December 2, 2008

Battle of Wits?

I met a man named Josh through the Ron Paul meetup group and I bought some high quality Ron Paul T-shirts from him. We started to have discussions back and forth through Google Talk. Over the months we have became quite encouraging, friendly, and civil to each other. We discuss many things sometimes as entrepreneurs and, since he found out I was a Christian, many theology discussions. We have had some fantastic conversations and things get spirited at times but we have some good laughs.

Recently, Josh said he was going to have a discussion with a friend of mine, a brother in Christ named Sye TenBruggencate. TenBruggencate is probably best known from his website proofthatgodexists.org and I thought that it would be an interesting conversation, and it was.

The discussion was held at a wonderful online radio station called The Narrow Mind over at Unchained Radio here in California.

To listen to the discussion click the picture of Mr. Spock. Warning! This may be very unsettling to hear a fellow atheist get pwned! I just couldn't resist Josh, forgive me.

Please pray and ask God to reveal Himself to Josh.

1,075 comments:

  1. Poor kid. He's bright, and he's courageous, but he's also naïve. He went into this "debate" completely unprepared, and with no information whatsoever on what his opponents' backgrounds were, or what sort of format this debate might have taken. Especially unfortunate for him is the fact that his opponents continued to give him as much rope as he needed to hang himself.

    He was pretty thoroughly set up for failure -- three against one makes for poor odds, and his opponents were obviously prepared. I'd wager that each of them had a headset and computer, and those in the "studio" undoubtedly had headsets, computers, and chatscreens whereby they were being fed more information by dedicated pawns. Josh was quite obviously working only from his own experience and [obviously] limited background, and most likely on a standard handset.

    Josh failed mostly because he remained on the defensive, and apparently has no idea how to effectively deconstruct an argument to identify the assumed premises in an argument so as to actively attack them. He continuously allowed the hosts to set him up with loaded questions, while scurrying around trying to avoid being cornered, and even let them change the subject and derail his already fragile train of thought.

    It was like watching a lion cub get mauled by a pack of hyenas. Given adequate experience, that lion could easily handle them, but age and inexperience have him outmatched. He didn't even know what "cavalier" meant.

    Woefully unprepared, completely outmatched, and quite unfairly bullied. I don't know why we should be surprised...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stan,

    Thanks for that, I do enjoy your subjectivity.

    "He was pretty thoroughly set up for failure -- three against one makes for poor odds, and his opponents were obviously prepared."

    Possibly, they are seasoned in these discussions but truth would prevail anyway, as it did. How about 20-50 to one. Those are the odds that I deal with daily here, but I seem to be doing fine.

    Truth is truth, no matter the numbers or size, remember David and Goliath? Even the little guy stands on truth...in this case truth still won.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even the little guy "wins, if he" stands on truth

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stan said: "I'd wager that each of them had a headset and computer, and those in the "studio" undoubtedly had headsets, computers, and chatscreens whereby they were being fed more information by dedicated pawns."

    I only had a handset, and never once looked at my computer. Josh and I exchanged many e-mails 18 months ago, and has access to my website, so he knew my background, and exactly where I was coming from. He even alluded to knowing my position near the beginning of the show. The reason he faired so poorly is because he was wrong.

    Thanks for posting this Dan.

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reason he faired [sic] so poorly is because he was wrong.

    That's preposterous and you know it. In fact, it's more willfully dishonest than most trash Ray Comfort posts.

    My kid brother is a Christian, yet I could easily destroy him in any debate format -- would his poor showing likewise be reflective of his position?

    If you want to have a more reasonable challenge, stick around here and join in the discussions. I doubt you'll find many of us as weak as Josh, and I'd reckon that even he would fare better in a more amiable environment.

    The reason he faired [sic] so poorly is because he was wrong.

    Is that why Ron Paul fared so poorly? Is that why Copernicus initially failed to convince anyone the earth orbited the sun? Is that why the Jews fared so poorly in 1930s Germany?

    Fuck off, dude. I'd love to have real conversations with you -- even ones in which I refrain from expletives -- but if you're really going to troll here and post some pithy bullshit like that then move along.



    Sorry, Dan, but he deserved that.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stan,

    Thanks for proving that angry atheists exists. Be respectful but if that is your so called "A" game then...ok.

    Sye,

    Welcome and many here get mad, which is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve.

    Good job.

    I think Stan would be a good candidate for the radio program. Oh wait, its for adults only. Sorry Stan.

    (yes, you deserved that)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stan said: "I'd love to have real conversations with you -- even ones in which I refrain from expletives"

    Just because Josh faired so poorly since he was wrong, does not mean that all people who fair poorly in debates are wrong. I imagine any conversation I would have with you would be filled with more false analogies, but hey, e-mail Gene and set something up, I'm game :-)

    Cheers,

    Sye

    (I suppose being wrong about Josh not knowing my background, and the headset thingy wasn't the real reason for the expletive right? - Riiiight :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is Sye the guy who says that without Allah you can't know anything because only Allah can know everything? And that Allah set up the laws of logic and you can't prove anything without the divine revelation from Allah?
    I don't seem to be able to download the radio show.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for proving that angry atheists exists.

    Angry? No. I use expletives regardless of my mood, as you should well know by now. No, Sye deserved a sound telling off because of his dishonesty, but I'll let him correct himself if he chooses...

    Just because Josh faired [sic] so poorly since he was wrong, does not mean that all people who fair [sic] poorly in debates are wrong.

    I see. So only debaters who hold positions with which you disagree fail because of their position, whereas debaters with whom you agree fail because of incompetence. Got it.

    Look, I guessed at possible reasons for Josh's failure, and may well have been wrong regarding his awareness of your background(s), etc., but it's clear to anyone who listens that he was unprepared. I already faulted him on this, but you evidently want something stronger?

    I imagine any conversation I would have with you would be filled with more false analogies, but hey, e-mail Gene and set something up, I'm game :-)

    False analogies? You asserted that he failed in his debate because he was incorrect, yet when called on it you claim that this applies in this special case, but that in general debaters can fail despite holding the correct position. I expect you'll now explain this "logic" to little old me?

    If you're interested in discussing things, I'm prepared to continue doing exactly that on this forum. Live debates are not about seeking the truth or even identifying the more appropriate position -- we've established already that the winner is not necessarily right -- it's instead about popularity and entertainment. Rarely is an informed listener's mind changed regardless of how his debater fares in the contest, and contrary to what appears to be your belief, I'm actually interested in identifying the truth. I prefer informed debates, wherein each side has ample opportunity to research the claims made by his opponent(s), and to research appropriate responses.

    I suppose being wrong about Josh not knowing my background, and the headset thingy wasn't the real reason for the expletive right? - Riiiight

    Ummm. No. None of that had any bearing on my statement that Josh was unprepared, and made a mockery of himself as a result. I was merely noting that his position was analogous to that of a certain concubine in Gibeah, except that he had willingly walked outside. As I said, you guys gave him all the rope he could use, and as clumsy as he was, he still managed to fashion a working noose.

    It's too bad, really -- the best debates are those in which each side is able to coherently state its case, attack his opponents', and respond to those attacks. This "debate" with Josh simply reminded me of a regrettable incident in my own life, in which myself and a friend (Christians at the time) invited a Jehovah's Witness friend over to his house, and we there slaughtered him with scripture. It was rude, it was a purely spiteful attack, and it was pointless. Not once did we give him an opportunity to coherently make his case, for anything he'd begin we'd end with another attack, barely giving him a chance to look up the passages we hurled at him.

    It wasn't a fair fight, but regardless of how each side fared, we were both wrong. I'd say this isn't too far from what happened with Josh.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan said: Is Sye the guy who says that without Allah you can't know anything because only Allah can know everything?

    No, that would be Syeeeed :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, that would be Syeeeed

    Oh, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stan, The king-of-false-analogies said:

    I see. So only debaters who hold positions with which you disagree fail because of their position, whereas debaters with whom you agree fail because of incompetence. Got it.

    Nope, the situations vary, I was only commenting on why Josh faired so poorly.

    False analogies? You asserted that he failed in his debate because he was incorrect, yet when called on it you claim that this applies in this special case, but that in general debaters can fail despite holding the correct position. I expect you'll now explain this "logic" to little old me?”

    Nope, it looks like you got it.

    ”If you're interested in discussing things, I'm prepared to continue doing exactly that on this forum.”

    Sure, I’ll comment as time permits.

    ”It's too bad, really -- the best debates are those in which each side is able to coherently state its case, attack his opponents', and respond to those attacks.”

    Too bad you’re not up for that – live anyway.

    I'd say this isn't too far from what happened with Josh.

    So, let me get this straight, do you think Josh was right?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sye TenB wrote:
    "Too bad you’re not up for that – live anyway."

    What's special about live debates?

    ReplyDelete
  14. So what did Sye and Josh say on this radio show?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dave said: "What's special about live debates?"

    They're more fun :-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. They're more fun

    It's about all about fun?
    -------------
    (Still haven't listened to the show unless maybe someone can Rapidshare a mp3 of it or something)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chris said: "It's about all about fun?"

    Nope, but it helps.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey guys. Good to see you again Sye, but I still think you're wrong.

    I haven't listened to the debate, but I'm guessing you brought up presuppositionalism?

    If so, I'm not surprised Josh got owned: Presupp is an amazingly well constructed concept: it allows you to question your opponents ability to account for everything they say without actually dealing with anything they say.

    ReplyDelete
  19. like the Islamic presupp guys who are always "winning" arguements...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey guys. Good to see you again Sye

    Hey Q! Sorry for not finishing up wherever we were debating last.

    ”but I still think you're wrong.”

    Which, of course assumes an absolute standard of ‘rightness’ :-)

    ”Presupp is an amazingly well constructed concept: it allows you to question your opponents ability to account for everything they say without actually dealing with anything they say.”

    Gotta crawl, before you can walk :-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nope, the situations vary, I was only commenting on why Josh faired [sic] so poorly.

    Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Josh didn't fail because he is wrong, he failed because he was unprepared. Had he been prepared, and made a coherent argument, we could discuss who won or why, but in this case, he didn't get far enough for us to say he lost for any other reason than his own incompetence.

    [I]t looks like you got it.

    No, I don't think so. I get that you have asserted that Josh failed because he was wrong, but not how you can justify that assertion given that other debaters fail for reasons of preparation or incompetence, and how you have objectively determined this to be the case with Josh. If you can explain this, I'd like to hear it.

    So, let me get this straight, do you think Josh was right?

    About what? He was all over the place, and inconsistent throughout. You guys got him to say that a human's worth is directly related to his IQ, that racism is acceptable, and that the Holocaust was okay... He was clearly unable to articulate himself, and in his misguided efforts at remaining "objectively neutral" he merely dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole, which the three of you happily exploited.

    [D]o you think Josh was right?

    Ask me something specific, and I'll answer. Generally, he's thinking about big questions, and he's trying to be honest with himself, but I don't think his reasoning is sound, even if I might agree with some of the conclusions he's drawn. I don't know the kid, and I don't know what he actually thinks, despite the podcast. I'd say he managed to quite thoroughly misrepresent himself, and as such I'll not attempt to decipher his actual positions...

    --
    Stan


    P.S. -

    Chris Mackey: The page Dan linked to is this one, and it works fine in Firefox on Ubuntu. It's a flash player, so if you need an mp3 you'll need to contact the site directly (unless Sye has access to it on mp3).

    Suffice it to say this Josh kid bit off more than he can chew, and he was allowed to choke on it for an hour. He clearly has no formal debate experience, and he is clearly not very well read (judging by his weak vocabulary and his unfamiliarity with logical/philosophical terminology), and he was quite the patsy for Sye and friends. He actually requested to be put into a 2-on-1 debate, and a case can be made that he even asked for the 3-on-1 that he actually got.

    You're not missing much, but it's amusing reading Sye's comments here that his failure was due specifically to his holding an incorrect position, rather than the fact that he sucked at debating. I hope he finds his way here, though, so he can defend himself. I don't mind insulting Sye and Co. too much, since they clearly won the thing, but I feel also like they can handle it more. I'm not so sure about Josh, and he's bound to be more self-conscious, unless he's oblivious to the fact that he did, indeed, get pwned.

    As to debates and fun, they are always fun, but as I said, I'm interested in discovering the truth, not entertainment. It's also very true that debates with weak opponents are unsatisfying. I expect Sye here is reasonably capable, and I hope that he enjoys a good online debate in the form of a blog. I'm certainly curious to see how he fares (seriously, man, it's f-a-r-e, not f-a-i-r) with the various topics Dan poses and the responses from the atheist horde.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks Stan,
    I don't think I'll install Flash to listen to 3 guys team up on a guy who is inarticulate. Maybe I'd install Flash to listen to 2 groups of 3 articulate people debating. Maybe.
    If you want a mp3, they want you to PAY.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stan said: ”Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Josh didn't fail because he is wrong, he failed because he was unprepared.”

    Good preparation with bad arguments, does not success make.

    I get that you have asserted that Josh failed because he was wrong, but not how you can justify that assertion given that other debaters fail for reasons of preparation or incompetence, and how you have objectively determined this to be the case with Josh. If you can explain this, I'd like to hear it.

    Cause I know I was right, and his position was contrary to mine, so the law of non-contradiciton comes into play :-) Now if you care to tell us by what absolute standard you believe I was wrong, I’m all ears.

    ”About what? He was all over the place, and inconsistent throughout.”

    And you are suggesting that preparation makes for consistency? Methinks changing positions is more inline with that.

    Ask me something specific, and I'll answer. Generally, he's thinking about big questions, and he's trying to be honest with himself, but I don't think his reasoning is sound, even if I might agree with some of the conclusions he's drawn.”

    Well, at least you believe in an absolute standard of reasoning by which you can measure ‘soundness.’ Do you care to tell us where you get that standard, and why it necessarily applies to Josh?

    ”Chris Mackey: The page Dan linked to is this one, and it works fine in Firefox on Ubuntu. It's a flash player, so if you need an mp3 you'll need to contact the site directly (unless Sye has access to it on mp3).”

    I have it on mp3, but so should anyone who has listened to it (in their temporary internet files). Tell me where you’d like me to dump it, and I’ll see what I can do.

    ”He actually requested to be put into a 2-on-1 debate, and a case can be made that he even asked for the 3-on-1 that he actually got.”

    Actually, I don’t know the conversations he had with Gene, but it was my understanding that he had agree to argue with me OR Gene, but judging from his admission, I guess he knew what he was up against.

    ”I hope he finds his way here, though, so he can defend himself.”

    I don’t mind laying off Josh, he was a good sport with some guts. I’d be happy to engage you fellows (as time permits).

    ” I don't mind insulting Sye and Co. too much, since they clearly won the thing, but I feel also like they can handle it more. I'm not so sure about Josh, and he's bound to be more self-conscious, unless he's oblivious to the fact that he did, indeed, get pwned.”

    I never did like that expression, especially when it was inaccurately levied at me :-) (not enough vowels) Q is right though, it’s tough to argue against presuppositonalism.

    ”As to debates and fun, they are always fun, but as I said, I'm interested in discovering the truth, not entertainment.”

    What is ‘truth’ according to your worldview, and how will you know once you’ve discovered it?

    ” It's also very true that debates with weak opponents are unsatisfying. I expect Sye here is reasonably capable, and I hope that he enjoys a good online debate in the form of a blog. I'm certainly curious to see how he fares (seriously, man, it's f-a-r-e, not f-a-i-r) “

    Ewww that’s embarassing – mental hiccup :-)

    with the various topics Dan poses and the responses from the atheist horde.

    I defer to my Hindu friend, Binder Dundat :-) Still, I’ll post as time permits.

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  24.      I have dealt with Sye. And I find his "arguments" to be shams. He has the skill of a con man. And he can draw you in. But if you look closely, he doesn't present evidence. He basicly says that he knows he is right and insists that one must first "account for logic" before one is allowed to disagree with him.
         I point out that logic is properly basic. Any attempt to account for logic must necessarily use logic. Sye, himself doesn't account for logic. But he pretends to do so.
         Now, the mere fact that a particular christian is dishonest does not mean that christianity is false. (I think it is false; but that would not be a proof.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, at least you believe in an absolute standard of reasoning by which you can measure ‘soundness.’ Do you care to tell us where you get that standard...?

    Oh, you first!

    Do you hold some absolute standard of, say, morality?

    As an example, would you say that rape is absolutely wrong, and that it should carry a consistent punishment?

    Or if rape is too sensitive a subject, then would you say that slavery is absolutely wrong?

    What about incest? Murdering infants?

    What is the source for your absolute morality?

    I saw a question posed somewhere asking if "molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong" or if "molesting children for fun could be right," and I couldn't help but wonder why the apparently superfluous addition of "for fun" in the options... I also had to wonder if there would be a change in response if the question were instead about murdering infants, or attempting to murder one's child, or slavery, etc. -- of course, irrespective of the "for fun" aspect; these scenarios should be considered absolutely, not conditionally...

    I anxiously await your answers.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pvblivs said: ”I have dealt with Sye. And I find his "arguments" to be shams. He has the skill of a con man. And he can draw you in. But if you look closely, he doesn't present evidence.”

    The concept of ‘evidence’ presupposes my worldview. Still, I present evidence, you just discount it based on your presuppositions. For example, I have given as evidence, YOUR ability to reason. You, however, would rather take the circular position that you reason that your reason is valid, than accept it as evidence of God.

    ”He basicly says that he knows he is right and insists that one must first "account for logic" before one is allowed to disagree with him.
    I point out that logic is properly basic. Any attempt to account for logic must necessarily use logic.”


    Indeed, that however, does not account for its existence, or tell us how universal, absract invariant entities make sense in YOUR worldview.

    ”Sye, himself doesn't account for logic. But he pretends to do so.”

    Again, sure I do, you just don’t like how I account for it. Logic has its foundation in the mind of God.

    ” Now, the mere fact that a particular christian is dishonest does not mean that christianity is false. (I think it is false; but that would not be a proof.)”

    But it would indicate that you believe in an absolute standard of ‘truth’ and ‘falsity.’ Care to tell us where that comes from?

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stan said: ”Oh, you first!”

    From God. Your turn!

    ”Do you hold some absolute standard of, say, morality?”

    Yes.

    ”As an example, would you say that rape is absolutely wrong, and that it should carry a consistent punishment?”

    Yes, and beats me.

    ”Or if rape is too sensitive a subject, then would you say that slavery is absolutely wrong?”

    As we understand modern slavery – yes.

    ”What about incest? Murdering infants?”

    Incest, for us -yes, murdering infants, yes.

    ”What is the source for your absolute morality?”

    God

    ”I saw a question posed somewhere asking if "molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong" or if "molesting children for fun could be right," and I couldn't help but wonder why the apparently superfluous addition of "for fun" in the options...”

    To avoid dealing with the wingnuts who come up with outlandish scenarios.

    ”I also had to wonder if there would be a change in response if the question were instead about murdering infants, or attempting to murder one's child, or slavery, etc. -- of course, irrespective of the "for fun" aspect; these scenarios should be considered absolutely, not conditionally...”

    I agree.


    ”I anxiously await your answers.”

    There ya go! Now Stan, by what absolute standard do YOU call anything morally wrong? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and the validity of the reasoning with which you plan on interpreting my answers?

    I anxiously (well not so anxiously) await your answers.

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  28. From God. Your turn!

    Oh, you are the Islamic presupp guy, just replacing Allah with your own god!
    Awesome. What proof do you have that your god exists? And not some other god or gods? Not being snarky, just wanting to see what your position is.
    There is no "Syeeeed" is there.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Not so fast -- I have some follow-up questions...

    First, if rape is absolutely wrong, and god is your source of absolute morality, which, I presume, is based on the bible, then why is the punishment for rape as described in the bible conditional?

    Why does the "justice" visited upon certain rape victims include marrying one's rapist?

    Curiouser and curiouser...

    What about slavery (oh, you said "modern slavery," you coy devil, you)? Is it not absolutely wrong to buy and sell human beings, or to beat them without repercussion (provided certain wounds are avoided)?

    I remember reading something about that in the bible somewhere...

    What if rape and slavery are combined in the form of a concubine? Is that absolutely morally wrong? What did the bible say about that? I forget.

    Curiouser, curiouser, and curiouser...

    Incest, you say, is absolutely wrong "for us"? I don't understand. Perhaps if I posed it as a binary choice between "sex with one's parent, sibling, or child for fun is absolutely morally wrong" versus "sex with one's parent, sibling, or child for fun could be right" -- would that make it clearer for you?

    Is it absolutely morally wrong or is it conditionally morally wrong?

    Murdering infants, you state unconditionally, is absolutely morally wrong. Excellent. Then we agree that the god depicted in the OT is a morally evil monster for requiring exactly that of the Israelites. I'll scratch that one off my list here...

    Curiouser and curiouser, curiouser... Curiouser is hard to type when one is used to spelling things correctly...

    Now then, this upcoming part was confusing, so I am posting my own statement in bold, and your response in italics:

    I also had to wonder if there would be a change in response if the question were instead about murdering infants, or attempting to murder one's child, or slavery, etc. -- of course, irrespective of the "for fun" aspect; these scenarios should be considered absolutely, not conditionally...

    I agree.

    To what do you agree?

    That the responses may have changed if the [culturally extreme evil act] had been changed as I suggested?

    That each scenario should be considered absolutely rather than conditionally (irrespective of your insertion of "for fun")?

    Also, and I apologize if this was unclear, but this was meant as a question -- specifically, do you think there would (or should) have been a change in response if the question were instead about attempting to murder one's child, or slavery?

    In fact, I'm more interested in whether you think the responses should have been different, rather than your ability to predict the responses of your site's visitors...

    Now, worry you not, I'll answer your questions in turn, but I need the above clarification so that I can appreciate your position, and understand where you're coming from.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ding...Ding

    Brilliant stuff gentlemen.

    It would be great if Josh joined in here. Hopefully he will as the conversation progresses. (*hint, hint) I enjoy that 'young spirit' of his. He has that "put me in coach" eagerness that most of us had on one point of our lives.

    Thanks for the tickets, Sye and Stan, the ring side seats are awesome. I wish I could fly all of you out to my house for a barbecue. That would be one great night of conversation. Now after all this, do you think y'all will be able to pick out drapes together?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Loved the site, Sye.
    Really great stuff.

    Btw, when Stan goes Ad Hom, you can declare Checkmate. And he went there first post.

    Baruch Hashem,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan,
    Thanks for the link to Gene's show.
    Looks like I have something new to do on Sabbath!

    Your brother in Messiah,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  33. Stan said”Not so fast -- I have some follow-up questions...”

    Ignoring the fact that I actually asked you first, but your delay tactics are expected, and I have time to play for a bit.

    ”First, if rape is absolutely wrong, and god is your source of absolute morality, which, I presume, is based on the bible, then why is the punishment for rape as described in the bible conditional?”

    Normally, I do not do Biblical exegexsis with those who deny its authority, and cannot account for the ‘logic’ with which they hope to level an argument against me, but the punisment for rape is not conditional. All rapists faced punishment then, and all rapists fact the same eternal punishment then and now - Hell. Still though, if speeding was an absolute moral wrong, and one speeder was fined $100, and another $50, that would be up to the judge, and would have exactly zero bearing on the absolute wrongness of the offence, so your argument doesn’t even approach weak.

    ”Why does the "justice" visited upon certain rape victims include marrying one's rapist?”

    I imagine you’re not married :-) As I said, irrelevent. The earthly punishment has nothing to do with the wrongness of the offense.

    What about slavery (oh, you said "modern slavery," you coy devil, you)? Is it not absolutely wrong to buy and sell human beings, or to beat them without repercussion (provided certain wounds are avoided)?

    Obviously not for the Israelites living under a theocracy.

    ”What if rape and slavery are combined in the form of a concubine? Is that absolutely morally wrong? What did the bible say about that? I forget.”

    Rape is absolutely morally wrong. (Something which you cannot say).

    ”Incest, you say, is absolutely wrong "for us"? I don't understand.”

    Incest was not prohibited until after the fall, as it was necessary to populate the earth. I imagine that the fall of man started the muddying of genetics such that incest resulted in birth defects and was forbidden.

    ” Perhaps if I posed it as a binary choice between "sex with one's parent, sibling, or child for fun is absolutely morally wrong" versus "sex with one's parent, sibling, or child for fun could be right" -- would that make it clearer for you?”

    Nope, it’s already clear.

    ”Is it absolutely morally wrong or is it conditionally morally wrong?”

    It is absolutely morally wrong. (Something, which you of course, cannot say).

    ”Murdering infants, you state unconditionally, is absolutely morally wrong. Excellent. Then we agree that the god depicted in the OT is a morally evil monster for requiring exactly that of the Israelites. I'll scratch that one off my list here...”

    Murder, being that killing which is unlawful, is absolutely morally wrong. Since God IS the law, He cannot murder (not to mention the fact that the very concept of 'evil' requires an absolute moral standard - something which you do not have).

    ”To what do you agree?

    That the responses may have changed if the [culturally extreme evil act] had been changed as I suggested?”


    Nope, but I thought I’d make it easy for people who cannot differentiate between ‘murder’ and ‘killing,’ ‘biblical slavery,’ and ‘modern slavery’

    ”That each scenario should be considered absolutely rather than conditionally (irrespective of your insertion of "for fun")?”

    Yes.

    ”Also, and I apologize if this was unclear, but this was meant as a question -- specifically, do you think there would (or should) have been a change in response if the question were instead about attempting to murder one's child, or slavery?”

    No (w.r.t. attempted murder and modern day slavery).

    ”In fact, I'm more interested in whether you think the responses should have been different, rather than your ability to predict the responses of your site's visitors...”

    The response should be inline with the absolute moral law, but as you can see from the interview, atheists say the strangest things.

    ”Now, worry you not, I'll answer your questions in turn, but I need the above clarification so that I can appreciate your position, and understand where you're coming from.”

    There ya go! Not holding my breath on your responses though.
    I’ll recap:
    1. Where do you get the absolute standard of reasoning from which you level the claim that Josh’s reasoning was not sound?
    2. Why does that standard, necessarily apply to Josh?
    3. By what absolute standard do you call anything morally wrong?
    4. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic?
    5. How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dani' El said: Loved the site, Sye. Really great stuff.

    Thanks for the kind words.

    "Btw, when Stan goes Ad Hom, you can declare Checkmate.

    I'll leave that to the viewers :-)

    "Looks like I have something new to do on Sabbath!"

    Their show is fantastic, I only differ with them on a few issues (baptism for one - they're credo, I'm paedo :-).

    Blessings,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  35. I just listened to the podcast and I believe Josh should have hung up right after being told that the other participants were unable (unwilling) to entertain the idea that they might be wrong. It framed the entire debate such that Sye and the hosts could claim God as the answer to all the same questions they were asking Josh, while never having to actually prove God's existence.

    It's been said that he who defines the terms wins the debate. This initial defining of "God" as a valid argument left Josh with nothing BUT a defensive position.

    How can one argue with "God exists because he exists" without calling into question God's existence?

    From there it snowballs to "You can't KNOW anything because you can't trust your senses, but we can trust God...because he's real. And we KNOW he's real because we're not allowed to entertain the thought that he might not be. CHECKMATE!"

    ReplyDelete
  36. Unethical Chum Tin said: ”I just listened to the podcast and I believe Josh should have hung up right after being told that the other participants were unable (unwilling) to entertain the idea that they might be wrong.”

    Perhaps he should have, but surely you can see that if God is the foundation of all reasoning, one cannot reason to a position that He is not. If we concede at the outset that God may not be the foundation of all reasoning, then we already put our reasoning above God, and refute our own position. Although Josh may believe that he could entertain the idea that he might be wrong, one cannot autonomously reason to a position that God is the foundation of all reasoning – that can only come through submission.

    ”It framed the entire debate such that Sye and the hosts could claim God as the answer to all the same questions they were asking Josh, while never having to actually prove God's existence.”

    The point you are missing is that the very concepts of ‘debate’ and ‘proof’ prove the existence of God, as they each contain elements - logic, knowledge, truth, and reasoning, which are impossible without God.

    ”How can one argue with "God exists because he exists" without calling into question God's existence?”

    I used that fallacious argument, to point out the fallacy of Josh’s argument that “He senses that his senses are valid.”

    ”From there it snowballs to "You can't KNOW anything because you can't trust your senses, but we can trust God...because he's real. And we KNOW he's real because we're not allowed to entertain the thought that he might not be. CHECKMATE!"

    Well, give it your best shot then. How is it possible to know anything according to your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I haven't read through the responses here - and I'm sure that once I do, I'll have a lot more to say.

    I'm listening to the show right now, and want to comment on a point found near minute 11. Josh is defining open mindedness as being willing to accept the idea that you may be wrong. The host is restating this as requiring Christians to be willing to accept that Christianity is false (my wording, not his).

    Although this is actually a good point, it glosses over a significant fact. Among Christians who accept the Bible as absolute truth, there is much disagreement about what it means. So - by the host's restatement of the point, Christians themselves prove that at least some of them are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Whateverman said: "Christians themselves prove that at least some of them are wrong."

    I sure hope your points get better once you finish listening to the debate, cause that one is obvious, and meaningless. Just because some (many) who profess Christianity are wrong, does not mean they all are. That would be like saying that there is no real money because you found some counterfeits.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm close to finishing the episode now (~55 minutes), so I probably have a better sense of the entire discussion.

    Sye, you said That would be like saying that there is no real money because you found some counterfeits.

    No. That would be like me saying "You're wrong" to someone who asserts "All money is genuine".

    The host begins by asserting the Bible to be the source of absolute truth, implying that Christians have an inerrant standard by which to judge things. This is a nice idea, but Christians themselves come to different conclusions about how to judge things. This implies one or more of the following:

    1) Christians are fallible
    2) The Bible is fallible
    3) Understanding of the Bible is fallible

    Any one of these refutes the utility of the idea that Christians have an inerrant standard by which to judge things. If you can not, amongst yourselves, agree as to exactly what those standards say, then they're no better (and perhaps even worse) than standards of logic. No better than the standards of humanism. No better (and in-fact definitely worse) than the standards codified by modern laws.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I said:

    Why does the "justice" visited upon certain rape victims include marrying one's rapist?

    To which you responded:

    I imagine you’re not married :-) As I said, irrelevent [sic]. The earthly punishment has nothing to do with the wrongness of the offense.

    I have to wonder just what you're insinuating in the first sentence... are you suggesting the reason you're married is because you raped your wife? I surely hope I've misunderstood...

    Beyond that, however, I find it interesting that you consider temporal punishment to be irrelevant -- if this is true, then why bother with it?

    Re: Slavery in the Torah being absolutely wrong

    Obviously not for the Israelites living under a theocracy.

    So you are retracting your claim that slavery is absolutely morally wrong? That beating another human as "property" is absolutely morally wrong? Or is this not what you said?

    Re: The rape of concubines as implied in the bible

    Rape is absolutely morally wrong.

    Yes, we've established that, despite the continuum of punishment which seems at odds with actual justice. Are you admitting then that the taking of female slaves as concubines and having sex with them is also absolutely morally wrong, or are you asserting that female slaves so taken and thus deflowered were willing "victims"?

    Re: Incest being absolutely morally wrong

    Incest was not prohibited until after the fall, as it was necessary to populate the earth. I imagine that the fall of man started the muddying of genetics such that incest resulted in birth defects and was forbidden.

    So Seth's implied sex with his sister(s), mother, or daughter(s) was prohibited? Aren't you saying a) that the population of the earth by Adam and Eve was all prohibited (since it all occurred after the fall), and b) that incest is conditionally morally wrong?

    If you would like to refine your position to allow incestuous sex between the initial progenitors, does this excuse Lot for having sex with his daughters? Recall, according to the NT genealogical record, Jesus was a direct descendant of this father-daughter incest through Lot...

    Re: Murder of infants being absolutely morally wrong

    Murder, being that killing which is unlawful, is absolutely morally wrong. Since God IS the law, He cannot murder.

    I'm confused again. I remember reading somewhere that "Thou shalt not kill", and if my semantics are valid, this statement is an absolute. Now, though, you are evidently recasting this statement such that "lawful killing" is not "murder", and adding the bald assertion that there are cases in which killing an infant is sometimes "lawful"?

    Surely, you can provide some examples of precisely when it is "lawful" to kill an infant, yes?

    Of course, we've rather glossed over your assertion that god is law, and therefore incapable of unlawful action -- any time you want to argue that rather than blithely assert it, feel free.

    Incidentally, this line of "reasoning" on your part has caused further questions, if for the moment we grant your assertion that god defines law:

    1) If god commands killing, does this necessarily mean that the killing in question is neither unlawful nor murder?

    2) If god commands rape, does this necessarily mean that the rape in question is not absolutely morally wrong (and doesn't this contradict your earlier statement that rape is absolutely morally wrong)?

    3) If god were to change his mind, does this not mean that the notion of absolute morality which you have pinned on him is in fact conditional on his current state of mind?

    Now then...

    Re: Should a change in response occur if the action were [attempted murder or modern slavery]

    No (w.r.t. attempted murder and modern day slavery).

    Excellent. So we agree that Abraham's attempted murder of Isaac was absolutely morally wrong... or are you going to argue that it was an attempted killing which was necessarily lawful?

    Incidentally (again), this poses another set of questions:

    If Abraham's attempted murder of Isaac was not absolutely morally wrong -- because a) it was decreed by god, and b) it was prevented, then how does this differ from a modern parent who claims that god told him to murder his son, but whose effort is somehow thwarted? Is such a parent exonerated in your view? Why or why not?

    Ahem.

    Re: Your questions of me

    1. Where do you get the absolute standard of reasoning from which you level the claim that Josh’s reasoning was not sound?

    I have never claimed to have access to absolute knowledge from which I can glean absolute reasoning. If you like, however, I can here claim to have been granted a personal revelation which you cannot refute. Eris told me.

    2. Why does that standard, necessarily apply to Josh?

    Given that we have defined our terms in a mutually non-contradictory fashion, my relative reasoning ability, coupled with my newfound absolute reasoning ability (Hail Eris!) is what I have used to determine the failures in Josh's reasoning. Namely, his own statements were, at times, inconsistent with themselves, making his reasoning necessarily false.

    3. By what absolute standard do you call anything morally wrong?

    Again, I have not claimed absolute knowledge of an absolute moral code, aside from my recent revelation from Eris (All Hail Discordia!), but I reserve the right to utilize the absolute moral code claimed by my opponent, coupled with the inerrant biblical record which he also claims, to illustrate its inconsistencies, which, as with Josh, illustrate its failure.

    Now, then, I do believe objective morality can exist, and I don't have a problem with the existence of a deity, per se (a statement to which Dan can attest, and which you could likewise corroborate with a little reading in the archives here) -- I merely have a problem with certain types of deities, which category most certainly includes the god of Christianity.

    So while I accept the possibility of deity, and therefore (according to your 'logic') the possibility -- indeed, the likelihood -- of an absolute moral code, I do not claim to absolutely know what that code might actually contain -- except for what Eris has told me, of course (fnord).

    4. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic?

    Is it necessary to account for them? Why? I cannot account for the precise existence of anything in the universe, yet I am free to accept it, am I not?

    5. How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?

    Internal consistency. To most effectively demonstrate failed reasoning, one must enter into the reasoning in question. If it is shown to be internally inconsistent, then it must be discarded, though its claims and conclusions are not necessarily invalidated in the process. My own reasoning, as near as I can tell, is internally consistent. Dan's and Josh's, as simple examples, are not.

    Another indicator of failed reasoning is demonstrable dishonesty. Dan, for all his failings otherwise, has shown a remarkable ability to recognize -- at least sometimes -- his own dishonesty, and this is why I like him. Josh, were I to guess, is likely to also display this virtue. The jury is still out with you, especially since many of your declarations are by fiat.

    I am fallible, and am unafraid to admit that this fallibility may extend into everything I do. Are you likewise willing to make such a statement?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  41. As a post script, I remember having encountered Sye in the past as well. I believe I dismissed him as incapable of engaging in honest discussion; I expect this thread will demonstrate nothing less, but maybe I'll be surprised.

    No matter how you prattle on about presuppositions, the inerrant fact of the matter is that you assert that the Bible is infallible - and argue from that assumption. On the face of it, this is far less valid than the assumption that logic (a tool of language [just like math] for revealing truth, but not truth of itself) is useful.

    There are no absolute immaterial laws of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Here we go again...

    Dan, mine's a burger - hold the cheese - let's settle into these front row seats and enjoy the show.

    Of course, I have no absolute standard to judge whether or not I'm actually enjoying the show....

    ReplyDelete
  43. Blogger Sye TenB said...

    "Perhaps he should have [hung up], but surely you can see that if God is the foundation of all reasoning, one cannot reason to a position that He is not."

    So then, according to this logic, the fact that people can and DO reason to a position that God is not the foundation of all reasoning must mean they are correct in their reasoning.


    "If we concede at the outset that God may not be the foundation of all reasoning, then we already put our reasoning above God, and refute our own position."

    If your presupposition that God is the foundation of all reasoning is, in anyway, based in logic, then dropping that presupposition should have no bearing on it's accuracy. You would simply have to demonstrate that it is so.

    "Although Josh may believe that he could entertain the idea that he might be wrong, one cannot autonomously reason to a position that God is the foundation of all reasoning – that can only come through submission."

    So then you concede that your logical position is fundamentally flawed?

    "The point you are missing is that the very concepts of ‘debate’ and ‘proof’ prove the existence of God, as they each contain elements - logic, knowledge, truth, and reasoning, which are impossible without God."

    You have yet to show that logic, knowledge, truth and reasoning are impossible without God. You only assume it...OOPS! Sorry...I meant "know".

    "I used that fallacious argument [God exists because he does], to point out the fallacy of Josh’s argument that 'He senses that his senses are valid'.”

    You claim it to be a fallacious argument, and yet is this not an accurate portrayal of your position?

    "Well, give it your best shot then. How is it possible to know anything according to your worldview?"

    My, personal, belief is that there is no absolute knowledge. I can only know something to the extent that anything can really be known, in a practical.

    I KNOW, for instance, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real. I KNOW that leprechauns are not real. I know this because my senses and my reason bring me to this conclusion. Could I possibly be wrong? You bet! But my worldview is not so fragile that it will come crashing down (or send me to hell) if I entertain that idea.

    ReplyDelete
  44. [edit]

    My, personal, belief is that there is no absolute knowledge. I can only know something to the extent that anything can really be known, in a practical [SENSE].

    ReplyDelete
  45. UCT wrote My, personal, belief is that there is no absolute knowledge. I can only know something to the extent that anything can really be known, in a practical sense.

    My beef with presuppositionalism (or whatever the proper term for it is) is that it's simply another demonstration of faith in the Bible - as if we weren't already bombarded by it. It simply replaces the notion of our senses' fallibility with the notion that God tells me everything I need to know.

    It's a conversation stopper.

    It's a wonderfully pesky adversary, so it gets credit for putting up a good fight. But in the end, it really doesn't have anything new or substantial to add to a discussion. It's a method of demonstrating that you believe in the Bible, and that no amount of information from non-believers has the capacity to change your mind.

    We (the non-believers) already knew that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Whateverman said: ”No. That would be like me saying "You're wrong" to someone who asserts "All money is genuine".

    Well, since no one is asserting that, your point is moot.

    ”Any one of these refutes the utility of the idea that Christians have an inerrant standard by which to judge things.”

    How do one or three refute the idea that Christians have an inerrant standard? Again, that would be like finding 2 counterfeit bills and saying that there is no real money.

    ”If you can not, amongst yourselves, agree as to exactly what those standards say, then they're no better (and perhaps even worse) than standards of logic.”

    There is no variance in the basic standards, i.e. murder – bad, love –good, something that humanism simply cannot give you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Whateverman said: ”No. That would be like me saying "You're wrong" to someone who asserts "All money is genuine".

    STB responded Well, since no one is asserting that, your point is moot.

    Bzzzzt. You have said the Bible is absolute truth and the inerrant word of God. Ergo, you have indeed said "all currency is genuine"

    ReplyDelete
  48. Whateverman wrote ”If you can not, amongst yourselves, agree as to exactly what those standards say, then they're no better (and perhaps even worse) than standards of logic.”

    STB responded There is no variance in the basic standards, i.e. murder – bad, love –good, something that humanism simply cannot give you.

    Except that your claim isn't merely about those basic standards, is it? You refer to every standard in the Bible as being inerrant and absolute truth.

    The fact that you (Christians) do not agree on every single one of those inerrant truths reveals the flaw in your assertion. Ignoring that flaw does not a valid point make.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sye TenB wrote:
    "4. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic?"

    Name one. There's no need to account for something that doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dave W asked Name one. There's no need to account for something that doesn't exist.

    Cue "The Law Of Non-Contradiction" in 3... 2... 1...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wem,
    All currency is genuine.
    A wolf in sheep's clothing is not a sheep despite the clothing.

    And counterfeit money is paper masquerading as currency, but not currency.
    ---------------
    Go get em Sye!
    You're doing great!
    You got em on the ropes and my bet is they throw in the towel soon.

    ReplyDelete
  52. By the way, the law of non-contradiction is easily refuted by the example underneath. Both of these statements are true (assuming an experiment in which a scientist sends an electron through a hole):

    "The electron just went through hole A"

    "The electron did not just go through hole A"

    (aka. quantum mechanics)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dani'el wrote Wem,
    All currency is genuine.
    A wolf in sheep's clothing is not a sheep despite the clothing.

    And counterfeit money is paper masquerading as currency, but not currency.


    I don't see the relevance of these statements to the conversation, Dani'el.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Stan said: ”I have to wonder just what you're insinuating in the first sentence... are you suggesting the reason you're married is because you raped your wife? I surely hope I've misunderstood.”

    Um no, I was sugesting that marriage is sufficient punishment – it was a joke, hence the smiley. And if you had paid attention during the debate, you would have realized that I am single.

    ”Beyond that, however, I find it interesting that you consider temporal punishment to be irrelevant -- if this is true, then why bother with it?”

    Wow, are you sure you don’t want to do this live. I’d love to dig into your straw-manisms on the air. I did not say that temporal punishment was irrelevant, I said it has nothing to do with the wrongness of the offence.

    ”So you are retracting your claim that slavery is absolutely morally wrong? That beating another human as "property" is absolutely morally wrong? Or is this not what you said?”

    That’s not what I said. I said, under the theocracy of the Israelites it was not, modern day slavery is. Apples and oranges.

    ”Yes, we've established that, despite the continuum of punishment which seems at odds with actual justice.”

    Except that you have no absolute standard of ‘actual justice.’

    ” Are you admitting then that the taking of female slaves as concubines and having sex with them is also absolutely morally wrong, or are you asserting that female slaves so taken and thus deflowered were willing "victims"?”

    “Victim” and “willing” are mutally exclusive. Rape is absolutely morally wrong, according to my worldview, but not yours.

    ”So Seth's implied sex with his sister(s), mother, or daughter(s) was prohibited? “

    Pardon me, that should have read “well after the fall.” Incest would have been necessary to populate the earth in the early stages. Who was allowed to marry and have sex with whom at those stages is not clear, but after Leviticus 18, it is.

    ”If you would like to refine your position to allow incestuous sex between the initial progenitors, does this excuse Lot for having sex with his daughters?”

    Um no, since they were not married to him.

    ”Recall, according to the NT genealogical record, Jesus was a direct descendant of this father-daughter incest through Lot...”

    Um, not to mention, the murder, adultery, and prostitution in Jesus’ lineage, your point?

    ”I'm confused again. I remember reading somewhere that "Thou shalt not kill", and if my semantics are valid”

    It’s not. The proper transaltion is “thou shalt not murder.”

    ”Now, though, you are evidently recasting this statement such that "lawful killing" is not "murder", and adding the bald assertion that there are cases in which killing an infant is sometimes "lawful"?

    Yip. In fact it would have been against the law not to.

    ”Surely, you can provide some examples of precisely when it is "lawful" to kill an infant, yes?”

    When it is commanded by God, i.e. 1 Samuel 15:3 : ”Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

    ”1) If god commands killing, does this necessarily mean that the killing in question is neither unlawful nor murder?”

    Correct.

    ”2) If god commands rape, does this necessarily mean that the rape in question is not absolutely morally wrong (and doesn't this contradict your earlier statement that rape is absolutely morally wrong)?”

    God does not command rape. Rape is not absolutely morally wrong because God commands that it is, rape is absolutely morally wrong, because it is contrary to God’s very nature.

    ”3) If god were to change his mind, does this not mean that the notion of absolute morality which you have pinned on him is in fact conditional on his current state of mind?”

    God cannot change his mind. Any allusion to this in the Bible is anthropomorphism.

    ”Excellent. So we agree that Abraham's attempted murder of Isaac was absolutely morally wrong... or are you going to argue that it was an attempted killing which was necessarily lawful?”

    Neither actually, he planned it in obedience to God’s command, he never attempted it.

    ”If Abraham's attempted murder of Isaac was not absolutely morally wrong -- because a) it was decreed by god, and b) it was prevented, then how does this differ from a modern parent who claims that god told him to murder his son, but whose effort is somehow thwarted? Is such a parent exonerated in your view? Why or why not?”

    Again, your characterization of Abraham’s actions as ‘attempted murder’ is false, nevertheless, I would say that such a parent would likely not be exonerated, as such a parent is likely lying, or deranged.

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  55. Stan said: ”Re: Your questions of me”

    Well, whaddya know, I didn’t think you’d answer.

    I asked: “1. Where do you get the absolute standard of reasoning from which you level the claim that Josh’s reasoning was not sound?”

    You answered: ”I have never claimed to have access to absolute knowledge from which I can glean absolute reasoning.”

    Great, so your assessment of Josh’s reasoning as unsound is without merit.

    ”If you like, however, I can here claim to have been granted a personal revelation which you cannot refute. Eris told me.”

    Is this what you are claiming? Perhaps you can tell us who Eris is, what Eris’ characteristics are, how Eris got this standard, and how you know this then?

    I asked: ”2. Why does that standard, necessarily apply to Josh?”

    You answered: ”Given that we have defined our terms in a mutually non-contradictory fashion”

    That’s not a given, that’s your assumption.

    ”my relative reasoning ability, coupled with my newfound absolute reasoning ability (Hail Eris!) is what I have used to determine the failures in Josh's reasoning. Namely, his own statements were, at times, inconsistent with themselves, making his reasoning necessarily false.”

    No, that would make his statements inconsistent, what makes them false?

    I asked: “3. By what absolute standard do you call anything morally wrong?”

    You answered: ”Again, I have not claimed absolute knowledge of an absolute moral code aside from my recent revelation from Eris (All Hail Discordia!), but I reserve the right to utilize the absolute moral code claimed by my opponent, coupled with the inerrant biblical record which he also claims, to illustrate its inconsistencies, which, as with Josh, illustrate its failure.”

    But none of it is really wrong according to YOUR worldview, since there can be no ‘real right’ or ‘real wrong,’ right?

    ”Now, then, I do believe objective morality can exist, and I don't have a problem with the existence of a deity, per se (a statement to which Dan can attest, and which you could likewise corroborate with a little reading in the archives here) -- I merely have a problem with certain types of deities, which category most certainly includes the god of Christianity.”

    Um, beg your pardon, but so what? Most criminals ‘have problems’ with cops too.

    ”So while I accept the possibility of deity, and therefore (according to your 'logic') the possibility -- indeed, the likelihood -- of an absolute moral code, I do not claim to absolutely know what that code might actually contain -- except for what Eris has told me, of course (fnord).”

    And that is? And how do you know that it is absolute?

    I asked: “4. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic?”

    You answered: ”Is it necessary to account for them? Why? I cannot account for the precise existence of anything in the universe, yet I am free to accept it, am I not?”

    Sure, if your worldview is consistent with universal, abstract, invariant entities, which you have yet to establish.

    I asked: “5. How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?”

    You answered: ”Internal consistency.”

    Um did you use valid reasoning to determine if your reasoning was internally consistent, or invalid reasoning? If you used valid reasoning to make this determination, perhaps you can tell me how you knew that it was valid prior to checking for internal consistency?

    ”I am fallible, and am unafraid to admit that this fallibility may extend into everything I do. Are you likewise willing to make such a statement?”

    I most certainly am fallible, but God has revealed some things to us fallible beings, such that we can know them for certain. What is YOUR claim to certainty, or, do you have one?

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  56. To Sye,
    I missed the bit where anyone proved which god is the right one. And if any gods exist at all. But anyway...

    [God is the foundation of all reasoning]
    Prove it. How is a human's ability to reason based on your god? And HOW do you KNOW?

    [can only come through submission]
    Did you know that Islam means "submission"?

    [logic, knowledge, truth, and reasoning, which are impossible without God.]
    How do you KNOW? Why YOUR specific god? You're talking about the Christian god YHWH, right? Without putting too much thought in it, aren't things like "logic" and "knowledge" ideas that exist in our heads? I mean, laws of logic are descriptions not prescriptions.

    Sorry if I asked too many questions, I just can't see how you go from LOGIC to LOGIC=MAGIC.

    ReplyDelete
  57. marriage is sufficient punishment
    ...
    I am single.

    So Sye, based on your Bible, are you a virgin or are you a rapist?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Whateverman said: ” As a post script, I remember having encountered Sye in the past as well. I believe I dismissed him as incapable of engaging in honest discussion;”

    Well, naturally I disagree, but by what absolute standard would dishonesty be wrong?

    ”No matter how you prattle on about presuppositions, the inerrant fact of the matter is that you assert that the Bible is infallible”

    Um, wait just a minute, how do you know this to be an inerrant fact?

    ”On the face of it, this is far less valid than the assumption that logic (a tool of language [just like math] for revealing truth, but not truth of itself) is useful.”

    By what standard of logic is my position far less valid than assuming that logic is useful, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to me. If logic is just a tool of language, then anyone could make up their own language, and their own rules and they would necessarily have to be valid. If this is what you believe, then I can have some fun!

    ”There are no absolute immaterial laws of logic.”

    Which means that there are absolute immaterial laws of logic!!! Woo Hoo!!! Or do your logical rules necessarily apply to me? If so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  59. [logical rules]
    [laws of logic]
    Descriptions. Not prescriptions.


    ( Gorth Satana, you are a character! But what kind of character...? )

    ReplyDelete
  60. Unethical Chum said: ”So then, according to this logic, the fact that people can and DO reason to a position that God is not the foundation of all reasoning must mean they are correct in their reasoning.”

    Nope. The foundations of reasoning are transcendental, and therefore cannot be reasoned to, unless you care to demonstrate how one can validly reason to the validity of reason.

    ”If your presupposition that God is the foundation of all reasoning is, in anyway, based in logic, then dropping that presupposition should have no bearing on it's accuracy.”

    It’s not. It’s based on revelation.

    ”So then you concede that your logical position is fundamentally flawed?”

    Um, no.

    ”You have yet to show that logic, knowledge, truth and reasoning are impossible without God. You only assume it...OOPS! Sorry...I meant "know".”

    It’s true by the impossibility of the contrary. If you care to demonstrate how logic, truth, knowledge, and reasoning are possible according to your worldview, the floor is yours.

    ”You claim it to be a fallacious argument, and yet is this not an accurate portrayal of your position?”

    No.

    ”My, personal, belief is that there is no absolute knowledge. I can only know something to the extent that anything can really be known, in a practical [SENSE].
    I KNOW, for instance, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real. I KNOW that leprechauns are not real. I know this because my senses and my reason bring me to this conclusion. Could I possibly be wrong? You bet!


    Perhaps you can demonstrate how one can KNOW something which is false.

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  61. Whateverman said: ” It's a method of demonstrating that you believe in the Bible, and that no amount of information from non-believers has the capacity to change your mind.

    We (the non-believers) already knew that.”


    Um no, you have no foundation for knowledge – remember? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Whateverman said: ” Bzzzzt. You have said the Bible is absolute truth and the inerrant word of God. Ergo, you have indeed said "all currency is genuine"

    Um no, I have said that the Bible is “genuine currency.”

    ReplyDelete
  63. Whateverman said: The fact that you (Christians) do not agree on every single one of those inerrant truths reveals the flaw in your assertion. Ignoring that flaw does not a valid point make.

    And what exactly does agreement have to do with the existence of inerrant truth?

    And…by what standard of logic is my point invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my point?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dave W. said ” Name one. There's no need to account for something that doesn't exist.”

    Whateverman said: ” Cue "The Law Of Non-Contradiction" in 3... 2... 1...”

    I say: “The law of non-contradiction” :-D

    ReplyDelete
  65. [the impossibility of the contrary.]

    This is like the Godwin of presupp. A big cop-out

    ReplyDelete
  66. Whateverman said: "By the way, the law of non-contradiction is easily refuted by the example underneath."

    So, what you are telling me is that the law of non-contradiction is not refuted by the example underneath. Um, that's my point :-)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Chris Mackey said: ”Prove it. How is a human's ability to reason based on your god? And HOW do you KNOW?”

    By the impossibility of the contrary, and I know this by God’s revelation.

    ”Did you know that Islam means "submission"?

    Nope.

    ”How do you KNOW?

    Again, by His revelation.

    ” Why YOUR specific god?”

    No other God can account for the foundations of reasoning, i.e. the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.

    ”You're talking about the Christian god YHWH, right? Without putting too much thought in it, aren't things like "logic" and "knowledge" ideas that exist in our heads?”

    Would you care to demonstrate how anything which exists in an individual’s head, is in any way law-like? What bearing does whatever is in your head, have on what is in anyone else’s head? Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way, before there were human heads around to contain the law of non-contradiction?

    ”I mean, laws of logic are descriptions not prescriptions”

    On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic will hold 5 seconds from now? Have you seen the future?

    ”Sorry if I asked too many questions”

    No problem, just please answer mine.

    ” I just can't see how you go from LOGIC to LOGIC=MAGIC.”

    I don’t

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  68. ( Gorth Satana, you are a character! But what kind of character...? )

    An evil character. Don't even bother asking sye questions, chris. He's not here for debate or discussion. You'll probabily notice his whole thing is based on "revelation" so it totally baseless. I had a revelation that I was GOD and was one with the universe. Doesn't make it true.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Gorth Satana said: "So Sye, based on your Bible, are you a virgin or are you a rapist?"

    My name is not in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I know this by God’s revelation.
    LOL. God as in ME or god as in YHWH?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Gorth Satana said: "You'll probabily notice his whole thing is based on "revelation" so it totally baseless."

    Based on what standard of logic is my whole thing 'baseless,' how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my 'whole thing?'

    ReplyDelete
  72. how do you account for that standard

    like I said. Revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Gorth Santana said: "like I said. Revelation."

    Can you direct me to this revelation so that I can examine it? Also could you tell me what it was that revealed this to you, what you know about this thing, and how you know it.

    Thanks,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  74. Stan,

    We must remain honest, to ourselves especially, in this conversation. You claim:

    "What if rape and slavery are combined in the form of a concubine?"

    You know full well with that brain of yours, that claim is just false. Sye said it right when he said "“Victim” and “willing” are mutually exclusive."

    Concubines still exists today with very slight exception. Todays terms for such an arrangement is called a mistress, or kept woman, and "Sugar Daddy." It would indeed have similar Concubinage arrangement if it were not for todays advancement of birth control and abortions. So you can thank modern medicine for the changing of these terms. In fact it has been only split into two terms "kept woman" and "surrogate mother". Disingenuous is not one of your personal traits that I have observed.

    Sye said "God cannot change his mind. Any allusion to this in the Bible is anthropomorphism."

    Brilliant, I just learned a new word today!

    Sorry for the interruption.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Dan said (of Stan): "Disingenuous is not one of your personal traits that I have observed."

    Being cornered, does not usually bring out the best in a person :-)

    ReplyDelete
  76. Can you direct me to this revelation so that I can examine it? Also could you tell me what it was that revealed this to you, what you know about this thing, and how you know it.

    Revelation is only revelation to the person that it is revealed to. Anything else is hearsay.

    I revealed it to myself about five years ago. I am not part of the universe, I am the universe. I am God. I always have been. And always will be. Unchanging. Because I am God, I can reveal this to myself if such a way that I can be CERTAIN.

    Please use your own god's name in your posts. If by "God" you mean YHWH then say it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Gorth Satana said: "I am God"

    Step away from the bong :-) At least the viewers here see what kind of argument is deemed to be necessary to counter Christianity. Thanks for that.

    "If by "God" you mean YHWH then say it."

    There is only one God, anything else is an idol.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Then tell me about the revelation you received.


    BTW, I've never smoked drugs. But thanks for resorting to the Ad Hom.

    ReplyDelete
  79. There is only one God, anything else is an idol.

    Did you mean "there is no god but Allah..." ?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Gorth Santana said: "BTW, I've never smoked drugs. But thanks for resorting to the Ad Hom."

    Don't mention it. It seemed to fit. :-)

    "Did you mean "there is no god but Allah..."?

    Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Gorth Santana said: "So this revelation of yours, sye?"

    It's called the Bible, but if you were what you claimed to be, you would have know that :-D

    ReplyDelete
  82. Sye TenB wrote:
    "I say: “The law of non-contradiction” :-D"

    The law of non-contradiction is a feature of some formal logics (not of others, like paraconsistent logics). All formal logics are themselves presuppositional, in that they are based upon axioms which cannot be proven using the tools of the logics themselves. For there to be a formal logic which is "universal," its axioms would need universally true, and to show that would require something outside of that logical system.

    Since your presupposition is the truth of the Bible, perhaps you could cite the chapter(s) and verse(s) which describe a "universal, abstract and invariant" formal logic which includes the law of non-contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Stan wrote: ”I have never claimed to have access to absolute knowledge from which I can glean absolute reasoning.”

    SyeTenB responded Great, so your assessment of Josh’s reasoning as unsound is without merit.

    I know that there are several posts underneath this particular exchange - but I'm not going to read or respond to them. You're patently dishonest, STB. Sorry that I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dave W. said: ”Since your presupposition is the truth of the Bible, perhaps you could cite the chapter(s) and verse(s) which describe a "universal, abstract and invariant" formal logic which includes the law of non-contradiction?”

    I can cite many chapters and verses which account for universal, abstract, invariant entities, verses which say that God is the creator of everything, and verses which forbid ‘lying’ which is what contradictions amount to. Before I bother though, could you tell us by what standard of logic you plan to evaluate my responses, how you account for that standard, and why that standard necessarily applies to my responses?

    Thanks,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  85. ...Bible... but if you were what you claimed to be, you would have know that

    I wanted you to say it.
    So you've had no revelation and you're relying on someone else's supposed revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Whateverman said: ” I know that there are several posts underneath this particular exchange - but I'm not going to read or respond to them. You're patently dishonest, STB. Sorry that I gave you the benefit of the doubt.”

    Complete with example, as usual. Naturally I deny your unfounded accusation, but just out of curiosity, by what absolute standard of morality is dishonesty wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Gorth Santana said: "So you've had no revelation and you're relying on someone else's supposed revelation."

    What part of 'the Bible is my revelation' do you not understand?

    ReplyDelete
  88. The bible has been edited by Jews and Popes. It contains lies and contradictions. Therefore Sye is basing his act on his imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The Bible? That's hearsay not revelation. What would it mean to you if the Bible was shown to have errors or contradictions?

    From revelation wiki:
    One who has experienced such contact with or communication from the divine is often known as a prophet.

    Are you a prophet?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Syeeeeed said: "It contains lies"

    Prove this please.

    "and contradictions."

    Naturally I disagree, but could you perhaps tell us by what standard of logic contradictions are not allowed, how you account for that standard, and why that standard would necessarily apply to the Bible?

    Thanks,

    Sye

    (Your need to reort to anonymity nothed :-)

    ReplyDelete
  91. Divine revelation plays a very important role in the Islamic faith. While religious books of most faiths acknowledge their human author's contribution to the divine text, the Qur'an claims to have been revealed word by word and letter by letter. Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through Muhammad ibn Abdullah (c. 570 - July 6, 632) via the angel Gabriel. Muhammad is considered to have been God's final prophet. Muhammad's revelations form the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an. The Qur'an is believed by Muslims to be the flawless final revelation of God to humanity, valid until the day of the Resurrection (Qiyamah).

    Muslims hold that the message of Islam is the same as the message preached by all the messengers sent by God to humanity since Adam. From an Islamic point of view, Islam is the oldest of the monotheistic religions because it represents both the original and the final revelation of God to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Members of all sects of Islam believe that the Qur'an codifies the direct words of God.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Gorth Santana said: ”The Bible? That's hearsay not revelation.”

    Please prove that the Bible is not God’s revelation to us.

    ”What would it mean to you if the Bible was shown to have errors or contradictions?”

    Well, first I would have to be shown by what standard of logic the Bible had errors or contradictions, how you accounted for that standard, and why that standard necessarily applied to the Bible.

    ”From revelation wiki:
    One who has experienced such contact with or communication from the divine is often known as a prophet.

    Are you a prophet?”


    Nope. Is Wiki your ultimate authority? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  93. Please prove that the Bible is not God’s revelation to us.

    LOL, you can prove it for yourself by READING IT!

    Is Wiki your ultimate authority? I am the ultimate authority. I am God.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Hi Syeeeed,
    I know where you copied that from.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Syeeeeed said: ” Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through Muhammad ibn Abdullah (c. 570 - July 6, 632) via the angel Gabriel.”

    In the Qur’an which over and over again states that ‘The Book’ (the Bible ) is true (even laying out punishment for those who deny this), then refutes itself by contradicting The Book.

    Muslims most often try to explain this away by suggesting that the Bible in its current form has been corrupted. Problem is, the Bible in its present form was compiled some 300 years BEFORE the Qur’an was written.

    ReplyDelete
  96. You may notice you can not prove me wrong.
    That's okay. I gave you free will but you are just a tool in my game.

    Muslims most often try to explain this away by suggesting that the Bible in its current form has been corrupted.

    Um, wasn't that his first comment. And of course the Bible has been changed or "corrupted".

    ReplyDelete
  97. Gorth Santana said: "You may notice you can not prove me wrong.


    Actually I can, I just don't see the need :-D

    ReplyDelete
  98. Sye! Sye! Sye!

    It looks like the Host of Israel finally has a champion!
    All glory to the Father and His Holy One Messiah Yeshua.

    God has blessed you exceedingly with the REVELATION of this method.
    They are either confessing, or cornered or dropping like flies!
    Brilliant!

    PS Is there a way to contact you on your site?

    Shalom in Messiah,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  99. I was sugesting [sic] that marriage is sufficient punishment – it was a joke

    Yes, I gathered, but evidently you actually thought I considered you a rapist... And you're not exactly single if you've finally admitted to the world that you have a bona fide girlfriend.

    Anyway...

    I had said:

    ...are you asserting that female slaves so taken and thus deflowered were willing "victims"?

    To which you replied:

    “Victim” and “willing” are mutally exclusive.

    Which Dan was all too happy to use to construct a straw man when he interjected:

    You know full well with that brain of yours, that claim is just false.

    Never mind that I didn't make a claim, but that I had instead asked a question, but even then, you'll note the quotes around the word "victim," which indicate the word holds a meaning other than its generally accepted one. Hence, telling me that "victim" and "willing" are mutually exclusive is redundant.

    At any rate, the point should've been quite clear to Dan at the least, that concubines were subject to rape according to certain biblical passages, and if Sye can get away with describing the "kindler, gentler" ancient Hebrew slavery, then I can get away with describing the "cruel, dominating" concubinage.

    So to be clear, ancient slavery included unmitigated slave-beatings, so long as permanent damage was avoided. It's fascinating to watch your "absolute standards of morality" evolve in the course of this very thread. "Modern" slavery is wrong, but slavery under a theocracy was absolutely morally good and perfect, being decreed by an absolutely morally good and perfect deity, yes? Non-lethal slave-beating was likewise absolutely morally good and pure, I take it, and since god is incapable of changing his mind, I suppose all of this is likewise absolutely morally good even today...

    God does not command rape.

    Careful there -- I'm sure what you actually mean is that the bible doesn't document god having commanded rape, because if he had, well...

    Rape is not absolutely morally wrong because God commands that it is, rape is absolutely morally wrong, because it is contrary to God’s very nature.

    Okay, Aquinas, but really, you are quite guilty of dishonesty here if you are prepared to claim that killing infants is absolutely morally good -- specifically because it was documented as a decree from the god you choose to believe actually exists, whereas you would evidently categorically denounce infanticide as absolutely morally wrong in all other situations.

    Your "superior" "standards" are nothing more than a complete application of eisegesis, and a sliding scale of crap. You are apparently perfectly happy to claim that infanticide isn't absolutely morally wrong, but that it is absolutely morally good, in certain cases (which means it is not "absolutely" morally good, but conditionally morally good).

    Your argument seems to be that because the bible shows god decreeing (X) means that (X) is absolutely morally good, and if the bible has no such example for (Y), then you are free to apply your culturally relevant moral code.

    Ugh.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  100. Never mind Sye.
    Just saw your address on your profile.
    Keep fighting the good fight!

    Baruch Hashem!
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hey Dani'El,

    Thanks for your kind words, but as the atheists love to hear me admit, I am but a tool :-)

    Anyone can contact me through my profile here, or once they navigate to the contact page on my website, but I just sent you an e-mail :-)

    Blessings,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  102. Sye TenB wrote:
    "I can cite many chapters and verses which account for universal, abstract, invariant entities, verses which say that God is the creator of everything, and verses which forbid ‘lying’ which is what contradictions amount to. Before I bother though, could you tell us by what standard of logic you plan to evaluate my responses, how you account for that standard, and why that standard necessarily applies to my responses?"

    Sure. All formal logics which include the law of non-contradiction are deemed to be formal logics only due to their compliance with the definition of the phrase "formal logic." So, as long as you show a Biblical system which matches the definition of a formal logic that includes the law of non-contradiction and is universal, you'll be successful.

    No formal logic of which I am aware is universal, because people are free to reject some of their axioms and/or laws in favor of some other logic. In particular, the law of non-contradiction is rejected by paraconsistent logics, which some logicians claim is a better tool to analyze some propositions, due to the fact that reality can be contradictory.

    By the way, "universal, abstract, invariant entities" are not sufficient for a logic. God's status as a creator is irrelevant to a system of proposition testing being (or not being) a formal logic. Verses prohibiting lying only prove that human beings do not follow any law of non-contradiction (because people do lie, despite the Commandment - heck, cognitive dissonance is a psychological symptom of a person believing that two contradictory propositions are both true).

    ReplyDelete
  103. Stan said: ” And you're not exactly single if you've finally admitted to the world that you have a bona fide girlfriend.”

    The fellow with the British accent, and new girlfriend was Jonathan Goundry.

    ”At any rate, the point should've been quite clear to Dan at the least, that concubines were subject to rape according to certain biblical passages, and if Sye can get away with describing the "kindler, gentler" ancient Hebrew slavery, then I can get away with describing the "cruel, dominating" concubinage.”

    All of which is irrelevant to the discussion on absolute morality.

    ”So to be clear, ancient slavery included unmitigated slave-beatings, so long as permanent damage was avoided. It's fascinating to watch your "absolute standards of morality" evolve in the course of this very thread.”

    What has changed? Biblical slavery - not absolutely morally wrong. Slavery as we know it - absolutely morally wrong. Scroll up, I’ve been saying that from the beginning.

    ”Careful there -- I'm sure what you actually mean is that the bible doesn't document god having commanded rape, because if he had, well...”

    Nope, that’s not what I mean.

    ”Okay, Aquinas, but really, you are quite guilty of dishonesty here if you are prepared to claim that killing infants is absolutely morally good -- specifically because it was documented as a decree from the god you choose to believe actually exists, whereas you would evidently categorically denounce infanticide as absolutely morally wrong in all other situations.”

    Where is the dishonesty, and where is the contradiction?

    ”Your "superior" "standards" are nothing more than a complete application of eisegesis, and a sliding scale of crap.”

    By what absolute standard of logic, or morality, are my standards, a ‘sliding scale of crap,’ how do you account for those standards, and why do those standards necessarily apply to my standards? It really doesn’t make sense to borrow absolute standards from my worldview, in order to argue against my worldview.

    ” You are apparently perfectly happy to claim that infanticide isn't absolutely morally wrong, but that it is absolutely morally good, in certain cases (which means it is not "absolutely" morally good, but conditionally morally good).”

    Infanticide is not absolutely morally wrong, murdering babies is.

    ”Your argument seems to be that because the bible shows god decreeing (X) means that (X) is absolutely morally good, and if the bible has no such example for (Y), then you are free to apply your culturally relevant moral code.”

    No, we study God’s Word to determine His Will, and lean on our God given consciences to help. Remember, you can’t even say that killing, or murdering babies is absolutely morally wrong, so you might want to get off that high horse.

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  104. Actually I can, I just don't see the need :-D

    You can't, can you? Otherwise you would have at least tried?
    And you didn't answer my question before. (After reading what you've written earlier) You said you weren't married, are you a virgin or are you a rapist? If you are held to those standards, rapist or virgin?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Dave W. said: ”Sure. All formal logics which include the law of non-contradiction are deemed to be formal logics only due to their compliance with the definition of the phrase "formal logic."

    How does that even come close to answering my questions? I’ll clean it up a bit for you:
    1. What is your standard of logic?
    2. How do you account for that standard?
    3. Why does that standard necessarily apply?

    ”No formal logic of which I am aware is universal, because people are free to reject some of their axioms and/or laws in favor of some other logic.”

    So, let me see if I got this right, ALL formal logic is universal? That’s what I have been saying all along!!! You see, if the law of non-contradiction is not universal, you should have no problem with that contradiction :-)

    ” In particular, the law of non-contradiction is rejected by paraconsistent logics, which some logicians claim is a better tool to analyze some propositions, due to the fact that reality can be contradictory.”

    So, let me see if I got this right, the law of non-contradiction is NOT rejected by paraconsistent logics? Again, if the law of non-contradiction is not universal, you should have no problem with that contradiction :-)

    ”By the way, "universal, abstract, invariant entities" are not sufficient for a logic.”

    It is the foundation, which you cannot account for according to your worldview. Besides, by what standard of logic do you make this evaluation, how do you account for that standard, and why does it necessarily apply here?

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  106. Gorth Satana said: "You can't, can you? Otherwise you would have at least tried?"

    As I said, I can, I just don't see the need. Your claim that you are God, is actually consistent with what the Bible says about unbelievers by the way, just most don't admit it as freely as you do.

    "And you didn't answer my question before."

    I don't see the relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  107. God cannot change his mind. Any allusion to this in the Bible is anthropomorphism.

    And your textual support for this would be..? I ask because I seem to recall reading something about god "repenting" from "doing evil" at Moses' behest. You have asserted both that god is incapable of doing evil, and that he is incapable of changing his mind, so exactly what is meant by "repent" here? (Incidentally, be careful not to hurt Dan's feelings -- one of his heroes, Ray Comfort, has suggested that god did indeed change his mind.)

    Note, also, that if god is incapable of changing his mind, then he is also a static being, and no different than (gasp) a mindless mechanism such as evolution, physics, or the various impersonal and unintelligent mechanisms we observe in nature.

    Regarding Abraham, you claim that my "characterization of Abraham’s actions as ‘attempted murder’ is false," because "he planned it in obedience to God’s command, [but] he never attempted it."

    But I'm pretty sure I read somewhere he bound his son to the altar, held aloft the knife, and began the thrusting motion, and as the story goes, his intention was to there slay his child. Now, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's attempted murder, and it's clearly conspiracy to commit murder.

    According to the bible, he attempted the murder, and he intended on succeeding, but feel free to deny the veracity of the bible, or to lie regarding its contents, whichever the case may be...

    But then you shocked me:

    I would say that such a parent would likely not be exonerated, as such a parent is likely lying, or deranged.

    Since I had asked if such a parent would be "exonerated in your view," and since I assume you understood the implications of "in your view," I must point out that your position is clearly inconsistent, since the question posed was as follows:

    [H]ow does this differ from a modern parent who claims that god told him to murder his son, but whose effort is somehow thwarted? Is such a parent exonerated in your view? Why or why not?

    Abraham is such a parent, yet you evidently exonerate him, just not any other parent? This is inconsistent. Are you god? Do you speak on his behalf?


    Great, so your assessment of Josh’s reasoning as unsound is without merit.

    Nice assertion. Care to back it up with anything, or are you merely piling assertion on top of assertion, the first being that you have access to absolute standards because you say so? Pshaw.

    Perhaps you can tell us who Eris is, what Eris’ characteristics are, how Eris got this standard, and how you know this then?

    Really? It works for you, but I have to explain myself?

    That’s not a given, that’s your assumption [that we have defined our terms in a mutually non-contradictory fashion]

    Strange. I thought we were communicating reasonably well... Are you saying this is untrue? Let's correct it then. What terms need properly defined in a mutually non-contradictory way, which aren't already so?

    I said:

    [H]is own statements were... inconsistent with themselves, making his reasoning necessarily false.

    You replied:

    No, that would make his statements inconsistent, what makes them false?

    But I didn't say his statements were false, I said his reasoning was false, because his statements were inconsistent. Read it again if you're still confused. I'll try to refrain from such big words in the future (I wouldn't want Dan to have to bust out his dictionary again)...

    But [an opponent's internally inconsistent position] is [not] really wrong according to YOUR worldview, since there can be no ‘real right’ or ‘real wrong,’ right?

    If it is internally inconsistent, it fails, but hey, since you seem to know so much about MY worldview, why stop now? You should just post my responses on my behalf -- do you need any help fashioning that straw man, or am I just getting in the way?

    Um, beg your pardon, but so what [if you have a problem with the Christian version of god]?

    Funny you should ask. Since, according to the "logic" illustrated on your website, the existence of god is necessary to have logic, reason, math, etc., then my acceptance of the possibility gives me the right to use them -- unless you have some other reason for disallowing me the right to use logic and reason...

    [D]id you use valid reasoning to determine if your reasoning was internally consistent, or invalid reasoning? If you used valid reasoning to make this determination, perhaps you can tell me how you knew that it was valid prior to checking for internal consistency?

    Actually, I'm glad you asked. I first consulted my pituitary gland (which is how Eris contacts me), and she granted me temporary access to absolutely invalid reasoning, which I used to determine that my own reasoning was in fact valid (since the absolutely invalid reasoning given me by Eris resulted in the conclusion that my own reasoning was absolutely invalid), so that I could reason that my reasoning was valid when I determined that my reasoning was internally consistent.

    ...

    I most certainly am fallible, but God has revealed some things to us fallible beings, such that we can know them for certain.

    So you're fallible. Excellent. Does this include your ability to reason? If so, does this not mean that those things you assert god has revealed may be tainted by your fallibility? If your ability to reason is unaffected by your fallibility, how can you be sure, considering the fact that you've admitted that you're fallible?

    What is YOUR claim to certainty, or, do you have one?

    Just because you claim that your god could beat up my god does not mean I must engage in such childishness. I am content with uncertainty -- indeed, I can calculate it for certain wavefunctions.

    --
    Stan


    P.S. - Dan, I don't believe I've yet been disingenuous, and despite Sye and Dani'El's statements to the contrary, I don't see anyone having been cornered. It's amusing, though, isn't it, to see the theists salivating over the prospect of a good ass-handing-to, even if they're wrong about the recipient... Is that the right attitude for them to have, given the statements of Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  108. As I said, I can, I just don't see the need.
    I hope people start using this answer when YOU ask them questions!

    Your claim that you are God, is actually consistent with what the Bible says about unbelievers by the way...
    Why does it matter what the Bible says? Who said I was an "unbeliever"? Your god YHWH is an aspect of -me-.

    I don't see the relevance.
    Hey, you brought it up, you virgin or rapist, you.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Stan said: ”And your textual support for this would be.

    Malachi 3:6

    ” I ask because I seem to recall reading something about god "repenting" from "doing evil" at Moses' behest. You have asserted both that god is incapable of doing evil, and that he is incapable of changing his mind, so exactly what is meant by "repent" here?”

    Our Bible study meets Tuesday nights, you are more than welcome!

    ” (Incidentally, be careful not to hurt Dan's feelings -- one of his heroes, Ray Comfort, has suggested that god did indeed change his mind.)”

    I like Ray, and I disagree with him on a few points, if that is what he believes, than this is one of them.

    Note, also, that if god is incapable of changing his mind, then he is also a static being, and no different than (gasp) a mindless mechanism such as evolution, physics, or the various impersonal and unintelligent mechanisms we observe in nature.

    So, are you telling me that you are a product of this mindless evolution, and that your thoughts are merely mindless mechanisms; that you do not choose what you believe but do so merely because of the bio-chemical processes in your brain???

    Should have mentioned that sooner, I thought you were of the opinion that you could change your mind. What a waste of time this was.

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  110. Stan said: "Dan, I don't believe I've yet been disingenuous, and despite Sye and Dani'El's statements to the contrary"

    Riiiiiiight, you really beleive that you have had revelations from Eris. Not disengenuous - HA!

    ReplyDelete
  111. Sye to someone else: I thought you were of the opinion that you could change your mind. What a waste of time this was.

    Do you have the ability to change your mind about this "revelation" thing?

    For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

    Empty words in some old book, yawn. I've read the Bible, yawnsville. Not revelation, just hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
  112. sye to someone else:
    I like Ray, and I disagree with him on a few points, if that is what he believes, than this is one of them.

    Strange that you'd disagree if you had the same "revelation", isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Gorth Santana wrote: "Do you have the ability to change your mind about this "revelation" thing?"

    Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Gorth Satana said: "Strange that you'd disagree if you had the same "revelation", isn't it."

    Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Sye TenB wrote:
    "How does that even come close to answering my questions?"

    I thought it was obvious, given what logic is.

    "I’ll clean it up a bit for you:
    1. What is your standard of logic?
    "

    Different logics necessarily apply in different situations. For some examples... If I'm analyzing something with strictly true/false values, then a boolean logic is appropriate. If analyzing something closer to reality, where propositions aren't necessarily entirely true or false, a "fuzzy" logic would be more useful. If I'm analyzing something which is entirely numerical, then some mathematics would be in order. If the question is a natural-language argument, then a good old-fashioned informal logic is the way to go. If analyzing human beliefs, a logic which includes the law of non-contradiction would be entirely inappropriate.

    "2. How do you account for that standard?"

    By comparing the axioms and tools of the logic to the scenario that needs to be analyzed. The logic which matches best should be the one that is applied. Trying to use a strictly boolean logic to figure out what sort of bet to make next in a game of craps would be a pretty bad idea (for example).

    "3. Why does that standard necessarily apply?"

    Because using an inappropriate analytical tool will generally result in poor answers to whatever question is being analyzed. This can be easily determined by taking a well-defined example problem (one for which the answer is known), and applying all sorts of logics to it, and seeing which result in the correct answer and which fail.

    "You see, if the law of non-contradiction is not universal, you should have no problem with that contradiction :-)" [Times two.]

    Ah, I see that you have a completely different definition for the phrase "law of non-contradiction" than the one that is used by logicians. Your use of the phrase is not as a "law of logic."

    Restating my sentences as their polar opposite and then expecting me to deny the truth of them is not an example of "logic" or the "law of non-contradiction" as I understand their definitions.

    So, in order for this discussion to move ahead (in order for you to show me a universal, abstract and invariant law of logic, as was your claim), you're going to have to define the terms as you use them, because your definitions clearly aren't those of logicians. Once you do, and you agree that I understand what you mean by those terms, then we can continue.

    In other words, for the sake of this discussion (for us to be able to argue from a common understanding), I am hereby throwing out everything I already know about what a "law of logic" is, and I am waiting for you to teach me (preferably with chapter-and-verse, so I can follow along more easily). Afterward, perhaps I will agree that the law of non-contradiction is, indeed, a universal, abstract and invariant law of logic, given your definitions.

    Without me doing this, we will do nothing but talk past one another. So, consider me a tabula rasa, and start writing.

    ReplyDelete
  116. so wait.
    the Bible is THE revelation. You Know you're right and can't change your mind.
    you and ray (and many other people) read it and come to different conclusions. so how did ray miss out on this revelation?
    The Bible says YHWH changed his mind. Your god can't change.
    Isn't your story getting a bit confused?

    ReplyDelete
  117. [By the impossibility of the contrary, and I know this by God’s revelation.]

    Empty assertion.

    [”Did you know that Islam means "submission"?
    Nope.]

    Well, now you know.

    [Again, by His revelation.]
    Another baseless assertion.

    [No other God can account for the foundations of reasoning, i.e. the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.]
    This is your claim. You must know that other people claim other gods as the foundations of reasoning. I don't see how "reasoning" exists outside of the mind.

    [..Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way, before there were human heads around to contain the law of non-contradiction?]
    You're mixing up descriptive laws and prescriptive law again.

    [just please answer mine.]
    why? you've just given me baseless assertions, as empty as Gorth Satana's.

    ReplyDelete
  118. [So, in order for this discussion to move ahead (in order for you to show me a universal, abstract and invariant law of logic, as was your claim), you're going to have to define the terms as you use them... etc... etc...]

    Good idea, Dave W, because he seems to using definitions of his own making.

    ReplyDelete
  119. as empty as Gorth Satana's.

    Hey! A disbeliever!

    ReplyDelete
  120. Gonna be away for a bit.

    Will try to catch up soon.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Dave W. wrote:
    "So, in order for this discussion to move ahead (in order for you to show me a universal, abstract and invariant law of logic, as was your claim), you're going to have to define the terms as you use them... etc... etc..."

    I can do that:

    "Universal": The same everywhere and everywhen within the entirety of space-time (the universe). This adjective is false, since the rules of logic are a description of reality, and can be changed by anyone. The accepted rules of logic are much more consistent, but still open to change (they're just harder to change, because they have to be accurate to be accepted).

    "Abstract": without physical form. This adjective is redundant, since the rules of logic are a description of reality and all descriptions are obviously without material form (although what they describe might well have physical form).

    "Invarient": Unchangable. This adjective is false and redudant. False, because the rules of logic are a description of reality, and are subject to change as more information on the nature of reality becomes available. Redundant, because it is covered previously by the definition of "Universal".

    So, Sye has to demonstrate a law of logic which is something other than a description of reality, and then demonstrate that such things exist, before we can even begin to debate this.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Sye wrote:
    "Gonna be away for a bit.

    Will try to catch up soon."


    Awwww, I just got back!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Where is the dishonesty...?

    The dishonesty lies in the fact that the only reason you claim that "[i]nfanticide is not absolutely morally wrong," but that "murdering babies is [wrong]" is the fact that the bible claims god decreed that babies should be killed. If that passage had not appeared in the bible, you'd be whistling quite the different tune, and everyone here knows it -- including you.

    Infanticide is murdering babies. It is either wrong or it isn't.

    Further dishonesty on your part has now also been illustrated by your denial of god's changing mind, via Exodus 32:9-14:

    10) [god speaking] "Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

    ...

    14) [narrative] Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.


    Ignoring for the moment the fact that this particular translation phrases this sequence in such a way so as to avoid the notion that god contemplated an evil act, the Hebrew words in question indicate that god did in fact change his mind. Either he changed his mind in verse 14, or he lied in verse 10. Since you deny either possibility, you must also deny the truth of the bible to maintain belief in this sort of god. Of course, you are also free to deny the existence of the deity in question -- doesn't matter to me.

    Incidentally, your eisegesis regarding "killing" versus "murdering" is also wrong, since the Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13 means "murder, slay, kill" (per Blue Letter Bible Lexicon)... but you're entitled to bonus points for redefining "kill" and "murder" on the fly to suit your own nefarious ends.

    Psst: that's dishonest, too.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  124. Not going to work, Quasar.

    For one thing, only some logics are descriptions of reality. It's easy to create a logic with false axioms which doesn't describe anything at all.

    For another, I doubt that those are Sye's definitions of those words.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Blogger Sye TenB said...

    "The foundations of reasoning are transcendental, and therefore cannot be reasoned to, unless you care to demonstrate how one can validly reason to the validity of reason."

    Are you now saying that reason and logic (a result of reason) are now not valid? Hmmm...That puts your "Proof that God Exists" site in jeopardy then, doesn't it?

    "[The presupposition that God is the foundation of all reasoning is] based on revelation".

    So, basically, your evidence that God is the foundation of all reasoning is that you really, really, really, REALLY believe it? Wow. I'll have to try that one the next time my wife and I have a disagreement. "Honey, I don't think you're grasping the severity with which I really, REALLY believe that I'm right."

    [In response to]So then you concede that your logical position is fundamentally flawed?

    "Um, no".

    Really? You said:

    "one cannot autonomously reason to a position that God is the foundation of all reasoning – that can only come through submission."

    This is an admission that your position comes from "revelation" and not from logic. Therefore, your logical position IS flawed. It requires that you, first, believe in God and then submit to the idea that said God is the foundation of all reasoning. Where's the logic, there?

    "It’s true by the impossibility of the contrary. If you care to demonstrate how logic, truth, knowledge, and reasoning are possible according to your worldview, the floor is yours."

    Sure thing. Logic, truth and knowledge are 100% possible because they exist. By the way, in case you were wondering, trees, kittens and chili cheese fries are also possible.

    [In response to:]You claim it to be a fallacious argument [that God exists because he does], and yet is this not an accurate portrayal of your position?

    "No".

    I must have missed where you laid out, using sound logic, evidence that God exists. By the way, to save time, your refutation of my statement would have been a perfect opportunity to define your position, in this matter. But you probably knew that. ;)

    "Perhaps you can demonstrate how one can KNOW something which is false."

    I never said I believed to know something that was false. I simply allowed for that possibility because I'm not arrogant enough to believe myself infallible.

    But, in answer to your question...

    At one time, people KNEW the sun revolved around the Earth. People also KNEW maggots spontaneously appeared on rotten meat. Some people (*snicker* Get this)...Some people KNOW that there's this magic guy that created everything in six days and then purposely planted evidence to the contrary (I suppose to test us all).

    I hope those examples are enough.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Hey folks.

    Well, I had to step away for a little over an hour, and I have 10 posts to catch up with. I have tried to keep up, and answer everyone's questions, but it looks like I'm falling behind too much.

    There are some good points coming up now, with some serious debaters, so I'll try to get to them, but I'll have to drop the person who says that he is God (Gorth Satana), and the one who says he is getting revelations from 'Eris.' (Stan).

    If the rest of you feel that those arguments deserve responses, I will endeavour to include them, but then the chances are I won't get to all the serious arguments.

    With this, I am open to suggestion, but for now, I will not respond to those two.

    Cheers,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  127. Dave W. said:

    ”I thought it was obvious, given what logic is.”

    Well, that is where one of our fundamental disagreements lies.

    Different logics necessarily apply in different situations. For some examples... If I'm analyzing something with strictly true/false values, then a boolean logic is appropriate.

    Please don’t think I’m being petulent, but why? Is that an arbitrary decision?

    ”If analyzing something closer to reality, where propositions aren't necessarily entirely true or false, a "fuzzy" logic would be more useful.”

    Such as, and again, why?

    ” If I'm analyzing something which is entirely numerical, then some mathematics would be in order. If the question is a natural-language argument, then a good old-fashioned informal logic is the way to go. If analyzing human beliefs, a logic which includes the law of non-contradiction would be entirely inappropriate.”

    Again, why, why and why?

    ”By comparing the axioms and tools of the logic to the scenario that needs to be analyzed. The logic which matches best should be the one that is applied. “

    Well, I asked how you account for the standard of logic you wish to apply, and your response does not address that, but just out of curiosity, what logic do you use to determine which logic best matches, and why?

    ”Because using an inappropriate analytical tool will generally result in poor answers to whatever question is being analyzed.”

    What logic do you use to determine that it is a ‘poor answer,’ and why?

    ” This can be easily determined by taking a well-defined example problem (one for which the answer is known), and applying all sorts of logics to it, and seeing which result in the correct answer and which fail.”

    What logic do you use to determine whether or not something is known, and why? How do you know that logic is itself valid, and the thing itself is true?

    "Ah, I see that you have a completely different definition for the phrase "law of non-contradiction" than the one that is used by logicians. Your use of the phrase is not as a "law of logic."

    Well I disagree, and I’d ask how you know this, but I’ll wait until you answer the above questions.

    ”Restating my sentences as their polar opposite and then expecting me to deny the truth of them is not an example of "logic" or the "law of non-contradiction" as I understand their definitions.”

    The law of non-contradiction basically states that opposites cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. If you claim that this law is not universal, then surely you should have no problem with contradictions, as, for all you know, they could be exceptions to your non-universal laws.

    ”So, in order for this discussion to move ahead (in order for you to show me a universal, abstract and invariant law of logic, as was your claim), you're going to have to define the terms as you use them, because your definitions clearly aren't those of logicians. Once you do, and you agree that I understand what you mean by those terms, then we can continue.”

    Universal – true for all people at all times. Abstract – not made of matter. Invariant – do not change.

    ”In other words, for the sake of this discussion (for us to be able to argue from a common understanding), I am hereby throwing out everything I already know about what a "law of logic" is, and I am waiting for you to teach me (preferably with chapter-and-verse, so I can follow along more easily). “

    Well, I gave my description of the law of non-contradiction. If you differ with it, please give your definition.

    ”Without me doing this, we will do nothing but talk past one another. So, consider me a tabula rasa, and start writing.”

    Clear as mud? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  128. [but I'll have to drop the person who says that he is God (Gorth Satana), and the one who says he is getting revelations from 'Eris.' (Stan).]

    I can guess why. Gorth's position is the same as your position. Baseless assertions.

    I'm unimpressed by your "I can, I just don't see the need" way of dismissing his claims.

    ----------
    Presup reasoning cut and paste from other website:

    while (Atheist.stillDebating == true)
    {
    MessageBox.Show("Are you certain?",MessageBoxButtons.No);
    }
    MessageBox.Show("I win!", MessageBoxOptions.DefaultMygodOnly, HelpNavigator.Bible);

    ReplyDelete
  129. Chris Mackey said: "I can guess why. Gorth's position is the same as your position. Baseless assertions. I'm unimpressed by your of "I can, I just don't see the need".

    Would you like to take his place on the bench? I don't mind switching if you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I will not respond to those two.

    O RLY?

    Get over yourself, buddy. Obviously my references to Eris were tongue-in-cheek, but apparently humor is lost on you... anyway, if it were a legitimate claim, it doesn't at all differ from your own claims. If you can't see that, then so be it. If you still feel the need to ignore the points I've raised, then again, so be it.

    Oh, wait -- I know what you're going to ask next... You're going to ask me what absolute standards I use and where I got them, as though my answer is any less arbitrary than yours. You're quick to dismiss people who, in the interest of humor and/or parody, facetiously claim belief in other beings (including themselves, evidently) as deities, but what would you say were this same cavalier dismissal leveled on your own posts?

    As you're so fond of saying, "Riiiight."

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  131. [Would you like to take his place on the bench? I don't mind switching if you don't.]

    Okay, I'm missing something. What bench? Like a judge's bench? You -don't- mind switching if I -don't-?

    You wouldn't like a hand-wave as a dismissal, you say you can prove Gorth isn't God then do it.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Quasar said: ”So, Sye has to demonstrate a law of logic which is something other than a description of reality, and then demonstrate that such things exist, before we can even begin to debate this.”

    None of them are a description of reality. If the laws of logic were merely descriptions of reality, then they would be contingent to those things described, but we all know that that is simply not the case. If I ask you, could my car both be in the parking lot, and not in the parking lot at the same time and in the same way 5 seconds from now what description of reality would tell you that this could not be the case? And, if you only assume that this could not be the case, on what basis do you proceed with that assumption?

    P.S. Thanks for having a crack at those definitions

    ReplyDelete
  133. Chris Mackey said: "You wouldn't like a hand-wave as a dismissal, you say you can prove Gorth isn't God then do it."

    Wouldn't mind a hand wave at all as a dismissal. Actually, it would be more consistent with your position. I am not responding to him because his claim is not worthy of a response. If you really believed what you said you believed, you should respond that way to me.

    Plus since most of you, I imagine, are atheists, you don't believe him either :-D

    ReplyDelete
  134. [If you really believed what you said you believed, you should respond that way to me.]

    Which of my beliefs are you referring to? You want to be dismissed with a hand-wave?

    [ Plus since most of you, I imagine, are atheists, you don't believe him either :-D ]

    I've already said I doubt Gorth is a god but you said you could PROVE it.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Unethical Chum Tin said: ”Are you now saying that reason and logic (a result of reason) are now not valid?”

    Um no, I am saying that logic is not a result of reason. Unless of course you care to demonstrate how one reasons to a logical law, without using logic?

    ”So, basically, your evidence that God is the foundation of all reasoning is that you really, really, really, REALLY believe it? “

    What part of ‘revelation’ do you not understand?

    ”Really? You said:
    "one cannot autonomously reason to a position that God is the foundation of all reasoning – that can only come through submission."
    This is an admission that your position comes from "revelation" and not from logic. Therefore, your logical position IS flawed. It requires that you, first, believe in God and then submit to the idea that said God is the foundation of all reasoning. Where's the logic, there?


    God is the necessary precondition for logic. How do you arrive at it?

    ”Sure thing. Logic, truth and knowledge are 100% possible because they exist.”

    Um, God is possible because He exists. How do you like your argument now? Perhaps you can tell me, where and how logic exists according to your worldview?

    ” By the way, in case you were wondering, trees, kittens and chili cheese fries are also possible.”

    How do you know?

    ”I must have missed where you laid out, using sound logic, evidence that God exists.”

    Sound logic IS evidence that God exists, as you could not account for the concept otherwise.

    I asked: "Perhaps you can demonstrate how one can KNOW something which is false."

    You answered: "I never said I believed to know something that was false. I simply allowed for that possibility because I'm not arrogant enough to believe myself infallible.”

    Then what do you actually know, if what you claim to know could be false?

    ”But, in answer to your question...
    At one time, people KNEW the sun revolved around the Earth. People also KNEW maggots spontaneously appeared on rotten meat.”


    Did they know this, or did they only erroneously believe it?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Chris Mackey said: "I've already said I doubt Gorth is a god but you said you could PROVE it."

    That's right, I could, by showing by an absolute standard that there is only one God, and that by Gorth's statements that it can't be him. That would be proof, but as you should be aware, proof does not equal persuasion.

    So do you want me to respond to his posts instead of yours?

    You are borderline anyways :-)

    ReplyDelete
  137. Gorth Satana,

    "What would it mean to you if the Bible was shown to have errors or contradictions?" and "And of course the Bible has been changed or "corrupted"."

    Biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths. Dead Sea Scrolls showed how accurately it was transmitted.

    Wiki Syeeeeed,

    "the Qur'an claims to have been revealed word by word and letter by letter."

    The difference is the prophetic revelations which the Qur’an cannot claim. Qur’an cannot even come close to the truths and prophetic revelations in the Bible.

    Syeeeeed said: "It contains lies"

    Yes please prove this for all of us

    Stan,

    Thanks for finally admitting that you indeed worship an entity. That was witty of you to use Eris. I, for one, can absolutely attest to your dedication to her and her teachings. You are a loyal follower.

    As far as your false accusation that I used a straw-man, I will explain. As to not also be accused of quote mining either, here is what you said: "What if rape and slavery are combined in the form of a concubine? Is that absolutely morally wrong? What did the bible say about that? I forget."

    Again, you know full well that to insinuate you still are suggesting something no matter the attempt of imperceptibly. You cannot pose a question just to avoid ownership of something said. I can say something like "Are you sure your wife is not sleeping around on you?" You say 'yes" and I again ask "are you absolutely sure?" To insinuate is still a watered down claim. I can play this game. I sure thought you were more of a stand up man then that. You see, I didn't call you spineless, I just insinuated it.

    I will forgo the Ace Ventura clip this time :p Or was that an insinuation again?

    Sye,

    "Infanticide is not absolutely morally wrong, murdering babies is."

    OK now your losing me. let me humbly plea that Infanticide is absolutely morally wrong. The responsibility lies on the parent not to have children if they are too poor, for example, to care for the child. Or the care of a cerebral palsied child is a blessing, not a hindrance and does not constitute killing that child. Isn't this just a logical extension of abortion? Does it carry a criminal penalty? If so then that would render it wrong. Teenagers that have children, only to place them in dumpsters, personally this is an absolute moral wrong. IMHO

    Stan,

    You have asserted both that god is incapable of doing evil, and that he is incapable of changing his mind, so exactly what is meant by "repent" here?

    Disingenuous? We talked about that earlier.Exodus 32:14 says not that any of God’s thoughts or the determinations of his mind are alterable; for the thoughts of His heart are to all generations (Psalm 33:11) but he changes the outward dispensations of his providence, or his methods of acting with men, which he has been taking or threatened to take.

    "(I wouldn't want Dan to have to bust out his dictionary again)..." Hey! I heard that...I like big words, just not sentence enhancers.

    "Dan, I don't believe I've yet been disingenuous..."

    I hope not because it is one of your strongest traits not to be. Eris follower...oops. You are fallible though aren't you.

    I am realizing again quickly this is why we cannot convince anyone through the intellect. If we all understand that this little 'exercise' is not to convince anyone of God's existence and that only God Himself can change hearts then we can continue with a clear conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Stan said: Get over yourself, buddy. Obviously my references to Eris were tongue-in-cheek, but apparently humor is lost on you."

    Look, if I ask you how you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and you repeat the same 'joke' rather than give your answer, what do you expect me to do. There is alot of traffic here, and I can't waste my time responding to jokes.

    I do however appreciate the admission that your claim was a 'joke' and if you'd like to actually answer my questions now, I'd be happy to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  139. @ Dan

    I said: "Infanticide is not absolutely morally wrong, murdering babies is."

    You said: "OK now your losing me.

    By 'infanticide' we were referring to God's inclusion of infants in His commands to kill, not what you are describing - THAT would be murder.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Alright it's after midnight in my time zone, so I'm off.

    Hopefully things will be quieter here tomorrow :-)

    Night all,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  141. I can't waste my time responding to jokes.

    Nor can I. I suppose we're done, then, due to your refusal to step out from behind your "I-have-an-asserted-absolute-source-and-you-don't" drivel, your dishonest redefinition of the terms "kill" and "murder", and your extreme arrogance.

    Talk about disingenuous...


    Dan: I'm still not sure what problem you had with the question of concubines. I phrased it in such a way that it was clear that I meant not a mistress, but one who has been forcibly taken into custody by her master, and who is in fact a slave that is forced to perform sexually. I did this to avoid ambiguity, and if anything it was extremely gracious of me to offer an easy method of deflection -- you guys could simply have asserted (and frankly, I'm surprised you didn't) that the concubines described in the OT were not raped slaves.

    Sure, I know you and I have hashed over some of this stuff before, but without being too disrespectful, you didn't exactly sway me in your arguments. I thought I'd give Sye a shot, but he's far too interested in avoiding any actual discussion by asking circular questions wherein he refuses to consider, even for the sake of an argument, that his own position may be inaccurate. I don't fault him for his conviction, per se, but I certainly fault his attitude and unwillingness to engage in anything but bullshit semantics.

    If the other frequent flyers here wish to continue, they are more than welcome, but I'm not about to beg him to take me back after he's already hung it up without so much as an honest answer.

    As to god's repentance and evil-doing, I thought I made it pretty clear when I linked to the concordance entry that the term translated (in the KJV) as "evil" implies malevolence, and ethical wrongness. Review it again if you like, but as you'll note, I was ignoring that aspect in this particular argument, and instead focusing on the fact that god said he was going to do something, then changed his mind, or, he lied about his intention to do something, but never did it. Either way god is not as Christians describe, and I think it's a point worthy of an honest response.

    So no, I don't think I've been disingenuous, but it's true, I am fallible: I am that I am.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  142. Sye,

    Have a cold apple juice on me, you deserve it.

    I must say that we do need to laser the discussion to get anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Sye TenB wrote:
    "How do you know that logic is itself valid, and the thing itself is true?"

    I'm not a solipsist. I'm a pragmatic evidentialist with tones of utilitarianism. But now I'm none of those things, because I need to learn your philosophy in order to find the common ground for understanding. I aim to become a presuppositionalist for the purposes of this discussion I'm having with you, so whatever it was that I once believed simply doesn't matter any more.

    "Well I disagree, and I’d ask how you know this, but I’ll wait until you answer the above questions."

    I explained how I knew it. You even quoted my explanation. But that explanation is now moot.

    "The law of non-contradiction basically states that opposites cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way."

    What are "opposites?" What is "true?" Where in the Bible can I find the law of non-contradiction as you have formulated it?

    "If you claim that this law is not universal, then surely you should have no problem with contradictions, as, for all you know, they could be exceptions to your non-universal laws."

    I no longer have any claims to make. I am listening to your explanations and trying to learn from you.

    "Universal – true for all people at all times."

    So the law of non-contradiction doesn't apply to angels or animals? Where is this discussed in the Bible?

    "Abstract – not made of matter."

    So the law of non-contradiction only applies to thought or prayers, but not to rocks or skateboards, for example? Where is this discussed in the Bible?

    "Invariant – do not change."

    If I'm not mistaken, the only thing that doesn't change is God. So the law of non-contradiction only applies to Him? Where is this discussed in the Bible?

    "Well, I gave my description of the law of non-contradiction. If you differ with it, please give your definition."

    I don't differ with it, I'm trying to understand it so that I can successfully apply it myself. Help me out here, instead of being combative.

    "Clear as mud? :-)"

    So far, yes. But I've only just begun to learn what you've got to teach. I'm a fast learner, but not that fast. Had you quoted chapter-and-verse, I would have been able to do some studying on my own and perhaps answer some of the above questions myself and thus appear a little less stupid about it all. I apologize for not catching on more quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  144. It was nice of Sye to return the favor to Josh and jump into the lion's den over here at this blog. With Josh it was 3 to 1. With Sye its many times more then that to one.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Amen Dan,
    That's exactly what I was thinking.
    The only difference is that Sye was like Samson with a Jawbone of a donkey.

    There are bodies strewn all about!
    lol!

    Wow.
    Very impressive Sye.
    All glory to YHWH!!

    ReplyDelete
  146. I love these presup threads, it's like everyone thinks the last person to post is the winner. Sye gets totally owned over and over again - and he still has two cheerleaders! Dan-el, a guy who KNOWS that San Fran will be destroyed next year and Dan Plus Plus who says the Bible isn't textually pure but seems to believe in it anyway...

    On the "absoluteness" of religious laws:

    Jesus himself said that religious laws are not absolute. In Matthew 5:38, he rejects the "eye for an eye" law (Exod. 21:23-25, Lev. 24:19-20, Deut. 19:21). Jesus rejected all dietary law (Mark 7:19; cf. Lev. 11). He rejected the commandment about working on the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). If Jesus considered that even the laws of Moses were not inerrant, why should we consider any part of the Bible inerrant?

    Factual errors:

    * Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.
    * Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.
    * 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

    contradictions:

    * In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.
    * Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus's lineage.
    * Mark 14:72 differs from Matthew 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many times the cock crowed.
    * 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.
    * 1 Samuel 17:23,50 and 2 Samuel 21:19 disagree about who killed Goliath.
    * 1 Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.
    # Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9 disagree with Ezekiel 18:4,19-20 and John 9:3 about sins being inherited.

    ReplyDelete
  147. There's no Mrs. Sye Ten B? Huh. Whadda know. Anyway, Sye, are still engaging Stephen Law?

    ReplyDelete
  148. Blogger Sye TenB said...

    I don't have a lot of time, as I'm fixing to go away on business. I'll try to respond later, from the hotel. Anyway, here goes:

    "Um no, I am saying that logic is not a result of reason. Unless of course you care to demonstrate how one reasons to a logical law, without using logic"?

    Are you now saying that the all laws of logic spontaneously appeared in the minds of humans, at some point. It think not. It took reason to figure them out.

    "What part of ‘revelation’ do you not understand"?

    The part where it's valid. Maybe you could shed some light on the subject instead of stonewalling.

    "God is the necessary precondition for logic. How do you arrive at it"?

    At this point? Mainly my BS meter. You've yet to validate your assertion. If we're just going to make up arbitrary preconditions without validating them, I don't

    "Um, God is possible because He exists. How do you like your argument now? Perhaps you can tell me, where and how logic exists according to your worldview?"

    The difference is, I freely admit that knowledge, truth and reason exist as ideas and descriptive terms. Is there anyone, here, with the position that they do not? If your saying that God exists merely as an idea or descriptive term, then I guess I can live with that.

    [In response to] By the way, in case you were wondering, trees, kittens and chili cheese fries are also possible.

    "How do you know"?

    Are you saying that trees, kittens and chili cheese fries do not exist? Do tell...What other previously accepted objects and animals don't exist?

    "Sound logic IS evidence that God exists, as you could not account for the concept otherwise".

    And yet, you've yet to account for God, at all.

    Sye asked: "Perhaps you can demonstrate how one can KNOW something which is false."

    I answered: "I never said I believed to know something that was false. I simply allowed for that possibility because I'm not ARROGANT enough to believe myself infallible.”

    Sye responded: "Then what do you actually know, if what you claim to know could be false"?

    That would depend on your definition of knowledge. That definition is still up in the air (epistemology). If you claim to have absolute knowledge of God's existence, please prove it. Cue "revelation" in 3, 2, 1... Now define revelation and demonstrate how it is valid proof of God's existence.

    "Did they know this, or did they only erroneously believe it"?

    Do you know there's a God, or do you erroneously believe it? What's the difference, here?

    I may have missed a question and, if so I'm sorry. I've got to go. Have fun!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Well, then Sye:

    I only had a handset, and never once looked at my computer. Josh and I exchanged many e-mails 18 months ago, and has access to my website, so he knew my background, and exactly where I was coming from. He even alluded to knowing my position near the beginning of the show. The reason he faired so poorly is because he was wrong.

    Thanks for posting this Dan.

    Sye

    That explains the Dover Trial verdict then, or the multiple ownages given to you by Stephen Law.


    Truth does not always win out in oral debates. If that was the case, then Samuel Birley Rowbotham was right about the world being flat.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Reynold said: "Truth does not always win out in oral debates."

    Never said it did. You really should read the posts before you post irrelevant comments. This point has been well gone over.
    By the way, how do you know if anything is 'true' according to your worldview?

    "That explains the Dover Trial verdict then, or the multiple ownages given to you by Stephen Law."

    Funny, of all the posts that Stephen Law did about my site, you posted the one where I did not make any comments. I welcome any and all to go there, read his posts, and my responses. Mr. Law is yet another person who denies God, yet is unable to account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to his worldview - he just does it with bigger words.

    I'm heading out for a few hours, but will try to get to some of the other posts later in the day.

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  151. Sye TenB said...

    Reynold said: "Truth does not always win out in oral debates."


    Never said it did. You really should read the posts before you post irrelevant comments. This point has been well gone over.
    You implied that oral debates can (even if not always) be won out by truth when you said about Josh's debate results:
    The reason he faired so poorly is because he was wrong.

    I just gave an example where truth did not win a debate to counter the example (Josh's debate) where you claimed it did.
    Remember: The reason he faired so poorly is because he was wrong. No one would say that's the reason that the flat-earther Rowbotham won his debates...


    By the way, how do you know if anything is 'true' according to your worldview?
    answered...not that you'll ever accept them.
    This link is from Stephen's site where he refers to other posts in his summary of his experiences with you (again, see the link I gave in the previous post; they're all on there)

    From the link I gave in this post:
    2. We then turned to how atheists might "account for" the laws of logic. This conversation was complex, as "account for" covers at least two quite separate issues (the question of how to justify such laws, and the question of what might metaphysically underpin them or make them hold). However, we saw that, again, you have no argument for this conclusion (other than something you call the "impossibility of the contrary", which you constantly allude to, but never actually explain). Worse, I presented three examples of atheist-friendly solutions to the puzzle of how the laws of logic might be "accounted for", none of which you've been able to refute. So, again, your claim that atheists are in principle unable to "account for" logic looks rather flimsy.


    "That explains the Dover Trial verdict then, or the multiple ownages given to you by Stephen Law."
    Funny, of all the posts that Stephen Law did about my site, you posted the one where I did not make any comments.
    Funny, you didn't read through that page, did you? That page I linked to contained all the posts that Steven did that involved your site. I clicked on the left hand label "sinner's ministries proof of the existence of god" which brings up the list of posts that deal with you and your site.

    How could you miss that? It's at the top of the page under the heading. Showing posts with label sinner ministries' "proof of the existence of god"

    You really should read the posts before you post irrelevant comments.


    I welcome any and all to go there, read his posts, and my responses. Mr. Law is yet another person who denies God, yet is unable to account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to his worldview - he just does it with bigger words.
    No, he schools you. Let me give some individual sites then, if you don't want to skim through the post list that was in the previous link.

    Just go back to my previous post, and click on Stephen's name, then scroll down.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Syeeeeed,

    "Factual errors:

    * Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud."


    Rabbits do chew cud (already digested food) in rabbits it is called cecotrophy (Normal practice of the rabbit consuming some of the droppings directly from the anus). Rats and rabbits re-digest cellulose a different way then cows. They eat feces and literally re-digest them a second time. So the bible was right, they are a filthy and are unclean for us.

    I will give you one by one if you promise to change your presuppositions about the evidence.

    There are clear counters for all those claims you have made but I will not waste time if you are stubborn and not receptive to receive the truth. Are you willing to understand truth and change your presuppositions when I prove the claims you have just made as false. Just like the very first example?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Stan,

    Consider yourself invited to the Narrow Mind Radio show. I would love to see you come on the show and show poor Josh how its done. That is if you have half the cajones that Josh has, which I doubt.

    If you are afraid of being out numbered don'y worry about that either. I will talk with you myself if I have to. Also, you are so wrong about the headset and computer. I sat back with my hand folded behind my head listening to the folly of atheism. (ie a cow is more valuable than a 5 year old retarded boy)

    Just let me know when you are ready my friend.

    Gene
    "the full-truth teller"

    ReplyDelete
  154. @Sye
    I am curious. I get what you are saying but once you account for the existence of logic, how do you account for God's existence?

    *goes over to Stephen Law's blog to see how Sye did against Steve*

    ReplyDelete
  155. Dan, feces is not cud. You're redefining a word to make it meet your Biblical presuppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Gene Cook
    I sat back with my hand folded behind my head listening to the folly of atheism. (ie a cow is more valuable than a 5 year old retarded boy)
    So, because one atheist said it, it's an example of the "folly of atheism"? In that case, let me give you my sympathies for having people like Fred Phelps on your side.

    As well as all the christians in the past who've taken the supposed wrong parts of the bible to heart. You know, the killing witches thing, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Did that guy even read what he copy/pasted from talkOrigins?
    The site is good for science but I don't trust them to read scripture.

    Here's a bit from the rabbis

    ReplyDelete
  158. [Dan, feces is not cud. You're redefining a word to make it meet your Biblical presuppositions.]
    And you are redefining ancient Hebrew words to modern biological terms.This is almost as bad as the " but bats aren't birds and locusts have 6 legs" objection.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Consider yourself invited to the Narrow Mind Radio show. I would love to see you come on the show and show poor Josh how its done. That is if you have half the cajones that Josh has, which I doubt.

    Aren't you going to double-dog dare me (padlock)?

    Debate or don't -- I prefer written communication doled out over time. It's far more clear, and it provides each side an opportunity to clearly present its position and to attack and/or defend the position(s) of its opponent(s) appropriately.

    Thanks for trolling, though.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  160. Stan,

    For all In know it could be your wife writing your posts for you.

    I prefer verbal discussion.

    I want everyone on this thread to take note: Stan wrote a very critical review of Josh's performance but he is unwilling to do what Josh did!

    What a wimp!

    I'm done!

    Gene

    ReplyDelete
  161. Obsidian said...

    Did that guy even read what he copy/pasted from talkOrigins?
    The site is good for science but I don't trust them to read scripture.

    Here's a bit from the rabbis

    Huh? I posted from a different site.


    Now, to the rabbis' site:
    The Torah says that we should not eat "the arnevet, for it chews its cud but its hoof is not split." Most commentaries translate arnevet not as rabbit but as either coney, rock badger or hyrax, all of which do in fact chew their cud. Some point out that the rabbit is auto-coprophagous, which can be seen as a form of cud-chewing, where the cud "ferments" externally.

    "can be seen as a form of cud-chewing"? Except that they do not actually do any chewing...


    From the site I linked to earlier:
    As English naturalist R M Lockley, author of the excellent book "The Private Life of the Rabbit", demonstrates on page 105 that rabbits DO NOT chew these pellets. AiG is wrong again. I repeat, rabbits DO NOT chew their cud!

    ...each soft pellet is separate and by the time it reaches the rectum is enveloped in a strong membrane ...these soft pellets pass down to the rectum in glossy clusters. They are swallowed whole by the rabbit, that is, without breaking the enveloping membranes. ...although the rabbit sometimes appears to chew this faecal "cud" after collecting it from the anus, with movements of the jaws, ... Griffiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in the stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole.


    The pellets are found whole, not chewed.

    It only looks like it's chewed when one watches those beasts eat.

    ReplyDelete
  162. I've worked on a farm. Rabbits don't chew the cud.
    And they taste a bit like chicken according to my parents who ate a lot of rabbit in the 1930's. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  163. Dark meat chicken, yeah...

    I made a rabbit curry a few months ago. Fantastic!

    Chewed cud notwithstanding,,,

    ReplyDelete
  164. Good grief. "Coney" is nothing more than a synonym for "rabbit." The Rabbis are wrong in thinking that coneys chew their cud, because coneys are bunnies.

    "Rock badger" is a synonym for "hyrax," which is not a ruminant and so, contrary to the Rabbis, does not chew its cud (because it has no cud to chew).

    ReplyDelete
  165. When did this place become so busy?

    I don't even have time to compile an response, I spent so long reading!

    Oh heck, gotta go!

    ReplyDelete
  166. Aw, C'mon Stan!
    Step to the plate!

    Or do you need a headset and computer to make your argument?

    Josh called the shots on who would be there, so can you.

    Why not go one on one with Sye and see how you do?

    You're so bold and brave on the internet (who isn't?) Let's see what you're made of.

    ReplyDelete
  167. And Gene, if Stan comes on the show (highly doubtful) keep your finger on the bleep button.

    He likes to curse and swear to try and bully and intimidate his opponents.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Quasar said:
    ”So, Sye has to demonstrate a law of logic which is something other than a description of reality,and then demonstrate that such things exist, before we can even begin to debate this.”
    Sye Replied:
    None of them are a description of reality.

    I beg to differ: I believe all of them are. I'll do my best to explain why.


    Sye said:
    If the laws of logic were merely descriptions of reality, then they would be contingent to those things described, but we all know that that is simply not the case.

    I disagree. "Those things described" by the laws of logic is "reality". So the question is, are the laws of logic contingent on reality?

    Here's an easy way to test that: imagine that tomorrow, new breakthroughs in Quantum Physics discovered a particle which broke the Law of Non-Contradiction by being both "x" and "not-x" at the same time. Could the law of non-contradiction be revised to exclude this particle?

    If so, then the Law of NC is changable, and contingent to reality. If not, then the Law of NC is simply innaccurate, but not contingent to reality. Why? Because it's a description of the nature of reality.

    Sye said:
    If I ask you, could my car both be in the parking lot, and not in the parking lot at the same time and in the same way 5 seconds from now what description of reality would tell you that this could not be the case?

    The law of non-contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  169. Quasar,

    "When did this place become so busy?"

    Teheheh, I know! This comment I am making here makes it a tie with another post as the most comments on any of my posts at 175.

    Plus, the next post will be my 100th on this blog. What should I post about? Maybe I will either make the next post Josh's rebuttal for this conversation or Stan's debut on talk radio over at The Narrow Mind.

    More pressure for Josh and Stan to step up and be heard. I hope they can handle it.

    Keep in mind that pressure on a piece of coal creates a diamond.

    We squeeze all of you out of love to help create diamonds for Christ's crown.

    Maybe its time for God to intervene. We can only pray for that miricle to come to fruition. What a glorious day that would be to close this blog down because there is no such a thing as an atheist anymore. Until that day, on to post 100. Stay tuned!

    ReplyDelete
  170. My least favorite lie from Jesus are:

    Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

    Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)


    I can't imagine the hurt and pain those lies caused. Like hungry people praying for food that never comes...

    ReplyDelete
  171. Sye, I sincerely apologize for any less than charitable tone I may have shown you in the past. I have been humbled by your mastery of the Word and logic. May the Lord bless you and keep you.

    Steve Coker

    ReplyDelete
  172. Between ad hominem attacks, Gene said:

    I prefer verbal discussion.

    Of course you do. Ask someone to read it for you, then.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  173. Dan said :Gorth Satana,

    "What would it mean to you if the Bible was shown to have errors or contradictions?" and "And of course the Bible has been changed or "corrupted"."

    Biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions...


    So, the Bible can and has been corrupted. You didn't address the issue of contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Aw c'mon Stan.
    You can do it.
    And I didn't see any ad homs.

    He didn't say your arguments should be discounted because you are a wimp. He just called you a wimp for not coming on the show.

    Gorth,
    The Bible is perfect in the original language that it was written.
    There are problems in all the translations but they all contain the message, it you have the eyes to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  175. And I didn't see any ad homs.

    My apologies -- they were merely juvenile insults and goading.

    How can I possibly say no to that?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  176. Anyone heard of induction
    I don't think anyone has been able to pick up his challenge yet.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Stan,
    So now you have a problem with juvenile insults and goading?

    I would think that would draw you in.
    C'mon Stan. You can do it, y'know with some weeks of "preparation and information on your opponents backgrounds?"
    One on one?
    With you at home with a computer and headset? Your friends listening?

    You can do it!

    ReplyDelete
  178. MFer:

    As I understand it, that challenge has been withdrawn as the fellow who offered it has committed suicide. Granted, I got that news from the same site to which you linked, but I suspect it to be true.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  179. Unchained Radio sell their shows. Don't go on their show and help them make MORE money.

    (Wow, all the shows for only 99 American dollars! And they accept donations!)

    ReplyDelete
  180. Dani'El:

    Between Gene's speculation concerning the size of my testicles, his questioning of my masculinity, and his suggestion that I may be of below-average stature, I don't find myself especially interested in feeding his fantasy.

    Sorry.

    Am I against juvenile insults and goading? Yep. Especially from people I've neither met nor communicated with whatsoever. Am I above them? Not so much. I don't think I goad, necessarily, but I do offer what I would consider witty jokes which some might consider insults (e.g. calling Dan, et al jackasses), but you will also note that I'm not generally mean-spirited. Occasionally I may lash out at someone (e.g. telling Sye to "fuck off," but this was in response to his snarky comment that Josh lost "because he was wrong," when everybody here knows that being right or wrong has nothing to do with winning a debate (well, effectively nothing).

    Anyway, I'm an atheist, remember? I'm not subject to these moral standards, remember? Juvenile insults and goading are to be expected from my kind, remember? Christians, on the other hand... How were they supposed to act, again?

    Thanks for your support and all, but I think they'd enjoy you as a guest every bit as much as me -- especially considering your prediction that LA and SF will be destroyed within twelve months...

    Really, it's pretty funny how little you three (the Dans and Sye) have in common, and I'd be willing to bet a small fortune [cookie] that your theological differences might well be deal-breakers, if you would all bother to lay them out for one another. Instead, of course, you've united against the common enemy of Atheism, as though you're the Power Rangers. I get it, but you owe it to yourselves to identify your positions -- you'd all hate to be putting yourself into a situation in which you might fall prey to false teachings...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  181. The "induction" guy MFer and Stan are talking about was Paul Kelly Tripplehorn, Jr.

    He was another presupp crazy who was mentally ill and killed himself a few weeks ago.

    He would write things like "Well I am just going to stop writing because you are just absolutely beneath me" and "I could make a phone call and have your life absolutely ruined" and "In the end, all I can say is that people love me and people hate you." TO HIS GIRLFRIEND!

    The guy seriously needed some help. Pity that Jesus guy wasn't around for him.

    His old email address was "tripplehorny@hotmail.com" LOL

    ReplyDelete
  182. Yikes! Who left the window open? :-)

    Better get started!

    ReplyDelete
  183. Stan,
    Before I step aside and let Sye do his thing....

    I thought the whole argument was that Atheists are good, moral people without God.

    And if morality is meaningless to you, why spend another minute arguing about it?

    Atheists are the ultimate shadow boxers.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Reynold said: ”You implied that oral debates can (even if not always) be won out by truth when you said about Josh's debate results:
    The reason he faired so poorly is because he was wrong.”


    That statement calls for a ‘bong’ ad-hom, but I will refrain.

    ”I just gave an example where truth did not win a debate to counter the example (Josh's debate) where you claimed it did.”

    So what? I never stated or implied that the person who holds the true position always wins debates.

    I asked: “By the way, how do you know if anything is 'true' according to your worldview?”

    You did not answer the question, and posted a link that also did not answer that question. If you had been following the discussions with Mr. Law at all, you would have realized that he NEVER stated his own worldview. Go ahead, search the posts, post the links here. When you realize that you are wrong, please answer my question: How do you know if anything is ‘true’ according to your worldview?

    As you can see, the traffic here as increased significantly, so I will only address those of you who actually answer my questions, as I have endeavoured to answer yours.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Dani'El: that may have been sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Oh, and I want to rebuke Gene for using some of that language.

    It is not fitting for a saint.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Gene Cook, Jr said: ”Stan,
    Consider yourself invited to the Narrow Mind Radio show. I would love to see you come on the show and show poor Josh how its done. That is if you have half the cajones that Josh has, which I doubt.”


    Well, I guess that makes it official. I’m sure that Gene would moderate a discussion between only the two of us, if that is something you preferred, since I see that you’ve already turned him down. I don’t think you’re a whimp for not doing it though Stan, the format itself can be intimidating. I am only now getting comfortable with it myself.

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  188. Obsidian said: ” I am curious. I get what you are saying but once you account for the existence of logic, how do you account for God's existence?”

    Accounting for logic necessarily presupposes God, so once logic is accounted for, accounting for God is not an issue - logic presupposes God. It is the Christian position, however, that God has always existed, and is in fact, beyond time.

    ReplyDelete
  189. "Accounting for logic necessarily presupposes [The Flying Spaghetti Monster], so once logic is accounted for, accounting for [The Flying Spaghetti Monster] is not an issue - logic presupposes [The Flying Spaghetti Monster]. It is the [Pastafarian] position, however, that [The Flying Spaghetti Monster] has always existed, and is in fact, beyond time."

    I'm just curious, Sye: how is this different from what you wrote?

    ReplyDelete
  190. Accounting for logic necessarily presupposes Allah, so once logic is accounted for, accounting for Allah is not an issue - logic presupposes Allah. It is the Islamic position, however, that Allah has always existed, and is in fact, beyond time.

    ReplyDelete
  191. "Accounting for logic necessarily presupposes God, so once logic is accounted for, accounting for God is not an issue - logic presupposes God. It is the Christian position, however, that God has always existed, and is in fact, beyond time."

    for this to be true you would need an unchanging god. only Allah is unchanging. one of his names is "UnChanging". Chrisitain god changes mind. Is not unchanging. Can not be ground of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Quasar said: "I beg to differ: I believe all of them are. I'll do my best to explain why."

    Sye said:
    If the laws of logic were merely descriptions of reality, then they would be contingent to those things described, but we all know that that is simply not the case.

    Quasar said: ”I disagree. "Those things described" by the laws of logic is "reality".

    What is the reality that says ‘A’ cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘not A’ at the same time and in the same way?

    ” So the question is, are the laws of logic contingent on reality?
    Here's an easy way to test that: imagine that tomorrow, new breakthroughs in Quantum Physics discovered a particle which broke the Law of Non-Contradiction by being both "x" and "not-x" at the same time. Could the law of non-contradiction be revised to exclude this particle?


    Well, if it could, then it couldn’t, so it can’t :)

    ”If so, then the Law of NC is changable, and contingent to reality. If not, then the Law of NC is simply innaccurate, but not contingent to reality. Why? Because it's a description of the nature of reality.”

    Again, please show me the reality which says that “A” cannot be both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way.

    I asked: “If I ask you, could my car both be in the parking lot, and not in the parking lot at the same time and in the same way 5 seconds from now what description of reality would tell you that this could not be the case?”

    You answered: ”The law of non-contradiction?”

    Allow me to be more specific. What is the reality being described which tells you that this could not be the case?

    ReplyDelete
  193. The nature of reality appears to be unchanging. I say reality is what logic presupposes.

    Hmmm... Given that logic is a description of reality, this actually kind-of makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  194. My apologies: the above was a response to John Rhue and The God of Thunder.

    Now responding to Sye...

    ReplyDelete
  195. Hoggibou said: ”Sye, I sincerely apologize for any less than charitable tone I may have shown you in the past. I have been humbled by your mastery of the Word and logic. May the Lord bless you and keep you.”

    Thanks for your kind words Steve, I know that I am unworthy of them. I do not recall where we have engaged each other. Could you refresh my memory if you like?

    Blessings,

    Sye

    ReplyDelete
  196. Quasar said: "Now responding to Sye..."

    Noooooooooooooooooo :-D I'm trying to catch up man :-D (But I know, you know how that feels)

    I see that I missed one too. Rats, I thought I was making headway.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>