March 20, 2009

Biblical Logic

Reynold challenged: If your [G]od is the basis of logic then please show that. List the bible verses where the laws of logic are laid down.



Until then, you've got nothing.
(emphasis added)

OK, with the help of God's Word, Dr. Greg L Bahnsen, and Dr. W. Gary Crampton I will attempt it.

From the very first verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A)

1 Corinthians 14:33 states that "God is not the author of confusion" God is a rational being. The Lord God of truth (Psalm 31:5).

John 1:1,14 emphasizes the rationality of God the Son. Jesus Christ is called the "Logic" of God. "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" (the English word "logic" is derived from the Greek logos used in this verse). Logic is as eternal as God Himself because the Logos is God. God and logic cannot be separated; logic is the characteristic of God’s thinking.(1)

"Moreover, because Christ is the Logos who “gives [epistemological] light to every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), we are to understand that there is a point at which man’s logic meets God’s logic. In fact, John 1:9 denies that logic is arbitrary; it also denies polylogism, i.e., that there may be many kinds of logic. According to John, there is only one kind of logic: God’s logic. And the Logos gives to every image bearer of God the ability to think logically." (Crampton)

Exodus 4:11 says God gave us the ability to converse rationally with our Creator. The noetic effects of sin hinder man's ability to reason correctly. Although Christians are set apart from Atheists. (Colossians 2:8,Romans 1:21, John 17:17)

It is not the laws of logic that are affected by the Fall, it is man's ability to think logically that is so affected. The laws of logic are eternally fixed in the mind of God. They cannot be affected; they are eternally valid. Logic is fixed and universal; it is necessary and irreplaceable. This is why Atheists cannot account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic.

Dr. Bahnsen said: "If you fail to submit presuppositionally to God self-attesting, authoritative word, then you shall be "double-minded: and unstable on all your ways, driven by the wind and tossed about (James 1:5-8). Instead of being driven by the "Wind" of God's "Spirit," you will be carried about by every wind of doctrine through the cunning of humanistic thought and craftiness of error(Ephesians 4:13-14)...God's veracity is the ultimate standard for our thoughts. (Romans 3:4)"

No man is in any position to reply against it (Romans 9:20)

It is well to follow the example of the Jews of Beroea, who "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Why didn't they immediately accept what Paul and Silas were saying? Because the Bible says we should prove a doctrine before we let ourselves be convinced by it (Proverbs 14:15,1 John 4:1,Ephesians 5:8-11, Philippians 1:9-10).

While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.

Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. We do have a revelation to the origin of life. Life doesn't come from non-life, life doesn't come from matter. Life comes from a Creative being called God. Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally.

Update:

Law of Identity--Exodus 3:14
Law of Non-contradiction--Genesis 1:1
Law of Excluded middle--Luke 11:23

Crampton added: Logic, then, is embedded in Scripture. This is why Scripture, rather than the laws of logic, is selected as the axiomatic starting point of Christian epistemology. Similarly, God is not made the axiom, because all of our knowledge of God comes from Scripture. "God," as an axiom, without Scripture, is merely a name. Scripture as the axiom defines God.

133 comments:

  1.      Well, you seem to be reinterpretting the passages to mean what you want them to say. You are definitely using logic in your attempt to "account for" logic with your god. Remember? That's something that you (after Sye) say non-christians are not allowed to do. Can't you meet the standard you set up for us? Perhaps the standard is a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one here knows the first thing about Propositional Logic, the Bible itself is Valid and Satisfactory Logic. That is to say that the statements made with the operators used are valid and come to valid conclusions. Validity does not say they are true or false by itself but it does say that the Bible is logical.

      Delete
    2. No one here knows the first thing about Propositional Logic, the Bible itself is Valid and Satisfactory Logic. That is to say that the statements made with the operators used are valid and come to valid conclusions. Validity does not say they are true or false by itself but it does say that the Bible is logical.

      Delete
  2. From the very first verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of contradiction (A is not non-A)
    Huh? How does that show the law of noncontradiction?

    1 Corinthians 14:33 states that "God is not the author of confusion" God is a rational being. The Lord God of truth (Psalm 31:5).
    Just saying that he's logical is not the same as listing out the laws of logic that he's supposed to have come up with, is it?

    Besides, the incident at Babel is an example of your god becoming an agent of confusion when he allegedly made up all those different languages.

    John 1:1,14 emphasizes the rationality of God the Son. Jesus Christ is called the "Logic" of God. "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" (the English word "logic" is derived from the Greek logos used in this verse).
    Logos meant "word", does it not? Besides, even if you were right, just saying that god is logical does not mean anything. I asked for the rules of logic, all of them.

    This assertion that god is logical is not it.

    Logic is as eternal as God Himself because the Logos is God. God and logic cannot be separated; logic is the characteristic of God’s thinking.(1)
    Show it, please. You're just making an assertion. Besides, even if one were to take this last statement at face value, it does nothing to show that god is responsible for the laws of logic being developed in the first place.

    As I said before:
    1) if god followed the laws of logic because they make sense to him, and he never deviates from it as you say he doesn't, then all that means is that he was the first one to figure out the laws of logic, and they exist independently of him.

    2) If the laws of logic are just whatever god says they are, then they're totally arbitrary.

    That old dodge that Sye used to use when he said that it was "neither..the laws of logic are part of gods' nature" or something, is just a rephrasing of the first option.

    All that Bahnsen did was just make an eloquent excuse for xian circular reasoning.

    I see nothing here but just assertions from the bible saying that your "god" is logical without any proof of it.

    How's about listing the laws of logic one by one, then listing the bible verse that describes it beside it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, at least you're starting to try now...though the law of non-contradiction has got nothing to do with the verse you listed for it.

    As for the law of the excluded middle, he's just being paranoid here and making an incorrect general statement. He's not even taking into account people who've not heard of him yet or anything like that.

    I think you're starting to shoehorn here. Look at the law of the excluded middle: Every proposition is either true or not true. Jesus is just falsely applying a loyalty test, not making the logical statement in general.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You remind me of Ray Comfort, Dan.
    I'm sure you will take that as a compliment.

    Hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  5. logos - speech, word, reason, legend.

    It's strange how you choose to translate logos as logic.
    All the bibles I have say "Word".

    ReplyDelete
  6. "OK, with the help of God's Word, Dr. Greg L Bahnsen, and Dr. W. Gary Crampton I will attempt it.

    From the very first verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A)"

    You lose, Dan. You have not yet established that the bible is God's word.
    You might draw some people into philosophical discussions of your irrational belief system, but The book of Genesis does not have standing under the law of non contradiction.

    You must have emprical evidence that Genesis is indeed fact.

    With your reasoning I could say yabbi dabba doo-doo and that it has standing under the law of non-contradicton.

    That is totally fractured logic and you know it.

    You are again making arguments out of thin air.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And they used logos instead of logikē.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "From the very first verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A)"

    Who do you think you are kidding here?

    There are any number of holy books that start out with similar pretenses. Are you willing to grant them the law of non-contradiction? Hmmm?

    Dan, You have been claiming that atheism is a religion. Then you must be a creature of many religions since there are thousands of belief systems that you don't believe in. Are you therefore practicing religion in not believing in all of those belief systems? Hmmmm?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Exodus 4:11 says God gave us the ability to converse rationally with our Creator.

    "11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?"


    No, it doesn't. It doesn't mention rationality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Law of Identity:
    Ex 3:14-15 I am the eternal God. So tell them that Yahweh, whose name is " I Am," has sent you. This is my name forever, and it is the name that people must use from now on.

    How does that have anything to do with the law of identity?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good post Dan.

    I see you've been studying.

    Most folks don't know that TAG is supported by scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

    Reading "Always Ready" was slow going as I was always checking the verse addresses.
    I'm on my third go and still soaking it up.

    Like you, love Bahnsen's lectures.

    Even when not using a pressupp apologetic, (specifically) I find it has increased my understanding and awe of scripture.

    Of course to our blind friends here, it's nonsense, but I remember well being in that state.
    (shiver!)

    Not long to wait for this whole tiresome argument to suddenly end.

    Eze 38:23 Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.

    It's painfully obvious that atheism is gone from the scene of biblical eschatology.

    This is why Satan is making his last stand with the final blitz of the last days neo-atheist fascists.

    Well, I've kicked up the sparks enough for today.

    Keep up the good fight.

    Baruch HaShem,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is why Satan is making his last stand with the final blitz of the last days neo-atheist fascists.
    WTF? Care to back up your statement? Or are you just full of it?

    Like that "prophecy" of yours? Yeah, we won't have to wait too long to see that fall apart.

    Then maybe you yourself will realize that you're full of it. Though given that you weasel out of making any wagers on this "prophecy" of yours, even though you say it's a sure thing, I suspect you already know that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Well, I've kicked up the sparks enough for today."

    I cannot see why your inane ramblings would "kick up the sparks."

    You will soon be exposed as the poor unfortunate and deluded person that you are.

    Then you will probably crawl back into the black cave of ignorance from whence you came until you can figure out an even more implausible excuse for the reason your predictions did not come about.

    You are proceeded by thousands of nut cases no different than yourself.

    My only hope is that you get some help before you push someones' buttons once too often and get yourself hurt, while knowing you would probably then consider yourself a martyr.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan, how much evidence is necessary to validate the claims of the Qu'ran?

    How much evidence is necessary to validate the claims of the Bible?

    I'd be interested if you could adopt a hypotheical "agnostic" position and assess the two texts that way. Using the same standards of analysis for each.

    Keep those trousers high!

    Sarah.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can any atheist here actually account for any of the laws of logic? Can you account for immaterial thought? Can you explain how rationality could have evolved? Ever even given a thought as to why that would cause more epistemological problems than you could possibly imagine?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thomas said...
    Can any atheist here actually account for any of the laws of logic?

    Yes, Mr. Dan's sock puppet. There are literally hundreds of explanations in the last few Posts here.

    It all ends up in the evolved brain. Just like everything you do originates in your brain.

    You can search this site and spend the next three days checking out all the answers to your presuppositionalist question.

    The you can come back and address each and every one of them.

    Presuppositionalism is a long refuted philosophy. At best, it is merely an philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thomas, you ask:

    Can any atheist here actually account for any of the laws of logic?

    I can't speak for all atheists here, but I sure can't. And I bet you can't either. Hint: saying "Goddidit" is not an "account". An "account" is an explanation of how something came to be, not merely the unsupported assertion that "Somebody did it".

    Can you account for immaterial thought?

    Also- nope. Can you account for immaterial invisible pink unicorns? They're just like immaterial thought: totally undetectable, and maybe they don't even exist. But there's no knowing either way.

    Can you explain how rationality could have evolved?

    Sure: rationality has selective fitness, because it enables life forms to better model their world, which gives them better chances to survive and reproduce. That should be fairly obvious.

    Ever even given a thought as to why that would cause more epistemological problems than you could possibly imagine?

    I have, and I'll tell you why: because epistemology is bunk. Astrology has problems with astronomy for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well stated, Zilch.

    There is no reason to invent some supernatural reason for something we don't know.

    There are all types of natural phenomena that were once attributed to the supernatural that we can now explain quite easily.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Froggie,
    Yes, Mr. Dan's sock puppet. There are literally hundreds of explanations in the last few Posts here.

    Hundreds? SWhere? Is that why you couldn’t just give me one?

    It all ends up in the evolved brain. Just like everything you do originates in your brain.

    If your brain evolved you would have no way of knowing that it evolved correctly, would you? So you’re standing on faith and hope, not empirical evidence.

    You can search this site and spend the next three days checking out all the answers to your presuppositionalist question.

    I don’t need to spend three days searching. If it’s so easily refuted I would think you would give me one reason. But you didn’t.

    The you can come back and address each and every one of them.

    I’d rather have you give me some semblance of an answer.

    Presuppositionalism is a long refuted philosophy. At best, it is merely an philosophy.

    Attaway! Just claim it’s been refuted without actually refuting it. I can do that too! This will be so much fun!

    I’m moving on to someone else unless you’re going to give me an answer. But I'm not going to waste my time with non-answers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If your brain evolved you would have no way of knowing that it evolved correctly, would you? So you’re standing on faith and hope, not empirical evidence.
    Evolved "correctly"? What the hell does that even mean?

    If your brain was "created" would you have any way of knowing that it was "created" properly or not? See how strange your question is? How would you know? Why would you only ask that question of those who figure that we evolved?

    As for learning how humanity evolved, go the the Talk Origins archive and type in human evolution.


    Now, as for "accounting for logic", it's just a tool devised by man to help make sense of the world. The rules of logic are basically, at their core, just observations about how things in life work.

    What's there to account for? Why do you think that they had to have been "created" by some "god" who in turn would have to have been created by something else according to the kind of thinking that you're setting up here.

    I'd read over zilch's last answer to you as well if I was you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thomas, you say:

    If your brain evolved you would have no way of knowing that it evolved correctly, would you? So you’re standing on faith and hope, not empirical evidence.

    I presume that, by "evolved correctly", you mean something like "evolved in such a way as to think correctly", right? Because saying something "evolved correctly" doesn't make sense. In any case, you are right: we are standing on faith and hope that our brains think correctly. So are you: this is the problem of induction, and it is unanswerable. And "empirical evidence" is not excepted: we must have faith and hope that what we consider "empirical evidence" really is reflecting the way things are, and not just some quirk of our brains.

    The good news, for atheists and theists alike, is that in practice, we can have faith that the world is as it seems, if we take care to account for known distortions. The fact is: science works (most of the time), our brains think rationally (most of the time), and even if there is no "proof" that we are not brains in vats, we can and do bet our lives that we are not brains in vats and go on living.

    Reynold: your reply came as I was writing this. What you said.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Froggie- There is no reason to invent some supernatural reason for something we don't know.

    Nor is there a valid way to claim omniscience in denying the possibility of a supernatural creation. I have my proof, and I see God working everyday.


    There are all types of natural phenomena that were once attributed to the supernatural that we can now explain quite easily.

    Simply because we understand how God does something, does not exclude His existence.
    It's like saying "I understand how my car works, therefore there was no Henry Ford."

    The highly organized and complex creation, acting in obedience to God's declared and enforced laws is just more proof of His existence.

    Lightning is often brought up by Atheists in such an argument, but if you take a look, science really has very little understanding of how lightning happens.
    There are several theories, many of them contradicting, but they really understand very little.

    According to their calculations, a thundercloud should take several hours to recharge to the point where a bolt would discharge, yet very frequent discharges are often observed, which baffles them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. as does snow thunder, ball lightning, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I have my proof, and I see God working everyday."

    Yes, I am certain that youthink you do. Mental wards are full of people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. And people insecure in their arguments always go ad hom.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Critical observations are no, repeat not, ad homs.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "no, repeat not"?

    Now that's a critical observation.
    Calling someone a looney, wholly off topic, is pure ad hom.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dani,
    Go ahead, you can have the last word.

    By the way, "looney" would be making an understatement.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Act 5:41 So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.
    Act 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dani,

    C'mon now. You can't really be surprised that someone would think you're not packing a full deck. You've been banned from every Christian site on the internet and they all claim good biblical reasons for renouncing your claim of being a prophet.

    Certainly you don't believe that I would somehow start believing your lunatic-like ratings.

    Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name."

    Oh, I have long ago noted that you thrive on ridicule and go out of your way to be shamed.

    I was just rying to help you out.
    I can do better if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
    2Ti 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
    2Ti 4:5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

    Joh 10:20 And many of them said, "He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him?"

    Joh 4:44 For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

    No Froggie, I have not been kicked off many forums, maybe 2 or 3.

    And no one has made any sound accusation against me, including you and your friends, though you've searched carefully, you have found no contradictions of anything beyond the nature of my testimony to accuse me.

    No, I don't blame you for thinking I'm crazy, but that's off topic.
    I made a good argument and you've succeeded in changing the subject, which is usual purpose in an Ad hom attack.

    I wait patiently, as I know I will be proven soon, and I also trust that God has guided me to many who will have their eyes opened and be saved one day, and that includes you.

    The greatest sinners become the greatest saints, as they have the greater debt forgiven them.

    And that, Herr Frosch, is a sound, coherent, logical and lucid argument. No?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "And that, Herr Frosch, is a sound, coherent, logical and lucid argument. No?"

    Well....no, especially when you state you do not blame me for thinking you are crazy/ deluded/ whatever.

    I just hope you don't anger someone that might hurt you. I do care about you in that manner. You might not care about your well being but I do.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is when you know that I understand your thinking me to be crazy/deluded, is due to your own spiritual blindness/delusions.

    All it takes to make someone angry enough to physically attack in Sodom is a sideways look.

    I've been threatened simply for reading a bible in public, but I'm sealed and I've suffered little real violence.

    I certainly don't seek persecution, but if one tells the Truth, it will surely come.

    I think you know I am not offended by your jabs, and that I consider you to be a friend.

    Remember that when CA is judged.
    Please don't freak out too much, and remember that all is forgiven and forgotten.
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dani,
    "Remember that when CA is judged.
    Please don't freak out too much, and remember that all is forgiven and forgotten."

    Rest assured that when I get word of fire and brimstone raning down on SF, please swing by my place on your way to Israel. K?

    But, don't be hedging on your prediction now, earthquakes don't count, right?

    If it is an earthquake, that would be the San Andreas' fault, no? :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dani'El said--

    No, I don't blame you for thinking I'm crazy, but that's off topic.
    I made a good argument and you've succeeded in changing the subject, which is usual purpose in an Ad hom attack.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Actually, that raises an interesting question:

    Once you've established that somebody is crazy, should you continue to talk to that person, or just kinda back away...

    ...regardless of their arguments?*




    * Not directed at anyone in particular. Nope. Not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Zilch,
    I can't speak for all atheists here, but I sure can't. And I bet you can't either. Hint: saying "Goddidit" is not an "account". An "account" is an explanation of how something came to be, not merely the unsupported assertion that "Somebody did it".

    The problem is that if atheism is true we couldn’t know it. We actually couldn’t truly know anything because there would be no way of knowing that our brains evolved in such a way as to enable us to get at the truth. So for an atheist to make any kind of statement or claim is absolutely impossible to back up with anything. Even to say that you’re not sure is not valid because you couldn’t know that you’re not sure. You’re not sure that you’re not sure ad infinitum.

    Why would immaterial thought evolve in the first place? Where did immaterial thought come from? How could materialism produce immaterialism? If you don’t know, how can you call yourself an atheist and call Christianity wrong? It just doesn’t follow.

    The question we should be asking is which view makes the most sense. Does it make sense to say that logical absolutes evolved? How could they then become absolute? How could we know when that occurs? To say, “I don’t believe that logic is absolute” is self-defeating; for you just made an absolutely true statement.

    To me, it makes more sense to say that since logical absolutes are transcendent, immaterial, and universal, these could not be the product of a material universe. They also could not have evolved. They must be the product of something which is itself immaterial, transcendent, and universal. I call it God.

    Now keep in mind, this isn’t the only proof to offer for God’s existence. When combined with some 20 other proofs and biblical data, I believe it makes a strong case for the existence of God. I could be wrong on that, but atheism would not be a viable alternative for the reasons outlined above.

    Can you account for immaterial invisible pink unicorns? They're just like immaterial thought: totally undetectable, and maybe they don't even exist. But there's no knowing either way.

    How are invisible pink unicorns like immaterial thought? Further, would it make a difference if invisible pink unicorns existed? You’re right; they may exist. But who cares if they do? Even further, when I examine the multitude of proofs that the Christian God exists, I have no reason to believe that invisible pink unicorns exist.

    Sure: rationality has selective fitness, because it enables life forms to better model their world, which gives them better chances to survive and reproduce. That should be fairly obvious.

    It’s not obvious. What proof do you have that natural selection selected the correct immaterial traits to produce the ability to reason correctly? How is natural selection able to select immaterial traits in the first place? The problem is that you wouldn’t be able to know this. You are better off being an agnostic rather than an atheist.

    because epistemology is bunk.

    Says who? You? Epistemology is not bunk. Just about every major university in America offers courses dealing with epistemology. I sincerely doubt that places like Yale, Princeton, and Cornell think it is bunk. Check with them.

    ReplyDelete
  38.      Well, Froggie, someone with special knowledge could, indeed, be sane and realize that people would consider his claims insane. But Daniel does actively court that which he regards as persecution. His claims that I have been on a "warpath" are evidence of that. It started with a simple slip on his part. He said that his faith could move mountains. That is a testable claim (unlike special knowledge claims, which are inherently untestable.) I noted that it was a testable claim and asked for a demonstration.
         You can probably guess what happened from there. He dodged the call for demonstration, started quoting "and he answered him nothing" as an excuse. I got frustrated with what I saw as an obvious con job and made some posts in that frustration. I think that was what he was aiming for. Even though I have calmed down, he has claimed warpath ever since.
         On balance, it is possible that someone has special knowledge. No sound arguments can be given for special knowledge. (If it could be shown by argument, it would become common knowledge.) But he has made testable claims and shied away from the testing.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Reynold,
    Now, as for "accounting for logic", it's just a tool devised by man to help make sense of the world. The rules of logic are basically, at their core, just observations about how things in life work.

    Just one question: Is logic absolute?

    Why do you think that they had to have been "created" by some "god" who in turn would have to have been created by something else according to the kind of thinking that you're setting up here.

    Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
    God did not begin to exist.
    God was not caused.

    One more question: Is matter eternal or did it come from nothing?

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
    God did not begin to exist.
    God was not caused."

    OK, and what test would you propose that we do to verify that, and how is that claim falsifiable?

    In fact you are the one who claims that some undetectable supernatural power created the universe from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. What the hell? Is this "Thomas" guy Sye and Dan's love-child, or what?

    (Dan, you'd be the mother. Not because I think Sye is any more manly than you are, but because you're clearly his bitch.)

    Thomas, before you get too high on the odor produced by presuppositionalism, you should fumigate yourself by responding to the following, regarding certainty:

    Since there are obviously those who believe they are certain (based on revelation), who are not certain (as they are incorrect), how do you know you are not one of those people?

    In case you're confused, certainty can be claimed without being obtained, and insofar as you and other TAGers claim certainty, you are no better off than anyone else -- you cannot be certain. The humorous part is that theists, and to a lesser extent deists, are insecure to the point that a deity is invented to explain that which they themselves cannot. For the agnostic, this insecurity is masked by a constant surrender; he says, "I don't know," and refuses to hold a position. The atheist, though, is bold enough to say, "Hold on, this is bullshit. There probably isn't a god, but even if there is I won't bow before it. After all, why would a god give a rat's ass about my posture?"

    So while I don't doubt that you think you are certain, just like El Dani thinks he is certain that god told him most of southern California will be smote by fire from above. The simple fact is that you cannot actually be certain without defining your position in such a way that the conclusion is buried in the premises.

    For me, I merely note that we -- myself and those theists such as the Dans, and evidently yourself -- share the assumption that we have a valid ability to reason. It is only from this assumption that our positions are formed, with the caveat that some of us (read: those who postulate a magical being) pretend not only that there is a magical being, but that they know what its favorite color might be.

    So you go right ahead and suck up to Bahnsen's sycophants, but despite your zombie-felching™, TAG / presuppositional apologetics is worthless. If you wish to promote "some 20 other proofs and biblical data" as somehow identifying the Christian god as true and valid, I sure hope it's not the same chunky vomit Dan posts on a daily basis, but consider me prepared as though for a Gallagher routine -- I don't expect to be actually entertained, and I do expect to get dirty, but I am willing nonetheless to attend. I guess I enjoy watching fruits get smashed.

    Cheers.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thomas

    Please present data that would validate your intial presupposition i.e. "My specific God exists."

    Define his exact identity as you understand it and explain how you first came to the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient as opposed to the plethora of other deities that you could waving in our collective faces as an unnecessary account for logic.

    ReplyDelete
  43. >>Thomas

    //Can any atheist here actually account for any of the laws of logic?//

    I'd be happy to do so if I knew what the term "account" means so that I can understand what criteria you possess. But we'll assume the standard notion applied here, "where do the laws of logic come from?" Also, I'm agnostic, so I don't wish to stand for all the atheists here, but nonetheless, here we go.

    I'll answer it with this account for the laws of logic: the laws of logic are epistemic tools that represent the way reality is. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, which models the fact that existence is identity, i.e. the axiomatic objective truth that for something to exist means to possess quantifiable qualities.

    A is A - to exist is to have an identity. The metaphysical account for the epistemic law of identity.

    A cannot be A and non-A at the same time - because what exists has a specific identity, i.e. specific quantifications of specific quality, it cannot also have different qualities or different quantification of the qualities it does have without causation (i.e. the Law of Identity applied to action) causing to be so. There is a metaphysical account for the epistemic law of non-contradiction.

    From the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction applied to reality, it follows that an entity either has quality A with quantity N or it does not. There is a metaphysical account for the epistemic law of excluded middle.

    After further establishing a few very basic laws of logic involving AND and OR (and what these two terms mean in metaphysics), we can make the inference that the Law of Identity applies throughout all that exists, not just throughout the history of our perception, and the other laws become likewise universal. A refutation of hogwash like the analytic/synthetic "dichotomy" and Hume's ranting about induction pops up as nice corollaries. I will present them if you wish, but lets start here, no?

    ReplyDelete
  44. >>Thomas

    Also, THIS:

    //If your brain evolved you would have no way of knowing that it evolved correctly, would you? So you’re standing on faith and hope, not empirical evidence.//

    No, not really. Since existence is identity and consciousness is the process that identifies and integrates existence, and since the identity of living beings entail their survival via acting upon existents within reality, then entities must grasp the identity of these existents. If human beings (or any entity) arrived with the inability to identify reality and act accordingly, then that individual would not survive its first days, more or less would any continuance of its parent species be possible.

    Thus evolution would account (developmentally speaking) for the validity of man's mind by the impossibility of the contrary: if not, we would not be here at all, since none of our species could have interacted with identities in reality and, thus, survived beyond day one.

    //How could materialism produce immaterialism? If you don’t know, how can you call yourself an atheist and call Christianity wrong? It just doesn’t follow.//

    While true (I'm an agnostic), it doesn't follow that this line of reasoning falsifies atheism. If you want to pursue this line of reasoning, you'll have to get stomachaches over why two gases at room temperature (hydrogen and oxygen) can produce a fluid at room temperature (water).

    Besides, epistemic processes correspond to metaphysical brain-states anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  45. //According to their calculations, a thundercloud should take several hours to recharge to the point where a bolt would discharge, yet very frequent discharges are often observed, which baffles them.//

    Not when they ride Theta-E ridges in high-CAPE atmospheres, it doesn't.

    //as does snow thunder, ball lightning, etc.//

    I chased a thundersnow/thundersleet storm in the Des Moines area on March 2 last year. It baffled nobody and was forecast days in advance; the snowstorm occurred in an area of high atmospheric instability aloft that arrived with a cold-core upper-level low.

    No mystery there at all; in fact, such systems could rarely have enough dynamic forcing to overcome a cold, stable boundary layer and even produce a tornado, as one did when there was fifteen inches of snow on the ground in Utah a couple decades back.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Darrin- No mystery there at all; in fact, such systems could rarely have enough dynamic forcing to overcome a cold, stable boundary layer and even produce a tornado, as one did when there was fifteen inches of snow on the ground in Utah a couple decades back.

    No mystery to me either.

    But gravity, or the mass itself, remains a mystery to you.
    And I've read a few of the theories out there for lightning, there is a lot of disagreement.

    Like I said, just because a weatherman can know it will rain tomorrow, does not mean God did not send the rain.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Stan,
    Nothing like starting off with a little ad hominem, eh? Whatever works for you and helps poison the well.

    you are no better off than anyone else -- you cannot be certain.

    But you are certain of this statement, right?

    There probably isn't a god, but even if there is I won't bow before it. After all, why would a god give a rat's ass about my posture?

    This about sums it up. You are certain that there probably isn’t a god, but if there is it doesn’t actually matter. Why are you here then? I can only assume that keeping your atheism intact matters to you.

    The simple fact is that you cannot actually be certain without defining your position in such a way that the conclusion is buried in the premises.

    Are you certain of this statement? All you are doing is making self-defeating statements. Saying, “We can’t be certain of anything” is itself a statement of certainty.

    So you go right ahead and suck up to Bahnsen's sycophants, but despite your zombie-felching™, TAG / presuppositional apologetics is worthless.

    Again, you’re certain of this, aren’t you? I thought you couldn’t be certain? You also seem very angry and upset. Are you certain that you are angry and upset? You are certain that I worship a magical being too, right?

    Stan, do logical absolutes exist? Does absolute truth exist? Is matter eternal or did it come from nothing? I noticed in your rant you didn’t touch upon these crucial issues.

    Have a good one, Stan.

    ReplyDelete
  48. >>Dan'El

    //But gravity, or the mass itself, remains a mystery to you.//

    Oh, you mean that gravity represents space-time curvature caused by matter, and that matter itself may be broken into component parts known as fermions? :P

    But I'm perhaps missing your point - maybe I can't account for why those things are so. But that's pushing the epistemic in front of the metaphysically given, which you cannot do. It's invalid to ask why A is A metaphysically, because metaphysics is the logically precedent place to begin. You start with the fact that A is A, and any questions as to why A could have been non-A are thus invalid, as it amounts to asking why the Law of Identity is (metaphysically) true. The fact that existence is identity is the place where we must begin.

    ReplyDelete
  49. >>Thomas

    //Is matter eternal or did it come from nothing?//

    Eternal. Space-time was caused by an existential state (a "singularity," to use that loosely-defined word from physics) in which all basic parts of metaphysical reality were superimposed upon one another.

    In this beginning state (call it "the big wad"), all components must thus necessarily act upon all other components. This state, since there is nothing but a simultaneous causal relationship between all components of existence upon all other components of existence, is therefore a timeless entity by definition, whose result of this simultaneous state-state causation must be separation of causal chains (i.e. the creation of spacetime). This is not the "first moment of existence"; there is no standard at this state to define "moment." It is invalid to ask what created it; it is literally outside of time, i.e. necessarily uncreated.

    Because of its logically necessary interaction of all components of existence upon all other components of existence, spacetime must necessitate, since no other effect of this simultaneous causation is at all possible (or else it would be a "rearrangement" within the state, which presumes distance, which does not exist in this singularity-state). Nor would it be proper to ask what came before this state; there is no "before" - it is literally outside of time. The result is only an "after."

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oh, you mean that gravity represents space-time curvature caused by matter, and that matter itself may be broken into component parts known as fermions? :P

    Uh Uh Uh, only one of many theories with many problems, and you skipped over mass for a reason.

    That silly collider is the saddest display of the vanity of man since the tower of Babel. Lol!

    And all your space wads and singularities are also just fantasies and flexing your vocab.

    But I'm just a humble Jewish musician. I'll wait for the day it all comes crashing down.

    There's going to be a lot of very unhappy professors and scientists in the coming months; an unprecedented crow feast!

    Shalom,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  51. >>Dan'El

    //Uh Uh Uh, only one of many theories with many problems, and you skipped over mass for a reason.//

    I provided an account for mass (matter, what have you) just fine. It's composed of fermions, which cannot, in spacetime, become superimposed with other fermions of like spin. The relative density of the compositions of such fermions within an existent (should it have them to begin with) is its mass, represented by "weight" in the context of gravity.

    Even if such a theory of gravitation "has problems," that doesn't mean gravitation lacks metaphysical identity, unless you want to place the epistemic above reality, something I addressed in my previous post. We know plenty of the identity of gravity; the depth of knowledge about such identity may be in contention at the bottom of the deep-end of the (epistemic) pool, but that doesn't mean it lacks identity within metaphysics.

    If God does exist (a question which is certainly open to me) then you're in essence charging God with creating things that lack identity. God is not the author of confusion, and He created the world through Christ (Hebrews 1) who is the Word and Logic of God (John 1:1). I don't think we'd want to charge Christ with a Creation that lacks identity, should Christianity be true.

    You cannot accuse my account for the eternality of matter with "wordplay"; that's merely an ad hominem!

    I find your absolute knowledge and desire to see everything come crashing down disturbing. It's not even Biblical, since nobody knows the day or hour of the Second Coming. I'm assuming you're a Calvinist, so you must realize all these signs you've listed had to do with the fulfillment of prophecy at the destruction of the Temple, and the last thing left to do will be the conversion of the final Elect, upon which Christ will return to judge.

    ReplyDelete
  52. To clarify, I mean "absolute knowledge of the Second Coming." I have zilcho problems with absolute knowledge in general; the specific claims of such are what is under question, and the end times are one of those specific claims by Biblical definiton, since only the Father knows.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Darrin-
    What I long to see come crashing down is the whole house of cards that is secular humanism.

    I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by identity, but when I observe the laws of Physics, I know there must be a law-giver and enforcer. Same with logic, morals, etc. (I reject Deism)

    I can only conclude that you have not read my blog?

    There are several events previous to the return of Christ that will bring the end of atheism.

    Like the regathering and conversion of Israel and the Gog/Magog war-

    Eze 36:23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD," says the Lord GOD, "when I am hallowed in you before their eyes.

    By the time of the great trib, the people enduring the full wrath of God poured out will be cursing and blaspheming Him, and not carbon emissions or any materialist fantasies.

    My blog covers the coming judgment of San Francisco and LA per Luke 17:28-37.

    Take a look.
    I'd appreciate your comments.

    Shalom,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  54. Darrin- To clarify, I mean "absolute knowledge of the Second Coming." I have zilcho problems with absolute knowledge in general; the specific claims of such are what is under question, and the end times are one of those specific claims by Biblical definiton, since only the Father knows.

    Only the Father knows the day and hour of the return, we are commanded to watch and know the times and seasons of the end times.

    We should know when it is at the door.

    Mat 24:32 "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near.
    Mat 24:33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Stan, do logical absolutes exist? Does absolute truth exist? Is matter eternal or did it come from nothing?

    Logical absolutes exist, by definition. This does not, however, mean that every category of statement betrays an absolute. As to your second question, I have no idea, and I don't think it is necessarily an either/or dichotomy as you imply.

    I noticed in your rant you didn’t touch upon these crucial issues.

    Yeah, and I noticed in your "response" that you ignored the implications of my question regarding certainty. Hell, you ignored the question entirely. That question, for my money, contains the answer to yours -- certainty is only obtainable for those things for which we can define certainty. That is, the "Law of Non-contradiction" dictates that we can say, with certainty, that if a given thing is 'not-A,' then it is not 'A.' It does not, however, follow from this law that we can say with certainty that there is or is not a deity, much less what doctrines or attributes that deity espouses or exhibits.

    So if you can demonstrate the method by which you determine that you are not deluded into believing with certainty that there is a god, the floor is yours. I'm merely prepared to say that there are many things I don't know, rather than presuming to have access to omniscience somehow.

    Why are you here then?

    I'm here for the lulz, and because Dan has offered glimpses of honesty in the past. That, and I am actually a demon, and my primary function is to test the faithful in a continuous attempt at turning them away from god. You should've heard the conversations I had with Martin Luther back in the day...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thomas says:

    The problem is that if atheism is true we couldn’t know it. We actually couldn’t truly know anything because there would be no way of knowing that our brains evolved in such a way as to enable us to get at the truth. So for an atheist to make any kind of statement or claim is absolutely impossible to back up with anything.

    Stan said it: there are, by definition, systems of formal logic within which absolute truth exists, by definition. For instance, it is absolutely true that 2+2=4 in base ten Euclidean arithmetic, by definition. But our picture of the real world is not based on absolute truths, but is rather a model which corresponds more or less well to the world. When you say that given atheism "we actually couldn't truly know anything", what can this possibly mean? Of course our models of the world are not perfect, because we don't and can't know everything- that's fairly obvious. But as I said, our models work well enough to bet our lives on, even if we can't justify them logically all the way down. And as I also said: neither can you.

    Even to say that you’re not sure is not valid because you couldn’t know that you’re not sure. You’re not sure that you’re not sure ad infinitum.

    Who am "I", then, if "I" can't even say dubito, ergo sum (I doubt, therefore I am)? What exactly does it mean "to be sure"? Again, with the word "valid", you are referring to a supposed absolute source of truth that you have yet to prove exists.

    Why would immaterial thought evolve in the first place? Where did immaterial thought come from? How could materialism produce immaterialism? If you don’t know, how can you call yourself an atheist and call Christianity wrong? It just doesn’t follow.

    Show me immaterial thought, and then we can talk. Why should I believe in the existence of anything immaterial at all? Do you believe in aether? If not, why not?

    The question we should be asking is which view makes the most sense. Does it make sense to say that logical absolutes evolved? How could they then become absolute? How could we know when that occurs? To say, “I don’t believe that logic is absolute” is self-defeating; for you just made an absolutely true statement.

    The question we should be asking, is which view has evidence going for it. Logical absolutes, as I said, are valid within certain systems of formal logic, by definition. To say that "I don't believe that logic leads to absolute truths in the real world" is not self-defeating: it is merely an observation.

    What proof do you have that natural selection selected the correct immaterial traits to produce the ability to reason correctly? How is natural selection able to select immaterial traits in the first place? The problem is that you wouldn’t be able to know this. You are better off being an agnostic rather than an atheist.

    Again, what immaterial traits? Prove that anything immaterial exists, and then we can talk. And as far as what natural selection is able to achieve, all you have to do is open your eyes.

    Epistemology is not bunk. Just about every major university in America offers courses dealing with epistemology. I sincerely doubt that places like Yale, Princeton, and Cornell think it is bunk. Check with them.

    Ah, the Argumentum ad Universitatum: if they teach something at a major university, it must be true. Sorry. A quick check shows that many major American universities also offer courses in postmodernism, which is also bunk. Unless you can prove that most major American universities have a hotline to Absolute Truth, I'm afraid this just won't wash.

    Seriously- the problem with epistemology, imho, is the problem with a great deal of philosophy, theological or not: it often attempts to boldly go with words and syllogisms where evidence won't take us, and ends up creating fabulous confections of word candy, delightful and elegant, but content-free.

    The bottom line: if philosophy is not based on evidence, it's likely as not to be just words chasing their own tails merrily around. That can be fun, but it's no way to get at a better picture of the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Let me drop a little bomb here: Luke 1:37... "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

    So, what about the "law of Non-Contradiction"?
    Sorry, with God contradictions are possible.

    What about the law of Excluded Middle?
    Sorry, with God excluded middles are possible.

    In other words, believing Christians don't have "the guarantee" that logic is "invariant", no, they have "the guarantee" that logic can be changed, by God.

    Presupposionalism about logic? debunked!. Back to the drawing room, Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Zilch, you pounced on a statement of Thomas' that I noted but forgot to likewise pounce:

    Epistemology is not bunk. Just about every major university in America offers courses dealing with epistemology. I sincerely doubt that places like Yale, Princeton, and Cornell think it is bunk. Check with them.

    So what of the Theory of Evolution, then? Big Bang Cosmology? Native American Religion? Classical Mechanics (Newtonian Mechanics)?

    The statement was so stupid as to be laughable, but like Zilch said, it is an obviously fallible argument from authority, in which the only stated requirement is that the university "offers courses dealing with" the subject at hand (emphasis mine).

    For purely amusement's sake, here is a short list of bullshit classes offered this year at my school, CU-Boulder:

    Ancient Astronomies of the World
    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
    Religions of South Asia
    Religions of East Asia
    Biblical Archaeology
    Anthropology of Fishing
    Digital Photography in Mongolia
    Ceramics 2: Handbuilding
    Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius
    Extraterrestrial Life
    Introductory Quantum Chemistry
    Greek Mythology
    Paganism to Christianity
    [The entire Communication department]
    Daoism
    Globalization and Democratization: An Introduction
    Women Writers
    Tolkien's Nordic Sources and the Lord of the Rings
    Nazi Germany
    America through Baseball
    The Creative Self
    Queer Theory
    Epistemology
    Metaphysics
    The American Congress
    Alternative World Futures
    Behavioral Genetics
    Hinduism
    Islam
    [The entire Sociology department]


    (Note: All of the courses listed above were taken from the 2008-2009 course catalog for CU-Boulder. While some of those in this list are meant as jokes, all are nonetheless actual courses, and many are graduate courses)

    Are none of these topics bunk, since they are taught at a major American university?

    Sheesh.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  59. CwC,

    Dan, how much evidence is necessary to validate the claims of the Qu'ran?

    How much evidence is necessary to validate the claims of the Bible?


    I missed this comment for some reason.

    Anyway, keep in mind that both books claim the Bible is truth but both do not claim the Qur'an as truth.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anyway, keep in mind that both books claim the Bible is truth but both do not claim the Qur'an as truth.

    The bible is not the same as The Book.
    bible is edited and choosen by jewish and popes to alter. Koran is the same. Unchanged and perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Stan,
    Logical absolutes exist, by definition.

    So according to you, the three laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) are dependent upon man and were invented by man, correct? If this is the case, then they could not be absolute since different minds could conceive of different laws. How do you know who is correct?

    If logical absolutes exist only by definition then they could not be absolute. Would they exist if humankind didn’t exist (would adding 2 object to 2 objects still equal 4 objects)? If so, then they are not dependent upon man.

    Are these laws material or immaterial? Can the scientific method determine these logical absolutes without using those same logical absolutes to gain that knowledge? They couldn’t. Does absolute truth exist? You would have to say “yes” to this question. Saying “no” would be self-defeating.

    Now, if laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, cannot be empirically tested, and absolute truth does exist, how is that possible in an atheistic system? You must have an atheistic answer; otherwise you should stop referring to yourself as an atheist.

    As to your second question, I have no idea, and I don't think it is necessarily an either/or dichotomy as you imply.

    What are the other options? I don’t think I’m presenting to you a false dichotomy. Based upon the atheistic viewpoint, it seems that you must believe either that matter came from nothing or matter exists eternally. It’s interesting how you say you have no idea, yet you are certain that I’m deluded so much so that you declared yourself to be an atheist. How does that follow? I suppose you could claim that you “lack a belief”. But again, you shouldn’t call yourself an atheist if you lack a belief on such a crucial question.

    you ignored the question entirely.

    And you missed my answer entirely. I didn’t ignore it.

    That question, for my money, contains the answer to yours -- certainty is only obtainable for those things for which we can define certainty.

    The problem is that you must be certain to even make this very statement! This is what our entire discussion is about!

    That is, the "Law of Non-contradiction" dictates that we can say, with certainty, that if a given thing is 'not-A,' then it is not 'A.'

    But on what basis can you say something “with certainty”? I’m trying to get at what your atheistic foundational basis is. Given atheism, why does A not equal non-A? Given time, matter, and chance, how do logical absolutes appear? How could they have “developed” or “evolved”? If logic evolved then it must still be evolving and thus changing. What you have is subjective logic which is another way of saying it’s relative to each individual.

    If logic didn’t evolve or develop over time, then it must have always been there. But, given atheism, how is that possible in a materialistic, atheistic universe?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Stan (continued)
    It does not, however, follow from this law that we can say with certainty that there is or is not a deity, much less what doctrines or attributes that deity espouses or exhibits.

    Well Stan, we’re not done yet, so look alive. There’s a bit more to the argument. If logical absolutes exist, they exist in the mind and not in matter. They are not physical entities that can be looked at in a test tube.

    One can’t test the laws of logic in a lab nor could one test them using the scientific method because one would have to assume them as true to begin with. Yet scientists use them all the time to verify their science without any justification. Therefore, logical absolutes exist without any scientific verification. You use them all the time. Yet I thought that atheists only believe those things that have scientific empirical proof? Guess not.

    If logical absolutes exist, then they are absolutely true for all times and for all people and are therefore transcendent. Go a billion years into the future and they’re still true; go a billion years back in time and they’re still true. If you disagree with that, then you believe logic is subjective and relative which means that you couldn’t prove anything.

    They exist independent of humankind and they must also be immaterial, transcendent, and cannot be scientifically verified with empirical proof. Atheism can’t account for this. Theism can. Logical absolutes are a reflection of an absolutely perfect mind. Since logic exists in the mind and is immaterial, it must be based in something absolutely perfect and immaterial. This is what I would call God.

    Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes. Given atheism, absolutes would be impossible and we would be left with subjectivity and relativism which would mean we couldn’t actually prove anything (including this statement). That’s my point.

    Now, how do I know it is the Christian God in particular? I would need to support this argument with others in order to build a solid case. For example, there are teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, ontological arguments, arguments from experience, archeological arguments, arguments against other world religions, arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I don’t have hours and hours of time to unpack these but plenty of great people have done so.

    Adding all of these together, I am convinced that the Christian God exists. Therefore, I actually have a reason to spend time debating and discussing these things with people. You have no reason. Que sera sera….it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter to you. But somehow this does matter to you so much so that you are willing to spend your time debating it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Stan and Zilch,

    Ah, the Argumentum ad Universitatum: if they teach something at a major university, it must be true.

    This I concede. You are correct. It is an invalid argument. My mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Froggie,

    Dani"el said "I have my proof, and I see God working everyday."

    F-Yes, I am certain that youthink you do. Mental wards are full of people like you.

    Sye said it best: Funny (read sad) thing is, that you presuppose the validity of "your reasoning” and have admitted that not all reasoning is valid, but have yet to tell us how you know that you are not one of those people with invalid reasoning, other than your arbitrary presupposition.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Thomas,

    To me, it makes more sense to say that since logical absolutes are transcendent, immaterial, and universal, these could not be the product of a material universe. They also could not have evolved. They must be the product of something which is itself immaterial, transcendent, and universal. I call it God.

    Brilliant and genius, I am now a fan of yours. Welcome and come back anytime. You almost made me cry when I read this. I can't wait to sit down with you, Dani'El, Sye, and many others in Heaven having a cool drink discussing these conversations we have had. It will quite simply make/complete my life to worship God together with the likes of Y'all. Great stuff.

    Ha, I just read that Stan noticed your genius reasoning skills also. He will get fired up at that. He will fight against it, but he knows the truth that God is real. Gotta feed the family bbl.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thomas said:

    [blah, blah, blah] Atheism can’t account for [the immaterial, transcendent, not scientifically verifiable laws of logic]. Theism can.

    A. So-fucking-what? You're making an awfully bold step to go from an account to the correct account. That leap is unjustified.

    B. I have not claimed that Atheism can "account" for logic, and I really don't care. We presuppose that the world behaves in a rational manner, and from this presupposition we have formed the laws of logic.

    Your conclusion that there must be a god -- this god -- is only reached without reference to that god. That is, to be honest in your argument, you also must account for logic, but also without your god, since you necessarily used logic to draw your fallacious conclusion.

    Conclusions are not presupposed.

    So again, nice non-answer regarding your alleged certainty. I admit that I cannot know with certainty that I am not deluded, but that I rather presuppose that I am not deluded. It is the only way I have available to function. You, on the other hand, seem set on refusing to make this admission, and instead claim access to omniscience.

    I actually have a reason to spend time debating and discussing these things with people. You have no reason. Que sera sera….it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter to you. But somehow this does matter to you so much so that you are willing to spend your time debating it.

    Heh. By your fractured logic, then, only sick people would study medicine, right? Only the insane would study psychology? Only criminals would study justice?

    I am fascinated by the delusion offered by religion, all the more so since I once was prey to this ailment. Thus, when time is available to me, I observe and interact with sane and insane alike, and I have taken a special interest in the crazy Dans. Is this reason insufficient to you? If so, fuck yourself. It is sufficient to me, and that is what matters.

    I'd really like to hear how you know you aren't a deluded theist (you know, like your exclusive religion claims all other theists must be), but if you insist upon avoiding that question, I suppose I'll have to deal with your refusal. Luckily, I have Xbox Live.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  67. BlasphemiStan- We presuppose that the world behaves in a rational manner, and from this presupposition we have formed the laws of logic.

    GeniStan 2:7 And the lord Stan formed logic of the dust of the ground, and breathed into it's nostrils the breath of life; and logic became a living law.

    Going back in time, at what point did logic cease to be true?
    At what point was it formed/created/declared/enforced?

    PS, all the foul language, boorish bullying tactics really hurt your argument. Why not leave it out?

    We all enjoy a spirited debate, even with biting sarcasm and humor, but you cross the line all the time which makes me think you are insecure in your "faith".

    I await your gnashing of teeth with anticipation. :D

    ReplyDelete
  68. Geert Arys said...

    Let me drop a little bomb here: Luke 1:37... "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

    So, what about the "law of Non-Contradiction"?
    Sorry, with God contradictions are possible.

    What about the law of Excluded Middle?
    Sorry, with God excluded middles are possible.

    In other words, believing Christians don't have "the guarantee" that logic is "invariant", no, they have "the guarantee" that logic can be changed, by God.

    Presupposionalism about logic? debunked!. Back to the drawing room, Christians.


    I like this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi John,
    Ha, I just read that _Dan_ noticed your genius reasoning skills also. He will get fired up at that. He will fight against it, but he knows the truth that _Allah_ is real. Gotta feed the family bbl.

    ReplyDelete
  70. John Rhue,

    Koran is the same. Unchanged and perfect.

    I don't want to stray the conversation away since I have addressed that subject earlier, titled False Religions, if you haven't read.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @Dan--

    Anyway, keep in mind that both books claim the Bible is truth but both do not claim the Qur'an as truth.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If the Koran claims the Bible is truth, then do Muslims believe Jesus is the son of God? If the Koran claims the Bible is true, then are Muslims...Christians??


    Do you think your readers are that stupid, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dani'El said to Stan--

    I await your gnashing of teeth with anticipation. :D

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You know what that means, Stan? That means that Dani'El actually looks forward to watching you get thrown into hell!

    So much for "Christian love," huh?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thomas says -
    To me, it makes more sense to say that since logical absolutes are transcendent, immaterial, and universal, these could not be the product of a material universe. They also could not have evolved. They must be the product of something which is itself immaterial, transcendent, and universal. I call it God.
    So, if I'm reading right, Thomas thinks that Logic is a product and must 'come from somewhere' - it must be 'caused' or 'accounted for'. From God, he claims.

    Dan answers -
    Brilliant and genius, I am now a fan of yours.
    Dan agrees.

    But Dan copy-pasted in the OP this biblical verse -
    In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (emph mine)

    Dan stressed that 'Logos' is 'Logic'.

    So, if both statements are true: (1) Logic is a product which must be caused or accounted for,
    (2) In the beginning ... Logic was God(!!) (clearly equality - at least in the beginning)

    Then
    (3) God is a product which must be caused or accounted for.

    ReplyDelete
  74. captain howdy,

    So much for "Christian love," huh?

    Do you believe that "Christian love" is to coddle people in their wickedness?

    Do you remember what it says in Matthew 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

    But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell.

    The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (emphasis added)

    If you believe coddling is love then you are delusional. You must confront to show love to someone. Would you let a friend go and drink and drive? We will take the keys and get into your face if necessary to show that you are wrong. Get offended if you wish but I will not accept the evil wickedness of unrepentant sinning. I do not condone sin and if you shall perish because of your wickedness then so be it, without any grudge, you deserve everything coming to you.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."

    Bzzzt. Sorry, Dan, that's from the old covenant. You know, where there's also a rule stating that one cannot mate different kinds of animals (what, then, of a mule?), or plant two different seeds in one field, or wear clothing composed of two different materials.

    What's that? Where are those gems located? The next fucking verse.

    Stop cherry-picking.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  76. You know what that means, Stan? That means that Dani'El actually looks forward to watching you get thrown into hell!

    So much for "Christian love," huh?


    Naw, Cap'n.
    I just meant his railing reaction to my post.

    And I consider Stan to be a friend, could use a bit of soap, but still a friend. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  77. Stan,

    Stop cherry-picking.

    is cherry-picking absoluetly wrong?

    Oh sorry that is a different conversation.

    You are missing a very important part of the Bible and deciphering what is still relevant and what has been fulfilled. I addressed that at my other post if you want to refresh your memory (Tinyurl.com/CNCCK)

    I will quote "The only time you would follow the Old Covenant (which doesn't apply to us anymore) is if it is repeated in the New Covenant. Make sense?"

    I have shown you that with Matthew 22:39 Jesus tells us (by the tag line) "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

    Backed up by the New Testament verses of Matthew 7:12, Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8

    All referencing back to Leviticus 19:18.

    How do I love you? By rebuking your evil ways. To not coddle.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Dan--

    If you believe coddling is love then you are delusional. You must confront to show love to someone. Would you let a friend go and drink and drive?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    No, but I wouldn't tell him "I look forward to you being killed in a DWI accident", either. If you call that showing love for someone, then you're the delusional one.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Nice try, Dan, but you cherry-picked verse 17. Every verse you offered to back up your claim referenced verse eighteen, not seventeen. Therefore, when you choose to rebuke us per verse seventeen, you are cherry-picking by going a verse earlier than the references -- which is less reasonable a tact as going a verse later than the references, and ditching that 60/40 spandex/silk banana hammock you're sporting.

    Furthermore, the Matthew 19 reference has Jesus explicitly telling some yay-hoo that the only commandments he needs to follow -- the list of "good things" he must do to get into heaven -- are numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 5... and one which is unlisted (numbers reference the "Ten Commandments"). No mention of the Sabbath, no mention of idols, or anything of the sort. This short list, and eternal life awaits...

    As for giving up one's possessions, that is only to gain treasure in heaven, and as for following him (Jesus), that is only to be perfect. If your goal is merely eternal life, evidently a life sans murder, adultery, theft, dishonoring one's parents, but being subjectively nice to people, will earn the spot.

    I guess asking forgiveness isn't a requirement, and neither is worship, or acknowledgement of deity at all!

    Thanks, Dan, you just opened my eyes to what Jesus actually required, and it isn't what you describe at all! Even as a professing atheist I could make it by Jesus' explicit statement in Matthew 19:16-19!

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  80. Stan,

    The Hebrew Tanakh was not set up with verses back then dude.

    You have to go to Leviticus 19:17 to put Leviticus 19:18 in context.

    Look at Leviticus 19 in general. 13-14 end in "I am the LORD." 15-16 are together also ending in "I am the LORD."

    So don't get hung up in verses but what is being said in context.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Has anyone explained how this is supposed to work yet?

    Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A)"


    How?

    ReplyDelete
  82. The Hebrew Tanakh was not set up with verses back then dude.

    O RLY (Spanish version)?

    Strange, isn't it, that with all those opportunities, Jesus was only recorded mentioning the passage now known as verse eighteen, without being recorded mentioning the passage now known as verse seventeen.

    Stranger still, is the exposition given by Jesus in Matthew 19:19, in which he lists various commandments, ostensibly citing Exodus 20:12-16, but according to Dan's magical eisegesis, he only needed to refer to any one verse in the bunch, since the rest were needed to put the statement "in context." Curious that he got them out of order, isn't it?

    (Note that the problem of order, and of Dan's magical interpretive method, is not diminished if Jesus' reference is taken to be the passage now known as Deuteronomy 5:16-20.)

    So then, Dan, should Matthew 19:19 be taken to include all of the Ten Commandments? Why or why not? Since you arbitrarily included Leviticus 19:17 in your interpretive dance, what stops us from including any of the preceding or successive commandments from either account of the Ten Commandments, following a single citation? Why is the order changed? Why are specific commandments given, and others omitted?

    Give me a break.

    Oh, and answer Chris' question.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  83. Wow Stan!
    Not one dirty word.
    Whahappen?

    ;)

    Proving you can still be a snotty nosed punk without the dirty words. Lol! :D

    ReplyDelete
  84. I will do my best tomorrow Stan. Daddy is tired and going to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Proving you can still be a snotty nosed punk without the dirty words. Lol! :D

    Thanks for the recognition, but I really don't get the hang-up regarding so-called "expletives." They're words. If I here tell you that every time I say "blunk" I mean the fabled "F-word," am I not using profanity?

    (Not according to the freaking/frakking FCC)

    The objection to profanity is stupid. It's mind-numbingly, holy-fuck-that-guy-just-used-a-naughty-word-I'd-better-cover-my-ears, uptightedly, ignorantly, ID-ten-T-ically, dumb. I can offend, insult, and harangue you with or without profanity, and I maintain that the more offensive dig is the one which is the more euphemistic, and the one which avoids expletives.

    I just don't get it. I don't blunking get it. You'd have to be a dumb son of a Palin to truly be offended by some Bush-bag pulling some Clintony bull-Obama and using Nixoned-up language. What a Van Buren.

    :)

    Peacefully yours,

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  86. Stan, you talk to your mum like that?
    Children?

    Old ladies?

    The biggest reason could simply be tactical. If you want to debate with Christians, on their blogs, you are kind of in their living room and there's something to be said for simple respect.

    Or do you not respect us?

    Please don't be offended, but I remember being a kid in elementary school when the kids first started getting a thrill out of cursing.

    It was kind of fun for a while, but eventually the novelty ran out, and then I noticed that the only kids who kept doing it were the big dumb idiot kids who bullied others or were just churlish fools.

    So I stopped doing it. I always thought it made someone sound stupid, insecure, desparate.

    I'm talking about before I was saved even. Don't get me wrong, I wrote a song where I did nothing but scream the same 4 dirty blaspemous words over and over, BH Surfer style.

    But when debating with friends?

    Eh, I don't get it.

    I know the internet makes people pretty bold, but something tells me you don't talk like that to people face to face.

    And you have shown yourself fully capable of being a brazen ass without it, so why not? ;)

    G'night yerself.
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Stan--

    And I consider Stan to be a friend, could use a bit of soap, but still a friend.

    Dani'El, March 23, 2009 2:10 PM





    Proving you [Stan] can still be a snotty nosed punk without the dirty words. Lol! :D

    Dani'El, March 23, 2009 10:46 PM



    So much for Xtian "friendship" too.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Hey!
    Some of my best friends are snotty nosed punks!

    What are you implying? :)

    Pro 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dan- I know this is veering off the topic, but I too am curious about this "New Covenant" stuff. Yes, I've read the Bible from cover to cover too, and I don't think it's at all clear what parts of the Old Testament are still binding and which not. Yes, I've already heard you making the distinction between ceremonial laws and moral laws, but as far as I can see, there is no place in the Bible that such a distinction is made.

    And as Stan points out, what Jesus says doesn't really clear up matters at all. No wonder so many Christian sects are divided precisely on these points. In my humble non-biblical scholar opinion, the problem is not finding the "correct" interpretation: the problem is that the Bible is simply not clear on this point (as it is not on many other points as well).

    It is not clear because it is a compilation of writings which are more or less from one tradition, but with many subbranches and authors with their own particular axes to grind; and it probably didn't matter that much to the Nicene Council that some things just didn't add up or were unclear because they didn't have exacting standards of logical congruity. For better or worse, they were probably thinking something along the lines of "the letter of the law killeth, but the spirit giveth life". But that's admittedly just my wild speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  90.      My, my. My observation is that verses seem to number consecutive sentences, so it is likely that there were originally no verse numbers. Still, if Dan makes points 1, 2, and 3; and I spend a great deal of time defending point 2, it does not follow that I even support point 1. And it should be noted that Jesus (or the anonymous authors describing the "life of Jesus") did seem to cherry-picking which bits he wanted people to follow. There is a decided severability in his support.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Stan,

    Stranger still, is the exposition given by Jesus in Matthew 19:19, in which he lists various commandments, ostensibly citing Exodus 20:12-16, but according to Dan's magical eisegesis, he only needed to refer to any one verse in the bunch, since the rest were needed to put the statement "in context."

    Are you saying that no other commandments are mentioned in the New Testament? (Romans 13:9)

    The only time you would follow the Old Covenant is if it is repeated in the New Covenant. Not just Jesus' words, in fact Jesus was still under the old covenant so everything he said was referencing the old way. The New covenant wasn't "in effect", or dare I say even spoken, until after Jesus died on that Cross. Fulfilled.

    Does my interpretive Dance suffice?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Chris,

    Has anyone explained how this is supposed to work yet?

    Genesis 1:1

    How?


    According to Crampton Logic is embedded in Scripture. "It does not teach, therefore, that God is not the Creator of all things, nor does it maintain that God created all things 100 years after the beginning. The verse assumes that the words God, beginning, created, and so forth, all have definite meanings. It also assumes that they do not mean certain things. For speech to be intelligible, words must have univocal meanings. What makes the words meaningful, and revelation and communication possible, is that each word conforms to the law of contradiction."

    ReplyDelete
  93. Zilch,

    Yes, I've read the Bible from cover to cover too, and I don't think it's at all clear what parts of the Old Testament are still binding and which not....but as far as I can see, there is no place in the Bible that such a distinction is made.

    You could start with Hebrews 8:13 and Hebrews 12:24

    :7)

    ReplyDelete
  94. How?
    ...The verse assumes that the words God, beginning, created, and so forth, all have definite meanings. It also assumes that they do not mean certain things.


    Like practically any statement
    uttered and every book written!

    For speech to be intelligible, words must have univocal meanings. What makes the words meaningful, and revelation and communication possible, is that each word conforms to the law of contradiction."

    This verse has nothing to do with the law of contradiction, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Even Jesus in your bible thinks the old laws apply!

    Luke 16:17
    It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

    Matthew 5:18-19
    Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

    And Jesus's dad YHWH says the laws are "forever" and "everlasting"
    But since this invisible YHWH monster probably isn't real the point is moot really.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Unless your arguing that it's the end of time and heaven and earth have passed away!

    ReplyDelete
  97. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

    But at least he'll be up there in Heaven, right? John 14:2 and all that. Perhaps what Dan is saying is that it's okay to break one of the least commandments of the Old Testament, if you're willing to settle for a cold-water flat with no view in the afterlife: at least you're not burning in Hell, and you've had the chance for a bit more fun during your earthly life. The next question obviously is, which commandments are the "least" commandments, and are you allowed to choose the one you want to break? I think I know which one I'd choose...

    ReplyDelete
  98. Chris

    Nice verses but you skipped the best parts

    Matthew 5:19 "but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

    Who was that? Was that Jesus?

    Matthew 5:20 "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

    How can that be possible? The only way to be righteous is through Christ. Romans 5:19 No matter how religious you are no matter how "good" you believe you are, you have broken God's Law and will be punished unless you were made righteous through Christ. You know, the ONLY way.

    It did just dawn on me that you two are worried about the meat of the Bible when you first need the milk of the gospel and Salvation. Start crawling (seek Jesus) before you try to sprint (know Jesus)

    ReplyDelete
  99. Start crawling (seek Jesus) before you try to sprint (know Jesus

    Been there. It's bunk.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mat 13:22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.

    ReplyDelete
  101. ... the deceitfulness of riches choke the word

    It was more because it was untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Mar 4:15 And these are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown. When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts.

    ReplyDelete
  103. It was more because it was untrue.

    Doesn't matter; the parable of the sower is crap. Fleshing out the parable, we see that the seed is blamed for growing according to the soil onto which it has been tossed.

    Nice story, but I'm pretty sure the sower is to blame for nonchalantly spilling his seed all over the place. Way to go, god.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hey Stan-

    Mar 4:14 The sower sows the word.

    Sowers are evangelists, the word/gospel the seed, and there is plenty of seed to spare. It's the nature of the ground that matters.

    Mar 4:20 But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred."

    I think for most of my life, I was pretty rock hard dried out desert, but after getting put face down in the dirt over and over, the pride was driven out of me and I softened up.

    Lam 3:27 It is good for a man to bear The yoke in his youth.
    Lam 3:28 Let him sit alone and keep silent, Because God has laid it on him;
    Lam 3:29 Let him put his mouth in the dust— There may yet be hope.
    Lam 3:30 Let him give his cheek to the one who strikes him, And be full of reproach.
    Lam 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever.

    ReplyDelete
  105. and-

    Psa 119:71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted, That I may learn Your statutes.

    ReplyDelete
  106. El Dani, I've had this argument with Dan as well. The parable of the sower is crap, pure and simple. No matter how it is spun, the sower is responsible for the success or failure of his carelessly tossed seed -- not the receiver of that seed. If the sower truly cared about the outcome of his seed, he'd first till and fertilize the soil onto which he presumes to sow, and after sowing, he'd weed, water, and prune the sprouts as needed.

    Your sower, though, haphazardly flings his seeds all over the place, and then has the audacity to blame [the seed or the soil -- doesn't really matter] for the bounty of his harvest.

    What's more, it should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that the seed gets picked up by birds when cast upon the path -- no well-meaning farmer would let his seed fall in such a place, and he'd certainly have measures in place to keep the birds away. Similarly, stony ground is a terrible place to sow seed, unless it is first prepared (read: no longer stony), nor would any farmer attempt to plant his crop amongst existing thistles -- such effort would clearly be a waste without preparation. "But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop..." (I'm using Matthew 13, NIV).

    This is really the worst farmer I've ever heard of. He sounds blind, really, and he clearly doesn't tend to his land as he ought -- either that, or he doesn't really care how much crop he yields. A good farmer doesn't blame the seed, and he doesn't blame the ground upon which it is strewn. Rather, a good farmer will prepare the soil, and methodically -- systematically -- plant it in such a way as to maximize the eventual harvest, ensuring that every individual seed falls within the prepared, tilled, and fertilized rows. None by the wayside, none amongst the stones or thorns. A perfect farmer would nurse his crop such that each individual seed would produce, such that no seed failed to germinate and sprout. Your farmer is neither perfect nor even good. He's crap.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  107. A good farmer doesn't blame the seed, and he doesn't blame the ground upon which it is strewn.

    Spot on, Stan. In a similar vein, my father always told me "it's a poor workman who blames his tools". I'm a workman who uses hand tools every day, and I can tell you that my father was right. When a tool doesn't do what you expect it to do, that means that you are using the tool poorly (this is usually the case), or that the tool is the wrong tool for the job (which could be considered "using the tool poorly"), or the tool itself is poorly made.

    In none of these cases does it help to blame the tool, even if it gives you a moment of catharsis. The tools can't help it if they are used poorly or if they are poorly made. Of course, an inexperienced person, for instance a child, cannot reasonably be blamed for using tools incorrectly. But in my case, where I can reasonably be expected to know something about tools, I have no excuse if something goes wrong. The more so, as many of the tools I use are very specialized, so I've had to make them myself. I am God to these tools- a very minor and imperfect god, to be sure- but if they don't do the job, it's entirely my fault.

    Now, of course, my tools are not conscious, and they don't have free will. But if God is omnipotent and omniscient, and He created us, then He knows exactly what He can expect from us: far more than a human toolmaker, or a human sower of seeds, can know. Thus, if the job doesn't get done, then only He is to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Listen Zilch.
    I don't blame you for being a tool do I? ;) Zing!

    It speaks to the sovereignty of God in election.

    So not blaming the tools, or the carpenter, but the wood itself and only God can make a tree.

    So of course it comes back to predestination and election.

    There is another interesting thing, and I'm not sure where I would support it in scripture, but in this one can blame the farmer, and that is the apostate doctrines of the day.

    Esp the seeker friendly types who refuse to preach the full gospel, refusing to say hell, judgment, wrath, hell, etc so as to attract pew warmers.

    They basically go to good ground and forsake the plow which is the Law. So the sinner/ground never gets broken up, rocks and weeds pulled up etc.
    When a sinner is not convicted by the Law, then he is not prepared ground.

    1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.

    Now a farmer cannot go out and plow the whole world, and we cannot know good ground from bad just by looking, so the blame does not go to the sower.

    It's hard to accept, but this is the key passage concerning election-

    Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
    Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
    Rom 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
    Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Oh, and the sower of the false seeker friendly gospel sows tares.

    Mat 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'
    Mat 13:28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'

    ReplyDelete
  110. Dani: when it comes down to it, I don't think that it's always or even often productive to blame anyone or anything for doing a bad job. The important thing is to find out how to do the job well, and do it. The concepts of "blame" and "responsibility" are just that: concepts. They don't exist in a vacuum, but are merely one way of looking at things, which evolved in the ideosphere at the interface of emotional reactions (being angry with others or oneself) and reason (trying to find out what gets the job done).

    The Biblical way of divvying up blame and responsibility is one such evolved pattern that worked, and continues to work, more or less well, in keeping the wheels of society turning. There are other ways, and it's impossible to say which is the "best" way, for at least two reasons. One: such patterns are not either "true" or "false", but are simply ways of life, like being a farmer or a craftsman. Two: there are many possible goals that people have for society, and while most people's goals are similar, because we are all similar animals with a common history, there are differences, and these differences are not "right" or "wrong", but simply different.

    Basically, deciding how to divvy up blame and responsibility, by means of laws, morals, religions, peer pressure, or whatnot, does not have a "right" or a "best" solution. Luckily, though, there is usually enough general agreement to get us through the day. My dog in this fight is this: I want to see as many people (and animals and plants) as happy as possible, now and in the indefinite future, and I am looking for areas of agreement about how to achieve that, by whatever means (legal, moral, religious, etc.) with as many others as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Well Zilch, I think you know what I think of post-modernism.

    But put yourself in my shoes.
    I have my proof that God is real, that His word in the bible is the Truth. That all will be judged, by God, by His laws, (Not my laws, tho' I agree with them 100%) etc.

    I've heard His voice, seen His hand, seen Him at work, seen His word being fulfilled, been face to face with Satan, etc.

    So of course by that proof I know such secular humanist stuff is worthless, and that anyone who holds to such stuff will perish.

    So for the sake of argument, let's say that what I say is coming to Calif is fulfilled, and by such you too have your proof.

    What would you do to "to see as many people (and animals and plants) as happy as possible, now and in the indefinite future"
    indeed for eternity?

    I'm sure you would not be interested in compromising on the truth as it would mean the destruction of men and the violation of your stated goal.

    So that's were I am, and that's why I'm uncompromising. It's not out of hate/bigotry/self righteousness etc just the opposite.

    I tell you that you are dead wrong about capitol T Truth, because I KNOW that you are, and I want you to know it too, to your salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
    ...
    Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?


    So if you go to Hell it's God's fault not yours. God made you to torture. He's the potter torturing his pots HE made badly...

    ReplyDelete
  113. I have my proof that God is real,

    What is this proof?

    I've heard His voice, seen His hand, seen Him at work, seen His word being fulfilled, been face to face with Satan, etc.

    Not too be mean but that's all in your head.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Chris: Not too be mean but that's all in your head.

    Well, I've got the scars to prove it. They're very real.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Dani: I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? But I had similar conversations over at the TrueBibleCode forum a couple of years ago. After they had made several predictions that New York City was going to be nuked on such and such a date, and the dates whizzed by nuke-free, they finally said that Jesus was coming in March 2008, and everyone would see Him. Now the forum is closed, but they are still muttering about redemption and chewing on the ragged ends of their codes.

    Don't go that route on me, Dani, if and when California survives the year. Just take a good look at yourself, keep your chin up, and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Dani: Well, I've got the scars to prove it. They're very real.

    As it happens, I believe in scars. They are generated by natural processes all the time!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Dani'El,

    I love your verses used as a sharpened sword. Get some bandages Atheists.

    Funny, (read sad) how verses are like a spring of cool refreshing water to us and scolding lava to Atheists.

    This is why, I believe, we need to incorporate verses into presup apologetics as much as we can. The Word is so powerful.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Funny, (read sad) how verses are like a spring of cool refreshing water to us and scolding lava to Atheists.

    Not to this atheist. To me, Bible verses are like bananas: they fit the hand nicely, and have a handy tab to open, but only after a long process of human manipulation.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I love your verses used as a sharpened sword. Get some bandages Atheists.

    Dan, I realize of course that you don't accept the Star Trek Rule which I proposed specifically for your benefit last year. But I'm not kidding... your Bible verses really have that much effect. The whole "get some bandages" thing is cute because you imagine you're actually making some kind of impression when you quote Bible verses. But it's really no more effective that quoting Captain Kirk. I don't know how much more clearly I can explain that.

    If you're happy just preaching to the choir then continue to pat Dani on the back. Just don't delude yourself into thinking you have somehow caused consternation when you recite another line from your book.

    ReplyDelete
  120. So not blaming the tools, or the carpenter, but the wood itself and only God can make a tree.

    Right. Except that the bible -- at least, the Christian tradition -- stipulates that the wood is blamed... by god.

    We seem to agree that neither the tools nor the material are to be blamed when the product is defective -- we seem to agree that rather the craftsman is to blame. When my Guitar Hero drum kit failed (one of the pads, anyway), I didn't blame the pad, I didn't blame Xbox Live, and I didn't blame my appropriate use -- I blamed the manufacturer, and they have acknowledged responsibility and are replacing the product.

    We seem to agree, then, that if there is a god, and there is a populated hell, then that is not the fault of hell's denizens, but of the god in question.

    So of course it comes back to predestination and election.

    Oh, right. So you do agree with the above, that god is responsible. Good.

    There is another interesting thing, and I'm not sure where I would support it in scripture, but in this one can blame the farmer, and that is the apostate doctrines of the day.

    That's the tares of the field, and that's a different parable. It should go without saying that different parables assign different roles to the constituents... just because the parables involve similar settings, does not mean they can all be analyzed in the same manner.

    I realize this may all sound condescending, but it is also apparently necessary. In the parable of the tares, the "good" sower is god, and the "bad" sower is Satan -- we are the seeds, which become either wheat or tares. In that parable, the sprouts are all allowed to grow according to the type of seed they are, and then, the tares are discarded, while the wheat is kept. In that parable, the tare is evidently blamed for not spontaneously transforming into the desired plant...

    Esp the seeker friendly types who refuse to preach the full gospel, refusing to say hell, judgment, wrath, hell, etc so as to attract pew warmers.

    I tend to agree with you here, but I should caution you -- these "seeker friendly types" are only growing according to [the type of soil they are] OR [the kind of seed they are] depending on which parable is being used.

    They basically go to good ground and forsake the plow which is the Law. So the sinner/ground never gets broken up, rocks and weeds pulled up etc.
    When a sinner is not convicted by the Law, then he is not prepared ground.


    WTF? More mixing up of parables? Adding to the analogy on your own? This sort of baseless speculation (or do you have support for this assertion?) can be applied in any number of ways, but none of it absolves the sower (in his namesake parable) of the responsibility for not preparing the soil himself, before planting. Also, preparing and planting are only the beginnings of the responsibility for the sower -- tending, watering, weeding, pruning; all of these responsibilities loom. The ground is not at fault for being unprepared for the seed.

    If, on the off chance, you were instead referencing the parable of the tares, then again, the "good" sower is responsible for his decision to allow tares to grow alongside wheat, and the plants themselves are clearly incapable of transforming into something more desirable, and again, the plow is irrelevant -- it doesn't determine what sprouts, it just provides a more hospitable environment for whatever seed is sown in its wake (assuming proper use).

    1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.

    So it says, but again, you're conflating different parables (this one is really just an analogy); Paul is here quibbling over who gets what reward for his effort, but the plant is still without agency -- it grows according to the seed from which it sprouts, based on the preparation (which Paul here claims) and care (which Apollos here claims) provided.

    Of course, if you really want to go with Paul's analogies, why not work with verses 14-15:

    If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

    ...so the builder is rewarded if his architecture stands, and is saved even if his architecture fails. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the church and/or the Christian is the building here, right? The builder escapes (through flames, but escapes nonetheless), but the built suffers?

    These analogies/parables are both stupid and pointless -- they all seem to imply that the person has no agency, and then blames the person for that flaw.

    Now a farmer cannot go out and plow the whole world, and we cannot know good ground from bad just by looking, so the blame does not go to the sower.

    WHAT?

    First of all, a farmer can plow his whole plot, and he can know good ground from bad by doing a little research, tilling, and fertilizing. Not only that, but he most certainly is responsible for the success or failure he realizes based on his performance.

    Some green thumb you have, if you still insist on absolution of guilt on the part of the gardener...

    It's hard to accept

    ...because it's asinine...

    ...but this is the key passage concerning election-

    [Rom 9:18-21]


    Right. The potter has the power to form the clay in whatever manner he wishes. The power, and the responsibility. It's not the clay's fault for becoming that which the potter molds. Insofar as the potter has the power to make what he wants, with whatever quality of clay he wants, if the clay is so made that it is aware of itself, and if it finds that its fate is as inescapable as its composition, yeah, it has reason to complain if that fate is offensive.

    Is the bullet to blame for killing an innocent victim? The gun? Is the blame shared by both bullet and gun? And what of the bullet's manufacturer? Is he to blame? Or the gun's manufacturer? What of the wielder?

    And what, pray tell, if the bullet manufacturer, gun manufacturer, the victim 'manufacturer,' and the wielder 'manufacturer' are all the same entity? How much more to blame would this entity be?

    Not close enough? What if this entity was completely aware of the outcome of the entire scenario from the start? What if this entity furthermore has the power and will to condemn bullets, guns, victims, and wielders to an eternity of suffering?

    Unbelievable. Yet somehow you believe it, and have somehow convinced yourself that this entity is kind to the point that you worship it.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  121. Zilch,

    Bible verses are like bananas...

    Hilarious and ouch. Your wit is your sword my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Kazim,

    Dan, I realize of course that you don't accept the Star Trek Rule which I proposed specifically for your benefit last year...

    Touché...ahh good times.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Stan,

    Where I find some of your arguments brilliant and well thought out, I don't think that even you believe that you are doing any good here.

    You are one fine snake oil Salesman but does that mean that the faux snake oil that you are peddling is effective for any ailments?

    In order to be a very good salesman one of two things must happen. First you must fully believe in your product as genuine that you are promoting and can defend it easily because of your presuppositions with reason, logic, and truth. It just flows off the brain. Or, you need to lie to yourself, fool yourself, and convince yourself that you are selling a good product. You need to practice you spiel in front of the the mirror, adjusting the body English that gives you away, when you fully know that you are peddling mere synthetic snake oil with the claim of something greater. I have met some great "salesman" in my day.

    I think you even have genuine moments at times:

    "I am actually a demon, and my primary function is to test the faithful in a continuous attempt at turning them away from god. You should've heard the conversations I had with Martin Luther back in the day..."

    Thanks for helping to solidify the beliefs of the faithful here. You might even sell a bottle or two but even the gullible ones will find out, soon enough, that the product isn't as you claim. That is when you and your reputation will come into question, not just your product. Then you will have to deal with that customer service nightmare since the company that you represent was shut down so many moons ago.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Danny-boy...

    Just so we're clear, I understand that you would agree with all of the following:

    1. The soil is to blame for the success or failure of seed there cast

    2. The seed is to blame for not spontaneously transforming into the desired type of plant

    3. The sower is guiltless with respect to the preparation of the soil, the location of the cast seed, the maintenance of the field, and the overall success of the harvest

    4. The sower is guiltless if/when an undesired plant grows in his field

    Am I missing anything?

    --
    Stan


    P.S. - I'm not the one selling anything. I have neither anything in my bag, nor up my sleeves, and I don't proclaim access to omniscience. I merely state that the likelihood that a god bearing a reasonable resemblance to the one you describe actually exists is laughably minimal, and even if you were correct, that god is hardly worthy of anything short of contempt.

    You, on the other hand, actually have a practice you describe as "open air preaching" -- modern soap box preaching -- during which you quite literally impersonate the fabled snake-oil salesmen you so gallantly described. You peddle eternal bliss, for a mere 10% of one's earnings, and an uncritical assessment of bronze age nomadic thought. The more liberal versions of your religion are relatively harmless -- in "spirit," if you will -- but the danger lurks in the sorts of thought processes necessarily stifled by the obfuscation prattled by ignoramuses and general douchebags.

    So unless you're ready to bust out your snake oil, and actually show us how effective it is (which is, incidentally, something El Dani is striving to accomplish with his summerish prediction), your attempt at a slam backfired.

    Oh, and you don't actually think I'm a demon, do you? It doesn't bother me if you do, but it's pretty damned hilarious if it happens to be the case.

    Grrrowwwrrr. I bet you can't get me sent back to the Abyss.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  125. Stan,

    Just so we're clear I think you are assigning too much into the parables. I believe it's a 50/50 relationship God gave you the abilities and tools to know Him (logic, reason, His Word) and many have, such as yourself, rejected Him. That is not His fault.

    Oh, and you don't actually think I'm a demon, do you?

    Of course I do, 100% (2 John 7)

    But if its any consolation I view you as a cute little demon.

    Grrrowwwrrr. I bet you can't get me sent back to the Abyss.

    Not my job, you know that.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Hey, why didn't YHWH dump Satan into Hell at the start of time, instead of doing it some time in the future.
    It would have saved a lot of hassle.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Stan- nice. You did miss one thing:

    5. The tree is to blame for not bearing fruit out of season, if Jesus is hungry.

    I believe it's a 50/50 relationship God gave you the abilities and tools to know Him (logic, reason, His Word) and many have, such as yourself, rejected Him. That is not His fault.

    Hmmm, Dan. It seems to me that God goofed big time by giving us logic and reason (Martin Luther would agree: "Reason is the Whore of the Devil"), if He wanted us to find Him. And He could easily have cleaned up his Word a bit, so that it wasn't such a good simulacrum of just another collection of fables. But I guess No One's perfect.

    Thomas seems to have fled the coop. Perhaps we convinced him, and he's now a secular humanist, out there looking for some babies to eat.

    Hey, why didn't YHWH dump Satan into Hell at the start of time, instead of doing it some time in the future.
    It would have saved a lot of hassle.


    That would have saved a lot of hassle indeed, Chris, but it would have been a real fun-killer too, for us and for God.

    ReplyDelete
  128. It's great that everyone cares enough about this subject to debate it.

    The problem is, there are no words to describe the mystery we all hope to lay claim to with our studies, logical arguments. "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith."

    All of us live in the milieu of some kind of faith - atheist and theist alike share that.

    Neither camp has a monopoly on the truth because we are fallible and flawed by nature.

    If we subscribe to a doctrine, though, such as atheism, which hold s that objective truth doesn't exist, it has that in common with other religions which can be relativistic, too.

    So I see atheism as yet another relativistic religion - one with either the self or "nothing" as an object of worship.

    Atheism is a kind of self-hatred. It hates itself because it cannot know what it wants so desperately to know - because it denies the very ability to know.

    ReplyDelete
  129. So I see atheism as yet another relativistic religion - one with either the self or "nothing" as an object of worship.

    Atheism is a kind of self-hatred. It hates itself because it cannot know what it wants so desperately to know - because it denies the very ability to know.


    You posted this on April Fools day so I have no idea whether this is a joke or not. The problem with Poes is there's always someone stupid enough to REALLY believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  130. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>