September 17, 2010

A Conversation With Pvblivs

From a prior conversation.

Pvb,

>> Rather than say "revelation" more loudly and slowly, you could try giving us some specifics of this revelation so that we can distinguish it from you blowing smoke.

It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind (collective natural and special revelation) so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

>> I want to know your revelation so I can argue against that.



With what, knowledge? Your comment reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. How is this possible in your, "an atheistic" worldview?

>>Your evasions are quite convincing evidence of your inability.

The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty.

I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty.

>>Well, your god has given me no revelation.

This is a perfect example of a knowledge claim for us to examine. You speak as if you are certain that God has given you no revelation. Are you? It is impossible to know anything absent certainty.

>>This alone suggest that your "revelation," which you claim to include me, is not true.

There's another knowledge claim. Are you certain that Pvblivs? Since we now revealed the truth of your knowledge claims do you concede that it is indeed true?

Some definitions for you:

knowledge (n)--the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

know (v)--1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty. 2. To be cognizant or aware of.

Take care.

90 comments:

  1.      "It is the [c]hristian position that [g]od has revealed [h]imself to all mankind..."
         And yet you get very vague with the details of this revelation.

         "1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
         "2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
         "3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature."

         You missed those first three definitions of knowledge. The fact that you use "for certain" as a qualifier indicates that you recognize that knowledge is not "certain by definition." So you are lying when you say that it is.
         "I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty."
         I know you exist. It is conceivable that you are really an illusion created by a team of pranksters. It could happen. But despite the existence of unlikely alternative explanations for the evidence, it is still reasonable for me to say that I know you exist. And such a statement would not indicate, to most people, that I had explicitly ruled out all other unlikely possibilities. For that matter, most people would not require that of the word "certain." But I note that you are using it in a special extreme sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. knowledge, which is certain by definition

    Lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know for certain that you saw those other definitions for knowledge and you ignored them because they would be devastating to your egomania. I know for certain that you struggle because you have no idea of half the sentences you are sprouting out of training like a dog under Sye's methods, faithfully hoping to acquire a talent while suppressing The Truth in unrighteousness, because deeply inside you know this is all deception. But you are addicted to it by now. You are drunk with the feeling of power you get from the appearance of victory.

    But I can see through you Dan. I am worse than God Dan, I am the Devil. The other side of God. The one true side of God, and I have tempted you with the lust of egomania. Sye is but my unaware disciple. My unaware instrument. I am so powerful that I know that this revelation will not make a dent in your determination to be a presuppositionalist Dan. That is the beauty of it. The more I tell you, the more you will deny it, and the deeper you will be in my hands.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But I can see through you Dan. I am worse than God Dan, I am the Devil. The other side of God. The one true side of God, and I have tempted you with the lust of egomania. Sye is but my unaware disciple. My unaware instrument. I am so powerful that I know that this revelation will not make a dent in your determination to be a presuppositionalist Dan. That is the beauty of it. The more I tell you, the more you will deny it, and the deeper you will be in my hands.

    The beauty of presuppositionalism is that it leaves the likes of Dan and Sye susceptible to being messed with.

    They don't actually have any way of distinguishing truth from falsehood, since their god has never been demonstrated to exist outside of imagination; by this light, truth is whatever they feel like saying it is.

    By placing their trust in divine 'revelation' without any criteria by which they can discern revelation from bullshit (at least none they've explicitly stated), there's no way they can demonstrate that the above is not actually a satanic pronouncement...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Things are heating up! Who brought the marshmallows?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's one for you, Dan.

    I have a map that tells me that if I drive a certain distance along a certain road, I'll arrive at a certain destination.

    Whilst driving, I see signs indicating that if I continue along this road for a certain distance, I'll arrive at a given destination.

    Finally, having driven along the road for the required distance, I find that I have arrived at the destination indicated by the map and by the road signs.

    I think you'd agree it's fair to say I now know that if I drive along this particular road for a particular distance, I'll arrive at this particular destination.

    Where does your god figure in this accumulation of knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan:

         I am wondering what you think you will do if it turns out there is a god and that he considers your farce to be mocking him. You have had the audacity to call this "presuppositional apologetics" garbage a "reasoned defense." What makes you think that your god wants you to use this dishonest tactic? It's not biblical. You will not find your method used anywhere in the bible. Now, it's not that I trust in the bible (I don't) but you pretend to do so. And this is what you come up with. As one of your own links showed, honest christians don't like that tactic, because they don't want outsiders to see such blatent deception as the face of christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  8.      Ooooh, it looks like Dan is playing "don't respond to the heretics." Of course, it's possible that he's dropped off the face of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @dormantdragon,

    "I have a map..."

    Where did you get your map?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry internet was out all day yesturday, back to the fray.

    Pvb,

    >>You missed those first three definitions of knowledge.

    Didn't miss them, I was looking for the best definition for my point. That knowledge and knowing is non existent without certainty, that was my original point. You, as other atheistic worldviews, do not/cannot claim certainty. In other words you don't know.

    >>The fact that you use "for certain" as a qualifier indicates that you recognize that knowledge is not "certain by definition." So you are lying when you say that it is.

    Orly? So you are not certain of that knowledge claim then? Bwahahahha So you can know something to be true, like knowledge is not "certain by definition", yet not be certain that its true? Please give an example of something that is known to be true, but not certain to be true?

    *rests chin on fists.

    >>I know you exist. It is conceivable that you are really an illusion created by a team of pranksters. It could happen.

    Ahhh, I see now! You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Hopefully you will be logical and admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Darkness,

    >>I know for certain that you saw those other definitions for knowledge and you ignored them because they would be devastating to your egomania.

    How is it possible to be certain about anything within your 'dark' worldview?

    >>I know for certain that you struggle because you have no idea of half the sentences you are sprouting out of training like a dog under Sye's methods, faithfully hoping to acquire a talent while suppressing The Truth in unrighteousness, because deeply inside you know this is all deception.

    But you are not certain of this?

    >>But you are addicted to it by now.

    Again you are not certain though?

    >>You are drunk with the feeling of power you get from the appearance of victory.

    Yet you cannot account for this knowledge claim.

    >>I am worse than God Dan, I am the Devil. The other side of God.

    Bwahahahah, you don't even know about this either. Wait I can address this two ways. First so you admit to the existence of God then? Great! Second, darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat. You are the absence of God not the opposite or adversary. God doesn't have adversaries. You're a cute little uncertain fellow though. Remember that the slightest spark eliminates you, Darkness. You can be overtaken by candlelight or a tiny little cell phone screen. *snicker Not so powerful are you? Hardly a adversary.

    >>The one true side of God, and I have tempted you with the lust of egomania.

    Again you are not certain though.

    >>Sye is but my unaware disciple. My unaware instrument.

    Another uncertain claim? Isn't you who is unaware? *snicker

    I am so powerful that I know that this revelation will not make a dent in your determination to be a presuppositionalist Dan.

    So powerful? Wait, anyone got a match? *snicker

    >>The more I tell you, the more you will deny it, and the deeper you will be in my hands.

    Another knowledge claim? How do you know that your reasoning about this, or anything is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dormantdragon,

    >>They don't actually have any way of distinguishing truth from falsehood, since their god has never been demonstrated to exist outside of imagination; by this light, truth is whatever they feel like saying it is.

    How ironic you accuse us of not actually having any way of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Your comment reveals a belief in the existence of knowledge, which is certain by definition. Are you certain of this? If so, how do you know that your reasoning about this, or anything is valid? How is this possible in an "atheistic" worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dormantdragon,

    >>I have a map that tells me that if I drive a certain distance along a certain road, I'll arrive at a certain destination.

    Are you certain the map is accurate? If so, how? Self-revelation?

    >>Whilst driving, I see signs indicating that if I continue along this road for a certain distance, I'll arrive at a given destination. Finally, having driven along the road for the required distance, I find that I have arrived at the destination indicated by the map and by the road signs.

    Great? So then this "map" proves itself internally about its revelation of accuracy?

    >>I think you'd agree it's fair to say I now know that if I drive along this particular road for a particular distance, I'll arrive at this particular destination.

    Of course I would say that, only I have then avenue to account for knowledge and knowing something. You, on the other hand, have to borrow from my worldview to do so. You are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING. Also, ‘evidence’ also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?

    >>Where does your [G]od figure in this accumulation of knowledge?

    Easy, much like your "map", the Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true like your "map", proves itself internally like your "map", AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity much like denying your "map". In the atheistic worldview their is no such map.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pvb,

    >>What makes you think that your god wants you to use this dishonest tactic? It's not biblical.

    O'rly? So you presuppose the truth of your system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system? *snicker

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pvb,

    >>As one of your own links showed, honest christians don't like that tactic, because they don't want outsiders to see such blatant deception as the face of [C]hristianity.

    Well I think the term "honest christians" in that case is to be taken at face value. That certainly is not the term I would have used to describe those individuals that say to "try on Jesus".

    It can easily be shown, Biblically, that to give evidence to those who have put God on trial is not the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pvb,

    >>Ooooh, it looks like Dan is playing "don't respond to the heretics." Of course, it's possible that he's dropped off the face of the earth.

    Nope, just dropped internet and cable company issues. Once again you assume too much and come to wrong conclusions. Understandable considering your past drug use.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Toddes,

    >>Where did you get your map?

    God gave it to us. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  18.      "Sorry internet was out all day yesturday, back to the fray."
         That explains why none of the comments got marked as "spam."
         "Didn't miss them, I was looking for the best definition for my point. That knowledge and knowing is non existent without certainty, that was my original point."
         Your point fails if there exists a contrary definition. There were, in fact, three in more common use than the one you thought would help you.
         "Ahhh, I see now! You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true."
         Aaaand, you're playing word games. In that particular sense, you are not certain of the existence of your god -- since he is imaginary. And even though you feel certain, you are not truly certain -- according to your own definition.
         "O'rly? So you presuppose the truth of your system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system? *snicker"
         You seem to have pulled that one out of thin air. I can determine whether a tactic is biblical by whether it follows the mandates and endorsements of the bible. Presuppositional apologetics does not. If a tactic is biblical, that gives me reason to expect that you will believe your god to want you to use it. (It has no bearing on whether I think the tactic has merit.) I am not able to identify a reason why you think your god would wish you to use the particular tactic.
         "Are you certain the map is accurate? If so, how?"
         I would expect through the evidence of the senses.
         "Great? So then this 'map' proves itself internally about its revelation of accuracy?"
         I see no reason for the quotation marks. I'm sure we have all seen maps. And there is no reason to think he is talking about anything other than an actual map. However, in his description, the map is proven externally. He is determining that the claims of the map actually match external reality. A false map could "prove itself internally" with no flaws as long as you stay internal to the claims of the map. It is the external test that is useful.
         "Where does your god figure in this accumulation of knowledge?"
         And Dan goes off on a tangent. Dormant dragon gave a sequence of events and asked where "god" figured in the sequence of events. Dan claimed that the bible was analogous to the map. In doing so, he automaticly failed to answer the question actually posed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pvb,

    >>That explains why none of the comments got marked as "spam."

    Wrong two were marked as spam.

    BTW I just deleted your 10! duplicated posts that were definitely in spam. Slow learner, I understand.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pvb,

    >> Your point fails if there exists a contrary definition.

    So in a dictionary, definitions have contrary (read conflicting) definitions in the same way at the same time? Any examples? Talk about being illogical. Here, I thought dictionaries were logical.

    >> There were, in fact, three in more common use than the one you thought would help you.

    Sure, just not contrary or conflicting ones. Still waiting for examples of that bare assertion of yours.

    >> In that particular sense, you are not certain of the existence of your god -- since he is imaginary. And even though you feel certain, you are not truly certain -- according to your own definition.

    That may be the case if it were not for, dare I say it like this again, r e v e l a t i o n.

    Unless you wish to divulge your intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. Please do.

    (Resume ducking)

    >>I can determine whether a tactic is biblical by whether it follows the mandates and endorsements of the bible. Presuppositional apologetics does not.

    Hardly. Fishing for a Bible study lesson? The rub is you do presuppose God, but "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." To feed you little birdies though, start with Romans 1.

    >> I am not able to identify a reason why you think your god would wish you to use the particular tactic.

    That is because repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Those who are ‘dead in their sins’ (Ephesians 2:1), cannot humble themselves. Pray to God for release from your master's grip.

    >> In doing so, he automaticly failed to answer the question actually posed.

    How so? I thought I addressed the question quite clear in the claim that the Bible was analogous to the map, witty to boot. All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence of map reading.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan:

         "BTW I just deleted your 10! duplicated posts that were definitely in spam [which contained the phrasing 'This might be a duplicate. But when Blogger gives the 'are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?' message I can't be sure the comment is going through']. Slow learner, I understand."
         No. When Blogger acts up like that it is having issues that sometimes kill comments. I varied my timing somewhat to see if I could get past what is really an error message. (Incidentally, I kept that tag, along with my entire post, because I was looking to try again when Blogger was being better behaved.)
         "'Your point fails if there exists a contrary [contrary to your desired point] definition.'
         "So in a dictionary, definitions have contrary (read conflicting) definitions in the same way at the same time? Any examples? Talk about being illogical. Here, I thought dictionaries were logical."
         Dictionaries are meant to be reflective of the way words are actually used. The word "knowledge" is generally not used the way you would like to portray it; hence your preferred definition appearing as number 4.
         "That may be the case if it were not for, dare I say it like this again, [the... presuppositional... lie.]"
         Yes, yes, I know the word you used was "revelation." But as you are able to give any details of this revelation, I have no reason to believe there is one.
         "The rub is you do presuppose [g]od, but 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness.'"
         No, I do not presuppose any god. On the other hand, if someone were to give me evidence.
         "That is because repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Those who are ‘dead in their sins’ (Ephesians 2:1), cannot humble themselves. Pray to [g]od for release from your master's grip."
         Actualy, you have outlined why evidence must come first. According to your belief, I am unable to "humble myself" and am therefore unable to pray for release.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan:

         "BTW I just deleted your 10! duplicated posts that were definitely in spam [which contained the phrasing 'This might be a duplicate. But when Blogger gives the 'are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?' message I can't be sure the comment is going through']. Slow learner, I understand."
         No. When Blogger acts up like that it is having issues that sometimes kill comments. I varied my timing somewhat to see if I could get past what is really an error message. (Incidentally, I kept that tag, along with my entire post, because I was looking to try again when Blogger was being better behaved.)
         "'Your point fails if there exists a contrary [contrary to your desired point] definition.'
         "So in a dictionary, definitions have contrary (read conflicting) definitions in the same way at the same time? Any examples? Talk about being illogical. Here, I thought dictionaries were logical."
         Dictionaries are meant to be reflective of the way words are actually used. The word "knowledge" is generally not used the way you would like to portray it; hence your preferred definition appearing as number 4.
         "That may be the case if it were not for, dare I say it like this again, [the... presuppositional... lie.]"
         Yes, yes, I know the word you used was "revelation." But as you are able to give any details of this revelation, I have no reason to believe there is one.
         "The rub is you do presuppose [g]od, but 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness.'"
         No, I do not presuppose any god. On the other hand, if someone were to give me evidence.
         "That is because repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Those who are ‘dead in their sins’ (Ephesians 2:1), cannot humble themselves. Pray to [g]od for release from your master's grip."
         Actualy, you have outlined why evidence must come first. According to your belief, I am unable to "humble myself" and am therefore unable to pray for release.

         This might be a duplicate. But when Blogger gives the "are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?" message I can't be sure the comment is going through. Interestingly, Blogger seldom has a problem for such an extended length of time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Toddes asked,

    Where did you get your map?

    Why does that matter, if the map can be shown to correspond to empirical and experiential realities?

    Surely you're not supposing that a map requires 'divine revelation'...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Great? So then this "map" proves itself internally about its revelation of accuracy?


    How could you get this so wrong, Dan?

    The map doesn't 'prove itself internally'; its veracity is demonstrated by its correspondence to external reality. If the cartographer had got the wrong measurements, and had set down the wrong directions, the map would be useless for getting to one's desired destination, and this would also be revealed by testing against independent realities.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You're continually asking for certainty, Dan, which indicates to me that you're not understanding the perspective some of us are presenting.

    According to your worldview, certainty can only come from your god. You have yet to explain how it's possible for you to be certain that your god has granted you certainty, but we'll let that pass for now.

    My perspective, and that of several other posters here, is that absolute certainty is not something we can honestly or practically claim - even about the fact that we cannot claim certainty. It's possible that we now know everything it's possible for us to know...but we just don't know.

    My experience has been that atheists are often much more comfortable with admitting that we don't know things than are many religious believers. I can see how it can be comforting to cling to an illusion of certainty, but life can be a whole lot more exciting if you don't.

    My point is that everything a human being can reasonably claim to know is known from the perspective of that human being. How could it be otherwise? Therefore all our knowledge must be relative to what and where we are.

    It is reasonable to say that we know a particular fact - as a cognitive construct - if that fact is repeatedly borne out by our experience of the world that exists independently of our consciousness. The more frequently our concept of a fact is demonstrated to match observed reality, and goes without being contradicted by observed reality, the stronger our knowledge claim becomes, at least in practice, and in relation to our existence as human beings in this particular world.

    Just as our knowledge is relative, it is also mutable, subject to revision when new or conflicting realities are observed. Findings in quantum mechanics have sometimes tended to run counter to some things we think we know, such as concepts of causality and identity; but because those concepts still work, in practice, when dealing with reality on a larger-than-quantum scale, they still constitute useful and true knowledge, even without being absolutely applicable.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan:

         "BTW I just deleted your 10! duplicated posts that were definitely in spam [which contained the phrasing 'This might be a duplicate. But when Blogger gives the 'are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?' message I can't be sure the comment is going through']. Slow learner, I understand."
         No. When Blogger acts up like that it is having issues that sometimes kill comments. I varied my timing somewhat to see if I could get past what is really an error message. (Incidentally, I kept that tag, along with my entire post, because I was looking to try again when Blogger was being better behaved.)
         "'Your point fails if there exists a contrary [contrary to your desired point] definition.'
         "So in a dictionary, definitions have contrary (read conflicting) definitions in the same way at the same time? Any examples? Talk about being illogical. Here, I thought dictionaries were logical."
         Dictionaries are meant to be reflective of the way words are actually used. The word "knowledge" is generally not used the way you would like to portray it; hence your preferred definition appearing as number 4.
         "That may be the case if it were not for, dare I say it like this again, [the... presuppositional... lie.]"
         Yes, yes, I know the word you used was "revelation." But as you are able to give any details of this revelation, I have no reason to believe there is one.
         "The rub is you do presuppose [g]od, but 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness.'"
         No, I do not presuppose any god. On the other hand, if someone were to give me evidence.
         "That is because repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Those who are ‘dead in their sins’ (Ephesians 2:1), cannot humble themselves. Pray to [g]od for release from your master's grip."
         Actualy, you have outlined why evidence must come first. According to your belief, I am unable to "humble myself" and am therefore unable to pray for release.

         This might be a duplicate. But when Blogger gives the "are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?" message I can't be sure the comment is going through. Interestingly, Blogger seldom has a problem for such an extended length of time.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan:

         "BTW I just deleted your 10! duplicated posts that were definitely in spam [which contained the phrasing 'This might be a duplicate. But when Blogger gives the 'are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?' message I can't be sure the comment is going through']. Slow learner, I understand."
         No. When Blogger acts up like that it is having issues that sometimes kill comments. I varied my timing somewhat to see if I could get past what is really an error message. (Incidentally, I kept that tag, along with my entire post, because I was looking to try again when Blogger was being better behaved.)
         "'Your point fails if there exists a contrary [contrary to your desired point] definition.'
         "So in a dictionary, definitions have contrary (read conflicting) definitions in the same way at the same time? Any examples? Talk about being illogical. Here, I thought dictionaries were logical."
         Dictionaries are meant to be reflective of the way words are actually used. The word "knowledge" is generally not used the way you would like to portray it; hence your preferred definition appearing as number 4.

    ReplyDelete
  28.      "That may be the case if it were not for, dare I say it like this again, [the... presuppositional... lie.]"
         Yes, yes, I know the word you used was "revelation." But as you are able to give any details of this revelation, I have no reason to believe there is one.
         "The rub is you do presuppose [g]od, but 'suppress the truth in unrighteousness.'"
         No, I do not presuppose any god. On the other hand, if someone were to give me evidence.
         "That is because repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Those who are ‘dead in their sins’ (Ephesians 2:1), cannot humble themselves. Pray to [g]od for release from your master's grip."
         Actualy, you have outlined why evidence must come first. According to your belief, I am unable to "humble myself" and am therefore unable to pray for release.

         This might be a duplicate. But when Blogger gives the "are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?" message I can't be sure the comment is going through. Interestingly, Blogger seldom has a problem for such an extended length of time.

    ReplyDelete
  29.      Huh, I broke up the comment and Blogger stopped having trouble with it. Blogger's still acting wonky.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Huh, I broke up the comment and Blogger stopped having trouble with it. Blogger's still acting wonky.

    I sympathise, Pvblivs - I'm sure everyone saw the five (I think) duplicate comments of mine on a previous post.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @dormantdragon,

    "Why does that matter, if the map can be shown to correspond to empirical and experiential realities?"

    Some assummptions: How do you know you reached the correct destination unless you've been there before or have prior knowledge of it? Why do you trust the map maker or the sign makers? If an error is made in your trip are you able to start over?

    Perhaps you wanted to go to Paris. How do you know the Paris at which you arrived was the Paris you intended? Have I reached the correct destination if I set out for Paris, TX and end up in Paris, IL.

    When I first read your initial map post I thought it a good analogy from a Christian perspective.

    Destination: God
    Map: The Bible
    Road: Christ
    Signs: The Spirit

    Of course, you didn't intend it this way but it works. My point is that until you put your foot on the gas all your knowledge is second-hand. Since in this example you can backtrack and try again it may only be an inconvenince to arrive in Paris, IL, when you intended Paris, TX. Not every journey allows that luxury.

    So who provided the map and who established the signs is vital to the argument. Unless the mapmaker has first-hand knowledge of the destination then the map and the signs are useless.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Toddes:

         Actually consider what you are saying with your example. If the bible is a false map, locking myself into it is something I want to avoid. And people have asked christians for a way to test it first. The response is always blind faith.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Pvb,

    >>But as you are able to give any details of this revelation, I have no reason to believe there is one.

    So great! You admit to me giving you detail of the revelation (natural and special), you just deny it. argumentum ad avoidium :7)

    >>No, I do not presuppose any god. On the other hand, if someone were to give me evidence.

    Erm, ‘evidence’ also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?

    >> According to your belief, I am unable to "humble myself" and am therefore unable to pray for release.

    Yes, you're right. OK I will pray for your release from your master Satan. Only God can save you from that slavery grip.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Pvb,

    >>Blogger's still acting wonky.

    Is that an admittance that I might not have had anything to do with it?

    I'll take it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dormantdragon,

    >>The map doesn't 'prove itself internally'; its veracity is demonstrated by its correspondence to external reality.

    Fine, I suppose I could have said 'proves itself internally and externally', the same with the Bible. I guess what I meant was the internal claims can be verified, thus proves itself valid.

    ReplyDelete
  36.      Edit: "But as you are unable to give any details...."

    Dan:

         "So great! You admit to me giving you detail of the revelation."
         No, that was a typo. Saying "natural and special" is just as vague. If that's your idea of "detail," you can just stick with saying "r-r-r-e-e-e-v-v-v-e-e-e-l-l-l-a-a-a-t-t-t-i-i-i-o-o-o-n-n-n."
         "Erm, 'evidence' also presupposes 'logic, knowledge, and truth' care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?"
         I've told you before. They are axiomatic and, therefore, require no accounting. I note that, although you lie about it, you don't account for them either. This is because they are necessarily axiomatic.
         "Is that an admittance that I might not have had anything to do with it?"
         I accused you of deleting very specific posts. Blogger was not acting wonky for those. Those posts showed up and disappeared later. I do not accuse you of deleting the posts where I expressly noted that Blogger was acting wonky.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dormantdragon,

    >>According to your worldview, certainty can only come from your god.

    And Bingo was his name-o

    >>You have yet to explain how it's possible for you to be certain that your god has granted you certainty, but we'll let that pass for now.

    Please don't, I would hate to deal with your continued confusion. I am certain because of God's revelations, both natural and special.

    >>is that absolute certainty is not something we can honestly or practically claim - even about the fact that we cannot claim certainty.

    Within your worldview? I agree! Knowledge is knowing with certainty. So you have no avenue to knowledge without borrowing from my worldview.

    It's possible that we now know everything it's possible for us to know...but we just don't know.

    Are you certain that you don't know for certain? Are you getting it yet?

    >>My experience has been that atheists are often much more comfortable with admitting that we don't know things than are many religious believers.

    Understandable, since they have no avenue to knowledge (read certainty)

    >>I can see how it can be comforting to cling to an illusion of certainty, but life can be a whole lot more exciting if you don't.

    But you don't know that for certain. Wheeeeeeee

    >>My point is that everything a human being can reasonably claim to know is known from the perspective of that human being. How could it be otherwise?

    Read above.

    >>Therefore all our knowledge must be relative to what and where we are.

    So knowledge is subjective and logic is not absolute?

    >>Just as our knowledge is relative, it is also mutable, subject to revision when new or conflicting realities are observed.

    How can knowledge be relative and be revised with outside knowledge is revealed? Did it just turn into objective then? wheeeeee

    >>Findings in quantum mechanics have sometimes tended to run counter to some things we think we know,

    Who cares if knowledge is merely relative?

    ...such as concepts of causality and identity; but because those concepts still work, in practice, when dealing with reality on a larger-than-quantum scale, they still constitute useful and true knowledge, even without being absolutely applicable.

    Yet you don't know what you know? Wheeeee

    ReplyDelete
  38. Toddes,

    >>Destination: God
    Map: The Bible
    Road: Christ
    Signs: The Spirit

    That just made the 'Fun Quotes' section. Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Pvb,

    >>The response is always blind faith

    Lying for Atheists now? Rich.

    Faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that control human destiny, complete confidence in a plan, a loyalty or allegiance to a cause.

    Webster says:

    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

    Faith, in a sense, is synonymous with loyalty and TRUST. In fact the synonyms are: confidence, trust, reliance, conviction, belief, assurance, devotion, loyalty, faithfulness, commitment, fidelity, constancy, fealty, dedication, allegiance

    So you COMPLETELY misrepresented what faith is, and we expect the apology or acknowledgment before we continue here.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan:

         "Lying for Atheists now?"
         That would be rather unlikely, since I am not an atheist.
         "So you COMPLETELY misrepresented what faith is, and we expect the apology or acknowledgment before we continue here."
         Nice try. But I didn't misrepresent what faith is. I did not, for example, say that all faith is blind. But christians do not give any evidence that their god is worthy of any trust -- or even exists for that matter. Trusting someone without evidence that he will respect that trust is blind faith. There is your apology -- a reasoned argument.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pvb,

    >>Saying "natural and special" is just as vague.

    Which brings us to that cartoon yet again. Natural revelations are what is around you naturally. Supernatural, and the Bible, are special revelations. Clearer?

    Re:'logic, knowledge, and truth'

    >>I've told you before. They are axiomatic and, therefore, require no accounting.

    Is it possible that axioms are wrong? If so, how do you know yours isn't?

    >> I note that, although you lie about it, you don't account for them either.

    Again with a knowledge claim? *places needle on record 'scratch' 'pop' Are you certain? How do you know?

    As for the rest I will just resolve to considering you as a slippery eel.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan:

         "Which brings us to that cartoon yet again. Natural revelations are what is around you naturally."
         Natural "revelations" are things that can be predicted without your god. According to the cartoon you reference, if nobody asked for a sign, would the world stop spinning? If not, then the spinning of the planet is not a response.
         "Again with a knowledge claim?"
         I asserted that you do not actually account for logic (although you insist that every non-christian do so, christians are somehow exempt.) If my claim is wrong show where you have accounted for logic. If my claim is right and you are just blowing smoke, just say "Are you certain? How do you know?"
         "As for [responding to Dan's false charges with the truth] I will just resolve to considering you as a slippery eel."
         You're the one who accused me of "lying for atheists" and of "misrepresenting faith" when I noted what the response is when christians are asked for a way to test the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Muaaahaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

    You are so deep in my hands Dan! So deep. I jump with delight. I never said I was God's adversary you moron, I said I am the true side of God. Of course I am certain! I know everything you dumb! What makes you think you are talking to an atheist? How can Satan be an atheist? You don't even know what you were supposed to know about me!

    A match can destroy me dumb dumb? Don't you remember that while some call me Darkness, others have called me Lucifer? Light and Darkness, everything is me. I am everywhere. I am having such ecstasy! I delight in your fall Dan. You are perfectly in my hands, and you try to show off your "art" against me! Muahahahahahahaaaaa! So delightful! This is exactly what I want Dan! Your soul in exchange for your moments of ridicule, for those moments when you feel "superior" to the atheists by using mere tricks. Yet beautiful tricks in the way they fool YOU. Beautiful because they don't fool the atheists so they are kept away and lost. All for the same price! I get the atheists souls, and I get yours! Human sinful nature is so predictable. The fool will embrace the tricks with pride. The atheists will reject saving perplexed by your pride on such baloney.

    Couldn't be any better.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Please don't, I would hate to deal with your continued confusion. I am certain because of God's revelations, both natural and special.

    Which still doesn't explain how you are certain of the truth value of the revelations since the only means you have to perceive them are your human faculties, which you continually decry as inferior and incapable of certainty.

    Furthermore, you have still not addressed the possibility that an omnipotent being could make you certain of things that are not in fact real or true. Nor have you assimilated the fact that 'knowledge', in and of itself, carries no requirement for absolute certainty - only that it works in practice and corresponds to what we can perceive about the world outside our own consciousness.

    If you continue to give simplistic responses to what is actually quite a complex question, I can only conclude - provisionally, of course - that you either don't understand the question or don't have an answer. That knowledge claim rests until contradicted, just as all our knowledge claims do.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Toddes, you said,

    Of course, you didn't intend it this way but it works. My point is that until you put your foot on the gas all your knowledge is second-hand. Since in this example you can backtrack and try again it may only be an inconvenince to arrive in Paris, IL, when you intended Paris, TX. Not every journey allows that luxury.

    Of course knowledge gained in a second-hand fashion is always provisional until it can be demonstrated to correspond to an external reality (ie: one we didn't just imagine).

    The trouble with claiming this for your religion is that the Bible, by this light, is only second-hand knowledge. You can follow its teachings, believe as hard as you can that your god is real and that Jesus has saved you, but because you don't have any signs external to your mind or to your faith community (made up of people who also imagine that these things are real) then the only time you're going to find out - to verify your provisional knowledge - is when you die.

    Bit hard to go back then, I'd wager...

    ReplyDelete
  46. DormantDragon wrote the following to this blog's not-so-humble owner:

    you have still not addressed the possibility that an omnipotent being could make you certain of things that are not in fact real or true

    I'm pretty sure you've already guessed that Dan will never address this. To do so would be to allow his whole world view to collapse. Issues of ego aside, I'm pretty sure he's not strong enough of a person to handle it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Whateverman, you wrote,

    I'm pretty sure you've already guessed that Dan will never address this [that is, the possibility of an omnipotent being convincing him that false ideas are true]. To do so would be to allow his whole world view to collapse.

    I've certainly never seen any evidence that he is prepared to address the issue - indeed, I've come to be of your mind on this, that he can't acknowledge such a possibility without undermining the foundations of his belief system.

    However, I will admit to having just enough of a mean streak to succumb to the temptation of throwing the notion out there from time to time...and you never know - there might be some newbie readers of the blog who could be in danger of thinking that Dan is on to something with this presuppositionalism thing, so it doesn't hurt to bring up an obvious shortcoming!

    ReplyDelete
  48. PVb,

    >>I asserted that you do not actually account for logic (although you insist that every non-christian do so, christians are somehow exempt.) If my claim is wrong show where you have accounted for logic.

    What people believe has absolutely nothing to do with truth. Truth is knowing. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant, all characteristics which are accounted for in the nature of God.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dan:

         "What people believe has absolutely nothing to do with truth."
         Well, you believe in a particular god. Now you say this has nothing to do with reality. However, I must disagree with the generalized statement. People often believe things based on evidence. Evidence helps point to truth. Now, I will grant that human beliefs are not perfect. People do make mistakes. But truth creates evidence which affects beliefs.
         "The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by [d]ivine revelation from [o]ne who knows everything."
         Which just means you are applying a special incoherent concept to the word "certain." But you also have trouble with something else. How do you distinguish a true revelation from a deceptive one? It does no good to say that the revelation asserted its own truth. A deceptive revelation would do the same.
         "It is the [c]hristian position that [g]od has revealed [h]imself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who [h]e is."
         And the evidence is completely against this. Whenever missionaries went into new territories they found no pre-existing christians. You, yourself, homeschool your children to try to ensure that they believe in your "revelation." If you really believed that your god had already revealed himself to them, you wouldn't need to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Darkness,

    >>I know everything you dumb!

    except grammar. *snicker

    What I found funny about everything you said here, your 'plan' so to speak, is that it revealed your own pride to "dupe" me. So in a very strange way you are trying to drive me to repentance. Again you are glorifying God! Maybe there is some truth to you claim of "I said I am the true side of God. Of course I am certain!" Not only a match, but your own prideful boasting will destroy you, much the same as a magician giving away his secrets. You are your worse enemy. You remind me of the Screwtape letters to Wormwood. Hilarious!

    Thanks for the smiles...Couldn't be any better.

    ReplyDelete
  51. DD,

    >>Which still doesn't explain how you are certain of the truth value of the revelations since the only means you have to perceive them are your human faculties, which you continually decry as inferior and incapable of certainty

    I have a justified true belief. You do not.

    >>Furthermore, you have still not addressed the possibility that an omnipotent being could make you certain of things that are not in fact real or true.

    Sure I have. If a revelation by an omniscient, omnipotent being did reveal something to you so that you are certain of it, then that revelation would be impossible to be a lie because of the origins of that revelation and the certainty of the knowledge.

    >>Nor have you assimilated the fact that 'knowledge', in and of itself, carries no requirement for absolute certainty

    It certainly does. :7) Otherwise its not knowledge, its only opinions. All truth is absolute truth, all knowledge is certain. An avenue that atheists do not have, evidenced why they decry certainty.

    >>That knowledge claim rests until contradicted, just as all our knowledge claims do.

    You do understand that you just admitted that you could be wrong about EVERYTHING that you claim to know. Even that "knowledge claim rests until contradicted." a knowledge claim itself. How do you know? "I don't" is you ONLY POSSIBLE answer for that question. Infinite regress ensues. Wheeee

    ReplyDelete
  52.      "I have a justified true belief. You do not."
         You "justify" "god has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain" with "because god has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain." When anyone else uses that form, you call it viciously circular. For yourself, you invoke special pleading.
         "Sure I have. If a revelation by an omniscient, omnipotent being did reveal something to you so that you are certain of it, then that revelation would be impossible to be a lie because of the origins of that revelation and the certainty of the knowledge."
         Now, when we clear the smoke away, we find that you have said nothing. Dormant dragon was referring to you being "certain" in the sense that you assert yourself to be certain. You are utterly convinced. But an omnipotent being could utterly convince you of a lie. As sure as an omnipotent being can make you of a truth, he can make you equally sure of a lie, if he so chooses. So, how do you tell the difference? You seem to be stating that you would only think yourself certain, but wouldn't be really really really certain. I have some news for you. You aren't really really really certain. You only think you're certain.
         "All truth is absolute truth, all knowledge is certain."
         Except that history suggests the reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Pvb,

    >>You "justify" "god has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain" with "because god has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain."

    No, I justify God has revealed it in such a way that I can be certain with God being the precondition to intelligibility.

    >>Now, when we clear the smoke away, we find that you have said nothing.

    But you are not certain I have said nothing? Why is this so difficult for you? This is easily demonstrable, like I said before: Tell me one thing that you know, absent certainty.

    >>Except that history suggests the reverse.

    Again with the knowledge claim? But you are not certain that history suggests the reverse? (resume ducking)

    ReplyDelete
  54.      Anybody notice that Dan's pat response when he is caught is to say "are you certain?" or "but you are not certain"? Dan is stuck. All he can do is blow smoke.

    ReplyDelete
  55. That's right. It really is his only response, for he's the only person here who fails to understand that faith != logic.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Pvb,

    >>All he can do is blow smoke.

    are you certain that is all I can do?

    Actually, the reappearance of the questions is making a statement very clearly. If you think about it, its being used as a recapitulation of the main idea.

    For example:

    A-"There is no certainty"

    D-"are you certain of that?"

    Crickets follow for a spell, then the complaints and accusations of "smoke" ensue. I will admit that its comical though. I guess that is a fine example there is comedy in tragedy.

    A more honest reflection of one's own worldview would get better results to the conversations. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dan:

         "[A]re you certain [blowing smoke] is all I can do?"
         You could show me wrong by doing something other than blowing smoke. That, however, was the same predictable smoke.
         "Actually, the reappearance of the questions is making a statement very clearly."
         Yes, that statement is that you have painted yourself into a corner.
         "If you think about it, its being used as a recapitulation of the main idea."
         What? that you use a special definition of certainty that no one meets? You will convince no one here with that tactic. We think it's dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  58.      "A more honest reflection of one's own worldview would get better results to the conversations. Just saying."
         When you are ready to give such honest reflection to your worldview, I will be here. But you use "are you certain?" to deflect examination away from your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    This is the same old script, Dan, upon which you have so far failed to elaborate. "Suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness" - what exactly does this mean?

    How is it that you are certain of what you claim your god has revealed to you? You only have your human faculties to rely upon, and, it seems, no means of discerning truth from falsehood, since an omnipotent being could easily convince you that a false notion was true.

    And how is it possible to have contempt for a being one doesn't believe exists? Certainly I have contempt for the Christian portrayal of god, just as I might have contempt for Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III - but this doesn't correspond to having contempt for an actual deity, any more than it corresponds to my having contempt for the actual historical person who was Richard III, who was, according to primary sources, not much like the hunchbacked villain of the Bard's play.

    What makes you so sure your concept of god is the one that actually corresponds to his nature, assuming that any such deity even exists? You gloss over far too much in your attempts at argument, Dan. This doesn't lend your position - nor your understanding, for that matter - any credibility. You need to engage in detailed discussion, rather than parroting the same phrases over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You do understand that you just admitted that you could be wrong about EVERYTHING that you claim to know. Even that "knowledge claim rests until contradicted." a knowledge claim itself. How do you know? "I don't" is you ONLY POSSIBLE answer for that question. Infinite regress ensues. Wheeee

    Sure I understand this, Dan. You just don't grasp the fundamental honesty and humility of my atheist worldview, being so caught up in the apparent arrogance and claimed certainty of your own Christian one.

    Like I said, knowledge claims rest upon available evidence, until new evidence becomes available - if the new evidence fits the previous knowledge claim, then said knowledge claim still rests; it will be reassessed every time new evidence becomes available. That's so far the only practical way we've found to operate.

    But of course you wouldn't understand this, Dan. Your worldview, by your admission (indirect though it may be), makes no room for new evidence. You think you know all the important things already. But you have still not actually explained how you can know these things, and how it isn't possible for an omnipotent being to make you certain of things that aren't true. All you've offered is the standard presup script - all spin and no substance.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Ha! I told you, the more I reveal the truth to you, the more you will deny it!

    Of course I am an instrument of God. Of course I glorify God! That is what I was made for you dumb dumb. My mission is to keep the hypocrites, the proud, and the idiots far from God. It is written all over me! I have no compassion! I have no mercy! This is how I can be the true side of God.

    I don't want you to repent. Why would I want to lose your little soul? One that will keep more and more unbelievers away? Keep playing your little game. All I Have to do is play mine. Let you think that your tricks are made to glorify God, while you get away from God's will with your false pretense, pride, and dishonesty. The best part of it is that you will never believe me! You will never admit to lying and tricking! You will keep getting deeper and deeper.

    Lies, lies, lies, beautiful lies. They mix beautifully with my truth. The perfection of keeping you in my hands by revealing this truth to you. It looks so close to a divine plan, doesn't it? Oh, yes, glory be to God. The way you get immersed into hypocrisy while feeling powerful. The way you keep others away from any chance to salvation.

    I keep jumping in delight. Couldn't be any better!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Pvb,

    I just think its you who is 'caught' in that corner.

    You believe there is no certainty in things, or to be fair you thinks its a 'good enough' certainty but of course by that admission that means you are not certain about that even. Or anything?

    But you don't live that way at all. Its completely absurd to think that you would. But YOU DO!!! Its crazy. As an example, I am certain I love my wife and kids, (or 2+2=4) there is no doubt at all, I KNOW it. You may believe that I cannot be certain of that really. That is CRAZY talk. Presups exposes that nonsense simply. Presups, at its core, satisfies Proverbs 26:4-5 completely. It even makes sense of Proverbs 26:4-5 more.

    For the simple question of, do you use your reason that your reason is valid? You are forced to say nothing other then 'yes.' Its comical in a very tragic way.

    To say I do the same thing, especially as a knowledge claim, is not true at all. I know that I don't understand many things in life but one thing I am certain of is that God exists. Explaining that is (read was) difficult and one of the many reasons I started this project blog. The more I explore presupps, and especially see the atheists wiggle through it, the more I am convinced as to its truth.

    I thought, of all the people, that you would be able to reason through it and find an epiphany, of sorts, with the logic presented. But what happened instead? You back-peddle and show denial of reason. Huge surprise on this end of the conversation with you. I am convinced that its truth is sound. In the same breath, I dare anyone to show me its not. So far, that hasn't happened.

    >>that you use a special definition of certainty that no one meets?

    Really!? Its special that certainty means 'to know'? Really?

    Here are some antonyms to certainty: hesitant, indecisive, vacillating, wavering; diffident, unassuming, doubtful, dubious, unsure.

    I know for certain that is not how you live, and nether do I. Can you explain that? Can you account for your certainty? If not, game over. You must reevaluate your worldview. There is no other choice here.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dan:

         No, presuppositional baloney is nonsense. The only nonsense it exposes is its own.
         "For the simple question of, do you use your reason that your reason is valid? You are forced to say nothing other then 'yes.'"
         You're not paying attention. I said "no." To reason that my reason is valid would be to treat it as a conclusion, rather than a premise.
         "I know that I don't understand many things in life but one thing I [feel] certain of is that [g]od exists."
         I corrected it for you. You feel certain that your god exists. You have presented no evidence that your god is not an illusion, a dream, or a hallucination. I am taking at your word that you believe what you say. I may be extending you too much credit. The fact that you cling to the dishonest tactic of presuppositional baloney is evidence that you are willing to lie.
         "I am convinced that its [presuppositional baloney's] truth is sound. In the same breath, I dare anyone to show me its not. So far, that hasn't happened."
         No one can convince you if you aren't actually listening. The fact that you keep repeating your mantra like a broken record tells me that you are not listening. The fact that you misrepresent my position is confirming evidence.
         "Really!? Its special that certainty means 'to know'? Really?"
         Ahem, the special definition you use is that you require an ability to rule out all alternate scenarios. When most people say that they are certain of something or that they know something, they are not saying that they can prove that world they see is not some elaborate illusion. This could all be some grand illusion. There is no way to distinguish. And, if your "revelation" is pure deception, you can still be expected to say that you are certain.
         "Can you account for your certainty? If not, game over. You must reevaluate your worldview. There is no other choice here."
         I will re-evaluate my worldview when and if you provide some actual evidence that challenges it. If you keep repeating "are you certain? How do you account for certainty in your worldview?" I have to dismiss it as so much smoke. There is no other choice.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dan:

         No, presuppositional baloney is nonsense. The only nonsense it exposes is its own.
         "For the simple question of, do you use your reason that your reason is valid? You are forced to say nothing other then 'yes.'"
         You're not paying attention. I said "no." To reason that my reason is valid would be to treat it as a conclusion, rather than a premise.
         "I know that I don't understand many things in life but one thing I [feel] certain of is that [g]od exists."
         I corrected it for you. You feel certain that your god exists. You have presented no evidence that your god is not an illusion, a dream, or a hallucination. I am taking at your word that you believe what you say. I may be extending you too much credit. The fact that you cling to the dishonest tactic of presuppositional baloney is evidence that you are willing to lie.
         "I am convinced that its [presuppositional baloney's] truth is sound. In the same breath, I dare anyone to show me its not. So far, that hasn't happened."
         No one can convince you if you aren't actually listening. The fact that you keep repeating your mantra like a broken record tells me that you are not listening. The fact that you misrepresent my position is confirming evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  65.      "Really!? Its special that certainty means 'to know'? Really?"
         Ahem, the special definition you use is that you require an ability to rule out all alternate scenarios. When most people say that they are certain of something or that they know something, they are not saying that they can prove that world they see is not some elaborate illusion. This could all be some grand illusion. There is no way to distinguish. And, if your "revelation" is pure deception, you can still be expected to say that you are certain.
         "Can you account for your certainty? If not, game over. You must reevaluate your worldview. There is no other choice here."
         I will re-evaluate my worldview when and if you provide some actual evidence that challenges it. If you keep repeating "are you certain? How do you account for certainty in your worldview?" I have to dismiss it as so much smoke. There is no other choice.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Pvblivs,

    Anybody notice that Dan's pat response when he is caught is to say "are you certain?" or "but you are not certain"? Dan is stuck. All he can do is blow smoke.

    I noticed. It shows all over the place. Worse, he does not understand something, he just says "are you certain?" He is caught into a contradiction "Are you certain it is a contradiction?"

    Yes Dan. I am certain.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan, you wrote to Pvblivs,

    You believe there is no certainty in things, or to be fair you thinks its a 'good enough' certainty but of course by that admission that means you are not certain about that even. Or anything?

    But you don't live that way at all. Its completely absurd to think that you would. But YOU DO!!! Its crazy. As an example, I am certain I love my wife and kids, (or 2+2=4) there is no doubt at all, I KNOW it.


    What exactly do you mean by, "you don't live like that"? Do you think that treating all knowledge as tentative renders a person incapable of action? Of course not. We act on what we know, provisionally, and if it works, we keep doing so; if not, we revise our understanding. This is called living and learning, Dan.

    Let's take the example you gave, of being certain that you love your wife and kids. But is this absolutely certain, Dan? Have you completely ruled out, for all time, the possibility that your feelings could change? Or the possibility (admittedly unlikely, but nevertheless possible) that your wife is secretly slipping drugs into your food that make you feel like you love her?

    The thing is, you don't have to rule out these possibilities in order to act on your feelings. Your experience tells you that you have the right of it, and that's good enough.

    The trouble is, Dan, that in order to have the kind of certainty you speak of, you would need to be infallible. Not some imaginary god who "makes" you certain, but you - you would need to have complete faith in your merely human faculties for discerning truth from falsehood, and by your previous postings, you don't have such faith. Therefore, you, like the rest of us, have provisional knowledge, susceptible to revision or correction in light of new evidence and experience.

    ReplyDelete
  68. You, yourself, homeschool your children to try to ensure that they believe in your "revelation." If you really believed that your god had already revealed himself to them, you wouldn't need to do that.

    Ups! Could Dan be more self-debunked?

    ReplyDelete
  69. G.E.

    The premise was wrong:

    >>You, yourself, homeschool your children to try to ensure that they believe in your "revelation."

    Not true. Dare I say Ignoratio elenchi even. I home school because I want to do all I can to protect the children, allow them to grow up in a positive drug free, and more wholesome and safe environment. I know they know who God is because they already reason. You know, since the very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God.

    Wem,

    I like your skirt and pom poms, they are a natural fit for your cheerleader personality. *pshaw

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dan:

         You were more straightforward about your reasons for homeschooling before you learned about presuppositional baloney. Some of us remember. The fact that you change your tune now only shows that PB is a tool of deception.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dan,

    I like your skirt and pom poms, they are a natural fit for your cheerleader personality. *pshaw

    These childish comments speaks volumes about the famous "fruits of the spirit" and how they manifest in presuppos. I am sure Sye would be proud of you, as he is an excellent example of playground tactics.

    Not that I am surprised by your fruits of the spirit. After all, your whole worldview, and its defense, are based on contradictions and deception.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I home school because I want to do all I can to protect the children, allow them to grow up in a positive drug free, and more wholesome and safe environment. I know they know who God is because they already reason. You know, since the very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God.

    Nice one, Dan. You'd better not let your children leave the nest, ever, because it sounds like they're going to crash and burn big time when they set foot outside your protective cocoon and realise that the world doesn't work the way you say it does.

    Their reasoning about evidence is evidence for god? What bollocks. It's evidence for the ability of the human mind to make connections and form concepts. Their reasoning ability is the very thing your children will use later to figure out what a disservice you're doing them now. Assuming, of course, that you haven't by that time completely warped and poisoned their intellectual faculties with your insidious religious doublethink.

    ReplyDelete
  75. G.E.

    >>You said before you homeschooled your children so they would not learn about evolution.

    Any evidence for that bare assertion?

    No, I home school my kids for MANY reasons not just one, dude.

    To help make your claim more accurate you should of said that I home schooled my children so they would know the truth about evolution.

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

    ReplyDelete
  77. Thought you ought to know that your old pal Pub's latest comment on my site was flagged by Google as spam. (Not that it mattered, I deleted it without reading anyway.) Other people have left comments, then all of a sudden, their subsequent comments were considered spam.

    As my pal, the great philosopher Red Green says, "I'm pullin' for ya. We're all in this together."

    ReplyDelete
  78.      If anyone is interested in the comment the pathological liar deleted, you can find the text here. I compared his stated standards to his actions. It is really no surprise that he deleted it. But anyone with an ounce of integrity would have let it through.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Spoken like a true gentleman! Oh, by the way, you delete comments from your own Weblog. Besides, why should I let anything from you go through? You were told that I was not allowing any of your further rantings, so you're trying to bait me into going back on my promise. You are a coward and a hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Stormbringer:

         You have no reason for your "promise" -- other than the fact that I point out truths you find inconvenient.
         "Oh, by the way, you delete comments from your own Weblog."
         Yes I do. Foul language, spam comments (spelled out on the "post a comment page) duplicates, and sometimes comments without content (for cleanup purposes.) But the fact is that my comments to you do not run afoul of any meaningful criterion. I defy you to identify a single one that does. But my comments do shatter the deception that you portray. And that is why you delete them. As for my alleged cowardice, you are betrayed by the fact that I leave up comments that are critical of me and my claims. You are the coward and the hypocrite. It's the only reason you have for deleting any of my comments. There is no merit to any such deletion. But, again, I challenge you to identify any comment I made that was deleted for some reason with merit -- and your "promise" to delete my comments is devoid of any merit.

    ReplyDelete
  81.      Oh, yes, I maintain that anyone who needs to pre-screen comments because he is afraid that it will hurt the illusion he is trying to create for his readers has no business calling anyone a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Stormbringer:

         Although some may accuse you of having gone off the deep end, you are strictly kiddie-pool. And, by the way, my noting that you have conversations with yourself on your blog is no more paranoia than your noting that Obama currently holds the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hey, Dickhead! So I don't exist, just like the other guys didn't exist, huh? OK did he create my blog too just so he could create me to have conversations with? http://nicky1.posterous.com/

    Or are you talking about someone else? I've never seen someone so nutzo. Try writing about something other than how much you hate certain people.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Seems like Dan's blog is bringing out the best in people...

    ReplyDelete
  85. Stormbringer:

         "So I don't exist, just like the other guys didn't exist, huh?"
         It would be nice if you could address my actual claim. It would also be nice if you posted under your own name. I never said that the people whose names you forge don't exist. I said that they never wrote the comments that you pretend came from them.

         By the way, if Nicky had written that comment it would be out of place as nowhere on this thread did I mention him -- or, for that matter, your tendency to write posts using his name. On the other hand, it makes sense that you wrote it. I did talk about your general dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Your "logic" also said that he did not exist when he was in a conversation on this very Weblog, one in which you participated. So what's your answer, nutcase? Did I create an entire Weblog in his name for years, just so I could fake his name to answer you? Get over yourself. Get a job.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Storm,

    >>As my pal, the great philosopher Red Green says, "I'm pullin' for ya. We're all in this together."

    Thanks. Pvboy is now aware that he was wrong to accuse. Since I caught his blog doing the SAME THING! If he ever brings it up again he will be anything but a man. Also the slide show says it all! THe sad part is he will not YET even admit his blunder and mistake about me and my motives. (Matthew 7:5) Anyway from that day forward, until he see's the beam in his eye he will be known as Pvboy, since he did not man up and face reality. Thanks Storm, for knowing the truth and defending me.

    Dire Straits put it,

    "And though they did hurt me so bad
    In the fear and alarm
    You did not desert me"

    Brother in arms, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Stormbringer:

         "So what's your answer, [master]? Did I create an entire Weblog in his name for years, just so I could fake his name to answer you?"
         No, you used OpenID to forge a link between your comment and a blog written by someone else. It is my belief that he is entirely unaware of your forgery.

    Danny-girl:

         I noted that, in your attempt to get one comment sent to spam, you posted over thirty within a twenty-minute period. And you were able to get one previously published comment sent to spam. And I conceded as much. Howver, you are asking me to believe that you are consistently having published comments sent to spam when there are no follow-up comments for twenty to thirty minutes. That is not a condition you have replicated -- or even rendered plausible through a close approximation. I was checking around to see if other people were having the problems you claim to see if evidence would lend you credibility. I will stop that pursuit. You decision to call me "Puboy" and the deceitful Stormbringer a "brother-in-arms" tells me all I need to know. I know Stormbringer is deceitful. And you do too. Even if you thought it plausible that the comments he attributes to others really came from the people he forges links to, you cannot have missed the fact that he lies about what I have accused him of doing.
         Me: "I never said that the people whose names you forge don't exist. I said that they never wrote the comments that you pretend came from them."
         Stormbringer: "Did I create an entire Weblog in his name for years, just so I could fake his name to answer you?"
         Even Stormbringer is not so stupid as to think I accused him of inventing the website. It is quite clear that he used OpenID to link to a website that was not his own. OpenID doesn't check that. How could it? It doesn't have access to third-party passwords. Obviously, if this other person wanted to convince me that he really did write the comments and that Stormbringer didn't forge them, he could put "Yes, I wrote those comments" on the external blog. But nothing on the real Nicky's blog suggests that he's ever even heard of me.
         Stormbringer could write a letter and put "Barak Obama; 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" in the return address and it would not convince me that the president actually wrote the letter. And when I accused him of forging someone else's name your "brother-in-arms" would say that I didn't think the president existed. Is that what you call "truth"?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hey Cupcake, This "unaware" victim of mine has a link to YOU in his Weblog — you have an award. See his comment for the URL. Uh, that stand for Uniform Resource Locater; it's the thing that you copy and paste to find Web pages. Look for the "http" and you're on your way. Since it's "adult" content, your mother won't see you upstairs for weeks.

    ReplyDelete

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