS! Even to his most despicable tricks. Yet, I am sure this guy will be able to ignore your intelligence and come back with more shit. Please do not get too involved, you know what his trickery is about. I have shown you before, remember? (With some help from scmikei) :-D

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Correct. But the fact that they went extinct (which means there are 0 left) shows that the laws of math (namely subtraction) applied to them."

    We can apply OUR laws of mathematics to OUR theories about what happened to the dinosaurs to help US make predictions as to what happened.

    The laws of math didn't apply itself to the dinosaurs which caused them to die!

    "if the law of non-contradiction did not hold true before man existed, that means that the universe could have been both the universe and not the universe at the same time and in the same way."

    That statement makes no sense whatsoever as "time" is a construct of the universe. The concept of time is meaningless without a universe.

    We assume the laws of physics were the same in the past as they are today based on empirical evidence.

    That's it. No math, no logic. We just assume the universe behaves similarly now as it did before.

    "Would the same hold true for objects that existed before man? Say.....dinosaurs, perhaps??"

    I assume so. Yes. *facepalm*

    ReplyDelete
  58. Kaitlyn,

    We use math and the written word as tools to describe the laws of physics. It is not the other way around as you seem to understand it to be.

    He knows this. He just pretends not to know so that you might try to explain this with long sentences and then he gets more material to mock you, or to freely exchange semantics and realities for abstractions of realities just to continue his game.

    Look at his arguments. For instance, note how he uses the "I do not blame you" tactic to see if those who said they would not argue with him will get tempted to start the arguing. Dishonest trickery at every level.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  59. rufus,

    ""Did you accuse someone of being inconsistent? Really? How about giving us a list of those things in the Bible that you follow, and those that you don't?

    Lets start with, have you sold all you have and given to the poor so that you can follow Jesus?""

    A perfect example of why I normally don't discuss the Bible with those who deny its authority. They usually misrepresent and misinterpret the Scriptures due to willful ignorance, as is the case in this instance.

    However, for the sake of those following this thread, I will address your question this once.

    Jesus did not command all of his followers to sell all they have and give to the poor. He gave this command to one rich man who approached him regarding eternal life.

    The man's attitude, as Jesus began to name off some of the 10 commandments, was one of self-righteousness. He claimed to have kept all the commandments without fail from his youth up, something the Bible says that none of us have done (examine your life against the commandments and you'll see what I mean).

    Knowing the man's heart, the Lord told him to go and sell all and give to the poor as a way of showing the man that he, in fact, had made his riches his God and had broken the first of the 10 commandments. We know this to be true because the man went away very sad.

    However, it is recorded in the Gospel of Mark (Chapter 14) that when they came to the garden to get Jesus to take him to be crucified, there was a young (unnamed) man who was following Jesus from a distance, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. The soldiers tried to seize him, but he was able to get away.

    Many Bible scholars believe that the young man mentioned here was the same rich young ruler that Jesus had talked to earlier. Perhaps after he went away sad, he thought about what Jesus had told him and decided to follow his instructions.

    Would be to God that all men (and women) would repent and come to the Saviour.

    ReplyDelete
  60. expatmatt,

    ""Hey scmike, don't forget about me!

    See my post at November 13, 2008 3:51 PM

    Cheers,""

    Sorry for overlooking your post. I am leaving work now, and I will try to respond either tonight or tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  61. scmike: Thanks for proving my point, and thanks for the laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  62. SCMike wrote:

    "In other words, the very concept of proof cannot be accounted for apart from God"

    On what do you base this assertion?

    "If you don't mind, I would like to hear your claim regarding laws of logic, etc."

    I don't have a claim about the ultimate nature and origin of logic, but instead consider the problem as unsolved and even mysterious. One avenue of investigation that intrigues me is the idea that math and logic are systems based on human reasoning that don't describe the ultimate nature of reality. When you look at something like quantum physics, which is still very new to all of us, it raises questions about whether humans can really understand the universe as it actually is.

    Are logical laws universal and objective or only part of the human conceptual framework? I think that's an open question. As JBS Haldane said:

    "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

    I'm interested in how you believe you have recognized God's revelation of His own existence.

    ReplyDelete
  63. kaitlyn,

    ""We can apply OUR laws of mathematics to OUR theories about what happened to the dinosaurs to help US make predictions as to what happened.""

    I think maybe my point was lost in the previous post. What I am trying to convey is that if the population of dinosaurs was reduced from some to none, then the law of subtraction held true before there were humans. Do you dispute this??

    ""The laws of math didn't apply itself to the dinosaurs which caused them to die!""

    That is not my claim, as the cause of death in this example is irrelevant. It is the fact that the number of dinosaurs was reduced from a larger quantity to a smaller quantity (0), which demonstrates that the same law of subtraction that we observe today consistently applied then (before man), as well.

    I said: "if the law of non-contradiction did not hold true before man existed, that means that the universe could have been both the universe and not the universe at the same time and in the same way."

    You said: ""That statement makes no sense whatsoever as "time" is a construct of the universe. The concept of time is meaningless without a universe.""

    I'm not sure I'm following you here Kaitlyn. The argument that you're making is that the law of non-contradiction is a man made concept. This argument has nothing to do with time.

    If the law of non-contradiction is man-made, then the law did not apply before there were people. This means that contradictions in reality could have existed before there were people aroung to form this law.

    I'm sure you would agree that since man-made laws have no bearing on the universe, that would mean that contradictions in reality could still exist. If that's the case, then the universe could be both the universe and not the universe, time could be both a construct of the universe and not a construct of the universe, and you could exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. If the law of non-contradiction is not absolutely true then we cannot make sense of anything.

    I like you Kaitlyn, therefore I have to know if you seriously want to take this position on logic and math?

    ""We assume the laws of physics were the same in the past as they are today based on empirical evidence.""

    Kaitlyn, I really appreciate having this discussion with you. I really want you to know, though, that normally I don't like to grant those who deny the existence of God the validity of their senses and reasoning in these types of discussions.

    Most of your answers presuppose these very things, which I have found cannot be justified in your worldview. I have not pointed out any of these inconsistencies due to the tone of our discussion.

    ""That's it. No math, no logic. We just assume the universe behaves similarly now as it did before.""

    But you would have to make this assumption based solely on faith and nothing else.

    I know you appealed to empirical evidence above, but you would have to have examined the entire past history of the universe in order to support your claim with evidence. I'm sure you would admit that you have not made such an observation, as this would require universal knowledge.

    I asked pertaining to the law of subtraction: "Would the same hold true for objects that existed before man? Say.....dinosaurs, perhaps??"

    You said: ""I assume so. Yes. *facepalm*""

    Then, are we in agreement that laws of mathematics are absolute, universal, and immaterial??

    ReplyDelete
  64. john rue,

    ""Scmike, Allah created logic.""

    Hi John. A couple of questions about your claim:

    1) Are you a Muslim?

    2) If Allah "created" logic, why could he not have created contrary laws of logic as well. If he did, how would you know??

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. expatmatt,

    ""Thanks for that.""

    My pleasure. Again, my apologies for overlooking this post earlier.

    ""Leaving aside the fact that I'm reasoning (apparently without justification) right now, could I not just as easily say that universal, absolute and immaterial laws of logic are an intrinsic part of the universe and humans merely make use of them in order to survive? They're just a property of reality that just...is.""

    You could say that. However, I could then make the same claim about God and say that He just is. I seriously doubt that you would allow me to get away with this type of claim, though (and for good reason) :)

    The purpose of our (or any)debate/discussion is to arrive at truth. Otherwise, there would be no point. Right??

    The question then becomes which of us can justify the concept of truth (which is certain by definition) in our worldview? I would submit that it is impossible to know anything for certain without Divine revelation from a Being who knows everything. Therefore, certainty of knowledge cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview.

    ""It just seems sort of convenient for you to be able claim that your God embodies these properties and therefore these properties are reliant on Him and therefore everyone is acknowledging God when they make use of them.""

    Realisticly though, Matt (may I address you this way?), this is the only logical explanation. Absolute, universal, immaterial laws cannot be accounted for any other way. Trying to come up with another answer is like trying to say that 2+2 can equal something other than 4.

    ""I mean, anyone could say that about any God and you'd never know if it was true or not.""

    While it is true that people can (and do) make many claims about God and Divine revelation, I would never trust a purely subjective claim.

    When it comes to these types of claims, the question is: is there an objective revelation that can be freely examined by all which comports with reality, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, universal entities, and is internally consistent?

    I submit to you that God has provided us with such objective evidence per natural and special revelation. One such example of this objective evidence is the Bible. It is the only "Holy Book" that meets the above requirements.

    ""I believe that you have covered this in the past by saying something like; an omniscient being could reveal this to us in a way that we can be certain, right?""

    Correct. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us (by that, I mean all of us) in ways that we can be certain of them.

    ""Has an omniscient being (presumably God) done this for you? If so, how did you know who it was and how did you know they were certain?""

    We can know who God is because He has provided us with natural and special revelation of Himself.

    We can know these things are certain (true) because of the way that they comport with reality and by the impossibility of the contrary.

    Again, my apologies for the delayed response. Hope it was worth the wait :)

    ReplyDelete
  68. SCMike,

    I have been quite successful at my use of logic and reason.
    Since you say I cannot account for it, does that make my logic and reason any less valid?

    You seem to like to side step that question.

    ReplyDelete
  69. SCM,

    "....it is my presupposition that God does exist and is the source of all logic and reason."

    Thanks for admitting that you forego logic and reason to make that presupposition.

    A presupposition is a position you taske to deny all of the contrary evidence and is intellectually bankrupt.

    You and Sye crack me up. I have to wonder how many people read your lunacy and then jump out of their chair and get saved.

    In fact, what the fuck ARE you trying to prove, and how does this directly effect anybody other than you?

    ReplyDelete
  70. SCMike wrote:

    "Absolute, universal, immaterial laws cannot be accounted for any other way. Trying to come up with another answer is like trying to say that 2+2 can equal something other than 4."

    Why do you dismiss the possibility that humanity will figure out a different answer eventually?

    How is your explanation of logic's origins different from any other argument from ignorance, such as saying that because science can't explain what caused the big bang, God must have done it?

    ReplyDelete
  71. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  72. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  73. SCMike wrote:

    "When it comes to these types of claims, the question is: is there an objective revelation that can be freely examined by all which comports with reality, makes sense of absolute, immaterial, universal entities, and is internally consistent?

    I submit to you that God has provided us with such objective evidence per natural and special revelation. One such example of this objective evidence is the Bible. It is the only "Holy Book" that meets the above requirements.


    By what methods and standards do you determine what reality is?

    If the Bible has internal inconsistencies or doesn't comport with reality, would that falsify the presuppositionalist system?

    ReplyDelete
  74. MFT wrote The question is whether an objective standard of goodness can exist without god. If goodness is left up to the individual it means jack to be good because it is just the result of subjective opinion.

    Theistic morality is subjective as well.

    The whole point of the legislative process is to remove that subjectivity as much as possible. It's often impossible, but we're going to try anyhow.

    And even then, I see no evidence that objective morality is superior to the subjective kind. the main reason for this is that I have not yet found objective morality to exist.

    Any kind of rule you bring up, I can come up with some situational example which either qualifies said rule, or nullifies it entirely (the latter doesn't happen often).

    Child abuse can lead to child abuse. The unpunished murder of a family member can lead to all kinds of stuff. Insider freakin stock trading, FFS, can be seen as either good or bad.

    Objective morality doesn't exist. No example of it can be found in the Bible unless you appeal to faith (and ignore passages in said book which appear to contradict the example).

    Just like the fallibility of our senses does not render us senseless, the subjectivity of morality does not render it meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  75. MFT wrote I think the point of the presup approach is that if god didn't exist logic wouldn't exist

    I agree with you entirely.

    Which makes it ridiculous for you {generally speaking} to try to be arguing logically via presupposition. You're simply appealing to faith (ie. objective laws of logic exist because the Bible says so), and then using it to validate your logic.

    In order for me to accept this argument, I too must believe as you do.

    Cart before the horse

    ReplyDelete
  76. froggie,

    ""I have been quite successful at my use of logic and reason.""

    You must first assume that you know the correct function of logic and reason, in order to claim success in using it. How do you presume to know this??

    ""Since you say I cannot account for it, does that make my logic and reason any less valid?""

    My argument is not that you don't use logic and reason, but that you do so with no justification (i.e. blind faith). In doing so, you are living inconsistently with the professed beliefs of your worldview, which does not allow for absolute laws of logic and reason.

    ""You seem to like to side step that question.""

    Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered.

    ReplyDelete
  77. scmike,

    Thank you for your response. No worries on the delay, it's to be expected.

    These things tend to get overly verbose, so I'll try and trim it back as much as I can, ok?

    Referring to my assertion that I could say that the universal(...) laws are an intrinsic part of the universe, you said;

    "You could say that. However, I could then make the same claim about God and say that He just is. I seriously doubt that you would allow me to get away with this type of claim, though (and for good reason) :)"

    Actually, I'm quite happy for you to make this claim. So I'm making my claim about the inherent nature of the universe and you're making your claim about the inherent nature of God. Fine.

    You then say;

    "The purpose of our debate/discussion is to arrive at truth...."

    I would argue that the purpose of discussion is to tread the path towards truth - not necessarily to arrive at it, as this presupposes that there is a one Truth. I prefer to head in the general direction of 'not wrong'!

    In response to my assertion that your claims are convenient, you said;

    "Realistically though, Matt [yes, you may], this is the only logical explanation. Absolute, universal, immaterial laws cannot be accounted for any other way."

    Except you've already said that I can say that it's the nature of the universe if you can say it's the nature of God.

    Continuing;

    "Trying to come up with another answer is like trying to say that 2+2 can equal something other than 4."

    I disagree. It's not trying to come up with a different answer, it's trying to come up with a different reason as to why the answer is as it is.

    You said;

    "I would never trust a purely subjective claim."

    Your claims that the presuppositional method provides proof of - not just God - but proof itself, are subjective by definition because they come from you (if this method was laid out in the Bible, it'd be different, perhaps)

    If the Bible is objective evidence of divine revelation, why are there so many interpretations of it by people who believe in it's message?

    You said, in closing;

    "We can know who God is because He has provided us with natural and special revelation of Himself."

    I guess you'd have to have faith in the truth of the Bible for this to be the case.

    Thanks again for the response, I will seriously consider your position.

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  78. GE wrote Dishonest trickery at every level.

    I've concluded the same. Kudos to Kaitlyn and EPM for being willing to adress him seriously.

    Honestly, I've rarely ever dismissed a person so completely as I have him. LAOF and MFT, I've disagreed pretty strongly with both - but I value their viewpoints. They at least appear to be arguing (or discussing) sincerely; even if I don't always agree, at the very least they appear to be willing to teach and be taught at the same time.

    It's going to be the rare occasion when a person's viewpoint changes as a result of the stuff written here. More likely, however, is that he/she will gain some understanding that they lacked previously.

    People not interested in understanding aren't worth my time.

    ReplyDelete
  79. froggie,

    ""Thanks for admitting that you forego logic and reason to make that presupposition.""

    So, I abandoned logic and reason by giving an account of logic and reason?? Care to support your assertion??

    ""A presupposition is a position you taske to deny all of the contrary evidence and is intellectually bankrupt.""

    So, you're going to use your presupposition regarding presuppositions to show that presuppositions are "intellectually bankrupt"??
    You've got to be kidding me.

    I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind you that all your arguments contain the presupposition that God is not the source of logic and reason, which undermines the very source of logic and reason and cannot account for the validity of evidence or intelligence?? Thought you might like to know.

    ""You and Sye crack me up. I have to wonder how many people read your lunacy and then jump out of their chair and get saved.""

    Only God knows.

    ""In fact, what the f**k ARE you trying to prove, and how does this directly effect anybody other than you?""

    Dale, if any of your forthcoming posts take on this tone, I will not respond.

    ReplyDelete
  80. geoff,

    I said: "Absolute, universal, immaterial laws cannot be accounted for any other way. Trying to come up with another answer is like trying to say that 2+2 can equal something other than 4."

    You said: "Why do you dismiss the possibility that humanity will figure out a different answer eventually?"

    Because that position would be based completely on blind faith. Again, it would be on par with saying that you don't accept 4 as the logical answer to 2+2 because you're hoping that someone may come up with a different answer someday.

    ""How is your explanation of logic's origins different from any other argument from ignorance, such as saying that because science can't explain what caused the big bang, God must have done it?""

    Good question. The type of argument you're referring to here is often referred to as the "God-of-the-gaps" argument.

    What you must first realize is that you beg the question by assuming that God is not the right answer. For instance, when we give the correct answer for 2+2, we don't say 4 "of the gaps".

    We know that 4 is the only logical (correct) answer (in base 10 math) to this question. The same holds true regarding God and absolute laws of logic. I am aware, however, that many don't want to acknowledge this answer due to the ramifications that come with it.
    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  81. geoff,

    ""By what methods and standards do you determine what reality is?""

    I can know for certain what reality is is through Divine revelation. It is with senses and reasoning (which are a gift from God) that I can then make sense of reality.

    ""If the Bible has internal inconsistencies or doesn't comport with reality, would that falsify the presuppositionalist system?""

    No. As a matter of fact, this type of argument usually serves to validate the presuppositional method.

    You see, in order to make such an argument, one must begin with the presupposition that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God.

    They would them have to assume that the senses and reason with which they examine the Bible and interpret reality are reliable. One would also have to prove (which requires certainty)that "inconsistencies" actually exist in the Bible and that there are no resolutions to them.

    One would also have to posit another logical account for the laws of logic and reason, as well as the existence of other absolute, universal, immaterial entities. Otherwise, they are trying to disprove the only logical source of logic and reason, which is self-refuting.

    ReplyDelete
  82. SCMike wrote:

    "I can know for certain what reality is is through Divine revelation."

    Apart from the Bible, what are the other forms of divine revelation?

    To help us talk more concretely about this, do you believe the Adam and Eve story is literally true, or do you believe in evolution?

    Can you provide examples of the Bible comporting with reality in a way that would not be possible with a non-divine book? An encyclopedia comports with reality, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  83. SCMike wrote:

    ""If the Bible has internal inconsistencies or doesn't comport with reality, would that falsify the presuppositionalist system?""
    .
    .
    .
    You see, in order to make such an argument, one must begin with the presupposition that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God.


    I disagree. You don't have to presuppose that the Bible is incorrect, you can analyze it and determine that it is so.

    But if you say that a human's judgment that the Bible is faulty is not reliable, then your assertion that the Bible's divinity can be verified because the Bible comports with reality falls to pieces. Giving the Bible credit for comporting with reality avoids circularity only if you have an independent way to judge reality.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Scmike is using a form of argument that Islamic teachers have used for many years.

    START:
    Teacher: "you are using logic!"
    Teacher: "? question logic."
    Teacher: "where is logic from?"
    Teacher: "logic is from Allah!" (is assertion)
    Teacher: then "revelation" It has been reveled and can not possibly be untrue.
    GOTO START:


    it is as old as years and years. It proves nothing. Sorry about how my English.

    ReplyDelete
  85. The reason why I, personally, don't try communicate with someone like scmike is because it appears to me that he, at no point, cares why we disagree with him.

    Therefore, the result is that he talks at us.

    It's useless and does not work.

    For the record, I consider an argument to be uselss if there is no attempt to make the argument persuasive to the intended audience. Therefore, I consider scmike's arguments to be useless.

    ReplyDelete
  86. expatmatt,

    ""Thank you for your response. No worries on the delay, it's to be expected.""

    Thanks for understanding. :)

    You said: ""Referring to my assertion that I could say that the universal(...) laws are an intrinsic part of the universe, you said;

    "You could say that. However, I could then make the same claim about God and say that He just is. I seriously doubt that you would allow me to get away with this type of claim, though (and for good reason) :)"

    Actually, I'm quite happy for you to make this claim. So I'm making my claim about the inherent nature of the universe and you're making your claim about the inherent nature of God. Fine.""

    I wasn't positing this as my claim, just saying that I could use the argument "He just is" to mirror your argument, as neither one proves anything.

    You said: ""I would argue that the purpose of discussion is to tread the path towards truth - not necessarily to arrive at it, as this presupposes that there is a one Truth.""

    What you may not realize is your argument that "the purpose of discussion is to tread the path towards truth-not to necessarily arrive at it" presupposes truth as well.

    You see, in order to argue for this point, you must first assume that it is true. Else, what is the point of arguing it? The fact is, all arguments presuppose truth(which is exclusive by definition). However, not all arguments can account for truth.

    ""I prefer to head in the general direction of 'not wrong'!""

    Again, though, a belief in the concept of right and wrong shows a precommitment to truth (certainty). Without truth, we could never have right or wrong, just that which "is".

    Also, without truth, there would be no way of resolving conflicts or arguments. In fact, neither conflicts or arguments could exist because no one could be right or wrong.

    I said: ""Realistically though, Matt [yes, you may], this is the only logical explanation. Absolute, universal, immaterial laws cannot be accounted for any other way.""

    You said: ""Except you've already said that I can say that it's the nature of the universe if you can say it's the nature of God.""

    Not quite. I said that I could say that if you wanted to use the "that's just the way it is" argument. However, I don't think that anyone here would consider such faith-based arguments to be valid. Agree??

    ""I disagree. It's not trying to come up with a different answer, it's trying to come up with a different reason as to why the answer is as it is.""

    I'm not following you here, Matt. Please explain.

    ""Your claims that the presuppositional method provides proof of - not just God - but proof itself, are subjective by definition because they come from you""

    I think you have misunderstood the nature of my claim. The premise of my claim is Christianity, not presuppositional apologetics.

    It is my claim that Christianity accounts for proof, absolute laws of logic and reason, and knowledge, whereas no other worldview can.

    Presuppositional apologetics is simply a means of demonstrating these truths.

    ""If the Bible is objective evidence of divine revelation, why are there so many interpretations of it by people who believe in it's message?""

    Beats me. However, the fact that people disagree over truth doesn't make it any less true. I'm sure that you would agree that just because a class of third graders disagrees over the answer to what 8 x 6 is, doesn't mean that we can't know the right answer.

    I said: ""We can know who God is because He has provided us with natural and special revelation of Himself.""

    You said: ""I guess you'd have to have faith in the truth of the Bible for this to be the case.""

    The Bible is my final authority, yes, but God has revealed Himself to mankind in other ways as well.

    Besides, whether one believes the Bible or not doesn't make it any less true, as truth is not contingent upon belief.

    ""Thanks again for the response, I will seriously consider your position.""

    It has been my pleasure. I hope this doesn't mean our discussion is over. :)

    ReplyDelete
  87. nohm,

    ""The reason why I, personally, don't try communicate with someone like scmike is because it appears to me that he, at no point, cares why we disagree with him.

    Therefore, the result is that he talks at us.""

    Perhaps Geoff and expattmatt would disagree??

    ReplyDelete
  88. @scmike:

    Perhaps Geoff and expattmatt would disagree??

    Perhaps they would, perhaps they wouldn't.

    Two things:

    1. I would be willing to bet that they don't disagree.

    2. Regardless of whether or not they disagree, they aren't the only two people you've "talked" with in this comment thread, or in others.

    Scmike, would you say that you make a serious attempt to make your arguments persuasive to their intended audience? Does it matter to you whether or not your arguments are persuasive for their intended audience?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Presuppositional apologetics is simply a means of demonstrating these truths.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one scmikei! Like you had not demonstrated that presuppositional apologetics is all about intellectually dishonest trickery and mockery.

    Thanks for the laugh! :-D

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  90. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Nohm,

    The reason why I, personally, don't try communicate with someone like scmike is because it appears to me that he, at no point, cares why we disagree with him.

    He does not care why, and he does not care if we disagree with him. I am still puzzled. How on Earth can someone presume to be a believer in a rightful god and use dishonest tactics to debate and still think that he/she is doing something that is right is beyond me.

    Another Christian said that scmike just wants people to run in circles to keep them away from Jesus. That would be a more logical explanation. In other words, maybe those presupps such as Sye and scmike are really Satanists who want to keep nonbelievers as nonbelievers? I mean, why would I try to "find Jesus" if what I see is the likes of these two as the "best defense" for their god?

    My favorite explanation used to be that these guys are trolls who have fun mocking the Christians by showing them to be oblivious to any dishonest tactic as long as it is in their favor, at the same time that they mock and irritate the atheists by using such dishonest tactics. Trollerism 100% of a brand new level.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  92. G.E.,

    Yes, it is also my opinion that they are trolls (possibly even Loki trolls), and they're doing this game because they know that it aggravates the hell out of people who like to debate.

    For example, the people on this site.

    For those of you who don't completely understand what they're doing, they will jump on every claim that you make. Therefore, the key is to never make claims to them, and to only ask them questions. You'll notice that they'll mostly avoid dealing with the latter. But please be careful that, if you do ask them a question, that you don't imply any claims in the question.

    ReplyDelete
  93. john rue,

    ""Scmike is using a form of argument that Islamic teachers have used for many years.""

    Again I ask if you are a Muslim??

    ReplyDelete
  94. geoff,

    ""Apart from the Bible, what are the other forms of divine revelation?""

    I hope you'll understand, but I am hesitant in presenting evidence for those who hold an atheistic worldview to examine.

    It is my position that evidence (which by definition is used to prove things) only makes sense in a Christian worldview, as only a Christian worldview accounts for the validity of our senses and reason which we use to examine evidence. I know that you will not like my claim, or agree with it, but that is my claim, nevertheless.

    Geoff, I would like to respectfully ask how you account for the validity of evidence and the concept of proof in your worldview?? Please understand, I mean no harm or malice whatsoever with this question, but I feel it necessary before we proceed further. I hope you'll understand. :)

    ""To help us talk more concretely about this, do you believe the Adam and Eve story is literally true,""

    Yes.

    ""or do you believe in evolution?""

    No.

    ""Can you provide examples of the Bible comporting with reality in a way that would not be possible with a non-divine book? An encyclopedia comports with reality, after all.""

    Sure. The Bible makes sense of absolute, immaterial, universal entities by revealing these characteristics of God to us and also revealing what God expects of us with regards to morality, logic and reason.

    The Bible also reveals to us the illogic of other perspectives (worldviews) which deny God in favor of trusting the autonomous (self-sufficient)validity of their reasoning. I'll leave it at that for now. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  95. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  96. nohm,

    ""Regardless of whether or not they disagree, they aren't the only two people you've "talked" with in this comment thread, or in others.""

    However, Geoff and Expatmatt have shown more tact and courtesy than anyone I can remember "talking" to in awhile. For that I am grateful. They have my respect.

    I only wish that others here would follow their example....(**ahem**),G.E.

    ""Scmike, would you say that you make a serious attempt to make your arguments persuasive to their intended audience?""

    I make a serious attempt to present the truth. I have no control over whether or not people are persuaded by it.

    ""Does it matter to you whether or not your arguments are persuasive for their intended audience?""

    Yes. However, I know that it is always ultimately God who gives the increase of any seed of truth that is planted or watered.

    I also know that it is impossible to convince those who do not want to be convinced. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  97. [Also, there is no such thing as black magic...it's all bullshit.]
    Saying witches don't exist because you think magic is BS is like me saying that Muslims don't exist because I think Allah doesn't exist.

    [Also, asking me to show that humans have intrinsic value really shows the type of person you are. Even to ask such a question reveals that you have no moral fibre. Any decent person recognizes that they do not want o suffer, and so they recognize that others share the same capacity to suffer and thus their feelings are to be valued. This is why we have laws and prisons...to separate all the people who don't feel this way, or don't care. We recognize that lack of regard for other's capacity to suffer, and actions to this effect, necessitate the action of moral people to separate these people from society. No silly superstitions are required. Common sense. Common decency.]
    I recognise that there is such a thing as human dignity and intrinsic value and that these things are objectively meaningful because I recognise an objective standard. All you have given me is a set of arbitrary stipulations. I hope I at least got you to think about how you live inconsistently with your professed views on ethics.Bye!

    ReplyDelete
  98. SCMIKE:It is my claim that Christianity accounts for proof, absolute laws of logic and reason, and knowledge, whereas no other worldview can.

    Allah and the Koran:
    -Infallible verbal revelation? Yes.
    -Omniscient? Sovereign? Yes.
    -Personal? Yes.

    Doesn't it worry you that all your arguments work for Allah (and probably any other unchanging omniscient god too) ?

    ReplyDelete
  99. SCMIKE: Again I ask if you are a Muslim??

    Why does it matter?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Reminds you of politicians, doesn't it?

    You ask a question, they answer a different one.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Scmike, this is my understanding of your position:

    You do not make a serious attempt to create persuasive arguments, because God will take care of that, yet you care whether or not your arguments are persuasive.

    Is that correct? "Persuasive" is used here to be subjective to the intended audience, as I described before.

    ReplyDelete
  102. SCMike wrote:

    ""Apart from the Bible, what are the other forms of divine revelation?""

    I hope you'll understand, but I am hesitant in presenting evidence for those who hold an atheistic worldview to examine.


    I understand, and certainly that's your call, but in doing so you are bowing out of the discussion and withdrawing presuppositionalism from serious consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  103. SCMIKE:
    Sure. The Bible makes sense of absolute, immaterial, universal entities by revealing these characteristics of God to us and also revealing what God expects of us with regards to morality, logic and reason.

    The Bible also reveals to us the illogic of other perspectives (worldviews) which deny God in favor of trusting the autonomous (self-sufficient)validity of their reasoning. I'll leave it at that for now. Take care.


    Sure. The Koran makes sense of absolute, immaterial, universal entities by revealing these characteristics of Allah to us and also revealing what Allah expects of us with regards to morality, logic and reason.

    The Koran also reveals to us the illogic of other perspectives (worldviews) which deny Allah in favor of trusting the autonomous (self-sufficient)validity of their reasoning. I'll leave it at that for now. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  104. adam nardoli,

    I asked: "Again I ask if you are a Muslim??"

    You responded: "Why does it matter?"

    Because if you do not believe Islam to be true, I see no point in addressing your arguments regarding it, as you could just say "Well I didn't believe that anyway" and just continue to posit false religions ad infinitum.

    If you believe Islam to be true, say so, and I will gladly address your arguments. Otherwise, let's stick to the worldviews that we actually hold.

    ReplyDelete
  105. geoff,

    I said: "I hope you'll understand, but I am hesitant in presenting evidence for those who hold an atheistic worldview to examine."

    You said: ""I understand, and certainly that's your call, but in doing so you are bowing out of the discussion and withdrawing presuppositionalism from serious consideration.""

    Why?? Any evidence presented to you will be interpreted based on your presupposition that God does not exist and is therefore not the foundation of logic and reason.

    I simply and respectfully request that you account for the validity of evidence and the concept of proof before I present my evidence to you for examination, as it is my position that the worldview you hold to does not allow for these concepts.

    If my position regarding this is correct, then I'm sure you would agree that it would make no sense to present evidence to you. If it is incorrect, please posit your claim accounting for these concepts, and I will gladly proceed.

    ReplyDelete
  106. nohm,

    ""You do not make a serious attempt to create persuasive arguments, because God will take care of that, yet you care whether or not your arguments are persuasive.""

    Again, persuasion is out of my hands. I can only present the truth, I can't persuade people to believe it. You know, "you can lead a horse to water....".

    ""Is that correct? "Persuasive" is used here to be subjective to the intended audience, as I described before.""

    Give me an example of a subjective argument that would persuade you that God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  107. adam nardoli,

    I asked: "Again I ask if you are a Muslim??"

    You answered: ""Why does it matter?""

    Then, nohm said:
    ""Reminds you of politicians, doesn't it?

    You ask a question, they answer a different one.""

    Sure does. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  108. Give me an example of a subjective argument that would persuade you that God exists.

    ...aaaaand that's my point. You can't be bothered to think of one yourself.

    Therefore, as I said before, useless.

    ReplyDelete
  109. adam nardoli,

    I asked: "Again I ask if you are a Muslim??"

    You responded: "Why does it matter?"

    Because if you do not believe Islam to be true, I see no point in addressing your arguments regarding it...


    You ask people to address viewpoints they do not believe in all the time! Are you banning hypothetical questions and rhetorical questions?

    Is it just that your arguments work for more than just your religion?

    (By the way, you asked John Rhue if he was a Muslim not me. But I asked why it mattered.)

    ReplyDelete
  110. Adam Nardoli:

    Allah and the Koran:
    -Infallible verbal revelation? Yes.
    -Omniscient? Sovereign? Yes.
    -Personal? Yes.

    Doesn't it worry you that all your arguments work for Allah (and probably any other unchanging omniscient god too) ?



    I disagree that Christianity and Islam are as similar as you say. Though, I do admit they have similarities.


    The revelation of the Koran was a bit different than the Canon.

    The canon has a process which we can trace. The Koran has a man who went into a tent, and came out with a Holy Book.


    Allah of the Koran is described as Sovereign and Omniscient like YHWH of the Bible, but there's many other Character differences that outweigh this similarity.


    And, really, Allah isn't as personal as YHWH. Depending on your definition of that word, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I wonder what people are trying to accomplish by arguing the Islamic worldview. Perhaps they are trying to throw out red herrings so they will not have to deal with scmike's criticism of their worldview. Perhaps they realise that their worldview is so philosophically indefensible that instead of constructing rational arguments for it ,the only way they can save face from biblical Christianity is to steal from a worldview they don't hold.People go to great lengths to avoid criticism. (One wonders that if they find their arguments successful if they will convert to Islam when done)

    ReplyDelete
  112. [The Koran has a man who went into a tent, and came out with a Holy Book.]
    Not really. Over a period of 30 years or so during his lifetime , Mohammed would recite verses he said came from god and anyone who was nearby would write it down on something available. After Mohammed's death they collected all the pieces of writing and decided what to put in the book.Later Uthman standardized the Koran and burned all the other copies of the other people with variant verses.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I only wish that others here would follow their example....(**ahem**),G.E.

    But ... but ... but ... sniff! :-(

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  114. It's Saturday morning here in Australia. I was in town when a guy came up to me and started talking about religion.
    He wasn't a Hare Krishna guy but he was selling some different sort of Krishna stuff.
    He was making some claims and I mentioned evidence. And he starts saying "Logic! Reason!" and he gives the
    "How are you able to account for the validity of evidence or absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason in your worldview?"
    speech!
    And then he starts on about divine revelation and Krishna. Chanted Hare Krishna and received -proof- that CAN NOT be false. And I realised that I'd heard all this before somewhere...

    ReplyDelete
  115. No kidding Jill! Wow, I have not thought what I would do if someone came in person and told me this ... what did you do? Just let the person be?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  116. He really only gave the "how are you able to account for the validity of evidence or absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason" speech at the end. I think it was to stop the conversation really. His Krishna stuff wasn't gaining much ground. I told him at one point the I thought the mind was made by a functioning brain and had nothing to do with a "soul" or "spirit" and he kept trying to tell me that I didn't -really- believe that.

    The best part of the "conversation" was when he gave me a "free" hard-cover book. Then he asked for a donation "...to help pay for printing". I said "No thanks."

    ReplyDelete
  117. nohm,

    I said: "Give me an example of a subjective argument that would persuade you that God exists."

    You said: ""...aaaaand that's my point. You can't be bothered to think of one yourself.""

    Nice dodge. Weren't expecting me to call your bluff, huh?? :)

    As I said, it is impossible to convince those who don't want to be convinced. Thanks for the demonstration! Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  118. jill d,

    ""And then he starts on about divine revelation and Krishna. Chanted Hare Krishna and received -proof- that CAN NOT be false. And I realised that I'd heard all this before somewhere...""

    When do we get to the part of the story where you account for absolute laws of logic and reason? I really want to hear that part.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Hi again jill d,

    ""I told him at one point the I thought the mind was made by a functioning brain and had nothing to do with a "soul" or "spirit""

    Interesting postition. Would you also say then that our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions in the brain?

    ReplyDelete
  120. adam nardoli,

    ""You ask people to address viewpoints they do not believe in all the time!""

    I noticed you provided zero evidence for this claim. Is this just something you believe on faith??

    ""Are you banning hypothetical questions and rhetorical questions?""

    Nope. Just don't have time to refute worldviews that neither party holds to. It's difficult enough keeping you straight. ;)

    ""Is it just that your arguments work for more than just your religion?""

    Hey, at least you acknowledge that my arguments work!! I knew it!!

    Now, tell me which religion that you believe "my arguments" prove true and we can compare claims. Looking forward to it!!

    ""(By the way, you asked John Rhue if he was a Muslim not me. But I asked why it mattered.)""

    So, you dodged the question for him.....and you're proud of that??

    ReplyDelete
  121. SCMIKE: "When do we get to the part of the story where you account for absolute laws of logic and reason? I really want to hear that part."

    Easy, I just claim "divine revelation" and put my fingers in my ears while chanting "The impossibility of the contrary"... :-)

    Actually today I think I said that the "Laws" were descriptions of concepts. He wasn't really listening...

    SCMIKE: "Would you also say then that our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions in the brain?"

    Partly.

    ReplyDelete
  122. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  123. jill d,

    I asked: "When do we get to the part of the story where you account for absolute laws of logic and reason? I really want to hear that part."

    You said: ""Easy, I just claim "divine revelation" and put my fingers in my ears while chanting "The impossibility of the contrary"... :-)""

    Glad to see that you see the need to invoke a deity to account for the absolute laws of logic and reason, since your worldview cannot!! ;)

    ""Actually today I think I said that the "Laws" were descriptions of concepts. He wasn't really listening...""

    And to avoid circularity, I suppose these "concepts" were formed apart from logic and reason, right?? Otherwise, you're trying to argue that the laws of logic are descriptions of logic (YIKES!!).

    I asked: "Would you also say then that our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions in the brain?""

    You said: ""Partly.""

    OK, I know I'm going to regret asking, but what else do you believe our thoughts result from??

    ReplyDelete
  124. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  125. SCMIKE: "Your "chemical/electrical" response was deleted as I was reading it.

    no, it wasn't.

    Did you change your mind??"

    no.

    ReplyDelete
  126. jill d,

    ""chemical/electrical""

    As in random chemical/electrical??

    ReplyDelete
  127. jill d,

    said: "Your "chemical/electrical" response was deleted as I was reading it.""

    You said: ""no, it wasn't.""

    Mine was, though. :)

    ReplyDelete
  128. SCMIKE: you're trying to argue that the laws of logic are descriptions of logic (YIKES!!).

    Are you talking about laws as in generalizations based on observations of behavior or a system of rules that's enforced by something?
    I'm talking concepts that exist in our minds. I'm talking about a law as a set of rules and ideas about a concept that is CHANGEABLE with new information.
    And logic is a particular method of reasoning or argumentation engaged in by the minds of humans. A human construct.

    Anyway, your whole act is based on a god exists, because a god told you that he does. You're assuming your conclusion to be true in your premise.

    I know that the Superman in my closet exists because he told me that he does. Please refute this fact with a list of nonsensical questions. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  129. jill d,

    ""Are you talking about laws as in generalizations based on observations of behavior or a system of rules that's enforced by something?""

    I'm talking about absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that reflect the character and nature of God.

    ""I'm talking concepts that exist in our minds.""

    I don't suppose you'd care to explain how you presume to know what exists in the minds of others, since we all have different brains. Faith perhaps??

    ""I'm talking about a law as a set of rules and ideas about a concept that is CHANGEABLE with new information.""

    Perhaps you can provide us with an example of a law of logic that has been changed. Out of curiousity, what standard of logic would one use to determine that a law of logic is incorrect (i.e. illogical) and in need of changing?

    ""And logic is a particular method of reasoning or argumentation engaged in by the minds of humans. A human construct.""

    Could new laws of logic be "constructed" that contradict the current laws??

    ""Anyway, your whole act is based on a god exists, because a god told you that he does.""

    Are you making the argument that God could not reveal Himself to us in ways that we could be certain. If so, on what grounds do you base this claim??

    ""You're assuming your conclusion to be true in your premise.""

    Kind of like how you're assuming YOUR conclusion (that God doesn't exist and is NOT the source of logic and reason) in each of your arguments??

    Fact is Jill, all arguments contain presuppositions. The question is, which of our presuppositions accounts for the very laws of logic and reason that you believe NECESSARILY apply to my argument??

    You said above that you believe the laws of logic are merely a construct of human minds, yet you are not living consistently with your "professed" beliefs, as #1 you could not know that the laws of logic haven't changed since our argument began and you are now arguing illogically according to those new laws, and #2 if laws of logic are not absolute (unchanging) and universal (applies to all arguments at all times) as you have said, I could easily say that my arguments here are one of the cases in which your arbitrary laws of logic do not apply. If you truly believe what you say you do, you should have no problem at all with that.

    ""I know that the Superman in my closet exists because he told me that he does. Please refute this fact with a list of nonsensical questions. :-)""

    Actually, I'll save you the embarrassment and just refute your presuppositon that my questions are "nonsensical" (which by the way, reveals yet another inconsistency in your professed worldview regarding logic).

    Here goes: By what standard of logic do you call anything "nonsensical"? How do you account for that standard? Why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to any argument? Looking forward to your response.

    ReplyDelete
  130. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Jill D,

    Well, should I warn you? You saw already right? There is no sense in embarking in "arguing" with scmike. He is just a bag of tricks.

    Now, this piece is so funny and revealing:

    As in random chemical/electrical??

    I would like to see these guys describing what they think the "atheist worldview" is. I have a few bits from Sye, and it is the funniest sort of thing. This comment by scmike shows that he might not be all too different. SC Mikie, Did you just engulf Sye's crash course raw? Didn't you even gave it a bit of a thought? If not it will be even more fun to see you arguing from time to time. ;-D

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  132. G.E.,

    ""Well, should I warn you? You saw already right? There is no sense in embarking in "arguing" with scmike. He is just a bag of tricks.""

    If you really cared about Jill, you should have warned her about using the old "logic is a man-made construct" argument and then refuting herself by trying to hold my arguments to a standard of logic that she believes should NECESSARILY apply to them.

    Hey, I have an idea! Maybe you two should team up? Oh, that's right...you already have. Sorry Jill.

    ""Now, this piece is so funny and revealing:

    As in random chemical/electrical??""

    I find the fact that Jill didn't respond to this question revealing too. Hey, what do you know, we agree!! There's hope for you yet, G.E.!!

    ""SC Mikie, Did you just engulf Sye's crash course raw? Didn't you even gave it a bit of a thought? If not it will be even more fun to see you arguing from time to time. ;-D""

    G.E., did you just "engulf" one too many alchoholic beverages? Didn't I gave it a bit of a thought? You sideline hecklers crack me up!! Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  133. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  134. So, again SC Mikei, you provide more samples of your trickery:

    If you really cared about Jill, you should have warned her about using the old "logic is a man-made construct" argument and then refuting herself by trying to hold my arguments to a standard of logic that she believes should NECESSARILY apply to them.

    Enticing to see if I team up and try to clear up your mess SC Mikie. Like I did not know that you will ignore the arguments and charge again with another of your tricks.

    Hey, I have an idea! Maybe you two should team up? Oh, that's right...you already have. Sorry Jill.

    A bitter/sarcastic tone to try and engage us again, or at least to irritate us.

    I find the fact that Jill didn't respond to this question revealing too. Hey, what do you know, we agree!! There's hope for you yet, G.E.!!

    Clearly misrepresenting my meaning to entice me to argue or perhaps I will insult you?

    G.E., did you just "engulf" one too many alchoholic beverages? Didn't I gave it a bit of a thought? You sideline hecklers crack me up!! Take care.

    Just another attempt at irritating. But, oddly enough, finishing with best wishes. This two-face act would be hard if you were not already used to be that dishonest SC Mikie. Are you sure this is not affecting your life? Dishonesty can be like a virus and propagate from one area of your life to the rest. I have seen it happen.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Attempting to define your absolutes as 'laws' is also pretty self defeating. Which of the dozen-odd definitions for the word 'law' are you attempting to utilize? A law, as understood by most people, is something that humans have invented to describe a natural phenomena. And like all ideas, these laws are immaterial - they're simply concepts that exist in our minds.

    SCMIKE [I'm talking about absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason that reflect the character and nature of God.]

    I was thinking you were using the word "logic" and "reason" to mean the same thing. Same with "universal" and "absolute".
    Before you go on, please define
    -absolute, immaterial, universal, law, logic, reason, character and nature.
    I'm asking you to do this because I think we are talking about different uses of these words. It is useless to try to communicate until you have defined these terms (at least).

    Could you stop ending sentences with two question marks. Also, add at least one space after a "full stop" (or "period" if you're American). I'm only asking this so it doesn't mess up people who use translation software to read this in languages other than English. Thank you.
    One of your sentences is 119 words long. This seriously effects it's readability. If you wish to actually communicate please improve the readability of the text. English is not my first language but I hope you understand what I've said.

    ReplyDelete
  136. SCMIKE: [""chemical/electrical""

    As in random chemical/electrical??]

    What type of randomness do you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  137. By "random" are you talking about "Unpredictability?" or a "Pseudorandomness?" or a John von Neumann-style "almost random"? or something else?

    ReplyDelete
  138. @Scmike:

    Nice dodge. Weren't expecting me to call your bluff, huh??

    No huh. It wasn't a dodge. It wasn't a bluff. You're expecting me to be as dishonest as you are.

    You're exhibiting "projection".

    How am I supposed to know what will convince me that your claims are correct?

    My point has always been the same. People like yourself don't give a shit whether or not your arguments are persuasive. That means, to me, that your arguments are completely useless.

    Of course I can be convinced. I just need you to present something convincing. The problem is, as I've been trying to hammer home, that you don't care about being convincing.

    If you did, you'd say to yourself, "huh, this doesn't seem to be working; I should probably try a different method."

    You don't, because you don't care.

    Just the fact that you think you called my bluff shows that you think you have this whole thing figured out, because you think you know how I think.

    And that is why you fail.

    ReplyDelete
  139. @ everyone

    Is Scmike a liar & a fraud? Yes!

    What evidence do I have? The impossibility of the contrary!

    Is everything that schmucky says a load of BS? Yes. What evidence do I have? The impossibility of the contrary!

    Will schmucky ever give definitions for his terms and actually USE this logic that he claims is given by god? NO!

    My evidence is the impossibility of the contrary.

    Now since I have shown that schmucky is a liar, fraud and a perveyor of BS why is everone still ebating him?

    Do all of you really think that such an attention whore as shmucky can ever be reasoned with or is actually interested in the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  140. I glanced at this thread and cut and paste this from somewhere:
    -----
    Logic is a systematic description of the irreducible minimum relationships between propositions for a coherent, self-consistent reasoning process, discussion, discourse, whatever you want to call it, about the content of any set of propositions about reality.

    It is the starting point for coherent discourse.

    The rules of logic start from the 'assumption' that there exist sets of propositions, statements about reality that cannot all simultaneously be true, that describe distinguishable, different possible attributes, events, relationships between entities, ie that there is structure to reality, not just a blur of every everything posssible existing and happening at once and/or at pure

    This is fundamental.

    To insist that this somehow can only be the case if there is some grander entity within which such a structure can exist explains absolutely nothing, merely opening the way to the worst sort of infinite regress, requiring ever grander entities within which any given entity must exist, therefore such a proposal is essentially self-refuting.

    Rather pursue the more fruitful chain of 'infinite' regress, where each complex proposition of logic, or the elaborations of logical reasoning, ie mathematics in all its forms, is shown to be derived from simpler, more fundamental theorems, till we arrive at the most elementary.

    Analogous to following 'cause and effect' chains back, where any given 'effect' can be seen as being initiated by a set of one or more 'causes' whic may well be much more elementary and lesser that the effect triggered, so that the 'ultimate cause' need only be a set of infinitesimal 'twitches' in the fabric of reality.

    As long as all the identifiable cause-effect links form, on average, a geometrically decreasing sequence in duration and energy, as we trace back, then even a theoretically infinite sequence will total to a finite duration and energy, a point that the Greek philosophers totally failed to get there minds around, as with Xeno's famous paradoxes, which are totally resolved by later mathematics, such as those dealing with infinite series and calculus.

    So once you eliminate the assumption that 'cause' must always be greater than 'effect', most if not all traditional arguments for 'God' vanish in a puff of logic, as Douglas Adams once said. Just think of the final snowflake that triggers the avalanche...

    'God' and all such ideas are part of a lesser, derivative reality, the world of speculative ideas which is totally dependent on our own minds, which in turn are parasitic on the world of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  141. to scmike: The ultimate 'something' does not have to be anything more than a quantum level twitching of a basic space-time energy field, the very opposite of some infinitely powerful super-being.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Do all of you really think that such an attention whore as shmucky can ever be reasoned with

    For myself, most likely not.

    or is actually interested in the truth?

    I really don't think so, but I have to acknowledge that it's possible, due to Poe's Law.

    And I'm a "glass half-full" kind of guy. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  143. SCMike,

    You cited other sources of divine revelation as evidence of God's existence, but then you refused to name them because I was an atheist. If you won't treat me as a reasonable and equal conversation partner, then I won't continue talking to you.

    The fact that I don't have a definitive claim about logic's origins and ultimate nature does not mean that I'm not reasonable. You've said the same thing yourself. So to make me pass a concocted test before continuing our discussion is a rhetorical trick, and I'm not going to play that game.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Chris,

    Now since I have shown that schmucky is a liar, fraud and a perveyor of BS why is everone still ebating him?

    Well, as devastating as your proof that scmikei is all of that (unquestionably),

    1. I am not debating the guy.

    2. He has shown all of those "qualities" himself time and again.

    So, to answer your question: No, he does not care about truth, and no, he can not be reasoned with.

    Now, I find it nice to see bloggers I had not read before, such as Nohm, come with such clean posts. And now, lo and behold, I was hoping for Gorth Satana to appear around here at some point, and he did! And wow, did I enjoy his post. Thanks Gorth! That was nicely put.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  145. No, he does not care about truth, and no, he can not be reasoned with.

    Bingo.

    Cue the self-satisfied claim that he's won this debate in 3... 2... 1...

    ReplyDelete
  146. @ Chris:

    Do all of you really think that such an attention whore as shmucky can ever be reasoned with or is actually interested in the truth?

    Actually, I'm a huge attention whore, and I like truth also.

    I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

    ReplyDelete
  147. Rob,

    Being an attention whore is just ne attribute, Chris never intended the "attention whore" to also mean "someone who does not care about truth." In other words, Chris was making a description with several adjectives, not stating a definition of what an "attention whore" is.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  148. SC Mikei, can I do this for you?

    Ahem,

    Cue the self-satisfied claim that he's won this debate in 3... 2... 1...

    No need, the arguments are here for everyone to see ... :-D

    Or was your plan to change "The Script" a little bit? Oh! Of course not! I forgot, you swallowed the crash course raw! =)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Yeah, GE, I was making an attempt at a funny....

    Guess I blew it. o.o;

    ReplyDelete
  150. Rob,

    Well, maybe it is that I do not have a fine tuned sense of humor? :-)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  151. get_education said...
    So, to answer your question: No, he does not care about truth, and no, he can not be reasoned with.


    He reminds me of a friend's boyfriend who declared words were meaningless and wouldn't listen to any arguments because they contained words.

    ReplyDelete
  152. jill d,

    ""Attempting to define your absolutes as 'laws' is also pretty self defeating.""

    How so?

    ""Which of the dozen-odd definitions for the word 'law' are you attempting to utilize?""

    I'm comfortable with this one: law (n)--a rule of conduct having divine origin.

    ""these laws are immaterial - they're simply concepts that exist in our minds.""

    So, how can man create something that is immaterial and applies universally?

    ""I was thinking you were using the word "logic" and "reason" to mean the same thing. Same with "universal" and "absolute".
    Before you go on, please define
    -absolute, immaterial, universal, law, logic, reason, character and nature.
    I'm asking you to do this because I think we are talking about different uses of these words. It is useless to try to communicate until you have defined these terms (at least).""

    Strange. You seemed to have no trouble communicating with me when you posited your claim that laws of logic and reason are man-made constructs. Now that I have challenged (read: refuted) your claim, you start asking for definitions? Not a very convincing tactic.

    Nevertheless, I will accomodate your request and I thank you in advance for addressing the comments you overlooked in my last post.

    absolute--(unconditional/unchanging)

    immaterial--(not made of matter)

    universal--(applying to all things in all places at all times)

    logic--(the principles by which reason operates)

    reason--(the ability to think, understand, and draw conclusions in an abstract manner)

    character--(distinguishing features or attributes)

    nature--(characteristic disposition or temperament)

    ""Could you stop ending sentences with two question marks. Also, add at least one space after a "full stop" (or "period" if you're American). I'm only asking this so it doesn't mess up people who use translation software to read this in languages other than English. Thank you.""

    I'll do what I can.

    ""One of your sentences is 119 words long. This seriously effects it's readability. If you wish to actually communicate please improve the readability of the text. English is not my first language but I hope you understand what I've said.""

    Addressing the style of my arguments without addressing their content is a usually a sure sign that one doesn't have a logical counter- argument. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this case, as I await your responses to my previous post.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I'm comfortable with this one: law (n)--a rule of conduct having divine origin.

    LOL. If you google the phrase "a rule of conduct having divine origin" the first four sites are Muslim sites...
    It's obvious when I read this thread that SCMike is using words to mean completely different things than what they usually mean.
    "having divine origin"! Is this from the dictionary of pulling things out of your butt?

    (read: refuted) your claim
    LOL, SCMike didn't refute anyone's claims. He put up a weak "challenge" that depended on the incorrect definition of words. I haven't seen him ever refute anyone.

    Gorth Satana totally owned SCMike.

    Addressing the style of my arguments without addressing their content is a usually a sure sign that one doesn't have a logical counter- argument.

    It could also be a sign that SCMike wrote a 119 word run-on sentence! And reading his "arguments" is like reading the ramblings of a mentally ill man who is fixated so much on one thing that he can no longer hold a normal conversation.
    Reading this crazy presup stuff has changed me from a deist to an atheist. I can now see how crazy deism is! So over the last few years I've gone from Christian to atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Chris Mackey wrote Reading this crazy presup stuff has changed me

    I apologize for chopping this off; it's admittedly out of context from what you wrote.

    This actually approaches something that's bothered me about "reactional" skepticism. I think it's very easy to look at all the fruitcakes around us, and to therefore conclude that we're a very sick society (or species or whatever).

    However, I think this is a conclusion based on too limited a data set. It'd be like trying to determine if "music sucks" by only listening to free jazz in the clubs in Boston. Ultimately, the resulting opinion (re. "yes!" or "no!") might be applicable to some extent, it certainly can't be applied fairly to music as a whole.

    Chris, I didn't mean to pick on your post; I simply thought it was a good launching point for something I've been trying to say for a while (here but mostly elsewhere).

    It's far better to go through life searching for what IS, than it is simply to rule out what IS NOT.

    Being a skeptic is easy...

    ReplyDelete
  155. geoff,

    ""You cited other sources of divine revelation as evidence of God's existence, but then you refused to name them because I was an atheist.""

    If you're truly interested, Sye discusses natural and special revelation on his website "proof that god exists.com".

    ""If you won't treat me as a reasonable and equal conversation partner, then I won't continue talking to you.""

    Again, Geoff, I mean nothing personal by this, but I do you no favors by pretending like the obvious inconsistencies in your chosen worldview don't exist. I like you too much to patronize you that way.

    Your presupposition that God does not exist, undermines the very source of logic and reason and therefore renders the concept of "conversation" (which requires logic and reason) meaningless.

    How then can we be "equal conversation partners" if you hold a worldview in which conversations (meaningful exchanges of ideas) are not possible?

    ""The fact that I don't have a definitive claim about logic's origins and ultimate nature does not mean that I'm not reasonable.""

    It does mean that you have no justification for any appeal to logic, reason, or knowledge that you make, as you have admitted to using these concepts on blind faith.

    Even your statement above is unjustified, as I could just ask by what standard you call anything "reasonable". If you are honest, your answer would have to be "I don't know". Therefore, you have no basis or foundation for your claim. Without substantiation to validate it, any claim becomes merely an unfounded assertion (belief).

    You see, my position is not just that atheism can't logically account for logic, reason, knowledge, etc., but that Christianity can and does so (professed atheists simply do not wish to accept this answer, due to the ramifications that accompany such a decision).

    In order to use any of these concepts, you must borrow them from the very worldview that you are arguing against. This, of course, is self-refuting.

    ""You've said the same thing yourself.""

    Where have I said this?

    ""So to make me pass a concocted test before continuing our discussion is a rhetorical trick,""

    I just want to make sure that you can account for the concept of "discussion" before we proceed to have one. Am I asking too much?

    ReplyDelete
  156. I'm comfortable with this one: law (n)--a rule of conduct having divine origin.

    Translation: This is a very charged question! (a logical fallacy to begin with). Thanks scmikei! :-D

    ReplyDelete
  157. gorth satana,

    ""The ultimate 'something' does not have to be anything more than a quantum level twitching of a basic space-time energy field, the very opposite of some infinitely powerful super-being.""

    Is this your claim for the existence of absolute, prescribed laws of reason and logic? If so, substantiate it.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Whateverman said...

    Chris Mackey wrote Reading this crazy presup stuff has changed me

    I apologize for chopping this off; it's admittedly out of context from what you wrote.

    This actually approaches something that's bothered me about "reactional" skepticism. I think it's very easy to look at all the fruitcakes around us, and to therefore conclude that we're a very sick society (or species or whatever).


    I see that it a bad idea to assume "a something" instead of "a maybe".
    If anything comes along to change my mind, I'm fully capable of changing my beliefs to accommodate new evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  159. G.E.,

    I said: "I'm comfortable with this one: law (n)--a rule of conduct having divine origin."

    You said: ""This is a very charged question!""

    It's not a question. It's a definition.

    ""(a logical fallacy to begin with). Thanks scmikei! :-D""

    How do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  160. SCMikebut that Christianity can and does so

    Are you forgetting Islam and all the others?

    ReplyDelete
  161. whateverman,

    ""I think it's very easy to look at all the fruitcakes around us, and to therefore conclude that we're a very sick society (or species or whatever).""

    Since you believe we both evolved, how do you know that I didn't evolve "right", and you're not actually the "fruitcake?

    ReplyDelete
  162. It's a definition.

    It's YOUR definition filled with YOUR assumptions. It's not a dictionary definition.

    ReplyDelete
  163. chris mackey,

    ""Are you forgetting Islam and all the others?""

    Which one do you believe to be true? Islam or all the others?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Random comic time: http://xkcd.com/505/

    ReplyDelete
  165. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  166. chris mackey,

    ""It's YOUR definition filled with YOUR assumptions. It's not a dictionary definition.""

    You do me too much honour by assuming the definition to be mine.

    Perhaps you should actually look these words up before making YOUR assumptions? Hint: use the non-atheist version! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  167. ""Are you forgetting Islam and all the others?""

    Which one do you believe to be true? Islam or all the others?

    Are you going to answer a question with an unrelated question?

    ReplyDelete
  168. You do me too much honour by assuming the definition to be mine.

    Perhaps you should actually look these words up before making YOUR assumptions? Hint: use the non-atheist version! ;)


    I googled the phrase and the first 4 sites were Muslim sites...

    ReplyDelete
  169. chris mackey,

    ""Are you going to answer a question with an unrelated question?""

    Are you going to posit one of these religions as your worldview or not? If so, posit it. If not, stop wasting my time.

    ReplyDelete
  170. stop wasting my time.
    I LOL'd

    You wish us to address your worldview and not to bring up similar worldviews?

    ReplyDelete
  171. chris mackey,

    ""I googled the phrase and the first 4 sites were Muslim sites...""

    I Googled Chris Mackey. Which one of the first 4 sites pertains to you??

    ReplyDelete
  172. I Googled Chris Mackey. Which one of the first 4 sites pertains to you??

    Ask your god to tell you.

    ReplyDelete
  173. I've never googled my name before. This is pretty fun.
    I'm using my real name. Who are you, SCMike?

    ReplyDelete
  174. chris mackey,

    ""You wish us to address your worldview and not to bring up similar worldviews?""

    What would be the point of bringing up worldviews which neither of us hold to, except to deflect attention away from our actual worldviews?

    I am quite content to discuss my worldview and how it accounts for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. How about you??

    ReplyDelete
  175. Chris Mackey wrote I see that it a bad idea to assume "a something" instead of "a maybe".

    I couldn't agree more. Ignoring skepticism, critical thinking demands no less than this.

    I guess I was just trying to draw a distinction between forming beliefs based on a rejection of ideas VS based on a positive search for information.

    ReplyDelete
  176. chris mackey,

    ""I'm using my real name.""

    How do you know?

    ""Who are you, SCMike?""

    Mike from South Carolina. Pleased to meet you!!

    ReplyDelete
  177. whateverman,

    Chris Mackey wrote: ""I see that it a bad idea to assume "a something" instead of "a maybe".""

    You said: ""I couldn't agree more. Ignoring skepticism, critical thinking demands no less than this.""

    So, is this an "assumption" or a "maybe"??

    ReplyDelete
  178. What would be the point of bringing up worldviews which neither of us hold to, except to deflect attention away from our actual worldviews?

    Lots of reasons.

    I am quite content to discuss my worldview and how it accounts for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. How about you??

    Is your view a magic man created logic?

    ReplyDelete
  179. Mike from South Carolina. Pleased to meet you!!

    How do I know?

    ReplyDelete
  180. chris mackey,

    I asked: ""What would be the point of bringing up worldviews which neither of us hold to, except to deflect attention away from our actual worldviews?""

    You said: ""Lots of reasons.""

    How come you didn't provide any.

    I said: ""I am quite content to discuss my worldview and how it accounts for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. How about you??""

    You asked: ""Is your view a magic man created logic?""

    Nope. I don't believe in magic. My position is that absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason are a direct reflection of the character and nature of God. What's yours?

    ReplyDelete
  181. "How do I know? "
    Well you can't know anything for certain

    ReplyDelete
  182. chris mackey,

    ""How do I know?""

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  183. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  184. when you can't see what the real anser are

    Allah.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Exactly.

    how do you know? Oh, you feel a invisible super-being told you?

    ReplyDelete
  186. john rue,

    I said: "law (n)--a rule of conduct having divine origin."

    ""I still can't believe you tried to pull that one!""

    I still can't believe that you won't look this word up!!

    ReplyDelete
  187. john rue,

    ""when you can't see what the real anser are

    Allah.""

    When you want to beg the question and assume that Christianity is not the right answer---allah.

    The floor is yours to prove your claim, Mr. Muslim.

    ReplyDelete
  188. I still can't believe that you won't look this word up!!

    -I- was the one who googled it.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Why is Allah a wrong answer and your God YHWH the right one?

    ReplyDelete
  190. chris mackey,

    ""how do you know? Oh, you feel a invisible super-being told you?""

    Are you making the argument that God could not reveal things to us for certain? If so, on what grounds.

    Perhaps you can tell us how your worldview accounts for knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  191. chris mackey,

    ""Why is Allah a wrong answer and your God YHWH the right one?""

    Because allah does not exist and is therefore not logically defensible. Posit him as the deity you believe in, and I will show you.

    By the way, what standard of logic do you use to determine what "right" answers and "wrong" answers are. How do you distinguish the two from one another?

    P.S. Gotta go out for awhile. I'll try to get back here either tonight or tomorrow. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Because allah does not exist

    How do you know?

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.